Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-11 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PacketAg enda Planning Commission City Of E dina, Minnesota City H all Council Chambers Wednesday, October 11, 2023 7:00 PM Watch the m eeting on cable TV or at EdinaMN.gov/LiveMeeting s or Facebook.com /EdinaMN. How to Participate in Public Hearings: Call 786-496-5601 E nter Confer ence Pin 2903024# Press *1 on your telephone keypad when you would like to g et in the queue to speak An operator will intr oduce you when it is your turn I.Ca ll To Ord er II.Roll Ca ll III.Approva l Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approva l Of Meeting Min u tes A.Regular Meeting Min u tes from Septem ber 13, 2023 V.Com m u n ity Com m ent 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. G enerally 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 sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VI.Pu b lic Hea rings A.B-23-17 6900 Daw son La n e Va ria n ce VII.Rep orts/Recom m en d ation s A.Sketch Plan Review – 4444 and 4200 76th Street W est VIII.Cha ir An d Mem ber Com m ents IX.Sta5 Com m ents X.Adjournm en t 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 ampli8cation, an interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Date: O c tober 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: Minutes F rom:Liz O ls on, P lanning Adminis trative S upport S pec ialis t Item Activity: Subject:R egular Meeting Minutes from S eptember 13, 2023 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 S eptember 13, 2023. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description September 13, 2023 Minutes Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2023  Page 1 of 5       Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers September 13, 2023 I. Call To Order Chair Bennett called the meeting to order at 7:04 PM. II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Bornstein, Miranda, Daye, Padilla, Strauss, Smith, Felt, Hu, Schultze and Chair Bennett. Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kris Aaker, Assistant Planner, Addison Lewis, Community Development Coordinator, and Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist. Absent from the roll call: Commissioner Olson. Chair Bennett introduced Senior Alex Schultze as a student commissioner on the Planning Commission. Student Commission Schultze introduced himself. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Padilla moved to approve the September 13, 2023, agenda. Commissioner Daye seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes A. Minutes: Planning Commission, August 16, 2023 Commissioner Daye moved to approve the August 16, 2023, meeting minutes. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. V. Community Comment Ms. Janey Westin, 6136 Brookview Avenue, addressed the Commission regarding a tree loss survey she conducted. Chair Bennett closed the community comment and addressed the City’s tree ordinance and noted the Planning Commission should have a work session on this. VI. Public Hearings A. B-23-14 Building Coverage Variance – 4239 Scott Terrace Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2023  Page 2 of 5     Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of 4239 Scott Terrace for a Building Coverage Variance.   Staff recommends denial of the building coverage based on findings in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Randy Guertin, 4239 Scott Terrace, addressed the Commission. The Commission asked questions of the applicant and staff. Public Hearing Mr. Jim Balabuszko, 4246 Scott Terrace, addressed the Commission and indicated he was in support of this variance. Ms. Pamela Balabuszko, 4246 Scott Terrace, addressed the Commission and explained she was in support of the project. Mr. Andrew Worth, 4230 Scott Terrace, addressed the Commission and stated he was in favor of the variance. Ms. Betsy Wray, 4243 Scott Terrace, addressed the Commission and informed the Commission she was in support of the variance. Ms. Elizabeth Bell, 4308 France Avenue S, addressed the Commission regarding water runoff and hoped the Commission would grant the request. Ms. Debra Anderson, 4241 Scott Terrace, addressed the Commission and was in favor of the variance. Commissioner Daye moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission discussed the variance and offered comments and a decision that can be reviewed in the official meeting video. Motion Commissioner Bornstein moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the building coverage variance based on findings in the staff report. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. B-23-13 7000 York Avenue S – Target EV Station Assistant Planner Aaker presented the request of Target for a setback variance for an EV Station.  Staff recommends approval of the setback variance for an EV Station at Target at 7000 York Avenue South, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2023  Page 3 of 5     Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Christopher Arroyo, 17 Woodcrest Lane, California, introduced himself and addressed the Commission. The Commission asked staff and the applicant questions. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission offered comments regarding the variance that can be reviewed in the official meeting video. Motion Commissioner Padilla moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the setback variance for an EV Station at Target as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Felt seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. C. Site Plan Review – 7250-7300 Bush Lake Road Community Development Coordinator Lewis presented the request for a site plan review at 7250-7300 Bush Lake Road.    Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Nick Sperides, Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc., addressed the Commission. He indicated Mr. Bernie McVain, the owner, was unable to be at the meeting. The Commission asked questions of the applicant. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Miranda moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Daye seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission reviewed the site plan and offered comments that can be reviewed in the official meeting video. Commissioner Felt moved that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Site Plan request as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Daye seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2023  Page 4 of 5     The Commission recessed at 9:40 and reconvened at 9:45. Student Commissioners Hu and Schultze left the meeting. D. Zoning Ordinance Amendment, Site Plan Review with Variances – 4401 76th Street West Director Teague presented the request of for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment, site plan review with variances at 4401 76th Street West.  Staff recommends approval of the Zoning Ordinance amendment, site plan review with variances, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Trace Jacques, BKV Architect, addressed the Commission and answered questions. Fire Chief Andrew Slama answered Commission questions. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Miranda moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. The Commission reviewed the zoning ordinance amendment and offered comments that can be reviewed in the official meeting video. Motion Commissioner Miranda moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the Ordinance Amendment to change Industrial to include Civic and Cultural Institutions. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 ayes, 3 nays (Padilla, Daye, Strauss). Commissioner Miranda moved that the Planning Commission recommend denial to the City Council of the Site Plan variances. Commissioner Smith seconded the motion. Motion carried 5 ayes, 3 nays (Padilla, Daye, Strauss). VII. Reports/Recommendations A. Sketch Plan Review – 5120 & 5124 Hankerson Avenue Director Teague presented the request of 5120 & 5124 Hankerson Avenue for a sketch plan review.      Staff answered Commission questions. Appearing for the Applicant Mr. Steve Behnke, addressed the Commission. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: ___, 2023  Page 5 of 5     Mr. Paul Donnay, Edina resident and applicant, 6605 Mohawk Trail, addressed the Commission. The Commission reviewed the sketch plan, asked questions of the applicant, and offered comments that can be reviewed in the official meeting video. B. 2024 Planning Commission Work Plan Director Teague presented the 2024 Planning Commission Work Plan and reviewed the plan with the Commission. Commissioner Felt moved that the Planning Commission adopt the 2024 Planning Commission Work Plan and present it to the City Council on October 3, 2023. Commissioner Padilla seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. Chair and Member Comments Received. IX. Staff Comments Received. X. Adjournment Commissioner Felt moved to adjourn the September 13, 2023, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 12:27 AM. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Date: O c tober 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: VI.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Addis on Lewis, C ommunity Development C oordinator Item Activity: Subject:B-23-17 6900 Daws on Lane Varianc e 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: M otion to approve a 14.6-foot variance from the rear yard setback as requested by the applicant, subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he property at 6900 Dawson L ane is a corner lot located at the corner of Dawson L ane and S outhdale Road. T he property contains a single-family home with the front oriented towards D awson Lane and an attached garage accessed from S outhdale Road. T he property owner is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback to tear down the existing two-car attached garage and build a three-car attached garage. T he garage is proposed to be 10.4 feet from the rear lot line where a 25-foot setback is required (a variance of 14.6 feet). P ublic input on Better Together AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Location Map Engineering Memo Applicant Submittal League of MN Cities Variance Guidance Staff Pres entation October 11, 2023 PLANNING COMMISSION Addison Lewis, Community Development Coordinator B-23-17, Variance request at 6900 Dawson Lane Information / Background: The property at 6900 Dawson Lane is a corner lot located at the corner of Dawson Lane and Southdale Road. The property contains a single-family home with the front oriented towards Dawson Lane and an attached garage accessed from Southdale Road. The property owner is requesting a variance from the rear yard setback to tear down the existing two-car attached garage and build a three-car attached garage. The garage is proposed to be 10.4 feet from the rear lot line where a 25-foot setback is required (a variance of 14.6 feet). Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Sing-family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential. Easterly: Sing-family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential. Southerly: Sing-family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential. Westerly: Sing-family; zoned R-1; guided Low Density Residential. Existing Site Features The property is a corner lot that is 13,189 square feet in area. There is an existing 2,475 square foot single-story home on the property including an attached two-car garage. According to Hennepin County records, the home was constructed in 1956. The lot is generally flat. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District STAFF REPORT Page 2 PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues Is the proposed variance justified? Yes, staff believes the requested variance is justified. Minnesota Statutes and Section 36-98 of the Edina Zoning Ordinance require that a variance shall not be granted unless the following findings are made: 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Staff believes that the purpose and intent of the setback requirement is to prevent overcrowding of buildings and promote consistency throughout the neighborhood. In the case of corner lots, a property owner may choose which street frontage to designate as the front if all setbacks are met. Based on existing setbacks, Dawson is considered the front. If the home were built with Southdale Road as the front, the lot line abutting the garage would be considered an interior side yard and a 10-foot setback would be required, which is what is being proposed by the applicant. If the adjacent house on Hillcrest were also oriented towards Southdale Road, as little as 20 feet between structures would be allowed. There will be approximately 59 feet separating the garage and the adjacent home on Hillcrest. Additionally, the code would allow the property owner to construct a detached garage only 3 feet from the property line, which would provide less separation between structures and be less consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, as almost all other properties in the neighborhood have attached garages. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density Residential use. The property would continue to be used as a single-family residence, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan on Housing lists several implementation strategies to further the goals of the Plan. One of the strategies is to “encourage repairs and improvements to existing single-family homes that avoid tear-downs, extend their useful life, and ensure that they are designed and maintained in a manner that complements the dwelling’s character and is compatible with adjacent homes and the character of the surrounding neighborhood”. The property owner has stated that “the current garage is deficient for today’s use. It does not fit 2 modern cars.” The property owner is proposing the new garage to make it more usable for their household’s needs. Additionally, the attached garage with a 10-foot setback would be more consistent with the character of the neighborhood than a detached garage with a 3-foot setback. STAFF REPORT Page 3 3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following: i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The property owner is requesting the variance to build a three-car garage. Three- car garages are not uncommon for single-family properties. The lot is a corner lot and the setback proposed would be code compliant if Southdale Road were considered the front. Staff finds the proposal to be reasonable. ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The property is unique in that it is a corner lot and the garage is accessed off the corner side yard. In the case of most interior lots, garages are only accessible from the front and typically located on one side of the house, where a 10-foot side yard setback is required rather than 25 feet. The applicant is proposing to maintain at least a 10-foot setback, consistent with the interior side yard requirement. Most other interior lots could not add a third stall and maintain at least a 10-foot side yard setback. It is also unlikely that an interior lot owner would make a similar request to locate an attached garage 10 feet from the rear lot line. In the case of 6900 Dawson Lane, if the variance is denied, the owner could build a detached garage 3 feet from the property line, which is not something most interior lot owners in the neighborhood are likely to pursue. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality, as almost all other properties in the neighborhood have attached garages rather than detached. The applicant has stated that if the variance is denied, they will pursue building a detached three-car garage, which would be less consistent with the character of the neighborhood. In addition, it is common within this neighborhood for corner lots to be non- compliant with a rear or side-street setback requirement. Based on surveys on file with the City, other nearby corner lots that are non-compliant with a side or rear yard setback include: • 6901 Dawson Lane • 6929 Dawson Lane • 6901 Hillcrest Lane • 6941 Hillcrest Lane • 6800 Southdale Road • 6801 Southdale Road • 6900 Southdale Road • 6924 Southdale Road STAFF REPORT Page 4 Staff Recommendation Staff recommend approval of a variance from Edina City Code Section 36-438 to allow for an attached garage located 10.4 feet from a rear lot line. Approval is subject to the following findings: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The applicant is proposing to maintain at least a 10-foot setback from the adjacent property at 6901 Hillcrest Lane, which is what would be required if Southdale Road were considered the front. There will be approximately 59 feet between the garage and the home at 6901 Hillcrest Lane. 2. The proposed use of the property will remain a single-family home, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the proposal by the applicant is consistent with the implementation strategy to “encourage repairs and improvements to existing single- family homes that avoid tear-downs, extend their useful life, and ensure that they are designed and maintained in a manner that complements the dwelling’s character and is compatible with adjacent homes and the character of the surrounding neighborhood”. 3. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. Three car garages are not uncommon for single-family properties. The structure will maintain at least a 10-foot setback, which is what would be required if the home were oriented towards Southdale Road. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. As a corner lot with access from the side street, similar variance requests are not likely to be made by most other property owners in the R-1 district. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will allow the property owner to construct an attached garage, which is consistent with the neighborhood. Alternatively, if the variance is denied, the owner could build a detached garage located 3 feet from the property line, which would be less consistent with the neighborhood. Additionally, there are many other corner lots within the neighborhood that are non-compliant with respect to a rear or side yard setback. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Consistency with the plans included in the October 11, 2023, Planning Commission packet. 2. Compliance with the Engineering Memo dated September 20, 2023. Deadline for a City decision: October 26, 2023. 6900 Dawson Lane ")17")17Cornelia DriveSouthdale RoadHillcrest LaneDunberry Lane Dawson LaneOaklawn AvenueGalleria68th Street W e s t Southdale Center70th Street WestValley View RoadFrance Avenue South69th Street WestFrance Avenue South69th Street West Property Location September 2023 ± 0 190 Feet DATE: 9/20/2023 TO: Cary Teague – Planning Director FROM: Ben Jore, PE – Senior Project Engineer RE: 6900 Dawson Lane - 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 the survey, and stormwater report. dated 8/17/2023 Summary of Work The applicant proposes to construct a garage and driveway addition. The request is for a variance to reduce the setback from the back lot line from 25ft to 10ft. Easements N.A. Grading and Drainage Site drains to City storm sewer and then to Lake Edina. The proposed grading also drains to City storm sewer. It does not appear that any additional impervious will drain to private property. Stormwater Mitigation The property drains to a structural flooding issue. The project increases the impervious surfaces by more than 600sf and thus must provide stormwater mitigation. A stormwater report has been prepared by a licensed engineer. The stormwater report must be updated showing the volume of the rain garden to demonstrate compliance with the City of Edina stormwater rules for single dwelling units (SP-003-E). Floodplain Development The site is within the local 100yr floodplain. The stormwater report must include floodplain calculations that demonstrate compliance with the City of Edina stormwater rules for single dwelling units (SP-003-E). Erosion and Sediment Control An erosion and sediment control plan has not been submitted. An erosion