HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-03-14 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION,
CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MARCH 14, 2012
7:00 PM
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA
IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission February 22, 2012.
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. s
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-12-01 Setback Variance from Right of Way
Building Concepts & Design
4115 Morningside Road, Edina, MN
2008.0002.12a Preliminary Plat of Fairfax 4th Addition
JMS Custom Homes
6120 Brookview Avenue, Edina, MN
VII. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Sketch Plan Review — 7171 France Avenue, Edina, MN
VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS 11
• Council Connection
I
IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS
X. STAFF COMMENTS
XL ADJOURNMENT s
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.
Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission: March 28, 2012
9
Planning Commissions annual meeting will be March 28, 2012
1
0
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Originator
Meeting Date
Agenda #
Cary Teague
March 14, 2012
2008.002.12a
Community Development
Director
INFORMATION & BACKGROUND
Project Description
JMS Custom Homes is proposing to subdivide the property at 6120 Brookview
Avenue into two lots. (See property location on pages Al—A5.) The existing
home would remain, and a new home built on the new lot. (See applicant
narrative and plans on pages A6—A11.) There is an existing air conditioner
located on the proposed lot line. Should this proposal be approved, the air
conditioner would have to be relocated to meet the required 5 -foot setback.
To accommodate the request the following is required:
1. A subdivision;
2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and
3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square
feet.
4. Lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2.
Both lots would gain access off Brookview Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the
median lot area is 6,707 square feet, median lot depth is 133.8 feet, and the
median lot width is 50 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A10—
A11.) The new lots would meet the median width, but would slightly shy of the
the median lot size and depth.
Surrounding Land Uses
The lots on all sides of the subject properties are zoned and guided low-
density residential.
Existing Site Features
The existing site contains a single-family home and attached garage on the
south side of the lot. (See pages A4 A5a.) There is an existing air conditioner
on the proposed new lot line. This unit would have to be relocated if the
project is approved.
Planning
Guide Plan designation:
Zoning:
Lot Dimensions
Single -dwelling residential
R-1, Single -dwelling district
* Variance Required
Grading/Drainage and Utilities
The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment.
(See page A16.) If the project is approved, a condition of approval should be
that the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo must be met. Grading
and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the
time of building permit. Drainage from any new home, garage or driveway
would have to be directed to Brookview Avenue. Sewer and water are
available to the site. Specific hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time
of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Greek Watershed District
permit would also be required.
History of Subdivision Requests in the Area
The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances
in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests
on page A14.) The following is the history in the past five years:
Reguested Subdivisions in the last five years
1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to
build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area.
2
Area
Lot Width
Depth
REQUIRED
9,000 s.f.
75 ft
133.8 ft
Lot 1
6,676 s.f. *
5o ft*
133.8 ft
Lot 2
6,671 s. f. *
so ft*
133.7 ft*
* Variance Required
Grading/Drainage and Utilities
The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and submitted comment.
(See page A16.) If the project is approved, a condition of approval should be
that the conditions outlined in the city engineer memo must be met. Grading
and drainage plans specific to any proposed house would be reviewed at the
time of building permit. Drainage from any new home, garage or driveway
would have to be directed to Brookview Avenue. Sewer and water are
available to the site. Specific hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time
of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Greek Watershed District
permit would also be required.
History of Subdivision Requests in the Area
The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances
in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests
on page A14.) The following is the history in the past five years:
Reguested Subdivisions in the last five years
1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to
build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area.
2
2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview (the subject property) was proposed to be
divided into two (2) 50 -foot lots by Bravura Construction; however,
the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken.
3. In 2009, a 100 -foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to
divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots.
4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to
divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots.
5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn was denied their request to
subdivide the property into two (2) 50 -foot lots.
Primary Issue
• Are the findings for a variance met?
No. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are not met with this
proposal.
Per state law and 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:
a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable
use from complying with the ordinance requirements?
No. 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 that the property already has reasonable use with a single
family home that complies with all minimum lot size requirements. It is similar
in size to several lots on the block. Reasonable use of the property would still
exist should the city deny the request. While there are 50 -foot wide lots and
6,700 square foot lots on this block, similar to what is proposed; there are
also several lots wider than 50 feet and over 6,700 square feet, including five
lots to the north and west, two to the south and two to the east. (See pages
Al2--A13.)
3
As demonstrated on pages A10-- A11, the median lot size in this
neighborhood is 50 feet wide, 6,707 square feet in area and 133.8 feet deep.
The proposed lots would be 50 feet wide, 133.7 and 133.8 feet deep and
6,676 and 6,671 square feet in size. Therefore the median lot size would not
be met by either lot, and lot 2 would be just slightly under the median depth.
The action or request by the applicant to subdivide the property causes the
practical difficulty. The request to subdivide the lot causes the need for the
variances, therefore the practical difficulties are self-created.
b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common
to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created?
The condition of this oversized lot is not unique to the Brookview Avenue.
While many lots are 50 feet wide and 6,700 square feet in size, there are
several in the neighborhood that are wider and larger in area. As mentioned
above, there are five lots to the north and west, two to the south and two to
the east. (See pages Al2--A13.) Again, this is a self-created hardship or
practical difficulty caused by the applicant's request to subdivide. The
circumstances are self-created due to the request to subdivide the property.
C) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
No. The proposed improvements requested by the variance would not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood includes
single-family homes on 50 -foot lots as proposed.
Staff Recommendation
Recommend that the City Council deny the proposed two lot subdivision of 6120
Brookview Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot,
lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,676 and 6,671 square feet, and a
lot depth variance from 133.8 feet to 133.7 feet for Lot 2.
Denial is based on the following findings:
1. The proposal does not meet the required standards and ordinances for a
subdivision, because the proposed lots do not meet the Zoning Ordinance
requirements.
2. The two proposed lots do not meet the minimum lot area, lot width, and lot
depth requirements.
3. The proposal does not meet the required standards for a variance,
because:
4
a. The property exists as a conforming single-family residential lot with a
single-family home. Reasonable use of the property exists today.
b. The size of the Subject Property does not create practical difficulties.
The Subject Property is only 4,347 square feet larger than the
minimum lot size. This is not a practical difficulty. There are no
circumstances unique to the property that justifies multiple variances.
c. The practical difficulty is self-created by the applicant's proposal to
subdivide the property.
d. The proposed lots do not meet the 6,707 square foot median lot area
for lots in this neighborhood.
e. The Subject Property is similar in size to several lots in the
neighborhood including five lots to the north and west on Oaklawn
Avenue, and two lots to the south and two lots to the east on
Brookview Avenue.
Deadline for a City Decision: May 15, 2012
E
z
W z =.
...
