The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-01-23 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS JANUARY 23, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL 111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission January 9, 2013 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 A. Lot Division. 5700 and 5712 Grove Street, Edina, MN B. Variance. Cragg. 5024 Bruce Avenue, Edina, MN. VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Sketch Plan Review — Sidell. 4412 Morningside Road and 4532 Oakdale Avenue, Edina, MN VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance • Miscellaneous IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENTS XI. ADJOURNMENT 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 January 23, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague January 23, 2013 VI.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Mr. Wayne Fridlund is requesting to shift the existing lot line that divides the two properties at 5700 and 5712 Grove Street. The purpose of the request is to shift the side lot line five feet to the east to provide adequate area to build a second stall to the existing garage at 5712 Grove Street. (See property location, proposed lot line shift and narrative on pages Al—A9.) There is an existing NSP easement, with overhead wires that would have to be shifted before any garage would constructed. (See easement on page A9 and picture on page A10.) Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding properties and uses are include single-family homes zoned and guided low-density residential to the north east and south; and the Good Samaritan Church, zoned and guided low-density residential located to the west. (See page A3.) Existing Site Features Single-family homes are located on both parcels. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Primary Issue Low-density residential R-1, Single-family residential • Is the proposed lot division reasonable? Yes. The resulting lot line shift does not create an additional lot. As demonstrated below, both lots would still exceed the median lot area and width in the neighborhood. The lot depths of both lots would remain the same. Minimum Lot Size Re ufrements Existing 5712 Grove St. Existing 5700 Grove St. Proposed 5712 Grove St. Proposed 5700 Grove St. Lot Area — 92,077 s.f. 13,293 s.f. 18,429 s.f. 13,918 s.f. 17,804 s.f. Lot Width — 90 feet 104 feet 126 feet 109 feet 121 feet Lot Depth — 934 feet 124 feet 145 feet 124 feet 145 feet Any new construction on either of these two lots would be subject to conformance with all of the City's rules and regulations regarding lot coverage, building height, and setbacks. Before the proposed garage addition was built, the existing NSP easement and overhead power line would have to be relocated. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Lot Division of 6244 and 6240 Brookview Avenue: Approval is subject to the following findings: The proposed lot line adjustment does not create a new lot. 2. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to provide area to expand the existing garage. 3. The resulting lots would exceed the median lot area requirement. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: All building activity on either lot must comply with all minimum zoning ordinance standards. 2. The NSP easement that runs along the existing side lot line would have to be shifted five feet to the east, and the overhead power lines would have to be moved five feet to the east before issuance of a building permit for the garage addition. Deadline for a city decision: March 5, 2013 2 Affticitiur.. PARt AT JVf d 5'71Z a s E /o i iron"-- 5`100 C)PVeE—Z- 0'//" CCS -G/c y con S-1ruc1(141 a -�Wo Cct�' //9� cca�! �� '1 �'- eX�57�� p 0111 e col' J Ma,-Rr40('A' � Per/I c-a - e1�e f`S �1 0 /r/ar re4�2 ct 1,5D 6' e cir Scc� SSS o��S mV, 41 N� sQ a -64; eac-fe-1472ee-l-e -?o,55 (6 s erre- -60 41 City of Edina 5912 5960 8809 Sa06 dBOS 5609 4606 SHS N" St1e i8ff011adIM ttOaea NemMr .765 ,.tONO f N SO u •blt9 '3801 Mor ftOYik, dt/5 SO/S 6013 IfO 670 6611 6617 Etta m2 870! rot 3621 1670 Sfa t:.alba. f5an Sm MAKIV am 6913 MIS Labate Hme NwrAwr Labile, WaOttNma LabalO T; 5723 r 6706 6673 U24 eu 7 �f 5813 of 3517 �) {e Gry UIMIS 1a s9ii� � "Is tt alt] alarao 1619 ua 17 55 dStt 0 6525 � Creaks Lake Names ale 60f73610 8625 a.s9 ap1 ..: 5717 E633 . 115/6 waro 5516 Sill fszJ tt 0 �� Lakes US Lis19 5666 Seta Dd0 irol i '' • ro9 Sft a337 typYnPsd 0 hrka � Wrb�ta sm seas sue . w � Slai sail 5730 6� 0708 7fS N 6101 3605 700 N N 6a+ 676 5905 f4.if bI09 Sf06 ar 6712 Ib it 68600 d600 6104 26 'PSAs 21 rf2 f Sa763e72 JD 5776 8710 »09 6116 6716 att 6 t 17 6617 SD19 T3 1f 1. 6601 6601 aA,Mff I St Image feel auf asfaa6ea 6J� sr2a 17 6760 n 3803 8601 1606 be01 5�1_ 960 — 3610 681. 460D 6609 N60 680/1-1-11 9608 sm 8870 Nth f 11!71 a7 fat 8 S 1 5626 6112 iJ !60i 7601 pp► It AAWVt - ba0t 60►f Q60I .4 ` 60ry 24 YlEtll da11 3912 bebs p0a 6166 +� 1 IN ,try da19 711 07125M8 5701 5700 .e11 bete 3Ni lift St< 6960 3608 8808 S{I! a►12 RRR is 6177 6913 ttNltHfiYY .1601 5500 9605 68M a6/{ 3677 6876 p@flaNilt6r Diff 5905 6808 am Sul 1361 608 5801 5!a! N 161//6 pN "as NOt 6331Us SSS 11651 jw /an Sammi Sm 1900 6119 5512 pff 10768101 ala 6w 3601 24 it t{ t /15501 N 6002 60N 8908 am 660 t7060'HHf9a7l118 6004 6011 8811 213 It It 6605321 f7 13 508 406 !f 6001 on.. 6051 tyro 1990 6000 mot 6000 4528 651{.9512 6lta Sam 8100 6012 6016 6031 MOO 2 IOOt 6601 SOOJ Of 6050 �y teagLAMAD -- sox 126BN 6060 se10 � 1608 anff0! 1317 Nfa am - .805. �f 6600 6006 6012 6017 tmto soa Da71 Salt 6812 be09 {� {1 65 6511 d80a 65" 6500 � 6024 acs>mwauc.rwavth:lf0mms� 6016 KA,y PID: 3211721420030 p� r g t 5712 Grove St § 55436 '�� Edina, MN z� 43 1 5730 5730 8704 1 5700 11709 `l 5705 5716 5604 5708 6712 5616 W12 5608 5604 5640 WA)WO(AVE ST15 5619 5609 5609 5700 6816 5612 5608 5604 6600 OROVE 37 6801 6800 6613 5609 8803 87000 E 5720 5712,` Baas 5804 SVOV£3T S809 8808 3620 5616 K 5801 6721 $717 5711 5709 5705 $701U12 6813 LVLECR 5824 x617 6805 5832 aazs $714 5712 $70B 5704 5700 5821 6116 5600 5608 5604 5825SENrONAVII 3 N A ROMWAVE AVE gyrus•e 4cgoa amw So5t1 A� A ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENvuVELMAv W. 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax(952)2250502 SURVEYFOR: WAYNE FRIDLUND SURVEYED: April, 2010 DRAFTED: November 20, 2012 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Fridlund's Addition, Hennepin I / County, Minnesota. / I SCOPE OF WORK & LMTATIONS: / 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include detem»aing what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as I C] easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been I <( shown. Ci 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we I l f deemed important 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old momrmeats to mark the zomers ofthe property. �^ STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: n "@" Denotes 1/2" M pipe with plastic plug bearing State C 8 m License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. I l.0 = CERTIFICATION: i Ci I hereby a fify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engineer and a Professional Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota.-- �'O.Maad I f I.TMACon- I Jarl Parker P.E. & P.S. No. 9235 �� F GRAPHIC SCALE M o m xc +a tmyrztl S a9551Y E EXISTING GROVE ST. S 69,5511Y E 1,20784 11 20 .201,2 fl JP EXISTING ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. r�rn 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, MN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax(952)2250502 �ROP SURVEYFoR: WAYNE FRLDLU" O�Jl�l/ SURVEYED: April, 2010 DRAFTED: November 20, 2012 ► t wm to a ra_ St / ORIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: ► / Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 2, Fridlund's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. I / / I PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL "A": I / Lot 3, Block 2, Fridlund's Addition, Hermepin County, Minnesota, and the West 5 feet of Lot 2, Block 2, Fridlund's I Addition, lying South of the Easterly extension of the North line of said Lot 3. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PARCEL "B": I C Lot 2, Block 2, Fridlund's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, except the West 5 feet of said Lot 2 lying South of the Easterly extension ofthe North Rue of Lot 3, Block 2, Fridlund's Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. i SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: I i 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary limes of the above legal description. The via scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. ► C] Please check the legal description with your retorts to I Lij o i consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make > _ sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, -ch as I easements, drat you wish shown on the survey, have b easembeen I Of 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we I �_ deemed important. > 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old momrmmts to ► �> mark the comers of the property. I _ STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "0" Denotes 1/2" ID pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. ► CERTIFICATION: I I here ceiMY-t9t this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Professional Engines ¢¢ and a Professional Surveyor trader the Laws of the State of I G s Minnesota. J es Parker P.E.&P.S.No. 9235 GRAPHIC SCALE 20 o to Zo 10 C W FELT ) 8 I t wm to a ra_ St I GROVE ST. �PA S ea'S51T E 1207'94 11 400 2012 4 JP PROPOSElo 'G CO. 2) 225 0502 m S 89'55'17" E g pOVE JL . T. /T() b as oa i i c l6 1,9078y 11 20 9012 -4 fP F.J7 TJ G CO. ')2250502 112 --115.97-- EMSMG °wELLM N 8958'49" E --230.77-- UT I I A ~ Cf 1 `� v,`r��' Wit• t t . S 89 58'24" E 4, ��? --126.23-- Op O ro" sort � 5 89'55'17" E S 89 5517" E GROYE' X5'1: 1207" 11 20 ,201,2 �d JP PROPOS mato stat—� - N 89.54'03" E i I I I91 I�I y ------ ARCEL "A" 13,623 SQ. Fri-------� $-1 I I 3 -----PARCEL ttBtt 17.877 SQ. FL —------------ Q 'Z I I IS 3 z coat I I t I I Z i &31 l_I f t i aa� s G g 'cal -- F f I 1 i I I s ro" sort � 5 89'55'17" E S 89 5517" E GROYE' X5'1: 1207" 11 20 ,201,2 �d JP PROPOS City Hall - Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CityofEdina.com Date: January 23, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Acres Dubois —"Sketch Alternatives" MEMO Based on the direction of the Planning Commission at its December 12, 2012 meeting, the applicant, Peter Knaeble, on behalf of Frank Sidell, has created three (3) subdivision alternatives for the property located in between Littel Street and Morningside Road. (See property location on pages A1—A5 and subdivision alternatives on pages A6—A8.) The original proposal and code compliant plat are included as a reference on pages A9-110. The applicant is asking for Planning Commission feedback and comment on each of the alternative plans. The Planning Commission feedback and alternatives would then be presented to the City Council at their February 5, 2013 meeting. Based on the feedback given to the applicant by the Planning Commission and City Council, the applicant then would revise their original application plans, to be presented at public hearings held by the Planning Commission in March, and City Council in April. Included at the back of this memo are emails and letters that have been submitted by residents in the area that have provided comments on the proposed alternatives. The tables on the following pages demonstrate how each of the alternative subdivision proposals complies with the Zoning Ordinance standards of the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO O e Option A 19 Variances Required Option B Area Lot WidthDepth Depth REQUIRED 9,606 s.f. 75 fe 161 feet Lot 1 13,779 s.f. 60 feet 225 feet Lot 2 9,230 s.f. 65 feet 142 feet Lot 3 7,810 s.f. 55 feet 142 feet Lot 4 7,324 s.f. 60 feet 122 feet Lot 5 7,123 s.f. 55 feet 130 feet Lot 6 9,001 s.f. 65 feet 123 feet Lot 7 15,560 s.f. 67 feet 200 feet Lot 8 16,047 s.f. 94 feet 140 feet Lot 9 12,170 s.f. 90 feet 135 feet Lot 10 23,289 s.f. 122 feet 179 feet 19 Variances Required Option B 21 Variances Required City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 9.606 s.f. 75 fe 161 feet Lot 1 8,520 s.L 60 feet 142 feet Lot 2 7,100 s.f. 50 feet 142 feet Lot 3 7,810 s.f. 55 feet 142 feet Lot 4 7,324 s.f. 60 feet 165 feet Lot 5 7,123 s.f. 55 feet 140 feet Lot 6 9,001 s.L 65 feet 123 feet Lot 7 15,560 s.f. 67 feet 200 feet Lot 8 16,047 s.f. 94 feet 140 feet Lot 9 12,170 s.f. 90 feet 135 feet Lot 10 23,289 s.f. 122 feet 179 feet 21 Variances Required City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO Original Plan — With Revision 3 Variances Regaired While there are a significant number of variances that would be required for each of the two alternatives; these proposed lots however, are generally similar in size to existing lots in this area. As mentioned with the original proposal, the median lot size in this area is 9,606 s.f. and the median lot width is 50 feet. Please note that the revision to the original plant in this option is that the right- of-way has been reduced from 50 to 40 feet wide, and the street width has been narrowed from 28 feet to 24 feet. (See page A8.) The City's public works director has expressed concern over the pervious pavers located at the end of the cul-de-sac. A vacuum street sweeper would be required for proper maintenance; and the City does not have that type of equipment. The City's fire chief has indicated a preference of at least a 24 -foot wide street to enable their equipment to be able to turn around and get through during the winter months. A portion of the 24 -foot wide street could however be shared with a 6 -foot sidewalk designation. With a 24 -foot wide street, the homes would have to be constructed with sprinkler systems, and parking would only be allowed on one side of the street. If this road were a private street, the Fire Code would require a minimum street width of at least 20 feet. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 9.606 91 75 to 161 feet Lot 1 12,117 s.f. 75 feet 162 feet Lot 2 12,117 s.f. 75 feet 162 feet Lot 3 12,148 s.f. 75 feet 162 feet Lot 4 10,744 s.f. 82 feet 120 feet Lot 5 18,169 s.f. 83 feet 179 feet Lot 6 14,533 s.f. 94 feet 140 feet Lot 7 12,170 s.f. 90 feet 135 feet Lot 8 23,289 s.f. 122 feet 179 feet 3 Variances Regaired While there are a significant number of variances that would be required for each of the two alternatives; these proposed lots however, are generally similar in size to existing lots in this area. As mentioned with the original proposal, the median lot size in this area is 9,606 s.f. and the median lot width is 50 feet. Please note that the revision to the original plant in this option is that the right- of-way has been reduced from 50 to 40 feet wide, and the street width has been narrowed from 28 feet to 24 feet. (See page A8.) The City's public works director has expressed concern over the pervious pavers located at the end of the cul-de-sac. A vacuum street sweeper would be required for proper maintenance; and the City does not have that type of equipment. The City's fire chief has indicated a preference of at least a 24 -foot wide street to enable their equipment to be able to turn around and get through during the winter months. A portion of the 24 -foot wide street could however be shared with a 6 -foot sidewalk designation. With a 24 -foot wide street, the homes would have to be constructed with sprinkler systems, and parking would only be allowed on one side of the street. If this road were a private street, the Fire Code would require a minimum street width of at least 20 feet. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 111 City of Edina 4M 4332 4377 41J4 uN 43A 4230 u 1217 a 111 42ed 4tf ® Surros I& sjsj Hann Number 4343 4w 4Nf 4245 4i16 4 f! 4270: "'j' Labels "U4814 /1!6 4249 NOW4231 1 us Noe NwMwr labels !!! 1t Wro"I6or Labels Wmsr 43 4tl4 SNI Lk"Ix 4131 4013 IOfr 4MS 4251. - '4m"42 was 1,, .. ■ 4A "0� ® f1uN01a,Fb*dM. Cneks Lake Norms ._'��' 411,,444 IP57 HI 42 �r I viaQ Lkos4211 Pre " 4381 N 4304"I4300 S0 Pls 1235 INS 1565 !4 !y04301 4n3 4377 4274 N ISM 1330 0 4116 4300 INf f ��as� iwT 4307. 4300' 1 dot eM 4708 f7 4716 4313 43 I 4409 La d I� f f 4338 439 4720 4330 ! f y 4 au 4330 4 IM 4333 133t $� 1 4130 4011 f U t>N Mf .aa 3 ® 100 u 4!M an AM 4307 4m 1 70 4H7 4317 43" 3000 N _ . � 4300 f 43!1 4 f rae.raMa4e, I4reaei9i IN/ 1 is e PID:0702824420094 4412 Morningside Rd p Edina, MN 55416 �() 111 City of Edina 4718 4114 1147 ,! twrsuntlnp Hosss NwnGr LoWs It +ly. 3 �1: Nouse NumMrLabsls Sksst Nims Labols lMML sr .PIS .! CRY LknNs /* YWltist f+aelprisls Cmsks 4217 1233 �4m 11J! J Lsks N.M. Lake 1471 Op+nrsesi Parks * 0 ParCsla ,iJ/ ,2.0 ,PSS11 Iz� P, t1161277 ,Itt 4 4M 0 U JM 4M IPm ,l7J !7 4M ,211 N ,PII: 415 , IIU 4108 1157 281 OWN M�S'14J17�t110 Ifr 7t eta ft urr! "0 U1 ,JOS IJ t IwP tut IaJ worysMus. 10naJat o +� PID: 0702824420094 Q, 4412 Morningside Rd 4 Edina, MN 55416 t A A3 LOGTSMap Output Page A �- �' , �� 4 � '� i �;�' ■, 1 �� {SKS T i �r� \ Jx �: ttt �..,i� � � yea r ■ ��-lrr I:! $$ �� " a'� t , U 7 LY II } OI111111j1111l11�1111� 11'11 fllllll,11a �}j r -4 1 � �,I � � �i ■t i�� Ir�s , `�� r ,� r fi ��II�IIIIIIIIIIilili— �II�, I,' it � � � .;. ■■ �w�rrrlli►►V tnnlnlllllllfllUl`.� �!`� JU ■ ! ■ .r�+arri, {11111►1�0 .rd. j, -1 �� i �� e= -� ,r� -All U011,111VIM 110'!I. !} �►'r rte' �-`==2 �'e�r� _ t 1:. WAN I, .! ■ u ■111.111 ■ , _' ■'moi i �1ii♦ �■ . o '� i t: 111 1111' !{M� %/`��+► �• ,'; oii�= r_ a11� ` Z' ,'j k } ; ` !, �. � p � �r I t Mr;'WS MA l ♦ t � 1w , OR1 �� 12 2F �f, �ta,,.�+�� \��,i1!• ��E p 6 r,:A 1 2 r E �I � I r < rg IJ Eil i OTTAWA AVE. S. 34 OR------------- r At SII `f♦1"k MAI -------------- 1 =� I ■il 11E1 �Nllr �4 p":11111, N!- 30' FRONT SETBA ;n Pr t 28 VARIANCES REQUIRED 9000/9606 SF LO 75'/'50' LOT VND 120'/181' LOT DEP N!- 30' FRONT SETBA ;n Pr t 28 VARIANCES REQUIRED 0 4231 I rr J P GN' 4710 ROW 128 OSP LITTEL STREET 4432 dJmALE A 20' SB �.Q.d f. laci 0ew p4zaJ a1'f vAcrmn (t0 � RAW 6ARM � 8 ^ � 3 .w ------------i 9 200 00! >? i 4235 a I 8 F -i DI l �i�' ,°�" 4234. k us7 i 7 -------------- -___-_-448-- 1 VAMAMM I us, I VMS — — — — ® 6 mm �'N,d* 8 4M l�1 VpWWOC w x014 R aOC No>e 4243 I ` b °4 1�1 4p5lop AREA Q dW 4 t 410 vAnARm a" �r ----- 4273 t m T—^---- _ 12r _ _ I 3 2 _ 1. i 4244 I � I I--�'°------- VAMAHM f 4%I I ,a „I,rA, 1405 I I 4, 1VO0 A 424° OEPiIi I ' tw a e�° Esm�sm uu app �•`'' I Ito' 07 DO 4u0' Ron W 1 xo mnxml _ST. LOWS P_AR_K---J EDINA Sy MORNINGSIDE ROAD Q�� 4417 I {Y IOC 91 MIS I 44413 1 i ,{„ 4409 i ,ate 460 F] {F -I . 1 I A`7 ST. LOUIS PARK EDINA MORNINGSIDE ROAD yP 4417 ar I .r law O 4MI MW IF] pA 4ft8 i fqJ i i M16 mot, I I I I I i I O ior. I un I tt.r i sur i p a., a a OV021 301SONINaOW � — — YNia3 . I Moa .os r ntv�o7 C4., --- =imus ass s1 I asi ,or F I I ------- --- ► I SLI ---------- L — — — ` -------------1 -1 1 1 - I 10o 1 1 i L------- ___ ..Z. I Iy� 10 N Y1 I , I C(Z. nn — _. ----- � I I D .. is D " '— -------------.--- o,L, I I — — — — —— i yyn --------- --_—__._ Nl-10703• 1 �. ' 7Ci I �q I set, ,ox a ----------- - - - - NCO oaa. ei. tszt� J G----------- /q o. 14 tap ----------------- Ki. I � y41S iv 'vi \\`\ --"�_ ��-'ter=� • I L-------- I -- J MiNo1 I 1 — '— 85N Z ------ - - L------ .T- - III HIM! _ AIY3doadAW � �I !;[ 133HIS 131111L I — M 1S t/1 Zb . attr Moa Ar Izz, o S Out MCI ' 3 g---------------- I m ---------- ,u.— / I � I N 8 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT m °° :, Tigre N o IM n J .•• 6ao74iem�roaarwaus ACRES DUBOIS EDINA, MN x x rwm az. oYc ++zsrrz v.y xa ueu f.0 tJaa.. 10M09611$. Lakin" 55422 wives`r, 7635934345 Fac 763514071 TLC LIS COL gas HIS 66S at +• •"°"'"'"'° r'A0 ..WMNwNNN 'Mm tens ner2u°P---:°2wlp y M Q i6I008 2 SIOenQ S3motl t�f � r••A•��S9i '"'a'" 4 �" Ntlld 1d30NO3 ONINHOAN00 a ' I —1 1 /---------- I ----------I I / I w E : I ♦m41A 4 I / Nasi I m2. �a R Vl O asi i �i /0' mw 13o.a a 42 1/2 ST. W — — — — — y2 Yeo UTTEL STREET ygyAEXISM ��Y1% owouse 232 raa2i. a 6 31.6• 16,666 SF 8 °2aa `614 - MIX MC nut a/6aSNW — — — — — . - - -- – – –– ar b 12,112 S R �7 :—L� 42M j ----- i6,.r------- 10 NUL STURM -----------a 6 12,112 SF ---=fir — u--- �� I t _Sr LM Parc_------- � EDMA n 12,113 S 3LP 12.111 SF ( I—bll 12.312 SF 1 I b &I I I .I MORNINOSIDE, ROAD an raacan 444 I .aa ( /aH I 4409 ( I i 4103 �I IF addition maintaining the character of the neighborhood, Mr. Vayda reiterated ReKamp Larsen's clAment of their commitment to maintain neighborhood character and the char er of the house. Mr. V,y�da said he purchased the house from the original owner, ding the house needecrgome updating. ls�e) Grabiel asked if anyone s pres/be issue; being none, C�- Chair Commissioner Carpenter mo d to closg. Commissioner Pottsseconded the motion. All tedaye;mCommissioner Fische commented thatmal bad he supports the variance as submit d. Co m mission e 9forrest said she likeXthe sustainability of the project. Motion Commissioner Staunton fhoved variance approval based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Platteter seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. D. Preliminary Plat. Franklin and Carol Sideil. 4232 Oakdale Avenue and 4412 Morningside Road, Edina, MN. Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission Peter Knaeble on behalf of Frank Sidell is proposing to subdivide the Sideli family-owned property located in between Littel Street and Morningside Road into eight lots. Currently the site consists of six lots. The existing home on the south side of the property and various accessory buildings would be torn down and a cul-de-sac street would be built along the east lot line to serve six of the new home sites. The existing home at 4232 Oakdale would remain and one new lot created on Little Street. To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot depth variances from 161 feet to 131 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6 and to 135 feet for Lot 7. Teague reported within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 9,606 square feet, median lot depth is 161 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. Continuing, Teague explained that the applicant has developed a plat that would meet all of the minimum lot size requirements; therefore, this site is entitled to develop with eight lots. However, the applicant would rather not develop the site with that plan. There are some steep Z slopes on this property as well as very mature trees. By developing the site in that configuration with a through street to connect Morningside Road to Littel Street would require extensive tree removal and slop disturbance. Therefore, the applicant is proposing the cul-de-sac configuration to avoid the slope; and is proposing a permanent conservation easement over some of the mature trees to ensure they are protected. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed eight lot subdivision of the Sidell property and the lot depth variances from 161 feet to 131 feet for Lot 4; to 140 feet for Lot 6; and to 135 feet for Lot 7 based on the following findings: 1. The applicant has submitted a subdivision of the property that would meet all minimum zoning district requirements with eight lots and new through street that would connect Morningside Road and Littel Street. 2. Rather than develop the site per all minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements, the applicant has submitted a proposed subdivision of the property with a cul- de-sac, which requires lot depth variances for Lots 4, 6 and 7. 3. The proposed subdivision with the three lot depth variances would preserve the steep slopes on the site, and permanently preserves 82 mature trees by placing them in a conservation easement. 4. The proposed subdivision still has eight lots. 5. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 6. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing steep slopes and mature trees on the property. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lots larger in size than the median, and there are 26 lots within 500 feet of the property that do not have lot depths greater than 131 feet, which is the shallowest of the three lots that require lot depth variances. C. The variance request is reasonable, as subdivision still contains eight lots, which would be allowed with the Code compliant subdivision; however, it permanently protects steep slopes and 82 mature trees. d. If the variances were denied, the applicant could still subdivide the property into eight lots, however the steep slopes would be disturbed an additional 42 mature trees would be removed. Approval is also subject to the following conditions: 1. The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 10 2. Prior to release of the final plat, the following items must be submitted: Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. Enter into a Developers Agreement with the City. The Developers Agreement shall include the requirement for construction of the sidewalk as proposed. C. Pay the park dedication fee of $10,000 d. Individual homes must comply with the overall grading plan for the site. Each individual building permit will be reviewed for compliance with the overall grading plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. e. Compliance with the conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated December 7, 2013. f. A construction management plan will be required for the overall development of the site, and for each individual home construction. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. h. Establishment of a permanent tree preservation easement as demonstrated on the grading and tree preservation plan. L Outlot A shall be deeded to the adjacent parcel at 4408 Morningside Road. j. The applicant must rebuild the driveway at 4408 Morningside Road to access off the new street, and eliminate the curb cut on Morningside Road. The configuration shall be subject to approval of the director of engineering. k. A stop sign is required to be installed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. Clear sight lines shall be maintained from the intersection. Use of Lot 7 for the overall grading of the development will require compensation to the City of Edina. A restoration plan shall be submitted by the applicant subject to review and approval by the City Council. Appearing for the Applicant Franklin and Carol Sidell, property owners and Peter Knable, Terra Engineering. Discussion Commissioner Carpenter asked Chuck Rickart, Edina traffic consultant to speak to this issue. Mr. Rickart addressed the Commission and reported that his study found there were no operational concerns for either alternative (through -street or cul de sac). Rickart said with either roadway alignment stop sign(s) should be placed on the new street approaching Morningside Road. Continuing, Rickart said clear view is OK; however one should keep in mind if the Commission prefers the through -street cut through traffic could be an issue. Another suggestion Rickart expressed was recommending that the driveway adjacent to the new street for (4408 Morningside Road) should be realigned to eliminate turning conflicts. Commissioner Carpenter asked Mr. Rickart his opinion on reducing the right-of-way. Rickart responded in his opinion a 24 -foot side road would be adequate. Applicant Presentation Mr. Knable addressed the Commission and explained that two neighborhood meetings were held apprising neighbors of the project. Knable clarified that their preference is the cul de sac option. Continuing, Knable explained that the proposed lots vary in size from 10 — 23 thousand square feet with the average lot size roughly 14,000 square feet. Concluding Knable noted the proposed lots exceed the median standard. Mr. Sidell, 4232 Oakdale, informed the Commission his family are long- time residents of Edina and have owned the subject lots for 50 years. Sidell said their mother is getting older and at this time the family needs to proceed with a plan for these lots. Sidell said that he believes the proposal they submitted maintains the character of the neighborhood and if the Commission supports the cul de sac option impact would be less. Discussion Commissioner Platteter noted the areas proposed for preservation and questioned how much would be lost to the "road". Mr. Knable responded that much depends on the option chosen, the through street or the cul de sac. Continuing, Knable said they will grade only what "they have to" and all lots would be custom graded. With the cul de sac option there is also a preservation area. Concluding, Knable said their goal is to save as many trees as possible and redevelop the site maintaining the character. Chair Grabiel opened the public hearing. The following residents expressed concerns about the proposed subdivision request: Richard and Sarah Hardy, 4408 Morningside Road. Angela Deen, 4301 Eton Place. 12 Katrina McDonald. 4257 Ottawa, St. Louis Park Pete Killilea, 4236 Lynn Avenue. Greg Anderson, 4212 Oakdale Avenue. Connie Wilde, 4413 Morningside Road. Patricia Goodwin, 4417 Morningside Road. Jennifer Colburn, 4247 Lynn Avenue. Jim Wilde, 4413 Morningside Road. James Schwert, 4231 Oakdale Avenue. Doug Junker, 4216 Oakdale Avenue. David Deen, 4301 Eton Place. Seth Hannula, 4307 Oakdale Avenue. Frank Sidell, 4221 Lynn Ave, applicant, told the Commission he grew up in the Sidell family home noting that Morningside was annexed to Edina in 1966. Sidell said that he has lived in the Morningside neighborhood for the majority of his life and wants as the neighbors do to see his family home nicely developed. Chair Grabiel asked if anyone else would like to speak to this issue; being none, Commissioner Carpenter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Fischer seconded the motion. All voted aye; public hearing closed. Discussion Mr. Knable clarified that the Slidell's would be paying for the cul de sac and/or road. With regard to individual lots and one builder vs. multiple builders it's too early in the process to know how this will play out. Chair Grabiel asked the applicants how in their opinion this subdivision addresses and preserves the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Knable responded that in his opinion the character of the neighborhood is being preserved by maintaining the natural amenities of the site; its vegetation and steep slopes. Knable said at this time he cannot speak to individual house style or what the current character is of Morningside homes, reiterating maintaining the physical characteristics of the site is a goal. Commissioner Fischer referred to piece of city property at Lynn and Littel and asked Teague if that land was available to the community; is it a park or not. Teague responded that piece of land was tax forfeit property, adding that it's also a very low spot and may have forfeited because of water run-off issues. Teague explained that the City "owns" a number of unimproved properties throughout the City through tax forfeiture. Teague said City policy is to not sell these parcels but to leave them as open space. If residents want this as a park they would have to petition the City and be subject to council direction. 13 Commissioner Staunton in addressing comments from residents on road damage asked if there is anything in the Code that addresses extra wear and tear during the construction phase, pointing out that the roads into this area are not "main" streets. Planner Teague referred to the City's Construction Maintenance Plan that addresses the construction phase, adding damage to the street(s) would need to be addressed by the developer. Continuing, Teague said during the construction phase City Staff could recommend routes and a road inventory could be taken prior to construction and after. Staunton commented that routing construction traffic would be a big help. Commissioner Staunton commented that one word that keeps reoccurring is character, adding that so far no one has addressed the proposed lot sizes. Staunton pointed out the proposed new lots are significantly larger in area and width than the majority of the lots within the Morningside neighborhood. Staunton questioned if these lots could be considered too large. Staunton said he realizes Ordinance states a minimum lot width of 75 -feet; however, it appears in this neighborhood the majority of lots are 50 -feet wide and were platted before that Ordinance change. Staunton said he is just "throwing this out" for further thought. Commissioner Platteter reported he lives in Morningside and his entire block is comprised of 50 -foot wide lots; and to him that's the character of his neighborhood. It was acknowledged that the 75 -foot lot width reflects the "suburban" development on the west side of Edina; however, Morningside was developed with different and varied lot sizes Chair Grabiel pointed out the minimum lots size in Edina is 75 -feet adding that the City Council recently denied an applicant the ability to subdivide his 100 -foot wide lot into two 50 -foot lots. Grabiel said lot size may need to be readdressed through ordinance; adding in his opinion it won't work to reduce these lots to 50 -foot lots. Staunton said he agrees pointing out there were instances were variances were granted to allow. redevelopment of 100 -foot lots into 50 -foot lots. Staunton said his focus was more on maintaining the character of Morningside and what's the right thing for this area. Concluding, Staunton noted this is an area of smaller lot widths. Commissioner Fischer said he really appreciates the efforts of the family and their representatives. He pointed out the easiest way for the family would have been to sell their land to a developer and act innocent about what happens next. Again, Fischer stated he appreciates the courage and effort of the property owners. Continuing, Fischer said in saying that; there still is the problem in that everyone has a different idea on how to maintain the character of Morningside. Fischer said he finds three interest groups; 1) save the trees and slopes, 2) connectivity/through street 3) cul de sac. Fischer said much of the problem is with "us" and the Zoning Ordinance. Fischer pointed out in much of Edina plats were developed under different zoning 14 requirements, adding the problems the City routinely sees seems to occur mostly in areas that were platted and developed prior to ordinance changes, especially the 75 - foot width etc. Fischer noted the Ordinance drives this. Concluding, Fischer said the Commission worked hard to establish a PUD for redevelopment; however, that "tool" was eliminated from residential development and without that tool it is very difficult to find solutions. Fischer said there are so many options to consider with this replat, can pedestrians stay connected without the cars, can a narrower roadway be platted to provide better buffer for the adjacent neighbor, etc. and should smaller building pads be considered? There is much to consider. Fischer asked if the applicant would consider taking another look at their proposal. Frank Sidell acknowledged that the design presented was their best effort to meet code, adding the through street design is conforming; no variances would be required. Sidell said as a family they agreed the through street wasn't the way to proceed. He also said he was surprised by the suggestion of smaller lots. Concluding, Sidell said his mother is 89 years old and still lives in the family home, adding they are not on a "fast track"; however if something happens to their mother the family would be on a fast track. Planner Teague explained the sketch plan process to the applicants, adding final action on what was submitted this evening needs to occur by March 5th _ Commissioner Potts said he recognizes the uniqueness of this site, adding continuing this to give thought to other options would be a good idea. Commissioner Forrest agreed that this location is unique and there are challenges due to its topography. Forrest acknowledged redevelopment is difficult in a fully developed neighborhood and redevelopment of this area will have a large impact. Forrest pointed out redevelopment could occur quickly or building could go on for a long period of time. Concluding, Forrest said all redevelopment should also be guided by the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Carpenter said he has listened to the conversation adding much of what the Commission has been discussing appears to be modifying the proposal. He questioned if that's the Commissions intent, noting ordinances can't be modified during review process. Commissioner Schroeder agreed adding that experience is three dimensional and the Commission may need to find a pattern and work backwards. Schroeder said in his opinion this proposal isn't there yet; and as was suggested the Commission should take a step back and allow time to formulate alternatives. Schroeder asked the applicants if they would consider a continuance. Commissioner Platteter suggested hosting something similar to a design charatte to help work through this. He asked Planner Teague if there is a precedent for this. 15 Teague responded to the best of his knowledge the City hasn't done anything like that on an individual development level. Teague pointed out the Commission developed the Sketch Plan Review process, adding the applicant could use that tool. Mr. Knable said he understands where the Commission is going with this; however, without a PUD process he doesn't know how anything could happen. Continuing, Knable said he understands smaller lots make smaller houses; however, what the City may want the neighbors may not want. He added it appears to him the residents want less density not more and less traffic not more. Concluding, Knable said he doesn't want to work on a sketch plan that isn't well received by everyone. Commissioner Fischer said more lots may not be the answer, but could be considered. Fischer added the goal would be to create a project that meets the character of Morningside. Commissioner Schroeder commented that at this time there is a proposal before the Commission and the Commission can either move to approve or deny or ask the applicant if they would consider taking a step back by tabling the request to allow more time to work with the Commission and staff on possible alternatives. Mr. Knable told the Commission in discussing this with the property owners they are in favor of continuing their request and taking another look at the plat. Continuing, Knable said he would be willing to work with the City Planner and a few Commissioners and return with a sketch plan for review. Knable said he also wants to keep in contact with the neighbors during this process. Chair Grabiel noted the March 5th deadline and asked Planner Teague if that could be extended. Teague responded in the affirmative. Motion Commissioner Staunton moved to continue the Preliminary Plat for Franklin and Carol Sidell to the January 23rd meeting of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Schroeder seconded the motion. Staunton also recommended that Commissioners volunteer to work with City staff and applicant on the possibility of revising the preliminary plat. Potts, Platteter, Schroeder and Fischer volunteered. Motion was amended to appoint Potts, Platteter, Schroeder, and Fischer to work with the applicant. All voted aye; motion carried to continue the meeting to the January 23, 2013 meeting of the Planning Commission. Chair Grabiel thanked Potts, Platteter, Schroeder and Fischer for volunteering. 16 January 18, 2013 Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina Planning Division 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 (952)826-0460 Dear Cary, We are writing in response to the December 12, 2012 Planning Commission review of the Proposal for Acres Dubois, and to comment on the three development drawings of Acres Dubois being considered at the January 23, 2013 Planning Commission review. On January 23, the Planning Commission will consider three drawings of a subdivided Acres Dubois, labeled "P-3 Preliminary Site Plan" (6 -lot cul-de-sac similar to what was reviewed December 12 but with modified road width), "Sketch Plan A"(8 lot cul-de-sac with one home adjacent to and west of the Hardy home and cul-de-sac west of that new lot) and "Sketch Plan B" (8 lot cul-de-sac with road drawn next to Hardy home). Along with over forty households — and roughly twice that number of residents - in our neighborhood and in accordance with the findings of the City Engineer and the Traffic Study testimony presented on December 12, we object to a through -street plan connecting Morningside Road with Littel Street. We are heartened that each of the plans for review on January 23 proposes a cul-de-sac, as opposed to a through street, for accessing the main / south part of the subdivision near our home. We are also grateful to see the narrowing in each of the three plans the road Right of Way from 50 to 40 feet and road surface from 27 to 24 feet, since these changes result in a road that is somewhat further from our house than the original proposal discussed December 12 and is a width more appropriate for accessing a small subdivision. We were reassured to read many of the recommended conditions for approval of the Sidell proposal in your December 12 Staff Report. Specifically, condition (f) requires a construction management plan or the overall development of the site, and for each individual home construction. The prospect of imminent and long-term heavy construction of seven — or nine - new houses can and should be mitigated with a detailed and well -enforced Construction Management Plan. We trust our City Government to protect its current (and weary) Morningside residents against any foreseeable hassles, and to favor our convenience over a builder's. Further, we noted that your Staff Report specified condition (i) noting that Outlot A shall be deeded to the (our) adjacent parcel at 4408 Morningside Road and condition 0) that the applicant must rebuild the (our) driveway at 4408 Morningside Road to access off of the new street, eliminate the curb cut on Morningside Road, subject to the approval of the director of engineering. We also appreciate your Staff Report's mention, under Traffic/Safety, of the Sidell's intent to plant a row of evergreens between our home and the cul-de-sac to minimize its impact on our home. While we were evidently unable to argue compellingly for a west side road accessing the Acres Dubois development, these mitigations reassure us that our testimony was considered seriously and with careful attention during this process. We appreciate the Commission's discussion about the project's potential strain on city infrastructure. Wear and tear of construction vehicles on Morningside Road and other roads could accelerate and make more expensive residents' obligation to pay for future maintenance and upkeep. Could builders pay a road -impact fee that would subsidize the cost of future maintenance on Morningside Road and perhaps other main arteries to and from the construction sites? Similarly, could builders pay a school -impact fee to Edina Public Schools to help mitigate the expense of educating what will likely be multiple additional children from 7 or 9 new homes? We believe other cities have assessed both types of fees in similar examples. It may be of surprise to some that, of the three options under review by the Planning Commission on January 23, 2013, our order of preference for these plans (and our reasons for these preferences) ranks as follows: 1. P-3 Preliminary Site Plan would be our first choice as the property's development plan because it a. Connects Hardy home to the new community of 6 Acres Dubois homes physically and visually b. Affords the widest, approx 31.8 foot -wide buffer of land and air and space between the Hardy home and the new road through a land strip between our home and the road plus landscaping to buffer road noise, light, and air pollution. c. Preserves more open space and potentially more trees than an 8 -lot cul-de-sac on Acres Dubois. d. The 75 -foot lot width affords more flexibility for homebuilders to ensure houses are built in proportion to their lot size. e. Limits the construction project on our south end of Acres Dubois to the demolition of one estate and the construction of 6 homes. 2. Sketch Plan B would be our second choice because it a. Connects the Hardy home to the new community of 8 Acres Dubois homes physically and visually b. Affords an approx 28 foot -wide buffer of land and air and space between the Hardy home and the new road through a land strip between our home and the road plus landscaping to buffer road noise, light, and air pollution. c. Second choice to P-3 Preliminary Site plan because • It imposes 8 instead of 6 home building projects for all of us to endure plus a roughly 30% increase in additional long-term stress on infrastructure (schools, sewer, traffic and road wear and tear). • It threatens more trees and open space on Acres Dubois 3. Sketch Plan A — the plan with a 50 foot lot directly west of our property - is our distant third choice because it a. Cuts off our home from the new community of homes physically while still exposing us to the north end of the cul-de-sac and its accompanying nuisances. b. Places an as -of -yet undefined structure on a 50 foot wide lot directly west of ours. Here we join the chorus of uncertainty about what could be built — how big and how close — to our home blocking light, air, and space and imposing privacy concerns. c. It imposes 8 instead of 6 home building projects for all of us to endure plus a roughly 30% increase in additional long-term stress on infrastructure (schools, sewer, traffic and road wear and tear). d. It threatens more trees and open space on Acres Dubois. To be clear, we would rather have a cul-de-sac running approximately 30 feet away from and parallel to our home, as drawn in "P-3 Preliminary Site Plan" and "Sketch Plan B," than a house on a 50 foot lot built potentially 10 feet from our home as drawn in "Sketch Plan A." We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the possibility of a 50 -foot lot running parallel to our home instead of a road. However, a side setback does not buffer us the way a rear set back would, and despite a home next door to our west, we would still experience exposure to the cul- de-sac and its nuisances at its north end. Had the road been drawn on the west side of Acres Dubois, as we'd hoped, our house would be adjacent to only yards on all sides. We would benefit from rear yard set back requirements and be sandwiched in a way similar to several other homes all along Morningside road. Newly constructed homes facing a west side cul-de-sac would have provided an ample buffer of air, light, and space between our home and the west side road, keeping the new road entirely out of eye and earshot from our home. Since the west side road is not being seriously considered, we would rather end up feeling connected physically and visually to the Acres Dubois community of homes. The P-3 Preliminary Site Plan and Site Plan B, both showing approximately 30 foot distance between our house and the road bed, the reorientation of our driveway to enter the cul-de-sac, and some substantial landscaping on the west side of our home, blend our home into the development while preserving our privacy fairly well. Given the three options being considered, we support the Sidell's P-3 Preliminary Site Plan as the best option of the three under consideration for everyone involved, including the Sidell family and surrounding neighbors. Finally, we offer a comment on the "character" of Morningside. On December 12, residents encouraged the Planning Commission to carefully consider the development's impact on the "character" of Morningside. This conversation is colored by concurrent questions and concerns around what some builders and homeowners have chosen to tear down and build on other 50 - foot wide lots in Morningside. We assert that the homes in Morningside are incredibly eclectic and that a person could find something lacking in just about any of the homes in our community, new or old. There is no one "typical" Morningside lot size or home style. However, if desired, the size, look, and feel of the structures built on Acres Dubois could be controlled through the wise use of restrictive covenants and builders of high quality and integrity. We agree that city code for building on 50 -foot lots needs to be addressed and, in some cases, corrected to protect all stakeholders. However, the Acres Dubois proposal spares these questions in this case by proposing 75 foot wide lots in its December 12 proposal and in its current "P-3 Preliminary Site Plan." Seventy-five foot wide lots are also very consistent with Morningside's eclectic character. Further, many would no doubt agree that existing city code does a better job defining sensible parameters for what can be built on a 75 food wide lot, allowing builders and future home dwellers more flexibility to build homes for a modem lifestyle. One critical quality that truly shapes Morningside's "character" is not the shape of a street, nor the size or age or shape of a house, nor the placement of a garage, but the people and community in this pocket of Edina. We encourage everyone impacted by the Acres Dubois Proposal, as well as those involved in conversation around city code for 50 foot wide lots, to stay focused on what really makes this neighborhood special and to work together to bring this to a speedy, cordial, and mutually acceptable resolution. To this end, we implore the Planning Commission and the City Council to reach a prompt and decisive ruling on the Sidell's proposal so that our neighborhood can move on and once again focus on building and strengthening the ties that bind us into one amazing neighborhood. Thank you for your diligence in this matter. Sincerely, r' Rick and S Hardy 4408 Morningside Road Edina, MN 55416 (952)486-7658 Frank Sidell Joni Bennett, Edina City Council Mary Brindle, Edina City Council January 16, 2013 Mr. Cary Teague Community Development Director City of Edina 4801 W 50" St Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Teague: As adjoining property owners, we are writing to express our support for our neighbors, the Sidell's, and their proposed Acres DuBois subdivision. We have seen three proposed plans that are to be reviewed at the Planning Commision Meeting on January 23`d, 2013. We believe that the Preliminary Site Plan with 8 properties/homes is the best choice for the neighborhood. We are not in favor of Sketch Plan A or Sketch Plan B which both have plans for a total of 10 properties. We feel the plan with 8 homes the best option for the following reasons: 1. The proposed Preliminary Site Plan with 8 proposed houses will have a much smaller environmental impact than Sketch Plan A or Sketch Plan B. Limiting the development to 8 homes will preserve the green -space to a greater degree than a 10 house plan. The construction and development of 10 homes would require many more trees to be removed and a much greater amount of land disturbance. 2. Increasing the number of houses to be built will increase the level of noise and traffic disturbance to all of the neighbors during the construction phase. 3. Because the topography on the west side of the property contains steep slopes, we are very concerned about the potential for erosion to the hill in our back yard and resulting water run-off and damage to our home. If Sketch Plan A or Sketch Plan B are approved, we believe the excavation required for Property #3 would likely cause erosion and drainage problems to our property. We also would like to express our thanks to the Sidell family and Mr. Peter Knaebie, P.E., for their extraordinary efforts to communicate with all the neighbors affected by the proposed project. Thank you for your attention to our comments. Sincerely, Jena Biorgen and Jack Szczepek 4281 Ottawa Ave S St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952-922-6711 Cary Teague From: Nancy and Peter Killilea <pkandnb@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:22 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Morningside Subdivision Cary, My name is Nancy Killilea. My family lives at 4236 Lynn Avenue. We are directly effected by the proposed subdivision on the Sidell property as our property backs up to the land. My husband, Pete, attended the Planning Commission meeting on December 12 and provided feedback during the meeting. Thank you for sending out the alternatives that are currently being considered. We are grateful that the city is interested in considering alternatives that will fit the unique needs of our neighborhood. My family wanted to provide additional feedback to consider as this proposal moves forward: 1. We highly support the development of homes directly facing Morningside Road.This clearly enhances the sense of community on that street. 2. We support and would encourage sidewalks along the entirety of the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac concept is not one that is consistent with our neighborhood or consistent with the more urban nature of Morningside. A full sidewalk would be a minor effort to overcome the impact of a cul-de-sac. 3. We support greater open space between homes to honor the heritage of this unique plot of land. Many of us bought these homes because of the benefit of the trees and open spaces adjacent to them. It is possible to maximize this financial opportunity while also protecting the benefits that brought us to this neighborhood. This should be considered through two different opportunities: o Number of lots. We appreciate the involvement of the Planning Commission to revise the proposed design to address the concerns of the community. At the Dec 12 meeting there was discussion among the Commissioners about a design with smaller lots but an increased number of lots in order to encourage homes that are consistent with the neighborhood. We appreciate the intention but it seems like a backwards approach to achieve this objective. This should be met by appropriate zoning requirements for the height and size of new homes as well as appropriate set backs. Given the number of issues Morningside has experienced due to the inadequacy of the current requirements, this subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without new requirements being developed and applied. o Greater set backs for sides and backs of homes. The drawings are best case but we have seen homes developed that interrupt the sight -lines and open space of their neighbors. New set backs should be a requirement. 4. The current alternatives miss one of the most unique opportunities offered by this lot and this neighborhood: a connection to the open lot at Lynn and Littel. Many neighborhood children utilize this open space and it brings our community together. Like similar areas in other parts of Edina (near Creek Valley Lane) as well as St. Louis Park (intersection of Wooddale and Princeton), we have the opportunity to create a path or walkway from the cul-de-sac to the open lot. Kids sled on the hill, play sports in the open lot. The many families with children that make up our neighborhood will sorely miss this. Cul-de-sacs are not consistent with our neighborhood. This dead-end concept can be overcome by allowing walkers, joggers, dog walkers, children and adults to connect to the streets and lots below. Please consider this small change that will have minimal impact on lot size or financials. It is worth so much more than its cost. We have lived in Morningside for 12 years. We recently moved into our second home in this community, a home on Lynn, and invested in the remodeling of a home that has been here for many generations. We stayed in this area because we value the diversity of people, the urban feel of the neighborhood and the tightly knit neighborhood. I am hoping that we are able to maintain these qualities despite the changes that are being planned. Please give consideration to the characteristics of this unique neighborhood as you determine the future of our backyard) Thank you, Nancy Killilea Cary Teague From: Jen Colburn <jenlcolburn@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 8:12 AM To: Cary Teague Subject: Fwd: Morningside Subdivision Dear Mr. Teague, I am writing in response to the new proposals for the subdivision in Morningside, Acres DuBois. If you could please include this note in the packet for the Planning Commission, that would be appreciated. Thank you. Mr. Teague and City Planning Commissioners, Thank you for taking the time to review this and seriously considering the proposed plans for the new Morningside subdivision. I appreciate your willingness to think outside the box as this is a very unique situation. While we know that we have issues to resolve around redevelopment and specifically the 50' foot or narrow lots, I feel these new proposed plans fit the neighborhood much better than the original cul-de-sac proposal. If this property had been developed when the rest of "upper" Morningside (or the south end of the neighborhood) was developed in the 1930's, this plot of land would have a set of smaller lots like the new plan proposes (and perhaps a through -street). On Sketch Plan B, layout 1, the lots facing Morningside Road would be consistent with the rest of the street and add to community. While this plan calls for more variances, I think it is important to remember that these variances are required because we currently have city code that does not accurately fit the Morningside neighborhood. This code was written long after this neighborhood was built. If we look at a majority of the original neighborhood homes, if we built them today, they would likely require variances. There will never be a "perfect" plan, but this is a step in the right direction to avoid the Eden Prairie/suburban subdivision that so many want to avoid. This plan will mean more construction, but I believe it is worth it in the long run to preserve the neighborhood character. On a side note and more out of the box thinking, has the city considered buying one of the lots to keep green space/add park land? (Or have the Sidells considered donating a lot for this cause?) The city has benefited tremendously with the additional revenue from building permits and increased taxes from larger homes in Morningside and the city. To be honest, it would wonderful to see some of that money put to use in the neighborhood for all to enjoy. Thank you, Jen Colburn 4312 Branson St. 952.270.6601 January 15, 2013 Dear Mr. Teague and Members of the Planning Commission: My name is Peggy Lawrence. I live at 4411 Morningside Road—directly across the street from the proposed Acres DuBois subdivision. I attended the recent Planning Commission meeting at which this proposal was discussed and walked away with a hopeful feeling that our concerns had been heard, that brainstorming would be done with the Sidell family and that other options for the site would be forth coming. Upon examining the new plans, I'm feeling disillusioned and here's why: Our main objection was the cul-de-sac; I think the Commission missed that point. The residents of Morningside like the urban feel to the community with its connected streets and sidewalks. As long as the property is being subdivided, it would be important to connect Morningside to Littel and lower Oakdale, and a through street would accomplish this. Cul-de-sacs are suburban not urban, and there are none in Morningside at present. I believe there is a conforming plan for the site that would require no variances. The number of houses has increased from 8 to 10, with 2 or 3 facing my house on Morningside. This is very dense housing. The size of these houses would have to be carefully controlled, and we all know that this isn't happening in Morningside. Most of the new houses currently being built are 35' high and stretch to the lot lines on each side. The granting of variances seems to be the rule rather than the exception with the result being huge houses on small lots. Also concerning would be front garages, etc., so I'm trying to wrap my head around what I'll see when I look outside my front windows, and how it will change the feel of my property. Adding a subdivision to an already established neighborhood is no small task! The thought of all that construction is quite disarming. I see several years of portable "billies," construction trucks, building materials lying on the ground, blocked streets, noise and the fear that a gas or water line will be accidentally cut into. Construction is difficult, and Morningside has certainly had its share. I'm worried that the Planning Commission and the City Council will see the building of 10 new houses as an added source of revenue for the city and ignore the best interests of Morningside. In concluding, I would urge the Planning Commission and the City Council to choose the conforming plan which would need no variances. This would offer a connecting grid street with sidewalks; it may also be the choice of least resistance from the community thereby sparing the hard feelings that may damage the otherwise supportive and delightful community of Morningside. Remember there is an emotional element to all of this. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to state my feelings. I have lived across the street from the Sidells for 34 years and highly value them as friends and neighbors. Hopefully, a solution acceptable to all will be found. Sincerely, Peggy Lawrence Cary Teague From: Frank Sidell <fdsidell@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 2:43 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Fwd: Morningside Subdivision Cary, Please make sure this gets to the planning commissioners. Thanks, Frank ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <acresdubois a,aol.com> Date: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 2:27 PM Subject: Fwd: Morningside Subdivision To: fdsidellggmail.com -----Original Message ----- From: acresdubois <acresdubois(o)aol.com> To: pkandnb <pkandnbCcD-comcast.net> Sent: Thu, Jan 17, 2013 9:44 am Subject: Re: Morningside Subdivision Nancy, Thanks for sending me a copy of your note to Cary. A couple of comments on your issue of connectivity: I. We looked at what it would take to put a sidewalk connecting the cul-de-sac with the City's green space lot (not a park). Without the grading and reshaping of the hillside that would happen if a through road was put in, the sidewalk would be too steep and need to have steps and railing. This creates a dangerous situation especially in the winter when the City would be responsible for keeping this maintained. 2. There is already a connection from Morningside Rd to this space 200' to the east on Lynn Ave. People who love the walkability of Morningside should have no trouble with this short distance. 3. 1/3 of Morningside does not even have sidewalks. 4. Finally, and most important to the family, this is private property. There is no precedent for a public sidewalk on private property in the city of Edina. The only way this will happen is for the City to grab the property by immanent domain. Please help me understand why you and Pete think it is a good idea to have a public sidewalk in your backyard (especially with a pool)? As you may be able to tell, my patients are wearing thin, Frank -----Original Message ----- From: Nancy and Peter Killilea <pkandnb comcast.net> To: acresdubois <acresdubois @aol.com> Sent: Wed, Jan 16, 2013 6:02 pm Subject: FW: Morningside Subdivision Frank, I wanted to forward to you a note that Pete and I sent to Cary regarding the subdivision proposal. We continue to be concerned more about the current city codes that will apply to your project that most of the specifics of your project. In most scenarios, we are the only home with a new home adjacent to our lot (on the Edina side; the SLP side has topography helping them). The other homes benefit from the light and space that comes with the cul-de-sac. But in all of the scenarios we are impacted directly by a home. With current city codes, that means we are liking to have a 3 story wall to look at rather than your beautiful trees. Having just tried to responsibly remodel and invest in the neighborhood it is disappointing to us to lose what brought us here. I know we will likely lose that battle (it would have been nice have the cul-de-sac continue directly behind our home) but we will do our best to work with the city to improve the codes to give us some peace of mind. I appreciate your involvement and continue to be amazed that you are willing to engage with everyone given how emotional this topic appears to be to many. Thank you! Nancy From: Cary Teague <cteague@ Edina MN.Rov> Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:37:54+0000 To: Peter Killilea <pkandnb comcast.net> Subject: RE: Morningside Subdivision Thank you Nancy, I will include your email in the Planning Commission packet of information that will go out this Friday. Cary x Cary Teague, Community Development Director y 952-826-04601 Fax 952-826-03891 Cell 952-826-0236 cteague(a)_EdinaMN.gov I www.EdinalVlN.,qov/Plannlnq ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families &z Doing Business From: Nancy and Peter Killilea fmailto:pkandnbacomcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 8:22 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: Morningside Subdivision Cary, My name is Nancy Killilea. My family lives at 4236 Lynn Avenue. We are directly effected by the proposed subdivision on the Sidell property as our property backs up to the land. My husband, Pete, attended the Planning Commission meeting on December 12 and provided feedback during the meeting. Thank you for sending out the alternatives that are currently being considered. We are grateful that the city is interested In considering alternatives that will fit the unique needs of our neighborhood. My family wanted to provide additional feedback to consider as this proposal moves forward: 1. We highly support the development of homes directly facing Morningside Road.This clearly enhances the sense of community on that street. 2. We support and would encourage sidewalks along the entirety of the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac concept is not one that is consistent with our neighborhood or consistent with the more urban nature of Morningside. A full sidewalk would be a minor effort to overcome the impact of a cul-de-sac. 3. We support greater open space between homes to honor the heritage of this unique plot of land. Many of us bought these homes because of the benefit of the trees and open spaces adjacent to them. It is possible to maximize this financial opportunity while also protecting the benefits that brought us to this neighborhood. This should be considered through two different opportunities: o Number of lots. We appreciate the involvement of the Planning Commission to revise the proposed design to address the concerns of the community. At the Dec 12 meeting there was discussion among the . Commissioners about a design with smaller lots but an increased number of lots in order to encourage homes that are consistent with the neighborhood. We appreciate the intention but it seems like a backwards approach to achieve this objective. This should be met by appropriate zoning requirements for the height and size of new homes as well as appropriate set backs. Given the number of issues Morningside has experienced due to the inadequacy of the current requirements, this subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without new requirements being developed and applied. o Greater set backs for sides and backs of homes. The drawings are best case but we have seen homes developed that interrupt the sight -lines and open space of their neighbors. New set backs should be a requirement. 4. The current alternatives miss one of the most unique opportunities offered by this lot and this neighborhood: a connection to the open lot at Lynn and Littel. Many neighborhood children utilize this open space and it brings our community together. Like similar areas in other parts of Edina (near Creek Valley Lane) as well as St. Louis Park (intersection of Wooddale and Princeton), we have the opportunity to create a path or walkway from the cul-de-sac to the open lot. Kids sled on the hill, play sports in the open lot. The many families with children that make up our neighborhood will sorely miss this. Cul-de-sacs are not consistent with our neighborhood. This dead-end concept can be overcome by allowing walkers, joggers, dog walkers, children and adults to connect to the streets and lots below. Please consider this small change that will have minimal impact on lot size or financials. It is worth so much more than its cost. We have lived in Morningside for 12 years. We recently moved into our second home in this community, a home on Lynn, and invested in the remodeling of a home that has been here for many generations. We stayed in this area because we value the diversity of people, the urban feel of the neighborhood and the tightly knit neighborhood. I am hoping that we are able to maintain these qualities despite the changes that are being planned. Please give consideration to the characteristics of this unique neighborhood as you determine the future of our backyardl Thank you, Nancy Killilea CITY OF MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com O e� �p Date: January 23, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner Re: B-13-02, A 15.96 foot front yard setback variance for a new home to be located at 5024 Bruce Place. On January 9, 2013, the Planning Commission tabled Andrew and Kristen Cragg's 15.96 foot front yard setback variance request for a new home to be built on their property located at 5024 Bruce Place to allow the applicant time to address mitigation measures they intend to take to protect Minnehaha Creek. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide additional information regarding grading, drainage, landscape and site improvements that will be accomplished as part of the new home plan that would improve the site beyond existing conditions and minimize the impact of the variance requested. Attached for reference are the following: 1.) Staff report, attachments and plans. 2.) Draft Minutes of the January 9, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting. 3.) Site plans, photos and building elevations indicating proposed mitigation measures. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. * Edina, MN 55424 from that common property line. Commissioner Schroeder noted there is the possibility that by recessing the garage an additional variance could be required. Schroder pointed out the seloack is already at the minimum 25 -feet. Chair Grabiel commented that it is difficult to rework a plap f`during a meeting; hovOgeir he suggested to the applicant If it's possible recess the g4rAe. Commissioner Ki rg commented If he could vote, for consistency, he would vote in favor of the variance a roposed. Commissioners agreed the applicant could r , ess the garage if i7t 6iks within the ordinance requirements. s Motion Commissioner Fischer moved dance app/elNay; d on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Fischer farther ted that the third garage is 25 -feet from the adjacent neighbor; not 5 -feet. Co issioner St ed the motion. Ayes; Schroeder, Potts, Platteter, Carpenter, Staunton Fischer, Gra Forrest. Motion carried. B. Variance. Cragg, 5024 Bruce Avenue, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Aaker informed the Commission the subject property, is located at the end of Bruce Place Cul-de-sac and backs up to Minnehaha Creek. The existing home on the property was built in 1940, consists of two story home with an attached two car garage, The existing home is nonconforming regarding the required 50 foot setback from Minnehaha Creek. The existing home is located 40.38 feet from the edge of Minnehaha Creek or 9.62 feet closer than allowed by ordinance. At the time the home was built there were different setback requirements in place allowing structures to be closer to water bodies than current city code allows. The zoning ordinance was amended in the early 1990's changing the setback requirement from Minnehaha Creek to a 50 foot minimum setback. The change was required so the City of Edina would be consistent with the MN Department of Natural Resource's requirements. The ordinance change caused the current home, as well as many others along the Creek and other water bodies, to become nonconforming. The change doubled the setback previously required from Minnehaha Creek. The applicant is planning to tear -down the existing nonconforming home and replace it with a new two story home with an attached two car garage. The applicant has indicated that the new home will conform to the entire ordinance Page 4 of 10 requirements with the exception of the required setback from Minnehaha Creek. The new home is proposed to be closer to the creek than the existing home. The new home is proposed to be 34.04 feet from Minnehaha Creek or 6.34 feet closer to the creek than the existing home. Planner Aaker concluded that staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance 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. It would appear however, that a new home could be designed to match the existing nonconforming setback of the home which would be a more reasonable variance to consider. 2) The proposal would not meet the required standards for a variance, because: • The proposed use of the property is not reasonable; as it will increase encroachment into the setback required. and currently provided from Minnehaha Creek. • The practical difficulties in complying. with the ordinances are the narrow building pad allowed by current standards and required setback from the Creek. Staff could perhaps supporta request to maintain the existing nonconforming setback of the home from the Creek with new construction. Staff cannot support a request or identify difficulties with not matching the. existing nonconforming creek setback. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. and Mrs. Cragg and Dan Murphy, architect. Discussion Commissioner Platteter asked Planner Aaker to clarify what's included when calculating setback from the creek. Planner Aaker responded everything is included when calculating setback from a water body. Commissioner Potts asked Planner Aaker to go over the side yard setbacks. Planner Aaker explained that on the east the project meets the minimum 5 -foot side yard setback for a garage. Aaker said she had concern that the side yard setback on the west at the corner may not meet the minimum setback; however she was assured by the architect it would meet code. Aaker further explained that at this time the plans preliminary pending variance approval. Page 5 of 10 Commissioner Schroeder noted the mention of a buffer or berm along the edge of the creek and questioned what the pattern of development would be in that area; will there be turf, lawn plantings, what would be there. Continuing, Schroeder asked the width of this "zone". Mr. Murphy responded they haven't finalized the design of this "area". Chair Grabiel noted there are many properties in Edina that don't meet the mandated setback and asked Planner Aaker when the State changed the setback requirements did it allow for variances. Planner Teague responded in the affirmative, adding the City has the authority to grant variances. Applicant Presentation Dan Murphy addressed the Commission and said the plans as presented are Preliminary and organic, adding their intention is to preserve the existing natural resources. Murphy also noted a buffer along the creek would also be included. Continuing, Murphy said to the best of their ability they tried to stay within the existing footprint to minimize any impact. Concluding Murphy said in his opinion the variance as submitted doesn't go against the spirit of the Code. Mrs. Cragg explained their goal was to place to keep it "up" on the lot and as close to the location of the existing house as possible. She explained their lot slopes down and includes a wooded area, adding drainage from the street also flows down toward the creek. Cragg said their intent is to plant native vegetation in this area that's good for water bodies. Continuing, Cragg noted their plan is to run natural stone around the edge of the creek, reiterating they will plant wonderful native plants; it won't be just grass running all the way down to the creek bed. Cragg noted if the new house was placed farther to the west the house would block the neighbors view. She also reported this is one of the only areas to "get" a lawn mower through from front to back. Concluding, Cragg reiterated they don't want to; impact anyone's sight lines; they love their neighbors, adding the new house will not be going any closer toward the creek than the existing deck. Cragg said she truly believes the house as presented will fit. Chair Grabiel observed that he understands the new house will maintain the same setback; however replacing the deck with house in not the same. Discussion Commissioner Potts said he appreciates all the work submitted for this project, adding what he would like to see in more detail are plans and information on how the creek would be protected. Potts said in this instance pulling the house as close to the street as permitted makes the most sense and would have less impact on the creek. Mrs. Cragg reiterated their lot slopes and the goal is to keep the new house "up" and protect the views for the neighboring properties. She also added that aesthetically she believes it will look better in the proposed location. Page 6 of 10 Commissioner Forrest said one area that concerns her is the impact this project will have on the creek, the existing vegetation and neighbors during the construction phase. Mr. Murphy explained that a substantial slit fence would be added along with all construction requirements established by the City. Murphy said the site would be continually monitored not only by the applicant but by the City and the Watershed District as well. Chair Grabiel opened the public hearing. Public Comment Todd Peterson 5034 Bruce Place told the Commission he supports the project as presented, adding in his opinion it's reasonable. He pointed out the "piece" requiring the variance won't even be seen from the front street. Concluding, Peterson said water run-off issues would be improved, reiterating he has no objection to the project as submitted, it's a reasonable request. Chair Grabiel asked if anyone would like to speak to this issue; being none, Commissioner Platteter moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. All voted aye; ,motion carried. Discussion Commissioner Staunton said one thing that strikes him about this lot is the "buildable area". He noted lot coverage is 10% and if he calculated correctly the buildable area of this lot is only 13% when taking into account the flood plain, water body setback, and other setbacks. Staunton acknowledged this is an unusual situation, and an unusual oddly shaped lot. Continuing, Staunton said he is also curious about what's included in the landscaping plan along the creek and Commissioner Schroeder's point regarding plantings, size of "zone" etc. Concluding, Staunton said he understands the plans are preliminary; however, more information is needed. Commissioner Schroeder said .the intent of the ordinance was to establish a setback that protects the creek as a natural resource. Schroeder added he is sensitive to this ordinance, reiteratingits intent is to protect the natural resources. Continuing, Schroeder said he supports the setback of the new house; however stressed he wants to see the materials, vegetation and measures used to protect this natural resource not only after the house is built but during the construction phase too. Mr. Murphy said he is working closely with the Minnehaha Watershed District and would also be complying with their requirements. Schroeder stated he envisions this "buffer area" as a permanent system. A discussion ensued on City requirements and Watershed District requirements with Commissioners expressing they want to take the position of protecting the City's natural resources. Page 7 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 9, 2013 B-13-02 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Deny the variance as requested. Project Description: A 15.96 foot setback variance from Minnehaha Creek for a new home to be built on property located at 5024 Bruce Place for Andrew and Kristen Cragg. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property, is located at the end of Bruce Place Cul-de-sac and backs up to Minnehaha Creek. The existing home on the property was built in 1940, consists of two story home with an attached two car garage, (see attachments: A.1 —A.14, site location, aerial photos, surveys and building plans). The existing home is nonconforming regarding the required 50 foot setback from Minnehaha Creek. The existing home is located 40.38 feet from the edge of Minnehaha Creek or 9.62 feet closer than allowed by ordinance. At the time the home was built there were different setback requirements in place allowing structures to be closer to water bodies than current city code allows. The zoning ordinance was amended in the early 1990's changing the setback requirement from Minnehaha Creek, (previously a 25 foot setback was allowed), it has since been changed to a 50 foot minimum setback. The change was required so the City of Edina would be consistent with the MN Department of Natural Resource's requirements. The ordinance change caused the current home, as well as many others along the Creek and other water bodies, to become nonconforming. The change doubled the setback previously required from Minnehaha Creek. The applicant is planning to tear -down the existing nonconforming home and replace it with a new two story home with an attached two car garage. The applicant has indicated that the new home will conform to all of the ordinance requirements with the exception of the required setback from Minnehaha Creek. The new home is proposed to be closer to the creek than the existing home. The new home is proposed to be 34.04 feet from Minnehaha Creek or 6.34 feet closer to the creek than the existing home. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Minnehaha Creek Easterly: Single-family homes Southerly: Single-family homes Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 28,965 square feet in area. The existing home is two stories and was built in 1940. 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 garage. See new home plans attachments: A.7— A14. Compliance Table variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Match adjacent homes: 33.79 feet Side- 10 feet + height 11.73/5.10 feet Rear - 50 feet from Creek *34.04 feet Building Height 2 % stories 2 stories, 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to feet to midpoint, feet to ridge, ridge Lot coverage 25% 10% variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? 2 No. Staff believes the proposal is not reasonable: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and would comply with all requirements with the exception of setback from Minnehaha Creek. The proposed setback from the Creek is closer than the existing home. 2. The home while appropriate in size and scale for the lot will bring the building mass closer to a natural resource. 3. The improvements will provide for a new home to be closer to Minnehaha Creek than allowed by code and currently provided on site. 4. The new home erodes an already nonconforming setback from a natural resource that should be protected as much as possible. • Is the proposed variance justified? No. 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 not reasonable. The new home is less conforming to the current city code than the existing home. Staff finds it reasonable to rebuild the home no closer to the creek than the existing home, (would still require a variance, but only to match existing setback). 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? No. The required setbacks are meant to protect a natural resource. The proposed setback will be more impacting along the creek than the existing nonconforming setback of the current home. The proposed setback from the creek is a self-imposed condition. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Yes. The proposed home will be closer to the creek than the existing home. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission deny the variance. Denial 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. It would appear however, that a new home could be designed to match the existing nonconforming setback of the home which would be a more reasonable variance to consider. 2) The proposal would not meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is not reasonable; as it will increase encroachment into the setback required and currently provided from Minnehaha Creek. b. The practical difficulties in complying with the ordinances are the narrow building pad allowed by current standards and required setback from the Creek. Staff could perhaps support a request to maintain the existing nonconforming setback of the home from the Creek with new construction. Staff cannot support a request or identify difficulties with not matching the existing nonconforming creek setback. 4 Deadline for a City decision: February 22, 2013 VARIANCE APPLICATION apt CASE NUMBER�_DATE YZ – 2 FEE PAID_��—f City of Edina Planning Department * www.citvofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826-0389 FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: kc i %+i6 * Adfew CSW—(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: SDt'f BfUff . Plettt PHONE: fit' EMAIL: IAC w C. r'A49 C Y0.66 * C 0 Ok WV PROPERTY OWNER: NAME:. A%r n ♦ &4rld Lr cq 9 (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: Sa iy BfKct, pliii ff- PHONE: A I A - ?V1 ' S'1Kk 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: SOV4 BfUlt PlAtt PRESENT ZONING: P.I.D.# % 00' Z L tI' yL' 00(3 EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: titer Vwk So butt V«r; C%M (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: Ask ki X,4' (y h p PHONE: gSj' qua. g f`r EMAIL:>1I[�IlS111A Lisa IA. SURVEYOR: NAME: t1M 01 •r. t PHONE: p5Z' d Wi[. EMAIL:ur11E1 3��t/ d ou 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: YESISO, Relieve practical difficulties in complying { ❑ with the zoning ordinance and that the use Is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or Zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and Intent of the zoning ordinance O Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood L� S et a �� K 2 To: City of Edina Planning Commission From: Andrew and Kristen Cragg 5024 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55424 RE: Variance Request We have been residents of Edina for 20 years and have raised 5 children in this amazing community. Our previous homes were located on Code Avenue and Edina Boulevard. Our current home was purchased in 2003 with the intent to restore It. During that process we came to the realization that we had several major structural issues due to poor construction quality of two old additions as well as severe damage from ice dams and carpenter ants. We sought the opinions and guidance of four separate builders and three architects. All returned with the news that our home would require such significant repair that we should seriously consider a complete teardown of the structure. We decided that we love Edina, the neighborhood and especially our neighbors. Building here and investing further in the community is our first choice. Once we started the design process we quickly became aware of how unique our lot is. We found that we would need to seek a rear yard setback variance even if we were to build the exact same home we have now. Our lot is irregularly shaped within a cul-de- sac, thus building within the current setbacks — both to the front and rear — led to significant, yet not insurmountable, design challenges. We sought feedback from our neighbors to see what was important to them as well. Views and sight lines to creek? Scale and access? Exterior design? What didn't they like about other construction in the neighborhood? We incorporated that information as we met with our architects to come up with a plan that would suit not only our lot, but respect our neighbor's current views and rear yard access. If you were to visit our site, you would see that the placement of our new home would not adversely affect any of our neighbor's views. They have seen the plans and are in support* of our project. * Please view attached letters Our goal is not to build a giant, too -tall, 1 -can't -believe -we -have -to -live -by -that house. Our goal is to build a high quality home that is befitting of the landscape as well as the scale and architectural style of our neighborhood*. * Please view attached elevations of all four sides We believe that we have taken great care in the process of designing a home that will fit in nicely to our site, will have greater accessibility and will be much more energy efficient. While we are aware that constructing a new home will increase our taxes to the City, we choose to live in Edina for a reason and we are happy to make that additional Investment in this incredible community. , Thank you, Andrew and Kristen Cragg 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: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable: Yes The practical difficulty, in this case, is the unique lot shape and Minnehaha Creek in the rear. As you can see from Exhibit 1, a large portion of our lot is within the Minnehaha Creek flood plane and is unsuitable for construction. Due to the flood plane there is very few options available for the placement of our home. The placement chosen has the least impact on all surrounding homes. Reasonable, as defined by city code, is consistent with surrounding properties, see exhibit 2, and we are not hindering the sight lines to the creek for the rear neighbors. To build a home that is in keeping with the neighborhood we ask the rear yard setback be granted. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district: Yes As you can see from Exibit 3, this property is very unique in shape due to the bend in the creek. Most all other lots allow the homeowner to shift the location of the structure far enough to the rear of the lot to accommodate an adequate width of structure. Our property is also unique because our lot is the only lot that will allow emergency vehicles, lawn equipment, or tree removal equipment. We have deliberately maintained a large side yard set back to ensure the use of our property in the event there would be a need for access to the adjoining properties. Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance: Yes We believe the spirit of this ordinance is to ensure structures are not built to close to bodies of water, so everyone on these bodies can equally enjoy the view. As you can see from Exhibit 2 structure i and structure 2 are both closer to the Creek than what we are asking in our variance request. Due to the unique qualities of our lot and the adjoining lots, we have taken great care to make sure there will be no intrusion on the rear or the lots adjoining ours. Not alter the essential character of the neighborhood: Yes We have been working closely with Kuhl Design Build to design and construct our home. Kuhl Design Build has worked in Edina for many years and is the only residential Design Build firm that has won the Edina Historic Preservation Award. You can see from the site plan, survey and elevations, Kuhl has paid a close attention to massing, height and scale, to design a home that fits beautifully into our neighborhood. It is of upmost importance to us that our neighbor's site lines, sunlight exposure or values where not compromised. We intentionally designed a house that will not only fit into the neighborhood, but will increase the values of our neighbor's property as well be a tax , . benefit to the City. r T01 I � t 4 h 2 k x o• a r s Y 1 4 Z r +s ,n e G re+ Em 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 1 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. 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.) 0 Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner Is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise It Is considered incomplete. To: City of Edina Planning Commission From: Andrew and Kristen Cragg 5024 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55424 RE: Variance Request We are requesting a 15.96 foot variance from the 50' rear yard setback requirement. As you can see from the calculations below our current home and deck are already 16.57 feet (including deck) within the 50 foot setback. Existing: 28,965 Sq/ft Site area (.665 acres) 2261 sq/ft Existing house footprint 2695 sq/ft Exisitng house footprint w/deck 3820 Sq/ft Buildable area of Lot (based on 871' high water mark and city setbacks) 9.62 feet House distance within the 50' set back 16.57 feet House w/deck within 50' set back 304 sq/ft House square footage of non-compliant area 614 sq/ft Total square footage of non-compliant area (house and deck) Proposed: 28,965 Sq/ft Site area (.665 acres) 2891 Sq/ft Proposed house foot print 3820sq/ft Buildable area of Lot (based on 871' high water mark and city setbacks) 15.96 feet House distance within the 50' set back 699 sq/ft House square footage of non-compliant area LOCATION MAP JP1909 4e19 4911 4924 4923 49 4908 4211 1912 % <9f3 4928 4929 HOO 49l4 4910 4822 U00 49f3 4917 1910 A 493 � 21 4914 1 4919 1920 4916 4936 Ims7w web arw a2$r a2o1 1200 szao 5200 3:11 sem 24' u; B-13-02 PID:1802824420015 5024 Bruce Ave Edina, MN 55424 Dol any $roto arw 12074201 rod t^;.1 Wyhliyh9e Haklrs L:J aurreundnpHouse NwnMr Labels Nouse Number Labels 89res1 fare Labele CIV Doke Crooke D Lake Names 0 Lakes p Parke O Parcels 4213 4209 20 4201 4201 3010 24 x002 3003 3017 5001 self Y4 apt{ 5000 sell 4925 5035 $032 $028 a0lJ 6020 Sm 5013 5101 0169 $Of7 6017 8019 5105 $104 6f37aiw $1e 0109 5105 8101 0113 5112 af01 $f01 aloe aloe sill $l10 $167 $112 Stu 5120 6105 $110 $125 5124 5111 113 8120 $129 $128 1113 x124 3133 $132 5117 ail$ 3177 fiJ6 Dol any $roto arw 12074201 rod t^;.1 Wyhliyh9e Haklrs L:J aurreundnpHouse NwnMr Labels Nouse Number Labels 89res1 fare Labele CIV Doke Crooke D Lake Names 0 Lakes p Parke O Parcels _ ^^*tea—,� .n, ` a Y�,y"A;:w•— �c� ��1` tP7� .SIS--+T"�l - wmN Y • . 1 e t , f • � x I � :4-' ct, �`ry" t '• i 'g,�� .. _. , ��_ ti`"•ai .iii n L . a .e..• iia . \' f f� . x ;moi r iiYl''q `lL'� .�`�� tf9'9/ '✓�. '�. °tom? .'F `jj r. X , 1 ,,, • yy' F :, '' 'tY 4 i� t �t x i�'e` X Nar o.: a.t • ari. r, - ,>Ys, � �. � " �. ,..6'+» � �. .^ r r •.. � �'.� fi :..-,� ,�'i J � r � rK� t... } i f a • j t i t letph C `tJj e tmrlm-WGD 3�I�dO OV09SN3WO ULONI'"000 NOfS�S�tH egj B a:••x �EFEE�EE�Ii� g � F3: 1,31, n� Wim¢ ... 1.4 ¢a 10 v oss �� !� Uj x F� cowiw ; x€ w } 0 -ad B B a:••x �EFEE�EE�Ii� -..�p1` iyyf `I /r•3' ley 6�vt 7t—�• C =1 YEl fl''1 .fit"' v�v`Y !iiglt�'�•1'i�� \ 6�. �fr �h.i' l gc cru` v ■ da -".pp. dii ., -------.---_—J/ 1 1 A 7 i1sM'mJtlf@�I..O MN NA.1u.��'�q• N•^q�+y+�NP.i+4.v+.w w.wppvm • � w4IY1Y. YYt�ly ..�•11u•VM1�'•NLw yM.�KN•Y+l1+� /� aiina m�...y.d...�, E)E)da3I.ONV IS N31SIa>I �•p +v. CW.wW�•aiHnx �Hrol JO aW04 81}703 UOg2A0U2J6 immAd QYIB NdS30lW1MlFi'11tlAdD0 A 7 'ONI ''00 N1NF�0('TA&i�dH I e •a.se: r ®® .78H � 1 � � I � � 1 z I e •a.se: r ®® .78H • `' � � '� / ti X871-- � �` —t -868 CONTOUR /871'�'" UNE ��- 5d' SEiAPK IAN 70 CliftI / o f/ SSC--._ � —4SB/ 415 i � cv STEPS- � � C I r ti .eTu i c 24.97 \ 1 FND IRON PIPE 6 SES � �F2\NG ,� 5Q- 1a • � / WINDOW _ / - - WELL -- ATID ' U - WALL r\K RppNO .0vl\-D\'NG i i SANG ��j1�-��NG �- FND + ,.: IRON PIPE �, Mpf O Y dC) a) —(J) oVt a new residence for COPYRIGHT KUHL DESIGN BUILD If another contractor will be using the plans for M N KRISTEN & ANDY GRAGG construction, it will first be necessary for the home °�'ner to [i) pay all design fees due to Kuhl Design Z Y� 3 v Build, and Ill) sign Kuhl Design Build standard n 5024 BRUCE AVE copyright license agreement, a copy of which will be EDINA, MN 55424 made available. When those conditions are satisfied, the designs may be used without infringement of Kuhl Design Builds' Copyright // d COPYRIGHT KUHL DESIGN BUILD ma clew residence for if another contractor will be using the plans for construction, it will first be necessary for the home J=' N KRISTEN &ANDY CRAGG owner to (i) pay all design fees due to Kuhl Design ti m v N 5024 BRUCE AVE Build, and Iii) sign Kuhl Design Build standard copyright license agreement, a copy of which will be m trade available. When those conditions are 3 EDINA, MN 55424 satisfied, the designs may be used without toI infringement of Kuhl Design Builds' Copyright. Pi N " T77 'JI ri,610 Ru In 19 'JI ri,610 -10 'JI ri,610 50! x r, 12��fAr, N7% �At 3 i `1 Vii. p)t�i s� 50! x LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 coos 8001 500/ s. Nis 5007 b 6009 5013 5009 X08 6011 5009 5011 5010 LN 5010 5013 5012 5023 5021 5012 Sol$ 5014 6027 5019 5105 f �.°; 5016 3017 5016 ` f'"i f r aole b10T f�%. �'J;, f6024`/irrJr��lr°� b018 3019 iris/ �,*� ✓ f�ff�f 1 %f r/.,; �•`• 22 5020 b021 5020 5109'f'� 5026 j riri 5023 6022 litVWAVE Sill 5025 5113 5028 5072 5039 s035 5027 5029 ARIMM 5117 31f0 5028 5119 � 5114 M�ag4Yrk 24 � : 5113 4421I oma.,."s,ceah"(C)L0G6Cw osH25 p http://gis.logis.orgALOGIS ArcIMSlims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientVe... 1/4/2013 12/26/12 To: City of Edina Variance Committee From: Shari and John Fleming 5022 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55424 RE: Cragg Rear Setback Variance 5024 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55424 We have had the opportunity to review the plans for the proposed Cragg building project next door to our home. The plan does expand the rear of the home beyond its current location but does not affect our views. We are in support of this project and believe that the increased value to our neighborhood should be considered as well as in approving the Cragg's request for a variance. Sincerely, Shari & John Fleming -- J I, To: Edina Variance Committee From: Jeff and Teri Hovanec 5030 Bruce Place Edina, MN 55424 RE: Cragg Variance Request. 5024 Bruce Avenue Edina, MN 55424 We live across the cul-de-sac from the Cragg home.. The new plan calls for a home that is only afoot taller than the existing structure in order to fit in nicely to the neighborhood and not feel too large in scale. The rebuilding of their home would be a vast improvement over the current structure. We are in favor of approving their request for a variance. Sincerely, WOL Je and Tei Hovanec