Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-07-2016 PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 3, 2016, Planning Commission Regular Meeting 08 -03 -16 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 16 -022 - Variance - 1500 Arden Place - No Public Hearing MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council 09 -07 -16 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) Update MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT.PDF ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Roberta Thompson Commissioners: Brent Bartel Angela Hames Phillip Neururer Clayton Zimmerman Steven Jones James Lambeth Nick Gehrig (Alternate) Council Liaison: Mayor David Grant Planning Commission September 7, 2016 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: Prepared By APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESAugust 3, 2016, Planning Commission Regular Meeting08-03 -16 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 16 -022 - Variance - 1500 Arden Place - No Public HearingMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council 09 -07 -16 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) Update MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT.PDF ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Roberta ThompsonCommissioners:Brent BartelAngela Hames Phillip NeururerClayton ZimmermanSteven JonesJames LambethNick Gehrig (Alternate)Council Liaison:Mayor David Grant Planning CommissionSeptember 7, 2016 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: Prepared By Approved: September 7, 2016 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 2016 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Nick Gehrig, Steven Jones, James Lambeth, and Phillip Neururer. Absent: Commissioner Brent Bartel (excused), Angela Hames (unexcused) and Clayton Zimmerman (excused). Also present were: Senior Planner Matthew Bachler and Mayor Grant. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – AUGUST 3, 2016 Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 6, 2016 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Lambeth requested a change to the minutes on Page 9, in the middle of the page stating his question should refer to how the 12-foot screen would be secured to the roof and not the HVAC unit. Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gehrig, to approve the July 6, 2016, Planning Commission Regular Meeting minutes as corrected. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 16-017; Variance – 1536 Edgewater Avenue – No Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 2 Senior Planner Bachler stated that the applicants are the owners of the property at 1536 Edgewater Avenue, which is located in the R-1 District on the south side of Lake Johanna. The lot is nonconforming because its size and width do not meet the minimum requirements for the R-1 District. At the time the dwelling was constructed in 1953, the lot was in conformance with the City Code. The applicants are proposing to construct a second garage stall on the east side of the existing dwelling with finished living space above. The footprint of the addition would measure 10 feet – 5 inches by 27 feet – 5 feet inches for an overall area of approximately 286 square feet. The additional living space above the garage would have similar dimensions and an area of approximately 282 square feet. Senior Planner Bachler explained that a variance is needed in this case to allow for the addition to encroach 1 foot – 7 inches into the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet. The R-1 Zoning District requires a total combined setback of 25 feet between both side yards, and a variance is also needed to allow for a reduced combined side yard setback. The existing dwelling is setback 12 feet – 2 inches from the west side property line and the proposed addition would be setback 8 feet – 5 inches from the east side property line, resulting in a combined side yard setback of 20 feet – 7 inches. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-1: Single Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 0.31 Acres (13,690 square feet) Topography: Slopes down from south to north Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. Senior Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The property at 1536 Edgewater Avenue is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is nonconforming due to lot size and width. 3. The existing conditions on the property are in conformance with the setback and structure and lot coverage requirements for properties in the R-1 District. 4. The proposed addition would encroach 1 foot – 7 inches into the east side yard setback, creating a setback of 8 feet – 5 inches from the property line. The minimum side yard setback in the R-1 District is 10 feet. 5. The proposed addition would result in a combined side yard setback of 20 feet – 7 inches. The existing dwelling is setback 12 feet – 2 inches from the west side property line and the proposed addition would be setback 8 feet – 5 inches from the east side property line. The minimum combined side yard setback in the R-1 District is 25 feet. 6. A variance is required in this case to allow for an encroachment in the minimum side yard setback and for a combined side yard setback of less than 25 feet. 7. All other aspects of the proposed addition are in conformance with the Zoning Code requirements for the R-1 District. 8. The proposed addition would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 3 9. The proposed addition is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. Variance Findings: 10. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Code because the addition would maintain side yard setbacks consistent with other dwellings in the neighborhood. 11. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging property investment that complements and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 12. The proposed addition to allow for a second garage stall is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variance. 13. The property is unique and presents development challenges because of its narrow width of approximately 80 feet and its topography. The unique characteristics of the property were not created by the property owners. 14. The proposed addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other construction in the area. 15. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. The applicant has proposed construction plans that are more costly than an alternative considered that would have resulted in a greater encroachment in the side yard setback. Senior Planner Bachler indicated the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, staff recommends the following six conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. A Grading and Erosion Control permit shall be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. If required, a Rice Creek Watershed District permit shall be obtained prior to the issuance of any City permits. 4. A Building Permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. 5. The addition shall match the color and architectural style of the rest of the principal structure. 6. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 4 Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked what side of the home the addition would be located on. Senior Planner Bachler reported the addition would be placed on the east side of the home. Commissioner Lambeth understood the property was in compliance when the house was constructed in 1953. However, the property became non-conforming after the Zoning Code was changed. Senior Planner Bachler stated this was the case. He explained the property was originally developed per City Code and was in conformance with City requirements at that time. Chair Thompson questioned if the applicant’s contractor had drafted a grading and erosion control plan. Senay Kindler, 1536 Edgewater Avenue, commented this has been discussed with the builder. She noted the piping that was currently in place would be cleared out. She noted a more detailed plan would be completed at the time the building permit application is submitted. She explained her street was reconstructed three years ago and understood the importance of proper water drainage. Chair Thompson discussed the importance of properly managing the water runoff on this property. She inquired if the addition would have gutters. Ms. Kindler stated that new gutters would be installed on the entire house and the addition. She then discussed the water issues she was having in her garage and noted the contractor has been made aware of these concerns. Chair Thompson encouraged the Kindlers to consider adding some character back into the home through architectural details. Commissioner Jones believed the property had a significant slope to it. He questioned if the water runoff was flowing into the neighboring property. Ms. Kindler stated on the rear portion of the east side of the property there was a hill. She indicated this was the location of the existing drainage pipes. She provided further comment on the drainage issues addressed by her neighborhood. She discussed the benefit of having a second stall in her garage and thanked the Commission for considering her request. Chair Thompson questioned if Ms. Kindler had spoken with her neighbors about the proposed expansion. Ms. Kindler reported she had spoken with her neighbors regarding the plans. Commissioner Jones recommended the Kindlers consider placing an ultraviolet light within their filtration system to address the mold and bacteria in the home. He stated he supported the Kindler’s variance request. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 5 Shannon Lindsey, 649 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, stated her main concerns were with the drainage. She discussed how much money her parents had spent on their property to address their drainage. She feared that the landscaping that has been removed has impacted the water runoff. She understood the Kindlers were having moisture issues in their bedrooms and that this had to be addressed, however, she did not want to see the new addition impact her parents’ property in an adverse manner. Chair Thompson asked if Ms. Lindsey would be willing to work with the Kindler’s, their contractor and City staff on this project to ensure all drainage issues were properly addressed. Ray Conroe, 1528 West Edgewater Avenue, commented how his property received considerable water runoff when he first moved into the home. He expressed concern with how the proposed addition would impact his property given the fact that this area currently serves as a water runoff area. He feared how building on this portion of land would impact the drainage on his lot. Chair Thompson believed the applicants were very interested in working with their neighbors and the City to address the drainage concerns on both properties. Commissioner Lambeth reported the requested variance was 19 inches. He noted conditions would be attached to the variance, if approved, and one of these would require the Kindler’s to have a grading and erosion control permit from the City. Ms. Lindsey questioned how quickly the variance request and addition construction would move along. Senior Planner Bachler described the City’s review process for the variance request. He noted that the construction timelines would be determined by the Kindlers. Chair Thompson inquired if the Kindlers had a landscape plan for the property. Ms. Kindler did not have a drafted plan, but noted she would be landscaping the property after the construction was completed. Commissioner Gehrig moved and Commissioner Neururer seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 16-017 for a side yard setback variance at 1536 Edgewater Avenue, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the six (6) conditions in the August 3, 2016, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 16-019 – Planned Unit Development Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Amendment – 1920 West Highway 96 – Public Hearing Senior Planner Bachler stated that in 2005, the City approved a PUD and CUP in Planning Case 05-013 for the development of a Holiday service station and convenience store at 1920 West Highway 96. A CUP was required for the proposed use of the property as a service station with convenience retail and car wash in the G-B - Gateway Business District. The site was developed through the PUD process and allowed the developer flexibility on parking lot setback ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 6 requirements and use of certain building materials in exchange for additional landscaping on the property and an overall superior building design. Senior Planner Bachler indicated that Holiday Stationstores, Inc. is in the process of including multi-use restroom facilities at their convenience stores whenever possible in order to provide better customer service. The company is proposing a multi-use restroom addition on the north end of their Arden Hills store. The addition would measure 15 feet – 4 inches by 19 feet – 4 inches with an area of 296 square feet. Senior Planner Bachler reported the proposed addition would have minimal impact on the existing site operations and would not modify traffic patterns or parking areas. The addition has been designed to have a consistent appearance with the existing principal structure on the property. Site Data Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Commercial Zoning: G-B: Gateway Business District Current Lot Sizes: 162,170 square feet Proposed Density: N/A Topography: Relatively level Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Conditional Use Permit Administration Procedures. Senior Planner Bachler explained the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. The applicant has requested approval of a PUD Amendment and CUP Amendment for the property at 1920 West Highway 96. 2. A Master PUD was approved for 1920 West Highway 96 in Planning Case #05-013. 3. The applicant has proposed constructing a multi-use restroom addition on the north end of the existing convenience store that would measure 15 feet – 4 inches by 19 feet – 4 inches with an area of 296 square feet. 4. The proposed addition is in substantial conformance with the Zoning Code. Where the proposed addition is not in conformance with the Zoning Code, the proposal is in conformance with the Master PUD approved for the property in Planning Case #05-013. 5. The proposed addition is not expected to impact existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. 6. The proposed addition will not affect noise, odors, glare, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste on the property. 7. The proposed addition is not expected to significantly impact drainage on the property. 8. The proposed addition will not affect the population density on the property. 9. The proposed addition is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 10. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 7 Senior Planner Bachler stated that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 16-019 for a PUD Amendment and CUP Amendment for Holiday Stationstores, Inc. at 1920 West Highway 96. Staff is recommending the following six (6) conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of all previous Master PUD and CUP Agreements, permits, and reviews, except as hereinafter amended. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. A PUD and CUP Amendment Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of any development permits. 4. Final construction plans shall be subject to approval by the City Building Official, City Engineer, and Fire Marshall prior to the issuance of a building permit. 