and sediment control plan must be submitted for the building permit application consistent with City of Edina Building Policy SP-002. Street and Driveway Entrance N.A. Public Utilities N.A. Miscellaneous A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit may be required, applicant will need to verify with the district. It is unlikely that a well is located onsite as the property was built in 1956 and the original watermain was built in 1953. Variance application questions typed, per your request. EXPLANATION OF REQUEST- We are applying for a variance to tear down my current 2-car attached garage and build a 3-car attached garage. The current 2-car garage is undersized and does not fit 2 cars. We also want to reduce the amount of cars parked on the street, hence, 3 car garage. We will be adding 2 electric car charging ports in the garage to create a more functional space for the future as well. Our builder, Sussell Garages, was originally told there was a 10-foot setback from the property line. Then we found out it is a 25-foot setback on the Southdale side to keep the garage attached. Sussell has built many garages in Edina and in our neighborhood. The variance is to build the 3-car attached garage with a 10-foot setback. We can build a 3-car detached garage with a setback of only 3 feet(which would actually be cheaper), however, we care about, are well invested in our neighborhood, want to stay congruent with, and respect the style we currently have here. We have the full support of our neighbors within 200 feet. Letters have already been supplied to city zoning. We also have incurred great costs to supply the items requested by zoning and have plans already drawn up to get this variance approved. RELIEVE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN COMPLYING THE ZONING ORIDINANCE AND THAT THE USE IS REASONABLE- The current garage is deficient for today ’s use. It does not fit 2 modern cars. Building a 3 car attached garage will be less intrusive to my rear neighbors than building a detached 3 car at the 3 foot property line. It will be a beautiful, well thought garage that will compliment and remain true to the neighborhood. We are well inside the hardcover requirements and the size of our home supports a 3 car garage. It will also improve values in the neighborhood. CORRECT EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES APPLICABLE TO THIS PROPERTY BUT NOT APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OR ZONING DISTRICT- Our home is on a corner lot and the parcel is large and unique. If it was in interior home on the block, the setback is 10 feet from the property line. If we did a detached garage, we could be 3 feet off the property line which would be closer to the rear neighbors, not fit with the neighboring homes, and would not require a variance. It is important for us to keep the style of our current home with doing it attached and also keeping it within the style of our area. BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSES AND INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE- By building a 3 car attached garage, we will be helping to reduce congestion of parked cars on the street, adding value to the area, reducing carbon footprints by adding the electric car charging ports, and will be less intrusive to our rear neighbors than if we built a 3 car detached. NOT ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD- Nearly every home has an attached garage. It is clear that this was the original intent of the builders and city when our neighborhood was built. In keeping with modern times, doing the attached 3 car garage will improve the functionality of our home, lessen parked cars on the street, and remain within the original intention of the community. Many homes in Edina are being taken down. We have been in our home for 10 years. We love our house, have no intention of moving anytime soon, have worked very hard at improving our current home, and want to make improvements while staying within the intended style of our neighborhood. Keeping the garage attached is more expensive than doing a 3 car detached, however, we consider the added investment back into our community worthwhile and retaining the original intention of Cornelia’s design. By not approving our variance, we will be forced to build a 3 car detached, which will majorly alter the look of our home, not remain with the style of the neighboring homes, and be intrusive to our rear neighbors. We are local business owners operating locally. Dawnn is a 19 year Realtor at Edina Realty. Josh is a chef restauranteur of 30 years currently with Smack Shack and Burger Dive(others on the way too!) We kindly hope you consider our variance seriously and allow us to remain harmonious with our area and neighbors! Sincerely, Dawnn Eldredge and Josh Thoma CONNECT DOWNSPOUT TO DRAINTILE WITH SUMP .11,C 23P TIES ("AI L&S TENSILE, LOCATED IN TOPe IN Lo uSE REBAR OR STEEL ROO FOR REMOVAL .(POR INLETS WITH CURB BOx REPLACE ROD MTH MOD IN X ..11N).. UTEND 10 IN BEYOND CRATE .0TH ON BOTH .11.[S, LENGIN VARIES. SECURE TO CRATE vm-H V.IRE OR PLASTIC TIE, IRLET SPECIFICATIONS AS THE P LAN MEN.. LENCTR AND WIDTH TO MATCH FLAP 4.00KET MINIMVM DOUBL MED SEAMS ALL AROUND PIECES AND ON FUP PC,C SILT FENCE MACHINE SLICED), NOT TO SCALE 15 SOLID 8FuumnLs020mmI. 11YX FRENCH DRAIN PER SID1 9 4- PERFORATED ORA/WILE A 0.0. O O 69 LANDSCAPE GRAM INSPECTION PORT RIM • 806.5 0/ LI INLET PROTECTION (TYR) SILT FENCE OR 510-ROLLS (TVP.) USE EXIST). DRIVEWAY AS CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE GEOTerntF= TIRE COMPACTION 20NE rt. EXISTING. GROOM, .r%"rr,trg 1 IN X 211.1 X .^..1 IN LONG WOODEN STAKE, ST.CES SI-41.1 BE DRIVEN THROuCH THE BACK RALF OF TNE SEDIMENT CONTROL LOS AT AN ANGLE 0E45 DECREES WITH THE TOP OF THE STAXE POiNtINO UPSTREAM. grAtTx- [LOW TAnreir,Vv. BACKfll I. AND COMPACT SOIL FROM TRENCH ON UPORAOIENT S1OE OF SEDIMENT CONTROL LOD PLACE SMIMENT CONTROL n - IN EMBEDMENT CEPTX LOD S.LLOW TRENCH SPACE BETWEEN ....aAKES SHALL BE A - :IN oF 1 FT FOR MOH OR FOR OTHER APPUCATIONS. 810RoLS NOT TO SCALE DOMINO GROUND LANDSCAPE GRATE MIN 4' TOPSOIL NATIVE FILL OEM VARIES PEA K, CRAV ar• 1/11. GEOT.TILE CLEAN AGGREGATE (1 RIVER ROCK), PEA GRAVEL. OR ,111, • SAND. FINES) NOMAN SONS E NTHXETTI.IC N V TE OUALORAPPRO IN r PEA GRAVEL, Yr ROCK, OR CEOTEXTILE r PERFORATED DRAINTILE INSPECTION PORT INTO FRENCH DRAIN Ile/EL TOP, EC.] CLPJEL BOTTOM) O FRENCH DRAIN CROSS-SECTION NOT TO L[At, CRUSHED ROCK PER SPECIFICATION I IN, IX CRUSHED ROCK PUBLIC ROAD mown VIOL. ROCK STABILIZING EXIT NOT TO SCAL GENERAL GRADING NOTES. 1. THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CITY OF EDINA SHALL APPLY EXCEPT WHERE MODIFIED BY THESE DOCUMENTS. 2 "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (1-800-252-1166) SHALL BE NOTIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. 3. PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WITH UTILITY COMPANIES. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY WITH ANY CONFLICTS. 4. THE GRADING CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES. 5. EXISTING TOPSOIL SHALL BE SALVAGED TO PROVIDE 4" TOPSOIL COVERAGE OVER ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE REVEGETATED. 6. THE BUILDING PAD MUST BE PROVIDED WITH POSITIVE DRAINAGE. THIS WORK SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONTRACT. 7. AFTER THE SILT FENCE HAS BEEN REMOVED REMAINING SEDIMENT SHALL BE SMOOTHED TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED OR SODDED AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 8. NO FINISHED SLOPE SHALL EXCEED 4H 1V UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. PERMITEE MUST MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION. METHODS OF MINIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION INCLUDE THE USE OF TRACKED EQUIPMENT. EROSION CONTROL NOTES. 1. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMF"S (LE. SILT FENCE, BIO-ROLLS, ROCK CONSTRUCTION EXIT, INLET PROTECTION, ETC.) SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 2. INLET PROTECTION SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ANY INLET THAT MAY RECEIVE RUNOFF FROM THE DISTURBED AREAS OF THE PROJECT. INLET PROTECTION MAY BE REMOVED FOR A PARTICULAR INLET IFA SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN (FLOODING / FREEZING) HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED. THE PERMITTED MUST RECEIVE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE CITY ENGINEER VERIFYING THE NEED FOR REMOVAL 3. INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPIS, SUCH AS SILT FENCE, AROUND ALL STOCKPILES. 4. RETAIN AND PROTECT AS MUCH NATURAL VEGETATION AS FEASIBLE, WHEN VEGETATION IS REMOVED DURING DEVELOPMENT. THE EXPOSED CONDITION OF LAND SHALL BE KEPT TO THE SHORTEST PRACTICAL PERIOD OF TIME, BUT NOT LONGER THAN 60 DAYS. ANY EXPOSED AREAS EXCEEDING THIS TIME-FRAME SHALL BE TEMPORARILY STABILIZED WITH STRAW MULCH, WOODCHIPS, OR ROCK (STRAW MULCH IS PREFFERED). AREAS BEING USED FOR MATERIAL STORAGE AND AREAS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ARE EXEMPT FROM TEMPORARY STABILIZATION. 5. ANY STEEP SLOPES (3H: 1V OR STEEPER) EXPOSED DURING CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH TEMPORARY VEGETATION, MULCHING OR BY OTHER MEANS ACCEPTABLE TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WITHIN 14 DAYS OF CEASING LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES ON THE STEEP SLOPES. STOCKPILES MAY BE PROTECTED BY AN ANCHORED TARP OR PLASTIC SHEET. 6. PROVIDE DUST CONTROL AS NECESSARY. DUST CONTROL CAN INCLUDE WATER. 7. REMOVE ALL SOILS AND SEDIMENTS TRACKED OR OTHERWISE DEPOSITED ONTO PUBLIC PAVEMENT AREAS ON A DAILY BASIS OR AS NEEDED. 8. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BLIP'S SHALL BE INSPECTED EVERY 7 DAYS. OR WITHIN 24 HOURS OF ALL RAIN EVENTS GREATER THAN 1.0" IN 24 HOURS. CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIRED SHALL BE INITIATED WITHIN 24 HOURS. 9. SILT FENCE, BIG-ROLLS AND INLET PROTECTION DEVICES MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES 1/3 THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVICE, THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY. OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW. 10.AFTER FINAL GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED. EXPOSED SOILS MUST BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. PERMANENT STABILIZATION SHALL CONSIST OF 4 INCHES TOPSOIL AND SEED, MULCH AND FERTILIZER APPLIED BY METHODS AND RATES RECOMMENDED IN MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 2575 AND MN/DOT SEEDING MANUAL OR SOD. THE SEED MIX SHALL BE MN/DOT 25-151. 11-NO CONCRETE WASHOUT ALLOWED ON SITE, TRUCK BASED SELF CONTAINMENT WASHOUT DEVICES REQUIRED. 12.OIL STAINS ON CITY STREETS SHALL BE CLEANED UP MTH FLOOR DRY, AND DISPOSED OF AS A HAZARDOUS WASTE MATERIAL 13.ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE SHALL BE STORED CLEANED UP AND DISPOSED OF PER EPA STANDARDS. 14.ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE BEEN PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. 15.ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AFTER PERMANENT STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. 16.TEMPORARY PUMPED DISCHARGE POLLUTION PREVENTION TECHNIQUES: "DANDY DEWATERING BAG" BROCK WHITE CO. USA. 17.ANY EROSION CONTROL BLANKET MUST BE BIODEGRADABLE WITH LOOSE-WEAVE NET. LH. REVISIONS DESIGNED Br. JAP DRAWN sr ABL CHECKED SY: GRP I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THI PREPARED BY ME OR UN DULY LICENSED PROFESS OF MINNESOTA PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS DREG, SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A GI ENNEER THE LAWS OF THE STATE EFFREY P. PR DATE IC. NO. ,706 DAWNN ELDREDGE 6900 DAWSON LANE EDINA, MINNESOTA 55435 LOT 1, BLOCK 6 SOUTHDALE FIRST ADDITION 5809 OAKLWAN AVENUE EDINA, MINNESOTA EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PROJECT 82901 SHEET NO. Cl OF Cl Of Survey ng - 8290IA \ 0 I CAD \ 01 Source \ 0 I Survey x000.0 - SF • Denotes Found Iron Monument 0 Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Existing Contours Denotes Existing Elevation Denotes Proposed Siltfence cc 5.97 Ce h Sneer 868.5 Percentage 33.92% Residence Prop Addition 2,475 sq ft 494 sq ft Total 2,969 sq ft Signed tee 65.75 W6.6 top leo-Oaf fen 865.62 4N 99 P, 73 865.0 065. 860.5 garage Can 566 66.53 / §ttrurtpirs (rrtificatr Site Plan Survey For: DAWNN ELDREDGE tee CORNER OF FENCE 1.3' 5OUIN OF LINE 65.Bz Percentage 22.51% 91ge 9 (.5) (2) A done '65.56 T‘A N 69 0 Po Pal 8.6713 • 9 <0 gara9-e E 567.3 ae meter 2367.3 metal vordom 3,11 bnck. chimney 866.7 s. 865 X tr23 3tree 1365.6 C3tch Daen Pa,ter Pete Power Fo1e once 65.30 Window 41/ells (typc40 tcc 05.02 X77 spa • 866.9 65.06 065.34 x e365.5 865.51 Legal Description Lot 1, Block 6, SOUTHDALE FIRST ADDITION Hennepin County, Minnesota DEMARC LAND SURVEYING B ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 050-3093 Minneapolis. Minnesota 55420 DemarcInc.com PID No. 30-28-24-44-0041 rev 05- 1 7 -23 french drain FAsurveylsouthdale first addition - henne N-6 \ 1-6 southdale firsn01 Surveying - 82901/801 CAD/D1 Source101 Survey Base.dwg SCALE 1" = 20' dor sen 2360.8 Benchmark: Top nut of hydrant at intersection of Dawson Lane and Southdale Road Elevation = 867.98 feet Heavy snow cover on site at time of survey some improvements may not have been visible The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. Property located in Section 30, Township 28, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my drect supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Surveyed this 22nd day of February 2023. Project No. 8290IA F.B.No. 1075-56 Address: 6900 Dawson Lane Edina, MN Proposed Impervious Surface Lot Area 13,109 sq ft Residence Patio Area Conc. Drive Conc. Walk Prop. Addition Prop Drive 2,475 sq ft 476 sq ft 535 sq ft 174 sq ft 496 sq ft 3/5 sq ft Total 4,474 sq ft Proposed Building Coverage Lot Area 13,109 sq ft Basis for bearings is assumed 067.4 July 31, 2023 City of Edina Planning Department 4801 West 50th St Edina, MN 55424 RE: Variance for PID 30-028-24-44-0041, 6900 Dawson Lane To Whom It May Concern: This letter is to state support for our neighbor Dawnn Eldredge's variance request. To our understanding she is requesting a lesser backyard setback to the homes facing Hillcrest Lane. The purpose is to tear down the current 2 car garage, building a larger 3 car garage. Ingress and egress would remain from her side yard driveway along Southdale Rd. An entirely new three car garage will bring the structure closer to the backyard lot line with a 10 foot setback. It should not inhibit or encroach on our property at 6905 Hillcrest Lane, PID 30-028-24-44-0053. The remaining distance from the back lot line to the anticipated side yard addition appears to be 10 feet. Based on this we support her variance request. Sincerely, Mitzi & Darryl Wicklund 6905 Hillcrest Lane Edina, MN 55435 Dear City Planning Commission, In reviewing the plans from Dawnn Eldredge, my neighbor at 6900 Dawson Lane, I understand the scope and design of the garage project being applied for a variance for. I am in support of the variance being requested. Sincerely, et. --r(Acw,utio_mt,\ Name and date (2, 9 o S e Lam_ F/Gi 402-S Address t>#e., ° S-eS C-10 fre,L 60kzik-b1--5 0g.sLcA .e/2,46-t -k? q.) 0 ' '‘ •z,‘./ —\-• \AR, 3 e—a,r- ca. C4.-V \r‘c.L. _5c ck-vo Far \1 /4:1 d AA:\ eNs‘k • "I., t:,‘_‘ 7- /K'e5 es--E. \C:- k' o4,4„,,. Vs,C.X." C re_ \Deck- ‘'•1 ‘y\ae) /1A).'"- 3 1-4"- 1 U l n, I cit cR? 00-‘,0 5-D •-• •-•,-e .A./ -k:‹ ,a1 b9 D-0 ;i\e, 1\A 55,I-35 , \du ;cm miS --x ori ortD,ik ov r‘. )\,,,Vo( el Or\c0c (Nvdv\ 0_t\---16 A./ o •-•:-V.e) yo .Q. (.3 ct r- \JO c, I 2- lott) LTV July 29, 2023 Edina City Hall Attention: City Planning 4801 West 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 Re: 6900 Dawson Lane Garage nenouation To Whom It May Concern: We are writing a letter in support of our neighbor, Dawnn Eldredge, and her plans to renovate her garage from a two car attached garage to a three car attached garage. Dawnn provided a copy of the plans, and we have no objections to them. Our address is 6825 Southdale Road. Sincerely, 651.231.6992 763-232-3623 Dear City Planning Commission, In reviewing the plans from Dawnn Eldredge, my neighbor at 6900 Dawson Lane, I understand the scope and design of the garage project being applied for a variance for. I am in support of the variance being requested. Sincerely, Name and date Address Si cer Dear City Planning Commission, In reviewing the plans from Dawnn Eldredge, my neighbor at 6900 Dawson Lane, I understand the scope and design of the garage project being applied for a variance for. I am in support of the variance being requested. Name and date 61 a) Address sooldzdo Dear City Planning Commission, In reviewing the plans from Dawnn Eldredge, my neighbor at 6900 Dawson Lane, I understand the scope and design of the garage project being applied for a variance for. I am in support of the variance being requested. Sincerely, v‘c, +o,1 corxv °Vas/ 2Z Name and date 6ClO 1-04/e I 55q 35 Address Dear City Planning Commission, In reviewing the plans from Dawnn Eldredge, my neighbor at 6900 Dawson Lane, I understand the scope and design of the garage project being applied for a variance for. I am in support of the variance being requested. Sincerely, -i1) 7142- v 7,— c-)_:--37 Name and date 68 Lri/eLA__k Address STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Lot ock 6 Somthdale Arst Add Mon 6900 Dawson Lane Edina, Minnesota August 17, 2023 Prepared By: Prepared For: Dawnn Eldredge 6900 Dawson Lane Edina, MN 55435 Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering 7601 73rd Avenue North Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55428 763.560.3093 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. 52706 08.17.23 Jeffrey A Prasch, PE Project Engineer License Number Date Stormwater Management Plan 6900 Dawson Lane — Edina, MN August 17, 2023 1.0 Project Overview A garage addition is being proposed at 6900 Dawson Lane in the City of Edina, Minnesota. The current site has a residence, attached garage, driveway, and patio on the property. There are existing residences to the north and west of the property. Southdale Road is to the east and Dawson Lane is to the south of the property. Currently, the front of the house and front yard drains to either street. The rear of the house and rear yard drains to private property. Structural flooding exists for the entire lot. The existing drainage conditions are shown in Figure 1. The proposed improvements include a garage addition and additional driveway. With the proposed conditions, the drainage patterns will stay the same with the front of the house and front yard draining to the street and the rear of the house and rear yard draining to private property. Figure 2 shows the proposed drainage conditions. Since the proposed improvements increase the impervious area by more than 600 square feet in areas that drain to structural flooding issues, a French Drain is proposed to meet the volume control requirements. The proposed stormwater improvements will include: A French Drain 2.0 Design Considerations The City of Edina (City) dictates the rate and volume requirements for this site. Since this project proposes the addition of over 600 square feet of new impervious surface in areas that drain to structural flooding issues, it falls under Category 2 of their Stormwater Rule. The on-site storm water system design is based on their guidelines. This Property is located within the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District (NMCWD); however, because the project is a redevelopment of a single-family home and the total impervious surface increases by less than 50 percent, their stormwater rules do not apply. The following design tools, methods, and considerations were used in the design of the on-site storm water system: A Rate and Volume Modeling Software — HydroCAD 10.10 A Rainfall Distribution — MSE 24-hour Type Ill A Rainfall Data — NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall data as shown in Figure 3. A Soil Conditions — Hydrologic Soil Group A based on web soil survey shown in Appendix D. Although the web soil survey shows HSG A soils, HSG B soils were used in the HydroCAD model. 3.0 Rate Control The City regulates the rate of water discharged from the site. The requirement is that there be no increase in peak rate to private properties for 10% annual probability event (NOAA Atlas 14, 10-year). Table 3.1 shows the existing and proposed runoff rates. Table 3.1 — Discharge Rate Summary Discharge Node Discharge Rate [cfs] 10-Year Storm Event Pre- Post- Street 0.45 0.50 Private Property 0.42 0.38 ii sain6u li xpueddv 557.3 tcc 65.30 tcc 65.02 Catch Dasm 65.06 5>P / / / 655.73 CORNER OP PENCE 1.3' 50UTH Of LINE tcc 5.97 Ca ▪ 17 al.n PoweA, tcc Polc G5.62 two 5.75 Powe Pole 5 ecc 55.56 7- 7l. 567.3 metal window elec meter 665.34 655.9 x 6655 \ • s' 43E5. 665.51 55.59 z — w z co 0 z O CO 0 cC cf) On LT LU —1 w O c0 — z I— CO Co z cn 0 < L11 0 LU 0 CD <0 Z 111 — ci) 0 00 0 FIGURE 2 08.17.2023 LEGEND SUBCATCHMENT NUMBER A POND/CATCH BASIN NUMBER • LINK NUMBER • REACH NUMBER DRAINAGE ARROW 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET Appendix B Existing Conditions 10-Year Summary Existing Conditions Prepared by Demarc HydroCAD® 10.10-5a sin 09313 0 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sq-ft) CN Area Listing (all nodes) Description (subcatchment-numbers) 9,366 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1S, 2S) 1,349 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1S, 2S) 2,475 98 Roofs, HSG B (1S, 2S) 13,189 72 TOTAL AREA Printed 8/17/2023 Page 2 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Printed 8/17/2023 Page 4 Existing Conditions Prepared by Demarc HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 09313 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment Subcat Runoff = 0.45 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1,051 cf, Depth= 1,88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Area (sf) CN Description 4,676 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 712 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,308 98 Roofs, HSG B 6,696 72 Weighted Average 4,676 61 69.83% Pervious Area 2,020 98 30.17% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment Subcat Hydrograph I 0 Runoff 0.5 1 1 0.48- ,i 0.45 cfs ,_ , ,_ 0.46- 0.44-' ; _; ." 0.421 : V : 0.4- ' --1 / 'I I 0.38- ; -1 -I 0.36- 1 1 1 ; ; 1 0.34-1 I 0.32-' i i 1 1 0.3-- , I.- -I------- ii o 0.28- , 1 i t 0.26-" 111-1 0.24-' i 1 t 1 1 0 I. 0.22- I t 1 -I 1 0.2- 0.16-, 0.14 0.12-- 0.1- 0.08-D 0.06 0,04- 0.02; 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) I 1 , I , l... ttJ 1 I I 1 1 j t , Il I , 05,,e1 ,, , ,, ,_; „,„ ,_,J,,„„,;,!F lit ! i 1 ar-Year- Rai nfa Ili=4.277- - L., -1 LLL1 r, ,-1 r- ,l -ri t 1 -r.. li lit! Runoff Ared=t-1 6-96- --1- - 1.1,1 ii111111 1-1 : -:I 1--11-1 -1 -1 --1 --itt ---1-.1-11-H -1 -1 -t1--1-- -41 -„-i-Fi Rthioff iVollure=1 bS1 'cf. I „„,. „„ „ „ ,,,, 1R marl_ Depthi;1•88!"," ,,„, ilili,iiiilltl 1-1. 4- -I -I 1 -1 ' I 1 1 "--i'-Erl- _To-c".7.0_ininr__- 1" r 1 I 1 [ 1- 1 -I-1 11 I 111 1 1 I I 1111111i I 1 1 11 rrr-II, --1-i LL_11_J_11 '1 1 1 1111111 - 1111111111 1 1111111111 :111111111 T 1111 -1 -1,7Ft" 11'1'1- 111-1--1 1 -I. I. - I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 11 I 111 11 1 1 111 Ii1.1 1 I 1111 -FilEi J 11 LILI 11111111 1111111 I 1 I 111111111 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ; I ---1---1 -T -1--1--'1- 1 I 1 II 1 11 1 + 1111 If I Existing Conditions Prepared by Demarc HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 09313 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Link 'IL: Street Inflow Area = 6,696 sf, 30.17% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.88" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.45 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1,051 cf Primary = 0.45 cfs @ 12,15 hrs, Volume= 1,051 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow= Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 1L: Street Hydrograph MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Printed 8/17/2023 Page 6 O u- 0.5, 0.48-6 0.444' , 0.4i . 0.38:f 0.36= 0.34=' 0.32 0.3 0.28= . 0.28 0.22i 0.24 0.18 0.16 0.14'4; , 0.12-1%, 0.1.1 0.08i"/ 0.044' 0.02 o - 1 11 1 t i r i 1 1 1I 1,11111 11 -t -rt , T - r r 1 -- -r -rl--1 11111 ii t . 1111 I 11 II11111 1 1 1 1 i i ;t1 --r --r 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 C -11 1- '1 11 1 .1LI J I 1 1 1_1 r -r -r 1 -[-11 r I 1 r - 1_1111_11J. _1_1 .J1LI___I__1_, 11_LLI._1 IIIIIIII ii t III it ilmi I F -1- 1 -1 71 1TFIi it ITFI t -1 1 L L ti LL _1111_1 A 'L J'LL1J 11111 Il 1[ III I I Iii 111-r F l$ 1--1 I t i -11F i -TFill A J A. L_L _ I I 1 L._ _1_1 L Al ...1_111-1H- 11111 11 11 111 i I II I ii IITT -1- 11- r 1-1il1 11 1 tlF111 AA_1L.1 i;I 1' , 1 ' I 1 _1_ A . 1 . _ I_ 1 1_ ' 1_ . J_ I 1i I il iiii ii 1111 I 1 T r , 1 i 1-1 lii r I II i I TT 1 i J 1 -I I ::. :11 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 r : 1 1 1 1- 1 1 1 1 f • / 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) El Inflow Primary iI 1 1 1 1 - 1- 1 ri 11 1 I I I 1111 -1- 1 --1 - I Ampndix C Proposed Conditions 10-Year Summary Proposed Conditions Prepared by Demarc HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 09313 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (sq-ft) CN Area Listing (all nodes) Description (subcatchment-numbers) 8,715 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B (1S, 2S) 1,503 98 Paved parking, HSG B (1S, 2S) 2,971 98 Roofs, HSG B (1S, 2S, 3S) 13,189 74 TOTAL AREA Printed 8/17/2023 Page 9 0.557' 0.4- 0.2—' 1 .1 L- _I ; r Proposed Conditions Prepared by Demarc HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 09313 ®2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Printed 8/17/2023 Page 11 Summary for Subcatchment Subcat Runoff 0.50 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1,166 cf, Depth= 2.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Perviousllmperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Area (sf) CN Description 4,544 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 1,025 98 Paved parking, HSG B 1,368 98 Roofs, HSG B 6,938 74 Weighted Average 4,544 61 65.50% Pervious Area 2,394 98 34.50% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment Subcat Hydrograph - 0 Runoff` _1 --I 1 MI SE 24-hrIA 1 d'r-Ya; RainthII 4.27 ,„„It,„„,,, Rtin'off A 9rea6 :938 §f -4 -L " RiinciffivoILinie=,1;160 cf I771 T T-I-1117 -1 T r Runoff Deptft=2.02", J J _ L L ' ' To=;-7.0 min' ,„t,„, 0.15— . L - _ L 0.50 cfs J 1- , I , 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) (0 Runoff 0.07: 0.065- 0.06- ti 0.06 cfs 10-YeAr Rainfall=4,27" 4 ! _Runoff Area=448 sf -Runoff-VOlurne'=151-Cf-- Runoff Deptii=4.03"', , , J - .1 _ _ TC.=7, 0 rniri !-• I 1_ I i I I ) I Ili i I I I I I 0.055- 0.05: 0.045: 0.04: 0.035 0.03 0.025- 0.015: -I- r - I 0.005 0 I - 1 MSE ,2449-1,3 Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Prepared by Demarc Printed 8/17/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a sin 09313 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff = 0.06 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 151 cf, Depth= 4.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Area (sf) CN Description 448 98 Roofs, HSG B 448 98 100.00% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Hydrograph 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Pond 1P: French Drain Hydrograph 0.077 0.065 II 0.03 0.025- 0.02- 0.015-- 0.01- 0.005- 0 rIfloW Walt-4481e 111111111 . iIIIIIIIII 7-F -4 Peak;tfideve. &all. i G ®' 1 • I 1 It [ 1 t t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 i -4-- -.-,- -for t at e t-- 7 -1-6-1 : c - ft-- I t t t - r - T -r 7 - r I I 4 1_L_ I I • I 1 I I -11 I I I I I I -I' III I I I Il • ,eff/Zer jzrzyz/- , 0 0.04 0.055 0.045 0.035.- 1 I 0.02 cfs 0.02 cfs - - _ I_ L 1 L J. _ 0 2 4 6 8 101214 16 1820 22 242628 3032 34 3638 4042 44 4648 50 5254 56.5860 6264 66 6870 72 Time (hours) 0.06 cfs -1- - - - - !I I;III I I II! III I 1111 1111 !I - 0 Inflow q Outflow 0 Discarded 0 Primary Proposed Conditions Prepared by Demarc HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 09313 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4. 27" Printed 8/17/2023 Page 15 0.05 z 0 2 4 6 8 10 .12.14161.18 20 22 24. 26.. 28 30 32 34. 3.6 .36 40 42. 44 46. 48 50 52 54 56 58 .6062. 64 .66 6870 72 Time (hours) 0 0.55 .. 0.45 0.4 0.35—' tn "6 0.3-.) 0.25- 0.2:' 0.15- 0.1: n cn rfs 0.50 cfs - — - - I - 1 I - - - -; - - - J Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.27" Prepared by Demarc Printed 8/17/2023 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 09313 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Link 'IL: Street Inflow Area = 6,938 sf, 34.50% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.50 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1,166 cf Primary = 0.50 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1,166 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 1L: Street Hydrograph 0 Inflow 0 Primary iciewwns Hos a xipueddy Custom Soil Resource Report Way Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in A01 Percent of A01 L55B Urban land-Malardi complex, 0 to 8 percent slopes 0.7 100.0% Totals for Area of Interest 0.7 100.0% 2 Custom Soil Resource Report Forage suitability group: Sandy (G103XS022MN) Other vegetative classification: Sandy (G103XS022MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Eden prairie Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Hills on stream terraces, hills on outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope Down-slope shape: Linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R103XY019MN - Sandy Upland Savannas Other vegetative classification: Sandy (G103XS022MN) Hydric soil rating: No Rasset Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landform: Swales on stream terraces, swales on outwash plains Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R103XY019MN - Sandy Upland Savannas Other vegetative classification: Sloping Upland, Acid (G103XS006MN) Hydric soil rating: No 4 Land Use Variances Published: May 21, 2021 See accompanying model documents below. This content conveys general