Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013-02-13 Planning Commission Meeting Packets
AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 9 FEBRUARY 13, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL 111. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. ANNUAL MEETING — ELECTION OF OFFICERS & ADOPTION OF BYLAWS V. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission January 23, 2013 VI. 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. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Lot Division. Maimares. 5809 and 5813 Tingdale Avenue, Edina, MN B. Variance. Kolles. 7380 France Avenue, Edina, MN. C. Variance. Seward. 6937 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN D. Variance. Einhorn. 6717 Rosemary Lane, Edina, MN. E. Subdivision. Kiser. 5633 Tracy Avenue, Edina, MN VIII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Zoning Ordinance Update - Residential Development IX. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance X. CHAIR AND COMMISSION MEMBER COMMENTS XI. STAFF COMMENTS XII. 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 February 27 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 13, 2013 VII.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Mr. Thomas J. Maimares is requesting to shift the existing lot line that divides the two properties at 5809 and 5813 Tingdale Avenue. (See property location on pages Al—A3.) The purpose of the request is to slightly shift the side lot line between these two properties so that the each lot would have more area in the between the home and the side property line, and to eliminate the driveway encroachment at the front lot line. (See property location and proposed lot line shift on pages A4 A6.) Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding properties and uses include single-family homes zoned and guided low-density residential. (See page A2.) 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. The size of each parcel remains the same, and the lot width and depth also do not change. The shift in lot line is accomplished by trading equal 106 square foot sections of property. The result is that the side yard setback for the home at 5809 Tingdale would increase from 2.5 feet to 5.4 feet; and the side yard setback from the home at 5813 Tingdale would increase from 4.7 feet to 5.5 feet. (See pages A5—A6.) Additionally, the driveway for the home at 5813 would no longer encroach on the 5809 property. (See page A4.) Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Lot Division of 5809 and 5813 Tingdale Avenue: Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed lot line adjustment does not create a new lot. 2. The purpose of the lot line adjustment is to provide additional side yard setback for each home and eliminate the driveway encroachment. 3. The resulting lot area, lot width and lot depth would not change. Deadline for a city decision: May 7, 2013 2 City of Edina oral obit r13 SAN i a n pts Boos am Ssz. 6713 58N Sit.- $723 a1N d00! 6716 m1aWL11ffDd 3321 SMI S01/ At9 Efp aaN Darr 3633 saH 5{2S �N ��� am _ an a Al" 623 arao afar arta i srrr s+ro MUMST' Yq uo5 aN! spr srrr 5120 am S+15 6113 2112 sra SM Bros anal apr Grp not poo spa 5100 feta It 4301 Spy 6101 5t0a 5101 arp ` 5116 BMISrW $812 aHr i 5812 Sn3 Sftr a Sf01 010E 5121 6117 5112 6101 5t0a 5101 arp ` 5116 5120 $tili 5112 Sr00 3101 hp /513 8138 SIa1 1130 •aar0YA51[ S 1205 e:al 5121 6117 alts 1108 $107 tpf SIN i 1131 5126 life Srt2 drat V OIS 1105 +NBdd. tad NN 1 WNW N12 Ml its Mfe spa 523 a2./ s2p IT— ISO WOe \ a syn sa 1001 1 Swi pe5 7 pp ... Sp+ 5555 1 prr aen a55s toots PID: 3311721310073 5809 Tingdale Ave Edina, MN 55436 Id I6�MIyMtl Patty. aura.mtAiq thus• Member t•ENs Hous. wrnWr L•b•1. atn.l Nsfa LaYNs N CRY Wiq N cfaw 0 ate. wm.. 0 w.. 0 parks a 0 Sn3 Sftr a Sf01 010E 4100 sIN sfp sne 6712 sra sra arp ISO WOe \ a syn sa 1001 1 Swi pe5 7 pp ... Sp+ 5555 1 prr aen a55s toots PID: 3311721310073 5809 Tingdale Ave Edina, MN 55436 Id I6�MIyMtl Patty. aura.mtAiq thus• Member t•ENs Hous. wrnWr L•b•1. atn.l Nsfa LaYNs N CRY Wiq N cfaw 0 ate. wm.. 0 w.. 0 parks a 0 Prc.k A3 a " Q J Q . HOUSEOUSTING \ / V N 89°54' W 120.0 i s 34.9 — d` -- — EX/STdVG O u� o HOUSE 5 p �O 3j5809 9700 SF n 134 �^ N 87 59'30" � 7WAG YV — 67.5— r S 821-3_ — �`' " �, � g5 N87°59'30 E h ,E^ g; 60 • 43 1— sd N78'25 ty X24.40= 7*59'30" E h N .. — — 3 — — o OE J h O o h nZ 4 o� HO(Wp 10700 SF o m 6g I " 131 30, g5°2� N EXISTING HOUSE THOMAS d MAMARES ADDRESS — 5809 TMDALE AVEMJE P033-117-21-31-0073 EXISTING DESCRIPTION: HENCO„ MN. CONTAINS 9700 SF LOT 5, BLOCK 2, EDINA RIDGE.1% PROPOSED DESCRIPTION Lot 8, Btock 2, except thot part lying southerly of aline described as follows: commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 5, thence on an assured bearing of N 81° 20'47" E. along the southerly line of said Lot, a distance of 43.55 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 87° 59'30"Wa distance of 43.1 feet to a point on the west fine of lot 5, distant 5.00 feet north of southwest corner thereof. Together with that part de Lot e Block 2,llows northerly of a line described as follows camlencing at the Northwest corner of said Lot 4, thence on an assured bearing of N 8102014711 E, alongg the northerly line of said Lot 4, a distance of 43 55 feet to the point of beginning; thenoe N87° 59130"E, a distance of 24.40 feet; thence N78° 25'E, a distance of 53.6 feet to the Northeastiy corner of said Lot 4 and there terminatingg, all in Block 2, Edina Ridge, contains 9700 SF MARY AND JAY KOSTERS ADDRESS — 5813 TINGDALE AVENUE PID33-117-21-31-0072 EXISTING DESCRIPTION: LOT 4, BLOCK 2, EDINA RIDGE, HENNEPIN CO., MN. CONTAINS 10700 SF PROPOSED DESCRIPTION Lot 4. Block 2, except that part lying northerly of a line described es follows can. ncing at the NW corner of sold Lot 4, thence on an 033m ed bearing of N 81°20"#7" E. along the northerly ilne of said Lot 4, a distance of 43.55 feet to the point of beginning; thence N87'59'30"E, a distance of 24.40 feet; thence N78°251E a distance of 53.80 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said Lot.4 and a 'w �V� y 0 �� U) w O Z U m M vo w o � J yQu_a� r4o z I aft w dad0Ln �+0 w O C W Z—z O O O Q e` J J Q ` ,o 88 g4� there terminating. d 0 30 60 90 Together with that part of Lot 5, Block 2, lyl'ig southerly of a line described as follows: camlencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 5:r4,,. thence on an assuned bearing of N 81"20'47" E aloe the southerly line of said Lot, o distance of 55 feet to the point of beginning; thence S 87059,30"W, a distance of 43.1 feet to a point on the west line of fat 5, distant 5.00 fast north of the Southwest corner thereof, all in Block 2, Edina Ridge. contains 10700 SF N N `V c > g g SCALE 1N FEET OHL =OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE 30 60 90 LE IN FEET = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE Q3 rn Z N 87059'30'E — 67.5 — M87°59' 30 "E • 43.1— -5D EXISTING • HOUSE N 89054' W 120.0 I �o O� ( 34.9 EXIST/NG HOUSE 15809 Qcoo NI: ti 9700 SF 13.4 N EXISTIN�7„W ; i S g 1020 — , � a - 121.3-- C1485 0 N7 S0 251 E_ 530,- W 6-24-40 c 7059' 30” E N EXISTING z HOUSE p� 15813 0 10700 SF 0 �N 652 N EXISTING HOUSE sift V 41 41 rO 30 60 90 LE IN FEET = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE N 89*54' W 000-1,6.0 rl,30� 0 Al 120.0 EXISTING WOUSE I N pRorasco I A LOTS R .01 kq � � ,� r!; �` �q V' � J ,; - t � �'y�� �� ,� _b _ _ r f-�•, ^4„ { x ♦ fir �d�" �'1` i��r f"�L rl. p_„f i tt, v � ji �� r` 11�� w t _ f c" 1 i t �• = t r. 331 v� �.♦ F' ♦y g.. :. .. � ,1 1 s p a ` ....-,.....• yea - 3^ f t� IyrQi'!n '`A ��: P " t � r ♦ s ;� )Y Yi t r�ILL 7 tea± PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Joyce Repya February 13, 2013 VI.B. Senior Planner INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Marketplace Home Mortgage, 7380 France Avenue is requesting a variance to allow a 36 square foot wall sign on the south elevation of the building that does not face a street. Sign ordinance No. 460.05 Subd. 5, allows properties zoned Planned Office District to display one wall sign and one monument sign on street facing facades only. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A 2- 4); Edina Sign Ordinance No. 460.05, Subd. 5, on page A - 1; property survey on pages A 5 — 6, Exhibit A; and zoning and location maps on page A — 8, Exhibit C. The applicant recently purchased the subject office building which formerly housed multiple tenants, and is undertaking a considerable renovation project. Included in the renovation work is an improved sign plan. The applicant is in agreement with the size criteria set out for signs in the Planned Office District, however believes that the restriction of only allowing the signs to face a street frontage impedes the ability to identify his building to the same extent that surrounding properties are allowed. Since the subject building's only street frontage is on France Avenue to the east, the property owner may display a wall sign and a monument sign, 50 square feet and 36 square feet in area, totaling 86 square feet in area abutting France Avenue. The subject request entails installation of a 50 square foot wall sign on the France Avenue elevation which is allowed; and removing the existing monument sign on France, to be replaced by a 36 square foot wall sign on the south elevation of the building, lacking street frontage, thus subject to the variance request. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: 7300 France Avenue - Office Building Easterly: Centennial Shops - Retail Southerly: 7390 France Avenue - Office Building Westerly: 7333 Gallagher Drive - Cedars of Edina Apartments Existing Site Features The subject property is 84,349 square feet in area (1.9 acres). The existing building built in 1972 is one story on the east and north elevations and a partial walk -out on the south and west elevations. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Compliance Table Office POD -1 Planned Office District POD -1 Maximum Sign Area Proposed Variance requested One wall sign per building *1 wall sign — 36 sq. ft. in area on 36 square foot wall sign frontage and one freestanding the south elevation of the on south elevation of the sign per frontage 86 sq. ft. total building; and building which does not between the 2 signs with no 1 wall sign 50 sq. ft. on the east have street frontage individual sign being greater elevation (meets code) than 50 square feet No freestanding signs * Variance Required Primary Issue Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.04.Subd.2.F., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: 2 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 sign is reasonable. The applicant is agreeable to removing the 36 square foot monument sign on the east elevation, and is requesting that signage allowance be permitted on the south elevation (lacking street frontage) instead. The resulting two permitted signs would not exceed what the sign ordinance allows per the single street frontage. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the location of this property. There are 14 properties zoned POD Planned Office District on the east side of France Avenue from the Crosstown Highway south to Minnesota Drive; of those properties, only 3 do not abut at least one side street frontage, and are thus subject to no signage allowed on the north or south elevations. The City has approved a relatively similar sign to be built at the Fidelity building at 7700 France. They were approved for a wall sign to face a non - street frontage area as part of the final development plan process. Said north elevation abuts an interior lot line, not street frontage. Furthermore, the commercial properties directly across the street are allowed to display much larger signs on all building elevations. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed signage will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The character of this neighborhood is commercial to the east where much larger signs are allowed on all building elevations. Staff Recommendation Approve the requested variance based on the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a) The practical difficult is being only one of the three office zoned properties of 14 on the east side of France Avenue from the Crosstown Highway south to Minnesota Drive lacking side street frontage, thus unable to sign the north or south face of the building. b) The City has approved a relatively similar sign to be built at the Fidelity building at 7700 France. Fidelity was approved for a wall sign to face a non -street frontage area as part of the final development plan process. Said north elevation abuts an interior lot line, not street frontage. c) The request is reasonable in that the applicant is removing the allowed free standing sign on the site. Therefore, overall square footage of signage allowed in this zoning district (86 square feet) is what is being requested. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1. The wall sign on the south elevation is limited to 36 square feet in area; and is subject to review and approval of a Sign Permit by the Planning Division. 2. Only one sign is allowed on the east elevation not to exceed 50 square feet in area. For a total signage allowed for the building of 86 square feet in area. Deadline for a city decision: March 18, 2013 4 VARIANCE APPLICATION 4A e2? '0�3CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID/ City of Edina Planning Department * www.cityofedina.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: (Signature required on back page) =St -7Z $f l0 w'S Darr-I'y Yti•� S`5zE2� EMAIL: PROPERTY OWNER: i NAME: 0 0[A -,_-_(Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: -730 PHONE: 6(z - zcj- 383 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): OSCi-I - k<;6C&4s r/�aTd ly w &r. 00-E 94 , 003SZggr-r ex "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: �.3 6 FAIA/i CG �`c� S' .1) , M� S^ 3 Sr PRESENT ZONING: P.I.D.# 24 - 4- a a 2.1 OF REQUEST: ZLe.etLid— clues .moo 7'c' �C,�. /C' +e— bora-� (Use reverse side or additional pages If necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: 6Wiy AC -11- l am s PHONE: 612-04-7 Sy EMAIL: L��►���I ee�S��c�w-rS� SURVEYOR: NAME: _S, JL.Awa PHONE: / - z,;�,� EMAIL: JAN 21 201 Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve 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 SEI ■ Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood ® ❑ Page 1 of 1 24 1235 !O1 j %,j,224li 01� '� 3821 1 81 13' GM�eiudai ialns P 8f0 90c ittM111fiiltake, 003„ 800 901. 24 7373 f ,. _ : :..:. Mme •n 7360 Trane��vrr�ue� MarILQ.t�a�- Aowt, http://gis.logis.org/output/ed_LOGISMapSDE_lo-arcims3lO3282307216361.png 2/7/2013 1128 137 3128 129 129 128 I I 72lm ST W 1200 7301 7300 7301 7203 F 7204 7205 7204 1205 1200 7207 7308.2 7207 7309 T208 7211 7215 7290 7300 7219 Page 1 of 1 24 1235 !O1 j %,j,224li 01� '� 3821 1 81 13' GM�eiudai ialns P 8f0 90c ittM111fiiltake, 003„ 800 901. 24 7373 f ,. _ : :..:. Mme •n 7360 Trane��vrr�ue� MarILQ.t�a�- Aowt, http://gis.logis.org/output/ed_LOGISMapSDE_lo-arcims3lO3282307216361.png 2/7/2013 City of Edina Subd. 5 Use Buildings four stories or less Building more than four stories Buildings, Construction and Signs 460.05 Regional Medical and Planned Office District. Maximum Number Of Building Maximum Area For Maximum Identification Signs Building Identification Signs Height One wall sign per building frontage and one freestanding sign per frontage One wall sign per building per frontage and one freestanding sign per frontage p-� 86 sq. ft. total between the two 8 ft. signs, with no individual sign being greater than 50 sq. ft. 120 sq. ft total between the two 8 ft. signs, with no individual sign being greater than 80 sq. ft. ,I,I! rgrrc nurucuiut January 29,2013 Dear Board Members, Over the past few decades, more recently developed properties along the France Avenue cooridor from Minnesota Dr. to Crosstown, have been zoned to allow larger signs placed on any frontage while only two of the "land locked" properties along the west side of France Ave, specifically 7380 France Ave., continue to be limited by the ordinances that were drafted decades ago. The current ordinance does not allow a business zoned POD -1, without a road frontage, to place a sign on that frontage. Please refer to Exhibit B, which illustrates 10 businesses in a 3 block radius of 7380 that are allowed to place signage on a frontage that does not abutt a road. Except for Fidelity Financial which is also POD -1, these businesses are zoned differently than Marketplace Home Mortgage's POD -1 distinction. In fact, there are 9 different zoning clasifications along France Ave. and of the approximate 75 different retail businesses that have signage along France Ave, only 2 buildings now fall under this particular sign restriction. Our request is to allow Marketplace Home Mortgage to place a 35 square foot sign on their southern frontage rather than a 35 square foot monument sign next to France Ave. While this building is zoned POD -1, it's use is now exclusively Retail Financial Services that will most certainly benefit from signage that compliments its new exterior design. Exhibit C illustrates how the property is at a disadvantage outlined in Section 460.05 Subd. 5 allowing other businesses near the property (across the street) to place signage on frontages not abutting a road and sizes much larger than anything we are proposing. In fact, the size we're requesting is within code, it's the unfortunate "land locked" location of this and one other building that limits our sign placement. Marketplace Home Mortgage's customer base is derived from various sources and the physical location of this building was one of the reasons Mr. White (owner of MarketPlace) purchased and invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in improvements to the building. Marketplace certainly has a right to market itself in an area with a high density of signage. Our position is that no businesses or residents will be at a disadvantage by allowing Marketplace to place the sign on their south frontage rather than next to it. The sign will offer better visibility, be more effective and professional in appearance based on the building's updated architecture. We ask that you support this variance not only on its own merit, but that your Senior City Planner supports our proposal. Sincerely, Gregory A. Kolles gak Visual Communications, Inc. Kieth White Marketplace Home Mortgage 7600 West 27th St Suite 210 St Louis Park, Minnesota 55426 . 651.245.5977 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker February 13, 2013 B-13-03 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the 3.34 foot side yard setback variance request. Project Description A 3.34 foot side yard setback variance from the 10 foot minimum requirement to allow living space behind the garage 6.63 feet from the south side yard for property located at 6937 Cornelia Drive for James Seward. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject properly is an interior lot located east of Cornelia Drive consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. (see attached pages: A.1 -A. 10, site location, aerial photographs, and photos of subject and adjacent Properties). The property owner is hoping to construct an addition behind the attached garage, (see attached pages: A.11 —A. 19, building plans and survey). The addition will be a one story addition to the main floor with basement below. The plan is to maintain the existing rambler by adding living space behind the existing home. The property is subjected to a minimum 5 foot setback for an attached garage and a 10 foot setback for living space. The existing garage on the south side of the home is located 7.9 feet from the south lot line. The existing living space on the north side of the home is 6.8 feet from the north lot line or 3.2 feet cloer than the 10 foot setback allowed. The ordinance allows 200 square feet of additional encroachment per built floor at an existing nonconforming setback. Unfortunately the garage side conforms to the 5 foot minimum side yard setback at 7.9 feet from the side lot line but not the 10 foot side yard setback for living space. The owners assumed that the side wall of the garage could be extended into the rear yard for a living space addition, however, the addition for living space needs to be 10 feet from the side lot line. The side wail of the garage is also at an angle to the south lot line, so extending it farther into the rear yard brings the wall closer to the lot line as the wall is extended into the back yard. The property is 9,839 square feet in area with the home and proposed additions occupying 25% of the lot area. The required setback from the side lot line limits the building area of the lot given the existing setback provided by the original home built in 1955. Staff believes it is reasonable to extend the living space behind the garage similar to the setback provided by the north wall of the home. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes. Easterly: Single-family homes. Southerly: Single-family homes. Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject lot is 9,839 square feet in area. The home is a rambler with an attached two car garage built in 1955. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to add an addition to the back side of the home. tj Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of side yard setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. The proposed setback is consistent with side yard setbacks in the neighborhood 3. The improvements will provide a similar nonconforming setback as provided by the north wall of the existing home and provided by nearby homes within the neighborhood. 4. The home is a one story rambler with an attached two car garage and will remain a rambler with the addition. Is the proposed variance justified? City Standard Proposed Front - 33.65 feet 34.6 feet Side- 10 (living) 5 (garage) *6.66 feet Rear- 25 feet 25feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 1 story 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to 13 feet to midpoint, 16 ridge, feet to the ridge Lot coverage 25% 25% * Variance Required Primary Issues Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District and complies with all requirements with the exception of side yard setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. The proposed setback is consistent with side yard setbacks in the neighborhood 3. The improvements will provide a similar nonconforming setback as provided by the north wall of the existing home and provided by nearby homes within the neighborhood. 4. The home is a one story rambler with an attached two car garage and will remain a rambler with the addition. Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that the existing living space on the subject home is 6.8 feet from the lot line and is typical for the neighborhood. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the existing home is that the applicant is asking to maintain a similar existing nonconforming setback from the south lot line that is provided on the north side of the home and provided by other neighboring homes. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The setback will mimic the front yard setback of the existing home. Requiring the addition to maintain the south side yard setback would push the addition unreasonably farther into mid -lot requiring the removal of a significant tree and forcing the design to be a long, narrow and awkwardly shaped room. 4 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variance requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it is consistent with existing conditions and matches the nonconforming setback of the north side of the home. 3) The imposed setbacks severely limit design opportunity. The intent of the ordinance is to provide adequate spacing from the side lot line. The addition will provide a similar setback that exists throughout the neighborhood. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: January 28, 2013. Building plans and elevations date stamped: January 29, 2013. Deadline for a City Decision: March 18, 2013. 5 Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances rewire that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: ThYES NO Reilevs radical difficulties in egin l in P pY g 'i El with to zoning ordinance and that the use I's reasonable Cor extraordlnaury circumstances apfrllcbie to this property but not .applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Li I Be ln'hannony with, tine general purposes 'too intent of the xaning'ordinance i ssential Character of a Julie and Ted Seward 6937 Comelia Drive Edina, MN 55435 The proposed remodel has a setback -of 6.63 It., as opposed to the 10 ft. requirement for single family dwellings. While the proposed setback is less than the required 10 ft., the remodel is In keeping with the character of the neighborhood and is In harmony with the intent of the ordinance. • The remodel is keeping in character with the house and neighborhood. When the neighborhood was developed nearly 60 years ago, the currant setback ordinance was not in effect. Houses in the neighborhood were built in tighter confines than homes today. o The non -remodel side of the house has a 6.8 ft. setback, nearly matching the proposed remodel setback (see survey of property). o Neighboring residence has a setback of 8.9 ft. (non -remodel side of house). The remodel is in harmony with the ordinance as it is favorable to the adjacent neighbors and enhances the character of the existing lot. o Adjacent neighbors are very favorable to the remodel and are excited to see It come to fruition. All adjacent neighbors have signed letters indicating their support of this variance (see attached letters). o The remodel is adjacent to the neighbors garage and deck as opposed to livable space. o Significant efinrt has gone into planning to ensure the remodel frts the character of the existing house and neighborhood (see attached pians). The size of the remodel Is modest. Expanding the existing house in other ways would jeopardize either the character of the neighborhood or be at odds with the character of the house. o Expanding towards the rear of the house to compensate would jeopardize a 60 year old tree and negatively impact the charm of the yard and neighborhood. This tree is one of the largest within a 2W 300ft radius, Removing this tree would be problematic for nearby neighbors who do not want to see the beauty and wiue of their neighborhood diminished. Additionally, this type of expansion would elongate the living space such that it would not be fitting with the original character of the home. o Building a second story to compensate would be out of character for this home and would be unsightly for our adjacent neighbors, Additionally, the cost for this project would be far too high to justify. o Simply reducing the width of the remodel would fundamentally change the layout and would not allow for required features far this project to proceed (e.g. denlworkspace, seating, etc.). While the proposed plans Volate the setback requirement, ail adjacent neighbors are very supportive and view the variance as the best way to accomplish this remo det. Matt and Alisa Nelson 6941 Cornelia Drive Edina, MN 55435 As neighbors immediately adjacent (south side) to the remodel of Julie and Ted Seward, we have no objections to the 6.63 ft. setback being proposed. We feel this addition will have a positive impact on the immediate area, and is keeping with the updates being made along Cornelia Drive as a whole. Julie, Ted, and their children are close neighbors of ours and we look forward to seeing their remodel become a reality in the near future. Regards, f'.'O Matt and Alisa Nelson As neighbors to the property of Julie and Ted Seward, we have no objections to the 6.63 ft. setback being proposed. We support the variance request which will reduce the 10 ft. setback requirement along the south side of their property. Address Location PrIated Name i nature Date 6933 Comelia Drive, Edina, MN Adjacent North 6944 Hillcrest Ln, Edina, MN Adjacent East 6940 Hillcrest Ln, Edina, MN Adjacent East 6932 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN Across Street West M LOCATION MAP • 41ae ani a12 6704 wOft ft, a o ` 4113 surromdap Mows Murber 4711 6114 Laws pf7 e06 rrllrng tbua Number i.obela 61M r fee+ t11roMfUmelabde 6eoa _ 6w • Larneie . iMf Ct 6m Mol Crooks Qed sBGi tis 0 tskeltaw>re , i h09 M@b Q Lakli owl an Q Parks fag osM9 M13❑ 6464 M4D NYJ Psrcrls sets ON a40t "of till t6a4 MIT 6906 0� 6�a MM "Of MI1 a12 no Mfa 4461 6416 6516 61113 uM ow M2a an 4676 44f1 4419 Mu MOt 1101 H21 pyyg 6431 4911 fur emOU"M64M ff� "m ante 642a 6421 an an M12 an 64oa 4424 arra Our an an x533 an 4424 Nta 4905 "M "13 w� Gro aux 49to 6413 49M N91 A, - Na4 6473 N11 X�}0 d4tl �F 4u1 012 a" 6021 Our am H41 Mgt 6016 6921 8464 6915 a" Qua 691a 6laS an 6911 W92 0.925 MID ML iiT�� 6424! 6433 f10a 40t 4M 4M an 4M 122" 4311 Im itax M31. U4t 6u1 N01 Lapp 4306 100 #M "W uu Mt3 4 4370 1216 4I1I 4M Iu0 LT L 1#Nnw YsaaWN.riAd116+Cagy�ICt L9GMWZA6 Q B-13-03 PID: 3002824430044 ' rte 6937 Cornelia Dr Edina, MN 55435 +'" LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 X.,4 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientVe... 2/7/2013 Page 1 of I V„;' x 3 fiM file://ed-ntl/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/3002824430045001 jpg 2/7/2013 � I ' C C r ' a t `���-.��'°w�s � �+ r'�` ,lye �:,',�*3 � #�s�� �� ` .f:..t '+ y 1.,C ,-• { u Y Ir' i b '�54a�y,'r'�A�a �`�A it•�'r1 i// v�Y s�e�"{; � � l4 4(?,?Vol t y yy �y x a k Photo of north property line adjacent to neighbor that will not be remodeled (6.8 ft setback). A v f / •#q of lueo*g uees eq us* 96weB sml46[eN 'eq pinom lepowai posodo d aae4nn esn04 Jo apIs 4}nos JO m* J8QM Photo of 60 year old tree near the remodel in the backyard. This tree is one of the largest within a 200 300ft radius and is important to the character of our neighborhood. We've been working with an arborist to ensure we do e%erything possible to preserve this tree. //11219 JAN 17 71 3� 90,99 NW VNla3 3N21a VI19NNOD ZC69 ' 1` Nomadv asvm3S 0 F1 s L/ts/ i M /d, // PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com 0 e 0 NU N O M aZ p Q� mO0 �w3w�¢ �imW Q�vi�mU M /d, // PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition www.CutePDF.com 0 e 0 SITE ADDRESS: 6937 CORNELIA DR. EOINA, MN 55435 EXISTING CONDITION SURVEY WITH PROPOSED ADDITION FOR: JAMES & JULIE SEWARD Legend r----------------- • o � �b�,Tm. � C•MwN Cbrolbn .oWO • ro EN•nllm 1 �9py� E.IN' p Cmlwr F +m• t ll T ' 1 I • • -S' 1. V 1 rmemse w.�szl".m. 1 G ' SCALE: 1 INCH 10 FEET 1 I P3OD'56I 725.0 PLA1 j MEAS, 1 •v - u ./ ,b rN Gwenrc I , m00 1 / am ON • 1 I T.bl xwpeo.., . 7�Bi sE - w J.9z y I U Y N{ I Z • . v -. ./� wa a n. NNN Gxmrn,r a[sebrnv xmwGm ewmb. Is�m•o,u 9n aoamwL j � II• �/ q • / I UjK a,[ I o f �/ o'►o° L 0 T [mmY JJ. w[vvroue anrcu[: 1 � . 4 • e - xwx• n/ Gvw•a Groep - ,,9Ji sY---'--= •---- CH�Lp�15o ffvNbrvr:m eiitveA SP � �_ '�� •� �_ ��[, x• 5••reW Wee Hope fro Mry [vemGN• var -evb. �Sf p �r ry "•" NxUs 5v Y Larrmnp N a . avp.v 1 I IIy • Trow xwe �A59.vv 4 ' MI � < mwr .. • • .�_ • •� •_. NYv:•• •Mw. m Gon• •- ip• beW:m rrmax.e q rxem oz 1 r w• ro 1 P S -1 12$,06 MEAS, • emGm.• ene •ro I mw..�mere. u,Wlr ewpwNw wew m nwlr _____ 1 125.00 PUT _ Iw ..en wenan eerw. pa•v •-Y ..e...rn, I I - uv rwvY wvlYunM Im•u~� no�sla �a1an • ro rev w mm �•i•er.a M m auH e Sm:ryw� N HYwswe. wnrot rm.nu 1 n r 1 :: N86-36 74-W L. V I I w. NM�Mx�VNv vlMmc. rMC. Wvw,ew A &•wn, Res, MN RED ,Silo oema•yl-ie-iyl] --------------- n W. BROWN LAND SURVEYING, INC. aom �ne�bn uxen'sewu riA ame faszp eH-•oss ' .c fssil es9-9im E vepl 9,_is-ml] 257-12 Sdw t xwn - ,o [>t 1 IX 1 257-12 126/53 O s -n Ao r a z N MF e/,// SEWARD ADDITION 6937 CORNELIA DRIVE i �• EDINA MN 55435 M 1/27/13 ZZ r-- SEWARD ADDITION e 6937 CORNELIA DRIVE EDINA MN 55435 I ■ t O R m §0 m m r m n 0 z 1/27/13 X o� N Z� 0 ,9/,y SEWARD ADDITION � Q 6937 CORNELIA DRIVE g EDINA MN 55435 's I i � iw , I I I i �l i I I I I I I I I I I I a1 SEWARD ADDITION 6937 CORNELIA DRIVE EDINA MN 55435 �, TI N L N 9 2 n m=gym D I'll 0 4y 1 Mn qg� �j 9 0 N _____-__- -----_-__ m_26}�g-_____________-__.�_ _ _ Z:-777 _ _ - - -=-=== -- _ _ _ _ _ -rT- _ -- =:: == == SEWARD ADDITION 6937 CORNELIA DRIVE g EDINA MN 55435 � 'y 0 111, S£YSS NW VNIQ3 3AI80 V113NNOD L£69 Nowbad avvm3S 1-61 as It I I I I I I I I z a J a� O5 0 U. O q � o V i SE>SS NW VNIa30 Y 3AIN0 V113NNOD L£69 � �; < d CN � a r NOIIIQab ailvm3s Wall I X-/� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker February 13, 2013 B-13-05 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description: A 21 foot and a 19.67 foot front yard setback variance for a garage and mud room addition on property located at 6717 Rosemary Lane for Jeff and Kristi Einhorn. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property, is a corner lot located in the north east corner of Rosemary Lane and Valley View Road. The existing home on the property was built in1967 and consists of a one story rambler with an attached two car garage, (see attachments: A.1 — A6., site location, aerial photos and photos of neighboring properties). The property is subjected to two front yard setbacks, along Rosemary Lane and Valley View Road. The homeowners would like to add a small mudroom north of their existing garage and add a third garage stall south of the existing garage. The front yard setback required from Rosemary Lane is approximately 51 feet with the subject home providing a 30 foot setback, (21 feet in front of the home to the north). The setback required from Valley View Road is 39.7 feet with the subject home providing a setback from Valley View of 36.2 feet, (3.5 feet closer to Valley View). The existing home is nonconforming regarding setbacks from both streets and while not in the area of proposed construction, the existing rear yard setback of 13.3 feet is also nonconforming regarding the required 25 foot rear yard setback, (see attachments A.7 — A.13, site surveys and building plans). The ordinance allows for 200 square feet of additional encroachment as long as it is no closer than the existing nonconforming setback, which would allow for expansion along Rosemary Lane, however, the mudroom and garage addition total 375 square feet so a 21 foot setback variance is required from Rosemary Lane. In addition to the to the variance from Rosemary Lane, the garage expansion will reduce the nonconforming setback from Valley View Road from 36.2 feet to 22.2 feet. The required setback on a typical side street lot is 15 feet for the side wall of the garage. The proposed garage will be 22.2 feet from Valley View which would be 7.5 feet farther from the street than required for a typical side street lot. The garage addition would be approximately 75 feet from the adjacent home at 6772 Valley View so spacing between properties remains the same. The subject lot was subdivided off from the lot to the north in 1966, and received a depth variance to allow a lot depth of 110 feet instead of 120 feet and to allow the home to front Rosemary Lane with the side street along Valley View Road. Front yard setback variances were not required to locate the house at the time it was built, so it is presumed that the nonconforming setbacks from both streets must have complied with the ordinances at the time. The home is currently nonconforming along both street frontages and from the rear lot line. Based on buildable area, there is very little opportunity for expansion with the exception of perhaps adding a second floor, (see attachment A.8, illustrating the buildable area of the lot). The homeowner desires to maintain the structure as a rambler and not alter the character of the neighborhood. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-family homes Easterly: Single-family homes Southerly: St Patrick's Church Westerly: Single-family homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 12,619 square feet in area. The existing home is a one story rambler built in 1967. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District 2 The proposal maintains the rambler and upholds the existing neighborhood character and appearance. The additions will blend seamlessly with the existing home Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is 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 the streets. 2. The home owners are trying to maintain the integrity of the rambler with slight modifications that keep it appropriate in size and scale for the lot and neighborhood. 3. The improvements will provide modest upgrades with no direct impact on neighboring property owners. Both adjacent property owners to the north and east are over 75 feet away from the improvements and the use across Valley View Road to the south is St. Patrick's Church. 4. There is limited opportunity given the required setbacks to add onto the house in a conforming fashion. City Standard Proposed Front - Match adjacent homes:51 30 feet122.2 feet* feet/39.7 feet Side 10 feet + height 19.1feet Rear- 25feet 13.3 feet Building Height 2 Y stories 1 story 30 feet to midpoint 35 feet to 17 feet to midpoint, 27 ridge, feet to ridge Lot coverage 25% 24.17% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is 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 the streets. 2. The home owners are trying to maintain the integrity of the rambler with slight modifications that keep it appropriate in size and scale for the lot and neighborhood. 3. The improvements will provide modest upgrades with no direct impact on neighboring property owners. Both adjacent property owners to the north and east are over 75 feet away from the improvements and the use across Valley View Road to the south is St. Patrick's Church. 4. There is limited opportunity given the required setbacks to add onto the house in a conforming fashion. Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given the required setbacks and given that the existing home is already nonconforming regarding setbacks from three sides of the lot. The shallow lot depth and original placement of the home prevent reasonable use and are a practical difficulty. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The required setbacks are meant to protect the front yard setback/street scape. The proposed setback will be less of an encroachment than the existing setback along Rosemary Lane and along Valley View Road will only impact a Conditional Use, (St. Patrick's Church), across the street. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will maintain the integrity of the existing rambler and will not alter the visual character of the neighborhood. 4 Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) With the exception of the variances requested, the proposal would meet the required standards and ordinances for the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 2) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. The proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it will allow slight modifications to an existing nonconforming structure and will have little if any impact on surrounding properties. b. The practical difficulties in complying with the ordinances are the existing nonconforming setbacks of the current home and original orientation of the home on the lot with a nonconforming lot depth. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: December 27, 2012 Building plans and elevations date stamped: December 19, 2012. Deadline for a City decision: March 19, 2013 5 VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBER_,_DATE�� Z��,20 FEE PAID &50.0 City of Edina Planning Department * wrwrwr.cltvofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (952) 826-0369 fax (952) 826.0389 --w�NY-- ------. • MwwM-----..--ufu-w�---M-wNu--NwMw-w--w-r- wx�.y.l-�1---M PEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: 3L � 0.n#a1 Lv1\,Cl'% (Signature required on back page) 1 Lam " ,sE�►� ��a -gid. �n� ADDRESS: �Q 1 �� %Ift — ID•I'u 1. tt PHONE:?S?-2Z �-q1�(� �r.i t � aa-� � EMAIL: ! ��KQV—A Gi iMlX.t I cc t PROPERTY OWNER: �/ �^ NAME: J&" 1'`'►t' \%h C.1 n hOfyl (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: '712 &R j/Md C4 /6 vie, w t a PHONE: S - - l7Co LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): "You must provide a full legal descAr . It more space Is needed. please use a separate sheet. Note- The County may not accept the resatu4m appm *v your project It lata 1e9at desclipiion does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: -Co_ 717 6eyha rr t Afi . fdi,„Ck PRESENT ZONING: P.LD.# EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: � A e - r (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT; NAME: 5tc,, , Ac�.k�,A /-9 A I A PHONE: `9SZ-'1Z'3.00-V EMAIL: _W01A Sicoro- , covin SURVEYOR: NAME: Ca -m titre, An n &u- ^,.JCS, Imo__ RHONE: q!�Z753 - qI q EMAIL: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve 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 Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood January 19, 2013 City of Edina Planning Department City of Edina 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, MN 55439 RE: Variance request for 6717 Rosemary Lane; Garage Addition To Whom It May Concern: I am writing you to request your consideration of a zoning variance that I am pursuing for my home at 6717 Rosemary Lane. The current conditions that I have at my home include the following: 1. Currently there is a 2 stall garage that is attached to my home, which is a conforming structure I am seeking permission to complete the following work at my home: Remove the existing, attached 2 stall garage, and replace with an attached 3 -stall garage that is located closer to the Valley View facing property lines. This construction would be placed closer to Valley View Road than is currently allowed under the Edina Zoning Ordinance. Conditions for Your Consideration: Consistent with the General Intent and Purpose of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan: The addition that I would like to complete is in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the Edina Zoning Code. We have designed the proposed garage addition with a strong architectural aesthetic so as to not negatively impact the use and enjoyment for my neighbors and their properties. 2. Practical Difficulties with Complying with the Current Zoning Code and Unique Circumstance with My Property: The current two stall garage is close enough to the Valley View side property line that an expansion to a wider, three stall garage is not possible. The only opportunity for creating a 3 -stall garage is to then move the structure closer to the Valley View side road. The size of the addition that we are proposing is at the same front yard setback and will be built at the same height as what the existing garage is. Preserving the privacy of my property and respecting the neighbor's privacy are of the upmost importance to us. 3. Acceptable Use in This Zoning District. The use of this garage is strictly for standard, residential storage and is an acceptable use in this zoning district. 4. Curb Appeal and Architectural Integrity. The two stall garage will be designed to be architecturally compatible not only with my home, but with the neighboring properties as well. Please review the elevation drawings of the garage to see that there will be nice garage door installed (detailed, fiberglass door with windows is currently proposed). The setback of my property from Valley View road will still provide a significant buffer and thus the extension of the garage towards the street will not be an obstruction to any traffic site lines or site line of Valley View Road for any of my neighbors. I appreciate your consideration of our variance request and look forward to discussing this in greater detail with you at the February Planning meeting. Thank you, Jeff & Kristi Einhorn 6717 Rosemary Lane APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. 4L-DOZL�L 1-27-13 Signature Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application on behalf of the board of directors or partnership.) Signature Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. January 9, 2013 City of Edina Planning Department City of Edina 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, MN 55439 RE: Variance request for 6717 Rosemary Lane; Garage Addition Edina Planning Commission: Our family has resided at 6717 Rosemary Lane for over 8 years. Our family has grown since moving in 8 years ago as we now have 4 active and growing boys; Aidan age 9, Lance age 6 and identical twins Wyatt and Trystan age 2. We love our community and are fortunate that our location makes it possible for our family to be active in our neighborhood schools and church, all within walking distance from our home. It is important to us that our design maintains the structure of our home, aligns with the look and feel of our neighborhood, and provides adequate vehicle storage for our family. We believe in good environmental stewardship and with our growing family and love for our neighborhood our preferred option is to work with our existing home and structure to accommodate our family's needs. We appreciate your consideration. Respectfully, Jeff & Kristi Einhorn 6717 Rosemary Lane January 19, 2013 City of Edina Planning Department City of Edina 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, MN SS439 RE: Variance Request for 6717 Rosemary Lane; Garage Addition To Whom It May Concern: We have seen the proposed addition at 6717 Rosemary Lane to add a 3rd garage stall and mudroom. We understand the garage addition will be set back 2 feet from the existing garage that faces Rosemary Lane and will be 22.2 feet from the sidewalk on Valley View Road. As neighbors, we approve of the proposed addition at 6717 Rosemary Lane. n 3 E cLuwu. VYl N 54 3 9 (!� 72-5, J�aS tr-a-y L- n - Jackie Hoogenakker From: Jeff Morre <jmoore55439@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 1:11 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Jeff and Kristi Einhorn Variance Request; Case File #13-13-05 Dear Planning Commission, This correspondence serves as our support for the Einhorn's variance request. They are wonderful neighbors and we encourage the approval of their request. Without such approval, we fear that they may choose to live elsewhere. We have talked with them regarding their plans and have no problems with their vision. We encourage you to grant approval of their request. Respectfully, Jeff and Cappy Moore 6768 Valley View Rd. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Dave Dahlgren <dahlg123@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 9:44 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case File B-13-05 To Edina Planning Commission: We recommend that you approve the setback variance for the Einhorns. We're sure that the addition will be constructed tastefully. The Einhorns are good neighbors, and we hope that they will stay right where they are for many years to come. Regards, Dave and Merrie Dahlgren 6705 Rosemary Lane Edina, MN 55439 6637 6077 Oro$ 9M smo SM 'W+,vaq� 1020 arca s2or or" irt2 SM 10,7 3 �rxr 10?x LOCATION MAP aaa/7 zo . oo:t B70a 6701 a7tt Olta 0700 1072 10sa irii VALLEYISWAD 611D/ qOJ B-13-05 t Yard Setback Variances PID:0611621410059 6717 Rosemary La Edina, MN 55439 �/ Y� ��•�%' ' alit' �u0hf►art.L'�iu.. surresnelep "am Nwawr Labels News Mwpber Labels ibatNams Labah aw Lkwm �At Craaka 0 talar Mamas 0 Lakes Patks 0 Portals r a 1 YEW 1072 10sa irii VALLEYISWAD 611D/ qOJ B-13-05 t Yard Setback Variances PID:0611621410059 6717 Rosemary La Edina, MN 55439 �/ Y� ��•�%' ' alit' �u0hf►art.L'�iu.. surresnelep "am Nwawr Labels News Mwpber Labels ibatNams Labah aw Lkwm �At Craaka 0 talar Mamas 0 Lakes Patks 0 Portals r a 1 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I ,4. -t littp://gis.logis.org/LOGIS—ArelMS/lms?ServiceName--ed—LOGISMap_QVSDE&ClientVe... 2/7/2013 Page 1 of 1 1 /1,-,3 file://ed-ntl/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/0611621410059001 jpg 2/7/2013 . >. , -�... t ��'d ,���i Lf * I rjA� � �r�'7FM � * 'V�1�'�"#!�' 1 �•3 �t �ME TM E� a. k rvr v Page 1 of 1 1% 95 - file://ed-ntl/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/0611621410061001 jpg 2/7/2013 Page 1 of 1 � � / / e � �//-// -, -1: �/Z!! 5 / e 4 //,, V, -el, � �j, file://ed-ntl/citywide/PDSlmages/Photos/0611621440004001 jpg 217/241.3 El CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFFREY M. EINHORN IN LOT 4, BLOCK 2, VALLEY VISTA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA A 50 13.96 S 26005' 21" W NMI& 3 -- — F E%bSTM t10USE � 5 OaTi2 io to 0 S VALLEY VIEW ROAD S UC -AI. QESCWTW OF FMMS., That port df Lat �, tlbdr 2, VALLEY VISTA lying southerly of the folowing described lino t;egircl&og at o poled on the bloat lne of said tot natant 120.5 feet north, cel rnaaaured long odd bleat ins, from the Southwest cannon of sold Lot 4; thaerca waning southeasterly to a point an the cost lns Of saio Lot 4 distant i 10A beet rwrtherly, as as measured donq said fast Me from the southeast corm thereof, and there terminotw, a : denotes iron marker set • : denotes kon marker found (206.3) ; denotes existing spot devotion, mean no leve datum --stn demise existing eontow fins, moon sea level doWm Qsarkrgs shown are based upon an assumed dotum, This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described propertyy, the location o1 an exist&rg parse, hardcover, spot ekwotlerts and topography and the proposed location of a proposed addtkon thereon. It does not purport to show any other Wirovements or encroachments, !T r / 140 «20 0 20 40 BO SCALE IN FEET 1e0h�nNy arW[ylea 46 WV41. vet or n�pert�w, may' ummd �11� WV W'j"dw • I=Obi the 7110[ 1 Y rw ION of ala 111 Or W= pA� 12-37e CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFFREY M. EINHORN IN LOT 4, BLOCK 2, VALLEY VISTA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA —S 84021'48#1 E / 116.12M. ``~•'` "� s .:~-.x:..13.96 S 26°05' 21" W 1 I -•.. E of $ ✓ f _ " : _ a VALLEY VISTA OWN% ITA 14- O N t6r rn coCnEXISTpdG :,a wu+ e�r� HOUSE f �;h� �,•�� � aw ....jxy�... W 06772 s l DRAMACE AM tJiKJTY EANTS •^� w,•• ( � i f � T rP F CONCRETE SIDEWALK N 90°00' 00" W 11 'IT A T T VV ZTTUTAT "Dn A n V 50 d `f W �Q W s� LID �Lo WEST4LK 9P' ,TA Z-..... O O 50 i i SIN COR OF ,. BLZ L tTl VISTA CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFFREY M. EINHORN IN LOT 4, BLOCK 2, VALLEY VISTA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA —S 84021'48#1 E / 116.12M. ``~•'` "� s .:~-.x:..13.96 S 26°05' 21" W 1 I -•.. E of $ ✓ f _ " : _ a VALLEY VISTA OWN% ITA 14- O N t6r rn coCnEXISTpdG :,a wu+ e�r� HOUSE f �;h� �,•�� � aw ....jxy�... W 06772 s l DRAMACE AM tJiKJTY EANTS •^� w,•• ( � i f � T rP F CONCRETE SIDEWALK N 90°00' 00" W 11 'IT A T T VV ZTTUTAT "Dn A n V d `f W �Q W CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JEFFREY M. EINHORN IN LOT 4, BLOCK 2, VALLEY VISTA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA —S 84021'48#1 E / 116.12M. ``~•'` "� s .:~-.x:..13.96 S 26°05' 21" W 1 I -•.. E of $ ✓ f _ " : _ a VALLEY VISTA OWN% ITA 14- O N t6r rn coCnEXISTpdG :,a wu+ e�r� HOUSE f �;h� �,•�� � aw ....jxy�... W 06772 s l DRAMACE AM tJiKJTY EANTS •^� w,•• ( � i f � T rP F CONCRETE SIDEWALK N 90°00' 00" W 11 'IT A T T VV ZTTUTAT "Dn A n V M/ EINHORN RESIDENCE v G7i7 jZoftMAIZY "ftS oC O R A "°" t%NMA, Mg C/� v Aa 0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ' ,OR BIDDING AND REVIEW PURPOSE ONLY DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION IN R N R EINHORN RESIDENCE � I'I a � 6717 }¢OhKMAFt`(LAA!f; R � D a V t0lQA, MAI 0 ISI I�r � Aa 0 PRELIMINARY DESIGN ' ,OR BIDDING AND REVIEW PURPOSE ONLY DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION IN R N R EINHORN RESIDENCE � I'I � 6717 }¢OhKMAFt`(LAA!f; R � D a V t0lQA, MAI 0 N R EINHORN RESIDENCE � 6717 }¢OhKMAFt`(LAA!f; S I C O R A a..... , u t0lQA, MAI Up" //,y PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR BIDDING AND REVIEW PURPOSE ONLY DO NOT USE POq CONSTRUCTION Dnurdei tf, 1ot2 a EINHORN RESIDENCE S:rnYPekMISNI{ n mf v e o yyE 6757 F2055MAIZY I.AAIr SICORA a..i...,.iu �••as•u Gu PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR BIDDING AND REVIE4J PURPOSE ONLY DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION EINHORN RESIDENCE IMM1h.IN SH16 BID N y " S IDC O R A G7V JZOhtW A ZY I.A11t tdOIQA, Mu PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR BIDDING AND REVIEW PURPOSE ONLY DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION OeexN., ,0. ROI! r o EINHORN RESIDENCE . u.am.w+uae nL,A.. xunmu Hi Y s VX � \VU L imnWiiSp p a�tG 6757 iZ-0hP:MAPy I.AIJti SICORA t bNQA, MW �, w9s/— A o� e Ins-, PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 13, 2013 VII.E Community Development Director File # 2013.002a 2011.015.11 a INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Rodney Helm on behalf of Miriam Kiser is proposing to subdivide the property at 5633 Tracy Avenue into two lots. (See property location on pages Al—A4.) The existing home would be torn down, and two new homes built on the new lots. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A6—A17.) To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; and 2. Lot width variances from 85 feet to 80 feet for each lot. Both lots would gain access off Tracy Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 12,090 square feet, median lot depth is 136 feet, and the median lot width is 85 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A8 and Al 6.) The new lots would meet the median area and depth, but would be just short of the median width. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property in the same manner as the adjacent property to the east. (See pages A2 A3.) Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are single-family homes, zoned and guided low-density residential. (See page A3.) Existing Site Features The existing site contains a one story single-family home and detached garage. (See pages A3 and A5.) Both the home and garage would be removed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them generally acceptable. Adequate drainage and utility easements are proposed along all the lot lines. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Sewer and water has already been stubbed to each lot. A Nine Mile Greek Watershed District permit would also be required. Primary Issue Are the findings for a variance met? Yes. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are met with this proposal. Per state law and the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Yes. 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 2 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 12,090 s.f. 85 feet 135 feet Lot 1 18,748 s.f. 80 feet* 232 feet Lot 2 18,748 s.f. 80 feet* 232 feet * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them generally acceptable. Adequate drainage and utility easements are proposed along all the lot lines. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Sewer and water has already been stubbed to each lot. A Nine Mile Greek Watershed District permit would also be required. Primary Issue Are the findings for a variance met? Yes. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are met with this proposal. Per state law and the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Yes. 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 2 code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is due to the fact that the subject property is double the size of all lots on this block. This block was originally plated with 80 -foot lots, with the exception of the subject property. (See page A2.) The 85 -foot lot width requirement is due to wider lots further away from the subject property. The requested variances to split this lot are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than other properties in the immediate area. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood and original plat. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a subdivision of his property of which the lots would be the same as existing lots in the area. The site has utility stub connections that were installed as part of the Tracy Avenue street improvement project. (See page Al2.) b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The condition of this oversized lot is generally unique to the Tracy Avenue area. The vast majority of the lots on Oaklawn are 80 feet wide and roughly 18,000 square feet in size. The circumstance of the oversized lot was not created by the applicant. c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements requested by the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood includes a vast majority of single-family homes on 80 -foot wide lots as proposed. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed two lot subdivision of 5633 Tracy Avenue and the lot width variances from 85 feet to 80 feet for each lot. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot area and depth, and nearly meet the median width. 3. The proposal is consistent with the lots on this block of Tracy Avenue 3 4. The 80 -foot wide lot is wider than the general standard required width of 75 feet. 5. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a unique hardship to the property caused by the existing size of the property which is two times the size of every lot on the block. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than most properties in the area, including nearly every lot on the block. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood. C. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of similar size to others in the neighborhood. d. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a use of his property, an 80 -foot wide lot, which is common to the area. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 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. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of a Nine Mile Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. C. A grading plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. d. All storm water from the proposed homes, driveways, and westerly half of the lots shall drain to Tracy Avenue. e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb -to -curb and from saw -cut to saw -cut. 4 f. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Deadline for a City Decision: May 21, 2012 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 2 11 City of Edina 3414 amN sm t{sm IS SU41 No /WW' Imob ftisi $bmmo "billi IS ml sm Cov Usaft IDM tixe WN WN 14 sm 11 'IV Cook* EJ "m ft." Lsk" SM w 'Y mfr (D .a;,- got zo I= ash atc t a{u aim rife6mme aur r 0 Firm 0 Rt tMs IMal 12 -ws7 ino It—, IS I saw" 4M 2 imZ 3 YR SM Pw I son H!7 p L Is IN as?" tfst"t WW IF 24 1 40) 1A fit so Pill I SR rR Im _mt i!7{ n77Yx iso{ Sol is I No PID:3211721130066 5633 Tracy Ave Edina, MN SS4316 11 Ian Ian I SSSr DsrD +� Ssx $ a verxnwrS sm NN sm yr uIr snD am elle bar 000 Na NN Na N Ny w yob Nu u» waaawtel u12 ysl ua {.... blsl 57111 brSO N. opt?. VIP MVAWSb to IM SMI ff sm NSI y80 yN RM �w Nat NII y0/ SSa DNI yr OW sm yN sm Sra ...d�m,a.yrK+.so+afary/ sra frbi two �L('S City of Edina aR3 ' Sul JSrb NSI SSSS nnvaamaewtr sea 4 sofa Sal feM aba aNS QaS sm nN eore Sul Son Nw aur sm Stu aur SRS A7S •Saw alt aN1 aNr Sbw Na SOP no fall! Sea SRr Na Nn Na $STs Dtao aro NN am sm Daa nooerrmrro � Sfab full bsa an bff$ SSa Uri Ss/s Nn rrr "Is ow o sm $ sRr aur sm N an Sul s, G ftop" att Sr{S Nis Sall SiN ybS :481 N ua N offs- "ll b/N NSI !Nb e�wagihrk.Siafrq el0e D7a aiaaar Nu bbSb Sa/ y,{ Q N{7 NN SkS Sc saw SN! SaS SNS S"r an SNt SND i.: SRbDSDNN NnNN roSRS sur ............. PID:3211721130066 5633 Tracy Ave Edina, MN 55436 4.3, fealero �� fvro�rlNa! Ilawa MruMr LAWN Mau"UW M/LsMM o"ONOW Labors Co, Lbmw �! Croaks ❑ Lab Mu"a p Was ❑ Fft ❑ Par"ts A3 _. , _ .. -- r „...� �, ,. - � �_ _ _ � f i �. ,+ �- :{ r r � � M� x y� ., v a a ,, y x � e y^ { �, � � xr:. l4 �i E r ...�. kff 11o'4 orov I Iv 5633 Tracy Subdivision: Explanation of Request 5633 Tracy Avenue represents the remaining two parcels of what originally was platted as a 4 parcel site. The east 232.5 feet was subdivided off In the late 1960's into two parcels. The remaining 237.5 feet to the west has been held and occupied by the original owner, The remaining portion Is 161.28 feet wide and 232.5 deep. This is identical to the east portion that had been subdivided off. There currently is a single family dwelling on the site and a detached garage. The dwelling Is in need of major renovation. As mentioned, the subject property is owned by the original owner, Miriam Kiser, 85, and represents a significant portion of her retirement assets. Given the condition of thehome, the break- up of value of the site has a much greater economic value than the single home/single site current configuration. Prior to this process, all early indications were that this would be a conforming subdivision. To Illustrate this position, the City of Edina, during Its Tracy Avenue sewer/water/street project, ran separate utilities to the new proposed site. In addition, the City also updated the water line connection to the existing home to conform with new -construction code requirements. The 'new site' sewer connection were done at the expense of the owner, representing roughly $15,000 (assessed until closing). The seller, in an effort to conserve monies, waited until there was a valid purchase agreement on the property before paying the surveyor expense to produce the needed subdivision documentation. Again, all initial conversations with the City predicted a conforming subdivision, The proposed site subdivision meets all requirements except for one condition, that being, meeting or exceeding the median lot width within the 500' defined neighborhood data set (77 properties). The proposed sites (2) meet the minimum zoning requirement of 80' width and, again, meet all other requirements. Further, the current site is somewhat of an anomaly within the 500' neighborhood being at the 99th percentile of width of the 73 sample set, 310% larger than the median lot square footage of the set and 171% deeper than the median of the seta The new proposed sites will remain 155% larger in area than median of the neighborhood set and will have the same depth as the original site, Detailed answers to the variance questions are provided later In this application. Attachment A: 5633 Tracy Variance Responses-: The proposed Variance will: 1) Relievepi•actical difficullies in con1piyilIg Ivith the zollittg ordinance and that the use is reasonable: YES. The subject property is the remaining two parcels of what originally was a 4 parcel sized plat. The eastern one half of the site was subdivided into two separate sites in the late 1960's. The practical difficulty faced in this process is the 500' neighborhood definition. This particular `500'- neighborhood (77 sample)' encompasses a number of sites than when platted were done with shorter depths, but during platting, to gain larger square footage, widths were increased. An example is the (clocks to the south of the subject. During platting the lot subdivision changed from fronting Tracy to fronting the east -west avenues. When this was done, the developer at the tune was able to subdivide roughly 6 sites to every 4 sites as platted on the subject's block platting configuration. Further, with regards to reasonable use, the new proposed sites meet the minimum tot width (80') and are 155% larger in square footage than the median of the 77 property sampling and 171% deeper than the median of said property set. 2) Correct extiaoidinat;y circltrttstarlcesapglicable to this property but not applicable to outer pia erly in the vich iv or zoning district.: YES. Of the 77 property set in the defined neighborhood, 13 of the homes front Tracy. Of those 13 properties, 9 homes have a narrower width than each of the proposed sites. Further, the proposed subject sites exceed the median width of the Tracy subset which is 80 feet. Please reference attachment B. This parcel is unique and in all practical purposes represents two appropriately sized sites for the neighborhood. Only two other properties out of the 77 sample remotely have the same issue. 31 xTe in harmony wills the Myeral plrrposes and intent of the zoning Ordinance: YES. The proposed sites meet minimum lot width of the zoning area (80'). Further, the proposed sites meet both minimum lot depth and square footage. With regards to the intent or spirit of the ordinance, the proposed sites offer the approximately the same site offering of its neighboring sites and greatly exceeds both the lot depth and lot area medians (as shown in #1 above). Further, from an intent level, all preliminary indications were that these would be conforming sites. To illustrate this fact, the City of Edina during their resurfacing and sewer project, proceeded to run separate utilities to the proposed new site based upon the 'spirit' of the subdivision. Only after the 500' neighborhood analysis did the narrow miss on the median width requirement arise. 4) Not alter the essential Character of the neighborhood. YES. Looking further into the data set of the 77 properties as the defined in the 500' neighborhood, the proposed subdivision actually brings the proposed sites more in line with the typical sites. Currently, lot width of the subject is at the 90 percentile of the 77 property set and post subdivision. The new sites will be wider than 31 of the 77 sites (40'h percentile) and within % inch of width of 5 more sites in set, placing the property at proximately at the 47`b percentile when treating these additional 5 parcels as comparable sites. This is shown in Attachment B. fir+ t�'i k7 Attachment B: 5633 Tracy Subdision: Width sample details Sample Wid@ Nola: Iso 2 75 3 75 4 7S 5 75 6 75 7 75 Subset: Tracy tot widths 8 75 75 9 75 75 10 75 76 11 75 75 12 75 so 13 7$ 12LB i4 76 78 15 7$ so 16 so so 17 80 110,7 18 80 80.7 19 80 >w 20 to 93 21 to 80 median on Trac 22 80 23 so 24 so 25 so 26 so 27 80 25 s0 29 $0 30 to 31 A0,6 32 80.7 $0.64 proposed lot width (between 31 and 32 sampling units, 40 percentile of same sat) 33 80.7 within M ofinch 34 $0.7 within 3/4 ofinah 3S $0.7 within 3/4 ofinch 36 80.7 within 3/4 of tach 37 84 38 $5 exceeds 31 out of the 77 85—'. 40 85 within 3/4 of inth of S more 41 55 42 85 43 85 44 85 45 $6.9 46 118 47 8s 42 89 49 90 so 90 51 90 52 90 53 90 54 90 55 90 56 90 57 90 5$ 90 59 91 60 93 6t 93 62 93 63 93 64 93 65 93 66 93 67 93 68 93 69 93 70 95 7► loo 72 100 73 103 74 104 75 Ito 76 120 121:2$ Current subject is 99 percentile of sampling set 77 121.8 Average $5.633766 Median 85 Al 3A 2 IM 5633 TracySubdlvision: Explanation of Request M 5633 Tracy Avenue represents the remaining two parcels of what originally was platted as a 4 parcel site. The east 232.5 feet was subdivided off in the late 196Ws into two parcels. The remaining 2325 feet to the west has been held and occupied by the original owner. The remaining portion is 161.28 feet wide and 232.5 deep. This is identical to the east portion that had been subdivided off. There currently Is a single family dwelling on the site and a detached garage. The dwelling Is in need of major renovation. As mentioned, the subject property is owned by the original owner, Miriam Kiser, 85, and represents a significant portion of her retirement assets. Given the condition of the home, the break- up of value of the site has a much greater economic value than the single home/single site current configuration. This subdivision requests separating the remaining 161.28 by 232.5 ft parcel into two equally sized parcels, with frontage on Tracy Avenue. Each site will be 80.64 feet wide. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 500 FEET OF PROPOSED SUBDIVISION Re: Kiser Subdivision 5633 Tracy rive., Edina, MN 55436 To Whom it may Concern: This notice is being sent to all single-family property owners within 500 feet of the property proposed for subdivision pursuant to the City Ordinance Number 810. The property- proposed for subdivision is located at 5633 Tracy Ave., Edina, Minnesota. The Property is legally described as: Lot 1, Block 1, Warden Acres Kiser Replat, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The proposed subdivision consists of dividing the existing parcel into 2 Lots. The contact person for this subdivision is Rod Helm and can be contacted by mail at Rod Helm 3033 Excelsior Blvd, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Telephone number: 952-924-6246 The proposal will be considered by the Edina Planning Commission on Wednesday, February 13, 2013, at 7:00 pm, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 West 50th Street. If you desire more infounation pertaining to the public hearing schedule or subdivision process please feel free to contact the City of Edina Planning Departinents at (952) 826- 0369. Sincerely, Rod Helm '11B / N LLI co -6 g % . (n / `�I r'•. 'spa lPf cJ! AO 'j 1 I I \ \ I 1 \ I 1 - \ \ 1 1 W $m 1 1 t 1 / 111 t � I m \ 1 1 , +J ! ori - I 112 �jl 1 F i N Iii 2 1 ( I/1 / / `�I r'•. 'spa lPf cJ! AO 'j 1 I I \ \ I 1 \ I 1 - \ \ 1 1 W $m 1 1 t 1 ( / 1 111 t � I 1 nw — nH nw ns� � nw � x7h-a•- nx d wy � e�L�h� Biu ev ��'-��7� dl�.Z/ � wu wv �- r� -C w�, wu ww —5—��6�5—�5�'-�•�-3-6-� �3-8—HCH-3-4 S -3—S-5-3-9 � S�-SO(bl 6—S—S— �� I�nN9A b A D V N -------------------- `�I r'•. 'spa lPf cJ! AO 'j 1 I I \ \ I 1 \ I 1 - \ \ 1 1 W $m 1 1 t 1 ( / 1 111 t � I 1 1 , +J -- k I I ori - I 112 �jl 1 F i N Iii 2 ( I/1 �a k / I((1 Ld — — — 177-'7 nw — nH nw ns� � nw � x7h-a•- nx d wy � e�L�h� Biu ev ��'-��7� dl�.Z/ � wu wv �- r� -C w�, wu ww —5—��6�5—�5�'-�•�-3-6-� �3-8—HCH-3-4 S -3—S-5-3-9 � S�-SO(bl 6—S—S— �� I�nN9A b A D V N -------------------- L_; ./ 1 , ♦ r, r, r-. 1 , r♦ I-- I I r -x • , . . 1. I L 1 /!--!\1 /1 i �I-r 1-- � F-11--1\ilvi i l �I IV/ /!\/!\e —1 ♦/I IL_,/ 1 IL_I Yi Y. ♦/ \/. I11 YA Y• , Go 1-5tory Frame J I I No.562,9 " PROP05ED UTIUTY DRAG S 89°51'45" E 232.50 545FMEN75 ARE5HOWN /----------------------------------------------------- v 15 51 PressedOnvemy L---- 1 O O -1_ Being 5 feet in width and adjon jn lot hues and l O feet in width al � I L O -rCC adjolrling right Of way hrles HA WKf5 1 Y Y —1 TERRACE I Utdrty r,—, n 5 N Ci 1 --------------------------------5�9°S1'4-7" 232 �b----------------- I W ------1 --------------------------------------------------------------- O I O 'I ZOcc x ,1 x L O T 2 1 N 89'51'48" W 232.50 -' I I I I BxEEf Ix" • `t St"tl t-Ea.000 CA"gl0om5ure SM 2-p P Sw Sfl-ILD19wIW 400e, Go I Garage x i I I Frame I �` Garage I � I Frame � I -5tory Frame No.5612 No.5616(house fay south) F77-1, (house faces south) I N0.5606 " Al �- r- " I - - Al r,0house facers south) /!Fr — s-- s-- s-- s— s— s— n➢rdlCte HA nM -sr r.so MV�9DD.061V TERRACE PROPOSED SILT FENCE {.yy--�rL lea 1P1 pt-1r�' lo. W �atl0o t' ¢T enol I/wC Or• er; NLI I 1-1 r I 909.' �•� l -Story Frame N0.5616 (house faces south! INLET PROTOMION STD. 2X3' STORM S7RUMM E>oW51 M7 I 5y8 ` I 9/0.2 F 1 -Story Frame I &F k adatran NO. 56 / 2 1 sfo.e (house faces srudl) I I - Jor'lFr".',�OMM�,,Oze?t925.E No.5606 i� rl� r- r- • r r - • r� I1 AI . r.(ho"6 fares 50Uth) 1frr- -r\r1 i•- /t r- nn /I nii ii -e 5I 1 \ I 1 ' I 60I I I rout' 1 ! I / � ! I l I I ptrJr beets I �m�908931 I r I 930.0 I `�'. I I :f -.:L.-:I' '';i!x /-Story Frame - - - ' ' - ' 1\ .90.9.6 CONSTRUCTION NOTES ' '-� I • •.f':•,�'.. ,l' • gar�9e 1•,'•. 5/5.4 No. 5629 t.oreera�ueunex •.. •'•. �' •" •concrete ! - - - - ` �� \ \ 1. CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL PI i I L •f,:..-'••; ••; •• • I': }i-.'-3 f 0 -) 914.7 91 �.eX .. 1 l \ \ I I 1 11 EXCAVATION. (DIAL B 11) 2. INSTALL SILT FENCE PRIOR TO CONSTI `; , I •I `. - - I _ E I Q$ ran s� 2 �;_ I S 89°51'45" 232.50 Io, 3. PROTECT EXISTING -' irn'e905.18 I : 9/.6 .1�,• ir�� \ __ __I Drtyewa `�� ud k i INLETANY PROTEC NDTREETESCATO 4. AFTER EXISTING DPoVt1R1AY REMOVAL I . I: ••, 975.6 _ ROCK CONSTRUCTION ACCESS FOR SI -r= I I ��� I h / u. d' � A I�� fi` �� 15 it IM w.t� rouMO -i .3• P -•I � m� t0 I � I - • 1�, cb I \ Gopher State 0 I .•: fI i i ,,._,. SYR \lI h .� ..- i . I I !r MLFFremicrAeFr,: a-ile; oz RPJ FAQ t ie07SA1� — s-- s-- s-- s— s— s— n➢rdlCte HA nM -sr r.so MV�9DD.061V TERRACE PROPOSED SILT FENCE {.yy--�rL lea 1P1 pt-1r�' lo. W �atl0o t' ¢T enol I/wC Or• er; NLI I 1-1 r I 909.' �•� l -Story Frame N0.5616 (house faces south! INLET PROTOMION STD. 2X3' STORM S7RUMM E>oW51 M7 I 5y8 ` I 9/0.2 F 1 -Story Frame I &F k adatran NO. 56 / 2 1 sfo.e (house faces srudl) I I - Jor'lFr".',�OMM�,,Oze?t925.E No.5606 i� rl� r- r- • r r - • r� I1 AI . r.(ho"6 fares 50Uth) 1frr- -r\r1 i•- /t r- nn /I nii ii -e 5I 1 \ I 1 � 1 A 1 1 ! I / � ! I l I I ptrJr beets I �m�908931 I r I Mr903.070 woverhexl wlrea ` \ ROCK ENTPAME TO CONSIRUCRON SM ronnlel� of All 1-1— GOVERNING SPECIFICA" 1. The 2005 edition efthe Minnesota Depart! Transportation -Standard, Specificatiore t and the City of Edina's SpedSeations. 2. The latest edtian afthe Mimesote Manor Traffic conlyd devices. 3. The IaRs a"= of the Chy Engineers Asft, Minnesota Standard Spea"fians. 1 ' LEGEND /rePc+rdC-r 0wnAtaesllracGet • obmr enel.�a...narttw. tgdrilt py PoxerPde 61 rsNr Goer! o� •• x - r -W w-- Owf-d Wro — , .•- seeayse.rr —a—a— 5tcne5- -.• —.1- wat— — — — raselaAtiels SCRseccv euNn9 Lne FM, -0 D..em, 0.0e .seiory Tree b be sR"-ExMtl n� �IMn EZ 2•F1e ebvd a•R•1 LM Seem 4-GraalM z 0 F O m 4< 0 � § w gw ' Y Is H 9F dR gg� i i 12 N Z z 0 F O m 4< 0 � § w gw ' Y Is H co Zj- HA WXF-5 ZLL.1 , TERRACE 'Z-1 PRELIMINARY PLAT -------------------------------------- KISER SUBDIVISION I------- F�. N 89*51'48'W 232.50 I Z 9 9 S 891! PROPOSED U77U7Y * ORNNAGE EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: I Si D -W !; tot , —M and Mjamq W I— and 10 feet . -0 -d I n Ir .1 le dj—.q Mftol-yk— UAW ----------- — ---- 0� 13 N • L 0 'T 2 (n PRELIMINARY PLAT FOPt- M Miriam amEKKiser $4E4w MN 0 Legal cription Sheet 2 of 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT -------------------------------------- KISER SUBDIVISION I------- F�. N 89*51'48'W 232.50 I Miriam 1(iser 503 T,.W Ave. - Eft ' MN 55*6 I1 -N0.5 r4l"' 1 msec Eco—AV jr -- —W Lor "VEYS COMPANY, INC. SCALE IN FW Z. Sheet 2 of 4 Laaop amen ban wnnopinCwlNy Tm1 RamNa Lelv0ft"0461 as l¢Ylnebd by¢Y Cy a Etllnl'> doftl lYtwnln6l wsw NMl Cy CUY. , YdmNlnbn wnllegn Ccl W w6 S¢o1MNNA mrngy` Nr �•ln4o•1•.N1bVr)�Iln R -i LOTS "'TITIN sac FEET OF PROPOSED IOSER SUBOINSION Miriam Kiser 5833 Tory Ave. EOW MN $5435 NOTES: Mepe)1l8..N WaTab)Nv., nwcYN !!tll PlgryY.nMrtlnn Nunbr.lLt l)31J341Y GMvawb¢CNw¢!Ab•Rl @min PweN lYll OVhp IYgswl xwpo•NWNn-Rt PNW dn1a4YCw1 6aldred&¢dne!•MN•! FaNYre M.1b•Nn41NNllmw 9!lYNe vNIUNNN�NMVM'l4euMYmrO PwYW: flu TNY Nu N Rppy Anl! pe PplN..1 LYrenlwnanm NNxsberbTa Wre Wri4NNNOMp n•NYniMbtlw QNNEen'�tlYnbptlwaM MAw mlNa.ancnlN IRAMm6n4•m H.nrvh cpnVNWad•n W. IN.e.w,xy rrYN.0+mO.rt� '�� n.dr•viu94 Legal Description rae]. eYnNta.wen.n.. w.ra.p•cx>NNe]tGrory, NwneoR KISER SUBDIVISION For. Miriam IGser 5633 TmoyAva Ethan. NN 59436 CERTIFICATION n..ro...n..Iw....w.Ir.rl.w.w.emwwNlae.. �mYY���b.YNYxrpNnmp.nweb vIMlr�br NNv �Mmd10- ��N amlN. NNNa I v. �/%j !Wa MRIIIe.:YR LOr SURVEYS COMPANY. NO. uw sueY6rom )MtT]ne Y4aN¢N, p!lnItLYN/ARI[YNlM)l iIRY0.lflab � pµNa MN ]154]9 I•Nwlb /lIL Sheet 3 of 4 + 2 � N E cc F 7 W FFn2 a � u = i � S — � � � a � S� c. $ U Z y� x I Ott { 114a g #5 U $�E pgg 1 a� �'LL NIe�-� �Y�g 211 �2m � Ib h W ! UJI 7 W a � u (j1 � •d• alb a� �'LL NIe�-� �2m � Ib h W ! UJI o Z � � p cl ' ! h —J iii � c i e fill lkw U os V ADVN1 + (j1 alb i 1 i h —J rr!! 1 + Helm, Rod M From: Sherman, Tod (DOT) {Tod.Sherman@state. mn.us] Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 2:03 PM To: Helm, Rod M Subject: RE: 5633 Tracy Avenue, Edina, Subdivision Rod: Thanks for sending in the plans. MnDOT has no p oblenls with the proposed lot split. Thanks, Iod fod')herrnan, lllanning Supervisor Mn/100-1" Metro District 1500 W. COU11ty Road B-2 Roseville, IVIN 5S113 (651) 234-7794 tod.shet-rrran@state.rnn.us From: Helm, Rod M [mailto:RHelm@CBBURNET.COM] Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 2:19 PM To: Sherman, Tod (DOT) Subject: 5633 Tracy Avenue, Edina, Subdivision Tod Sherman MN Department of Transportation Metro District Dear Tod, Thanks for your time on the phone today. As discussed, please find the following attachments regarding the proposed subdivision of 5633 Tracy Avenue in Edina: 1) Application for subdivision 2) Plat of current site 3) Proposed site subdivision plat Thanks again. Let me know if you need anything else. CRS, GRI, REAL:1'OR 2013 P;rsidcrn ELY, i1 N 1l ,so-- of 'Rc tilos f�ore�l,i[hf/,St. Purl Rel r� tiirl;.er .gq�nt", '0.3-'12 CIS'B 11ticinuion d Acsidcnt's Circle Q)Idwell Banker Burnet :+033 F.xcrlsiorBlvd. Suite r 100 \1iiuieapolis, A�1I�f _'154'16 952.924.62116 (n=ork) 619.720,979? (cell) 612.920.-4706 (fas) Licensed agent in N/LN rhehn , cbburnet.com 2/5/2013 Al� Page 1 of 2