5. The applicant shall protect the two (2) Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry trees located immediately north of the proposed addition. If these trees are damaged, removed, or die during the construction of the addition, the applicant shall be required to replace the trees with trees of equivalent size. 6. Exterior lighting shall be hooded, concealed, or controlled so as not to be visible from adjoining lots, streets, highways, or residential areas east and south of Round Lake. Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the new bathroom facilities would be ADA compliant. Senior Planner Bachler reported this would be reviewed by the City Building Official at the time a building permit was requested. Commissioner Jones clarified that the symbols and dimensions on the plans show that the new bathroom facilities would be ADA compliant. Chair Thompson asked if the new door was an emergency exit. Senior Planner Bachler deferred this question to the applicant. Casey Beaton, Manager of Store Planning for Holiday Stationstores, reported the restrooms would be fully ADA compliant. He indicated the additional door was needed to meet fire exit requirements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 8 Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Lambeth understood construction would begin in October. Mr. Beaton estimated the construction timeline would be nine weeks. Chair Thompson questioned if Holiday Stationstores had any concerns about the conditions recommended for approval. Mr. Beaton supported the conditions for approval. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Neururer seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 16-019 for a PUD Amendment and CUP Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the six (6) conditions in the August 3, 2016, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 16-020 – Zoning Code Amendment – Temporary Family Health Care Accessory Dwellings – Public Hearing Senior Planner Bachler explained that the State legislature passed a bill this session establishing a new permitting process for temporary family health care accessory dwellings. The law specifically applies to dwellings used for short-term care purposes for family members in need of assistance. Under the new regulations, these dwellings would require permitting from the City, but would be exempt from certain provisions within the City’s land use and building regulations. The Community Development Department provided comments on the draft legislation to the League of Minnesota Cities noting its concerns about the impacts of the law on public health and safety. Although the law was adopted, there is a provision that allows cities to opt-out of the law if an ordinance is approved before it goes into effect on September 1, 2016. Senior Planner Bachler reported that the League of Minnesota Cities has recommended that cities consider passing an opt-out ordinance if they want to maintain their existing land use controls or develop customized regulations that might allow this type of dwelling unit in some cases using a different review and approval process. Staff has reviewed the new law and has identified the following areas of concern: • The City currently prohibits the use of temporary accessory structures as dwellings, except a special permit may be granted by the City Council for the use of a temporary structure as a dwelling for no more than 90 days in emergency situations. The law would require the City to allow temporary family health care accessory dwellings to be in place for six months. The permit may also be renewed once for an additional six-month period. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 9 • The law would supersede existing land use regulations in the City Code related to accessory structures. Though the statute would require that the accessory dwelling units comply with the City’s setback requirements that apply to the principal structure on the property, it does not address lot coverage, drainage, and shoreland requirements. • The law requires applicants to provide proof of adequate septic service management. City staff has concerns about the feasibility of providing safe, temporary septic services to these types of structure and what the process would be for enforcement and mitigation if there were a failure in these services. • The law stipulates that applications must include proof of the provider network providing the primary care for the resident in the dwelling unit, and written certification of the need for assistance from a medical professional. This requirement places a burden on City staff to review and properly manage this type of private medical documentation. Senior Planner Bachler reported that the City Council discussed this item at their Work Session on July 18, 2016, and directed staff and the City Attorney to draft an opt-out Ordinance. A draft of Ordinance Number 2016-07 was reviewed. The Ordinance would amend Section 1325.01 (Accessory Structures) of the Zoning Code to add Subdivision 8, which would specifically exempt the City from following the provisions in Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593 regarding temporary family health care accessory dwellings. Senior Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Minnesota State legislature passed a bill in the 2016 session establishing a new permitting process for temporary family health care accessory dwellings, codified as Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593. 2. The law allows cities to opt-out of the law if an Ordinance is approved before it goes into effect on September 1, 2016. 3. The City has elected to opt-out of the law due to concerns regarding the impact of the law on public health and safety and its desire to maintain its existing land use controls. 4. The proposed Ordinance is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Bachler recommended approval of Ordinance Number 2016-07 in Planning Case 16-020 to opt-out of the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593 regarding temporary family health care accessory dwellings, as presented in the August 3, 2016, report to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval as Submitted 2. Recommend Approval with Changes 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 10 Commissioner Lambeth asked what would be allowed if the City were to opt out of the State legislation. Senior Planner Bachler explained that the City would continue to follow its current zoning regulations regarding the use of temporary accessory structures as dwellings. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. Commissioner Neururer moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance Number 2016-07 in Planning Case 16-020, as presented in the August 3, 2016, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Mayor Grant updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities from the July 25, 2016 Regular Meeting. The City Council approved a Final PUD for Phase 2 of the Land O’Lakes headquarters consolidation plan in Planning Case 16-016. Phase 2 of the project includes the construction of a four-story, approximately 155,000 gross square foot office building, the expansion of the surface parking lot on the north and west side of the site. Planning Case 16-016 was reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 6, 2016, and received a unanimous recommendation of approval. Mayor Grant reported the City Council approved Planning Case 16-015 for a rear yard setback variance at 1494 Keithson Drive. This case was tabled by the City Council at their meeting on June 26, 2016 to give the applicant additional time to provide an alternate plan that would reduce the encroachment of the proposed porch. The applicant revised their plans to reduce the width of the porch from 12 feet to 10 feet. This resulted in a reduction in the encroachment from 3 feet – 6 inches to 1 foot – 6 inches. Mayor Grant discussed the proposed I-35W MnDOT MNPASS project with the Commission. He noted this project had a funding shortfall but was slated to begin in 2017. Mayor Grant reported City Planner Ryan Streff was no longer with the City of Arden Hills as he has taken a new position that offered him more flexibility. He wished Ryan well in his new position. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – August 3, 2016 11 Mayor Grant explained three Council seats would be up for election in November and encouraged those interested in pursuing a Council seat to contact City Hall for further information. B. TCAAP Update Mayor Grant provided an update regarding the TCAAP redevelopment project. He noted that the master developer has retained Cushman Wakefield NorthMarq as their preferred brokers for commercial/corporate/office/flex space on TCAAP and Mid-America for retail. He added that on July 12, 2016 the County was informed that the TCAAP site received its Certificate of Completion for clean up on the site. Mayor Grant explained that City and County staff, Ehlers and the master developer held their weekly project meetings on June 29th, July 13th and 20th. He described additional meetings held regarding the JDA application review process and environmental issues on the site. Mayor Grant commented that the City Council Work Session on August 15, 2016 would include a joint work session with the JDA. The purpose of the meeting is for the master development team to unveil their preliminary development concepts for feedback from the group. C. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Jones congratulated Kelly Katlin, a former Mounds View High School graduate, for making it to the Rio Olympics. He wished her well in her cycling events. Mayor Grant reported the City had another Mounds View graduate competing in the Rio Olympics on the U.S. badminton team. D. Staff Comments None. ADJOURN Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Gehrig, to adjourn the August 3, 2016, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:56 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2016 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #16-022 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Jairus and Laura Larson Property Location: 1500 Arden Place Request: Variance Requested Action The applicants have requested a Variance in order to construct a new single-family residential dwelling on Lake Johanna. The proposed dwelling would encroach 15 feet – 9 inches into the required 80-foot – 2-inch setback from the Lake Johanna ordinary high water level, and 2 feet into the required 40-foot front yard setback. A proposed deck on the south side of the house would also encroach 15 feet – 4 inches into the required 74-foot – 2-inch setback from Lake Johanna. Background 1. Overview of Request The property at 1500 Arden Place is located in the R-1 District on the northeast side of Lake Johanna. The applicants have proposed taking down the existing dwelling on the property and constructing a new single-family dwelling and accessory storage building. The new house would consist of two levels with a walkout basement facing Lake Johanna. Overall, the structure would have an area of 3,152 square feet. Included in this footprint are a 784 square foot attached garage, 168 square foot screened porch, and 328 square foot deck. The 520 square foot accessory building would be located between the proposed house and the west side property line, and would be used primarily for the storage of lake equipment. Due to a significant grade change on the north side of the property along Arden Place, the existing dwelling has been accessed by a driveway easement across the adjacent property at 1516 Arden Place. The plans include the construction of a new curb cut on Arden Place to provide direct driveway access from the public street, eliminating the need for the driveway easement. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 2 of 9 Three setback variances are needed for the proposed dwelling. For properties with frontage on Lake Johanna, the Zoning Code requires principal structures to be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the ordinary high water level except where the adjoining lots have structures setback at a distance greater than 50 feet. In these cases, the Zoning Code requires the lakeshore setback be calculated based on the prevailing setbacks in order to protect sight lines. The required lakeshore setback for 1500 Arden Place has been calculated at 80 feet – 2 inches. A variance is needed for the dwelling to encroach 15 feet – 9 inches into this required setback. Decks may extend up to six feet into a required structure setback, and in this case a deck could be 74 feet – 2 inches from the shoreline. A portion of the deck on the south side of the house would extend 15 feet – 4 inches into this setback. Additionally, a corner of the attached garage would encroach 2 feet into the 40-foot minimum front yard setback. The applicants have submitted a letter describing the project in more detail and addressing each of the variance criteria (Attachment A). The property survey and preliminary building plans are included in Attachment D. 2. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-1: Single Family Residential Lot Size: 0.67 Acres (29,146 square feet) Topography: Slopes down approximately 29 feet from northeast corner of property to Lake Johanna ordinary high water level 3. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential South Water (Lake Johanna) Water (Lake Johanna) Water (Lake Johanna) East Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Attached Residential West Low Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential Plan Evaluation 1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Addition A. Lot Size & Dimensions – Conforming The survey indicates that the area of the lot above the Lake Johanna ordinary high water level is 29,146 square feet. The width of the lot is approximately 156 feet along Arden Place. The average depth of the lot between the east and west property lines is 184.5 feet. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 3 of 9 B. Structure Setback – Variance Required A variance is needed to allow the new dwelling to encroach 2 feet into the minimum front yard setback of 40 feet, creating a setback of 38 feet. The encroachment into the front yard setback occurs only in a small area at the northwest corner of the attached garage. A second variance is needed for the principal dwelling to encroach 15 feet – 9 inches into the required 80-foot – 2-inch setback from the Lake Johanna ordinary high water level (OHWL). The proposed setback would be 64 feet – 5 inches from the OHWL as measured from the closest point of the screened porch. For properties with frontage on Lake Johanna, principal structures are required to be setback a minimum of 50 feet from the OHWL except where the adjoining lots have structures setback at a distance greater than 50 feet. In these cases, the required setback is determined by taking the average setback of the two adjacent dwellings and subtracting 10 feet. The dwelling to the east, 1492 Arden Place, is setback 130 feet – 4 inches from the OHWL, and the dwelling to the west, 1516 Arden Place, is setback 29 feet – 1 inch. Where properties have a dwelling that encroaches on the 50-foot lakeshore setback, 50 feet is used in determining the average setback. Therefore, the required setback for the new dwelling at 1500 Arden Place would be 80 feet – 2 inches from the OHWL. Finally, a variance is needed for the proposed deck to extend 15 feet – 4 inches into the setback from the OHWL. Section 1325.03 of the Zoning Code allows decks to extend up to 6 feet into the required structure setback. Therefore, a deck could be up to 74 feet – 2 inches from the OHWL. As proposed, the deck would setback 58 feet – 10 inches from the OHWL. The calculation for determining principal structure setbacks from the OHWL as discussed above does not apply to accessory structures. The accessory building is required to meet the minimum structure setback of 50 feet from the Lake Johanna OHWL. As proposed, the building would be setback 59 feet – 6 inches. The building would meet the minimum side yard setback of 10 feet. C. Structure Height – Conforming The maximum height permitted for principal structures in the R-1 District is 35 feet. The proposed dwelling is two levels including a walkout basement and would have a height of 19 feet. Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf.) 14,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth) 95/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.3 5. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 6. Minimum Landscape Lot Area 65% 7. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front Yard 40 Rear Yard (Principle) 30 Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Minimum/total both yards on lot) 10/25 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 40 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 4 of 9 The maximum height permitted for accessory structures in residential districts is 15 feet. The proposed accessory building would have a height of 11 feet. D. Lot Coverage – Conforming Properties in the R-1 District are permitted up to 25 percent structure coverage and must maintain a minimum landscape lot area of 65 percent. As proposed, 12.60 percent of the lot area would be covered by structures and 79.71 percent of the lot area would be landscaped. Lot Coverage Proposed R-1 Regulations Square Feet Percent Dwelling 3,152 % Accessory Building 520 % Total Structure 3,672 12.60% Maximum 25% Driveway 1,858 % Sidewalk/Patio 384 0.7% Total Impervious Coverage 5,914 20.29% Maximum 35% Landscape Area 23,232 79.71% Minimum 65% Lot Size 29,146 - E. Floor Area Ratio – Conforming The floor area ratio (FAR) is calculated by dividing the gross square footage of the dwelling by the lot area. In the R-1 District, the maximum FAR permitted is 0.3. The proposed dwelling would have a finished floor area of 2,125 square feet on the main level and 1,763 square feet on the lower level. The total finished square footage would be 3,888 square feet for an FAR of 0.13. F. Tree Preservation A Tree Preservation Plan is required for all new building construction. The applicants have identified 38 significant trees on the property totaling 707 caliper inches. In order to construct the new dwelling, 8 significant trees (106 caliper inches) would be removed. The City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance allows up to 10 percent of the total caliper inches of trees on a site to be removed before mitigation is required. In this case, the permitted removal would be 70.7 caliper inches. Since the proposal includes the removal of more trees than allowed by the Ordinance, replacement tree plantings are required. The mitigation rate is calculated by subtracting the permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. For this proposal, 17.6 caliper inches of trees would need to be planted. Staff has recommended as condition of approval that the required replacement trees be planted prior to the City issuing a final certificate of occupancy for the dwelling. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 5 of 9 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to construction. City Engineer The City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Grading and Erosion Control Permit will be required prior to construction. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no permit will be required. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Municipalities are required to provide the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with a copy of the variance request for properties within designated shoreland areas at least 10 days before the public meeting. Staff notified the DNR about this application on August 24, 2016. No comments have been provided by the DNR at this time. Discussion Staff is supportive of the variance request for several reasons. The proposed location of the new dwelling is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the provision in the Zoning Code that requires structures to be setback at a greater distance from the lakeshore when adjacent lots have existing dwellings that exceed the minimum setback requirement. As depicted in the Buildable Caliper Inches Number of Trees Total Existing Trees 707 38 10% Permitted Removal 70.7 -- Proposed Removal 106 8 Trees Preserved 601 30 Replacement Trees Required* 17.6 * Replacement trees are calculated by subtracting the ten percent permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 6 of 9 Area Exhibit (Attachment F), the areas of the dwelling encroaching in the lakeshore setback are relatively small. The property owners have intentionally placed the dwelling towards the center of the property to reduce its visual impact on either of the neighboring properties. The dwelling could have been shifted east towards 1492 Arden Place and reduce the need for a variance, but this would actually have a greater visual impact on the adjacent property. Environmental conditions on the property also restrict shifting the dwelling to the east to reduce the variance need. There are significant grade changes in the northeastern corner of the property that would present construction challenges. Additionally, there is a large stand of trees along the shared property line with 1492 Arden Place that creates a visual buffer between the two properties. The dwelling could be moved further east, but this would likely impact trees in this area possibly reducing the natural screening of the new dwelling. The front yard setback variance is relatively minor, as shown in the Buildable Area Exhibit. Only a small portion of the northwest corner of the attached garage would encroach in the 40-foot setback. The applicants designed their plans in this way in an effort to reduce the encroachment in the lakeshore setback as much as possible. There is significant grade change and tree coverage between Arden Place and the proposed location of the dwelling, which would reduce the visual impact of the encroachment. Additionally, the adjacent property at 1516 Arden Place was granted a variance in Planning Case 95-07 to allow for the principal dwelling to be setback 12.7 feet from the front property line. The encroachment in the front yard setback would not be inconsistent with development patterns in the area. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following findings of fact for review: General Findings: 1. The property at 1500 Arden Place is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is a conforming lot within the R-1 District. 3. The applicants have proposed taking down the existing dwelling on the property and constructing a new single-family dwelling and accessory storage building. 4. Based on the requirements outlined in Section 1330.03, Subd. 4 of the Zoning Code, the City has determined that the required setback for the new dwelling is 80 feet – 2 inches from the Lake Johanna OHWL. 5. The proposed principal structure would encroach 15 feet – 9 inches into the required setback from the Lake Johanna OHWL, creating a setback of 64 feet – 5 inches. 6. Section 1325.03 of the Zoning Code allows decks to extend up to 6 feet into the required structure setback. Therefore, a deck could be up to 74 feet – 2 inches from the Lake Johanna OHWL. 7. The proposed deck would encroach 15 feet – 4 inches into the setback from the Lake Johanna OHWL, creating a setback of 58 feet – 10 inches. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 7 of 9 8. The proposed principal structure would encroach 2 feet into the front yard setback, creating a setback of 38 feet from the Arden Place property line. The minimum front yard setback in the R-1 District is 40 feet. 9. All other aspects of the proposed construction are in conformance with the Zoning Code requirements for the R-1 District. 