The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2013-04-10 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 10, 2013 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission March 28, 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 some 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. Subdivision. Frank Holdings LLC/Spalon/Montage — 3909 West 49 % Street and 4936 France Avenue B. Variance. City of Edina. 7335 York Avenue C. Conditional Use Permit. Kirk and Amy Aadalen — 4924 East Sunnyslope Road VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Zoning Ordinance Update - Residential Development VIII CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS • Council Connection • Attendance 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 Wednesday April 10, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague April 10, 2013 VLA Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Spalon Montage is requesting to divide their property at 4936 France Avenue back into two lots for the purpose of potentially selling the new lot in the future. No new building is proposed at this time. (See property location on pages Al—A4.) The existing property and buildings would remain the same. (See pages A5— A7.) This property was originally platted as two lots. The applicant combined them a few years ago, but is now requesting to divide them back per the original plat. (See the proposed subdivision and original plat on pages A8— A11.) The specific request is for a Preliminary and Final Plat to divide the property. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Walgreens; zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and guided Neighborhood Commercial. Easterly: Retail space located in the City of Minneapolis. Southerly: Retail space on France Avenue; zoned PCD -2, Planned Commercial District and guided Neighborhood Commercial. Westerly: The 50th & France Municipal Parking ramp. Existing Site Features The subject property is 15,523 acres in size and contains the Spalon Montage salon and a single-family home that use used as retail space, including Spalon Montage. (See pages A4—A7.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Utilities/Easements Neighborhood Commercial PCD -2, Planned Commercial District -2 The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plat and found it to be acceptable. No additional easements or right-of-way would be needed. Preliminary Plat Per Section 810.11. Subd. 1, in consideration of Plats and Subdivisions the Planning Commission and City Council may consider the following: A. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by, but not limited to, the following matters: 1. The suitability to the size and shape of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision relative to the size and shape of lots in the neighborhood, and 2. The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed plat or subdivision with the proposed density and intended use of the site and the density and use of lots in the neighborhood. B. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, on the environment, including but not limited to, topography, steep slopes, vegetation, naturally occurring lakes, ponds and streams, susceptibility of the site to erosion and sedimentation, susceptibility of the site to flooding and water storage needs on and from the site. C. The consistency of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development, and compliance by the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development, with the policies, objectives, and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. D. The compliance of the proposed plat or subdivision, and the proposed development with the policies, objectives, goals and requirements of Section 850 of this Code including, without limitation, the lot size provisions and the Floodplain Overlay District provisions of Section 850 of this Code. 0) E. The impact of the proposed plat or subdivision, and proposed development on the health, safety and general welfare of the public. F. The relationship of the design of the site, or the improvements proposed and the conflict of such design or improvements, with any easements of record or on the ground. G. The relationship of lots in the proposed plat or subdivision to existing streets and the adequacy and safety of ingress to and egress from such lots from and to existing streets. H. The adequacy of streets in the proposed plat or subdivision, and the conformity with existing and planned streets and highways in surrounding areas. Streets in the proposed plat or subdivision shall be deemed inadequate if designed or located so as to prevent or deny public street access to adjoining properties, it being the policy of the City to avoid landlocked tracts, parcels or lots. The suitability of street grades in relation to the grades of lots and existing or future extension of the City's water, storm and sanitary sewer systems. J. The adequacy and availability of access by police, fire, ambulance and other life safety vehicles to all proposed improvements to be developed on the proposed plat or subdivision. K. Whether the physical characteristics of the property, including, without limitation, topography, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion or siltation, susceptibility to flooding, use as a natural recovery and ponding area for storm water, and potential disturbance of slopes with a grade of 18 percent or more, are such that the property is not suitable for the type of development or use proposed. L. Whether development within the proposed plat or subdivision will cause the disturbance of more than 25 percent of the total area in such plat or subdivision containing slopes exceeding 18 percent. M. Whether the proposed plat or subdivision, or the improvements proposed to be placed thereon are likely to cause substantial environmental damage. The proposed subdivision is simply reestablishing the original plat. There would be no change to the existing uses or buildings on the site. The above criteria is met. 3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the City Council approve the Subdivision for Spalon Montage to divide their property at 4936 France Avenue back into two lots. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The lots were original platted as proposed. 2. There are no immediate requests for changes in use of the property or existing buildings. Deadline for a city decision: May 15, 2013 4 Al M City of Edina 1071 upk 45!0 4829 NM wH MykMykNd Fakaa 382! HlmranNM Hours Number 3873 Nu q.90 4045 Lakols jots a 9932 7838 7#22 .Hro Nit EI I 4887 Rom Number Labols 4878 NN 3l/ra0f-Naos Labels 487NAW IMI LIONS ft fI C9ilks O Labs Nsmas 4509 on 3803 4087 1001 3949 7!45 Mt 203? 2921 nu 7Mt I41" 4905 � Lakes 4901 190! 0 lMks +a0! 3817 O Hroaa Nis u 2445 79{9 7910 7876 Ilio]:jj wla rat +sia 3t N fat i7W 4!32 1878 2t 21 4570 24 21 p 3875 4978;: 3820 I#M 4518 �7 4880 2t 4500 y 700 $21 7922 7908 3902 "WNW i!2! 40 42047938 2Ha 24 21 7921 !02 38t1 1099 3838 34 solds got? N SOq Q20 Ms 9022 MH 5025 SOti 0000 4050 b2f ao7s JQ'u 5031 929 alaai7M 5049 wa..e.wtiws.ow-4s lu0cwiv m t7m PID: 1802824140129 r 4436 France Ave S Edina, MN 55410 l581L'' M Property PID: 1802824140129 cowty 4936 FRANCE AVE S A3 Property PID: 1602824140129 County 4936 FRANCE AVE S LOT To 6E Acv ISEO 8 Q�v 1!C�D Pr� Jill pt Lu 42 CI. spy Ill — — — --_....------------ a; -------------- twom cJHVH ONDISM 9NUSIX3 SN% ------- --- cJHVH ONDISM 9NUSIX3 aaaPlr en w ammo sw .out •ssyDlDDasy PUD JOPLION • :: 1.. �4�1).. (. •'.•.. W KIO'rPUYWR WMWIY I ,bra PMl W TrPrMt ' y �t� �1 :,;•eY�•1 - 71%^AWCOBfMrrYpm I • ..•1: '. !_.�1Yy-�y� ' '[TR',WM}�grWN 4MPW7 33rwfaMMwn +PWr= MMir�drd WW a�up WW}N M 'W -WaI'WpUrWAft .wanrrcwWiw>�s'us•w.a�eq�yaw�r•.x.nwwaWwWu I NWI�O�F 'd1 Pd LewWM prUW M�aWWNNhWQ WPWMW)W I pv.Wa UM PM„rW, WPW aIMIUr'itS'rP uaWlayr%r/,Pry b[pIMWM Vi I aWM ra MUM T UW rUl M•R�IrI Plp MUM tYMa,P�+�p, i7nY Ktrl'R WrIM P K .'e' WWWI'YwO WII 'raaMWrcwM wimae'us •WI rW41ap� rMIPM')rl} Tw is ammM11 WLL p'prWW)MPIP,auq,WnM s'i[ •a1 "ft-�i;+rPMIW, VCSIMUr uT W WP rap Utl 1 map M'R U1DIe MUM [ NSB WPidW • I �ro�a I I O .w �i I 7 1 9Pp47Ut8 JAWDGi 7 �+rYwYr�IM ylnhWla HUM 3MGW 3wow gaw ONia7lna 1 9N1.1SIX3 9NIcnin8 IWVMX3 -9NIQ71na 2NLLSIX3 x Wwrspwvw® =M,R uaWWr1.0 I p prWIWVaNi 0 WM1Mli +t�+l I • WrIMWMI oa n wm wWPaMa On Mme, r^MA)IIaIM Utl •w WPA W18 •p � � Urp/W pyM 0!l S IlUullrll W % awg W Wa—p— p,W A.VM—e-- OM•12i'I }rJ N WrrS 'W W Uu MMMI,OIp M WMI I ilrr,rWWrWY11�,IP�WMPa WIMrrwMlp. OrMWrP ow • ,roW �eey/er (+w�M pIMYMpPpNWw ML'rWWrr WW9%WPTPWIW PIIp11a4NIrW WN. 'Q•YYPIP 1p1 Pa,IWW [•mI WW,r2• ""YY rMWriq 7rr,M 4ua,YP,lfwr�UM rM'M )¢i'R I Wr >W r,psraLovT:WW.. 'U00./4Y•S9 r)rY1 'Ypol pil rin„Prlr „WMM,W„aWh1U.NiWWPArWpWYrJr I pbra hSWrrwV rglrwlW Weyr W WyrrMWM. vMP � wuriR�. I 30b'1NOW NO-lddS :104 XaAjnS uolsinlp }off I O .w �i I 7 1 9Pp47Ut8 JAWDGi 7 �+rYwYr�IM ylnhWla HUM 3MGW 3wow gaw ONia7lna 1 9N1.1SIX3 9NIcnin8 IWVMX3 -9NIQ71na 2NLLSIX3 x 13 _ S112ofNE1/4 SEC 18 T. 028 R. 24 14 19TH aT W This is not a legally recorded map. It represents S L2 of NE 1/4 SEC 18 T.028 R24 Prepared by the City of Edina, MN, a compilation of information and data from city, nrvure NEAWIE HIM"e Original base data supplied Hennepin Co., MN. county and other sources. by epi uxu°iitii�ii S MJNHE _t'nt�irii suL^.uaaose:onue N2nna+E Nina 0 200 400 Feet Eight/Quarter/Section Page 6 o 4t4 L II&AT, 13 w a; 'AI -ALM; � P� P f YI• f M '• 41f� f i I 1 5 w tw PA wU .w aM I Pw ) •w s^ w .n p & �" o" R Lnb ND w ^ w m: do rt11 "' P° °R •M A X10 � Pal � a� � ` � ~ ~ f9 7 •.. tw .. '"' w RD • LKM a ' •�.1 �' "+" m+ rrp • COUNTRY • do ^n•. a•' «�+ 9 - •, mm rwrs � : 1 • i i . l . i . � . I n%f niu 1 � s � t .�- � • it " 14 na mn ,;,, '"' ' 49102 ET W , t+w � IMY r !�R P • EO* A CT �t« m ttit •�` - rnu tix I ' • �+` f rN1 f P Nry .�w. i�ww •� no t A do 6r A II s" .+Gw � �� _ :y � i �' fawowtw 99TH 9T W a 77 This is not a legally recorded map. It represents S L2 of NE 1/4 SEC 18 T.028 R24 Prepared by the City of Edina, MN, a compilation of information and data from city, nrvure NEAWIE HIM"e Original base data supplied Hennepin Co., MN. county and other sources. by epi uxu°iitii�ii S MJNHE _t'nt�irii suL^.uaaose:onue N2nna+E Nina 0 200 400 Feet Eight/Quarter/Section Page 6 o 4t4 L II&AT, 13 se.a Ow .� ,mug a a roe) K N us a (esy IS All w (87y � s n 0:R les) N: OAKS O us n is ac " 111 —1 (es) R It g" rnn as a A (12m (123)u rts) poi p a se.a a n 3 a rtn n R a n.M (87y � s sua (1K) (32) c 9 a B rm 3 " 1vO (12m (123)u y poi p 7 (eo> a R Me) A f p A , a --- a (20) a qn) ID W M aA) sa k: n � " A( IS i HA Om r27> a (W4 ni'� a alta n. u ns (0a) (12,) " mol41> W g a IT (122) A 145 06,64 A a (29 q Wfk ' t O.Y s e� i+`.I q� ri a Z a N7n (� % a 7 49TH ST W w „ - ass aa, REKAT LM!W14 Y.X AD" AM (107) roe) � (+M (127) LL RO KRVWADON t C16(10n i r) (V) a R) (12.) a G tf avw7.FwTa X >. R IS R pis + a 01 ae 491 /2 ST W a rtn t0 a n.M rnn (32) 9 B rm 3 " 1vO (12m (123)u y poi p 7 a R R "LOTH f p A q a is a ( a a (72ey aaTOFurx NarOFLOT a ID W M aA) $ Q n � " A( $ a r27> (122) MIS W a a Ue R A e� i+`.I aMTOFWT,a m) ) ? i $ _ i PMTOFI ,. 03)(ray ca) u» (14) (1a Lt S nii, a R ,a w „ - ass aa, REKAT LM!W14 Y.X AD" AM (107) roe) � (+M (127) LL RO KRVWADON t C16(10n i r) (V) a R) (12.) a G tf avw7.FwTa X >. R IS R pis + a 01 ae 491 /2 ST W A sn a rtn t0 a n.M rnn (32) B rm 3 a (12m (123)u y poi p N M a R R "LOTH f p A q a is a ( a a (72ey aaTOFurx NarOFLOT a aA) n � . !( R a r27> (122) a a A sn a t0 a n.M 0 O..tl a wa U It MA. [� p R iS oo Q Z' i M ,aR poi p N M .WA,Mk Z .a 3x IS S a ( a 9 F R a usaa a N a • upa ai'.t'SOER 7 O.GMa ".....«.».«......«.........................«.............»! .... R aYNt,a a FSMNOSTREET02 N.Ar 14 SEC 18 T.028 R.24 Prepared by the City of Edina, MN, W/18 NMEM 8- Original base data supplied by Hennepin Co., MN. .... PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker April 10, 2013 B-13-10 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the variance as requested. Project Description A 10 -foot side yard setback variance to construct an extension to the YMCA parking lot over city owned property at the Yorktown Park site located at 7335 York Ave. (See property location on pages Al—A5, site location, ariel photos and land use.) INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The City of Edina is requesting a setback variance to construct a parking lot extension from the Southdale YMCA property onto the city owned Yorktown Park property for the purposes of providing parking for a proposed Pilot Community Garden Project to be located within the park. (See narrative and plans on pages A6—A25). The ordinance requires a 10 -foot setback from an interior lot line for parking stalls and drive aisles. The purpose of the variance is to allow a shared use parking lot extension for both the YMCA and Yorktown Park to accommodate users of the new community garden and to benefit the YMCA for their over -flow parking needs. The proposed extension would provide a net gain of 29 additional parking stalls with reserved spots for gardeners. Currently there is no parking provided on site for the park. A parking lot extension would benefit both the YMCA and the City by providing parking for the YMCA during their peak winter season and for the City during the rest of the year. During the summer months the back (west) parking lot at the YMCA is used for bus staging for kid's programing, day trips and camps which would make it difficult for Yorktown Park users to share their lot. A new shared use lot would allow increased use of the park and the ability for more park and community garden programing. The Nine Mile Creek Trail is also proposed to run just north of the park, so nearby parking could service the trail. The cost of the parking lot expansion is estimated at $66,000, with the City proposing to construct the lot and to be reimbursed by the YMCA for all associated costs. The YMCA has committed to maintenance of the parking lot as well. The possibility of Community Gardens was discussed by the City Council starting in 2009, with a more recent drive of the Council by encouraging the Community Health Committee to add it to their work plan. Moving forward with the Health Committee's work plan and as part of the City's participation in do.town initiatives, do.town met with Southdale YMCA to partner on the Garden Project. The Park Board supported the recommendations of the Yorktown Community Garden Work Group at their March 12, 2013, meeting and requested that the City Council approve the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden Project and parking lot. The Edina City Council approved the Pilot Project at their April2, 2013, City Council meeting, on a vote of 3-1. The last step in the city process is for the Planning Commission to review the setback variance for the parking lot expansion. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: The Durham Apartments, zoned PRD -4, Planned Residence District 4. Easterly: The City of Richfield/Park property. Westerly: The Edina Place Condominiums, zoned PRD -4, Planned Residence District 4. Southerly: Southdale YMCA, zoned POD -1, Planned Office District 1. Existing Site Features The subject property is approximately 4.5 acres in size, is relatively flat and contains a City Fire Station with their surface parking, a Skate Park and walking paths. (See pages A3—A4.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Public Open Space Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District. 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 2 demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.04.Subd. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance require the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable. The practical difficulty is caused by the requirement for a setback in a situation when two properties have different zoning designations. If these properties were both zoned POD, a setback would not be required. The shared parking over the lot lines is beneficial to both properties. It is reasonable to expect the City to provide convenient parking for proposed improvements to the park that will require visitor vehicle trips. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yorktown Park is unique in the area, surrounded by higher density housing, commercial uses and the YMCA. The park is an asset providing open park space for the use and enjoyment of nearby residents, visitors and employees. The park currently does not provide needed parking. Extension of the parking lot will allow for additional programing of the park that will benefit residents and visitors. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed parking extension would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The lot extension enhances the character of the neighborhood by providing needed parking for Yorktown Park that currently does not provide any designated parking on site. The variance will allow needed parking for new programing. To program the park without adding parking would potentially force unauthorized off-site parking for park use. 3 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 caused by the two properties having different zoning designations, and therefore, a setback is required from the lot line. If the properties shared a common zoning designation, then a setback would not be required. b) The parking extension is a relatively minor improvement, however, will provide the needed parking for new programing within the park and will provide over -flow parking for the YMCA property. c) The request is reasonable given the location of the existing YMCA parking lot and the benefits gained by both properties with the extension of the lot. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1. Final parking lot connection and layout subject to review and approval of the City Engineer. 2. The filing of an access and maintenance agreement between the City and the Southdale YMCA. Deadline for a city decision: May 12, 2013 4 Minnesota Statues and l dins Ordinances require that the following conditions must be setisfied,afthinativOi y. Please fully aiplain your gnawers using, additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES ,N Relieve practical difficulties In complying with a zoning ordlnanc an [thattha use Is reasonable Correct,extraordinary circumstances applicable to" this property but not a pppilcaole to, other; property In the vicinity or zonth district IeN be In harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not atter the essential Character of a neighborhood 2 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT ..... e . — _&A �_ im • ....I f ..w. 411a hftrhi iA&i%» fh= f_7fV Chni Rhi nn. rle-2 OWNVR' t am the 1 (if a corp applicatic N41V[I zl ivulu &M ,FW%or"OOVU Iii my 144m;141w, %Al l" r c011 M.— r— •7— a this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this ve been paid. l further certify that l am in compliance with all ordinance requirements ms regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. oleted all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the . 'and-informa�on i-bave-submitted-are true�and corr+ecL ... _ ..._ s Signature Date STATEMENT a title owner of the above described property, and l agree to this application. ation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this ` on behalf of the'board of directors or partnership.] Explanation of Request: The Yorktown Park Community Garden Project is on the Park Board work plan for 2013. Currently, Yorktown Park does not provide any parking for users of the Park. The addition of the parking lot will provide parking for the Community Garden along with other users of the Park. The proposed parking lot is a partnership between the YMCA and the City to share the lot. -The City Will build the parking lot and the YMCA will provide funding. �c LOCATION MAP r 1 i'll. f i l rvn,. •rr : � i / , — 7335 York Ave S i •; rsEdina, MN 55435 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I Xrt http.//gis.logis.org20GIS ArcIMS/ims?SeiviceName=ed_LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientVe... 4/3/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 X 5 http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArclMS/ims?ServiceName=eel LOGISMap OVSDE&ClientVe... 4/3/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page I of 1 14-11 hrip.