Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-22 Planning Commission Packets0 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS APRIL 22, 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 April 8, 2015 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. Subdivision - Janine and Jeffrey Johnson, 5825 Ashcroft Avenue, Edina, MN VII. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Variance. Kelly Hayes, 6205 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment — Lot Division procedure, Rezoning procedure, Side Yard Setback regulations, R-2 District regulations. C. Pentagon Park — Development Update (Scott Tankenoff) VIII. CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS } A. Attendance 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 Plannina Commission May 13, 2015 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 * www.CiV-QfEdina.com Date: April 22, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Pentagon Park— Development Update (Scott Tankenof) MWN us Scott Tankenoff, Hillcrest Development will be giving the Commission and update on the status of the Pentagon Park redevelopment project. This project is 43 acres in size and located on 77th Street, south of the old Fred Richards Golf Course. The project received preliminary rezoning approval in March of 2014. For reference, attached is the Planning Commission Staff report and minutes from both the Planning Commission and City Council review of the project. Final Rezoning to PUD is anticipated for the east and west side of the project. For each phase of development, Mr. Tankenoff will go through a sketch plan process. prior to obtaining site plan approvals. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50'h St • Edina, MN 55424 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague February 26, 2014 VI.B. Community Development Director INFORMATION/BACKGROUND Project Description Pentagon Revival is proposing to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77th Street. (See the Pentagon Tower & Pentagon Quad sites on page Al.) The total site area is 43 acres in size; and would likely redevelop over the next 2-15 years. (See the applicant narrative and proposed plans on pages A6—A47.) Proposed uses include office, medical, retail, restaurants, a hotel and potentially housing. No housing is anticipated at this time, however, that use is currently allowed on the property, and should remain as a potential future land use. The following is a breakdown of the anticipated land uses at this time: Office —1,420,000 square feet. ➢ Retail — 40,000 square feet. ➢ Hotel — 250,000 square feet (375-425 rooms) ➢ Parking structures — 6,400 parking stalls. ➢ Housing (would likely replace some of the office if built.) The likely first phase of development of the project would be the Pentagon Tower site, which would include office buildings, a hotel, limited retail and parking structures. Future redevelopment phases of the "Pentagon Quad" site north of 77th Street would likely occur from the west side to the east. Future housing would then likely occur on the east end of the Quad sites. To accommodate redevelopment of this property, the following is requested: ➢ Preliminary Rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and ➢ An Overall Development Plan. This "preliminary" review is the first step of a multi -step process of City review. Should these "preliminary" requests be approved by the City Council; the next step would be a Final Development Plan for Phase 1, Final Rezoning, and formal adoption of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment rezoning this site to PUD, Planned Unit Development, including zoning regulations and land use requirements. Prior to final approval of any future phase, the applicant would bring forward a sketch plan review to both the Planning Commission and City Council to seek direction and guidance prior to a formal application. The PUD, Planned Unit Development District is being requested to allow greater flexibility of land uses and setbacks in exchange for enhanced amenities; greater pedestrian connections; high quality architecture, and depending on the future use of Fred Richards Golf Course, potential greater connection and integration of public space. As shown on page A29, there are six primary principles requested to achieve the PUD: 1. Green Streets. 2. Integrated storm water as a project amenity. 3. Pedestrian Connections. 4. Connections to all the parcels. 5. Multimodal Connections; transit, bike, pedestrian. 6. Shared parking. The applicant is pledging high quality architecture for all buildings, including the parking structures, and sustainable design principles. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A6—A47.) In 2008, this site was rezoned to the current MDD-6 Zoning designation. The site was approved for 1,881,134 square feet of total development; 50% was to be residential and 50% was to be non-residential. The applicant is essentially requesting the same amount of square footage, 1,777,560 square feet, but requests that the uses not be restricted by percentage. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Fred Richards golf course; zoned and guided as a park. Easterly: Office and light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial use. Southerly: Office and light industrial uses; zoned and guided for industrial use. Westerly: Highway 100. 2 Existing Site Features The subject property is 43 acres in size, and contains 17 office buildings that total 660,500 square feet of office space. (See pages A3 A5.) Planning Guide Plan designation: Zoning: Site Circulation/Connection OR, Office Residential MDD-6, Mixed Development District Access to the site is off 77th Street which has direct freeway access on and off Highway 100. The applicant is proposing a re -construction of 77th Street when the total build out of the overall development reaches 80-85%. (See the street re -construction renderings on pages A43.) Additionally, new "Green Streets" would be built to make better connections and circulation in and around the development. Improved connections would also be made to the Fred Richards Golf Course. (See pages A44—A47.) The applicant is proposing to provide transit shelters along 77th to promote transit ridership. Pedestrian/Bike Connections Connections would be made to the regional trail to promote alternate means of transportation to get to the development. Bicycle facilities, dedicated showers and bike lockers would be provided throughout the development. Sidewalks would be created throughout the development and along streets. Safe crosswalks across streets would be created. Traffic & Parking Study The proposed project would generate traffic volumes that are within the parameters of the Alternative Urban Area -wide Review (AUAR) that has been done in this area. A traffic study was conducted by WSB, which concludes that the following roadway improvements are expected to be necessary into the future to accommodate the redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites: 1. 2020 No -Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 160 Southbound Ramp. b. Improved signal timing at 77th Street and Computer Avenue. 3 2. 2020 Build: a. Addition of a northbound dual right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Southbound Ramp. b. Addition of a westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp. c. Addition of a northbound dual left turn lane, southbound left turn lane and eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a northbound left turn lane, eastbound right turn lane and signal timing improvements at 77th Street and Burgundy Place. 3. 2030 No -Build: a. 2020 No -Build Improvements. b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound right -turn lane at 77th Street and TH 100 Northbound Ramp. c. Addition of a northbound and southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Computer Drive. d. Addition of a northbound through lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Drive. e. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street. 4. 2030 Build: a. 2020 Build improvements. b. Addition of an eastbound and westbound third lane on 77th Street from Industrial Boulevard through Computer Drive. c. Addition of a southbound through lane at France Avenue and 76th Street. d. Addition of an eastbound and westbound dual left turn lane at France Avenue and Minnesota Street. e. Addition of a southbound left turn lane at 77th Street and Minnesota Street. f. Addition of an eastbound right turn lane at 77th Street and Parklawn Avenue. Traffic will be analyzed at each phase of development to determine when these improvements would be required. Parking A shared parking strategy is intended to reduce large surface parking lots; additionally, parking is intended to be shared with the Fred Richards golf course site, no matter the future use of that property. 4 Parking for a Mixed Development District is based on the square footage of the buildings. Non-residential uses require one space per 300 square feet. Therefore, the 1,777,560 square feet of non-residential uses would require 5,425 stalls. The applicant is proposing 6,400 stalls. Part of the overage of parking space anticipated is due to the sharing of use with the public property to the north. The applicant does not wish to create more parking than needed. Each phase of development would examine closely the need for parking. The parking study done by WSB concluded that the proposed uses would generate the need for 5596 parking spaces. (See page A70.) Green Space/Landscaping There is very little green space and no storm water retention areas on the site as it exists today. The applicant is pledging to significantly increase landscaping, green space and storm water retention ponding within the development. (See the proposed plans on pages A33—A35.) As a condition of approval on a preliminary basis a minimum of a 20% should be achieved at final build out. Individual landscaping would be reviewed at the time of Final Development Plan review for each phase of development. The previously approved overall development plan for this site included a 20% increase in green space alone. Grading/Drainage/Utilities There is not specific grading, drainage or utility plan to review at this time. The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them to be generally acceptable subject to the comments and conditions outlined on the attached page A106. A developer's agreement would be required for the construction of the proposed sidewalks, public water main, sewer and any other public improvements. Any approvals of this project would be subject to review and approval of the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District, as they are the City's review authority over the grading of the site. A more detailed review would be done at Final Development Plan with each phase. The idea of integrated storm water, and using storm water as an amenity, similar to Centennial Lakes, is a good one. The soils in this area are very poor; creating on-site storm water retention areas would benefit the site and the area. The applicant is proposing to connect the north and south sites with a surface water course if possible, and re -use storm water for irrigation and other uses. Building/Building Material While there are no specifics proposed at this time, the applicant is proposing to build all buildings and parking ramps to a high architectural standard. Parking ramps are to be integrated into the architecture of the development. The applicant has indicated that podium height and sustainable building practice would be used. The applicant plans to bring forward sketch plans for each phase of development to gain input on architecture as well as site planning. Staff recommends very specific requirements for future building architecture as a condition of preliminary approval of the project. The following conditions are recommended to ensure quality building and podium height: ➢ New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. ➢ Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. ➢ All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. ➢ All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies will be employed, where applicable. Signage The underlying zoning of the property would be MDD-6, therefore, would be subject to signage requirements of that zoning district. Staff would recommend a full signage plan be submitted as part of the Final Development Plan with the first phase of development. Plans should specifically include location and size of pylon signs, and way finding signage. Specific signage regulations would be incorporated into the PUD Zoning District including way finding signage. Preliminary Rezoning — PUD (Planned Unit Development) Below are the Code requirements and considerations for PUD. The applicant has pledged to include many of the goals and standards for a PUD. Those include: sustainable design, living streets concept, improved pedestrian connections, high architectural standards, podium height, pedestrian oriented design, creative storm water management, integration of public space, podium height, enhanced landscaping and green space. Per Section 36-253, the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) District is to provide comprehensive procedures and standards intended to allow more creativity and flexibility in site plan design than would be possible under a conventional zoning district. The decision to zone property to PUD is a public policy decision for the city council to make in its legislative capacity. The purpose and intent of a PUD is to include most or all of the following: a. provide for the establishment of PUD (planned unit development) zoning districts in appropriate settings and situations to create or maintain a development pattern that is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan; b, promote a more creative and efficient approach to land use within the City, while at the same time protecting and promoting the health, safety, comfort, aesthetics, economic viability, and general welfare of the City; c. provide for variations to the strict application of the land use regulations in order to improve site design and operation, while at the same time incorporate design elements that exceed the City's standards to offset the effect of any variations. Desired design elements may include; sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian oriented design, and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods, parks or other sensitive uses, d. ensure high quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned, e. maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets and utilities; f. preserve and enhance site characteristics including natural features, wetland protection, trees, open space, scenic views, and screening, g. allow for mixing of land uses within a development; h. encourage a variety of housing types including affordable housing; and I. ensure the establishment of appropriate transitions between differing land uses. The purpose of this PUD is to ensure that the principles proposed by the applicant and the goals of the City, are carried out throughout the life of the development. Those goals and principles include: Green Streets; integrated 7 storm water as a project amenity; multimodal connections including, transit, bike, and pedestrian; high quality architecture; mixed use; shared parking; podium height; sustainable design; enhanced landscaping & green space. Applicability/Criteria a. Uses. All permitted uses, permitted accessory uses, conditional uses, and uses allowed by administrative permit contained in the various zoning districts defined in Section 850 of this Title shall be treated as potentially allowable uses within a PUD district, provided they would be allowable on the site under the Comprehensive Plan. Property currently zoned R-1, R-2 and PRD -1 shall not be eligible for a PUD. b. Eligibility Standards. To be eligible for a PUD district, all development should be in compliance with the following: i. where the site of a proposed PUD is designated for more than one (1) land use in the Comprehensive Plan, the City may require that the PUD include all the land uses so designated or such combination of the designated uses as the City Council shall deem appropriate to achieve the purposes of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; ii. any PUD which involves a single land use type or housing type may be permitted provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan; iii, permitted densities may be specifically stated in the appropriate planned development designation and shall be in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; and iv. the setback regulation, building coverage and floor area ratio of the most closely related conventional zoning district shall be considered presumptively appropriate, but maybe departed from to accomplish the purpose and intent described in #1 above. As highlighted above, the City may require housing to be incorporated into the development to achieve the purpose of the MDD-6 zoning and the Comprehensive Plan which calls for housing within the development. The applicant has indicated that housing may be a possibility in future, but does not anticipate it in the short term. The following page shows a compliance table demonstrating how the proposed new building would comply with the underlying MDD-6 Zoning Ordinance Standards. Should the City decide to rezone this site to PUD, the proposed setbacks, height of the building and number of parking stalls would become the standards for the lots. Please note that a few City Standards are not met under conventional zoning, when reviewing the general overall site plan. However, by 8 relaxing these standards, the purpose and intent, as described above would be met. Compliance Table * Would require a variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non-residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A83, the square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. w] .City;Standard (MDD-6)Proposed =PUD Setbacks - Buildings Front Setback 35 feet +'/ foot for each foot the building *35 feet (771h Street - 12 story height exceeds minimum setback buildings) *35 feet (Viking Drive - 12 story buildings) Rear 35 feet +'/ foot for each foot the building 50 feet height exceeds minimum setback Side No interior side setback required No setback Setbacks - Parking Structures 20 feet or the height of the structure 35 feet Front/street Building Height 4 stories north of 77th Street *5 stories 12 stories south of 77th Street 12 stories (Heights over 12 stories would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment) Parking lot and drive aisle setback 20 feet (street) 20 feet Building Coverage 30% 30% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 50% - Non-residential Uses *1,777,560 s.f. total proposed 50% - Residential Uses non-residential (includes, 1,881,134 square foot site Burgundy Place, Walsh Title & a 250,000 s.f. hotel) Parking Stalls — Mixed Non Residential: 1,777,560 s.f./300 = 5,425 6,400 spaces suggested at this Development District stalls required time Minimum Lot Size 43 acres 43 acres * Would require a variance under the current code The most significant change proposed is replacing the residential square footage with non-residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) Please note on page A83, the square footage proposed, does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. w] PRIMARY ISSUES/STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issue • Is the PUD Zoning District appropriate for the site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal meets the purpose and intent of the PUD, and therefore, would be appropriate for this development site for the following reasons: 1. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing MDD-6 Zoning of the site. The only real change proposed, compared to the previously approved development plan for the site, is replacing the residential square footage with non-residential square footage. Within the context of the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), the proposal would shift from Scenario 2, to closer to Scenario 3, which does not exceed the maximum square footage contemplated in the AUAR. (See pages A83 & Al 03, of the attached AUAR.) 2. The project would encourage multimodality as follows: transit shelters on 77th Street; links to the regional trail, promotion of biking through bike facilities within each new building; creation of complete streets; establishing sidewalk connections between uses and buildings; creation of a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 3. Improved transportation system. The applicant proposes to upgrade 77th Street and provide better street connections into and throughout the development including better access to the Fred Richards golf course land. (See pages A34—A35.) "Green Streets" would be created. (See page A43—A47.) 4. Parking would be shared. The applicant proposes to construct parking ramps for the purpose of shared parking throughout the development, including shared parking with the public land to the north. 5. Storm water management would become a project amenity. Similar to the Centennial Lakes concept, storm water retention would be incorporated into the development to become an amenity. 6. Provision of high architectural standards. The applicant has agreed to building architecture, including parking ramps that would be of very high quality. The applicant has also agreed to achieve a goal of the Comprehensive Plan, which is to incorporate podium height into the development. Sustainable building design similar or consistent with LEED standards is also anticipated. 10 7. The proposed project would generate traffic volumes that are within the parameters of the Alternative Urban Area -wide Review (AUAR) that has been done in this area, A traffic study was conducted by WSB and Associates for the Development. (See the attached study on pages A54— A80.) The study concludes that some roadway improvements are expected to be necessary into the future to accommodate the redevelopment of the Pentagon Towers and Pentagon Quads sites. 8. The PUD Zoning would give the City of Edina greater discretion in ensuring that the above mentioned principles are incorporated into the overall development in the future. 9. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right-of-way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. c. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity -generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine-grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. f. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. 11 Staff Recommendation Preliminary Rezoning to PUD & Overall Development Plan Recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from MDD- 6, Mixed Development to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and an Overall Development Plan for the subject property. Approval is based on the following findings: 1. The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential," which is seen as a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential districts. Primary uses include: offices, housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks and open space. Vertical mixed uses are encouraged. 3. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Better vehicle and pedestrian connections would be created; enhanced green space and ponding would be created; a mixture of land use is envisioned; there would be improved architecture and sustainability; shared parking would be created, including with the public use to the north. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right-of-way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. C. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity - generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. 12 e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine-grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary/ Overall Development Plans dated January 22, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a sign plan with Final Development Plan application for each phase of the overall development. Each signage plan submittal should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Signage shall be consistent throughout the PUD. 5. The 77th Street Improvements must be completed by the applicant/land owner when 100,000 square feet of development has been constructed. The 77th Street improvements must be consistent with the plans date stamped January 22, 2014, and are subject to review and approval of city staff before construction. 6. The Parkway and Green Streets, as shown on the Preliminary/Overall Development Plan, date stamped January 22, 2014, must be built by the applicant/land owner upon 80-85% build -out of the overall development. 7. Final Develop Plans must create a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 13 8. Connections shall be made from the property south of 77th Street to the property north of 77th Street through or adjacent to the "Walsh Title" site and Fred Richards golf course. 9. Pedestrian connections must also be made between buildings, along 77th Street, to Burgundy Place, to the anticipated Regional Trail, and to the new Green Streets, the installation of which are conditioned on factors, including without limitation, the future use of Fred Richards. 10. All crosswalks shall be marked with duraprint stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 11. Where applicable and required pursuant to the Final Development Plan, all public utility, public roadway and public sidewalk easements shall be granted or dedicated to the City upon Final Development Plan approval for each phase. 12. Bike storage and bike shower facilities shall be provided within the development. Bike racks will be provided throughout the development. 13. A majority of the storm water retention will be developed as an amenity and integrated into the overall development. 14. Overall, the development must include at least a 20% of green space/storm water retention in the aggregate. 15. Any Park Dedication fees due under Section 32 of the City code shall be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the property that is re -platted. 16. New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. 17. Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. 18. All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. 19. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies will be employed, where applicable. 14 20. Public art shall be incorporated into the development. 21. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Final PUD Zoning must meet the criteria required for a PUD. 22. Compliance with the issues/conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated January 22, 2014. Deadline for a city decision: May 21, 2013 15 a _ - ti (,+�'i �ID" l� 5 l t' _Q "t-, t} P' k 4:4:r Z -Til ud_ ..3G z•� f a`. 4uldt:t NitY to 6, g '_t t TT## LL",- � t x ...".j , �`Q Cil ( .1 a""j i C .� i" ;} e ,',«s# «I :: a. - '�NCb OtpN R11 ° ¢ y ' i 2 St z i } 11tt{ NAZti W14 1,f), # ? f I !# i t► �- - ` t'�R[ it v% t -- 'IRNfAMs7"Nt5t1V 9 4 µ x!a- p ryq lr�' s z 1' i hh Wait t OR t '« .7 C� ` ,CHtr7,1 .� Gil 9RRnh ¢ ;... ## t 1 1'A1,14 kW AVE ii > m } t a 7 ,.'6 + a?, look } T7111 =5f LV IAIN E O',fArig z +' I j # y ([yy _. C TOWi �'•„ 95:x, .is } d u 16111 SINAI CIR VIi# W� 15rV It y } w tia make Parcel Map Scale:/" d 1600 ft. N ID: A T -B: Zh Print Date: 2/10/2014 Ower Pentagon North Lic Market Name: Total: i Parcel Tax Address: Total: S PropertyCommercial-Non Preferred Price This map is a compilation of data from various sources and Is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or stead: Date' implied, induding fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the aoowacy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel Sale COPYRIGHT A HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: Code: A Viink Green! U WWIWI • ..�. Name: i i Total: Parcel Tax Address: Total: Property Sale Type: t Price: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and Is tumished "AS IS" with no Home- Sale representation or warranty expressed or Date: implied, including fitness of any particular stead` purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel Sale COPYRIGHT HENNEPIN COUNTY 2014 Area: Code: Al . e.-pgYY�G �c� t yrs r�¢ Pli I'e1yA/ 41 1313 "'' } - k. it ,�-¢ 3 t . # aL. :l Y`Z l.k .% I•r �'4 it ! - 8 &'. Ek �. � s,wt' � ,• t3:�'�t" � � 5t>iYRkl�id""CC�sa'iE�� �°" %�•''Y �,a e� 'F� i `� r� p x oft AKI i v T P ' ., c .�z , d L# " WIA 64 V-1 1w, • ��....._, ' �.r a� AT q Pentagon Park Narrative Background When constructed in the 1960's, Pentagon Park was a state-of-the-art office complex located on approximately 42 prime acres in the northeast quadrant of Interstate I-494 and Highway 100 (Exhibit 2). It featured 8 three story buildings and one four story building surrounded by surface parking north of W. 77`' Street ("North Parcel") and a "tower" of six stories in the southwest parcel surrounded by randomly placed one story office buildings with surface parking lots between ("South Parcel"). The complex — like Southdale, the innovative 1950's era indoor shopping mall — was designed to accommodate the emerging car culture that was sweeping the country. Unlike Southdale, which was originally conceived to be a more complete mixed-use development, Pentagon Park was always intended to be office -focused and auto -centric. Access to the campus or getting to a restaurant for lunch was virtually impossible without a car. Today, the moribund buildings of Pentagon Park sit amidst a sea of surface parking lots, testament to changing times and tastes (Exhibit 6). Pentagon Revival, the development entity, has "stabilized" some of the buildings, attracting new tenants but the office park has outlived its useful life and the Applicant intends to completely re -imagine and rebuild on the site. The Applicant's affiliates own or control all of the property described in the Application which includes the parcels identified as the "North Parcel", "South Parcel", "Walsh Title" and 7710 Computer Avenue (collectively, the "Property") Context (Exhibits 3 and 4) Immediately north of the North Parcel is Fred Richards Golf 'Course, an approximately 42 -acre City -owned and operated facility which is separated from Pentagon Park (Exhibit 5). '1'lre City is in the process of evaluating the use of the Fred Richards land as a golf course and determining whether it should remain a golf course or be "repurposed" to another public use. North of the golf course is the Lake Edina neighborhood, which comprises single family houses, many of which surround the small lake. To the east of Pentagon Park is a district that includes a mix of business and multi -family housing. To the south, along West 77th Street, are a variety of businesses, the largest of which is Seagate Technology. The Nine Mile Creek Regional Trail will be constructed in 2015 and is proposed to be located along the northern property line of Pentagon Park. The exact configuration of the Regional Trail is not final. Depending on the fixture disposition of the golf course, the Regional frail could shift north onto Cityproperty. The southwest portion of Pentagon Park is bounded by W. 77`h to the north, Computer Avenue to the east, Viking Drive to the south and Normandale Road and Highway 100 to the west. A variety of businesses are located in the surrounding area. January 22, 2014 The Applicant The Applicant's membership includes Hillcrest Development, LLLP ("Hillcrest"). Hillcrest's Managing General Partner Scott Tankenoff is the face of the Applicants development team. Scott has been the Managing Partner of Hillcrest since 1990. Hillcrest was founded in 1948 and is now a third generation company specializing in commercial renovation to suit its clients' facility needs for office, hi -tech, biotechnology -medical research, light assembly, warehousing, manufacturing, and other commercial purposes. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in most sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi -family residential. All of Hillcrest's projects (over eighty to date) have been fully designed, developed, built, leased, managed, and owned by Hillcrest. Hillcrest has its own internal construction, leasing, and management groups. Hillcrest has enjoyed success in its business and renovation projects due to its hands-on approach toward redevelopment. Hillcrest's in-house development team consists of experienced construction, design, leasing, management, operations, and accounting personnel. This "hands-on" approach streamlines the efficiency of the projects and provides for a quicker occupancy for Hillcrest's clients. Membership in the Applicant is also owned by an affiliate of Mark Raunenhorst. Mark has decades of development and construction expertise in multiple sectors of real estate development, including, office, retail and multi -family residential. The Application The Applicant is seeking approval of the land uses, maximum densities and maximum building heights for the project. The Exhibits that accompany the Application illustrate several aspects of the Applicant's proposal. Specifically, the Applicant requests: a. Land Use. i. Hotel, office and retail on the South Parcel. ii. Office and retail on the North Parcel, Walsh Title and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcels. iii. Potential multi -family residential on the Property. b. Densities. i. 425 room hotel. ii. 1,400,000 square feet of office. iii. 40,000 square feet of retail. 2 �� January 22, 2014 c. Height (Exhibit 15) i. 12 stories on the South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue Parcel. ii.In the future, the Applicant may request a Comprehensive Guide Plan amendment for a hotel of over 12 stories in the location on the west side of the South Parcel, identified on Exhibit 15. iii. 2 stories on the Walsh Title Parcel. iv. 4 and 5 stories on the North Parcel. (Exhibits 13 and 14) In response to the unknown future use of Fred Richards, the Applicant will present multiple options with respect to the configuration of stoirnwater and green space amenities. As discussed with the City Staff and presented at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission and City Council, the Property needs to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development in order to achieve the requisite density and land. Accordingly, the Applicant has filed these applications for the Property to be rezoned to a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") and for Preliminary Development Plan approval. The proposed redevelopment of the Property is a unique opportunity. The redevelopment of the Property will do to the northeast quadrant of Interstate I-494 and Highway 100 what Centennial Lakes did for the southeastern portion of the City and what Noiniandale Lakes has done for the City of Bloomington. The unique opportunity and aspect of the Applicant's requests include substantial and procedural characteristics that include, with limitation: 1. The fact that the redevelopment of PUD is very different than the previous Planned Unit Development zoning districts that have been approved and adopted by the City, for several reasons, including, without limitation: a. While the current improvements are in severe blighted condition, the buildings could be stabilized if the PUD is not approved. b. Stabilization would prevent redevelopment of the Property for another generation, and would cause for a massive lost opportunity, especially with the potential change in the use of Fred Richards. c. The size of the Property and proposed multi -phased project. 3 At January 22, 2014 d. The long term use of Fred Richards is unknown and a PUD will provide flexibilities to respond to change in use of the golf course, allowing for the integration of Pentagon Park into a repurposed Fred Richards. 2. The proposed land uses, densities and building heights are either consistent with or less intense than what the Comprehensive Guide Plan, City Code and AUAR (updated in the summer in 2013) allow or anticipate. The requested density is less than alternatives in the AUAR and is close to the total gross square footage approved in the failed Gateway Plan approved by the City in 2008. 3. Because of the unique characteristics of the PUD request including the multi - phased development and the Applicants need to terminate leases or relocate tenants in the current office tower on the North Parcel prior to March 31s; the Applications for rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan do not contain architectural renditions, landscaping plans, drainage/grading plans or the other detailed plans called for in the City's form application submittal checklist. The details will not be available until Final Development Plan approval is requested by the Applicant when each phase is ripe for development. At each final stage, the Applicant will appear before the City Council and Planning Commission at sketch plan and Final approval, in addition to the Applicant's communication with City Staff, Planning Commissioners and elected officials. 4. While at the Sketch Plan meeting before the Planning Commission, certain commissioners requested additional detail on the Applicant's plan, including the relationship between pedestrians and the buildings on the North Parcel, the Applicant is not able to present more detail because the users and market factors are unknown. This is a market driven project. Certainty and time efficiency is necessary for success in today's market: which is a different paradigm then previous market conditions. 5. As discussed in this Narrative and illustrated in the Exhibits, Pentagon Park as a PUD will satisfy the PUD requirements of the City Code, because, as the Applicant has represented, the project will: a. Create a development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan; b. Promote creative and efficient approach to land use;. 4 Al January 22, 2014 c. Provide variations to the strict compliance of the Code in order to improve design and to incorporate design elements that exceed City Standards to offset the effect of the Code deviation; d. Include sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian -orientated design and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods and parks; e. Ensure a high quality of design; f. Maintain or improve the efficiency of public streets; g. Preserve and enhance site characteristics; and h. Allow for mixing of land uses. 6. The Applicant requires preliminary approval of the PUD and the Preliminary Development Plan by March 1811' (which is the last City Council meeting in March), so the Applicant has certainty on the uses, height and densities that will be allowed for the project. The Applicant is willing to proceed to move or terminate the existing tenants based on preliminary approvals, even though the PUD ordinance and Final Development plans will not be approved until the Applicant has submitted for Final Development approval, for each phase. 7. The risk/reward of granting preliminary approval without submittal of detailed plans (including architectural plans) are properly weighted, because the Applicant bears more risk than the City; and, notwithstanding the lack of `architectural' detail, the Applicant is willing to include items in the preliminary approval that include, without limitation, the following (which line up in large part with the 6 disciplines that the Council members, staff, Planning commission and neighbors have requested and are discussed in detail below): a. A higher % of green space (including water/ponding areas) than what is required by code. b. Storm water management (a majority) to bean amenity. 61 January 22, 2014 c. Storm water retention and clarification/treatment to current standards. d. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian transit; we need to provide more than an outside bike rack and one stall shower at Pentagon Park. e. Provide upgraded transit shelters (two at a minimum). f. 77`x' Street upgraded consistent with November 6, 2013 plans and details, once 100,000 square feet or more of new development is in process or completed. g. 76"' Parkway and green streets (north/south) once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. h. Upgrade Parklawn once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. i. Design similar/consistent with LEED standards; TBD (needs more study and understanding). j. Consideration of solar, especially on buildings north of 77`h Street. k. Upgrade streets; upgrade pedestrian access around south parcel once construction on the South parcel is 80-85% in process or completed. 8. The Preliminary Approval will have more than sufficient project detail, procedural conditions, goals and standards to guide and define what is required in the Final Development Plan for each phase. Architectural details would have to be reviewed and approved under the current MDD-6 category in any event: a PUD provides commercial densities to enable meaningful redevelopment of the Property to be feasible. The Vision The Applicant proposes to transform the Pentagon Park project area in phases, into a state-of- the-art development with an emphasis on office use. Other uses, including a hotel, restaurants and convenience retail, are all planned for the project. Housing will also be considered. The final mix of uses will depend on market demands. The Applicant has: (i) held two neighborhood community open houses; (ii) conducted a series of interviews, meetings and presentations with City Staff and elected officials; (iii) appeared at 6 M January 22, 2014 numerous joint City Council and Planning Commission workshops; (iv) appeared at multiple Rotary meetings and Chamber of Commerce events; and (v) presented the project at Sketch Plan review before the Planning Commission in December 2013 and to the City Council on January 7, 2014. These were productive and informative sessions that led the Applicant to identify various issues (Exhibit 7) and to develop an overall goal of integrating green infrastructure throughout the site, resulting in improved connectivity and porosity and linking transit, open space and the broader community to Pentagon Park (Exhibit 12). An additional six primary principles (Exhibits 7 and 8) were developed through intake and discussions over many months of meetings with Council members, City Staff, neighbors and professionals, all of which will be integrated into any firture plan of the site: Establish Green Streets (Exhibits 22 — 26) — The project will include a familiar pattern of streets and blocks as opposed to the cuff ent superblock design. The green streets will serve multiple needs, with the following goals: • Allow access into and out of the district, parking structures and to the City -owned property. • Provide "front door addresses" for businesses and other uses. • Integrate space for stormwater management. • Include on -street, parallel parking, to help reduce dependence on surface parking lots. • Provide continuous sidewalks for pedestrians on both sides of streets. • Include additional amenities, such as street trees, pedestrian -scale lighting, landscaping. Develop Integrated Stormwater (Exhibits 9 - 10 and Exhibits 16 — 21) — Stormwater currently sheet drains off the Pentagon Park site without clarification/treatment, or any substantive retention, burdening city infrastructure on 77th Street and negatively impacting adjacent water bodies in the Fred Richards Golf Course area. The new development proposes to properly manage all stormwater on-site or in conjunction with a change in use of the Fred Richards with the following goals: • Celebrate water creatively as an amenity (Exhibit 9), and integrate it into the overall Master Plan. • Connect the northern and southern sites with a surface water course. • Provide "urban" infiltration basins (in lieu of standard basins) and/or "treatment trains" to cleanse water and allow it to penetrate and recharge the groundwater system. • Capture and re -use stormwater for irrigation and other potential uses. • Use the stormwater system as a focus for recreation throughout the site. Create a Pedestrian Friendly 77t" (Exhibit 22) — W. 771h Street is currently a five lane arterial road, with a continuous center lane used to turn both north and south into businesses at numerous locations. Currently, there is an inadequate 4' sidewalk immediately behind the curb on the south side and no sidewalk on the north side. There is a lack of access to transit 7 All January 22, 2014 stops along 77"' and poor connections to business for pedestrians or bicyclists. The City right-of-way only extends from curb to curb. The new development proposes the following: • Work with private land owners (e.g. Pentagon Park, Seagate, and other businesses) to gain easements for gracious pedestrian sidewalks, enclosed transit shelters, street trees and pedestrian -scale lighting on both sides of 77th. • Connect to Green Streets (to the north) and consolidate and align business access roads (to the south) to allow for development of a landscaped center median with left turn lanes at new intersections. • Provide safe and clearly defined crosswalks at green streets/business access roads, with pedestrian "refuge" areas in the center median. • Identify one significant intersection of the redevelopment site to potentially receive a traffic signal. • Provide two 11' through -traffic lanes in each direction to retain current street capacity for through traffic. Provide Key Connections (Exhibits 10, 14 and 16 — 21) — Presently, the south/west site — also called the "Tower Site" is an isolated island in the district and completely disconnected from the northeast site. Roads and fences further isolate Pentagon Park from its immediate and more distant neighbors. Links to transit do not meet current accessibility standards. The project will include the following: • If the golf course on Fred Richards is decommissioned and transformed to a multi-puipose public space, the Applicant will pursue connections between the Tower Site and the North Parcel with a new bridge and underpass(Exhibit 10) beneath W. 77th, with enough clearance to allow bikes, pedestrians and a water channel to all pass beneath. • Provide one connection to the new regional trail at the 77th underpass to the south/west site and another near the east end of the site to 77th to allow safe and easy access to improved transit shelters. • Integrate the North Parcel with Fred Richards, by extending "green streets" south through the new development to 77th (Exhibit 25) . • Provide sidewalks, safe crosswalks and other pedestrian -friendly facilities within the site to promote walking within the development, to transit and to other nearby places. Promote Multimodality (Exhibits 12 and 22 — 26) — At present, Pentagon Park and the surrounding district still rely heavily on car use. With all the issues related to favoring the car — oil dependency and the cost of gas, air pollution and ensuing climate change, social equity, etc. — this development will strive to promote multimodal access to the site, promoting easy access to the public . The proposal recommends the following: • Provide safe access to transit shelters on 77th, and make them comfortable and inviting. _S 413 January 22, 2014 • Link the regional trail to and through the new development to connect with transit to promote bicycle use as a serious form of transportation as well as a recreational one. • Provide state-of-the-art bicycle facilities, including a repair facility, dedicated spots for shower and inside bike lockers. • Create "complete streets" within the new development by calming traffic and providing safe and inviting sidewalks throughout. • Establish sidewalk connections to adjacent land uses to reduce dependence on the car and encourage walking. • Develop a recreational system both that promotes walking, health and wellness. Institute Shared Parking Strategies (Exhibit 11) — Currently, Pentagon Park is characterized by large surface parking lots, single -use facilities that consume vast amounts of land and sat empty at many times even during the heyday of the office park. This development aims to reduce surface parking lots using a multi -pronged strategy for parking. The following are recommended: • Invest in parking structures that are integrated into and serve the architecture of newly constructed buildings on the Property to the extent possible. • Locate at least one parking structure in close proximity to the Fred Richards site for events that may take place there. • Provide on -street parallel parking on all internal streets, including "bay parking" on the parkway street. • Provide one level of below -grade parking beneath buildings (one level is feasible). A number of concept diagrams were developed to illustrate how these principles could be translated onto the Pentagon park site and illustrate potential redevelopment scenarios (Exhibits 16,17,19-21). Based upon feedback provided by Staff, Community, Planning Commission and Council a hybrid concept was developed (Exhibit 18) that reflected additional public comments. Although, the details of the redevelopment will change depending upon market forces, it reinforced the strong community interest in the site and the redevelopment process. It was clear a strategic process was needed to achieve the results all stakeholders desired. Planned Unit Development (PUD) The creation of a Planned Unit Development District is appropriate for a site of this size and potential. The Mayor, Council and Planning Commission, in addition to the Applicant and Staff, are in agreement that this project offers unique opportunities that exceed normal City standards for the current zoning classification (MDD-6). In addition, the land use, height and density requests of the Applicant are either consistent with or less intense than requirements described in the Guide Plan, Code and AUAR. January 22, 2014 A two-step planning process is required to achieve the redevelopment goals the community has identified and the quality of development the Applicant envisions (Exhibit 1). The redevelopment of approximately 42 acres will take a number of years to achieve and flexibility is needed to capitalize on opportunities as the market forces change over time. The two-step approach envisions a preliminary PUD approval (step -one) which will set the overall land use, height and density requirements for the site and allow the Applicant to begin to market the overall concept of the Pentagon park redevelopment to potential tenants. The second -step will bring forward individual site development proposals for final PUD approval, allowing the City to review detailed project features at a sketch plan level and at a final development level. This provides the City with final approval of any projects to be constructed at Pentagon Park. As summarized above, the Preliminary PUD approval being sought in this submittal focuses on three primary aspects: land -use, density and height (Exhibits 13-15). South Parcel and 7710 Computer Avenue The South parcel or "Tower Site" envisions approximately 500,000 gross square feet(GSF) of office use in multiple buildings that do not exceed 12 stories in height, approximately 25,000 GSF of service retail and restaurants to support proposed uses and the surrounding community and an approximately 375-425 room hotel that may exceed 12 stories depending upon the proposed hotel operator. The Applicant seeks approval of a 12 story concept in the Preliminary PUD approval, but may seek approval for additional stories at the time of Final approval if the hotel concept warrants consideration beyond the Preliminary PUD approval. Parking ramps to accommodate approximately 1,400 vehicles to support the density and use envisioned on the South Parcel. Walsh Title Parcel Directly north of the South Parcel is the existing Walsh Title site. This is a remnant parcel from the historic Pentagon Park campus and provides a key connection point to link the South Parcel to the future regional trail and to Fred Richards. A two story of approximately 20,000 GSF Retail/Medical/Office use is envisioned for this site that supports surrounding uses and enriches the connection between the south parcel and the northern public green space. A combination of underground and surface parking is likely to support the proposed uses on this parcel. North Parcel The North Parcel situated between 77t" Street and the southern edge of the Fred Richards site envisions approximately 900,000 GSF of office uses and approximately 15,000 GSF of retail. A residential component could potentially be included in the North Parcel if the market demand exists. A stepped approach to height is envisioned, transitioning from 5 stories adjacent to 77t" Street to a maximum of 4 stories along Fred Richards to relate to the public open space and neighborhood to the north. Four parking ramps accommodating at total of 3,600 vehicles are proposed to support the density of use envisioned on the North Parcel. The potential to share this parking with the January 22, 2014 community to support uses on red Richards is a possibility as the vision for that site crystalizes over the next year. Although, the redevelopment of Pentagon Park will be driven by market demand and the details of a final PUD plan will come at a later date, the Applicant envisions a master Preliminary Development Plan that is: Sustainable — The redevelopment will strive to promote sustainability in every sense of the word, including creating a well connected, multi -modal project that encourages other means of movement than the car, employs active and passive solar energy systems, harvests, manages and re -uses rainwater on-site, promotes energy-efficient architecture and landscape, etc. This project has the potential to be a model for mixed-use office development. Consideration will be given to creating a LEED-ND (Neighborhood Design) project. Innovative — The project will focus on innovation at all levels. The Preliminary Development Plan will propose integration of systems using district -wide strategies, including parking, management of water, circulation, heating and cooling. All systems will be addressed in concert. The synergies between systems can also extend to the adjacent City -owned property to further capture opportunities for innovation. Contextual — The project will create a new paradigm for the Pentagon Park district, establishing a more familiar pattern of streets and blocks (may be of varying sizes). In essence, this new development will set the tone for the future of the district — more porous and more transit, bicycle and pedestrian friendly. Adaptable — Cities typically consist of a framework of streets and blocks within which a variety of land uses can coexist and evolve over time. This project proposes to establish that framework and encourage all building to have adaptability as a key design criterion. Incremental — It is also important to create a place that can evolve comfortably over time. This project will take many years to complete, but it needs to feel like a welcoming place early in the process. A well crafted public realm with well - conceived green and blue infrastructure will be critical to its success. Efficient — Because this project will be designed from scratch, efficiencies in everything from road design, utilities layout, stormwater management, parking locations and synergies, to accommodations for increased transit service, can all be conceived during the final PUD planning process, resulting in a more cohesive and imiovative development. Aesthetically Pleasing — It is critical that the design of all facets of Pentagon Park, from architecture, landscape and infrastructure be aesthetically pleasing while functioning seamlessly together. With top -tier amenities and aesthetics, the project 11 4 January 22, 2014 will set itself apart from the competition, much like Centennial Lakes and 50`x' and France have in the past. Health / Safety / Comfort — The project will promote walking, bicycling and transit use that makes them attractive, safe, and viable alternatives to the car. The design will create "complete streets" that serve all users equally, calming the car and providing the necessary infrastructure for safe walking and cycling. In addition, the design will provide recreational walking trails that connect to the regional trail and nearby streets to encourage walking over the noon hour or before and after work. Economically Viable — By providing the innovative features that have been discussed in this narrative, the renewed Pentagon Park will create a buzz and attract businesses that might otherwise look elsewhere. Cool and livable environments have become requisite in today's competitive workplace; providing the perks will translate to a stronger bottom line. Podium Height — Edina has spent a great deal of time considering the impact of building height on the public realm. This redevelopment will honor that work by establishing appropriate podium heights in relation to setbacks from the street. It is important to remember that the best street envelopes are well-defined by architecture and landscape; the project guidelines need to find the sweet spot where buildings don't overwhelm pedestrians but still provide a strong and attractive edge that defines a better public realm. The Comprehensive Guide Plan challenges the City in its mission to guide the development and redevelopment of lands, all in a manner that sustains and improved the uncommonly high quality of life enjoyed by our residents and businesses. It is a once in a generation opportunity to be presented with an application for approximately 42 acres by an Applicant that not only currently owns or controls all of the Property, but understands the importance of the City's mission statement and the relationship to a potentially re -purposed Fred Richards. 12 ��1 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL KEY DISCUSSION POINTS DATED January 22, 2014 The following are some key discussion points regarding the PUD and Preliminary Development Plan Applications: 1. The redevelopment of Pentagon Park is very different than the 5 or so other PUD's that have been approved and adopted by the City, because: a. While the current improvements are in severe blighted condition, they can be stabilized if the PUD or TIF is not approved. b. Stabilization would prevent the redevelopment of Pentagon Park for another generation, and would cause for a massive lost opportunity, especially with the potential change in the use of the FRED. c. The size of the Project. d. Phased re -development over a long period of time. e. We do not know the long term use of the FRED. 2. The proposal in our Applications is a result of over a year of intake, including many meetings with Staff and elected officials and the Sketch Plan meetings before the PC and Council. 3. What we are asking for with respect to use, density and height is either consistent with or less intense than what the Guide Plan, Code and GUAR allow or anticipate. We are willing to keep residential as an alternative with office and retail. The density is less than alternatives in the AUAR and is close to the total square footage that the Kaminsky plan included. Regarding height, we are willing to build 4 and 5 story buildings on the North Parcel when the Code allows for 12. As we discussed, we need 12 stories for the South Parcel with the understanding that we also want the opportunity to discuss a hotel building of over 12 stories as per our plans we have shown. 4. Because of the unique characteristics of this PUD request as compared to others, and our need to terminate or move existing tenants prior to March 18, 2014, our Preliminary PUD and Preliminary Development Plan will not contain architectural, landscaping, drainage/grading or other details. The details will not be fleshed out until the final development plan approval is requested on each phase. At each final stage, we will appear 4�� January 22, 2014 before Council at sketch plan and final approval, in addition to consistent communication with City Staff, Planning Commissioners and elected officials. 5. While we understand that certain PC members asked to see more detail, especially the relationship between pedestrians and the buildings on the North Parcels, we are not prepared to present more detail because we do not know who our users are or what the market will bear. We have and can continue to refine the detail improvements on 77th and the street scape, in order to illustrate that we are committed to make the Project much more pedestrian friendly and we have shown our commitment to tie the Project into the FRED if the use of the FRED changes. 6. This Project fits into a PUD much more than the existing PUDs because, as we have represented, the City will be receiving many, if not all of the following (taken from the general PUD ordinance): a. Creates a development that is consistent with the Comprehensive Guide Plan. b. Promotes creative and efficient approach to land use. c. Provides variations to the strict compliance of the Code in order to improve design and to incorporate design elements that exceed City Standards to offset the effect of the Code deviation. The design elements include, sustainable design, greater utilization of new technologies in building design, special construction materials, landscaping, lighting, storm water management, pedestrian -orientated design and podium height at a street or transition to residential neighborhoods and parks. d. Ensures a high quality of design. e. Maintains or improves the efficiency of public streets. f. Preserves and enhances site characteristics. g. Allows for mixing of land uses. 7. We agree to (i) appear before the Council every four months for update on redevelopment activity or when requested, in addition to the appearances required as part of the Application process; (ii) appear before the Planning Commission for updates as requested; and (iii) appear for sketch plan review in front of the Planning Commission and City Council when we seek final approval for each phase of the redevelopment. 2 M January 22, 2014 8. We need the Preliminary Approval at the March 18th City Council meeting, so we know the uses, height and densities that will be allowed for the Project. We are willing to proceed ahead with moving/terminating our tenants based on the Preliminary Approval, even though the approvals are not final, until we have submitted for final development approval and a PUD Ordinance has been adopted. 9. The risk/reward is properly weighted, because we really have more risk than the City, and, notwithstanding the lack of `architectural' detail, we are willing to include items that include, without limitation the following(which line up in large part with the 6 disciplines that the Council members, staff, Planning commission and neighbors have requested): a. A higher % of green space (including water/ponding areas) than what is required by code. b. Storm water management (a majority) to be an amenity. c. Storm water retention and clarification/treatment to current standards. d. Encourage bicycle and pedestrian transit; we need to provide more than an outside bike rack and one stall shower at Pentagon Park. . e. Provide upgraded transit shelters (two at a minimum). f. 77th Street upgraded consistent with November 6, 2013 plans and details, once 100,000 square feet or more of new development is in process or completed. g. 76th Parkway and green streets (north/south) once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. h. Upgrade Parklawn once 80-85% of Pentagon Park's new development construction is in process or completed. L Design similar/consistent with LEED standards; TBD (needs more study and understanding). j. Consideration of solar, especially on buildings north of 77th Street. k. Upgrade streets; upgrade pedestrian access around south parcel once construction on the South parcel is 80-85% in process or completed. 3 po January 22, 2014 10. The Preliminary Approval will have more than sufficient project detail, procedural conditions and goals and standards to guide and define what is required in the Final Development Plan for each phase. The architectural detail would have to be reviewed and approved under the current MDD-6 category in any event. 4 Aa I EXHIBIT 1 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES PUD PROCESS DIAGRAM P BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LECA P8v. EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 L I 62 s - . SOUTHDALE tN THEGALLERIA _. .. F _.._._ ._. .. ..... 70th STREET am t " CENTENN AL LAKfe PENTAGON PARK IL 494 , ... 41 -- BAN 0 (1-9 t"JU 0-- z C) u 0 �, U z z Puj so 0 0 (A < 0 to U. z 0 X < Ul n EXHIBIT 4 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES EXISTING CONDITIONS BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LEC EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 =mow M No my ru I w WEST PROPOM BOUNDARY EOSMG PEOESMAN SPACE 005 MIG PARKING LOT VUSTM SEAM- NOM ME OF PK*E*W EXHIBIT6 DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES 808 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EXISTINNAG, MCONEBERC7N5 3 i - 4"\' t' " I): ' ' PA R • •� t � ! iii i° 1► -✓ � b Yt la, *44 r, r 1i R y1 7� IMF r ` �-�r - -- _y r - •rte yr f f � H., EXHIBIT IO DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES 77TH AVENUE BRIDGE BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC Pf F N EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13,2013 lo- 1-:1 40 il 0. STREET PARKING- DIAGONAL THREE PRONGED APPROACH TO PARKING: r 1. Below -grade (I level) 11)" UNIXII FAMNG L STREET PARKING -PARALLEL 2. 'Embedded'deck (maintain great addresses at perimeter) 3. Street Parking • Parallel • Diagonal • Parking Says TMUNDER PARKING STREET PARKING -PARALLEL STREET WKING-PARIIINGBAYS ATFRED RKM110S STREET PARKIN, -PARALLEL EXHIBIT 11 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATESPARKING STRATEGIES V A BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9,2013 EXISTING EXISTING RELATIONSHIP GOAL EXHIBIT 12 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC UNLOCKING THE POTENTIAL EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9,2013, _N'A�jON ArmAr.-. 5 Ke j Statistics Land Use South Parcel: Hotel -375-425 Rooms Office- SK000 GSF Retail - 25,000 GSF North• Parcek Office - 900= GSF Retais - I 5,0W GSF WaIshTjlr. Retai=icaVOffke - 20,000 GSF Structured Parking A 1AWSTALLS 8 1AWSTALLS C 800 STALLS D 800 MALLS E 800 STALLS F 1,200 STALLS EXHIBIT 13 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC RegionalTrail Trail Connection 1113 Parkway 11111111 77th Supporting Streets Green Streets Internal Streets an Parking C:3 Bulkling M, Water 1111111 Open Space W, Underpass OM Transit Shelter 0 Monuments W 76TH ST 01 250' SW wmwmmp� JIF DIAGRAM OPTIONS 7, Rv EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 13,2013 *8! !- A I— - "...! —"' I , z Kepi Statistics Land Use South Parcel: Hotel -37S- 425 Rooms OffiCe-500,000 GSF Retail - 2SAW GSF North Parcel, Office -900AOOGSF Retail -15,000 GSF WalshTIW RetalUMedical/Oflice-20AOOGSF g x Structured Parking A 1AWSTALLS B 1AWSTALLS C 800 STALLS D SW STALLS E SOO STALLS F 1,200 STALLS o- �s..rrrr��.�♦ -- RegionalTrail •• Twicomecom 1 e Parkway • 77th Supporting streets ••omen streets s Internal Streets s Parking © Building water M Open Space Underpass M Transit Shelter ® Monuments W 76TH ST W 250' 500' EXHIBIT 14 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES i+aar rurirorw o,,TIF DIAGRAM OPTION 2E N 000 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 TAN PA R K, C � �ssgg�s A w U 0 w m 1LL/� l7 4 N N ti N Uppy,N-N U' N S C «cc } tA N N V' N In t � is M OOL "I OR N1 A 3� V 1 ..e Q w rs F- 4'^ W a d W Ln a LI. Mbz b XQ LU Q ..,.�.... REOIONALTRAIL MIUM AMISS ". WPM F7 PFDFSTRNNiP1ElICLy-sr RDAO SIDRMWATflIPOM . ►ROPOSEDVEGETATION PEOESTRMANPATN W 12S' 25V n�xxm STOUMM MSWALES ........ PROPERTY BOUNDARY DOCKSIDE GREEN CONCEPT A continuous linear stormwater amenity connect: the development parcels A two-way parkway with parking bays provides a loop around the development, connecting from W 77th St 'Natural vegetation' is planted adjacent to stormwater ponds and buildings A regional trail is located north of the site, with three connections from trail to W 77th St • W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees. stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - glow -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings AMOSMOFaotKSMGREENLOCATMINVVWLA,WMSXCOLUMBIA OOOMMGREENSlORRVWS&PEDESTRANSIIDGE LUSH VEGETAT"ATDOCKSAEopm STORMWATERAMENRYWrIMANESSUILD1NISSAND CIRCULAT" EXHIBIT 16 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS N A R K EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 1 LaACSC) W 12T 2SW AEMOFTHE UPPER LANONG IN ST PAUL, MN REG04ALTVA PAMNGACCBS EXISTMVECATATM 1 1-1 F7KOESTRM RVENDLY MH ST Kmo PIDESTIVAMH --mmr— FAMUK PROPENTYSOUNDARY STORMWAM SWALE BETWEENTHE UPPER LANDIK ANOTRAU ROADWAYADJACENTTO THE UPPER LNONG LOOP STREETS ALTERNATE WITH ST0RMWKrER FEATURES PATHWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS EXHIBIT 17 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMSM BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 P E TAL -ON "ARK THE UPPER LANDING CONCEPT Two road loops off ofW 77th St- providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the 6 interior ofthe development buildings Public parking is located between the trail and development Flexibility in block size (market-driven) W767"sr A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies- below -grade. on -street and architecturally Integrated with buildings REG04ALTVA PAMNGACCBS EXISTMVECATATM 1 1-1 F7KOESTRM RVENDLY MH ST Kmo PIDESTIVAMH --mmr— FAMUK PROPENTYSOUNDARY STORMWAM SWALE BETWEENTHE UPPER LANDIK ANOTRAU ROADWAYADJACENTTO THE UPPER LNONG LOOP STREETS ALTERNATE WITH ST0RMWKrER FEATURES PATHWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS EXHIBIT 17 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMSM BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 P E TAL -ON "ARK W74S e d 12S' 25W AERIAL OF THE UPPER LANDING IN STPAUL. MN UPPER LANDING HYBRID CONCEPT * Two road loops off of W 77th St- providing connectivity without through traffic Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development buildings - Public parking is located between the trail and development #>•fiaer#f Flexibility in block size (market-driven) �. WWWST= A regional trail is located north ofthe site between the park and deveiopmem W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees. �. stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street parking bays on loop roads and architecturally integrated with buildings _.. _. �.•••+•� IIEGR)NAUTRAR 1'-] PAOMMA0CEI5 _ e7GSlINev 'r14pN %j Pwarma"aNmyzrmsx nolo 1 ROmMY1MrtNPONDS NI@0%OVWMnON PUDE5MOVATH PARKING r nsr STORMWMERSWAU S PROPBOrBOVNDARY STORMWATEA SWALEBETWEENTHE VPPERLANOING ANOTRUS ROADMADIACENTTOTE UPPER LANDING LOOP STREETS ALTERNATE WITH STORMYMMFEATUPES PATHWAY BETWEEN BUILDINGS EXHIBIT 18 4. DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMS P LTA G BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC � w , EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 9, 2013 CHAIN OF LAKES CONCEPT - Multiple shared amenities REGMAtTRML ra PARKINGAOMSS 1EXISTWISVEGETATION "7 PEMMVAF1KN0LY7MST ROAD MRMMTO PM- ROPOSEDVMM11M PMOUN PATM _41111111mr— PARKING SMOMAMSWAUES p*OpM fOUNDAIty WETLAND AREA ADJACENTTO LAKE CALHOUN TW1~ftMAYWffH FARXMISAYS AOJACWF OF LAXECALHOUN STORWATIER SINALE AWACEWTO PAT" A parkway is located north of site, increasing connectivity Multiple water bodies are located north of the site, separating the neighborhood from the development Small stormwater ponds are located on the interior of the development and manage water in concert with larger ponds to the north Flexibility In block size (market-driven) A regional trail is located north of the site between the park and development W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees, stormwater management, and improved sidewalks - Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings S1=MW=RSWAVE8UVMNF%M EXHIBIT 19 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES CONCEPT DIAGRAMS "A it ',,I 4 BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 4, "i— i u a , RAO' Y mmmmmm M'MWAm. PEDESTR"W" W 12!r 2W PARWO STOWOMWiS POMMWUNDARY NAWRALVEGETATM CENTERNIALLAKIES ASK OF LAKE NOKOWS ONEIWAY COOP WITH PARgNG MYS STOMMURIMMMOEV&DMEW EXHIBIT 20 DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC CONCEPT DIAGRAMS EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 9, 2013 PrENTAGnON PARK'� A, 4 ♦ e7 Z 00 I Z PLAa Z Vrm w7aksr NNW W7MST ra "MMA=I; EXISTMWWATION Or 12V 4 2W ROAD MMWInRPONTS MPosWVWTAM PEDESTRIAN PATH --AWNP- PARKING MRIMINATERSWALES PROPQM$OUNDW MfNNEHAHA CREEKTHROUGH EDINA COUNTRYCLLM 057va COLORPLASTU$ HEADQUARTERS IN MINNEAPOLIS PEDESTRIAN PATH OVER MWVW4A14A CREEK PARKWAY ALONG MINMD~ CREEK EXHIBIT 21 DAMONFARBERASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC A parkway with parking bays is located between the naturalized corridor and new development A flexible grid of streets (market driven) with parallel parking connects W 77th St to the parkway north of the site A regional trail is located north of the site, with two connections from trail to W 77th R W 77th St to be pedestrian friendly with trees. stormwater management, and improved sidewalks Multiple parking strategies - below -grade, on -street and architecturally integrated with buildings CONCEPT DIAGRAMS 0 -DECEM8ER9,2013 & "I J Z EDINA, MNCn 01,1NIf PA R K 77TH CONCEPT PLAN 6' smewsk IM 77TH CONCEPT SECTION KEY ELEMENTS • Center median with small accent trees • Left tum lanes • Boulevard/sidewalks • Decorative lighting • Shade trees Transit shelters • Street lights • Pedestrian lights �x3 12' varie4 12' 12'06' stdeuaalk boulevard travel lane tr"lane median traveilane trovellane boulevaM sidewalk existin RAW. EXHIBIT 22 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES ROADWAYTYPES' "•t""A � G N BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 _.».. PARKWAY CONCEPT PLAN KEY ELEMENTS • Decorative lighting • Street trees • 6'sidewalk with 1 O' boulevard • One lane of traffic in each direction • Parking bays for parking PARKWAY CONCEPT SECTION DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC 10, tw tlr ,a' it ro to s' regional trati bouiewrd Parkin. tnrvel lane travel lane Pain. boulevard xEdewaik • roadway --� RAW. ROAOWAYTYPES P ' I A (j N IDA R K EDINA,.MN -DECEMBER 13, 2013 SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT PLAN INEEMMEEMM EXHIBIT24 DAM ON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC KEY ELEMENTS • Parallel parking • 1O'boulevards/6'sidewalks • Decorative lighting • Street trees SUPPORTING STREET CONCEPT SECTION 6 io 1a a u' 1a - 10' - s' _ sidewalk botdevard ;Ing trauellarte travel lane parWng boulevard mlewafk 44' roadway PION. ROADWAYTYPES ON P'R" EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 =� � GREEN STREET CONCEPT PLAN KEY ELEMENTS • Parallel parking • 6'boulevards/6'sidewalks • Decorative lighting • Street trees GREEN STREET CONCEPT SECTION EXHIBIT 25 DAMON FARBERASSOCIATES 809 CLOSE STUDIO, LLC 6' l" 0 ' —*;6 sidewalk boulevard 1k ;;�ne travel lone 9Lsidewalkd — 44' roadway 1LON, ROADWAYTYPES 7- N N P" EDINA, MN -DECEMBER 13,2013 1 4 Jim INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT PLAN m- 11 INTERNAL STREET CONCEPT SECTION EXHIBIT 26 DAMON FARBER ASSOCIATES BOB CLOSE STUDIO, LLC — I — �J1 ' 12' 6 - boula-md ;� travel lane'.0 travel lane p".9 a boulevard 8 M&lk 44' roadway R.O.W. ROADWAYTYPES p N! T -ON EDINA, MN - DECEMBER 13, 2013 10 1 Commissioner Grabiel stated that he has no problem with the proposed lot division or variance. Grabiel said in his opinion a number of the lots on this block are out of character with the neighborhood. Grabiel said if one looks at an aerial they can certainly see how the lots are t out. Continuing, Grabiel said if the Commission was to approve the lot division with variance i ay avoid a teardown situation. rabiel said allowing the construction of a 2 stall garage (required ordinance) to be built, In his opinion ouldn't compromise the neighborhood character and the net ors have indicated their support the project. Commissioner Forrest said hr concern was with practical difficulties pointing t the subject owners are choosing to do this. Conn ing, Forrest said the recent changes to the clinance were done to ensure adequate spacing betwee omes. Forrest added that livability is i rtant and the increase in garage space is important; however;'hanging a lot line to accomplish this as its own issues. Forrest concluded that she agrees that the fro-hVard setback situation Is diffic 'with the adjoining houses forcing deep setback requirements. �, Commissioner Platteter questioned the lot splits adding he undery ands the front yard setback situation. Commissioner Fischer said this is an unusua/reed n, ackno edging the recent change in the Code, Fischer said in this instance neighbors got t�esol an issue; Although the lot division may not be standard; it works and is supported ro ` owners. Fischer further noted that the front yard setback situation is what itis, thehe th create a situation whereby nothing could be done to this house without a front yard an, Commissioner Forrest wondered If the Cowas comforble allowing for the creation of two unusual lot line configurations. Commissioned that the jog isdifferent; however, as previously mentioned by the applicant the rear yard sitn this block is uni4r with deep lots and ample rear yard area., A discussion ensued with Commissic support the request as submitted by Commissioner Grabiel moved that this situation was applicant. and lot division approval based on the and that they can 1. The lot division/arequires es lots that are consistent with the size of lots in the neigh 2. The unusual plat of homes to the south created the need for a front yard variance. The e was not self-imposed; and 3. The City of Edi two stall garages; Commissioner Scherer seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. B. Preliminary Rezoning. Pentagon Revival. Pentagon Office Park, Edina, MN Planner Presentation Planner Teague Informed the Commission the Pentagon Revival Is proposing to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77`h Street. The total site area Is 43 acres in size; and would likely redevelop over the next 2-15 Page 4 of 13 years. Teague explained the proposed uses of the site include office, medical, retail, restaurants, a hotel and potentially housing. No housing is anticipated at this time, however, that use is currently allowed on the property, and should remain as a potential future land use. Teague delivered a power point presentation highlight the project. Planner Teague concluded his presentation that staff recommends the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development to PUD, Planned Unit Development District and an Overall Development Plan for the subject property based on the following findings:. I . The proposed land uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposal would meet the purpose and intent of the PUD. The site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as "Office Residential," which is seen as a transitional area between higher intensity districts and residential districts. Primary uses include: offices, housing, limited service uses, limited industrial, parks and open space. Vertical mixed uses are encouraged. 3. The proposal would create a more efficient and creative use of the property. Better vehicle and pedestrian connections would be created; enhanced green space and ponding would be created; a mixture of land use is envisioned; there would be improved architecture and sustainability; shared parking would be created, including with the public use to the north. 4. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: a. Design public open and green linkages that bring both amenity and positive image to neighborhoods, corridors, and business precincts. b. Design public streets to serve not only vehicles but also pedestrians, people with mobility aids, and bicycles, balancing the spatial needs of existing and future users within the right-of-way. Address both mobility and recreational needs and opportunities. c. Create walkable streets that foster an active public life; streets that are energized by their proximity to a vibrant mix of activity -generating uses. d. Preserve and make accessible natural areas and features as part of a comprehensive open space network. e. Within larger redevelopment sites, promote a fine-grained and interconnected network of local streets and paths, encouraging pedestrian circulation and providing a choice of access points. f. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of city infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. g. Podium Height. Where it is appropriate, the applicant has committed to the podium height concept, defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan as follows: The "podium" is that part of the building that abuts the street, or that provides the required transition to residential neighborhoods, parks, and other sensitive uses. The podium height concept is intended to create a consistent street wall envelope and a comfortable pedestrian environment. Page 5 of 13 Approval is also subject to the following Conditions: I. Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary/ Overall Development Plans dated January 22, 2014. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a sign plan with Final Development Plan application for each phase of the overall development. Each signage plan submittal should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Signage shall be consistent throughout the PUD. 5. The 77th Street Improvements must be completed by,the applicant/land owner when 100,000 square feet of development has been constructed. The 77th Street improvements must be consistent with the plans date stamped January 22, 2014, and are subject to review and approval of city staff before construction. 6. The Parkway and Green Streets, as shown on the Preliminary/Overall Development Plan, date stamped January 22, 2014, must be built, by the applicant/land owner upon 80-85% build- out of the overall development. 7. Final Develop Plans must create a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 8. Connections shall be made from the property south of 77th Street to the property north of 77th Street through or adjacent to the "Walsh Title" site and Fred Richards's golf course. 9. Pedestrian connections must also be made between buildings, along 77th Street, to Burgundy Place, to the anticipated Regional Trail, and to the new Green Streets, the installation of which are conditioned on factors, including without limitation, the future use of Fred Richards. 10. All crosswalks shall be marked with duraprint stamping to clearly identify the pedestrian crossing. 11. Where applicable and required pursuant to the Final Development Plan, all public utility, public roadway and public sidewalk easements shall be granted or dedicated to the City upon Final Development Plan approval for each phase. 12. Bike storage and bike shower facilities shall be provided within the development. Bike racks will be provided throughout the development. 13. A majority of the storm water retention will be developed as an amenity and integrated into the overall development. 14. Overall, the development must include at least a 20% of green space/storm water retention in the aggregate. 15. Any Park Dedication fees due under Section 32 of the City code shall be collected at the time of the issuance of a building permit for any portion of the property that is re -platted. 16. New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, if and where appropriate. 17. Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over state energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. Page 6 of 13 18. All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. 19. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies will be employed, where applicable. 20. Public art shall be incorporated into the development. 21. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development for this site. Final PUD Zoning must meet the criteria required for a PUD. 22. Compliance with the issues/conditions outlined in the director of engineering's memo dated January 22, 2014. Appearing for the Applicant Scott Takenoff, manager Hillcrest Partners, Tom Whitlock, Damon Farber and Bob Close of Bob Close Studio Discussion Commissioner Platteter noted the referencesto green streets and pointed out the City now uses the term Living Streets. Continuing, Platteter said he observed in the preliminary plans there was no mention of housing and questioned if preliminary plans were approved would that negate housing in the future. Planner Teague responded the request is for commercial with the applicant expressing the intent to add housing if appropriate; however, if the Commission is uncomfortable with any aspect of the application; such as no housing the Commission can recommend denial of requested preliminary rezoning and development plan. Platteter also commented that the plans presented aren't very detailed. Planner Teague and Commissioners agreed with that statement. Commissioner Grabiel said in his opinion approval of this phase of the development would allow the applicant to begin the process but with flexibility to detail. He noted the applicant has indicated the build -out of this project would take years and if the Commission approves preliminary with conditions it allows flexibility during the phasing process. Grabiel pointed out much is market driven, reiterating the Commission should provide some flexibility. Applicant Presentation Scott Takenoff said in the request for preliminary rezoning from MDD-6 to PUD and development plan approval he believes this proposal would be the largest redevelopment project since Centennial Lakes. Takenoff said this unique 42 acre property and its redevelopment doesn't happen often. Takenoff acknowledged the Commissions desire for housing; however, added that at this time he can't promise housing would be built. Takenoff pointed out the redevelopment of this area will occur in phases over a number of years and with each new phase of the redevelopment Hillcrest would come before both the Commission and Council with sketch plans before final phase approvals. Takenoff also acknowledged that this project is a complex project that requires certainty before proceeding. Continuing, Takenoff stressed that Hillcrest is very good at figuring out what to do with decaying properties. Takenoff further stressed that their redevelopment has no bearing on the City's decision on what happens with Fred Richards. Takenoff Page 7 of 13 said Hillcrest does not control the destiny of Fred Richards and regardless of what the City determines appropriate for Fred Richards Hillcrest will proceed with redevelopment plans. Takenoff continued his presentation and concluded that Hillcrest Partners needs to appear before the City Council at their March 18th meeting for preliminary approval before they can begin the process. Takenoff said this date is critical because of tenant considerations. Takenoff reiterated their need for certainty. Takenoff introduced Tom Whitlock and Bob Close to further explain the project. Tom Whitlock and Bob Close presented a slide show highlighting the multi -phase Pentagon Revival PUD project: • AUAR updated September 2013. • TIF approved February 2014 • Be a better neighbor • Increase in greenspace • Storm water management to be an amenity • Storm water retention and treatment to current standards • Flexible framework • Living streets • Connectivity. Provide key connections • Promote Multimodality • Commitment to high quality architecture • Design consistent with LEED standards • Sustainability • Economically viable. ,The proposal will improve property values • Podium height— this redevelopment will honor the work done by the City establishing podium heights Takenoff, Whitlock and Close thanked the Commission for their time. Discussion Chair Staunton asked Mr. Takenoff the reason behind his "hurried" need for "certainty"; and "certainty about what. Takenoff said certainty provides Hillcrest with time and money getting to the second step of the process. He explained in order to attract users and get them to commit to the site the site needs to be shovel ready. Takenoff explained that many users don't have the time for overly long approval processes. He said they want to see a site readied for the next phase. Continuing, Takenoff said what Hillcrest needs from the Commission at this time are the allowed uses, building height and density. Product design would come after the site has been approved for use, height and density in the aggregate. Takenoff reiterated this is a unique one owner site; unlike Grandview. Concluding, Takenoff said at this point Hillcrest is at a critical juncture to either more forward with the vision or pivot back. Takenoff explained Hillcrest has leases that need to be honored and there are time constraints. Takenoff did note that the other road is renovation which continues to be acceptable and has worked thus far. Chair Staunton commented that it occurs to him that the Commission is being asked to approve the "container" indicating how high, how dense and the extent of the use. Staunton said it is difficult to get ones head around the staging and phasing of this project in final terms when the details the Commission usually sees aren't provided. Mr. Takenoff agreed that the final stages will be done a piece at a time, adding some can be tied together but for the most part it will be parcel by parcel. Page 8 of 13 Commissioner Carr stated she understands the "vision" piece of this project; however, wondered if the PUD could remain open ended with regard to use. She noted the schematic development plan options show no housing. Teague agreed. Chair Staunton opened the public hearing. Public Testimon Lori Severson, Chamber of Commerce informed the Commission the Chamber has issued a Resolution of support for the proposed project. Ms. Severson said drafting a Resolution of support wasn't done lightly, adding the Chamber put much thought into the Resolution. Severson concluded that the Chamber has received a number of calls in support of the revitalization of the Pentagon Park area. John Marker addressed the Commission and stated that he fully supports the revitalization of this area. Marker stated in his opinion this area has become an eyesore and doesn't live up to Edina standards. Market said he is excited about this project, concluding it would be a shame to miss this opportunity. Peter Fitzgerald, 5217 Kellogg told the Commission in his opinion the City needs to support this project, adding this area has been neglected for far too long. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else would like to speak to the issue; being none, Commissioner Grabiel moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Potts seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to close the public hearing approved. Continuine Discussion Chair Staunton said in his opinion what continues as a threshold question is the procedural weirdness of this project. He said the question is if the Commission is OK deviating from our original stance of requiring more detailed plans and stated conditions of approval. Staunton said he wants assurances that with approval of this request the City is afforded balance and protection. Commissioner Grabiel stated he support this process. He pointed out flexibility is needed in a project of this magnitude especially when the redevelopment is proposed to take place over years not months. Grabiel further stated that although the plans are less detailed than previous plans the Commission has approved this request is different because it is a one owner project being redeveloped over many years. Concluding, Grabiel said in this instance he believes flexibility and certainty is required in order for the applicant to proceed; noting he can't think of another way to do this. Grabiel did acknowledge the housing element isn't firm in this submission; however, the developer has indicated if the market is favorable housing would be constructed. Commissioner Schroeder said the Planning Commission recommended that the City adopt a PUD process, adding the reason was to create a better site specific development process and through that process the City also attains its vision. Chair Staunton acknowledged the unusual size of this project and its proximity to public property and the future trail development proposed by Three Rivers. He also added he recognizes with a project of this magnitude there is an advantage for the applicant not having every detail cast in stone; however this raises concerns for the City. Staunton reiterated the unknown future of Fred Richards plays a part in the process and the length of the build out (it will be years) is also part of the equation. Concluding Page 9 of 13 Staunton pointed out the underlying MDD-6 zoning in a sense was adopted because at that time there was no PUD option and the City wanted to ensure flexibility with these parcels. Commissioner Forrest said her concern is with what's binding and what isn't binding noting that the City needs assurances that whatever is stipulated is binding. Forrest stated in her opinion the City needs a commitment to building height, density, FAR, and land use; and by land use she means housing. Mr. Takenoff reiterated that housing in this redevelopment project may not happen; however they are committed to it. Takenoff said he believes there will be opportunity for housing -he just doesn't know where and when. Takenoff commented that he speaks with many Edina residents that have expressed to him the desire for differing housing options within the City. Takenoff said one aspect he is pretty sure of is if there is housing it won't be for -sale senior housing. Takenoff acknowledged the process can appear to be risky and challenging for both the City and Hillcrest Commissioner Platteter stated he understands completely that it is difficult to commit to housing; however he believes there may be another way to craft the PUD because now it appears like housing is a "no" in the preliminary. Commissioner Grabiel said in his opinion if approved the City isn't saying "no" to housing. What the City is approving is a starting point. Grabiel reiterated that the Commission doesn't know what the market will look like five or ten years from now so to condition approval on a specific percentage or number of housing units would be difficult. Commissioner Forrest said what's important to keep in mind is if this proposal is in line with the land use guide. Chair Staunton stated that's a good point and asked Planner Teague if a preliminary rezoning to commercial would comply with the Comprehensive Plan designation. ` Planner Teague responded in the affirmative, adding this property is guided as office/residential and the use of the property today is strictly office; not residential. It's not guided mixed use Mr. Takenoff reiterated that at this time he would be uncomfortable in agreeing to housing. He said at this point he is just being honest and at this time housing is not viable. Takenoff stated he won't promise the City something he may not be able to deliver. A discussion ensued with Commissioners expressing their hesitancy in approving a preliminary rezoning and development plan that doesn't include housing and without more detailed plans. It was further noted that there is the option to vote against the proposal as submitted. Commissioners reiterated their desire for housing and acknowledged that in the end because of the scope of this project the City will be entering into a long term relationship and partnership with the applicant. Commissioners did suggest that a statement be added indicating where appropriate housing would be included; however it was acknowledged that statement may be too general. Commissioners did state with a PUD rezoning the applicant needs to be aware that the City expects things in return. Approval should not create missed opportunities to ensure that the site has measureable metrics during the process. Commissioner Grabiel moved to recommend preliminary rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development; and an Overall Development Plan subject to staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Fischer seconded a motion. A discussion ensued on how the City can ensure that the conditions for approval are met. Of concern were the recommendations of creating a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness Page 10 of 13 and the incorporation of public art. It was noted that these measures could be completed through alignment with the approved TIF. Further discussion also noted that the City continues to reserve the right to "drill down" plans at final approval to achieve the goals outlined in the findings and conditions. Commissioner Schroeder offered an amendment recommending that a recreational system that promotes wanking, health and wellness be implemented in alignment with the TIF Plan through a development agreement between the City and the Developer. Chair Grabiel and Commissioner Fischer accepted that amendment. Chair Staunton called for the vote; Ayes, Scherer, Schroeder, Fischer, Potts, Carr, Forrest, Grablel, Staunton. Abstain, Platteter. Motion to approve carried. C. Tree Preservation Ordinance Planner Teague reminded the Commission=they\*ons sue at them last meeting requesting minor revisions to the Ordinance. Teagi sii' d the e made. a also noted that at the last meeting the Commiisio- *Yrt quested that addition ons ffing be supplied for the enforcement of the proposed Ordinance. Commissioner Scherer asked Planner Teague if,fost of as certified tree inventory and who the enforcement officer would be. Planner Teague said at this time he doesn't know;6'rodinance. hcos would be for a certified tree inventory and discussions continue on who would enforce Chair Staunton opened the public hearing, �* Public Testimony John Crabtree, 5408 Oaklawn Avenue said that while he understands the proposed ordinance he wonders if the City is requiring more trees,, han can be sustained on one lot.. Crabtree also questioned how far the City is willing to go if someoge doesn't comply with the new ordinance. Concluding, Crabtree said one must always be careNrof unintended consequences. Chair Staunton asked if anyone else m6uld like to speak to the issue; being none Commissioner Scherer moved to close the public hearing. Fommissioner Fischer seconded the motion. Al� voted aye; motion carried. Discussion A discussion ensued with Commissioners noting that the proposed ordinance could create difficulties in areas where trees need to be removed without penalty (i.e. utilities). Commissioner Platteter said the Commission could ask the City to work with the utility companies on tree removal or preservation in utility easement areas. Page 11 of 13 Minutes/Edina City Council/March 18, 2014 \Landscape urvey date stamped February 10, 2014 plans and elevation elate stamped February 10, 201uilding plans and elevations date stamped February 10, 2014 IV.H. Ation to Utilize Metro ECSU Cooperative Purchasing Agen Purchase of Artificial Turf for the S its Dome and Pamela Park Projects W.I. Receive Re rt from Community Advisory Team— RedevelopmegJ Works Site IV.J. Adopt Rest Rollcall• Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Motion carried. No. 2014-28, Declaring Hazardous Building, Swenson, Hovland ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONS AGENDA W.A. AMENDED REGULAR AND W SESSION Mayor Hovland made a motion, secon d by Me March 4, 2014, as amended on Page 5, to hange' Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson; oviai Motion carried. I Member Bennett made a motion, session meeting minutes of March 4, Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Sw Motion carried. IV.K RESOLUTION NO. COMMISSION FOR At the request of Member Swenson introduced and Metropolitan Airport Com the motion. Rollcall: for Grandview Public Parklawn Avenue MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 2014 APPROVED nett, to approve regular meeting minutes of Y" to "Daniel Ousky."' Member Swenson, to approve the amended work pg the spelling of "Jay Abdo." RESOLUTION OFPF WORK REGARDING AIR F , Mayor Hovland read Res' adoption of Resolution Nc for Recent Work Regarding Ayes: Bennett, Brin e, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland. Motion carried. TO METROPOLITAN AIRPORT NOISE—ADOPTED on No. 2014-32 into the record. Member 014-32, Resolution of Appreciation to ort Noise. Member Sprague seconded V. SPECT RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATiONS V.A. SPE UP €DINA MONTHLY REPORT— RECEIVED Communi ions Coordinator Giigenbach presented a summary of February opi ns, both pros and cons, collecte through Speak Up, Edina relating to intoxicating liquor license sales rat! of liquor to food. Mr; Glige ach answered questions of the Council relating to an infraction clause, Council indicated it fou no problem with the current food to liquor ratio and suggested an April discu n on Sunday liquor Vt. PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD - Affidavits of Notice presented and ordered placed on file. VI.A. PRE'LiMINARY REZONING FROM MDD-6 TO PUD AND OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PENTAGON REVIVAL" RESOLUTION 2014-29 ADOPTED Community Development Director Presentation Community Development Director Teague presented the proposal of Pentagon Revival to redevelop Pentagon Park along 77ffi Street, a 43 -acre site, over the next 2 to 15 years. The first phase would be the Pentagon Tower site and include office buildings, a hotel, limited retail, and parking structures. Future Page 2 Minutes/Edina City Council/March 18, 2014 redevelopment phases of the Pentagon Quad site north of 77th Street would likely occur from the west to the east with possible housing on the east end of the Quad sites: Mr. Teague explained that to accommodate this request, preliminary rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District, to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and an overall Development Plan were needed. He presented project components and nine PUD goals as contained within the draft resolution. The unanimous recommendation of staff and the Planning Commission was for approval of the preliminary rezoning and overall development plan. The Council acknowledged the high level of sustainability proposed with this project. Mr. Teague stated the plan indicates 12+ stories but anything over 12 stories would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment as well as rezoning. The Council supported a revision to the graphic to emphasize that no building shall exceed 12 stories in height and a revision to conditions of approval to require bicycle racks within each phase of the project. It was noted that Condition 10 should be corrected to reflect "pedestrian crossings." Mr. Teague answered questions of the Council relating to the process for rezoning of the entire site and incorporation of conditions to assure each phase of the project must abide by these conditions. The Council asked about the balance of power between the City as the regulating agency and the developer as the property owner should the property be sold. Attorney Knutson advised that the new property owner would enjoy the same ability as the original property owner because rezoning runs with the property. Mr. Teague stated the Council could add a condition to require sketch plan approval for each phase of the development. The Council indicated support for this additional condition. Mr. Teague indicated the preliminary rezoning was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and the revision from the previously approved plans exchange residential square footage with non-residential square footage. He reviewed the assurances provided to the City with a rezoning to PUD compared to the current zoning of M DD -6. Proponent Presentation Scott Tankenoff, Pentagon Revival President, described the proponent's work over the past year to develop project plans and requested the Council's approval of the Pentagon Park preliminary PUD and plan. He indicated this proposal resulted in $500 million of private improvements and public infrastructure to unlock the potential of Pentagon Park, noting it was consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tankenoff thanked the Council for its consideration and trust placed in the proponent. Mayor Hovland opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Public Testimony Jane Prince, Weinblatt & Associates, 5874 Blackshire Path, Inver Grove Heights, representing the Save the Fred Organization, addressed the Council. Laura Schleck, 7408 Kellogg Avenue, addressed the Council. Lori Syverson, Edina Chamber of Commerce President, addressed the Council. Wade Heirigs, 4529 Gilford Drive, addressed the Council. John Stang, 4525 Sedum Lane, addressed the Council. Peter Fitzgerald, 5217 Kellogg Avenue, addressed the Council. Felicity Hanson, 7457 West Shore Drive, addressed the Council. Page 3 Minutes/Edina City Council/March 18, 2014 Nickolis Hunzelman, 7461 West Shore Drive, addressed the Council. Tom Terwilliger, 7421 Kellogg Avenue, addressed the Council. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Brindle, to close the public hearing. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. Mr. Teague addressed issues raised during public testimony relating to level of detail submitted during this preliminary stage and during the first development phase. It was noted that all submittals have to meet the conditions contained in the draft resolution. With regard to building height and need to screen rooftop mechanicals, Mr. Teague advised of requirements for rooftop screening and that building height was measured from existing grade. It was acknowledged that the developer was requesting a building height of five stories in an area where the Comprehensive Plan would allow a building height of 12 stories, resulting in a lesser impact than would be allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Member Sprague read a prepared statement in response to allegations made in a letter dated March 17, 2014, from Jane Prince and accompanying affidavits. Attorney Knutson indicated he had reviewed the affidavits and allegations and, in his legal opinion, there was no conflict of interest to prevent Member Sprague from participating in either the discussion and/or decision. The Council again reviewed the site plan, noting that no part of Fred Richards Golf Course was included. The Council discussed the conditions of the draft resolution. The Council agreed the proposed project would result in a legacy project that, over time, would benefit the community overall and enhance the neighborhood Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014-29, Approving Preliminary Rezoning from MDD-6, Mixed Development District to PUD, Planned Unit Development, and Overall Development Plan for Pentagon Park, revising Exhibit 15 (building heights diagram) to indicate "12 stories" rather than "12+ stories," and subject to the following conditions: 1. Final Development Plans must be generally consistent with the Preliminary/Overall Development Plans dated January 22, 2014; Option 1 is the Overall Development Plana Exhibit 14 (Option 2) is not approved. Exhibit 15 is approved but shall not include the "12+ Story" category. 2, The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Final Lighting Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Section 850.04 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. Submittal of a sign plan with Final Development Plan application for each phase of the overall development. Each signage plan submittal should include monument sign locations and size, way finding signage, and wall signage. Signage shall be consistent throughout the PUD. 5. The 77th Street Improvements must be completed by the applicant/landowner when 100,000 square feet of development has been constructed. The 77th Street improvements must be consistent with the plans date stamped January 22, 2014, and are subject to review and approval of City staff before construction. 6. The Parkway and Living Streets, as shown on the Preliminary/Overall Development Plan, date stamped January 22, 2014, must be built. 7. Final Development Plans must create a recreational system that promotes walking, health and wellness. 8. Connections shall be made from the property south of 77th Street to the property north of 77th Street through or adjacent to the "Walsh Title" site and Fred Richards Golf Course. 9. Pedestrian connections must also be made between buildings, along 77th Street, to Burgundy Place, to the anticipated Regional Trail, and to the new Living Streets, the design of which is conditioned on factors, including without limitation, the future use of Fred Richards. Page 4 Minutes/Edina City Council/March 18, 2014 10. All crosswalks shall be marked with "duraprint" type stamping, or whatever is the City standard at the time of installation, to clearly identify the pedestrian crossings. 11. Where applicable and required pursuant to the Final Development Plan, all public utility, public roadway and public sidewalk easements shall be granted or dedicated to the City upon Final Development Plan approval for each phase. 12. Bike storage and bike shower facilities shall be provided within the development. Bike racks shall be provided within each phase of the development. 13. A majority of the storm water retention shall be developed as an amenity and integrated into the overall development. 14. Overall, the development must include at least 2094 of green space/storm water retention in the aggregate. 15. Any Park Dedication fees due under Section 32 of the City Code shall be collected at the time of the Issuance of a building permit for any portion of the property that is re -platted. 16. New buildings shall utilize the podium height concept, as defined in the Edina Comprehensive Plan, where appropriate. 17. Attempts shall be made to meet an energy savings goal of 15% over State energy code guidelines. Building designs shall be similar to and reasonably consistent with LEED standards. 18. All buildings must be constructed of high quality materials and architecture. Building materials shall be of, but not limited to high quality brick, stone, precast concrete, and glass building. No building shall contain aluminum or metal siding as the primary finish material. 19. All parking structures shall be designed to be integrated into and complement the architecture of newly constructed buildings. Shared parking strategies shall be employed, where applicable. 20. Public art shall be incorporated within each phase of development. 21. Final Rezoning is subject to a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating the PUD, Planned Unit Development, for this site. Final PUD Zoning must meet the criteria required for a PUD. 22. Compliance with the issues/conditions outlined in the Director of Engineering's memo dated January 22, 2014. 23. Sketch plan review shall be required for each phase of the development. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VII. COMMUNITY COMMENT No one appeared to comment. Vlll. REPORTS / RECOMMENDATIONS VIII.D. PENTAGON PARK REDEVELOPMENT — PREPARATION OF REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT — AUTHORIZED Economic Development Manager Neuendorf explained that the owner of Pentagon Park approached the City to request financial assistance to achieve its long-term redevelopment goals and to remediate poor soils and hazardous abatement, resulting in extraordinary costs. Mr. Neuendorf presented the structure of the proposed assistance, noting the greatest risk would be borne by the developer and his investors with very little risk/exposure to the City. The proposed terms anticipated that a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) note would be pledged to the developer upon initiation of each phase of the project. Upon successful completion of each phase, the City would make payments on the TIF note from incremental property taxes generated by the new buildings. Nick Anhut, Ehlers & Associates, advised that the proposed interest rate of 5-6% was the same as being seen for comparable projects within the metro area. Mr. Neuendorf explained the public improvements would meet City development standards; however, the City would not issue debt for those improvements, as the developer would be responsible for those costs. Page 5 Minutes Edina City Council/March 18. 2014 He described safeguards and default provisions within the Term Sheet as well as the three-year look -back period whereby the City would only reimburse for reasonable costs. Jay Lindgren, Dorsey & Whitney, addressed the variety of ways TIF could be used to encourage redevelopment and advised that the lowest -risk method was a pay-as-you-go note since it created a very low/no risk to the City. He explained the "but for" test required prior to consideration of TIF assistance. Mr. Neuendorf answered questions of the Council related to stormwater runoff, parking, and eligible costs. The Council directed staff to assure the language of the Redevelopment Agreement and supporting documentation unhinge Fred Richards Golf Course from Pentagon Park. Member Brindle made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, authorizing the preparation of a Redevelopment Agreement for the Pentagon Park Redevelopment for future consideration by the City Council and Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIIIA. CONSIDERATION OF CITIZENS' PETITION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR CONVERSION OF THE FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE IN EDINA — RESOLUTION 2014-30 ADOPTED Mr. Teague reviewed that the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a petition requesting preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the conversion of the Fred Richards Golf Course. He advised that the EQB determined that the City was the appropriate governmental unit to determine the need for an EAW. Mr. Teague indicated staff believed the closing of a golf course was not a "project" as defined in Minnesota Rules 4410.0200, Subd. 65, because the closure would not "result in the physical manipulation of the environment, directly, or indirectly." Staff recommended adoption of the draft resolution denying the request for an EAW. Attorney Knutson indicated he had reviewed all documentation submitted, worked with staff to draft this resolution, and also supported adoption. Member Swenson introduced and moved adoption of Resolution No. 2014-30, Concerning a Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet for the Fred Richards Golf Course. Member Bennett seconded the motion. Ayes: Bennett, Brindle, Sprague, Swenson, Hovland Motion carried. VIIIB. GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS STUDY ACCEPTED — FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE CLOSING APPROVED — FRED RICHARDS GOLF COURSE & BRAEMAR GOLF COURSE MASTER PLANS APPROVED— DRIVING RANGEAND EXECUTIVE COURSE PROJECTS APPROVED Mr. Neal stated this discussion started at the Council's March 4, 2014, meeting during which a public hearing was also held. He referenced the staff report that consolidated and addressed public testimony. Mr. Neal stated since the March 4, 2014, Council meeting, additional meetings and discussions were held; however, staff's position had not changed from its recommendation to close Fred Richards. Parks & Recreation Director Kattreh presented the staff report, staffs additional research, and answers to the 18 questions raised during the March 4, 2014, Council meeting. Ms. Kattreh described proposed golf course updates to make it easier and more fun, customer service improvements, and additional programming for all ages. She indicated staffs proforma was very conservative and explained how golfers and leagues would be accommodated and engaged during the update of Braemar Golf Course. Ms. Kattreh answered questions of the Council. The Council considered whether to use 2014 for Master Planning golfing operations and soft close Fred Richards in 2015. In that way, golfers could use the Fred Richards while Braemar was undergoing improvements. Member Swenson made a motion, seconded by Member Bennett, accepting the recommendation of staff and the Park Board to close Fred Richards at the end of the 2014 season. Page 6 CITY OF • MEMO A, City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 o e in Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CiWaf6dinaxom Date: April 22, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: City Code Amendment Consideration — Lot Division, Rezoning Procedure, Side Yard Setback & R-2 District regulations. Based on the feedback from the Planning Commission at our last meeting, staff has revised the attached Ordinance to include a definition of window well; eliminated the egress window reference; and added language regarding site plan modifications. The new text is highlighted in grey. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Ordinance at their April 21, 2015 meeting. The following is a summary of each of the "Sections" in the Ordinance: Section 1. Lot Division/Party Wall Division. This would allow a lot division (an adjustment to an existing lot line), and a party wall division of an existing duplex to be done administratively. The lot line adjustment cannot create a new lot, cannot make one lot large enough to be eligible for further subdivision and cannot create an unbuildable lot. The resulting parcels must meet applicable ordinances. If one lot is nonconforming, it must become more conforming. Currently, lot line adjustments (lot divisions) require review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. This can be time consuming for applicants wishing only adjust a lot line. Edina is unique in requiring this type of process. Most cities have their staff review and approve these requests. Section 2. Window Well. A definition has been added for a window well. This definition would include egress window wells. The setback regulation is now for all types of window wells. Section 3 Plan Modifications, Additional detail, including impervious surface, on-site circulation and access, and landscaping has been added in regard to plan modifications following city council approval. Sections 4 & S. Procedure for Rezoning As discussed at the City Council work session, these two Sections amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a 1 -step process for standard rezoning requests; and a 2 -step process for PUD, Planned Unit Development rezoning requests. The second step of the PUD process would be a review'by the City Council. This final review is to ensure that the final plans are consistent with the plans approved in the first step, and also that the plans include the conditions that were required in the first step. If changes are made to the plan following the I st step, beyond what is allowed in Section 36-30 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would be required to go back again to the Planning Commission for recommendation, the same as the 1=t step. (See Section 3 for the detail of plan modifications.) City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina. MN 55424 Sections 6 & 7 Building Coverage, Side Yard Setback requirements Adds clarity to building coverage exemptions, and the side yard setback requirements. This section proposes an elimination of the side yard setback requirement to increase the side yard setback 6 inches for every I -foot that a single family home exceeds 15 feet in height. The side yard setbacks were recently increased by generally 2 feet total on lots 50-74 feet in width (One foot on each side.) However, builders and homeowners could choose the option to maintain the previous setback requirements, as long as the second story setback was increased. However, since this ordinance went into effect, the vast majority of new homes are being built with the new increased setback rather than the old method. Homes that are less than 50 feet in width and over 75 feet in width are still required to meet the standard of having to increase the setback on the second story. Lots that exceed 75 feet in width are required a 10 -foot side yard setback. Spacing between these homes has not been an issue in the past. Lots less than 40 feet in width struggle to build 2 -story homes giving the added second story setback requirement. Staff experiences a lot of confusion by residents and builders when they try to interpret this section of the ordinance. By eliminating the second story increased setback rule, it also eliminates the confusion on measuring building height on the side yard from proposed grade. This is confusing to many, because the overall height of a home is measured from previously existing grade along the front building line. It also eliminates the confusion over where the height of the structure is measured to. (See Lc on page 10 of the proposed ordinance.) Section U. R-2 District Regulations, This Section suggests allowing single family homes in the R-2 Zoning District. Current code prohibits single family homes in the R-2 District. The City receives very few requests for this use in R-2 District. However, historically these requests have been granted. The last one was in 2011, at 5213 Malibu Drive, and it was approved. As requested by the Planning Commission at our last meeting, staff has included a Zoning Map highlighting the R-2 areas in the City. Additionally, staff took pictures of some of these existing duplexes. (provided in last month's planning packet.) There are a wide variety of duplexes ranging in size and value. These duplexes are typically located on very busy roadways, such as Vernon Avenue, France Avenue or the Crosstown Highway, or they are located adjacent from high density residential or commercial areas such as 50th and France or west of France in the greater Southdale Area. The numbers on the Zoning Map correspond to the areas where the pictures were taken. Many of these duplexes could be considered possible for redevelopment such as the areas highlighted in I, 4, 5,8and 9. This Section also corrects a typo that restricts the maximum height of a duplex to be 35 feet. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO Section 9 Building Height. Corrects an error on the table to refer to the height overlay map. Section 10 Nonconforming R-2 Lots, This Section allows duplexes on existing nonconforming R-2 lots to be torn down and rebuilt without the need for a variance. This would be consistent with existing R -I lots that are nonconforming. Currently, substandard R-2 lots are required lot area and width variances when structures are torn down and replaced. The text of the entire Nonconforming Lot Section has been added for context. Please note that the language suggested is the same as is used for nonconforming lots in the R-1 District. City of Edina - 4801 W. 5" St. - Edina, MIA 55424 ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -_ (Draft —April 8,2015—Draft) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 32 AND 36 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Section 32 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 32-6. Plat not required. (a) Double dwelling units. , No plat shall be required for subdivisions of lots in Double Dwelling Unit Districts but only a lei divisiGR F 'Wail ' pursuant to subsection (c) of this section shall be required. (b) Lot divisim f tit line adjottyrwpt. No plat shall be required for any let divisiert I adjustrrit which adjusts or relocates a common lot line separating two lots and which does not create a new undeveloped parcel, tract or lot that complies, alone or in combination with one or more other parcels, tracts or lots, with the applicable minimum lot area and other requirements of this chapter and section. , same, and the pmeedWe shall be the same as feF ffeliminaFy plat appFeYal as set eUt in aFtlele . i) ---A n9tlEc of the hesirlRg-vcrvFcthe evwncn- need -not va—pmanvrred, ll `► pYe eptdileo .'int limes nFlieetttraeantr'Ymesre i o n. aYrxrraaseri t,s (1) tot line Ad stment Conditions. a. 6, c Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text —�� the, new legal descrlptons for the properties ere ,atm an'wn `► pYe eptdileo .'int limes nFlieetttraeantr'Ymesre i o n. aYrxrraaseri t,s (1) tot line Ad stment Conditions. a. 6, c Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXXX Added text —�� the, new legal descrlptons for the properties ere ,atm an'wn 6. Appikafth jhlic 1* 3 01 Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XYM Added text—)" finis Insurance. The t*atto' m ,r wits thea IWantAo 4 provide copies of recorded instt a that are �ek!#i�d irk submitted title evidence, b. after- ipfi afthi ai plicatiob, fi r p ii! c Section 2. Sec. 36-10, Definitions is amended to add the following definition: idvw well means the clear space created bya soli -retaining structure'located in Section 3. Sec. 36-130, Plan Modifications is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-130. - Pian modifications. (a) Minor changes may be authorized by the planner only one time. Changes are considered minor if: (1) There is no increase to the proposed number of dwelling units; (2) Any proposed increase in the floor area of structures on site does not exceed five percent of the gross floor area; (3) All proposed revisions comply with Code requirements; (4) There is no change to any condition required in a site plan approval, including building materials and color; and (S) The property is not located in an Edina Heritage Landmark District; (b) All other plan modifications shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the commission and council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the site plan. Section 4. Chapter 36. Article IV. Subdivision ii, procedure for rezoning in the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Subdivision II. - Procedure for Rezoning Sec. 36-212. PFellmina Rezoning and site plan. The petition for rezoning shall include a prelininary site plan with the required data and information in article III of this chapter. Existing text -- XXXX 3 Stricken text —X Added text — Sec. 36-213. Planning commission review and hearing. Upon receipt of the petition, fee and all other required information, in form and substance acceptable to the planner, the planner will review the petition, pFeliminary site plan and the other information provided by the petitioner, and forward a report to the planning commission. The commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the petition and PFeiiFRiRaFV site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated, wholly or partly, within 1,000 feet of the tract to which the petition relates, insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the clerk from records maintained by the assessor or from other appropriate records. After reviewing the report of the planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the commission shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the council. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued by the commission to a specified future date. The commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract; (3) Will not result in an overly intensive land use; (4) Will not result In undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards; (5) Conforms to the provisions of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code; and (6) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. Sec. 36-214. Council hearings and decision; prel*MiRaFY zoning approval. After review and recommendation by the planning commission, the city council shall conduct a public hearing regarding the f"Off" petition and pfekAWvy-site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated, wholly or partly, within 1,000 feet of the tract to which the petition relates, insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the clerk from records maintained by the assessor or from other appropriate records. After hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued by the council to a specified future date. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of all members of the council shall be required to grant rezoning approval. Provided, however, a rezoning from any residential zoning district to any nonresidential zoning district shall require an affirmative vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. In granting pFeliminaFy rezoning approval, the council may Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — XXX Added text — make modifications to the PFeliffiiRa site plan and may impose conditions on its 0004WONO gte plan.. The petitioner shall include the modifications, and comply with the conditions, mal site-plaR OF at another time and by other documents, as the council may require or as shall be appropriate. See ?C 995 _ Final site plan The final site plan shall include all FeqUiFed infffffiatiGn and data delineated on the ffeliFninaFy site plan and, in additien, the Fequ-Fed data and infeffnatien in aFtiele W ef this . PMFPese of the heaFiRg shall be published in the effleial newspapeF of the &V at least teR daYS pFie to the date ef the heaFiRg. A simllaF notlee of heaFIRg Shall be malled at least ten days befeFe the date of the heaFing te eaeh OwneF ef ffepefty situated WhG!ly OF paFtly within 1,009 feet of the views of all inteFested peFsens-, the eemmissien shall make its deeisien at the same FneetiRg OF at a . (1) is eensistent with the eOMPFehenslye plan; (2) Is consistent with the PFeliminar-y site plaR as appreved and fnedified by the eeuneil and #lAa l site plan; (3) Will not be detAmental to pFepeFties suFFeundiAg the ; , open The eeuReil shall eenduct a pubile heaFiRg on the final FezeRiRg and site plaR iR the same FRaFIRe diStFid Shall F . ' — native vote Of fOUF fifths of all membeFs of the eeuneil. Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text — �E Added text —X Sec. 36-218. Filing. The approved final site plan shall be filed in the planning department. Sec. 36-219. Development. The development of the tract shall be done and accomplished in full compliance with the approved €Rakite plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the council, and in full compliance with this chapter and other applicable provisions of this Code. Applications for building permits shall be reviewed by the planning department prior to issuance of such permits to determine if they conform to the provisions of this chapter, the approved &OA site plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the council, and other applicable provisions of this Code. Sec. 36-220. - Changes to approved #inai site plan. Minor changes in the location and placement of buildings or other improvements may be authorized by the planner. Proposed changes to the approved &W site plan affecting structural types, building coverage, mass, intensity or height, allocation of open space and all other changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the commission and council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the &W site plan, except that a three-fifths favorable vote of the council shall be required to authorize the proposed change. Sec. 36-221. Lapse of approved #ipai• site plan by nonuser; extension of time. (a) if a building permit has not been obtained, and if erection or alteration of a building, as described in the application for #i" site plan, has not begun within two years after f+nai development site plan approval, the approval shall be null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to commence the proposed work or improvements has been granted. (b) A petition for extension shall be made in writing and riled with the city clerk within such two- year period. The petition shall state reasons showing why a building permit has not been obtained, or why erection or alterations have not commenced, and shall state the additional time requested to begin the proposed work or improvement. The petition shall be presented to the council for hearing and decision in the same manner as then required for an original application. The council may grant an extension of up to one year upon finding that: (1) There is a reasonable expectation that the proposed work or improvement will commence during the extension; and (2) The facts which were the basis for approving the final development plan have not materially changed. No more than one extension shall be granted. Sec. 36-222. - Restriction on rezoning after denial of petition. After the council has denied a petition for rezoning, the owner of the tract to which the petition related may not file a new petition for a period of one year following the date of such denial for transferring the same tract, or any part, to the same district or subdistrict (if the district has been Existing text — XXXX 6 Stricken text XW — Added text divided into subdistricts) to which such transfer was previously denied. Provided, however, that such petition may be filed if so directed by the council on a three-fifths favorable vote of all members of the council after presentation to the council of evidence of a change of facts or circumstances affecting the tract. Section S. Section 36-255 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-255. - Procedures. (a) Preapplication conference. Prior to filing of an application for a PUD, the applicant must arrange for and attend a conference with city staff. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of the proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this chapter before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. (b) Preapplication sketch plan review. Prior to filing of a PUD, the applicant is encouraged to submit a sketch plan of the project to the city planner pursuant to section 36-126. The submittal should include a statement providing justification for the PUD, including, but not limited to, the intended utilization of the items listed in the purpose, intent and criteria in this subdivision. (c) Planning commission and city council review. The planner shall refer the sketch plan to the planning commission and city council for discussion, review and informal comment. Any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the planner, planning commission and city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a'binding decision on the request. There shall be no official application made for a sketch plan. It is an informal review and comment by planning commission and city council. (d) Preliminary development plan and preliminary rezoning. Preliminary development plan submissions may depict and outline the proposed implementation of the sketch plan for the PUD. The preliminary development plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements stipulated in article III of this chapter. Preliminary rezoning process is stipulated in section 36-95 212-214. Priiraiatar5t re#itr'sliall, i (e) Final development plan and final rezoning. After approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant may apply for a final development plan and final rezoning approval for all or a portion of the PUD. The final development plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements stipulated in article III of this chapter. Final Existing text — XXXX 7 Stricken text — SEX Added text—)lam (f) Final rezoning to PUD. Final rezoning to PUD becomes official upon adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property. Section 6. Section 36-438 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-438. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (1) Building coverage. e. The following improvements shall be excluded when computing building coverage: 1. Driveways and sidewalks, but not patios, subject to subsection (1)d.1 of this section. 2. Parking lots and parking ramps. 3. Accessory recreational facilities not enclosed by solid walls and not covered by a roof, including outdoor swimming pools, tennis courts and shuffleboard courts. 4. Unenclosed and uncerered steps and stoops less than 50 square feet. 5. Overhanging eaves and roof projections not supported by posts or pillars. 01 Cntharirc Tahla is mvirzod ac Winws- inimum setbacks, (subject to Front Rear he requirements of subsection Street Side Street Interior Side Street Yard 36-439(1). 1. Single dwelling unit buildings 30'** 15' 10' 25' n lots 75 feet or more in width. The required interior yard setback of 2. Single dwelling unit buildings ` feet `hall ineFease by one t `iFd n lots more than 60 feet in 30'** 1525' idth, but less than 75 feet in lot width emeeeds 6g feet. and idth. shall meet the table below: Lot Width Total Side Yard Setbacks from both Interior Side Lot Lines 4 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 3 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 2 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 1 19'4" with no less than 9 feet on one side 0 18'8" with no less than 9 feet on one side X69 18' with no less than 9 feet on one side 6$—� 17' 4" with no less than 8 feet on one side 67 16'8" with no less than 8 feet on one side 6 16' with no less than 8 feet on one side 5 15'4" with no less than 7 feet on one side Existing text – XXXX 8 Stricken text –XXXX Added text –010 Minimum setbacks, (subject to Front he requirements of subsection Side Street Interior Side Street Yard Street 36-439(1). 164 14'8" with no less than 7 feet on one side 63 14' with no less than 7 feet on one side 62 13'4" with no less than 6 feet on one side 61 12'8" total with no less than 6 feet on one side Front Side Interior Side Rear' Street Street Yard Yard 3. Single dwelling unit buildings 3 and subseezien jf3 43R(I)e. shall apply,—er 12' total, with no less than on lots between 50 and 60 feet 30 ** , 15 Von one side and subseefiewU- 25, �in width. 4N(I)e. Single dwelling unit buildings on lots less than 50 feet in jwidth. 30'** 15' 5' 25' 5. Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings: a. Detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden 30'** >.15' 3' 3' houses entirely within the rear yard, including the eaves. b. Detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden 30'** 15' 51 5' houses not entirely within the rear yard. Unenclosed decks and F 30'** 15' 5' 5' tios. d. Swimming pools, including appurtenant equipment and [30'** 15' 10' 10' required decking. e. Tennis courts, basketball courts, sports courts, hockey and skating rinks, and other 30'** 15' 5' 5' similar recreational accessory uses including appurtenant fencing and lighting. aAll other accessory buildings 30'** 15' S` 5' nd structures. 3' g. figfess window wells. NA NAin =Effess (window wells may ehereaeh NA a are eXet*P rd#tthe side yard setback requirement on one side.) Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —>E Added text—) ., Minimum setbacks, (subject to Front Rear he requirements of subsection Street Side Street Interior Side Street yard 36-39(l). K. Other Uses: a. All conditional use buildings or structures including accessory buildings less than 50' 50' 50' S0' (1,000 square feet; except !parking lots, day care facilities, ,pre-schools and nursery schools b. All conditional use accessory buildings 1,000 square feet or 95' 95' 95' 95' larger. c. Driving ranges, tennis courts, maintenance buildings and 50' 50' S0' 50' swimming pools accessory to a golf course. Daycare facilities, pre- 30' 35' 35' 35' choois and nursery schools. ** See subsection 36-439(1) below for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one (side) of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead end street are occupied by dwelling units. Section 7. Section 36-439(1) of the Edina City Code Is amended to read as follows: (1) Special setback requirements for single dwelling unit lots. a. Establishedfront street setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul-de- sac, or on one side of a dead-end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: 1. If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot. 2. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. 3. in all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. b. Side streetsetback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the side street. Existing text — XXXX 10 Stricken text— XXXX Added text subseetion, building height shall be the height ef that side ef the building adjeiRing gFOund aleng and en the side ef the building adjeiniRg the side let line te the tep ef diFeetly above the highest wall ef a shed , x d: Rear yard setback, interior lots. If the rear lot line is less than 30 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there is no rear tot line, then, for setback purposes, the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. d;e: Rear yard setback, corner lots required to maintain two front street setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may designate any interior lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as the rear lot line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may deem the rear lot line to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the junction of the interior lot lines, the line segment being the maximum distance from the junction of the street frontages. e. #:Through lots. For a through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet. Section 8. Sections 36-462, 36-466, and 36-467 of the Edina City Code are amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-462. Principal uses. The principal uses permitted in the Double Dwelling Unit District (R-2) are es fit i)e) buildings containing two dwelling units. (b) single dwilingit Sec. 36-466. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (a) The requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height in the R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District are as follows: (1) Maximum building coverage: 25 percent. (2) Setbacks (subject to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section). a. Principal use buildings. Existing text — XXXX 11 Stricken text — XXXX Added text— 1. Front street setback: 30 feet.** 2. Side street setback: 15 feet. 3. Interior side yard setback: ten feet. 4. Rear yard setback: 35 feet. b. Accessory buildings and structures. Setbacks for accessory buildings and structures shall be the same as those required by this chapter for building and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings in the R-1 district. **See section 36-439(1) for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul- de-sac, or on one side of a dead-end street are occupied by dwelling units. (3) Height: 2% stories or a8 iS feet, whichever is less. (b) The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Sec. 36-467. Special requirements. (a) Generally. In addition to the general requirements described in article XII, division 2 of this chapter, the following special requirements shall apply: (1) Application of requirements. Requirements for lot area and dimensions, building coverage, setbacks and height shall be applied to the entire double dwelling unit building and the entire lot, and shall ignore any subdivision of building and lot which has been, or may be, made in order to convey each dwelling unit separately. (2) Sewer and water connections. Each dwelling unit must be separately and Independently connected to public sanitary sewer and water mains, or shall have been granted a waiver thereof In accordance with article X of chapter 10 (3) Subdivided R-2 lots. A double dwelling unit building and lot may be subdivided pursuant to, chapter 32 along the common party walls between the dwelling units, provided that: a. A building permit has been issued and the building foundation is in place; b. Each parcel resulting from the subdivision must have frontage on a public street of not less than 25 feet; c. The parcels resulting from the subdivision shall each comprise approximately the same number of square feet, and no ind6yidual paKel Shall be less thaR 15, sgaaFe feet; and d. A rear yard not less than 25 feet in depth must be provided for each dwelling unit. Existing text — XXXX 12 Stricken text —SFX Added text— Section 9. Section 36-525 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Division 6. Planned Residence District (PRD). Sec. 36-525. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (c) Maximum building height. Section 10. Section 36-1270 of the Edina City Code Is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-1270. - Nonconforming uses, buildings and lots. (a) Nonconforming buildings. (1) Alterations, additions and enlargements. a. A nonconforming building, other than a single dwelling unit building, shall not be added to or enlarged, in any manner, or subjected to an alteration involving 50 percent or more of the gross floor area of the building, or 50 percent or more of the exterior wall area of the building, unless such nonconforming building, including all additions, alterations and enlargements, shall conform to all of the restrictions of the district in which it is located. The percentage of the gross floor area or exterior wall area subjected to an alteration shall be the aggregate percentage for any consecutive three-year period. b. Alternate setbacks. An addition to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, or an addition to a structure accessory to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, may be constructed within the existing nonconforming setback, which is the shortest distance from the applicable lot line to the existing structure, subject to the following limitations: 1. The addition shall not exceed the existing square footage encroachment into the nonconforming setback or 200 square feet, whichever is less, and 2. The addition may only be constructed on the same floor as the existing encroachment into the nonconforming setback. Existing text —XXXX 13 Stricken text —XXXX Added text— b14 49Fies OF 30 feet-, whieheyeF is les See arl icl, diueR cfl;i pry PRD -1, 2 Height + ver)ay,Dist�t and>apper x A of th ctl4y`s z g Mop PRD -3 See article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A lof the city's official zoning map PRD -4,5 See article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A lof the city's official zoning map PSR -3 lof See article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A the city's official zoning map PSR -4 1:f ee article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A the city's official zoning map Section 10. Section 36-1270 of the Edina City Code Is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-1270. - Nonconforming uses, buildings and lots. (a) Nonconforming buildings. (1) Alterations, additions and enlargements. a. A nonconforming building, other than a single dwelling unit building, shall not be added to or enlarged, in any manner, or subjected to an alteration involving 50 percent or more of the gross floor area of the building, or 50 percent or more of the exterior wall area of the building, unless such nonconforming building, including all additions, alterations and enlargements, shall conform to all of the restrictions of the district in which it is located. The percentage of the gross floor area or exterior wall area subjected to an alteration shall be the aggregate percentage for any consecutive three-year period. b. Alternate setbacks. An addition to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, or an addition to a structure accessory to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, may be constructed within the existing nonconforming setback, which is the shortest distance from the applicable lot line to the existing structure, subject to the following limitations: 1. The addition shall not exceed the existing square footage encroachment into the nonconforming setback or 200 square feet, whichever is less, and 2. The addition may only be constructed on the same floor as the existing encroachment into the nonconforming setback. Existing text —XXXX 13 Stricken text —XXXX Added text— (2) Nonconformities. Except as provided in article X of this chapter, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, except as specifically provided in this chapter, unless: a. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year; or b. Any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. in these cases, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. (b) Nonconforming lots. A nonconforming lot in the R-1 district used or intended for a single dwelling unit building shall be exempt from the width, depth, area and lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this chapter, provided, that the lot: (1) Is not less than 50 feet in width; (2) Is not less than 100 feet in depth; (3) Has at least 30 feet frontage on a street; and (4) Has not been, at any time since October 22, 1951, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting lot or parcel which, together, complied with the minimum width, depth and area and lot width to perimeter ratio requirements imposed by this chapter. If such lot and adjoining or abutting lot or parcel has been held in such common ownership, then the property so held in common ownership shall be subject to the following: a. If a nonconforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this chapter, then such nonconforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements. b. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this Code. Existing text — XXXX 14 Stricken text — XMX Added text — Section 11. This ordinance is effective upon publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2015, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Addedtext—kw day of .2015. City Clerk 15 H & FRANCE DETAIL : CH 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL .1 ftv o Hmq -- I W2 D.W.#"moumm a � rrms S Prri schm ® PMS t Mermnd +.Y MD. ® MDi KRt PYnnEC— W ® K63 KA) mKDJ PORI P 06.w POD -2 r..ra QPD P1.u.lINu.WOil i _ POD PYrtlu�0D41 1 J APD Ai..e.Ob P.MgOil 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL .1 ftv o Hmq -- I W2 D.W.#"moumm a � rrms S Prri schm ® PMS t Mermnd +.Y MD. ® MDi KRt PYnnEC— W ® K63 KA) mKDJ PORI P 06.w POD -2 _ MAD D.j.NY.BWDK QPD P1.u.lINu.WOil _ POD PYrtlu�0D41 1 J APD Ai..e.Ob P.MgOil EMD L.M.*%a _ Pm.. Pw.a s•.wew..aa N uDu 1E .e o.. aoT.+au wE _ to" S mma PDwNp.e..lw01 rfw. u VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL SOUTHDALE DETAIL CITY OF EDINA MEMO tNA. ,nt City Hall - Phone 952-927-8861k O e­' td Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CitnfEdina.com �p Date: April 22, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: City Code Amendment Consideration — Lot Division, Rezoning Procedure, Side Yard Setback & R-2 District regulations. Based on the feedback from the Planning Commission at our last meeting, staff has revised the attached Ordinance to include a definition of window well; eliminated the egress window reference; and added language regarding site plan modifications. The new text is highlighted in grey. The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the Ordinance at their April 21, 2015 meeting. The following is a summary of each of the "Sections" in the Ordinance: Section 1 Lot Division/Party Wall Division This would allow a lot division (an adjustment to an existing lot line), and a party wall division of an existing duplex to be done administratively. The lot line adjustment cannot create a new lot, cannot make one lot large enough to be eligible for further subdivision and cannot create an unbuildable lot. The resulting parcels must meet applicable ordinances. If one lot is nonconforming, it must become more conforming. Currently, lot line adjustments (lot divisions) require review and recommendation of the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. This can be time consuming for applicants wishing only adjust a lot line. Edina is unique in requiring this type of process. Most cities have their staff review and approve these requests. Section 2. Window Well. A definition has been added for a window well. This definition would include egress window wells. The setback regulation is now for all types of window wells. Section 3. Plan Modifications. Additional detail, including impervious surface, on-site circulation and access, and landscaping has been added in regard to plan modifications following city council approval. Sections 4 & S. Procedure for Rezonine. As discussed at the City Council work session, these two Sections amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a I -step process for standard rezoning requests; and a 2 -step process for PUD, Planned Unit Development rezoning requests. The second step of the PUD process would be a review by the City Council. This final review is to ensure that the final plans are consistent with the plans approved in the first step, and also that the plans include the conditions that were required in the first step. If changes are made to the plan following the I A step, beyond what is allowed in Section 36-30 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant would be required to go back again to the Planning Commission for recommendation, the same as the Ist step. (See Section 3 for the detail of plan modifications.) City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 MEMO) Sections 6 & 7 Building Coverage, Side Yard Setback requirements Adds clarity to building coverage exemptions, and the side yard setback requirements. This section proposes an elimination of the side yard setback requirement to increase the side yard setback 6 inches for every I -foot that a single family home exceeds 15 feet in height. The side yard setbacks were recently increased by generally 2 feet total on lots 50-74 feet in width. (One foot on each side.) However, builders and homeowners could choose the option to maintain the previous setback requirements, as long as the second story setback was increased. However, since this ordinance went into effect, the vast majority of new homes are being built with the new increased setback rather than the old method. Homes that are less than 50 feet in width and over 75 feet in width are still required to meet the standard of having to increase the setback on the second story. Lots that exceed 75 feet in width are required a 10 -foot side yard setback. Spacing between these homes has not been an issue in the past. Lots less than 40 feet in width struggle to build 2 -story homes giving the added second story setback requirement. Staff experiences a lot of confusion by residents and builders when they try to interpret this section of the ordinance. By eliminating the second story increased setback rule, it also eliminates the confusion on measuring building height on the side yard from proposed grade. This is confusing to many, because the overall height of a home is measured from previously existing grade along the front building line. It also eliminates the confusion over where the height of the structure is measured to. (See Lc on page 10 of the proposed ordinance.) Section 8. R-2 District Regulates, This Section suggests allowing single family homes in the R-2 Zoning District. Current code prohibits single family homes in the R-2 District. The City receives very few requests for this use in R-2 District. However, historically these requests have been granted. The last one was in 2011, at 5213 Malibu Drive, and it was approved. As requested by the Planning Commission at our last meeting, staff has included a Zoning Map highlighting the R-2 areas in the City. Additionally, staff took pictures of some of these existing duplexes. (provided in last month's planning packet.) There are a wide variety of duplexes ranging in size and value. These duplexes are typically located on very busy roadways, such as Vernon Avenue, France Avenue or the Crosstown Highway, or they are located adjacent from high density residential or commercial areas such as 50th and France or west of France in the greater Southdale Area. The numbers on the Zoning Map correspond to the areas where the pictures were taken. Many of these duplexes could be considered possible for redevelopment such as the areas highlighted In 1, 4, 518 and 9. This Section also corrects a typo that restricts the maximum height of a duplex to be 35 feet. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN 55424 MEMO e r.. Section 9 Building Height. Corrects an error on the table to refer to the height overlay map. Section 10 Nonconforming R-2 Lots, This Section allows duplexes on existing nonconforming R-2 lots to be torn down and rebuilt without the need for a variance. This would be consistent with existing R-1 lots that are nonconforming. Currently, substandard R-2 lots are required lot area and width variances when structures are torn down and replaced. The text of the entire Nonconforming Lot Section has been added for context. Please note that the language suggested is the same as is used for nonconforming lots in the R - District. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St • Edina, MN $5424 ORDINANCE NO. 2015 -_ (Draft —April 8, 2015—Draft) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTERS 32 AND 36 OF THE EDINA CITY CODE The City Council Of Edina Ordains: Section 1. Section 32 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 32-6. Plat not required. (a) Double dwelling units. , No plat shall be required for subdivisions of lots in Double Dwelling Unit Districts but only a let d+Yis►e+ *"*01 + pursuant to subsection (c) of this section shall be required. (b) Letdh4siePr 40tPine rd trsrmert . No plat shall be required for any let diaisien W 401ustsn t which adjusts or relocates a common lot line separating two lots and which does not create a new undeveloped parcel, tract or lot that complies, alone or in combination with one or more other parcels, tracts or lots, with the applicable minimum lot area and other requirements of this chapter and section. Heweve6 befGFe any let diyisien shall be made OF any eenveyanee resulting f0em the let divisieR is placed Of FeeeFd, the eouncil shall adopt a resolution appFeVing the same, and the ffeeedWe shall be the same aS feF ffeliminar-y plat approval as set out iR aFtl6le 11, (1) A netiee of the heaF'Rg befeFe the eewneil Reed net be published,- # a rye st teat to OUT)$, a, ti: c Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXX Added text— The iaew ldga( descript#ons'for>tiie properties aR , w es ad 6. , v*100" I%$b"o 0 'k Existing text — XXXX 2 Stricken text — XMX Added text — 90 title irisr Wince. "he city attorney Moy reufthe aPl t Provide copies of reco lnstro t that are rr a r►r , submitted title evldence b. After receipt of the arplica Section 2. Sec. 36-10, Definitions is amended to add the following definition: Section 3. Sec. 36-130, Plan Modifications is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-130. - Plan modifications. (a) Minor changes may be authorized by the planner only one time. Changes are considered minor if: (1) There is no increase to the proposed number of dwelling units; (2) Any proposed increase In the floor area of structures on site does not exceed five percent of the gross floor area; (3) All proposed revisions comply with Code requirements; (4) There is no change to any condition required in a site plan approval, Including building materials and color, atfd (S) The property is not located in an Edina Heritage Landmark District; (b) All other plan modifications shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the commission and council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the site plan. Section 4. Chapter 36. Article 1V. Subdivision ll, procedure for rezoning In the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Subdivision II. - Procedure for Rezoning Sec. 36-212. ilr-eiieaiea Rezoning and site plan. The petition for rezoning shall include a preliminary site plan with the required data and information in article Ili of this chapter. Existing text — XXXX 3 Stricken text—SEX Added text— Sec. 36-213. Planning commission review and hearing. Upon receipt of the petition, fee and all other required information, in form and substance acceptable to the planner, the planner will review the petition, prelimanar-y site plan and the other information provided by the petitioner, and forward a report to the planning commission. The commission shall conduct a public hearing regarding the petition and prelinniRaFy site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing, A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated, wholly or partly, within 1,000 feet of the tract to which the petition relates, insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the clerk from records maintained by the assessor or from other appropriate records. After reviewing the report of the planner and hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the commission shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date and send its recommendation to the council. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued by the commission to a specified future date. The commission may recommend approval by the council based upon, but not limited to, the following factors: (1) Is consistent with the comprehensive plan; (2) Will not be detrimental to properties surrounding the tract; (3) Will not result in an overly intensive land use; (4) Will not result in undue traffic congestion or traffic hazards; (S) Conforms to the provisions of this section and other applicable provisions of this Code; and (6) Provides a proper relationship between the proposed improvements, existing structures, open space and natural features. Sec. 36-214. Council hearings and decision; PFS"MiRaFy zoning approval. After review and recommendation by the planning commission, the city council shall conduct a public hearing regarding the :. petition and pfel wApapt-site plan. A notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the city at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. A similar notice of hearing shall be mailed at least ten days before the date of the hearing to each owner of property situated, wholly or partly, within 1,000 feet of the tract to which the petition relates, insofar as the names and addresses of such owners can reasonably be determined by the clerk from records maintained by the assessor or from other appropriate records. After hearing the oral or written views of all interested persons, the council shall make its decision at the same meeting or at a specified future date. No new notice need be given for hearings that are continued by the council to a specified future date. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of all members of the council shall be required to grant pFeiiminaFy rezoning approval. Provided, however; a rezoning from any residential zoning district to any nonresidential zoning district shall require an affirmative vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. In granting pFelkninani rezoning approval, the council may Existing text — XXXX 4 Stricken text — XYM Added text 4 1, make modifications to the ffelimiRaFy site plan and may impose conditions on its* ,the t,ite plan. The petitioner shall include the modifications, and comply with the conditions, in the final site plaR,eF at another time and by other documents, as the council may require or as shall be appropriate. The final site plan shall include all FeqUiFed infeFffiatieR and data deliAeated BA the PFelIFAiRaP� Site pIaR and, in addition, the reqUiFed data and *RfeFfflatieR in aFtiele III ef this . date,SO-& 266 -21-96. FiRal FeZGAiRg and site planj plaAning commission review and hear4n& PUFPese ef the hearing shall be published in the effleial newspapeF ef the eity at least ten daYS PFieF to the date ef the heaFing. A siFAI!aF netiee of heaFIRg Shall be Mailed at least teR days befeite the date of the heaF!Rg to each ewneF ef PFOpeity situated Wh9lly 8F PaFtly WithiR 1,000 feet 9f the views ef all inteFested peFsens, the eemmissien shall make its deeisien at the same FneetiRg IRIF at a speeifled fi:ituice date and send its r-eeemmendation te the e9uncil. Ne new notice need be given feF FeeemmeRd appFeval by the e9unell based upeR, but net limited to, the fGllGVARg Met (I) is eeRsistent with the eempr-eheRslye , (2) Is eensistem with the ffelimilnar-y site plan as appFeyed and medified by the eeuneil and #ilial- site -plan, ; space and RatUFal featui:es. See. 36-2-3-3. Gewnell hearing and deelslenji fiRal Mooning., The eguneil shall eenduet a publie heaFlRg eR the final Fe;!eFiiRg and site plan iR the same manRe Existing text — XXXX 5 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — HCl Sec. 36-218. Filing. The approved &W site plan shall be filed in the planning department. Sec. 36-219. Development. The development of the tract shall be done and accomplished in full compliance with the approved €+real -site plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the council, and in full compliance with this chapter and other applicable provisions of this Code. Applications for building permits shall be reviewed by the planning department prior to issuance of such permits to determine if they conform to the provisions of this chapter, the approved final site plan, as modified by, and with the conditions made by, the council, and other applicable provisions of this Code. Sec. 36-220. - Changes to approved final site plan. Minor changes in the location and placement of buildings or other improvements may be authorized by the planner. Proposed changes to the approved €►nal site plan affecting structural types, building coverage, mass, intensity or height, allocation of open space and all other changes which affect the overall design of the property shall be acted on, reviewed and processed by the commission and council in the same manner as they reviewed and processed the #'incl site plan, except that a three-fifths favorable vote of the council shall be required to authorize the proposed change. Sec. 36-221.. Lapse of approved Oral site plan by nonuser; extension of time. (a) If a building permit has not been obtained, and if erection or alteration of a building, as described in the application for final site plan, has not begun within two years after &A develepfoeRt 5ft plan approval, the approval shall be null and void unless a petition for extension of time in which to commence the proposed work or improvements has been granted. (b) A petition for extension shall be made in writing and filed with the city clerk within such two- year period. The petition shall state reasons showing why a building permit has not been obtained, or why erection or alterations have not commenced, and shall state the additional time requested to begin the proposed work or improvement. The petition shall be presented to the council for hearing and decision in the same manner as then required for an original application. The council may grant an extension of up to one year upon finding that: (1) There is a reasonable expectation that the proposed work or improvement will commence during the extension; and (2) The facts which were the basis for approving the final development plan have not materially changed. No more than one extension shall be granted. Sec. 36-222. - Restriction on rezoning after denial of petition. After the council has denied a petition for rezoning, the owner of the tract to which the petition related may not file a new petition for a period of one year following the date of such denial for transferring the same tract, or any part, to the same district or subdistrict (if the district has been Existing text — XXXX 6 Stricken text— Added text divided into subdistricts) to which such transfer was previously denied. Provided, however, that such petition may be filed if so directed by the council on a three-fifths favorable vote of all members of the council after presentation to the council of evidence of a change of facts or circumstances affecting the tract. Section S. Section 36-255 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-255. - Procedures. (a) Preapplication conference. Prior to filing of an application for a PUD, the applicant must arrange for and attend a conference with city staff. The primary purpose of the conference shall be to provide the applicant with an opportunity to gather information and obtain guidance as to the general suitability of the proposal for the area for which it is proposed and its conformity to the provisions of this chapter before incurring substantial expense in the preparation of plans, surveys and other data. (b) Preapplication sketch plan review. Prior to filing of a PUD, the applicant is encouraged to submit a sketch plan of the project to the city planner pursuant to section 36-126. The submittal should include a statement providing justification for the PUD, including, but not limited to, the intended utilization of the items listed in the purpose, intent and criteria in this subdivision. (c) Planning commission and city council review. The planner shall refer the sketch plan to the planning commission and city council for discussion, review and informal comment. Any opinions or comments provided to the applicant by the planner, planning commission and city council shall be considered advisory only and shall not constitute a binding decision on the request. There shall be no official application made for a sketch plan. It is an informal review and comment by planning commission and city council. (d) Preliminary development plan and preliminary rezoning. Preliminary development plan submissions may depict and outline the proposed implementation of the sketch plan for the PUD. The preliminary development plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements stipulated in article III of this chapter. Preliminary rezonine process is stipulated In section 36-% 212-214. Pr lltialt ary rezovdiie `a it (e) Final development plan and final rezoning. After approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant may apply for a final development plan and final rezoning approval for all or a portion of the PUD. The final development plan submissions shall include, but not be limited to, the submission requirements stipulated in article III of this chapter. Real Existing text — XXXX Stricken text — XXXX Added text — (f) Final rezoning to PUD. Final rezoning to PUD becomes official upon adoption of an ordinance rezoning the property. Section 6. Section 36-438 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-438. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (1) Building coverage. e. The following improvements shall be excluded when computing building coverage: 1. Driveways and sidewalks, but not patios, subject to subsection (1)d.1 of this section. 2. Parking lots and parking ramps. 3. Accessory recreational facilities not enclosed by solid walls and not covered by a roof, including outdoor swimming pools, tennis courts and shuffleboard courts. 4. Unenclosed and uneeveFed steps and stoops less than 50 square feet. 5. Overhanging eaves and roof projections not supported by posts or pillars. 171 Sptharks_ Tahie is revised as follows: Minimum setbacks, (subject to Front Rear he requirements of subsection Street Side Street Interior Side Street 36-439(1). 1. Single dwelling unit buildings 30'** 15' 10' 25' n lots 75 feet or more in width. The required interior yard setback of 2. Single dwelling unit buildings 6 feet shall lReFease by """ th'Fd n lots more than 60 feet in30'** 15' 25' width, but less than 75 feet inlet width emeeds 69 feet ARd idth. shall meet the table below: Lot Width Total Side Yard Setbacks from both Interior Side lot lines 4 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 3 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 2 20' with no less than 10 feet on one side 1 19'4" with no less than 9 feet on one side p 18'8" with no less than 9 feet on one side X69 18' with no less than 9 feet on one side X68 17'4" with no less than 8 feet on one side 1167 16'8" with no less than 8 feet on one side 6 16' with no less than 8 feet on one side X65 15'4" with no less than 7 feet on one side Existing text — XXXX 8 Stricken text XXXX — Added text Minimum setbacks, (subject to he requirements of subsection Front Side Street Interior Side Street Rear 36-439(l).Street Yard 64 14'8" with no less than 7 feet on one side 63 14' with no less than 7 feet on one side 62 1 13'4" with no less than 6 feet on one side 61 1 12'8" total with no less than 6 feet on one side 11f this antion utilized feF the FequiFed inteFieF side yaFd setbaek, SUbse6tiWl 36 439(1)e. sha!'Ret Front Side Interior Side Rear Street Street Yard Yard 3. Single dwelling unit buildings 5' and subseetieR:jfi:4j4(1)e. shall apply; eK 12' total with no less than n lots between 50 and 60 feet 30'** 15' Von one side 25' in width. 439{4}e...►,.,�� ..,.� .,.,.,�.. 4. Single dwelling unit buildings on lots less than 50 feet in Cwidth. 30'** 15' 5' 25' Buildings and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings: r a. Detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden 30'** >15' 3' 3' houses entirely within the rear yard, including the eaves. b. Detached garages, tool sheds, greenhouses and garden 30'** 15' 5' 5' houses not entirely within the rear yard. c. Unenclosed decks and 30'** 15' 5' 5' patios. . Swimming pools, including appurtenant equipment and 30'** 15' 10' 10' required decking. e. Tennis courts, basketball courts, sports courts, hockey land skating rinks, and other 30'** 15' 5' 5' similar recreational accessory uses including appurtenant fencing and lighting. . All other accessory buildings 30'** 15' 5' 5' nd structures. 3' g. igress window wells. NA NA =E ffie% (window wells may eRemaeh 04ke are exe pt frofn side yard NA setback requirement on one side.) Existing text — XXXX Stricken text —XXM Added text —X Minimum setbacks, (subject to Front ar he requirements of subsection Street Side Street Interior Side Street Yard rd 36A39(1). Other uses: a. All conditional use buildings r structures including accessory buildings less than 50' S0' 50' 50' 11,000 square feet; except (Sparking lots, day care facilities, (pre-schools and nursery schools b. All conditional use accessory buildings 1,000 square feet or 95' 95' 95' 95' larger. c. Driving ranges, tennis courts, maintenance buildings and 50' S0' S0' S0' swimming pools accessory to a golf course. d. Daycare facilities, pre- 30' 35' 35' 35' chools and nursery schools. ** See subsection 36-439(1) below for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one (side] of a street that ends in a cul-de-sac, or on one side of a dead end street are occupied by dwelling units. Section 7. Section 36-439(1) of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: (1) Special setback requirements for single dwelling unit lots. a. Established front street setback. When more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends In a cul-de- sac, or on one side of a dead-end street, are occupied by dwelling units, the front street setback for any lot shall be determined as follows: 1. If there is an existing dwelling unit on an abutting lot on only one side of the lot, the front street setback requirement shall be the same as the front street setback of the dwelling unit on the abutting lot. 2. If there are existing dwelling units on abutting lots on both sides of the lot, the front street setback shall be the average of the front street setbacks of the dwelling units on the two abutting lots. 3. In all other cases, the front street setback shall be the average front street setback of all dwelling units on the same side of that street. b. Side street setback. The required side street setback shall be increased to that required for a front street setback where there is an adjoining interior lot facing on the same street. The required side street setback for a garage shall be increased to 20 feet if the garage opening faces the side street. Existing text — XXXX 10 Stricken text — XXXX Added text—V" d. Rear yard setback, interior lots. If the rear lot line Is less than 30 feet in length, or if the lot forms a point at the rear and there is no rear lot line, then, for setback purposes, the rear lot line shall be deemed to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the midpoint of the front lot line to the junction of the interior lot lines, and at the maximum distance from the front lot line. d. e. Rear yard setback, corner lots required to maintain two front street setbacks. The owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may designate any interior lot line measuring 30 feet or more in length as the rear lot line for setback purposes. In the alternative, the owner of a corner lot required to maintain two front street setbacks may deem the rear lot line to be a straight line segment within the lot not less than 30 feet in length, perpendicular to a line drawn from the junction of the street frontages to the junction of the interior lot lines, the line segment being the maximum distance from the junction of the street frontages. 6s €-Through lots. For through lot, the required setback for all buildings and structures from the street upon which the single dwelling unit building does not front shall be not less than 25 feet. Section 8. Sections 36-462, 36-466, and 36-467 of the Edina City Code are amended to read as follows: Sec. 36-462. Principal uses. The principal uses permitted in the Double Dwelling Unit District (R-2) are ;fit (a buildings containing two dwelling units. (b} single dwling vtit. Sec. 36-466. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (a) The requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height in the R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District are as follows: (1) Maximum building coverage: 25 percent. (2) Setbacks (subject to the provisions of subsection (d) of this section). a. Principal use buildings. Existing text — XXXX 11 Stricken text — XXXX Added text— 1. Front street setback: 30 feet.** 2. Side street setback: 15 feet. 3. Interior side yard setback: ten feet. 4. Rear yard setback: 35 feet. b. Accessory buildings and structures. Setbacks for accessory buildings and structures shall be the same as those required by this chapter for building and structures accessory to single dwelling unit buildings in the R-1 district. **See section 36-439(1) for required setback when more than 25 percent of the lots on one side of a street between street intersections, on one side of a street that ends in a cul- de-sac, or on one side of a dead-end street are occupied by dwelling units. (3) Height: 2'/: stories or 38 SS feet, whichever is less. (b) The maximum height to the highest point on a roof of a double dwelling unit shall be 35 feet. The maximum height may be increased by one inch for each foot that the lot exceeds 75 feet in width. In no event shall the maximum height exceed 40 feet. Sec. 36-467. Special requirements. (a) Generally. In addition to the general requirements described in article XII, division 2 of this chapter, the following special requirements shall apply: (1) Application of requirements. Requirements for lot area and dimensions, building coverage, setbacks and height shall be applied to the entire double dwelling unit building and the entire lot, and shall ignore any subdivision of building and lot which has been, or may Ile, made in order to convey each dwelling unit separately. (2) Sewer and water connections. Each dwelling unit must be separately and independently connected to public sanitary sewer and water mains, or shall have been granted a waiver thereof in accordance with article X of chapter 10 (3) Subdivided R-2 lots. A double dwelling unit building and lot may be subdivided pursuant to chapter 32 along the common parry walls between the dwelling units, provided that: a. A building permit has been issued and the building foundation is in place; b. Each parcel resulting from the subdivision must have frontage on a public street of not less than 25 feet; c. The parcels resulting from the subdivision shall each comprise approximately the same number of square feet, and no indoyidual PaFeel shall be less than 6 _gU _ F,.,,t and d. A rear yard not less than 25 feet in depth must be provided for each dwelling unit. Existing text — XXXX 12 Stricken text — X)= Added text Section 9. Section 36-525 of the Edina City Code is amended to read as follows: Division 6. Planned Residence District (PRD). Sec. 36-525. Requirements for building coverage, setbacks and height. (c) Maximum building height. PRD -1, 2See article Xi, divan 2 ff►it �illEp 'Overlay Ight District ar}d appendix X16f the ci `s 4 at zoo p PRD -3 See article Xi, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A lof the city's official zoning map PRD -4, 5 article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A�ee f the city's official zoning map PSR -3 See article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A f the city's official zoning map PSR -4 lof ee article XI, division 2 of this chapter, Building Height Overlay District and appendix A the city's official zoning map Section 10. Section 36-1270 of the Edina City Code is amended to add the following: Sec. 36-1270. - Nonconforming uses, buildings and lots. (a) Nonconforming buildings. (1) Alterations, additions and enlargements. a. A nonconforming building, other than a single dwelling unit building, shall not be added to or enlarged, in any manner, or subjected to an alteration involving 50 percent or more of the gross floor area of the building, or 50 percent or more of the exterior wall area of the building, unless such nonconforming building, including all additions, alterations and enlargements, shall conform to all of the restrictions of the district in which it is located. The percentage of the gross floor area or exterior wall area subjected to an alteration shall be the aggregate percentage for any consecutive three-year period. b. Alternate setbacks. An addition to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, or an addition to a structure accessory to a single dwelling unit building with a nonconforming setback, may be constructed within the existing nonconforming setback, which is the shortest distance from the applicable lot line to the existing structure, subject to the following limitations: 1. The addition shall not exceed the existing square footage encroachment into the nonconforming setback or 200 square feet, whichever is less; and 2. The addition may only be constructed on the same floor as the existing encroachment into the nonconforming setback. Existing text — XXXX 13 Stricken text — XXXX Added text (2) Nonconformities. Except as provided in article X of this chapter, any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not including expansion, except as specifically provided in this chapter, unless: a. The nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year, or b. Any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In these cases, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. (b) Nonconforming tots. A nonconforming lot in the R-1 district used or intended for a single dwelling unit building shall be exempt from the width, depth, area and lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this chapter, provided, that the lot: (1) Is not less than 50 feet in width; (2) Is not less than 100 feet in depth; (3) Has at least 30 feet frontage on a street, and (4) Has not been, at any time since October 22, 1951, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting lot or parcel which, together, complied with the minimum width, depth and area and lot width to perimeter ratio requirements imposed by this chapter. If such lot and adjoining or abutting lot or parcel has been held in such common ownership, then the property so held in common ownership shall be subject to the following: If a nonconforming lot or parcel is, or at any time since October 22, 1951, has been, held in common ownership with all or part of an adjoining or abutting parcel or lot which together comply with, or come close to complying with, the minimum width, depth, area, and lot width to perimeter ratio, requirements of this chapter, then such nonconforming lot or parcel and such adjoining or abutting parcel or lot shall be considered as one lot and shall not be decreased in size below such minimum requirements. b. If in a group of two or more adjoining or abutting lots or parcels owned or controlled by the same person, any single lot or parcel does not meet the full minimum depth, width, area or lot width to perimeter ratio requirements of this section, such single lot or parcel shall not be considered as a separate lot or parcel able to be conveyed and developed under this Code. Existing text — XXXX 14 Stricken text —X)4 Added text— Section 11. This ordinance is effective upon publication. First Reading: Second Reading: Published: ATTEST: Debra A. Mangen, City Clerk Please publish in the Edina Sun Current on: Send two affidavits of publication. Bill to Edina City Clerk CERTIFICATE OF CITY CLERK James B. Hovland, Mayor I, the undersigned duly appointed and acting City Clerk for the City of Edina do hereby certify that the attached and foregoing Ordinance was duly adopted by the Edina City Council at its Regular Meeting of , 2015, and as recorded in the Minutes of said Regular Meeting. WITNESS my hand and seal of said City this day of _ .2015. City Clerk Existing text XXXX 15 Stricken text — XXXX Added text — 3C}C4 N & FRANCE DETAIL, m 50TH & FRANCE DETAIL 54TH & FRANCE DETAIL —: kl Oq. MIN Ilii dt I tlaleA ILf boaWd.Kry IAdOYI a nar / ID62 .{ gMY6dad P1161 hOta&haul 11M PC6f RrwaOaxereltloat 106E 'C11 MICR. 1061 ft—d0{sm 100= _ MID ryemlll.*WM PD niwdlrtatWDiL — IlY pw,.d Ue D'.a =AM AWaed P.m Dbl ato vt-m t.am."cwt _ vas. Ira..c«m. ea..na N wood h wD.Wo WoM WE � w" S omm Op�pp1 rb. 09,I VALLEY VIEW & WOODDALE DETAIL AM 70TH & FRANCE DETAIL SOUTHDALE DETAIL City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 - www.CiWfEdina.com Date: April 22, 2015 To: Planning Commission From: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Re: Variance application: B-15-08: 6205 Wooddale Ave., for Kelly Hayes. MEMO This item was continued at the last Planning Commission meeting so the applicant could address concerns raised by Commission Members in regard to the quality of building plans submitted. The applicant submitted professionally drawn plans on April 15, 2015, and they are attached for Planning Commission review. The design, window/door placement, wall removal, etc. on the April 15, 2015 plans, are consistent with the original plans and survey. The request for variances remains the same with all other aspects of the plan conforming to ordinance requirements. Attachments: Revised pians dated April 12, 2015/received by the City on April 15, 2015. City of Edina - 4801 W. 50th St. - Edina, MN 55424 Commissioner Forrest said that while she believes cannot support the request because of the ad� setback. / Motion Commissioner Carr staff conditions. Coi Thorsen, Strauss,' 801. lard variance approval sioner Thorsen seco Nemerov, Carr, Plat is designed with sensitivity she it of the egress w}Rdow into the Aron staff findings and subject to the motion. Ayes; Hobbs, Lee, Nay; Forrest. Motion carried �, B. Variance - Kelly Hayes, 6205 Wooddale Avenue, Edina, MN. Gsk tanner Presentation Appearing for the Applicant t!'' Kelly Hayes, applicant and property owner. Commissioner Carr asked if the plans presented were done by an architect. Planner Aaker responded that the City of Edina only requires scaled drawings, adding the City does not stipulate that the drawings need to be drawn by licensed architect. Aaker further explained that surveys and storm water management plans must be drawn and signed by a licensed professional. Aaker concluded that this application meets variance submittal requirements. Commissioner Lee said in her opinion the plans are too hard to read and are no more than sketches. Lee stated in order for her to make an educated decision the plans need more detail. Continuing, Lee also noted she is hesitant to act on this because there is the possibility that when they move into the demolition phase walls may go down because of inadequate support. Lee said she doesn't want to see another project end up like a previous variance project on Nancy Lane. Chair Platteter stated if the materials submitted meet City requirements as indicated by staff the request should be voted up or down. Planner Aaker reiterated what's important for planning purposes is that the survey and storm water management materials are professionally done; and indicate setbacks, elevations, building height and drainage patterns. Applicant Presentation Ms. Hayes addressed the Commission and informed them the plans are hand drawn and are to scale -one square equal one -foot. Hayes said she was unaware the plans had to be 3 � PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kristine Aaker April 8, 2015 B-15-08 Assistant Planner Recommended Action: Approve a 6.4 foot variance to the required front yard setback of 30 feet to allow for a 23.6 foot front yard setback, a 10.3 foot south and a .5 foot north side yard setback variance for a second floor addition to an existing nonconforming 1 '/2 story home. Project Description: The applicant is requesting variances to the required front yard and side yard setbacks to construct a second floor addition and garage expansion on the lot located at 6205 Wooddale Ave. (subject property), owned by Kelly Hayes. The existing home is currently nonconforming regarding south side yard setback. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is approximately 75 feet in width and is 12,206 square feet (.25 acres) in area. Approximately .20 acres of the lot is beyond the right of way and is considered lot area for zoning purposes. The property backs up to Garrison Ponds. There is one existing single-family home located south of the subject lot, facing west and fronting Wooddale Ave. and Garrison Lane. The adjacent property to the north has an office use and is zoned Commercial with their parking lot nearest to the subject property. There is a 50 foot wide unimproved strip of city property directly north of the subject lot connecting to the pond. The property owner is requesting to add a full second floor onto the existing 1 '/2 story single-family home, a new two car garage with living space above and a porch. The home currently does not meet the required 10 foot side yard setback from the south side yard. The existing home is located 5.1 feet from the south lot line. The minimum side yard setback is 10 feet plus 6 inches for each one foot of average height above 15 feet. The home will have a full 2"d story which requires a side yard setback of 15.4 feet, (25.8 foot height measured from average grade to the mid -point of the gable). The proposal includes a front porch with a master bedroom above. Porches are allowed to encroach into the required 30 foot front yard setback by 80 square feet as long as it is limited to an overhang with columns. The proposed porch will overlap the required front yard setback by 6.4 feet and by 118 square feet. The porch will also have bedroom area above so all of the structure is subjected to the required 30 foot front yard setback. Section 36-439, 1 (a) requires a front yard setback equal to the setback of the adjacent home to the south, (or 30 feet for this lot). SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses This property is located on the east side of Wooddale Ave., backs up to Garrison Ponds, is adjacent to public property and a parking lot to the north and single family homes to the south. Existing Site Features The subject lot is 12, 206 square feet, of which 9,256 square feet is beyond the right of way. It is a 75 foot wide lot and is adjacent to a pond. Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Engineering Single -Family District R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application, and his memo is included in the packet. Building Design The proposal is to add a full second floor with a new two car garage to a 1 Y2 story home that had a detached one stall garage. 2 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 District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the adjacent home to the south) and side yard setback due to existing nonconforming setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is adjacent to open space and a parking lot, is across the street from a pond and is located 63 feet from the neighbor to the south. 4. The improvements, as proposed, protect the pond and existing views by maintaining the existing rear wall setback and complying, (well within), the rear yard and far from the OWH setback of 50 feet. Is the proposed variance justified? 3 City Standard Proposed Front - Match adjacent/30 Ft 23.6 feet* Side- 10+ height, (living) 5.1 and 15.2 Ft OWH- 50 feet 91.7 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories, 35 Ft 2 stories/28 feet from existing grade Lot Area 9,000 Sq Ft or avg of nbad 12,206/9,256 Sq Ft Lot Width 75 feet or avg of nbad 75 feet Lot coverage 25% 19.26% of 9,256 Sq. Ft. * 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 District and complies with all the standards, with exception of the front yard setback (as determined by the adjacent home to the south) and side yard setback due to existing nonconforming setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is adjacent to open space and a parking lot, is across the street from a pond and is located 63 feet from the neighbor to the south. 4. The improvements, as proposed, protect the pond and existing views by maintaining the existing rear wall setback and complying, (well within), the rear yard and far from the OWH setback of 50 feet. Is the proposed variance justified? 3 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: 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 variances are reasonable given that existing home is nonconforming, is limited in design options because of proximity to the south lot line and given its relative isolation from directly impacting another structure. The home immediately to the south of the subject lot is nearly 58 feet from the shared lot line and approximately 63 feet away from the south side wall of the subject home. The property to the north has a parking lot adjacent to the subject house and proposed improvements. There is a pond and back yard area across the street from the front of the subject property so impact from the porch/2nd floor addition will be minimal. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. A unique circumstance is that the existing home is nonconforming, was built prior to many around it with the adjacent home to the south built later than the subject home with platting causing setback non conformities. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed home will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The proposed home will complement the existing neighborhood homes. Approval of the variance allows the continued reasonable use of the property. 4 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 and side yard setback. 2. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 3. The property is adjacent to a pond, with all improvements directed away from the pond in the back yard. All additions are kept in-line with the existing back wall of the home keeping the backyard adjacent to the pond open and unobstructed. 4. There are practical difficulties in meeting the ordinance requirements and there are circumstances unique to the property due to the front yard setback constraint and existing nonconforming south side yard setback due to original placement of the home. 5. The variance, if approved, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It will enhance the neighborhood. Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: Survey date stamped: September 23, 2014 Building plans and elevations date stamped: March 16, 2015. Deadline for a City Decision: May 15, 2015. professionally done. Hayes said the survey and water management were done by a professional. Discussion A discussion ensued on if the lot coverage indicated on the survey was correct. Planner Aaker recalculated the lot coverage and stated it is correct as stated, 19%. Aaker further commented that the house sits in an unusual location abutting City property, pond and parking lot, adding any impact would be minimal. Commissioner Platteter asked Planner Aaker if the City received any comments from the neighbors. Planner Aaker responded no comments were received. Commissioner Platteter noted that trees were not indicated on the survey. Aaker responded that at this time that is not a requirement. Chair Platteter opened the public hearing. Public Comment David Craig, 4436 Garrison Lane indicated his support for the project. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Carr seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion carried. Discussion The discussion continued with a number of Commissioners expressing their hesitation in voting on the application without adequate drawings. Concern was also expressed that the existing building walls would not be able to support the proposed second story. Ms. Hayes commented that technically there is a second floor; the walls are just be "built up". Chair Platteter asked Ms. Hayes if she would be willing to continue her request. Platteter said he believes from the discussion that "better" to scale drawings need to be submitted that identify what exists, what will stay, what would go and exterior building materials. Platteter suggested that Hayes work with staff on the new submittals. Ms. Hayes responded that she would be willing to continue her request to the'next meeting; adding she would speak with staff to clarify what's required. Motion Commissioner Forrest moved to continue Agenda Item VI. B. to the Planning Commission meeting on April 22, 2015. Commissioner Nemerov seconded the motion. All voted aye; motion to continue carried. 4 4 * _ __1 s tN�RePeO �VIP VARIANCE APPLICATION CASE NUMBER DATE FEE PAID City of Edina Planning Department * www.EdinaMN.ctov 4801 West Fiftieth Street * Edina, MN 55424 * (962) 826-0369 fax (962) 826-0389 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FEE: RES - $350.00 NON -RES - $600.00 APPLICANT: op back -page) EMAIL. C`C1�t-1clu" i tF � -1(D 06) "aA_ �t� , � � PROPERTY OWNER: NAME: < fit- k - Q,_k 1f- (Signature required op. back page) ADDRESSLQ le__PHONE: _� 1\7 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (written and electronic form): 1 f�SQ,t.L�F> �J :�J�"� �'. �-- �va�'.�.��•„ �S� des-f'...1� lTt•Y, .s�r;.,,,st...,. l \�9.Z��S "You must provide a full legal description. If more space is needed, please use a separate sheet. Note: The County may not accept the resolution approving your project if the legal description does not match their records, This may delay your project. PROPERTY ADDRESS: U 2-0-_::�,�-- PRESENT ZONING; ���� P.I.D.# °J 1 TION OF REQUEST: (Use reverse side or additional pages if necessary) ARCHITECT: NAME:Sc , PHONE: 4� EMAIL:►�,�°lt.:L,.�-llQDi�`'��3• SURVEYOR: NAME: l�j -= �t�l 's` A PHONE:i (P C"' 3C"' EMAIL: `Pr'\y Variance Application 6205 Wooddale Ave Edina, MN There are three different variances that I am requesting for my home renovation. They are all small setback adjustments. When I first purchased my home in Edina, MN in October of 2015, 1 was very excited for a new start for my son and me. Edina is a perfect place with great schools. I came across this listing and decided right away that it was a place we could call home. It was home, but it definitely needed work. At the closing, I showed Violet, the previous owner, my ideas for the new home. The home had been in her family since 1941 and she is very attached to it. She loved my ideas and was especially sentimental that I was not just tearing it down. These changes are not altering the essential character of the neighborhood. My new elevation is in harmony with the general purposes and the intent of the zoning ordinance. Since it was important to me to keep some of the historical structure, I sought out a plan that would modernize the floor plan, but keep the architecture in line with the neighborhood. By granting me the side and front setback variance, I am able to use the existing structure which will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. My use on this is reasonable. It also creates less waste in materials since I am using the existing structure. Lastly, the current ceiling height in my upstairs does not meet code to be considered living space. I do not have enough surface ceiling area at 8' to constitute my current second floor as living space. In order to correct this, I will need to increase the roof height of my entire house which requires a variance. This will correct extraordinary circumstance applicable to my property, but not applicable to other property in my neighborhood. As you can see from plans and the picture of the proposed elevation, my renovated house will be a wonderful addition to the street scape as well as liveable square footage for my home. I thank you for your time and consideration. Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affinnatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying ❑ with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance V � R Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood Detailed Application Requirements: Unless waived by the Planning Department, you must complete all of the following items with this application. An incomplete application will not be accepted. Completed and signed application form. v Application fee (not refundable). Make check payable to "City of Edina." ✓ One (1) Copy of drawings to scale. ` v Seventeen (17) 11 x1 7 copies of drawings, including elevations and survey, photographs and other information to explain and support the application. Copies must be collated. v A current survey is required. Please refer to "Exhibit A." Grading, drainage, erosion control and stormwater management plan. Grading plan must include existing and proposed two -foot contours, and location and size of pipes and water storage areas. The grading and erosion control plan along with a stormwater management plan must be 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 drainage system. v Variance requests require scale drawings to explain and document the proposal. The drawings are not required to be prepared by a professional, but must be neat, accurate and drawn to an acceptable scale. The drawings may vary with the proposal, but should include a site plan, floor plans and elevations of the sides of the building which are affected by the variance. Elevation drawings of all new buildngs or additions and enlargements to existing buildings including a description of existing and proposed exterior building materials. For single-family home protects, elevations drawings must include a rendering of the proposed home AND the existina homes on either side as seen from the street. The City of Edina Planning Department encourages healthy development within the city of Edina. Although this document is meant to serve as a guide for the application process for development through the Planning Department it is by no means comprehensive. The Planning Staff recommend that you schedule a meeting to answer any questions or to discuss issues that may accompany your project. It is much easier to tackle problems early on in the process. The office number for the Planning Staff is (952) 826-0465. Variance Information The Edina Planning Commission has been established to consider exceptions (variances) from the Land Use, Platting and Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36), the Antenna Ordinance (Chapter 34), the Sign Ordinance (Chapter 36) and the Parking and Storage of Vehicles and Equipment Ordinance (Chapter 26). The variance procedure is a "safety valve" to handle the unusual circumstances that could not be anticipated by these ordinances. The Commission is charged to only grant a petition for a variance if it finds: 1. That strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the petitioner's property 2. That the granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 3. Would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. "Practical Difficulties" means that: 1. The property in question cannot put to a reasonable use as allowed by the ordinance 2. The plight of the petitioner is due to circumstances, unique to his/her property which were not created by the petitioner 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the property or its surroundings. "Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the petitioner's property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application: Applications are submitted to the Planning Department. Offices are open Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 4:30 PM. Deadlines for Applications: Applications need to be submitted at least thirty days before the meeting. This allows the City of Edina time to notify surrounding property owners of the date of the hearing and details of the variance. It is helpful to submit the application as soon as possible to secure an early hearing position. Notice of Public Hearing: Notice is mailed to all property owners (of record at City Hall) that are located within 200 feet of the site. Notice is mailed ten (10) days prior to the hearing. You are encouraged to contact adjacent or close owners and advise them of your proposal prior to the notice of the hearing. You may wish to provide statements of "no objection to the variance" from the nearby property owners. Meetings and Public Hearings: Meetings of the Planning Commission are scheduled on the second and fourth Wednesday of each month. The meetings are held at 7:00 pm in the Edina City Hall Council Chambers, 4801 West 50th Street. Each meeting is limited to five variance cases on a first come, first serve basis Additional requests are delayed until subsequent meetings. Meetings are formal public hearings with a staff report, comments from the proponent and comments from the audience. It is important the owner or a representative attend the meeting to answer questions. Staff Report: Afterreview of the drawings submitted and a visit to the site staff prepares a report. This report, along with any supporting drawings and materials, are sent to the Zoning Board in advanoe of the meetings. Board members may visit the site before the meeting. All plans, emails and written information are public information, and may be used in the staff report and distributed to the public. Board Membership: The Planning Commission serves as the Zoning Board. Five members are required for a quorum. Decisions by the Planning Commission: The Planning Commission may approve, deny or amend the variance request and establish conditions to ensure compliance or protect surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission generally makes a decision at the scheduled hearing. Occasionally, however, a continuance to another meeting may be necessary. Appeals: Decisions of the Planning Commissionare final unless appealed to the City Council in writing within 10 days. The proponents, any owner receiving notice of the hearing or the staff may appeal decisions. Appeals are rare and they can be time consuming because a new hearing is required before the full City Council. Appeals must be filed with the City Clerk. Legal Fee: It is the policy of the City to charge applicants for the actual cost billed by our attorneys for all legal work associated with the application. An itemized bill will be provided which is due and payable within thirty (30) days. ** Filing an Approved Variance: The applicant is required to file an approved variance resolution with the County. Documents necessary for filing will be provided by the Planning Department. 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 c ted all of the applicable filing requirements and, to the best of my knowledge, the dArl-impnts an information I have submitted are true and correct. -(kr-N.`,-S Appli an ature Date OWNER'SUTATEMENT I am thgJee-fit-owner of the above described property, and I agree to this application. a cor oration or PPtnership is the fee title holder, attach a resolution authorizing this ication Qn behA of the board of directors or partnership.) Date Note. Bo signatu es are required (if the owner is different than the applicant) before we can i3roce pplication, otherwise it is considered incomplete. Hennepin County GIS - Printable Map Page 1 of 1 http://gis.hennepin.usIProperty/print/default.aspx?C=473283.8903625485,4970851.781686... 3/25/2015 Hennepin County GIS - hintable Map Page 1 of 1 `-25,,Ie�5— AOW http://gis.hennepin.usIPropertylprintldefault.aspx?C=473252.61655000085,4970845.82855... 3/25/2015 evERTIFICATE OF SURVEY _ .. _ .. r-N1/4CORNER OF SEC.30-T28N-R24W N89'53'11'E -for- KELLY M. HAYES -NORTH UNE OF NEI/46205 WOODDALE r ED NA, MN 554 OPER AVENUE SOUTH PRRTY DESCRIPTION t (Desc I LEGEND I Supplemental per Title re by Title RFilees ur 14-12735 I Supplemental p1, prepared by Title Resources Guaranty $' Company by Agent, Burnet Title) • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS# 19421 The South 75 feet of the North 150 feet of the Westta� DENOTES HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT I 162.75 feet of the Northeast 1/4, Section 30. Township x155» 28. Range 24, according to the United States Government 1 Y Hennepin County, Minnesota. I �r --x— DENOTES FENCE ( Survey thereof, and situate in Henn 1 L� DENOTES GUY WIRE '3 ' �_ _� _� J I NORTH .w4m DENOTES POWER POLE I wN 3r l I' x OZ36 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION WAS ""•""'"'••••.--a^" DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS Ii I I•�.wa52 t tsr.a 171 30 zc 30 wear '•...,. I � DENOTES PAVER SURFACE ( r7 Z I R + i`'r.; r , "wxi° r \x r DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE .wssr xwaz7 \+ aw. w .�x•.:'.,,: -,• • ------I DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE I I `•..•..•..,, `'�777.w43r @r"os� DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION >gttn9�r N89.53'11" ._ aeNw >�:75 i� -•' sme+,ssaxt IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 30100 .__.._. _.__.............. .1,3$ 75 wr.9s .. CALCULATIONS I 15.7 FOOT SETBAM ®ABED n • s ` , i fie•. rte, t s • �` ON PROPOSED 16721111-...._.....,.^_.. seas+ 7Y "`, I . .................•BTT.,.,.,7 ,-ww! Fxriesl » t9j I 1 ^" \77 TOTAL AREA INCLUDING R/W = 12,206 S.F. I = " sms TOTAL ARES EXCLUDING R/W - 9,956 S.F. ( O ' 0n• PROPOSEDe, I `: v 4�t.+i ,t \7� `wwT BOR IMP RVI S C A . Us AT1ON O " O.. q. , r. :' DRIVEWAY - GARAGE s.:L #nes j*. 11x9,92 ' EXISTING HOUSE = 832 S.F. Lrj 1sTN-UMNO ' xn.» x-__ K - ow" % .ws,xs EXISTING CONCRETE 806 S.F. I-".>\ 4 _ s • I .er3.xt $ SPACE.ABOVE .44-t7OSTMG SLAB i I-""•7, .•..as^,,, \\ WAS EXISTING DRIVEWAY = 1,166 5.F. ♦ E>a� i. TO BE ROAD= I t •" TOTAL EXIS7ING IMPERVIOUS = 2.604 S F er''o an's0 "� wMxxa _ I t •..`'.., ' \• m.Tr en» (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) 2&2X I en.ry i n... v ar3.cr vsr�. s 2.. I = PROPOSED IMPERVIOUSCALCULATIONS( ,,' i } + ^ s s r s.• u erxat .arsar '••, i .art.ri PROPOSED HOUSE AND GARAGE = 1,599 S.F. Q 3 (. i 10.7J' a vexi9a-wr w7Jnr-ssf e7iss �� CONCRETE WALK AND PATIO 469 S.F. -------I- >m' 1 . DRIVEWAY = 729 S F. I W -� o i ---- n«a ... rt ---- 162.75 -- �w --------- ---� '':.,� -------man', Q iOTAI PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = .2,797 SF era» r d " Existing .4 SETBACK �%AS. s p -• PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERNOUS = 28.1% O 17 ?ns House ; "• (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) I ¢ L•—=- 2s.Ax . • s.ars __� _ t -L I I �.t .wnN:'.,, 1 aaa r tv PROPOSED UVINC °� °j✓ I j 't �r ' "PROx,23.6 - SPAS ABOVE ^ ti+, ACE AWW -7 r� - �er3;�a r -Sraww Liss L /eN; vti: �" e.3� sraw ,avPR7y ,.w. n, SETPlea2, a ws9 s.,- , x—�x-inr'-w',>L xwws- .'sy6,ts NOTES 3o.D0 :� : 7 . ., mw» . rAe I,»,`�, — .. _4 - - Feld survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons. Inc. on � ............ 9•.S "Yi�m•7as:•;:" 1�,yj ,•'•.,.• z %.S " sr.» pFssae •,,•,. 09/19/14 and 3/02/15. I I cgdn ,.hfa. I Slave sTa'T o a,' mem" Bearings shown are Hennepin County Coordinate System. I � µ F" Cf "0�'x g s»» .......!3....,j% This survey is based upon a Title Commitment Flo No. I arse rNa1POPEN 14-12735 Supplemental {M, prepared by Title Resources I ,� -,- .. ,.. , Guaranty Company by Agent. Bumat Title, dated July 28th, I , r �c t�I 2014. 30 30 1 . t - vt v The side yard setbacks are based on proposed building I .ena heights. 5:\ - eAa ,� re 1i5xsesVs7asMwx seta 3/9/2075 ,2stn PM my a Denotes Iron Set Bearings Shawn are on I hereby certify that this plan, surrey or report was prepared by me or under my *Denotes Iron Found an assumed datum. direct supervislon and that / am a duly Registered Land Sunveyw under the Jaws n n SOR IM of the State of Minnesota. Dated this P r'd day of Srntember 2014. w'"' ptpfeSslonal Land S ry eyors Scale 1"= 20' Drawn By. JEN 1r/y a*v6y& a -s ->s oddeo' ropa & prq. addrfon , xx con, 6776 Lake Drtve NE Sui159 110 Project Manager: /�� License No. 79421 Lino Lakes, MN 55414 Job No.: 1.5106hS 1e 9 BLR Ta1.(4S7)i9I-rma 9m7(M)I3614e701 01=43 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY -for- KELLY M. HAYES 6205 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MN 55424 LEO ND *DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED a DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET, MARKED RLS# 19421 • DENOTES HENNEPIN COUNTY CAST IRON MONUMENT —x DENOTES FENCE e DENOTES GUY WARE `'C, DENOTES POWER POLE x 952-M DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION "'"'"'""•••.-••�•^" DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS ,-NI/4 CORNER OF SEC,30-728N-R24WN8953_tt'E — — _ . - #- 7 . — *f _ 7' NOtTN UNE OF NE1/A $ r SEC.30-T28N-R24W t ofDENOTES PAVER SURFACE ( F h FIDENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE I WWi DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE .r3 ee.wr NORTH .N,•N ea.44'1`t V ��'� ,gid »eu.n DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION \.. exas Iatsne421 �vee•Sa'>f" ___... '» >fi:8..75 AL, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 'D°°ORMULATIONS .W^ e�p�» i` 1 '-Ybod Fg4e^^y "'••. 'A '4R `+1 S 1 TOTAL AREA INCLUDING R/W = 12,206 S.F. MI* 9,958 S.F. AY - Den+o nxss s •'"`.y, Ileawe3—-s Naw %Oh ;'s ,.Nass \\\�� 4.4 TOTAL �. aTOTAL ARES EXCLUDING GARAGEOO EXffiTNG MI711q ETINGMOUS 1 832 S.F. (n SPACE A60VE +-prygiNlG gW8 �r sn.es \» EXISTING CONCRETE = BOB S.F. @ /%f/0AVA, ♦ Rpi�IEO ��`.. EXISTING DRIVEWAY = 1,188 S.F. , assn • ssi°No� ' : I i \ TOTAL FXIS7ING IMPERVIOUS 2.804 S.F. + eras+ era„ m49 N ,n r (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) 26.2% !f U� '!t' 7fr N• .dare nn. eras+ »sran' .. 2 r' hhJ' A a sor "�• 1 t` »ee..e7 PROPOSFO IMPFRV10U9 .A Cl_tLATIONg / i < \'} ' PROPOSED WAND GARAGE = 1,599 S.F. 6dK., Q o9 46 3 b ma eiave "� 1 WALK AND PATIO = 489 S.F. t W ------1=--n� »-- 782.75 -- --------------- CONCRETE TOTVFWAY = 729 S.F. ' f 1 � tu I I _ Existing 18.4 FOOT SETBACK.__L l dO AL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 2,797 S.F. • +" i•'e�a�r+0 House ON PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 28.1% O t `. �•., mss'... (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) L� Id ,I xs.e•_ LIYIIIGAAS ' -Wow w PIaO=17 LY+• ` I '. ACE ABOVE E1051WG'�NJ• n. eras x—�z +hs -NwrBs r 4 '•, NOTES ssaehe4al ...... -I— RA- " - - - 3 30.OD �OlgK1E.`STOOP lnq 7S. ansa asn —t ens, B9e 'f1" .......•-.en.,Y"4 75 .>r Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons. Inc. on I � "••� ' •' Ni+:e `- sra�s ' 09/19/14 and 3/02/15. 14 °aY tea I ~ is .K•- t I PUS Beorings drown are Hennepin County Coordinate System. I eru I qb g5 `�•' This survey Is based upon a Title Commitment File No, 14-12735 Supplemental #I, prepared by Titles Resources 1+ f r r 7 r n r Guaranty Company by Agent, Burnet Title, doted July 28th 014 30 30 .l The side yard setbacks ore based on proposed building /¢ /,lsr�w�`7'''�' heights. "s14VAL5\r5105l4 9t.", 3o% ams txar.n ru ant o Denotes Iron Set Bearings shown are on I hereby certify that fh MpGk surtre t repored by me or under my I Abir Q- Sud g �aNs �M� • Denotes Iron Found 17n assumed datum. direct supervision and that / a duly egistered Land Surveyor under the laws , of the State of Minnesota. Doted this qday of S=t mri ber . 2014. ° 1w Profesdonal Land Surveyors Scale 1"= 20' Drawn By: JENReNsed.• 3-8-18 added topo s prop. oddMlans ww"OU-14 m 6776 Lake Drive NE Suite 110 ` Job No.: 15106hs Project Manager' BAR / License No. 19421 Lino Lakes, MNox 55IM14 id(ul)iil•a900 Fox(ilil)u7.e791 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION (D-11ption per Title Commiment File No. 14-12735 Supplemental A+1, prepared by Title Resources Guaranty o• Company by Agent, Burnet Title) nl I The South 75 feet of the North 150 feet of the West 182.75 feet of the Northeast 1/4, Section 30. Township 28, Range 24, according to the United States Government thereof: and situate In Hennepin County, Mhnesota. W 1�piFaSurvey N is[ za + »x•65 »Veru zo t ofDENOTES PAVER SURFACE ( F h FIDENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE I WWi DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE .r3 ee.wr NORTH .N,•N ea.44'1`t V ��'� ,gid »eu.n DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION \.. exas Iatsne421 �vee•Sa'>f" ___... '» >fi:8..75 AL, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 'D°°ORMULATIONS .W^ e�p�» i` 1 '-Ybod Fg4e^^y "'••. 'A '4R `+1 S 1 TOTAL AREA INCLUDING R/W = 12,206 S.F. MI* 9,958 S.F. AY - Den+o nxss s •'"`.y, Ileawe3—-s Naw %Oh ;'s ,.Nass \\\�� 4.4 TOTAL �. aTOTAL ARES EXCLUDING GARAGEOO EXffiTNG MI711q ETINGMOUS 1 832 S.F. (n SPACE A60VE +-prygiNlG gW8 �r sn.es \» EXISTING CONCRETE = BOB S.F. @ /%f/0AVA, ♦ Rpi�IEO ��`.. EXISTING DRIVEWAY = 1,188 S.F. , assn • ssi°No� ' : I i \ TOTAL FXIS7ING IMPERVIOUS 2.804 S.F. + eras+ era„ m49 N ,n r (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) 26.2% !f U� '!t' 7fr N• .dare nn. eras+ »sran' .. 2 r' hhJ' A a sor "�• 1 t` »ee..e7 PROPOSFO IMPFRV10U9 .A Cl_tLATIONg / i < \'} ' PROPOSED WAND GARAGE = 1,599 S.F. 6dK., Q o9 46 3 b ma eiave "� 1 WALK AND PATIO = 489 S.F. t W ------1=--n� »-- 782.75 -- --------------- CONCRETE TOTVFWAY = 729 S.F. ' f 1 � tu I I _ Existing 18.4 FOOT SETBACK.__L l dO AL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 2,797 S.F. • +" i•'e�a�r+0 House ON PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERVIOUS = 28.1% O t `. �•., mss'... (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) L� Id ,I xs.e•_ LIYIIIGAAS ' -Wow w PIaO=17 LY+• ` I '. ACE ABOVE E1051WG'�NJ• n. eras x—�z +hs -NwrBs r 4 '•, NOTES ssaehe4al ...... -I— RA- " - - - 3 30.OD �OlgK1E.`STOOP lnq 7S. ansa asn —t ens, B9e 'f1" .......•-.en.,Y"4 75 .>r Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons. Inc. on I � "••� ' •' Ni+:e `- sra�s ' 09/19/14 and 3/02/15. 14 °aY tea I ~ is .K•- t I PUS Beorings drown are Hennepin County Coordinate System. I eru I qb g5 `�•' This survey Is based upon a Title Commitment File No, 14-12735 Supplemental #I, prepared by Titles Resources 1+ f r r 7 r n r Guaranty Company by Agent, Burnet Title, doted July 28th 014 30 30 .l The side yard setbacks ore based on proposed building /¢ /,lsr�w�`7'''�' heights. "s14VAL5\r5105l4 9t.", 3o% ams txar.n ru ant o Denotes Iron Set Bearings shown are on I hereby certify that fh MpGk surtre t repored by me or under my I Abir Q- Sud g �aNs �M� • Denotes Iron Found 17n assumed datum. direct supervision and that / a duly egistered Land Surveyor under the laws , of the State of Minnesota. Doted this qday of S=t mri ber . 2014. ° 1w Profesdonal Land Surveyors Scale 1"= 20' Drawn By: JENReNsed.• 3-8-18 added topo s prop. oddMlans ww"OU-14 m 6776 Lake Drive NE Suite 110 ` Job No.: 15106hs Project Manager' BAR / License No. 19421 Lino Lakes, MNox 55IM14 id(ul)iil•a900 Fox(ilil)u7.e791 LEGEND I SYFale tal {I, prep•ree ay Uma ­111aua ' DENOTES EON MONUMENT FOIlNO AS LABELED O DENOTES IRON MONUMENT SET. MARKED RLSµ 19421 I g• rl Company by AGarH, BUmet "fl.)• i I The SeWh 75 }eet of Na North 150 leer of the Wes! DENOTES NENNEPIN COUNTY CAST NON MONUMENTI 182]5 feet f the Nerthaa1 1/4, Se Us 30. Tewnvhfp I 28, Rangge 24, a •n9 to Na Unllad States Can:mment I Survey f, Aw.te In H.4,Ceunly, ice' "' �' :—_ DEN TES FENCE el DEN= WY WILE urve and LLhnemta i r0. DENOTES POWER POLE I DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION r it •rnr III �••,`!oLsa SPOT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS Ii �: +-... u I x..«111 _ `. •••' 30 P $I 30 • 1 DENOTES PAVER SURFACE I F�. ' i•%'' ; Y r _ \\\t -QvO "M DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACEsora •• - axrAr DOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE J -EN ®DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION - IsrnN a NB9.69'>Y'E 1b'2..75 �'�� IMPERVIOUS SURFACE j 'p°° �" 91'^'1i^`'' -felQ row �e CALCULATIONS ' ,5.7 SETBACK aASED OH PROPOSED Now-.. � � -- �•Xra r BTO .. --.>4872• ,yr ...`I 1 � � ` i Q TOTAL AREA 19CWDNG R/W � 12,206IIo TOTAL ARES EXCLIMING R/W . 9,956 SF. I O I --.E!iLaP p EIDa^N0 IMPFfIlL GAma ATIONR EYJSIINC XOIUSE 832 S.F. 1 4 ISEo _ D AFnA !.GARAGES�1, I Y ' •'• �1O x�x�:(" tr .xtv EX1511NG CONCRETE 806 SF. I (a 4 r , A �. F AIOD1ir' •1' •:+ f - ^E]OSOHC REIIO}TD �\0 EDSnNG DRIVEWAY L166 IOTA. EXISTING RApERVLQU$ .'.80.4 C.F. • • • \` (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF WAY) 282% .'• e. aann P OPOSED HOUSE ANO GARAGE -1 SF. I CONCRETE WAIJR AND PATO - 469 S.F. I _ 'q.rh �.��. 3 1•.1; - n i„ ^� } I _ � DS,1, �' t nue • " 16275 ^- 1 1 n q .re O TOTAL PROPOSED NPERWOUS « 2797 SF. q '0 j Eelat'ug t•I6.{ iTIOT SETBAIX_IRASFA i�(tv fen`merrt x ,O PROPOSED PERCENT IMPERWGUS 2B.i.S 'Q O 3mm w . Fivute 1 W PROPOSED Elul. o. fie. 'Smi' jr [ ' (EXa11DING RIGHT OF WAY) S t•'] _ i i+� •' - PROPp$ED UNNG t } • O •� PROP UWICErax iq Gua GPACE ABOIE Nvxr owµ �•� ,+}. lennj � IL\ NOTES I., ACE ABDK EN6fING -a-w.�-••—�° -:^s_ DG�D' F' OETDS POP . C�;E; t3AT "Ar! - neW —ey was mrtqpMI• ed by EG. Rid •M S.na im:. an I ]/02/73 I'.' 82. i6 Wr 89�69'11"iAn.a¢;;h�8 axf '• - n ,. Mdra�ae `�,• ie,{,,,.f 09/19/14 -4 - BnrhIf dtOwn are XaMepM Ceun tY Caerdinsta SyalAm. I - ThM mrvry h Nasse open a Ttle CommllmeM FlIe Na r� I ••a I RtbEPDI Re T4-12735 Suppkmerttd Ei. Pr• orad DY TItk Res•urom Cu•rmtY Cr_ y by Ayan4 Eumet TU4 doted JNIY 28N, 30 I •em. _ I- F v 00 •• • , • <- I ZCa4 - Th ids WM A.LaoaI,s .1. basad an Proposed WI&O I e—I h.lota. 9WMM .. MaMB Iwaeswe_daa.. "—I 1D6DIi PN 0C 0 Denotes Iron Set Bearings shown are on / hereby certify that this plan, survey or repot was prepared by me or under my • Denotes Iron Found an assumed datum. dZ f supervision and that l om o duly Registered Land surveyor under thD /ows & S(iNS_ INC. of the Vote, Df Minnes°to. Do e,d this qday Of "nremher 2019. "° prafesslond Land Surveyors Scale 1 "= 20' Drawn By. JEN t/� --- R°N ed 3 9 -JS ed6a fape a pap. -W*- + ,,mA._ 6776 Lake Ddve NE SuNe lib Job No.: 1510fnhs Project g j t Mana er: B, License No. 1942! Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Tx.rADIDMI.eam re:ramvt.eml LEGEND _892— PROPOSED CONTOUR —B9o— X5291 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATOR (G11T1EltWIC BRUIN ICDA 's, CR CAWNa dW1AK mum OTISRWSE NaCATta) PROPOSED SILT FENCE G— PROPOSED DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE • Know what's below. Cell before you dig. DIRECTION [� SILT FENCE N.T.S. 27 K 2' WOW OR STEEL POST 7'-T MC VARE MESH REINFORCEMENT. STD. FBO PENCE MIN. ST HIGH, MAX. MER! SPACING OF 6' AND MN. IfIJZ GAUGE WIRE IS OPTIONAL GEOTEXTLE FILTER FABR4^. - OVERLAP 6' AND FASTEN AT 7 INTERVALS. LAY FABRIC IN TRENCH. FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH. BACKFILL TRENCH WITH TAMPED NATURAL SOL NOTES, MN 1) WIRE CMESHONTRACTOR IS NOT ONIRm. 2) COAL OF AL Is RESPONSIBLE SIONCONTROL FOR REMORA of ALL EROSION COnNOL ESTABLISH EOLRNANG Nib' ESTABLISHMENT, ITEM COMMERCIAL NRF MNOOT MIX 75-131 (2]b LB RESIDENTIAL NRF MOOT OOT MIX 25-131 (120 LB TEMPORARY FALL COVER =01' MIX 21-112 (100 Le' SPRING/SUMNER MNOOT MK 21- 1 (foo US: SDR -BUILDING COVER MNOOT MIK 21-113 (710 LB 1-2 YEARS COYER NNOOT MIX 22-111 (JOB LE 2-5 YEARS COYER wool Not 22-[1'1 foo LR! • NOW A MINIMUM OF ONCE PER 2 WEEKS •' SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE EITHER MULCHED OR COVERED BY 2 BLANKETS TO PROTECT MOS AND UNIT EROSION. ALL EXPOSED SOLS MUST HAVE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL PROTE • DAYS. • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO ALL ADJACENT I CONTROL PRACTICES INPLAGE IN THOSE AREAS PREVENT MIGRATION 0 • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAN SILT FENCE, NCLUONC THE REM04 OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. SILT FENCE TO BE REMOVED ONLY AM ETABLISHMENT OF VEGETATION. • THE CGNTRACTDR SHALL PROVIDE WOOD FRIER BLANKET FOR ALL ARE DR GREATER • PROTECT ALL STORM WATER MANAGE14EXT FACILITIES FROM CO CONSTRUCT SAID FACILITIES CNCE SITE HAS BEEN STANWZEM • IF ANY SLOPES APPEAR TO BE FALLING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WX CONTROL BLANKET AS NEEDED. • THE CCNTRACTOR SMALL FINAL GRADE SWALE AREAS UPON STABIU21 • THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SCC ALL DISTURBED CRANAGE AREAS. INCL • UPON MAOING COMPLETION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE NATIM WITH A STRAIGHT SET DISC MT181 4B HOURS OF FINAL GRADING. • EXCESS SOL SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE OVER EXPOSED SOIL AND S 70 HAVE SILT FENCE PLACED ON DOWNSTREAM SIDES • F A 57RELT, ALLEY, SIDEWALK OR OT4A PUBLIC PLACE SHOULD BE CAUSE ¢ICH SWUNG OR LITTERING TO BE CLEANED UP BY SW""Nf MGM SUCH SDILNG OR UTTERING SHALL HAVE OCCURRED OR. BETH OTHER POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES CONSTRUCTION WASTE MATERIALS - ALL WASTE MATERIALS GENERATE COLLECTED AND REMOVED ACCORDING TO ALL LOCAL AND/OR STATE WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR WILL. ENSURE NA PRACTICES. HAZARDMS WASTES - ALL HA2ARDOUS WASTE MATERIALS SHALL Be WHEN NECESSARY, HAZARDOUS WASTES WALL BE DISPOSED OF IN THE REGULATION OR BY THE MANUFACTURER SANITARY WASTE - ALL SANITARY WASTE WILL BE COLLECTED FROM MANAGEMENT COMPANY. AS REWIRED BY LOCAL REGULATION. OFFSITE VEHICLE TRACKING - A ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE HA,' SEDIMENT" IF A STREET. ALLEY. SIDEWALK OR aTER PUBLIC PLACE SHALL CAUSE SUCH SOUNG OR UTTERING N BE CLEANED UP BY R DAY IN WHICH SUCH SOILING OR UTTERING SHALL HAVE OCCURRED C MATERIAL'S (SRW, TOPSOIL ETC.) TO AND/OR FROM THE SITE SHALL VEHICLE CLEANING - NO ENGINE DECEASING IS ALLOWED ON -SRM OEFINED AREA [BONE YARD") M -SITE CONTRACTOR TO PRDVMDE I SIGNAGE WASHOUT AREA IS TO BE A MINIMUM OF M' FROM DITLNt UDOD AND -SOLID WASTE GENERATED BY WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUS FAULTY OR IMPERMEABLE LINER MG. COMPACTED CLAY LDIEt, We SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL - ALL VD410ES WILL BE CXEC REB IMMEDIATDS ELY DISOO RY.D SEER ABSORBENT RBRITT MATPILL �ERIALSS AWLL N RAS[ IS CLEANED UP AND PROPERTY DISPOSED OF. SPILL PREVENTION AI CONSTRUCTION BEGNS THE CONTRACTOR MUST DISCHARGE TURGID OR SEDWENT-LADEN WA OSCHAR(E5. TRENCIH/DITCH CUTS FOR GRANAGE) TO A TEMPORARY SITE UNLESS 111 E/SIBLE. THE CONTRACTOR Mn OSCXARTE FRW T SURFACE WATERS IF THE DAM WATER HAS BEEN VISUALLY CLECKE IN THE BASIN ANOTHAT NUISANCE CONDITIONS (SEE NEW. R. 7050 IF THE WAIFS CANNOT BE DSCNpR(EO TO A WE BASH TREATED MTN THE APPROPRIATE IMPS SUCH THAT THE DISCHARGE DOWNSTREAM PROPEP,IES CONTRACTOR TJLM (ADD CONTACT NFO HERE WHEN DETERMINED) STORM WATER & ER 6205 WOODDALE Y \ PHONE% 7220235 I t Y4C.o(-1E[t OF NEI�4 I DONALD H. DEUTSCH LAND SURVEYOR 4155 24TH AVENUE SOUTH +�+µ MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55406 MINNEAPOLIE LIOENNEO `p f � YM2r PPY�Cf;1L.L•E'�• tTr1 ov .7 892.¢ , lu �.: c %'3 t.3 s JFTi ; '1 J C LL 3 Q ` I J p I loll w y`N 4 N lh 0IL 1lEsNOTE?S I12Ah1 `a I �` 0 '41 ... � 1 U � j' •^ � 3 � � PAONcxYNENT 1 ro V. 2 1 J + 0 j w°W o 0 13.3 ' 4 bGfJdTGS 4It � � ' Q A . � s 2it �� b 44-444, v�oo L 00 IU ' t 4 d -$AN p SA PP R o (dw pe }� 874.7 1 ! 7 b ,`To __ szs BUILD G ---- in VILLAGE OF EDINA i_.,A�� ' Y 872.3e N I LEGAL DESCRIPTION .V? Beginning at a poin on the West line of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 30, Township 28, Range 24, 150 feet South of the Northwest 30`rner thereofi thence East and parallel with the North line of said Northeast 1/4, 98.5 feet! thence South and parallel with the West line thereof to the center line of Garrison Lane; thence Northwesterly along said center line to the Weser line of said Northwest 1/41 thence North 151,6 feet along said West line to the point of beginning. Subject to all Easements of reoord.(for Wooddale Avenue over the Westerly 30 feet thereof and for Garrison Lane over the Southerly 25 feet thereof.) I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of the land described above. Surveyed by me this lot da of May, 1971. As ree'urveyed by me this 2nd day of August, 1971. nLv As revised and updated by me this 1 h Afty of 0.X. ` January, 1972• tv� �- r R. _�----I— _— —� (p (01 aooR.wfiuw 'K 76,1 GNG'meklu Fc--a Tusxs ?&C I �� �NGIuE6�Ce0 ORAS AND $PeLS q� 1 - — �>9�r,� O` O 3'�z" OWVC e SCAB ON (PAA v4poQ Lilu(en oN — qTq. Nwf4c.i'a FILL a8 111161Af SOIL !S y'o x v on „ I-)4"Lvr_ BeAM 3° a+faa: (Ty past) TAe vCI4 A110 Lw1uG gm, 6" al«gLern+q"D SIZE �6`X la, 3u j 4 To M�cr ok CXeeeo AW { Fo e2 k Lo<FlL WON(, 0.0 O •L " 1 s ysg fua 6 3�xIV' 6 ell s o' 9 tl 17 ENTR / -13Wni4°�i-- ------------r,y�j�i-i aN Jos SS.�+. s,8, Ex Is-nro(r . (")kyg Ltae L FLooL PLAi.