V =r i7ctL
o
- S R
OIAEAIMYAYF
gg aa g €
as � ��$$z$ � $Ys"$ �Y.�'s$•me"'eek"< $ a � R_
i
gg g
$�SS$SS$
e
rlpaWA EAVE M
i
�a
3
arc
ams am,
roH m:a
mit 4077
4027 aa,a
rota
bar 44u
IIa7 i7W
eror
{tm
diff
also
4120
aH
44124dfV
OIs
alas
d1a
{itf
4117
Off
ala
dtff
4120
4125
4129
dIN
4N7
4177
Nf2
4114
l+a
4414
I10f
mit
m+2
ata
4fm
4tm
era
4144
4tN
diff
also
4120
aH
44124dfV
OIs
dfi7
Stir
4121
SM
ails
4114
+701
211k1Y
d I fill I 11" 1 lt2S
Mo If F^'^^-1 Off
PM:1902824430091
6120 Brookview Ave
Edina, MN 55424
rim
U•wnd
Hew" HWbbdt Lawn
ewdf Haid Labra
�r Cp Umb{
Cnlad
Q UK* Name
;.... Low
Parks
O Pat4dl{
i1 µrL �' � .,•, � r P
js
Awk,
t
lob
fit,r-,
EM
P
a
j b ' A'd
l��
4 .. '
Applicant Narrative
6120 grookview Avenue
Lots &
If not for the two parcels having been previously combined, the proposal meets the
required standards for a plat, by virtue of lots 5 and 6 already having been platted.
The proposal meets the required standards for a variance because:
1. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing size of the
property which had not been subdivided to a size similar to the other lots in
the neighborhood.
2. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate
neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than other properties
in the immediate neighborhood. The proposed subdivision would result in two
properties more characteristic of the neighborhood.
3. The variance would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed
lots are similar size to others in the neighborhood.
The proposed variance will:
Relieve an undue hardship which was not self-imposed or a mere Inconvenience.
The original parcel (of which the subject is the remainder) was platted a new house was
build on lot 6 in 2008. The current size of the subject parcel (and lot 5 as well) was due
to a decision made in prior decades to keep the subject parcel virtually equal in size
with any other two lots of the adjacent subdivisions, allowing unjoining, subdivision or
platting at a late date. The logic would follow that when the subject was platted, there
would be two lots of equal size, similar in width and depth to the adjacent parcels. The
entirety of all properties in the Fair Fax plat resets in property(s) of a 50 foot lot width.
The size of the combined parcel is unique in the neighborhood and is twice the size of
9x% other Fair Fax (Pamela Park) neighborhood homes. Since many decades have
passed since the original Fairfax platting, the City of Edina zoning requirements were
changed to the current requirements, the subject parcel's historical configuration no
longer complies with the minimum lot area and minimum lot width for two lots.
Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property, but not
applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district.
The home on the subject parcel was constructed in the 1950's and renovated in 2008.
The request is in effort an unjoining instead of subdivision. The prior owner removed
the 1950's home to remedy a neighborhood eyesore. The parcel also has sewer and
water subs in the street indicating intent of not expenses for being two parcels dating
from when water and sewer were provided in 1951 following the new code requirements
for minimum lot sizes. The size of the parcel is unique in the neighborhood as it is twice
the size of 9x% of parcel within plat. The parcel is conforming as to the original plat, as
it is, however, this was never the intent of the original platting to have 100" width lots or
how the utilities were put into the street. Also, any house built on such a large lot would
likely be oversized in the neighborhood. Unjoining the parcel would more likely result in
new construction conforming to the sizes of the surrounding residences.
Preserve substantial property right possessed by other property in the vicinity
and zoning district.
The proposed unjoining results in two lots of equal size with others on the block and in
the neighborhood. The unjoining mimics the existing neighborhood lot scheme and
scale. Presumably, the new construction will be similarly scaled for the neighborhood
and will be more affordable than a single lot configuration. The zoning district is single
family and is benefited from the single family nature of the likely construction.
Not to be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the vicinity or zonings district.
The proposed unjoining comports with the surrounding lots. As a single lot it would
result in a lot that is twice the size of the surrounding properties. The new construction
will likely result in a house of similar scale with the neighborhood that will conform to
other new "revitalized" community. The applicant does not desire to facilitate a
"monster" to which would likely be injurious to the City of Edina.
V «9 I
i \ (Plot 100}1C-' 5&
ONtER: ' OmEm N00'0 '"W R \ i`, ``.d� `1, MNCR:
.P 00W R LA. NOVAK i Kai541MC A W i .,..'t...r «...»...:� I N CJ MAPKE71
..,
49.9..,
A4 Kv
NCR
CD
IR v`
a t \ fw
CN
At7
89.,
,
�i.--�.----— `_j°
t
\_ 449 9 r '` � �84�pp 49.9
a 99.87
.i (Plug ?UoCIL
)
r_. - _.- _ u.
ilipvvtivk-rr nvG.+vvi._
kkk � a„v u.ata ae
�� +wa-sraro i
ae �
p
g
_.--.� .... — — — OWER ........ .
7,—_._,.. -.-.....- I OWER:
......� ._. - �_.. —.w.
Jp$iPN pAWV6 0 A"mmi NAMWI (%^Y
I
• CilA 1 ,fig~R P
oc'.
p �9y A 1 �An A i i rp
;U ;b N t
PRELIMINARY PLAT (11% Carlson
] 2 CUSTOM HOMES, McC
LLC ♦1 din
$ tIt 5
72 5250 Wast 741n SlleeY, Suite 8 - M
d 2 j 2 Ulna, 1476 55419 1MVU.0"ZSkrA6.IZ.4LcanIMo,wMvw\!NR
FAil2FAX 4TH ADDITION 2qa A aun Or, SORa faR, pine takaa, MN 556x4
N �� i+ jj}i g` Edmi. Nlnnasnta ph< 69 767•!89.7400 Fax: 753409`7952
R
FFE=897.0
�� Sy
1,
894.5
I
Ex19nNU CARA4"k�ss`i
R
FFE=897.0
�� Sy
1,
894.5
Ex19nNU CARA4"k�ss`i
I
I
R
N
�
�
I
I
a
i
N ..
•7f
I
•
\ tly�1
\\� �
• I �
o
� til` ar �r>jj
Y
C
I\
t
Al
r
R
FFE=897.0
�� Sy
1,
894.5
Ex19nNU CARA4"k�ss`i
I •
tR"r �
� `_' ♦ y Z,1 eta.
fill
•7f
^v.a�U1 1� •�C
1 rn
•
\ tly�1
\\� �
• I �
o
� til` ar �r>jj
R
FFE=897.0
�� Sy
1,
894.5
, -SAWCUT & REMOVE EXISANG
CONCRETE CURB & 01TUM9NOUS,
REPLACE W/EQUAL SECTION.
1N TALL DROP CURO AT ORWY,
E—n-T. 67 c i P.
L1- Cu WATER SERVICE PIPE W/1' CORP.
STOP k 1" CURB STOP k BOX.
® — — — — i — — —SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. INV 1674,3 T
CONNECT TO EXIST_ 9" VCP W/4` SERVICE
SADDLE do RISER PIPE AS REQUIRED.
