Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-10-12 Planning Commission PacketsREVISED AGENDA CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS OCTOBER 12, 2011 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the September 28, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting. ' V. COMMUNITY COMMENT During "Community Comment," the Planning Commission will invite residents to share new issues or concerns that haven't been considered in the past 30 days by the Commission or which aren't slated for future consideration. 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. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS During "Public Hearings," the Chair will ask for public testimony after City staff members make their presentations. If you wish to testify on the topic, you are welcome to do so as long as your testimony is relevant to the discussion. To ensure fairness to all speakers and to allow the efficient conduct of a public hearing, speakers must observe the following guidelines: Individuals must limit their testimony to three minutes. The Chair may modify times as deemed necessary. Try not to repeat remarks or points of view made by prior speakers and limit testimony to the matter under consideration. ' In order to maintain a respectful environment for all those in attendance, the use of signs, clapping, cheering or booing or any other form of verbal or nonverbal communication is not allowed. B-11-09 Sign Area Variance Fairview Southdale Hospital 6401 France Avenue South, Edina, MN B-11-10 Side Yard Setback Variance Koren & Andy Nelson 4809 Rutledge Avenue, Edina, MN 2011.0011.11a PUD, Rezoning & Preliminary Development Plan DJR Architects 6996 France Avenue South, Edina, MN Continued to November 9, 2011 VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS • Planning Commission By-laws • Lot Division — 5023 and 5025 Nob Hill Road, Edina, MN VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS e • Council Connection IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT 9 The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. LOCATION MAP s. iols � +a rrs :/ioti N :'601V • W 6100 j ( L..BON 6101 t X01 »1 w i w dt0s'°� roraita-- 71•wga /1 eta 1. 108 iter 6380 `6i0s., 1 S ii00 for -6101 1 I it �I , 6161 1/01 +Or rd 1j17 ift 61 831/ IRS 8#04— I it Sit 4r►�nd HOBO BOfr»0 F*$Wm Mme Num48tLabels 41keP 1 /i'f 6+� Imo' 7 6131 ',�' its it a 11 r '..."' ... 6f0i 61$106 ti "iT1d +00.8101 /17N�p 612f�61N i1 r , ibs$'so 101 ,sj01. r 1 if 3b+ Ji/f3 t 1116 mmill Neave Lebed 71 6112- 1 T N 6111 110.3 ti 7w f72!ftSlfN 1444112 ir1t6I'll'•itrs�w+fbft8 'iltf6fN r 3170 1716433 13 176 416 }p '7;fi 4317/21 of to�,,, IJ CHyLMnIM l4"' 6136 171 6tH 41 i t a- lips 6 77.3 7/t 61 4 6340 1 It dt 1i 1 130 at2/ I'M6477 f CNIMs jjjjjj 16Ji8/17f6H0 �tt`'�� IRS ss + it yfrI1.81N+i1i 11t7i� 13431 i7/ 140 101 6124 of f 8kl NOmas .,,W. p 73 !Ot S 26f 6766 3304 Jff1 tfit tat 3701 6 " ly—m—o 62016260 ITN 1, 2� ..I" 1701 7 l6Ma � Pitks sit .6395 12W 3 st8 it d tJ is 12 p 1 1 r N30 Jui N20 3400 PiteNs Q 11 6214 1st Jli 6317 wii 4216 wN 622S 21.6 0210 wi0 w21 3440 7tstwt7 If7'w/ 2l 17 vett 617 iJ1 tf I7Jt 2J 8237 3723 3� �J 821 4271 6132 IJ24 6Mr 333 ri7lf 1N it 7t! w N 6433 1" wN it 1�.rthj j4 1 7701 7103 Illi 8210 stags 3277 rw06r 100 1 a..... 01. � f 6302 710 70789�0J% 90b1 1370r 6909 We63141-6304-60i iL2il" 67a�J 67bS Y1' � w� wro 6 Y6 i wW 1714 wt1velJit�ltt w1! t 0713 19ti i idTf wls w 7 �.tEO 6647 t� 1 sM/ 0 22wit wss 03 asa if 7t1 ipp (0 0 woo wJi w26 w2 If N37 w7! 110 f ` 1tM}IC2AVs i TO Vol tMt7a7 / 436j, 0 JI ...,...,. 4/81fYi T0Au,CiAve - ' }1 0w 7 I6416 ® 16101 Jolt 4010 p 3103 J4 "HIO 4 N00 is 0 i1Ss 7t { 4013 N 4 0 1005 Lf01 aaTNsrw U23 3616 74 3746301 w17 tui Ili sise 24 w26 )too 3210 ISIS p/ 1 970 7J16 it 632! 101 of IN _ �1 Rive 300/ �'. 1....