Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2021-06-09 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Packet
Agenda Plan n ing Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota VIRTUAL MEETING Wednesday, June 9, 2021 7:00 PM Watch the meeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeetings or Facebook.com/EdinaMN. To participate in Public Hearings: Call 800-374-0221. Enter Conference ID 8399767. Give the operator your name, street address and telephone number. Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to get in the queue to speak. A City sta; member will introduce you when it is your turn. I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Planning Commission May 26, 2021 V.Public Hearings A.CONTINUE TO JUNE 23, 2021: B-21-17 Front yard setback variance 5404 Stauder Circle B.B-21-15, Front and Rear Yard Setback Variances at 4241 Valley View Road VI.Reports/Recommendations VII.Chair And Member Comments VIII.Sta7 Comments IX.Adjournment The City of Edina wants all res idents to be c om fortable being part of the public proc ess . If you need as sistance in the way of hearing ampli:c ation, an interpreter, large-print documents or s om ething els e, pleas e c all 952-927-8861 72 hours in advanc e of the m eeting. Date: June 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion May 26, 2021 Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the minutes from the May 26, 2021 P lanning Commission. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Minutes Planning Commission May 26, 2021 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 1 of 5 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission VIRTUAL MEETING May 26, 2021 I. Call To Order Chair Nemerov called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Berube, Strauss, Agnew, Bartling, Alkire and Chair Nemerov. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Emily Bodeker, Assistant Planner, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Cullen, Bennett, and Olsen. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Bartling moved to approve the May 26, 2021, agenda. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously as presented. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, April 28, 2021 B. Minutes: Planning Commission, May 12, 2021 Commissioner Bartling moved to approve the April 28, 2021, meeting minutes and the May 12, 2021, meeting minutes. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Commissioner Bartling offered up an amendment to the May 12, 2021, minutes to correct the section regarding signage to change the name of the firm HGK to HGA. Motion carried unanimously as amended. V. Special Recognitions and Presentations None. VI. Public Hearings A. B-21-16 – Fence Height Variance – 5828 Eastview Drive Assistant Planner Bodeker presented the request of 5828 Eastview Drive for a fence height variance to the front yard along Benton Avenue. Staff recommends denial of the 6-foot fence height variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 2 of 5 The Commission asked questions of staff. Appearing for the Applicant Matt Zung, appellant, introduced himself, made a presentation to the Commission, and asked a question of staff. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission started deliberation and discussion. Mr. Zung presented additional information for the Commission’s consideration. The Commission asked questions of staff and concluded there were not compelling enough arguments to consider a variance in this case. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Motion Commissioner Strauss moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the City Council of the 6-foot fence height variance in the front yard at 5828 Eastview Drive as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried 5-1 (Agnew). B. B-21-14 – Height Variance – 4604 W 56th Street Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of 4604 W 56th Street for a variance for a tear-down-re- guild/new home variance. Staff recommends approval of the 3.2-foot first floor height increase from the 1- foot maximum allowed for a new home, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered questions of the Commission. Appearing for the Applicant Andy Porter, appellant, made a presentation to the Commission. The appellant and staff answered several questions of the Commission. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Public Hearing None. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Agnew seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission started deliberation and discussion. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Mr. Porter provided additional information and noted the recently submitted survey. Motion Commissioner Berube moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the 3.2-foot first floor height increase at 4604 W 56th Street, using the updated survey, as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Alkire seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. B-21-13 – Side and Front Yard Variance – 4236 Scott Terrace Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of 4236 Scott Terrace for side yard setback and front yard setback variances. Staff recommends approval of the 1.27-foot south side yard setback and the 4.12-foot front yard setback variances, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff answered questions of the Commission. Appearing for the Applicant Joseph Backer, appellant, and Jason Strodl, architect for the appellants, made presentations to the Commission. The appellant answered Commission questions. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Bartling moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission started deliberation and discussion and indicated support for the proposed house design. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 4 of 5 Motion Commissioner Bartling moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the 1.27-foot south side yard setback and the 4.12-foot front yard setback variances at 4236 Scott Terrace as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Berube seconded the motion. The Commission concluded deliberation. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Motion carried unanimously. D. Preliminary Rezoning & Preliminary Development Plan for Solhem Companies at 4660 77th Street West Director Teague presented the request of 4660 77th Street West for a preliminary rezoning and development plan. Staff recommends approval as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Staff and Ed Terhar, representing Solhem Companies, answered questions of the Commission. Appearing for the Applicant Curt Gunsbury and Jason Lord, representing Solhem Companies, and Mark Krych, architect with BKV Group introduced the project team and made a presentation to the Commission. Public Hearing Chair Nemerov indicated several comments from Better Together were received. None. Commissioner Berube moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Motion carried. The Commission started deliberation, discussed its support for this plan, and asked questions of the appellants and staff. Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of detailed comments. Motion Commissioner Strauss moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the preliminary rezoning and preliminary development plan for the property located at 4660 77th Street West as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2021 Page 5 of 5 VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review – 6500 Barrie Road Director Teague presented the request of 6500 Barrie Road for a sketch plan review to tear down the existing building and construct a medical clinic and surgical center. Don Rolf, Pope Architect representing the appellants, introduced himself and made a presentation to the Commission. The appellant and staff answered Commission questions about the sketch plan, surrounding uses, and parking. The Commission reviewed the sketch plan and offered the following comments: Zoned for 12 stories so consider a taller building so additional clinicians can use this space Conduct a parking study since it has influenced the size of the project and design First level solid wall is overbearing at street level since this is a mixed use area Add sidewalks and pathways to improve pedestrian experience at street level and connectivity Add greenscape to soften appearance of first level solid wall Entry point into parking is too tight at ground level Work with neighboring parcel on shared parking Proposed use is vastly more aesthetically pleasing with less building and more trees Applaud effort to save mature trees and add more trees Video of the meeting is available on the City website for review of all comments. VIII. Chair and Member Comments None. IX. Staff Comments Planner Teague updated the Commission on recent action items brought forward to the City Council. He answered questions of the Commission about specific project outcomes. X. Adjournment Commissioner Agnew moved to adjourn the May 26, 2021, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 10:02 PM. Commissioner Bartling seconded the motion. Motion carried. Date: June 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant P lanner Item Activity: Subject:C O NT I NUE TO J UNE 23, 2021: B-21-17 F ront yard s etbac k variance 5404 S tauder C ircle Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: C ontinue the public hearing to June 23, 2021. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he applicant is requesting a 36-foot front yard setback variance for 5404 Stauder C ircle to design a new home to replace in approximately the same location as the existing nonconforming one-story, single-family dwelling that was built in 1951. T he proposed project will be one-story, single-family home. Date: June 9, 2021 Agenda Item #: V.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Emily Bodeker, As s is tant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:B-21-15, F ront and R ear Yard S etback Variances at 4241 Valley View R oad Ac tion C ITY O F E D IN A 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 www.edinamn.gov A C TI O N R EQ U ES TED: Approve the front and rear yard setback variances as presented. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he subject property, 4241 Valley View Road is .28 acres and is located on the west side of Valley View R oad, east of Brookview Avenue and north of 64th Street W. T he subject property currently has a storage building on site. T he applicant intends to tear down the existing storage structure and build a new two-story double dwelling unit. T he applicant is asking for two setback variances; A 17.6-foot front yard setback variance to allow a 21.8-foot front yard setback, and a 10-foot rear yard setback variance to allow a 25-foot rear yard setback. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Better Together Public Hearing Comment Report Staff Report Applicant Submittal Engineering Memo Aerial Map Survey Responses 30 January 2019 - 03 June 2021 Public Hearing Comments- 4241 Valley View Dr Better Together Edina Project: Public Hearing: 17.6 foot front yard setback variance and a 10 foot rear yard setback variance for a new double dwelling unit at 4241 Valley View Road VISITORS 1 CONTRIBUTORS 1 RESPONSES 1 0 Registered 0 Unverified 1 Anonymous 0 Registered 0 Unverified 1 Anonymous Respondent No:1 Login:Anonymous Email:n/a Responded At:Jun 03, 2021 06:48:05 am Last Seen:Jun 03, 2021 06:48:05 am IP Address:n/a Q1.First and Last Name Jennifer Hennemuth Q2.Address 6225 Brookview Ave Q3.Comment Re: 4241 Valley View Rd I am the homeowner who lives in the single family home directly behind the proposed twin home development at 4241 Valley View Rd. With regard to the variances proposed for the above development, I respectfully request that the rear yard 10’ variance be denied. The proposed development, zoned R2, is directly adjoining and adjacent to R1 zoning on the west side. Considering the R2 property directly abuts R1 on the back side, it is inappropriate to grant a 10’ variance, a 30% decrease, on the rear yard setback. This inconsistency in rear yard setback will result in considerable impact upon the adjacent R1 property value and privacy. The expectation of owning a single family residence is that one can rely on zoning ordinances to help protect their investment, interest, and land rights. Variances should not be granted at the expense of existing adjacent property owners. Granting such a variance will benefit the grantee, but will have a negative impact upon privacy, property value, and marketability of the existing adjacent single family parcel which will result in significant damages to the existing homeowner’s long term investment and enjoyment in the home. As a side note, the proposed development will be the tallest building in the immediate vicinity, taller than any other adjacent structure. To reduce the rear yard setback will even further emphasize the contrast in relationship of height to proximity of the proposed structure in comparison to all other adjacent properties, further reducing both privacy and space resulting in even greater disparity in the transition area between R1 and R2 parcels. Based upon a preliminary review of the plans proposed, the developer appears to have the ability to situate the structure another 10’ to the south with no additional variance needed. The south side of the lot is the deepest part which will inherently enable a larger building footprint to be constructed on the south side. Moving the structure 10’ to the south could reasonably alleviate the need to request the 10’ rear yard setback variance. The structure would then also maintain a consistent 10’ side yard setback that all other R2 structures along Valley View Rd currently maintain. In addition, moving the structure and adjusting the proposed lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 would then also appear to have the advantage and added ability to increase the size of proposed Lot 1 so that both Lots 1 and 2, when split, will be more comparable and consistent in size to one another, which is required by the ordinance in order to subdivide the lot. As an added bonus, by virtue of maintaining the 35’ rear yard setback, one of the most majestic 50+ year old White Pines one has likely ever laid eyes on could potentially be saved, and it would be a huge benefit and added appeal for the future homeowner of the proposed development to enjoy that beautiful, majestic tree as part of their backyard landscape and nature scape. In summary, the current proposal creates an inequitable outcome for the existing adjacent single family residence and the variance should not be approved. The developer is requesting a rear yard setback variance that is not necessary nor required for development to occur. It is not my obligation nor my intent as the existing owner of the adjacent single family home to make a concession in favor of a new project to the detriment of my own. A proposal that attempts to maximize a development opportunity by virtue of requesting variances that are not justified, at my expense, is not acceptable. A simple modification to the proposal could occur which would eliminate the request for the variance on the rear yard setback and avoid any unnecessary complications going forward. Sincerely, Jennifer Hennemuth The subject property, 4241 Valley View Road is .28 acres and is located on the west side of Valley View Road, east of Brookview Avenue and north of 64th Street W. The subject property currently has a storage building on site. The applicant intends to tear down the existing storage structure and build a new two-story double dwelling unit. The request includes two setback variances; a 17.6-foot front yard setback variance to allow a 21.8-foot front yard setback, and a 10-foot rear yard setback variance to allow a 25-foot rear yard setback. With the exception of the front and rear yard setbacks, the proposed project meets all other zoning requirements. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single Unit residential homes zoned R-1 and Double Dwelling Unit homes zoned R-2, guided low-density residential Easterly: Apartment building; zoned PRD-2 and guided low-density attached residential. Southerly: Double Dwelling Unit; zoned R-2 and guided low-density attached residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned R-1 and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features There is an existing storage building on site. June 9, 2021 PLANNING COMMISSION Emily Bodeker, Assistant City Planner B-21-15, A 17.6-foot front yard setback variance and a 10-foot rear yard setback variance for a new double dwelling unit at 4241 Valley View Rd Information / Background: STAFF REPORT Page 2 Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R-2, Double-Dwelling Unit District Grading & Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their June 3, 2021, memorandum. The subject property drains to private property, and Valley View Road. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side – Side yard East Side – Front Yard South – Side Yard West Side – Rear Yard 10 feet 39.4 feet 10 feet 35 feet Roughly 35 feet 21.8 feet* 20.2 feet 25 feet* Building Coverage 25% 22% Building Height 35 feet 32.83 feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMMENDATION Primary Issues • Is the proposed variance justified? Minnesota Statues and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The proposed variance will: STAFF REPORT Page 3 1. Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. “Practical difficulties” may include functional and aesthetic concerns. The proposed use is permitted in the R-2 Double Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards with the exception of the required front and rear yard setbacks. The unique shaped lot and required setbacks greatly affect the buildable area. 2. There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self-created? The circumstances are unique to the subject property and are not self-created. The unique shape of the lot and the limitations of the required setbacks are not common to every similarly zoned property. 3. Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with the other zoning requirements. The setbacks along the curved portion of Valley View Road vary. The proposed 25-foot rear yard setback will blend with the setbacks of the surrounding single family homes. Recommended Action: Approve a 17.6-foot front yard setback variance and a 10-foot rear yard setback variance for a new double dwelling unit at 4241 Valley View Road. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The proposal meets the variance criteria. The practical difficulty is caused by the unique shaped lot and the existing setback of the double dwelling unit located to the south, which is how the required front yard setback is determined. 2. The proposed setback is reasonable and was not self-created. The buildable area of the unique shaped lot is greatly affected by the required front and rear yard setbacks. 3. Granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. STAFF REPORT Page 4 Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Survey with the 5/26/21 revision date. 2. Plans dated April 28, 2021. 3. Comments and conditions listed in the June 3, 2021 Engineering Memo. 4241 Valley View Road - Variance Application Narrative The proposed variance will relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. 4241 Valley View Road is located between Highway 100 and Highway 62 Crosstown in Edina along a connector street. The lot is oddly shaped in a triangular form which, when setbacks are applied, makes the majority of the site unbuildable for any purpose as the setbacks compound on each other on the narrow side of the lot. We are seeking a front yard setback to the east of an additional 7’-6”, a rear yard setback to the west for an additional 10’- 0”. We plan to re-plat the lot to generate two smaller plots for a side-by-side twin home construction. The current zoning ordinance allows for no construction on lots under 15,000 sf without a variance, and this lot is approximately 12,000 sf. Therefor the third and final variance we are seeking is for reducing the minimum lot size required for construction. We are currently proposing the new twin home structure an additional 10’-0” away from the south lot line, which is a side yard, to allow for additional space between this structure and the south structure for more green space and a more comfortable placement in the landscape. The proposed variance will correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Extraordinary circumstances exist on this site due to the size and the way that the side was divided originally. This fact has perpetuated under development on this site for years. The existing housing unit on the site is not occupiable and not salvageable and does not match the large scale of adjacent housing and nearby districts of double dwelling units on Valley View Road that have more standard lot dimensions. This variance will correct these extraordinary circumstances to this property that exist but are not present for any neighbors in the area. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Our design team and planners are focused on meeting the intent of the zoning ordinance by building a high-quality double dwelling, also known as a twin home, which is prescribed by the zoning code and common in this area. This variance will be in harmony with the code in all respects other than the modest variances we are seeking and will be designed to fit naturally within the neighborhood urban fabric that already exists. We are not seeking to re- zone the property to accomplish our intent and believe strongly that the neighborhood will benefit from this development with increase neighbors, increase visibility on Valley View Road, and fulfill the intent of the zoning code as written. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of a neighborhood. The essential character of this through-corridor is very mixed, with commercial development, large apartment buildings, parking lots, and proximity to freeways only a few blocks away. Directly adjacent to the property and across the street are larger single-family homes and double dwelling units that are designated by the code in this area. The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and will fit in to the context as shown in the street elevations provided in the drawings. In addition to meeting all applicable codes, our humble exterior design will provide a street facing and neighbor facing facades that fit in well with the residential character of the neighborhood with double hung windows, gabled roof forms, and an attractive massing. Thank you for the opportunity to present this proposal to you. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 MASSING STUDIES North Facade South Facade West Facade East Facade g100.004241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDINA: TWIN HOME DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 SITE PLAN ANALYSIS a100.00 A100 VALLEY VIEW RD TWO WAY TRAFFIC 6225 4241 42376233 6221 4241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDINA - 12,008 SF SCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0" SHEET = 24 X 36 0'4'8'16'24' FOOTPRINT: 2,630 SF WITH REAR SETBACK @ 25' GENERAL NOTES 1.4241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD IS ZONED R-2 IN EDINA, MN 2.DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT IS ALLOWED ON R-2 ZONING 3.THE PRINCIPLE USE PERMITTED IN THE DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT DISTRICT ARE BUILDINGS CONTAINING TWO DWELLING UNITS 4.MINIMUM LOT AREA, PER DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT BUILDING: 15,000 SQUARE FEET 5.MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: 90 FEET 6.FRONT SETBACK: 30 FEET 7.INTERIOR SIDE YARD SETBACK: 10 FEET 8.REAR YARD SETBACK: 35 FEET 9.HEIGHT: 2.5 STORIES OR 35 FEET, WHICHEVER IS LESS 10.THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO THE HIGHEST POINT ON A ROOF OF A DOUBLE DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE 35 FEET. THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED BY ONE INCH FOR EACH FOOT THAT THE LOT EXCEEDS 75 FEET IN WIDTH (NOT TO EXCEED 40 FEET). 11.SUGGESTED VARIANCES: MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT OF 15,000 FEET ADJUSTED TO 12,008 FEET. REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT ADJUSTED FROM 35 FEET TO 25 FEET DUE TO DIFFICULTY OF TRIANGULAR LOT. 10'-0" 25'-0"30'-0"20'-0"37'-0"55'-0"58'-0"40'-0" 33'-0"34'-2"NEW CURB CUT 9'-4"29'-7"11'-2"28'-11"5'-9"46'-6"115'-0"150'-8 1/2" 1 5 5 ' - 2 "3'-6"7'-6" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 a101 HALL GARAGE PLAY DEN MECHANICAL ENTRY OFFICE BEDROOM (1) UP UP HALL GARAGE UNIT 2 55'-0"20'-0"14'-2"11'-10"12'-0"31'-0" 12'-0" 15'-0"25'-5"32'-7"58'-0"18'-1"12'-10"13'-4"12'-10"21'-7"18'-10"GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" 0'2'4'8'12'18'-5"7'-7"7'-7"19'-10" 11'-2"MECHANICAL 5'-5" BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,630 SF (21% OF LOT COVERAGE) MAX FOOTPRINT PER R-2 ZONING IS 25% UNIT 1 TOTAL SF: 2,640 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 560 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,320 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,320 SF GARAGE: 750 SF UNIT 2 TOTAL SF: 2,630 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 865 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,315 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,315 SF GARAGE: 450 SF TOTAL PROJECT FINISHED: 5,270 SF TOTAL SITE SIZE: 12,008 SF TOTAL PAVED SURFACES: 2,180 SF TOTAL IMPERMEABLE (PAVED+FOOTPRINT): 4,820 (40%) FLOOR TO AREA RATIO PROPOSED: .44 CLOSET 3'-7"4'-7"7'-0"9'-7" 9'-5" BATHROOM OFFICE BEDROOM (1) STORAGE EGRESS STORAGE EGRESS EGRESS UNIT 1 GARDEN LEVEL a101.00 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 a102 UP UP DN DN DINING SUN ROOM11'-5"55'-0"20'-0"14'-2"11'-10"12'-0"31'-0" 6'-0" 7'-0" 15'-0"25'-5"32'-7"58'-0"DECK 27'-5"48'-10" DECK MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" 0'2'4'8'12' DECK 12'-5" BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,630 SF (21% OF LOT COVERAGE) MAX FOOTPRINT PER R-2 ZONING IS 25% UNIT 1 TOTAL SF: 2,640 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 560 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,320 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,320 SF GARAGE: 750 SF UNIT 2 TOTAL SF: 2,630 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 865 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,315 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,315 SF GARAGE: 450 SF TOTAL PROJECT FINISHED: 5,270 SF TOTAL SITE SIZE: 12,008 SF TOTAL PAVED SURFACES: 2,180 SF TOTAL IMPERMEABLE (PAVED+FOOTPRINT): 4,820 (40%) FLOOR TO AREA RATIO PROPOSED: .447'-7"KITCHEN LIVING DEN / OFFICE 31'-5"7'-7"7'-0" BATHROOM 19'-4"18'-10"7'-7" 11'-7"25'-5"10'-0" 9'-0"3'-6"LIVING24'-3"UNIT 2 DINING 45'-10"23'-3"12'-0"3'-6"EGRESS UNIT 1 BATH 1'-6"5'-0" 4'-2"1'-6"4'-2" PANTRY MAIN LEVEL a102.00 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 a103 DN BEDROOM (3) SUITE (4) BEDROOM (2)BEDROOM (3) CLOSET BATHROOM SUITE BATHROOM HALLWAY UNIT 2 55'-0"12'-0"14'-2"20'-0"11'-10"12'-0" 7'-0" 31'-0" 15'-0"25'-5"58'-0"32'-7"16'-3"11'-7" 14'-7"12'-0"18'-10"11'-5"19'-3"21'-5" 0'2'4'8'12' SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN SITTING AREA SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT UNIT 1SUITE (4) BATHROOM SUITE HALL BATH13'-2"8'-0" BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,630 SF (21% OF LOT COVERAGE) MAX FOOTPRINT PER R-2 ZONING IS 25% UNIT 1 TOTAL SF: 2,640 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 560 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,320 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,320 SF GARAGE: 750 SF UNIT 2 TOTAL SF: 2,630 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 865 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,315 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,315 SF GARAGE: 450 SF TOTAL PROJECT FINISHED: 5,270 SF TOTAL SITE SIZE: 12,008 SF TOTAL PAVED SURFACES: 2,180 SF TOTAL IMPERMEABLE (PAVED+FOOTPRINT): 4,820 (40%) FLOOR TO AREA RATIO PROPOSED: .44 CLOSET BEDROOM (2) 12'-3" 13'-1"12'-10"12'-5"9'-7"5'-11"7'-11"7'-7"13'-9"7'-7"10'-0" 6'-6"11'-7"6'-7"11'-5"6'-0" LAUNDRY DN LAUNDRY UPPER LEVEL a103.00 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 ROOF PLAN a104.00 a104ROOF PLAN 0'2'4'8'12' SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" 55'-0"12'-0"20'-0"14'-2"11'-10"32'-7"25'-5"31'-0" 12'-0"58'-0"7'-0" 15'-0" DECK DECK DECK SKYLIGHT SKYLIGHT UNIT 1 UNIT 2 BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 2,630 SF (21% OF LOT COVERAGE) MAX FOOTPRINT PER R-2 ZONING IS 25% UNIT 1 TOTAL SF: 2,640 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 560 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,320 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,320 SF GARAGE: 750 SF UNIT 2 TOTAL SF: 2,630 SF (W/O GARAGE / BASEMENT) GARDEN LEVEL: 865 SF LEVEL ONE: 1,315 SF LEVEL TWO: 1,315 SF GARAGE: 450 SF TOTAL PROJECT FINISHED: 5,270 SF TOTAL SITE SIZE: 12,008 SF TOTAL PAVED SURFACES: 2,180 SF TOTAL IMPERMEABLE (PAVED+FOOTPRINT): 4,820 (40%) FLOOR TO AREA RATIO PROPOSED: .44 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 ELEVATIONS a301.00 a301 0'2'4'8'12' SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" EAST FRONT ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL FFE100'-0" UPPER LEVEL FFE110'-0" SPRING POINT118'-6" TOP OF ROOF129'-10" GARAGE LEVEL90'-0" EXISTING GRADE97'-0" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 ELEVATIONS a302.00 a302 0'2'4'8'12' SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" WEST REAR ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL FFE100'-0" UPPER LEVEL FFE110'-0" SPRING POINT118'-6" TOP OF ROOF129'-10" EXISTING GRADE97'-0" GARAGE LEVEL90'-0" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 ELEVATIONS a303.00 a303 0'2'4'8'12' SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" SOUTH SIDE LOT ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL FFE100'-0" UPPER LEVEL FFE110'-0" SPRING POINT118'-6" TOP OF ROOF129'-10" EXISTING GRADE97'-0" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 ELEVATIONS a304.00 a304 0'2'4'8'12' SCALE = 1/4" = 1'-0" NORTH FRONT ELEVATION MAIN LEVEL FFE100'-0" UPPER LEVEL FFE110'-0" SPRING POINT118'-6" TOP OF ROOF129'-10" EXISTING GRADE97'-0" GARAGE LEVEL90'-0" DESIGN DEVELOPMENT 4241 VALLEY VIEW RD, EDINA SHEET PHASE SHEET TITLE PROJECT SUBMISSION CITY VARIANCE 2021.04.28 DATE ERASING ARCHITECTURE LLC 612-205-2364 DRAFTING DESIGN ANNA DOVOLIS AND ASSOCIATES 612-296-2626 STREET ELEVATIONS a305.00 A3054241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDINA STREET ELEVATION - NORTH SCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0" SHEET = 24 X 36 0'4'8'16'24' 4241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD, EDINA STREET ELEVATION - EAST SCALE = 1/8" = 1'-0" SHEET = 24 X 36 0'4'8'16'24' SLOPED DRIVEWAY TO STREET STREET LEVEL SLOPED DRIVEWAY TO STREET STREET LEVEL GARAGE LEVEL90'-0" SLOPED DRIVEWAY TO STREET STREET LEVEL SLOPED DRIVEWAY TO STREET STREET LEVEL -9.0%-9.7% 884.1 885.0 889 890 889 8 8 8 8868 8 7 8 8 8 886 887 8 868 8 7 8 888 9 0 8 8 9 891 8 9 22.0%2 . 0 %8 8 6 2.0%2 .0 %8898888 8 9 8 8 9 888 888887 885.0 885.3 887 886 889.5 889.58 8 9 .58908 9 0 8 9 1890 8 8 9BENCHMARK TNH INT. BROOKVIEW AVE & VALLEY VIEW RD ELEVATION = 886.62 C014/23/2021 12:31 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0662_4241 Valley View Duplex_SWM\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\01_Grading.dwgKEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 04-23-2021 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com 601 MARQUETTE AVE. SO., SUITE 100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 DATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO: EDINA, MN 4241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 04-23-2021 Permit Submittal Set 4/23/2021 12:31 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0662_4241 Valley View Duplex_SWM\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\01_Grading.dwgFeet 0 10 20 GENERAL NOTES: 1. Contractor shall obtain and pay for all permits, tests, inspections, etc. required by agencies that have jurisdiction over the project, not previously applied for by the Owner (Contractor to verify). Execute and inspect work in accordance with all Local and State codes, rules, ordinances, or regulations pertain to the particular type of work involved. 2. The subsurface utility location information in this plan is utility quality level D. This utility quality level was determined according to the guidelines of CI/ASCE 38-02, titled “Standard Guidelines for the Collection and Depiction of Existing Subsurface Utility Data.” Engineer does not guarantee the accuracy of utility locations or that all existing utilities are shown; Contractor is responsible for locating utilities. 3. Existing boundary, utility and topographic information shown on this plan is from the site survey performed by Acre Land Surveying. 4. Where existing utilities such as gas, electric, telephone or cable lines conflict with the work, Contractor shall coordinate the abandonment, removal, relocation, offset, or support of the existing utilities with the appropriate local utility companies. Coordinate any new gas meter and gas line installation, electric meter and electric service installation, cable service, and telephone service installation with the local utility companies. 5. Contractor is solely responsible for jobsite conditions, including safety of all persons and property throughout the duration of the project (not limited to working hours). 6. Contractor is responsible for providing traffic control as necessary at site entrance, including barricades, flagmen, warning signs, etc. Controls shall be installed and maintained per Mn/DOT standards. 7. The Contractor shall provide and be responsible for all construction staking necessary to accurately perform the work identified in these plans. 8. Perform all grading, base construction, pavement construction, and miscellaneous construction in accordance with the Mn/DOT Standard Specifications (latest edition) and all subsequent amendments provided that the provisions for measurement and payment do not apply to the work of this contract. 9. All work shall be warranted free of defect for a period of 1 year from project closeout; repair or replacement necessary during this period shall be completed at Contractor expense, including areas of settlement. 10. Contractor shall not impact adjacent properties and is solely responsible for any such impacts.. 18" DRAIN BASIN W/ FLAT GRATE RIM = 887.5 NW INV = 886.0 SW INV = 885.0 NE INV = 886.5 SUMP = 883.0 12" CATCH BASIN WITH RISER AND GRATE RIM = 888.2 NW INV = 886.0 3 LF 12" PVC (SCH 40) CONNECT TO STORAGE PIPE W INV = 884.8 E INV = 885.0 UGS CHAMBER 2 82 LF 24"-DIA DUAL-WALL HDPE PERFORATED PIPE EMBEDDED IN ROCK CHAMBER (4-17' LATERALS + 1-14' MANIFOLD) LEGEND:18" DRAIN BASIN W/ FLAT GRATE RIM = 887.4 W INV = 885.0 NE INV = 886.5 SE INV = 885.0 SUMP = 883.0 20 LF 6" PVC (SCH 40) @ 4.5% 25 LF 6" PVC (SCH 40) @ 4.0% 15 LF TRENCH DRAIN JOSAM CPS-100 (OR EQUAL) SE RIM = 887.5 SE INV = 887.0 NW RIM = 887.0 NW INV = 886.5 19 LF TRENCH DRAIN JOSAM CPS-100 (OR EQUAL) NW RIM = 887.8 NW INV = 887.3 SE RIM = 887.3 SE INV = 886.8 17 LF 6" PVC (SCH 40) @ 4.7% CONNECT TO 24" STORAGE PIPE INV = 884.8 20 LF 6" PVC (SCH 40) @ 4.5% DAYLIGHT 6" PVC INV = 885.6 INSTALL RODENT GUARD DAYLIGHT 6" PVC INV = 885.6 INSTALL RODENT GUARD GRADE TO DRAIN TO INLET UGS CHAMBER 1 125 LF 24"-DIA DUAL-WALL HDPE PERFORATED PIPE EMBEDDED IN ROCK CHAMBER LATERALS: 2 - 6 LF MANIFOLDS 1- 32' LATERAL 1 - 37' LATERAL 1 - 44' LATERAL 6" SCH 40 PVC TEE INV = 885.1 6" SCH 40 PVC 90 ELBOW PROP. CONTOUR EX. CONTOUR PROP. PVC DRAIN PIPE PROP. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PROP. DRAINAGE BASIN PROP. PERFORATED STORAGE PIPE ROCK STORAGE CHAMBER ###.#PROP. SPOT ELEVATION #.#%PROP. FLOW DIRECTION / GRADE PROP. TRENCH DRAIN EX. CONC. SIDEWALK PROP. YARD DRAIN CATCH BASIN GRADING & UTILITY NOTES: 1. 18" DRAIN BASIN W/ DROP-IN GRATE shall be Nyloplast 18" Drain Basin (Part No. 7001-110-191) with 18" Light Duty Drop-In Grate (Part No. 7001-110-074), or approved equal. 2. 12" CATCH BASIN WITH RISER AND GRATE shall be NDS 12" Square Catch Basin, Square Catch Basin Riser, and Square Polyolefin Grate, or approved equal. 3. Drain pipe and fittings shall be PVC Schedule 40. 4. Topsoil from grading areas shall be stripped, salvaged and stockpiled (if applicable); subcut below final grade and replace salvaged topsoil. All organic material / topsoil shall be removed prior to fill. 5. Unless noted otherwise, all proposed contours indicate finished grades. 6. Pipe lengths shown include to end of apron. 7. Contact Owner or Engineer if hazardous material is discovered. G = 890.5 TF = 890.8 DIRECT ROOFTOP RUNOFF TO TREATMENT AREA DIRECT ROOF RUNOFF TO TREATMENT AREA C024/23/2021 12:31 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0662_4241 Valley View Duplex_SWM\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\02_Erosion.dwgKEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 04-23-2021 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com 601 MARQUETTE AVE. SO., SUITE 100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 DATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO: EDINA, MN 4241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 04-23-2021 Permit Submittal Set 4/23/2021 12:31 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0662_4241 Valley View Duplex_SWM\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\02_Erosion.dwgLEGEND: PROPERTY LINE PROP. CONTOUR EX. CONTOUR SILT FENCE INLET PROTECTION DETAIL ID: NO./SHEET STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 1. Topsoil, vegetation, and erosion control items installed and maintained per Mn/DOT 2571-2575. 2. Perimeter sediment controls shall be installed as indicated prior to site disturbance, and shall be installed to allow for high-flow bypass or overflow to prevent failure during significant rainfall. 3. Silt fence shall be of type indicated on the plan (Mn/DOT 3886). 4. Contractor is responsible for keeping sediment from leaving the property, including vehicle tracking. Should sediment be tracked offsite onto adjacent street, Contractor shall sweep Within 24 hours. 5. Install silt fence or sediment control log around any soil stockpiles that will be present for more than 7 days (if no perimeter controls in place to prevent sediment transport). 6. Inlet protection shall be in place on inlets throughout construction; type shall be suitable for each phase of construction. 7. Devices shall be inspected weekly and after all rainfall events exceeding 1", and maintained as necessary to keep the intended functional condition. 8. Accumulated sediment shall be removed from sediment control devices when 1 3 of device height has been reached. 9. After rough grading is completed, and topsoil spread, areas shall be seeded and blanketed (or sodded) within 7 days. Areas not being actively worked must be covered with temporary seed within 14 days. 10. Seed in mowed areas shall be Mn/DOT Mix 25-151 (3876) residential turf, [[DESIGNER: or 25-131, low maintenance turf]] or approved equal. All other areas to be seeded with Mix 35-241 (native prairie). 11. Where salt, shade, and/or drought tolerance is beneficial, low-maintenance Mix 25-131 shall be used. 12. Turf shall be installed by a qualified professional and/or per the Mn/DOT Seeding Manual (latest edition), at rates indicated in the manual. 13. Perimeter sediment controls shall remain in place until vegetation is growing / established in all disturbed areas. 14. Erosion during construction shall be repaired by the Contractor within 24 hours of discovery. SEDIMENT CONTROL & TURF RESTORATION NOTES: Feet 0 10 20 400 LF SILT FENCE, MS or HI 56 LF SILT FENCE, MS or HI INLET PROTECTION (TYP) STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROP. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT BENCHMARK TNH INT. BROOKVIEW AVE & VALLEY VIEW RD ELEVATION = 886.62 FLOW SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG 1 IN. X 2 IN. X 24 IN. LONG WOODEN STAKES AS NEEDED. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN OVER THE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG AT AN ANGLE OF 45 DEGREES WITH THE TOP OF THE STAKE POINTING UPSTREAM. SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG 1 IN. X 2 IN. X 24 IN. LONG WOODEN STAKES. STAKES SHALL BE DRIVEN THROUGH THE BACK HALF OF THE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG AT AN ANGLE OF 45 DEGREES WITH THE TOP OF THE STAKE POINTING UPSTREAM. (TYPES: STRAW, WOOD FIBER, OR COIR) (TYPES: WOOD CHIP, COMPOST, OR ROCK) 8 IN. - 10 IN. EMBEDMENT DEPTH 8 IN. - 10 IN. EMBEDMENT DEPTH PLACE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG IN SHALLOW TRENCH (1 TO 2 IN. DEPTH) BACKFILL AND COMPACT SOIL FROM TRENCH ON UPGRADIENT SIDE OF SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SEDIMENT CONTROL LOGS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION FOLD UNDER 6" NOTE: ANCHOR, OVERLAP & STAPLE PER MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTION 12" SPACING FOR STAPLES 4" OVERLAP 3.0' LEVEL (MIN.) ANCHOR SLOT ALTERNATIVE DI RE C T I O N OF RUNOF F FL OW 24" MIN.POSTSTEEL STUDDED 'T' POST AT 6ft MAXIMUM SPACING 5ft MINIMUM LENGTH POSTSPLASTIC 'ZIP' TIES (50# TENSILE) LOCATED IN TOP 8" GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, 8"-12" DEPTH (PLUS 6" FLAP) MACHINE SLICE T-POST36" WIDTH EMBEDMENTSILT FENCE - MACHINE SLICED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE CRUSHED ROCK, WASHED OF 1" TO 2" 12" MINIMUM DEPTH 50' MIN.AS REQUIRED ACCESS ROAD 40' RADIUS 20' MIN. OVER GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (Mn/DOT 3877 TYPE V) 1 2 3 4 STORM GRATE LIFT STRAPS CURB FILTER (IF NEC.) OUTFLOW PORTS DUMPING STRAPS CURB OPENING REINFORCED CORNERS (ALT. LOOPS FOR REBAR) Grab Tensile Strength ASTM D 4632 kN (lbs)1.78 (400) x 1.40 (315) Grab Tensile Elongation ASTM D 4632 %15 x 15 Puncture Strength ASTM D 4833 kN (lbs)0.67 (150) Mullen Burst Strength ASTM D 3786 kPa (psi)5506 (800) Trapezoid Tear Strength ASTM D 4533 kN (lbs)0.67 (150) x 0.73 (165) UV Resistence ASTM D 4355 %90 Apparent Opening Size ASTM D 4751 Mm (US Std Sieve)0.425 (40) Flow Rate ASTM D 4491 1/min/m (gal/min/ft )2852 (70) Permittivity ASTM D 4491 Sec 0.90-1 22 INLET PROTECTION - SEDIMENT SACK NOTE: RECTANGULAR DANDY SACK SHOWN. SIZE USED SHALL MATCH OPENING; EQUIVALENT BAG UNIT MAY BE USED (INCLUDE OVERFLOW PORTS) 2' MIN. 5 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 04-23-2021 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com 601 MARQUETTE AVE. SO., SUITE 100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 DATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO: EDINA, MN 4241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 04-23-2021 Permit Submittal Set 4/23/2021 12:32 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0662_4241 Valley View Duplex_SWM\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\03_Details.dwg12" MIN. OVER PIPE 6" BEDDING 12" MIN. TYPICAL COMPACTED BACKFILL, ORDINARY COMPACTION. MAX PARTICLE SIZE OF 1" WITHIN 2' OF PIPE GRANULAR BEDDING & ENCASEMENT MATERIAL, 3149.2.G.1 (INCIDENTAL). PLACE & COMPACT EVENLY IN 6" LIFTS PVC/TP/CP/PE PIPE PIPE TRENCH - FLEXIBLE COMPACT FINE AGGREGATE BEDDING IN HAUNCH AREA USING POWERED DEVICE GRANULAR BEDDING, 3149.2.G.1, DO NOT COMPACT PRIOR TO PIPE PLACEMENT 6 MANUFACTURER DETAIL - TRENCH DRAIN7 C03 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 04-23-2021 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com 601 MARQUETTE AVE. SO., SUITE 100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 DATE / REVISION:OWNER:TITLE:SHEET NO: EDINA, MN 4241 VALLEY VIEW ROAD 04-23-2021 Permit Submittal Set 4/23/2021 12:32 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\0662_4241 Valley View Duplex_SWM\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\03_Details.dwgTHIS DETAIL DEPICTS RECOMMENDED INSTALLATION PRACTICES AND IS NOT INTENDED TO SUPERSEDE ANY NATIONAL, STATE OR LOCAL SPECIFICATIONS. PRINSCO BEARS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY ALTERATIONS, REVISION AND/OR DEVIATION FROM THIS STANDARD DETAIL. PRINSCO HAS NOT PERFORMED ANY ENGINEERING OR DESIGN SERVICE FOR THIS PROJECT. THE DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW THESE DETAILS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SUITABILITY. © PRINSCO, INC. 1717 16TH ST. NE WILLMAR, MN 56201 www.prinsco.comRINSCOPR NTS DRAWN BY:DATE: SHEET: DRAWING NUMBER: SCALE: TITLE:#################################### ##########OF11 20-Mar-21 NOTES: 1. RETENTION AND DETENTION SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF ASTM D2321 AND THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION GUIDELINES. 2. A NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC OR OTHER MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN TO PREVENT NATIVE SOIL FROM MIGRATING INTO THE INITIAL BACKFILL MATERIAL, WHEN REQUIRED. 3. SUB-GRADE: TRENCH BOTTOMS WITH UNSTABLE OR UNYIELDING MATERIAL SHALL BE EXCAVATED TO A DEPTH DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER AND REPLACED WITH SUITABLE MATERIAL. FOR UNSTABLE MATERIALS, GEOTEXTILE MAY BE USED TO STABILIZE THE TRENCH BOTTOM, IF DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 4. FOUNDATION: SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS I OR II, AS SPECIFIED BY ASTM D2321. MINIMUM FOUNDATION BEDDING THICKNESS SHALL BE 4" [100mm] FOR PIPE DIAMETER UP TO 36" [900mm] DIAMETER, 6" [150mm] FOR 42" [1000mm], 48" [1200mm], AND 60" [1500mm] DIAMETER. 5. INITIAL BACKFILL: SUITABLE MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS I OR II, AS SPECIFIED BY ASTM D2321. COMPACTION AND BACKFILL LIFTS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D2321. 6. MINIMUM COVER: FOR UP TO H-25 TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS A MINIMUM OF 12" [300mm] FOR PIPE DIAMETER UP TO 36" [900mm] DIAMETER, 15" [380mm] FOR 42" [1000mm] AND 18" [450mm] FOR 48" [1200mm] AND 60" [1500mm] DIAMETER. MINIMUM COVER, V, SHALL BE MEASURED FROM THE TOP OF THE PIPE TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR TO THE TOP OF RIGID PAVEMENT. ADDITIONAL COVER MAY BE REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION LOADS, VEHICLES OVER 25T [23MT], OR TO PREVENT FLOATATION. 7. FINAL BACKFILL: SUITABLE MATERIALS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER SHALL BE USED IN LANDSCAPE OR NON-TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS. FOR AREAS SUBJECTED TO TRAFFIC A HIGHER DEGREE OF COMPACTION IS REQUIRED AND A SEPARATION LAYER OF NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE MAY BE REQUIRED. COMPACTION LEVELS AND/OR GEOTEXTILE MAY BE SPECIFIED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE DESIGN ENGINEER. NOMINAL I.D. APPROX O.D. MIN. DISTANCE TO SIDE WALL "X" *SPACING "M" MIN. COVER "V" 12" [300mm]14.5" [368mm]8" [200mm]9" [229mm]12" [300mm] 15" [375mm]17.7" [450mm]8" [200mm]11" [279mm]12" [300mm] 18" [450mm]21.5" [546mm]9" [225mm]14" [356mm]12" [300mm] 24" [600mm]28.2" [716mm]10" [250mm]19" [483mm]12" [300mm] 30" [750mm]34.7" [881mm]18" [450mm]20" [508mm]12" [300mm] 36" [900mm]40.6" [1031mm]18" [450mm]21" [533mm]12" [300mm] 42" [1050mm]47.5" [1207mm]18" [450mm]23" [584mm]15" [375mm] 48" [1200mm]54.1" [1374mm]18" [450mm]23" [584mm]18" [450mm] 60" [1500mm]66.8" [1697mm]18" [450mm]27" [686mm]18" [450mm] FINAL BACKFILL V ( MIN. COVER TO TOP OF RIGID PAVEMENT) V ( MIN. TO BOTTOM OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT OR LANDSCAPE AREA) INITIAL BACKFILL UNDISTURBED SOIL FOUNDATION: MIN, 4" (100mm) UP TO 36" (900mm) PIPE MIN. 6"(150mm) FOR 42"-60" (1050-1500mm) PIPE NON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILE (WHERE REQUIRED BY ENGINEER M*XSUITABLE SUB-GRADE *MINIMUM SPACING "M" MEASURED FROM OUTSIDE DIAMETERS 1 MANUFACTURER DETAIL - UNDERGROUND STORAGE CHAMBER UNDERGROUND STORAGE CHAMBER DATA UGS CHAMBER 1 UGS CHAMBER 2 BOTTOM OF ROCK ELEV 883.5 883.5 STONE BASE /FOUNDATION 4"4" BOTTOM OF PIPE ELEV 883.8 883.8 STORAGE PIPE NOMINAL I.D.24"24" LATERAL PIPE SPACING M 19"19" # OF LATERALS 3 4 LATERAL LENGTH 32 LF, 37 LF, 44 LF 17 LF # OF MANIFOLDS 2 1 MANIFOLD LENGTH 6 LF 14 LF SIDE STONE WIDTH X 10"10" END STONE WIDTH 10"10" TOP OF PIPE ELEV 886.2 886.2 STONE COVER 6"6" TOP OF ROCK ELEV 886.7 886.7 PRIMARY OUTLET ELEV 886.5 886.5 ROCK VOID SPACE 40%40% VOL BELOW OUTLET 780 CF 532 CF © ® © 3 MANUFACTURER DETAIL - NYLOPLAST 18" DRAIN BASIN AND GRATE 2 MANUFACTURER DETAIL - 12" CATCH BASIN C04 DATE: 6/3/2021 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Zuleyka Marquez, PE – Graduate Engineer RE: 4241 Valley View Rd - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, stormwater, 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 included a proposed survey, grading and drainage plan, erosion control plan, and stormwater management plan dated April 2021. Summary of Work The applicant proposes to subdivide the property, demo the existing building, and build a twin home. The variance request is for a rear yard setback. Easements No comment. Grading and Drainage The existing site drains to private property (structural flooding issue, NC_64) and Valley View Rd (Cornelia Lake, NC_127). The proposed project includes swales that divert runoff to infiltration trenches that daylight to Valley View Rd. Draintile to daylight 5’ back from property line, not in the ROW. Stormwater Mitigation Stormwater was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 standards. The infiltration basins are proposed to meet Nine Mile Creek Watershed District requirements; not City requirements. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. Floodplain Development No comment. Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan was reviewed and is consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance The applicant proposes two driveway entrances. Driveway entrance permits will be required. The street was milled and overlaid in 2005. Refer to standard plate 540 and 543 for patching requirements prior to the scheduled mill and overlay project in 2025. Public Utilities City fiber and electric street light power installed along the public ROW. Protect during construction. Sanitary is served from Valley View Rd. One-inch water service lines from the curb stop to the dwelling are required per the City’s policy SP-024. Sewer and water connection fees shall be paid prior to building permit issuance. Fees based on a Met Council SAC determination. Miscellaneous A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. Original watermain installed 1956. Structure built 1950. A well is likely located onsite. Thus, coordination with Minnesota Department of Health will be required. Sidewalk and bike lane shall remain unobstructed and accessible during construction. Any sump discharge must be directed to public ROW, not private property. Met Council SAC determination and fees required. Ed ina, Hennep in, MetroG IS, Edin a, Henn epin , MetroGIS | © WSB & Associates2013, Henn epin County, Edin a, © WSB & Associa tes 2013 4241 Valley View Road June 3, 2021 1 in = 50 f t /