information. Do not use it as a substitute for legal advice. Any attorney general opinions cited are available from the Leagueʼs Research staff. What is a variance? A variance is a way that cities may allow an exception to part of a zoning ordinance. It is a permitted departure from strict enforcement of the ordinance as applied to a particular piece of property. A variance is generally for a dimensional standard (such as setbacks or height limits). A variance allows the landowner to break a dimensional zoning rule that would otherwise apply. Sometimes a landowner seeks a variance to allow a use of their proper ty that is not permissible under the zoning ordinance. Such variances are oen termed “use variances” as opposed to “area variances” from dimensional standards. Use variances are not generally allowed in Minnesota. State law prohibits a city from permitting by variance any use that is not permitted under the ordinance for the zoning district where the property is located (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). Granting a variance Minnesota law provides for a body called the board of adjustment and appeals to hear requests for variances (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). In many smaller communities, the planning commission or even the city council may serve that function. A variance decision is generally appealable to the city council. A city may grant a variance if enforcement of a zoning ordinance provision, as applied to a particular piece of property, would cause the landowner “practical difficulties.” For the variance to be granted, the applicant must satisfy the statutory three-factor test for practical difficulties (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). If the applicant does not meet all three factors of the statutory test, the city should not grant the variance. Also, variances are only permitted when: They are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance, and The terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Legal standards When considering a variance application, a city exercises “quasi-judicial” authority. This means the city acts like a judge in evaluating the facts against the legal standard. The cityʼs role is limited to applying the legal standard of practical difficulties to the facts presented by the application. If the applicant meets the standard, then the city may grant the variance. In contrast, when the city writes the rules in the zoning ordinance, the city is exercising “legislative” authority and has much broader discretion. Practical difculties “Practical difficulties” is a legal standard that cities must apply when considering applications for variances. It is a three-factor test and applies to all requests for variances. To constitute practical difficulties, all three factors of the test must be satisfied. Reasonableness The first factor is that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. This factor means that the landowner would like to use the property in a particular reasonable way but cannot do so under the rules of the ordinance. It does not mean that the land cannot be put to any reasonable use whatsoever without the variance. For example, if the variance application is for a building too close to a lot line or does not meet the required setback, the focus of the first factor is whether the request to place a building there is reasonable. Uniqueness The second factor is that the landownerʼs problem is due to circumstances unique to the property not caused by the landowner. The uniqueness generally relates to the physical characteristics of the particular piece of property, that is, to the land and not personal characteristics or preferences of the landowner. When considering the variance for a building to encroach or intrude into a setback, the focus of this factor is whether there is anything physically unique about the particular piece of property, such as sloping topography or other natural features like wetlands or trees. Essential character The third factor is that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Under this factor, consider whether the resulting structure will be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area. For example, when thinking about the variance for an encroachment into a setback, the focus is how the particular building will look closer to a lot line and if that fits in with the character of the area. Undue hardship “Undue hardship” was the name of the three-factor test prior to a May 2011 change of law (2011 Minn. Laws, ch. 19, amending Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). The 2011 law restored municipal variance authority in response to a Minnesota Supreme Court case (Krummenacher v. City of Minnetonka, 783 N.W.2d 721 (Minn. June 24, 2010)). The law now does both of the following: Provides consistent statutory language between city land use planning statutes (Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6) and county variance authority (Minn. Stat. § 394.27, subd. 7). Clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to, and bear a rough proportionality to, the impact created by the variance. The 2011 law renamed the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retained the familiar three-factor test of reasonableness uniqueness essential character The League has developed models that reflect current variance law. Your city attorney should review these models with you prior to council action to tailor them for your cityʼs needs. View the League model ordinance on issuance of a zoning variance (doc) View the League model variance application form (doc) View the League model resolution adopting findings of fact (doc) Other considerations Harmony with other land use controls State law says, “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan” (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). This is in addition to the three-factor practical difficulties test. So, a city evaluating a variance application should make findings on whether: The variance is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposal puts the property to use in a reasonable manner. There are unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, will alter the essential character of the locality. For more about findings of fact, see Taking the Mystery out of Findings of Fact Economic factors Sometimes landowners insist they deserve a variance because they have already incurred substantial cost. They may also argue they will not receive expected revenue without the variance. State statute specifically notes that economic considerations alone cannot create practical difficulties (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). Rather, practical difficulties exist only when the three statutory factors are met. Neighborhood opinion Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While city officials may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, their task is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can oen provide important facts to help the city address these factors, but unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request are not a legitimate basis for a variance decision. If neighborhood opinion is a significant basis for the variance decision, it could be overturned by a court if challenged. Conditions A city may impose conditions when it grants a variance. Conditions must be directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance (Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 6). For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed a height limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to lessening the effect of excess height. Variance procedural issues Public hearings Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied. Many practitioners and attorneys agree that the best practice is to hold public hearings on all variance requests. A public hearing allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. Past practices While past practice may be instructive, it cannot replace the need for analysis of all three of the practical difficulties factors for each and every variance request. In evaluating a variance request, cities are not bound by decisions made for prior variance requests. If a city finds it is issuing many variances to a particular zoning standard, the city should consider amending the ordinance to change the standard. Time limit A written request for a variance is subject to Minnesotaʼs 60-day rule. It must be approved or denied within 60 days of the time it is submitted to the city. A city may extend the time period for an additional 60 days, but only if it does so in writing before expiration of the initial 60-day period. Under the 60-day rule, failure to approve or deny a request within the statutory time period is considered an approval (Minn. Stat. § 15.99). Documentation Whatever its decision, a city should create a record that supports it. If denying the variance, the 60-day rule requires the reasons for the denial be put in writing within the statutory time period (Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 2). Even if the variance is approved, a written statement explaining the decision is advisable. The written statement should address each of the three practical difficulties factors and list the relevant facts and conclusions for each factor. For more about findings of fact, see Taking the Mystery out of Findings of Fact Variances once granted A variance is a property right that “runs with the land.” That is, it attaches to and benefits the land and is not limited to a particular landowner. A variance is typically filed with the county recorder. Even if the property is sold to another person, the variance applies. Models used in this discussion: Issuance of Variances, LMC model ordinance (doc) Variance Application, LMC model form (doc) Adopting Findings of Fact, LMC model resolution (doc) EdinaMN.gov6900 Dawson LaneVariance Request Variance Criteria 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following:i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Variance Criteria 1. The variance would be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.3. There are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. The term “practical difficulties” means the following:i. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance.ii. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. iii. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff Recommendation Motion to approve a 14.6-foot variance from the rear yard setback as requested by the applicant, subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report. Deadline for a City decision: October 26, 2023 Date: O c tober 11, 2023 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:C ary Teague, C ommunity Development Director Item Activity: Subject:S ketch P lan R eview – 4444 and 4200 76th S treet West Disc ussion 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: No action requested. P rovide the applicant nonbinding comment and feedback on a potential future land use request. I N TR O D U C TI O N: L S B lack D evelopment is requesting consideration of a S ketch P lan proposal to redevelop 4444 & 4200 76th Street West. T he applicant is proposing to tear down the existing buildings on the sites and build a 6- story 186-unit apartment, and a 4-story 65-unit apartment. T he project would be 100% affordable for individuals and families earning 60% AM I or less. T his site is currently zoned P I D , P lanned Industrial District, and guided O R , O ffice R esidential in the C ity’s C omprehensive P lan. T he allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. T his site is 4 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing a density of 63 units per acre. T he request would require the following: 1. A R ezoning from P I D, P lanned I ndustrial D istrict to P U D. F lexibility would be requested through the P U D O rdinance to vary from building height, building setbacks, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. T he P U D Zoning is the zoning tool that the C ity of Edina has used for 100% affordable housing developments to ensure long term affordability. (E xamples are T he S ound on 76th, Amundson Apartments, and 4040 70th S treet) AT TAC HME N T S: Description AFO Review (Mic Johns on) Proposed Plans Applicant Narrative Site Location, Zoning & Comp. Plan Staff Memo Applicant Pres entation Staff Pres entation 2200 Zane Ave N | Minneapolis, MN 55422 www.archfieldoffice.com Cary: Per your request, we reviewed the most recent proposal for the redevelopment of the two parcels located at 4444 and 4200 W 76th Street based on our experience working with the Greater Southdale Work Group to craft a physical vision for the future district, translating their guiding principles to the built environment. The resulting vision for development in the Greater Southdale District is to create an enhanced human experience along existing major and new connector streets, with overall experience shaped via landscape setbacks, building step backs, a hierarchy of street typologies, transparency at street level, a minimized impact of the car, and managing storm water as an amenity. The outcome of our collaborations with the Work Group is described in the urban design chapter of the Greater Southdale District Plan and resulted in the Greater Southdale District Design Experience Guidelines. The project proposed aligns in several areas with the Design Experience Guidelines, demonstrating positive attributes as it relates to the basic criteria for setback and building heights. The plan for parking works very well, creating the opportunity for visibility to the landscape from all apartments, providing for a safer and more connected environment. As expected, the elevations and perspectives provided in the sketch plan submission provide very little detail at this stage but generally meet the intent of the Experience Guidelines. If the project moves forward, it will be important to create a strong relationship between the landscape and façade design in relation to the new streets and street rooms. The landscape design is not well developed at this stage of development, nor do the drawings or narrative describe the intent of how the landscape will serve the needs of the potential resident mix of families and older citizens. It will be important to distinguish between desired landscaping at t he To City of Edina Cary Teague, Community Development Director 4801 W. 50th Street Edina, MN 55424 From Mic Johnson, FAIA Date October 4, 2023 2 ground level units and the public walkway and pathways throughout the development. Perhaps further clarity can be provided by the development team. We also note several opportunities for consideration: Superblocks: Page 9 of the Design Experience Guidelines touches on the role of the Superblock in organizing the district. As a result of the 200’ x 200’ block grid, the space between buildings becomes an important asset in shaping the overall sense of landscape and continuity of public realm throughout the district. Because the superblocks have primary responsibility for serving the vehicular traffic needs of the district, access to the smaller blocks for drop-off, service and parking can be planned to stay at the perimeter of a block, allowing for the spaces between the remaining block to be used for a network of green spaces that support the health and wellbeing of the community. This approach creates opportunities for the “Space Between” buildings to become places and connections to larger community pathways, including Parks, Pocket Parks, Recreation, Play Areas, Gardens , Stormwater Management, Wetlands, and Waterways. We suggest the development team consider the superblock created by West 76th Street, and Parklawn Avenue, running east and west and north and south and the future West Promenade as a guide for consider both traffic and landscaping for this site in the context of the superblock neighborhood. 3 District Connections: We also suggest consideration of the potential of a future primary pathway from France Avenue through a shared landscaped corridor connecting to Fred Richards Park and the West Promenade. Connections to existing assets can help develop a consistent approach to the landscape and potential programming of the broader neighborhood. Site Plan Organization: Consider removing the road around the 6-story building. This move would create an opportunity to shift the buildings to the west, allowing room to increase the setback on the east side of the four-story building from 10 feet to 20 feet or more to support a row of trees – making the sightlines between the existing apartment building more obscure and the interior space of the east building more private. In addition, consider limiting access to parking to only a single entry into the site serving both parking garages and drop offs. As noted on the diagram above, the remainder of the site can then be green space, used for landscaping, play areas, walking paths, and storm water management. All the north/south exterior spaces between the buildings in the proposed development and its neighbors are considered Street Rooms as by the Design Experience Guidelines, and as such, should consider the space between the walls of the new buildings and the existing buildings to be part of the same room. Even though the properties may be split between 2 or 3 different ownership groups, the experience from both sides of the buildings of the space between the properties is important in optimizing access to sunlight and landscape, representing a shared community experience. . 4 The role of the Design Experience Guidelines is to outline the structure of experience, t he kinds of measurements that are required to make the Southdale District more inviting and its public realm more engaging and interesting, and to recognize that every square foot has importance and a purpose in achieving these goals. I would offer this thought about the experience this site can offer: Imagine children playing everywhere throughout the neighborhood. Coming home to dinner, bringing experiences from both the natural world and the social world of children, in a place that is alive with people who know each other, who take care of each other, who learn from each other. And for our senior citizens, providing a safe and comfortable place to walk each day, along the way greeting friends and making new acquaintances from the neighborhood. Via a pathway that leads to the West Promenade, they find a comfortable way to get to a grocery store, to get a haircut, meet for coffee, and enjoy all the services of the greater Southdale District. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mic 4 Story1 Story3 StoryW 76TH StreetPOCKET PARK400' - 0"435' - 7"BUILDING 16 StoryBUILDING 24 Story26' - 0"37' - 0"66' - 0"76' - 0"66' - 0"70' - 4 1/2"74' - 7 1/2"10' - 0"40' - 1"72' - 0"164' - 0"110' - 2 1/2"49' - 3 1/2"40' - 1"361' - 6"34' - 0"36' - 0"74' - 2 1/2"47' - 0"36' - 0"126' - 0"36' - 0"79' - 0"66' - 0"10' - 0"LOBBYLOBBY200' - 0"200' - 0"DN66' - 0"361' - 6"UP76TH Street Fit PlanCOMBINED SITE CONCEPT23.09.144200 76th St W, EdinaLEVEL P1 BUILDING 2 Levels Gross SF Parking GSF Residential GSF Res. Amenity Residential NLSFEfficiency NLSFSurface StallsRes. Enclosed StallsRes. Units Park RatioTarget RatioBUILDING 11 Parking / Lobby / Amenities 62,355 20,664 33,691 8,000 28,637 85% 52 26 2 Parking 62,355 20,664 41,691 - 35,437 85% 52 32 3 Apartments 62,355 20,664 41,691 - 35,437 85% 52 32 4 Apartments 62,355 20,664 41,691 - 35,437 85% 52 32 5 Apartments 62,355 20,664 41,691 - 35,437 85% 52 32 6 Apartments 62,355 20,664 41,691 - 35,437 85%32 374,130 123,984 242,146 8,000 205,824 5 - 260 186 1.40BUILDING 2P1 Parking 24,549 24,549 60 1 Lobby / Amenities/Residential 24,825 17,225 7,600 14,641 85%13 2 Residential 22,625 22,625 - 19,231 85%17 3 Residential 22,625 22,625 - 19,231 85%17 4 Residential 22,625 22,625 - 19,231 85%17 117,249 24,549 85,100 7,600 72,335 3 - 60 65 0.92Total 491,379 148,533 327,246 15,600 278,159 9 - 320 252 1.27MetricsResidential GSF per UnitTotal Dwelling Units 252 1300TargetEnclosed Residential Stalls 320 Residential NSF per UnitBuilding 1 1,300Surface Stalls - 85% Eff1105Building 2 1,300Total Stalls320 Total Residential Stalls 320 Total Residential Stalls (worst case)Residential Stalls / Dwelling Unit 1.27 Residential Stalls / Bedroom -Average Unit Size 1,105 Site SF509,328 Site Coverage 17%Applicable FAR SF 342,846 Site Acreage 11.69 Dwelling Unit / Acre 22 FAR0.67 Metrics: 4444 76th St W & 4200 76th St W Edina WRAP AND BAR BUILDING CONCEPTESG Architecture & Design8/29/2023 LS Black Development, along with its project team, including ESG and Loucks, is pleased to present preliminary plans for the two parcels located at 4444 and 4200 W 76th Street. The proposed development would provide greater housing access and support the City of Edina’s affordability goals. The proposed site is located at 4444 and 4200 W 76th Street in the Parklawn Neighborhood. The site is comprised of two separate parcels, totaling approximately 4.0 acres. The current zoning for each parcel is PID – Planned Industrial. This zoning designaƟon is reflecƟve of the current commercial uses at the site. The future land use designaƟon for both parcels is Office ResidenƟal (OR). Such land uses primarily consist of offices and aƩached or mulƟfamily housing, with limited retail and service establishments, and minimal fully enclosed industrial acƟviƟes. As underscored in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, housing affordability is a primary concern for Edina, with a projected need for new affordable housing of 1,804 units between 2021-2030. This demand is driven by demographic changes, such as an aging populaƟon who may seek affordable alternaƟves to transiƟon from single-family homes, as well as the growing proporƟon of younger families seeking employment opportuniƟes within the city. The proposed redevelopment would assist greatly in achieving the City’s affordability goals, creaƟng a total of 252 units between two buildings. This development would be 100% affordable for families averaging 60% AMI, which could include a mix of units at 30-80% AMI.  The proposed density of 63 units per acre fits within the future land use guidance of 20-75 residenƟal units per acre.  Unit mix will include one-, two-, and three-bedroom units, designed to welcome families.  Building 1, a 6-story, wrap-style structure with units wrapping an above-ground parking structure, would introduce approximately 186 units.  Building 2, a 4-story building with one level of underground parking, would introduce approximately 65 residenƟal units.  The proposed development would include +/- 320 stalls, for an overall parking raƟo of 1.27. The structured parking responds to the development guidelines for future land use and improves the pedestrian experience. Proposing two buildings break up the massing, producing a scale that is complementary to the surrounding structures. Parking spaces will be free (included in the rent) for tenants in both parking structures. LS Black Development is an emerging development company located in Saint Paul, MN. As long-term owners with extensive experience in affordable and workforce housing development, LS Black Development is driven to create high-quality, resident-focused housing and expand housing opƟons for individuals and families. The current project team is as follows:  ESG – Architecture, site planning, & interior design  Loucks – Civil engineering, landscaping design, & survey  LS Black Development – Developer, owner, & applicant for overall project If a formal applicaƟon is proposed, LS Black Development would seek a Rezoning of the parcels from PID – Planned Industrial to PUD – Planned Unit Development. Given extenuaƟng economic condiƟons, such a project would necessitate both AHTF and TIF Assistance. Site Site Site City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City Hall • Phone 952-927-8861 Fax 952-826-0389 • www.CityofEdina.com Date: October 11, 2023 To: Planning Commission From: Cary Teague, Community Development Director Re: Sketch Plan Review – 4444 & 4200 76th Street West LS Black Development is requesting consideration of a Sketch Plan proposal to redevelop 4444 & 4200 76th Street West. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing buildings on the sites and build a 6-story 186-unit apartment, and a 4-story 65-unit apartment. The project would be 100% affordable for individuals and families earning 60% AMI or less. This site is currently zoned PID, Planned Industrial District, and guided OR, Office Residential in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. This site is 4 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing a density of 63 units per acre. The request would require the following: 1. A Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD. (The adjacent parcel to the east is zoned PUD.) Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from building height, building setbacks, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is the zoning tool that the City of Edina has used for 100% affordable housing developments to ensure long term affordability. (Examples are The Sound on 76th, Amundson Apartments, and 4040 70th Street) The table on the following page demonstrates how the proposed new building(s) would comply with the existing PID zoning standards on the lot. Mic Johnson, AFO, Architectural Field Office has provided a review of the project. (See attached.) City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Compliance Table City Standard (PID) Proposed (Measured from building to curb) Building Setbacks Front – 76th Street Side – East Side – West Rear 30 feet 50 feet 72 feet 72 feet 50 feet 10 feet* 44 feet* 40 feet* Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 6 stories* 4 stories Density 20-75 units per acre (2.59 acres) 63 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .5% 2.4* Parking Housing Phase 1– 1 enclosed space per unit + .25 surface spaces per unit = 313 spaces required (251 enclosed) 320 (320 enclosed) *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD Issues/considerations:  Density. The development density is toward the high end of the density range. The allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. This site is 4 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing a density of 63 units per acre.  Affordable Housing. The project would add 251 units of affordable housing. The City of Edina has established a goal to develop 992 to 1,804 new units of affordable housing by year end 2030. As of this date, 342 new units have been approved of which 108 have been completed. There remains an urgent need for new affordable units. The addition of 251 new units would help the City achieve its goal.  Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required.  Proposed heights. The proposed height of 6 stories exceeds the code required 4-story maximum. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424  Pedestrian connections. Addition sidewalks should be incorporated into the plans, specifically north and south through the site to provide connections to the pocket park to the rear of building #1. The sidewalk on 76th should be moved back from the street to match the new sidewalk to the east at “The Sound.”  The driveway widths could be reduced to 20 feet wide, to help with spacing to provide additional sidewalks on the site.  Sustainability. The applicant will be asked to submit the sustainability questionnaire as part of a formal application. City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • THANK YOU! EdinaMN.govSketch Plan Review4444 and 4200 76thStreet West Site Site Site Formal Application Would RequireA Rezoning from PID, Planned Industrial District to PUD. (The adjacent parcel to the east is zoned PUD.) Flexibility would be requested through the PUD Ordinance to vary from building height, building setbacks, and floor area ratio (FAR) requirements. The PUD Zoning is the zoning tool that the City of Edina has used for 100% affordable housing developments to ensure long term affordability. (Examples are The Sound on 76th, Amundson Apartments, and 4040 70th Street) Issues/Considerations Compliance Table City Standard (PID) The Sound PUD (adjacent property to the east) Proposed (Measured from building to curb) Building Setbacks Front – 76th Street Side – East Side – West Rear 30 feet 50 feet 72 feet 72 feet 50 feet 28 feet 15 feet 80 feet 50 feet 10 feet* 44 feet* 40 feet* Building Height 4 stories & 48 feet 4 stories & 48 feet 6 stories* 4 stories Density 20-75 units per acre 35 units per acre 63 units per acre Floor Area Ratio (FAR) .5% 1.5 2.4* Parking Housing Phase 1– 1 enclosed space per unit + .25 surface spaces per unit = 313 spaces required (251 enclosed) 1 stall per unit 320 (320 enclosed) *Does not meet base Zoning Standards-Flexibility would be requested through a PUD Issues/ConsiderationsDensity. The development density is toward the high end of the density range. The allowed residential density in this area is up to 75 units per acre. This site is 4 acres in size; therefore, the applicant is proposing a density of 63 units per acre. Affordable Housing. The project would add 251 units of affordable housing. The City of Edina has established a goal to develop 992 to 1,804 new units of affordable housing by year end 2030. As of this date, 342 new units have been approved of which 108 have been completed. There remains an urgent need for new affordable units. The addition of 251 new units would help the City achieve its goal.Traffic and parking. A traffic and parking study would be required. Proposed heights. The proposed height of 6 stories exceeds the code required 4-story maximum. Issues/ConsiderationsPedestrian connections. Additional sidewalks should be incorporated into the plans, specifically north and south through the site to provide connections to the pocket park to the rear of building #1. The sidewalk on 76thshould be moved back from the street to match the new sidewalk to the east at “The Sound.”The driveway widths could be reduced to 20 feet wide, to help with spacing to provide additional sidewalks on the site. Sustainability. The applicant will be asked to submit the sustainability questionnaire as part of a formal application. Discussion/Feedback