�s� �f J00 7106 M 2 tf-isto NN it ]2/0 i to 8 10:8 f1 20 " 2s 662 1 0. to 9770 4 3221 7 260 ea76 � 1 � z! it fl feag Ina �+ ua«aif,mAarlf•t<pi.ter�9aiaarxm Ifp 8'33-09 Sign Area Variance 1- P10:2902824230159 (}\J a •. ly '^ 6401 France Ave S`,� Sl2 C 06" 55410 Edina, MN •y��`"fu int"���� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Joyce Repya October 12, 2011 B-11-09 Associate Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description Fairview Southdale Hospital, 6401 France Avenue is requesting a 236.65 square foot sign area variance to provide for the replacement of the existing wall sign on the north penthouse face of the building that was permitted with a variance in 1970. See attached sign plan — Figures A.1 — 4. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Fairview Southdale Hospital Is proposing to replace the 41 year old, 249.26 square foot wall sign on the penthouse level of the north face of the building, with a 316.65 square foot sign affixed to the east face of the north elevation of the building above the windows on the top of the 8th floor. (See attached.) Edina's sign ordinance No. 460.05, subd. 5 provides for one wall sign and one monument sign per street frontage in the RMD, Regional Medical District. The first sign may not exceed 80 square feet in area, and a maximum of 40 square feet is established for any additional signs, for a total sign area not to exceed 120 square feet per frontage. Currently there is one monument sign "University of Minnesota Physicians/Heart" on the west frontage; and one wall sign on the east elevation, facing north measuring 249.26 square feet, approved by a variance in 1970. There are also three monument directional signs and a "Fairview Southdale Hospital" wall sign on the west elevation, all permitted through the variance process in 2001. In 1970 and 2001, when the previous sign variances were approved, the zoning board of appeals concurred that the hospital is a unique use with signage requirements not provided for in the City Codes. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: The Crosstown Highway Easterly: Medical Office Building Southerly: Medical Office Building Westerly: Parking Ramp Existing Site Features Fairview Southdale Hospital, 6401 France Avenue, zoned RMD Regional Medical District located is an 8 -story structure with street frontages to the north (Crosstown Highway), west (France Avenue), and south (W. 65th Street), Planning Guide Plan designation: RMD, Regional Medical District Zoning: RMD, Regional Medical District Sign Design Sign Area is defined by City Code as the smallest rectangle which can be made to circumscribe the letters, message, symbol, logo, or figure inscribed into or directly onto a building. When evaluating's sign with individual letters, the tallest portion of a sign, to include ascending or descending letters, dictates the height of the entire sign. The proposed sign for Fairview Southdale Hospital provides a 5 -foot high logo and Fairview text requiring a total sign height of 5 feet. The 2 -foot 8 -inch space provided between Fairview and Southdale Hospital is necessary to ensure proportion, as well as separate the corporate from the local identification. Compliance Table RMD Maximum Sign Area Proposed Variance requested 1 wall sign and one *316.65 square foot wall sign on 236.65 square foot sign freestanding sign per frontage the east elevation area variance 120 square feet total 80 square feet for the first sign (buildings in excess of 4 stories 40 square feet for additional No additional signs proposed signs * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed sign reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for following reasons: 1. The hospital, being a regional medical facility is a unique land use in the RMD, Regional Medical District with signage requirements unlike those of similarly zoned properties; and which are not provided for in the sign ordinance. 2. The existing sign, erected in 1970 is difficult to read, and displays a logo and font no longer used by Fairview Southdale Hospital. Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is justified for the following reasons: 1. The proposed sign is designed to be in proportion with the building elevation and provide the maximum visibility to emergency vehicles and patients from the Crosstown Highway. 2. The existing penthouse sign, approved by a variance is difficult to read, does not meet the hospital's current brand standards, and does not adequately identify the hospital for west bound Crosstown Highway traffic. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The existing wall sign on the north penthouse face of the east elevation of the hospital measures 249.26 square feet in area, and was approved in 1970 through the variance process. The out of date, 41 year old sign is in need of replacement, and the location proposed for the subject sign provides for much improved legibility from the west bound Crosstown Highway. 2) There are circumstances that are extraordinary to the property, not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district? The unique circumstances are due to clearly legible and immediate building identification is essential for an emergency medical facility. 3) Will the variance be in harmony with the general purposes and Intent of the sign ordinance? Yes. The sign is designed to be in proportion to the wall and the fagade on which it is proposed. The proposed sign meets the design and fabrication standards of the current building signs that have been approved. The new sign will replace the existing sign installed in 1970. 4) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed sign would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The sign will front the Crosstown Highway. The general and sole purpose of the sign is to landmark the hospital. Illumination of the sign will be internal, with no exposed light sources or light pollution. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1) The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed variance is reasonable since the proposed wall sign will provide much improved identification of the hospital for patients and emergency vehicles on the Crosstown Highway. b. The existing wall sign is in need of replacement and it too received a variance for sign area in 1970. 2) The unique circumstances are derived from the emergency medical use of the building requiring clearly legible and immediate building identification. Approval of the variance is subject to the plans presented. Deadline for a city decision: November 21, 2011 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Remove existing illuminated sign from rooftop and install new Internally Illuminated sign on Northeast elevation of building. Existing sign has been in place since 1970 and is very difficult to read from the Crosstown Highway. New proposed sign is internally illuminated that meets the design standards of other signs on the campus. New sign will update to current Fairview logo standards and provide the required visibility to our patients and visitors on the Crosstown Highway. ORDINANCE CONDITIONS: Relieve practical difflcultles In complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable: YES Existing sign is under a variance from 1970 -- current code parameters would only allow a sign up to 80 square which Is not sufficient to landmark the Hospital. Existing sign is difficult to read and new sign would update to current brand standards and would be visible for patients and Visitors traveling west bound prior to the France Avenue Exit. Patients and Visitors have difficulty seeing and reading the existing sign. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property In the vicinity or zoning district: YES This building is a regional medical center and is large in proportion to surrounding properties. New proposed sign is in size proportion to the building background and elevation. The building must be Identifiable as a hospital and for emergency situations. Building visibility is important from the Crosstown Highway. The current sign is not adequate. Be In harmony with general purposes and Intent of the zoning ordinance. YES Sign is designed to be in proportion to the wall and the fagade on which it is proposed. The proposed sign meets the design and fabrication standards of the current building signs. New proposed sign replaces existing sign that was installed in 1970. Not alter the essential character of a neighborhood: YES The neighborhood shall not be impacted. New sign will front the Crosstown Highway. General and sole purpose of the sign is to the landmark the hospital. The new proposed sign is replacing the existing sign. Illumination Is internal LED, no exposed light sources or light pollution. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker October 12, 2011 B-11-10 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description An 8.1 foot side yard setback variance to raise the roof on an existing one and one half story home to a full two story home located at 4809 Rutledege Ave. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Property owners Koren and Andy Nelson are requesting a side yard setback variance to increase the height of their one and one half story home with a footprint of 1,867 square feet on property located at 4809 Rutledge Ave. The property is currently occuped by a one and one half story home with a detached two car garage, (see Figure 1.A. -- 1.C., site location and 2.A. — 21. , photos of subject and adjacent homes, site survey and building plans). The survey indicates that the setback from the home to the north property line is 4.8 feet. The minimum side yard setback required by ordinance is 10 feet plus 6 inches must be added to the side yard setback for each 12 inches the side wall height exceeds 15 feet. The existing home is a one and one half story home that requires additional setback for height. The home is nonconforming regarding location and height. The propery owners are hoping to expand the living spaces on the second floor without expanding the building footprint. The one and one half story home will be increased to be a full two story home. Setbacks of the home will remain the same. Spacing between properties and structures will also remain the same. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 10,704 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1947 and pre -dates the current side yard setback requirements and is closer to the side yard than currently allowed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to construct two story addition while maintaining the detached 2 stall garage. The finish materials include fiber -cement horizontal lap siding, cedar frame columns with aluminum fascia and soffit systems. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of north side yard setback. Setbacks will not change and conditions on the property will not change. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the 2 Ci!y Standard Proposed Front - 26.6 feet average 30 feet Side- 10+ height 4.8 feet* Rear - 25 feet 56 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 stories, 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to 22 feet to midpoint,29 ride feet to the ridge Lot coverage 25% 17.4% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of north side yard setback. Setbacks will not change and conditions on the property will not change. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from or impact the 2 neighborhood. The new home is actually much smaller by ordinance standards than it could be and will occupy less than 18% of the lot area. Lot coverage will not change with all of the improvements to the second story. 3. The improvements will provide additional living space without changing conditions on the property. Attachments 2.K. and 2.1.., illustrate a conforming solution that wouldn't be practical and would not provide adequate space for the homeowner's needs. A conforming solution would provide a rather lopsided fagade. 