( z fil�rnnEEReG To FAIMXG FADO aoAICflM PWC_ . pp T6.T �FlGyMEf4eD RC d 7Ad--eT ?1/1 IST FL-a OoS S •T'F . ENG/jyeeeeoD OAlwV6T Awt) ,y". zS _ r �niD FtooP RIIovC TOTAL = a,dao sb�f. • lvl' z `I ED Z 14 7 MO �a 0 9 a h C u 3 c! 13 V Mol C4 3 o � 10 X e 3 CT' N T (J� W p cn 3 w c e v 3 c! 13 V / Z V CI Z 10 3 c! 13 V 2OV" V.0 I 1 of U cLL W c � �kIW>,m( 510//16- DeR S\c. Lefi 5'DE ECeuATlO// T I voY S o° V JHT, fcQ. �k 3'1%s" RarE T, I`ot£llIAIG- ( 14+ S(Pt FUL)OPN 8 ANO fCR, i hewkl- STn�G )N& c f �T, 3° s° EXrsT/e!U• Foumomanr I t I - �° 6a i 5c�mu Dm2 � I ° I 3o6s I _ I ` 8rf�d )AP I FLn- Pi417-46 �A L i i f _ I I FtR, Be FL -A Wril- Ff, JI FL? 1 4�9iN�'A ow e �� N �y • N�bppaivC� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Cary Teague April 22, 2015 VI.A. Community Development Director INFORMATION & BACKGROUND Project Description Janine and Jeffrey Johnson are proposing to subdivide their property at 5825 Ashcroft Avenue into two lots. (See property location on pages Al A4.) The existing home would be torn down, and two new homes built on the new lots. (See applicant narrative and plans on pages A5—A27.) To accommodate the request the following is required: 1. A subdivision; 2. Lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot; and 3. Lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,781 square feet for each lot. Both lots would gain access off Ashcroft Avenue. Within this neighborhood, the median lot area is 6,790 square feet, median lot depth is 135 feet, and the median lot width is 50 feet. (See attached median calculations on pages A25 - A27.) The new lots would meet the median width and depth, but would be just short of the median area. There are four significant trees on the site. Each one of these trees would be maintained as a result of the subdivision. There are two smaller Cherry Trees located along the north lot line that would also be saved. (See pages A27 -A29.) Surrounding Land Uses The lots on all sides of the subject properties are zoned and guided low- density residential. Existing Site Features The existing site contains a single-family home and attached garage. (See page A4.) The home would be removed. There are four significant trees on the site today. These trees would remain. (See page A27.) Planning Guide Plan designation Zoning: Lot Dimensions Single -dwelling residential R-1, Single -dwelling district * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them acceptable, subject to conditions. (See memo from the city engineer on page A31.) There would be very minimal grading to accommodate the two new homes. The new homes would be located primarily where the existing home sits today on this relatively flat site. Very little grading would occur in the rear yards. Stormwater from the proposed homes, driveways, and the westerly half of the lots shall drain to Ashcroft Avenue. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring properties. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Specific hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. History of Subdivision Requests in the Area The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests on page A30.) The following is the history in the past nine years: 2 Area Lot Width Depth REQUIRED 9,000 s.f. 75 ft 135 ft. Lot 1 6,781 s. f. * 50 ft* 135 ft. Lot 2 6,781 s.f.* 50 ft* 135 ft. * Variance Required Grading/Drainage and Utilities The city engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and found them acceptable, subject to conditions. (See memo from the city engineer on page A31.) There would be very minimal grading to accommodate the two new homes. The new homes would be located primarily where the existing home sits today on this relatively flat site. Very little grading would occur in the rear yards. Stormwater from the proposed homes, driveways, and the westerly half of the lots shall drain to Ashcroft Avenue. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring properties. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired. The detailed grading plans would be reviewed by the city engineer at the time of a building permit application. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. Specific hook-up locations would be reviewed at the time of a building permit for each lot. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit would also be required. History of Subdivision Requests in the Area The City of Edina has considered several subdivision requests with variances in this area. (See attached area map showing this locations of these requests on page A30.) The following is the history in the past nine years: 2 Requested Subdivisions in the last five years 1. In 2006, the property at 5901 France Avenue received variances to build four (4) 66 -foot wide lots consistent with the area. (Median = 9,269 s.f. & 73 feet wide.) 2. In 2008, 6120 Brookview Avenue was proposed to be divided into two (2) 50 -foot lots by Bravura Construction; however, the applicant withdrew the request before action was taken. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 3. In 2009, a 100 -foot lot at 5920 Oaklawn was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. (Median = 6,699 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 4. In 2011, the property at 5829 Brookview was granted variances to divide into two (2) 50 -foot lots. (Median = 6,769 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 5. In 2012, the property at 6109 Oaklawn was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50 -foot lots. (Median = 6,701 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 6. In 2012, 6120 Brookview was again proposed for subdivision. That request was denied. (Median = 6,700 s.f. & 50 feet wide.) 7. In 2012, 5945 Concord was denied the request to subdivide the property into two (2) 50 -foot lots. (Median = 10,028 s.f. & 77 feet wide. Please note above, that #7, the most recent request for a subdivision, is located two blocks south of the subject property. However, the median for that site is 10,028 square feet and the median of the subject property is 6,790 square feet. That is due to the larger lots adjacent to and south of the property at 5945 Concord. Primary Issue • Are the findings for a variance met? Yes. Staff believes that the findings for a Variance are met with this proposal. Per state law and the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is 3 reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal meets the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: a) Will the proposal relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with the ordinance requirements? Yes. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The practical difficulty is due to the fact that the subject property is double the size of all lots on this block. This area was originally plated with all 50 -foot lots, including the subject property. (See page A32.) This is the only lot on this block that developed as one home over two platted 50 -foot wide lots. The requested variances to split this lot are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than other properties in the immediate area. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood and original plat. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a subdivision of his property of which the lots would be the same as existing lots in the area and specifically on this block and the lots directly across the street. (See page A3 and A32.) As demonstrated on page A25 -A26, the median lot size in this neighborhood is 50 feet wide, 135 feet deep and 6,790 square feet in size. The proposed lots would be 50 feet wide, 135 feet deep and 6,781 square feet in size, which nearly meet the medians. The City of Edina has also granted similar variances within this area. In 2009, a similar subdivision and variances were granted at 5920 Oaklawn, and in 2011 at 5829 Brookview Avenue. Please note that the median lot size and width were similar in those instances. To deny the subject variances would deny the applicant a subdivision that has been recently approved by the City. (See approved subdivisions on page A30.) b) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The condition of this oversized lot is generally unique to Ashcroft Avenue between 58th and 59th on both sides of the street. All of these lots except the subject property are 50 feet wide and generally 6,700 square feet in size. The circumstance of the oversized lot was not created by the applicant. The original builder of the home decided to build on two 50 -foot lots. 4 c) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The proposed improvements requested by the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Again, all the lots on this block are 50 feet wide. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed two lot subdivision of 5825 Ashcroft Avenue and the lot width variances from 75 feet to 50 feet for each lot, and lot area variances from 9,000 square feet to 6,781 square feet for each lot. Approval is based on the following findings: Except for the variances, the proposal meets the required standards and ordinance for a subdivision. 2. The subdivision would meet the neighborhood medians for lot width and depth and nearly meet the median area. 3. The proposal would restore the property back to the form of the original plat, which included two lots. 4. The proposal meets the required standards for a variance, because: a. There is a unique practical difficulty to the property caused by the existing size of the property which is two times the size of every lot on the block. b. The requested variances are reasonable in the context of the immediate neighborhood. The existing lot is both larger and wider than most properties in the area, including every lot on the block. The proposed subdivision would result in two lots more characteristic of the neighborhood. C. The proposed lots would be the same size as the lots were originally platted. d. The variances would meet the intent of the ordinance because the proposed lots are of similar size to others in the neighborhood. e. If the variances were denied, the applicant would be denied a use of his property, a 50400t wide lot, which is common to the area. In addition, the applicant would be denied a subdivision with variances that has been previously approved with these same circumstances by the City in the last few years. Approval is subject to the following conditions: The City must approve the final plat within one year of preliminary approval or receive a written application for a time extension or the preliminary approval will be void. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following items must be submitted: a. Submit evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval. The City may require revisions to the preliminary plat to meet the district's requirements. b. A curb -cut permit must be obtained from the Edina engineering department. C. A grading, drainage and erosion control plan subject to review and approval of the city engineer. The proposed plans shall meet all conditions outlined in the engineering memo dated April 15, 2015 d. There shall be no increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private property. e. Any disturbance to the roadway caused by the construction of the new homes must be repaired by replacing the asphalt pavement from curb -to -curb and from saw -cut to saw -cut. A construction management plan will be required for the construction of the new homes. g. Utility hook-ups are subject to review of the city engineer. Deadline for a City Decision: July 13, 2015 ...� 7t�r1P�� - i 3 clsyi` s tis. � t I e f - ' `�.(_ '�I ti,R��`'���-r--r...i ►i o4THslrlkvEsi j al)) r w Y3 ,�,n 4Mty 43 s,+y'c t xQ cttiii{ IkNNACr�.�,.. U'-., it21, tll !. t k��t I 11� t 4aAK[)AIYE. I 1 TT �LERI f4jTONAVEI f - ,u v R i 9YYtEF 4ESt 4 `� - r + i' g tt ���((jj CA If S #"Y +t .iy{{pp _ i~' [�t g�iTR TPF 4'°t." .`� 2° R! d# a FT t Pd fNo ' till, VUT11'ilEV LANE i iElt .SIT=lRiCi[!rw w' L L. x A T-1 ! � 4fitaux qq �o FHI sROO K LAME HSI 'WEST O �E rtt AVENUE �r� .Rj -!'ii 11 SI 11 V bai ^ i III ir r r E 2 ' it rnW I. "L.1 VUM SCHOOL Ain o t_ rTEr< NC k1 j 1 p TO u Q W` 1i z! aS IF �2- �USCH"'P UI{I+tttiy r. a . _ Nor 44}�jj uirJ is T� 4 ii.�Tj y IL77i in�i ixli►rit 1>#t121 -; _ � z �� }} 7) e L d" i Q _... y y '-- T ,Qu s„"•`` "63�iU TRfElW S �. .k i `..�`i�l'IR I w ,C+715ififrT t 6 .+1 LL ,LL} i4t5t f.41 N,STf?LkvLS'I.». i o 4 Mm m Parcel 19-028-24-31-0062 Map Scale: l" a 1600 ft. /Nj� ID: Print Date: 4/13/2015 -(�-}- Owner J & J Johnson w Name: Parcel 5825 Ashcroft Ave Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- representation or warranty expressed or Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular stead: purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.31 acres COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 Area: 13,577 sq ft A ThInk'Greehl Parcel 19-028-24-31-0062 ID: Owner J & J Johnson Name: Parcel 5825 Ashcroft Ave Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: Home- Homestead stead: Parcel 0.31 acres Area: 13,577 sq It M This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no representation or warranty expressed or implied, Including fitness of any particular purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 A Think Greent A3 Interactive Property Maps Map 4621 4617 4613 4609 4605 4601 5717 1 5721 5724 f t 5721 4620 4616 4612 4608 4604 5721 ( 14600 5725 5728 -5725 5801 5800 5801 5800 1 5801 5800 5801 5804 5805 5804 5805 5804 5805 5101 5805 -- 5808 5809 5808 5809 5808 5809 5809 5812 1 5813 5812 5813 _ 5812 i 5813 5817 5816 ! 5817 5816 5817 5816 5817 5821 5820 E 5821 5820 5821 5820 5821 5825 5824 5824 5825 5824 5825 _ 5825 9 ? 5829 5828 i 5828 7 5829 5828 ` I 5829 5833 5832 i 5833 5832! 5833 5832 i 5833 5837 5836 5837 5836 5837 5836 j 5637 5840 5841 5840 5841 5840 5841 9900 ,.,' 5841 __ .... u,` 5844 Z! "1 5845 5844 � 5845 5844 5845 <c 59TH STREET WEST � Q 5901 5900 5901 5900 5901 5900 5901 _.... ....._,._.,.._.... tJ p ._I ...- --- –. 5905 5904 Si .—. 5905 5904 5905 5904 ,,,! 5905 5909 5908 59095908 z 5908 5909 48105913 5912 5913-- 5913 5912 x� 5913 5916 5917 5916 5917 5916 E 5917 5917 5921 5920 5921 5920 ___.- 5920 5921 Parcel .w Map Scale: V m 200 ft. 19-028-24-31-0D62 /N ID: Print Date: 4/13/2015 -(-{�- �er J & J Johnson w Parcel 5825 Ashcroft Ave Address: Edina, MN 55424 Property Residential Type: This map is a compilation of data from various sources and is furnished "AS IS" with no Home- representation or warranty expressed or Homestead implied, including fitness of any particular stead: - purpose, merchantability, or the accuracy and completeness of the information shown. Parcel 0.31 acres COPYRIGHT ® HENNEPIN COUNTY 2015 Area: 13,577 sq ft A ThinkGreettl A3 Apf1ic,t �,44j-c Owners' Statement in Support of Request for Variance 1)Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. If approved, the proposed variance would allow for two 50 -foot wide residential lots. This Is considered to be a reasonable land use for this neighborhood. Many of the lots in this neighborhood and other areas of the City are 50 -foot wide lots. Without the granting of this requested variance a practical difficulty exists because the applicant/ property owners cannot do with their land what the neighboring property owners can do with the same land area of identically zoned land. The size of this lot of record is twice the size of most lots in its neighborhood and that has created its unique practical difficulty. 2)Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. This property is one of only two 100 -foot wide lots within the identified 500 -foot ring neighborhood. It is twice the width and land area of every other lot in its block (Block 7, Fairfax). It is twice the width and land area of every lot that faces it on the opposite side of Ashcroft Avenue (east half of Block 8, Fairfax). Additionally, every lot that is part of the Ashcroft Avenue streetscape, within this 500 -foot neighborhood ring, is 49 or 50 feet in width (Blocks 7, 8, part of Block 9, and part of Block 10). 3)Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The proposed subdivision and variance would meet the intent of zoning as it would create two lots of similar size to that of other lots within this neighborhood. The proposed subdivision and variance would restore this land to its originally platted condition of two 50 -foot wide lots. 4)Not alter the essential Character of the neighborhood. If granted, the proposed subdivision of this property would create two lots that would conform in width, depth, and land area with its neighborhood. The proposed lots are consistent with the median lot width, depth, and land area of the neighborhood lots; a) proposed lots are 50 feet wide and the median lot width in the neighborhood is So feet, b) proposed lots are 136 feet in depth and the median lot depth in the neighborhood is 136 feet, and c) proposed lots have land areas of 6,788 and 6,789 square feet and the median lot area in this neighborhood is 6,790 square feet. Of the 106 neighborhood lots, 11 are 49 feet wide and 72 are 50 feet wide. More than 3 of every 4 of the neighborhood lots are about the same size as the proposed lots. If this subdivision and variance were not granted it would perpetuate a lot that is twice the size of typical lots within this neighborhood and it would forever be out of characterwith this neighborhood. t The proposed subdivision and granting of lot -width variance would r1fin two lots that are more characteristic of the neighborhood than the existing lot,'<"`' c AS 5825 Ashcroft Avenue Subdivision and Variance requests • Located in the Concord Neighborhood • East of Highway 100 & West of Wooddale Ave • Owners: Janine & Jeff Johnson — Edina residents since June 1980 — Purchased this property in July 1981 t ,°�,F I s 5825 Ashcroft Avenue Subdivision. and Variance requests • Current legal description —Lots 17 & 18, Block 7, Fairfax, Hennepin County •North lot (Lot 18) purchased and 3 -bedroom rambler style home was built in 1953 • South lot purchased in 1954 and building permit pulled to construct a breezeway — In 1956 another building permit was issued for a breezeway and garage M E 0 0 11 !CONCORD J Rf i8t h S W, g T X1.4 C7 6-Gth t "IN t7l REEI T HS Analysis of 1500 -foot Ring Neighborhood • Other than the subject property, there is only one 100 -foot wide lot in this neighborhood —100 feet wide: 5841 Concord Avenue South jj! 6 ..g s _ ` ! t l -t j 'y �*5. sPa tir'�9 92 'i:. � tlt t• IP + i. d 4C» �l la 9 Mall -V XVAt Analysis of 500 -foot Ring Neighborhood • There are ten lots greater than 75 feet wide — 92 feet wide: 5721 Concord Avenue South — 83 feet wide: 4600 58th Street West — 80 feet wide: 4620 58th Street West — 80 feet wide: 4616 58th Street West — 80 feet wide: 4612 58th Street West — 80 feet wide: 4606 58th Street West — 80 feet wide: 4604 58th Street West — 80 feet wide: 5725 St. Johns Avenue South — 75 feet wide: 5905 St. Johns Avenue South — 75 feet wide: 5913 St. Johns Avenue South j)� Analysis of 500 -foot Ring Neighborhood • There are six lots greater than 50 feet wide — 70 feet wide: 5809 Concord Avenue South — 67 feet wide: 5908 St. Johns Avenue South — 67 feet wide: 5916 St. Johns Avenue South 11 — 65 feet wide: 5805 Concord Avenue South — 59 feet wide: 5801 Concord Avenue South — 55 feet wide: 5817 Concord Avenue South � Al� MOW XVAWA V7j W Analysis of 500 -foot Ring Neighborhood • All of the remaining eighty-one (81) lots in this neighborhood are either SO feet wide or 49 feet wide —All lots on the subject block are 50 foot wide lots — All lots across Ashcroft Avenue from the site are 50 foot wide lots — All lots that would have a view of this property are 50 foot wide lots W FAWAX XYV" Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. • If approved, the proposed variance would allow for two 50 -foot wide residential lots. • Many of the lots in this neighborhood and other areas of the City are 50 -foot wide lots. • Without the granting of this requested variance a .� practical difficulty exists because the 3� applicant/property owners cannot do with their land what the neighboring property owners can do with the same land area of identically zoned land. • The size of this lot of record is twice the size of most lots in its neighborhood and that has created its unique practical difficulty. Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. • This property is one of only two 100 -foot wide lots within the identified 500 -foot ring neighborhood. It is twice the width and land area of every other lot in its ••(Block 7, Fairfax). It is twice the width and land area of every lot that faces it on the opposite side of Ashcroft Avenue (east half of Block AvenueAdditionally, every lot that is part of the Ashcroft streetscape,•• •• Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The proposed subdivision and variance would meet the intent of zoning as it • • create two lots • similar size • that of other lots neighborhood. The proposed subdivision and variance would restore this land to its originally platted condition Not alter the essential Character of the neighborhood. If granted, the proposed subdivision of this property would create two lots that would conform in width, depth,and land area with its neighborhoodl 9 The proposed lots are consistent with the median lot MMS, MA. • • • piiq- iii- iiii :.I III I•• �•� • 2) proposed • 1 feet wideand the median•width in the neighborhood is 50 feet, Co ) proposed lots are 136 feet in depth and the median lot depth in the neighborhood is 136 feet, and c) proposed • • areas of • 6,789 square Not alter the essential Character of the neighborhood. Of the 106 neighborhood lots,i•' f72 are 50 feet wide. More than 3 of every 4 of the neighborhood lots are about the same size as the eet • If this subdivision and variance were not granted it would perpetuate a lot that is twice the size of typical lots within this neighborhood and it would forever be out of character with this neighborhood. • The proposed subdivision and granting of lot -width variance would result in two lots that are more characteristic of the neighborhood than the existing lot. -- PRELIMINARY PLAT OF: FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION EXISTING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: tm n .e m elan z oenr, x-•cn. r+°I Yrwaels �xm m D�i°ib,• �1 aK b NO �naM E�ml•� b d. al.c. > u.° xpYM of *'�"�.e��ll eou •"-'0°`l.lr ro +«eipvda u sa"a°f �.s•' Tallme N.xgH Qratg Ygvlatd. TO BE PLATTED AS: t 1 ru 2 e 1. FNWAx AN AMAQI. NrryH aunpa Nolte. SUBDIVISION SUMMARY: nr a•m r.ner q Igo Y goat m z Av lam rsa r 135e2 sear• nat PROPOSED AREA: � r— W 2 elV a 1. FA;WM 1H —H iqu°' 0.Tn awry M . 41. aaaa .wde 8" o•w• fwt - dHw ova GENERAL NOTES: «u.a• aaaw r..r w r>�.ac a•."r�wrr.z am. 42•ra-ta�m'xd XYlp err•Ili tlwxA Raprvra. l M•iyy.�MawAA `fir Fr. lii_�iMiW Wo•I.�) — w aM��yw�i-Ifx1.*��Ir1 Yol Mn wlw w.• � a'Yxl�rii �r-«•r ..x� e..te.l w«r..re• r ea. w.e I..a a..ne., _ :wµ'«yr aw.r.•�.r.a..+•r+rwr w..,wrr a eeaY.�iye r t.r. xYe � a•. Is°m0°°r •�r�rlr 4 ra°1Oiu w neiw a+nlny %: .. \fib PROPOSED DRAINAGE.& UTILITY EA EMENTD TAIL LEGEND • RmrlY Yenunrla x I 1 x mamam ArxN U�tla A�a -- M 0alaa Yrr oamnrHe nae VICINITY MAP — � iwaYur• nw (uwutr r Ha.I Iswreu. lr.a (elrnrr H IwA.) y � s,lri lriir�m. � y y k a513Ye � SFM xMYaOMM wr Q �aOalfMar _ x tuio7 F-r.e.a sou oarollm - -------- wwm>rwx $CAL& ?INCH- 10 FEET RtV151tlN5 Data I nrur awpungeul�.�e w.....n ptw . J %agrM.fwl eM�drol I m eWyY al�Y•arS/tEal. of MI mb r N° � � ale RK 2YJf PRELIMINARY PLAT OF FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION For: JEFFREY & JANENE JOHNSON SITE: S82SASHCR0FrAVENUE EYIm1,YINN1:50TA HENNEPIN COUNTY HARRYS. JOHNSON CO. lNr, LAND SURVEYORS Seg Lyeaala Anew Swtx .1... eelrl MN 5507 Tqa 953-i5VS5N Fbl99ae4sys wwMlawyw..em I OF PROPERTY: LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH & LOT DEPTH EXHIBIT =4= TEWACE 500 FOOT INVENTORY FOR 5825ASHCROFTAVENUE: n� z z n 5 6 2n Y ma: v J o 7) � �. �� Sg� ..k q+y ,,•Y ,3 [�',� rAV Ift, ' Tm/ 58 STREET WEST Lc IV,� Q /F7 NZ L /NMIEon UK= tz IM Iowl I► Al m min IQ. In I96 �fh�Will A' I I AAVV ► �1 ► moi! GENERAL �O.Ew:rr.rw.rw.erw r.re�mrrrrr.rtrw rr rrmrr tees.. ' -.- --� '`�r`ir�'. M..�i w.•r�w.rrrnet we.r�resw�r C r �� ll �59t STREET n.wpY M res \� I�i �St�,a VICINITY MAP 7 ♦♦ �_ ...: a ..s�„� 2 a ~S AR 161015 w ♦ Gwa.. tai" " ;:.C:a� _y a M -: �`� aem ST �w J �1 a �m m. � �°►e `i � < m 'r .... 3m 5T N I3 20 2c 15 � 1 < MT 70;; x SCALE: lWCH= 60 FEET rtcv�s%�s I NweLy stye Net tlYe wnip. Wm w 500' PROPERTY EXH19fi FOR FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION For JEFFREY & 7ANINE 70HNSON SITE: 582SASNCROFTAVENUE ®INA, NMNESOfA HENNEPIN COUNTY HaflNY S.gHN90N CO. MC, LAND SURVEYORS suss ayna.m Awn ee seine BNominelmi, MN. e!1]7 TOM.952JEed]N PeieStlC45]Y mrer.nyemnve.o. ewwA fm nW r.a 09 svtx (m m mimes aas am®n imo tine f ENer. ';3�.•.ilifl�y�7 ��1;1111111�� i am am �1■ii�ii�� � r �m 4� x SCALE: lWCH= 60 FEET rtcv�s%�s I NweLy stye Net tlYe wnip. Wm w 500' PROPERTY EXH19fi FOR FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION For JEFFREY & 7ANINE 70HNSON SITE: 582SASNCROFTAVENUE ®INA, NMNESOfA HENNEPIN COUNTY HaflNY S.gHN90N CO. MC, LAND SURVEYORS suss ayna.m Awn ee seine BNominelmi, MN. e!1]7 TOM.952JEed]N PeieStlC45]Y mrer.nyemnve.o. ewwA fm nW r.a 09 svtx (m m mimes aas am®n imo tine roams a� i�ii�ifll• i am am �1■ii�ii�� � Ifni x SCALE: lWCH= 60 FEET rtcv�s%�s I NweLy stye Net tlYe wnip. Wm w 500' PROPERTY EXH19fi FOR FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION For JEFFREY & 7ANINE 70HNSON SITE: 582SASNCROFTAVENUE ®INA, NMNESOfA HENNEPIN COUNTY HaflNY S.gHN90N CO. MC, LAND SURVEYORS suss ayna.m Awn ee seine BNominelmi, MN. e!1]7 TOM.952JEed]N PeieStlC45]Y mrer.nyemnve.o. ewwA fm nW r.a 09 svtx (m m mimes aas am®n imo tine roams a� I1111��� �, am am �1■ii�ii�� � �nAp x SCALE: lWCH= 60 FEET rtcv�s%�s I NweLy stye Net tlYe wnip. Wm w 500' PROPERTY EXH19fi FOR FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION For JEFFREY & 7ANINE 70HNSON SITE: 582SASNCROFTAVENUE ®INA, NMNESOfA HENNEPIN COUNTY HaflNY S.gHN90N CO. MC, LAND SURVEYORS suss ayna.m Awn ee seine BNominelmi, MN. e!1]7 TOM.952JEed]N PeieStlC45]Y mrer.nyemnve.o. ewwA fm nW r.a 09 svtx (m m mimes aas am®n imo tine roams a� �, am am � �nAp �m 4� 4� Rine am 4� a' Rrm x SCALE: lWCH= 60 FEET rtcv�s%�s I NweLy stye Net tlYe wnip. Wm w 500' PROPERTY EXH19fi FOR FAIRFAX 4TH ADDITION For JEFFREY & 7ANINE 70HNSON SITE: 582SASNCROFTAVENUE ®INA, NMNESOfA HENNEPIN COUNTY HaflNY S.gHN90N CO. MC, LAND SURVEYORS suss ayna.m Awn ee seine BNominelmi, MN. e!1]7 TOM.952JEed]N PeieStlC45]Y mrer.nyemnve.o. 5913 CONCORD AV 4.791 b0 Ma s e 5721 CONCORD AV 10.923 92 120 4624 58TH Sr- W 14969 80 137.4 4616 58TH ST. 11 10,994 80 137.4 4812 58TH ST. T1 116998 137.5 4606 5m ST. W. 11,002 8804 137.5 4604 58TH ST. W. 11,007 80 137.8 4600 56TH ST. W. 11.457 83.1 137.5 5721 ST. JOHNS AV 106544 78.1 137.6 $725 ST. JOHNS AY 10,752 80.1 130.3 5900 ST. JOHNS AV 6,833 48.8 135.6 5904 ST. JOHNS AV 8,792 50 130.6 5908 St. JOHNS AV 9,102 87 135.8 5918 ST. JOHNS AY 9.103 87 133.9 5901 ST. JOHNS AV 6,625 48.8 135.8 5905 ST. JOHNS AV 10.194 75 130.8 5913 ST. JOHNS AV 10,194 75 130.8 5800 ST. JOHNS AV 8.623 48.8 135.8 5804 ST. JOHNS AV 6.781 50 136.6 5808 ST. JOHNS AV 8,782 50 135.6 5812 Sr. JOHNS AV 8.783 50 135.7 5816 ST. JOHNS AV 6.784 50 136.7 5820 ST. JOHNS AV 8.781 50 135.7 5824 ST. JOHNS AV 6,789 50 130.7 5828 Sr. JOHNS AV 6.789 50 135.7 5832 Sr. JOHNS AV 6,783 50 135.7 6838 Sr. JOHNS AV 6.788 5o 135.7 5840 ST. JOHNS AV 6.78111 50 135.15 5844 ST. JOHNS AY 50 5801 ST. JOHNS AV 6750 82 48.8 1135.8 5805 ST. JOHNS AV 45809 ST. JOHNS AV 8.791 5 0 0 135.6 5813 ST. JOHNS AV 6.791 60 135.8 5617 ST. JOHNS AV 6.791 50 130.8 8821 ST. JOHNS A 5.790 50 135.8 V i 5805 ST. JOHNS AV 6.m 50 135.8 5829 ST. JOHNS AV 8.790 50 135.5 5833 ST. JOHNS AV 8 6837 ST. JOHNS AV 6,790 0 1 0 50 3LB 5841 ST. JOHNS AV 6.790 50 130.6 5845.ST. JOHNS AV 8.790 6o 130.8 6800 FAIRFAX AY 6,620 48.7 130.6 5841 FAIRFAX AV 8,791 50 135.8 5808 FAIRFAX AV 8.791 50 135.6 5812 FAWAX AV 8,791 50 135.8 5816 FAIRFAX AV 50 5620 FAIRFAX AV 6"D 0 50 136.8 5824 FAIRFAX AV 6,790 5o 136.6 --- 5628 FAIRFAX AV 6,790 50 135.8 5832 FAIRFAX AV G.M 50 13565 5636 FAIRFAX AV 6.790 50 135.8 6840 FAIRFAX AV a� 50 50 135.8 5844 FAIRFAX AV 5900 FAIRFAX AV 6,816 48.7 135.8 -_ 5904 FAWAX AV 8,789 50 135.8 WOO ASHCROFT AV 6,848 48,9 135.8 ' 8804 ASHCROFT AV 8.791 50 U&B 5808 ASHCROFT AV 5812 ASHCROFT AY 0.791 7791 0 50 1�8 6818 ASHCROFT AV 0.� 60D 136.8 5820 ASHCROFT AY 5824 ASHCROFT AV 5ASHCROFT AV 8 790 50 1 826 35.8 5832 ASHCROFT AV 50 135.9 8030 ASHCROFT AV a� 50 135.6 LS 5840 ASHCROFT AY 8.m 50 13IL8 ^Psfr 5844 ASHCROFT AV 58M ASHCROFT AV 64,8.70 489 138.6 -- 8805 ASHCROFT AV 6,782 50 135.6 ` 5809 ASHCROFT AV M3 ASHCROFT AV 0.7753 '5500 136.7 6M7 ASHCROFT AV 50 135.7 5821 ASHCROFTAY 5833 ASHCROFT AV 0.7900 50 135.7 -- 5837 ASHCROFT AV 41 ASHCROFT AV 6,,787 5 0 0 13L7 58 5545 ASHCROFT AV 8.739 30 135.7 390D ASHCROFT AY ' 5804 ASHCROFT AV 6.789 50 13568 8908 ASHCROFT AV 5912 ASHCROFT AV elm 55000. _ 136.8 ' 5916 ASHCROFT AV 8901 ASHCROFT AV 6 637 48.9 135.6 5905 ASHCROFT AV 8,789 50 135.6 5909 ASHCROFT AV 50 13L 5913 ASHCROFT AV 0.790 50 135.6 6917 ASHCROFT AV 6.791 50 135.8 710 50 j77 UmOm -` GENERAL NOTES: Mowatt 191 vda b m ar&W set of suds vdws bdw dit aW Om d1RA Vm N m -- onvdue� wvw altlm U. nwm of Vw we 618 vdw6 if #me N no am WiAInIaNMta paMM ti~ Vw ekt Wmeie, - A. M., d DOW boubd bftw 191 Nagy NO udw / Mn t *tt LA DoPlow oof tl�i9 MW bt *^ 10 W orh r *W&p of ato W le Nib d*% sad knW tangy N Ib wish, Let WHO 20 =00 bftm 00 lot an M*wxW et *M WON do iM 11110* wit a Pohl of 80 *9113 t m vw tact lot boa mo !CFto7v7 VICINITY MAP _ A;Z� SCALE. 9 IN( REWS Date: I hereby certify that report was prepared direct :supervision anc Registered Land Sures of the State of Minrn L Thomas t. Hodorff, L Minnesota Reg. No. 2 Date. W* 1; sm 500 ' PROPEF FOI FAIRFAX 4T1- FOI JEFFREY & JOHNS SITI 5825ASUCROI EDINA, MINK HENNEPIN )' 1 l k GOl 1 1 1 1 1 SM ADDRESS 8826 AAcraft Avaw 90% MYNImd, 56424 OWNER Jotrrey 3 Jm" ,tolenon CONTACT (OM 741-8446 > AthaoR Awmw EdkM lBrWMCW 35424 SURVEYOR Harry S jdwwm 406. Nie. CONTACT Tom HodaN (962) 884-8341 rowny. HE TO BE PLA tea 1 and A ` 5 I e L5aF mm M0. "m"" 1 sA 1 SUBDIVISI Mm totd • S E 13574 =0 6— ~. __4k--- ----------- r--'---------- � ~'� JO � - I PROPOSEI e_ � $ I • 1 ' A. sla am Lot 51a ono tet / al ' f � �Ir�Ueor�ra�s�e Orr na.tfrx aof►J F-�' nesMnaort I /'' ory ( i j FROM FLOOR ^`, w wr ms ee1.0 mt! A41QOT AK/1Yr I / "iy F9i a�+k •-- " ; �i GE —I -- ■r /" .-•• AMA- 1.00055 SMM. o ti / I 161 Mr. AW 1 1 ttlowa�rwR 44 waiiiiero�m 11 7 w / L--- d 3 as M x m s, , -�''• \ _ I _494— 1 F*WRM FLOOR mry man '- I a I I ` a ✓ i d' 1 1 LTi 1\ i 1__ IMIe�IR[ MY A I F,\ 1 i 1 1 L K t I em w 13572— INJI =< LEGEND •. --)< 1 • S n■ o m noon LA . U C�0 .._.. CWAM —.—.■_._ fam I \ 1 � Nbt■r sanmle■n x esrxs'a oa.wro ME I x jw r—ooqw DATE: April 15, 2015 TO: Cary Teague — Community Development Director CC: Chad Millner PE — City Engineer FROM: Charlie Gerk EIT — Environmental Engineering Technician RE: Berman Subdivision — Preliminary Plat Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject development for street and utility connections, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control. General Comments 1. None Survey/ Plat 2. None Traffic and Street 3. A curb cut permit from the engineering department will be required for each driveway. 4. The streets were reconstructed during the 2009 construction season. Great care should be taken to protect the streets from unnecessary damage. Any damage to the streets will require a full width patch from curb to curb and sawcut to sawcut. Sanitary and Water Utilities 5. SAC and WAC fees will be required for the new lot to connect to city utilities. Storm Water Utility 6. No Increase in peak rate or volume to neighboring private properties. Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control 7. A grading, erosion and sediment control plan will be required for each individual lot when a building permit Is submitted. Other Agency Coordination 8. A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit will be required for each new lot. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard . Edina, Minnesota 55439 wwwYAnaMN.gov . 952-826-0371. Fax 952-826-0392 A3 1 x.19 T. 028 R.24 Ily fey rm _ pn tial ws ,aa y R R 58TH ST W � ti111 � p9 a f) R Uio7 liA a a a (109)1 � N A ('061J pal aLt (10'• OZ R H! � , (iy A 17aJ (ey A sa A R pi) PA A a N ' 4i�1 ) A pA feel 'AF►ar "i•� • ()U ••��11 pm) G R mp { ll wn lag U74 R p� INO (iN A lriii IW • R a A py F, our a ( � a 2 (q R ata pao) R -e (+U f�i7 p� U 6 e OutA (ul a � ti111 � p9 a f) R Uio7 liA a a a (109)1 � N A ('061J pal aLt (10'• OZ R H! � , (iy A 17aJ (ey A sa A R pi) PA A a N ' 4i�1 ) A pA feel 'AF►ar "i•� • ()U ••��11 pm) G R mp { ll wn lag U74 R p� INO (iN A lriii IW • R a A py F, our a ( � a 2 (q R ata (410 H! � (47)A (4))N A plil A (ey A sa A R a (6;) (lii) pal A ) A a P23) R 1. tr J �4 ••��11 pm) G R (!y A { ll t&7 R r pw) A INO (iN A lriii •� • R a (102J pr1 o) a ( n R a � poll • pao) R i a fy p) a m am e teA 6 x '(410Tial H! � (47)A (4))N A plil A (ey A sa A R a (6;) (lii) pal A ) A a P23) R 1. tr (/22( ••��11 pm) G R (Iry7 i { ll t&7 R (iy '0 t (ay INO f� Isp A ; R ,ar+ S9TH ST W 60TH rrjj tai g EC.19 T.028 R.24 W/1 S!NE/ 9 NISE/19 V/19 SISE/I anter ecfion H! � ley A (ria) A plil A a A t25) �• r a (lii) pN wfa a P23) R 1. tr (/22( ••��11 pm) G R (Iry7 i i.R ° (121J r • 4 ,1 a Ilsl p?i w . 120) t � , w a pr1 o) n R a n A 60TH rrjj tai g EC.19 T.028 R.24 W/1 S!NE/ 9 NISE/19 V/19 SISE/I anter ecfion � pn � S 1717 7 (ra) an • trial t _a tl� fray fraJ pW (fi>, (rs2) H! � ley r R RI f y R p) R lty T. a pN r. pl R llis) pawl R tr A ••��11 pm) G R (Iry7 i ,1 a Ilsl p?i vi R II W) qs12 w . -e (+U f�i7 R e OutA (ul ° t vm a a a �" �• wr ,. a A (37)S ( W {r� R m (3A � pn � S 1717 7 (ra) an • trial t _a tl� fray fraJ pW (fi>, (rs2) H! � ley r R RI f y R p) R lty T. a pN r. pl R llis) pawl R tr A ••��11 pm) G R (Iry7 i ,1 a Ilsl p?i vi R II W) qs12 w R a a -',ae w.r aaa far) NN R a 1 R Prepared by the City of Edina, MN. Original base data supplied by Hennepin Co., MN. PageNumber paq (tee) A llis) pawl R tr psiJ R ••��11 pm) G R Uft7 _ ,1 a Ilsl N `moi) R II W) R a a -',ae w.r aaa far) NN R a 1 R Prepared by the City of Edina, MN. Original base data supplied by Hennepin Co., MN. PageNumber