.s am
Him 4
oil J1
MAX
4 t
_
III
GRAOINGt DRAINAGfir di Carlson 1
I (
ill jT 9 I )MS CUSTOM HOMES, LLC UTILITY & TREE PLAN 1-j /'�•[/1� crin
59 I111 5250 West 7th WOOL 5+ qo 0 McCam
Edina, MN 55439 errvmm�r.cmat••NurvRkin!w•wM'iruw
PAIRPAX 4TH ADDITION
N sill 3 $ 248 an.: Or, SWM 900, F..: 763- NN 959N
1j .
Edina, Mtnnefotb Fhdnn: 7Aba09.7900 Fav: 76]-x89.7959
I •
tR"r �
� `_' ♦ y Z,1 eta.
fill
I ExISi.,g" vC�
BROOKVIEW AVENUE N
, -SAWCUT & REMOVE EXISANG
CONCRETE CURB & 01TUM9NOUS,
REPLACE W/EQUAL SECTION.
1N TALL DROP CURO AT ORWY,
E—n-T. 67 c i P.
L1- Cu WATER SERVICE PIPE W/1' CORP.
STOP k 1" CURB STOP k BOX.
® — — — — i — — —SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. INV 1674,3 T
CONNECT TO EXIST_ 9" VCP W/4` SERVICE
SADDLE do RISER PIPE AS REQUIRED.
.s am
Him 4
oil J1
MAX
4 t
_
III
GRAOINGt DRAINAGfir di Carlson 1
I (
ill jT 9 I )MS CUSTOM HOMES, LLC UTILITY & TREE PLAN 1-j /'�•[/1� crin
59 I111 5250 West 7th WOOL 5+ qo 0 McCam
Edina, MN 55439 errvmm�r.cmat••NurvRkin!w•wM'iruw
PAIRPAX 4TH ADDITION
N sill 3 $ 248 an.: Or, SWM 900, F..: 763- NN 959N
1j .
Edina, Mtnnefotb Fhdnn: 7Aba09.7900 Fav: 76]-x89.7959
Is. IJ 3.
t ls� JA IV I- M. 84
- .— - ---------- - -
3 AA 0. 1
4.1 �J g-1 A. i IV 1 1.1 1.1
AM". 11 2. i 03 1 9
L.
--OAKtAVVN -AVE
ip
is.
im. I. A,
BROOKVIEW
211 $1 g�
OUNI
if
. ........... .
J
--w- A -1m. -L -mi -J
500 FT. NEIGHBORHOOD EXHIBIT
For:
.y% Carlson
JMS CUSTOM HOMES, LLC
McCain
FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION 248 Acpalla Dr, Suite 100, Ur%o Wes, MN SS014
f 1,71 Edina, Minnesota Phone: 763-409-7900 Fax! 763-489-7959
6025
6024
6029
6028
6033
6032
6037
6036
6039
jot tt
041
6044
81S731W
6101
6100
6105
6104
6f09
6108
6113
8112
61t7
6116
612'1
6477
6120
6125
8124
}
d043
6120
6128
6133
6132
4412
6f38
4404
4413 4305
L I7tl} 4213 4119
14� 0 4125
4401
1 4250
d N^M�1rcxlS Cw,+VSSC)oWstatim 0 29A11
4119
i
1
6477
d043
s
61tl1
6100
f
616108
P#N�Mdll
Q\
6117
61t7
6120
`
6125
0120
6128
6129
i
�
7 x
6133
6133
6137
6176
6137
4157
4128
4124
6141
tY16
6141
6145
6141
MO
620 3i w
4413 4305
L I7tl} 4213 4119
14� 0 4125
4401
1 4250
d N^M�1rcxlS Cw,+VSSC)oWstatim 0 29A11
4119
6025
6024
6t05
6029
6029
6106
6039
6012
6117
6091
6121
0120
_6036
6121
`#5
6039
._.
_.—.
8041 1 6944 7
610f
6to0
6t05
6104
slog
6106
6119
6112
6117
6116
6121
0120
6125
6121
6128
$128
6193
$132
4412
136
6
.404
Nis 4705
4301
�w
tlol
M:vageodsM M=NB- C+aP$4t�i L6u%Gtlsl �S
4213 1128
0 ♦125
4350 4118
OvElt 5uv FCeT
3
s
s
7S 6037
€
6045
s-
_
i
24
6for
6100
X6104
rota ato9
af9a
pests
6117
8117
.
6120
si21
�'
x $121
100
6125
8129
6128 1
6129
6133
6113
6137
6138 i�SR
8197
4132
4178
tf2<
6141
0141
6145
6144
6143
$TIYO ST W
Nis 4705
4301
�w
tlol
M:vageodsM M=NB- C+aP$4t�i L6u%Gtlsl �S
4213 1128
0 ♦125
4350 4118
OvElt 5uv FCeT
t
cr;
Wily gal I'���irltl
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gary Teague, Community Development Director
FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, Chief Buildng Official �-JA k .
DATE: February 15, 2012
SUBJECT: 2008.0002.12a Fairfax 4"' Addition
I was asked to review the proposed preliminary plat stamped ,PLANNING DEPARTMENT, JM 20
2012 , CITY OF EDINA" for the above referenced project.
The proposed interior property line between lot I and lot 2 creates a noncomplying setback condition for the
existing air conditioner compressor for 6120 Brookview Ave. The air conditioner compressor must be
relocated. I recommend a relocation schedule be included as a condition of approval for the plat.
l•l c\lhacwuentAMrrnnsR:Rpts\hlanriingV:airfax4thAddn.doc
City Hall
4801 WEST 50TH 5TKEE1
EDINA, N41NNESCHA, 55411.1344
wwwkityoft:dina.com
952-927-8861
FAX 952-826.0390
TTY 952-826-0379
CITY OF EDINA�. EMO
Engineering Department • Phone 952.826-0371r�1<
Fax 952-926-0392 • www.CityofEdina.com
U�
i4a 0
Date: March 6, 2012
To: Cary Teague — Director of Planning
cc:
From: Wayne Houle — City Engineer
Re: Pian Review
Preliminary Plat of Fairfax Fourth Addition
Engineering has reviewed the above stated project (dated January 18, 2012) and offer the
following comments:
The proposed lot split will need to be reviewed in detail at the time of a building permit
application.
Permits needed:
• A Minnehaha Creek Watershed Permit will be required for storm water, grading, and
erosion control.
• An Edina Curb Cut Permit (obtained in the Engineering Department) will be required for
the driveway entrances to each lot.
• REC and SAC fees will be required for this project.
Utilities and site work:
1. Any upgrades or additions to the sewer and water system that disturb the street will
require a full width pavement replacement, from saw cut to saw cut.
2. Connection into the existing drain tile for sump pump and downspouts will be required
for with this project.
3. Site grading will need to be reviewed at the time of building permit application.
Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this review.
Thanks
G,\PW\ADM MCOMM\EXIERNAI\GENERAL CORR BY SIREE15\0 51ftl013\6120 waoRWaw Ave\2012MM WH ravlew of 6120 BfookView AV0.00c
Engineering Department - 7450 Metro Blvd • Edina, MN 55439
A)b
To: Edina Planning Commission March 8, 2012
Edina City Council
Cary Teague, Kris Aaker, Planning Dept.
Scott Neal, City Manager
From: Janey Westin& Charlie Hughes
6136 Brookview Ave., Edina.
Re: Proposed Subdivision of 6120 Brookview Ave., Edina; Fairfax, Block 23, Lots 5 & 6
Jeffrey Schoenwetter of JMS Custom Homes
Planning Commission Members and City Staff,
We are strongly opposed to this proposed lot division.
The city has Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 850.07, Subd. 20134a which states: "If a non -conforming
lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or
part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying
with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this Section,
then such non -conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered
as ONE LOT and SHAL NOT BE DECREASED IN SIZE below such minimum requirements. if in a
group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any
single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio
requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel
able to be conveyed and developed under this code." The city minimum lot width is 75 feet.
The City of Edina must follow the City's own laws and ordinances to protect home owners from
intimidation and reckless harm from developers like JMS who demonstrate absolutely no consideration
of neighboring homeowners. The history of how JMS has behaved regarding 6120 Brookview Avenue
is a case in point:
Late spring of 2008-- Another developer (Palaudian) attempted to divide 6120 into two 50 foot wide
lots. He had a purchase agreement with a contingency of subdivision, planning to build 2 large houses
and cut down a healthy, 91 foot spanning oak tree in the process. The neighborhood strongly objected,
and it was not approved. The City followed Zoning Ordinance. JMS's then -president, Andy Porter,
attended the proceedings. Palaudian then backed out of the agreement. Within 2 days, JMS had bought
it, before any neighbors could take other action. JMS then submitted plans to the City for a large, single
home to be built, somewhat centered on the lot, though too close to the street with a setback of 33 feet,
but did not begin construction.
Early October, 2008, JMS approached Jim Holan, Property ID Supervisor for Hennepin County,
attempting to divide 6120 Brookview at the County level. Edina City Planning was called and alerted;
JMS did not get a lot division because he had not applied for one. Shortly thereafter, the existing
rambler was removed and the large oak tree cut down. The open hole of the basement remained with no
fencing around it for more than 10 days through Halloween weekend, in spite of my phone call to City
Inspections.
Fall of 2008, JMS then submitted new plans which were approved by Planning„ for a full two story
home of extremely large size, and completely out of character and proportion to anything within 500
feet (the neighborhood). He had his surveyors place this new house completely within the south half of
the parcel (Lot 6) as if JMS had a lot division, which JMS did not, JMS also had his surveyors position
the house 8+ feet closer to the street than front setback code allowed. This position put the back wall of
the JMS house further forward than the front north corner of the neighboring historic Whitbcck home
to the south. JMS has pled ignorance of understanding setback code, though this was the 35'►' or 36"'
home he built in Edina. In court, he also blamed this on his surveyor, though as the agent for his
surveyor, JMS is the responsible party. From the moment the survey stakes were put in the ground in
early December of 2008, it was clear that JMS's intent was to force the City to grant a subdivision of
the property.
On December 22, 2008, JMS applied to the City for a building permit for the north half of 6120
Brookview, Lot 5, He had not applied for a subdivision. The permit was turned down, noted in a memo
of the same date, on file in Planning.
JMS proceeded with construction on the south half orthe parcel in December. The foundation was
poured on the coldest day of that winter, when temperatures were way below code rules for concrete. It
was not tented or blanketed, violating state concrete construction code. Nonetheless, it passed
inspection, and construction continued. The Whitbecks spoke with City Planning people and expressed
concern with position of the house. Construction continued to the point of the wood frame shell being
completed and the roofing materials half on.
Finally, in early January 2009, after more complaints by the Whitbecks regarding position of the house,
a stop work order was placed on the house by the City, and it was determined to be way too close to the
street, about 8 feet. JMS applied for a variance to allow the house to be as it sat, which was not granted.
JMS also took the City to court to be allowed to continue construction, pleading that he would go out of
business if the house couldn't be ready for the Spring 2009 Parade of Homes, After doing research, it
seems that JMS's financial problems were due to numerous failed development projects, bankruptcies
and lawsuits-- not this single house project. The Whitbecks, the most affected party regarding this new
JMS house, were not informed of JMS's first court appearance, and had no voice in the proceedings.
The judge allowed JMS to proceed with construction. Construction usually started at 6:00-6:30 am, in
violation of city code.
The house was finished and open for the Parade of Homes in February, 2009. It did not sell. In the fall
of 2009, Nancy and Jeffrey Schoenwetter listed the house for sale through Prime Real Estate Services
describing it as sitting on a 50 foot wide lot, not as a 100 foot wide lot. This was a clear violation of 3
Ethics rules of the Minnesota Association of Realtors. It was fraudulent information. No application for
subdivision had been applied for. In an October 8, 2009 letter to Mr. Schoenwetter, former Edina City
Manager Gordon Hughes advised Schoenwetter to accurately list the 6120 Brookview Avenue parcel
size. J. Schoenwetter sent a reply October 20h, stating, 'We do understand and respect your
interpretation of city code. We may not necessarily agree with this interpretation.' Interpretation??!!
The Schoenwetters found a party to sign a 2 year contract for deed type of arrangement in December,
2009. At the end of the 2 years, in December, 2011, they moved out, not proceeding with the contract.
So, here things sit, with an oversize, completely out of place house, that�could still be moved to the
center of the 100 foot wide lot. Yes, this is possible. I have spoken with Otting House Movers, the
company that moved the original home off the lot. They have experience moving houses, even 2 story
houses to a new position on an existing lot. It would not cost more than about $50,000 total (new
foundation water, sewer and moving), and JMS could still make a profit. There are no obstacles on this
lot that would hinder this type of repositioning. if this house were centered sensibly on the lot, it would
sell quickly.
Schocnwetter has clearly created his own hardship. He has a reasonable use of the property with one
house on it. Flis'practical difficulty' is the position of the existing house, which he and the City are
responsible for and which can be remedied. Strangers that come by this house stop and ask us, 'What is
it with the position of that house'?'. lie has thumbed his nose at City ordinances, seeming to think the
'rules` don't apply to him. JMS is the poster child of a bad developer, and should not be granted his
request for a subdivision. He should be given every possible incentive to reposition the house, with
required approval of the City and review by the neighbors. Then it would sell, and many hard feelings
could be laid to rest.
Janey Westin & Charlie Hughes
To: Edina Planning Commission March 8, 2012
Edina City Council
Cary Teague, Kris Aaker, Planning Dept.
Scott Neal, City Manager
From: Dan Uhrhammer
Owner and resident of 6101 Oaklawn Ave., Edina
Re: Proposed Subdivision of'6120 Brookview Ave., Edina; Fairfax, Block 23, Lots 5 & 6
Jeffrey Schoenwetter of JMS Custom Flomcs
Planning Commission Members and City Stall,
I am strongly opposed to this proposed lot division.
The City has Zoning Ordinance, Subsection 850,07, Subdivision. 20134a which states: "if a non-
conforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in com►tion
ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or
come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio,
requirements of this Section, then such non -conforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting
parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum
requirements. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by
the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width
to perimeter ratio requirements of this Section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a
separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this code." The city minimum lot width
is 75 feet.
This is a City of Edina zoning ordinance, and was established to protect this city from suffering from
the "crowding" of properties much like that which exists in many residential areas of Minneapolis.
Basically, exceptionally large homes on very small lots.
I cannot tell you why the city originally allowed or plotted 50 foot lots. But, they apparently realized
they were not suitable to build upon very early in the development of this city.
The only thing that has changed in any way since establishment of the 75 foot lot width requirement is
that very little developable land exists in Edina anymore, Developers and a portion of the public want
these subdivisions to pass. Not for the good of the city, but for financial gain, or for cheap entry into
residency in Edina. This area (Fairfax) of Edina is one of the most affordable neighborhoods in Edina
to buy in. The sacrifice those of us who live here made was the size of the homes, to maintain and have
green space, and yards. Now, people just want in, and want their big home. But do not want to pay for
the appropriate size of lot to hold them, or buy into more expensive areas of Edina.
I understand these desires, but neither care about the effect these subdivisions, or these hugh home have
on a neighborhood. They just want it, and the hell with anyone else.
As to the "Hardships" that JMS may face on this property. Along with their request for a subdivision as
a result of them. You should all know the story well. They did it to themselves, and Edina shouldn't
fix it for them.
Say no to the subdivision this time, and every time one is requested.
Sincerely,
Dan Uhrliammer
6101 Oaklawn Ave.
And by the way, just because the vast majority of lots in the area are 50 feet. Calling it the norm, and
thus approving the subdivision seems like the easy way out. Besides, yes they for the most part are 50
foot lots. But our homes are also 1.000-1200 square foot ramblers, or story and a half. Isn't that also
the norm here? Perhaps the building codes for these small lots should also be addressed.
LOCATION MAP
_127
1175
/229 4771 4222
4230 411s 4421
4777 122t
4275
4223 4222
17:5 _Ir21
Legend
Highlighted Feature
1227
4232 4277 4126
1224
4227
4227 4226
Howe Number Labels
Iz]I
1234 4230
1279 1716
4229 1218
Street Name LLabel*4219
.! city U.1%
4733
IT31
4730
4231
4231 4230
!` Creeks
4136 4231
/233
1231
4237 /272
� Lake Names
4233
4737
�+ 1135
4132 1231
1237
423!
4275
IYJS 4230 pg
p
Lakes
Parks
a 4236
1731 4236
Parf:els
1239
1239
4240 4238
4238
4239
4239 4238
4141
4240
4241 4240
4147
4242 4217 4241
1211
IIp 4212
219
1244 1745 4240
4217
1760
/74S 171!
247
43/0 4706 1247 4216
4309 Oma
1247 4148
4110
1010
/117 1216
330
4248 1219 4100
411/ 1248
4249 1218
AQPMVOWE RD
49f3IJ1f43094J07130543071]01 1209 1101
(
!' Ffl1101
41074105
1300 4301
4017
4302
115/7p 4211
741t54HJ41fl1/09 4103
/"3 10074001
1306
I
1304
1707
/206 43024300
4312 )10 43044114 4212 4210 4108 4206 4NI 420 I2
....... 4307
4308
1 4322
43)
4711
4710 3916
4313
4312 4313
BRANSOV Sr
4008
171 S
130513 Q01 1113.12134211420912074 2932
�10f0
4315
1018 4016100 40f2
4006 1004 4316
3915
4 311
301
1.609
3945
13
22 40200
4001
120Iiia 1117 4100
412041 to
MOS 70
4140 4127
4011
f
4015
4400
6005
4021
m
4194
41604130
1472 If64 001
4406
4405
� 1107 4002`
4400 4001
4184 AA1H4111
4410
4M
4141 4406
4155
u01 4610
44I2 4012 VP
ufo
4411
4611 �,dt
MV nablariMkcA15, Cggn.q'tlCi tOG6 W �
@)"
B-12-01
Setback Variance from Ri ht of Way
PID: 0702824440122
QiC� r
4115
Morningside Rd
�cy Q
Edina, MN 55416
�'tirtvt��`"�A� •
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Originator
Meeting Date
Agenda #
Kris Aaker
March 14, 2012
B-12-01
Assistant Planner
Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested.
Project Description:
A 7 foot front/side street setback variance from Grimes Ave. for a new
home to be built on property located at 4115 Morningside Road.
INFORMATION/BACKGROUND
The subject property, is a corner lot located in the southeast corner of
Morningside Road and Grimes Ave. consisting of a one and one half story
bungalow with an attached tuck -under garage loading from Grimes Ave. See
attachments: A.1 - A.3, site photos.
The applicant is planning to tear -down the existing home and replace it with a
new two story home with an attached two car garage. The new home will
conform to all of the ordinance requirements with the exception of the required
setback from Grimes Ave. The new home is subjected to two front yard
setbacks. The home must match the setback of the home to the east fronting
Morningside and must also maintain the front yard setback of the home located
south of the subject property fronting Grimes Ave. The home to the south fronting
Grimes Ave. is 21.7 feet from the lot line adjacent to Grimes Ave. The existing
home is located 10.8 feet from Grimes right-of-way. The new home will be 15
feet from Grimes, 4.2 feet farther from the street than the existing home. The
proposed home will be more conforming than the existing home on the site. See
surveys of existing and proposed homes as attachments: AA and A.5.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Surrounding Land Uses
Northerly:
Single-family homes.
Easterly:
Single-family homes
Southerly:
Single-family homes
Westerly:
Morningside Church
Existing Site Features
The subject property is 10,006 square feet in area. The existing home is one
and one half stories and was built in 1922.
Planning
Guide Plan designation:
Zoning:
Building Design
Single-family detached
R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District
The proposal is to rebuild on the property with a two story single dwelling unit
with an attached side loading garage. See new home plans attachments: A.6 —
A.9.
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 west
setback from Grimes Ave.
2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the
improvements will enhance the property and not detract from the
FA
City Standard
Proposed
Front -
Match adjacent home:
42.9 feet/16 feet
Side-
5 feet + height
7 feet
Rear -
25 feet
58.47 feet
Building Height
2'/z stories
2 stories,
30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to
26 feet to midpoint, 29.7
ridge,
feet to ridge
Lot coverage
25%
24.6%
* 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 west
setback from Grimes Ave.
2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the
improvements will enhance the property and not detract from the
FA
neighbors or neighborhood. The most impacted neighbor to the south is
approximately 65 feet from the side wall of the proposed home.
3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the site and allow
for a new home to be built farther from Grimes Ave. than the location of
the existing home.
4. The New home improves upon the required street setback and
improves a nonconforming east side yard setback into conformance.
• 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:
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 new home is
more conforming to the current city code than the existing home. The
practical difficulties with complying with the ordinances are the narrowness
of the lot and required setbacks that are dictated by adjacent properties.
2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not
common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-
created?
Yes. The unique circumstances are that the existing lot is subjected to two
front yard setbacks. Required setbacks make the lot virtually unbuildable.
3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
No. The proposed home will be consistent with nearby homes within the
neighborhood and will improve upon nonconformities currently present on
the site.
Staff Recommendation
Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variances.
Approval is based on the following findings:
1) With the exception of the variances 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 a minimal
encroachment into the street yard area as is needed for the new home.
b. The practical difficulties in complying with the ordinances are the
narrow building pad allowed by current standards and given lot
width.
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:
Survey date stamped: February 27, 2012
Building plans/ elevations date stamped: February 23, 2012.
Deadline for a City decision:
April 23, 2012
4
R01
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CASE NUMBER
__DATE
FEE PAID
City of Edina Planning Department * www.6tyqf2qjqASM
4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 * fax (952) 826-
0389
FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00
APPLICANT: ,a' •/�1 F - s r
f (Sig
I , nature required on back page)
ADDRESS: kD f,457- %I j;f V 6"adet QW PHONE: Z�761" %99'-Of�
EMAIL:
PROPERTY OWNER:
NAME: hnA4 �Iq?' L.Sot J (Signature required on back page)
ADDRESS• 41 16 fflocI3dA 915 Ici6 21>0 PHONE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form):
*'You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet.
Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their
records. This may delay your project.
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 4116 W WAiA.rSj0ti 0'10
PRESENT ZONING: P.I.D.#
EXPLANATION OF REQUEST:
zf
LL_ tn► V AI?A)c nP �. eawkSFra p2 L
S3Aac- fD V2tMLS Ut 7i/D/ri 5a�bac(c- iiioa,o by hake
(Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) CPN 50um
ARCHITECT: NAME: W6. ..)-n c - PHONE: I15t ail} JJW
EMAIL: 11.. CUQ A QrY)2��.I�UM-
SURVEYOR: NAME: VeMd1t5 - �'�ilaac' ( PHONE: 7W3) 56 MI'K
EMAIL: &L is 9wy5rbrF, e{ - n&J,
Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions
must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using
additional sheets of paper as necessary.
The Proposed Variance will:
YES NO
Relieve an undue hardship which was not
self-imposed or a mere inconvenience:
Correct extraordinary circumstances
applicable to this property but not F1
applicable to other property in the vicinity
or zoning district.
Preserve a substantial property right FJ
possessed by other property in the vicinity
and zoning district.
Not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other property in the F1
vicinity or zoning district.
2
February 17, 2012
Edina Zoning Board
City Hall
Edina, MN 55424
To Whom It May Concern:
This application for a variance at 4115 Morningside Road is requested to
build a house at the standard setback from the Grimes Avenue lot line of 15'.
This is the standard setback in the Morningside neighborhood on a corner
lot. Due to the location of the current house to the south of the property we
are not allowed to build a house at the standard 15' setback. We would be
required by city code to build at 22' instead of the standard 15'. Under
normal circumstances this may be possible, but this lot is only 50' wide and
maintaining a standard 5' interior setback on the house would only allow for
a 23' wide house. These current dimensions and setbacks pose severe
complications for the design and build of a modest single family home. The
proposed design of the new house with this variance would unquestionably
compliment the surrounding neighborhood, and would not be detrimental or
intrusive to any existing properties. Furthermore, the location of the house
to the south, which is establishing the set back line, has ample tree coverage
from the backyard of the property proposed in this variance.
The proximity of the garage and front door at 4115 Morningside make it
appear as if the house is located on Morningside, which it is. We are easily
able to abide to the standard setback from Morningside. But the standard set
back to Grimes avenue would be 15', which is what we are proposing as a
variance. Additionally, we are also easily under the allowable hardcover for
this lot and well under the height requirements. We are not attempting to
build a large or tall house, simply something that would fit very nicely into
the neighborhood. Your help is greatly appreciated with this matter.
Sincerely,
4 (; ;_a
Doug Johnson
P13„rtn,11N,(' IF,
,. ryF
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should
contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility
bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this
property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance
requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for
any matter.
I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the
documents and information I have submitted are true and correct.
Signature
21) 7) /2 --
Date
OWNER'S STATEMENT
I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application.
(if a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this
application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.)
Owner's Signature
P d, A. Z/2a/ zo IV
Date
Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we
can process the application, otherwise it is considered Incomplete.
LOGISMap Output Page
.,,MMs.
Page I of I
X,/
http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientVe... 3/7/2012
LOGISMap Output Page
��G,9210�
Page 1 of 1
http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_QVSDE&ClientVe... 3/7/2012
Page 1 of 1
f le://ed-ntl/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/0702824440122001.jpg 3/7/2012
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR
BUILDING
CONCEPTS & DESIGNS
. cool
.801A
MORNINGSIDI; ROAD
N 89'43 Z s PA0.00
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
r
The west 50.00 feet of Lots 94
& 95, MORN/NGS/tom
, 3
Dy
i
#ad We
out
�
I
neacw Awa.
Me.r can t
N
,opal
N,� sant. ane
In
EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE
x I
Bu2dirps 1,568 Sq.Ff.
r� i
I
Patios h Decks 0 Sort.
Total Coverage 1,569 Sq.Ft.
Lot Area 10,006Sq.F1.
X of Coverage 15.7 E
E LFfi)
I I
emt. I
1 / /
•1p14
emo ' N 89'�336�E— — 3i).00 •su
o Denotes loon monument
• Denotes fount monument
t
WE AODRESS:
sme D-1- *riot" e/e..
elt3 bse
Yu.wgasle A
(000.0} Denote* proposed #W.
A*—, nod.,
[dna, DN SSs 16
—� 0*ooles surface dMinoge
I hereby certify that this survey. plan or report was prepared by me
or under my direct supervision and thol I am a duly Registered Land
File NO.
DBMARS-GABRIBL
Surveyor under
the Lows of the State of ktinnesoto.
13966
L4ND615 SURRVVEYY0�, INC.
�-j^w�
Book -Page
AM 200
[e+� ram
Friona.{�tN! R7 -act
Dond E. Crook ee�.��
.C!
Scale
Foe (es2f 742-wta
Dole: Fetuvory 20, 2012
Minn. Reg. No, 2elf /!
PDF created with pdfFectory trial version www pfflactorv.cm
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
FOR
BUILDING CONCEPTS & DESIGNS
Al ORAJAY;,I)l 1) F' R 1)
F— --y "'.. v......
N 89'44 3
E so. 00
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
fall
The west 50.00 feet of Lots 94
& 95, MORN/NGS/D£
'A
Mo 1100
J5.00 4.OID
PROPOSED
�50
I HOW
Eiebute
CV C-1)
6100
1 ones1
115.00
R
.9,
11M
Lill
01
iiad
-4, io
PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE
B.;Id;ngs 2,465 sq.n.
GARAGE
Patios & Decks 0 Sq.Fl-
Total Coverage 2.465 Sq.rl.
Lot Area 10,006 Sq.Ft.
X of Coverage 24.6 X
J
MOTU Services shown per city plan.
Consult city approved, final building
plans for dimension & elevation details
r
NTNt-
,Joe
one
N 89*39W!_E— 50.00
txj
o Denotes iron rnmu,nant
• D—las found nrent Proposed garage floor &M -906.1I
=- W4.' A
11.7
SITE ADDRESS:
Me De'al- .,;Sf;ng a.,
(000.0) Denotes proposed W., Proposed top of to..d.IiDn Wev..906.4
4113skm-'� Read
Edina, ARV 35416
Denotes surface drainage Proposed lowest floor @to
-898,4
I hereby
certify that this su"ey, plan or report Was Prepared by me
File No.
DEMARS—CABRIEL
or under my direct supervision and that I am 0 duly Registered Land
Surveyor under
the Lows of the Stole of Minnesota,
13966
LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
6875 WA9"FOH ME SO.
Revised: 2/22/12
Book—Poge
209
David E. Crook
P -V �': 2/27/12
Ed4wSWFE,
AM 55439
Ph— 767-0487
-fR52i 767
far: 52 -0490
Date; February 20. 2012
Scale
Minn. Reg. No. 22414
F— --y "'.. v......
qf
9199 NW 'VNIO� 000 8 1 Y E w
V aOISONIHOW Sttb <
anN3A
E 9ON3als�d V4198.
j
tj
Y j
s
I ;
p
I �
j
I c
I ,
I
I
MEMO
City Hail • Phone 952-927-88614A
Fax 952-826.0389 . www.Cityo(Edina.com pk
to
777j 7 a
v �
Date: March 14, 2012
To: Planning Commission
From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director
Re: Sketch Plan Review -- 7171 France
The Planning Commission is asked to consider a sketch plan proposal to redevelop
the Byerly's site at 7171 France Avenue. (See property location on pages Al A6.)
The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing Byerly's store and build a new
52,000 square foot Byerly's with a 96 unit 7 -story apartment on top, and a second
19,000 square foot retail building with a 67 unit apartment on top. Parking for the
building would be underneath the retail space. Loading areas would be behind the
buildings facing the Promenade. (See page A8.) Primary access to the site would be
off Hazelton Road, with a secondary access off France through the Macy's site to the
south.
The existing property is zoned PCD -3, which allows retail as a permitted use, and
multi -residential uses are conditionally permitted. (See page A5.) The applicant would
be seeking a rezoning of the property to PUD, Planned Unit Development.
The applicant is requesting a Sketch Plan review to solicit comments from the
Planning Commission and City Council. Opinions or comments provided to the
applicant by the Planning Commission and City Council shall be considered advisory
only, and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request.
The table on the following page is a compliance table demonstrating how the
proposed new building would comply with the PCD -3 Zoning Ordinance Standards.
Please note that several variances would be required under the existing zoning
standards.
Should the City decide to rezone these sites to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of
the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the site.
City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
.0
En
0
Compliance Table
* Would require variance If no PUD
Additional PCD -3 Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 850.16. Subd. 12.0 states that the "City encourages i) ground level retail and
service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment and ii)
pedestrian connections by way of skyways and tunnels. The City Council will consider
exceptions to setback requirements for these purposes.
The proposed plans do not create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment.
It is more of the traditional suburban style development with the parking lot in front of
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, 14N 55424
City Standard
Proposed
{PCb-3�
Building Setbacks
Front - France Ave
102 feet
200+ feet
Front - Hazelton Road
102 feet
Be feet*
Side - East
102 feet
150+ feet
Rear - South
102 feet
200+ feet
Building Height
Eight Stories or 96 feet
Eight
whichever is less
Stories &
102 feet*
Building Coverage
30%
20%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio
50%
69%*
(FAR)
Lot size =409,040 s.f,
Gross s.f.
280,700 s.f.
Parking Stalls
617 required & 163
619
enclosed - Based on 163
proposed &
units and 70,800 s.f.
946*
retail
enclosed
Parking Stall Size
8.6'x 18'
8.5 x 18'
Drive Aisle Width
24 feet
24 feet
* Would require variance If no PUD
Additional PCD -3 Zoning Ordinance Requirements
Section 850.16. Subd. 12.0 states that the "City encourages i) ground level retail and
service uses that create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment and ii)
pedestrian connections by way of skyways and tunnels. The City Council will consider
exceptions to setback requirements for these purposes.
The proposed plans do not create an active pedestrian and streetscape environment.
It is more of the traditional suburban style development with the parking lot in front of
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, 14N 55424
MEMO
En
the building, and the loading in the back. In this instance however, the back of the
building is the Promenade. While there is a sidewalk and greenway connection to the
Promenade, the proposed development does not take advantage of this amenity and
fully engage and encourage interaction with it. (See concept plans for the Promenade
on pages A17 A23.)
PUD Zoning
Per Section 850.04. Subd. 4 D provides the following regulations for a PUD:
1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the PUD District is to provide comprehensive
procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan
design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to
zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the City Council to make in its
legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the
following:
a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning
districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a
development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan;
b. promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City,
while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort,
aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City;
c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order
to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design
elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations.
Desired design elements may include: sustainable design, greater utilization of
new technologies in building design, special construction materials,
landscaping, lighting, stormwater management, pedestrian oriented design, and
podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or
other sensitive uses;
d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land
uses, including both existing and planned;
e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities;
f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland
protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening;
City of Edina • 4801 W. SO St Edina, MN 55424
pk '' Y
tts
g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development;
h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and
i. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses.
2. Applicability/Criteria
a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses
allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts
defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses
within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the
Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not
be eligible for a PUD.
b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be
in compliance with the following:
where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one
(1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the
PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of
the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to
achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan;
ii, any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may
be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the
objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan;
iii. permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate
planned development designation and shall be in general
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and
iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the
most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered
presumptively appropriate, but may be departed from to accomplish
the purpose and intent described in #1 above.
While the proposal would be an improvement over the existing building and use on the
site, staff is not sure that the proposal would rise to the level of meeting the purpose
and intent of the PUD above. The proposal is more typical of traditional suburban
development, and does not create a pedestrian friendly environment or engage the
adjacent streets or the Promenade. Boulevard style sidewalks along France and
Hazelton Road should be added. Due to the retaining wall along France, the
City of Edina • 4801 W. Wh 5t. • Edina, MN SS424
sidewalk may have to be located above the retaining wall, with set of stairs to get to
the bus stop. Connections from the retail uses to these sidewalks should also be
required in addition to the full connection to the Promenade.
Trak
A traffic study would need to be completed to determine impacts on adjacent
roadways.