4. The home would maintain the character of the neighborhood and would remain the same with the exception of an enhanced second story. • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, 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 does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: ?) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The required side yard setback will not change with spacing between the subject home and the home to the north remaining the same as well. 3 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? elfcreated? Yes. The unique circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the home, limiting design opportunities for adding onto the home. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed addition will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setbacks will remain the same. The footprint of the home will remain the same. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with surrounding properties and matches the nonconforming setback that has historically been provided by the existing home. b. The imposed setback limits design opportunity on the second floor. c. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing between properties and structures. Spacing on both sides of the home is generous given that there are detached garages between the north and south side walls. 3) The unique circumstance is the original nonconforming placement of the home. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below:. 4 Survey date stamped: September 26, 2011. Building plans and elevations date stamped August 8, 2011 Deadline for a city decision: November 25, 2011 Variance Application Case Number. Date: September 28, 2011 Residents: Koren & Andrew Nelson 4809 Rutledge Avenue Edina, MN 55436 651-226-3270 Koren.hawk(8tf3eatbuy.com Legal Description of Property: Lot 12 of Edina Terrace Property Address: 4609 Rutledge Ave, Edina, MN Present Zoning: Residential PID# 28-117-21-24-0043 Explanation of Request: Variance of Setback Code Architect: Autumn Design of MN Inc. Scott Bartz 952-8734311 a utdesQfront e[npt.ne Surveyor: AI Hastings 952445-4027 mfritziMmandmoualltv.com The property variance will: Relieve practical difficulties In complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable a Allows us to get all residents on the same level; rather than the children alone on the main level. o Utilize current stacked plumbing o Utilize current weight bearing wails o House will remain the same distance from the property as it currently sits. o Using today's technology of room and attic trusses, allows us to keep the same look of current structure while gaining more functional space, i.e., stacked plumbing vs. a hand framed roof system (currently). o With consulting with a structural engineer regarding the attached drawings that show the additional 8' setback, he feels it would be Impossible for the main level wails to take the load of a steel beam that would be trig enough to carry the additional weight added to step In the second level floor system. o Plans will fix the reoccurring issues with Ice dams on the northwest corner of the home. • Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district o Current house has is a two story rear elevation and a story and half in the front. Proposed plans keep the same 2 story in rear and 1.5 story in the front. o House will remain the same distance from the property as it currently sits. a Neighbors on the impacted side have been made aware of the planned project and plans. They do not express any concerns as the house will remain the same distance from them. • Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of zoning ordinance o Current house has is a two story rear elevation and a story and half In the front. Proposed plans keep the same 2 story in rear and 1.5 story In the front. o Roof line will be raised 3 foot from the current structure. • Not alter the essential character of the neighborhood o Much work is going in to keep the same look and feel of the current home including keeping with the character and charm of the era it was build, 1947. Variance Application Case Number: Date: September 28, 2011 Residents: Koren & Andrew Nelson 4809 Rutledge Avenue Edina, MN 65436 661-226-3270 norert. hawkQbestbUy,com Legal Description of Property: Property Address: Present Zoning: PlD# Explanation of Request: "No objection to the variance" • 481 Rutledge Ave • 4813 Rutledge Ave • 448,17 Rutledge Ave 1�,,, A l l ('�'t'41') k'Y I • 4812 Rutledge Ave • M • 4816 Rutledge Ave « 4820 Rutledge Ave M "WQ--�� t6 M" n Jackie Hoogenakker From: Colette Prohofsky <coprohof@grnail.com> Sent: Monday, October 03, 201110:35 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: khawk8878@yahoo.com To: The Edina planning Commission From: Tom and Colette prohofsky, 4821 Rutledge Ave Re: Case File B-11-10 We support the side yard setback variance for Andrew and Koren Nelson's property. i 1501 __._.... 4360 4805 4301 1w5. 4813 40fa fit? 1020 �s7t 4570 4524 0211 4428 1833 4531 411 IM 4345 4544 aUll Sm 5132 I6ai Ha 8x38 805!8 4504 4wr 4147 .......4512 4wr 3210 4313 1317 tate 1371 4820 Isat uta 4575 a uta 4514 4343 1012 4521 1034 1040 4545 5120 1010 5224 8220 8114 IfOcr."Vow AD 8741 s!n 8x38 805!8 SP7f 1047 4147 6730 80474 3210 4821 80710bP?0 1004 LOCATION MAP 3la7 0"I ?»'5221 0113 3211 Sal! 8013 6017 801? Nbw 4 $200 6011 N., sots 80N sola 311!1101080!40 SUS 4024 3043 twt tadrp4W K 5x01 two 5773 3371 ;214 IS61 4803 4001 its ll01 1004 101? uf2 Isat uta 4575 1020 4310 024 1577 uim ts?r 153 3la7 0"I ?»'5221 0113 3211 Sal! 8013 6017 801? Nbw 4 $200 6011 N., sots 80N sola 311!1101080!40 SUS 4024 3043 twt tadrp4W K 5x01 HlpMiphYd RiHouaa 4801 5x01 5203 Labels 4803 4001 its ll01 5/01 Cnake pLake tames 4400 Lakes $its ® Parka 4833 rota 4810 4113 4824 5120 im 112;101 4114 1014 481? 4821 4811 4820 isrisrw 4474 4820 4822 4074 4040 441 1000 f ;4 3la7 0"I ?»'5221 0113 3211 Sal! 8013 6017 801? Nbw 4 $200 6011 N., sots 80N sola 311!1101080!40 SUS 4024 3043 twt ft 600 4801 3 4333 un 1043 un 4rxi tadrp4W K iia HlpMiphYd RiHouaa alit 1111 511120 Labels 4823 fleIf its ll01 5/01 ft 600 4801 3 4333 un 1043 un 4rxi tadrp4W K iia HlpMiphYd RiHouaa Numkar Labels KtigyaatNo" Labels 4823 coy Livalm Cnake pLake tames 1121 Lakes $its ® Parka 4833 O Parcels ft 600 4801 3 4333 un 1043 un 4rxi PI0:2811721240043 4809 Rutledge Ave Edina, MN 55436 tadrp4W K 4823 slot 1121 117 $its 4833 4872 4824 5120 im 112;101 tui tra 4105 N isrisrw 441 los slot r! $if? '0 aonlsrw µpt d tijaw PI0:2811721240043 4809 Rutledge Ave Edina, MN 55436 LOGISMap Output Pap Page I of I http://gis.logis-org/LOGIS—ArcfMS/ims?ServiceName=ed—LOGISMap__PVSDE&ClientV... 10/6/2011 L OGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS_Arc[MS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap—OVSDE&ClientV... 10/6/2011 a or So kAs , COOK i1 4� �-�� ,� . ' �t �� � ,,,. � t ! - r '� ��„�.� c ♦ qty e u � ' ,� .,�` ;moi '�� . •�,�� `� t � �` �r` � ",��r. �. r Page I of I file:/A\ed-ntl\citywide\PDSlinages\Photos\2811721240044001.jpg 10/4/2011 Page 1 of 1 �'`* file;/n\ed-ntl\citywide\PDSImages\Photos\2811721240042001 jpg 10/4/2011 SURVEY FOR: � �,�*;tj p�, tie . �3G4,.�� �"a�" �' �, tn•o .�„°°�+� �� . '$W. V', � •� Ili N "'�` 1 '� ,x A Ar 3 MI �+ �l'pto� 33 Pt.i�r-- %i� tblo6oQ� �3to.o� Ikg�yssuve%p, ' 'Bearings are aaeunsd subject to easoci+nts of record if any Q Denotes set or found iron pips'eonlssat! 8 Denotes set Wood hub and tack Proposed garage floor elevation -� Donates existing elaystion* Proposed top of block elevation � 16ga Denotes proposed finish grade elevation tl of outface drainage Denotes direc an Proposed low+at floor elevation f ( orve. lnaosck'��Rw Gta ct1Mt�E o+znlan� ,`' Ij�n1 1 s lY1tV+�►� �vo� Fay?�all�t �E I ,l. t hereby certify that this is a true end correct representation of s survey of the boundsfies of Lot 1.2, 7—EPM Ke � ViBNN6Pi4 County, Minnesota co-op file and o1 r+cord in the Office of the County'Recards r in and for said County, also showing the proposed lacation of a house r+ staked thereon. the Stats of Minnosotr. That t am a duly Registered Land BurVoyor under the Laws o1 l Allan R. Hastings Minnesota Rrgistr+tion No. 17005 B88 Borns's Lake Wks A lea Norwood YoHungeru }r 56397 ( �iUrt�i � \i�lGV�I�iQN�"ttRW45E�[� IQ � Pilo.. 902_4411 IU21 ° a n Fnml I Wow u VERIFY EXISTING FLAT JOISTS DEPTH OVER i KITCHEN ADDITION TO MATCH EXISTTNG 2nd��y FLOOR JOIST DEPTH or SCAB UP EITHER TO BE LEVEL TO EACH OTHER 7_7 1 IQBEAD BOARD WAINSCOT Ilihhll IN BATH AREA ---7 z, �I 60 rl z1 36 i) SHWR CER -T �; BATH G F 1 EXPANDED 1/6 i t CONSOLE .1 --, ----------- 4 ---- zl �•/ LINEN - j f BUILT-INS t_ NEW LINEN REMOVE EXISTING CLO. AND RE -FRAME NEW 2x6 PLBG WALL AS SHOWN; ADD HEADER OVER BUILT-IN IF REMOVED WALL IS BEARING RE -FRAME STAIR WITH 10" TREADS--., a o� g Ssix LI -06 zWi0. � vpia�0 pOF �` �icci aaR a p I W X 00 0: I� N a CUT NEW SHEETROCKED OPENING (MATCH ARCHED COVE TOP AS- EXISTING S- EXISTING OPENINGS) a �1 REMOVE EXISTING DOOR AND inW<j INSTALL NEW DOOR AS SHOWN x !2/6 /-NEW MONO-7RUSSES 24" O.C. SI'1'"t1NG ROOM Q w FROM EXISTING a BEDROOM BOX -OUT FLOOR FOR UPPER STAIR TREAD REMOVE EXISTING CASED OPNG AT STAIR AND OPEN WALL UP TO JUST UNDER COVED CEILING SUPPORT ADD TO EXISTING FLOOR SYS. ABOVE CLO. VERIFY IF BEARING UNDER THIS WALL 1 TO BE OVER BRICK LINE IN THIS AREA AREA IN BASEMENT; IF S0, DOUBLE 1 (VERIFY IF REQUIRED) FLUSH FLOOR BAND AS HEADER: IF I i I NOT, INSTALL 2) 1-3/4 x 9-1/2 FLUSH I 11 LVL BEAM IN FLOOR & WALL ABOVE T - - _ _ - - 1i ROOF TRUSSES .S BEARING FOR GIRDER TRUSS ABOVE I 1 24" 0 C I 1 2-2x8 PORCH HEADERS (TYP-BOTH SIDES; (VERIFY BEARING IN BASEMENT BELOW ADD IF REQUIRED) 202 CEDAR FRAMED COLUMNS W/4x4 TR' T N I S HOWN (TYP E POS S S D I EA 5 UPPER CORNERS OF EXISTING STOOP-INSE' (� 9-07- --VERIFY WIDTH OF EXISTING STOOP TO TRIM OFS DETERMINE TRUSS WIDTH OVER PORCH 'a (TO ALIGN W/MEW MONO -TRUSSES) AND SE ,' _ INSET OF HEADERS GE4: N6TES/ 'r © w p �` r FIRST FLOOR PIAN DENOTES EXISTING WALL GONSTRUCTIOP I-361 -W, 22'-C" 14'-B" 3 111 1 3 8"d x 30"h LINENS AND/OR BUILT-IN BENCH AREAS-\ (CONFIRM W/OWNER'S) 7'- 4" 14'- 8" 11'-4" 7-4" S -3W FIXED _ 8/0CLC I $-/Q' ULG - - IRO TRUSSES WITH 4.5/12 i INT�VAULT FOR COFFEFZCLG r6a �SDj "8'" 24" Q.C. 3'-6" I ,,—R JUNG b I did 1 010 1 I OWNER'S SUITE BE FRAMED ON TOP COFFERED CEILING TO i 9/0 HEIGHT W/OPTIONAL CROWN MLQG & UP TRUSSES I LIGHTING I ViERT-Y 648 ID, 2648 GIRDER TRUSSES TO 80 I TOUT FOR COFFERED CEILINGI 80 I \ �i,VAN. VAN. 1 I 48 a 1 iso''3'-1 1- ARCHED SHT-ROC /6 OPNG W/COVE TO� I /g'/�.. 4'- ip" bj 2 2"" Z-4' a�' __ V _ 7'- r 1 O N n trP�, BEAD -8S .ONSOLE WAINSCO' VAN. VAN. R&S CLO._ PAIR ,2/4 ,C r a' 1 15"d LOWER Ll BASE I I I W/12"d UPPERS 1 IP 1 � W.I. CLO, aI � o I • Q $ N RQcS__-__ ? v 9'- 6" 4"-0" �I 2/8 LINEN - - „ GIRDERTRUSS _ .. - _ - GIRDER TRUSS TO HANG INTO-----"' VAULTED GIRDER AT 8/0 HEIGHT �j (SAME AT BEDROOM 2 DORMER) a BEDROOM 3 ' MATCHING VAULTED - ROOF TRUSSES GIRDER TRUSS '[" T 24" O.C. 7'- 2W r� 7'-1" 2/N � , I 1 ���+{{ �1 'UNE OF"JI 1/0 tic - i LAUN. i 3 CER- T 1 I 'W" I 2 M m PAIR 2/4 DR'S 11 r6a �SDj 8'_ 6" 3'-6" I ,,—R JUNG b I 14 R. M 5" amp 12'- B" 2/8�^ TRANSOM (VERIFY • Lso v SIZE W/OWNER) III � :r III IL;� JI CdRIG DERNTRUSSESDIj L%t�Z`C 10 o `I ili BEDROOM 2�j��y� n a ISI Ill "vS e 111 GIRDER TRUSS III ci III SI z 111 ROOF TRUSSES I 0 b 1 Illi NN Il 24" D.C. II a a "> �I 3-200 HEADER f� L5'-10 1/8" RGH 11 10 3464-2W I WALL FRAMING NGT 5'-0" 7'-4" 2'-' 11Z DORMER WALLS TO BE FRAMED ON TOP OF VAULTED GIRDER TRUSSES W_ 10" 15- 2" 1-4 22._0." INGS SHALL 36'-8" I OTHERWISE IER1f Y ALL JMBER CO., � WFICIALS 1 S r �� $� ; ,.✓" h���µ Yom, ARE AT THE AND ME TO I.SECOND FLOOR PLAN RIFTED PRIOR SCALE: e� . . I'����r-'��������Irlrtrlilililil NJ 00 II��II i�r�r�r�r4hhh�r�r'r4rrh�r irrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr