Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-08-13 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AUGUST 13, 2014 7:00 PM 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 July 9, 2014 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. Variance. Urbanski. 5800 Stuart Avenue, Edina, MN B. Variance. Moyhihan. 6212 Crest Lane, Edina, MN C. Conditional Use Permit. K. Alexander. 4603 Annaway Dr., Edina, MN D. Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Beacon Interfaith Housing. 3330 West 66th Street VII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Attendance & Council Update VIII. HAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS IX. STAFF COMMENT X. 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 August 27, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Breanne Rothstein, August 13, 2014 B-14-11 Consulting Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 12.7 foot north street setback variance, a .1 foot south side yard setback variance, and a variance to the lot coverage requirements of 25% maximum at the property located at 5800 Stuart Avenue. Project Description Jason and Molly Urbanski have submitted a variance application to allow the construction of a new home at the property at 5800 Stuart Avenue. They plan to tear their existing home down to the current foundation and re -construct the home on the same foundation in the same location as the current home. The homeowners currently have extensive patio/deck area with an in -ground swimming pool that they would like to remain on site. The plan includes a second story addition, a small addition of the rear of the home, and a re -orientation of the garage from Grove Street to Stuart Ave. The home has excessive mold and has been uninhabitable for quite some time, with the owners living off-site. The plan is to remove the home for the purposes of mold abatement. The owners felt that it would be an opportune time to add onto the house to include an expansion west of the garage and a second story addition. All of the new additions conform to the setback and height requirements of the city code. However, the proposed first floor will have a different roof pitch than the original home. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south west corner of Grove Street and Stuart Avenue, consisting of a rambler with a two car garage loading from Grove Street. The home was built in 1961. The lot is 12,154 square feet in area with existing lot coverage of 32.48%. The owners are hoping to tear down the existing structure and replace it with a two story home with an attached two car garage loading from Stuart Ave. The curb cut and driveway access change has been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. The current home is non -conforming for front and street side setbacks and lot coverage. It is located 16.9 feet from the Grove Street lot line and required setback is 29.6 feet (the setback of the adjacent home). The current home is located 9.9 feet from the southern property line, and the side yard setback is 10 feet minimum. The rebuilt home will remain at the same setbacks as the existing home from the front, side street and side yard lot lines and the additions meet the city code standards for setback (given the provision to allow for a moderate expansion of a legal, non -conforming use). Also, the rebuilt home will not increase the non -conformity of the lot coverage overages, as the only additions will replace existing patio areas. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed this application, and his memo is included in the packet. There are no major issues associated with this application. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Church property, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Easterly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Southerly: Single dwelling units, zoned R-1, single dwelling unit district and guided residential. Existing Site Features The subject property is a 12,154 square foot lot with a single story home that has a two car garage built in 1961 (see included building plans). Planning Guide Plan designation: Single Dwelling Unit Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Building Design The proposed home will be a two story home finished with a combination of materials including stone, siding and shake siding. 2 Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issue: Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal for the variances is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvements to the home will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. Spacing between the home and the adjacent homes will remain the same. The current home is not habitable due to a mold problem so complete removal of the structure to the floor cap is appropriate. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of a corner lot that is difficult to work with given the current front yard/side street setback requirement along Grove Street and the nonconforming interior side yard setback. The setback variances will allow the rebuilt home on the existing foundation to match the current setbacks. The second story will conform to the required setbacks and the addition is allowed as an expansion of a legal, non -conforming use, given its size. 4. The new home and lot coverage matches an existing nonconforming situation that has been in place since 1961, with the exception of an increase in the first floor area due to an adjustment in the roof line. City Standard Proposed Front/Side Street - 29.6 feet *16.9 feet Front Street 35 feet 35.1 feet Interior Side- 10+ height, (living) *9.9 feet Rear- 25 feet 51.6 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 2 story, feet to midpoint 35 feet to the 29 feet to the ridge ridge, Lot coverage 25% *35.5% * Variance Required Primary Issue: Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal for the variances is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot. The improvements to the home will enhance the property and not detract from the neighborhood. Spacing between the home and the adjacent homes will remain the same. The current home is not habitable due to a mold problem so complete removal of the structure to the floor cap is appropriate. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of a corner lot that is difficult to work with given the current front yard/side street setback requirement along Grove Street and the nonconforming interior side yard setback. The setback variances will allow the rebuilt home on the existing foundation to match the current setbacks. The second story will conform to the required setbacks and the addition is allowed as an expansion of a legal, non -conforming use, given its size. 4. The new home and lot coverage matches an existing nonconforming situation that has been in place since 1961, with the exception of an increase in the first floor area due to an adjustment in the roof line. • Is the proposed lot coverage variance justified? Yes. Staff supports the lot coverage variance as requested for the property because the pool, patio and deck areas already exist, with the homeowners desiring to keep them in place along with the improvements/additions to their home. No additional lot coverage is proposed with this application beyond what is already in place. • Are the proposed setback variances 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. 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 variances are reasonable given that the required setbacks match existing setbacks and no new lot coverage is being added. A practical difficulty is the nonconforming situation that the home is currently in and the necessity for mold mitigation. The purpose behind the ordinance is to maintain an established front yard sight line and street scape and proper spacing between structures. The ordinance is meant to prevent a continual erosion of the established front yard setback pattern in an existing neighborhood by holding all new construction to the existing neighborhood standard and to avoid new structure build -out beyond existing conditions. Duplicating the Grove Street and interior setback of the existing home will not compromise the intent of the ordinance. The new home will maintain the existing pattern of setbacks on the block, will be no closer to the street and will provide a deeper driveway to park cars so there will be no more interfering/overlapping the side walk along Grove Street. 4 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstances are that the existing nonconforming setbacks of the home, and the corner lot subjected to two front yard setbacks. The current access to the garage is shallow interfering with sidewalk traffic which is not a self-imposed condition. The garage will be re -oriented so no sidewalk interference will occur along Grove Street any longer. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will be consistent with the location of the existing home and will not change the streetscape along Grove Street. The applicant is asking to preserve a setback pattern that has included the nonconforming setbacks of the subject property. Staff Recommendation Approve the variances based on the following findings: a) The proposed lot coverage is not increasing with the request to construct a new home — existing lot coverage is being maintained; b) The encroachments into the setbacks are existing nonconforming setbacks that were established when the original home was built in 1961 and was conforming at that time, and the existing nonconforming setbacks are causing a practical difficulty in keeping the foundation and building in a conforming location. Approval of the variance is subject to the following condition: 1) The home must be construction per the proposed plans date stamped: Survey dated: May 13, 2014 Building plans and elevations dated: April 24, 2014 2) Compliance with the Environmental Engineer's memo dated August 1, 2014. Deadline for a City decision: August 28, 2014 DATE: August 1, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Chad Milner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Kintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 5800 Stuart Avenue - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the following ordinance sections: • Chapter 10, Article 4 — Demolition Permit Stormwater and Erosion Control (10-106 to 10-1 13) • Chapter 10, Article 7— Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345) • Chapter 10 Article 17 — Land Disturbing Activities (10-674 to 10-710) • Chapter 24, Article 4 Division 2 — Roadway Access (24-129 to 24-133) • Chapter 36, Article 12 — Drainage, Retaining Walls and Site Access (36-1257) This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department and assumes the provided documents were submitted for building permit review. A more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Land Use/Planning Concerns I. Extensive landscaping make site highly impervious and reconfiguration of the driveway slightly increase the overall hard surface coverage. General 2. A separate permit may be required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.orQ 3. Site survey should follow the standard described in policy SP -005-B included in the buildingep rmit application packet. Street and Curb Cut 4. Application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut, Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http://edinamn.Zovledinafiles/files/City Offices/Public Worl<s/CurbCutApplication pdf Sanitary and Water Utilities S. Existing foundation to remain. Assuming no modification to utility connections. Storm Water Utility 6. The subject site drains to Grove Street and Stuart Avenue and is part of subwatershed HL -9. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is limited. The downstream system also includes a back yard flooding issue subject to Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan item 5.3.1.2 and a flood prone landlocked lake with a pumped outlet. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 mvw.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 7. The subject site rear and side yards drains to subwatershed MD -40. This drainage path is through private property to the south and west. 8. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: https:l/mal2s.barr.com/edina/ and http•//edinamn.gov/index pharsection=engineering water resource. 9. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. .Site Storm Water Ordinance Chapter 10, article 4 - Demolition Permits And Building Permits For Single And Two Family Dwelling Units (Sec. 10- 110), states: For a building permit, the applicant must submit stormwater and erosion control plans prepared and signed by a licensed professional engineer. The plans must be approved by the City Engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on-site erosion and protect on and off-site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden stormwater runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions. 10. The following comments apply to the storm water management plan. a. Follow Nine Mile Creek Watershed District standards, if applicable. b. No increase in peals rate or volume to private properties in rear and side lot. (This standard is for reference only. It appears to be met.) c. Due to the unique downstream flooding issue, No increase in peak rate or volume to HIL -9. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 11. No comments. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwEdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Request for Variance Urbanski Residence/5800 Stuart Avenue 5.13.2014 A variance approval is requested for the above referenced property for the following reasons: Mold • Removing only 50% of the walls still leaves mold in a large portion of the home. • The homeowners have not lived in the property for 3 years due to mold infestation. They have been in litigation with their insurance company, and those issues have been resolved. • Mold has been found in all areas of the home, and remediation through other means is impractical, and not guaranteed to work. 3 members of the family have severe mold allergies (documented), and are currently unable to enter the home without having needing a respirator and having a reaction. • No major changes to the home would have occurred if not for this situation. • Removing the home to the foundation walls does give the owners an opportunity to build a 'new' home, albeit at a great financial cost. Garage Loadinst • Currently, the garage loads from the north (Grove Street), and is too close to the sidewalk. Any car parked on the driveway impedes the sidewalk 'th ru-way', and has resulted in parking infractions. • The proposed home has the garage loading from the East (Stuart Avenue), which would still be a non conforming drive way, as it's too close to the corner. Approval from the City of Edina engineering department has been awarded, pending variance approval on the home. (Approval attached to application) • An east loading garage will make the sidewalk along Grove much safer, and the new driveway will be long enough for vehicles to always be clear of the Stuart Avenue sidewalk. Setback • Currently, the home's current setback to the north does not match the setback of the neighbor to the west, and if required to meet that setback, would reduce the width of 5800 by approximately 25 feet, making the home extremely small. • In addition, through the survey, it has been revealed that the SE corner of the house doesn't meet current setback by .1 foot. We are asking for a variance for this as well. Lot Coverage • The impervious lot coverage of the house does not meet the 25%, and would be 35.5% as proposed. This is due to additional patio area installed (no permit required by Edina) after their pool was installed a number of years ago. • Although larger, the new home does not add much in the area of lot coverage. Additional • The only change to the footprint would be a 8'-4" x 22'-0" addition on the western wall of the garage, allowing for a mudroom/half -bath. 6730 mulberry circle, chanhassen, minnesota 55317 ph 612.221.9576 tax 866.941.8557 www.mulberrybuilders.com mn lic#BC632430 MEM , � .,, .� r ' _ .� „y_ 46.x_ Hennepin County Property Interactive Map -r — I nteractive Maps Welcome Results Find a PID or an address on the map Links Im information View oblioue imagga (Bina mapsl Survedocuments About the data PID: 3211721420015 5800 Stuart Ave Edina, MN 55436 Owner/Taxpayer Owner. J J Urbanskl & M J Urbanski JASON URBANSKI Taxpayer: + 58W STUART AVE EDINA MN 55436 Tax District School Dist: 1273 Sewer Dist: Watershed Dist: I 1 P Parcel Area: Torrens/Abstract: Addition: Ircel 0.28 acres 12,154 sq It Abstract Broadmore Addn Eliason Rapist Lot: 001 4 Block: j 001 Metes & Bounds: Tax Data (Payable 2014) Market Value: ?nfal Tay. Legend Measure A http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/property/map/default.aspx?pid=321172142001 5 Page 1 of 1 6/12/2014 ry "•'� ,t ' �r .r ; 'q, 4 � � '�`� _� a' is � �'''",� e. 01'-!A� R�l 14 fi!� 1 _ +�}�� � i'`4" � �I'"4 ! bra'• $�r `"fit fit. }rvi�t c6x,,57.. 41 r 04 r 1 xr Page 1 of 1 file:/led-ntl.ci.edina.mn.us/eitywide/PDSImages/Pho /3211721310005001.jpg 6/12/2014 ter=- _ . woo'sJa(aAuW4a4*ogoM V10S3NNIW `VNVICI3 uJoweiaAwinsjstom) mow 1L1 L XDA *KG -*99 as6 3fW3AV]NYMS0009-*MJS «ss; -boo (m) SWOVISMU38 nw y}nog am sLwllr,sNw v am •a} N Ld �% REH L ' c °� � Mons avadn A NOIIV'aWIM301M �-1NVOUN InN dOl 'WN 1 d61- i NtNWN Nf38 YNIQq NWWAON39 rs" - _ G -a�'d 9" � 9' W '\ 4` 9' a IvlrvV vrrv�.wsY ter P e a`All €9 g �y O CC p y11111 ,per- �ru v a� .L'�C La c3l S7f r Igul �t Ii t$� nos 0w 1A S sQ.LS�.� � AF.D� �Mc< b -MyibtY�ist�C� / .Fe g�'g+yr Nt3 i'1 S$-1;--LCII0$ j f NYf _osoA g �d c .a8sx ear J5 E it r1i iu �9a�..nlr��'«i.F+ri`8.`6�iun'�wWx6tt�u�oa oiHr°' a i ria WOOVXA*AAS(2krIAMM XPM VIMNNIW I'MIC13�:Io n MVA(au SWOWN :ODW3 3nN3AVJBVnM 0009 -'3MS XPJ MG-498(ES6 IVES-4$8(V;6� suicnine Auuamm oms 'artIUOIOQIUXMG :jq WnGS OnWAV OPPIA1 0906 3SnOH aSSOdOHd HIM nsw* w SHOA3wm owl )NI W NOSH" S AVWH NOLLVOWUM30 IM JR 04 Ld LTJ YZB-'AM rIv VaH or'sle-'MrO 'Wit V dOI - "MM M z ip 151,11 ka 0 -,41 VS InLI fa 8 I to Ewe i OV I UJ 9511RUIPC U GRvig.. I I -U! dit (3.4,422 iw bPHAA. 0- A le7/7L/ I VUQ v V I -11A I L/ A L -'"7e) ( v r v V F CURB CUT / DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT FEE IS $80.00 (REFERENCE CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 2, SECTIONS 24129 TNRU 24.133 OF EDINA CITY CODE -1 ADDRESS:SITE ri . i. or OWNER'S DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE:'' CONTRACTOR'S CONTRACTOR'S ADDRESS: PHONE NUMBER CONTRACTOR CAN BE REACHED AT: CELLPHONE #:6 [ - ` Q 60 *!f the properly is located In a neighborhood that has been reconstructed within the last five years the contractoris responsible forreplacing the bituminous street saw cut to saw cut curb to curb -See attached Map. Bituminous street patch needs to be completed within 6 months of the initial inspection. If after 6 months the bituminous street patch is not completed the City of Edina �wiil make the necessary repairs and bill the property owner correctly. _ . A I 1 / ENGINEERING PERMIT NCOtf� L PAID O ✓' i CHECK I4M&iW,s_ CASH( CREDIT CARD NOTE: HIS .E'EN EXPIRES ONE YEAR AFTER IT IS ISSUED REGARDLESS IF THE JOB IS COMPLETED. PLEASE CALL THE CITY OF EDINA, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 952-826-0371,24 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE YOUR INITIAL INSPECTION AND 24 HOURS PRIOR TO FILLING IN THE BITUMINOUS PATCH FOR YOUR FINAL INSPECTIONIIt ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard o Edina, Minnesota 55439 www &aMN.gov * 952-826-0371 « Fax 952-826-0392 CURB CUT / DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT FEE IS $80.00 (REFERENCE CHAPTER 24, ARTICLE IV, DIVISION 2, SECTIONS 24-129 THRU 24.133 OF EDINA CITY CODE) Sketch below the street(s) and approximate location of the improvement in relation to the garage and or house. PLANS / AND / OR SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED: — YES No ENGINEERING NOTES: L-bMeotq,,j,,�,- W; /I &MlVi? &/CO Al, 4"Vew"', t;wem Oj 0A 5�fr V t-1 yvtj ehj-i tr 14(k) e,�q�,c.,e-je I Awevq re–n '51-4 W"t 'Din :�46f4-,k V NOTE: THIS PERMIT EXPIRES ONE YEAR AFTER IT IS ISSUED REGARDLESS IF THE JOB IS COMPLETED. PLEASE CALL THE CITY OF EDINA, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 952-826-0371, 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE YOUR INITIAL INSPECTION AND 24 HOURS PRIOR TO FILLING IN THE BITUMINOUS STREET PATCH FOR YOUR FINAL INSPECTION!!! ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov - 952-826-0371 - Fax 952-826-0392 OLO -z- � � J Q + U PLANS / AND / OR SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED: — YES No ENGINEERING NOTES: L-bMeotq,,j,,�,- W; /I &MlVi? &/CO Al, 4"Vew"', t;wem Oj 0A 5�fr V t-1 yvtj ehj-i tr 14(k) e,�q�,c.,e-je I Awevq re–n '51-4 W"t 'Din :�46f4-,k V NOTE: THIS PERMIT EXPIRES ONE YEAR AFTER IT IS ISSUED REGARDLESS IF THE JOB IS COMPLETED. PLEASE CALL THE CITY OF EDINA, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 952-826-0371, 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO SCHEDULE YOUR INITIAL INSPECTION AND 24 HOURS PRIOR TO FILLING IN THE BITUMINOUS STREET PATCH FOR YOUR FINAL INSPECTION!!! ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov - 952-826-0371 - Fax 952-826-0392 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Breanne Rothstein August 13, 2014 B-14-14 Consultant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 15.05 foot variance from the required 52.05 foot front yard setback for the addition of a garage 37 feet from the front property line at the property located at 6212 Crest Lane. Project Description: The applicant is requesting a 15.05 foot variance to the required 52.05 foot front yard setback to construct a garage addition on the lot located at 6212 Crest Lane. INFORMATIONIBACKG ROUN D The subject property is approximately 180 feet in width (as measured 50 feet back from the front property Ione) and is 79,798 square feet (1.8 acres) in area. There is a steep grade change in the rear of the property. There are two existing single-family homes on the north and south lots, both facing the Crest Lane cul-de-sac. The north lot has a front setback of 35.4 feet and the lot to the south of the subject property is set back 68.7 feet from the front property line, which also has a significant grade change in the rear of the property. The property owner is requesting to convert existing garage space into livable space, complete an addition to the south side of the home, and build a new two - car garage to the north side of the home. The proposed garage addition will not meet the front yard setback. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the average setback of the two adjacent homes, or 52.05 feet for this lot. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet, which requests to direct most of the drainage to the front of the lot. The applicant is working with the engineer to revise the plans to address runoff concerns associated with the steep slope in the rear yard. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the end of a cul-de-sac of single-family homes in the Valley View Heights subdivision. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 79,798 square feet. It is a treed lot with a significant downsloping grade change in the rear yard. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The proposal is to build two additions to the existing home, one on the north side and one on the south side of the existing home. The proposal is to convert the garage to living space and add a new, two -car garage on the north side closer to the front property line than currently allowed by city code, therefore requiring a variance. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes, staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 2 City Standard Proposed Front - Average of adjacent (52.05) 37 feet* Side- 10+ height, (living) 12.1 and 15.1 feet Rear- 25 feet Over 250 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 40 Ft 1 story rambler, 15 feet Lot Area from existing grade Lot Width 9,000 Sq Ft or avg of nbad 79,798 sq. ft 75 feet or avg of nbad 180 feet Lot coverage 25% 6.74% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes, staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 2 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the average of the two adjacent homes). 2. The additions to the home are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property has topographical challenges unique to this property that make compliance with the ordinance a practical difficultly. ' 4. The proposed home, as proposed, keeps the addition as far from the steep slope as possible. • 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. Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variance is reasonable given that the applicant is seeking to minimize impact on the steep slopes in the rear yard and is maintaining a setback farther back than the existing home. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the properly, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the lot has a steep slope in the rear yard that makes moving the proposed structure to a conforming location difficult. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3 No, The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will complement the existing neighborhood homes and the additions are not getting any closer to the front lot line than the current property. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the average of the two adjacent homes). 2. The proposed additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements and there are circumstances unique to the property due to an imposed front yard setback from adjacent homes and the existence of a steep grade in the rear yard. 4. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans: Survey dated June 17, 2014 Building plans and elevations date stamped June 19, 2014; 2) Compliance with the Environmental Engineer's memo dated August 1, 2014 Deadline for a City Decision: August 19, 2014 4 51Z�50815504{ 5500-; X, i O 1 ` 60166100r> 5516 N 1 +1 6017 6005 ' 6101 ' _t.R R Sif_ti7 _ 6024 24 I "1 : - y6.0 - 20 r. . -.' , t - 6101 6105 A" 6108 - k 55095501! {{6028 rn 6009 6113 6100 651 R T W -6-t6112 61056109 6105', 61O0 ' ; ,... :k 6116 �' , 6117 ib 6104 '" 6109 2j4 6104 l r , 6113 ,. -- 6108 0 G104 ,.•_ i, 6121 ; 1 ._._,_ ! t 1. 6120 �k 16108 i 6113 6112 �' �, 6117 ' t _ o: t 6124 6125 1, 6112 i 6113 6121. 6117 _ 6116 A, 11�1 , s _ ; " --- _ 6117 6112 _ wt 61291161161, i 6121 i ° � 6120 , i 6116, �6128'.�" i. 6124 � 6121 i`125� 6133 i 6120 6125 41204' 124 r r i E, _,._ •.,� �.� ..6128 6208 6204 6200 �� 6201 t 6200 6201 6200 6201 " 6205 ._ _ _ - t 6204 20 6205 `_ i' 62179 6212 I 6208 6204 6205 , 6208 - l) X2016204 6A 6209 - a08 � _ , t 6212 62 ' 6201 4t � r a � . ��. 62136208f. �� ;� 6209` 6216 ,532q"�( -,m� 6205 Vie' '' 6Z17 6209 M_ _ _i f 6215 6217 ti�6213 .4 6221 5325531746212' 6220 } N v 62121 — �, 'I, a" ( — 0216 C �" ` ~.I 6224fi225 4 i� '� 6219 _ ` 620821 162286220`; %l'3: 630$ 6300 j 6228 �� 4229 `` F �Gi20• 6209 1 �T,. 6236, 6212 i 24 D'ARG 6Z 32 - 6213 �"� � Y LANE " J€�� 6220, '6227 �, V�t�EY VIEWfi' W410AD 6301 6900( -,6229 - - 6241 w , ; % 6316 1 t s6301 63 5 6304 ,� 6305 ; %6320,% y 6303 4 " 6324 6301+ -- _ - i I ( 6309 6308 '6309 X6328 . ti 6317 6305 5 _ 300 24 13 16312 - t a '6327'.i330 ' 5330 6313 VAt EYVIEW8 D -�NITING A ENUE p i 16304,,-',# 5349 � Parcel 05-116-21-12-0043 AT -B: Torrens Map Scale: l" a 400 ft. N ID: Print Date: 8/6/2014 Ovmer Market Name: Total: Parcel 6212 Crest La Tax Address: Edina, MN 55436 Total: Properly Residential Sale Type: Price: This map is a completion of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Non -Homestead hr ad, including fitness of any particular stead: Date: purpose, merahantaWtity, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 1.76 acres Sale COPYRIGHT 0 HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: 76,687 sq ft Code: 34 as'. z �• 1. x w' 4 4�k gii � •� Y I ... - r � DATE: August 1, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Chad Milner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 6212 Crest Lane - Permit 131146 - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and adherence to: • Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345) • Chapter 10 Article 17 — Land Disturbing Activities (10-674 to 10-710) • Chapter 24, Article 4 Division 2 — Roadway Access (24-129 to 24-133) • Chapter 36, Article 12 — Drainage, Retaining Walls and Site Access (36-1257) A review was performed at the time of building permit application. This review is the second for this site. The applicant has already attempted to meet site stormwater and grading standards presented during the first review and this review reacts to that attempt. Land Use/Planning Concerns I. The site drains to steep slopes and areas with known flooding issues. Street and Cur( Cut 2. No comments; remodel uses existing curb cut. Sanitary and Water Utilities 3. No comments; remodel uses existing utility connections Storm Water Utility 4. The subject site sits atop and the rear yard drains toward a steep forested slope to the west part of subwatershed CO_6. This drainage path flows over private property on Hillside Road. 5. The subject site front yard drains to subwatershed NMC 90. This drainage path is subject of the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan section 6.3.1.4. Due to this downstream flooding and limited capacity, applicant must provide storm water precautions to cause no increase in runoff peak rate and mitigate runoff volume. 