Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017 10-11-2017
Agenda Planning Commission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Wednesday, October 11, 2017 7:00 PM I. Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes, Planning Commission, September 27, 2017 V. Public Hearings A. Variance request 5712 Woodland Lane VI. Community Comment During"Community Comment,"the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. 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 tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to staff for consideration at a future meeting. VII. Reports/Recommendations VIII. Correspondence And Petitions IX. Chair And Member Comments X. Staff Comments Xl. 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 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. ��%-NA,41 Minutes ok e City Of Edina, Minnesota . m Planning Commission Fri � 14 Edina City Hall Council Chambers September 27, 2017 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M. II. Roll Call Answering the roll were Commissioners Hobbs, Lee, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Bennett, Chair Olsen. Student Members, Mittal and Jones. Staff, City Planner, Teague, Assistant Planner, Aaker, Sr. Communications Coord., Eidsness III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the September 27, 2017, meeting agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Strauss. All voted aye. The motion carried. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the minutes of the September 13, 2017, Planning Commission meeting The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hobbs. All voted aye. The motion carried. V. Public Hearings A. Comprehensive Guide Plan Amendment—OR, Office Residential District for the Estelle Edina. West 69th Street at Valley View Road. Staff Presentation Planner Teague reported that Ryan Companies on behalf of Luigi Bernardi is requesting an amendment to the Edina Comprehensive Plan regarding height and density in the OR, Office Residential District. The specific request is to increase the density from 30 units per acre to 60 units per acre, and increase the height maximum from 4 stories and 48 feet, to 26 stories and 360 feet.Teague explained that the purpose of the request is for Ryan Companies to construct a multi-phase mixed-use development at the southwest corner of 69th and France. Phase I of the project would include 11,000 square feet of retail that would include a restaurant, office and bank; 6 owner occupied townhouse; 92 owner-occupied condominiums. Phase 2 of the project would be a 22-story building with retail on the main level and 75 owner occupied condominiums. Of the housing units, 20% would be included for affordable housing in each phase. 1 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. Teague asked the Commission to note that this request before the Planning Commission and City Council does not include a Rezoning or Site Plan review. If the Comprehensive Plan Amendment were approved by the City Council, the applicant would then come back with Rezoning and Site Plan review applications. It is at that time that the details of the project would be reviewed, and considered for approvals. Teague pointed out that because this request includes 20% of the housing units to be for affordable housing, this would require a 3/5 vote of approval by the City Council. Minnesota State Law mandates that if projects contain 20% of the units for affordable housing to persons with incomes no greater than 60% of the area median income then the approving vote for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment be done by a majority vote. A super majority vote (2/3) is typically required. As this is a request for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the City has complete discretion as to approving or denying this request. Teague concluded that Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to increase density to up to 60 units an acre in the OR, Office Residential District, and allowing height to be exceed four stories and 48 feet subject to the following: Approval is subject to the following findings: I. The proposed density range is reasonable for the west side of France Avenue. The density proposed is less than what is allowed on the east side of York, which is considered a similar area, as it also transitions to single-family homes to the east. East of York, south of 66th Street and North of 70th Street allows up to 105 units per acre, nearly double the density considered here. 2. Higher Densities are generally located on arterial roadways. The OR district is generally located on France Avenue, an arterial roadway that connects to both Crosstown 62 and 1-494. 3. The densities are consistent with those contemplated in the Great Southdale Area Study. 4. Density proposed is similar or less than density for mixed use areas for surrounding communities including Minnetonka, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Richfield, and St. Louis Park. 5. Allowing higher densities allows the City greater opportunity to provide affordable housing units. 6. Height is typically a function of a Zoning Regulation and not a specific requirement in a Comprehensive Plan. 7. Traffic studies done by Spack Consulting and WSB conclude that densities of 60 units an acre on the west side of France can be supported by the existing roadway system. 8. The amendment would give the Council specific criteria to review when considering a project with height limits over four stories. 9. Public benefits in allowing building height over four stories would include: significant contributions to the city's stock of affordable housing units; high quality architecture and overall development; increase in public space; added green space; significantly pedestrian friendly developments; increase tax base; catalytic development for future high quality development in the area; public art; elimination of surface parking; and underground parking. Conditions: Figure 4.6.B in the Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows: In the OR, Office Residential District, at 3905 69th Street West, a portion of 3939 69th Street West, and 6900 and 6950 France Avenue, the allowed density may be up to 60 dwelling units per acre, and the allowed height may exceed 4 stories and 48 feet. The increased density and height are subject to City Council approval of a rezoning to PUD for a project that must include: 2 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. I. Affordable housing. "Affordable housing" means a development in which at least 20 percent of the residential units are restricted to occupancy for at least ten years by residents whose household income at the time of initial occupancy does not exceed 60 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size, as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and with respect to rental units, the rents for affordable units do not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income, adjusted for household size, as determined annually by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2. Project must meet the City's affordable housing policy. 3. At least 75% of the floor area in every building, excluding accessory buildings, must be used for dwellings. 4. Project must provide underground parking. 5. Project must include public art. 6. Public enhancement of the sidewalks around the perimeter and through the site; including a 50 foot setback from the paved portion of France Avenue and 30 feet back from 69th to include sidewalks and green space. 7. Building must be of high quality architecture subject to review and approval of the City Council as part of a Rezoning. 8. Project must include sustainable design principles subject to approval of the City Council. 9. The development must adequately respond to the Greater Southdale Area Guiding Principles. 10. Project must include public space. II. Project must include accommodation for bikes. 12. Buildings over four stories must be separated from the single-family homes on the west side of Valley View Road by buildings four stories or less to provide a transitional area between taller buildings on France Avenue and single-family homes to the west. Appearing for the Applicant Luigi Bernardi, Arcadia on France LLC, Mike Ryan, Ryan Companies and Carl Runck, Ryan Discussion/Comments Commissioners questioned/expressed the following: • Planner Teague was asked if this project would benefit from TIF funding. Teague responded that TIF funding is not proposed for the project. TIF funding is an action of the City Council. • Teague was asked to clarify the request. Teague explained that at this time the applicant is only requesting approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan for building height and density. If the applicant proceeds with a proposed project, rezoning and site plan applications would need to be submitted. • It was noted that in reviewing all the correspondence regarding this request it appears there might be some confusion on where the affordable housing units would be located; would they be on-site units or would they be located off-site. Teague responded that the affordable housing units would be on site. Each building would provide affordable units. • Regarding the Greater Southdale Area Guiding Principles would the Southdale consultant provide input. Planner Teague noted that at sketch plan review the consultant provided a memo. Teague said if formal application to rezone proceeds, he would request an additional memo regarding the principles. 3 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. • It was suggested that the shadow study include the number of homes that would be impacted by the towers heights. Also, provide details of shadow timeframe. Teague explained that he believes at a future meeting more details would be provided not only on the shadow study, but also on traffic, storm water management plans, sustainability, etc. • Teague was asked where this proposal fits with the updating of the Comprehensive Plan and the continuing Greater Southdale Area Small Area Study Plan. Teague stated at this time the City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and drafting a Greater Southdale Area Small Area Plan plus other small area plans. The Metropolitan Council requires an update to the Comprehensive Plan every 10-years. • Commissioners asked if this decision could be deferred until the Comprehensive Plan or Small Area Plan(s) were completed. Teague responded that that was an option; however, the updating will not be completed and formally adopted for some time, likely toward the end of 2018. • Teague responded to a question about the applicants' strategy of separating the comp plan amendment from the rezoning and site plan process. Teague said that in his 12 years with Edina he could not remember seeing it separated like this; however, it is done regularly in other cities. Continuing, Teague said that the applicants desire to separate the Amendment from the Rezoning could be due to the large expense of bringing plans forward, adding approving the Amendment to Comprehensive Plan is required to proceed with the Rezoning and site Plan process. Teague stated there is no right or wrong way. • It was noted that included in the packet clarification of the 2/3's vote requirement was stated. Commissioners questioned why the vote count changes. Teague explained that State Law provides affordable housing incentives, adding this is one way to get developers on board with affordable housing. With the addition of affordable housing, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment requires a majority vote not the super majority for a project without affordable housing. • Is the 20% affordable housing a vote strategy, pointing out affordable housing was not presented in the Sketch Plan. Teague responded it is possible. The applicant responded with a strategy on how to make the project better and one of the ways was to introduce affordable housing in the project. • Height is a function of zoning and in the Comprehensive Plan it is usually not a hard and fast number-that is what zoning is for. In the comp plan, perimeters are usually established providing guidance. • Why support this. Reserve my recommendation; however, much public benefit. A lot of good here. Chair Olsen invited the traffic consultants to speak to the issue. Mike Spack, Spack Consulting, addressed the Commission and informed them the intersections in the area function at capacity; not over capacity. Spack noted that France Avenue was a County road and the County has the discretion to adjust traffic flow through light timing. Spack said at this time the County has the intersections timed to expedite traffic on France Avenue from 494 to the Crosstown. The County also has the ability to adjust light timing at intersections if spill back becomes an issue. Continuing, Spack reported that their findings for this development indicate it would generate roughly 800 + vehicles per day over what is presently generated. Spack further noted that they worked 4 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. through an intense commercial use scenario, adding through that analysis they found as many as 8,000 vehicle trips could be generated is zoned strictly commercial. Spack noted that City staff could work with the County on cross traffic and light timing and find out as the area develops what is the best practice. Spack was asked to speak to the am and pm peak trips. Spack reported that in the AM 80 more trips would be generated and in the PM 90 new trips would be generated. Chuck Rickart presented his traffic overview and identified the intersections and their categories and how they would be impacted by this development. Applicant Presentation Mr. Bernardi addressed the Commission and stated in his opinion this project would be a_bold turning point in Edina's future. He noted that this site sits on one of Edina's important avenues. Continuing, Bernardi added that the development team incorporated many suggestions from the Planning Commission, City Council and neighborhood offered during the Sketch Plan Review Process. Bernardi said in his opinion that the Estelle is needed to enhance the Southdale area and the greater good of the City of Edina. Bernardi concluded that the future is something one creates, adding he looks forward to working with the City on this proposal. Thank you. Mr. Runck addressed the Commission reporting that the development team is very excited to present this first step in the process. With graphics, Runck highlighted the following: • During the past decade, Edina has seen 668 single-family teardowns and rebuilds. • Zero new condominiums. • Loss of residents to downtown and Wayzata projects. • 98% of the city's 23,000 housing units are considered unaffordable to families earning under 60% of AMI; just 40 homes currently available in Edina are priced under $350K • Baby boomers, empty nesters are seeking different housing choices. • It is projected +80,000 persons ages 55-74 in the Twin Cities metro area. • New rental apartments are not providing the quality and unit sizes that match current housing demand. • Edina has 3,700+ households over age 65 earning less than $50,000 per year. Compelling affordable housing solution for people who qualify. • Community Support (Runck read to the Commission letters of support). Mr. Runck clarified for the Commission that the buildings are 24 and 20 stories respectfully. Continuing, Runck said they only have control over the sites in question, adding the reason they are requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment separate from the rezoning was because this project at$250 Million is the largest development project in the Twin Cities. Runck explained they want direction from the Commission and Council before they proceed with comprehensive building plans, storm water management plans etc. 5 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. With graphics, Ryan highlighted the following: • The project development was inspired by the guiding principles of the Greater Southdale Area Work Group. • The development project realizes Victor Gruen's original vision for density on this block and others surrounding Southdale. • Enables the creation of the "Promenade West". • Landscaping will all be high end and above ordinance requirements. Landscaping would be enhanced on the "Gateway" arch and throughout the site. A tree buffer is also proposed along Valley View Road (development team would work with the City on tree placement). • The project will offer a pedestrian-oriented experience. • The project will be in manageable "blocks", splitting the mega block in 4 quarters. • Humanly scaled street level buildings. Stooped set condominiums. The proposed townhomes would abut Valley View Road. • Incorporate a plaza at 69th Street and Valley View Road. • The proposed tall buildings would be located on the site closer to France Avenue with narrow footprints. The footprints of these proposed buildings would be among some of the smallest footprints in the in twin cities area. Ryan noted the shadow studies. • The project is a phased project. First phase would include retail, 6-townhome units and 92-owner occupied vertical residences (to include 20 affordable housing). • Sidewalks adhere to the 50-foot setback on France Avenue and 30-feet on Valley View Road. • Significant net new City tax base. • Opportunities for public art. Ryan noted that they are considering relocating public art from the Nicollet Avenue site to this location, adding he believes it would fit in very well in this location. • The affordable housing component is 20% or 1/5 of the total unit count d will be a mix of one and two bedroom units. Affordable units would be located in each building. Ryan thanked Commissioners for their attention. Discussion/Comments Mr. Ryan was asked to clarify light pollution and shadows cast from the towners. Ryan explained that the way the site was laid-out the townhouse units abut Valley View Road, adding that should reduce light spillage from the retail and towers into the residential neighborhood. Ryan explained the towers would not be heavily "up-lit" and no signage is proposed on top of the towers. Ryan said he believes because of the slenderness of the towers that lights "washing" from the project would only be from the residential units. With regard to the shadow study Ryan reiterated they believe the slender tower(s) would shed minimal shadows. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. 6 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. The following spoke in support of amending the Comprehensive Plan from OR-Office Residential District: • Mark Swenson, 5501 Dever Drive, Edina, MN • Don Hutchinson, lives and work in the Southdale Area • Lori Severson, Edina resident and member of the Chamber of Commerce • Steve Hedberg, 100-year history with Edina, MN • Arlene Clapp, 6925 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN • Cole Devries, 6900 Southdale Road, Edina, MN • Les Wanninger, resident of the Westin, Edina, MN • Shelby Kellogg, 6721 Hillside Road, Edina, MN • Paul Nelson, 5220 Duggan Plaza, Edina, MN • Ann Crooksen, 4516 Valley View Road, Edina, MN • Steve Barrett, 6829 Southdale Road, Edina, MN • Chris Cooper, 4512 Creston Drive, Edina, MN The following spoke in opposition of amending the Comprehensive Plan from OR-Office Residential District: • Gene Persha, 6917 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN • Bruce McCarthy, 6708 Point Drive, Edina, MN • Nora Davis, 6921 Southdale Rd., Edina, MN • John Carlson, 4433 Ellsworth, Edina, MN • Kaari Geadelmann, 6917 Southdale Road, Edina, MN • Mike Kerfield, 6916 Hillcrest, Edina, MN • Scott Anderson, 4700 Phlox, Edina, MN • Blair Christie, 7316 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN • Dan Petrosky, 7204 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN • Mark Chamberlin, 7004 Bristol, Edina, MN • Matt Brock, 7009 Heatherton, Edina, MN • Lisa Roberts, 6801 Southdale Road, Edina, MN • Matt McCovney, 6901 Hillcrest Drive, Edina, MN • John Jurkovich, 6821 Oaklawn Avenue, Edina, MN. • Jim Jensen, 6924 Dawson, Edina, MN • Paul Rosenthal. • Ralph Zockart, 431 I Cornelia circle, Edina, MN • Marie Johnson, 7137 Cornelia Drive, Edina, MN • Lori Grotz, 5513 Park Place, Edina, MN • Gary Thatcher, 6901 Southdale Road, Edina, MN • Art Lowell, 7505 Kellogg Avenue, Edina, MN • Barry Hans, 6913 Southdale Road, Edina, MN 7 Draft MinutesM Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. • Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview, Edina, MN Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. Discussion/Comments Chair Olsen asked Commissioners to share their comments. Commissioners expressed the following: • The affordable housing element of the Estelle project is a great opportunity for Edina to change the "narrative". Affordable housing proposed at 20%enforces Edina's commitment to provide affordable housing opportunities. • Professionals have provided both a traffic and shadow study analysis. We should defer to the professionals. • Sustainability. Building vertically reduces a buildings footprint thereby providing more greenspace. • Competiveness. The proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan provides the City with flexibility to ensure that where appropriate changes can be made. • Would this building height be "allowed" anywhere else in the Greater Southdale area; and if so; what is the difference between locations. • View the City with a holistic approach, nothing the redevelopment of this area would bring more consumers into the greater Southdale area and into Edina. • Recognize that this commercial area is ground zero that abuts residential neighborhoods that are within walking distance of an iconic vision. This area can be linked to many amenities, all within walking distance. • This could be the catalyst to keep "Southdale" healthy. • Note that people will always have differing opinions on building height; some will enjoy viewing tall buildings; others will not. • The Metropolitan Council has identified Edina as urban. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It can be embraced and successful with proper development practices. • As in the past (Southdale as the first enclosed shopping center, Edinborough and Centennial Lakes) it may be time for Edina to be bold. Density can provide vibrancy and movement. • Our role as Commissioners is to follow the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendment changes the direction established by the City. • The City is in the process of updating the Comprehensive Plan and establishing Small Area Plans as part of that Plan. Is this really the right time to be considering redevelopment projects. • This request feels like "spot zoning". • Proposed buildings are just too tall. • The proposed amendment allows the possibility of this project; it does not approve the project. • Difficult decision; what is the impact to the neighborhood; vs. the benefit to the City. • Fantastic development. Difficult decision. The impact on the near neighborhood would be hard to assess. It would be great to have more time; however, we do not. • The main issue is the height; traffic exists and will continue to exist. It is a visual impact. • Edina is great because of our commercial nodes. 8 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes El Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. • Tall narrow buildings are sustainable. Less land is given over to concrete. • In a perfect world, the Comprehensive Plan and Small Area Plans would be completed before development occurs; however, that is not usually the case. Timing can be everything and the location of the project is important. It is possible that moving this exact plan elsewhere in the area would not be as successful. • An opinion was shared that if this proposal were not allowed to proceed another proposal would be developed for this site. • Acknowledge the passion in the Community. It is an amazing community with diverse opinions. The end result should be to do what is best for the entire City of Edina. Motion Commissioner Lee moved to recommend denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on the following findings: I. The building height as proposed is too high given its proximity to the neighborhood to the west. 2. If current zoning setback standards were applied the setback of the proposed towers would be 2000+ feet. As submitted, the setback is between 400-500-feet. 3. The west side of France Avenue is designated in the Comprehensive Plan as transitional. The proposed buildings are too tall. 4. The density as proposed is too high. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. Planner Teague clarified that any motion to approve or deny the requested Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is separate from this project. The request is only to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Ayes; Lee and Olsen. Nays; Hobbs, Thorsen, Strauss, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett Berube. Motion failed 2-7. Commissioner Berube moved to recommend approval of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan based on the staff findings, subject to staff conditions and limited to the legal descriptions as submitted. Commissioner Lee offered amendments to the motion recommending that the City Council not use TIF funding for this project and that public space be defined as being exterior to the project. A discussion ensured on the recommended amendment(s) with Commissioners noting that at this time the Commission is voting on a Comprehensive Plan Amendment not specifics of the site. Commissioners Berube and Thorsen did not accept the amendments to the motion. 9 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. More discussion occurred. Chair Olsen clarified that the vote is on the original motion; not amendments. Ayes; Berube, Bennett, Hamilton, Nemerov, Strauss, Thorsen, Hobbs. Nays; Lee, Olsen. Motion to approve carried 7-2. Planner Teague reported this issue would be heard by the City Council on October 17th. B. Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Variances. 4004 & 4416 Valley View Road and 6I 08, 61 12, 61 16, and 6120 Kellogg Avenue, Edina, MN. Planner Presentation Planner Teague informed the Commission Edina Flats LLC is requesting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, & Rezoning to build 18 units of owner occupied housing at 4404 & 4416 Valley View Road, and 6108, 6112, 6116 and 6120 Kellogg Avenue. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment is required to expand the Neighborhood Commercial District to include 6108, 6112, 6116 and 6120 Kellogg Avenue. The Rezoning is from R-I, PCD-4 and APD to PCD-1, Planned Commercial Development. The purpose of the request is to re-develop the city owned property at 4416 Valley View Road, the row of parking for the commercial development to the west, the vacant parcel at 6120 Kellogg and the three single-family home parcels at 6116, 6112 and 6108 Kellogg. This portion of the development would include a 3-story condominium building with six units on the corner, and three 2-story condo/townhome buildings to the north. Additionally, the property at 4404 Valley View Road would be re-developed with a four-unit, two story condo building. The existing structure would be removed. The property is 1.27 acres in size. The density proposed in the project would be 14 units per acre. (18 units total.) This site is guided in the Comprehensive Plan as NN, Neighborhood Node, which allows up to 30 units per acre in this area. Teague noted that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan/Small Area Plan in terms of height and density proposed; however, the proposal does require an amendment to re-guide and re-zone the single-family homes to NN, Neighborhood Node and PCD-I, Planned Commercial District. The multi-family residential units would be a conditionally permitted use within the existing PCD-I, Planned Commercial District Zoning District.Variances would be required for the setbacks that are proposed, and the height of the 2-story buildings. Planner Teague concluded that staff recommends that the City Council approve the requests for Comprehensive Plan Amendments as follows and subject to the following findings: I. The density of the project is half of what would be allowed in the NN, Neighborhood Node district. The four single-family home lots are being replaced with three, three unit buildings. 10 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. 2. The units would be two-stories and 30 feet tall in height to match the maximum height allowed in the R- I, Single-family neighborhood to the north and east. 3. The proposed project would meet the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Valley View Wooddale Small Area Plan: a. Movement Patterns. • Provide sidewalks along primary streets and connections to adjacent neighborhoods along secondary streets or walkways. • Provide pedestrian amenities, such as wide sidewalks, street trees, pedestrian-scale lighting, and street furnishings (benches, trash receptacles, etc.) • A Pedestrian-Friendly Environment. Improving the auto-oriented design pattern discussed above under "Issues" will call for guidelines that change the relationship between parking, pedestrian movement and building placement. b. Encourage infill/redevelopment opportunities that optimize use of City infrastructure and that complement area, neighborhood, and/or corridor context and character. c. Support and enhance commercial areas that serve the neighborhoods, the City, and the larger region. d. Increase mixed-use development where supported by adequate infrastructure to minimize traffic congestion, support transit, and diversify the tax base. e. Increase pedestrian and bicycling opportunities and connections between neighborhoods, and with other communities, to improve transportation infrastructure and reduce dependence on the car. f. Buildings should be placed in appropriate proximity to streets creating pedestrian scale. Buildings "step down" at boundaries with lower-density districts and upper stories "step back" from street. g. Building Placement and Design. Where appropriate, building facades should form a consistent street wall that helps to define the street and enhance the pedestrian environment. On existing auto- oriented development sites, encourage placement of liner buildings close to the street to encourage pedestrian movement. i. Locate prominent buildings to visually define corners and screen parking lots. ii. Locate building entries and storefronts to face the primary street, in addition to any entries oriented towards parking areas. iii. Encourage storefront design of mixed-use buildings at ground floor level, with windows and doors along at least 50% of the front facade. iv. Encourage or require placement of surface parking to the rear or side of buildings, rather than between buildings and the street. h. Height limits near the center of the Neighborhood Node. North of Valley View Road, building heights may be up to three stories, not to exceed 36 feet. South of Valley View Road building heights may be up to four stories, not to exceed 48 feet. Graceful Transitions to Surrounding Neighborhood. At certain specified locations at the perimeter of the Neighborhood Node where graceful transitions to single-family areas are important (as specified on the Building Height Limits Plan), the height of new buildings may be up to two stories, not to exceed 24 feet. j. Establish universally accessible sidewalks along all edges of all spaces. k. Plant trees along the edges of all streets and spaces to provide shade and protection for pedestrians moving next to and in and out of buildings. 11 Draft Minutes Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. I. Gentle Transition from Node to Neighborhood.Whether the site is used for commercial or residential development, landscaping, screening and building height should be designed to help the building serve as an end cap for the residential block next to Valley View Road. The building height limit in this location is two stories. m. Encourage Underground Parking. Residents' parking should be located under the buildings to the extent allowed by market conditions. n. Commercial parking should be behind or alongside the buildings and be visually buffered by plantings so as to encourage an active streetscape. Continuing, Teague recommended that the City Council approve the Preliminary Rezoning from R-I, PCD-4 and APD to PCD-I, Planned Commercial Development, Preliminary Development Plan and a Conditional Use Permit with Variances at 4404 & 4416 Valley View Road, and 6108, 6112, 6116 and 6120 Kellogg Avenue. The Variances are as follows: 1. Building height from 2 stories and 24 feet to 2 stories and 30 feet, and 3 stories and 36 feet on the corner of Valley View and Wooddale. 2. Front setback on Kellogg from 35 feet to 9 feet. 3. Front setback on Valley View Road from 35 feet to 23 & 5 feet. 4. Front Setback on Oaklawn from 35 feet to 16 feet. 5. Side setback on Oaklawn from 25 feet to 6 and 5 feet. Approval is subject to the following findings: I. Zoning would be consistent with the predominant Zoning District (PCD-I) in this area. The PCD- Zoning would be consistent over the majority of the NN, Neighborhood Node District. 2. The existing roadways would support the project. Wenck conducted a traffic impact study based on the proposed development, and concluded that the existing traffic generated from the project would be supported by the existing roads. 3. The proposed uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The proposal meets the Conditional Use Permit Standards of Chapter 36. 5. The findings for the height and setback variances are met. The practical difficulty is the unique shape of the lot and lack of lot depth. Meeting the setback requirements would result in the parking and garages to be located in the front of the buildings. 6. With the exception of the NN area expansion, the project is consistent with the Valley View and Wooddale Small Area Plan. Approval is subject to the following Conditions: 1. The Final Development Plans must be consistent with the Preliminary Development Plans dated August 25, 2017, and the materials board as presented to the Planning Commission. 2. The Final Landscape Plan must meet all minimum landscaping requirements per Chapter 36 of the Zoning Ordinance. A performance bond, letter-of-credit, or cash deposit must be submitted for one and one-half times the cost amount for completing the required landscaping, screening, or erosion control measures at 12 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. the time of any building permit. The property owner is responsible for replacing any required landscaping that dies after the project is built. 3. Compliance with all of the conditions outlined in the city engineer's memo dated September 20, 2017; including a Developer's Agreement or Site Improvement Performance Agreement, vacation of existing easements if needed, construction of a boulevard style sidewalk on Oaklawn to connect to the Valley View Road sidewalk. 4. Variances and Conditional Use Permit are subject to Final Rezoning and Final Development Plan approval by City Council. 5. Submit a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit. The City may require revisions to the approved plans to meet the district's requirements. 6. Final Rezoning is contingent on the Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Appearing for the Applicant Patrick McGlynn, McGlynn Properties, David Carlson, and Mark Woodrift, Larsen Engineering Discussion/Comments Teague was asked in reference to the driveway between properties if that driveway would be a shared driveway. Teague responded sharing that driveway was suggested by staff, Commission and Council; however the property owners did not come to a mutual agreement. At this time, it is not shared. Teague was asked to clarify if residential is included in the neighborhood node. Teague responded in the affirmative. Applicant Presentation Mr. McGlynn reported that the development team believes the proposal as submitted included changes that were suggested by the Commission and Council at Sketch Plan Review. Mr. McGlynn said their goal with this redevelopment was to provide an opportunity for people to leave their single-family homes and find a home with lower maintenance requirements while retaining that neighborhood feel. With graphics presented the proposal to the Commission. Discussion/comments Commissioners indicated that this proposal was a vast improvement from what was presented at Sketch Plan. Noting building mass was broken up and anchor points were added to the corner; all were all positive changes. All in all Commissioners stated that this project was a great addition to the neighborhood. It was suggested that at the Kellogg corner public art, additional landscaping, or a bench should be added if possible. McGlynn said he would work with the City on that corner. 13 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. Continuing, Commissioners stated the as project as proposed is a very good infill project, tastefully done, adding they would like to see more of these projects in the City. It was also acknowledged to accomplish this infill development at such high standards is difficult; however, is a benefit to the community. Public Hearing Chair Olsen opened the public hearing. The following spoke to the issue: Janey Westin, 6136 Btrookview Avenue, Edina, MN Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments Commissioners expressed support for the project as submitted, adding in their opinion the proposal as designed fits in well with the residential neighborhood and will be an asset to that neighborhood and Edina. It was further noted that a Small Area Plan was already implemented for Kellogg and Valley View Road, adding that was a huge plus when redeveloping this node. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved to recommend Comprehensive Plan, Rezoning, Conditional Use Permit and Variance approval for Edina Flats based on staff findings and subject to staff conditions. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Mr. McGlynn thanked the Commission for their support. VI. Community Comment None VII. Reports/Recommendations A. 70th and Cahill Working Group applicant approval. Commissioner Strauss explained that he and Commissioner Lee met with roughly 21 applicants and business owners to field a working group for the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan. Strauss said they tried to balance the group and believe they have a very well rounded group of residents, business owners, etc. Continuing, Strauss said he and Commissioner Lee also visited the target site and "knocked on all doors". 14 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date:Click here to enter a date. Strauss noted that Jeff Melin is a key property owner, adding he represents 75 %of the project. Concluding, Strauss said they feel confident they have a good team. The first meeting is October 5t Commissioner Lee recommended that the following be appointed to the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan Work Group: • Alice Hulbert, Resident Owner • Connie Carrino, Resident Owner • Phillip Peterson, Resident Owner • Kyle Udseth, Resident Owner • Kristi Neal, Resident Owner • Jeff Melin, Commercial Owner • Tim Murphy, Commercial owner Commissioner Thorsen moved to appoint the above listed members to the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan Working Group. Commissioner Bennett seconded the motion. All voted aye. Motion carried. VIII.Correspondence And Petitions Chair Olsen noted back of packet materials. IX. Chair And Member Comments Chair Olsen asked Planner Teague if more thought was given to the Planning Commission re-reviewing applications when a change in plans occurs between final approval and the issuing of a building permit. Chair Olsen said this was in reference to the Envi that requested changes to their approved plan. Teague reported that in all instances of minor changes he has the discretion to make those changes administratively. Teague noted that for the Envi he did request that those changes be brought back to the Council for review and approval; however, building height and unit count remained as approved. Continuing, Teague suggested if the Commission feels strongly that they want to review any changes in materials, etc. the Commission should talk to the Council during one of the joint work session and get their "take". X. Staff Comments Commissioners thanked Student Commissioners Jones and Mittal for their input. XI. Adjournment Commissioner Mittal moved to adjourn the meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at I 2:25. Commissioner Thorsen seconded the motion. All voted aye. The motion carried. Jackie Hoogenakker 15 Draft Minutes® Approved Minutes❑ Approved Date: Click here to enter a date. Respectfully submitted 16 )w -�,1 STAFF REPORT w 0.� a .�,. O �a y C= t44,-, 0 •rivcoRPORA,IO• 1888 Date: October I I, 2017 To: PLANNING COMMISSION From: Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner Subject: B-17-18, A 6.I foot first floor elevation variance request for a new home located at 5712 Woodland Lane. Recommended Action: Approve a 6.I foot 1st floor height variance to allow the construction of a new home with a new 1St floor more than one foot above, (7.I feet total), the existing first floor elevation for the property located at 5712 Woodland Lane. Project Description: The applicant is requesting to increase the first floor elevation 7.I feet higher than the current home's first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 5712 Woodland Lane. This property is located in the Minnehaha Woods neighborhood and a large portion of the property is located within the floodplain. The City of Edina's Engineering standards require the basement elevation of the new home to be 2 feet higher than the FEMA base flood elevation. The requirement for increased height in basement elevation impacts the ability for the project to conform to the maximum first floor height requirement of I foot. The property is located at the end of Woodland Lane Cul-de-sac and backs up to Minnehaha Creek. The multi-level home was built in 1952 prior to the FEMA floodplain study conducted in 1979 to determine flood risk areas. The lowest level of the home is at 858.3, which is 3.9 feet lower than the minimum flood protection elevation of 862.2. This is a neighborhood prone to flooding with most of the homes built prior to the flood plain study and with many having low floors below the flood protection elevation. It is a City and Watershed District goal to elevate and remove homes out of the flood hazard areas when the opportunity presents itself. City of Edina • 4801 W.50th St. • Edina,MN 55424 STAFF REPORT Page 2 4 Information / Background: A variance is required to allow the first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the existing home by more than one foot. The current home located at 5712 Woodland Lane has a first floor elevation of 865.6 feet above sea level. This neighborhood in Edina is located in a floodplain area, and the established floodplain elevation is 860.2. The minimum basement elevation must be no less than 2 feet above the flood elevation so the minimum basement elevation for the property is at 862.2 feet. Eligibility Requirements for Issuance of a Variance for I5t floor elevation. City Code allows for the issuance of a variance to increase the first floor elevation of a new home over one foot above the existing home fewer than one of the following circumstances: I) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation, as established by FEMA; 2) To elevate the lowest level of the dwelling to protect from groundwater intrusion; 3) To elevate the first floor elevation to the extent necessary to meet the state building code, city code, or statutory requirements; Furthermore, a variance may only be issued if the proposed project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. This property is situated at an elevation that is within the floodplain with a portion of the home within the FEMA Floodway. Standard setbacks apply to the lot with the location of a municipal sanitary sewer main bisecting a large portion of the property and creating a challenge, (in addition to flood plain), limiting building location. No building area may encroach within the easement for the sewer main. Given the flood plain, sewer easement and required setbacks, the fairly large lot is severely limited in building footprint opportunity. In staff's analysis, the proposed home fits the character of the neighborhood with regard to height, scale, and massing. There have been several teardown/re-builds in this neighborhood with the proposed home below the maximum 40 foot height restriction as measured from average existing grade. No variance is requested for over-all height even given the increase in site and floor elevations needed to bring the property out of the flood zone. The large lots make it easier to keep a comfortable separation from the neighbor to the north and conform easily to lot coverage. STAFF REPORT Page 3 Therefore, staff believes the first floor elevation request meets the eligibility requirements for consideration of a variance. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 17,896 square foot (1/3 acre) lot is located immediately adjacent to a home north, with Minnehaha Creek surrounding south and portions of the east and west lot. The property is within the flood zone. The existing multi-level home is to be removed. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-I, Single-Dwelling District Engineering The grading must not impact adjacent neighbors. The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments in the attached memo. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Front—Woodland Lane 30 feet 35 feet Side - North 10 feet 10 feet Rear—West 25 feet 47 feet Building Coverage 25% 12.2% Building Height 40 feet 39 feet I' Floor Height 865.6 *872.7 *Variance required PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of variances with a with a first floor elevation 7.1 feet higher than the existing home? Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a variance to allow the first floor elevation 7.1 feet higher than the existing home for the following four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-I Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of the new I' floor elevation height. The proposed home design elevates the lowest level of the dwelling to an elevation two feet above the 100-year FEMA flood elevation of 862.2 removing it from the flood zone. 2. The variance allows the new home to be elevated out of the flood zone and maintain a comfortable distance from the neighbor to the north. STAFF REPORT Page 5 3. The proposed home design project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. The home is appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. 4. The new home could actually be taller from existing grade, (40 Ft instead of 39 Ft proposed), and larger in terms of coverage if not for the sanitary sewer easement that cannot be encroached upon. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: . The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped September I I, 2017. • Building plans and elevations date stamped September II, 2017. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated. Deadline for a City decision: November 10, 2017. REFINED[) 5712 Woodland Lane Variance request Sept 11, 2017 Planning Commission members, Our team has been working on developing a new home design for the property at 5712 Woodland Lane for almost a year. A portion of the existing home on the property currently resides in the FEMA Floodway and the entirety of the existing home's lowest level floor is well below(+/-4')the 100 year floodplain requirements. Making this property even more challenging is the "Municipal Sanitary sewer main"which runs from north to south through the center of the property. This sewer line also requires us to maintain a setback,further reducing our design options. Edina City engineering officials have expressed to us their eagerness to get the existing home completely out of the floodway and to have a new home meet current code per the 100 year floodplain ordinances. Through our design work we have accomplished both. To accomplish this we will need the following variance. The variance required will allow the new home first floor to be built more than 12" above the existing home first floor level. Our plan requires the new first floor to be at+/-872.7 versus the maximum 866.6 which is what the 12"ordinance allows. Because our new home needs to have a lowest floor of 862.2 or more (the floor needs to be at least 2 feet above the 860.2 set by FEMA). Therefore the variance we are requesting is to allow our new home first floor elevation to be+/-6.1' above what the ordinance allows. Additionally,in preparation for the variance request we have consulted with the Minnehaha Watershed engineers and they have supported our plan and are looking forward to the formal permit application process. Like the Edina City engineers the watershed engineers are also excited that this existing home is being removed from the floodway. Info Table from supporting documents; Current/Existing home lowest floor: 858.3 Edina Ordinance for new home lowest floor: 862.2 (must be 2' above floodplain) New home lowest floor planned: 862.2 Current/Existing home first floor elevation: 865.6 Edina Ordinance allowed for new first floor: 866.6 (12"above existing) New home first floor planned: +1-872.7 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Andy Porter REFINED, LLC Kris Aaker From: Andy Porter Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2017 3:49 PM To: Kris Aaker Subject: RE: 5712 Woodland Lane +/-8'6" From: Kris Aaker [mailto:KAaker@EdinaMN.gov] Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2017 11:14 AM To:Andy Porter Subject: 5712 Woodland Lane Andy, Do you have a basement ceiling height for this project? Thanks Kris Aaker,Assistant City Planner to 952-826-0461 I Fax 952-826-0389 Irlry 4801 W.50th St. I Edina,MN 55424 KAakerEdinaMN.qov EdinaMN.qov/Planninq 1 (02 Neth DATE: October 4, 2017 TO: Cary Teague— Planning Director FROM: Charles Gerk PE — Graduate Engineer Jessica Wilson CFM - Water Resources Coordinator RE: 5712 Woodland Lane - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed include the existing site survey dated 03/04/15 and the storm water management plan dated 08/08/17. Summary of Review The proposed plans include the demolition of an existing home, lot grading and the construction of a new home at 5712 Woodland Lane. The subject property is located within the FEMA I% annual chance special flood hazard zone, with a base flood elevation of 860.2 feet. The subject property also has a sanitary sewer easement that runs north-south through the middle of the lot. Engineering has worked with the applicant over the past several months to ensure compliance with relevant ordinances and policies. The plans as proposed, preliminarily comply with relevant engineering ordinances and policies. Grading and Drainage Grading of the site will include a large amount of fill and several retaining walls. This work is proposed outside the floodplain area. The grading proposed directs stormwater runoff to either the street or creek, away from neighboring private properties. Erosion and Sediment Control Perimeter control is required, and will be required for a building permit. Inlet protection is also required. Extra caution should be taken to protect the creek. Floodplain The subject property is located within the FEMA I% annual chance special flood hazard zone, with a flood elevation of 860.2 feet. A low floor elevation of 862.2 feet or greater is required to meet Chapter 36, Article 10 of the Edina City Code. Proposed plans indicate a lowest floor elevation of 862.2 feet. Additionally, grading done in the floodplain will require engineering to verify an equal amount of cut to fill so as to preserve the existing floodplain storage. Street and Curb Cut A curb cut permit will be required prior to construction of the driveway. Water and Sanitary Utilities No Comments ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard•Edina,Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov•952-826-0371•Fax 952-826-0392 w91��lrL Other Items A Minnehaha Creek Watershed District erosion and sediment control permit will be required at building permit application. The applicant has contacted the district to ensure no wetland delineation was required. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard•Edina,Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov•952-826-0371•Fax 952-826-0392 5712 ! ; IIodi nd n Edina, MN V ‘ _____ t 2g// ,,/. ( / ,,t2.1 *', '- ,, _ : . ,. . . ' / 9?,„_., ,/''''/)(');.,„ /// -''' if , fes/////' ), /21:7.2. :, . . t,,, / '/ ////'.4°'//,‘,,/j/ j.,"› g/// , /., /.,-," ,:,. { ://).7 . - ,!,,,, ,.. , ; ° :/ /////,/, ./ / / ie. //..;: ,,,, /rf . ' � / Alf////////// / /1////1/1://4 r/ it //1//,/ /. / / /////�/�%;% `te/A77/ , fi 5712 Woodland Ln ::litr �/ � 41.11( Panel27053C0364F 1 s1� � Effective Date: November 4, 2016 A . , ��~ FEMA Base Flood Elevation = 860.2 ft (NGVD29) t } I- - .....-.44 ea' A.,,,,. Vii■.; 'm� ., 1____-_-= Legend '''- .- - A A:041i N. ----= r 1::::11 Building Footprint ' • $��;1111',, Parcels - � ) *+,,'n j Water - !, , +� . t�i i Roads "'�i Contours 2ft (..„..,7i-N_ii_ci, 1 %%/ FLOODWAYAREA NC(1:Q )tc4n May 2017 �� �. 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD `■,A\ 2016 FEMA Map `�. o'a r\\ �b122Y1ft,'� 0.2%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD VVV '�"" Hennepin Hennepin County Property Map Date: 10/4/2017 � _ " mac- iii, l ;• [ - ott „,.. - 1_. , p. 1.,:,,. V 1-*, .-Lir.'7. * ` ,..., ...,:,.1,,,Nikei,-,., ..,.-.,--. -,,- -,.kv.".,.._ L . ,,i,, ,,,..„_, '-::',.. 5,Li4 'tftek ..-,,-- ' ',-''-i. ..,',' .,',,,,-,4',,,-,,, ..'-* .:tiic 11'...:'' '. ,;‘!„,',,,i,„ ''' ,„,•.;' ' ' ,,;i:4 4, .1. *'4 4.'# %A- ' ''''' ';"1' t a-.41" ..r.ri, Ni r. di tetg - , 4 R ' \-V44";11 �*'T.�R,y . 414c# ?4k • M t 4 xf 0 F r R 4 i . a. -'. SA. ,.. ,,A.:4 4'"II;'k. - ....„,_.•4 44' ' .'S s d * ! 4... °�! f.. ri OP ;r f tf . •Mt ia.- iff- ,,', int se' "" � . , - 'sY e,6i,„.,,,,14,.,,,. * , -,•°;1,4 ' - '.**". '''''' ,.°,12' '',°1 2` •,,..:._. i - ' '- r --ri , ',•• . : 4-:•, , .,,,, .,.,. ' — - , r . ' - ' I. '71 !VI or.olrii i'• ,, ; .:4'r.. Fli.: 4! r..i ,. .� '1...„.: , , '2 :. ".; . 1 inch =200 feet PARCEL ID: Comments: OWNER NAME: PARCEL ADDRESS: 5712 Woodland La, Edina MN 55424 PARCEL AREA: 0.41 acres, 17,897 sq ft A-T-B: SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: This data is furnished AS IS'with no representation as to completeness or accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 warranty of any kind;and(iii)is notsuitable PROPERTY TYPE: Residential for legal,engineering or surveying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable for any MARKET VALUE: damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2017 ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: F i` Hennepin County Property Map Date: 10/4/2017 -., .....,;,*-.---, _____ __ _ lot diitv tip, S C - ; '),T., $ a ..1. *. 6441 IN7.700.14, , ';' , i*, : „ „� \ 4 } lip.l Axa r Y j ��. as �n ,:i4 +. �` t A\L. wa. `;a ,K,'"-:`, • ,.."' <,-1-7 .„, , :,:, 1.„,,,,4, . ., ft. ,r 1 ,. u . b ns '- ` '1f'@ Y :4'' %",i,......!...." , _.yr.4./.::,4,,. 7 .;, _.-J. { yx^ W� 1. ii5 ",, '4 4 I t,. . .,, B M^v v. ' -01,_„..,,,',-..:: : 1 inch = 50 feet PARCEL ID. Comments: OWNER NAME: PARCEL ADDRESS: 5712 Woodland La, Edina MN 55424 PARCEL AREA: 0.41 acres, 17,897 sq ft A-T-B SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: NY d 7OH1NO0 NOISOH3 ONtl w°"a°.i"�''^' I» I n.:c.v.:,.w ,t :lN3W3DYNWi Ff31tlM WlIO1S mcsoosxm°����rvd $11511154 3n5$7vypO2/a5$ OS 'la WI317 4 J¢ o 3DtlNItltJO"ONIOtldD _r_°_o,e,°3 a u a 'i x h m Na'sSa3us D 1E1 O t I DNI833N!JN IAD J9 001aid OS AS m,WJR30 O pE U W Z mT�� B1CfE °'v'a'Y Ll eo/EO .r'O !C I e�oseuwylJ 'sulp3 4.yr d OS Au kr"vO y z ¢m a ro euel pueipooM ZUG 0 L w nW '""'"74:::°X,:: o<°•vufrwou.ww uy.w �W .wwwO .w w+'.+n H'c°u.9I r=w U ,.....1,r°w N. hew r �,OySyQy L{/Bl/BO 3Iw y o 1-8 l';', 'hi; e L -° ,. - $ 2 ,. .1 !—,i e S$ .`= g1ks^ S S 1 ° s _ '" „€ _ 8:5�: 5e €° 7ie`aBE - 8 8 sP8 'e - a=_=p,� a a$5 .o'° -Po oo'E ct ;-8 f -;,:,i i_`"�5,P SE •s Aga;-.$.sl. -+ E B e` aa R°` o '. y emeo_x 0010 goE HP • 8 °2! _ E �" ,a- ri K'sea Eg' e m €.ka ° € ,N,° !:$$x-Ss -4;.9! itti": '1 : _- . s LB s .. enE �_. � �°ry.f�8 _E €s`O Ea �5` : ° �:@--e�R=x=°s � £EE� E-° a8 -'�, a i i.E '3uCs .. _ x= 'i" c <Et Ili .1 og kx881"°F'`O -E ^°a;atsoxge Ex sIE .s° °i Em E° 88a 8E° _ .' - _ ,°:11; 'E 5€"B- e- 8a $freE,x` °gr Ei� :$ °�; ` p 8 ii:ii 'I ea ° : = "e $ °`_xg°. .`til`"$°�«x & £ I _ - �.�a.t _ -£aE F_ =e•Esa� >�_`eS 111:1 ; xFEbg�x <-n ,.so a .o�x[e ? a yew a Jackie Hoogenakker From: t Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2017 10:00 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 5712 Woodland Lane Edina MN B-17-18 Hello, City Hall Planning Department; David and Leslie Jepson have zero issue with the B-17-18 Case File and plan for 5712 Woodland Lane. We are grateful families are moving to and developing homes in Edina. We fully support what they need to do to create a safe and secure home. And with the talk of the "falls" coming down, the results for homeowners on the creek is an unknown. Only as best as the experts can predict.To those that object, please take a tour of the other Minneapolis first ring suburbs. So our vote is yes! Thank you for the notice. Welcome to the neighborhood!! Leslie and David Jepson 1 { CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR 2 CHAD HOLDER " OF LOT 4, COLONIAL GROVE FOURTH ADDITION HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA \ 5 ema \ WOODLAND i PARK \ LANE ' \\ - EXISTING 0001' /' \\ HO;5708 E _ �q 49 ib i (..m.) p;I' t ". z. \ „4234 0°. 1 S\ ....„,..,„„,...../..../ \ , E ,.. �� y \ \��p . ,, '' ---- w 3' ‘ ft .wu c 9 1 ,N1' '"" 4 . 1, 4, ..0 \ t 1 t yj<� j i. ,& \ \ ( a\ HOUSE o \\� 4 \---e 2,--��W . .3, '`.1.�• ,. , ' 1I /I �/ fl0691MY AS SHOWN OS h \t, S'Sr o •41 l� ` ' l� �7 e iwr NAr vn+a�.m ^ `! A_ I ^"..>�,W7v-gin.. 6, \ •i \\ "it5. mon, Tam".2-401.51341147 i _,` / \\ \ °0' `� '� '3� / \ ,asEwER �' / 44 ' \ `nuc_, -�m44 ., 9\ 1 5 5 O ' N. S <Ij N, -"an j 89'54'47" W 70.00-A� ~ 4,4 ,b,..-- ..;:t . .5.1 a `-, 1.1.012� , / . , - F r= ��_ '/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS: Lot 4,COLONIAL,GROVE FOURTH ADDITION Lot area 17,696 Sq. ft. , •: denotes iron marker found House 1650 sf e (90a3): denotes existing spot elevation.mean sea level datum Driveway=897 sf Stoop=85 sf ---917 -; denotes existing contour line,mean sea level datum Sidewok = 208 sf Patio& wok =555 st Bearings shown ore based upon an assumed datum, Total=3396 Sq.ft. This survey Intends to show the boundaries of the above described 3396 77,898 x 100= 1E95%property,the location of an existing house,major trees,spot elevations, topography,and dl visible "hardcover" thereon.It does not purport to NOTE:ACCURACY OF HARDCOVER LOCATION, AND EXTENT OF ADDrf1ONAL show any other improvements or encroachments. HARDCOVER IS LIMITED BY ICE AND SNOW COVER. WOE.„ • M,DOM ° Pf 9x GRONBERG AND _ 'hrbrtty amLin"r mreCeYw erd Surveyor— 1""and .201 Lok ASSOCIATES, INC. fdekao,the'Smy a,WrcaaA C CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND 3-4-15 SURVEYORS &BITE PLANNERS �� / ' ----- 445 NOATN WNLow ORM .�2 f ' y NI 55 9 LONG 2-473E.3--41141 Mark S aronbwx Kmeeota LIcerefWnber 12755 16-349 15-349 i P o c I 1 / \ •''•--- . '...\,, ,6� �. ' ,\ a 3Z +. \'' g `� \\�. U v� CA 11111*,‘,.;" --'48:,,' 447: ., .. .1,,1 o* 17410T4 o \ i It all0'#4 0 .I 11 4,51 .,..- 40,47 ,..7-. _iv 7.--,7---.-,---7-- a. „„\,&,‘",.. xi,. , /.11 ,,. Fi ,1,,-,, . . .. , . . . CD .—. o 0 ' .1 ,.41.., " 01 ,,, ..---/ . Alk,/ lilt • 03 g@ �' l sg 8 i 8a / ilL gf o y a \\\ .--.-/V7- I �m z i . G \\ / ','j i/ 2 t,- cam✓ \\ ..."- ./, / �\ /..... .. l,\ .. . \ � . . 7 ,, \ ..-- :,:_a, \\ ;: �i 'ti:hv _t: pI —""-.- ae ilt II 1 Y: -0 3 o e � y :aC ' NYId 7ONINOO N0I90213 ONV g I r..z.77 ew . :lN3W3DYNYW N31YM WH013 z c =n.e — 31✓.AS'IrJub'S1 9Mp57✓vlpzWpN a5 Ae anla3xp 6 -J QN o '3DYNIYNO'DNIOYuO .0<:Fede°i cu _�11 ado . J k h m —_NOISdQ v.rc - :N)maYdk'd as AO 03NOR 3p b 1 'f 2i W g z m DNRI9&VION971AIJ i'`p z h d ry E9OS9uuIj/V 'euip3 02222 '+`0i+� 11/20/20 =m 0 N d1o Irj'a c eue7 PUEIPOOM Z5LS as .1e NOVO "Sal '',3"m w ¢'�w .1.....Nn.lws.11 m.w.31 W i.+*04003 I.0'090'/4..4.,w .m.p0......,.....,.iro..', a 0 ...w.e.d..Ny.<,eA.......yw.md... ...w<,3wAa 11/e1/ea 311 'J o g' l',17 .i2 ie - •_° glt _,•€ IR a E x«s i ° it 1. I;1/ ;x 1;-B %E 2. z F -- ;,f o 2 e gig, of - _ .S.°� 'gy 0 eiass a 1 - 'e E2 d _ - . ••m'1; Ba 1. Y -°ee &5 "2z _ so a��eNt.f °/p r-. ,y1'8ei a aFs -d g§S Fa s ;BoNt Zle Y g°r.§ra €5"8 b _`x =°5 ""c= 3igl=a gi: a�=_14. a £S "'a° E<=_ 5 auo8 .was "'XS° ''e i .. a << >°o9 8Q z g�ae-8 tr e�-gs°° ES B30 a€� 5 0 E Cs ,91118 110 ° `.c `ets=308'-ae$sa KB $Esi<a° Ft' _f� C 'i� Mt E �E Asa as �5;=� _ 'se° ea:e,`e8a'°x�$ y §�e &oE� . $ F.s �a £ _ m �.,°w� �W. _ �• a nae =°°�'�_� �es �e$� B o��0 3=�-� $$8z �83.sas=e'� � 14 ��� 11€ a -- *--- `;, "got : 3;_�F °o �.aE = F5<''.E e' ��E+Q&a B' s oL e 8 S5og E: `z' IV II rge 1211.4 <`le.€g= _s:a,i E }ls 'e'er` :i a x 19 33i it __ `�X�sr '�ae't��5�,�' ,`� .L .p �°, s� Eg EE_ p: si;: F';, s RI 1 o: ..Es 8`e a1°E" NI! >B: 1;$`—° —e:�'s- 6§p E' �"g F:'!: "�e.aaoa€'•=_ � a� <- ` p �<*'aglq " I° 9°ge€ wi a� E,-°, §egos TIEg 1 _ °. _� l § jztt; � y • 5 a .as e,s<<E .`s gae G n P L v .83$oo"t ' ° eso `€$:i - ggg Esai'1asA: e @@ a@a $=yes*;s" r$ 129T€ � �•�w�fo � e�s<e�oz $" ° -8e�� �Ye`isa'po "s_a fg$3&=_S i a N t°Y�m 8.- . n - n. n m "- n n - 4 4 -: N ^ - ,41-ta$ 8 R m I. s • - a €:c s sa" x3B 8 �° . 8 �. YS y F i• 5 1 '-§ c E s1B` ` .J1 8B n ErYE63g Ba A o s F a Epp ea sii,e 4a vg; x'99aa g§ ;aa SXa y? e`ro cgs-_€fie 9,1 a$ Z S a a 2 a 'F =C °s E oe ' B ' f"a :NI, E2;,o'8- p.8p °a2 • I I 1 - rlio g. E w 1 °a$ sa .: aE d dee a$g Jee E$gl s„v>x€a1 `.1a csaH w I i O .g $xaEE 0 a-I a^ ° fp. ofr_ :1a Iggal °s..! x$.E€ ti)t ' T t asSL1a1a1"s� e ¥ �PI' a y° a•`'E QeaB $/s ass as';yga :041 411 I 8 4=°'£a8a afe y3.$ ;8a c .Ea a ” $€0 a=$B $s E.egZ.°BF:. =eE„a p^ ° =8•S 9' e eE$ ^L8& e8s"a §"s I sy1_@as€sf_"eg ti s €..•x=z$s°a hi' le, .z"1.2 _EEr 5L 3 S 91 B -8�°$Sefr1 '^1;e 6 259 ak.g2°�.8 5'E`° ,. 'g-h,' Sg^ Rip, ease °ia.--.2.1g-,— eT, k a •IEc'8•8i'ae o;.r� ill;'4E.a g " QY-" $13;,5.8°.Y• is e=!.se 0 3�3 114 EB 2a s-i oll,e••a^e" L-:— 1 £CSC a`a 5.-°°. E aEE�2E. Es! a-'e to a� 'F p_`°= gE z 'els"8a $S° '°;8 3}�:. eC eE aB$ FSs E" aa`Ebee�s= SS o h8aE SBS : €�a €.n@F�$gg B.s - ° she r'`": E E _€` § xx€.• N_ g=,e x 31° �. . orgt x5559 sxs �z$z 8 g €Eg H� dar=ts.X85: •>i.. _ N a Ai -8 0 Jz �m aoi O aFi mus a��' \ L': i ;1 1 i a !i a '' i /1/4/ a 114 gY{tS.• '! •`'•:<"OSF r W a lli o yam. 1 '''` \ / b I'� Zill \ g �. o \,........ e /' 8 l `Opf'0992 4 �m'�.,S.,,t \^ }1\�- ` pa s`=e 4 HH F•`'71IvlittV Wf p�� o \ °418 - 0- 0-'4\ it 17 '.FS'�� vl�jsbrfl7F' —.c.:__. ._._\�sl\O o °""/ oI $'d Mag, :7�1 �d�;..�•of ' _1,a1_.( 9 a_r-^ e^+Ee$ 1 f� e� .er. - I1 _HcEg alga !It\ a lk''�:�0. `� ►01 I il I 61 if 6 9 $sem rigs 11 -'4'.4 Iliii q!! h- `sill �J-�r------1 �d ° i /4 gpo sass' t. 'g• 1;� EViPE`4'!.; t,,,, K c 0- /a 1 `i 111 — Illiiii ro —I `E).(i. cr....--- ,,, „, rr--- / 4:, cn C d . ,, ,,.., 7 Azy IR ,q 1 - oQ 5 9$xmit0i , / WeC< I /wL / $ ^ ^-� e-, � I Qg� E q;j o g q ••�P ti gg 1 1. goo ip . oS is=d `• A est a im a n 16.' 5 712 Wood i ncl Lane ° C2. t' Edina, \t) m. .1, ..4 /P r / 7./x/- 4 , 5708 � ,0:///7,7 /// /r /////7:2 7. / d P,P - fJ/ACJ '/ ; ye � _ 7,/,/;://////7 P /6/; / //:///y/4 1:0,///://, i \\ ' /I :,/,/i.(/////,/,Z \ ////// /7 / / / , il /// . ,P/�, P� f `PP�f�P 1 s /i ///// /2 �P `,,f/0////7„;...7/&-:2>p f /.. 4//, , j/ O / 7/ / � i f✓ 'f /./ � , , / s�fi 1PP ; ../„:,/,-/ ,/,„ l . p j „ / , / /P , / fj,• Ay, . f ✓ Jj / j ' '.://:/-:;/0 /,',/,'/://::::/ / `> /��/ ..�/`-/�,%1°�,r✓�,����/ ;;��/ ;71 4020 /:// 1r// i 1/2' Jr`�'4✓/ /P ' — 4020 P`,/.; / 6640' a 5712 Woodland Lane ,*_� FEMA Base Flood Elevation = 860.2 ft (NGVD as r**--' Panel 27053C0364F (revised pr- ' mary) 1 I410 i ''� il, 4 ,it, iii—fix, ,. _ 1 I Legend !�� Building Footprint p .. iI! - i ter. / ,,s''T � ? Parcels ir�M �///7 A; — Water - IHI �. Roads / Pf,:' FLOODWAY AREA ./7 '��` � �� 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 0.2%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD N July 2016 Sanitary main revised prelim FEMA Map • A #� L. , . - , , I' "4. „.. ,. '., r 4"'"' I I' 1410F l ..' ., in.4:N., ,,,. . lett,,, , .. ,, ° y n fmtlir �iik` tYr c, i w - " It". . w"'L' ' , •. r+ ' 3, 11 _,_---'---I'II' e 0 \ lit . : ' .--,,,... 9 J` s. ) a / ,: ,il "41,b, / J /w y ?ar • w r ^••t�r ^ a ��•. 1 E a a� 4 �'V ' )4 N /� 13 E _ a / A. ., 0 , �t� :4 .. F` !mo i°\ in- cn ti an „ N �. A f IP o di,„, / ' . : 4_ ' cn N \ U N / • R • LIJ U .i 4ipt •k ' 1 •,, 4....4,/.. ,.. 01 .' *4‘t•': f• N P c.:, CO 1 # a0 coe Legend . FLD_ZONE, FLOODWAY °�4, (q I p 500-yr Floodplain ' '-: : 11:1' ..,- Q . . - A i(r) 1 100-Yr Floodplain Floodway m -- T f ''. el,' ,:' '-,:• 1111. v..- • A ' r* .R831 r ,4,i , ., ,4,45,i •• , .... ,:I . i . .4; • , .: , t , ' • •- . z.p Or • F . 4 3, •`..1.. .4,•, .,. .. ; ' (.1,,4,1r:.•;e , • t 44 ' k..,Jo.1 it, "1111,*• -'' ' ,,":74--7 •F . • , .• '.,, .., ''.•'• !,. ' • t ,t?';'q It. :,,•1"4''' * ' `' -, k••• - .. r ''''••':' / . .. ' :.,"4•- ..,','-, i k i .. , / itte . .1 , . :I •-k - - . . ,114 t ''• . .,1 41, 7 t .,:ri '., ,t 'tt+.• '," , . , 1-,',t.:6,-f'r,,„..A..-., .). ;.-i• -1... A., I c 5 Y". , NN 'VNIa3 e9ra�! a cec� :' w �g000 o 0 oz ,:- -=2' am - .N-1 CINVICIOOMZILS w EL' o""iwz®_ 3DN3UIS32I 213a10 - KN,12883ZXw , 'K c,t�wu)u.u. U>tll W ;..,"= 4 z; fai U ( I f / LIJ ...co. ri --,---wit �— t1111111% _.rte .:\ CL I i Z /'+ L I { r \\V_____ ' a a ikt IIf A log •4NNINssik, . 11111 . 17 lig ,- i/ f : 1 III ■tkr inmiI { IIII1j, \ Ill. n i iu ___ i __.1 i ii-=±._______T,,: , ___1,. i \:, 47. lMilli /. \ , f Nlit l'' �‘r ,y s z , n Cha , ;�S �r� ,n W NW bNl®3 �000.. s . o z "X' 0 ' Ni. ®NV1 OOMZILS aA a2- UUW W W II m _9 3DN3®IS321 213010H pEoo881 ay z , W ==LLLLSgam c` • Z i 7- 1111 I un iph: ., 1111 .:41 ., :,.,0,,L,.',1:1 it If. 14,1,-I it' _._ Lu i 42 li �: 1 1 0* _. , m —. . z . . Liu! � � W :', Cil � I ,tom 1111• ,; , 1111' �{ — au . ...:..„, ' �� __ ,. . , ... . _ _ . . _ K _ �s 17 f _ 1 i . ',': i i/. — 11- _� � lei 7/7 _.-7.....=, i -1, A.,L,. .=.... . v .v 1.:iv.,.. 1 tee 'N1 Glob)®®®M ZILS Wo��L,L Z W W a �a 3DN3®IS311 213®1®F-1 -rwwo, woo 0 o a C3 a [��/ WKNO �U2Ki W W `J. F-"Y FOtJUZn.H5 NN NNLL LLJU>N 1 1 i.6 0 3W MmorIi RI N i... 11 -T-,11Alit 17I� ili z , ,, -, . j < I :: I.__ . > LU 'r 0117 —--' Will I q 1 1,7) LU I— Ce � I ,. A 11 1i ii / , . ,1J, , 114 r1 4 ' 1P% i 111: i (11 „I EMI Ni \ L IN NM: MI- ii is 4 =, i- 11 \ 1 N 'No Li J i i'. 1 4,w.. D 3 .r to ' _ _ F , '~•-••^'may CURRENT/EXISTING CONDITIONS ("New" lowest floor required to be 862.2) xi-H I p Lupago a � � T �.I � : J i r rye.-, i s :.r�RilaAixt3i PROPOSED CONDITION, OVERLAYING EXISTING CONDITIONS .,Cyti l\ n ii ami Li innommils t II R , �. A �I4.777,24W.-,;,- y PROPOSED CONDITION (WITHOUT LANDSCAPING/PLANTS) RE:fiN iEH D 5712 Woodland Lane Variance request Sept 11, 2017 Planning Commission members, Our team has been working on developing a new home design for the property at 5712 Woodland Lane for almost a year. A portion of the existing home on the property currently resides in the FEMA Floodway and the entirety of the existing home's lowest level floor is well below(+/-4')the 100 year floodplain requirements. Making this property even more challenging is the"Municipal Sanitary sewer main"which runs from north to south through the center of the property. This sewer line also requires us to maintain a setback,further reducing our design options. Edina City engineering officials have expressed to us their eagerness to get the existing home completely out of the floodway and to have a new home meet current code per the 100 year floodplain ordinances. Through our design work we have accomplished both. To accomplish this we will need the following variance. The variance required will allow the new home first floor to be built more than 12" above the existing home first floor level. Our plan requires the new first floor to be at+/-872.7 versus the maximum 866.6 which is what the 12"ordinance allows. Because our new home needs to have a lowest floor of 862.2 or more (the floor needs to be at least 2 feet above the 860.2 set by FEMA).Therefore the variance we are requesting is to allow our new home first floor elevation to be+/-6.1' above what the ordinance allows. Additionally, in preparation for the variance request we have consulted with the Minnehaha Watershed engineers and they have supported our plan and are looking forward to the formal permit application process. Like the Edina City engineers the watershed engineers are also excited that this existing home is being removed from the floodway. Info Table from supporting documents; Current/Existing home lowest floor: 858.3 Edina Ordinance for new home lowest floor: 862.2 (must be 2'above floodplain) New home lowest floor planned: 862.2 Current/Existing home first floor elevation: 865.6 Edina Ordinance allowed for new first floor: 866.6 (12"above existing) New home first floor planned: +/-872.7 Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Andy Porter REFINED, LLC ... .4., ,,„:„1":_14.4,1.2„..,,,t1 or ir4...Thki; .,,‘,..,,, „*.: 4 , 410,4:8:441* * ', , 4 4 x 4.17, 4 i. ' ,, fr .. 4. r er It 4 ' M s. x �40 r iit -44$ *,,,, -A- .., ,, ..4,. #4,... - 4 4%,010, 4 tko . .., , , low:, il * ...,- II: -..„: ) . tA " Illr lit, 441140 t 1°- iuti).. ., f . . it" 4. ., ar : $ , * ow * $44, ,,, . ly+ 1 r / 4 1,1 , 'Ir.' k'''. s,...° - imp; ... ..,1 , . 4,4 4 4 .!.,4 --* / ,. 1,,,,,„ F - / i. IF _ *. ` 8. (. +3> wig f. $ ' tl r. N ?9 $ N C t ir 73 Y r ui au 4 O /§ . 4 co 1 * . iii 4 N / ,. O f N'\ Ix / ,,,,, $ 14, , U V il j *11 :171161.41' LU wU : t ulook ci " *,.. 4t' 4 .4„ . CO faiiNM � ktj'Na Legend f.FLDZONE, FLOODWAY CNI CiCSi cn 500-yr Floodplain `a ' 100-Yr Floodplain , •raFloodway �m i " 5712 Woodland Lane 4 0.El r Edina MN AfRQ. �") M1H nz:�zo 7p, ,i/,%. �, 57 17 ,/P/ // 5708 ,,,,,/, , /,//' // ri. / ,/,/ \,--) : ,/,?/,/,/,/, ,\\NI, ,1: / /1, /pr ::1) ///*/711157\ ,,,, e.://7:// // /:. ; ,/,,,/, / /0 ..,/,,, ,, ,,,,//.7/ //////- ///i://0/ //, i el f if . ..,, / /2 1 / . / ./i,///1 "' '//,Or,:3 ,„/,/e ., , /7//42 - /://, 4020 ,/ . / „../ ,/ 4020 ///// ,_ . ,„:/ / //7///,///, /<//'?//:, Ap Vi\0.t' mo!IMF /LW Iri 5712 Woodland Lane mom a-k.„ 1 /is �7 FEMA Base Flood Elevation =;860.2 ft (NGVD �/ !'as Panel 27053C0364F (revised pr- . 'nary) ., 4i 4„,d �it , 44 Legend > 4-, `f /P ` IIIII Building Footprint 1r POP 0.4 1 _ ;; "i a r Parcels E.,` �M' i== 0 Water drift • dIH HI ite. 1 �® Roads k1i11 um um; //% FLOODWAY AREA — , 1%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 0.2%ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD N July 2016 Sanitary main revised prelim FEMA Map 5 t / r f,: it, y y {{ ,' , .... 1 . ',40.,tliz.. Iti . t *' 4.i' �1 f `r�x: r,- .. ., ,,r; t f tiff r r CURRENT/EXISTING CONDITIONS ("New" lowest floor required to be 862.2) ,,/ / \ N __ E CO i IIIII .AnhL Yq er*P WA 1 ..,__'_..:, rl i ' .! jam. .,.. :a' -.; ,. ;h„- PROPOSED CONDITION, OVERLAYING EXISTING CONDITIONS Ii IIS - PROPOSED CONDITION (WITHOUT LANDSCAPING/PLANTS) NVld 1OaLNO0 NOISOU3 aNV (arx v�m,wi , worpwl/nw MmM iaa! -= youl / 7••! Ol = 4au1 7 - 6260-i1C-C9L .auoyd Q$ AS 03NO3H� a�� '1N3W3DVNVW 1131VM WEIO.LS Z9£sS .w 'oiwo!zuow 37YJS 7MJ11X31 37Y05 7V1NOZklOH 0 Q Nµ o '3D VNIYFIQ 'ONIOY8O —_—99s xoe so _ — •7S ,comp - 36°3- l Orillp C:4 OL .d x l() Nr)IS2Q 3.11S `� Q$ AS 03NOIS30 (0 O p G 1 'JNfliINI9N3 71113 :A9 0311Yd3Md o' \ D U ZLi 0,Q) r 94£bZ °n' Gab Ll/90/60 '•7� _ O p,41 0 1 e oseuulw eu!P3 OS AS NMVKI G O.N W 0 ° eusi puslpooM ZI•LS aafti ° 3 W 10 W te W •°7owuu!lM!°of°7S o47 JO CAW a01 z V' E ,apun 1000!603/ouolssalad p.....w 7,flap o wo/7°Vl uiwp p...mw 1.701,00"°7°'owl Pun 317 PMPV 1I/80/60 J 0 z -1 puP uocswadns 7'w!p Aw.=';',°„,aw/4 pa°dwd sP.w L l�BI�BO 3LY0 O G U yoda 10 'uoc o,,y'ads 7°47 1/!7�19.1°4/ `s >F= li (n O v �Y c33 tom. ~_ N`c� oyou 0°EOo� 3•Syu y< a 3aT cSrn :E° obOm CN 0 p. w m L° O tW < dCO °o=c>_ a acH T c N N c.O ,1,'' � coTi ° 0 0. ca v Nt c Y2 cco �„ ot coO $Vl o o50^ � uC cc aaT 3c.°, .. "'JJ r7N o°°t , 'µ 'cv .°3E V Steo. vo'O .=E U c M'� m mV L OO ?otu -te m c ,sc..,. ° - n 2r\ .Q v -m °ayr Cco 7k m Ep3 p _- atyo_6 Toc,.v Gpy C o mCo--0u;8- •q?cyof LV 4 U-a 0i 2 Ucc OV cO O > cY -Ez. to�6ET vmo°o nco,a oav va 0 °o ° ° uv ocDcE:mc >°-2o 2,2.8Ho E ..°,'•-. u -c= o .c-TD a0 0 dy mc ° 0TE°c o0m vaE '0 a0. ;45,.g.;45,.g.2 oa- n NUO1-;`_-po Tn< $m$Eoo $--. n?B m0'x •coupolls of.- - pvn«o=,. o.2 '0.--,f--2 .`..' . •,'.f.. a_ -.oo °a•> oc`o2 �3 >5` y ao°`vo."u�3i E_ L0-.E _o1 ° omov . °c O .°21)*'".°21)*'"'"v v0 iad" my ujmo °cm on1v -0-1-'421,6'1,76.4.' 1- ° °Qua vuo1:1, ,:Enm v -om«E 3"- y. c rr eon m ��°m 4'-',51-, 42; a °moU leo3W`a_~ c du<1°uean -y° ° °.e"gomI+ 'El :Iliunu c LLL, 0. c ,„,1g >, 2.2-a.,.. v w ? E c , n° tea `y oa °. cvv ? oaSc�P-nvo �•cS9=oc° eg, ouc€o c8E o 2 m �3 Z10 mon.v 3n '. mE oiov0C5 t°'v1nm n= =pO8NvNca $ m_ mn� '` ". . -..,u« \ „3;4- °1o.W , .Wo'yoa° 0'=V 'd. N a o, '°:t O° cgo _K ° c"«E gm°'o°u Wcc°c° cn° u a Nn uc_. «Oe�C U oon< o=N5o c"svEvN_Ni -oom 2c ancyEQocn._y�° °�«v _E z2o7c° v.v%m -y : tena y m °Y2a •`Vv,<VoEo0�p �oU^ mUO Unu m O $= 30m°aac° c gmc cV' r °;y° y c. rEO aw .(D p mo°LCywcc < v°i«Oo Oo cu$c� �cc5cy. g ,mc` , °V - 2bcug iUi0 '.-2 0 u-) N a. co$« o�a > > vol`voum ,.ouoov ocEW - °� ^mc8000ffm:_Loou •oE2 tCO °vu hVm uu °oOn N N oVmm o <au $OiOdV ,o°oc° E� - Um22c2vto d moYtaole.- cr, m Eaooc ,2 ,g, oczuc� a° ° mo' 0 Qgo =y : °U<°°.OUoa�u` oowU� mat .ao.°.% N_'c«<<P` caFc;ac . c> '" ouO-cmn . lVi° .=v`,'� °r Ug" .! m Z� � �� Zc �o � o o ''--0 go Q toc -•` o o m co ° ° -E., ° cc .To `` °o 0 m No O€1 l mo .n " ocomou °m0,-vmc• 1.05m' E � c- oE`": _o°2o %u°wt. ooto..E" E -` t" v on <o cc O o o _caiI oy 0EoncmOvmoc°'vy . , uvo1o°`vUa °am ovo"ovoa p `N. ut°u°vcoa°�u:=12,. m°zi`m� v m 0 or" (7uuo..;. uU .OOopcdoY>EcE cP�vt� c6 2• ,.onYowo.Ec L. Tc' ,8ucmoOC2°:r.1Emu ugx''nu,&ca.o,° Wrm!m4Jx F- >, �ZOol\ UUUa�C1 'prO >00poo• ouUzt�t`vt '° & Q'- uan¢� OOapa mEnnQQn 3��cvlis�Gu3PnoL? =aT1 1,: C0'I ...L. .--a. v aw iz avWCo c! "• °1ouo aOWC� z.- < n c N u oWW 7 pd 010 II I.7) 7 Jcn ZN W N n ,i 6 m c, ri v oaQea nj ai ? u)co I. OS of J a ; 3 V ua « m C> ° CV N c " .Oj U CO -8 5 Gmaay0 O co m0,;mc L- aUj -.4 m t 0 2 'ZI C .- DoEoa• ._ Qc 'ic`` c n" ^ u« E° ? dno '� o v m n c c0oZ' 3nWN2yaNGopn GE_ Voc3a o c cc V C Et NZq�U ` c$WL _'`,222-asn« ao '5:0I.« t uP `OCC2'$ «mam«°y'iil o` °ma a a occ n0 m0 wo aco°a° lo y a o x_oc au moa tm5 E3u $EEE3 % a5do' u�g. « EG o000 vEmv u ` a NUL _ a ;ooZ ' oot ypoZmH ..x o°� cvccoca iii L.1 w w a d a a a lit o anEu Ho u- -E_. aSmio:'_cca.ac2 octo,-c c°o v cmm_ o '6v t w o omaaaEay m , ° JI i 1 moo ,oa° mEc cc_ s 3 m;T -a•° cou cYoO'`° c'c p-mE d un c° mo ,1no ,..52 .7;2 g's,_ 1.8-;2.,,g, Iyccumt ca. o ca ncoE `co ho() . 2.? 0•66 m' r .g....§L. N54m oon«.o8o°q8 - aW I 1 • m " O n u" epimo zmc caco 3n"-.o .-M cc,° nU a v°onVNm°oc acc°°vao 'c 4.ou Mo cmv o c7,1doy=oE 0 3 1!:21 --:-§--2 ma Noc cyoom Qo as7Fi cucvcmcaVyuo !knmI I 01flu-_a=o,- F° O°�E f'.. 16 !c^on°c acc! ;;-,-,,t o�:all', k•Mi o pp0acv:a°on SZ9 Ill! vNo ° NoN of'on Neuay° 1Ogcvvz°uov aEugo 1;filii!Vii!; 2=nyd°c nma ha c,o'E° c_a oc$ELv 2 - ''o .2,:'E'ccocu°nyccoc'vm o ,oa.. 0- mya 33=N ljtarno0s-.ov�uinuoynQc ^corc °Evicylc;0Io°.dE oa"cntO O H- Q o°c -oc _ °ciQ<ccrocNouvoEo; oov >`E' .« erv °EDn: uEqiou:oa OF- CCF- 05,1 2O a naoco =°$mc0'z E°,,b,--,V,aa,1,o4CNv0�oryG Wi 4na:4,Soo «Woolm-tico,wov titil°aO z Z 8.; °i n w 1 ,-,i „i .4 vi d 3.i i Mi v Lei eZ =ZO CC Z z0_Z oM O i I= rd L.,-- U Z w U >E O oo I- w 0 J0 Q 170; z U zaOowcz w o oZ O r-Pz --I _JLa O2 0. 2 Q N. I- O / 1 . id 1 11 :Till W _< . s 4s° f' 11 < / �n �� I. N C3 ! bkAr AO • a .♦: w' • \pi . 0 /• ,ham : vY ` ? `0Y ♦♦• •Z § : G ♦• 1..t;'-'- '''...;',..,',.. wQ O I - .- 1.1.-..11. ci - o v CL r w ,�‘ =; 011•14.04141,1*(� • \ • !40-11-11-�r " ►A4. � .-L . � 4..;,.. % o).1...; , t u; i / • I R \\ �.''9•� « `i v. mnampo t ' ' .: im• map U O ° k •� te • I / \ \ 1 I t'1%.,F,-; ..:.': 4.. —4-7.$11,sTorr 'v.---41 =,,,- --— - 4., -4-----L' \` pp bl . /AA/Ir t14. ' C. /''r \ t<� -.:{_.... / 2,:i.6-8,1 "u°ik p, o • io. -4 :,,,,47, ., ,_ _ 8 a'-t3.,..,E2- -:_.,1 0 fif ,i '0° 4 °18r;i ��,,' / ../ ,-1- '�<, a cum w° cc . \ a? n n /: �'' mmy`a c`vma a _/�� I g U Q ai lWi Xi j --,. .g*.-.'t ° ' IF-4.7 ;.r. �. 6C'LLJ ,;gR ,4P / / �! Www7 -EE ?E="' a ri i i p JO�w �r°n5Um `. .5.,5 , , _1:::., $�i 1 � is �� l / `; / s' �,. Ei ,v ..°�°E o:.'y J a4 ', ,� / r /_ L•• ,I [OSNa / Wa c°�v`O> �a°u gg �: 7 7.'w�o7 / E.. , 01 004 F a 1 ‘ i, \„."' ,..0..) \ --V'-','V WO ig !POI S d Fr3B �� i •�� �i/ J <K / % vE.F 1 1J E Ait3li _ \C it O 8- �n - (en \ / U.v w 1r± • V ' � v ''.7, -',,, - .J` / 1 1 i/ �� <•O II SN ii 4 / o / m . . Nd 4 Z_,ap II '10,14:414," 4 W ---- :§-z E r n!6r {va U o w o m z g n i 'g cc oFQ- ON =til LL�x U - d A V'MiMielei • i ' I - O V N w w „,>.i.0 Z _ w v o 0 ;i'.; �i,;W�•'y,QM1a'` y w ,$ worn . . wo aF ;6Fa j 66 4' ���34i ti g wo WZE apO aY agE xoaa� _ a�a ,,�,� 3 g Z i 7 7 YOVWm K OZOa Ci O S .a i i a ,V%l %ai a”599 O \..- O Uma a �F . r �'� it'�;� B F �v• F�( RCS G 95 r9r •�!.• •W 5 j li_ <W7 LrmV NCO<0 •♦.♦�♦�".o al. wo w 0 w a_1 � ��'��1 ��� - moi Vl ... z z Z ON On ,�W • ,�s,ssis,. w 333 p O COQ li tV mow oo R clzw 'l�'`•!. 1- 0 i:^o co —Liz a" C' w¢wppp 6c-fil gc4.74$. NEW112ou0an Inoaatnaty tow:14,01D s n.ert 1.41,11--C4P-Zg5 -.— - 044 Nor '°7.42;5.9'" "'"Wie gcCgc 'NY, '3)4Vi WI 7AldO MOTYM HIVON St. — ___,_________. - -_--_- SHHNNVIci 3,LIS )8 SZIOA3AIIIIS 0 Si-t-F (WTI 'ssaaNtioNa ONIVIIISNOD 4r1S a44 1° " NI 01\11 `SH,LviDOSSV -------- 40pun .4040INAJOS twol Pos000(1 PIP 0 WO )0441 PAD -^-^ *----- ‘UT161"adri$ 4"41 " jaPrf "4 'ail' Pa"" 6" ITV 0 HaElNoaD ....._...______________ ______ NOOKS.110 V,4011111 MOW*, 91-0-6 - ,,,,,,3 110_ 1 JO '0040 7i 0-9,46 '140f sql Imo i.o..,a f.q9.4a4 1 At vt `13A03. MONS (]NV 30# AS 031041 Si 213A00021VH .sluaulu000ioua m SIttatIJOAOJCItUt, J0440 Aua mays 1VN011100Y 40 IN3IX3 (]NV N0111/001 83A000eN14 40 Aoveloov :310N a} pathind }au scop li voa.4841 „ioA0apiO4,, atqrst.A Ho pup •A4c10.16odol teu040Aele lads 'sea)} Jarow •asnoti bunsp(a uo Jo uono3o1 a}}} 'Apado.ld %96`Eit = 001 s 969'Ll / 96C pagyosap anaqo au} la sayopunoq ay} mays al spuelo, KaAlns sf,14,1 -1; laS 06cC = 1010.1 •Lunlop pawnsso uo uodn pasaq am umous soupoa8 is GG-9 = Mom 2? 0.Rod ustlop loAai QS uoaul 'out} .01044/00 61JAS9C8 S010401) : /A 6 • P. 90Z = NomaPIS is 98 . doals wnlop lanai DOS WOW 'UOnonOtO }ads Etugsp‘a sapuap :(£1106) IS (69 = AomaiNya 0 Is 0991.. = esnoi-1 punal Jak.mtu L10.41. salouap : • '14 bS 969*Lt = oaio loi NOlilaate Hielo_i 3A060 1V1N0100 'I, lo1 I : sNolivino-fvo 83A0008VH : S1Ste43lic1 40 NOticl10S30 1Y031 — ..,-- -...., ........ /6.<) -,...... (.00 -......... 17,... .. mYS X338Z}JO J01,4 (rOCIT.N.‘„ elf.0 0 I•it N,s, P. ',.'''.,''4\• ', /Pciti ,- ,, , .,:1‘.t," N -4P7 .4$7 / -Ph.,-.'s -1;t„ -....., .,, .. / 31',--;' cs---00.0L. M „tt7 atg069 N 2 l. ,,,.. 2.,...e . / 1 ,....,' 040 CV 61.9 Z44474v. / Ac 0 g 5 I \c4 V \\ 0. 1 cvo a2a / 1.) I t \ 0 / C.--;.; woo I I \ u9sm..,' : \ ‘ .\ INVOSY3 elgswbfu : \ \ 67A-417 A") 3,40t.4','Y't --4177;9 b3M35‘,,. '1'''•- I 0190 ,go \ >i c.‘:1 V cl 1 0,41_ IN3VOSY3,....• 1. r4.irn Ninas.44 / N*"‘.., --- 4 Alrein \ (c icw -..,.., \\ 1 *--,rf"-;-----Nt, \ Oil ted ' . 4 --.4 \, / /-.--bo, ,.. , Af --\\ ,,,, , ...„. , ,..,,, 1 1 . ,, ,,.. ,. ,d4; " v '''-<° \ - 3100.4 rj4 '-- ,;;7:C \ i `.4. 1.„.4,4 crinadns dvs MAO Ae ......4, , f _ _ 4 p., . ,..,0 ,,, r.ti,, , ., .... ,... , ,,, \ •`"N NO NIA014 SY AY41000-14 fil i-'. " 44ft 64' ' . '''. , V '''' . .-tl4t...1'.*....'--.."9,02' ocA N.^ \\\ \ f 444. 7,4 ' true) i ' \- .., k \ \\ \ •.'13_;—. '. . t'•.,'. ( •• ,„., „ OO.I,OS•.‘Ch..i3M.1,itt-t099,\A N,.: - 3s noH , ONL LSIX3 NYA3 / 1 &N ' \ \1 f . \ ,I ' . • '*; / \‘‘,. 4\ US , c?„ TO , • \ , • . ;le'4,:', -,,,4 , 1 0'. .'" ..,'"" • (4 NNO _• ,0",,,,, ,- \\ •<-.,), cal . ...,.--t.,„,,,, ,„ , \ , .10• N\ ‘ '-'0 6,,e•<,,,:, ‘‘..\,, ..„--•' -, tt '•A \ .4 \ „......._.....-.11'''' t ,././ ,. .,. woa,.SW •'" ,//::i., , , rx,ss,...... , .././/,,,,„..„..... 7.,,,,..... (a tatO 1 P \ WNW\ \ \ 4Noald \ .,„., ,---_,....,........, loom tzyroaN..roc.4 .., \ X 'IJ /4 CO VW r;C) cv,76 SOLO 1 ro„cs, -- 3SnOH .- 1 ... \ °NU SIX 3 \ i .‘" i \ i --eir u we \ / a N VI ‘\ >iVd e4 • - \ (I IC.V 1(100/A ‘ k u• , \ 1 vIosaNNivi 'A.1,1\11100 NIdaNNaH NOLLIGGV HIHflOd aAOND 1VIN0100 't 101 dO 1 HGrI011 CIVHD 7 t..,, 1 HOZ AaA2111S dO aiIVDIJIIMSO i , J y- 41144 ---''.--.:,'.,i'',-,,J'',';::--:,_' .=.,4,4,-t-,;:,' t, , Lii' � \t, ' f `\'' I. I I I liii ktil'r';':.-' •: ..---7-I f N't 1 nms . t, IIIIIIIIII l'1::' II /tIi 11111 .i' 4.0 t dij 1111 } I 11/4 i tt Hill\ zzyz> 1 1 7- 1 /'''' / —2--' - t f O / ) I i Z `f r t 11*11)< r, N.,5 i I ,, ,, '" --'•,,,.,0 ,1' ,,,,, , ,,,,,,,,, (f<0r'.*n1n(OW(nw 77 CD X) roDD. HOLDER RESIDENCE M mm (nZ�c'c�c�Y� � m Z X 0mG-ZZm(m/7 o m ° m �m-0-0 5712 WOODLAND LN. z O 73 73 cp 9 ?p-ss ; ^ N A �Np (1' A EDINA, MNmi N � � 0 r IMMINOMMI I 11 i 4 •� � _pr 6 _ Ns • Ifs_ .,/'�/" _� 'Ili t _ 00 mommium .s i. t -ii I •,\,\ an ' ' t i--... _y_ il 1111I'-' i1 I. i r 11 cnm 11111 o D r. F —i .t = m 1 m < rte, N 4 111 ..i.'. 4.,' _ D =I illIL i o Z Z r ...., / ,. .', ' I it-.• 11111111 4•1••••I 41 iii! "Aj";:r [III 11111 q ilig,n I nz IRO, xx c i '-'34' - ' . • 1 I ,r....,.;i• o C y «; d� m Cn<0r--n-n fn fn Cn Cn 70 CD <DZZ000 - �< • •=gymKDF0, ;111 ;171 �° 9Zml'csDnnuo!nocc� �< NmZZnn�T *mmm Z O ooaN ss ; n � as ;o JNA V ' ' . V V V V V V fQ HOLDER RESIDENCE NCE 5712 WOODLAND LN.. EDINA, MN f f - s.a I t F I , l , , t ii. t( , 4' 7. T'- '1., 1 .ii :,.., - \ e 1,, , , , , to _, a 1 , i) : .,.: „,., ... ,E"...ii 10- , ,,r1L.., ,,‘,11 4, , t i I . ,,, N .. i I I j l 0 ,.. I 11.11111 / I ','' , 0 411111111111111. cs J N ,,,,‘ ,,, z D o I ,,, - o c .. 73 m 1 ! , m < DiI_ D- -m D 1 D • O ,{ Z Z !i, I' I , u{ , != , ,le,I ► r, st I,c` q6,r,1f , , �I ,,,t' ,I I m v{ 0 0 -0 iffj (n<0 r 71 71 Cn Cn Cn Cn C- POI' Z X wmm>0000�{mpC< HOLDER RESIDENCE r -11 0 m o *mmmnno * 5712 WOODLAND LN. Ta.. 4 x x m Z O o 00000 � to • J 00— EDINA MN �, +n ' p v N y w 1 73 N ? U J J J J v v - -z > 0 ,,,At. _ c7D' ! =a " O N a vt3c,er`eoo mm--- ----- ''',1 D <.i'—" _. Z CC ,._.:_177'.,- 17.7.-''' \ • / � \ \, // \ \ i/ / \ \ \ \ o / \ ..°"''' �efP' 30 x a a \ ▪ z ad-s ei G' � \ .`\ N $ Q N o \ f Y a T, / \,c9 N o / $ _, S o K., .-/// \ \ UJ• UJ :..4 ;El \ u S if) / \ ~ f z / P m , €'9 t g 04�i / LE u oY 04 cl. a I C Tj ..*� + \ Q) 4 r -, 0 a., ,+,j,••' it y ,..._. 1 L�' o m • —t , 'VAL , 4+ \ a N vii C) 11 7 � TS ^ I / / /" u / ri i 4 tn/7:N++, 'L rte; / ---------) s',...., '`.-"; / 08 .' ,-.++., n i n : a0 I64 i 0o ED • ,i.o Z —3 m r • r ..1111R411IIIIA� .. s. ... .. IIIP S N ryQ v. O ii..:.:.:.ii}i}}}i:.i::i::.'.:t:: :tiij !ii il k O D to O D A >it::•i;r:Siii:;ii;+.;:i'ti•:.. ,t•. :.:..:.:....:...�... i:•i:?{•i:{v^•:: :. ::.................... ::y:•:.r::;'r•"..•;•G;•?•'::"•r,.kk{?+<:":<:$iSS':::: ::i•:...#•`�Y:::i:`.`�'!�•:�•':•'4,;�$ ;:' ..••.:.:. r.::v:..•:..:\::i::.:}�.::•:::..•..:.• . ..i}: . :{n...r:.......:...........................v.... .::: .... v.::•::.nom::.;'..tai Y:.•:•,::•:::ii:i•�}.isi:%:'i'%:�:}%i'::>:::��%iti%::j::'::::::4:::::::::i?%iii:;:i . ,p:..r,.pi:•ii?l::::::{::•iii ii::n:::.�•:r{+.4.::•i:;•}n•.{:{..{n:':i;.}:,.•i:}:}•:::..i:::ii::i iii!i'i: 0 -11 m }:?E:i i::i:i:}ii>.:o}i::{.i:{:,.iii:{}:?.::.:.::.,'t.::C<i,.;.iy':..: !t::::i::::i:: :•::.::;..::..:::....,:....... ,..:{.iii::::.{...... ::vii •::i i{iii::.:::::`i.>::.i:i:..........•,:????tY .:}i; o:.%I I{.'( :.:iiyti{i..:. u::ie` :•i i:v: ;stti:£ ...:...:.:.:::.:}:•i.o:.•:::.:....k: ,•.,::::.,:•.ii•tii is. .i:?::.,.::.::cx;.::k •<o. :.::..: it{':'r,:i'u;;i:.;:;;:: !:%'$i'lr,:Y�{":tit<i:C: i*+?�i iiii:y4? .•i'.•i•::.nri};.`.••:k••:}i::i::i::<:.iiii}% :,,•n:;.y :..... :y Qiti:t . 'i ;.•;.•••...••••••.:.•.::. Kffi —9 ...•'..••....'....••.•"....:• .•;:::.•:;.....••;.....••••••..-.....•'...•••:".••• • "':•.iii:::• _ ...................................::•• �.; 3 • .�.:ti:t:::i:.:v.{it::�.:::i•:i h':ii:?4::•is h:f :::4 j::: 'i?::'f it+.•::.•:::: —Q :::::::::::::::.•:.•::::::•.:::•.:::::•.•..•::: : :: ::::<::::." —Z .. v$ — ii••,{•,••;;f•ii•itiii:; ::is:i i::•.::::ii:':;}:ii':.:ii::ii is • 111 11 111, \ --------- .--;:i:::,:;.;:::.::::.:::,:::.::;3:.::;‘,:;:.::;:.::::,:::...:::::,:.::,:f.,:.„.:::::::::::.:...„;::.::::...,,i,i,i,g.,,i,., D -r - O� �160 c 3 re i?i�i l•pp� o a ►��� _ - 3 3 a o „<rn -, !::,..„ o z r ..... ... .. .. :.•.• ao :,....... .... _ 0 z PUNS CUSTOM CREATED FOR... SET ISSUED g—O 0 n N RASLEY RESIDENCE 2.2.,E-; z z EXISTING MAIN LEVEL PLAN �� � Pl 6612(ORNELIA DRIVE ligiiogi ,0r -I DATE: : _:._, DRAWN BY: �. r` EDINA,MN$$43$ 6 g0� of A te, MA PETERSON DESIGN BUILD, INC. 6161 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MN 55424 PHONE# (952) 925-9455 FAX# (952) 925-0664gam=6 CJ \ P\ f C=7 7 h i— � - ill CI) i I -1 ils\ 1/17V\\: 4.- 4,---10. u 1- o vn _ 1--i --L L m rIII \ lr J I YI I r_, IIH II III H L JH 1 (1._ _1 r r--4—-1 J L_____ ___I § U .", H D \ 'sl ` .� I I 6 i r 100 (1) - T ) , . .,..___-/ 0 i 2 RAW. ••• a k - \, 6 3'-10'_ r\ - / ILl -P N 1 ��ii� ---------. I / 0. Oa a ii 0 I Al A 1 ,\ i c 4.'......"...""lhi"-IL.-------- . '.--,MMEIM .A.11111.".... ...' "'--... .) / o_ 0 ; Oa p - m i, - r7nr-i \ ... } „, . j Ei PLANS CUSTOM CREATED FOR... SET ISSUED $UI l c- e4 c) n N RASLEY RESIDENCE = PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL PLANcI !V m 6612 CORNELIA o, '�, EDINA MN 55435 = 0 =o. •� -, DATE:lit 25 2017 DRAWN BY: 5 ?.24;13 6 I MA PETERSON DESIGN BUILD, INC. 6161 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MN 55424 PHONE# (952) 925-9455 FAX# (952) 925-0664 El e�”` a'y�5 11 7 r • z„. C a - T a 7t b A g PLANS CUSTOM CREATED FOR... SET ISSUED 1:ce NERASLEY RESIDENCEXISTING ELEVATIONS rD C DATE: LE DRAWN BY: EDINA,MN 55435 ;22 ' MA PETERSON DESIGN BUILD, INC. 6161 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MN 55424 PHONE# (952) 925-9455 FAX# (952) 925-0664 I' 2a =6 a Z T T C a 0 z (F2,) N - a_ 7t II y o Z C7 m r T C 0 A g 4 PLANS CUSTOM CREATED FOR... SET ISSUED ! © 00, n N RASLEY RESIDENCE -g-,A : = EXISTING ELEVATIONS W r, 6612(ORNELIA DRIVE9Po-g or '� 'EDINA,MN 55435 6g -I DATE: 1. :�I DRAWN BY:_r.,irra �m0 O MA PETERSON DESIGN BUILD, INC. 6161 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MN 55424 PHONE# (952) 925-9455 FAX# (952) 925-0664 ( fie =6 x� Ci) ---i-- PO v rinC I.- -I 0 z b W J . l — T. * Ag SIF FsK PLANS CUSTOM CREATED FOR... SET ISSUED -,;11 _° O RASLEY RESIDENCE o=2FUo 0 2 �9:7:- a z PROPOSED ELEVATIONS o=�mo�� A m 6612(ORNELIA DRIVE "" 4 ` 17 -r EDINA,MN 55435 c.0,p 7" DATE: :,IE 282017 DRAWN BY:J.FM; Ar9or, 0 lo "' MA PETERSON DESIGN BUILD, INC. 6161 WOODDALE AVENUE SOUTH EDINA, MN 55424 PHONE# (952) 925-9455 FAX# (952) 925-0664 .f26n=6 J LC > Cr) o I % _ _ < & co o / 2 a co » 0 2 e ` J / J a y % ) _ \ \ _ C — \ \ / \_ z o ® 7 ° ® G ~ \ J ® Cr } « n / o z = } . / } } \ \ \ / c c _ / / / % _ . = \ ro \_ ) k /• } ( m \ 0 = 0_ -, / D ® 0_ \ / ` CD \ / s e _ \ ¥ \ r i ° H ` co 0 a co m \ \ / ƒ / © / — i a = a o ( ) @ , o f ) § 0 \ < H H < H H H 0 , \ \ \ CDCD CD 2 2 3 2 \ E _, / § - { } } } } } \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 11 e ! / G ,cr \ \ \ a -1 -1 -1 -/ -/ -1 \ � ; LA / / \ CD= m _ _ _ _ _ _ (..i' / / o e e e o } / _ \ \ \ \ \ \ > \ o g / o o = o _, -1 -1 , / i g > \ \ Z o \ , z < & ` Z z = - \ m 3 \ 3 » \ 3 7 -1 —_ f co ) 0 co \ 0 st \ \ -Z \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ , n _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o a fa & •J J _ & \ % \ \ \ \ \ \ -1 , > a a ® / r 3 \ \ \ \ \ I \ } \ \ g k / ƒ H a < < a < > f 2 } / } \ \ \ \ \ •/ ,t• . ¥ \ - } { } { \ o O / ) \ a CD a \ ) 4 & § CD CD CD ` m 2 # a E / / R < 4 { 0 , 0 3 - m ` 2 ` 0 \ ro ® G V CD 03 / CO 01 V G A. # \ / \ 3 \ / 2 \ / 2 5' _ a^ 2 Z a LA ) ? \ \ } \ } 2 § / g - R co \ / a _ \ 4 { co 3 / \ § — 2 / / E _ \ / \ \ E k 03 \ CO \ 03 CO CO / \ 2 . _ 2 / / / / / / / / / / / , \ } \ a 3 a § 3 ± CD CD J . a / e / / ] § : : \ \ \ -G Kris Aaker From: DEEDEE DRAYS Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:30 PM To: Kris Aaker Subject: Re: 5712 Woodland Lane So sorry, I was on calls from 1:30 until now. Hopefully we can talk in the morning. Thanks! DeeDee Drays On Oct 10, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Kris Aaker<KAaker@EdinaMN.gov>wrote: DeeDee, I'm here now all day until 4:30. You are welcome to call me anytime. Thanks, Kris Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner A f952-826-0461 I Fax 952-826-0389 Y: 4801 W.50th St. I Edina,MN 55424 KAakera(�EdinaMN.gov I EdinaMN.gov/Planninq From: DEEDEE DRAYS • ~ µ Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 11:39 AM To: Kris Aaker Subject: Re: 5712 Woodland Lane Do you have time for quick call? It will be easier to talk through the neighborhood concerns and questions. Sent from DeeDee On Oct 10, 2017, at 10:55 AM, Kris Aaker<KAaker@EdinaMN.gov>wrote: Dee Dee, The grading of property within the flood zone is reviewed and approved by the City's Engineering Department and the Minnehaha Watershed District. Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner <iinage00l.glfy 826-0461 I ax 952-826-0389 4801 W.50th St.II Edina,MN 55424 KAakert5 EdinaMN.Qov I EdinaMN.clov/Planning 1 From: DEEDEE DRAYS f - Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:45 Hive To: Kris Aaker Subject: 5712 Woodland Lane Hi Kris Is the variance only to raise the basement level but NOT ADD ANY ADDITIONAL DIRT/GRADE? Our neighborhood's primary concern is that we will all be subject to greater risk of flooding, and a greater degree of flooding, if 5712 increases the grade of the yard -that will divert the water on and in to our properties, which by law would prevent the variance from being granted. If only the structural elevation is going to be raised, and the additional concrete will be covered by shrubs and landscaping,then the primary neighborhood will be resolved. DeeDee Drays <201710101049.pdf5- 2 Kris Aaker From: Kris Aaker Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:22 AM To: 'DEEDEE DRAYS' Cc: Cary Teague;Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson; Charles Gerk Subject: RE: 5712 Woodland Lane Attachments: 201710100846.pdf Dear Dee Dee, To be clear, you did obtain a variance to elevate your basement out of the flood zone granted by the City of Edina, attached is a copy of the order. I don't want any misunderstanding that you did not obtain a variance for elevating your basement height.A variance was granted to elevate your basement, you chose not to implement it.You were later granted setback variances on a separate application and at a separate hearing to allow additions to your nonconforming structure, (you chose to improve your existing home without removing it from the flood zone).The improvements were not considered a "substantial improvement",so you were able to maintain the nonconforming status, (obstruction), of your home in the flood zone.The City of Edina has a goal of removing obstructions within the flood zone when the opportunity arises and at the time of your request,the City granted you the opportunity to raise your basement elevation. Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner tt " 952-826-0461 I Fax 952-826-0389 h > ! 4801 W.50th St. I Edina,MN 55424 KAaker(a7EdinaMN.gov I EdinaMN.gov/Planning From: DEEDEE DRAYS Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 9:5u AN To: Kris Aaker Cc: Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson; Charles Gerk; Cary Teague Subject: Re: 5712 Woodland Lane Thanks Kris I don't recall ever receiving that approval. I do however know I had City support for my request. In any event, most importantly, I recall the neighbors publicly voicing strong concerns over my proposed raised elevation as causing increased risk of flooding to their properties and, as a result, I did not obtain the variance so as to avoid causing the hardship and increased risk of flooding that would occur to their properties. Now that we have all lived thru the flood of 2014, I understand more than ever the injustice that would occur if one property owner were allowed to add significant elevation (I.e. build a hill) such that the neighboring properties take on greater levels of waters. I also recall receiving a letter from the city of Edina last summer prohibiting me from installing brick edging (2 bricks high) as a divider between my grass and the plantings on the stream bank- I was forced to remove one layer of bricks so that the edging was only 1 brick height. Apparently edging that is 2 brick height is considered a "retaining wall" and not permitted,the rationale being that I would divert the creek water off my property and toward my neighbors. So I'm having a hard time reconciling all of these inconsistent positions. I want to be a good neighbor, not cause any increased risk of flooding to others, and have others do the same for me. Our neighborhood feels strongly about that. 1 On Oct 10, 2017, at 8:40 AM, Kris Aaker<KAaker(DEdinaMN.gov>wrote: Dear Deedee, Attached for reference is the order of approval for a 3.4 foot basement height variance granted on your property by the City on November 1, 2007. The variance was granted to allow your basement to be elevated of out of the flood zone. It is a goal of the City of Edina to remove obstructions within flood zones, especially nonconforming homes that predate the FEMA flood plain study. You chose to not substantially improve your property instead of elevating your basement, thereby maintaining the nonconforming status of your home. City Staff will continue to support a property owner's efforts to remove/elevate new home construction out of the flood zone. Sincerely, Kris Aaker Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner <image001.gif> 948018W.50 h1 St i Edina,MN 55424 KAakerPEdinaMN.gov I EdinaMN.qov/Planninq <201710100808.pdf5 2 Kris Aaker From: Kris Aaker Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 8:41 AM To: Cc: Jessica Vanderwerff Wilson; Charles Gerk; Cary Teague Subject: 5712 Woodland Lane Attachments: 201710100808.pdf Dear Deedee, Attached for reference is the order of approval for a 3.4 foot basement height variance granted on your property by the City on November 1, 2007. The variance was granted to allow your basement to be elevated of out of the flood zone. It is a goal of the City of Edina to remove obstructions within flood zones, especially nonconforming homes that predate the FEMA flood plain study. You chose to not substantially improve your property instead of elevating your basement, thereby maintaining the nonconforming status of your home. City Staff will continue to support a property owner's efforts to remove/elevate new home construction out of the flood zone. Sincerely, Kris Aaker Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner c a; 952-826-0461 I Fax 952-826-0389 Eli 4801 W.50th St. I Edina,MN 55424 "��• KAakerEdinaMN.qov I EdinaMN.gov/Planning 1 Jackie Hoogenakker From: DEEDEE DRAYS Sent: Monday,October 09, 2017 11:44 AM To: Jackie Hoogenakker Subject: 5712 Woodland Lane/6.1 Foot Floor Height Variance(Case File 8-17-18) Attachments: 20171009114028965.pdf Dear Ms. Hoogenakker Please see the attached letter written in opposition to the proposed variance being sought in the above referenced Case File B-17-18 for the property located at 5712 Woodland Lane. Sincerely, DeeDee Drays 5633 Woodcrest Drive Edina,MN 55424 • 1 October 8, 2017 Re: 5712 Woodland Lane 6.1 Foot Floor Height Variance(Case File 8-17-18) Dear City of Edina Planning Commission I am writing in response to the request by Refined LLC to obtain a variance for a floor height variance for a proposed new home to be built, I reside at 5633 Woodcrest Drive and am located across the creek from the proposed new home at 5712 Woodland Lane. This letter is written to express my strong opposition to the variance being sought. In 2008/09, I sought a floor height variance for the new home I was planning to build,although my floor height variance was less than that being requested by Refined, at approximately 4 feet in height. I sought that variance because I learned that,due to FEMA regulations, I could not tear down the home that existed on the property and build an entirely new home without first obtaining a floor height elevation to remove the property from the flood plain designation,just as Refined is attempting to do. My request for that variance was met by extremely strong opposition from my neighbors and, as a result, I did not obtain the variance. The neighbors correctly claimed that if I were to be permitted to raise my floor elevation (which also necessarily involves Increasing the overall grade of the land for the proposed new home), they would be negatively impacted in the event of flooding from the Minnehaha Creek.Their properties,which would sit lower than my property if I had been allowed to raise the grade and floor elevation by 4 feet, would unfairly take on additional water in a high water or flood situation --water that otherwise should rightly flow on to my property. The same exact argument applies in the present situation. If the grade and the floor height of the property at 5712 Woodland Lane is raised over 6 feet (which is a very large increase), my home and the other homes situated nearby will all be negatively affected. My property is located directly on Minnehaha Creek,and it also borders the feeder creek that adjoins Minnehaha Creek, so my home is surrounded by water on 2 sides.The property at 5712 Woodland Lane sits along a large bend in the creek, In high water conditions, which I have endured before, the rapidly flowing creek waters actually recoil from the bend in the creek at 5712 Woodland and come back on to my property from the bend in the creek that occurs at 5712 Woodland Lane, while at the same time the elevated creek levels simultaneously raise the levels of the adjoining feeder creek, providing yet another source of flooding for my home and the string of neighbors whose back property lines are also on the feeder creek. Allowing the variance could be catastrophic to my home and the homes of other neighbors, because each and every neighbor at a lower elevation (for example,the homes at 5708 Woodland Lane,5716 Woodland Lane, 5633 Woodcrest Drive, 5629 Woodcrest, and many more) would be forced into a greater risk of flooding and a more catastrophic degree of flooding during high water elevation periods.The request being made by Refined is no different than the request I made In 2008/09-the only difference is that my request was for a less significant height variance—yet I did not obtain the variance requested. 1 Furthermore,a floor height variance of over 6 feet will result in a home that is significantly and uncharacteristically taller than any other home in the neighborhood. It would be a tall house built on a newly constructed hill, all to the disadvantage of the neighbors. If Refined chooses to proceed with construction on the property at 5712 Woodland Lane, it has other options available to it that do not put the neighbors at increased risk of flooding. When I did not obtain my floor height variance in 2008, I kept the existing foundation, the lowest level walls,and the entire footprint of the house that I tore down and,as a result, all of the other new construction was considered a major remodel built consistent with all FEMA regulations. I was not able to remove my home from the federal flood plain designation, much to my dismay, but I also did not cause any increased risk of harm to my neighbors. If Refined chooses to tear down the home at 5712 Woodland, it has the option to do exactly what I did (keep the footprint, foundation, and lowest elevation walls, and then newly construct everything else). It has other options as well, which were proposed to me during my hearings, such as keeping the existing foundation and removing the lowest level back doors and windows (and replacing them with brick or stone) in order to avoid the risk of water intake into the newly remodeled home during high water situations. I understand better than anyone what position Refined is in, because I stood in Its exact shoes previously. But the bottom line Is Refined does not have any unique or exceptional hardship In requesting Its variance—many of us share the very same hardship that Refined is seeking to avoid by asking for special treatment. Furthermore,the City of Edina is not able to grant a floor height variance where doing so would increase the risk of flooding to neighboring properties and jeopardize the rest of us. Refined is seeking to financially profit from building a new home that puts the neighboring properties at greater risk of flooding. Not only would that jeopardize our homes, but it would also reduce our property values. That would be unfair and unlawful, and therefore is not permitted.The variance should not be granted,and Refined should pursue other construction options that do not bring increased risk of harm to the neighbors,just as I did back in 2008/09. Sincerely, ii /1 /4i DeeDee n S 5633 Woodcrest Drive Edina MN 55424 2 e alt (;;(1;3 • )ce City of Edina November 2, 2007 DeeDee Drays Hill 5254 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 Re: B-07-38 - a 3.4 foot basement height variance for 5633 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN Dear Mr. Drays Hill: This letter is to inform you your request for the above referenced variance has been heard and approved. The Edina Zoning Board of Appeals met on Thursday, November 1, 2007 and issued the enclosed Order. Your next step is to apply for a building permit. Please feel free to contact the Building Department if you have any questions on the permitting process (952-826-0372). If you have any questions regarding the variance process feel free to call Kris Aaker or me at 952-826-0369. Sincerely, c7c29ajsi *0 ceriaticv Jackie Hoogenakker Zoning Board of Appeals Enclosure h City Hall 952-927-8861 4801 WEST 50TH STREET FAX 952-826-0390 EDINA,MINNESOTA,55424-1394 www.cityofedina.com TTY 952-826-0379 CITY OF EDINA PLANNING # B-07-38 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE. PETITION OF: 5633 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN a 3.4 foot basement height variance For a Variance under Ordinance No.'s 850, 815, 1046, and 460 The above entitled Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Edina at a regular(special) meeting thereof has duly considered the above petition and after hearing, and examining all of the evidence and the file herein does hereby: FIND AS FACT: 1. Petition Filed: August 11, 2007 2. Fee Paid: $200.00 3. Notice Mailed: October 20, 2007 4. The Proposed Variance Would: YES NO A. Relieve and undue hardship X B. Correct extraordinary circumstances X applicable to this property, but not applicable to the other property in the vicinity of the zoning district. C. Preserve a substantial property right X possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. D. Not be materially detrimental to the X public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Conclusions: 1. The procedural requirements of the Ordinance have been met. 2. The variance should{not) be granted as requested. PLANNING # B-07-38 3. Conditions to the granting of said variance: This variance will end one year from the date of approval, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance, or approved a time extension. 4. This Order shall be effective November 1, 2007 , however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall have commenced within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS By: 6j L (U ?129t Chairperson Dated: November 1, 2007 Order Mailed to Petitioner November 2, 2007 Time to appeal expires November 10, 2007 (Notice of Appeal shall prevent the issuance of a building permit until said Appeal has been determined.) Kris Aaker From: Kris Aaker Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:25 AM To: 'Martin Freeman' Subject: RE: Emailing - 201710100846.pdf The basement must be elevated 2 feet above the flood protection elevation. The existing basement is well below the flood elevation and their request will elevate the basement 2 feet above the flood zone, (at the minimum required). Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner @, 952-826-0461 I Fax 952-826-0389 4801 W.50th St. I Edina,MN 55424 KAakera EdinaMN.gov I EdinaMN.gov/Planning From: Martin Freeman Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:19 AM To: Kris Aaker Subject: Re: Emailing - 201710100846.pdf Is 6.1 feet necessary? Martin L. Freeman Email' On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Kris Aaker <KAaker@edinamn.gov> wrote: Dear Mr. Freeman, I want to correct a misconception that no variance was granted by the City of Edina to elevate the basement of 5633 Woodcrest. A variance was granted, (see attached order). The home owner chose not to exercise her right to use the variance and elevate the basement above the flood protection elevation. The City must support a property owner's efforts to remove their property from the flood zone. Sincerely, Kris Aaker Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner C `i ti 952-826-0461 l Fax 952-826-0389 ,,; 4801 W.50th St. I Edina,MN 55424 KAakeraC�EdinaMN.gov l EdinaMN.gov/Planning 2 Martin and Dona Freeman 10/10/2017 5637 Woodcrest Drive Edina MN 55424 TO: City of Edina Planning Commission Re 5712 Woodland Lane 6.1 foot floor height variance I am writing to raise serious concerns about a proposal for Refined LLC to obtain a variance to raise the height of the foundation floor by over 6 feet. I have resided at 5637 Woodcrest Drive,just across the creek from the property in question, in a lovely house that has a large backyard backing onto the drainage creek entering Minnehaha Creek just opposite the Woodland Lane property since 1994 (almost 24 years). I have witnessed several major floods in that time and have a deep investment in the area. My concerns are 1) Esthetic.To raise the house by 6 feet would create a "castle on a hill" in an otherwise flat neighborhood 2) Overkill. I have witnessed all the floods and at worst there were 2 feet of water, not 6 in the house in question 3) Fairness. My neighbor, DeeDee Drays, at 5633 Woodcrest,was denied ANY variance to raise her foundation, despite a very expensive and neighborhood-enhancing remodel. It would be highly unfair and unethical to grant a variance to a developer while denying a variance to an individual neighbor. 4) Effect on the floodplain. If the land is built up on the opposite shore, it will decrease available area for rising waters to go, and in fact DEFLECT them to the opposite shore, namely all of our houses along the creek on the other side, including my house. I plan to be at the hearing on Wednesday 11 October, but I hope you will take these matters into consideration. Sincerely Martin Freeman 5637 Woodcrest Drive Edina MN 55424 ',•r • o � City of Edina November 2, 2007 DeeDee Drays Hill 5254 13th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55417 Re: B-07-38 - a 3.4 foot basement height variance for 5633 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN Dear Mr. Drays Hill: This letter is to inform you your request for the above referenced variance has been heard and approved. The Edina Zoning Board of Appeals met on Thursday, November 1, 2007 and issued the enclosed Order. Your next step is to apply for a building permit. Please feel free to contact the Building Department if you have any questions on the permitting process (952-826-0372). If you have any questions regarding the variance process feel free to call Kris Aaker or me at 952-826-0369. Sincerely, c7p2sesbiao*acrQ5:Axm Jackie Hoogenakker Zoning Board of Appeals Enclosure h City Hall 952-927-8861 FAX 952-826-0390 4801 WEST 50TH STREET TTY 952-826-D379 EDINA,MINNESOTA,55424-1394 WWW.cityofedina.com 1 CITY OF EDINA PLANNING # B-07-38 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN RE PETITION OF: 5633 Woodcrest Drive, Edina, MN a 3.4 foot basement height variance For a Variance under Ordinance No.'s 850, 815, 1046, and 460 The above entitled Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of Edina at a regular(special) meeting thereof has duly considered the above petition and after hearing, and examining all of the evidence and the file herein does hereby: FIND AS FACT: 1. Petition Filed: August 11, 2007 2. Fee Paid: $200.00 3. Notice Mailed: October 20, 2007 4. The Proposed Variance Would: YES NO A. Relieve and undue hardship X B. Correct extraordinary circumstances X applicable to this property, but not applicable to the other property in the vicinity of the zoning district. C. Preserve a substantial property right X possessed by other property in the vicinity and zoning district. D. Not be materially detrimental to the X public welfare or injurious to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Conclusions: 1. The procedural requirements of the Ordinance have been met. 2. The variance should tn-ot) be granted as requested. PLANNING # B-07-38 3. Conditions to the granting of said variance: This variance will end one year from the date of approval, unless the city has issued a building permit for the project covered by this variance, or approved a time extension. 4. This Order shall be effective November 1, 2007 , however, this variance shall lapse and be of no effect unless the erection or alterations permitted shall have commenced within one (1) year of the effective date unless said period of time is extended pursuant to the appropriate procedures prior to the expiration of one year from the effective date hereof. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS By: r\ aQ , /sith Chairperson Dated: November 1, 2007 Order Mailed to Petitioner November 2, 2007 Time to appeal expires November 10, 2007 (Notice of Appeal shall prevent the issuance of a building permit until said Appeal has been determined.)