Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-14 Planning Commission Meeting PacketsAGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS January 14, 2015 7:00 PM I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA IV. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA A. Minutes of the regular meeting of the Edina Planning Commission November 12, 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 same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on this morning's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Commission Members to respond to their comments today. Instead, the Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance. Brian Belanger. 5533 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN B. Variance. Seaberg. 4505 Nancy Lane, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Tree Preservation Ordinance VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS A. Council Update and 2015 calendar IX. CHAIR AND COMMISSION COMMENTS X. STAFF COMMENT XI. ADJOURNMENT The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing amplification, an interpreter, large -print documents or something else, please call 952-927-886172 hours in advance of the meeting. Next Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission January 28, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 14, 2015 B-14-27 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a variance from the minimum two car garage requirement for a single dwelling unit for property located at 5533 Oaklawn Ave. Project Description: NIWA Design/ Brian Belanger, (the applicant), is requesting a variance to the required minimum two car garage requirement to reconstruct a one stall garage on the lot located at 5533 Oaklawn Ave. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the east side of Oaklawn Ave. consisting of a two story home with a detached one stall garage located south of the home. The homeowner is hoping to replace it with a slightly larger garage that will be one foot closer to the south side lot line. The proposed garage conforms to all of the zoning ordinance requirements with the exception of the garage size. The zoning ordinance requires a garage to be a minimum of two stalls. There is no definition of a two car garage in the zoning ordinance, however, it's been City policy to consider a two car garage to be no less than 20'x 20'. The new garage will be 15 feet in width instead of the existing width of 14.3 feet and 20 feet in depth instead of the existing 20.2 feet in depth. The new garage will be 1 foot closer to the south lot line. The proposed garage conforms to all of the setback, coverage, height, etc. requirements with the exception that it will continue to be a one stall garage instead of a minimum two car garage. The lot is approximately 60 feet in width and is 8,034 square feet in area. The property owner is requesting to rebuild a single stall garage in approximately the same location as the existing one car garage. The new garage will have hardie lap siding, wood brackets and 1 x 4" trim boards. The shingles will be sphalt. The over-all design has been proposed to match the existing home. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet, which indicates that there will be no significant changes to the site. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the east side of Oaklawn Ave. with single-family homes surrounding it and is within the Minnehaha Woods neighborhood. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 8,034 square feet in area, consisting of a two story home with a detached two car garage. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Building Design Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling unit District The proposal is to re -build/ add a new, one -car garage on the south side closer to the south side property line. 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 (33.65) 34 feet Side- 5 feet, (detached garage) 5 feet Rear- 25 feet 51.2 feet Building Height 1 112 stories, 18 Ft 15 feet Lot Area 9,000 Sq Ft or avg of nbad 8,034 sq. ft Lot Width 75 feet or avg of nbad 60 feet Garage stalls 2 minimum *1 Stall Lot coverage 25% 23.7% * 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 complies with all the standards, with exception of the minimum two stall garage requirement. 2. The garage is nearly the same in size and scale as the existing one car garage on site. 3. The property has always had a one car garage. The new garage will be slightly wider and slightly closer to the south lot line. 4. The new garage will be virtually the same as existing conditions and will not affect neighboring properties. • 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: I 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 and that there are practical difficulties given that the applicant is seeking to minimize impact on the property and the streetscape by keeping the existing one car garage that will meet the needs of the owner. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the property has always provided a one car garage which was not a self- created feature of the applicant. The applicant is asking to slightly modify the new structure to be just a bit wider and slightly closer, (within ordinance limits), to the south lot line. 3 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed garage will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed garage will be virtually the same condition as exists currently. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed use complies with all the standards, including the setback, height and coverage requirements. 2. The proposed garage is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will be virtually seamless as to existing conditions. 3. There is a practical difficulty in meeting the ordinance requirements and there are circumstances unique to the property due to the current existence of a one car garage and no need expressed by the owner for a two car garage. 4. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The new one car garage will maintain the existing character of the neighborhood. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans: Survey dated November 11, 2014 Building plans and elevations date stamped December 5, 2014. Compliance with the Environmental Engineer's memo. Deadline for a City Decision: February 3, 2015 4 VARIANCE APPLICATION \�01 CASENUMBER _DATE FEE PAID •OO City of Edina Planning Department* www.cltyofedina.com 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 66424 * (962) 826-0369 fax (962) 826-0389 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $360.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: NAME: NIWA DE61614 67'0049 (Signature required on back page) •27Z " SOVI WA*/4f- EMAIL: JflFu/�ll�A�51bvi/. Gv►/yt PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: ft4&4 )%a -A-6619- (Signature required on back page) ADDRESS: 16;S , GYAK A"t4 AY049449- PHONE: qS2' ZL "78N Lvr 120 &0&-A413 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): S00fM />iAMW- y9f4f- t /yrzt'/N 4a., *N "You must provide a full legal description. if more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records. This may delay your project. PROPERTY PRESENT ZONING: R- I P.I.D.# ltd -ZS " - 2 -VI ►' i� '�� EXPLANATION OF REQUEST: Sue— t1 . (Use reverse side or additional pages If necessary) RCHIITE�CT�: NAME:AW t0PHONE: EMAIL: 0,05d -Lei W'wf6& ' eaAl SURVEYOR: NAME: _16 " y vm� PHONE: a;-- 558 -10727 EMAIL: 5 cDiNcT: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property In the vicinity or zoning district EZ Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood ,• Y APPLICANT'S STATEMENT This application should be processed in my name, and I am the party whom the City should contact about this application. By signing this application, I certify that all fees, charges, utility bills, taxes, special assessments and other debts or obligations due to the City by me or for this property have been paid. I further certify that I am in compliance with all ordinance requirements and conditions regarding other City approvals that have been granted to me for any matter. I have completed all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the documents and information I have submitted are true and correct. / Signatuo Date OWNER'S STATEMENT am the fee title owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. (If a corporation or partnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this application-pn behalf of turd of directors or partnership.) Owner's Signature Date Note. Both signatures are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can process the application, otherwise It is considered Incomplete. NIwaDesignStudio,lt ' To: City of Edina 4801 West Fiftieth Street Edina, MN 55424 From: Niwa Design Studio, Ltd Mark Johnson 169099 Marlborough Circle Minnetonka, MN 55345 Re: Variance Application Cover Letter for 5533 Oaklawn Ave Our variance application request is for the physical property 5533 Oaklawn Avenue. Brian Belanger is the owner of the property and our client. There are two requests within our application. 1. We are proposing to construct anew one car garage that is slightly different in size than the existing one car garage. The difference in length and width is below: Existing Proposed Long Axis 20.2 ft. 20.0 ft. Short Axis 14.3 ft. 15.0 ft. 2. We are also proposing to construct the new garage up to the standard side yard setback, or 5'-0" from the south property line. The existing one car garage is 6'-0" from the same property line. Thus the request to move the structure 12" from its current location. Brian has lived alone in his home at 5533 Oaklawn for almost 30 years, has no intentions to move and has no need for a two car garage. We therefore have designed a single car that fits the character of his home and neighborhood. The proposed changes in size was made to keep the structure on a modular 1 ft. grid, thus being slightly shorter on the long axis and slightly longer on the short axis. Proposing to build the new garage up to the 5' setback was done to help keep the garage door better aligned with the position of the existing driveway, which has little room for change. There are no extraordinary difficulties, but there are practical ones and allowing these simple requests will provide a one car garage that better fits the existing space, while retaining the character of the home and neighborhood. Lastly, please notify us if you expect any attorney fees to be charged in association with this application. Thank you for taking your time to consider our application request. Best regards, de Mar hnson �" e�t�� *k; Mark Johnson 116909 Marlborough Circle, Minnetonka, MN 55345 ® 952.470.1682 