//gis.logis.org/LOGIS_ArcIMS/ims?SeiviceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&Client' .'e... 4/3/2013 99-b' I ff`L O"u UIZI: 1=1 I �`• spsq! uoisep ,tuunwwon pue esn pue7 :gJeid8gD 9ooz ewpdn ueid dwoo eulpa �arnr ro n 0 sun -mos too a�► +a �7 appdn ueld anlsuayaxiwoo am we pend neatpnog �Ip3 to lyl� G&gsloH oulpiln8 qtl«► Mid daft Pusi emnnd To: City Council Agenda Item #k VIII. C. From: Ann Kattreh, Director Action 0 Parks & Recreation Department Discussion Date: March 12, 2013 Information ❑ Subject: Consider Approval of Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and Parking Lot Action Requested: Approve the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden and Parking Lot Project. Information I Background: A brief history of recent community garden discussions: • 2009 —City of Edina assesses public spaces for community gardens, action was tabled at that time • March 2012 — City Council members expressed a desire to revisit the community garden question on public land • March to June 2012 — do.town community conversations identifies a base of supporters July 2012 — City Council encourages community health committee to add community gardens to their work plan August 6, 2012 - Mayor Hovland and the Council proclaimed Aug. I I th as Community Garden Day -- recognizing ALL a community garden brings to your community August 7, 2012 - do.town begins letter writing campaign to City Council and Community Health Committee — 7 letters generated • September 2012 — do.town administers a petition drive at The Durham — resulting in 47 signatures • October/November 2012 — Community Health Committee recommends to City Council a pilot community garden at Yorktown Park • November 2012 do.town meets with the Southdale YMCA to confirm their Interest In partnering on a community ganders project • December 2012 — do.town hosts a meeting at the Southdale YMCA • January 8, 2013 — The Park Board selected Ellen Jones and Dan Peterson to serve on the Yorktown Community Garden Work Group. MY of Edina 0 4801 W 50a St. • Edina, MN 55424 REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2 • January 2013 — PLANNING BEGINS. Staff collected community garden data from 16 neighboring communities, compiled the data, completed a project timeline and prepared a Draft Rules and Policies document. - - . January, 30;1013 Recreation Supervisor -Done a-Tilsner'Assistant Directorp'Susan-Faus-and-_ -' "1 Director Ann Kattreh hosted the first Yorktown Park Community Garden Work Group meeting. • February 12, 2013 — Park Board approved the Draft Rules and Policies document with some revisions requested. • February 27, 2013 — The second community garden meeting was held. The work group discussed the timeline, parking lot, rules, policies, marketing, the application form and master gardener opportunities. • March 12, 2013 — The Park Board held a public hearing and was. asked to review and comment on the proposed community garden and parking lot. The unapproved portion of the minutes from that meeting is attached. • March 20, 2013 — The third community garden meeting was held. The work. group, chaired by Ellen Jones, made the following recommendation: The Yorktown Park Community Garden Project Working Group recommends that a parking lot; no larger than 15 stalls be built out of temporary millings from the Public Works department as opposed to an asphalt surface. In addition, the smaller lot should be shifted south to allow for more open space. They stated that if the council wants a parking lot it is doing it for other reasons than to benefit the park. There was one opposition by Park Board Member- Dan Peterson who wants the parking lot paid for by the YMCA. Staff is requesting your approval of the overall community garden project and on the proposed site plan, including a new, shared use parking lot with the YMCA. The YMCA is proposing to pay for the construction and maintenance of the parking lot on Yorktown Park property. The City would have reserved spots for gardeners. The net gain in parking spots for the YMCA is 29 spots. There is currently no parking at Yorktown Park and the lack of parking has limited the use of the park. The YMCA experiences significant parking shortages during the winter months. During the summer months, the YMCA's back parking lot is a busy bus staging area for kids programming, day trips and camps. Staff contacted the Durham Apartments to discuss a parking partnership and they are unable to accommodate Yorktown Park parking. A parking lot in this park will increase the use of the park and give us the ability to program both the community garden and the grassy areas of the park. The Nine Mile Creek Trail will also run on the north border of the park. This parking lot would provide safe access to the trail for walkers or bikers. The Engineers estimate for the parking lot is $66,000. The City proposes to construct the parking lot and be reimbursed by the YMCA for all associated costs. Soil testing and soil borings have been completed and it was determined that the site is conducive for a garden and for a parking lot. ,d, 7 REPORT/ RECOMMENDATION Page 3 At the March 12 Park Board Meeting staff asked for review and comment on the proposed - --- .- comrnunity..garden.project and -associated -parking -lot- Members,Cella,_Deeds,-Gieseke,-Hulbert, _ D. Peterson, K. Peterson, Segreto, and Steel spoke in favor of the proposed community garden and parking lot. Member Jacobson agrees that a parking lot is needed, but has reservations about size and access. Member Jones is opposed to the parking lot as proposed. Both Members Jacobson and Jones were in favor of the community garden as proposed. Staff also recommends constructing a 4' high black vinyl fence around the garden to provide an attractive solution for keeping rabbits and other small animals out of the garden. When fencing is not provided, individual plot holders are forced to put up their own fencing and the area quickly becomes unsightly. Staff recommends a water containment tank in the first season and will budget for a permanent water supply as soon as possible. Bike racks, benches and signage will be provided this year. Staff is currently working on a calendar of educational topics and programming that will be covered throughout the summer. We are working with Larry Cipolla, a master gardener, to determine programming opportunities. The YMCA will be given 2- 10' X 15' plots and we will be partnering with them on other programming and marketing opportunities as well. Whole Foods has granted us a Community Day on 4/18. Five percent of the sales on that day will be donated to the Yorktown Community Garden. The anticipated donation amount is approximately $3,000. This will pay for signage, bike racks, etc. ATTACHMENTS; A. Community Garden Rules and Policies B. Community Garden Timeline C. Community Garden Plot and Site Map D. Community Garden Budget E. City Comparison of Community Gardens F. Spring Garden Basics G. Yorktown Community Garden and Parking Lot H. Draft, Unapproved March 12 Park Board Minutes Attachment A CITY OF EDINA YORKTOWN PARK PILOT COMMUNITY GARDEN RULES & POLICIES Plots are intended for personal use only, Gardening for commercial purposes is prohibited. 2. Gardeners are responsible for planting, weeding, and watering. Harvest produce from your designated plot only. 3. Gardeners are responsible for bringing their own tools. Storage is not provided. 4. Water source is available on site; you will be required to bring your own bucket Hoses will not be provide 5. Stakes that mark your plot's corners and have your plot name and number must be left in place all season. 6. There will be trash and recycling receptacles on site. 7. A compost bin will be available for your use. 8. Please park in designated parking areas only. 9. Pets are not allowed inside the fence of the garden area. 10. Insecticides or herbicides may not be used in order to create and nurture healthy soil and a healthy plant environ- ment in the garden. 11. Gardener will not plant illegal drugs or any invasive plants. 12. Tobacco, illegal drugs or alcoholic beverages are not allowed in Yorktown Park. 13. Only seasonal (annual) plants may be planted. No perennials, shrubs or trees are allowed to be planted. 14. No individual temporary fencing Is allowed. No permanent structures or other decorative items are allowed. 15. Bio -degradable mulch such as compost, leaves, straw and hay are encouraged. 16. Please keep weeds to a minimum, If weeds are growing 12" tall on more than 1/3 of your pot or if you have ex- tended your plot beyond the assigned boundary lines, you will be contacted by the City by phonetemail. You need to respond to this communication. Gardeners will have 2 weeks from the day we notify you to take the appropri- ate action before the plot will be tilled, plot must be maintained during any extended absences. 17, A walkway must be maintained around each garden plot. Crops, plants, vines, vegetation and weeds must be con- tained within boundaries of your garden plot. Overlapping on to adjacent pathways or garden plots is prohibited. 18. Anyone not tending his/her plot may risk losing their garden privileges for the year and lose priority registration for the following year. 19. Non-organic waste (cans, bottles and plastic containers) should be placed in the trash/recycling barrels provided. CITY OF EDINA RESPONSIBILITIES • City will take registrations and payments for the plots. • City will plow, till, drag, measure and stakeout the gardens in the spring. • City will provide access to water. • City will provide a designated area to park. • City will designate compost site. • City will till the plots after October 30. • City will do an annual user survey to determine satisfaction with their experience. Complaints, policies and mediations will be addressed by the community garden subcommittee with the City of Edina having the final authority. City of Edina does not assume responsibility for acts of vandalism or loss of crops due to thefts or due to animals eating crops. Attachment A YORKTOWN PARK PILOT COMMUNITY GARDENS A RULES AND POLICIES CITY OF EDINA �i"\ This pilot Community Garden is owned and run by the City of Edina. In order to have a 0 e plot in the garden, you must agree to abide by the rules. Any outside people that you bring Uy in to the garden are expected to follow these rules and the plot holder is responsible for p communicating the rules to -their guests. The -rules are created in order to have a fruitful, y secure, and enjoyable place to garden. �O•,� _<v'� REGISTRATION INFORMATION • Priority for plots is as follows for 2013: (1) Edina residents (2) People who work in Edina (3) Non-residents Next year: (1) Previous year Edina resident plot holders (2) Edina residents -new (3) Previous non-resident plot holders (4) Non-residents - new • Plots are assigned on a first-come, first -serve basis • A waiting list will be maintained if garden plots fill, which is based on the date the application form is received. • Gardeners may rent one plot per household. • Payment can be in the form of a check payable to: City of Edina. We also accept VISA, MasterCard and American Express. • There will be a fee of $25 for a I0x10 and $30 for a I OAS plot. • Garden plots are assigned to one person only and are not transferable. Others may garden at your site, but the responsibility for payment of fees, cleanup and other duties at the site will be the responsibility of the Individual whose name is assigned to the plot. PLOT INFORMATION • The size of the plots will be approximately IOx10 and 10x15. • Gardeners may begin planting on the third Saturday in May, weather permitting. In 2013, this is May 18. • All gardens must be planted by June 3. If you are unable to meet this deadline, please contact the City of Edina. • All non-organic and organic materials must be cleared out to ground level by October 30. • if you must abandon your plot, please inform the city so it may be re -assigned. If there is no evidence of activity at your plot by June 3, it will be re -assigned. If you are unable to meet this deadline, contact the City of Edina. There will be no refunds on fees paid. //.. /D Attachment B COMMUNITY GARDEN PROJECT TIMELINE _ _Rules-and_Policies_ _._ _. _ ...._ --.... ___.._February -1 Park Board Approval February 12 (Rules and Policies) Location and Parking February 15 Soil Testing February 15 Site Map February 28 Application Form February 28 Budget Completed February 28 Park Board Public Hearing March 12 Park Board Review and Comment on Garden Proposal Marketing Plan Finalized March 12 Educational Plan March 18 City Council Approval April 2 Open Registration Edina Residents April 4 Kick Off Event at Y April 5 Plant Bed Construction April 8 Open Registration for Non -Edina Residents April 18 Garden Fence May 3 Grand Opening Week of May 13 Closing of Garden October 30 10 X 15 Plots 10 X 10 Plots 3' Path Flower Beds Common Area Attachment C Reserved 11 Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden 7335 York Avenut Edm' Please note that a water source is available on site, you will be required to being your own bucket to haul water from the water source. Gardeners also need to bre their own tools, as storage Is not provided. Please read over all rules and policies to determine if renting a plot is right for yowl Happy Gardening! '.�, /Z' Attachment D REVENUE Piot Fees $1,515.00 TOTAL REVENUE $1,515.00 $1,515.00 $1,515.00 EXPENSES Soil Borings and Testing $40275.00 $0.00 Mobilization $1,000.00 $0.00 Chain Link Fence Design $8,500.00 $0.00 Roto Tilling and Topsoil Prep $4,000.00 $1,500.00 Hydraulic Soil Stabilizer $640.00 $0.00 Compost Bin $400.00 $0.00 Signage $1,400.00 $0.00 Marketing & Promotions $825.00 $450.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $21,040.00 $1,950.00 NET REVENUE ($19,525) ($435.00) X.I-;3 Attachment E X, i-/-/ I HOPKINS/MTKA 15 Yes No PLYMOUTH Share with city workhouse No No. Plot owner can provide HLfrCl4ihlSON Street and apartmentlot ----� � No No BUFFALO Yes, not much needed Yes 4 Foot BROOKLYN PARK 60 at farm location, only 15 at plots Yes 10 Foot J ALBERT LEA 24 Port a Potty No FALCON HEIGHTS 50 Port a Potty 4 Foot BLOOMINGTON By an existing facility Port a Potty None provided, renters can put up 3-6 foot fence. INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 20-25 Port a Potty 6-8 Foot PRIOR LAK-- 10 Port a Potty No MONTICELLO 3-4 close to garden, Community Center parking lot Port a Potty Chicken wire. 2-3 foot ST. LOUIS PARK 6-8 dose to garden, use of church lot„ So more Port a Potty 3 Foot Attachment F 6., Attachment G :""'• "�°` YORKTDVN PARKWITY OF BDINACOMMUNITY GARDSN a COMMUNITY GAlWvEN t .Mw. Y�sw dt PARKING IAT ,w , �„ & PARKING LOT If �.. 'p i I Attachment H MINUTES - pRAFT OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE EDINA PARK BOARD HELD AT CITY HALL March 12, 2013 _ 7:00 PM - I. REPORTS/RECOMMENDATIONS VI.A. Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden Public Hearing Ms. Faus gave a power point presentation on the Yorktown Park Pilot Community Garden as well as gave the history of how they got to where they are today. Member Gieseke asked if they are going to be able to pick a first, second and third choice for a particular spot to which Ms. Faus replied yes, she believes on the application Is asks for a first, second and third choice. Member Hulbert asked when the Farmer's Market begins at Centennial Lakes because he thinks they could probably market it there as well. Ms. Faus replied they will be getting the word out at all of their enterprise facilities.and anywhere else they are able to get the word out. Member Segreto commented at the last meeting they talked about a number of parking spaces that would be reserved for the gardeners and asked how many spaces have been allocated for it. Ms. Faus replied that hasn't been determined yet if they are moving ahead with the parking lot and is something they will need to work out with the YMCA. Member Segreto indicated when she read the rules and regulations she noticed there is no enforcement provision saying something such as if you don't abide by these rules and regulations you will lose your rights. She stated that it alludes to it but doesn't come out and say it. Ms. Faus replied it does allude to it; however, they will also be going through all of the rules and policies and make sure people understand what the expectations are for them when they are using the garden. Ms. Faus asked Member Segreto if she would like to see stronger more specific language to which Member Segreto replied yes. Member Hulbert commented that on points four, six and seven regarding parcel priority they could strike the first sentence in number four and say returning Edina residents are given first priority. Number six could list the different priorities and number seven could be taken out. Ms. Faus replied they can certainly make that change. Member Kathryn Peterson asked regarding costs have they broken down what is considered a one- time Implementation such as the fence versus costs that will be recurring on an annual yearly basis. Ms. Faus replied they did a little research on other cities and it was hard to find what the actual costs were because once the garden is built the only real costs will be water and labor for tilling the different plots which will be done through Edina City staff. She added they have some information from Bloomington and Plymouth that it will be approximately $2,000 to $2,300 at the most. Member Jones asked regarding the maintenance operating costs the time that it takes for the water truck to come and the time it's going to take to mow the paths is going to be additional time to just mowing the park and asked if the costs have been figure out for staffs time to administer all of this. Ms. Kattreh replied she doesn't know if it will happen in the first year or not, it depends on how the A �v budget plays out, but they hope to have the inside walkways mulched so It won't be a mowing issue long-term. She stated as far as the time to fill the water container they honestly have no idea what those costs are going to be because they don't know how quickly they are going to go through it and therefore it's going to be very difficult for them to plan the first year. She explained in conversations with the Public Works Director the way that they view those costs are an internal transfer so they will not -be charged directly for those costs either from a staffing perspective or for the water itself. However, that is not to say that a staff person isn't going to be taken off another job so there are certainly going to be some indirect costs to the city but it won't be a line item budget transfer. Member Dan Peterson commented he understands there will be no raised beds at this time. Ms. Faus replied because it is a pilot project and this is their first year they decided to wait and see what the demand is and if there are a lot of requests that may be something they could add next year. Member Dan Peterson asked with that in mind do the other cities you've looked at generally have three foot separations for walking to which Ms. Faus replied yes, they do that to make sure if anyone is using a wheelbarrow there is enough space in between to walk through. Ms. Kattreh added they would really like to have those raised beds be an Eagle Scout project and they hope to be able to do that next year. MemberJones asked how successful have other communities been with the chain link fence for keeping bunnies out. Ms. Faus replied she doesn't know how successful the fences are at keeping all animals out but she does know that other community gardens do have some type of fencing and assumes It helps to keep them out. Member Jones asked Ms. Faus to ask the master gardener if this is a plan that would keep out the most common problem, which she assumes would be bunnies. Ms. Faus replied a small animal will probably be able to get in; however, another reason for the fence is to make sure the gardens are looking nice because if they don't gardeners will be putting up their own type of fencing and they want to avoid that. Chair Steel had each Park Board member share their comments. Member Jones indicated she is a little frustrated because she supports getting a community garden in Edina but she will not support the proposal as it's presented to them. She stated the proposal to pave over parkland and allow parking for an adjacent property owner goes against the goals and policies of the Edina Parks and Recreation Department as stated In the comprehensive plan to retain, maintain and protect and preserve all park and open space property currently owned by the City of Edina. She stated the City has no compelling reason to pave over this parkland and has no compelling reason to act so quickly right now. She noted there are many unanswered questions that should be thoroughly vetted before taking an action of this kind. She added this department is about to embark on a strategic plan that could easily give guidance on many of these questions if this project were included in the scope of the strategic plan. She pointed out when the Community Garden was originally brought to her attention at a meeting held by the Do.Town staff at the YMCA in December she was told that the YMCA would provide parking at the lower back for this project. The statement was again stated at the January Park Board meeting. She indicated she became part of the community garden work group and supported the project with the understanding that parking would be provided at the YMCA lot. She stressed that the work group did not select the site of Yorktown Park and asked is this the bestsite for a pilot community garden because a pilot project should not require the sacrifice of a large part of a park to create a parking lot for a private entity next door. She indicated at the last community garden work group meeting they voted unanimously not to support the paving of the park for the parking lot. She pointed out there are other parks that could support a community garden and perhaps Lake Edina Park would be a better site as it has parking, sun, irrigation could be pulled from Fred Richards Golf Course and a potential new path is already being planned running next to it. She knows that this park is going to be part of the strategic planning process. Member Jones added there are other questions such as where is this money going to be coming from in order to support and maintain this park, what programs will we forego in order to build and maintain a community garden or what other park maintenance projects will be delayed. She stated they are minimizing the cost of this because they don't know and she actually is kind of glad that they are trying to get a community garden in at any cost, however, they should know a little bit more before they start putting capital into this and they should really study the site and make sure that this is the best site. She commented that other uses for this park have been suggested but not studied; therefore, they don't know how much parking is required for some of these other items that have been mentioned as potential uses for that park. She added that traffic in that area is high right now and bringing in other purposes in that area right there right now seems as if It might be misguided. Member Jones pointed out her other concern is where is the base of supporters, she knows that in all of the reading that she has done on community gardens that successful community gardens have a base of supporters that will be there and she is reluctant to say they have an overwhelming urge by this community to put in a community garden at this time. She would love to see a community garden in Edina but she doesn't like paving over that park and she doesn't think that they need to be doing that right now particularly when they are having a strategic plan. Member Segreto indicated that she is always sensitive to losing open space; however, she has gotten more comfortable with some of the discussion they had at their last meeting regarding how the park is really very underutilized. She commented from the standpoint of making this park become useable, whether it Is the garden or athletic fields, without parking no one is using the park except for people who are arriving to the park by foot or by bike. She stated she will vote in favor of the community garden because she has gotten more comfortable about paving some of It to make the park more accessible primarily because it's really just a flat piece of land and she doesn't think traffic will be impacted by this significantly. She will vote in favor of the proposal. Member Cella noted that her comments echo the comments just made that given that this park doesn't have a parking lot and there is no way for people to utilize it unless they arrive by bike or foot. She stated to even be able to have a strategic plan for the park they need to provide parking. She indicated she doesn't like to pave over parkland but when you have a park with no parking sometimes that is what they have to do. Member Kathryn Peterson asked if there might be some middle ground where they could have a reduced version of the parking lot which would allow the garden area to be moved over and the field could be used for other activities like soccer. She noted that it's hard to tell because they are not looking at the entire map but maybe that is something that should at least be explored and see if there might be a way to have a small parking area, garden and field to use if they determine that is appropriate for the park. Member Hulbert indicated he doesn't think anyone wants to pave over parkland but he cannot think of any real park amenities that don't require parking. He noted he has been to that park many times and he wouldn't classify that park as the most attractive parkland we have; it's In a really high traffic area and it's not anywhere you would go to have a picnic. He stated that he views it as a great opportunity, the YMCA wants to step up and pay for the parking and we are putting in an amenity that lot of residents have been wanting for a number of years. He is in favor of the project. Member Deeds noted that he supports the project, it's a win/win with the YMCA providing them a little more parking and at the same time the City gets additional parking that is needed for the park. To him it makes too much sense so he supports the plan. In addition, he trusts the negotiations that have gone on and the YMCA has said these are the number of spaces they need to make this happen. He 3 commented that he thinks overall they are not encroaching badly into the park and they are hoping to provide more opportunities and Edina gets a community garden in. This has his support. Member Dan Peterson indicated this has his support. Member Segreto asked Ms Kattreh if they do not go forward with the parking proposal would it still be " possible to go forward with the garden. Ms. Kattreh replied she thinks they would go forward with the garden but it would be he r recommendation that they leave space where they could add a parking lot at a future date. She stated they would need the YMCA to allow use of their parking lot to our users and added it wouldn't be convenient for them because there is a little bit of a slope up from the YMCA parking lot up to the grassy area but it might be feasible. Chair Steel noted that she supports this proposal and commends staff for working on a tight deadline and really thoroughly thinking this through and giving a great presentation. She stated it is a pilot project and they will learn from it but she thinks they have done everything they can to adequately prepare and look at other cities experiences. She indicated regarding the parking lot she also supports that because she thinks whether or not the community garden is successful it provides opportunities in the future and this funding opportunity will not be present in the future. Member Kathryn Peterson commented by quick count it appears there are approximately 40 some spots in the parking lot. Ms. Kattreh replied there are approximately 40 spots; however, the YMCA is also losing 13 to 14 spots because of the lot line so it's a net gain of about 29 spots. Member Gieseke asked when the busiest time is for the YMCA when those parking spaces might be fully utilized and not really available for the city use. Member Kattreh replied the busiest time for the YMCA is during the winter months and that during the summer months the back lot of the YMCA is utilized for buses for their camps and programs. Member Jacobson commented she agrees with having a pilot community garden and maybe not putting in the parking lot the first year because they may learn vital things about where you really need a parking lot after you've done it for a year. She noted maybe you need your gardens to be twice the size that they are and the parking lot you put down the first year might not fit it the way you need it the next year. She asked is there any potential for waiting for the parking lot for the second year when they know better what the gardens are going to be like and how they are going to be used. Ms. Kattreh replied it's certainly a possibility. MemberJones stated the work group also felt this is a pilot project and we don't know how many people are going to want garden plots; we don't know how it's going to work and therefore felt for a pilot program they should not move ahead with any long-term parking lot. She noted she thinks they were willing to say if the YMCA would allow them access to the park they could drive and park on the field close to the park. That was the plan that the work group felt comfortable with to just park on the grounds while they are reviewing this and trying to figure out if they want garden plots or not. She indicated that would be the first solution, how much space we need and if it is really popular we may need more than ten spots. She added the rule of thumb she has been hearing is it's somewhere between 6 and 10 spots, it's certainly not 29 spots and is certainly not saying they need them this year, they just need access to it. Member Jones pointed out that she also thinks this is setting a precedent that she is concerned about. She commented that she knows people are saying this is not a very attractive park but, honestly, this area is getting more concentrated with people and that's a good thing they have a park there. She added she received an email today from someone asking if they could look at putting in a basketball court at that park and/or a badminton court and horseshoes. She 4 4.0 commented this is from a man on the work group who Is trying to look at other uses for the park. She stated that she realizes the park is not landscaped and it's not very attractive but there are many uses for parks that you can walk to. She stated again that she is concerned about the precedent and is also concerned that if they move ahead with a parking lot they may realize they don't need a parking lot for this park. Member Deeds indicated he has two concerns with not putting a parking lot in and a community garden. First, if they putthe community garden in, even on a pilot project, without any parking they are not exactly being good neighbors with the YMCA because people will park at the YMCA. Second, if you open up the area where the parking lot was going to be put beginning In April it will turn into a mud pit and the YMCA users and others will use it. It will turn into a mud pit very rapidly with the kind of soil and terrain that is there and with the amount of water they are likely to get he doesn't think it makes sense. He stated they need to commit to doing both. He commented it's not an experiment with community gardens because community gardensare everywhere and they succeed and people use them. There will be demand if there are parking spaces and If they have a marketing problem the first year it will be solved the second. He stated approve it as a package or vote it down as a package because it doesn't make sense to go to the hassle and headache of putting up a community garden spot without anyway to really utilize it. Member Segreto, Chair Steel and Member Jacobson all agreed. Chair Steel added that if the parking Is being underutilized that is a challenge for them that can be solved because there are other programming alternatives and there is grassy space. 5 a _ N69.56'OS'E 57J.J9 ' IT — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - �-- — — — — — — — — — — — ms— ----- --- — --- — — — I -I- II W F I I - - - - - - - - - - - -mow. Q 1 I I ..```� 137 37 N 1t I PI Y I I 7335 �deaaan.swmmr ^1 1I CITY OF EDINAto r , N69'5450 1. 8 J III ( 1 I 1 1 I I 510E LDT UNE I W 1 1 YMCA ' � I ' II Row 7355 . ROW n W I I x 16 LJ I I w r m X O I n� ry �I 1 U ; II v � i II 11 ob��f 33 33 325.74 ' I I 325.74 _ -'"zz5.9.�ar— — R 74TH ST W 255.99 N69'56'46'E LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF NORTH PROPERTY. OUTLOT C. YORKTOWN LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SOUTH PROPERTY: LOT 1. BLOCK 4, YORKTOWN Thls survey shows the boundaries of the etwve deserlbed propertlea, +,q It, locoUen of existing bu9dNg and skate par15 and the proposed 0 40 ° 80 porking lot location for the wmmunity garden. CITY OF EDINA ENGINEERING SITE SURVEY r e )Y & PUBLIC FOR COMMUNITY GARDEN DATE: v a WORKS PARKING LOT 3-4-2013 �'`° DEPTS. G�➢.�111:iMSVARK N40T OIVJ�N1vN..lan Pagfnnrc yGMn�(M�(orm��ypa�pxypq�liyl�llll%p�)104P;�]I!{ pmc 1! J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker April 10, 2013 Assistant City Planner 2012-0009 Recommended Action: a variance from the Conditional Use Permit requirements to allow the new first floor elevation of a home to exceed the 1 foot maximum increase allowed by ordinance. INFORMATION & BACKGROUND The applicants, Kirk and Amy Aadalen are proposing to tear down the existing house and construct a new home at 4924 East Sunnyslope. (See site location on pages A.1—A.4) A Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the existing home by more than one foot. The applicant is proposing to raise the first floor elevation 11.5 feet above the existing first floor elevation; 10.5 feet about the allwable limit. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A.4—A.12). The first floor of the existing home is at 928.5 feet with an allowed increase in height by code to 829.5 feet. The height of first floor for the new home will be at a 940 feet. The property is a through lot with frontage along Sunnyslope East and Hilltop Lane. The new home will front Hilltop Lane with the back walk -out facing Sunnyslope. The orientation of the home will be completely switched from existing front yard along Sunnyslope to the new front yard along Hilltop Lane. The reorientation of the home requires that the first floor be elevated to a height relating to the street level of Hilltop Lane. The topography slopes from a high point near Hilltop down to a lower rear yard near Sunnyslope. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single -Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single-family residential homes; zoned and guided low -den residential. The home has been designed as a 2 story walk -out with an attached three car garage. Existing Site Features The existing 24,000 square foot lot contains a multi-level, single-family home with an attached two car garage built in 1947. The existing home is located fronting East Sunnyslope Road. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Grading & Drainage Low -Density Residential R-1, Single -Dwelling District The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. The City Engineer supports the proposed elevation of the home. The City Engineer has indicated that if the elevations on the proposed plan are not approved, the driveway of the new home facing Hill Top will back -slope towards the proposed home causing future drainage issues, (see the memorandum from the City Engineer as attached page A.13). Final grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer at the time of building permit application. The proposed plans may require review and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Conditional Use Permit Per Section 850.04 Subd. 5.E, the City Council shall not grant a Conditional Use Permit unless it finds that the establishment, maintenance and operation of the use: 1. Does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; The proposal for a tear down and rebuild of a new single-family home will not have an impact on governmental facilities or services. A single-family home is a permitted use on the site. 2. Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; 01 The proposal to tear down and rebuild a single -family home would not have an impact on traffic or the capacity of the streets serving the property. The use, a single -family home, remains the same on the property. 3. Does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; There would be no impact, as the use of the property remains the same as exists today. 4. Will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; The proposed new home would replace an existing home on the site and would not impede future development of other properties in the vicinity. 5. Conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and The new home would meet all applicable zoning ordinance requirements. 6. Is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A single -family home is consistent with the low-density residential land use designation within the Comprehensive Plan. Additional Conditions Per Section 850.11. Subd. 2: Additions to or replacement of single dwelling unit buildings with a first floor elevation of more than one (1) foot above the existing first floor elevation of the existing dwelling unit building. Such additions to or replacements of single dwelling unit buildings must meet one or more of the first three (3) conditions listed below, and always meet condition four (4). *1. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two (2) feet above the 100-year flood elevation, as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), or the City's Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan; or *2. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to reasonably protect the dwelling from ground water intrusion. Existing and potential ground water elevations shall be determined in accordance with accepted hydrologic and hydraulic engineering practices. Determinations shall be undertaken by a professional civil engineer licensed under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 326 or a hydrologist certified by the American Institute of Hydrology. Studies, analyses and computations shall be submitted in sufficient detail to allow thorough review and approval; or *3. The first floor elevation may be increased to the extent necessary to allow the new building to meet State Building Code, City of Edina Code, or other statutory requirements; and 4. An increase in first floor elevation will only be permitted if the new structure or addition fits the character of the neighborhood in height, mass and scale. *Variance — From the first three additional conditions required for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the first floor elevation of a new single dwelling unit with a first floor higher than 1 foot above the existing home on site as per Section 850.11, Subd. 2. of the city's zoning ordinance. None of the top three criteria above apply to the proposed new home. The proposed home is not in the flood zone, does not need the first floor to be elevated to the extent necessary to reasonably protect it from ground water intrusion and will meet State Building Code. The proposed home requires a variance from the first three criteria of additional conditions for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a new first floor elevation to exceed one foot above the existing dwelling unit. The applicants are asking for a variance from the first three criteria to raise the new first floor. The proposal will conform to the fourth criteria: that the new structure will fit the character of the neighborhood in height, mass and scale. Homes of similar size, height, mass and scale are currently located within the neighborhood. Renderings of the new home in context on pages A. 8 illustrate the neighborhood perspective from both Hilltop Lane and Sunnyslope. The home will be made of high quality materials and finishes and the applicant intends to manicure the rear yard by enhancing it with lawn, shrubs and other landscaping. The existing house is built against a slope with little usable rear yard. The yard area near Hilltop Lane is steep and unusable. Changing the orientation of the house allows for the flat portion of the lot along Sunnyslope to be usable back yard. 4 Compliance Table PRIMARY ISSUE & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposed new home with a first floor elevation 11.5 feet higher than the existing home reasonable for this site? , Staff believes the proposal is reasonable: 1. The proposal meets the general Conditional Use Permit findings of Section 850.04, Subd. E. as demonstrated on pages 3 of this report. The Conditional Use Permit criteria to raise the first floor higher than 1 foot does not take into consideration a complete re -orientation of a new home on a lot with significant grade differences. There are homes facing both East Sunnyslope and Hilltop with the subject property a through lot allowing opportunity to front the home towards either street. The intent of the Ordinance was to regulate new homes that re -built generally within the same footprint of the previous home. The Ordinance did not take into account large lots in which there is the potential for multiple building pad locations. 2. As demonstrated on the Compliance Table on page 4 of this report, the proposal meets all minimum Zoning Ordinance standards with the reorientation of the house. 5 City Standard Proposed' Front — Hill Top Lane 33.8 feet 34 feet Side -South 10 feet 11.5 feet Rear— East 25 feet 58 feet Side — North 10 feet 16.6 feet Building Coverage 25% 19% Building Height 40 feet/30 mid pt 40 feet/29.9 feet PRIMARY ISSUE & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the proposed new home with a first floor elevation 11.5 feet higher than the existing home reasonable for this site? , Staff believes the proposal is reasonable: 1. The proposal meets the general Conditional Use Permit findings of Section 850.04, Subd. E. as demonstrated on pages 3 of this report. The Conditional Use Permit criteria to raise the first floor higher than 1 foot does not take into consideration a complete re -orientation of a new home on a lot with significant grade differences. There are homes facing both East Sunnyslope and Hilltop with the subject property a through lot allowing opportunity to front the home towards either street. The intent of the Ordinance was to regulate new homes that re -built generally within the same footprint of the previous home. The Ordinance did not take into account large lots in which there is the potential for multiple building pad locations. 2. As demonstrated on the Compliance Table on page 4 of this report, the proposal meets all minimum Zoning Ordinance standards with the reorientation of the house. 5 3. The finished grade along the new front building wall of the home facing Hilltop Lane will be between 938 — 940. The adjacent neighbor facing Hilltop Lane to the west has similar grade elevations within the front yard, (939.1 — 941.8). The front yard elevation of the new home will be consistent with the adjacent neighbor's front yard elevations. 4. The proposed home is in character within this neighborhood. There are a variety of housing styles throughout the Sunnyslope neighborhood. There have been a number of properties that have had homes re -built on them that are of similar size, mass and scale. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit with the Variance from the Conditional Use Permit Criteria regarding raising the first floor elevation no more than one -foot about the first floor elevation of the previous home at criteria for property located at 4924 East Sunnyslope. The Conditional Use Permit with the variance would allow the new home to have a first floor elevation 10.5 feet above the one foot first floor increase of the existing home. Approval is based on the following findings: The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions of the Zoning Ordinance Section 850.04, Subd E., 2. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. 3. The proposed new home is in character with this neighborhood. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped February 6, 2013. • Building plans and elevations date stamped March 22, 2013, 2. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit if required. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 3. Final grading and drainage plans are subject to review and approval of the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Drainage patterns may not be directed to adjacent properties. C1 Deadline for a city decision: May 11, 2013 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CASE NUMBEI DATE FEE PAID—.�� City of Edina Planning Department * www.citvofeclins.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 56424 * (952) 826-0369 * fax (962) 826-0389 FEE: $800.00 APPLICANT: NAME: ki r -V- �- a*i a -t& v► (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS:'+►30 SomyR fSk-r SirIx& PHONE:_q.SZ-. 944 • -7-1%,,cb EMAIL: ra )A.,- h ►A 4PA& PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: U ---kms 1^%siv& �� Wig. (Signature required on back page) 9 SA , 05v - 97 60 ADDRESS: 412.4 4-251 ��.� � ��I A , ,,x PHONE: 7" - Z1415 - 1114 e, LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): e t �- PROPERTY ADDRESS: PRESENT ZONING: 9—x P.I.D.# t'V o Z4 2.4 32— 0o 1 L EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: V i+r ►?1Yw6 Arco ten-- �n .. \ n J� a 4.'C' Yy%Valdi A 3 tom. t (User verse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: �4zE e- `�.s l�-��- �c PHONE: (M - 2-16 - IC 75 EMAIL: tl 5..s k--uc-" -CPA& SURVEYOR: NAME: PHONE: „ EMAIL: . Lv rvueacr. lire T MAR 0.4 2013 APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and 1 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. _y -11 -7/V,i 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.) 4 Signature Date Nott Both slgnatums are required (f the owner Is different than the applican) before we can process the application, otherwise it is considered incomplete. VARIANCE APPLICATION CPP CASE NUMBERDATE FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.cltyofedina.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:_KiA-V- k- atw—e A-AA26j.e-Iz ASignature required on Lack page) ADDRESS: -'4-k 3Dou�-c-t 'C3 ka. w.i e.) *-% EMAIL:__1t-�1►a,>a1�v. 2► PROPERTY OWNER: NAME:_ LZn12k X a- (Signature required on back page) 10 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): I- e � 4- SkOL u- 4 S w.v.v... &.12e.'_ ! "-'e a V% Lo""'A'IkAo Q"v G Vis h� c.'t f1r� it v+t�.C. n • You muat provide a full legal description. if more space is rowed, please use a separate sheet. fly Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project If the legal description does not match their records. This may Way Your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: '4 9 e ;;.5T 5r b,,tc` PRESENT ZONING: ! P.I.D.# 15 0 252.43 Z 00 12 - EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: QceP aSzrs Vrrs f IF t au dt_ 9-kGyam nor% ttna+nd6: j t— d tt (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME: 'Rf-rA R.. :�-PHONE; fc t Z-• 2�9t.• EMAIL: i c --s & la, SURVEYOR: NAME: Ra..Jt e PHONE: &12. -4r. I R J 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. M 3��1 Date OWNER'S STATEMENT I am the fee title owner of the above described property, and t 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.) Note. Both signaturesare required (if the owner is different than the appllcanQ before we can process Meication, otherwise it Is considered Incomplete. Ij>'A 1"1 14), ' / i � 5 LOGISMap Output Page 480 461r 4821 4M 4816 4812 y� 4901 4905 4909 4913 4921 4825 4819 4964 4908 4912 4018 4820 4624 4928 ��! / 4M 4804 4m (' ► 46°1 �,.% u.,oa�u+wnhMus.enp*q+tot�or�sc�.a»n /� Page 1 of 1 4602 4605 4804 4607 4607 4606 4m 4m 4609 4608 a 4611 4610 14 4611 t 4619 4612 4810 4816 4615 4814 4612 4617 461?x616 4016 4614 4616 4620 4618 4618 46V 4624 4620 4622 4623 4m 4622 4625 4626 4832 4624 4627 46m \ 4620 4634 1810 \\\ 4696 o WWI 201 /Y'/ http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArciMS/ims?SeiviceName=ed LOGISMao OVSDE&Cl entVe... 4/4/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of ,1 If. 1, http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap QVSI)E&ClientVe... 4/4/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 A http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArcIMS/inns?ServiceName=ed_LOGISMao_OVSDE&ClientVe... 4/4/2013 LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1 • `/ http://gis.logis.org/LOGIS ArelMS/ims?ServiceName=ed LOGISMap_OVSDE&ClientVe... 4/4/2013 Page I of I file://ed-ntl/citywide/PDSImages/Photos/I802824320012001 jpg 3/25/2013 e K-ucHe March 22nd, 2013 Variance Application Narrative 4924 East Sunnyslope Edino, Minnesota 55424 The purpose of this application is to request a variance in order to build a replacement home that fronts Hilltop Late instead of Sunnyslope road, The opplicotion requests a variance on the conditional use permit's allowable 1' increase In elevation of a replacement dwelling above the existing dwelling's first floor. With the exception of this condition the proposed single family dwelling Is conforming. The applicant grew up In the Sunnyslope neighborhood with family having been residents there for over 30 yea's. With a young and growing family rooted in the community, it is their plan to now return to the neighborhood so their children can benefit from the some charming, friendly, supportive, strong valued feeling of community. They hove several affiliations in the community and are professionally and socially active aid intend to "grow old" there. Their proposal to build a replacement home that would enter off of Hilltop Lone instead of Sunnyslope encounters a difficult steep slope that is now the back of the lot and is unusable. This proposal allows the applicant to enjoy the larger, easterly portion that Is gently sloping for their bads yard, where currently it is the driveway. The existing 2 bedroom residence was built in the early 1950'x. In many aspects it is below the standard of homes built today. Due to the position of the existing home at the very back and steepest part of the lot, nearly any expansion would require extensive strudurol and geotechnical modifications to the site. This would trigger and accelerate drainage concerns. The applicant's solution in replacing the home to front the higher elevation Hilltop Lane requires raising the proposed main level 10.2' above the existing main level. If the existing residence had originally been constructed in this manner it would have been allowed, According to the city's planning and engineering staff, it would still be allowed today If a home was not already bulk there. The proposed residence embodies the essential character of the neighborhood. The Sunnyslope facing yard becomes the rear yard In the proposal, if the applicant is able to build as proposed, they will be able to use the yard for recreation. As proposed, they plan to manicure it accordingly with the installation of new shrubs and a Iowa. The proposed grading is a huge improvement to the fabric of the property and neighborhood and Is similar to what other neighbors have recently done. As you will see in the application drawings including the neighborhood perspectives, the proposal has great character that fits wonderfully into the neighborhood. The above request Is a reasonable use of the property. It would be a significant improvement that stylistically represents the very detail that is present in so many of the older Edina homes. The applicants have invested months designing, engineering, and carefully planning out the Improvement of this property. They have worked with the city's planning and engineering department as well as neighbors. They have exhausted efforts to present a project that is as conforming as possible to Edina's code. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Peter Eskuche, AIA Project Architect A1 �JJ 18318 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephoven, MN 55391 HILLTOP LANE RESIDENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION SET 8 MARCH 2013 REVISED 22 MARCH 3013 :eSKucHe COPYRIGHT 2013 ui W i 0 LU co C4 94 ' C!3 W w X k 1 � � 1 .j f � , st 4 NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE - t1ILLTOP LANE NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE SUNNYSLOPE ROAD HILLTOP LANE RESIDENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION SET B MARCH 2013 REVISED 22 MARCH 3013 COPYRIGHT2013 M AiN LEVEL FLOOR r LAN APPROX. S.P. = 2,390 nus►wen.sae r r s r r im it ro a"• CAVW VAU HILLTOP LANE RESIDENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION SET 8 MARCH 2013 REVISED 22 MARCH 3013 esKucH COPYRIGHT 2011 w¢.saunoe� � _ .�ue.araoae ,_. ,gprtwR�wro NORTH ELEVATION r r r r r it tr rr MAWS= HILLTOP LANE RESIDENCE VARIANCE APPUCATION SET 8 MARCH 2013 REVISED 22 MARCH 3013 esKucHe CO"I"GHT 2013 S OUTH ELEVATION r r r r v �r tr rr rr GPMWXAtE HILLTOP - LANE RESIDENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION SET 8 MARCH 2013 REVISED 22 MARCH 3013 esKucHe CGPVRK!Ht 2013 Engineering Department - Phone 952-826-0371 Fax 952-826-0392 - www.CkyofEdina.com Date: March 28, 2013 To: Kris Aaker — Assistant City Planner From: Wayne D. Houle, PE — Director of Engineering Re: Variance Request for 4924 Sunnyslope Road East Engineering has reviewed the above stated project and offer the following comments: MEMO This section of Sunnyslope Road East has the characteristic of a neighborhood collector, since this is one of two only access in and out of the Sunnyslope Neighborhood. Therefore, Engineering supports the removal of a driveway from Sunnyslope Road East. + Engineering supports the proposed elevation of the home. This elevation will provide a positive grade from the proposed home to Hilltop Lane. If the elevation is not approved, the driveway will back -slope towards the proposed home causing future drainage issues. 4924 Engineering Department - 74SO Metro Blvd - Edina, MN 55439 Sunnyslope Neighborhood Cluift > rtes . 4917 4832 - tot " jito an 4 yJasper 4 2 4316 4 SIWSCI.3. 49 v Buckaw Knack 4904 'em CL .8 C.I. qth 4909 4908 NcWane to 4513 trom 4912 Vogl zeuwwkj 4912 4917 WIstpe ikrede Hanan 4916 4921 4916 esek McUWk* 11a 4925 Peckham _W2446 "141901"d S an. p4WO " 4905 to 4 40 cra Oft 490511W Hellman Gillett 4933 Aadalen, Amy 1111(Wealth Mgmt MS) Subject: FW: Update From: Linda Engler <linda nglerstudio.com> Date: March 18,2013,1:25:29 PM CDT To: Amy Aadalen <awaadalenQa gmail.com>, Dave Engler <dave(gk=glerstudio.com> Cc: Aadalen Kirk <kf�rl ..aadalm@kia.com> Subject: RE: Update Hi Amy, Here's our update: Linda Linda Engler ASID ENGLER STUDIO 3948 W 50TH STREET, STE 204 EDINA MN 55424 T (952) 564-6488 F (952) 564-6489 ENGLERSTUDIO.COM --Original Message ---- From: Amy Aadalen [mailto•awaadalen0_Rmail.com1 Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 1:11 PM To: Dave Engler Cc: Linda Engler; Aadalen Kirk Subject: Re: Update Dave and Linda, Know you guys have had a lot going on, but have you had a chance to get letters to the Ferris's or Brundsvold's yet? Our builder told me that the Commission meets before the meeting to make their internal recommendation and that getting any and all letters to to them as soon as possible is important. I spoke with my friend who is related to the Marshall's and she confirmed that they are in Mexico for the winter. I have their email address and am going to email them our schematics and try to get a response. If you have the Katz's email or phone number we should try them as well. Persistence, persistence, persistence! Abdalen, Amy W (Wealth Mgmt MS) Subject FW: Aadalen Hilltop House Proposal From: Jayne Clairmont (maims; jda rrrli o ngbhmsmuites&g l j bai Sent : Monday, March 18, 2013 8:16 PM , C1 1 To: Aadalen, Amy W (Wealth Mgmt MS) Cc: Jayne Clairmont Subject: RE: Aadalen Hilltop House Proposal HI Amy Thanks for your email Very exciting for your familyi l 11 I II I 11111111 IT REALLY was wonderful to talk with you both. I am so dam intrigued with the engineering of your process (the topography of how this transforms) as one who LOVES the process so will look forward to your next steps. I will be happy to fill out the enclosed farm, you have made it so easy, Thank YOU. I have signed the enclosed copy and will pop Into mail at Morgan Stanley to you personal tomorrow, Thanks Amy Jayne JAYNE CLAIRMONT Owner/Consultant Werk Cell: 612.250.4524 Business: 952.983.0412 44 en9l.ish rose bohom,e I - '', ], �'�e � � �� - I ,,,, $" , a .. '# , ,,,( t., s ggglish rosesuites.Com bhome,engl shrosesuites.com Important Warning: This message Is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which Is governed by applicable law. If the reader of this message Is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this Information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this message in error, please notify me Immediately by tailing 952-983-0412 and destroy the related message. Thank you for your cooperation. gan Stanley you consent to the foregoing. To: The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City Council Date: March, 2013 RE: Proposed Replacement Home at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lame We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whale. Sincerely, X Signature(s) and Address'r,;.� a J ivJ,1 • 5 51i c (Names Printed) Aadalen, Amy W (Wealth Mgimt MS) Subject: FW: House at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop From: ROBERT MARSHALL Cmailto•marshali9432@msn coml Sent. Tuesday, March 19, 2013 4:27 PM To: Aadalen, Amy W (Wealth Mgmt MS) Subject: RE: House at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop > From: Amy W Aadalen-6morganstanley corn > To: marsha119432@Msn.com > CC: Kirk.Aadalen tria.com > Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2013 15:52:01 -0400 • Subject: Re: House at 4924 E. Sunnysiope/Hilltop > Robert and Marilyn, > My name is Amy Aadalen, you may remember the name as my husband, Kirk, grew up living at 4924 Dale Drive (his parents are Dick and Sharon). I am from Edina as well (although Kirk says that as a "Westie" I am from the wrong side of the tracks!) and we have always wanted to move back Into Sunnyslope to raise our children, ages 8 and 11. We want to be lifelong residents and built a home that will mirror the beauty of the neighborhood. > We have an opportunity to build at 4924 E, Sunnyslope, but to make it possible we need to move the entranceway from E, Sunnyslope to Hilltop Lane. We stopped by to introduce ourselves; but you were not home and we left a letter In your mailbox, In an interesting turn of fate we were talking about our hopes to build with our good friends Molly Rite and Andy Slothower; and Molly said that you are related! Molly said you winter out of town - I hope it Is alright that she gave me your e-mail address to contact you. > For your perusal, I have attached a schematic that shows how the proposed home would look from both Hilltop and E. Sunnyslope. You will be receiving notification from the city within the next few weeks, but we are reaching out to all near neighbors beforehand to let them know who we are and what we are hoping to do. > The response so far has been quite positive with the Jayne Clairmont @4801 Hilltop, Iskos Demos and Amy Durtschl @ 4805 Hilltop, Joe and Barry Ellers @ 4809 Hilltop, The Katz Family (renting to the Branton Family) @ 4928 E. Sunnyslope, and Andy and Heidi Farts @ 4929 E. Sunnyslope giving their approval of the project. We are still trying to contact the Finley's and Brunsvold's, > We would be happy to answer any questions you may have about the house, and are also very Interested In your feedback. Below is my contact information if you would like to speak In person. I hope you are enjoying your time away from Minnesota, the wind chill was -8 today so you certainly are not missing anything herel > All my best to you both and hope to connect With you soon, > Amy Aadalen > > Amy W. Aadalen, CFP® > Senior Vice President • Morgan Stanley Wealth Management • 225 South 6th Street, Suite 5100 1 Minneapolis, MN 55402 > Direct: 612-371-8824 ( Toll Free: 888-597-8681 Fax: 612-340-1773 > amy.w.aadalen@)moLcMnstanley.com To: The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City Council Date: March, 2013 RE: Proposed Replacement Home at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lane We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whole. Sincerely, (D /_1 I)-2 GN 051k eM ed T-7�- Signature(s) and Address (Names Printed) To: The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City Council Date: March, 2013 RE: Proposed Replacement Home at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lane We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whole. Sincerely, v�ar lel//x z✓ f Signature(s) and Address o ff: C I C'Lf�Z i L3/lO,, L (Names Printed) To: The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City'Council. Date: March, 2013 RE: Proposed Replacement Home at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lane We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whole. Sincerely, Signature(s) and Address (Names Printed) StJ1?f7i. ,S /0,0'e- NMI To: The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City Council Bate: March, 2013 RE: Proposed Replacement Home at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lane We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whole. Sincerely, Signature(s) and A dress (Names Printed) 11 To: The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City Council Date: March, 2013 RE: Proposed Replacement Horne at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lane We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whole. Sincerely, VVGO�HI4L Signature(s) and Address ��JKLL 1 K - IV fC� '1 (Names Printed) (,J /-I V / To: The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City Council Date: March, 2013 RE: Proposed Replacement Horne at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lane We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whole. Sincerely, Signature(s) and Address (Names Printed) To; The Edina Planning Commission and The Edina City Council Date: March, 2013 RE, Proposed Replacement Home at 4924 E. Sunnyslope/Hilltop Lane We have spoken with Kirk and Amy Aadalen about their proposal to replace the home currently at 4924 E. Sunnyslope with a new home entering off of Hilltop Lane. They have shown us renderings of the home, gone through details of the plan, made themselves available to answer questions and have shared their desire to raise their family in Sunnyslope. We have no objections with the proposed structure, and believe it will be additive to our neighborhood as a whole. Sincerely, Signature(s) and Address (Names Printed) CITY OF EDINA MEMO City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com e Date: April 10, 2013 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Consideration — Residential Redevelopment (Issues Identified) As a following up to the last Planning Commission meeting, and the March 5', 2013 Work Session with the City Council; the Planning Commission is asked to begin consideration of potential Zoning Ordinance Amendments regarding residential redevelopment. Below is the list of issues that have been identified as part of the Planning Commission Working Group's work over the past several months. The Planning Commission is asked to have a discussion on each of the issues below and provide direction to staff to formulate an Ordinance for consideration. Issues: I. Side Yard Setback on Lots less than 75 feet in width. Consider requiring sidewall mass breakup. Increase setbacks slightly for lots, have a staggered condition. Option#I : Start with a 5'/7' for 50' lots and increase proportionally every 5' in lot width up to 10712' for 75' lots. Always have a minimum on one side, i.e. 5' at 50' and 10' at 75' lots but allow them to modify such as 6' and 6' on a 50' lot. Option#2: In exchange for eliminating sidewall building height regulations noted above, suggest 14' total side yard setbacks (_min. of 5'). Allows a 36' wide house on a 50' lot. 2. Side & Rear Yard Setback for accessory buildings. Better define accessory use, including need a building permit for items above xx s.f. and xx' in height. 3. Front Yard Setback. Consider revised language for existing nonconforming conditions. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO A. o e 4. Building Height. Eliminate sidewall set back and mid -point requirements for building height, add 30' total height Limit for lots under 75'. (leave height as is for lots greater than 75') 5. Front loaded Garages. Consider requiring that front facing garages cannot be the primary feature on lots, i.e, require part of house (porch?) to extend beyond house in front. 6. Building Coverage on Lots less than 9,000 square feet in size. Clarify items in lot coverage definitions, including accessory items. Consider consistent lot coverage requirements for all sized lots. 7. Tree protection/ordinance. Consider adding a tree ordinance to restrict discrepancy tree removal and require some type of caliper replacement for trees removed. Tie to city definition of demo permit for when it kicks in (i.e. need demo permit if more than 50% of structure is removed, then this would be applicable). 8. Stormwater Management. Require additional information on site drainage plans such as showing all landscaping and retaining walls less than 4 feet tall. 9. Require permit for retaining walls over 4 feet tall with engineered drawings. Consider a setback requirement for retaining walls over 4 feet. 10. Require access to backyard from front yard on same property. 11. Window wells (egress windows.) Eliminate exit window wells from side yard setback exception. 12. Single/Two car garage requirement. Consider eliminating the requirement for two car garages. 13. Keep only the R -I zoning district and make lot size changes within the existing structure. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424