Sewer Capacity
The city engineer has expressed concern in regard to sewer capacity in the area. This
issue would have to be examined closely as part of a formal submittal. Upgrades to
the system, and cost sharing for those upgrades may be required.
City 4f Edina , 4801 W. SOth St. • Edina, MN 55424
City A Edina
NOIN � � a
tr rr r, rrlr
so
ILI 112 sea
ED so!
«.�' :♦� 11111 � `;y
I�IRV
�rr
h Iisis11100
� C �� rw r'.■, .frf�r ff ffa+� .'AIR"
111r �■ MoR:
film m uau� uIl Illr" ■� �����
�� Ig1111I 11 Ilu� ■■ ww �M
�� � IAA1111� „n„r„ . w■
G ,1 ` 'r : •�I f : I r,I 'mai ■' r .. yi��
i ♦ ♦ A„111 I� • � �l
S poi ■ ■..r
�,r ri ■ '� i►wr�
Illy. v. - ..:,;� qA.� ►rte w "� �r�
1 ♦ . w= ♦ ISA 111oil 491OR
. .
ri1111►IIIiiII
7171 France Ave S
"i��” nlnulw unln �%mlllll � �-i!.
11
,.AEdina, MN 55435f�I li , fir
�l j
901092
v
SMS NWeuIP3
S GAV Q3UeJ:j TZTZ
6000ZOPMOZE :(11d
Jim
orol Fit
topids
IDn'tor
Dole
to
ml
tal
1p.swopti,ml A Nicoll
P'.
FtSrrt
Offf ..
low" OWAO"v P"~t ow
fill
IV-wo MW-P"V P -41P ON
#
4,W DDt
u�Kl lihill!
it, lim cu:scll;
of
:lift
tool{
101111
�rtlt►»rf
NMI Mel 0004 ilt lit v
dl Jt ,
Off; r
i tilt 0 lit om
0111{99
Jt
soft wt 4c r
![Cg dig mp 'it firi'Ll
011199❑
if## trig
tF69
911w1'{l*j 71#3
no, 97¢9..1161 t
04-
1160 "to "I tori
0
140
- mvma
Kdf
pumal
ro# it
If tta
Bum jo W)
m
Edina Byerly's — Sketch Plan Review Package — Project Narrative
February 22, 2012
Lund's Food Holdings seeks to redevelop their 9.67 acre property at the southeast quadrant of France
Avenue and Hazelton Road In Edina. The property is presently occupied by a Byerly's store, of just over
59,000 square feet.
The proposed redevelopment plan includes, in Phase 1, a replacement Byerly's store of 51,800 square feet,
and seven levels of market -rate rental housing. While the submitted materials indicate 96 rental units, a
joint venture partner has not yet been selected, and unit size and mix maybe subject to change. Phase 1
underground parking includes 96 spaces (1/unit). An additional 48 surface -parking spaces are provided to
support the housing, as well as 354 spaces to support the Byerly's retail need. Phase 1 building height will
depend to some degree on retail clear height requirements, but is anticipated to be approximately 102' plus
elevator over -run and rooftop equipment.
Phase 2 redevelopment includes 19,000 square feet of first -level leased retail, with seven levels of market
rate housing above. Submitted materials indicate 67 housing units, supported by 50 below -grade parking
spaces, and 51 surface spaces. Retail parking is provided per zoning ordinance at 5/1000. Phase 2 building
height will be approximately 96' plus elevator over -run and rooftop equipment.
Retail and residential entries, as well as pedestrian and vehicular traffic are intentionally separated, with
main housing entries, and underground garage entrances for both phases occurring on the eastern side of
the site.
A pedestrian connection is extended to the Promenade greenway to the east, and stormwater management
strategy includes the development of above -grade ponding adjacent to the promenade walkway that could
potentially serve both Byerly's redevelopment, and the Macy's property to the south.
Access from France Avenue is provided from two points on Hazelton Road. Signalization of the easternmost
entry is anticipated in the materials submitted. A license agreement providing cross -access has been
negotiated with Macy's to provide vehicular access between sites, parallel to France Avenue at the western
edge of the site.
Current zoning is PCD -3. Lund Food Holdings will be seeking PUD zoning classification for this project in
order to provide flexibility that will enhance development outcomes and provide benefits as described in the
city zoning code 850.04 subpart 4.
We appreciate your consideration of the sketch -plan review application, and look forward to meeting with
you to discuss the project in greater detail.
HAZELTON ROAD
0
Heusi -9A
125,100 Sf
HOUSING
96 umm
54=0
67 urwis
9"r"
Duct
CI— 4&=SF.&m%F"m
ociog !
247M
sxmsr
19A00 sf
lk*V"m!ti
PARIONG SUMMARY
lwunrtq
parking provided.
Housing
11,51=lt)
garage surface
KouftA
96 Wits
144
96
Housi,89(f4wo
67 M -S
101
50
cap" wift" sm
245
"AS 219
RetaS
S ff E ptm
52,500 If
277
DATA SUMMARY
Heusi -9A
125,100 Sf
Housimalf.g.re)
54=0
67 urwis
9"r"
SIAW %f
getul ifulre)
19A00 sf
PARIONG SUMMARY
lwunrtq
parking provided.
Housing
11,51=lt)
garage surface
KouftA
96 Wits
144
96
Housi,89(f4wo
67 M -S
101
50
245
"AS 219
RetaS
52,500 If
277
Retail tfuturel
19= sf
95
372
354
towtrepuired 917f tow K.Wdd -6179
ANDERSON
KM BUILDERS
LmeteeMohr ii, u0" 9 S -k-
02122/12
.7,27
a `
Ak, 40t
Ln
S
I
.P
ANDERSP,N •
KM BEIIIDERS
-!z I SP
00
10
Ig.
tF;010
110
4
wipmv,-n ening
I n 9 m m R I
:cruesa
9
40
OR
>,a r
_ -AMR"— ..r
RSON `'
4 Z
HIM ao
oda
A � "
m I Ail!
ul ig. It III 'I I
i h
A � "
All
'11,111,61,11 till' Iof
W 4.01
I
VIII II I fllllill
I-
F --- -- " -- --- -11 - - -
.-
If
I
VIII II I fllllill
NVId NVi roc-t�,c.
t� ��y � 99rYtry
PRo►AFpApE PIAOJ
46
Figure 33
Promenade
Component Plan
Promenade Design
cid
X 1 • Gateway
Z Crossroads
' Feature
3. Landscaping
Feature
4. Sfigle
Sculpture
$. Sculpture
Group
• t� Sculpture
'' $'' Fountain
0w�
=; 7.
Pond /Stream
^-�
and Fountain
�•• 8`
York Ave.
Underpass
0 100
300 Feet
Ad Ak
TOF
EDINA
VROMENADF
Urban Design Plan
July 2007
D
x«
55
W
58
1�
9,
I
I
I
I
I
'4?
y+,
v
„�
,r
�...
�
�..
«�..'
`'.�
y
4
i ry
i
�~�
� �
�
�
•YAC
!�
1 ��
a
1, raw,•