office 612.272.5029 mobile a License #20131237 0 NiwaDesignStudlocom Kris Aaker From: Charlie Gerk Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 201412:06 PM To: 'Mark Johnson' CC Kris Aaker Subject: RE: 5533 Oaklawn Mark, Thank you for the plan that you submitted to me, I will not require a stormwater or erosion control plan for this project due to the minimal amount of change to the site. As a condition the grading on the south side of the lot will need to promote drainage to the street as much as possible. No net increase in rate or volume to the neighboring properties. Charlie Gerk, EIT, Engineering Technician - Water Resources 952-82"3211 Fax 952-826-0392 rc-gerkQedinamn.00v I www.EdinaMN.aoy 'a "• ...For Living, Learning, Raising Families & Doing Business From: Mark Johnson fmallto:m dniwades gn.com1 Sent: Monday, December 01, 20141:44 PM To: Charlie Gerk Subject:'FW: 5533 Oaklawn Charlie, I forgot to attach the plan... Mark J 141r 'SI"; o�ign stta�o, `t -" landscape Nsign/Ould Contracting Mark Johnson, President 16909 Marlborough Circle Minnetonka, MN 55345 952.470.1882 office 612.272.5029 mobile www.nfwadesianstudio.con From: Mark Johnson [maiito:mei@niwadesisn.com] Sent: Monday, December 01, 20141:42 PM To: 'Charlie Gerk' Subject: RE: 5533 Oaklawn Charlie, nice talking with last week. I just got a pdf of the survey for you to take a look at. As discussed the garage is almost the size, a few inches different on each axis, and shown as proposed up to the 5' setback line. The garage is currently 6' from the property line. We are showing a swale on the south side of the garage for drainage with a silt fence running along the south and east property line. The proposed garage is a floating slab with thickened edges. Please let me know what you think. Thank you again for your time. Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http//gis.hennepin.us/Propertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473448.3504907929,4972090.7035638... 1/7/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIProperty/printldefault.aspx?C=473441.6829774579,4972107.6898478... 1/7/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page I of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIProperty/print/default.aspx?C=473452.9542500004,4972121.263&L=... 1/7/2015 STRUCTURE HARDCOVER EXISTING HOUSE = 1316 SF FPORCH = 45 SF (-50ALSFHC) GARAGE - 290 SF TOTAL = 1606 SF/ 30.09 402 SF ST HC REMAINING PROPOSED GARAGE - 300SF/37X TOTAL EXISTING AAV PROPOSED =1906 SF/23.7X 102 SF STRUCTURE HC REMAffWVG 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET 00 - EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION •�.t i /, PROPOSED NOUS GARAGE `EXISTING GARAGE AND DRIVE TO BE REMOVED NO SIGMFICANT GRADING IS SQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION BENCHMARK TN HYD ELEV = 888.13 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:'t LOT 12, BLOCK 13, SOUTH HARRIET PARK HENNEPIIV CO., MN. ADDRESS - 5533 OAKLAWN AVENUE PID# 19-28-24-12-0129 LOT AREA = 8034 SF/ 0.18 AC X 25% = 2008 SF HC ALLOWED ..r••^'' = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER COH ' - CANTILEVERED OVERHANG TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION OHL - OVERREAD UTILITY'UNE VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS TFE - TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY PROPOSED GARAGE = 300SF/3.7,' TOTAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED =19/2 102 SF STRUCTUV HC REMAINING 0 20 40 so SCALE IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. STRUCTURE HARDC0YER. W � EXISTING COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG HOUSE = 1316 SF = OVERHEAD UTILITY'LINE GFE FPORCH 45 SF. TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION (-50ALSFHC) = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION GARAGE = 290 SIF Q t TOTAL = 1606 SF/ 30.0% 402 SF ST HC REMAINING „ PROPOSED GARAGE = 300SF/3.7,' TOTAL EXISTING AND PROPOSED =19/2 102 SF STRUCTUV HC REMAINING 0 20 40 so SCALE IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY'LINE GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION /ING PROPOSED J EHOUSE Li GARAGE "EXISTING GARAGE ,AND lewe '�.5vZ#45 BENCHMARK TN HYD ELEV = 888.13 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 12, BLOCK 13, SOUTH HARRIET PARK , HENNEPIN CO., MN. ADDRESS - 5533 OAKLAWN AVENUE PID#19-28-24-12-0129 FOT AREA = 8034 SF/ 0.18 AC X 25% = 2008 SF HC ALLOWED SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELEVATIONS WITH HOUSE PLANS VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY m T i 0 22'-8" 10 6':3k 104 WPW .0 . 20' 5' 4 10' POW 2 - 24)04 fW45G 5' M5 @ Gt�NEt; 1 2'-10" Illi I I I i I I l l j I i I 1 1 1 I I I I ro I I I I I I I 20' 1'-4"Gwm Belanger Residence ►�j�r �IGilQ.osign5a�to,"� W 8583 OAKLpWN AVG. toodmpeP*MV &dCooWcftg Edina, MH r.e...wa"•w.ms..""•sru uuuwausr.mwmn�m lh Imm POW BlWW W ? FMW WPW. WfM 2X4 51U7516" OZ., 5W6U ACO 1MAIW BOTTOM MAT MV Po to 10? rLAl'B KAA0 AJJG M a 4' OL, 6" CMLI ARO" MEIER OX MM FOR MrH015 GARAGES ON SCALE UP -1' -r BRACKU DOMIL SCALE V a 1'-r M550 a 24" O.C. (MAX) A5W1.f %NGLJ;5 5/4" 5fB'tING IGS Phf7 WAV 5HMP U' 3' MYOW INTERIOR W - vlap wo 1" X 4" MCA raW 5" MONOI t(MC GONOM 5LA6 MM MIN, 12" X 12" AROLM FEFJJRiER AW #4 WPAR 24" O.G. BOM WAYS 8" C.OMPAciw GLA55V EXIM %L GARAGE SECTION A DETAILS e a� 3f m +a N07 o"ovol W./H OVXVH p/Oi/N p/m/N NY/RSeK1IGT2 WDVH 9Cf5m'•p77 S� A3 � 3 o� e PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 14, 2014 B-15-01 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve the requested variances. Project Description Marc and Meredith Seaberg (applicants) are requesting 4 variances to add an 8 ft. x 24 ft. front porch and a second floor above their existing rambler, see attached site plans, survey and building plans. They are also proposing to add 7 feet onto the width of their garage. The garage addition is the only portion of the plan that does not require a variance. The variances are necessary to build within the existing footprint because much of the existing home is nonconforming regarding front yard setback and setback from the pond. The following variances are necessary for the proposed attached plan: • A 112 square foot front porch encroachment variance from the maximum 80 square feet allowed encroachment into the average front yard setback. • A 3.8 foot front yard setback variance for a second floor addition with cantilever forward of existing front wall. • A 5.6 foot west side yard setback variance from the 16.2 foot setback required for the second floor addition above existing 1St floor. • A 25 foot setback variance from the pond for a 2nd floor addition above the existing 1St floor. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located south of Nancy Lane cul-de-sac consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The homeowners are proposing to add 7 feet to the existing garage near the east property line and a porch to the front including a 2nd floor cantilever. Much of the existing home is nonconforming regarding front yard setback and setback from the pond behind the home. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 50 foot setback from naturally occurring lakes, ponds or streams. The existing home is nonconforming and overlaps the required pond/lake setback by 25 feet. The front yard setback required is the average front yard setback of the homes on either side. The average front yard setback is slightly farther back from the existing home, so the 2"d floor addition requires a front yard setback variance. The plan also proposes a cantilever towards the front and'a front porch larger than 80 square feet which is the maximum area allowed to encroach into the front yard setback. The property owners would like to expand their garage to the east which is the only improvement within the required setback and nonconforming exception rule. Unfortunately the buildable area of the lot is smaller in area than the footprint of the existing house so virtually any improvement/addition requires a variance with the exception of a garage expansion. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single -dwelling homes. Easterly: Single -dwelling homes. Southerly: Nancy Lake. Westerly: Single -dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 14,830 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1961. No trees will be removed to accommodate the plan. Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Engineering Review Single-family detached R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District An Engineering report is attached. There are no concerns indicated on the attached memo. Building Design ra The proposal is to construct a two story home on the basic footprint and above the existing 1 St floor. Compliance Table * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District. The intent is to utilize the existing structure in its entirety, since footprint expansion is not possible without additional variances to reduce setbacks, causing a greater nonconformity. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home with the exception of the conforming garage expansion and the addition of a porch will not significantly increase. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the site and improve on the existing conditions. Spacing between the proponent's and the neighboring structure to the west will remain the same. 4. The home improvements and height increase would provide enough space to accomplish a 2nd floor without having to completely reconfigure the property, (not a tear-down/re-build). City Standard Proposed Front — Match adjacent 30.4 feet *29.6 feet Max porch in front yard 80 Sq. Ft. *112 Sq. Ft. Side- 10+ height *10.6 feet Lake/pond 50 feet *25 feet Building Height 2 Y2 stories 2 stories, 37.8 feet to ridge, 30.5 feet to ridge Lot coverage 25% 24.6% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District. The intent is to utilize the existing structure in its entirety, since footprint expansion is not possible without additional variances to reduce setbacks, causing a greater nonconformity. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home with the exception of the conforming garage expansion and the addition of a porch will not significantly increase. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the site and improve on the existing conditions. Spacing between the proponent's and the neighboring structure to the west will remain the same. 4. The home improvements and height increase would provide enough space to accomplish a 2nd floor without having to completely reconfigure the property, (not a tear-down/re-build). • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable. A practical difficulty is the original placement of the home and required setbacks from the pond edge and front yard. The current setback requirement from the pond and front yard creates a challenge. The existing house location and configuration of the lot result in no opportunity for significant expansion without the benefit of a variance. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? elfcreated? Yes. The unique circumstance is the inability to increase the roof height to provide adequate living space above the home at existing nonconforming setbacks without the benefit of a variance. The required pond setback and front yard setback are not self-created. The home currently encroaches minimum standards. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 4 No. The proposed improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home will remain relatively the same and spacing between structures will remain the same on the west side and will conform on the east side. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variances. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing setback conditions without significantly reducing setback or impacting the surrounding neighbors. b. The imposed setback and existing house location do not provide opportunity for a second floor C. The original placement of the home closer to pond and within the front yard setback prohibits expansion potential for a second floor without the benefit of a variance Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Survey dated: November 25, 2014 • Building plans/ elevations date stamped December 12, 2014. • Engineering memo dated Deadline for a city decision: February 13, 2015. DATE: January 7, 2014 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director CC: David Fisher — Building Official Ross Bintner P.E. - Environmental Engineer FROM: Charles Gerk EIT — Engineering Technician RE: 4505 Nancy Lane - 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 relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Summary of Review Engineering has no concerns with the plans as submitted. An existing and a proposed site survey will be sufficient for review and construction purposes. The proposed plan appears to be the addition of a second story and some smaller additions to the front and east side of the home. There are only minor proposed changes to match the grade to the new additions. Grading and Drainage No concerns Erosion and Sediment Control No concerns Street and Curb Cut No concerns Water and Sanitary Utilities No concerns ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.Ed1naMN.gov • 952-826-0371= Fax 952-826-0392 The proposed variance will: Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable: In this situation due to the way in which the lot is situated, it would not be possible to meet the all of the setback requirements simultaneously. Doing so would require the majority of the existing home to be removed (which would be practically difficult in itself), and an impossibly "narrow" home to be re -constructed. A home could be in compliance with the front setback and violate the pond setback in back (as it is today) or it could be in compliance with the pond setback requirement in back, but in violation of the front setback requirement. Meeting both is not practically or feasibly possible. The use of the intended home is well within reason. The intent of the project is to utilize the existing structure in it's entirety, and as the architectural designs suggest, maintain or uplift the current character of the neighborhood. Attention has been paid to roof lines, minimizing height where possible, as well as the overall design of the home. We are not intending to create a "mega -mansion" that distorts the current look and feel of the neighborhood, but rather to add-on to the existing home in order to accommodate our growing family in a way that the current home does not. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. As described above, this particular lot does not allow for a home that meets both the front setback rule and the pond setback rule in the back. A variance would correct this circumstance by allowing the existing home to be used in it's entirety while offering an upgrade/expansion that is architecturally true to the character of the neighborhood. Be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance. It is our presumption that the general purpose and intent of the requirement for a 50 -foot setback from the pond is to ensure that a home does not infringe on a wetland, maintains aesthetic appeal, and avoids the risk of water damage to the home, or combination of all three reasons. In this case, neither will be cause for concern. The existing home is already within 25 feet, as are many of the homes in the neighborhood according to our estimation. The existing home, other homes in the neighborhood, and the proposed updated home are visually appealing in relation to the pond and the existing home has never had water intrusion of any kind - neither in the floods of the '80's nor the recent high -waters of 2014. Not alter the essential character of a neighborhood Deliberate attention was paid to the character of the neighborhood while designing the proposed addition to the home. The intent was to expand the living space of the home by adding a 2nd story addition, while avoiding a home that would feel or appear too large for the lot or the surrounding homes. Additionally, no trees will need to be removed from the lot so it will maintain its natural aesthetics as well. We believe the design will maintain the look and feel of the neighborhood, while offering an upgrade to the existing home. nro;Rl,i,nr fn the Pact Neighbor to the west Neighboring recent remodels 4432 Garrison lane Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.us/Property/printldefault.aspx?C=473 092.79760172846,4970644.870013... 1/8/2015 Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIPropertylprinttdefault.aspx?C=473169.7915057162,4970667.1744330... 1/8/2015 I r EXISTING HOUSE i I NANCY LANE N 8944. Ln 51 �%' 34.4 AVG' -51 9 670- / ��-112 X 74.4 X , •• 17.2 Sp FEE -874:0 EXISTING FE=872.6 /fi ti�y6yo n 124 Toy HOUSE N ,p #4505 e 109 WIDTH ® 50 SBL -5O—SSL-:W WATER - ._.1 q - —BE4- 4.5- - \ VPRp�N �p y6y5I _-OOtL—I .6ye� I. aby . 17.2 LaJ 864 ! O h ! �! h P D N D ICE ELEV = 962.5 _S_89*44, E___13_5.0 _ __ 5 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT T 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET �0" = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION •. = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION °6 TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION -- — — — — — — tFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION PROPOSED ADD/TIONS STRUCTURE HARDCOVER EXISTING HOUSE 1890 SF PATIO = 450 SF -150ASF= 300 SF TOTAL = 2190 SF/22.0% PROPOSED ADOIT/ONS =251 SF / 2.59' TOTAL EXIST AND 0 °A PROPOSED = 2441 / 24.59 EXISTING HOUSE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2; BLOCK 2, MILLER' S ADDITION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. . ADDRESS — 4505 NANCY LANE PID#30-028-24-21-0105 LOT AREA — 14830 SF/ 0.34 AC ( T.O. WATER = 9960 SF) / 0.23 AC X 25%" = 2490 SF ST HC ALLOWED SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY 4 I 16 KEYNOTE LEGEND GENERAL PLAN NOTES _4 nmaa sr""if`s,: •I"u�.FeB wc.we,B.maBlrulnrfcoecmu.,nfB. m.ac +R �'c�`�'?� �� . MOCB i�fxl oR�Y.un µB �ha:m of Fw�.zan�.'�Fnn°nR`BB�ew.,w. "'�; kc n ,fD. T1E5f 1.WiBEuuFM�fB. '.`B1y'' - —.—_ nnrl �hlllB ��waoowe� ie�; Ralu1BPENlarflonBU VmN — _ — ,xmnl uYxMrtlee wFmpORq u:cmaauOfnoctml NBFnvMOPNOutN�rtMa,o0. ____ eerou, GVB tB06 WuiNn4BRCNFFIBUFCWIRYF,,�6 WttnenCro,EcrNtx wp9r,m[r _NErert2B WMBfxPAiB ywuAYMD w,.r B: ro�F,FDro /CN owRBFuw, A�rxFUBER IppRix�ploc¢wB. m, roRwwcFwe aR,wm um�ourwxR. rRlc uwacFu v°eiMnm,o,xRww„nccf •:serufa .�I' � cox roR nxrnea..vaw wnnumcmm�w,fw„x r.�Rw O� ,>ocwlmBw.ue.�omr-. ww.mw+m+n.fvmxvwucanrRucnox I III LN-I II Ii I I - 11 - i l l L C —1 Jl Z IJ I L I' LI t Li L i1 i Mal U1 n III I I I I r- _111 l �l I I M11 ITI ITI ILITI �(� 11-11 ' n Ii I IT, SII I- _— O� OV I w 11 I L__J L --J t II I_ : sroRADE 9A u III II III, III _., IITILRY ROOM r 0 r--, .I - LI llT II II1 O I I JI T,I L I - 14 I I. FAMILY RODM 1 '.� SEDROOMMME T' III all--;- II I I, II_ II Ll I I O _ uu O O i,JIe1I1 lI l II _II SEABERG HOUSE 4505 NANCY DR EDINA MN_O. IL .- -,r- PERMIT SET a DEMO PLAN - BASEMENTLEVEL a AD 100 �LBASEMEN EXISTING BEDROOM Mi O IMMROOM(�. o E — o_ o 0 0 0 � ILiN I E II BEDROOMR2 OFFICE I LA rI FIRST LEV E Ift U KEYNOTE LEGEND GENERAL PLAN NOTES w cENER,w.owvwvwEsmErWP. w,tLLo.ew.iEemxotrn�Eo.BtNx e Rmri xowrx;aoNoaRE xeN%P.wineE eF BxIeR%,Pexulwxoonmr,REle nelmbawiuom %IEPbP watts RxBCDmFMwE eFv.VLL acSExn woos, � kPFe(pMOix¢t1txFAweE.xrnE0. LLNfxF�eVJTK��uu mxeit%�iw. xB9q=�"^ Yn otixtgm+a+4uYOM.m���� n e��w ee_rwenvu.i mh'KLMtM4W ROVG40�FMrw elMeNsex9 Wlix I.Wf I�TEEYF�a �nEF.WC[S000Urt rmilrvixE CENFNL YAMVxIaR vEPWTaw EOeE �nuioNANBEN.wp xasonpv u[EwRliMbtnEttxPnt •P�ww� iePBGP,m mSxEWERteGnoNsntm ®N0. n MYNOE �SOORu%CNNEM� �EfIIiR�ax.eFGTEB.wE BURR. >d PRe✓DE we6o o1nLwNe BexR9 NL WMA xUNo GFEW ORK Not W dtl( NNEFE++uW enBEOON W✓iUFeEiURE0.5 x9CE+,Be,fPReLL WRLLIY,tl. DAN EASBE1.mtkf. No I pe I '//�� KIMIEQ j DINMO ROOM I , II IE. I O GARAGE I O ra.op o �j ------------------------ 1 4 O16 LNING NooM 110 II SEABERG HOUSE 4505 NANCY DR EDINA MN PERMIT SET 14.002 13.122014 DEMO PLAN - FIRST LEVEL AD101 J 0 20 40 60 SCALE IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION NANCY LANE – DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE �tpo — COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG a s� EDGE BrT Roao OHL =OVERHEAD UTI ITY LINE bl N 890 ' bi'~` •� oar GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION EXISTING /'rs87 � 2 D��ob TFE - TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION HOUSE/ /41 ' 72 — - — tFe— = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION i /J It - i -'PROPOSED AQDITIONS —+e�ga / � � a �,• - �� � STRUCTURE HARDCOVER mmp 03�¢; Q CUM qoz I Itoto C toujrn Zt 44 WQ L� �Zt O 3 4 AVG AN SBL ` ^ I �' d2' EXISTING -� •` s� G ya�e I I i HOUSE = 1890 SF PATIO = 450 SF ros o' d I–150ASF= 300 SF 11.2 I TOTAL = 2190 SF/22.0% / �a FFE=a7ao 4EXISTING GFE-82.0 ° ;, 72 �`' ='REMOVE EXIST/IJG PA TO, / `,"',� USE TO 13 FT FROM HOUR 8 #40505 .�'► T 109 WIDTH O 50 SBL p• PROPOSED / o Zl E=8SS8 74.4 4 5� 7 -� a1 AMMONS = 363.5 SF/3 7X ---- `� c►N 'i ems° ��'t — —I�� -� 1t EXISTING HOUSE TOTAL EXIST AND PROPOSED = 2453 /24.6.°R' rot I (R&WVE)/ f eSti�. Ir X TING SO of /t �w"kwo TO '� Fr FROM HousE IJ N / t' t . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 2; BLOCK 2, MILLER'S I 3� yet TION, HENNEPIN CO., MN. t 864 I — DSS - 4505 NANCY LANE ,&,dPID 0-028-24-21-0105 M P 0 N D 1 LOT AREA = 14830 SF/ 0.34 AC TO =960 C ICE ELEV = 962.8 ' X` 5% = 2490 SFTER ST HC, ALLOWED I 89°44' E _ _S __13_5.0 _______^ 5 DRAINAG AND uTZITY EASEMENT SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY mmp 03�¢; Q CUM qoz I Itoto C toujrn Zt 44 WQ L� �Zt O SEABERG HOUSE PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tha9naBa9 Fipne6 a IrmtlM ddi mVoWgs 141Us ramtlerM Edlre. MN.Tm taineatlftV afNO ndattfoiltl lV o/v Mw ftI droatloiia Imus. d. W%0.04 ON Aamgn abgroname Oft Wa I . amMbndnuauPaRRaMlnsdMlNY9ppompsam4a 9b mlbeekllna. EXISTING RESIDENCE PROJECT LOCAMON - EDINA, MN DRAWING INDEX SEABERG HOUSE as _ 4505 NANCY DR EDI NA MN PERMIT SETT scrava�avn - atvA nna+mm. Ka92 14.17,3678 TITLE SHEET AND VIEWS T100 KEYNOTE LEGEND GENERAL PLAN NOTES unMvw�l�nxnox.ucxwEwto icEoifx�fwoRsxfuxw44nmx�Rflf _ xF�� wvocExiFmlxEoi w�uisssEMplv�nil� �wRus. e4tixl�+uimw+ i tvwnm Ex�cNei�MixmESEuv¢ KMNVIORNNEO. gM�baiwtW mtxxu� -'= 'fit�- VERF+�I1�w�NN�wnlwoN a o11�1Vo� �M�m�MIN Esupmmm MxMY R lx+fREn.U'4Q4 a44M,ROIIIYlRECExERUCsalRSCEN+ uufu4mr. BfoOEwuiptG,MCRUDNMaxnviR�wnx MnmfciWR !. [E ituxs atseW,.loei,NuoCRwGndtl wmsvine. sxFq f00t roRwNL M[PwnnM nlfo Iectilax..iMs w¢uoEOus .na iRni qtn� TrESEnvsfHmhs. ai uays.� R n sU4omrtG4ioRs w3N i o M1nft�.F'sw fg �r MO CaoRnw4re v4MafwERK O � �s.6x+oLL1Mw.W...M lvnESNN x0.99FMBl EsoNn![Yl�m Flx.LLeoxsmVelCH. wpGi:OOxnIAN-Gad1 BASEMENT LEVEL ♦rl,� Al00 UBASEMENT nr byC /t STCMGE cc� 0�„Evflll I 1 , UTA." 4 i rrExm I I los Os pl N tS3' os _• � i '� ' uoo 1 I I I 1 I I BEDROOM 4 i I .11..; IR I.wfawwifo - ENTERTAINMENT ROOM i I I iNg3j I I I I wp lwp' I I 11 I I - I E, SEABERG HOUSE 4505 NANCY DR EDINA MN PERMIT SET 14.002 12.12.2014 BASEMENT LEVEL ♦rl,� Al00 UBASEMENT n— KEYNOTE LEGEND a. GENERAL PLAN NOTES �� w.v rmc„ns comma, awo.cenica or�anm®. wnac wrurw wrrmnue.oYwia wrruvecrtawx w.,wnnaaonepnc aa�ue.,wo�rmiu aMoaaasmuuan;wvuw,ewoneeyae, �KaA�svwaeaacaounoxs, eneRuow.cawrr�wm�ue. we,uwa.oerrs :ei �iww'��x�mae, .auereuoaunuowsreeinrim,o .. w�axot rwe:,an+a w,.0 1nena,xwn a iu,en berunsn mew.iwM00°arus"�swr�ae"mw�va,""smm i�e,unEes�tM°10t' r�aucumms. n. exuuw. eax,iueraa w w�sr wpm uci,w.rx esmnruemrm u m ,w Iwv x[ama+ E`a wtrrw.o mo�mw�.e wnnw�wa w `A D, F SEABERG HOUSE 4505 NANCY DR EDINA MN PERMIT SET NAD2 12.Mnl FIRST LEVEL s % 1�FlR3T LEVEL, NEW A101 nr KEYNOTE LEGEND nrY,. Rin �wiiY u�iN�YaYYsr• rrou�vr� `eY.r,mv,nr — GENERAL PLAN NOTES MG96W.YMYYOCgCId16M114YV®MbGbM LmItAYIOt rM fl11,HY. ruw.warr,aaswt2,uwrl.msnav rsn,waaaaone,e on�ieM"�Eeen'Oaee'ewww�ut°�� �. •M.ua raer�ea+nnonmeiawronant:Ynr ac uuvnreo. > ru w1x wiesn,a n1 vwoova n4 m n[,wa,orowo, u4®4 wrewlwvnurroou�wionasrauerouwm, mar�.naxe,nwam.rcevrt�wwwrw,emn .ne�mbort°Wrae�eroa�a mw w�.veweawrrtvt«m,Y�pmnur� KT�r.1u iia�5ma�naMueumuwlxowKreernnm ,.zrwHawa�uran. wlwnonlucr,ysyu u �, SECOND LEVEL NEw I r/J$ f0 _ ,C -{ SEABERG HOUSE 4505 NANCY DR EDINA MN PERMIT SET 14A02 12.12]014 SECOND LEVEL Al 02 w --------------------fl e -------- ------------TP a F1iST ELEYATNJN GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES wm�oow16"wiei w�iars'9..'*nemna: nnwnn>FwnawnAr oi�a cewiw�veniraxrwuoaw�ri�o�°,u�ae�sa�'s"on�ienan�'xewim s9Avsnnunw a.epumgx9.mnrsai«c+esaeaa4xa�n tnewsnaea[9�crm 4MW9MI9>ERA�f 4eW WA9piJOE'M9IVMMOM1GfRA9w�19r9 AClwtwp![A99TaiRES 0.l � r Ml9lYl9 RlxMtB. M�WCw 91fiT9 Pti� W�W MBtl1tCt roFSCi�$�L®1Wro p 10�96X[9fi�110x9[0969uPKM.99C�W9rtlC[K 19�C. M�9 W9EKR�M u MATERIAL INDEX wrcw..w99.wr , SEABERG HOUSE 4505 NANCY DR EDINA MN PERMIT SET -----'------^---^------------ -"_----------Y� orb 1.am 12.122014 ELEVATIONS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------------TIM" A200 /' } MFRjH ELEVATION �ZWEST ELEVATION GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES .m nnamaEWxnsnrw, ovrn�u o,Rf cfHrfPu+e udfac mnxlsn nnrtR. PIryK�wyppw Pq�ox[wfxwDan.FWYoxS was oNLL O�crnE>nr¢E9 [cCUR PDFm M f Cf NEPx wR,Mcf at ncN wf.OVAAwPEPAEPPo64P,F, WPwARpgNPp MATERIAL INDEX ffla-F—z— R,-— wimlly, —� Q .. ....._..... —SECD 18.8• II _ —_ _ __ _ T.O. GARAGE SUISII11 Z -8•V —________________ _ BABEA,E�] �ZWEST ELEVATION GENERAL ELEVATION NOTES .m nnamaEWxnsnrw, ovrn�u o,Rf cfHrfPu+e udfac mnxlsn nnrtR. PIryK�wyppw Pq�ox[wfxwDan.FWYoxS was oNLL O�crnE>nr¢E9 [cCUR PDFm M f Cf NEPx wR,Mcf at ncN wf.OVAAwPEPAEPPo64P,F, WPwARpgNPp MATERIAL INDEX ffla-F—z— R,-— wimlly, —� I ' r.a I to•- s- � II I I I BEARING q 9' V wim;1117 SEABERG HOUSE 4505 NANCY DR EDINA MN PERMIT SET 14.002 12.12.2014 BUILDING SECTIONS A300 0 20 40 60-ELIJOTt� SCALE IN FEET' PROVIDE INLET PROTECTION FOR ALL ' =EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. ' STORM SEWER INLETS DOWNSTREAM lv OF THE SITE WITHIN ONE BLOCK 66� m \ � OR A I YANC Y Y �CITY. I T Y. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION = DIRECTION SURFACE ORAINAGE momoz6 m ,5V,2 COH CANTILEVERED OVERHANG Eos a _ OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE N 89'44' W"` GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION EXC3TNdG' Cn;Jr7��OZ� ^. a X82 TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION HOUSE t•FE=- - LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION ONSTdNUCTION SITE CESS LIMITED • AY I • —PROPOSED ADDITIONS E'3STiNG DRIVEWAY ."y - TEMPORARY +: STRUCTURE HARDCOVER wdelYlAmwm y� ,29 :.I.a•; 't; r SOIL STOCKPILE EXISTING J_XMITED TO THIS HOUSE = 1890 SF E*wMN6RW AREA PATIO 4 450 SF dry.. .- oa r l0z-t50ASF= 300 SF T'OtAL = Opp• _4 z' w 7c a _ CONCRETE WASHOUT 2190 SF/22.09a1p E117 �� TO BE CONTAINED WITNI �o RGr�� r rr _ •r.. EXISTING - • EXPANSION AREA REMOVE £X1STN�s PATIO �t rp HOUSEw4X4505 "' TO 13 FT FROM HOUSE ry max ow • 1.'.+• 7- `" 7T9•, i�S, i0 tYA!k b..�...... R nl I N 7 � PROP:JSFP r. i02 EM_101IG TOTAL £X/S7' AND PROPOSED — 2453 SF/24.6% FEE PArJO TO 13 rl `nj r~4y Gu LEGAL DESCRIPTION: � rr, Fi FROM HouSE + r N LCT 2. BLOCK 2, MILLER' S '�4* n b ADDITION. HENNEPIN CO., MN. • ADDRESS — 4505 NANCY LANE PID#30-028-24-21-0105 P O N © LOT AREA = 14830 SF/ 0.34 AC Ir.4 r ( TO WATER = 9960 SF) / 0.23 AC X 25% - 2490 SF ST HC ALLOWED ° s1pIr11MY17�! �S 89"44' £ _ f35.0 NoeA�WOIt x DRA1NA�t AND U'•TY cA":)F+ENi — — _ — — SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER K11Y GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES: TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION 1 1. FOLLOW ALL CITY REGOIREMENTS ( SHEET C2 FOR DETAILED EROSION CONTROL NOTES) VERIFY ALL SETBACKS WITH CITY V 24 MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO LAWN DURING CONSTRUCTION. RESTORE .SIN C N COMPLETE DRAINAGE 3. PUBLIC STREETS ARE TO BE CLEAN OF DEBRIS AND DIRT ON A DAILY BASIS 4. REMOVE SILT FENCE ONCE LAWN IS RESTORED 1. NO SITE GRADING PROPOSED OTHER THAN ADDITIONS 3. BACKGROUND SURVEY PROVIDED BY FRANK R. CARDARELLE LAND SURVEYOR 2. SEE HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS ABOVE Q 0 z Ali OA W A d% N A Q Gm 0- om W m a°m J L ° �' 0 'M u. oC.0 za YWL T y O ° a� '^� C DEm V J mC t W gg uw �i a Tm y 4; m Lti O W�Cqp m Tm@ ° �+G°•E C•CO %06 W an aOC O b0 .o OGT 9 ymn O U n u m LM you LQI 2M oOami r C3 mm� H 0 Ym MS 'a U v Mo - Mo CQ y c b uNn Q C un cE s�Oap H a O a aw•wmP Q d G m rm COO LL m» WV oy V.aLL L q0 OL°w Gjr•Yy CVO O a �m %L 28 • 3 00L % m 'Coo on ys°n mm yCmCC 4 . H mm .Ilq d a U y pDp r N 2A sr:j • IIY `• •rrIIIIIIIIIIIIII q C aa• c d 0 c n .L L O L of w 0 a i a D u u C A v c D o 2 u m m 'pl p T m m 3 p C a E C Qt 2 Y+°• C a o L +C•1 uAu C C a O o E>L.wo 'C q u°n°uo am a+' u w i L •Cay NpOtlm P. 64 Y L a 0 a a m C .> e a E N O m0 L9c CCL 40041 UC Vv ° O 0 m C a ? C L tl m m •� wL aYa yA w EC o o L D L. oc uyou opp " N �y C vm- Lvag aE 0 U L L a > o m M v n L 41 N Ga AcON 9L L y T C d rCUi m Nm T wCti0 O 1 O M O 0 0 N OO OM OY O m Y d E Dy SCJ CTd LLy Q %°• O m y 9 d' ~A A d� LO TaL 0a a Cq L Dp U Y%•. �C YOU °LLC% O �m C H ° } 0 E Y yN Day a v 91 00 ma 4 N D O d d a u > aQ a°LI {nf>L Mn°OL >0rxi% Y A YCm oma Y ad O a c m mc o• e m .+ a Von is %a a LY a yx p r g o LL w c mL C u .—m om v n •- a °w o d L e am. mawy % A x L m 0 a d vv a I O My a •07 0 oo m L L Y o O L C o a o EL .•� er N O yo -1N ON oNwO atn> d aLu°+ Y mI mC mm6q� A my a DEeai D O D O L CnU L W C y 2 %6a AmmCCOg%U am, tL go, L 0 v0 O L L 0NN0YY S. aOdU.wLLyLaUd mtl5A �O Oy aAm n �CGN -00 CZ °I LONCO .�•.1 LII .10 O> 7 dA° ay0 •yU 9m m Ojtl Oa c m x LmC 41 1 0 L® a y011 q OtaIC Lm LOYT m6 YII m m L 0 A O a a C 0 CL CSP G dd Ca M. o �% .ya L� de+ ym U C v L L O C y Y +1 0 2 Lt O OI? N QA i yP0 mwtl VOL aw d °AVL 0. v_A am O m 7a % O Ay 0 q a Y OI ,C� 0 yrf 1 U v m r P % A Mc Cw 1�pp aLOa-0 L °L - % O d J II L U° t•U'1 mWNI UC �o OmY OC L. CA C q D En 9 W0 y�• srium °qT Be 'i t f.. .a, m C °NY ° > 4A aNewr CDL ~AC0O1 D� N C +Ni 0 aXwU NL GW°• In O b YA °w 0 �'1 .Ci CCm +°+O mOv D °n vC- LnWD CD �1°0 M T Om L�O DG n0 y -a buae Co. o % y cT m a m Qv 0. v y^ IIa matin pqm eb E° 143 cA a a w no Lc o.-0 +O•1141pm CLw0 o Lc mt a m L > a a ae vO cc v v m m•• -O 0O n C+L+ CY. °mWLO! w•�• pmc YU C.+IION .4 Ift• TC.+C lV �y O v0 N IC L ° 0 -q Ln OM y&01 GV y �0 C107Y y .w P F•mcu`m IIw Aw Q c�L+.. >Y Cc uo 10 7 LN 141 OL a o °q" ' oa ym mD m AU A ^m T.a m- 411 rm - av ( (mU Lm amor6°A° N L� aY •rOiO M m am Mi C Nn .0 dN am ; io "c 9- nqL oa as .�u� ca 2 CE5 - L cw Ca i .mi .-I r c° ay n Ani of o .MGIC °.-+oia O -OW a-- a D° d °LLa Ow ^ m O % 0 c y ma C ° Uq mU OI a u m ca - 'UOV+ciU WLm f83 1�••• >Np P > NC CII CA °� tim Da LD, rDO, aA a� OR m0 wC �C.10 Py T.. IOL mL C7L L C m D3 a yE O Damao mason 1LY O v0y o m eL n Tum o% mmama n r� >. d > cm a nE ov 6�L• L °a oL� by ow+ m ac>D 1e OT Ecc m t E cm +°iu ya m >c m % C 11wA q0L Lo a• �° Lwo n tlT 0 L Y bE a m m Lw H L% 10- > 00 YIC L m.. Ls �Y mP •mcYD U gppt0 •ta D UL T O ace U% LO 3 a z 3Y c�c No a au oa 23ON N1yE2� NiaD+g N� .a. VuL. .U.. 9. -o mE EL -A -o �•oti To: MAYOR AND COUNCIL Ow e �RPOR+* 1688 Agenda Item #: VI.C. From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Action Discussion ❑ Date: December 16, 2014 Information ❑ Subject: Ordinance No. 2014-25 Amending Chapters 10 & 32, Regarding Regulation And Protection Of Trees On Low Density Residential Property. Action Requested: Continue the Public hearing to February 3, 2015. Information / Background: The Planning Commission considered the Tree Ordinance Amendment at their December 10, 2014 meeting, and continued the matter to their January 14, 2015 meeting. The Commission would like to continue shaping the Ordinance, and need a little more time to do so. Therefore, the City Council is asked to continue the scheduled public hearing to February 3rd, 2015 to allow time for the Planning Commission to continue its work on the ordinance regarding trees. City of Edina • 4801 W. 501h St. • Edina, MN 55424