6. A 4" service connection ,(Plate 241.3101 to a 6" sump drain is available on Crest Lane. 7. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: https://maps.barr.com/edina/ and http://edinamn eov/index php?section=engineering water resource 8. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. 9. A separate permit may be required from Nine Mile Creek Watershed District: www.ninemilecreek.org ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 Site Storm Water - Ordinance Chapter 36, article 12, Division 2 — Supplementary District Regulations, states: Sec. 36-1257. Drainage, retaining walls and site access. (a) Drainage. No person shall obstruct or divert the natural flow of runoff so as to harm the public health, safety or general welfare. Surface water runoff shall be properly conveyed into storm sewers, watercourses, ponding areas or other public facilities. As part of the building permit, the applicant must submit a grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater management plan that is signed by a licensed professional engineer. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov . 952-826-0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 drainage system. The plans must be approved by the city engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. 10. The following comments apply to the storm water management plan: a. In an attempted mitigate increase in runoff peak rate and volume to CO_6, applicant has proposed detention on steep slopes. This soil inundation feature presents more risk to global soil stability than it solves. L Remove soil inundation features on slope, and direct as much water as practical to front yard. b. No increase in peak rate, and mitigation of increased volume to NMC _90. L Provide underdrain connection to 4" sump connection for detention area one. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 11. No comments. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard - Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov - 952-826-0371 - Fax 952-826-0392 DATE: June 4, 2014 TO: David Fisher — Building Official CC: Chad Milner — City Engineer Permit Applicant FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 6212 Crest Lane - Permit 131146 The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and adherence to: • Chapter 36, Article 12 - Drainage, Retaining Walls and Site Access (36-1257), • Chapter 10 Article .17 — Land Disturbing Activities (10-674 to 10-710). This application may also require a permit from the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District. www.ninemileereek,ora Street and Curb Cut 1. No comments; remodel uses existing curb cut. Sanitary and Water Utilities 2. No comments; remodel uses existing utility connections 5torrn Water Utility 3. The subject site sits atop and the rear yard drains toward a steep forested slope to the west part of subwatershed CO -6. This drainage path flows over private property on Hillside Road. 4. An 6" sump drain is available on Crest Lane .that drains to subwatershed NMC _90. This drainage path is subject of the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan section 6.3.1.4. Due to this downstream flooding and limited capacity, applicant must provide storm water precautions to cause no increase in runoff peak rate and mitigate runoff volume. S. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links. haps-ilmaps.barr.com/edina/ and httZ//edinamn goy/index 1hp?secdon=engineering water resource 6. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below, Site Storm Water Ordinance Chapter 36, article 12, Division 2 - Supplementary District Regulations, states; Sec. 36-1257. Drainage, retaining walls and site access. (a) Drainage. No person shall obstruct or divert the natural flow of runoff so as to harm the public. health, safety or general welfare. Surface water runoff shall be properly conveyed into storm sewers, watercourses, ponding areas or other public facilities. As part of the building permit, the applicant must submit a grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater management plan that is signed by a licensed professional engineer. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard. Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwYA niMN.g©v • 952.826-0371. Fax 952=826.0392 controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The plans must be approved by the city engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. (b) Retaining walls. All retaining walls must be shown on a grading plan as part of a building permit application. Plans must demonstrate materials to be used for the retaining wall construction: Retaining walls taller than four feet must meet a three-foot setback. (c) Site access. In an R -I or R-2 Zoning District, a residential maintenance access of at least three feet in width is required on one side of a single or two dwelling unit from the front yard to the rear yard. 7. A storm water management plan signed by a Professional Engineer is required. a. No increase in peak rate or volume to CO 6. b. No increase in peak rate, and mitigation of increased volume to NMC 90. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 8. A grading and erosion control plan signed by a Professional. Engineer is required. a. Provide erosion and sediment control precautions described under Edina City Code Chapter 10, Article 7— Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345). b. Describe stockpile locations. c. Include provisions for temporary erosion control. d. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used for sump pump discharge e. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used for concrete washout, and hazardous waste storage and handling. f. Provide inlet protection for all storm sewer inlets downstream of the site within one block or as directed by the City. g. Identify on the plan the individual responsible for the cleanliness of the site and the maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls. h. Provide sediment control precautions, including downstream perimeter sediment barrier. 9. Meet Nine Mile Creel. requirements. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. SVRVEVING, ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE. MINNESOTA 55356 952.473-4141 FAX! 952.473-4435 MOYNIHAN BUILDERS 6212 CREST LANE, EDINA DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS July 8, 2014 ►4�'. an, EXISTING PROPOSED Drainage area = 3800 ± S.F. Drainage area = 3800± S.F. Runoff "CN" no. = 61 Runoff "CN" no. = 69 Time of cone = 5 min. Time of cone = 5 min. Q2 = 0.04 CFS Q2 — 0.04 CFS Q10 = 0.16 CFS Q10 = 0.07 CFS Q100 = 0.36 CFS Q100 = 0.09 CFS, Elev = 918.38 Overall volume from 100 year storm = 0.015 AC. FT. existing Overall volume from 100 year storm = 0.020 AC. FT. proposed Increase in volume = 0.005 AC. FT. = 218 CU. FT. Infiltration area upstream of destination area. 30'X 7.5' X 1.0' = 225 CU. FT. C3alE (new Subcat Bobcat Reach (.j�C Drainage Magfam Ear M"iftsm 8 Exkdng 7444 Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Ina, Printed 7IM2014 FHydfoCADO 9.00 sin 04528 0 2009 HydmCAD Software Sok mss LLC C:1Program FilesWydroCADiProjectsMiydroCAD Projec tO 1323 Pillar HomesWew Folders Moynihan 3 Existing 741-14 Type 1124 -hr 2 year Rainfa11=2.80" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7AM014 11:41:16 PM HydroCADO 9.00 sln 04528 0 2009 HydroCAD Software Sokftne LLC Paw Summary for Subcatchment 3E: (new Subcat) 146j Hint: Tc=O (Instant runoff peak depends on dt) Runoff 0.04 cfs Q 11.92 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af, Depth= 0.29" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS. Time Span= 2.00.36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type p 24 -hr 2 year Rainfall=2.80" 0.01 3,800 100:00% Pervious Area Subcatchment 3E: (new Subcat) Type 1124 -hr 2 year Rainfall=2.80" Runoff Area=3,800 9f Runoff Volume=0.002 of Runoff Depth=0.29" Tce0.0 min CN=61 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 18 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 29 30 31 Tim" (hows) CAProgram FiledtlydroCAD%Projects%HydroCAD Projects111323 Pillar HomesW w Voider! Moynihan 3 Existing 7-844 Type ff 24 -hr 10 year Painfalfz4.20" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/8/2014 11:41:16 PM HydroCAD® 9.00 sin 04529 ® 2009 HvdmCAD Software SAM= LLC Page 2 Summary for Subcatchment 3E: (new Subcat) 1461 Hint:. Tc=p (instant runoff peak depends on dt) Runoff = 0.16 cfs a 11.90 tus, Volume= 0.007 af, Depth= 0.92" Runoff by SCS TR 20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 1124 -hr 10 year RainfaN=4.2(" Submtchment 3E: (near Subcat) 0.111 1 ■ Runoff Volume=0.007 of o09 Runoff Depth=0.92" Tc=0.0 min ao7 CN=61 2 9 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 Tina (hours) _ Type it 24 -hr 10 year ° 14 Rainfa11m4,20" Runoff Area=3,800 9f 0,12' 0.111 1 ■ Runoff Volume=0.007 of o09 Runoff Depth=0.92" Tc=0.0 min ao7 CN=61 2 9 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 Tina (hours) C:1Program Fites%HydroCAD%Projects*iydroC Moynihan 3 Existing 74-14 Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Type it 24 -hr 100 year Rainfall --6. 0011 Printed 7/8!2014 11:41:16 PM Summary for Subcatchment 3E: (new Subcat) 1461 Hint: Tc=0 (Instant runoff peak depends on dt) Runoff 0.36 cis @ 11.90 hrs, Volume 0.015 af, Depth= 2.0141 Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-35.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hm Type 1124 -hr 100 year RainfallwO.00" Area NO CN Description __ -- 3,800 61 >760A Grass cover. Good. HSG B 3,800 100.00% Pervious Area 10M oa o.1a 0.14 0.14 0.12 0.1 3 Subcatchment 3E: (new Subcat) Type 11 24 -hr 100 year Rainfall=6.00" Runoff Area=3,800 sf Runoff Volume=0.015 >af Runoff Depth -2.01" Tc=0.0 min CN=61 AP el N 3P' (new Pond) (new Subcat) su4 ;;::ad, 1.Linjk C:1Program Files\HydroCAD\Projects\HydroCAD Projects\11323 Pillar Homes\New Folder\ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9!2014 12:00:30 AM HydroCAD® 9.00 sin 04529 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pape 1 Pipe Listing (all nodes) Line# Node in -Invert Out -invert Length Slope n DiamMidth Height Number (feet) (feet) (feet) (ft/ft) (inches) (inches) 1 3PP 917.00 916.00 15.0 0.0667 0.100 4.0 0.0 . r. C:\Program Flies\HydroCAD\Projects\HydroCAD Projec tsM 1323 Pillar Homes\New 1=~ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Type Il 24 hr 2 year R'ainfa11=2.00" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. r Printed 719/2014 12:00:90 AM Summary for Subcatchment 3P: (row Subcat) 1491 Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff 0.08 d's @ 11.98 hrs. Volume= 0.004 af, Depth= 0.57" Runoff by SCS TR 20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00 36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type Il 24 -hr 2 year Rainfall=2.80" Area NO CN Description • _ 77+0 98 House 40 98 Concrete 22990 61 >75% Grass coverLGood, HSG B 3,800 69 Welohted Average 2,990 78.68% Pervious Area 810 21.32% Impervious Area Tc Length Cap* DssaWn 5.0 Dit ect Entry, Subcatchment 3P: (new Subcat) Hydrograph 0.061 -19 Type 1124 -hr 2 year ° o; ; Rainfall=2.80" 6 Runoff Area=3,800 sf ate- Runoff Volume=0.004 of Q°5- Runoff Depthmoxr 0.00, Tc=5.0 min CN=69 1011 12 13 14 X31 32 35 34 3546 C:\Program Files\HydroCAD\Projects\HydroCAD Projects111323 Pillar Homes\New Folder\ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Type II 24 -hr 2 year Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9/2014 12:00:30 AM HydroCAD® 9.00 sin 04529 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 3 Summary for Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Inflow Area = 0.087 ac, 21.32% Impervious, inflow Depth = 0.5T' for 2 year event Inflow = 0.08 cfs @ 11.98 hrs, Volume= 0.004 of Outflow = 0.04 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.004 af, Atten= 45%, Lag= 5.1 min Primary = 0.04 cfs @ 12.06 hrs, Volume= 0.004 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 917.27' @ 12.06 hrs Surf.Area= 132 sf Storage= 31 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 31.5 min calculated for 0.004 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 31.4 min ( 918.6 - 887.3 ) Volume__ Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 917.00' 495 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 917.00 100 0 0 918.00 220 160 160 919.00 450 335 495 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices 41 Primary 917.00' 40' Round Culvert L= 15.0' Ke= 0.500 Outlet invert= 916.00' S= 0.06677' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.100 jLnrimary OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 12.06 hrs HW=917.27' (Free Discharge) 1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.04 cfs @ 0.80 fps) CAProgram F1kmV4OmOADNProjed9*"roCAD Projects%11323 Pinar HomeMew Foklerl Moynihan 3 Proposed 741-14 Type 1124 -hr 2 year Rainfall-Q.80 Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Pdnted 7/9/2014 12:00:30 AM Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Hydrograph nk" Inflow Area=0.087 ac Peak Elev=917.27' Storage=31 cf 4.0" Round Culvert 0.00-:' aa- n=0.100 a L=15.0' M S=0.0667 T G:616- MCI aoos 2 3 { 5 6 7 8 8 10 1. 11 1213 1415 1817 16 1920 21 22 28 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 88 54 36 36 Tkm (hoar) C:\Program Files\HydroCAD\Projects\HydroCAD Projects\11323 Pillar Homes\New Folder\ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Type 1124 -hr 2 year Rainfall=2.80" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9/2014 12:00:30 AM HydroCAD® 9.00 s/n 04529 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 917.00 0.00 917.01 0.00 917.02 0.00 917.03 0.00 917.04 0.00 917.05 0.00 917.06 0.00 917.07 0.00 917.08 0.00 917.09 0.01 917.10 0.01 917.11 0.01 917.12 0.01 917.13 0.01 917.14 0.01 917.15 0.02 917.16 0.02 917.17 0.02 917.18 0.02 917.19 0.02 917.20 0.03 917.21 0.03 917.22 0.03 917.23 0.03 917.24 0.04 917.25 0.04 917.26 0.04 917.27 0.04 917.28 0.05 917.29 0.05 917.30 0.05 917.31 0.05 917.32 0.06 917.33 0.06 917.34 0.06 917.35 0.06 917.36 0.07 917.37 0.07 917.38 0.07 917.39 0.07 917.40 0.07 917.41 0.07 917.42 0.07 917.43 0.07 917.44 0.07 917.45 0.07 917.46 0.07 917.47 0.07 917.48 0.07 917.49 0.07 917.50 0.07 Stage -Discharge for Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 917.51 0.07 917.52 0.07 917.53 0.07 917.54 0.07 917.55 0.07 917.56 0.07 917.57 0.07 917.58 0.07 917.59 0.07 917.60 0.07 917.61 0.07 917.62 0.07 917.63 0.07 917.64 0.07 917.65 0.07 917.66 0.07 917.67 0.07 917.68 0.07 917.69 0.07 917.70 0.07 917.71 0.07 917.72 0.07 917.73 0.07 917.74 0.08 917.75 0.08 917.76 0.08 917.77 0.08 917.78 0.08 917.79 0.08 917.80 0.08 917.81 0.08 917.82 0.08 917.83 0.08 917.84 0.08 917.85 0.08 917.86 0.08 917.87 0.08 917.88 0.08 917.89 0.08 917.90 0.08 917.91 0.08 917.92 0.08 917.93 0.08 917.94 0.08 917.95 0.08 917.96 0.08 917.97 0.08 917.98 0.08 917.99 0.08 918.00 0.08 918.01 0.08 Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 918.02 0.08 918.03 0.08 918.04 0.08 918.05 0.08 918.06 0.08 918.07 0.08 918.08 0.08 918.09 0.08 918.10 0.08 918.11 0.08 918.12 0.08 918.13 0.08 918.14 0.09 918.15 0.09 918.16 0.09 918.17 0.09 918.18 0.09 918.19 0.09 918.20 0.09 918.21 0.09 918.22 0.09 918.23 0.09 918.24 0.09 918.25 0.09 918.26 0.09 918.27 0.09 918.28 0.09 918.29 0.09 918.30 0.09 918.31 0.09 918.32 0.09 918.33 0.09 918.34 0.09 918.35 0.09 918.36 0.09 918.37 0.09 918.38 0.09 918.39 0.09 918.40 0.09 918.41 0.09 918.42 0.09 918.43 0.09 918.44 0.09 918.45 0.09 918.46 0.09 918.47 0.09 918.48 0.09 918.49 0.09 918.50 0.09 918.51 0.09 918.52 0.09 Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 918.53 0.09 918.54 0.09 918.55 0.09 918.56 0.09 918.57 0.09 918.58 0.10 918.59 0.10 918.60 0.10 918.61 0.10 918.62 0.10 918.63 0.10 918.64 0.10 918.65 0.10 918.66 0.10 918.67 0.10 918.68 0.10 918.69 0.10 918.70 0.10 918.71 0.10 918.72 0.10 918.73 0.10 918.74 0.10 918.75 0.10 918.76 0.10 918.77 0.10 918.78 0.10 918.79 0.10 918.80 0.10 918.81 0.10 918.82 0.10 918.83 0.10 918.84 0.10 918.85 0.10 918.86 0.10 918.87 0.10 918.88 0.10 918.89 0.10 918.90 0.10 918.91 0.10 918.92 0.10 918.93 0.10 918.94 0.10 918.95 0.10 918.96 .0.10 918.97 U'10 918.98 `': 0.10 918.99 0.10 919.00 0.10 C.AProgram Fites"droCADVNvOcts%HydroCAD Projects%11323 Pillar HomeslNew FoWeA Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Type It 24 -hr 10 year Raintal1=4.20" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/912014 12.00,30 AM HydmCAD®9 00 sin 04529 ® 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 6 Summmy for Subcmtchment 3P: (new Subcat) 1491 Hint: Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff — 0.22 cfs (M 11.96 hre, Volume= 0.010 of, Depth= 1.40" Runoff by SCS TR 20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type If 24 -hr 10 year RainfaN-4.20" Ani (sh CN Description 770 98 House • 40 98 Concrete 2,890 61 _ _>75% Grass cover, Goad HSG B 3,800 69 Weighted Average 2990 78.68% Pervious Area 810 21.32% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description Direct Entry, Subcatchnnent 3P: (taw Subcat) o ;_ Type 1124 -hr 10 year M1 Rainfall=4.20" 0.1 Runoff Area=3,800 sf US- Runoff Volume=0.010 of I a;g Runoff Depth=1.40" 0.11_ Tc=5.0 min 0.09 CN=69 16 17 16 19 0 N 22 Tim. (haws) C:1Program Files\HydroCADiProjectslHydroCAD Projects\11323 Pillar Homes\New Folder\ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Type// 24 -hr 10 year F Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9/2014 Summary for Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Inflow Area = 0.087 ac, 21.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.40" for 10 year event Inflow - 0.22 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.010 of Outflow = 0.07 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Atten= 66%, Lag= 7.4 min Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 12.09 hrs, Volume= 0.010 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 917.72' @ 12.09 hrs Surf.Area= 187 sf Storage= 104 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 22.6 min calculated for 0.010 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 23.1 min ( 879.3 - 856.2 ) Volume Invert Avaii.Storage Storage Description #1 917.00' 495 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surt.Area Inc.Store Cum -Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic feet) (cubic -feet) 917.00 100 0 0 918.00 220 160 160 919.00 450 335 495 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 917.00' 4.0" Round Culvert L= 15.0' Ke= 0.500 Outlet Invert= 916.00' S= 0.0667P Cc= 0.900 n=0.100 rimary OutFiow Max=0.07 cfs @ 12.09 hrs HW=917.72' (Free Discharge) =Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.07 cfs @ 0.86 fps) C;1Program PileS"droCADlPropmMjydroCAD Projects111323 Pillar HomeMew FoldeA Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-844 Type H 24 hr 10 year Rainfall -4.20" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9/2014 12:00.31 AM HydroCAce 9.o0 s/n 04529 a 2009 HvdfoCAD Software Solutions LLC pm 8 Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Hydrograph OM Inflow Area�.087 ac 0.2 Peak Elev=917.72' 0.18 00.18 .17 Storage=104 Cf a,7 a,®. 4.0" 0.15 M Round Culvert 0..12 OAl n=0.100 0.1 0*0 L=16.0' 0.06 Ne 5=0.0667 T 10 1112 18 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 That Omni) C:1Program Files\HydroCAD\Projects\HydroCAD Projects\11323 Pillar Homes\New Folder\ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Type 11 24 -hr 10 year Rainfall=4.20" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9/2014 12:00:31 AM HydroCAD® 9.00 s/n 04529 0 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pa-ge 9 Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 917.00 0.00 917.01 0.00 917.02 0.00 917.03 0.00 917.04 0.00 917.05 0.00 917.06 0.00 917.07 0.00 917.08 0.00 917.09 0.01 917.10 0.01 917.11 0.01 917.12 0.01 917.13 0.01 917.14 0.01 917.15 0.02 917.16 0.02 917.17 0.02 917.18 0.02 917.19 0.02 917.20 0.03 917.21 0.03 917.22 0.03 917.23 0.03 917.24 0.04 917.25 0.04 917.26 0.04 917.27 0.04 917.28 0.05 917.29 0.05 917.30 0.05 917.31 0.05 917.32 0.06 917.33 0.06 917.34 0.06 917.35 0.06 917.36 0.07 917.37 0.07 917.38 0.07 917.39 0.07 917.40 0.07 917.41 0.07 917.42 0.07 917.43 0.07 917.44 0.07 917.45 0.07 917.46 0.07 917.47 0.07 917.48 0.07 917.49 0.07 917.50 0.07 Stage -Discharge for Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 917.51 0.07 917.52 0.07 917.53 0.07 917.54 0.07 917.55 0.07 917.56 0.07 917.57 0.07 917.58 0.07 917.59 0.07 917.60 0.07 917.61 0.07 917.62 0.07 917.63 0.07 917.64 0.07 917.65 0.07 917.66 0.07 917.67 0.07 917.68 0.07 917.69 0.07 917.70 0.07 917.71 0.07 917.72 0.07 917.73 0.07 917.74 0.08 917.75 0.08 917.76 0.08 917.77 0.08 917.78 0.08 917.79 0.08 917.80 0.08 917.81 0.08 917.82 0.08 917.83 0.08 917.84 0.08 917.85 0.08 917.86 0.08 917.87 0.08 917.88 0.08 917.89 0.08 917.90 0.08 917.91 0.08 917.92 0.08 917.93 0.08 917.94 0.08 917.95 0.08 917.96 0.08 917.97 0.08 917.98 0.08 917.99 0.08 918.00 0.08 918.01 0.08 Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 918.02 0.08 918.03 0.08 918.04 0.08 918.05 0.08 918.06 0.08 918.07 0.08 918.08 0.08 918.09 0.08 918.10 0.08 918.11 0.08 918.12 0.08 918.13 0.08 918.14 0.09 918.15 0.09 918.16 0.09 918.17 0.09 918.18 0.09 918.19 0.09 918.20 0.09 918.21 0.09 918.22 0.09 918.23 0.09 918.24 0.09 918.25 0.09 918.26 0.09 918.27 0.09 918.28 0.09 918.29 0.09 918.30 0.09 918.31 0.09 918.32 0.09 918.33 0.09 918.34 0.09 918.35 0.09 918.36 0.09 918.37 0.09 918.38 0.09 918.39 0.09 918.40 0.09 918.41 0.09 918.42 0.09 918.43 0.09 918.44 0.09 918.45 0.09 918.46 0.09 918.47 0.09 918.48 0.09- 918.49 0.09 918.50 0.09 918.51 0.09 918.52 0.09 Elevation Primary (feet) (cfs) 918.53 0.09 918.54 0.09 918.55 0.09 918.56 0.09 918.57 0.09 918.58 0.10 918.59 0.10 918.60 0.10 918.61 0.10 918.62 0.10 918.63 0.10 918.64 0.10 918.65 0.10 918.66 0.10 918.67 0.10 918.68 0.10 918.69 0.10 918.70 0.10 918.71 0.10 918.72 0.10 918.73 0.10 918.74 0.10 918.75 0.10 918.76 0.10 918.77 0.10 918.78 0.10 918.79 0.10 918.80 0.10 918.81 0.10 918.82 0.10 918.83 0.10 918.84 0.10 918.85 0.10 918.86 0.10 918.87 0.10 918.88 0.10 918.89 0.10 918.90 0.10 918.91 0.10 918.92 0.10 918.93 0.10 918.94 0.10 918.95 0.10 918.96 0.10 918.97 0.10 918.98 ;" ; '` 0.10 918,99 ` 0.10 ,919.00 0.10 QTgiratn FileWydrOGAD%Pr*jeMVHydroCAD ProjectsA11323 Pillar Horn"ANew Folder) Moynihan 3 Proposed 741-14 Type 1! 2"r 100 year Rainfath-6.00" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7!8!2014 12:00:31 AM Summary for Subcatchment 3P: (new Subcat) 1491 Hirt Tc<2dt may require smaller dt Runoff = 0.43 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Depth= 2.71" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Time Span= 2.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Type 1124 -hr 100 year Raines -6.00" Area NO CN Descril ft * 770 98 House 40 98 Come 3,800 2,990 810 Well;lhted Average 78.68% Pervious Area 21.32% Impervious Area Tc LAngth Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ttlR} (ftlsec} (cfs) 6.0 Direct Entry', Subcatchment 3P: (new Subcat) oia. Type 11 24 -hr '100 year CA Rainfall=6.00" O:u- Runoff Area=3,800 sf oa Runoff Volume=0.020 of 0.26 O - Runoff Depth=2.71" 0.24: O.n. Tc --5.0 min o e= CN=60 o.i6 0.14 M12. 0.1 7 e 91t1fi!21314151817t6182021=M2425202728a "" 'Omftl C:\Program Files\HydroCAD\Projects\HydroCAD Projects\11323 Pillar Homes\New Folder\ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-8-14 Type I/ 24 -hr 100 year Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9/2014 12:00:31 AM HydroCAD® 9.00 s/n 04529 © 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Inflow Area = 0.087 ac, 21.32% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.71" for 100 year event Inflow = 0.43 cfs @ 11.96 hrs, Volume= 0.020 of Outflow = 0.09 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.020 af, Atten= 79%, Lag= 9.8 min Primary = 0.09 cfs @ 12.12 hrs, Volume= 0.020 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 2.00-36.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Peak Elev= 918.38'@ 12.12 hrs Surf.Area= 308 sf Storage= 261 cf Plug -Flow detention time= 28.6 min calculated for 0.020 of (100% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 28.3 min ( 864.8 - 836.4 ) Volume Invert Avaii.Storage Storage Description #1 917.00' 495 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 917.00 100 0 0 918.00 220 160 160 919.00 450 335 495 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 917.00' 4.0" Round Culvert L=15.0' Ke= 0.500 - Outlet Invert= 916.00' S= 0.0667T Cc= 0.900 n= 0.100 Primary Outflow Max=0.09 cfs @ 12.12 hrs HW=918.38' (Free Discharge) t-1=Culvert (Barrel Controls 0.09 cfs @ 1.04 fps) C:1Program Files%HydroCAD%Projects%HydroCAD Priojectsl11323 PiRw HomeslNew Folded Moynihan 3 Prtiopoaed 7-844 Type 0 2"r 100 year Rabtf &6.00" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/8/2014 12:00:31 AM Pond 3PP: (new Pond) i Inflow Area=0.087 ac Peak Elev=918.38' Storage=261 cf 4.011 020 Round Culvert 024 =. n=0.100 °'6 0.16 a;2S=0.0667'/' 0.1- 11 12 1.9 14 10 13 1T 13 13 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 20 30 31 32 33 34 35 30 Th" (bows) C:\Program Files\HydroCAD\Projects\HydroCAD Projects111323 Pillar Homes\New Folder\ Moynihan 3 Proposed 7-844 Type 1124 -hr 100 year Rainfall=6.00" Prepared by Gronberg & Associates, Inc. Printed 7/9/2014 12:00:31 AM HVdroCADO 9.00 s/n 04529 O 2009 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Elevation Primary (feet) (Cfs) 917.00 0.00 917.01 0.00 917.02 0.00 917.03 0.00 917.04 0.00 917.05 0.00 917.06 0.00 917.07 0.00 917.08 0.00 917.09 0.01 917.10 0.01 917.11 0.01 917.12 0.01 917.13 0.01 917.14 0.01 917.15 0.02 917.16 0.02 917.17 0.02 917.18 0.02 917.19 0.02 917.20 0.03 917.21 0.03 917.22 0.03 917.23 0.03 917.24 0.04 917.25 0.04 917.26 0.04 917.27 0.04 917.28 0.05 917.29 0.05 917.30 0.05 917.31 0.05 917.32 0.06 917.33 0.06 917.34 0.06 917.35 0.06 917.36 0.07 917.37 0.07 917.38 0.07 917.39 0.07 917.40 0.07 917.41 0.07 917.42 0.07 917.43 0.07 917.44 0.07 917.45 0.07 917.46 0.07 917.47 0.07 917.48 0.07 917.49 0.07 917.50 0.07 Stage -Discharge for Pond 3PP: (new Pond) Elevation Primary (feet) (Cfs) 917.51 0.07 917.52 0.07 917.53 0.07 917.54 0.07 917.55 0.07 917.56 0.07 917.57 0.07 917.58 0.07 917.59 0.07 917.60 0.07 917.61 0.07 917.62 0.07 917.63 0.07 917.64 0.07 917.65 0.07 917.66 0.07 917.67 0.07 917.68 0.07 917.69 0.07 917.70 0.07 917.71 0.07 917.72 0.07 917.73 0.07 917.74 0.08 917.75 0.08 917.76 0.08 917.77 0.08 917.78 0.08 917.79 0.08 917.80 0.08 917.81 0.08 917.82 0.08 917.83 0.08 917.84 0.08 917.85 0.08 917.86 0.08 917.87 0.08 917.88 0.08 917.89 0.08 917.90 0.08 917.91 0.08 917.92 0.08 917.93 0.08 917.94 0.08 917.95 0.08 917.96 0.08 917.97 0.08 917.98 0.08 917.99 0.08 918.00 0.08 918.01 0.08 Elevation Primary (feet) (Cfs) 918.02 0.08 918.03 0.08 918.04 0.08 918.05 0.08 918.06 0.08 918.07 0.08 918.08 0.08 918.09 0.08 918.10 0.08 918.11 0.08 918.12 0.08 918.13 0.08 918.14 0.09 918.15 0.09 918.16 0.09 918.17 0.09 918.18 0.09 918.19 0.09 918.20 0.09 918.21 0.09 918.22 0.09 918.23 0.09 918.24 0.09 918.25 0.09 918.26 0.09 918.27 0.09 918.28 0.09 918.29 0.09 918.30 0.09 918.31 0.09 918.32 0.09 918.33 0.09 918.34 0.09 918.35 0.09 918.36 0.09 918.37 0.09 918.38 0.09 918.39 0.09 918.40 0.09 918.41 0.09 918.42 0.09 918.43 0.09 918.44 0.09 918.45 0.09 918.46 0.09 918.47 0.09 918.48 0.09 918.49 0.09 918.50 0.09 918.51 0.09 918.52 0.09 Elevation Primary (feet) (Cfs) 