Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-13 Planning Commission PacketAgenda Plan n ing Com m ission City Of Edina, Minnesota City Hall, Council Chambers Wednesday, March 13, 2019 7:00 PM I.Call To Order II.Roll Call III.Approval Of Meeting Agenda IV.Approval Of Meeting Minutes A.Minutes: Planning Commission, February 13, 2019 B.Minutes: Planning Commission, February 27, 2019 V.Public Hearings A.Variance Request B-19-4, 4430 Garrison Ave. VI.Community Comment During "Community Comment," the Board/Commission will invite residents to share relevant issues or concerns. Individuals must limit their comments to three minutes. The Chair may limit the number of speakers on the same issue in the interest of time and topic. Generally speaking, items that are elsewhere on tonight's agenda may not be addressed during Community Comment. Individuals should not expect the Chair or Board/Commission Members to respond to their comments tonight. Instead, the Board/Commission might refer the matter to sta% for consideration at a future meeting. VII.Reports/Recommendations A.7200-7250 Redevelopment Plans - Are the Proposed Plans Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan B.Comprehensive Plan Update VIII.Correspondence And Petitions IX.Chair And Member Comments X.Sta5 Comments XI.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 ampli8c 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: Marc h 13, 2019 Agenda Item #: I V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion, F ebruary 13, 2019 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: P lease approve minutes from P lanning C ommission meeting 2-13-19. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2-13-19 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 1 of 9 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers February 13, 2019 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Mangalick, Melton, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube, Chair Olsen Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist, MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator Absent from the roll call: Thorsen III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Commissioner Strauss moved to approve the February 13, 2019, agenda. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Approval Of Meeting Minutes Commissioner Miranda moved to approve the December 12, 2018, meeting minutes. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. V. Special Recognitions And Presentations A. Better Together- MJ Lamon MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator, and Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, presented the new Better Together website and explained how it is going to work during the 30 day public review period for the Comprehensive Plan. VI. Public Hearings A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment; Revise PUD- 17 for Pentagon Park South, 4815 & 4901 77th Street and 7710 Computer Avenue Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 2 of 9 Director Teague presented a PowerPoint explaining the request of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Revise PUD- 17 for Pentagon Park South, 4815 & 4901 77th Street and 7710 Computer Avenue. Teague explained that the City approved an overall development plan and the zoning ordinance PUD-17 in May of 2018. Director Teague explained that the Solomon Real Estate Group is proposing changes to the approved master plan and stated that Staff would characterize the changes as “improvements” to the plans originally approved. Director Teague explained that Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Zoning Ordinance Amendment to revise PUD-17, including Site Plan approval for Phase 1 and Overall Development Plan subject to the findings that are outlined in the staff report. Jay Scott, with Solomon Real Estate Group, introduced himself and explained that Engineering staff explained that the streets on West 77th Street and Computer Avenue have minor improvements being made causing the streets to be expanded. Discussion/Comments/Questions  Commissioner Miranda discussed significant changes to the pedestrian realm, including the sidewalks being pushed out to the edge of the property and less trees in the proposed plan on the corner of West 77th Street and Computer Avenue. Teague commented that Staff would want to see a “Boulevard” style sidewalk. Commissioner Miranda also commented on the street to the west as being closed off in this version of the plan. Teague explained that there is a potential of a future development expansion in that area in Phase 2. Director Teague suggested that a condition of approval could include adding a boulevard sidewalk on 77th and Computer Avenue.  A discussion regarding the building’s design and materials from the architect took place.  Commissioners discussed which plans were the most accurate and Scott replied that the civil plans would be the most accurate representation because they’re scaled. Commissioners commented that on the west side there is no continuous sidewalk from the park to the 9 Mile Creek Trail. Commissioners asked Scott if there was a way to add a bike lane or a connector going north and south in the greenspace to the right/east of the parking ramp. Scott replied that there is a sidewalk going north and south and all of the connection points are there. Scott explained that a sidewalk next to the garage may not be feasible because there will be exterior stairwells, elevator stairwells, and the architecture is designed to be on the exterior of the garage.  Commissioners commented on the road being closed from the west side and asked Scott if the sidewalk could be expanded for a bike to fit and Scott replied that it is a standard 6 foot sidewalk but it could potentially be widened. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Discussion/Comments/Questions Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 3 of 9  Commissioners stated that there is good sidewalk circulation but it seems to end at the face of the garage. Commissioners suggested to continue to provide a shared pedestrian bike path to the southernmost portion of the site along the east side of the parking ramp and stairwell. Scott replied that the area referenced isn’t appropriate to have a bike path because it is a service area including snow dump and hotel service activities. Motion Commissioner Miranda moved approval of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment as recommended in the staff memo subject to the findings therein with the conditions to add an 8 foot wide north, south, east, and west path and restore the sidewalks to have boulevards. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. Aye: Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Olsen, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube Nay: Hamilton The motion carried 7-1. Commissioner Nemerov is on record that he would approve it as proposed. B. 4501 Garrison Lane, 1st Floor Height Variance Planner Bodeker presented the staff report for 4501 Garrison Lane, Edina, MN. Bodeker explained that the applicant is requesting to increase the first floor elevation 3.33 feet higher than the current home's first floor elevation in order to construct a new home at 4501 Garrison Lane. 4501 Garrison Lane is approximately 13, 444 square feet in area and is located on the south side of Garrison Lane, on the west side of Wooddale Ave., north of Garrison Lake and is located in the floodplain. The City of Edina's Engineering standards require the basement elevation of the new home to be 2 feet higher than the FEMA base flood elevation. The requirement for increased height in basement elevations impacts the ability for the project to conform to the maximum first floor height requirement of I foot. The existing home is was built in 1961 prior to the FEMA floodplain study conducted in 1979 to determine flood risk areas. It is a City and Watershed District goal to elevate and remove homes out of the flood hazard areas when the opportunity presents itself. A variance is requested to allow the first floor elevation of the new home to exceed the first floor elevation of the existing home by more than one foot. The current home at 4501 Garrison Lane has a basement elevation of 866.8 and a first floor elevation of 875.7 feet above sea level. The established floodplain elevation is at 866.3 with a required protection elevation of 868.3'. The minimum basement elevation must be no less than 2 feet above the flood elevation so the minimum basement elevation required is 868.3'. The proposed basement will be no lower than 868.3'. The proposed first floor elevation of the house is proposed to be at 879.03, which will be 3.33 feet higher than existing. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked Planner Bodeker what is the basis for the average 8 foot 8 inch height and where does it come from. Bodeker replied that it comes from construction patterns or what is Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 4 of 9 seen in new construction homes. Commissioners asked how Staff determines how much more above the 1 foot Staff is willing to give to applicants. Bodeker replied that Staff worked with the applicant on aspects of this proposed project to meet the zoning requirements. A short discussion between Staff and Commissioners regarding character of the home followed. • Commissioners discussed concerns about the 24 inch trusses verses 16 inch floor trusses. Weston explained that the trusses were due to the desire for openness in the basement. • Commissioners commented on the retaining wall and the fact they’re typically used for holding or piling up dirt. Weston explained the retaining wall is more for landscaping purposes. Commissioners also discussed the amount of large steps leading up to the front door and the height from the grade. Appearing for the Applicant Ellen Weston, 4501 Garrison Lane, introduced herself and explained that her husband has been in the home for 16 years and the reason for their variance application is to stay in the neighborhood and keep the home traditional like the neighborhood is. Public Hearing • Alex Swiggum, 4439 Garrison Lane stated that he likes the look of the proposed property and would approve the plan. Commissioner Strauss moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions •Commissioners asked if there were other neighbors that were in favor of the project and Staff replied that it was about 3 neighbors in favor of the approval they received correspondence from. •Commissioners discussed looking at the floor to floor height which would include the basement floor height level to the top of the first floor. Commissioners discussed the massing task force and that the 1 foot rule can be a problem in the flood zone areas. Commissioners discussed bringing down the truss height down by 8 inches, from 24 to 16 inches, and they would support a 2 foot and 8 inch variance. Commissioners discussed that a 10 foot allowance floor to floor should give the applicant enough room, but that decision of a new policy shouldn’t be made in the middle of this application. Motion Commissioner Nemorov moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. Aye: Strauss, Nemerov, Berube, Olsen Nay: Miranda, Lee, Hamilton, Bennett Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 5 of 9 The motion fails 4-4. Commissioner Lee made a motion to approve of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein and with the condition to change the variance to a height maximum of 2 feet and 8 inches. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. Commissioner Nemerov commented that the Commissioners were struggling to come up with the correct number for the height and that the applicant doesn’t appear to want the lower height, but that they feel like they have to. Aye: Miranda, Lee, Strauss, Hamilton, Bennett, Berube Nay: Nemerov, Olsen The motion passed 6-2. C. 4536 France Avenue, Sign Variance Planner Bodeker presented the staff report for 4536 France Ave. South, Edina, MN. Bodeker explained that the applicant is requesting a setback variance for a freestanding sign. The property is located on the west side of France Avenue, south of Sunnyside Avenue. The subject property was rezoned from residential to office district in 1976. The proposed sign is located within an existing planting bed approximately 3 feet 7 inches from the property line and approximately 13 feet 8 inches from the curb along France Avenue. The City’s sign code requires freestanding signs to be setback 20 feet from the traveled portion of the street. The size and height of the proposed sign is compliant with the City’s Sign Ordinance. There was a sign in this same location for the previous use on the site and had that original sign not been removed, a variance would not be required. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners asked if the flower bed was part of the construction for the sign and Bodeker replied that the planter bed is existing. • Commissioners asked if the purpose of moving signs back from the street is to improve the character of the neighborhood. Director Teague replied that it is to keep away from blocking the line of sight for cars coming out of the driveway. Teague mentioned that moving the sign back 20 feet could mean moving it into the middle of the applicant’s parking lot. Appearing for the Applicant Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 6 of 9 Rick Ballantyne, Schad Tracy Signs, introduced himself and explained that he designed it and would be involved with the installation. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Bennett moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions •Commissioners discussed the diagram with the sign and a man standing next to it. Commissioners discussed that the height of the sign is 7 feet and the height of the man doesn’t appear to be scaled correctly. Commissioners discussed using an average height of Americans for future scaled drawings. •Commissioners asked about the plantings and how much room they needed to grow. Ballantyne replied that the property owner has natural plantings and they grow quite tall. •Commissioners commented that the sign is tastefully done with good materials and seems to match the sign to the North well. •Commissioners noted that the sign variance is creating a precedence to allow more visual clutter. Motion Commissioner Bennett moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Strauss seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. VII. Community Comment None. VIII. Reports/Recommendations A. 7079 Amundson Avenue, Sketch Plan Review Director Teague presented a PowerPoint and explained that the property is the old drycleaners site and is located in the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan area. Teague explained that the Edina Housing Foundation recently purchased the property and went out for an RFP for affordable housing on the site and explained that MWF Properties was the consultant chosen. The site is currently zoned PID until the Small Area Plan is approved and the density allowed is 50 units per acre. Teague explained that the property to the east is owned by the City of Edina and contains the Regional Trail. Teague noted the pedestrian connection through the south side of the site, possibly adding more additional green space, the parking stall side of the building, a parking study would be conducted before a formal application would take place. Teague explained that the plan is generally consistent with density and height. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 7 of 9 Peter Worthington, with MWF Properties, introduced himself and gave a brief explanation of the project to the Planning Commission. Worthington explained that the Housing Foundation initially had 72 units per acre and it has been reduced to 62 units to meet the density and height guidelines in the Small Area Plan. Worthington discussed some challenges of the site that included only being a 120 foot wide site, IBC regulations with allowed windows, and the grade change from north to south. Discussion/Comments/Questions  Commissioners asked how the project compares to the Small Area Plan and Teague responded that in terms of setbacks it wouldn’t be compliant with zoning, but it is compliant with density and height. Teague explained that the applicant would need flexibility for the setback requirements and the project is short-parked as proposed, but the parking study would address that concern.  Commissioners discussed potentially flipping the parking to the opposite side so the building to be closer to the park. Commissioners also discussed the idea of having the City owned property re- zoned as a vacated street so that the code issues were less of an issue. Worthington replied that having the building to the west was to activate the streetscape.  Commissioners suggested adding balconies on the building to help with “eyes on the trail,” making the trail a safer place. Worthington explained that typically balconies are not included because of a cost factor, possible uncontrolled penetration to the exterior wall, and the esthetic might not be ideal with how some residents choose to use them.  Commissioners complimented the applicant on the proposal and stated that it’s clear that the intentions are to make this a good project. Commissioners followed up with asking the applicant why the story wasn’t being proposed as 5 stories and Worthington replied that 5 stories puts the project at a different construction type and raises costs. In addition, Worthington explained that the building wouldn’t necessarily have a smaller footprint if it was 5 stories because of the covered parking and wouldn’t reduce the need for parking. Worthington explained that the current covered parking layout is quite efficient.  Commissioners expressed concerns regarding the parking and the spillover off site. Worthington replied with explaining that underground parking is not an additional cost to the tenants so there is no incentive to spill out of the site where uncovered parking is. Worthington also explained that he is fully prepared to provide data from their affordable communities during the parking study.  Commissioners expressed concern that some trail users or non-tenants may want to use the parking lot as a starting point start their bicycle rides on the trail and they may take up additional parking spots. Commissioners also expressed support to move the building more to the east in order to be closer to the trail.  Commissioners commented that they believe a connection needs to be made to Amundson and the trail and it was a large part of the Small Area Plan. Commissioners noted that might be possible by changing the grading around a bit, and Worthington replied that accessing the garage at the north end might be problematic to do 2 levels of parking. Director Teague commented that a way to address the connection from Amundson to the trail along the south side could be to dedicate a 20 foot easement in green space and when the site to the south develops we could get an additional 20 foot easement to create a 40 foot path for a nice connection. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 8 of 9  Commissioners commented that they liked the current parking situation because having the front of the building up against the street helps create the village feel that the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan was looking for.  Commissioners asked if any thought went into having retail on the first floor and Worthington replied that mixed use is difficult to have in a completely affordable project because you can’t have retail tenants able sign up for something when you can’t have a contract for something you don’t know if you will get the funding for and it creates an additional cost.  Commissioners stated that they believe this is the most important project for the City of Edina because it 100 percent affordable on Foundation owned land so it is important that it is successful. Commissioners also stated that it is the first project for the 70th & Cahill area so it must be a showpiece. Commissioners expressed concerns about the revitalization of the area and suggested that the applicant focus on the village like feel, concerned about the elevation causing there to be a lack of exterior articulation, and concerned about the lack of activation on the ground level.  Commissioners stated that they would like to see more outdoor continuity and spaces for the potential tenants of the building and asked the applicant to read the building type guidelines for the 70th & Cahill Small Area Plan. Commissioners continued to explain that architectural elements such as cornices, lintels, bays, and sills are vocabularies that don’t appear to be expressed on the general renderings. Worthington explained that he understands and explained that they are dealing with contaminated soils and mitigation systems as well as competing with second and third tier suburbs were land and developments costs are much less.  Commissioners commented on how they would like to see the number of surface parking stalls reduced and they are interested in seeing how the traffic study looks to potentially free up more green space. B. Comprehensive Plan Update  Commissioners discussed the Comprehensive Plan Open House on March 11, 2019 at Public Works from 6:30 PM until 8:30 PM. Commissioners discussed possibly making the Open House an interactive broadcast over the internet and Eidsness replied that she would look into the idea.  Commissioners explained that City Council members would be at the National League of Cities Conference during that meeting, and it might potentially be a conflict for attendance. Teague explained that the Open House date was chosen so it wouldn’t fall over Edina’s spring break.  Commissioners discussed posting the Comprehensive Draft now for people to access online and Director Teague said it is up to the Planning Commission to decide and that was done with the Southdale Plan. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding when to post to draft and decided that the Planning Commission would stand by their original schedule. IX. Correspondence and Petitions None. X. Chair and Member Comments Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 9 of 9  Chair Olsen discussed developing the TDM, Traffic Demand Management, and wanting two members from the Planning Commission and Commissioner Miranda volunteered.  Commissioner Miranda discussed that www.websitewire.com linked to an article about what happens by the year 2080 and what the climate of the Twin Cities will be. Commissioner Miranda also discussed the Community Advisory Committee for the E Line ABRT and that they had their first meeting. XI. Staff Comments None. XII. Adjournment Commissioner Hamilton moved to adjourn the February 13, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 10:05 PM. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Date: Marc h 13, 2019 Agenda Item #: I V.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: F rom:Liz O ls on, Administrative S upport S pecialist Item Activity: Subject:Minutes : P lanning C ommis s ion, F ebruary 27, 2019 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: P lease approve P lanning Commision meeting minutes from 2-27-19. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 2-27-19 Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 1 of 6 Minutes City Of Edina, Minnesota Planning Commission Edina City Hall Council Chambers February 27, 2019 I. Call To Order Chair Olsen called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM II. Roll Call Answering the roll call were: Commissioners Miranda, Lee, Thorsen, Mangalick, Melton, Nemerov, Hamilton, Bennett, Chair Olsen Staff Present: Cary Teague, Community Development Director, Kaylin Eidsness, Senior Communications Coordinator, Liz Olson, Administrative Support Specialist, MJ Lamon, Community Engagement Coordinator. Absent from the roll call: Strauss and Berube. III. Approval Of Meeting Agenda Chari Olsen offered a change to remove approving the February 13, 2019 minutes from the agenda because they were incomplete. A motion was made by Commissioner Thorsen to approve the June 27, 2018, meeting agenda as amended. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Public Hearings A. Staff Presentation, Variance Request B-19-3, 4630 Drexel Avenue Planner Aaker presented the staff report for 4630 Drexel Avenue, Edina, MN and explained that the applicant is requesting a variance for a 1.8 foot side yard setback variance to the north side yard setback for a second floor addition above an existing nonconforming 1st floor at 4630 Drexel Ave. The subject property, 4630 Drexel Ave., is approximately 13,160 square feet in area and is located on the northwest corner of Drexel Avenue and Country Club Road within the historic Country Club District. The existing home on the lot is a two-story Mediterranean home built in 1924 with a north side load garage. The owner of the home is planning a transformation of the existing structure to include a complete face lift, additions in all directions and extensive renovations. The design has been through a sketch plan proposal and formal submittal and review by the Heritage Preservation Commission. The design had been modified after sketch plan in response to Heritage Commissioner’s and Consultant’s suggestions. The Variance plan submittal are the plans reviewed and supported by the Heritage Preservation Commission. Staff recommends approval of the variance, as requested subject to the findings and conditions listed in the staff report. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 2 of 6 Appearing for the Applicant Tom Rauscher, Rauscher and Associates, introduced himself and explained that the flair out by the sidewalk will be a wider landing spot for people to park and drop-off and it is not a curb cutout. Discussion/Comments/Questions  Commissioners asked if the curb cut with the sidewalk was going to go away and Aaker replied that the North driveway and curb cut will be eliminated. Aaker also commented that the applicant will need to extend the sidewalk and the curb along the street will have a gap that will need to be filled. Commissioners asked if the applicant was putting a sidewalk in their own property and Aaker replied that the sidewalk will need to be extended between the two pieces and they will need to correct the curb along the street. Public Hearing None. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the variance as outlined in the staff memo subject to the conditions and findings therein. Commissioner Miranda seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. B. Greater Southdale District- Design Experience Guidelines Mic Johnson, Architecture Field Office, presented a PowerPoint on the Design Experience Guidelines. Johnson explained the following items in his presentation:  The Design Experience Guidelines sets a baseline for guidance for designers, developers, Staff, Planning Commissioners, and members of the City Council when proposing, designing, and evaluating projects in the Greater Southdale District. Johnson stated the guidelines are to help from a continuity point of view so the discussions can unfold with background knowledge of how the District might develop. Johnson explained that the Guidelines are not a substitute for the zoning codes, they are just a part of the conversation.  The Public Realm Experience means connections of intersections, incorporating street typologies, and incorporating green systems and means that all new development shall support the goal of connections, both north, south, east, and west. The new north-south promenades sensitively transition to single family residential neighborhoods and open up Centennial Lakes to France Avenue. Managing storm water as an amenity, as well as new parks and plazas shall be either public or publically-accessible, not private, in nature. Increase the number of sidewalks, pathways, and smaller parks/garden to better address mobility, and incorporate places to sit. New trees shall be provided to enhance the continuity of the pedestrian experience. Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 3 of 6  The Public Realm Experience regarding intersections Street Room Typologies connect intersections throughout the district, linking experiences together from one neighborhood to the next. Street Room Typologies with lower façade heights take precedent over those with higher façade heights at these points of intersection. The architecture of a façade of one block making up an intersection should be conceived as part of all corners of the intersection. Crosswalks need to be an integral part of the public realm. The hierarchy of intersections will change based on an evolving context and investment in the intersection experience.  The Street Room Form in the Public Realm Experience means building setbacks are to be considered as a part of the overall landscape and public amenities, and should be designed to create a continuous pedestrian experience along major corridors. Every new development should connect all publicly- accessible spaces such as pocket parks, courtyards and plazas to the street room typology. Along all major corridors, seventy five percent (75%) of face of building walls need to be at the setback line to support the creation of a ‘street room.’ All new building façades in the district must have seventy five percent (75%) transparency at the ground level. All building façades are prime (including parking) and must be designed accordingly. There is no back side of a building. All facades on the first vertical 60 feet of a building (above grade) shall use natural materials facing the public realm. No building façade can be longer than 200’. Lastly, above 50-60 feet, glass, precast panels with brick/tile are the preferred material palette. Metal panel can be used as a secondary part of a wall system.  The Building Form means that ground floors should have a minimum ceiling height of 20’ for flexibility. Above-grade parking structures should be designed with flat floorplates to allow for future conversion and lined with programmable public realm space. Within 50-60 feet of the ground, it is preferred that rooftops be programmed to accommodate residential or public user activities. Rooftops facing the Promenades must be functional and programmed. All development services, including rooftop mechanical systems, should be located within buildings and should not be visible from the public realm, or semi-private and private areas of the development. The exception are rooftop-mounted solar panels, which should be located on the highest point of the buildings. Building footprints above 60 feet should be no greater than 12,000 SF for residential use and 24,000 SF for commercial space. Design buildings for flexibility and adaptability in the future, including use of structural systems that will allow a building’s function to fundamentally change.  The Street Room includes the cornice established framework along with the lighting and trees. 1 and 2 story buildings and the fact that the street is dominated by the pedestrian experience. The buildings would not exceed 60 feet at the street level, and do step back from the taller buildings.  The Street Room Typologies include the West Promenade, West Promenade (South), East Promenade, Cornelia Overlay, New Local Streets, Primary East-West Streets, Boulevards, and the Central Promenade Spine.  In regards to Implementing and Measuring the Guidance, remember every new development begins with the 200’ x 200’ block, or some variation based on context, every block or building in a development will need streets to connect between buildings. Not all of these streets will need to accommodate vehicles, providing the opportunity for parks, plazas or courtyards—important parts of the public realm, buildings will not be greater than 200 feet in length, thereby minimizing the negative impact continuous walls can have on a comfortable pedestrian experience, building footprints above 60 feet in height are limited to 12,000 SF for residential uses, and 24,000 SF for commercial, all streets are not equal. The plan outlines a hierarchy that is driven by the kind of experiences that are expected on these streets and how they facilitate an enlivened public realm, designated transition zones are about maintaining the quality of life in these areas without restricting growth in other parts of the district, promenades and East-West Streets are the bridge between single family neighborhoods and greater intensity, street Rooms will intersect and overlap each other in many circumstances. At intersections, lower building heights should prevail, giving the smaller scaled building precedence over larger scale buildings, within the first 60 vertical feet of a building, primary materials should be traditional and/or natural (brick, stone, glass wall systems). Above 60 feet, other materials such as metal wall systems within a larger curtain wall system, can be Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 4 of 6 introduced (these baseline parameters should not be a deterrent to architectural innovation but rather are intended to serve as a measure of quality and continuity throughout the district), and lastly transparency at the ground level facing the public realm is key to the individual experience and is a catalyst for how to activate and maintain a community-based approach to daily life and experience. Discussion/Comments/Questions • Commissioners discussed that some of the challenges with the district is parking and asked if the Design Guidelines preclude something such as wrapping a parking ramp and Johnson replied, no they would prefer parking to go underground because it eliminates that kind of dead zone. Johnson also stated that if you wrap the parking structure with townhomes or other activities, that building would serve the community and is not a negative. • Commissioners asked Johnson for clarification if there was no calling for any kind of podium at the street height of around 20 feet in the design guidelines. Johnson replied that they set a maximum height that they don’t want to exceed and they say that ground floor should be a minimum of 20 feet. Johnson also commented that if you are building buildings within the district, you should respect your neighbor and scale is an important part of that and that respect hasn’t been specified, but it’s a discussion that needs to happen. • Commissioners asked where the Design Guidelines point to have the tallest buildings and where they would go. Johnson replied that the North end up towards the hospital is where the taller buildings might happen and especially on the mall site. Johnson also stated that the south end near 494 is where you would expect businesses or larger office buildings. Johnson also stated that the further you get away from the neighborhoods is where you may want to get a bit taller. • Commissioners asked Johnson for clarification that the core purpose of the document is to try and drive excellence in building design and the experience of the district. Johnson replied that is the primary goal of the document and to increase the dialog about what the quality of the experience is going to be. • Commissioners asked if Johnson would encourage or recommend any use or incorporation of some type of form based code in order to clarify even further within our zoning ordinances. Johnson replied that their attitude was to go to a point where they thought that they could define the basic form of the district as related to streets. Johnson stated that form based codes tend to get into architecture a bit more than they felt was important at this point. Johnson also discussed that master plan has not been done, only guidance and a master plan might articulate certain aspects of a form based code that might be important to articulate in greater detail. Johnson added that would be a study and the next step and that would be the study that would discuss point like trees in the district. • Commissioners asked if Johnson recommends the Planning Commission follow up in the future with a master plan and Johnson replied in the affirmative. • Commissioners asked if the East and West Promenades were car based and Johnson replied that it’s first for pedestrians and bicycles and then automobiles. • Commissioners asked Johnson if he had any suggestions of where he has seen these plans be successfully implemented and Johnson replied than an example was Portland, Oregon. Public Hearing Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 5 of 6 John Carlson, 4433 Ellsworth Drive, expressed concern about 7200 and 7250 France Ave. townhomes not being included in the development and helping with the transition to the neighborhood. Carlson also expressed concern about the increased density and lack of additional employment centers for the increased density. Commissioner Thorsen moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion. The motion carried. Discussion/Comments/Questions •Commissioners thanked Johnson and stated that it was a pleasure to work with him and his work with Sarah was outstanding. Commissioners stated that the plan still needs to be communicated to the user and we need to spend time identifying how a masterplan would be successful and which plans have been successful in the past. Commissioners also discussed the master plan and the work that needs to be done looking at other successful master plans before doing on. •Commissioners asked Planner Aaker about more information regarding John Carlson’s comments on the townhomes associated with the 7200 and 7250 France Avenue project. Aaker replied that she will have to get back to the Planning Commission because Staff wasn’t aware of that information. •Commissioners commented that they appreciated what was done with the preface and complimented the plan. Commissioners also stated that the vision of what the area could be is wonderful and this is not the end, it is just the beginning. Motion Commissioner Thorsen moved approval of the Design Experience Guidelines as submitted with the updated preface. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. V. Community Comment None. VI. Reports/Recommendations A. Comprehensive Plan Update Planner Aaker explained that the Comprehensive Plan Open House posters for March 11, 2019 were passed out to the Planning Commission members to hang in designated areas around Edina. Commissioners stated that the Open House will be at the Public Works Facility from 6:30 to 8:30 PM on Monday, March 11, 2019. VII. Chair and Member Comments Draft Minutes☒ Approved Minutes☐ Approved Date: Page 6 of 6  Commissioners commented that the Congress for the New Urbanism will host their annual conference in 2020 in the Twin Cities and the Southdale area is an area that they want to take a look at. Commissioners stated that guides for walking tours will be needed and to please keep that in mind.  Commissioners commented that the City f Bloomington adopted some new Affordable Housing Policies and wants to see if there are things we can learn from that. Planner Aaker stated that Stephanie Hawkinson is aware and more information on that can be provided to the Planning Commission.  Commissioners stated that when the documents become available for public review they are looking forward to feedback and comments they receive on Better Together. IX. Staff Comments None. X. Adjournment Commissioner Thorsen moved to adjourn the February 27, 2019, Meeting of the Edina Planning Commission at 8:22 PM. Commissioner Hamilton seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Date: Marc h 13, 2019 Agenda Item #: V.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Kris Aaker, Assistant C ity P lanner Item Activity: Subject:Varianc e R eques t B-19-4, 4430 G arris on Ave. 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 variance request as submitted. I N TR O D U C TI O N: T he applicant is proposing to add a small mud room off the back of the home, a covered front porch and the addition of a full second story onto the existing 1 ½ story home. T he owner is also intending to rebuild the existing nonconforming garage in the same location with the same footprint, however, with a steeper roof pitch to allow for attic trusses. T he project conforms to all requirements with the exception of the front porch within 20 feet of the front lot line by 2.2 feet and the garage re-build in the same location within the 50 foot setback of the pond, (9 foot existing setback encroachment), to the property at 4430 G arrison L ane. AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff Report Attachments Applicant Application STAFF REPORT Date: To: From: Subject: March 13, 2019 PLANNING COMMISSION Kris Aaker, Assistant City Planner B- 19-4, A 2.2 foot front yard setback variance for an open porch addition and a variance to rebuild a nonconforming detached garage in the same location with attic trusses for storage at 4430 Garrison Lane. Information / Background: The applicant is proposing to add a small mud room off the back of the home, a covered front porch and the addition of a full second story onto the existing I 1/2 story home at 4430 Garrison Lane. The owner is also intending to rebuild the existing nonconforming garage in the same location with the same footprint, however, with a steeper roof pitch to allow for attic trusses. The project conforms to all requirements with the exception of the front porch within 20 feet of the front lot line, (by 2.2 feet), and the garage re-build in the same location with a 50 foot setback from the pond, (9 foot existing setback encroachment). The property at 4430 Garrison Lane is approximately 8,140 square feet in area and is located on the north side of Garrison Lane and backing up to a pond. The existing home is was built in 1930 prior to the current ordinance requirements. A variance is requested to allow the 79 square foot porch addition to be closer to the front lot line than 20 feet. The porch will be 17.8 feet from the front lot line. The ordinance allows porches 80 square feet or less to overlap the front yard setback, however, cannot be closer than 20 feet to the front lot line. The subject home and both adjacent homes are closer than the minimum 30 foot front yard setback required in new subdivisions. Presumably some homes along the north side of Garrison were built closer to the street to keep them farther from the pond. The existing nonconforming detached garage is located 9 feet within the minimum 50 foot required setback from the pond. The existing garage is approximately 20'x20', (400 square feet), and is in poor condition needing replacement. The ordinance allows the replacement of nonconforming structures with the same dimensions/configuration and in the same location without the need for a variance. The proposed garage will have attic storage trusses instead of standard trusses in the existing garage. The garage is a very small 2 car garage with little opportunity for storage. The new City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 STAFF REPORT Page 2 garage conforms to the maximum height requirement of 18 feet, while allowing for additional storage in a small nonconforming two car garage. Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Guided Multi- unit residential/pond. Easterly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Southerly: Single Unit residential homes guided low-density residential. Westerly: Single Unit residential homes; zoned and guided low-density residential. Existing Site Features The existing 8,140 square foot lot is located on the north side of Garrison Lane and south of a ponding area. The property consists of a I 1/2 story home with a detached two car garage. Planning Guide Plan designation: Low-Density Residential Zoning: R- I , Single-Dwelling District Grading & Drainage The Environmental Engineer has reviewed the application and submitted comments as attached in their February 25, 2019, memorandum. The proposed stormwater management plan does not propose any additional drainage to neighboring private properties. The applicant is proposing using graded swales to control any existing and proposed run off. Special controls should be used to limit flow to the landlocked basin to the north so that there is no increase in volume in the I% annual change event STAFF REPORT Page 3 Compliance Table City Standard Proposed North Side/Pond — East Side - South— West Side — 50 feet 7 feet 20 feet 5 feet *41 feet (existing nonconforming) 10.9 feet *I 7.8 feet 5.2 feet Building Coverage 2,250 sq ft max 1,659 sq ft Building Height 30 Feet 28 Feet *Requires a variance PRIMARY ISSUES & STAFF RECOMENDATION Primary Issues • Does the proposed new home meet the criteria for approval of variances Staff believes the proposal meets the criteria for a variances for the following four reasons: I. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1 Single Dwelling Unit District and complies with zoning standards, with exception of the new front porch and the attic trusses in the detached garage. All of the homes along the north side of Garrison Lane are closer to the street than currently allowed for a new subdivision. The porch would be in-keeping and in character with the other structures along the north side of the block. Attic trusses allow for a slight modification to a nonconforming garage to provide additional storage for a minimal two car garage. 2. The minimal variances allow for enhancements to a plan that conforms in all other respect to the zoning ordinance. The porch breaks up the front building mass and the attic trusses allow for storage in a very minimal 2 car garage. STAFF REPORT Page 4 3. The proposed home design project fits the character of the neighborhood in height, scale, and mass. The home addition and garage attic trusses are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the variances, as requested subject to the findings listed in the staff report above, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site must be developed and maintained in conformance with the following plans: • Survey date stamped, 3/4/2019. • Building plans and elevations date stamped, 3/4/2019. 2. Compliance with the conditions and comments listed in the Environmental Engineer's memo dated, 2/25/2019. DATE: February 25, 2019 TO: Cary Teague — Planning Director FROM: Ross Bintner PE, — Engineering Services Manager RE: 4430 Garrison Lane - Variance Review The Engineering Department has reviewed the subject property for street and utility concerns, grading, storm water, erosion and sediment control and for general adherence to the relevant ordinance sections. This review was performed at the request of the Planning Department; a more detailed review will be performed at the time of building permit application. Plans reviewed include the survey dated 1/9/19, rev and the stormwater management plan date 2/9/19. Grading and Drainage Grading for the proposed work is intended to be minimal with changes only for a new porch. Drainage will be directed to Garrison Lane and in the rear of the property drainage will be directed to the adjacent pond. The proposed stormwater management plan does not propose any additional drainage to neighboring private properties. Storm water Mitigation City of Edina Building Policy SP-003 requires a stormwater management plan. The applicant is proposing using graded swales to control any existing and proposed run off as described in the grading and drainage section above. Special controls should be used to limit flow to the landlocked basin to the north so that there is no increase in volume in the I% annual change event. Flood Plain The subject site is located near a local 1% annual chance flood area which has an identified risk elevation of 867.7'. Low openings must be above 869.7. The subject property has a proposed has a low opening around 874.6 and a finished floor elevation of 878.7'. No fill is proposed in the flood area. Erosion and Sediment Control Follow City of Edina Building Policy SP-002 erosion control. Street and Curb Cut A curb cut permit will be required if the applicant proposed replacing or relocating existing curb cut. Public Utilities No Comments Other Items A Nine Mile Creek Watershed District permit will be required. A final grade as-built survey and inspection will be required to verify compliance with the approved stormwater plan. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 7450 Metro Boulevard • Edina, Minnesota 55439 www.EdinaMN.gov • 952-826-0371 • Fax 952-826-0392 Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. Please fully explain your answers using additional sheets of paper as necessary. (E.-e Avvol-M17) The Proposed Variance will: YES NO Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance Not alter the essential Character of a neighborhood 2 IX X VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUEST PROPERTY ADDRESS 4430 Garrison Lane, Edina, MN 55424 PROPERTY OWNERS Jesse & Sarah Moen LEGAL DESCRIPTION PID: 30-028-24-12-0013 Addition Name: Unplatted 30 028 024 Abstract COM ATA PT IN CTR LINE OF ROAD AT A PT 377 2/10 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 AND 405 5/10 FT E FROM W LINE THEREOF TH N PAR WITH W LINE THEREOF 26 42/100 FT TO N LINE OF ROAD SAID PT HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS PT A TH NWLY ALONG NLY ROAD LINE 9 FT TO ACTUAL PT OF BEG TH NELY TO A PT IN A LINE RUNNING PAR WITH W LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 DIS 40 FT N OF PT A TH N ALONG SAID PAR LINE TO A PT 150 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH E 50 FT TH S PAR WITH SAID W LINE TO N LINE OF ROAD TH NWLY TO BEG APPLICANT DATE Lynne Shears, ASID & AIA Allied, Lead Designer Sicora Design Build (on behalf of owners) 5601 W. Lake Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952.929.0098 Office 2.11.2019 Attached Documents: Exhibit A — Survey, Frank Cardarelle, Land Surveyor with setbacks Exhibit B — Preview Variance Request for Front Yard Setback Reduction at 4505 Nancy Lane, Edina. Exhibit C— Nine Mile Creek Watershed Email, confirming no permit required Watershed/Management Plan — Elliott Engineering Photos —Streetscape with Proposed Addition & Existing Photos PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The clients are looking to expand and update their current home 3 bedroom home for their family of five. We are therefore proposing a 2nd story addition on the existing footprint of the 1.5 story home, with remodeling the main floor, and adding a 5' x 7' small rear Mudroom addition on post footings. This scope of work above is allowable within the City requirements. We are also proposing to add an unenclosed Front Porch and rebuilding the existing 2 car garage on the existing foundation which require variances. VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Front Porch, we are also proposing a new unenclosed Front Porch, off the existing Foyer. The size of the new front Porch as designed is 77.58 sq. ft. and is within the allowable 80 sq.ft. City requirement. The variance is necessary to build the front porch because the existing home is nonconforming regarding the front yard setback. We are therefore requesting a 2.2' variance for a front yard setback, from 20' to 17.8' for an unenclosed open front porch supported by posts/columns. 2) Detached Garage, we are proposing to rebuild the deteriorating existing 2 garage on the existing foundation. The rebuild of the existing garage is allowable with the City requirement, in keeping the existing footprint and roof pitch. The variance for the garage is necessary as we would like to increase the roof pitch of the garage to match the new house design and to allow for attic storage. We are therefore requesting a variance for an increased roof pitch on the Detached Garage from a 3:12 pitch to a 8 1/2:12 pitch. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE VARIANCE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE MN STATUES AND EDINA ORDINANCES: The Proposed Variance Will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Front Porch - The practical difficulties associated with the home are due to the fact that the home was built in 1930, before the property setbacks were established. And therefore, is already nonconforming with the existing front yard setback at 23.5'. Therefore, the current non-confirming structure, the lot shape, and the home as it is placed on the lot, make the characteristics of this property unique. The current restrictions of the house and garage were not created by the applicant. Therefore, request for an unenclosed Front Porch is a reasonable request, as it will be built over the front stoop, which has an existing well room below at full basement depth. The new Front Porch will also provide protection from the elements in our Minnesota weather and provide architectural interest. Detached Garage —The practical difficulties associated with the existing Detached Garage are due to the fact again that the home was built before property setbacks were established. And therefore, is already nonconforming with the placement on the lot to rear yard waterline setback. Therefore, the current non-confirming Garage structure and its placement on the lot, make the characteristics of this Garage unique. The request to rebuild the existing Detached Garage on the existing foundation is a reasonable request as it is not possible to build a new 2 car garage on the existing lot, in another location, due to its unique property characteristics. And the existing garage is deteriorating due to its age of 89 years old. Also, the existing 2 car garage is undersized at 20.3' wide x 20.6' deep and therefore the request for an increase in roof pitch is reasonable as it will allow for storage of outdoor needs. The request for increased roof pitch is also a reasonable request, as the City encourages new detached garages to maintain the same architectural styling and details as the proposed home. 2) Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Front Porch - The extraordinary circumstances to this property are that the existing front foyer of the home is 23.5' from the front property line, with the existing front stoop and old well room/water meter below it at 18.2' from the front property line, therefore any front porch structure over the well room requires a variance. The new Front Porch as designed is 5'-6" deep from the front of the home (to cover the well room) and therefore 17.8' from the front property line. If the Front Porch was built at the City requirement of 20' from the front property line, the Porch would be 3.3' deep and with columns for support 2.3' deep, which would not meet the IBC requirements for a landing. Also, with the swing of a storm door it would not be an adequate landing. And the new front porch as design suits the size and scale proportion for the architecture of the home. Detached Garage —The extraordinary circumstances to the garage are due to the unique lot size, nonconforming setback to the pond in the rear yard, the placement on the lot, and the required setbacks are specific to this property. Making improvements on the 20'x20' garage the only option. 3) Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The proposed remodel/addition improves the function of the layout for today's modern family, corrects maintenance/repair issues needed for the home, and improves the architectural aesthetic appeal of the home. The proposed remodel/addition is designed to be compatible in building height and mass between existing properties. Zoning ordinances allow for an unenclosed front porch for homes and require a 2 car garage as essential for new homes, and therefore our variance request is in harmony with new homes built and other remodels in Edina. 4) Not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The established neighborhood is a tree lined, cul de sac street, with homes on the north backed up to a pond. The street is a mix of 1 story and 2 story homes, with the majority of 2 stories surrounding the client's property and therefore our proposed remodel/addition with the 2 story addition will be scaled appropriately to fit with the neighborhood. Our overall approach to the exterior is to improve the overall curb appeal and architectural detailing of this cottage style home. The clients are looking to be respectful of the neighborhood, the home, and the lot and therefore are proposing to keep the existing main floor exterior walls and minimize the footprint on the lot for the needed space. Consideration was given during design to be respectful of the neighboring properties with remodeling the existing structure rather than tearing down to build new. The use of the home is well within reason, as the intent is to utilize the existing structure while improving the architectural character of the home. We also designed to have minimal impact to grade with only 2 post footings at the rear and frost footings for the new front porch as the only soil we are disturbing, and therefore no watershed permit is required. With the grade work only in those two areas, we are able to maintain existing drainage, grading, and erosion. Also, no trees are to be removed for this project, so as to maintain the mature trees on the property. The clients have lived in their home since 2008 and love their neighborhood. They plan to raise their 3 boys in this home, and therefore additional space for their growing family is needed. They are also a hockey playing family and therefore utilize the pond in the rear of the home for skating. This remodel/addition is designed as a light impact to the lot, while improving the architectural design of the neighborhood. Therefore, this proposed project is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. Hennepin County Property Map Date: 1/23/2019 PARCEL ID: 3002824120013 OWNER NAME: Jesse L Moen & Sarah E Moen PARCEL ADDRESS: 4430 Garrison La, Edina MN 55424 PARCEL AREA: 0.24 acres, 10,618 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $345,000 SALE DATA: 09/2008 SALE CODE: Warranty Deed ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $359,500 TAX TOTAL: $4,762.08 ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $392,300 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Search tips Property information search result Search By: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2018 n Current year taxes due Taxes payable 2019 (2018 Values) will be available by 03/01 n 2019 proposed property tax (Truth In Taxation statement) n 2018 state copy (used when filing 2017 M-1PR state refund) n View map of property n Current year values n Prior year taxes n Print details This database is updated daily (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CST) Property ID number: Address: Municipality: 30-028-24-12-0013 4430 GARRISON LA EDINA School district: Watershed: Sewer district: Construction year: Owner name: Taxpayer name & address: Sale information 273 1 1930 JESSE L MOEN & SARAH E MOEN JESSE L MOEN & SARAH E MOEN 4430 GARRISON LA EDINA MN 55424 Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale date: September, 2008 Sale price: $345,000 Transaction type: Warranty Deed Tax parcel description The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording Addition name: Lot: Block: Approximate parcel size: Metes & Bounds: Common abbreviations UNPLATTED 30 028 24 S 55X205X50X220 COM AT A PT IN CTR LINE OF ROAD AT A PT 377 2/10 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 AND 405 5/10 FT E FROM W LINE THEREOF TH N PAR WITH W LINE THEREOF 26 42/100 FT TO N LINE OF ROAD SAID PT HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS PT A TH NWLY ALONG NLY ROAD LINE 9 FT TO ACTUAL PT OF BEG TH NELY TO A PT IN A LINE RUNNING PAR WITH W LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 DIS 40 FT N OF PT A TH N ALONG SAID PAR LINE TO A PT 150 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH E50 FT TH S PAR WITH SAID W LINE TO N LINE OF ROAD TH NWLY TO BEG Abstract or Torrens: ABSTRACT Value and tax summary for taxes payable 2018 Values established by assessor as of January 2, 2017 Estimated market value: $359,500 Taxable market value: $354,615 Existing Exterior Photo of Home with View of Garage from Street — :a EXISTING PROPERTY PHOTOS: Existing Exterior Photo of Home, Street view — Existing Exterior Photo of Garage, Driveway View — Existing Exterior Photo of Home, Rear View - )(P-tt 17,/ gDYNA I/cop \c312--V1,0 VA AiNtcE aQU FO tet- Porcif 120 vi F441- PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 14, 2014 B-15-01 Assistant Planner . Recommended Action: Approve the requested variances. Project Description Marc and Meredith Seaberg (applicants) are requesting 4 variances to add an 8 ft. x 24 ft. front porch and a second floor above their existing rambler, see attached site plans, survey and building plans. They are also proposing to add 7 feet onto the width of their garage. The garage addition is the only portion of the plan that does not require a variance. The variances are necessary to build within the existing footprint because much of the existing home is nonconforming regarding front yard setback and setback from the pond. The following variances are necessary for the proposed attached plan: • A 112 square foot front porch encroachment variance from the maximum 80 square feet allowed encroachment into the average front yard setback. • A 3.8 foot front yard setback variance for a second floor addition with cantilever forward of existing front wall. • A 5.6 foot west side yard setback variance from the 16.2 foot setback required for the second floor addition above existing 1st floor. • A 25 foot setback variance from the pond for a 2'd floor addition above the existing 1st floor. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located south of Nancy Lane cul-de-sac consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The homeowners are proposing to add 7 feet to the existing garage near the east property line and a porch to the front including a 2nd floor cantilever. Much of the existing home is nonconforming 2/ca regarding front yard setback and setback from the pond behind the home. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 50 foot setback from naturally occurring lakes, ponds or streams. The existing home is nonconforming and overlaps the required pond/lake setback by 25 feet. The front yard setback required is the average front yard setback of the homes on either side. The average front yard setback is slightly farther back from the existing home, so the 2nd floor addition requires a front yard setback variance. The plan also proposes a cantilever towards the front and a front porch larger than 80 square feet which is the maximum area allowed to encroach into the front yard setback. The property owners would like to expand their garage to the east which is the only improvement within the required setback and nonconforming exception rule. Unfortunately the buildable area of the lot is smaller in area than the footprint of the existing house so virtually any improvement/addition requires a variance with the exception of a garage expansion. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses Northerly: Single-dwelling homes. Easterly: Single-dwelling homes. Southerly: Nancy Lake. Westerly: Single-dwelling homes Existing Site Features The subject property is 14,830 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1961. No trees will be removed to accommodate the plan. Planning Guide Plan designation: Single-family detached Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Engineering Review An Engineering report is attached. There are no concerns indicated on the attached memo. Building Design 2 PAT PP The proposal is to construct a two story home on the basic footprint and above the existing 1st floor. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Front — Max porch in front yard Side- Lake/pond Match adjacent 30.4 feet 80 Sq. Ft. 10+ height 50 feet *29.6 feet *112 Sq. Ft. *10.6 feet *25 feet Building Height 2 1/2 stories 37.8 feet to ridge, 2 stories, 30.5 feet to ridge Lot coverage 25% 24.6% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District. The intent is to utilize the existing structure in its entirety, since footprint expansion is not possible without additional variances to reduce setbacks, causing a greater nonconformity. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home with the exception of the conforming garage expansion and the addition of a porch will not significantly increase. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the site and improve on the existing conditions. Spacing between the proponent's and the neighboring structure to the west will remain the same. 4. The home improvements and height increase would provide enough space to accomplish a 2nd floor without having to completely reconfigure the property, (not a tear-down/re-build). 3 Temi IV IT 1L • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.0.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable. A practical difficulty is the original placement of the home and required setbacks from the pond edge and front yard. The current setback requirement from the pond and front yard creates a challenge. The existing house location and configuration of the lot result in no opportunity for significant expansion without the benefit of a variance. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the inability to increase the roof height to provide adequate living space above the home at existing nonconforming setbacks without the benefit of a variance. The required pond setback and front yard setback are not self-created. The home currently encroaches minimum standards. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 4 5/(0 No. The proposed improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home will remain relatively the same and spacing between structures will remain the same on the west side and will conform on the east side. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variances. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing setback conditions without significantly reducing setback or impacting the surrounding neighbors. b. The imposed setback and existing house location do not provide opportunity for a second floor c. The original placement of the home closer to pond and within the front yard setback prohibits expansion potential for a second floor without the benefit of a variance Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Survey dated: November 25, 2014 • Building plans/ elevations date stamped December 12, 2014. • Engineering memo dated Deadline for a city decision: February 13, 2015. 5 Hennepin Co‘ig Property Map Tertiwor otiF. rixtfrerly 149)6ampfm004 . Date: 2/11/2019 1 inch = 200 feet PARCEL ID: 3002824120013 OWNER NAME: Jesse L Moen & Sarah E Moen PARCEL ADDRESS: 4430 Garrison La, Edina MN 55424 PARCEL AREA: 0.24 acres, 10,618 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $345,000 SALE DATA: 09/2008 SALE CODE: Warranty Deed ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $359,500 TAX TOTAL: $4,762.08 ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $392,300 taa HAW( al• otie Arvigas This data (I) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 N1/1745 1v1 I Lynne Shears Em GoNF-1i-MAcTioiNf Fc 1-1° We,.Fr-12Mir 1EP From: Lauren Foley <LFoley@ninemilecreek.org > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 7:33 AM To: Lynne Shears Subject: RE: Remodel/Addition Project Thank you! As long as the rest of the project is being done on existing foundation (from our standpoint, impervious surface), then you should not need a permit. Best of luck! From: Lynne Shears <Ishears@sicora.com > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:35 PM To: Lauren Foley <LFoley@ninemilecreek.org> Subject: RE: Remodel/Addition Project Lauren, Thanks so much for getting back to me so promptly! The 2 post footings at the Mudroom and some frost depth footings for the front stoop we won't be disturbing more than 50 cubic yards. Let me know if we need anything else! Lynne Shears! Lead Designer ASID & AIA Allied, CAPS Specialist 5601 W Lake St I St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Tel 952.929.0098 I Mobile 612.750.4264 F141.1-Eqv1ce Home F• REM.90#14N-0 Desi yi( From: Lauren Foley [mailto:LFoley@ninemilecreek.org] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:06 PM To: Lynne Shears <Ishears@sicora.com > Subject: Re: Remodel/Addition Project Hi Lynne, Will your planned mud room be disturbing more than 50 cubic yards of soil? If not, you should not need a permit from us. If so, let me know and I'll set you up with the first steps. I'm at a conference until early afternoon. I can email you next steps (if needed) later today when I have my computer. From: Lynne Shears <IshearsPsicora.com > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:02:36 PM 1 To: Lauren Foley • Subject: Re,nodel/AdditiOn Project Lauren, We are working with our clients Jesse and Sarah Moen, who live at 4430 Garrison Way. Attached is a pic of the front and rear of the home, their survey with the small additions shown, and their plans. I see their home is in the Nine Mile Watershed District. I have attached their plans and the survey with the new front porch and 5'x7' mudroom addition. We are proposing: 1) A remodel to the existing house, and converting the 1/2 story to be a full 2 story all on the EXISTING house foundation. 2) We are also proposing a small 5' x 7' rear addition for a Mudroom with steps to grade, which requires 2 post footings, where the old stoop and steps are at the rear. 3) We are also proposing a new front porch on footings that will be enclosing the old front stoop and well room that is below it. (The well is no longer there, just the City's water meter). 4) We are also proposing a new detached garage all on the EXISTING foundation. Are there any requirements needed from the watershed district for this addition? Will we need a permit for the project? Feel free to call or email with questions and if you can get back to me before the weekend that would be great! Thanks, Lynne Shears I Lead Designer ASID & AIA Allied, CAPS Specialist 5601 W Lake St I St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Tel 952.929.0098 I Mobile 612.750.4264 !I:00R R tsAclit3,Rt_tt4:p.- D 2 , Wooddale Av 0 LO Garrison Ln 6324 @c7rQ4Hennepin, MetroGIS I OWSB & Associates 2013, © WSB & Associates 2013 6. 1 in = 188 ft .1). 62C O 622 622 6Z 62' 614- 6:: Brookview Ave 4430 Garrison Lane- 200 feet 6121 6120 6128 6216 6205 CO 0 U) I 4443 44 0 45054501 To' g0 4500 4500 Nancy Ln 6121 6120 6125 6124 6129 6128 133-35 4412 6132 6136 4404 4400 4301 4301 6220 6224 6228 Olt .111 6240 6142 4416 421 4545 Co 0 U) 0 c\I (0 6125 6129 6128 6133 6137 6136 6141 6145 6144 305 EI dM- a) O O '01 61, 1!3 6305 6303 6305 6306 6306 6244 6300 6300 6304 6312 6320 4509 4505 4501 6329 _J U) 6333 Addresses The CITY of EDINA W+E February 28, : Map Powered by DataLink Hennepin County Property Map PARCEL ID: 3002824120013 OWNER NAME -' PARCEL ADDRESS: 4430 Garrison La, Edina MN 55424 PARCEL AREA: 0.24 acres, 10,618 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRIG . SALE DAT/. SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: MARKET VALUE: TAX TOTAL: ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: HOMESTEAD: MARKET VALUE' Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hen nepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 7_? 1/3 DUE TO UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS OF REMODELS 8 ADDITIONS. DISCREPANCIES MAY OCCUR SETWEEN INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THESE DRAWINGS AND EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE REQUIRED WITHOUT SON-OFF TO MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. SHOULD MODIFICATIONS RESULT IN INCREASED COST TO PROJECT. CUSTOMER WILL BE NOTIFIED. rag<Atr g LAVE," M....IPOP.INTERIOR 1,00R PUNS ORIGINATION PATg WW1. NeviSION ONtli PROPO5ED ROOF PLAN .4 / IN rU cr2 z. 30 VIEW DUE TO UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS OF REMODELS 8 ADDITIONS. DISCREPANCIES MAY OCCUR BETWEEN INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THESE DRAWINGS AND EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE REQUIRED WITHOUT NIGN.OFF TO MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. SHOULD MODIFICATIONS RESULT IN INCREASED COST TO PROJECT. CUSTOMER WILL BE NOTIFIED, BD VIEW . .1.-- SVIRARP m*. 4 rnsr 1 ! ' ..."' — —....i." .''''''•'''--,, — — — Y • .111mR• L j 1 I = "" zi [ 0: • — 1:=1:1 _ 11 r . „,— 1;1 1 IN 1 ill 1 •Parirr. ii„ y RM :4. I 01 1 q11 I 4,,, Ii *1%- i ll 111111D( ....... 4.0 06'1 li II.(‘ i M .1 IIE o'z'742.,.,Z,-2., .::1-- i1 =,--77---.1. 1 Mn, 11 :241=4, i — MFC.M RM I I. 10ie I I I L. .z-- -Car; 11 I 0 I • I I 1•1 , I [ nli 1 I PROPOSED LONER FLOOR PLAN sr...a:111+1W , A,.,2 EL ..n.--m. MAO Bern ,,,,,,, --222.,,im ..vm. . • ...... • . .._ ... ITIW4Fian , v„, ' . ."ala ,,,. - 114 11. 0 'ZIVZ .. . , 4,. . .44TCH — -- 1 E WEI MI i Zo. ( 4,7, • II 7,U , 4 - - - I 110 115TR BATH ,, ..., I I, NAHALL '1111 1 . i 36 i BM • ig nom 22:4,1i, 11 ...zz ,..„ ,, I 4 MN IM. l'aiF÷" ..M ...r.' III DI NI I O. I ~ .'°.w. i .,...1 4 :112,2-". --2V4 e ''',- 11V11 lia FA —III di ...E. E .1L-2-k KEY , . - 173.. l . WI CONS crox 1 +44. .41,44220th ==' V:: ',VW* am Ap_l .1vvkiwtE222, MIA .. ..~.0(111 gt=an °PROPOSED 1st FLOOR PLAN "( SCAM 1/1,11...0 0 PROPOSED 2nci. FLOOR PLAN %ALM 11,r, 0 5.1.E. so VIEW -^g..-242T"-- - 1• 1 R 4 20 G DEPAR-164 OF ED V G)31D VIEW 110 MALE 41ff, 411 11) AA 0 SHEET LAYOUT n117:gelg.'11.11g,'11`=' ITTCRIOR ELL,VATIO. SCCTIONS DETAILS INTERIOR IIIVIATION9 MS..PROP.AGUPI-AtrI9/ 01...,1101.15 19./.10 ORIGINATION DaTE .9/.7,orn REVISION DATR lonOloo As.Bult u/Otaallt MI Set 133/2,/.9 PernaSal 02/eLhoip Nen. Set RI,' PROPOSED SHEET NO. Al Moen ;"' S SHEET LAYOUT fi- -. nfaJd1.1.1-,,WWOrM+,1 I.1-1.001,. FLOOR PLAIii AZ11,0r. GTCRIOR nrynnom, .17:Pror,IPATgoVI.e7.41r... PLAN5/ III EMI BM 111111111.1111111.1% 1111M11111111r. ',Min " IIMILULIILIVIMAPEADDrifing Awn. I 111111111111111111111111 . KIM NNE mum. llllllllll am llllll r deme Nu 'MIME aggliliiiliE="""'"'""":11011.111111%.:11W IMAWASUP -7....0,-..r.-ar.-E-E-A-ara-EthOrm TrEENNEwirdEm....kimume aa::ti im n /a iiiii A ni ii m r WN Rp IN.N *El I lgWPMW1W IIMAMAYA NIA UNA= lia '9 I reili nIII III III ilk ki, IM_ lllllll ... , 1111111111111111111 1 11111111111111 1111111=17' Alb, "111 mummmummoimmim 111111111111111011 11111 11 III ' 1111 Ill MEN1.-1= 1nIII i MIS UN SI 1 nS S S nn ara ID T YE nIII ii; ...I lb or WA 'El IR I I I I I I I I i FM 1 W nm 0111 R Ell 1 WA NB Nis in Igeitirmlm I , I 1111111111 llllllll NI aim ra az m • Lwalm.mmr ila U. 11 .4, PLANNING DEPARTMENT ,517 MAR 4 2019 4.1,1s_ CITY OF EDINA 1.1.••••• I I I I I I I I V.Mitsgairtx.tr 1111111' All 1111 0,..ta........ J.L iiii,,,,,,,,,,, ...-agii..301:11:64, IMT'. a111111111111111111:111\ r ummourad 11111111 1MMiW 1111111 I itin 11111111111' .11 U. 1111111 11111 II NUM111 I I 11111 111111111/ , .01111 Nig 11111111111111 um IA% ism: 111111.11 1 i nun, WM 11111r 411111 11P' 111111111 . 411.11. i Oil lamlutimair"' mmtwall 11111111 LEI 111111, `1111111UnER1111111 1111111h. ,1111111111mill1111 1111111 .---, : . , . : ,, i 11111111 111111 III LittF1T, API 1.10100.751 1 11 1 11 L.J1 - -9 44 PROPOSEDNORTH ELEVATION SCAM 114, SCAM 1/4,1., 1 7 7 7 7 7 1 1 7 7 ORIGINATION DASH *Ws. REV1510,11,507 10,11/3018 A.-OWI[ 0N1 111..W =Mho, PemIt.Mor, PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. 161-2 Moen "/Afrat? 4 h ' ion imuunisrm WU 1010141:111 imilmarAtin Il 111 II . . . . . 1 1 1 1 I 1 no 11I 1111 umn • go I 11111 I 11111 1111 1 0 M n Om u mu I I 11111 11 11111 1111 1 1 111111111111111111111111 r I 111111Primin Fri tra a minalii i WAWA iii I I AWSLA I I ?I II ..-.. iummusatamenumieamnilA,....o tiIiia. ronasialiumminumummumm PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION WI WAND.M.MMtattuWAUTIINI E 111111111111111111 111111 MR 11111111E11111M =, 11111111111111111111 . 1111111 11111/11111111111 •.4 insoussummE NEN 111111 NM iimmunum . 1111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 IMO 111111 111111 • . . 1111111111111111 ra 11111111111111111 pi ,WWWIWAM IIIIIIIIIIMIIIII MN nun UM musumummum I _. IN ala ME al NMI PAPAW= :3-‘ . TINIZEINIMEREIDEtidlialliehriAL ,49%21111 104 il1 "1 II V 1111 IRE'r7g211"111 I limo 11 111111111111111111111 1111 lllll A.11111 7 11 11 II llllll 1 Ill 1 11 1111111111 111 min 1 1111111111111111111 III 11111111 1111111 11 11 11111 1111 III lin I mummuning n OBI inemon e..111211 '7 1 11 MINIM 111 ... 1 11111111111111111111j ... 1 11_ 1 11 1 111 11111 1111 111 Immo 1....111111111111111111ei --- PLI11111116 -IN 11 1111•1111 111 MEI 11111111111101111111111 nIII 11111111 111111 I I I MEW W .. 111111111MWEVIAlitthaWN1111 MI Er 11 I le i IF.111.111.140.11411 IMIll AIR romp,pmem,761515=t1r. :` PRO PO5ED WEST ELEVATION 9GALM 114,1,0. PP" Miffilf/111f. r ifiWiliirtim. 4difig III 1 11 I II f14,e4,11iwsi, III i l, , iiiii*ora • men nom PP 111111111 !IN II/111111111N mt 111111111111W :: 111111111 m 1111111111111111 . TEMIIIM WIMP MU ULM 11 I 11 I lili 1M 1111WAi li 1 FOI111111111111 111111E11 111111111111M n211111111 1111111111111111 11111111111 in 111111111111111 m 1111111111111111111 Waxman/Ms 11111111111111 .1% numuunnummimin III imeinuoun •:;;ANIMANNWNNINNIERWRAINI lo WIT -,iniMialisi ...thifINIMMIAWINAWENAWINNINIRIMR111111111 .....w. ...lin lllll 1111 111111111111111111 llllllll 1111111111 lllllllll 1111111111 ''' A il MP I 11 BYR AWNEM 111111 11111 I linni al 111%11111111111 11 11111 111111WMWM I II NNII 11 1 nill n 7r11.11. on Eillimaillaliallifinalusiti .1111110116 ii numenun in mil INIIIIIII II IMINIIII 111111111 1111111111 iv mini um 111 111 111111111 11111111 1111111 NMI WOW IN1111111111111111111M111111111M1111111111111111111111 111111111 ' MAWMarminarrAWMINVINMENNEML 11111 11111 mounimmunionsignilmen unk,..1 iii limiimisiiiimm. JMINII71 tlinzo l i _...i , Vir AIM A 1 rAltummu .............,.0... ................................,...... mum nj41 .,./...1 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION is IPE GM. 1.1.41.11. 1,t1A.M ERE L rx 0 uJ g S ax 1111111111! MIE C 2 IPROPOSED PORCH SECTION (;)NOT USED NO SLAM 1111161111r"" IIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111 1 111111 111161111111111111111111111111111111111111111114111111 111E 1 13Aat I Pill IIIIMMUWOMMUN EM=E 4 0=11 112=11•==1111M1i,, INIMMINNIONI=M11. (;)PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION SLAM., 1.4. C)EXTERIOR COLUMN "GAM I1?-IAV NOT USED PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 4 2019 CITY OF EDIN1A NOT USED (0 NOS.. 0 SCALE 11= 1 El 1= =111 1=111=111 ...11111 IIIIMIN===11111==a1 111M1=====1•1111111 INII1=======all 11111•1======IMMI IMI=MMEMM=IIMMENII 111=INEMNIMM1===11 I I I-1 I I—I I 1 —1 I I-1 I I= PROPOSED FAMILY/MUD RM SECTION c3BRACKET DETAIL SCAM I 112, CORBEL DETAIL CI) 0 tyA SHEET LAYOUT AI—PROP .DOTRIOlt CMVATION9 Al...PROP. DELMORE A DETAILS ....P POP. INTIPJORCLEVAT D,O.CGTE1.1. ADDR TURD IEINAIVRIA, Permit...TA T 12/13,2018 RAI Sot AVAR/Ara, NITER. ORIGINATION DATE ORiTaTollI RIIVISMN DATE WElatEll At-WLR PROP05ED SECTIONS UAI5 SHEET NO. A3 Moen O A Ea • DINING ROOM 5GALC:152.-150. t`r—;•7". III MI oi n MTH 11.11 Ill In IN MIR OM allii MI= 1 L riAl 6 -1.. In .n. ..__ i- -- g urr.rx ..... _ ...-- .......... IRM1==11=M==== ====MMAIMIMMIN .1==1==M .:. - on. CI C BEM 11 . KITCHEN SCALE: =5150. FLAT PANEL TV BY OWNER VER. SIZE MASTER BATH SLAW 1(25•150. 15 A4 T- MASTER BATH SLAM 1/2•5150. . _ -.- NIL! IN 1 ill ____. ---- _Pm _........__ ......L ,.......M.I.IMP •=====MMININNNIMIP Cr IN=MII 11 IMM III KITCHEN 9GALE I1Z Sr CDKITCHEN ISLAND ©KITCHEN ISLAND KITCHEN ISLAND 5.14:1/2•5 WAX:1E, 1.-0. SLAM 1/.7,150. UPPER BATH =GALE: v 150 .L. PONDER GEA NEW GAS DIRECT VENT FIREPLACE FAMILY ROOM 7 1M1, r / ) no KM i—. \ _ \,- „1 -171\--, \.2.\/ / I — I MASTER BATH SCALE: IrE•510- NING DEPAP.TME MAR 4 2019 ITY OF EM!, 111111 MUD/DROP DESK NOT USED KITCHEN ISLAND OGALR: Er. ILD• OMUO/BENCH 5GALE 1/55. 150. NOT U5E0 GOER: OW. V, NOT USED 1/3•5 11G SHEET LAYOUT TIE TRAWEIG ru5.50,-.54 a=PF55RVATOR5 AA—PROP. 5G51101/51,GT511.5 .55,156/51NITIA10155.555110115 .515.51,45. 651555e PLA115, GLLVAT5555 '—'C'15IT.175,757gT/tAR 51._.5TRICAL MOOR MAKE ORIGINATION DATA AR/57/55E RAVISION DART ROVERS ApIEJII FAVAR at 014000 oi/5YEAR PermItSel 0a/o5floi5 PennItRet Rar.> PROPOSED SHEET NO. A4 Moen ===..A 1V *L": OPROP. GARAGE 15T FLOOR PLAN SCAM i) PROP. SOUTH GARAGE ELEVATION sCALM 114,1, (S Z) PROP. NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION z 0 ra ). LT, PLANNING DEPART .7. MAR 4 2019 CITY OF EDIr'LlA PROP. EAST GARAGE ELEVATION (;)SOALMIM'AILOL °PROP. GARAGE SECTION DOALD. VOA 111111111111 1112111111111 11111117!li r i!!!!!! SUM IIIIIIIIIIII 1.1111111111 X1.11111 11111111 OO. IMMO 1111110 11111 Mill 111.1 1111111111111 111111111111 1111111 IL'111 11111 1111111 Lig IIIIIIIIIIMMiiii 5iO111111 11111 10111121111111111111111111 (;)PROP. YIEST GARAGE ELEVATION 04.4C. 114 ,1.0 fal.11[140.0.110 di . .dliiii26 AIMMIMIIIIIM.. .01111111111111111111111101. IN JAEEMOSL. 1 .. ASIMBROMMAIRIRIMMMANUM. SODLICA.0 III Fixodamemozomatzt 11 II. BEER EIRE IEEE HERE I..' VII III' I 0 1 ILII 000 UOU EXISTING FOUNDATION SYSTEMANDEUROTO REMAIN dAdd.d.d r 7 TAM miiimmannannammulammalwasa 1 IIIIIMBOINSIMIONBOUNIIIMIIIIIIIIMOMOI 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111141111 mounimmummommummummummemea imminummummommummummummummemil 111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IMOINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMMIIIMIIIIIIMIll 11111111111111111IIMMISSINIMIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 011111111111111111110111111.11111211111 • SHEET LAYOUT AN.A.DDDE..-A7EMON DLL,L,D4N A4-1.7.0E.DESTIONS DETAILS 04—PNOP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS /4.1.1.01.. SODAS, PLAE/ CLDVAVOMOORD As.. .9 .warr. PL PUNS N 6 DASD. DLL-VOW/1i PLAN ELADLECTRISAI.1.1001.1UNS ONGINATMNOATE Win/.00 IMMON Nn 10/14.0.13 of oh. oVas/sels DeNDIESet Ilor. '''rELREZ''LL.Er*0',4q1 SHEET NO. A5 .1 Moen I I I 1 1 I) 1 rf I I O z MAR 4 2019 ©EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION 4.1.G1 1/0- 110" c)EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION 5.0:10, 1101 • —=. Iii iiiiiM*-12la .I ° C L I 0 ra. A1.16. mingro I PLANNING DEPAP7: CITY OF E['°' - 77, f'1,/li " 104157.1MINIII. Ief% ,• I CDEXISTI NG NEST ELEVATION 9.1.1/11,1,0 4. 4 Yt L L EXISTING EAST ELEVATION 9501410, I/O1 EXISTING LONER FLOOR PLAN 9.1.0:1/5,1,01 9- EXISTING 1st. FLOOR PLAN EXISTING 2nd. FLOOR PLAN %CALM 1/b- /'.O air 09 SHEET LAYOUT .-PROP.C.TRIOR LINATIMIS AP-.PROP..CTIONS DETA. EX., ELEVATIONS PUN 0....11[011ila, FLOOR PIANS OMGINATION nave 0907/00 1101151130 0001 00/00 A01101. 0/00 11Id 0/00/01,0 P010150 010.00/0 Permit Pt0a Ex/ST. FLR PLANS IST. ELEVATIONS PUNS SHEET NO. A5 Moen 1 7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROPOSED GARAGE ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE Ur* 1LCC 11111111111111111 111111111111111111 PROPOSED 1st ELECTRICAL PLAN PROPOSED 2nd. ELECTRICAL PLAN SLAM 119, tqr PROPOSED LONER ELECTRICAL PLAN KM. UR, 1,0. T O 4 g 1,1E q SHEET LAYOUT t-JW"X"r"" 4.—FROP. 9.10 OSM110.1.L.1101.5 9 0E1W. PlAND C.0.71.4 P441 —4[C,Ot. 1,001e MOO ORIGINATION 0/O1 IMVISION OATH tatii/in111 alo/ael6 did Set Woheig Pernik Set °LW.. PeratSerlInr. ELEGTFIGAL SHEET NO. Ei M n PLANNING DEPARTME! FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EE:' • L-1 PROPOSED LONER ELECTRICAL PLAN 9.1-¢: /4,1a PROPOSED 1st. ELECTRICAL PLAN MALe: 1M, PO 7 O T Q S ATI fag 4 I- PROPOSED GARAGE ELECTRICAL PLAN OW-MI/1,1W LE. 1111111111111111111 11111111111111111 I I PROPOSED 2nd. ELECTRICAL PLAN SGALG1 /4,1, C) 0 1 SHEET LAYOUT ORIGINATION DATE O9/27.11 HVISIONOATR ‘Ohthotil Aa-nunt Entoallelo FerrnASek ltev. IlVamfl Old Set tr1/13/., PannItSer ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN SHEET N0. Ea Moen .61 4.7 ash z 0) O -0 b-.1 --1 0 -n 0 orn 1); GARAGE 9 S 89°40' E 50.0 80.0 A POINT 150 FT SOUTH OF NORTH LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 AND 325.5 FT EAST OF WEST LINE THEREOF co co cs• 868— O 870 0 ;17 \b 0 17 18.8 EXISTING HOUSE #4432 M,--t-ii7p1T (2, EXISTING = 1026 SF = 424 SF -A PATIO = 217 SF —150SFAHC= 67 SF TOTAL = 1517 SF/18.6% PROPOSED ADDITION = 63 SF FPORCH = 79 SF TOTAL = 142 SF/1.74Z TOTAL EXISTING TO REMAIN AND PROPOSED 1652 SF/20.3% 4.5 Z.-416 — PROPOSED ADDITIONS MATCH EXISTING FLOOR ELEVATIONS (VERIFY) NO SIGNIFICANT GRADING IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION EXISTING HOUSE ( 5/ / / DESCRIPTION /OF NW1//4 OF NE1/4 LYING SOUTH OF HE EAST 80 FT OF WEST 405.5 FT 115' / /./ co, NORTH 150 FT THEREOF AND NORTHERLY 4: OF GARRISON LANE / SEC.T 130, T.28, R.24 ADDRESS-4430 GARRISONLANE PID#19-028-24-24-0130 LOT AREA = 8140 SF/ 0.19 AC X 25% = 2035 SF HC ALLOWED SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION 870- 872 20.3 ONC 1-8 Er—WALLe 24.6 20.3 Pr").. _,....?- 117rCARAGE (cs'; G4 0 1-`616. A POINT 405.5 FT EAST OF WEST LINE THEREOF 0A/c Rs. BENCHMARK TR SAN MH ELEV = 885.0 FFL=877.4 <4.6 ?..5 0 12 8 $~53r Ali (c, I S` u) STRUCTURE HARDCOVER BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY Land 20 40 h0 SgALE / IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIO4 to198.0) = PRSPOSED SPOT ELEVATION N = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE pq - COH = GANTLEVERED OVERHANG I OHL =AVERHEAD UTILITY LINE GFE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION' TFE „if = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV TION . = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION 0 1 P N) ICE ELEV 864.8 1/8/19 X 866 1 4;0. REE 147gpF PROJECT NO. 8001< DATE JAN 9, 2019 PAGE REVISIONS 1/29/19 I HERE CERT1. THAT THSS.ORKEY I PREPARED 1ET. 20.3 4.7 107 0 GARAGE (9.1 20.3 4.7 P PROJECT 110. BOOK DATE JAN 9, 2019 PACE REVISIONS 1/29/19 LL-- ADDRESS-4430 GaRISON JANE / . PID# 19-028-24-24-0130 / LOT AREA = 8140 SF/ 0.19 AC X 25% = 2035 SF HC ALLOWED SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION CURB BENCHMARK TR SAN MH ELEV = 885.0 ' A POINT 405.5 FT EAST OF WEST LINE THEREOF OArc. THAT I Al. Y RFOSTF I AHI) vrenR I HERE Y CERTI THAT THSrlY S PREPARED BY LE . DRECT UPE VISI t AND for AinFAI RFC117FAIrr Land Frank R. Cardarelle Surveyor nA An 1, SAKI, nu nI In null Fr- BUILDING PERMIT SURVEY S 89°40' E 50.0 80.0 91 A POINT 150 FT SOUTH OF NORTH LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 AND 325.5 FT EAST OF WEST LINE THEREOF CO O esFi.) ICE ELEV 864.8 1/8/19 X .,••• 870 / .0c, 1- 0°' 4 24.6 148 4,1 c?• • :•'N 4.7 '10%1 Elyic 14.3 0 r 059- 9.5 .8 10.9 cd ,..... F F E2=48 9 77 .4c'Pf'1!1712.9 + ,--; I° EXISTING HOUSE #4430 is-S-9 ,.°2. / st 876 co / ' 74? FF4=8 ( 8.0 O A/ <a/ / 4, k V / te -., 1 .::'t' 4 1 ibRc° ....... 18.7 f-r.----____ / \ 1 ,t,/ , / / '°°6-0, COFVC cti„, 0 c 3 0 I 20 40 bo • SqALE / IN FEET = EXITING SPOT ELEVATION' X098.0) = PR POSED SPOT ELEVATION • • • • = DI ECTION SURFACE DRAINtGE pc1`../ COH = VANTILEVERED OVERHANG OHL //OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE GFE 7.-{ GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TFE TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV1\ TION c LFA = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION (.'9 STRUCTURE HARDCOVER I~jEXISING IIS H SE = 1026 SF Is,- GA AGE = 424 SF )gi PATIO = 217 SF -150SFAHC= 67 SF TOTAL = 1517 SF/18.6% PROPOSED ADDITION = 63 SF FPORCH = 79 SF TOTAL = 142 SF/1.74Z GARAGE REMAIN AND PROPOSED TOTAL EXISTING TO = 1652 SF/20.3Z 4.5 - ----- PROPOSED ADDITIONS MATCH EXISTING FLOOR ELEVATIONS (VERIFY) NO SIGNIFICANT GRADING IS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION / EXISTING HOUSE #4432 :Zs O 1 15. 8,----- ,--` EXISTING / HOUSE ( °'6H/ \ / N Ni' / ."7,4 / p ES CR IPT 19,N THE EAST 80 FT OF WEST 405.5 FT ., / N., /° /OF NW 1/14 OF NE1/4 LYING SOUTH OF 119 / 7.v co, NORTH 150 FT THEREOF AND NORTHERLY R,e OF GARRISON LANE P -- ....L / / SEC.T .80, T.28, 12.24 0 --/ - --...,.. 4....... ,..,,/ • — auei uospaeD sztllsea/i.ipp ce. AzJadold - auei uospleg zEtt isamAlai 944 olAl.aadold JO A.1_10 610Z T I83 __Vd3CIDNINNVld a C a. P Ui LL ct_ I- <1 .I.N1A/11:1Vd3CI ONINNVld S 89.40'E 550 EA- J EXISTING HOUSE #4,I32 GARAGE --- 'C'*".dS0 FEMA 'Y ;cr ',Among! PROPOSED OTHER THAN REWIRED FOR SF ANO THE TOTAL ISURVEYDFO BUEACE MILL BE INCREAS§R LE99 THAN 2SZ (SEE SURVEY FOR IMPERVIOUS CALCULATIONS) RIIINETAT212rETANFAMRTIONT ANION INDICATES EXISTING FOUNDATION WATER SERVICES COORDINATE GA AROUND EIFIL6MT , oEHOCRia ." -• 444/, "it? far, oENC.Afe, REV- BaSo PRIOR TO HOUSE OENALTTION STORM SEVERR INLETS OUANSTPEA OF THE SITE NITHIN ONE BLOCS OR AS DIRECTED BT THE CITY. LL GENERAL NOTES: 1. H TV BEEIAgY5M COMPLETE DEMOLITION NOTES: f) NOIRE AL 31 .PROVIDE 000PY DF CONTRACT FROM A LICENSED ABATEMENT CONTgACTAP , HAZARDOUS MATERIALS WAS PPOPFALY MANGLED, 0 pAyR AgOUNO PERIMETER OF EMDItgiOir""'' 'FERRANTE El i1E0 4.91 pactg° PROTECT PR-E2AmE. Hrs. TO STARTING DEMOLITION WORKS TO osT MOEN RESIDENCE 4430 Garrison Lone Edna, MN 55424 -`E)-ELLIOTT 5616DAIMAPLERD EDIN4A0155424 BUS;(612)220.0152 omollreoCollottdoscnbiid.com 01044C1 DEMO SILT "MCC Kra PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDINA GRAPHIC SCALE .5-40 20 40 60 MSRI HOME RECONSTRUCTION ON EXISTING FOUNDATION • PROSECT NO, E320 2.9-19 DATE REVCON NO DATE ''CIVIL SHEET INDIX SHEET TI E Cl citkCNC,MCCON.STOMMNA.R CERTIFICATION fa. Mr= Or 14;14170011 OtorrnolON 1 NI 0. COICOMO WV= Upixo tAla Or Inr/¢ Go NONCOM rgeLLSOiA____ Limo. A. e111.1. OrtIrinkiror No 'OW DRAWNGTLE GRADING, EROSION AND SIORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAWING NUMBER: Cl CITY OF EDINA CITY CODE RESPONSIBLE PARTY: STOMA DESIGN/BUILD 952-929-0098 Soc. 10-341. Precaution ogoinet littorIng required n1r2TOW'2r'gegg7. geiNlig!'24Ci'fniihMW ° ""`" to "'" "°" STY """ """. /iI gT,:Td,rgg g ggriogriNT:i'Epngra,211inlE7igiEg4::::' "42.'"A7grggh " °""" Pi"° " "" lgiMuginian;nronrnonfMa!TErwatwE or punt. No.eo adjocOnt to Eno tottono or conotruction situ oGall qVCV4gMo;rg'itg."All rofgt,Tere:g TarjITZIE,1°g°gglr%tYg112=11410A2 n1=14git:P:rd stored 1r nr nonta1norn ,nr nuch Dunostoro end containora shell bp pErtEditallErEfEadnor NEI=E4r=1:,,,N,oLmorrgr2NrofEE. Oumpotero end containers 1.11 De removed 1dt111/1 ten days o (Ogdo 2070; Code 1992. 426. 027 ggc;olgagA.:12tiM°:;°:"g;P:T:MgcRgtJ°:P72:1:!ITA,g=474 110?"4°42egg.g.r.g:g:cgtIn 0. TjEtEr*::"ihREETniE `A'r;;`:R:T c1 oC °r Cl pAN c° tractor OR Snvol vee Sn Bork n thy). 10011 Po severally and 191ntl/ casper911110 for cono,lonco WAVE Ono proviaions IT thia article and any ponoltlea Mfrimir CW°ItTe rznsp- ; Ara RgOT EiTc:4EiNIVEr OVERT public glace shoUld become,00ilod or littered th,.1,:pytg,tvgnIng:nnd ENNIEFIEFFINIFV3i2t.: :4111.:; ggt,:,%P.P0P:n9Pfgor "t w1 [it g;',t%.nrfTgy4.:Pq:".:7;,,VX°,4°M7 Mg°:,9cPW;2:ni:4%.:12,1:t% g.tPALP;tAci: CUR 2,,TZP'4°=1417i"ger=11SrggITtliE°1grEP.agn.fg!LE°g°;1214;EMtTi'OgE4ig:6 tP: :P2.P°1; effected, (Coda 1570; Coda 1992. 9 ',MOM ?g;'PlgjggelnInT4gTNg Mag4WrgE0g2W2°EETE, create to. tEaot ErEstEn potEnttet. PraTafplggnr=frinT::74'4=r!Ongirg'igtSTAVN'tfl; gggt 'MEgiEUgodgggigliw=i;j;n cover aff)=.vgangorloWorgNdsgurgN.dovalopmant. the oxp000d condition of lend Shall bo kept to the ahortest practical period g l,C;i1ggtggin1u, maguEgg: gc,eigmed during construction Shell be protected with temporary vegetation. mulching or by ether r =0 7g 1.1ggnrgt= gag:,,ggailting bovine or silt traps shell be inotEuEd and maintained to remove EEdtmEnt from Dorf.d watEr tP:0'?'gg:01.P1,15:Ra Yit:Pg:Pcon:A2PV::%t° "c"m°°°t° the i"""" '"""° "t" r"""' "u"d gig:InF2r'Ag-:g°°g0°Ptg,"g.P: Pg:PN4IP°20tInf:gt4V:MLIT."' "" "rt"" "1°0° °t°"1"" " ° "t°""4 TROD. liBrigergiFAMPF,DWrE711 Fn°11n74f.11511'gr1AoNrilre?r,,e112PX°10-7-1071: Ord. No. S22-A2. =-..... - . .,,.. -4. - = 14.:kti— .q., i 1,24 0 '14 -a u 7. #A 4 ;11N iz. ....... .7-' ,c,P)-t . < i 0. ,0" C.) F0..4 00 134 E Cii Vi sg 11 '': 1 4 0131p,,=, <I.. t lil' 2:., . c‘i 1 ITT; 'T'. P.. 1,4 g -a' A p, :51' .B. B so v. nc/11-.1.4 Ca) 0 CC; F-4 CC; Cr) 0.I as . . to 0 yl a) 0 '..-. Z P r./) r-4 5 „ ,,f) -a; (1 ,.., ab ..g u )---, ..: 411 SHEET LAYOUT 11....TITLE/SITE MA NI ROOF FLAN A1....PROP. FLOOR PLANS A2....PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3....PROP. SECTIONS & DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.5..FROP. GARAGE PLANS! ELEVATIONS A5....EXIST. FLOOR PLANS & EXIST. ELEVATIONS PLAN El ...ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLANS ORIGINATION DATE 0947/2018 REVISION DATE 1o/o/ooL8 As-Built 12/13/2018 Bid Set 01/03/2015. Permit Set 00/o6f1o19 Permit Set Rev. 3 TITLE SHEET/SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN SHEET NO. Ti Moen DUE TO UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS OF REMODELS & ADDITIONS. DISCREPANCIES MAY OCCUR BETWEEN INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THESE DRANING5 AND EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE REQUIRED WITHOUT SIGN-OFF TO MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. SHOULD MODIFICATIONS RESULT IN INCREASED COST TO PROJECT. CUSTOMER WILL BE NOTIFIED. :11111111:111111111111111:11111:11111:1111114:1111E j r1:1:111111:1111111 11111111 11 I 11111111 II II 1 14141 minimi 11111111 11 Yin, no 111111111U 1111111 ur 11111111111 •gi PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 4 2019 CITY OF EDINA 1.3 87 • -;,-;i1.9 A. G ARAGE 5.5 47 • COP q' ocksvt° 4:3 31 FVE(871.4 q 3l tin 010 O . 1 016 4.: Cvso " N 70°50' W ASH 876 cow SOUTH MY 7/4 L5.5 Fr L Mee 01 O -z- I 4 ot 1;i .101„ As' 1 —..L _ <EXISTING EXISTING, r, ' r' I .1 LI 1 141 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE: 3/16, 1,0• PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE: 1*.= 20'-0' Td 1PL• I6 1•7 NING DE ITY OF MASTER BEDROORM 11 0 PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS 01/03/2059 Permit Set 04/06/4049 Permit Set Rev, 40/43/0008 Bid Set 10/0/4048 As-Built SHEET LAYOUT Th.-TITLE/51TE FLAN/ROOF PLAN Al....PROP. FLOOR PLANS A2....PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3....PROP. SECTIONS 8, DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.5..PROP. GARAGE PLANS/ ELEVATIONS A5....EXI5T. FLOOR PLANS 8 EXIST. ELEVATIONS PLAN El...ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLANS ORIGINATION DATE 09/07/4018 REVISION DATE SHEET NO. Mo en L DUE TO UNFORESEEN CONDITIONS OF REMODELS & ADDITIONS. DISCREPANCIES MAY OCCUR BETWEEN INFORMATION CONTAINED ON THESE DRAWINGS AND EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED DESIGN MAY BE REQUIRED WITHOUT SIGH-OFF TO MAINTAIN CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. SHOULD MODIFICATIONS RESULT IN INCREASED COST TO PROJECT. CUSTOMER HILL BE NOTIFIED. 3D VIEW NO SCALE 3D VIEW NO SCALE .1817 POI 1311 11-0 VZ 46114 — \ 1 P. IA " I , I 4_ . ------- I _i_ ,., STORAGE a I i 1.1.1.1.0 11 I ,.• ! POMO. . 11.0 77 --1 ::--"M" — — — —, II '-------"-7-1N 4 I_ _ _ _I I I / Is! =HOWL i 1 , 6, Nib 1 1 man 0 ' EX3711.5 # 1 -r t r P.012 PPM ..., ,__ NEPIUTILDT ,........„0-1 ir .:1 , =7E715 ' ,--ir2 I Lr, 1 I I I I g Ii . LL FAMILY RM T— I L j 1 7.: _ i „, , 4 :. ,,,,,;_, , ,,,,. ,!---.; ,_,,;, P 1./TILITY Hi I 1.4.411.-Eu V e1 a i — Ri. .POYI 1 1 Ol' 1 -4 F1-m-,...±; u” , u-, in -r §i t„........ .• • e.n. 767. 9 11453 UV ortof rE a rnop.,,,.., .. a 1 ! =71.---' AT 7 ,17,7eSED xm, SOL STP; 4 1 4,44 ') S 1 1 iii,[=, I '•- g ..—• MECH. RM '''' . I! I 7.,,,,„,,-1.0" oz., 1 = I —10—°— yyynnn G --1--„, ,..... ,---, 1 ,.. L. —J . . • IM.,-.......e... rwer PM. I I: I I r1 I I I i '. r I 1 . I I -• I I 7 I ; .., ry I :17.747.7.4•.,"7.74 wvg...- • lv 4. 14-P • 11,2 PROPOSED LOWER FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4, MY eP2711 PaQiC DUSTING PPIER10.11 P. PO%8 comas PEPIPUPPOP4 .KEY I CASTING CONSTRUOTI0H MESMER= NEW CON5TREKTION I PRoPOSEDYIORK AREA PROPOSED NO YORK AREA 1 19 rvz FEE[ LA 2-6,1, OPPC p_E SPONEY POW...NPR EH C4,11CHES PROPOSED 1st. FLOOR PLAN 951.11Nrlari COP77.5 IFOUNOPITION 70/107.5 11EADERAT EWE OFSELONO FLOOR OPEA,P15 71 IA 1 pG gn SCALE: 1/4, 1,-O a 11 W PROPOSED 2nd. FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4, 1,0" lP SHASTSIDE SHASESUNS 3161.11 CAMS LP 603113511615.116 51,13.331.3.511.3r. 5131110 3 11211.31 .,31135 111,013331313.33105 _ • MIN M NO MMMM I 1 1 I III I 1 I 1 1 1,1 1 11 1 1 1 1 II 1 • li um El; cn TO (1) Ranh Cerna Poor 11 12 11 "Al1111111111111111Wfir 1111111!111 Eno 111111111111111111111 1111111111 NMI 1111111111111111111111 11111111111 111111111111111111111 1111111111 - 1111111111 11/"R11111 Ft; 416.•711 it i, 1111 1 1111 111111 1111 11111 1111 HAMM 0111111111 II 1110111111iiit1111111111 mum 711 111111111112111111111111111411101111111&. 11M1? ,AIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111i ,0 PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4't 1'-0" `11 1 U.. 11111111 , 1111 111111 liMIRMUMU_ 11111111 HUI 1. `IIIIKTIM11111111 I 11111111 11111111ak 1111111111111111111 = = = 3 - TMODOCNININEGICII 11111111 Ina 11111111 IL 111111 1111111 1111111 111111 11111111 km 1111111111F fileadiek 11,105311 LtsnAersw.sw.r, StDM6 1/2.1.11 C.A3316 LP COSNER WARM Trod HATCH 6151-166 VS, GASP. 351.03ATE131.33.1115T 13303113-160112313 Cs516-631,-3, 101-10 W 5 LP C6S1. 1.11 6011113-1110,3313 Teo 1_ - PAINT 61/531100 601.11131116P6 CONGX-RE STOOP /11 STONE DISICAT .3— -.Aar .--911. I 0 0 O v. SHEET LAYOUT PLAN/ROOF PLAN Al....PROP FLOOR PLANS A2....PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AS....PROP. SECTIONS & DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.5..PROP. GARAGE PLANS/ ELEVATIONS AS....EXIST. FLOOR PLANS EXIST. ELEVATIONS PLAN El...ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLANS ORIGINATION DATE 09/27120113 REVISION DATE 10/0/3018 As-Built 11/13/2018 Bid Set 01/23/3019 Permit Set 03ii06/2019 Permit Set ReV: 2 =1111111111111111 I • I I I I LJ C III All 111111/' A ./11 1111fir 01111 1111, 4111111 1.11111 III I I 3.1.313170 301.1111A110 BOXES SEAM Tee 616.111,34-- 261 Poor 10-9 UT 111=1MIIMIWSWr .111111111111k, ASFM.T513/161,135 ASPHALT 316 3E5 11,14-sT IINIIIIMINUMWEIVIIIKWW11111111MMUF illniiiiiiiii " IMMI III 111111111111111 11111111111111 M. 11111111 11111111111111 11111111111111 H 11111111 Ili 111111111111111 11111111111111 11111111 M 11111111111111 111111111111U1M0111111 111111111111111 mmommmummummommummumme Mgt mmummummumm mummummummummummumm -----11111111111111L " lli11112 MERIENIEVED= IIIF I-11-1U1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111101 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111 ................................... 1111111' MI1111•111— A3 TS HOLES ...mmummummomommummummummommummmi, ,l,1 1 1 1,1,1,1, 1 MMM 1 , 1 , 1,11 111 RAJAS. iiiiiiNEMEINVILIMURRIPMIMWMaiali imummummummum min mumm BEE 11111111111111111 11111111111111M 11111 Eli 1111P111111111111 316 LP COSI. mlimmmummumm III 111111 111110111111111N 11111111111111111 NEE nm in 11111111111111110 111111 111111111111111N MBE Hum BEI maralINVEIREAMIVIEL immummummummummiummummummmummummummummommum .41. MININIMEWENEMMMUNNINEWINWIREAL_=="1"" -------_______-----------mmummummommmommummmmummummummummmummmilAp . •••••••••iiminannommummommummummummmummummummummmANAT, .......om miumimamm mummummummumm .. mom m 1111111111111111111 11111111 AMIN 11 •.11 1111111111111111111 111111111 1111/1 1 eal 1111111111111111111 1111111J1, J111121 II • 1 11111111111111111 -1-1- muff 111111 1111111ch. 1111111 11 Li 11111E111111111111 11111i1111111111111111111 IU 111111111 1111111 l‘W.6.;•11 If ii a I r 11 1 '1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I % I I 11 • tinsimm - - 111111......................, EN= 11111MMIMEMNIMNirr INA 111111111111111111111111111111111111111mmmmommom11111111111111111111111 1 .............. 11111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111116111111111 1111,g 111111111111111111111111111111111111 _ 1 11111 11 1111 1 1 11 I 11 11111 1 1111111111 Ern I I 11 I elTi r=W= %%9 I r‘l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11= IMMIIM ()PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4, 1 11 12 r3 ' 3111 6131/1161631.11KE 310116 LP 311111,11361653 Brush LATAs 1 I — II ii ill 1 'ii III — 111 31111111133946.3316616 51/7111316166 1.31 6516511661.6.123 10-1 1, .1.bar 10AVI 16-W CeSns - 1st 11bor 3 16LPCAS 333,1/11111201105A PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 4 2019 CITY OF EDINA A3161-1,311616135 164-61.11, -16 Als.A. 1-23.. 35.1.11 SHUTTERS CES/ARS1133341136% see 1 sl 1361; 316 LP SA51116 33111.11501666. 111 C03313133.311115 rno yr TA, 10-1 VW MST 611161100 601.166,30301130 3E/11 RA 4.613 2,113 15-10961 ___11 1" PROPOSED NEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4'= 1,0" L PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS L L ©PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4'=1'-0e SHEET NO. A2 Moen XV OM RROIREEREO ROOF T RU.E5 13411L,11.1.0.1101. ,5,145,1115 ME/MATER... A5F.1,511/141.E. ROOF -I G. OS. BOARD VENTED 1.1,i0FF11. IFROIRELRED ROOF TWFi EXTERIOR COLUMN SCALE: 1 112, 1,0" NOT USED NO SCALE MIL., 1,..4...3 ii---, g-,...-e, . „.._ . , ii SI ORA Design/Build www.sicoxa.com Lic. #BC253425 5601 West Lake Street TEIGNER: LYNNE St. Louis Park, MN 55416 D Telephone: 952.929.0098 I D, TANYA. DARCY ICALI DRAFTER: JOHN Fax: 952.285.5580 PM. BRITT ADAM BILL Cid 0 i cn oz h 00 0.., o .., (2) P e „, E12 ' i ro 9,,.5 V /-, '' V.' SHEET LAYOUT TI. .TITLE/SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN Al...PROP. FLOOR PLANS A2....PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5....PROP. SECTIONS & DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.5..PROP. GARAGE PLANS/ ELEVATIONS A5....EXIST. FLOOR PLANS & EXIST. ELEVATIONS PLAN Et-ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLANS ORIGINATION DATE o9/x7/xol8 REVISION DATE loh1/e018 As-Bulk 40/43/0018 Bid Set 06/03/0049 Permit Set 0efo6/0019 Permit Set Rev. 2 PROPOSED SECTIONS & DETAILS SHEET NO. A3 Moen ENGINEERED WORM.. R1914R ..51.1E11141. SNEED A5f1.1,51,01.1E ROOF LP TRIfl VIENTEOLP 50f fIT 1/2.6TP. /1-111,AP0RONMER 511.11.411 . HGl 111-51).1101 IFI SNEATfLHG meereckr 51P185FERIELEVATIONS /.5E FASTOSPIATE Irr..1.11- 11 Yr. FAME/011. 511.1=A141-151,41 WRVS 1/2,1P. 1411,6,0125l9Rlat DOST.31 KAU Kona I...AWN 1/2.51.V110. 11G.ErtAAP 5101110 TER ELEVATIONS .s41;1=', LOCK I I I 1 sTMG 310 JOISTS IP =WVE LEIMY101,1:. 5(6.6TP. ENGINEER D 1.0,171155B 11.1914.11.51JIWP. 5/3.510-AMING IGELYNTER51.17:11-P .1,1.41T51.117.16LE ROOF LP T1.1 FA-,HBOAND Yr-MEM, 50F19T 11111111 1111111111 IN rt G. PROPOSED PORCH SECTION SCALE: 1/4, 1,0" PLANNING DEPARTi\4Ei.-IT MAR 4 2019 CITY OF EDNA NOT USED NO SCALE NOT USED NO SCALE EA51.11,4 1.5 PROPOSED GAMEY. VERO' EASING ROM if.1.11.10 1 1 I I 1 1 11 I 1 1 I I I III III III - H III I III III 11 111- 10•11======IIIMII IMIN=====•11=1M •==i11111111=M111111=1 INIMIIMMIN=====MI M=MMIIM=MINIIMINE=1 1-11111111•11•11===== NE/431011,0R KN. 111151.1.51...511FIDOR PROPOSED FAMILY/MUD RM SECTION SCALE: 114"M 1,0" 414.125.01.0;171/5655 1,19,11/1.11451.11ATION 511.11.6 IGEEVATERSHDLO ASPHILTSNAIGLE ROOF ..; t BRACKET DETAIL SCALE: 11l2" V-0" CORBEL DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2, V-0* PROPOSED BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1/4, V-0" 111 1 1 11 11 1111 1111 1.111111111 1M1111111111111111111111111 .T11.1F.A5C1A BOARD VENTED LP SOFFIT 1111E111 00- VAPOR /31.12.,11.127. 24.5TOP1141 R27 1,1114.11WIN11011 1/2.51.111115 WING PERE:M.11M* 1 1 1 11111 11 1111 )3 • TH LIN 1112,01,00F EI 1D. E,1511.EEREDFLOOFtilarr.5 5 KASE ISKISTING FIATE HaOHT11 VW. MARE 511.181.011,./0 524,0,0151.1.1 WRAPS 4' 0.0 IRO GYIR. MIL YAM% BAFFUE12 D351...315TUDYKLI. .1111,1_ INSULATION uD'SMEAT1m1G 101.EIVAP DINING MFCH RM exrinx6 5r5TET1 LL HALL:i 3-1 STAIR =Grp. .511,0 M 1.111,V012 BARRIER t/. <-1.14114. 1/2. 1NMG TON SM. PEA 6-,AVOlte STAIR HDVSTNR YP41- 41- FASE.STING RATE 11.1.1.1t 11 Yd'. FRAIE 511/11/3. winos .1 STRAP5 VOL%49 MUD I I 0-11 Vb. ArilinfilitiaMENNIMUra .41 1 I ZOO R.00,10.1.5 1.21111ARI125011.1.1,T101.1 @45000 IIIII 1 1 1 1 1 I SCALE: 112, 1'-O SCALE: 1/31=1'-0' SCALE: 1/7= 1,7 SCALE: 1/2, r-o• SCALE: 1/31=1'-0' N 7212 MASTER BATH SCALE: 1/T=1'-0' L.L. POIAIDER SCALE: 1/7-1'-0' L.L. POWDER SCALE: 1/2, 1,7 MASTER BATH SCALE: 1/P=1'-0' MASTER BATH SCALE: 1/2, 1,7 T C SHEET LAYOUT T1....1111E/SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN A1....PROP. FLOOR PLANS A2....PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AS....PROP. SECTIONS & DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.5..PROP. GARAGE PLANS / ELEVATIONS AS....EXIST. FLOOR PLANS EXIST. ELEVATIONS PLAN E1...ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLANS ORIGINATION DATE 09/.7/2018 REVISION DATE LonilacRE As-Built 0/13/2018 Bid Set 02/43/2019 Permit Set 03/06/2019 Permit Set Rev. a PROPOSED INTERIOR ELEVATIONS "41L7LW1,7—t f- 1,2 13,11,7 3 MI6 9,16. 1/71, 1 914 '±'Ilr-1.3 Ur —1t 'la . 4 117 ,, S IIS "4. 1/7 1 VT / \ F. ' . \ ,. . / \ . / . / , < • / p, vr 2, ,, I ,,, 1.1,15,8 —1.-9., 51,4.-1,-1 450B 11? i mee '1 _ .*. 711. 11/7 / 1 I VK .. \++ 1 .)'' I 1 I i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1_1 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 I.1 1 I. 1 1 si' — I — I , > IN, \ Tz, / `• s... < . , ../ V / ,.._.. 1 1 / .I' 4. '1-2.. ,,,, 1 1,0. 4- T,,,, 3-0' 10-0 1? KITCHEN e < e ( A e e VER. ?AY ,,,, WR .1Y , 5. 101 L 1 '\\ 1MI ( MINMIIMM. = MI II= 1==1 1110=MI INE BM OEM milinipmmmiew En 101 a=i1 — 4 _ — ti MINI 7-6 1/7 7.91? Ya KITCHEN DINII1 * ROOM FLAT PAN EL TV BY DINNER VER. SIZE NEIN GAS DIRECT VENT FIREPLACE FAMILY ROOM SCALE: 1/2, 1,0' ' ri'M - , , A. on 7, J. , / _ rn\ " < > Liu :1'" ',-; '" 1 '" — '" if., MASTER BATH SCALE: 1/2, 1,0' SCALE: 1/2'=1'-0' NOT USED A 4.0 Y. 1,11 12„x ?\ 1,7—\ ISLAND SCALE: 1/2, 1,0' r r """`"T"''''' 1410 SCALE: 112, 1,7 SCALE: 1/74 1,0" / r \u/ /11 MUD/BENCH 41 or 2., it-r„ Ya-a \ —V- .1177 UPPER BATH UPPER HALL NOT USED 4/_ - 7-1 11.7 . 1; 2 111 MAR 4 2019 NOT USED CITY OF EDIN KITCHEN ISLAND SCALE: 1/2, 1,7 slz -It 1,, KITCHEN ISLAND SCALE: 1/2, 1,0' x 9-11 In' 6 6j) KITCHEN ISLAND SCALE: 1/7= 1,7 V TT It SCALE: 1/7= 1-0 7117 H / 1Y7 / 1. 1410 —11 n77 16, L If, LP T16.1 BOARD 12 1111111 IIIIIIIII 111 111H lll] H11 11111 II 1 1 1 1 1 11, 11, 111 y111 1 11 1 ,i,,,,, 11 1111111 11 111Iii I ITI moDDD0D mm mIDE10000 111 II I I II 1 I I I I °PROP. SOUTH GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4, 1,0' II ( PROP. NORTH GARAGE ELEVATION D SCALE: 1/4, 1,0' HAT. 3625T1116 DOOR 5. MP LOCATION R., Cerra 161616c6,41 OPROP. GARAGE 1ST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED NO WORK AREA SCALE: 1/4, 1,0° 1 5661: DOOR 5( PeELOOaING M6101E5 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 4 2 019 CITY OF EDINA 3 112,11.5.6.3 3". LP CORNER BOARDS 1-111 61.1ARTSIDE361.£511111316 KEY I EMSTING CONSTRUt =MEM N151 GONSTRIKTION PROPOSED WORK AREA o EXISTING FOUNDATION SYSTEM AND CURS TO REMAIN ENGENEENEO W014 INAT1103311.5 .<_, IX x 1- C2,912A.G.E. tl r i HATCH EXTSTRG 0001613541, ' WI' KF. dn. All1111.1116 4011111.11.111111% 4111111111111111111►. 11E0 .411.111111/11111111.111111111111111111111116 1.6 mommummomeimmommomms 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111.1111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111111111111111111111111111111: 111111111101111111111111111111111111111111111 11011111111111111.11111111111111111111.11111101 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111.111.111111111111111111111111111.1111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII , 1/7. LI. TON BOA. 1.111131161 FASCLA BOARD VENTED LP SOFFIT 1.111 50/61.5111 WARDS LP ..61ANT503,13.16.64 VIAND 1=ri.,! • ' 1,6,15,01,ar .7n1 .3161 P6,6111Ce6n6 • 1A11196r 5,1031611 hM 11136113316 YAWN 511/13.11 117 51.1151. NOL15116, SNUG PERELEVATIONS 1 1 111111,111111 11 1 1 1 lll 11 1 1 i 1 1 l 'I 'lld1 1 "11 1 "1 1 1 '1 '1 ', I 1 11 111111 EN53153550ATTICT31/5555 5f31.F.ATNING ICES Mira SHELL AVW613136111.6311100F LP TN. 66-%1ABOANo YENTEDLP 3037-11 16-115116 15CSTING PON .T. 1 1 11 1 1 iL TL Ll it 1 1 1 LI 1111 1 1 1111 1 1 1111 11111 19- RD 14-No1)C61.1- 2661 Fon 12,51W r Irgr'.--26:1 '61116,$ Troa-334,606111c, rrnaSamTL 11_11111111111 1111111 11111 111111 I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 oilititiyi mil `1111 I kill 11.1 mil*, 11 11111 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 Rai 1 1111[ 1111111 1 V I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 ISI 1111 11 1 1 I -11,1 111 111 1111 1Yriri ,i,fii.z.t0 -I 1,1 111 1) yl(11) 1 I I I I 11 1 1 I I lIl 111 11 11 1 1 1 1 I 11 If1 I ll LF COMER WARM 3 671.6,43163 LP 5HART5133.561.3 513315 1 1 1 1111 1 1 I 1 1111 I 11 1 /1 1 11111 1111111 II 11111 1111 11111111 1111 1111111111111111 11,111 11111 H1 11 1 II 11111 " 311 ' 1 ' 1 1 1_, 11611/1 1111 11111111/1111111 III 11111 1111111111111111 ......... 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 ' I 1111 111/ 11 11 1111 1111111111.1 1111111111 11111 1111 1111111 .1111 1111 11111 111 a) O SHEET LAYOUT TI....TITLE/SITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN Al....PROP. FLOOR PLAN 5 A2....PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3....PROP. SECTIONS & DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.5..PROP. GARAGE PLANS ELEVATIONS A5....EAST. FLOOR PLANS & EMT. ELEVATIONS PLAN El...ELEGTRIGAL FLOOR PLANE ORIGINATION DATE 0947/2018 REVISION DATE Lo/v/+3118 As-Built 12/13/.113 Bid Set 01/33/0019 Permit Set 13210612019 Permit SCI Re.o PROPOSED GARAGE FLR. PLAN / ELEVATIONS SHEET NO. A5.1 Moen STORAGE ZATTI G 33410013061CHORO GARAGE DPROP. GARAGE SECTION 5CALE: 1/4, 1,0' 0 PROP. WEST GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4, 1,0' 1111111111 1111 11/111 J1111111 111 ....... 111 11111 1111 11111 111_1 lllll 1 11 11111 ili 1 1 1 1 1 1 NM 3 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111,1 1111 1 lijj I 1,11IIIII II I ,1 ii 1 lili[,1,1111 11111 1 11 111,11111 1 111 111 1 11 1111111 Jr111 I 1 11111 J11111 I II II II 1 mi1 1 1,1 1111 mli 1 1111 111 Il l 1,11,1iil III III 1,11 li II JI I 11 1 i 1,i1 1 II II WI ml 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 11 I II 1111111111 I III 1 1 ili,11 111111 i1 il I 11,1 I 11 I 1 1J11111111111111,1t 1 1,1 III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1111111111 illilm,11111111,11 11,11 ,11,111,11)1111111m11H111111111-)111111111 DPROP. EAST GARAGE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4, 1,0' ASFHALTEMINE-653 LP T1331£A3CIA WARD VENTE0 5061311 LP CORNER 30.6.55 LI, SPA/Z.336 56436.113165 SCALE: 1/5, 1,0' EXISTING 1st. FLOOR PLAN EXISTING LONER FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/5, 1,0' O z EXISTING 2nd. FLOOR PLAN ! •m.,M ? .:mum . II M III ri IR mm or_ . , . 4 ,, WI I E. 11 -. . ,, TOO LIE I,. : I. : + . ili 51F 11 la I . 11, VI 1 - - ,........_,- - vROmlt ILE. ..,..... I I I :..../ 2=.3...,.. U ............. li 4TORAAF a i -...... ...:. • Mirl11 • I:I p• TORASIF i +Rs,- 13 - 13 i 1 i 513 TORNiFt :r1 J-- 3LOT -174 Mil i -. ..." G.43- a r .. . er,.. ma-VP•2m L SCALE: 115, 1,0' SCALE: lIES, EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 4 2019 CITY OF ED!NA EXISTING NEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/5, wagowILWINNWYMIVIIME =DWA MILE40751,44115,77: " IIIIIVOMMENErah drimmmiwanwrippmmtra 11 """1 • rawn. mu% III MYNA _z . : Im~ A' I 1 hm CtMEMi 1~ . -;111110 NINESEu- ISSERIGY —zaw• m • alfaV X1I M IN M Al Y i A t R 111111111 1111111111 II IN Ii n DEN y.mW 1111111 m .oBEtiaf NI mina:s mmmmm m ........ p: i6wmislaWwwfiinanan NEM ' = I:: pp.m== F11111WAYill "RAW/NNW" AYMINNENAMAYMMIN 16c4 LIPMFD•113 EXISTING EAST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/5, 1,0" EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/5, 1,0' z t zaza PI Opga C 0 C/D 8 8 IO cNic a :11 T ',143 aOS .- cn4 I-1 (1 V SHEET LAYOUT T1....TITLEISITE PLAN/ROOF PLAN Al ...PROP. FLOOR PLANE A2...PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SECTIONS & DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4.5..PROP. GARAGE PLANS/ ELEVATIONS A5....EXIST. FLOOR PLANS & EXIST. ELEVATIONS FLAN EI_ELEGTRICAL FLOOR PLANS ORIGINATION DATE 09/07/0018 REVISION DATE 10je/1018 As-Built 1e/13/0018 Bid Set 01/03/0019 Permit Set 02/06/2019 Petillit Set Se, 2 EXI5T. PLR. PLANS XIST. ELEVATION5 PLAN SHEET NO. A5 Moen O 4 0 0 0 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAR 4 2019 CITY OF EDNA I 0 z PROPOSED 1st. ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE: 1/4, VD' STORAGE r --1 a FOROOM #3 PATH 13) U IJ 0 Ari it a MASTER SEDROORM a • STEM a SAffiLGE a BEDROOM V 0 PROPOSED GARAGE ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE: 1/4, 1,0" PROPOSED 2nd. ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE: 1/4". 1,0" Lic. #BC253425 0 SHEET LAYOUT Ti PLAN/ROOF PLAN Al ....PROP. FLOOR PLANS A2 ...PROP. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A3....pROp. SECTIONS E DETAILS A4....PROP. INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A4D-PROP. GARAGE PLANS! ELEVATIONS A5....EXIST. FLOOR PLANS & EXIST. ELEVATIONS PLAN EI...ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLANS ORIGINATION DATE o947/2m8 REVISION DATE lo/u/zol8 As-DuEr .0/,3/508 Did Set 01 /23 / 019 Permit Set 05/06/2°19 Permit Set Ree s ELECTRICAL FLOOR PLAN SHEET NO. El Moen L Ise ~e LL FAMILY RM. )TILITY MECH RM J I PROPOSED LOINER ELECTRICAL PLAN SCALE: 1I4, 1,0" VARIANCE APPLICATION REQUEST PROPERTY ADDRESS 4430 Garrison Lane, Edina, MN 55424 PROPERTY OWNERS Jesse & Sarah Moen LEGAL DESCRIPTION PID: 30-028-24-12-0013 Addition Name: Unplatted 30 028 024 Abstract COM AT A PT IN CTR LINE OF ROAD AT A PT 377 2/10 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 AND 405 5/10 FT E FROM W LINE THEREOF TH N PAR WITH W LINE THEREOF 26 42/100 FT TO N LINE OF ROAD SAID PT HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS PTA TH NWLY ALONG NLY ROAD LINE 9 FT TO ACTUAL PT OF BEG TH NELY TO A PT IN A LINE RUNNING PAR WITH W LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 DIS 40 FT N OF PTA TH N ALONG SAID PAR LINE TO A PT 150 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH E 50 FT TH S PAR WITH SAID W LINE TO N LINE OF ROAD TH NWLY TO BEG PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDi►';,'1 APPLICANT DATE Lynne Shears, ASID & AIA Allied, Lead Designer Sicora Design Build (on behalf of owners) 5601 W. Lake Street, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 952.929.0098 Office 2.11.2019 Attached Documents: Exhibit A —Survey, Frank Cardarelle, Land Surveyor with setbacks Exhibit B — Preview Variance Request for Front Yard Setback Reduction at 4505 Nancy Lane, Edina. Exhibit C — Nine Mile Creek Watershed Email, confirming no permit required Watershed/Management Plan — Elliott Engineering Photos — Streetscape with Proposed Addition & Existing Photos PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The clients are looking to expand and update their current home 3 bedroom home for their family of five. We are therefore proposing a r d story addition on the existing footprint of the 1.5 story home, with remodeling the main floor, and adding a 5' x 7' small rear Mudroom addition on post footings. This scope of work above is allowable within the City requirements. We are also proposing to add an unenclosed Front Porch and rebuilding the existing 2 car garage on the existing foundation which require variances. VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1) Front Porch, we are also proposing a new unenclosed Front Porch, off the existing Foyer. The size of the new front Porch as designed is 77.58 sq. ft. and is within the allowable 80 sq.ft. City requirement. The variance is necessary to build the front porch because the existing home is nonconforming regarding the front yard setback. We are therefore requesting a 2.2' variance for a front yard setback, from 20' to 17.8' for an unenclosed open front porch supported by posts/columns. 2) Detached Garage, we are proposing to rebuild the deteriorating existing 2 garage on the existing foundation. The rebuild of the existing garage is allowable with the City requirement, in keeping the existing footprint and roof pitch. The variance for the garage is necessary as we would like to increase the roof pitch of the garage to match the new house design and to allow for attic storage. We are therefore requesting a variance for an increased roof pitch on the Detached Garage from a 3:12 pitch to a 8 1/2:12 pitch. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE VARIANCE REQUEST CONFORMS TO THE MN STATUESMATTMEPARTMENT ORDINANCES: FEB 1 1 2019 The Proposed Variance Will: CITY OF EDINA 1) Relieve practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. Front Porch - The practical difficulties associated with the home are due to the fact that the home was built in 1930, before the property setbacks were established. And therefore, is already nonconforming with the existing front yard setback at 23.5'. Therefore, the current non-confirming structure, the lot shape, and the home as it is placed on the lot, make the characteristics of this property unique. The current restrictions of the house and garage were not created by the applicant. Therefore, request for an unenclosed Front Porch is a reasonable request, as it will be built over the front stoop, which has an existing well room below at full basement depth. The new Front Porch will also provide protection from the elements in our Minnesota weather and provide architectural interest. Detached Garage —The practical difficulties associated with the existing Detached Garage are due to the fact again that the home was built before property setbacks were established. And therefore, is already nonconforming with the placement on the lot to rear yard waterline setback. Therefore, the current non-confirming Garage structure and its placement on the lot, make the characteristics of this Garage unique. The request to rebuild the existing Detached Garage on the existing foundation is a reasonable request as it is not possible to build a new 2 car garage on the existing lot, in another location, due to its unique property characteristics. And the existing garage is deteriorating due to its age of 89 years old. Also, the existing 2 car garage is undersized at 20.3' wide x 20.6' deep and therefore the request for an increase in roof pitch is reasonable as it will allow for storage of outdoor needs. The request for increased roof pitch is also a reasonable request, as the City encourages new detached garages to maintain the same architectural styling and details as the proposed home. 2) Correct extraordinary circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the vicinity or zoning district. Front Porch - The extraordinary circumstances to this property are that the existing front foyer of the home is 23.5' from the front property line, with the existing front stoop and old well room/water meter below it at 18.2' from the front property line, therefore any front porch structure over the well room requires a variance. The new Front Porch as designed is 5'-6" deep from the front of the home (to cover the well room) and therefore 17.8' from the front property line. If the Front Porch was built at the City requirement of 20' from the front property line, the Porch would be 3.3' deep and with columns for support 2.3' deep, which would not meet the IBC requirements for a landing. Also, with the swing of a storm door it would not be an adequate landing. And the new front porch as design suits the size and scale proportion for the architecture of the home. Detached Garage —The extraordinary circumstances to the garage are due to the unique lot size, nonconforming setback to the pond in the rear yard, the placement on the lot, and the required setbacks are specific to this property. Making improvements on the 20'x20' garage the only option. 3) Be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. The proposed remodel/addition improves the function of the layout for today's modern family, corrects maintenance/repair issues needed for the home, and improves the architectural aesthetic appeal of the home. The proposed remodel/addition is designed to be compatible in building height and mass between existing properties. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDINA Zoning ordinances allow for an unenclosed front porch for homes and require a 2 car garage as essential for new homes, and therefore our variance request is in harmony with new homes built and other remodels in Edina. 4) Not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The established neighborhood is a tree lined, cul de sac street, with homes on the north backed up to a pond. The street is a mix of 1 story and 2 story homes, with the majority of 2 stories surrounding the client's property and therefore our proposed remodel/addition with the 2 story addition will be scaled appropriately to fit with the neighborhood. Our overall approach to the exterior is to improve the overall curb appeal and architectural detailing of this cottage style home. The clients are looking to be respectful of the neighborhood, the home, and the lot and therefore are proposing to keep the existing main floor exterior walls and minimize the footprint on the lot for the needed space. Consideration was given during design to be respectful of the neighboring properties with remodeling the existing structure rather than tearing down to build new. The use of the home is well within reason, as the intent is to utilize the existing structure while improving the architectural character of the home. We also designed to have minimal impact to grade with only 2 post footings at the rear and frost footings for the new front porch as the only soil we are disturbing, and therefore no watershed permit is required. With the grade work only in those two areas, we are able to maintain existing drainage, grading, and erosion. Also, no trees are to be removed for this project, so as to maintain the mature trees on the property. The clients have lived in their home since 2008 and love their neighborhood. They plan to raise their 3 boys in this home, and therefore additional space for their growing family is needed. They are also a hockey playing family and therefore utilize the pond in the rear of the home for skating. This remodel/addition is designed as a light impact to the lot, while improving the architectural design of the neighborhood. Therefore, this proposed project is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 .0 CITY OF ED:IN1A Hennepin County Property Map Date: 1/23/2019 PARCEL ID: 3002824120013 OWNER NAME: Jesse L Moen & Sarah E Moen PARCEL ADDRESS: 4430 Garrison La, Edina MN 55424 PARCEL AREA: 0.24 acres, 10,618 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $345,000 SALE DATA: 09/2008 SALE CODE: Warranty Deed ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $359,500 TAX TOTAL: $4,762.08 ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $392,300 Comments: PLANNING DEPARR:„LJ FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF Frk; This data (I) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) Is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 Search tips Property information search result Search By: Parcel Data for Taxes Payable 2018 n Current year taxes due Taxes payable 2019 (2018 Values) will be available by 03/01 n 2019 proposed property tax (Truth In Taxation statement) n 2018 state copy (used when filing 2017 M-1PR state refund) n View map of property_ n Current year values n Prior year taxes n Print details This database is updated daily Property ID number: Address: Municipality: (Monday - Friday) at approximately 9:15 p.m. (CST) 30-028-24-12-0013 4430 GARRISON LA EDINA School district: 273 Watershed: 1 "13 Sewer district: C) m Construction year: 1930 0 -n In CC) I. r==, 0 0 -70 Owner name: Taxpayer name & address: JESSE L MOEN & SARAH E MOEN JESSE L MOEN & SARAH E MOEN 4430 GARRISON LA EDINA MN 55424 Sale information Sales prices are reported as listed on the Certificate of Real Estate Value and are not warranted to represent arms-length transactions. Sale date: September, 2008 Sale price: $345,000 Transaction type: Warranty Deed Tax parcel description The following is the County Auditor's description of this tax parcel. It may not be the legal description on the most recent conveyance document recording ownership. Please refer to the legal description of this property on the public record when preparing legal documents for recording Addition name: Lot: Block: Approximate parcel size: Metes & Bounds: Common abbreviations UNPLATTED 30 028 24 ViTc:.13 A110 S 55X205X50X220 Abstract or Torrens: ABSTRACT Value and tax summary for taxes payable 2018 Values established by assessor as of January 2, 2017 COM AT A PT IN CTR LINE OF ROAD AT A PT 377 2/10 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 AND 405 5/10 FT E FROM W LINE THEREOF TH N PAR WITH W LINE THEREOF 26 42/100 FT TO N LINE OF ROAD SAID PT HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS PT A TH NWLY ALONG NLY ROAD LINE 9 FT TO ACTUAL PT OF BEG TH NELY TO A PT IN A LINE RUNNING PAR WITH W LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 DIS 40 FT N OF PT A TH N ALONG SAID PAR LINE TO A PT 150 FT S OF N LINE OF NW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 TH E 50 FT TH S PAR WITH SAID W LINE TO N LINE OF ROAD TH NWLY TO BEG Estimated market value: Taxable market value: $359,500 $354,615 EXISTING PROPERTY PHOTOS: Existing Exterior Photo of Home, Street view — I Existing Exterior Photo of Home with View of Garage from Street — -7. . • ' - • • iii. . • s. • --•••••%.o. PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANKING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF ED NA Existing Exterior Photo of Home, Rear View - .s Existing Exterior Photo of Garage, Driveway View — .FEDYNAt 192-V10U0 1=2--E-QUE9 qtr pop-ci-paw_4zovImNtr PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT 506 NtAW, Originator Meeting Date Agenda # Kris Aaker January 14, 2014 B-15-01 Assistant Planner . Recommended Action: Approve the requested variances. Project Description PLANNING DEPAF,I FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF ED;:"....A Marc and Meredith Seaberg (applicants) are requesting 4 variances to add an 8 ft. x 24 ft. front porch and a second floor above their existing rambler, see attached site plans, survey and building plans. They are also proposing to add 7 feet onto the width of their garage. The garage addition is the only portion of the plan that does not require a variance. The variances are necessary to build within the existing footprint because much of the existing home is nonconforming regarding front yard setback and setback from the pond. The following variances are necessary for the proposed attached plan: • A 112 square foot front porch encroachment variance from the maximum 80 square feet allowed encroachment into the average front yard setback. • A 3.8 foot front yard setback variance for a second floor addition with cantilever forward of existing front wall. • A 5.6 foot west side yard setback variance from the 16.2 foot setback required for the second floor addition above existing 1st floor. • A 25 foot setback variance from the pond for a 2nd floor addition above the existing 1st floor. INFORMATION/BACKGROUND The subject property is located south of Nancy Lane cul-de-sac consisting of a rambler with an attached two car garage. The homeowners are proposing to add 7 feet to the existing garage near the east property line and a porch to the front including a 2nd floor cantilever. Much of the existing home is nonconforming otr P, 2/ca regarding front yard setback and setback from the pond behind the home. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum 50 foot setback from naturally occurring lakes, ponds or streams. The existing home is nonconforming and overlaps the required pond/lake setback by 25 feet. The front yard setback required is the average front yard setback of the homes on either side. The average front yard setback is slightly farther back from the existing home, so the 2nd floor addition requires a front yard setback variance. The plan also proposes a cantilever towards the front and a front porch larger than 80 square feet which is the maximum area allowed to encroach into the front yard setback. The property owners would like to expand their garage to the east which is the only improvement within the required setback and nonconforming exception rule. Unfortunately the buildable area of the lot is smaller in area than the footprint of the existing house so virtually any improvement/addition requires a variance with the exception of a garage expansion. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Surrounding Land Uses PLANNING DEPAR Northerly: Easterly: Southerly: Westerly: Single-dwelling homes. Single-dwelling homes. Nancy Lake. Single-dwelling homes FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF ED;N.4 Existing Site Features The subject property is 14,830 square feet in area. The existing home was built in 1961. No trees will be removed to accommodate the plan, Planning Guide Plan designation: Single-family detached Zoning: R-1, Single Dwelling Unit District Engineering Review An Engineering report is attached. There are no concerns indicated on the attached memo. Building Design 2 0/t The proposal is to construct a two story home on the basic footprint and above the existing 1st floor. Compliance Table City Standard Proposed Front — Max porch in front yard Side- Lake/pond Match adjacent 30.4 feet 80 Sq. Ft. 10+ height 50 feet *29.6 feet *112 Sq. Ft. *10.6 feet *25 feet Building Height 2'/ stories 37.8 feet to ridge, 2 stories, 30.5 feet to ridge Lot coverage 25% 24.6% * Variance Required Primary Issues • Is the proposed development reasonable for this site? Yes. Staff believes the proposal is reasonable for four reasons: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDINA 1. The proposed use is permitted in the R-1, Single Dwelling Unit Zoning District. The intent is to utilize the existing structure in its entirety, since footprint expansion is not possible without additional variances to reduce setbacks, causing a greater nonconformity. 2. The additions are appropriate in size and scale for the lot and the improvements will enhance the property and not detract from neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home with the exception of the conforming garage expansion and the addition of a porch will not significantly increase. 3. The improvements will provide a reasonable use of the site and improve on the existing conditions. Spacing between the proponent's and the neighboring structure to the west will remain the same. 4. The home improvements and height increase would provide enough space to accomplish a 2nd floor without having to completely reconfigure the property, (not a tear-down/re-build). 3 exftipprr 1/0 PLANNING DEPARTW.:. -1 FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDW.'A • Is the proposed variance justified? Yes. Per the Zoning Ordinance, a variance should not be granted unless it is found that the enforcement of the ordinance would cause practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance and that the use is reasonable. As demonstrated below, staff believes the proposal does meet the variance standards, when applying the three conditions: Section 850.O.Subd., requires the following findings for approval of a variance: Minnesota Statues and Edina Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied affirmatively. The Proposed Variance will: 1) Relieve practical difficulties that prevent a reasonable use from complying with ordinance requirements. Reasonable use does not mean that the applicant must show the land cannot be put to any reasonable use without the variance. Rather, the applicant must show that there are practical difficulties in complying with the code and that the proposed use is reasonable. "Practical difficulties" may include functional and aesthetic concerns. Staff believes the proposed variances are reasonable. A practical difficulty is the original placement of the home and required setbacks from the pond edge and front yard. The current setback requirement from the pond and front yard creates a challenge. The existing house location and configuration of the lot result in no opportunity for significant expansion without the benefit of a variance. 2) There are circumstances that are unique to the property, not common to every similarly zoned property, and that are not self- created? Yes. The unique circumstance is the inability to increase the roof height to provide adequate living space above the home at existing nonconforming setbacks without the benefit of a variance. The required pond setback and front yard setback are not self-created. The home currently encroaches minimum standards. 3) Will the variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood? ext-tipAT 5/0 No. The proposed improvements will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The basic footprint of the home will remain relatively the same and spacing between structures will remain the same on the west side and will conform on the east side. Staff Recommendation Recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variances. Approval is based on the following findings: 1) The proposal would meet the required standards for a variance, because: a. proposed use of the property is reasonable; as it slightly alters existing setback conditions without significantly reducing setback or impacting the surrounding neighbors. b. The imposed setback and existing house location do not provide opportunity for a second floor c. The original placement of the home closer to pond and within the front yard setback prohibits expansion potential for a second floor without the benefit of a variance Approval of the variance is subject to the following conditions: 1) Subject to staff approval, the site must be developed and maintained in- substantial conformance with the following plans, unless modified by the conditions below: • Survey dated: November 25, 2014 • Building plans/ elevations date stamped December 12, 2014. • Engineering memo dated Deadline for a city decision: February 13, 2015. PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDVA 5 Tar_.37 aft rpoeflY Hennepin Cocgt, Property Ma 4490PirilioN . Date: 2/11/2019 PARCEL ID: 3002824120013 OWNER NAME: Jesse L Moen & Sarah E Moen PARCEL ADDRESS: 4430 Garrison La, Edina MN 55424 PARCEL AREA: 0.24 acres, 10,618 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: $345,000 SALE DATA: 09/2008 SALE CODE: Warranty Deed ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $359,500 TAX TOTAL: $4,762.08 ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential HOMESTEAD: Homestead MARKET VALUE: $392,300 1 inch = 200 feet Comments: '4W( LK ialloi AlLIAMde This data (I) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or sury eying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, Injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2019 PLANNING DEPAR FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF Lynne Shears .pt.p4 P • cm:Apo E00.0 `,130 i,g Build N1 /14a ?h4i)L, ahlFlrmAcTioNT No WS.rciivirr i\IBBpg From: Lauren Foley <LFoley@ninemilecreek.org > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2019 7:33 AM To: Lynne Shears Subject: RE: Remodel/Addition Project Thank you! As long as the rest of the project is being done on existing foundation (from our standpoint, impervious surface), then you should not need a permit. Best of luck! From: Lynne Shears <Ishears@sicora.com > Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 1:35 PM To: Lauren Foley <LFoley@ninemilecreek.org> Subject: RE: Remodel/Addition Project Lauren, Thanks so much for getting back to me so promptly! The 2 post footings at the Mudroom and some frost depth footings for the front stoop we won't be disturbing more than 50 cubic yards. Let me know if we need anything else! Lynne Shears I Lead Designer ASID & AIA Allied, CAPS Specialist 5601 W Lake St I St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Tel 952.929.0098 I Mobile 612.750.4264 From: Lauren Foley [mailto:LFoley@ninemilecreek.org] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2019 1:06 PM To: Lynne Shears <Ishears@sicora.com > Subject: Re: Remodel/Addition Project Hi Lynne, PLANNING DEPAPTALTNT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDINA Will your planned mud room be disturbing more than 50 cubic yards of soil? If not, you should not need a permit from us. If so, let me know and I'll set you up with the first steps. I'm at a conference until early afternoon. I can email you next steps (if needed) later today when I have my computer. From: Lynne Shears <Ishears@sicora.conn> Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 12:02:36 PM 1 To: Lauren Foley Subject: Rerrodel/Additibn Project Lauren, We are working with our clients Jesse and Sarah Moen, who live at 4430 Garrison Way. Attached is a pic of the front and rear of the home, their survey with the small additions shown, and their plans. I see their home is in the Nine Mile Watershed District. I have attached their plans and the survey with the new front porch and 5'x7' mudroom addition. We are proposing: 1) A remodel to the existing house, and converting the 1/2 story to be a full 2 story all on the EXISTING house foundation. 2) We are also proposing a small 5' x 7' rear addition for a Mudroom with steps to grade, which requires 2 post footings, where the old stoop and steps are at the rear. 3) We are also proposing a new front porch on footings that will be enclosing the old front stoop and well room that is below it. (The well is no longer there, just the City's water meter). 4) We are also proposing a new detached garage all on the EXISTING foundation. Are there any requirements needed from the watershed district for this addition? Will we need a permit for the project? Feel free to call or email with questions and if you can get back to me before the weekend that would be great! Thanks, Lynne Shears I Lead Designer ASID & AIA Allied, CAPS Specialist 5601 W Lake St I St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Tel 952.929.0098 I Mobile 612.750.4264 Rtr:itAPPEtA, G• PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEB 1 1 2019 CITY OF EDINA 2 Date: Marc h 13, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI I.A. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: R eport and R ecommendation F rom:Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manage Item Activity: Subject:7200-7250 R edevelopment P lans - Are the P roposed P lans C onsistent with the C omprehens ive P lan 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: Adopt R esolution No. 2019-01 finding that the proposed development plans for 7200&7250 are consistent with the Comprehensive P lan. I N TR O D U C TI O N: AT TAC HME N T S: Description Staff memo Planning Commission Resolution TIF Plan City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 Economic Development / HRA Phone 952-826-0407 • Fax 952-826-0390 • www.EdinaMN.gov Date: March 13, 2019 To: Chair and Members of the Edina Planning Commission From: Bill Neuendorf, Economic Development Manager Re: Proposed 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) has recommended that the City of Edina consider a new Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District at 7200-7250 France Avenue. This new TIF District is intended to create a funding mechanism to help resolve a financial gap in the developer’s pro forma for the redevelopment of this 5-acre site. Staff has reviewed the developer’s pro forma and confirmed a $20+ million financial gap that hinders the feasibility of the project. The gap exists due to three primary conditions: • Extraordinary site costs due to existing conditions; • Extraordinary construction costs due to the open space, design elements and scale limitations applied by the City of Edina in its rezoning approvals; and • Reduced income due to affordability requirements which will limit rental income from 62 of the 301 apartments for 25-years (10-years longer than required by zoning policy) Staff has recommended that the financial gap be resolved with a combination of additional equity invested by the developer, outside grant funds, and reimbursement of limited expenses through the use of tax increment financing (TIF). The City Council has scheduled a Public Hearing to consider the TIF District on March 19, 2019. Input from the Planning Commission is being solicited in advance of the City Council’s Public Hearing. Specifically, the Planning Commission is asked to confirm that the proposed project (7200-7250 France Avenue Mixed-Use) that is the subject of the TIF Plan is generally in compliance with Edina’s Comprehensive Plan. Please note that Planning Commission’s scope of opinion is established in the MN TIF Statutes 469. Specific details regarding the use, terms and conditions of future tax increment financing agreements are evaluated by the Edina City Council and Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority. The review of specific financial terms is not within the scope of the Planning Commission. The proposed creation of a new Tax Increment Financing District is done in accordance with Section 469 of the Minnesota Statutes and is based on the following activities and findings: Housing and Redevelopment Authority Established 1974 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 2 • Parcels are located within the boundaries of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, • 2008 Edina Comprehensive Plan (pages 4-30 to 4-33) identifies the site as a ‘potential area of change’ , and • Table 4.3 of Edina’s Comprehensive Plan, as revised December 4, 2018 allows up to 60-units per acre on this site The project identified in the TIF Plan (Appendix A) was previously reviewed and recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2018. City Council granted preliminary approval on December 4, 2018 via Resolutions 2018-116 and 2018-117. The developer has applied for final site plan approvals scheduled for consideration at the March 19, 2019 City Council meeting. The proposed project generally consists of: 1) Demolition of two existing office buildings 2) Preservation of mature tree grove along northwestern edge of site 3) Construction of two new 6-story apartment buildings with commercial space on the first floor and below grade/indoor parking a. Twenty percent of the units will be leased at 60% AMI affordable rates for 25-years (10 years longer than required by zoning policy) b. Density limited to 60 units per acre c. Height limited to 67.5 feet with portions taller than 60 feet stepped back at least 10 feet from the building edge 4) Construction of ten townhouses adjacent to the northwestern edge of the site 5) Extensive site improvements dedicated to public use including: perimeter sidewalks and landscaping, internal woonerf/shared street, second level public plaza, public parking, and tree conservation easement After reviewing the TIF Plan, staff finds that the project is consistent with the amended Comprehensive Plan and PUD-15 zoning requirements. The Draft TIF Plan for the proposed 72nd & France TIF District is attached for your review. In accordance with Minnesota Statute governing the use of TIF, the Plan Commission is requested to confirm that the proposed TIF Plan conforms with Edina’s plans for development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. The attached Planning Commission Resolution 2019-01 has been prepared by staff. Staff recommends that the Resolution be approved. # # # 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 3 Proposed TIF District – location map Proposed TIF District 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 4 Proposed TIF District – parcel map 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 5 Proposed Redevelopment – Concept Plans Approved December 4, 2018 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 6 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 7 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 8 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 9 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 10 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 11 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 12 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 13 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 14 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 15 72nd and France TIF District – Staff memo March 13, 2019 Page 16 Amended Comprehensive Plan excerpts – per Resolution 2018-116 PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF EDINA HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2019-01 FINDING THAT THE 72ND AND FRANCE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN CONFORMS TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the 7200 and 7250 France Avenue (the “Property”) project is proposed to be redeveloped by France Equities, LLC, and generally consist of 311 housing units and approximately 28,100 square feet of commercial space along with several improvements to the public realm adjacent to the project site; and WHEREAS, the Edina Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary development plan and request for an amendment to the Edina Comprehensive Plan regarding density on October 24, 2018 and recommended that the City Council approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Rezoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the Property requiring a future site plan review; and WHEREAS, the City Council via the passage of Resolutions 2018-116 and 2018-117 approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary Zoning and Preliminary Development Plan for the Property on December 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority has recommended terms by which tax increment financing could be used to bridge a financial gap that otherwise renders the project unfeasible; and WHEREAS, the City Council will be considering the establishment of a new Tax Increment Financing District to enable the affordable housing development at the Property; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes require notification and input from several entities as part of the process of establishing a new Tax Increment Financing District; and WHEREAS, the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City of Edina (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District (the "TIF District”) therefor (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the Edina Planning Commission all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3; and Edina Planning Commission Resolution 2019-01 Page 2 WHEREAS, the project that is described in Appendix A as the subject of the TIF Plan is the same as that approved by City Council on December 4, 2018; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the aforementioned Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans and guided land use as described in the comprehensive plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Edina Planning Commission that the Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: March 13, 2019 ____________________________________ Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: ___________________________________ Planning Commission Secretary         Draft as of February 15, 2019 for fiscal impact review MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area - AND - TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN Establishment of the 72nd & France Tax Increment Financing Edina Housing & Redevelopment Authority City of Edina, Hennepin County, Minnesota Public hearing: March 19, 2019 Adopted:   This document is in draft form for distribution to the County and the School District. The TIF Plan contains the estimated fiscal and economic implications of the proposed TIF District. The City and the HRA may make minor changes to this draft document prior to the public hearing.   Table of Contents (for reference purposes only) Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area ........................... 1-1 Foreword ............................................................. 1-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District ........................ 2-2 Subsection 2-1. Foreword............................................... 2-2 Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority........................................ 2-2 Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives ................................... 2-2 Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview .............................. 2-2 Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired . 2-3 Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District................................. 2-3 Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District........... 2-5 Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements ................ 2-5 Subsection 2-9. Budgeted Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued . ............. 2-6 Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds ........................................... 2-7 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election.................................. 2-8 Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies....................................... 2-8 Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs ....................................... 2-9 Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions ................ 2-10 Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation ................................ 2-12 Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues ....................... 2-12 Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District................................ 2-12 Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses .................................. 2-13 Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment ................................... 2-13 Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment .................................... 2-14 Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments ...................................... 2-15 Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer .............. 2-15 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements ................................. 2-16 Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District ............................... 2-16 Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements ........................... 2-16 Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations ................................. 2-16 Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment . ................ 2-16 Subsection 2-28. Summary.............................................. 2-17 Appendix A Project Description ...................................................... A-1 Appendix B Map of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District ........... B-1 Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District ............................ C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District ........................................ D-1 Appendix E Housing Qualifications for the District........................................ E-1 Appendix F Findings for the District................................................... F-1 Appendix G Special Legislation ...................................................... G-1 Section 1 - Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Foreword The following text represents a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. This modification represents a continuation of the goals and objectives set forth in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Generally, the substantive changes include the establishment of the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District. Municipal Action Taken Based upon the statutory authority described in the Redevelopment Plan, the public purpose findings by the City Council and for the purpose of fulfilling the City’s development objects as set forth in the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council has created, established and designated the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan pursuant to and in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.001 to 469.047. The original and amended Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan documents and amendments have designated the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan as a redevelopment project and also a tax increment financing plan for tax increment districts created prior to 1988. The Centennial Lakes Tax Increment Financing District was created in 1988 pursuant to Tax Increment Financing Plan 88-1, which was subsequently renamed the Centennial Lakes Tax Increment District and referred to by Hennepin County as District #1203 and #1249. For purposes of clarification, this modification will refer to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan as the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Plan pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 469.002. The following municipal action has been taken with regard to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Plan: September 29, 1977: The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Edina (the “HRA”) approved the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Plan. October 5, 1981: The Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Plan was amended to identify project costs and bonded indebtedness incurred to finance those costs. May 6, 1985: The HRA and the City approved an amendment to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Plan which includes the establishment of an interest reduction program and enlarges the project area to include the “1985 Project Area.” August 19, 1985: The HRA and the City approve d the First Amendment to the 1985 Amendment to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area Plan to enlarge the 1985 Project Area and to authorize the issuance of additional bonds to acquire land within the enlarged 1985 Project Area. 1987: The HRA and City approved the 1987 Amendments to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan to enlarge the project area to include the 1987 Project Area. 1988: The HRA and City approved the 1988 Amendments to the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Plan that provide an Interest Reduction Program in the amount of $2,500,000 to assist in the financing and construction of housing units, and authorize the HRA and City to incur bonded indebtedness. February 21, 2012: The HRA and City expand the Southeast Edina Project Area. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area 1-1 April 17, 2012: The HRA and City establish the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District. February 18, 2014: The HRA and City establish the Pentagon Park Tax Increment Financing District. March 2, 2016: The HRA and City establish the Grandview 2 Tax Increment Financing District. April 5, 2016: The HRA and City modify the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District and establish the 66 West Tax Increment Financing District. June 20, 2017: The HRA and City establish the 50th and France 2 Tax Increment Financing District. October 16, 2018: The HRA and City establish the 44th and France 2 Tax Increment Financing District. November 20, 2018: The HRA and City modify the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Southdale 2 Tax Increment Financing District to increase the TIF Budget and enable special legislative pooling authority for affordable housing. November 20, 2018: The HRA and City establish the West 76th Street Tax Increment Financing District. (As Modified March 19, 2019) March 19, 2019: The HRA and City establish the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District. For further information, a review of the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area is recommended. It is available from the HRA Executive Director at the City of Edina. Other relevant information is contained in the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Tax Increment Financing Districts located within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area 2-1 Section 2 - Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District Subsection 2-1. Foreword The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA"), the City of Edina (the "City"), staff and consultants have prepared the following information to expedite the establishment of the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District (the "District"), a housing tax increment financing district, located in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. Subsection 2-2. Statutory Authority Within the City, there exist areas where public involvement is necessary to cause development or redevelopment to occur. To this end, the HRA and City have certain statutory powers pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ("M.S."), Sections 469.001 to 469.047, inclusive, as amended, and M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended (the "Tax Increment Financing Act" or "TIF Act"), and Minnesota Session Laws 2014, Chapter 308, HF No. 3167, Article 6 as amended by Minnesota Session Laws 2017, Chapter 1, HF No. 1, Article 6 (the “Edina Affordable Housing Act”), to assist in financing public costs related to this project. This section contains the Tax Increment Financing Plan (the "TIF Plan") for the District. Other relevant information is contained in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, originally adopted September 29, 1977, and modified from time to time. Subsection 2-3. Statement of Objectives The District currently consists of two parcels of land and adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The District is being created to facilitate the construction of a mixed-use development including 301 units of multifamily rental housing, 10 units of owner-occupied town homes, and approximately 28,100 square feet of retail in the City. Please see Appendix A for further District information. The HRA anticipates entering into an agreement with France Equities, LLC as the developer at the time of preparation of the TIF Plan. This TIF Plan is expected to achieve many of the objectives outlined in the Redevelopment Plan for the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area. The activities contemplated in the Modification to the Redevelopment Plan and the TIF Plan do not preclude the undertaking of other qualified development or redevelopment activities. These activities are anticipated to occur over the life of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District. Subsection 2-4. Redevelopment Plan Overview Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan and authorizing state statutes, the HRA or City is authorized to undertake the following activities within the District: 1. Property to be Acquired - Selected property located within the District may be acquired by the HRA or City and is further described in this TIF Plan. 2. Relocation - Relocation services, to the extent required by law, are available pursuant to M.S., Chapter 117 and other relevant state and federal laws. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-2 3. Upon approval of a developer's plan relating to the project and completion of the necessary legal requirements, the HRA or City may sell to a developer selected properties that it may acquire within the District or may lease land or facilities to a developer. 4. The HRA or City may perform or provide for some or all necessary acquisition, construction, relocation, demolition, and required utilities and public street work within the District. Subsection 2-5. Description of Property in the District and Property To Be Acquired The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcels listed in Appendix C of this TIF Plan. Please also see the map in Appendix B for further information on the location of the District. The City or HRA may acquire any parcel within the District including interior and adjacent street rights of way. Any properties identified for acquisition will be acquired by the City only in order to accomplish one or more of the following: storm sewer improvements; provide land for needed public streets, utilities and facilities; and carry out land acquisition, site improvements, clearance and/or development to accomplish the uses and objectives set forth in this plan. The City or HRA may acquire property by gift, dedication, condemnation or direct purchase from willing sellers in order to achieve the objectives of this TIF Plan. Such acquisitions will be undertaken only when there is assurance of funding to finance the acquisition and related costs. Subsection 2-6. Classification of the District The HRA and City, in determining the need to create a tax increment financing district in accordance with M.S., Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, inclusive, find that the District, to be established, is a housing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 11, M.S., Section 469.1761 and Minnesota Session Laws 2014, Chapter 308, HF No. 3167, Article 6, Section 8, Subd. 2 as defined below: M.S., Section 469.174, Subd.11: "Housing district" means a type of tax increment financing district which consists of a project, or a portion of a project, intended for occupancy, in part, by persons or families of low and moderate income, as defined in chapter 462A, Title II of the National Housing Act of 1934, the National Housing Act of 1959, the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, any other similar present or future federal, state, or municipal legislation, or the regulations promulgated under any of those acts, and that satisfies the requirements of M.S., Section 469.1761. Housing project means a project, or portion of a project, that meets all the qualifications of a housing district under this subdivision, whether or not actually established as a housing district. M.S., Section 469.1761: Subd. 1. Requirement imposed. (a) In order for a tax increment financing district to qualify as a housing district: (1) the income limitations provided in this section must be satisfied; and (2) no more than 20 percent of the square footage of buildings that receive assistance from tax increments may consist of commercial, retail, or other nonresidential uses. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-3 (b) The requirements imposed by this section apply to property receiving assistance financed with tax increments, including interest reduction, land transfers at less than the authority’s cost of acquisition, utility service or connections, roads, parking facilities, or other subsidies. The provisions of this section do not apply to districts located within a targeted area as defined in Section 462C.02 Subd 9, clause (e). (c) For purposes of the requirements of paragraph (a), the authority may elect to treat an addition to an existing structure as a separate building if: (1) construction of the addition begins more than three years after construction of the existing structure was completed; and (2) for an addition that does not meet the requirements of paragraph (a), clause (2),if it is treated as a separate building, the addition was not contemplated by the tax increment financing plan which includes the existing structure. Subd. 2. Owner occupied housing. For owner occupied residential property, 95 percent of the housing units must be initially purchased and occupied by individuals whose family income is less than or equal to the income requirements for qualified mortgage bond projects under section 143(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. Subd. 3. Rental property. For residential rental property, the property must satisfy the income requirements for a qualified residential rental project as defined in section 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. The requirements of this subdivision apply for the duration of the tax increment financing district. Subd. 4. Noncompliance; enforcement. Failure to comply with the requirements of this section is subject to M.S., Section 469.1771. Minnesota Session Laws 2014, Chapter 308, HF No. 3167, Article 6, Section 8, Sudb. 2: Subdivision 2. Rules governing districts. (a) Housing district established under this section are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.1794, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.176, subdivision 1b, no increment must be paid to the authority after 20 years after receipt by the authority of the first increment from a district established under this section. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1761, subdivision 3, for a residential rental project, the city may elect to substitute “20 percent” for “40 percent” in the 40-60 test under section 142(d)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code in determining the applicable income limits. (d) The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1761, subdivision 3, apply for a 25-year period beginning on the date of certification of the district. In meeting the statutory criteria of the TIF Act, the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: • The District consists of two parcels. • The development will consist of a mixed-use development primarily including 301 units of multifamily rental housing integrating 10 units of owner-occupied town homes and 28,100 square feet of retail. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-4 In meeting the criteria of the Edina Affordable Housing Act, the HRA and City rely on the following facts and findings: • At least 20% of the residential units will be occupied by individuals with incomes is 60% or less of area median income. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 7, the District does not contain any parcel or part of a parcel that qualified under the provisions of M.S., Sections 273.111, 273.112, or 273.114 or Chapter 473H for taxes payable in any of the five calendar years before the filing of the request for certification of the District. Subsection 2-7. Duration and First Year of Tax Increment of the District Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1, and Section 469.176, Subd. 1, the duration and first year of tax increment of the District must be indicated within the TIF Plan. Pursuant to the Edina Affordable Housing Act, the duration of the District will be 20 years after receipt of the first increment by the HRA or City (a total of 21 years of tax increment). The HRA or City elects to receive the first tax increment in 2023, which is no later than four years following the year of approval of the District. Thus, it is estimated that the District, including any modifications of the TIF Plan for subsequent phases or other changes, would terminate after 2043, or when the TIF Plan is satisfied. The HRA or City reserves the right to decertify the District prior to the legally required date. Subsection 2-8. Original Tax Capacity, Tax Rate and Estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity Value/Increment and Notification of Prior Planned Improvements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 7 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the Original Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) as certified for the District will be based on the market values placed on the property by the assessor in 2018 for taxes payable 2019. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subds. 1 and 2, the County Auditor shall certify in each year (beginning in the payment year 2021 the amount by which the original value has increased or decreased as a result of: 1. Change in tax exempt status of property; 2. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic boundaries of the district; 3. Change due to adjustments, negotiated or court-ordered abatements; 4. Change in the use of the property and classification; 5. Change in state law governing class rates; or 6. Change in previously issued building permits. In any year in which the current Net Tax Capacity (NTC) value of the District declines below the ONTC, no value will be captured and no tax increment will be payable to the HRA or City. The original local tax rate for the District will be the local tax rate for taxes payable 2019, assuming the request for certification is made before June 30, 2019. The estimated ONTC and the Original Local Tax Rate for the District appear in the table below. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174 Subd. 4 and M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, 2, and 4, the estimated Captured Net Tax Capacity (CTC) of the District, within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, upon completion of the project within the District, will annually approximate tax increment revenues as shown in the table below. The HRA and City request 100 percent of the available increase in tax capacity Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-5 for repayment of its obligations and current expenditures, beginning in the tax year payable 2023. The Project Tax Capacity (PTC) listed is an estimate of values when the projects within the District are completed. Project Estimated Tax Capacity upon Completion (PTC) $1,556,122 Original Estimated Net Tax Capacity (ONTC) $168,986 Fiscal Disparities $60,562 Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) $1,326,574 Original Local Tax Rate 1.09183 Preliminary Pay 2019 Estimated Annual Tax Increment (CTC x Local Tax Rate) $1,448,393 Percent Retained by the HRA 100% Tax capacity includes a 1.0% inflation factor for the duration of the District. The tax capacity included in thischart is the estimated tax capacity of the District in year 21. The tax capacity of the District in year one isestimated to be $1,163,925. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 4, the HRA shall, after a due and diligent search, accompany its request for certification to the County Auditor or its notice of the District enlargement pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, with a listing of all properties within the District or area of enlargement for which building permits have been issued during the eighteen (18) months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the municipality pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3. The County Auditor shall increase the original net tax capacity of the District by the net tax capacity of improvements for which a building permit was issued. The City has reviewed the area to be included in the District and determined no building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding approval of the TIF Plan by the City. Subsection 2-9. Budgeted Sources of Revenue/Bonds to be Issued The total estimated tax increment revenues for the District are calculated in Appendix D and are shown in the table below: SOURCES OF FUNDS TOTAL Tax Increment $27,065,715 Interest $1,353,286 TOTAL $28,419,001 The costs outlined in the Uses of Funds will be financed primarily through the annual collection of tax increments. The HRA or City reserves the right to incur bonds or other indebtedness to help achieve the objectives of the TIF Plan. As currently proposed, the projects within the District will be financed by a pay- as-you-go note issued to reimburse the Developer for the funding of qualified affordable housing costs. Any refunding amounts will be deemed a budgeted cost without a formal TIF Plan Modification. This provision does not obligate the HRA or City to incur debt. The HRA or City will issue bonds or incur other debt only upon the determination that such action is in the best interest of the City. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-6 The HRA or City may issue bonds (as defined in the TIF Act) secured in whole or in part with tax increments from the District in a maximum principal amount of $17,675,248. Such bonds may be in the form of pay-as- you-go notes, revenue bonds or notes, general obligation bonds, or interfund loans. This estimate of total bonded indebtedness is a cumulative statement of authority under this TIF Plan as of the date of approval. Further information can be found in Appendix D. Subsection 2-10. Uses of Funds Currently under consideration for the District is a proposal to facilitate the redevelopment of two substandard office buildings and construction of a new mixed-use development that includes approximately 301 units of multifamily rental housing, ten units of owner-occupied townhomes and 28,100 square feet of retail. The HRA and City have determined that it will be necessary to provide assistance to the project for certain District costs, as described. The HRA has studied the feasibility of the development or redevelopment of property in and around the District. To facilitate the establishment and development or redevelopment of the District, this TIF Plan authorizes the use of tax increment financing to pay for the cost of certain eligible expenses. The estimate of public costs and uses of funds associated with the District is outlined in the table below. These estimates establish the maximum amount permitted to be expended, but the City/HRA is not obligated to expend the full amount. USES OF TAX INCREMENT FUNDS TOTAL Land / Building Acquisition $1,070,000 Site Improvements/Preparation $3,235,200 Utilities $1,790,000 Construction of Affordable Housing $5,350,000 Other Qualifying Improvements $3,523,476 Administrative Costs (up to 10%)$2,706,572 PROJECT COST TOTAL $17,675,248 Interest $10,743,753 PROJECT AND INTEREST COSTS TOTAL $28,419,001 The total project cost, including financing costs (interest) listed in the table above does not exceed the total projected tax increments for the District as shown in Subsection 2-9. Estimated costs associated with the District are subject to change among categories without a modification to this TIF Plan as permitted by M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 4. The cost of all activities to be considered for tax increment financing will not exceed, without formal modification, the budget above pursuant to the applicable statutory requirements. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.1763, Subd. 2, the HRA may expend funds for qualified housing activities outside of the District boundaries. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-7 Subsection 2-11. Fiscal Disparities Election Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, the City may elect one of two methods to calculate fiscal disparities. If the calculations pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3, clause b, (within the District) are followed, the following method of computation shall apply: (1) The original net tax capacity shall be determined before the application of the fiscal disparity provisions of Chapter 276A or 473F. The current net tax capacity shall exclude any fiscal disparity commercial-industrial net tax capacity increase between the original year and the current year multiplied by the fiscal disparity ratio determined pursuant to M.S., Section 276A.06, subdivision 7 or M.S., Section 473F.08, subdivision 6. Where the original net tax capacity is equal to or greater than the current net tax capacity, there is no captured tax capacity and no tax increment determination. Where the original tax capacity is less than the current tax capacity, the difference between the original net tax capacity and the current net tax capacity is the captured net tax capacity. This amount less any portion thereof which the authority has designated, in its tax increment financing plan, to share with the local taxing districts is the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority. (2) The county auditor shall exclude the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority from the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts in determining local taxing district tax rates. The local tax rates so determined are to be extended against the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority as well as the net tax capacity of the local taxing districts. The tax generated by the extension of the less of (A) the local taxing district tax rates or (B) the original local tax rate to the retained captured net tax capacity of the authority is the tax increment of the authority. The City will choose to calculate fiscal disparities by clause b. According to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 3: (c) The method of computation of tax increment applied to a district pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) shall remain the same for the duration of the district, except that the governing body may elect to change its election from the method of computation in paragraph (a) to the method in paragraph (b). Subsection 2-12. Business Subsidies M.S. Section 116J.993 to 116J.995 defines a business subsidy as a “grant, contribution of personal property, real property, infrastructure, the principal amount of a loan at rates below those commercially available to the recipient, any reduction or deferral of any tax or any fee, any guarantee of any payment under any loan, lease or other obligation, or any preferential use of government facilities given to a business.” Also included in the definition are many forms of economic assistance. Some forms of assistance, such as tax increment for redevelopment and housing, are specifically excluded from business subsidy requirements. Pursuant to M.S., Section 116J.993, Subd. 3, the following forms of financial assistance are not considered a business subsidy: (1) A business subsidy of less than $150,000; (2) Assistance that is generally available to all businesses or to a general class of similar businesses, such as a line of business, size, location, or similar general criteria; Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-8 (3) Public improvements to buildings or lands owned by the state or local government that serve a public purpose and do not principally benefit a single business or defined group of businesses at the time the improvements are made; (4) Redevelopment property polluted by contaminants as defined in M.S., Section 116J.552, Subd. 3; (5) Assistance provided for the sole purpose of renovating old or decaying building stock or bringing it up to code and assistance provided for designated historic preservation districts, provided that the assistance is equal to or less than 50% of the total cost; (6) Assistance to provide job readiness and training services if the sole purpose of the assistance is to provide those services; (7) Assistance for housing; (8) Assistance for pollution control or abatement, including assistance for a tax increment financing hazardous substance subdistrict as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 23; (9) Assistance for energy conservation; (10) Tax reductions resulting from conformity with federal tax law; (11) Workers' compensation and unemployment compensation; (12) Benefits derived from regulation; (13) Indirect benefits derived from assistance to educational institutions; (14) Funds from bonds allocated under chapter 474A, bonds issued to refund outstanding bonds, and bonds issued for the benefit of an organization described in section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended through December 31, 1999; (15) Assistance for a collaboration between a Minnesota higher education institution and a business; (16) Assistance for a tax increment financing soils condition district as defined under M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 19; (17) Redevelopment when the recipient's investment in the purchase of the site and in site preparation is 70 percent or more of the assessor's current year's estimated market value; (18) General changes in tax increment financing law and other general tax law changes of a principally technical nature; (19) Federal assistance until the assistance has been repaid to, and reinvested by, the state or local government agency; (20) Funds from dock and wharf bonds issued by a seaway port authority; (21) Business loans and loan guarantees of $150,000 or less; (22) Federal loan funds provided through the United States Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration; and (23) Property tax abatements granted under M.S., Section 469.1813 to property that is subject to valuation under Minnesota Rules, chapter 8100. The HRA will comply with M.S., Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995 to the extent the tax increment assistance under this TIF Plan does not fall under any of the above exemptions. Subsection 2-13. County Road Costs Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 1a, the county board may require the HRA or City to pay for all or part of the cost of county road improvements if the proposed development to be assisted by tax increment will, in the judgment of the county, substantially increase the use of county roads requiring construction of road improvements or other road costs and if the road improvements are not scheduled within the next five years under a capital improvement plan or within five years under another county plan. The county roads in the vicinity of the District include France Avenue (County Road 17). The HRA and City are aware that the county could claim that tax increment should be used for county roads, even after the public hearing. If the county elects to use increments to improve county roads, it must notify the HRA or City Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-9 within forty-five days of receipt of the TIF Plan submitted February 15, 2019. In the opinion of the HRA, City and consultants, the proposed development outlined in this TIF Plan will have little or no impact upon county roads. Subsection 2-14. Estimated Impact on Other Taxing Jurisdictions The estimated impact on other taxing jurisdictions assumes that the redevelopment contemplated by the TIF Plan would occur without the creation of the District. However, the HRA or City has determined that such development or redevelopment would not occur "but for" tax increment financing and that, therefore, the fiscal impact on other taxing jurisdictions is $0. The estimated fiscal impact of the District would be as follows if the "but for" test was not met: IMPACT ON TAX BASE IF “BUT FOR” NOT MET 2018/Prelim. Pay 2019 Total Net Tax Capacity Estimated Captured Tax Capacity (CTC) Upon Completion Percent of CTC to Entity Total Hennepin County 1,827,697,633 1,326,574 0.0726% City of Edina 133,330,410 1,326,574 0.9950% Edina Independent School District No. 273 110,176,900 1,326,574 1.2040% IMPACT ON TAX RATES IF “BUT FOR” NOT MET Preliminary Pay 2019 Extension Rates Percent of Total Rate CTC Potential Annual Taxes Hennepin County 0.416610 38.16% 1,326,574 552,664 City of Edina 0.273500 25.05% 1,326,574 362,818 Edina Independent School District No. 273 0.305030 27.94% 1,326,574 404,645 Other 0.096690 8.86%1,326,574 128,266 Total 1.091830 100.00%1,448,393 The estimates listed above display the captured tax capacity (CTC) when all construction anticipated in Appendix A is completed. The tax rate used for calculations is the preliminary Pay 2019 rate as obtained from Hennepin County. The total net tax capacity for the entities listed above are based on preliminary Pay 2019 figures provided by Hennepin County. The District will be certified under the actual Pay 2019 rates, which were unavailable at the time this TIF Plan was prepared, assuming the request for certification is made prior to June 30, 2019. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b): Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-10 (1) Estimate of total tax increment. It is estimated that the total amount of tax increment that will be generated over the life of the District is $27,065,715; (2) Probable impact of the District on city provided services and ability to issue debt. Based upon input from the Edina Police Department, an impact of the District on police protection is not expected. The City Police Department does track all calls for service including property-type calls and crimes. With any addition of new residents or businesses, police calls for service will be increased. New developments add an increase in traffic and additional overall demands to the call load. The City does not expect that the proposed development, in and of itself, will necessitate new capital investment. Based upon input from the Edina Fire Department, the probable impact of the District on fire protection is not expected to be significant. The City Fire Department expects some increased costs of inspections and that the development will generate a minor increase in EMS calls. Typically new buildings compliant with building and fire codes generate few fire calls, if any, and are of superior construction beneficial to the mission of the Fire Department. Based upon input from the Edina Engineering Department, the impact of the District on public infrastructure is expected to be minimal. The developer will include improvements to 72nd Street as part of the development, but it is not expected to require additional public infrastructure to address its impact to traffic and pedestrian movement in the area. The current infrastructure for sanitary sewer, storm sewer and water will be able to handle the additional volume generated from the proposed development, but the City is exploring the cost effectiveness of adding utility replacements in conjunction with the 72nd street improvements. Based on the development plans, costs associated with street maintenance, sweeping, plowing, lighting and sidewalks are expected to be neutral. It is not anticipated that there will be any general obligation debt issued in relation to this District, therefore there will be no impact on the City's ability to issue future debt or on the City's debt limit. (3) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to school district levies. M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) requires the TIF Plan to calculate “the estimated amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district’s share of the total local tax rate for a taxing jurisdiction remained the same.” The amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to school district levies, assuming the school district's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $7,561,484;. The amount is calculated by multiplying the total estimated increment of $27,065,715 by the percent of the proportionate share of the total tax rate of 27.94%. (4) Estimated amount of tax increment attributable to county levies. M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) requires the TIF Plan to calculate “the estimated amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county’s share of the total local tax rate for a taxing jurisdiction remained the same.” The amount of tax increments over the life of the District that would be attributable to county levies, assuming the county's share of the total local tax rate for all taxing jurisdictions remained the same, is $10,327,476;. The amount is calculated by multiplying the total estimated increment of $27,065,715 by the percent of the proportionate share of the total tax rate of 38.16%. (5) Additional information requested by the county or school district. The City is not aware of any standard questions in a county or school district written policy regarding tax increment districts and impact on county or school district services. The county or school district must request additional Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-11 information pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 2(b) within 15 days after receipt of the tax increment financing plan. At this time, no requests for additional information from the county or school district regarding the proposed development for the District have been received. Subsection 2-15. Supporting Documentation Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 1 (a), clause 7 the TIF Plan must contain identification and description of studies and analyses used to make the determination set forth in M.S. Section 469.175, Subd. 3, clause (b)(2) and the findings are required in the resolution approving the District. Following is a list of reports and studies on file at the City that support the HRA and City's findings: • Resolution Nos. 2018-116 and 2018-117 granting preliminary rezoning and site plan approvals December 4, 2018. Subsection 2-16. Definition of Tax Increment Revenues Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, tax increment revenues derived from a tax increment financing district include all of the following potential revenue sources: 1. Taxes paid by the captured net tax capacity, but excluding any excess taxes, as computed under M.S., Section 469.177; 2. The proceeds from the sale or lease of property, tangible or intangible, to the extent the property was purchased by the authority with tax increments; 3. Principal and interest received on loans or other advances made by the authority with tax increments; 4. Interest or other investment earnings on or from tax increments; 5. Repayments or return of tax increments made to the Authority under agreements for districts for which the request for certification was made after August 1, 1993; and Subsection 2-17. Modifications to the District In accordance with M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4, any: 1. Reduction or enlargement of the geographic area of the District, if the reduction does not meet the requirements of M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 4(e); 2. Increase in amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred; 3. A determination to capitalize interest on debt if that determination was not a part of the original TIF Plan; 4. Increase in the portion of the captured net tax capacity to be retained by the HRA or City; 5. Increase in the estimate of the cost of the District, including administrative expenses, that will be paid or financed with tax increment from the District; or 6. Designation of additional property to be acquired by the HRA or City, shall be approved upon the notice and after the discussion, public hearing and findings required for approval of the original TIF Plan. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.175 Subd. 4(f), the geographic area of the District may be reduced, but shall not be enlarged after five years following the date of certification of the original net tax capacity by the county auditor. If a housing district is enlarged, the reasons and supporting facts for the determination that the Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-12 addition to the district meets the criteria of M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 11 must be documented in writing and retained. The requirements of this paragraph do not apply if (1) the only modification is elimination of parcel(s) from the District and (2) (A) the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District equals or exceeds the net tax capacity of those parcel(s) in the District's original net tax capacity or (B) the HRA agrees that, notwithstanding M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 1, the original net tax capacity will be reduced by no more than the current net tax capacity of the parcel(s) eliminated from the District. The HRA or City must notify the County Auditor of any modification to the District. Modifications to the District in the form of a budget modification or an expansion of the boundaries will be recorded in the TIF Plan. Subsection 2-18. Administrative Expenses In accordance with M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 14, administrative expenses means all expenditures of the HRA or City, other than: 1. Amounts paid for the purchase of land; 2. Amounts paid to contractors or others providing materials and services, including architectural and engineering services, directly connected with the physical development of the real property in the District; 3. Relocation benefits paid to or services provided for persons residing or businesses located in the District; 4. Amounts used to pay principal or interest on, fund a reserve for, or sell at a discount bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178; or 5. Amounts used to pay other financial obligations to the extent those obligations were used to finance costs described in clauses (1) to (3). Administrative expenses also include amounts paid for services provided by bond counsel, fiscal consultants, and planning or economic development consultants. For districts for which certification was requested after July 31, 2001, pursuant to M.S. Section 469.176, Subd. 3, tax increment may be used to pay any authorized and documented administrative expenses for District up to but not to exceed ten percent of the total estimated tax increment expenditures authorized by the TIF Plan or the total tax increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 25, clause (1), from the District, whichever is less. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4h, tax increments may be used to pay for the County's actual administrative expenses incurred in connection with the District and are not subject to the percentage limits of M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 3. The county may require payment of those expenses by February 15 of the year following the year the expenses were incurred. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469. 177, Subd. 11, the County Treasurer shall deduct an amount (currently 0.36 percent) of any increment distributed to the HRA or City and the County Treasurer shall pay the amount deducted to the State Commissioner of Management and Budget for deposit in an account in the special revenue fund to be appropriated to the State Auditor for the cost of financial reporting of tax increment financing information and the cost of examining and auditing authorities' use of tax increment financing. This amount may be adjusted annually by the Commissioner of Revenue. Subsection 2-19. Limitation of Increment The tax increment pledged to the payment of bonds and interest thereon may be discharged and the District may be terminated if sufficient funds have been irrevocably deposited in the debt service fund or other escrow account held in trust for all outstanding bonds to provide for the payment of the bonds at maturity or redemption date. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-13 Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 6: if, after four years from the date of certification of the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, no demolition, rehabilitation or renovation of property or other site preparation, including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to a parcel but not installation of utility service including sewer or water systems, has been commenced on a parcel located within a tax increment financing district by the authority or by the owner of the parcel in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, no additional tax increment may be taken from that parcel, and the original net tax capacity of that parcel shall be excluded from the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. If the authority or the owner of the parcel subsequently commences demolition, rehabilitation or renovation or other site preparation on that parcel including qualified improvement of a street adjacent to that parcel, in accordance with the tax increment financing plan, the authority shall certify to the county auditor that the activity has commenced and the county auditor shall certify the net tax capacity thereof as most recently certified by the commissioner of revenue and add it to the original net tax capacity of the tax increment financing district. The county auditor must enforce the provisions of this subdivision. The authority must submit to the county auditor evidence that the required activity has taken place for each parcel in the district. The evidence for a parcel must be submitted by February 1 of the fifth year following the year in which the parcel was certified as included in the district. For purposes of this subdivision, qualified improvements of a street are limited to (1) construction or opening of a new street, (2) relocation of a street, and (3) substantial reconstruction or rebuilding of an existing street. The HRA or City or a property owner must improve parcels within the District by approximately June 2023 and report such actions to the County Auditor. Subsection 2-20. Use of Tax Increment The HRA or City hereby determines that it will use 100 percent of the captured net tax capacity of taxable property located in the District for the following purposes: 1. To pay the principal of and interest on bonds issued to finance a project; 2. to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047; 3. To pay for project costs as identified in the budget set forth in the TIF Plan; 4. To finance, or otherwise pay for other purposes as provided in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4; 5. To pay principal and interest on any loans, advances or other payments made to or on behalf of the HRA or City or for the benefit of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area by a developer; 6. To finance or otherwise pay premiums and other costs for insurance or other security guaranteeing the payment when due of principal of and interest on bonds pursuant to the TIF Plan or pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C. M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178; and 7. To accumulate or maintain a reserve securing the payment when due of the principal and interest on the tax increment bonds or bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Chapter 462C, M.S., Sections 469.152 through 469.165, and/or M.S., Sections 469.178. Revenues derived from tax increment from a housing district must be used solely to finance the cost of housing projects as defined in the TIF Act and Edina Affordable Housing Act. The cost of public improvements directly related to the housing projects and the allocated administrative expenses of the HRA or City may be included in the cost of a housing project. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-14 These revenues shall not be used to circumvent any levy limitations applicable to the City nor for other purposes prohibited by M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 4. Tax increments generated in the District will be paid by Hennepin County to the HRA for the Tax Increment Fund of said District. The HRA or City will pay to the developer(s) annually an amount not to exceed an amount as specified in a developer's agreement to reimburse a portion of the project’s qualifying costs for land acquisition, public improvements, demolition and relocation, site preparation, or administration. Remaining increment funds will be used for HRA or City administration (up to 10 percent) and for the costs of public improvement activities outside the District. Subsection 2-21. Excess Increments Excess increments, as defined in M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 2, shall be used only to do one or more of the following: 1. Prepay any outstanding bonds; 2. Discharge the pledge of tax increment for any outstanding bonds; 3. Pay into an escrow account dedicated to the payment of any outstanding bonds; or 4. Return the excess to the County Auditor for redistribution to the respective taxing jurisdictions in proportion to their local tax rates. Pursuant to M.S. Section 469.176, Subd. 2, “The authority shall annually determine the amount of excess increments for a district, if any. This determination must be based on the tax increment financing plan in effect on December 31 of the year and the increment and other revenues received as of December 31 of the year. The authority must sped or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. The HRA or City must spend or return the excess increments under paragraph (c) within nine months after the end of the year. In addition, the HRA or City may, subject to the limitations set forth herein, choose to modify the TIF Plan in order to finance additional public costs in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area or the District. Subsection 2-22. Requirements for Agreements with the Developer The HRA or City will review any proposal for private development to determine its conformance with the Redevelopment Plan and with applicable municipal ordinances and codes. To facilitate this effort, the following documents may be requested for review and approval: site plan, construction, mechanical, and electrical system drawings, landscaping plan, grading and storm drainage plan, signage system plan, and any other drawings or narrative deemed necessary by the HRA or City to demonstrate the conformance of the development with City plans and ordinances. The HRA or City may also use the Agreements to address other issues related to the development. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.176, Subd. 5, no more than 10 percent, by acreage, of the property to be acquired in the project area as set forth in the TIF Plan shall at any time be owned by the HRA or City as a result of acquisition with the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to M.S., Section 469.178 to which tax increments from property acquired is pledged, unless prior to acquisition in excess of 10 percent of the acreage, the HRA or City concluded an agreement for the development of the property acquired and which provides recourse for the HRA or City should the development not be completed. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-15 Subsection 2-23. Assessment Agreements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.177, Subd. 8, the HRA or City may enter into a written assessment agreement in recordable form with the developer of property within the District which establishes a minimum market value of the land and completed improvements for the duration of the District. The assessment agreement shall be presented to the County Assessor who shall review the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed, review the market value previously assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed and, so long as the minimum market value contained in the assessment agreement appears, in the judgment of the assessor, to be a reasonable estimate, the County Assessor shall also certify the minimum market value agreement. Subsection 2-24. Administration of the District Administration of the District will be handled by the HRA Executive Director. Subsection 2-25. Annual Disclosure Requirements Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.175, Subds. 5, 6, and 6b the HRA or City must undertake financial reporting for all tax increment financing districts to the Office of the State Auditor, County Board and County Auditor on or before August 1 of each year. M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 5 also provides that an annual statement shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City on or before August 15. If the City fails to make a disclosure or submit a report containing the information required by M.S., Section 469.175 Subd. 5 and Subd. 6, the Office of the State Auditor will direct the County Auditor to withhold the distribution of tax increment from the District. Subsection 2-26. Reasonable Expectations As required by the TIF Act, in establishing the District, the determination has been made that the anticipated development would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future. In making said determination, reliance has been placed upon written representation made by the developer to such effects and upon HRA and City staff awareness of the feasibility of developing the project site(s) within the District. Subsection 2-27. Other Limitations on the Use of Tax Increment 1. General Limitations. All revenue derived from tax increment shall be used in accordance with the TIF Plan. The revenues shall be used to finance, or otherwise pay public redevelopment costs of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area pursuant to M.S., Sections 469.001 to 469.047. Tax increments may not be used to circumvent existing levy limit law. No tax increment may be used for the acquisition, construction, renovation, operation, or maintenance of a building to be used primarily and regularly for conducting the business of a municipality, county, school district, or any other local unit of government or the state or federal government. This provision does not prohibit the use of revenues derived from tax increments for the construction or renovation of a parking structure. 2. Housing District Exceptions to Restriction on Pooling; Five Year Limit. Pursuant to M.S., Section 469.1763, (1) At least 80% of revenues derived from tax increments paid by properties in the District must be expended on Public Costs incurred within said district, and up to 20% of said tax increments may be spent on public costs incurred outside of the District but within the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area; provided that in the case of a housing district, a housing project, as defined in M.S., Section Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-16 469.174, Subd. 11, is deemed to be an activity in the District, even if the expenditure occurred after five years. Subsection 2-28. Summary The Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority is establishing the District to provide an impetus for residential development and provide safe and decent life cycle housing in the City. The TIF Plan for the District was prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc., 3060 Centre Pointe Drive, Roseville, Minnesota 55113- 1105, telephone (651) 697-8500. Edina Housing and Redevelopment Authority Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 72nd and France Tax Increment Financing District 2-17 Appendix A Project Description France Equities, LLC is proposing to redevelop a two-parcel site in the City consisting of two aging Class “C” and structurally substandard office buildings, one of which is vacant due to a condemned parking structure. Proposed is a mixed-use development consisting primarily of approximately 301 units of mixed income multifamily rental housing accompanied by ten units of owner-occupied town homes and 28,100 square feet of retail integrated within the development. The development will be located at the intersection of 72nd Street and France Avenue and is intended to fulfill a portion of the City’s identified goal to provide affordable housing options for those who live and work within the City. The developer will demolish the buildings and condemned parking structure to clear the site for redevelopment. The development will include site water and sanitary sewer utility improvements, area storm water retention and improvements to 72nd Street. The development will also include approximately 540 below-grade structured parking stalls and 30 surface parking stalls, a portion of which will be designated as public parking. The developer will also dedicate a significant portion of the site under public easements to preserve a mature grove of trees and make available extensive public realm and streetscape improvements designed to be consistent with the goals of the Greater Southdale District Plan. The proposed rental housing unit mix includes studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. Sixty-two units of affordable housing are anticipated, all which will be rent and occupancy restricted to households earning at or below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The affordable units will be distributed among the studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units and remain for a period of 25 years. The estimated cost of the Development is $112 million. Construction is expected to begin in 2019 with completion of the multifamily and retail buildings by 2022. The developer is pursuing grant assistance from Hennepin County, the Metropolitan Council and the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development. The Edina HRA proposes to utilize tax increment to offset a portion of the project’s identified financing gap by reimbursing the developer for qualifying activities through the issuance of a Pay-as-you-go TIF Note. Appendix A-1 Appendix B Map of the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area and the District Appendix B-1 æ ¹» ¹» æ æ æ æ æ¹»æ æ ¹º¹º ¹º ñ ñ ñ ¹»æ æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ ¹º æ æ ¹º ¹º æ æ æ ñ æ ¹º ñ æ ñTRACY AVEVERNON AVEWOODDALE AVEHANSEN RDVALLEY VIEW RD70TH ST W FRANCE AVE S Mud Lake LakeEdina Mirr o r L a k e Lake Cornelia ArrowheadLake HighlandsLake IndianheadLake Me l o d y L a k e LakePamela HawkesLake Harvey Lake Centennial Lake Minneh a h a C r e e k Nine Mile Creek Nine Mile C r e e k Canadian Pacific RailroadCanadian Pacific RailroadCityHall St Peters Lutheran Church & School FireStation Public Works &Park Maintenance GraceChurchPublicLibrary ConcordSchool EdinaCovenant CorneliaSchool ColonialChurch HighlandSchool CalvaryLutheran EdinaHighSchool Our Lady ofGrace Church& School SouthviewJr High CrossviewLutheran CountrysideSchool St Albans Episcopal Valley ViewJr High Creek Valley School NormandaleLutheran ColonyParkBaptist St PatricksCatholic CreekValley Baptist NormandaleElementary St StephensEpiscopal EdinaCommunityCenter GoldenYearsMontessor CalvinChristianSchool GoodSamaritanMethodist EdinaMorningsideChurch ChristPresbyterianChurch ChapelHillsCongregtional Shepard of the HillsLutheran Edina Community Lutheran Church FireStationBLAKE RDSCHAEFER RDVERNON AVECAHILL RD66TH ST W YORK AVE SINTERLACHEN BLVD MALONEY AVE 44TH ST W 50TH ST W 54TH ST W 58TH ST W GLEASON RD70TH ST W 76TH ST W DEWEY HILL RD VALLEY V I E W R D VALLEY VIEW RD MINNESOTA DR78TH ST W I-494 I-494 HWY 100HWY 169HWY 169HWY 100HWY 62 HWY 62 / Engineering Dept.September 2018 72nd and France TIF District 72nd and France TIF District Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area 72nd and France TIF District Appendix C Description of Property to be Included in the District The District encompasses all property and adjacent rights-of-way and abutting roadways identified by the parcel listed below. Parcel Numbers Address Owner 31-028-24-14-0001 7200 France Ave. France Equities II LLC 31-028-24-14-0015 7250 France Ave. France Equities LLC Appendix C-1 Appendix D Estimated Cash Flow for the District Appendix D-1 2/15/2019 Base Value Assumptions - Page 1 72nd & France TIF District City of Edina, MN Mixed-use: 301 unit Mixed-income Rental Housing, 28,100 rsf Commercial, and 10-unit townhome development ASSUMPTIONS AND RATES DistrictType:Housing District Name/Number:ISD 273 County District #:Exempt Class Rate (Exempt)0.00% First Year Construction or Inflation on Value 2021 Commercial Industrial Preferred Class Rate (C/I Pref.) Existing District - Specify No. Years Remaining First $150,000 1.50% Inflation Rate - Every Year:1.00%Over $150,000 2.00% Interest Rate:5.50%Commercial Industrial Class Rate (C/I)2.00% Present Value Date:1-Aug-22 Rental Housing Class Rate (Rental)1.25% First Period Ending 1-Feb-23 Affordable Rental Housing Class Rate (Aff. Rental) Tax Year District was Certified:Pay 2019 First $139,000 0.75% Cashflow Assumes First Tax Increment For Development:2023 Over $139,000 0.25% Years of Tax Increment 21 Non-Homestead Residential (Non-H Res. 1 Unit) Assumes Last Year of Tax Increment 2043 First $500,000 1.00% Fiscal Disparities Election [Outside (A), Inside (B), or NA]Inside(B)Over $500,000 1.25% Incremental or Total Fiscal Disparities Incremental Homestead Residential Class Rate (Hmstd. Res.) Fiscal Disparities Contribution Ratio 32.6727%Prelim. Pay 2019 First $500,000 1.00% Fiscal Disparities Metro-Wide Tax Rate 143.9920%Prelim. Pay 2019 Over $500,000 1.25% Maximum/Frozen Local Tax Rate: 109.183%Prelim. Pay 2019 Agricultural Non-Homestead 1.00% Current Local Tax Rate: (Use lesser of Current or Max.)109.183%Prelim. Pay 2019 State-wide Tax Rate (Comm./Ind. only used for total taxes)41.0000%Prelim. Pay 2019 Market Value Tax Rate (Used for total taxes)0.21012%Prelim. Pay 2019 Building Total Percentage Tax Year Property Current Class After Land Market Market Of Value Used Original Original Tax Original After Conversion Map ID PID Owner Address Market Value Value Value for District Market Value Market Value Class Tax Capacity Conversion Orig. Tax Cap. 31-028-24-14-0001 7200 France 6,568,300 1,000 6,569,300 100%6,569,300 Pay 2019 C/I Pref.130,636 Rental 82,116 31-028-24-14-0015 7250 France 4,380,000 1,000 4,381,000 100%4,381,000 Pay 2019 C/I Pref.86,870 C/I Pref.86,870 10,948,300 2,000 10,950,300 10,950,300 217,506 168,986 Note: 1. Base values are for pay 2019 based upon review of County website on 1.4.2019. Preliminary Pay 2019 tax rates provided by Hennepin County. Tax Rates BASE VALUE INFORMATION (Original Tax Capacity) Area/ Phase Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only 2/15/2019 Base Value Assumptions - Page 2 72nd & France TIF District City of Edina, MN Mixed-use: 301 unit Mixed-income Rental Housing, 28,100 rsf Commercial, and 10-unit townhome development Estimated Taxable Total Taxable Property Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage First Year Market Value Market Value Total Market Tax Project Project Tax Completed Completed Completed Completed Full Taxes Area/Phase New Use Per Sq. Ft./Unit Per Sq. Ft./Unit Sq. Ft./Units Value Class Tax Capacity Capacity/Unit 2021 2022 2023 2024 Payable 7200 Apartments 250,000 250,000 171 42,750,000 Rental 534,375 3,125 100%100%100%100%2023 7200 Retail 400 400 12,000 4,800,000 C/I Pref.95,250 8 100%100%100%100%2023 7250 Apartments 250,000 250,000 130 32,500,000 Rental 406,250 3,125 100%100%100%100%2023 7250 Retail 400 400 16,100 6,440,000 C/I Pref.128,050 8 100%100%100%100%2023 Pad Townhouses 1,000,000 1,000,000 10 10,000,000 Hmstd. Res.112,500 11,250 0%100%100%100%2024 TOTAL 96,490,000 1,276,425 Subtotal Residential 311 85,250,000 1,053,125 Subtotal Commercial/Ind.28,100 11,240,000 223,300 Note: Total Fiscal Local Local Fiscal State-wide Market Tax Disparities Tax Property Disparities Property Value Total Taxes Per New Use Capacity Tax Capacity Capacity Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Taxes Sq. Ft./Unit Apartments 534,375 0 534,375 583,447 0 0 89,826 673,273 3,937.27 Retail 95,250 31,121 64,129 70,018 44,811 38,438 10,086 163,353 13.61 Apartments 406,250 0 406,250 443,556 0 0 68,289 511,845 3,937.27 Retail 128,050 41,837 86,213 94,130 60,242 51,886 13,532 219,789 13.65 Townhouses 112,500 0 112,500 122,831 0 0 21,012 143,843 14,384.29 TOTAL 1,276,425 72,958 1,203,467 1,313,981 105,054 90,323 202,745 1,712,103 Note: 1. Taxes and tax increment will vary significantly from year to year depending upon values, rates, state law, fiscal disparities and other factors which cannot be predicted. Total Property Taxes 1,712,103 less State-wide Taxes (90,323) less Fiscal Disp. Adj.(105,054) less Market Value Taxes (202,745) less Base Value Taxes (153,515) Annual Gross TIF 1,160,466 WHAT IS EXCLUDED FROM TIF? 1. Apartment and Retail market values are based upon estimates from comparable property and preliminary review from the City of Edina Assessor's office. Townhome market values assume estimates for ten owner-occupied units. TAX CALCULATIONS PROJECT INFORMATION (Project Tax Capacity) Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only 2/15/2019 Tax Increment Cashflow - Page 3 72nd & France TIF District City of Edina, MN Mixed-use: 301 unit Mixed-income Rental Housing, 28,100 rsf Commercial, and 10-unit townhome development TAX INCREMENT CASH FLOW Project Original Fiscal Captured Local Annual Semi-Annual State Admin.Semi-Annual Semi-Annual PERIOD % of Tax Tax Disparities Tax Tax Gross Tax Gross Tax Auditor at Net Tax Present ENDING Tax Payment OTC Capacity Capacity Incremental Capacity Rate Increment Increment 0.36%10%Increment Value Yrs.Year Date - - - - 02/01/23 100%1,163,925 (168,986) (44,575) 950,363 109.183%1,037,635 518,818 (1,868) (51,695) 465,255 440,684 0.5 2023 08/01/23 100%1,163,925 (168,986) (44,575) 950,363 109.183%1,037,635 518,818 (1,868) (51,695) 465,255 869,574 1 2023 02/01/24 100%1,288,064 (168,986) (45,305) 1,073,773 109.183%1,172,378 586,189 (2,110) (58,408) 525,671 1,341,187 1.5 2024 08/01/24 100%1,288,064 (168,986) (45,305) 1,073,773 109.183%1,172,378 586,189 (2,110) (58,408) 525,671 1,800,179 2 2024 02/01/25 100%1,300,945 (168,986) (46,042) 1,085,917 109.183%1,185,637 592,818 (2,134) (59,068) 531,616 2,251,938 2.5 2025 08/01/25 100%1,300,945 (168,986) (46,042) 1,085,917 109.183%1,185,637 592,818 (2,134) (59,068) 531,616 2,691,606 3 2025 02/01/26 100%1,313,954 (168,986) (46,786) 1,098,182 109.183%1,199,028 599,514 (2,158) (59,736) 537,620 3,124,340 3.5 2026 08/01/26 100%1,313,954 (168,986) (46,786) 1,098,182 109.183%1,199,028 599,514 (2,158) (59,736) 537,620 3,545,492 4 2026 02/01/27 100%1,327,094 (168,986) (47,472) 1,110,636 109.183%1,212,626 606,313 (2,183) (60,413) 543,717 3,960,021 4.5 2027 08/01/27 100%1,327,094 (168,986) (47,472) 1,110,636 109.183%1,212,626 606,313 (2,183) (60,413) 543,717 4,363,455 5 2027 02/01/28 100%1,340,365 (168,986) (48,230) 1,123,149 109.183%1,226,287 613,144 (2,207) (61,094) 549,843 4,760,516 5.5 2028 08/01/28 100%1,340,365 (168,986) (48,230) 1,123,149 109.183%1,226,287 613,144 (2,207) (61,094) 549,843 5,146,949 6 2028 02/01/29 100%1,353,768 (168,986) (48,996) 1,135,786 109.183%1,240,085 620,043 (2,232) (61,781) 556,029 5,527,272 6.5 2029 08/01/29 100%1,353,768 (168,986) (48,996) 1,135,786 109.183%1,240,085 620,043 (2,232) (61,781) 556,029 5,897,415 7 2029 02/01/30 100%1,367,306 (168,986) (49,770) 1,148,550 109.183%1,254,021 627,011 (2,257) (62,475) 562,278 6,261,701 7.5 2030 08/01/30 100%1,367,306 (168,986) (49,770) 1,148,550 109.183%1,254,021 627,011 (2,257) (62,475) 562,278 6,616,236 8 2030 02/01/31 100%1,380,979 (168,986) (50,551) 1,161,441 109.183%1,268,097 634,048 (2,283) (63,177) 568,589 6,965,156 8.5 2031 08/01/31 100%1,380,979 (168,986) (50,551) 1,161,441 109.183%1,268,097 634,048 (2,283) (63,177) 568,589 7,304,738 9 2031 02/01/32 100%1,394,789 (168,986) (51,341) 1,174,462 109.183%1,282,313 641,156 (2,308) (63,885) 574,963 7,638,935 9.5 2032 08/01/32 100%1,394,789 (168,986) (51,341) 1,174,462 109.183%1,282,313 641,156 (2,308) (63,885) 574,963 7,964,189 10 2032 02/01/33 100%1,408,737 (168,986) (52,138) 1,187,613 109.183%1,296,671 648,336 (2,334) (64,600) 581,401 8,284,281 10.5 2033 08/01/33 100%1,408,737 (168,986) (52,138) 1,187,613 109.183%1,296,671 648,336 (2,334) (64,600) 581,401 8,595,807 11 2033 02/01/34 100%1,422,824 (168,986) (52,943) 1,200,895 109.183%1,311,173 655,586 (2,360) (65,323) 587,904 8,902,386 11.5 2034 08/01/34 100%1,422,824 (168,986) (52,943) 1,200,895 109.183%1,311,173 655,586 (2,360) (65,323) 587,904 9,200,760 12 2034 02/01/35 100%1,437,053 (168,986) (53,757) 1,214,310 109.183%1,325,820 662,910 (2,386) (66,052) 594,471 9,494,392 12.5 2035 08/01/35 100%1,437,053 (168,986) (53,757) 1,214,310 109.183%1,325,820 662,910 (2,386) (66,052) 594,471 9,780,165 13 2035 02/01/36 100%1,451,423 (168,986) (54,578) 1,227,859 109.183%1,340,613 670,307 (2,413) (66,789) 601,104 10,061,393 13.5 2036 08/01/36 100%1,451,423 (168,986) (54,578) 1,227,859 109.183%1,340,613 670,307 (2,413) (66,789) 601,104 10,335,094 14 2036 02/01/37 100%1,465,937 (168,986) (55,408) 1,241,543 109.183%1,355,554 677,777 (2,440) (67,534) 607,803 10,604,438 14.5 2037 08/01/37 100%1,465,937 (168,986) (55,408) 1,241,543 109.183%1,355,554 677,777 (2,440) (67,534) 607,803 10,866,574 15 2037 02/01/38 100%1,480,597 (168,986) (56,245) 1,255,365 109.183%1,370,645 685,323 (2,467) (68,286) 614,570 11,124,534 15.5 2038 08/01/38 100%1,480,597 (168,986) (56,245) 1,255,365 109.183%1,370,645 685,323 (2,467) (68,286) 614,570 11,375,591 16 2038 02/01/39 100%1,495,403 (168,986) (57,092) 1,269,325 109.183%1,385,887 692,943 (2,495) (69,045) 621,404 11,622,644 16.5 2039 08/01/39 100%1,495,403 (168,986) (57,092) 1,269,325 109.183%1,385,887 692,943 (2,495) (69,045) 621,404 11,863,086 17 2039 02/01/40 100%1,510,357 (168,986) (57,946) 1,283,424 109.183%1,401,281 700,640 (2,522) (69,812) 628,306 12,099,692 17.5 2040 08/01/40 100%1,510,357 (168,986) (57,946) 1,283,424 109.183%1,401,281 700,640 (2,522) (69,812) 628,306 12,329,965 18 2040 02/01/41 100%1,525,460 (168,986) (58,810) 1,297,664 109.183%1,416,829 708,414 (2,550) (70,586) 635,278 12,556,562 18.5 2041 08/01/41 100%1,525,460 (168,986) (58,810) 1,297,664 109.183%1,416,829 708,414 (2,550) (70,586) 635,278 12,777,095 19 2041 02/01/42 100%1,540,715 (168,986) (59,682) 1,312,047 109.183%1,432,532 716,266 (2,579) (71,369) 642,319 12,994,103 19.5 2042 08/01/42 100%1,540,715 (168,986) (59,682) 1,312,047 109.183%1,432,532 716,266 (2,579) (71,369) 642,319 13,205,304 20 2042 02/01/43 100%1,556,122 (168,986) (60,562) 1,326,573 109.183%1,448,393 724,196 (2,607) (72,159) 649,430 13,413,128 20.5 2043 08/01/43 100%1,556,122 (168,986) (60,562) 1,326,573 109.183%1,448,393 724,196 (2,607) (72,159) 649,430 13,615,390 21 2043 02/01/44 Total 27,163,504 (97,789) (2,706,572) 24,359,144 Present Value From 08/01/2022 Present Value Rate 5.50%15,182,869 (54,658) (1,512,821) 13,615,390 Prepared by Ehlers & Associates, Inc. - Estimates Only Appendix E Housing Qualifications for the District In meeting the criteria of the TIF Act and Edina Affordable Housing Act, at least 20% of the residential units will be occupied by individuals with incomes is 60% or less of area median income. Income Restrictions- Adjusted for Family Size (Housing District) - Hennepin County Hennepin County Median Income: $94,300 No. of Persons 60% of Median Income 1-person $39,660 2-person $45,300 3-person $50,940 4-person $56,580 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency ***PLEASE NOTE: THESE NUMBERS ARE ADJUSTED ANNUALLY. ALL INCOME FIGURES REPORTED ON THIS PAGE ARE FOR 2018, THE MOST RECENT AVAILABLE. Appendix E-1 Appendix F Findings for the District Information will be added prior to public hearing. Appendix F-1 Appendix G Special Legislation Minnesota Session Laws – 2017, 1st Special Session Chapter 1 – HF No. 1, Article 6 Sec. 11. Laws 2014, chapter 308, article 6, section 8, subdivision 1, is amended to read: Subdivision 1. Authority to create districts. (a) The governing body of the city of Edina or its development authority may establish one or more tax increment financing housing districts in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, as the boundaries exist on March 31, 2014. (b) The authority to request certification of districts under this section expires on June 30, 2017 December 31, 2019. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day after the governing body of the city of Edina and its chief clerical officer comply with Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivisions 2 and 3. Sec. 16. CITY OF EDINA; APPROVAL OF 2014 SPECIAL LAW. Notwithstanding the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivision 3, the chief clerical officer of the city of Edina may file with the secretary of state certificate of approval of Laws 2014, chapter 308, article 6, section 8, by December 31, 2016, and, if the certificate is so filed and the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivision 3, are otherwise complied with, the special law is deemed approved, and all actions taken by the city before the effective date of this section in reliance on Laws 2014, chapter 308, article 6, section 8, are deemed consistent with Laws 2014, chapter 308, article 6, section 8, and this act. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment. Minnesota Session Laws - 2014, Regular Session Chapter 308--HF No. 3167, Article 6 Sec. 8. CITY OF EDINA; TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. Subdivision 1. Authority to create districts. (a) The governing body of the city of Edina or its development authority may establish one or more tax increment financing housing districts in the Southeast Edina Redevelopment Project Area, as the boundaries exist on March 31, 2014. (b) The authority to request certification of districts under this section expires on June 30, 2017. Subd. 2. Rules governing districts. (a) Housing districts established under this section are subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.174 to 469.1794, except as otherwise provided in this subdivision. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.176, subdivision 1b, no increment must be paid to the authority after 20 years after receipt by the authority of the first increment from a district established under this section. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1761, subdivision 3, for a Appendix F-2 residential rental project, the city may elect to substitute "20 percent" for "40 percent" in the 40- 60 test under section 142(d)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code in determining the applicable income limits. (d) The provisions of Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1761, subdivision 3, apply for a 25-year period beginning on the date of certification of the district. Subd. 3. Pooling authority. The city may elect to treat expenditures of increment from the Southdale 2 district for a housing project of a district established under this section as expenditures qualifying under Minnesota Statutes, section 469.1763, subdivision 2, paragraph (d): (1) without regard to whether the housing meets the requirement of a qualified building under section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (2) may increase by an additional 25 percentage points the permitted amount of expenditures for activities located outside the geographic area of the district permitted under that section. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective upon compliance by the governing body of the city of Edina with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, section 645.021, subdivisions 2 and 3. Appendix F-3 Date: Marc h 13, 2019 Agenda Item #: VI I.B. To:P lanning C ommission Item Type: F rom: Item Activity: Subject:C omprehens ive P lan Update 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: I N TR O D U C TI O N: