Date Application Deemed Complete June 19, 2017 Date Extension Letter Sent Not applicable

Transcription

1 Property Location: th Street Southeast Project Name: 6 New Townhomes Prepared By: Hilary Dvorak, Principal City Planner, (612) Applicant: Dayna Okkelberg Project Contact: William Wells, Architect Request: To construct a new six-unit residential building Required Applications: CPED STAFF REPORT Prepared for the City Planning Commission CPC Agenda Item #6 July 17, 2017 PLAN4524 LAND USE APPLICATION SUMMARY Variance Variance Site Plan Review To reduce the front yard setback along 6 th Street Southeast for the building from 27 feet to 20 feet To reduce the corner side yard setback along I-35W Frontage Road East for the building from 10 feet to six feet For a new six-unit residential building SITE DATA Existing Zoning R5 Multiple-family District UA University Area Overlay District Lot Area 10,894 square feet / 25 acres Ward(s) 3 Neighborhood(s) Marcy Holmes Designated Future Land Use Urban Neighborhood Land Use Features Not applicable Small Area Plan(s) Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Master Plan (2014) Date Application Deemed Complete June 19, 2017 Date Extension Letter Sent Not applicable End of 60-Day Decision Period August 18, 2017 End of 120-Day Decision Period Not applicable

2 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 BACKGROUND SITE DESCRIPTION AND PRESENT USE The site is located on the northeast corner of South 6 th Street and I-35W Frontage Road East The property is occupied by a 10-bedroom rooming house SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND NEIGHBORHOOD The site is surrounded by residential properties of varying densities and Interstate-35W The site is located in the Marcy Holmes neighborhood PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 10-bedroom rooming house and construct a new six-unit residential building on the site Each dwelling unit would have four bedrooms There would be 12 parking spaces and 25 bicycle/scooter parking spaces provided on the site Access to the site would be from a shared driveway off of 6 th Street Southeast The driveway would also provide access to the property located at th Street Southeast RELATED APPROVALS Not applicable PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comment letters are included in the report Any additional correspondence received prior to the public meeting will be forwarded on to the Planning Commission for consideration ANALYSIS VARIANCE The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development has analyzed the application for a variance to reduce the front yard setback along 6 th Street Southeast for the building from 27 feet to 20 feet based on the following findings: 1 Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property The unique circumstances were not created by persons presently having an interest in the property and are not based on economic considerations alone The front yard setback requirement in the R5 Multiple-family District is 15 feet or the setback of the adjacent residential properties The adjacent residential property, located at th Street Southeast, is located 27 feet from the front property line along 6 th Street Southeast The building, when measured to the front of the porch, is proposed to be located 20 feet from the front property line The building itself will be located 235 feet from the front property line Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property The applicant has indicated that while the proposed building will be constructed closer to the front property line than the adjacent residential building that there is more than 45 feet of open space between the two buildings Given that these are the only two buildings on the block with front yards facing 6 th Street Southeast, there is not a predominant character of front yards greater than 15 feet 2 The property owner or authorized applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan The intent of yard controls are established to provide for the orderly development and use of land and to minimize conflicts among land uses by regulating the dimension and use of yards in order to provide adequate light, air, open space and separation of uses As sated above, while the proposed building will be constructed closer to the front property line than the adjacent residential building that there is more than 45 feet of open space between the two buildings 2

3 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity If granted, the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties Granting the variance would not adversely alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, nor would it be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties The proposed building and the adjacent residential building located at th Street Southeast are the only two properties on the block face Westerly of the block is Interstate-35W so locating the proposed building closer to 6 th Street Southeast will not block views for other residential properties VARIANCE The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development has analyzed the application for a variance to reduce the corner side yard setback along I-35W Frontage Road East for the building from 10 feet to six feet based on the following findings: 1 Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property The unique circumstances were not created by persons presently having an interest in the property and are not based on economic considerations alone The corner side yard setback requirement is 10 feet The building, when measured to the front of the closest porch, is proposed to be located six feet from the corner side property line Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property The applicant has indicated that the majority of the building itself will comply with the required 10-foot setback In addition, the adjacent residential building to the north is situated towards the northwesterly corner of the property; with more than 90 feet of open space between the two buildings In addition, given the site s adjacency to Interstate-35W, the corner side property line between 6 th Street Southeast and 7 th Street Southeast jogs easterly approximately 30 feet as it follows the curve of the freeway 2 The property owner or authorized applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan The intent of yard controls are established to provide for the orderly development and use of land and to minimize conflicts among land uses by regulating the dimension and use of yards in order to provide adequate light, air, open space and separation of uses As sated above, the majority of the building will comply with the required 10-foot setback and the porches will be located between 10 and six feet from the corner side property line 3 The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity If granted, the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties Granting the variance would not adversely alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other property in the vicinity, nor would it be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties The proposed building and the adjacent residential building located at th Street Southeast are the only two properties on the block face Westerly of the block is Interstate-35W so locating the proposed building closer to I-35W Frontage Road East will not block views for other residential properties SITE PLAN REVIEW The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development has analyzed the application based on the required findings and applicable standards in the site plan review chapter: 3

4 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 Applicable Standards of Chapter 530, Site Plan Review BUILDING PLACEMENT AND DESIGN Building placement Requires variance(s) The front yard setback requirement in the R5 Multiple-family District is 15 feet or the setback of the adjacent residential property The adjacent residential property, located at th Street Southeast, is located 27 feet from the front property line along 6 th Street Southeast The building, when measured to the front of the porch, is proposed to be located 20 feet from the front property line In addition, the corner side yard setback requirement is 10 feet The building, when measured to the front of the closest porch, is proposed to be located six feet from the corner side property line The applicant has applied to vary both of these yard requirements The placement of the building reinforces the street wall, maximizes natural surveillance and visibility, and facilitates pedestrian access and circulation The area between the building and lot line includes amenities including open porches, walkways and landscaping All on-site accessory parking is located to the rear or interior of the site Principal entrances Meets requirements Each of the six dwelling units has a principal entrance facing a street Two of the entrances face the front property ling along 6 th Street Southeast and four of the entrances face the corner side property line along I- 35W Frontage Road East All principal entrances are clearly defined and emphasized through the use of front porches and lighting Visual interest Meets requirements The building walls provide architectural detail and contain windows in order to create visual interest However, the detailing on the north and east elevations are to the point of being overly complex CPED is recommending that the stone material be removed from the north and east elevations and that fiber cement lap siding be used on the entire north and east elevations instead There are no blank, uninterrupted walls exceeding 25 feet in length Exterior materials Requires alternative compliance The applicant is proposing fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement panel and stone as the building s primary exterior materials The south and west elevations do not comply with the City s durability standards for exterior materials as the amount of fiber cement panel ( 5/8 ) is greater than 30 percent (see Table 1) Alternative compliance is required Please note that exterior material changes at a later date may require review by the Planning Commission and an amendment to the site plan review The development is consistent with the City s policy of allowing no more than three exterior materials per elevation, excluding windows, doors, and foundation materials Plain face concrete block is not proposed along any public streets, sidewalks, or adjacent to a residence or office residence district With the recommended conditions of approval, the exterior materials and appearance of the rear and side walls of the building are similar to and compatible with the front of the building Table 1 Percentage of Exterior Materials per Elevation Material Allowed Max North South East West Stone 100% 17% 0% 31% 0% Fiber Cement ( 5/8 ) 75% 66% 59% 54% 62% Fiber Cement ( 5/8 ) 30% 17% 41% 15% 38% Windows Meets requirements with Conditions of Approval 4

5 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 For residential uses, the zoning code requires that no less than 20 percent of the walls on the first floor, and no less than ten percent of the walls on each floor above the first that face a public street, public sidewalk, public pathway, or on-site parking lot, shall be windows The project is not in compliance with the minimum window requirement on the first floor facing the on-site parking lot (see Table 2) The horizontal windows on the north and east elevations facing the on-site parking lot could be made larger in order to meet the minimum window requirement CPED is recommending that the minimum window requirement be met on the north and east elevations facing the on-site parking lot All windows are vertical in proportion and are evenly distributed along the building walls Table 2 Window Requirements for Residential Uses Code Proposed 1st floor facing 6 th Street Southeast 2nd floor facing 6 th Street Southeast 1st floor facing I-35W Frontage Road East 2nd floor facing I-35W Frontage Road East 1st floor facing the onsite parking lot, east elevation 2nd floor facing the on-site parking lot, east elevation 1st floor facing the onsite parking lot, north elevation 2nd floor facing the on-site parking lot, north elevation 20% minimum 78 sq ft 20% 80 sq ft 10% minimum 47 sq ft More than 10% 20% minimum 214 sq ft 21% 220 sq ft 10% minimum 127 sq ft More than 10% 20% minimum 178 sq ft Less than 1% 36 sq ft 10% minimum 105 sq ft More than 10% 20% minimum 40 sq ft Less than 1% 9 sq ft 10% minimum 24 sq ft More than 10% Ground floor active functions Meets requirements The ground floor facing both 6 th Street Southeast and I-35W Frontage Road East contains 100 active functions Roof line Meets requirements The principal roof line of the building will have a 10/12 pitch Buildings in the area have both pitched and flat roofs Parking garages Not applicable There are no parking garages proposed as part of this project ACCESS AND CIRCULATION Pedestrian access Meets requirements with Conditions of Approval There are clear and well-lit walkways, three feet in width connecting each dwelling unit to the public rightof-way Walkways are required to be four feet in width CPED is recommending that the individual walkways be four feet in width The walkways along 6 th Street Southeast connect to the public sidewalk; 5

6 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 however, along I-35W Frontage Road East, the walkways connect to the public street as there is no public sidewalk along this side of the property There is a four-foot wide walkway provided between the parking spaces and the individual building entrances on the back side of the building Transit access Not applicable No transit shelters are proposed as part of this development Vehicular access Meets requirements Vehicular access and circulation has been designed to minimize conflicts with pedestrian traffic and with surrounding residential uses There is currently one curb cut along I-35W Frontage Road East leading to the site that will be closed as part of this development The shared access drive off of 6 th Street Southeast will be partially located on the property and partially on the property located at th Street Southeast There are no public alleys adjacent to the site The proposed site plan does not exceed the maximum impervious surface requirement of 85 percent in the R5 Multiple-family District According to the materials submitted by the applicant, 75 percent of the site will be impervious, while 34 percent of the existing site is impervious LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING General landscaping and screening Meets requirements with Conditions of Approval The overall composition and location of landscaped areas complement the scale of development and its surroundings At least 20 percent of the site not occupied by the building is landscaped The applicant is proposing approximately 2,764 square feet of landscaping on site, or approximately 42 percent of the site not occupied by buildings (see Table ) The applicant is proposing at least one canopy tree per 500 square feet of the required landscaped area, including all required landscaped yards The tree requirement for the site is three and the applicant is proposing a total of four trees The four trees are proposed to be planted towards the back of the building The ground cover surrounding the four trees is all hardscape The trees will not flourish in this type of environment CPED is recommending that the required trees be planted between the building and the front or corner side property lines The applicant is proposing at least one shrub per 100 square feet of the required landscaped area, including all required landscaped yards The shrub requirement for the site is 14 and the applicant is proposing 20 shrubs The remainder of the required landscaped area is covered with turf grass and perennials Table 3 Landscaping and Screening Requirements Code Proposed Lot Area -- 10,894 sq ft Building Footprint -- 4,350 sq ft Remaining Lot Area -- 6,550 sq ft Landscaping Required 1,310 sq ft 2,764 sq ft Canopy Trees (1:500 sq ft) 3 trees 4 trees Shrubs (1:100 sq ft) 14 shrubs 20 shrubs Parking and loading landscaping and screening Requires alternative compliance The parking area abutting the residence district to the north and east does not contain an on-site landscaped yard of at least seven feet in width Alternative compliance is required 6

7 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 The applicant is not proposing a six-foot screen that is at least 95 percent opaque for the parking area abutting the residence district to the north and east Alternative compliance is required Because the proposed surface parking lot contains ten or more spaces, each parking space must be located within 50 feet of the center of an on-site deciduous tree As proposed, all of the parking spaces are located within 50 feet of an on-site deciduous tree However, the proposed ground cover surrounding the trees is all hardscape The trees will not flourish in this type of environment CPED is recommending that the required trees be planted between the building and the front or corner side property lines Alternative compliance is required Information included in the landscape plan indicates that the plant materials, and installation and maintenance of the plant materials, would comply with sections and of the zoning code All other areas not occupied by buildings, parking and loading facilities, or driveways would be covered with turf grass, perennials, wood mulch, shrubs, and trees ADDITIONAL STANDARDS Concrete curbs and wheel stops Meets requirements The parking lot is defined by a six-inch by six-inch continuous concrete curb Site context Meets requirements There are no important elements of the city such as parks, greenways, significant buildings, and water bodies near the site that will be obstructed by the proposed building This building should have minimal shadowing effects on public spaces and adjacent properties This building has been designed to minimize the generation of wind currents at ground level Crime prevention through environmental design Meets requirements The site plan employs best practices to increase natural surveillance and visibility, to control and guide movement on the site, and to distinguish between public and non-public spaces The proposed site, landscaping, and building promote natural observation and maximize the opportunities for people to observe adjacent spaces and public sidewalks The project provides lighting on site, at all building entrances, and along walkways that maintains a minimum acceptable level of security while not creating glare or excessive lighting of the site The landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, and building features are located to clearly guide pedestrian movement on or through the site and to control and restrict people to appropriate locations The entrances, exits, landscaping, and lighting are located to distinguish between public and private areas, to control access, and to guide people coming to and going from the site Historic preservation Not applicable This site is neither historically designated nor is it located in a historic district Additionally, the property was not recommended for further research in the 2011 Central Core Historic Resources Inventory Applicable Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance The proposed use is permitted in the R5 Multiple-family District Off-street Parking and Loading Meets requirements with Conditions of Approval The parking requirement in the UA University Area Overlay District is 5 spaces per bedroom There will be a total of 24 beds on the property which requires 12 parking spaces The minimum bicycle parking requirement for the development is 24 spaces Ninety percent of the required bike parking spaces are required to be long-term Long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be located in enclosed and secured or supervised areas providing protection from theft, vandalism and weather and shall be accessible to intended users Required long-term bicycle parking for residential uses shall not be located within dwelling units or within deck or patio areas accessory to dwelling units With 7

8 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 permission of the zoning administrator, long-term bicycle parking spaces for non-residential uses may be located off-site within 300 feet of the site The bicycle parking spaces are proposed to be located on the rear wall of the building next to the individual unit entries Since the rear entry areas also function as patio areas, CPED is recommending that there be a bike storage shed constructed on the site to store the bikes Another option would be for the applicant to work with the adjacent property owner to create a shared bike storage area on the adjacent lot Residential Dwellings Table 4 Vehicle Parking Requirements Per Use (Chapter 541) Use Minimum Reductions 12 Transit Incentives (0) Overall Minimum Maximum Allowed Proposed Table 5 Bicycle/Motorized Scooter Parking Requirements (Chapter 541) Use Minimum Short-Term Long-Term Proposed Residential Dwellings Not less than 90% 23 Bicycle 2 Scooter Table 6 Loading Requirements (Chapter 541) Use Loading Requirement Loading Spaces Proposed Residential Dwellings None 0 0 Building Bulk and Height Meets requirements None 0 0 Table 7 Building Bulk and Height Requirements Code Bonuses Total Proposed Lot Area ,894 sq ft / 25 acres Gross Floor Area ,120 sq ft Min Floor Area Ratio Max Floor Area Ratio Max Building Height Lot Requirements Meets requirements 4 stories or 56 ft, whichever is less Table 8 Lot Requirements Summary 4 stories or 56 ft, whichever is less Code Proposed Dwelling Units (DU) -- 6 DUs Density (DU/acre) DU/acre Min Lot Area 5,000 sq ft 10,894 sq ft 25 stories or 31 ft 8

9 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 Max Impervious Surface Area 85% 75% Max Lot Coverage 70% 40% Min Lot Width 40 ft 66 ft Yard Requirements Meets requirements with Conditions of Approval As shown, a portion of the building is located six feet from the interior side property line where seven feet is required The applicant has indicated that the intent is to have the entire building set back at least seven feet from the interior side property line CPED is recommending that the building be located at least seven feet from the east interior side property line (see Table 39) The applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the required front and corner side yard setbacks (see Table 39) Setback Front (6 th Street Southeast) Corner Side (I-35W Frontage Road East) Table 3 Minimum Yard Requirements Zoning District Overriding Regulations Total Requirement Proposed 27 ft ft 20 ft 10 ft ft 6 ft Interior Side (East) 7 ft -- 7 ft 6 ft Rear (North) 7 ft -- 7 ft 7 ft Signs Not applicable All signs are subject to Chapter 543, On-Premise Signs The applicant will be required to submit a separate sign permit application for any signage that is proposed In the R5 Multiple-family District, a multiple-family dwelling of five or more units located on a lot between 10,000 square feet and 43,559 square feet, one nonilluminated, flat wall identification sign not exceeding 32 square feet is allowed The maximum height of the sign is 14 feet or top of wall, whichever is less On a corner lot, two such signs per building would be allowed The applicant is not proposing any signs at this time Screening of Mechanical Equipment Meets requirements All mechanical equipment is subject to the screening requirements of Chapter 535 The AC units for each of the dwelling units are proposed to be located towards the back of the building next to the individual unit entries All mechanical equipment will be screened from the public street by the building itself Refuse Screening Meets requirements All refuse and recycling storage containers are subject to the screening requirements in Chapter 535 The applicant and the adjacent property owner located at th Street Southeast are proposing to share a trash and recycling area located on the adjacent property The trash and recycling enclosure is proposed to be made out of six-foot, six-inch tall cedar fencing Lighting Meets requirements with Conditions of Approval Existing and proposed lighting must comply with Chapter 535 and Chapter 541 of the zoning code A lighting plan showing footcandles was submitted as part of the application materials There are some areas along the adjacent residential property lines where the lighting levels exceed 5 footcandles CPED is recommending that they applicant bring the lighting plan into conformance with the standards of Chapter 535, Regulations of General Applicability 9

10 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 Fences Not applicable Fences must comply with the requirements in Chapter 535 The applicant is not proposing to install any fences on the site as part of this development Specific Development Standards Not applicable Dwelling units are not subject to specific development standards in Chapter 536 UA Overlay District Standards Meets requirements The proposal is in compliance with the UA University Area Overlay District standards pertaining to offstreet parking and bicycle and motorized scooter parking requirements Applicable Policies of the Comprehensive Plan The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth identifies the site as urban neighborhood on the future land use map The proposed development is consistent with the following principles and policies outlined in the comprehensive plan: Urban Design Policy 104: Support the development of residential dwellings that are of high quality design and compatible with surrounding development 1041 Maintain and strengthen the architectural character of the city's various residential neighborhoods 1042 Promote the development of new housing that is compatible with existing development in the area and the best of the city s existing housing stock Urban Design Policy 106: New multi-family development or renovation should be designed in terms of traditional urban building form with pedestrian scale design features at the street level 1061 Design buildings to fulfill light, privacy, and view requirements for the subject building as well as for adjacent properties by building within required setbacks 1063 Provide appropriate physical transition and separation using green space, setbacks or orientation, stepped down height, or ornamental fencing to improve the compatibility between higher density and lower density residential uses 1064 Orient buildings and building entrances to the street with pedestrian amenities like wider sidewalks and green spaces 1065 Street-level building walls should include an adequate distribution of windows and architectural features in order to create visual interest at the pedestrian level Urban Design Policy 108: Strengthen the character and desirability of the city's urban neighborhood residential areas while accommodating reinvestment through infill development 1081 Infill development shall reflect the setbacks, orientation, pattern, materials, height and scale of surrounding dwellings 1082 Infill development shall incorporate the traditional layout of residential development that includes a standard front and side yard setbacks, open space in the back yard, and detached garage along the alley or at back of lot 1083 Building features of infill development, such as windows and doors, height of floors, and exposed basements, shall reflect the scale of surrounding dwellings 1085 New driveways should be prohibited on blocks that have alley access and no existing driveways 1086 Traditional setbacks, orientations, pattern, height and scale of dwellings should be created in areas where no clear pattern exists 10

11 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN4524 CPED finds that the proposed development is in conformance with the above policies of The Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth Applicable Development Plans or Objectives Adopted by the City Council The site is located within the boundaries of the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Master Plan adopted by the City Council in 2014 The future land use for this site is medium density residential The site is located in the East Side character area The goal of this area is to reestablish diversity of people, housing, and uses, promote neighborhood stability, reinforce a mix of uses, establish and nurture partnerships, and improve public amenities CPED finds that the proposed development is in conformance with the policies of the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Master Plan Alternative Compliance The Planning Commission or zoning administrator may approve alternatives to any site plan review requirement upon finding that the project meets one of three criteria required for alternative compliance Alternative compliance is requested for the following requirements: Exterior materials The applicant is proposing fiber cement lap siding, fiber cement panel and stone as the building s primary exterior materials The south and west elevations do not comply with the City s durability standards for exterior materials as the amount of fiber cement panel ( 5/8 ) is greater than 30 percent To reduce the amount of visual clutter on the north and east elevations, CPED is recommending that the stone material be removed and that fiber cement lap siding be used instead This condition, as recommended by CPED, would bring the north and east elevations out of compliance with the City s durability standards as the amount of fiber cement lap siding ( 5/8 ) would be greater than 75 percent Given the scale of the building, fiber cement lap siding ( 5/8 ) is an appropriate exterior building material to use CPED is recommending that the City Planning Commission grant alternative compliance to allow more than 75 percent fiber cement lap siding ( 5/8 ) on the north and east elevations and more than 30 percent fiber cement panel ( 5/8 ) on the south and west elevations Parking and loading landscaping and screening The parking area abutting the residence district to the north and east does not contain an on-site landscaped yard of at least seven feet in width In addition, the applicant is not proposing a six-foot screen that is at least 95 percent opaque for the parking lot area facing the residential use to the north and east If a landscaped yard with the required screening were to be installed along the north and east property lines the parking area would not be accessible CPED is recommending that the City Planning Commission grant alternative compliance Parking space proximity to trees Because the proposed surface parking lot contains ten or more spaces, each parking space must be located within 50 feet of the center of an on-site deciduous tree As proposed, all of the parking spaces are located within 50 feet of an on-site deciduous tree However, the proposed ground cover surrounding the trees is all hardscape CPED does not think that the trees will flourish in this type of environment and is therefore recommending that the required trees be planted between the building and the front or corner side property lines This condition, as recommended by CPED, would make the parking space proximity to trees out of compliance with the City s standards CPED is recommending that the City Planning Commission grant alternative compliance RECOMMENDATIONS The Department of Community Planning and Economic Development recommends that the City Planning Commission adopt staff findings for the applications by Dayna Okkelberg for the property located at th Street Southeast: A Variance to reduce the front yard setback Recommended motion: Approve the application to reduce the front yard setback along 6 th Street Southeast for the building from 27 feet to 20 feet, subject to the following conditions: 11

12 Department of Community Planning and Economic Development PLAN The building shall be located no closer than 235 feet from the front property line and the porches shall be located no closer than 20 feet from the front property line B Variance to reduce the corner side yard setback Recommended motion: Approve the application to reduce the corner side yard setback along I-35W Frontage Road East for the building from 10 feet to six feet C Site Plan Review Recommended motion: Approve the application for a new six-unit residential building, subject to the following conditions: 1 All site improvements shall be completed by July 17, 2019, unless extended by the Zoning Administrator, or the permit may be revoked for non-compliance 2 CPED staff shall review and approve the final site, elevation, landscaping, and lighting plans before building permits may be issued 3 The proposed stone material shall be removed from the north and east elevations Fiber cement lap siding shall be used on the entire north and east elevations 4 The minimum window requirement shall be met on the north and east elevations facing the on-site parking lot a required by section of the zoning code 5 The individual walkways shall be four feet in width as required by section of the zoning code 6 The required trees shall be planted between the building and the front or corner side property lines 7 The building shall be located at least seven feet from the east interior side property line 8 There shall be a bike storage shed constructed on the site to store the bikes Alternatively, the applicant shall work with the adjacent property owner to create a shared bike storage area on the adjacent lot 9 The lighting plan shall be in conformance with the standards of Chapter 535, Regulations of General Applicability ATTACHMENTS 1 Zoning map 2 PDR report 3 Written description and findings submitted by applicant 4 Plans 5 Material sample board 6 Photos 7 Correspondence 12

13

14 Community Planning and Economic Development 250 South 4th Street - Room 300 Minneapolis, MN Office or 311, Fax , TTY PDR Comprehensive Report Development Coordinator Assigned: MATTHEW JAMES (612) matthewjames@minneapolismngov Status Resubmission Required Tracking Number: Applicant Site Address Date Submitted PLAN4238 WELLS AND CO ARCHITECTS PO BOX 8589 MINNEAPOLIS, MN TH ST Apr :49PM Purpose The purpose of the Preliminary Development Review (PDR) is to provide Customers with comments about their proposed development City personnel, who specialize in various disciplines, review site plans to identify issues and provide feedback to the Customers to assist them in developing their final site plans The City of Minneapolis encourages the use of green building techniques For additional information please check out our green building web page at: DISCLAIMER: The information in this review is based solely on the preliminary site plan submitted The comments contained in this report are preliminary ONLY and are subject to modification Project Scope Please submit your plans via the city e-planning online portal You should have received an at wellsandcompany@yahoocom with a link Please provide a complete set of updated plans (to include site, civil, landscaping, elevation, floor plans, and all associated documents identified below) for review by City staff to ensure that all comments have been incorporated The project cannot move forward to Formal Site Plan approvals and permitting until the PDR process is completed In addition to the revised site plan, please provide a written response to all comments (a Comment Response Sheet), which at a minimum, should include identification of the commenting City Department followed by the corresponding response and site plan page references As a general rule: 1 All comments shall be addressed 2 Provide explanations as to how a particular comment was addressed; or 3 Why a comment was addressed differently than requested; or 4 Why a particular comment or request could not be accomplished Because of the nature of the process, resubmittals may result in additional or modified comments; note however, that efforts will be made to limit additional comments to only those areas that are subject to revision Review Findings (by Discipline)

15 Address Review Per City of Minneapolis Street Naming and Address Standard V122, the City of Minneapolis holds authority for assignment of all addresses, verification, change, and/or additions Each assigned address number uses the street that provides the best/direct access for life safety equipment and best/direct access to the occupants The address for the proposed 6 unit townhome project will be 913, 915, 917, 919, 921 & 923 6th St SE This address meets the City of Minneapolis Street Naming and Address Standard requirements Business Licensing Review There is no Minneapolis Business Licensing review required for the proposed project Park Boundary and Forestry Contact Craig Pinkalla ( cpinkalla@minneapolisparksorg) regarding any questions related to planting, removal or the process for protection of trees during construction in the city right of way Effective January 1, 2014, the City of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board adopted an update to the existing Parkland Dedication Ordinance The adopted City of Minneapolis Parkland Dedication ordinance is located in Section of the City's Land Subdivision ordinance: As adopted, the fee in lieu of dedication for new residential units is $ per unit (affordable units excluded per ordinance) and for commercial and industrial development it is $20600 per development employee (as defined in ordinance) Any dedication fee (if required) must be paid at the time of building permit issuance There is also an administration fee that is 5% of the calculated park dedication fee As proposed, for your PROJECT, the calculated dedication fee is as follows: Park Dedication Fee Calculation = Residential (6-3 units x $ per unit) = $4, % of $XX (Administration Fee) = $ Total Park Dedication Administrative Fee: = $4,86770 This is a preliminary calculation based on your current proposal; a final calculation will be made at the time of building permit submittal For further information, please contact Matthew D James (612) Zoning Review Continue to work with CPED to identify land use applications for a future CPC meeting Need to coordinate with the adjacent neighbor to the east for site access and parking PW Right of Way The plan as submitted meets the requirements of the Public Works Right-Of-Way Division Note to applicant: An encroachment permit shall be required for all streetscape elements in the Public right-ofway such as: plants & shrubs, planters, tree grates and other landscaping elements, sidewalk furniture (including bike racks and bollards), and sidewalk elements other than standard concrete walkways such as pavers, stairs, raised landings, retaining walls, access ramps, and railings (NOTE: railings may not extend into the sidewalk pedestrian area) Please contact Bob Boblett at (612) for further information In addition to an encroachment permit application, any irrigation system in the Public right-of-way will require the Applicant to register as a private utility and to enroll in the Gopher State One-Call system, so that anyone digging in your area will be made aware that your lines are in the right-of-way The adjacent property at th St SE is currently being redeveloped (PLAN4281) As submitted, the site plans for both development projects propose a shared parking lot and driveway access in addition to stormwater drainage However, the site plans for the respective developments do not match The Applicant shall insure that site plans are coordinated, please contact the Developer of th St SE Mick Stoddard at (612) In addition, the Applicant shall provide documentation that some form of shared use agreement has been established between neighboring property owners Sewer Review Utility Connections: PVC sewer services within the right-of-way should be SDR26 or Sch40 or greater, per City Standard Supplemental Specifications

16 For comments or questions on Public Works Surface Water & Sewers Division related requirements please contact Jeremy Strehlo, (Professional Engineer) at (612) , or Sidewalk Review The plan as submitted meets the requirements of the Public Works Sidewalk Inspections Division Note to the Applicant: Any existing concrete infrastructure in the public right of way, including but not limited to public sidewalks, curb and gutter, and ADA pedestrian ramps, that is either currently defective or that is damaged during the time of site re-development, must be removed and replaced at the time of site re-development Street Design Review The plan as submitted meets the requirements of the Public Works Street Design Division Traffic and Parking Review The plan as submitted meets the requirements of the Public Works Traffic & Parking Services Division Water Review The plan as submitted meets the requirements of the Public Works Water Division All existing and proposed underground Public Utilities (water, sanitary sewer, and storm drain) shall be shown on the site plan with corresponding pipe sizes and types For Public watermain infrastructure records call (612) Any existing water service connections to the site shall be noted on the plans for removal, and shall be removed per the requirements of the Utility Connections Department before any new service lines can be installed, call (612) for more information Construction Code Service Submit shoring plan on South East side of property line with 4'0" setback OR Submit writing letter of agreement for construction allowing excavation to extend beyond property line with 4'0" set back at south east side of lot for proposed Six(6) Units Town Houses ***Note: No request for resubmission of plans except letter of agreement of shoring plan*** No Accessible Unit or Parking is required Environmental Review Property records indicate the presence of a 250 gallon fuel oil tank in the basement If the tank is still present a permit must be obtained for its removal prior to demolition If dewatering is required during site construction see below for city permit requirements Subgrade structures should be designed to prevent infiltration of groundwater without the need for a permanent dewatering system being installed If a continuously operating permanent dewatering system is needed it must be approved as part of the sanitary sewer and storm drain site plan approval prior to construction beginning No construction, demolition or commercial power maintenance equipment shall be operated within the city between the hours of 6:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays or during any hours on Saturdays, Sundays and state and federal holidays, except under permit Contact Environmental Services at (612) for permit information Permits and approval are required from Environmental Services for the following activities: Temporary storage of impacted soils on site prior to disposal or reuse; Reuse of impacted soils on site; Dewatering and discharge of accumulated storm water or ground water, underground or aboveground tank installation or removal, well construction or sealing Contact Tom Frame at (612) for permit applications and approvals A review of the project, permits issued and an inspection from Environmental Service for identification of equipment and site operations that require annual registration with the City of Minneapolis will occur for this project Fire Safety Review Provide fire suppression per building code requirements Provide and maintain fire apparatus access at all times

17 Date: May 29, 2017 To: Re: Hilary Dvorak Principal City Planner CPED 250 South 4 th St LAND USE APPLICATION Minneapolis, MN July 17, 2017 Public Hearing 6 New Townhomes at th St SE and a new shared driveway with th St SE Dear Hilary Dvorak, CPED Staff and Planning Commissioners: Wells & Company Architects is pleased to present the plans for a new 6-Unit townhouse development at th St SE in the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood The project proposes to demolish an existing 10- bedroom rooming house that is non-conforming to the R5 zoning classification on site Wells & Co Architects explored the possibility of renovating the existing house and it was determined to be not technically feasible or cost effective City Staff prepared a historic review letter on February 24, 2017 and it was determined by Catherine Sandlund, Principal City Planner, that: The existing [rooming house] does NOT appear to meet the local designation criteria listed in Section of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances and has been determined NOT to be a historic resource For these reasons, The Applicant believes the best course of action is to demolish the existing non-conforming rooming house and build 6 new beautiful townhomes The advantage of building townhomes is that it is a flexible housing type, that can easily be rented, or sold as individual owner-occupied homes PROJECT LOCATION AND AERIAL PHOTO City of Minneapolis, Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood and Dinkytown The project proposes to demolish an existing nonconforming rooming house and build 6 new beautiful townhomes PROJECT HISTORY AND SCHEDULE FEBRUARY 7, st MEETING WITH MHNA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION MARCH 7, nd MEETING WITH MHNA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION APRIL 11, rd MEETING WITH MHNA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION APRIL 27, 2017 PLANS SUBMITTED TO BEGIN PDR MAY 10, 2017 PDR MEETING WITH CITY STAFF MAY 29, 2017 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION LETTER SENT TO MHNA JULY 17, 2017 CPC PUBLIC HEARING AT CITY HALL SEPT 1, 2017 START CONSTRUCTION, IF PROJECT IS APPROVED BY CITY PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

18 PROPOSED PROJECT PHOTO OF EXISTING HOUSE RENDERING OF PROPOSED TOWNHOMES Wells & Company Architects proposes to demolish the exiting rooming house (shown on left image above), and build 6 new townhomes with 12 surface parking spaces and a new shared driveway with th St SE Each townhouse with have 4 legal bedrooms for a total of 24 bedrooms on site Therefore, by providing 10 standard parking spaces and 2 compact parking spaces, the project meets the 05 parking spaces per bedroom requirement in the University District The site is 165 long x 66 wide for a total area of 10,894 sqft The site is Zoned R5 and has a UA Zoning Overlay The development proposes a new one-way shared driveway, entering on 6 th ST SE and exiting on I-35W E Frontage Road The trash will be shared and fully screened All of the required long term bike parking will be located behind the building and enclosed on 3 sides There are two variances proposed on the project: VARIANCE Front Yard Setback is required, and a 23-5 setback is proposed to the building Variance #1 a front yard setback variance, and Variance #2 a sideway setback variance allowing porches and other architectural elements to be built into the side yard facing the public street Wells & Co Architects met with the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee three times in 2017 to discuss the project and working with the adjacent property owner on a shared driveway The Applicant received the attached Letter of support for the proposed setback variances The neighborhood s letter of support state s the following conditions of support for the variances: (1) that the project incorporate exterior building material colors that would be compatible with the existing building at th St SE (2) a design that incorporates efforts to filter and mitigate storm water runoff onsite, and a landscape plan that replaces any mature trees removed during the construction process with a min 3 diameter replacement tree -Jan Morse, MHNA President April 20, 2017 PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom VARIANCE Side Yard Setback is required, and a 6-8 setback is proposed, allowing new front porches BLOCK PLAN

19 THE APPLICANT S RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP S LETTER OF SUPPORT Thank you for meeting with Wells & Co Architects to discuss the project, we intend to comply with your requests The plans on sheet A6 show the proposed fiber cement stucco siding to color match the existing historic house at th St SE and the fiber cement lap siding will be a dark warm grey with a standing seam metal roof on the building These colors will be compatible with the existing historic house The proposed surface parking lot is being designed by Civil Site Group and we are working with them on mitigating storm water runoff The demolition plan C1 proposes to remove 4 existing mature trees on the site, we are proposing to add 4 new trees behind the new building, adjacent to the surface parking lot We will comply with your requests Thank you -William Wells, Project Architect March 29, 2017 COLORS SHALL MATCH th St SE- PROPOSED Shared Driveway - PROPOSED th St SE - EXISTING VARIANCE REQUEST #1 FRONT YARD SETBACK Existing House: 33-6 Setback facing 6 th St SE Existing Neighbor s house: 27-0 Setback facing 6 th St SE Proposed New Townhouse: 23-5 Setback to the front facade facing 6 th St SE 20-0 Setback to the front porch facing 6 th St SE Finding #1: Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property The unique circumstances were not created by the person having an interest in the property and are not based on economic considerations alone The site is Zoned R5 and subject to Table R5 District Yard Requirements The front yard setback is 15 or subject to b which states: Front yard increased The required front yard shall be increased where the established front yard of the closest principal building originally designed for residential purposes located on the same block face on either side of the property exceeds the front yard required by the zoning district In such case, the required front yard shall be not less than such established front yard The established front yard is 27-0 as the survey shows The Applicant proposes to setback the new townhomes 23-5 from the front property line to the front façade, and 20-0 from the front property line to the front porches A setback variance is necessary because there is no alley on the block, and the Applicant needs to create a new shared driveway to serve th st se and th st se The new driveway functions as an alley for the block allowing for deliveries, trash pick-up, police and fire access, car access, and bike access Creating a new shared driveway at the rear of the property causes the building to shift closer to 6 th St SE A variance is necessary because there is no alley on the block Finding #2: The property owner and authorized applicant propose to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan The site is Zoned R5 The R5 Multiple-family District is established to provide an environment of high density living, congregate living arrangements and cluster developments on lots with a minimum lot area of five thousand (5,000) square feet The proposed variance and site improvements allows for new townhomes to be built which are a unique housing type for families and supports the Minneapolis Comprehensive plan update in 2008 to provide a variety of housing opportunities PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

20 Per the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth City of Minneapolis Plan Update 2008, the project supports the following goals: 31 Grow by increasing the supply of housing 36 Foster complete communities by preserving and increasing high quality housing opportunities suitable for all ages and household types Finding #3: The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use of enjoyment of other property in the vicinity If granted, the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or of those utilizing the property or nearby properties The proposed front yard setback variance has no negative impact on any adjacent neighbors whereas the proposed building is next to the 35W freeway VARIANCE REQUEST #2 SIDE YARD SETBACK Existing House: Existing Neighbor s house: Proposed New Townhouse: 10-8 Setback facing I35W E Frontage Rd None 10-0 Setback of building facing I35W E Frontage Rd 6-8 Setback or porch facing I35W E Frontage Rd Finding #1: Practical difficulties exist in complying with the ordinance because of circumstances unique to the property The unique circumstances were not created by the persons having an interest in the property and are not based on economic considerations alone The site is zoned R-5 Multi-Family Residential The side yard setback on a corner lot is 8+2X (where X is the number of stories above the first floor) per Table R5 The Applicant proposes a 25 story building therefore the required setback is 10-0 (ie x 1 story) The applicant proposes to building the townhouse 10-0 from the property line in compliance with the zoning code, then project architectural building elements such as: roof overhangs, front porch, railings, and steps into the required side yard The variance is necessary because the Applicant proposes an 8-4 sidewalk with trees to buffer the parking area from the building This design element moves the building closer to the I35W E front road Additionally, the added architectural features such as the front porches, on the side of the building facing the public street, add visual interest to the façade Finding #2: The property owner and authorized applicant proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner that will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance and the comprehensive plan The site is zoned R-5 Multiple-Density District High Density The proposed variance and site improvements allows for new townhomes to be built with added trees, landscaping, and a shared driveway, which supports the Minneapolis Comprehensive plan update in 2008 Per the Minneapolis Plan for Sustainable Growth City of Minneapolis Plan Update 2008, the project supports the following goals: 624 Endorse the use of alternative modes of transportation such as walking, bicycles, public transit, car and bike share programs, and carpools, as well as promote alternative work schedules 627 Promote the development of sustainable site and building standards 639 Develop regulations to further reduce the heat island effect in the city by increasing green urban spaces for parks and open spaces, including shading of parking lots, sidewalks and other impervious surfaces, promoting installation and maintenance of green roofs and utilization of highly reflective roofing and paving materials 1023 Ensure that buildings incorporate design elements that eliminate long stretches of blank, inactive building walls such as windows, green walls, architectural details, and murals Provide streetscape amenities, including street furniture, trees, and landscaping, that buffer pedestrians from auto traffic, parking areas, and winter elements PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

21 Finding #3: The proposed variance will not alter the essential character of the locality or be injurious to the use or enjoyment of other properties in the vicinity If granted, the proposed variance will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public or those utilizing the property or nearby properties Whereas the variance impacts the I35W E frontage road and there are no other houses facing the frontage road, there is no negative impact if the variance is approved Thank you for considering these variances and the proposed improvements to the site The two variances will have a positive improvement on the neighborhood and increase the quality-of-life for the tenants If you have any further questions or comments about the project, please contact me, William Wells, Project Architect William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31 CivilSiteGroupcom Pat Sarver Matt Pavek EEX X FFE= PROP FF FFE=83700 FE= EX FFE= FFEE= DJR ARCHITECTURE 333 N WASHINGTON AVE #210, MINNEAPOLIS, MN PROJECT EEX FFE= TH ST SE AND TH AVE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN TH ST SE AND TH AVE SE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT GENERAL GRADING NOTES: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA EX FFE= DATE Matthew R Pavek 6/2/17 LICENSE NO ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION EROSION CONTROL NOTES: GRADING PLAN LEGEND: GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: 05/08/17 06/02/17 PDR SUBMITTAL LAND USE APP SUBMITTAL REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER: CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS GRADING NOTES: GRADING PLAN GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWWGOPHERSTATEONECALLORG W (800) TOLL FREE (651) LOCAL C30 c COPYRIGHT 2015 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC REFERENCE ONLY

32 CivilSiteGroupcom Pat Sarver Matt Pavek DJR ARCHITECTURE 333 N WASHINGTON AVE #210, MINNEAPOLIS, MN TH ST SE AND TH AVE, MINNEAPOLIS, MN PROJECT 925 6TH ST SE AND TH AVE SE CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MATCH LINE DATE Matthew R Pavek 6/2/17 LICENSE NO ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION UTILITY LEGEND: CITY C YO OF MINNEAPOLIS N E P UTILITY N NOTES: E 05/08/17 06/02/17 PDR SUBMITTAL LAND USE APP SUBMITTAL REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION PROJECT NUMBER: UTILITY PLAN WATER MAIN EXHIBIT MATCH LINE: SEE INSET GOPHER STATE ONE CALL N WWWGOPHERSTATEONECALLORG W (800) TOLL FREE (651) LOCAL C40 c COPYRIGHT 2015 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC REFERENCE ONLY

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46 Existing House at th St SE Photo taken from the center of 6 th St SE Existing Adjacent Historic House at th St SE Photo taken from 6 th St SE PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

47 Photo looking at the back of th St SE Taken from I35W E frontage Rd Photo looking at the back of Th St SE Taken from I35W E frontage Rd PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

48 915 6 th St SE Existing Side Façade facing 35W PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

49 Side Façade of th St SE (facing th St SE) Existing driveway serving th St SE PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

50 Date: May 29, 2017 To: To: Re: Council Member Jacob Frey Ward 3 Office 350 S 5 th St SE Room 307 OFFICIAL PUBLIC NOTICE Minneapolis, MN SENT VIA Marcy Holmes Neighborhood Association th Ave SE Minneapolis, MN new Townhomes at th St SE in Minneapolis, MN Dear Council Member Frey, Marcy Holmes Neighborhood Association, and Neighbors: On behalf of the property owner, Dayna Okkelberg, Wells & Company Architects is pleased to present the plans for 6 newly proposed townhomes at th St SE The project will replace an existing 10 bedroom rooming house on site The existing house is a student rental property, non-code compliant, non-conforming to the zoning code, and needs to be demolished Wells & Co Architects explored the possibility of renovating the existing house and it was not technically feasible and not cost effective The City performed historic research on the existing house and prepared a historic review letter on February 24, 2017 and it was determined by Catherine Sandlund, Principal City Planner: The existing property does NOT appear to meet the local designation criteria listed in Section of the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances and has been determined NOT to be a historic resource For these reasons, Wells & Co Architects decided the best course of action was to demolish the existing nonconforming rooming house and build 6 new beautiful townhomes The purpose of building townhomes is that it s a flexible housing type that can be rented or sold to individual owners PROJECT LOCATION AERIAL PHOTO City of Minneapolis, Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

51 PHOTO OF EXISTING HOUSE RENDERING OF PROPOSED TOWNHOMES PROJECT HISTORY AND SCHEDULE PROJECT INFORMATION FEB 7, st MEETING WITH MHNA NEIGHBORHOOD MARCH 7, nd MEETING WITH MHNA NEIGHBORHOOD APRIL 11, rd MEETING WITH MHNA NEIGHBORHOOD APRIL 27, 2017 PLANS SUBMITTED TO BEGIN PDR MAY 10, 2017 PDR MEETING WITH CITY STAFF MAY 29, 2017 NOTIFICATION LETTER SENT TO MHNA JUNE 2, 2017 CPC APPLICATION DEADLINE JULY 17, 2017 CPC PUBLIC HEARING AT CITY HALL SEPT 1, 2017 START CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Building Footprint: 3,740 sqft Total GFA: 10,380 sqft Impervious Lot Coverage: 8,130 sqft Total Lot size: 10,894 sqft Building Height: 25 Stories 31-0 tall Bedrooms: 24 legal bedrooms Parking: 12 surface parking spaces Bikes: 24 long term bike parking spaces Landscaping: 4 new trees and 20 shrubs Wells & Company Architects proposes to build 6 new townhomes with 12 surface parking spaces and a new shared driveway with th St SE Each townhouse will have 4 legal bedrooms for a total of 24 bedrooms on site Therefore, by providing 10 standard parking spaces and 2 compact parking spaces, the project meets the 05 parking spaces per bedroom requirement in the University District The site is 165 long x 66 wide for a total area of 10,894 sqft The site is Zoned R5 and has a UA Zoning Overlay The development proposes a new one-way shared driveway, entering on 6 th ST SE and exiting on I-35W E Frontage Road The trash will be shared and fully screened All of the required long term bike parking will be located behind the building and enclosed on 3 sides There are two variances proposed on the project as we discussed: VARIANCE Side Yard Setback is required 10 is proposed for the building with a 6-8 setback proposed, for the new front porches VARIANCE 1 Variance #1 a front yard 27-0 Front Yard setback variance, and Setback is Variance #2 a sideway setback required, and a variance allowing porches to 23-5 setback is be built into the side yard facing the proposed public for the the public street new building and a 20-0 setback to the new front porches BLOCK PLAN PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

52 Wells & Co Architects was pleased to meet with the Marcy-Holmes Neighborhood Association Land Use Committee three times in 2017 to discuss the project, and we received the attached Letter of support for the proposed setback variances The neighborhood s letter of support state s the following conditions: (1) that the project incorporate exterior building material colors that would be compatible with the existing building at th St SE (2) a design that incorporates efforts to filter and mitigate storm water runoff onsite, and a landscape plan that replaces any mature trees removed during the construction process with a min 3 diameter replacement tree - Jan Morse, MHNA President April 20, 2017 THE APPLICANT S RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP S LETTER OF SUPPORT Thank you for meeting with our office to discuss the project, we intend to comply with your requests The plans on sheet A6 show the proposed fiber cement stucco to color match the existing historic house at th St SE and the fiber cement lap siding will be a dark warm grey with a standing seam metal roof on the building These colors will be compatible with the existing historic house Please see the image below The proposed surface parking lot is being designed by Civil Site Group and we are working with them on mitigating storm water runoff The demolition plan C1 proposes to remove 4 existing mature trees on the site, we are proposing to add 4 new trees behind the new building, adjacent to the surface parking lot We will comply with your requests If you have any further questions or comments about the project, please contact me, William Wells, Project Architect William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom COLORS SHALL MATCH th St SE PROPOSED Shared Driveway PROPOSED th St SE EXISTING PO BOX 8589 Minneapolis, MN Ph: William@WellsandCompanyArchitectscom

53 Council Member Jacob Frey April 20, 2017 Minneapolis City Hall 350 South 5th Street Room 307 Minneapolis, MN Hilary Dvorak Principal Planner, CPED Land Use, Design & Preservation 250 South 4 th Street Room 300 Minneapolis, MN Re: Proposed development at th Street SE: Dear Council Member Frey and Ms Dvorak, At its April monthly meeting, the Marcy- Holmes Neighborhood Association s Land Use and Development Committee heard an update by William Wells of Wells & Company, Architects, about the proposed development at th Street SE Mr Wells had initially presented the project to the committee at its February meeting, with updates presented at the March and April meetings The project proposes to demolish the existing 10- unit rooming house and build six units of 4- bedroom townhomes on the site The height of the townhomes will be 2-1/2 stories with a basement and have 12 parking spaces onsite Our understanding is that the project will request the following variances: To would allow a 10-0 front yard setback along the I- 35W frontage road, whereas 15-0 required To would allow a 23-5 side yard setback along 6 th Street SE, whereas 27-0 required Marcy- Holmes Neighborhood Association supports these variance requests, with the contingency that the project incorporate exterior building material colors that would be compatible with the existing building at th Street SE Additionally, MHNA support is contingent upon a design that incorporates efforts to filter and mitigate storm water runoff onsite, and a landscape plan that replaces any mature trees removed during the construction process with a minimum of three inch diameter replacement trees Sincerely, Jan Morse, MHNA President cc: William Wells, Wells & Company, Architects