918.53 0.09 918.54 0.09 918.55 0.09 918.56 0.09 918.57 0.09 918.58 0.10 918.59 0.10 918.60 0.10 918.61 0.10 918.62 0.10 918.63 0.10 918.64 0.10 918.65 0.10 918.66 0.10 918.67 0.10 918.68 0.10 918.69 0.10 918.70 0.10 918.71 0.10 918.72 0.10 918.73 0.10 918.74 0.10 918.75 0.10 918.76 0.10 918.77 0.10 918.78 0.10 918.79 0.10 918.80 0.10 918.81 0.10 918.82 0.10 918.83 0.10 918.84 0.10 918.85 0.10 918.86 0.10 918.87 0.10 918.88 0.10 918.89 0.10 918.90 0.10 918.91 0.10 918.92 0.10 918.93 0.10 918.94 0.10 918.95 0.10 918.96 0.10 918.97 0.10 918.98 0.10 918.99 ; 0.10 919.00 0.10 Lee & Sharon Harrison 6209 Crest Lane Edina, MN 55436 To the Edina Planning Commission: We are residents at 6209 Crest Lane, the neighboring home to 6212 Crest Lane in Edina. We are writing in support of the applicant, Mr. Moynihan, who is requesting a variance from the required 52.05 foot front yard setback for the addition of a garage to the property located at 6212 Crest Lane. While we have watched the entire Countryside neighborhood undergo major changes, this Crest Lane cul de sac has remained untouched and in dire need of positive change. It is our position that the 6212 property is and has been an eyesore since we moved in, and improvements are necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. We completely support his request, and strongly urge the Planning Commission to consider granting the variance. The plans for the structure can only enhance the neighborhood, while maintaining the majesty of his beautiful lot and our cul de sac. We will be out of town on the date of the hearing, but want to voice our support. Should you have any questions you can contact us prior to the hearing at 612-363-5993 or 612-940-3882. Best regards, Sharon and Lee Harrison Jackie Hoogenakker From: Susan Petersen <spetersen55436@gmai1.com> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2014 5:01 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 6212 Crest Lane variance I am concerned about granting a variance for the addition of a garage on this property. I feel that there is no need for one. If we continue to grant variances to builders, then anybody can do anything to their property. Edina is changing to much, every house is looking the same instead of the uniqueness of ramblers. the Petersen's 6213 Hillside fl - 0- M M 1 f♦ t �q2 s r� , i r S It .�. z r� W Q s ! W a oz Qom` o aZ� �x x� Q� Foy. Pr F �� i i I`!�I�IIIl�IIIIII ; II � ! - FM � I lllllllil�lrl l � li�i AM, F�am.e lRi 1 pp ' ! 1 � i! i' �l - TMT e. if _eek �::�IIIIIIIII i 1 f♦ t �q2 r� i r S It .�. z r� W Q s ! W a oz Qom` o aZ� �x x� Q� Foy. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Breanne Rothstein, August 13, 2014 Consulting Planner 2014-11 Recommended Action: Approve a conditional use permit to allow the construction of a new home more than one foot above (4.4 feet total) the existing first floor elevation at the property located at 4603 Annaway Drive. Project Description: Kathryn Alexander has submitted a conditional use permit on behalf of the property owners to increase the first floor elevation 4.4 feet higher than the current first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 4603 Annaway Drive. This property is located on the northernmost edge of Edina in the Rolling Green neighborhood and a portion of the property is located in the floodplain. INFORMATION & BACKGROUND A Conditional Use Permit is required 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 current home located at 4603 Annaway Drive has a first floor elevation at 889.3 feet above sea level. This neighborhood in Edina is located in a floodplain area, and the currently established floodplain elevation is 889.4. Therefore, the entire basement of the existing home is in the floodplain. Eligibility Requirements for Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit City Code allows for the issuance of a conditional use permit to increase the first floor elevation of a new home over one foot above the existing home under one of the following circumstances: 1) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the 100 -year flood elevation, as established by FEMA; 2) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to protect from groundwater intrusion; 3) To elevate the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building code, city code, or statutory requirements; Furthermore, a conditional use permit may only be issued if the proposed project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. This property is situated at an elevation that is currently just above the floodplain. FEMA has submitted draft revisions to the existing floodplain elevation of 889.4 to increase the flood elevation to 891.0. The city has conducted an independent model and disputed the proposed FEMA elevation, suggesting instead an flood elevation of 890.0. Whatever the determination (891 or 890) a portion of this lot would be in the revised floodplain. Therefore, the applicant is seeking to establish a grade, low floor elevation at 892.0, which would be 1 (or 2 feet) above the newly established floodplain. City code requires a 2 foot separation between floodplain and lowest floor elevations. Furthermore, the building code now requires increased minimum ceiling height in basements and a minimum of 12 inch floor trusses. In staffs analysis, the proposed home fits the character of the neighborhood with regard to height, scale, and massing. There have been several teardown/re- builds in this neighborhood, the proposed homes is below the maximum height restrictions, and the large lots make it easier to meet requirements for lot coverage and setbacks. Therefore, the first floor elevation request meets the eligibility requirements for consideration of a conditional use permit. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Meadowbrook Golf Course in Saint Louis Park. Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Meadowbrook Golf Course in Saint Louis Park. Existing Site Features The existing 52,140 square foot (1.19 acre) lot is located immediately adjacent to the Meadowbrook Golf Course, and has a two-story, two car garage on the property. The site is heavily treed in the rear of the lot and serves as a buffer between the existing home and the clubhouse for the golf course. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low -Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single -Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments in the attached memo. He has no major concerns with the proposed work. Conditional Use Permit Per Section 36-305, 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. Z Will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; 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. Increasing the elevation of the proposed home will increase the safety and welfare of the home and its inhabitants by decreasing the flood risk. 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. Compliance Table PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit with a first floor elevation 4.4 feet higher than the existing home? Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit to allow the first floor elevation 4.4 feet higher than the existing home for the following four reasons: 1) The proposed home design elevates the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the city -proposed 100 -year flood elevation of 890.0 (and one foot above the proposed FEMA elevation); 2) The proposed home design elevates the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building code with regard to minimum ceiling heights and minimum floor truss size; 3) The proposed home design project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass; 4) The request meets the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, given the following findings: a. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-305. City Standard Proposed Front - Annaway Drive 48 feet 57.4 feet Side -South 17.5 feet (farthest) 20.5 feet Rear- East 25 feet 58 feet Side - North 10 feet 36 feet Building Coverage 25% 10.3% Building Height 40 feet 34 feet PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit with a first floor elevation 4.4 feet higher than the existing home? Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit to allow the first floor elevation 4.4 feet higher than the existing home for the following four reasons: 1) The proposed home design elevates the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the city -proposed 100 -year flood elevation of 890.0 (and one foot above the proposed FEMA elevation); 2) The proposed home design elevates the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building code with regard to minimum ceiling heights and minimum floor truss size; 3) The proposed home design project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass; 4) The request meets the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit, given the following findings: a. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit conditions of the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-305. b. The proposal meets all applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. c. The proposal fits the character with this neighborhood. d. The proposal does not have an undue adverse impact on governmental facilities, utilities, services or existing or proposed improvements; e. The proposal will generate traffic within the capacity of the streets serving the property; f. The proposal does not have an undue adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare; g. The proposal will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of other property in the vicinity; h. The proposal conforms to the applicable restrictions and special conditions of the district in which it is located as imposed by this Section; and L The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: Survey date stamped June 23, 2014 Building plans and elevations date stamped June 23, 2014 Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated August 1, 2014. Deadline for a city decision: September 9, 2014 Explanation of Request We are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to raise the main floor of the new house to be more than VO above that of the existing house. 4603 Annaway is positioned in a low area of Edina. The city is currently In an appeals process with FEMA to determine the new flood plain elevation for this area. It is currently 889A. FEMA has proposed to change it to 891.0 and the city of Edina is proposing 890.0. Given the low laying nature of this lot and the fact that It has a drainage easement running through it, we are proposing that it would be prudent to raise the main floor of the house so that the basement level of the house stays above the flood plain. With current construction methods of floor trusses and today's ceiling heights, the 12" maximum floor height change code would force the basement floor to be below flood plain. We feel It would be in the best interest of the safetyand continued current use of the property to raise the house out of the ground so that the main floor elevation would be 903.7. The current house main floor is at 899.3 so we would be raising the main floor elevation by 4.4' Instead of 1'-0". This would &Now the basement to be at 892.0 In doing so we would still be well within the code parameters for normal building height as measured from average existing grade. We are actually 21-8 %* below the required building height. N granted, the CUP would In noway affect the general use of the surrounding area or the essential character of the locality. The lot is larp and heavily treed. NaiLhbors are not dose or barely visible. The lot is quite private. it would also not affect the health, safety or well-being of the communky io any way. it would, however, potentially alleviate wet basement and flooding problems, which this year, we are all too familiar with. We respectfully ask that you carefully consider this CUP for the safety and well being of the new family that will be residing there. Thank you in advance for your time and attention to this. e � Millt k $ $ ! ! � = w k !Li II DATE: August I, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Chad Milner — City Engineer FROM: Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer RE: 4603 Annaway Drive - Special Review of Variance Application The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the following ordinance sections: • Chapter 10, Article 4 — Demolition Permit Stormwater and Erosion Control (10-106 to 10-1 13) • Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10-341 to 10-345) • Chapter 10 Article 17 — Land Disturbing Activities (10-674 to 10-710) • Chapter 24, Article 4 Division 2 — Roadway Access (24-129 to 24-133) • Chapter 36, Article 12 — Drainage, Retaining Walls and Site Access (36-1257) This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department and assumes the provided documents were submitted for building permit review. A more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Land Use/Planning Concerns I. Floodplain fill is insignificant and will be covered by Watershed District permitting process. 2. Variance for floor elevation is justified to lift building low floor above flood elevation. General 1. A separate permit maybe required from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District www minnehahacreek.org( 2. Site survey should follow the standard described in policy SP -005-B included in the buildinge� rmit application packet Street and Curb Cut 3. Application proposes relocation or modification of curb cut, Follow standards in curb cut permit application: http•//edinamn eoviedinafiiles/fiiles/City Offices/Public Works/CurbCutApplication.pdf Sanitary and Water Utilities 4. Show utility connections. Storm Water Utility 5. The subject site front yard drains to subwatershed E1.3. Downstream public system stormwater capacity is available. 6. The subject site rear yard drains to subwatershed EI -25. This drainage path is through a rear yard storm collection system that drains to the same public system. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov. 952-826-0371. Pax 952-826-0392 7. Applicant may review local drainage features at the following links: httos://maps.barr.com/edina/ andhttp://edinamneov/i ndexphhp?section=engineering water resource. B. Required storm water and erosion control precautions are described below. Site Storm Water Ordinance Chapter 10, article 4 - Demolition Permits And Building Permits For Single And Two Family Dwelling Units (Sec. 10- 110), states: For a building permit, the applicant must submit stormwater and erosion control plans prepared and signed by a licensed professional engineer. The plans must be approved by the City Engineer and the permit holder must adhere to the approved plans. The stormwater management plan must detail how stormwater will be controlled to prevent damage to adjacent property and adverse impacts to the public stormwater drainage system. The erosion control plan must document how proper erosion and sediment control will be maintained on a continual basis to contain on-site erosion and protect on and off-site vegetation. Permit holder must protect all storm drain inlets with sediment capture devices at all time during the project when soil disturbing activities may result in sediment laden stormwater runoff entering the inlet. The permit holder is responsible for preventing or minimizing the potential for unsafe conditions, Flooding, or siltation problems. Devices must be regularly cleaned out and emergency overflow must be an integral part of the device to reduce the flooding potential. Devices must be placed to prevent the creation of driving hazards or obstructions. 9. The following comments apply to the storm water management plan. a. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District standards, if applicable. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 10. The following comments apply to the erosion and sediment control plan: a. Recheck standard notes. Some appear to apply only to commercial or State permitted SWPPP plans. b. Provide erosion and sediment control precautions described under Edina City Code Chapter 10, Article 7 — Littering in the Course of Construction Work (10.341 to 10-345). c. Include provisions for temporary erosion control. (MNDOT 100,1 10, 150 all may be cheaper solution for temp seed, and straw mulch is allowed) d. Identify on the plan the individual responsible for the cleanliness of the site and the maintenance of the erosion and sediment controls. e. Identify pollution prevention techniques that will be used in the case of temporary pumped discharge. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov . 952-826.0371 . Fax 952-826-0392 J aa's �w i �a �we� sera $c w�ma Nd YM® RANO AVWAW SM CA 6w v�rar�ar o, ; aa's �w i �a �we� sera C ��« �a^ syour sc nMre _ 1:G HI1 JiR1W�IJ rwvwm i4W0 A�II'1M tMY Y 290 i` &F@^@ $^i .w.r.wia. awry wwre narwu �wW® lirIKYAMVNN'9Y IAM .^ iAIYO AMMOMM II WI► i{1 a s Mn+rovw v+ai�vt Sa "at a r of �7wf i` P- , 10 --I 6 `^ a � �� a.1, NM1`71 MIRI�L ��E7otJ ...... 137 N/11171Y7BA�1� •pw+1►Mry wtia7v7 IIiSO ��\Y\ itilYO AMM�M fO�► WHICH" OWN" tm am at MUM M ISI[ .may 7 3 I I I I I Iii I I I I I I'i L — — — — — — — — — — — J I I I Iii I I L -----iii L-^---� ii I MM I I I M • 's s�s MAKI,i I I I I I Iii I I I I I I'i L — — — — — — — — — — — J I I I Iii I I L -----iii L-^---� ii I MM I I I M • 's II II II I1 �'__ ____________---------------- F __ _ __ __ __1 1 -------------- I.________'______- I; II I, II I 1I 11 I, II II II II III I, II II �� II ,, II ,, II ,, II ,, II I, II I II III I� '� �--------------'SII I ,I I, I I I ----------------- L I __, �'^a i n ��C� Sa Myra wU '�wW� .a...,aar rry aoay.wn�•_ liP NYY AiIiMi'O61 Xlma ■14p10 AMbTNY'1W► =1 NNW Qp4Rw Rm7R II II II I1 �'__ ____________---------------- F __ _ __ __ __1 1 -------------- I.________'______- I; II I, II I 1I 11 I, II II II II III I, II II �� II ,, II ,, II ,, II ,, II I, II I II III I� '� �--------------'SII I ,I I, I I I ----------------- L I __, N ALEXANDER O DESIGN 3d Model O GROUP Jennings Residence xsvtstoNs �b/oom � a6/i9 /4 nomeo� ' 5 AWOMFAMbIMB A ,yam u t' r Af ✓ oAW Ote 1 rauw w _AA. 4604 Annaway Drive Proposed Home at 4602 Annaway Drive 4603 Annaway Drive Street Scape III = 301-0of 2014 copyright Alexander Design Group Please Note: These homes are built along a curved road. Only the proposed home is seen in straight on elevation. The neighboring homes are seen at true angles to the viewer and are spaced accordingly as the crow flys. ALEXANDER pJennings DESIGN Street Scape O GROUP ;::y33 Residence xsysioxs KIWDDREMAM W" h4 ° "`—P` 5 10 a y� EAST 320.00 ' I '&y' - ��_ DRANAGE ANO UTILITY EASEMENT to i 4 -._� X96.KD 891 _ Q. Iw I y �jiy'r----------------------- a'-'------ I : ��:__ LL w i �ti -� I A94 A 1 I DECK - - \_ �- __ 1_ 1e6________________ � a EC - - - \ \y09� 9°° 09`}+ a°` FX1131 ING POSSIBLE FUTURE LFE= o 44C -, I x i1 IOOYFP ELEVATION I ` / WE -9917 G 98.0 1 \�\ MFFE-899.3 % EXISrAfG 700 YR FP£ = 889.4 �ty9' PROPOSED IOOYRFPE = 891.0 (FEMA) \` � � � �w_ q i 09ry 1 94 \ � W 890.0 (CITYJ wGt 4.„ NO PART OF LOT LIES WITHIV THE EXISTING 100 YRFPE OF 889.4 /Y 4,r� fq u .•" Nr o L Q.- / �V OR PROPOSED 100YR FPE OF 890.0 ISStX \ LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 2, BLOCK 1. GUNNAR JOHNSON'S h J . _ SECOND REARRANGEMENT ROLLING GREEN, o -----�'ry HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN 0 20 40 60 EHII STWG I'----e1=OUSE__Jr e95�' l j�I)W: SCALE IN FEET \ \\ A DRESS - 4603 ANNAWAY DRIVE L� W Q o C = EXISTWI SPOT ELEVATION. _SPI M29-117-21-21-0008 \ 6 H PROPOSED ECEVATlOAS _ X(998.0). PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION GARAGE FLOOR = 902.0 PROPOSED \� LXT25%E= 130354SF STRUCTURE "= DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE GARAGE FWSH FLOOR = 903.7 HOUSE = 5,345 SF HC ALLOWED e` COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG TOP OF FO(.YJDA TION = 902.J(VAR/ES) POOLAREA 7443 SF (WC) OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE LOWEST FLOOR = 892.0 TOTAL - 5345 SF / f0.3% SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER GEE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION e TEE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION LEE -LOWEST BOOR ELEVATION VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY 'o#> MEMO S14A.At City Hall - Phone 952-92741861 r�9�11 Fax 952-826.0389 • www.CkyofEdina.com ". Date: August 13, 2014 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: 3330 6e Street (Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative) The staff report for this project was included In July 23"d Planning Commission packet. Please refer to that document. Please revise the Comprehensive Plan Amendment language from the previous report to re -locate the "affordable housing" to be separated from the hospital uses as follows: Nonresidential and Mixed Use cot egories Description, Land Uses Development Guidelines Density Guidelines; RM Hospitals, senior housing% Form -based design 12-80 senior residential 10 medical standards for building JMNM dwelling units per acre. Regional and dental offices and clinics, placement, massing Medical and laboratories for and street -level Floor to Area Ratio - Per current performing medical or dental treatment. Zoning Code, maximum of 1.0 for research, diagnostic testing, medical office uses. Density for senior analytical or clinical work, Pedestrian circulation housing NIJ0181jiftJOW shall having a direct relationship to and open space be based on proximity to hospitals, the providing of health amenities should be proximity to low density uses, utilities services. General office uses provided for larger capacity, level of transit service andel' sites. available, and impact on adjacent are permitted. roads. Other desired items to allow greater density woutd include: Below grade parking, provision of park or open space, affordable housing, ' Senior housing may include: sustainable design principles, and independent living, assisted provision of public art. living, memory care, and skilled nursing. City of Edina - 4801 W. W St. - Edina, MN SS424 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Koelmel, Dana <Dana.Koelmel@va.gov> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 12:55 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Teenage Homeless Facility Attachments: City of Edina.doc To the city of Edina, Attached is my letter regarding the proposed planning for the homeless teen shelter in Edina. If this attachment cannot be opened please let me know, I will then send the letter by postal mail. Thank you. Da vWv KoeUM,L Program Support Assistant Minneapolis VA Health Care System (MVAHCS) Pharmacy Service 119 phone: 612-467-2040 email: Dana. Koelmel at7.va.aov N 11 l 6 DATE: July 18, 2014 FROM: Dana Koelmel SUBJ: Lot 2 Block 3 Southdale Acres Public Hearing Notice case file 2014.008 TO: City of Edina Planning Department My name is Dana Koelmel and I am a homeowner at the Colony of Edina 6328 Colony Way. I have been hearing many negative responses to the proposed Interfaith Housing Collaborative and feel that homeowners and business around this area must be educated clearly about what this housing is for. My husband have been active with Urban Homeworks and habitat for humanity through our church St. John's Episcopal in Minneapolis so we are aware of the need for homes and facilities like this that are sponsored through different churches. am not against this facility being built because this will give the teenagers a safe place to be if they are not able to be at the home where their parents or other family members. This will give the teenager a place to call home especially if they are working. The teens need encouragement and safety to become an adult citizen. This issue is bothering me because society seems to place a cap on the word "homeless" thinking that homeless citizens pose a threat and danger to society. Rumors have been going around the complex I live in (Colony at Edina) that juvenile delinquents are going to live there and that is not true. As an employee at the Minneapolis VA Medical center we see veterans returning from their tour of duty only to become homeless and these are men and women who served our country in the military. Over the years facilities such as nursing homes and group homes have been downgraded by society and are feared by homeowners. Many years ago citizens with downs syndrome, autism and seizure disorders were sent to medical institutes and not give a chance to work and live as normal a life as possible in society. I am diagnosed with seizure disorder otherwise known as Epilepsy I have been discriminated against and I feel that is what we are doing with homeless teens. I want to see the homeless teens in a facility they feel safe with rules and regulations rather than trying to live on the streets begging for money and possibly get hooked into drugs or even gangs. I have seen several teenagers begging for money at Southdale mall. At first it startled me to see the teenagers in this southwest suburb, but it opened my eyes that homelessness is happening everywhere and we need to help. If the community could get testimonials from adults or other teens that lived in a homeless facility and explain how the shelters gave them a chance at life this could help to clear up this terrible misjudgment that so many citizens are giving this facility. Sincerely, Dana Koelmel Cary Teague From: Lynette Lamb <Ilamb@macalester.edu> Sent: Friday, July 25, 2014 12:12 PM To: Cary Teague Subject: 66 West project July 25, 2014 Cary Teague Edina Community Development Director Dear Mr. Teague: I am a longtime member of Edina Community Lutheran Church, one of the partners promoting 66 West, and I also was one of the 170 people supporting that project who came to your meeting last Wednesday night. All of us were very disappointed to be turned away that night, and to be honest it really felt like last-minute political maneuvering rather than a sincere mistake. I hope you'll prove me wrong. I am writing you today to urge your support for this proposed affordable housing development designed for 3330 W. 66th Street. Today there are many homeless young people in the southwestern suburbs, kids with no place to go. My daughter, who attends Perpich Arts High School in Golden Valley, knows of several fellow students—some from Edina—who are living in their cars or on their friends' couches because for various reasons they've been forced to leave their homes. I know there are more kids—attending Edina, Eden Prairie, and Hopkins High School, among others—that are in the same dire situation. These kids need a safe place to live, a place where they can receive the kind of educational and vocational support provided by Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative—the nonprofit that would run 66 West. This particular location, near jobs and mass transit, is a perfect one for this small youth housing development. Edina, as you may know, doesn't enjoy the most stellar reputation for welcoming all citizens, regardless of financial means. As the Edina community development director, I'm sure you care about the welfare of all members of your community and surrounding ones—especially the young people. I hope you and your colleagues will step up to support this important initiative in Edina. Sincerely, Lynette Lamb July 27, 2014 Cary Teague Community Development Director Edina City Hall 4801 W.50" St. Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Teague, Along with 170 fellow citizens who turned out in support of the 66 West Supportive Teen Housing project, I was present in the Edina Council City Chambers this past Wednesday, July 23 when it was decided to re -schedule this public hearing on the project to August 13 because of an administrative error on the City's part. I came prepared to give testimony in support of 66 West Supportive Teen Housing project to the Edina Planning Commission. Thankfully, Planning Commission member, Susan Lee, recommended that those of us who came prepared to give testimony in support of the project, but cannot participate at the public hearing of August 13, 2014 be given the opportunity to ensure our concerns became part of the public record. We were asked to send our testimony to you as Edina's Director of Community Planning. The Commission voted "yes" to this recommendation. Acting in good faith, I have enclosed my prepared testimony believing you will make this available for each City Planning Commission member to read before a vote is taken on August 13. Sincerely, �Sz{I Cathleen R. Godsall, LSW 5601 Johnson Dr. Edina, MN 55436 Enclosure: 66 West Supportive Teen Housing Testimony from Cathleen R. Godsall July 23, 2014 Good evening members of the Edina Planning Commission. Thank you for your commitment to public service and most especially thank you for the time you have spent as you thoughtfully consider making affordable, supportive housing for homeless teens in our western suburbs a priority! While our state legislative support of this issue is reflected in the passing of a funding bill that funnels $100 million for affordable housing to all parts of Minnesota, our local suburban community is where we all have to come together to make this a reality and make a difference in the lives of our next generation. The 66th West Apartments Supportive Housing project focuses on teens ( 18-21 y/o) who find themselves needing safe, affordable housing while they work and stay in school in order to become productive adult citizens. For 22 years our family has enjoyed the blessings of a living in the safe, welcoming, educationally progressive community of Edina. I realize that my 25 and 26 y/o adult children would have been at a significant loss to build their emerging professional lives without a supportive functioning family, safe housing and access to good schooling in their teen years. As a concerned neighbor, I believe the 66th West Apartments Supportive Housing project is needed and attainable! As a licensed social worker I know what a challenge affordable, accessible, safe housing is for those 200 homeless teens in our west suburbs on any given day. Being able to help my fellow citizens enjoy the safety and comfort of a home and access to good school systems matters deeply to me. Affordable, safe housing is the foundation for keeping our communities stay vibrant and healthy! As a member of the Outreach committee at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, I have come to trust that Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative's well established record in developing affordable, supportive housing makes partnering with them the correct path to take in order to successfully provide safe, affordable, supportive teen housing in our suburbs. I ask for your support in achieving this goal and towards achieving Edina's goals of providing affordable housing. Cathleen R. Godsall, LSW 5601 Johnson Dr. Edina, MN 55436 To: Cary Teague, Community Development Director City Of Edina, 4801 W. 50th Street, Edina, MN 55424 Dear Mr. Teague: I was at the Planning Commission Meeting on Wednesday, July 23 and prepared to speak in favor of 66 West Apartments. Circumstances required that meeting be postponed until Wednesday, August 13. 1 am having a medical procedure August 5 and will still be in recovery and unable to attend the postponed meeting on August 13. Enclosed are 10, copies of my statement that I would have read in favor of 66 West Apartments on July 23. Please forward 1 copy each to the members of the Edina Planning Commission. Thank you. William Bale, 5516 Vernon Avenue S., Edina A resident of Edina since 1960. Phone: 952-920-7338 ' f Jl4kk Wet� z1goll �- To all members of the Edina Planning Commiss� k_ July 30 2014 From: William Bale, 5516 Vernon Avenue S, Edina, A resident of Edina since 1960. This is the statement I intended to make at the July 23 Planning Commission meeting, and am now submitting it in writing due to a medical procedure that will keep me from attending the August 13 re -scheduled hearing for 66 West Supportive Teen Housing project. Beacon Interfaith's successful plan for homeless youth is based on three components. First: a signed lease containing rules. Second: a requirement to work at a paying job and pay rent. Third: Transition counselors on site. This three part program of rules, work requirement and counseling are all designed to improve self-worth, to teach the basic aspects of money management, to create a history of steady employment, to educate as to food nutrition and hygiene and to develop confidence in one's ability to leave 66 West and strike out on his or her own. This is not a "flop -house". This is not static storage of young people sitting around all day. This is a dynamic operation. Beacon's three part program is so successful and dynamic at its youth apartments at 37th and Nicollet that the average stay is just 18 months. Applying that same program to 66 West, 130 young adults could graduate to the outside world during the,first 5 years of operation. So what would you call a facility that takes in homeless youth, uses a three part program to stabilize their lives, and sends them out into the world? This project is more than an apartment building. Its not a hotel, or a rooming house. It has some aspects of a prep school, but to call it a prep school would mislead people into thinking these are fortunate youth from fortunate families. When I went to college, I had to agree to live by certain rules, I worked at a paying job to help pay the rent (it was called tuition), and I had transition counselors. Based on my experience I think this project could be called a junior college for homeless youth. A junior college offers education to those who might want to go on to college or might want to apply for certain type jobs. And I like the idea that the first junior college for homeless youth for the suburbs will be in Edina. Please Approve This Project. Thank you. William Bale `I,7 -o -173-3 9 Jackie Hoogenakker From: John Marshall <jmarsha1128@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 3:37 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: Case file 2014.008 Good morning, This relates to the recently proposal to convert the existing building at 3330 W.66th Street into a 39 unit building to provide accommodation for homeless young adults. My wife and I have lived in the Colony for over twenty years and we are strongly against this proposal - a position that, we believe, is shared by other residents to whom we have spoken. Our reasons are :- 1. This project, if it were implemented, would not be a good fit for this area, given the existing buildings and businesses in the area and would be totally out of synch with its demographics and surroundings. 2. The characteristics of this area do not, in our view, provide the employment opportunities and recreational/social activities which the occupants of such a building would require or wish for. 3. We see no potential benefit to the City or its residents resulting from this kind of facility in the proposed location. 4. The proposed area is already very busy and heavily -trafficked - this proposal, if implemented, would only serve to exacerbate an already difficult situation, S. I do not know what the impact of this project might be for Edina's city's budget, plus or minus. However, if this project, if approved, would almost certainly generate extra expenses to be met from our city's budget, to be set off set off against any greater ratable income, if any. This is an important factor to be considered. Whilst we have every sympathy for homeless young people and certainly support anything that might be done to improve their situation we do not think that the proposal that is being put forward is, in its currently -proposed location, in the best interests of the City of Edina, its residents in this area and for the young people themselves. Thank you for your mailing on this subject, Sincerely, John Marshall Jackie Hoogenakker From: Gary Moses <garymari@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 2:03 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: CASE FILE: 2014:008 - REZONING OF 3330 W. 66th St., Edina, MN This in reference to the proposal to rezone the present TCF building at 3330 W. 66th Street (northeast corner of 66th and Barrie Road), Edina, MN to allow housing for young adults. I stand totally against this rezoning proposal. Why? ---I am a 70 year old woman who lives on Barrie Road, no more than a block and a half north of the proposed site. ---I am physically impaired, being legally blind (lienitis Pigmatosa, a degenerative eye disease, and have limited sight). While restrictive, I still enjoy walking in what I have found to be, thus far, a safe neighborhood. ---Most people are able to avoid areas of risk by easily detouring around them. Meanwhile, because of my sight limitation which doesn't allow me to drive, I must walk to my destinations using more direct paths, which includes walking by the proposed site when going to local doctors appointments and Southdale. ---When we purchased our property several years ago, we focused on a safe neighborhood... this proposal would take away a primary goal which we thought we had achieved. ---Risk must be a concern. Even what might be assumed to be moderate risk is too much for this area... There is a Montessori School right behind this proposed Young Adult Apartment. They say the Young Adult apartment will have Security Service; however, how does that helps us? ---These young adults are selected from the homeless. What level of maturity and behavior can we expect? Even young adults from normal, stable homes, lack the maturity that comes with age. Young, formerly homeless people living in one group ... where are the mature adults to provide necessary guidance? ---There is likelyhood that at least some of the residents will bring to their new home other young people to live varying periods of time, people who lack the screening of the original occupants ---The people who propose this apartment do not live in the neighborhood! Should they want an apartment building for young adults, they might consider building same on the church grounds, namely Edina Community Lutheran Church at 4113 W. 54th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55424... or the property of any other church supporter. 1. Marilyn Peters, who lives here - AGAINST 2. Edina Community Lutheran Church & Beacon Interfaith Collaborative ... those that don't live here: FOR In summary, young adults housed in a group, no matter what race, color, or creed OR no matter what are meant to fulfill good intentions, simply raise too many significant risks and concerns for those of us who would be forced to live as neighbors. Signed, Marilyn L. Peters (941)840-4034 P.S. I will attend the hearing and would like to give testimony AGAINST the proposal. * 64�r309 MN 35435 �- yr g 61 . }Le�c" a 5D YoikA .309 MN ' /5- 6 `� mit- Marilyn L. Peters Barrie Road, Edina, Mn. 55435 Cell: (841) 840-4034 CASE FILE: 2014:008 -- Rezoning of 3330 W, 61P Street, Edina, MN This is in reference to the proposal to rezone the present TCF building at 3330 W. 65th Street (northeast corner of 66th and Barrie Road), Edina, MN to allow housing for young adults. 1 stand totally against this rezoning proposal, Why? -1 am a 70 year old woman who lives on Barrie Road, no more than a block and a half north of the proposed site. ---1 am physically impaired, being legally blind (Renitis Pigmatosa, a degenerative eye disease, and have limited sight). While restrictive, I still enjoy walking in what I have found to be, thus far, a safer neighborhood. ---Most people are able to avoid areas of risk by easily detouring around thein, Meanwhile, because of my sight limitation which doesn't allow me to drive, I must walk to my destinations using more direct paths, which includes walking by the proposed site when going to local doctors appointments and Southdale. ---When we purchased our property several years ago, we focused on a safe neighborhood.,.. this proposal would take away a primary goal which we thought we had achieved. ---Risk must be a concern. Even what might be assumed to be moderate risk is too much for this area... There is a Montessorl School right behind this proposed Young Adult Apartment. They say the Young Adult apartment will have Security Service; however, how does that helps us? ---These young adults are selected from the homeless. What level of maturity and behavior can we expect? Even young adults from normal, stable homes, lack the maturity that comes with age. Young, formerly homeless people living in one group...where are the mature adults to provide necessary guidance? ---There Is likelihood that at least some of the residents will bring to their new home other young people to live varying periods of time, people who lack the screening of the original occupants. --The people who propose this apartment do not live In the neighborhood! Should they want an apartment building for young adults, they might consider building same on the church grounds, namely Edina Community Lutheran Church at 4113 W. 54th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55424... or the property of any other church supporter. an 1. Marilyn Peters, who lives here - AGAINST 2. Edina Community Lutheran Church & Beacon Interfaith Collaborative... those that don't live here: FOR In summary, young adults housed in a group, no matter what race, color, or creed OR no metier what are meant to fulfill good intentions, simply raise too many significant risks and concems for those of us who would be forked to We as neighbors Signed, / Marilyn L. Peters (941) 840-4034 P.S. I will attend the hearing and would like to give testimony AGAINST the proposal. Jackie Hoogenakker From: Aase May <aasem@earthlink.net> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2014 7:18 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: rezoning 3330 W 66th st Hi, I am wondering if there will be any supervision on a regular and long term basis. We are talking of young, formerly homeless people with probably for the most part very little experience in how to live in and take care of an apartment. I have done a bit of rental, and it is surprising how ignorant a lot of people are in taking care of a place, even how to change a light bulb. So, unless there is supervision, I am against it. If well run, it is a nice idea that might work out Aase May 6421 Colony Way 2B Jackie Hoogenakker From: Joel Stegner <joel.r.stegner@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 7:41 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 3430 West 66th Street property have read a lot about the need for transitional housing for young adults and think the proposal would be an ideal location for such a property. The block north of 66th between York/Xerxes is commercial, and this kind of group housing would fit nicely. It is just across the street from Southdale Shopping Center, close to grocery stores, pharmacies and Target and well placed near east west bus and an express bus to downtown, which means residents without a reliable car could easilyget downtown or jto obs in the Southdale area. This group is likely to more healthcare needs than average young adults, with the many services available within walking distance. I walk to virtually all my appointments, and find it very convenient. I would anticipate some will object out of fear to the idea of having young previously homeless adults in their neighborhood claiming some potential impact on housing values. I really don't think residents of this facility will have much reason to venture into the neighborhood. Frankly, it is better for Edina to cultivate an image of being accepting of economic diversity, to break the old cake eater image. This project would never be accepted in a high income residential neighborhood, but it works perfectly for the location it is proposed to be located. Joel Stegner 6312 Barrie Road 1C, Edina, MN 55435 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Joel Stegner <joel.r.stegner@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 7:41 PM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 3430 West 66th Street property I have read a lot about the need for transitional housing for young adults and think the proposal would be an ideal location for such a property. The block north of 66th between York/Xerxes is commercial, and this kind of group housing would fit nicely. It is just across the street from Southdale Shopping Center, close to grocery stores, pharmacies and Target and well placed near east west bus and an express bus to downtown, which means residents without a reliable car could easily get downtown or jto obs in the Southdale area. This group is likely to more healthcare needs than average young adults, with the many services available within walking distance. I walk to virtually all my appointments, and find it very convenient. I would anticipate some will object out of fear to the idea of having young previously homeless adults in their neighborhood, claiming some potential impact on housing values. I really don't think residents of this facility will have much reason to venture into the neighborhood. Frankly, it is better for Edina to cultivate an image of being accepting of economic diversity, to break the old cake eater image. This project would never be accepted in a high income residential neighborhood, but it works perfectly for the location it is proposed to be located. Joel Stegner 6312 Barrie Road 1C, Edina, MN 55435 Jackie Hoogenakker From: Georgia Kaiser <georgiakaiser@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2014 11:30 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 3330 West 66th St, Edina Re: Rezoning for Beacon Interfaith housing I am totally in favor of the rezoning of 3330 W. 66th St for 39 units of small studio apartments for young adults who have experienced homelessness. Georgia Kaiser Jackie Hoogenakker From: Phyllis Seichrist <phyllis.seichrist@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 04, 2014 10:49 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: planning dept I am in support of allowing housing for young homeless adults. There are those in my building who are apprehensive but frankly they are apprehensive about many things. I live at 6450 York Ave. 0 A444 0 !C� A/ D Xl%' STKENGTI-1 EN ING OUP, COMMUNITY August 1, 2014 Planning Commission BOARD OF DIRECTORS City of Edina 4801 W. 50"' Street SAN ASAFO Edina, MN 55424 RE: 66 West Apartments BRAD BEARD Dear Commission Members: 6ERNIE BEAVER PETER DAHL We are writing on behalf of the Edina Challenge Team to request your approval of the request by Beacon Interfaith Housing Collaborative and Edina Community Lutheran RON ERHARDT Church for supportive housing for youth and young adults at West 66h Street in Edina. SCOT HOUSH The Edina Challenge is an initiative of the Edina Community Foundation that involves collaboration among the following community organizations and grant -makers working JAMES HOVLAND together to maximize our collective effectiveness in qnabling youth in poverty to participate in the community, educational, and recreational programs that lead to STEVEN McDONALD success in adult life: PAUL MOOTY Connecting With Kids Edina Community Foundation RICHARD OLSON Edina Community Lutheran Church Edina Education Fund Edina GiveAndGo Edina Morningside Rotary Club BRENDA Q-VAYE Edina Park & Recreation Department Edina Public Schools EPS Community Education Services Edina Resource Center M A M I E SEGA LL Oasis for Youth Questscope/One2One 44AXINE WALLIN Shepherd of the Hills Lutheran Church Southdale YMCA This Edina Challenge Team identified housing as one of the top five priorities for EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR helping Edina youth in need develop to be healthy, productive adults, and it has DICK CROCKETT endorsed this initiative as an important step toward that goal. We request your approval of this project and look forward to having the community DEVELOPMENT OFFICER benefit from the initiative by these organizations to meet the needs of homeless youth MARSHA DUCHOK in our community. Sincerely, Dick Crockett� Mamie Segall Executive Director Edina Challenge Chair 5280 GRANDVIEW SQUARE - EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436 - (952) 83349573 - FAX: (952) 833-9575 edfoundationfti.edina«mnxs www.edinacommunityfoundation.org Jackie Hoogenakker From: Ruth <ruth@ruthlordan.com> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2014 10:29 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 2014.008 Thank you for reading this. As a senior citizen who has lived 16 years in the vicinity of the proposed Beacon Interfaith housing Collaborative I am extremely upset at having this project in my proximity. I am unable to attend the meeting as I work evenings.. First, this is within walking distance of my home and that raises major security issues in and of itself. Even if these young adults mean to live right, we are all human and they can make mistakes. I cannot afford robbery at this time in my life. Second, I have read and studied the Churches website. These are well meaning but natve people, from the laid off General Mills exec to the failed rock star musical director. I get it that they need to make a living and a life -we all do, and this is a noble, well meaning pursuit, but these people do not know what they are getting into. Faith is fine - house them next to you and have faith that they will not endanger your safety. I am not even addressing the effect on property values. I will have to install much better security at a significant cost to me and significantly up my insurance -who will pay for that? And, what will this do to insurance rates -obviously raise them! Unlike these well meaning church folk, I grew up in a tough location and understand what troubled youth go thru from first hand exposure.. Will there be competent supervision? And by competent I mean people who do not get fooled by their belief in the goodness of all mankind and people trained specifically in the justice system. "Jesus ain't gonna fix this" —if that worked Israel would not have the turmoil it has today. Will my taxes have to pay for that? how about drug testing and weapons checks? There are good and bad acting people in all social strata and demographic categories, but this is extremely high risk and inviting trouble.. I hope I am wrong, but experience tells me I am right. Sincerely, Ruth Lordan..... Timecards McCI `Yo UNA }Seep up to date, share ideas and make Edina a great place to work. Calendar Gallery Staff Directory Edina IQS Tuesday, August 05, 2014 City Council Meeting Report for Aug. 4, 2014 Administration Department City Council Meeting Report for Aug. 4, 2014 Welcom Handbook Safety & Wellness The City Council began its evening with a Work Session that included a progress report on the Fred Richards Park Repurposing Process and a joint meeting with the City's Human Rights & Relations Commission. The Fred Richards Repurposing Process is moving forward at the expected pace. The Park Board is scheduled to review the final recommendation for the plan Oct. 6. The Council will review the Park Board's recommendation later that month. The Human Rights & Relations Commission reviewed the progress in completing its 2014 Work Plan. The Commission and Council also had extensive discussion on a proposed change to the City's Bias Offense Response and Prevention Plan. The Council Members provided feedback on the proposed changes and asked the Commission to consider incorporating their feedback into a new proposal. Following the Work Session, the City Council met in regular session and made the following sessions: Awarded a $35,049 contract to C.J. Duffey Paper Company for the purchase of paper for "About Town." Approved a new On -Sale Wine & Beer license to Byerly's for its new grocery store at 7171 France Ave. Awarded a $23,650 contract to ETC Institute for a community attitude and interest citizen survey in connection with the City's Parks & Recreation Facility Master Plan. Approved an encroachment agreement with AK Larson Family LLC enabling them to make major improvements to the 50th & France Building at 3939 W. 50th St. Awarded a $591,852 contract to Park Construction Company to construct the Olinger Boulevard Mill and Overlay Project. The contract award is 22 percent below the engineer's estimated project cost. Awarded a $66,274 project to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. to construct alley improvements between 55th and 56th streets and Xerxes and York avenues. The project will be funded by special assessments to adjacent property owners. ` Awarded e$578.87Scontract tuHoffman & McNamara for landscaping projects associated | with the France Avenue Corridor Improvement Project along France Avenue from 66th ' Street to 76th Street. Adopted aresolution authorizing staff toseek State Bridge Fund funding for the proposed � new 54th Street bridge. Approved a request to expand a previously awarded contract for new streetlights in the Edina Industrial Park from $154,912 to $192,912 in order to purchase additional new street lights odacompetitively low price, The action allows the City toincrease the number ofnew � street lights from 22to2R� Evenvviththeoddi8ono||ighto.thetutm|cootnfthepn�eotwiU � � still beunder budget. Approved the purchase of the $27,500 Reallce Water Treatment System for Braemar | Arena. Approved enew ordinance, which will treat electronic cigarettes the same oatobacco under City Code. Approved a new ordinance that requires dog owners to collect and dispose of their dog's � feces if the dog deposits his/her feces on someone's yard. Previous to this ordinance � change, a dog owner was not permitted to allow their dog to deposit feces on another person's property unless the property owner consented to it. Adopted a set of ordinance changes to the City Code to align Code with Minnesota Statutes regarding our local rules for regulating privately owned swimming pools in Edina. Received a presentation from the Edina High School Robotics team, known as The Green Machine. Conducted a public hearing and approved a set of regulatory approvals for a new retail � Conducted a public hearing and approved a site plan and preliminary plat with variances � Considered asketch plan for aproposed remodeling of4121W.SDth St. Council Members { Appointed Cathy Cozad tothe Community Health Commission. ` ] Return to list. FEATUREDVIDEO MOST POPULAR UPCOMING BIRTHDAFS August 20 Scott C-ommunications & Technology Services Department September 12 HOT LINKS .' City Slick . . Buy It, Sell x � � - Field Updates Gallery Important Documents NAME I TERM JJ IF IM JAI IM IJI IJ JA IS 10 IN ID I Work Session Work Session MeetingslWork Sessions 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 Forrest, Arlene 2/1/201611 Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 1 93% Olsen, Jo Ann 2/1/2014 Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting 111111 Type "1" under the month for ALL members. 1 1 111111 There is no number typed on the members' lines. 1 9 90% Platteter, Michael 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 93% Potts, Ken 2/1/2014 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 50% Lee, Susan 2/1/2017 1 ill 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 90% Scherer, Nancy Nyrop 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 64% Schroeder, Michael 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 71% Staunton, Kevin 2/1/2015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ill 1 11 79% Carr, Claudia 2/1/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 79% Halva, Taylor Student 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 79% Kilberg, Benjamin Student 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 79% A member who misses four consectutive regular meetings, or attends less than 75% of the scheduled meetings, shall be deemed to have resigned as a member of the planning commission. Liaisons: Include this report in the Planning Commission packet monthy. Do not enter numbers into the last two columns. Meeting numbers & attendance percentages will calculate automatically. INSTRUCTIONS: Counted as Meeting Held (ON MEETINGS' LINE) Attendance Recorded (ON MEMBER'S LINE) Regular Meeting w/Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Regular Meeting w/o Quorum Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Joint Work Session Type "1" under "Work Session" on the meetings' line. Type "1" under "Work Session" for each attending member. Rescheduled Meeting* Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for each attending member. Cancelled Meeting Type "1" under the month on the meetings' line. Type "1" under the month for ALL members. Special Meeting There is no number typed on the meetings' line. There is no number typed on the members' lines. *A rescheduled meeting occurs when members are notified of a new meeting date/time at a prior meeting. If shorter notice is