10. The proposed construction would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. Variance Findings: 11. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City’s Code because the dwelling would be constructed in a location to minimize visual impacts on adjacent properties and protect sight lines of Lake Johanna. 12. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging property reinvestment that complements and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 13. The proposed construction of a new single-family dwelling is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variance. 14. The property is unique and presents development challenges because of its topography. The unique characteristics of the property were not created by the property owners. 15. The proposed dwelling would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because it would result in a structure that is consistent and compatible with other construction in the area. 16. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. If the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, staff recommends the following six conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. A Grading and Erosion Control permit shall be required prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 3. A Building Permit shall be required prior to commencement of construction. 4. The accessory structure shall have an exterior finish that is compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure. 5. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 8 of 9 6. The property owners shall provide 17.6 caliper inches of new tree plantings per the submitted Tree Preservation Plan prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for the dwelling. Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of 2.5 caliper inches in size, and coniferous trees a minimum of 6 feet in height. Proposed Motion Language 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 16-022 for a variance at 1500 Arden Place, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the six conditions in the September 7, 2016, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 16- 022 for a variance at 1500 Arden Place, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the September 7, 2016, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 16-022 for a variance at 1500 Arden Place based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 16-022 for a variance at 1500 Arden Place: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 350 feet of the subject property. Public Comments The City has received letters of support for the requested variance from the following property owners: 1455, 1466, 1475, 1480 Skiles Lane, and 1485, 1492, 1532, 1540, 1545, 1548 Arden Place. All ten of these properties are within 350 feet of 1500 Arden Place. 1492 Arden Place is the adjacent property located to the east of the subject property. A copy of each of the support letters have been provided in Attachment G. The City has not received any public comments opposing the proposed variance. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-022 - 1500 Arden Place - Variance\Memos_Reports_16-022 Page 9 of 9 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 22, 2016. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 21, 2016 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. Attachments A. Land Use Application and Variance Request Letter B. Location and Aerial Maps C. Existing Conditions Survey D. Proposed Site Plan E. Preliminary Building Plans F. Buildable Area Exhibit G. Public Comments Jairus (Jerry) & Laura Larson 1500 Arden Place Arden Hills, MN 55112 (651) 330-9698 August 9, 2016 To City of Arden Hills Planning Commission: We hereby submit for your consideration the proposed plans for replacement of our existing residence. Given the unique characteristics and constraints of the property, we have diligently worked to adapt these plans to suit the Arden Hills zoning codes and State of Minnesota statutes, our neighbors and our community. General Background: The property is located at 1500 Arden Place on the northeast side of Lake Johanna. The current home was built in 1953 and the original owner lived in the home for 61 years before selling it to us at the age of 94. The home had not been maintained for a significant number of years and, in our opinion, is beyond its useful life such that renovation or modification could not elevate the physical characteristics to contemporary residential standards. We purchased the property in fall of 2014 and now seek to make improvements. The current home is non-conforming on the lot and sits 15 feet from the property line on the west side and 36 feet from the street. Due to the steep drop from street level, the property has an easement to the west providing the only access to the property over the adjacent homeowner’s driveway at 1516 Arden Place, which then requires a 90 degree turn and downward 12% slope to the home. We are proposing demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new home on the property. In doing so, we would move the house towards the center of the property to optimize placement relative to the adjacent properties and the general look and flow in the neighborhood, and facilitate a separate driveway so as to eliminate the need for an access easement across our neighbor’s property. The following is an evaluation of how the proposed application meets the six hardship criteria. 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls? Yes, due to the topography of the land, there is only a very small portion of the lot that is suitable for a home to be built. We have explored a number of options to place a new home on the lot and have consulted with City staff regarding the setback requirements. There is a small and narrow plateau where the home is being proposed, approximately 46 feet off the west property line and 38 feet from the street. Due to drainage issues and below street grade (sewer complications), placement on the east side of the lot is not a viable option. The east side of the property has a very steep hill which drops nearly 20 feet below the street in a distance of only 30 feet. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Yes, this is a unique piece of property on the lake with access, drainage, sewer and topography issues that were all in existence for many years prior. None of these issues were created by the landowners. For example, there is a great deviation on this property of the ordinary high water mark (OHW) relative to the elevation of the shoreline that is not found on the east or west properties. Using the current survey, the OHW would be 18 feet closer to the shoreline than the mark based on data from over a century ago (1912 and 1929). Using today’s data rather than that from the early 20th century would provide a setback that is typically found on Lake Johanna properties, and the deviation between the two does not help achieve the intent of the zoning code. Another example is that the property sits significantly below the grade of the street with Arden Place curving up and away from the property, which constrains placement options. This has caused access and sewer issues (including sewer backup) that we would like to fix, making the property safer. 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Yes, we believe this to be true. In placing the house as proposed, we are also considerately addressing the enjoyment benefits of the existing adjacent properties for our neighbors. Moving the home from its current location to be situated further east is a direct benefit to the neighbors at 1516 Arden Place. Not only does it create more distance between the homes to improve their view corridors to the lake, it is a great enhancement for them as the plans call for a new access point that would not require an easement over their property. With the proposed placement we also do not encroach on our neighbors to the west at 1492 Arden Place, preserving their privacy and views of the lake. Both adjacent homes (1516 Arden Place and 1492 Arden Place) are non-conforming properties. 1516 Arden Place sits only 12 feet from the property line, a variance from the existing ordinance requiring a 40 foot setback. Additionally, 1516 Arden Place is only 29 feet from the lake, also a variance from the 50 foot lake setback requirement. This is a 6 BR, 4 BA ~5,000 sq. ft, 3 story home. To the west, 1492 Arden Place is also non-conforming as it only has 20 feet of lake access, with an irregular shaped lot not meeting the existing ordinance requirements for lot width of 75 feet; nor does the property conform for meeting the zoning requirements as more than ten (10) percent of the shoreline is utilized for a dock. This is a 5 BR, ~4,000 sq ft, 2 story home. Additionally, the majority of the homes that are lakefront in this neighborhood do not meet the minimum set back and/or lot width requirements. The request for our property is, in light of those neighboring properties variances and non-conforming uses, reasonable and within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone. No, the variance will not create a land use that is not permitted in this zone. It is currently zoned residential and would remain a single family residential property. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City. Correct, the variance will not alter the essential character of the City, is in better harmony with the existing lay of the land, and respectful of the adjacent property owners. It puts to better use the property in a reasonable manner. 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone. That is correct, the variance is not for economic reasons. It is based primarily on the unique topography found on the property and a desire to locate the home so as not to encroach on our neighbors. For the reasons above, we respectfully request the variance requested. Jerry Larson Laura Larson This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 400.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet400.00200.00 1500 Arden Place 2,400 Enter Map Description Notes This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 200.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet200.00100.00 1500 Arden Place 1,200 Enter Map Description Notes RREEAARR EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//88"" == 11''--00"" 33 11 42" O.H. 12 5 42" O.H. 12 5 12 5 12 5 4" VINYL SIDING RETAINING WALLS 6" HARDIE LAP SIDING4" VINYL SIDING LLEEFFTT EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//88"" == 11''--00"" 22 11 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 6" HARDIE LAP SIDING 4" VINYL SIDING RRIIGGHHTT EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//88"" == 11''--00"" 44 11 12 5 12 5 12 5 42" O.H.42" O.H. 12 5 FFRROONNTT EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 11 11 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES 42" O.H. 4" VINYL SIDING 6" HARDIE LAP SIDING 10" HARDIE TRIM 3 '-6 " 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 3 '-6 " 3 '-6 " 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 3'-6" 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 3'-6" 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 3'-6" 3 '-6 " 3'-6" 5 :1 2 5 :1 2 5 :1 2 5 :1 2 5:12 5 :1 2 5:12 5 :1 2 5 :1 2 5 :1 2 5:12 5 :1 2 5:12 5:12 5 :1 2 5 :1 2 5 :1 2 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 RROOOOFF PPLLAANN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//88"" == 11''--00"" 55 11 SSQQUUAARREE FFOOOOTTAAGGEE:: MAIN LEVEL FINISHED: UPPER LEVEL FINISHED: TOTAL ABOVE GRADE: 2,125 - 2,125 LOWER LEVEL FINISHED: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,763 3,888 M N B u i l d e r L i c e n s e #B C 6 8 6 6 1 4 1 8 9 0 W o o d d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 4 0 0 W o o d b u r y , M N 5 5 1 2 5 (6 5 1 )7 3 1 -2 3 4 5 K o o t e n i a H o m e s Sheet No: Project No: C 2 0 1 6 l a w s w i l l b e p r o s e c u t e d . A l l v i o l a t o r s o f t h e s e u n l a w f u l u s e o f o u r p l a n s . K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C f r o m l a w s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w s . T h e s e c o p y r i g h t e d a n d p r o t e c t e d A l l K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C p l a n s a r e Last Revision: Drawn By: Date: Date:Rev By: 16XX 1 L A R S O N R E S I D E N C E 1 5 0 0 A R D E N P L A C E A R D E N H I L L S , M N 1-28-16 JEN 8-9-16 JEN 4-7-16 4-13-16JEN 5-11-16JEN 6-8-16JEN JEN 6-24-16 JEN 7-1-16 JEN 7-13-16 JEN 8-9-16 A/C @ 1 9 .2 " O .C . 2 0 " T R U S S E S WH F.D. 2 '-3 " 4'-0" 7 '- 6 " 6 '-0 " 3 '-6 " 4 '-1 0 " 2 '-3 " 5'-9"1'-3" 6 1 '-0 " 6 1 '-0 " 1 2 '-0 " 4 '-0 " 4'-3"13'-6" 4 " 7 '-0 " 4 '-2 "1'-10" 1 1 '-2 " 2'-4"9'-2"2'-0"16'-2"2'-4" 7'-2"7'-2"2'-0"4'-0" 4 '-9 " 4 '-9 " 4 '-6 " 2 0 '-0 " 7'-0" 6'-4" 2 0 '-6 " 3 '-1 0 " 9 '-6 " 2 3 '-6 " 2 0 '-6 " 13'-4"26'-10"5'-2" 6'-0"4'-3"5'-9"4'-0" 4 '-8 " 6 '-4 " 1 2 '-8 " 4 '-8 " 14'-1"7'-11"4'-8" 3'-0"12'-8"5'-0"6'-6"5'-0"10'-2"13'-4"14'-4" 1 3 '-0 " 3 '-4 " 7 '-8 " 1 3 '-0 " 4'-0"4'-0" 1 '-0 " 2 4 '-6 " 1 9 '-2 " 1 2 '-0 " 4 '-4 " 11'-0"11'-9"11'-0"25'-11"14'-4"6'-0" 80'-0" 1 0 '-0 " 1 6 '-0 " 1 1 '-6 " 9 '-6 " 1 0 '-0 " 4 '-0 " 78'-0" 6'-0"7'-0"10'-0"10'-0"13'-0"32'-0" 3680 OPG 3 0 6 8 2 4 2 4 48" x 34" F/G SHWR 3 4 3 4 2-9 1/2" LVL ** NOTE: SEE ENGINEER'S DETAIL SHEET FOR SPECIFICS PERTAINING TO THE SPORT COURT FOUNDATION AND HOLLOW CORE PLANK FLOOR ** 2-2x10 100GLD7660 R.O. 7'-6 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2" 3-9 1/2" LVLREF 3 0 6 8 1 4 1 4 STOR. ABOVE @ 1 9 .2 " O .C . 2 0 " T R U S S E S C O N C . P L A N K S H O L L O W C O R E 9" CLG DROP 12" x 17'-0" POURED CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 6" LEDGE SEE ENGINEER'S DETAIL SHEET 12" x 17'-0" POURED CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 6" LEDGE 7 2 "w B E N C H S E A T I N G w / H O O K S A B O V E @ 1 9 .2 " O .C . 2 0 " T R U S S E S L V T C P T SUMP SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00""22 BBAASSEEMMEENNTT PPLLAANN11 11,,776633 FFIINN SSQQ FFTT 12" x 16'-0" CONC. WALL 2 4 6 8 2 4 6 8 15'-8" CLG CONC. FLR SSPPOORRTT CCOOUURRTT W8x15 STEEL LINTEL ABOVE WINDOW TO SUPPORT CONCRETE PLANKS 8" CONC. WALLS BELOW 2x6 BRG WALLS @ STAIRS UUNNEEXXCC.. LINEN U P 1 7 R C O N C . P L A N K S H O L L O W C O R E FURN. HRV DN 10 R TO SPORT COURT 3 0 6 8 3068 2 8 6 8 RREECC RROOOOMM CPT LINEN RETAINING WALL BBEEDDRROOOOMM 33 CPT BBEEDDRROOOOMM 22 CPT 2 0 6 8 2468 PKT. WWEETTBBAARR LVT STACK W/D BBAATTHH 33 LVT BBAATTHH 44 LVT 2 4 6 8 P K T . EENNTTRRYY LVT UNFINISHED MMEECCHH.. // SSTTOORR.. 2 4 6 8 2 6 6 8 2 6 6 8 60" x 30" FIBERGLASS 2 0 6 8 2 6 6 8 3 0 6 8 C .O . 100CST6050-2W R.O. 6'-0 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2" 100CST2650 R.O. 2'-6 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2" 1 0 0 C S T 6 0 5 0 -2 W R .O . 6 '-0 1 /2 " x 5 '-0 1 /2 " 100PIC6050 R.O. 6'-0 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2" 100PIC6050 R.O. 6'-0 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2" 100CST3050 R.O. 3'-0 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2" 100CST3050 R.O. 3'-0 1/2" x 5'-0 1/2" H E A T & G L O 6 0 0 0 G A S F . P . 100SPD60611 R.O. 6'-0 1/2" x 6'-11 1/2" RETAINING WALL (SCREEN PORCH ABOVE) (DECK ABOVE) 1166'' xx 1166'' CCOONNCC.. PPAATTIIOO CENTER POUR AROUND PATIO DOOR 8" x 9'-0" CONC. WALL SET IN 2" FROM MAIN FOR 2" RIGID INSUL. @ EXTERIOR 20" x 8" CONC. FTG 8" x 9'-0" CONC. WALL SET IN 2" FROM MAIN FOR 2" RIGID INSUL. @ EXTERIOR 20" x 8" CONC. FTG 8" x 9'-0" CONC. WALL SET IN 2" FROM MAIN FOR 2" RIGID INSUL. @ EXTERIOR 20" x 8" CONC. FTG LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE 1 0 0 C S T 5 0 2 0 -2 W (F I X E D ) R .O . 5 '-0 1 /2 " x 2 '-0 1 /2 " S E T @ 1 4 ' O F F C O U R T F L R GGEENNEERRAALL NNOOTTEESS:: - 9'-0" POURED CONC. FOUNDATION WALLS - 3 1/2" POURED CONC. SLAB OVER POLY - 2x6 TREATED SILL PLATE WITH FOAM SILL SEALER - ANCHOR STAPS PER CODE - STANDARD HEADER 2-2x10 UNLESS NOTE OTHERWISE - ANDERSON 100 SERIES WINDOWS (ALL R.O.'s HAVE 1/2" ADDED) MMAASSOONNRRYY NNOOTTEE:: ALL FOUNDATION WALLS HELD IN 2" FOR RIGID INS. (EXCEPT AT SPORT COURT & WALKOUT) 2" RIGID INSUL. FLUSH WITH EXTERIOR SHEATHING 2x6 TRTD. SILL PLATE FLUSH WITH FOUNDATION FLOOR TRUSSES CANT'D OVER FOUNDATION 1-1/2" FUTURE GENERATOR 2 x 6 2 x 6 2 x 6 R A I L I N G 3 5 3 5 4 5 4 5 SOUND INSUL. BATH WALLS SOUND INSUL. BATH WALLS 2-7 1/4" LVL 2-9 1/2" LVL 2-9 1/2" LVL R&SH R&SH @ 1 6 " O .C . T R T D . 2 x 1 2 's 3 -2 x 1 0 's 2-2x10 6x6 TRTD. POST ON 16" x 60" CONC. PIER FTG. TYPICAL AT DECK 6x6 TRTD. POST ON 24" x 60" CONC. PIER FTG. TYPICAL AT SCREEN PORCH 3 1/8" x 12 3/8" TRTD. GLU-LAM 3 1/8" x 12 3/8" TRTD. GLU-LAM 3 1/8" x 12 3/8" TRTD. GLU-LAM M N B u i l d e r L i c e n s e #B C 6 8 6 6 1 4 1 8 9 0 W o o d d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 4 0 0 W o o d b u r y , M N 5 5 1 2 5 (6 5 1 )7 3 1 -2 3 4 5 K o o t e n i a H o m e s Sheet No: Project No: C 2 0 1 6 l a w s w i l l b e p r o s e c u t e d . A l l v i o l a t o r s o f t h e s e u n l a w f u l u s e o f o u r p l a n s . K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C f r o m l a w s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w s . T h e s e c o p y r i g h t e d a n d p r o t e c t e d A l l K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C p l a n s a r e Last Revision: Drawn By: Date: Date:Rev By: 16XX L A R S O N R E S I D E N C E 1 5 0 0 A R D E N P L A C E A R D E N H I L L S , M N 1-28-16 JEN 8-9-16 JEN 4-7-16 2 4-13-16JEN 5-11-16JEN 6-8-16JEN JEN 6-24-16 JEN 7-1-16 JEN 7-13-16 JEN 8-9-16 2x6 2x6 2x6 2'-0" 8'-4"3'-10" 1 1 " 4 '-5 " 2'-3"2'-6" 2'-0" 6 1 '-0 " 6 1 '-0 " 9 '-6 " 1 2 '-3 " 1 2 '-3 " 7'-11"6'-9"8'-4"7'-11"5'-0"5'-0"8'-1"3'-8"2'-6"4'-8"4'-8"2'-6"3'-3"2'-9" 2 '-6 " 1 3 '-6 " 2 '-6 " 9 '-0 " 4 '-9 " 4 '-9 " 7 '-6 " 2 '-6 " 2'-4"9'-2"2'-0"16'-2"2'-4"6'-6"6'-6"5'-0"5'-0"6'-0"4'-0"3'-6"3'-6" 2 '-6 " 2'-6" 2 '-6 " 2'-6" 80'-0" 5 '-6 " 9 '-0 " 4 '-6 " 6 '-0 " 1'-10"4'-6"7'-6" 1 9 '-6 " 1 4 '-6 "1 0 '-0 " 2 '-4 " 3 '-0 " 5 '-8 " 3'-0" 7'-0"3'-6" 3'-0"5'-6"4'-6"17'-0"18'-0" 1 6 '-0 " 1 0 '-8 " 5 '-4 " 7 '-8 " 5 '-4 " 5 '-0 " 14'-0"4'-0"4'-0"2'-0" 1 2 '-0 " 5 '-5 " 7 '-7 " 2 2 '-0 " 4 '-0 " 7 '-0 " 1 '-0 " 2 4 '-6 " 3 5 '-6 " 1 0 '-0 " 1 6 '-0 " 1 1 '-6 " 9 '-6 " 1 0 '-0 " 4 '-0 " 2'-0"5'-0"52'-8"14'-4"6'-0" 4'-4"1'-4"2'-6"20'-6"27'-0"5'-0" 78'-0" 6'-0"7'-0"10'-0"10'-0"13'-0"32'-0" 4 '-0 " 16'-0"14'-0"4'-0" 1 2 '-0 " 4 '-0 " SSCCRREEEENN PPOORRCCHH DBL OVENS REF PANTRY DW S T E P S T O G R A D EDDEECCKK CEDAR DECKING CEDAR RAIL w/ ALUM. SPINDLE F O L D I N G C O U N T E R 2 6 6 8 H A L F W A L L BBAATTHH 11 6 0 " x 3 0 " F I B E R G L A S S DDIINNIINNGG RROOOOMM T .V . C A B . MMUUDD.. RETAINING WALL RAILING 3 6 " x 9 6 " O P G 3 6 " x 9 6 " O P G 2068 2068 PREP SINK CEDAR DECKING 9' CEDAR PLYWOOD CLG PPAANNTT.. 100PIC3660 R.O. 3'-6 1/2" x 6'-0 1/2" 1 5 1 5 WW..II..CC.. KKIITTCCHHEENN GGRREEAATT RROOOOMM 12' CLG CCOOVV.. EENNTTRRYY 3/4" DROP BEV. CENTER D R O P Z O N E 2 -2 x 1 2 C.T. SHWR 3 6 " C O O K T O P H O O D A B O V E 3 0 6 8 3 0 6 8 F U L L V I E W D O W N 1 6 R 9' CLG 1 2 ' C L G 9 ' C L G 9 ' C L G 1 2 ' C L G R &S H 13' CLG 1 0 0 C S T 3 0 6 0 R .O . 3 '-0 1 /2 " x 6 '-0 1 /2 " R &S H R &S H WD 12' CLG 2 6 6 8 2 4 6 8 2 8 6 8 2 8 6 8 2 4 6 8 2468 2068 2068 ELEC. IN-FLR C.T. LLAAUUNN.. LVT BBAATTHH 22 LVT SSTTUUDDYY CPT WWIICC CPT 9' CLG WOODFFOOYYEERR 9' CLG WOOD 84" x 48" ISLAND OOWWNNEERR''SS SSUUIITTEE CPT 9' CLG WOOD LVT 13' CLG WOOD 33--CCAARR GGAARRAAGGEE PLATE HEIGHT TO MATCH MAIN FLOOR DRYWALL & PAINT GARAGE WALLS & CLG (NO INSUL.) GARAGE FLOOR DROPPED 3/4" FROM MAIN FLOOR CONCRETE FLOOR SLOPED TO O.H. DOORS 16' x 7' RAISED PANEL O.H. DOOR 9' x 7' RAISED PANEL O.H. DOOR CONC. 48" DIA. SNACKBAR RAISE TO 42" HGT. H E A T & G L O 6 0 0 0 G A S F .P . 22,,112255 SSQQ FFTT 1 0 0 P I C 2 6 2 0 R .O . 2 '-6 1 /2 " x 2 '-0 1 /2 " MMAAIINN FFLLOOOORR PPLLAANN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 11 33 100PIC2620-2W R.O. 5'-0 1/2" x 2'-0 1/2" 100CST3060-2W R.O. 6'-0 1/2" x 6'-0 1/2" 1 0 0 C S T 3 0 6 0 R .O . 3 '-0 1 /2 " x 6 '-0 1 /2 " 100CST3060-3W R.O. 9'-0 1/2" x 6'-0 1/2" 1 0 0 P I C 3 0 2 0 -2 W R .O . 6 '-0 1 /2 " x 2 '-0 1 /2 " 100CST2046-2W R.O. 4'-0 1/2" x 4'-6 1/2" 100SPD6080 R.O. 6'-0 1/2" x 8'-0 1/2" 100PIC6060 R.O. 6'-0 1/2" x 8'-6 1/2" 100PIC6026 100PIC5070 R.O. 5'-0 1/2" x 7'-0 1/2" 100PIC5060 R.O. 5'-0 1/2" x 6'-0 1/2" 1 0 0 C S T 3 0 6 0 R .O . 3 '-0 1 /2 " x 6 '-0 1 /2 " 100CST3060 R.O. 3'-0 1/2" x 6'-0 1/2" 100CST3060 R.O. 3'-0 1/2" x 6'-0 1/2" 1 0 0 C S T 3 0 6 0 R .O . 3 '-0 1 /2 " x 6 '-0 1 /2 " 100PIC3026 100CST3060 R.O. 3'-0 1/2" x 8'-6 1/2" 100PIC3026 100CST3060 R.O. 3'-0 1/2" x 8'-6 1/2" RETAINING WALL 1 0 0 P I C 3 0 2 0 -2 W R .O . 6 '-0 1 /2 " x 2 '-0 1 /2 " S E T @ O .H . D O O R H G T . GGEENNEERRAALL NNOOTTEESS:: - MAIN LEVEL PLATE HEIGHT 9'-1 1/8" - BOTTOM OF HEADERS 7'-10" ABOVE SUBFLOOR UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE - STANDARD HEADER 2-2x10 UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE - MINIMUM LVL BEARING 3" UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE - STANDARD HEADER 2-2x10 UNLESS NOTE OTHERWISE - ANDERSON 100 SERIES WINDOWS (ALL R.O.'s HAVE 1/2" ADDED) - 4" BASE, 3 1/4" CASING UTILITY SINK 2 5 2 53 4 3 4 2 4 2 4 1 4 1 4 9' CLG 2-9 1/2" LVL 2-9 1/2" LVL 10' CLG SOUND INSUL. LAUND. WALLS SOUND INSUL. BATH WALLS SOUND INSUL. BATH WALLS WIRE SHELVES 2-7 1/4" LVL 3-2x10 2-7 1/4" LVL 3-2x10 C U B B I E S / L O C K E R S TYP. 2-2x10 2 -9 1 /2 " L V L 2 -9 1 /2 " L V L 2-14" LVL 2-9 1/2" LVL 2-9 1/2" LVL 2 -9 1 /2 " L V L 2 -9 1 /2 " L V L R A I L I N G T H I S S I D E M N B u i l d e r L i c e n s e #B C 6 8 6 6 1 4 1 8 9 0 W o o d d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 4 0 0 W o o d b u r y , M N 5 5 1 2 5 (6 5 1 )7 3 1 -2 3 4 5 K o o t e n i a H o m e s Sheet No: Project No: C 2 0 1 6 l a w s w i l l b e p r o s e c u t e d . A l l v i o l a t o r s o f t h e s e u n l a w f u l u s e o f o u r p l a n s . K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C f r o m l a w s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w s . T h e s e c o p y r i g h t e d a n d p r o t e c t e d A l l K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C p l a n s a r e Last Revision: Drawn By: Date: Date:Rev By: 16XX L A R S O N R E S I D E N C E 1 5 0 0 A R D E N P L A C E A R D E N H I L L S , M N 1-28-16 JEN 8-9-16 JEN 4-7-16 3 4-13-16JEN 5-11-16JEN 6-8-16JEN JEN 6-24-16 JEN 7-1-16 JEN 7-13-16 JEN 8-9-16 10'-8" 8 '-1 0 " 9 '-1 1 /8 " 7 7 /1 6 " 10"6 '-1 0 " 5 '-0 1 /2 " 3 '-4 " 7 '-0 " SSTTAAIIRR SSEECCTTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 33 44 8" CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 2" LEDGE 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. GRADE 24'-0"20'-0" 9 '-1 1 /8 " 9 '-1 7 /8 " 3'-6" 1 6 '-6 " 3'-6" 1 5 '-8 1 /2 " 1 '-0 " 9 '-9 1 /2 " 6 '-2 1 /2 " 8 '-1 0 " 4 '-0 " 1 7 '-0 " CONC. PLANKS 20" FLOOR TRUSSES @ 19.2" O.C. 3/4" T&G SUBLFOOR SPORT COURT FLOOR ELEV = 882.3 BSMT FLOOR ELEV = 888.2 TOP OF FTG = 882.0 TOP OF FTG. @ WALKOUT = 884.2 TOP OF BLOCK = 896.9 GARAGE FLOOR ELEV = 899.0 SSPPOORRTT CCOOUURRTT GGAARRAAGGEE BBUUIILLDDIINNGG SSEECCTTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 11 44 BBAASSEEMMEENNTT HHOOUUSSEE TOP OF FTG. = 887.912" CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 6" LEDGE 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. (SEE ENGINEER'S DETAIL) CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT ASPHALT SHINGLES 15# ROOF FELT 7/16" OSB SHEATHING w/ H-CLIPS 12 5 PRE-MANUFACTURED TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. ALUM. ROOF EDGE ALUM. FASCIA COVER ALUM. SOFFIT PANELS 2x6 SUB-FASCIA SIDING PER ELEVATION TYVEK HOUSE WRAP 7/16" OSB SHEATHING 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. R-21 FIBERGLASS INSUL. 1/2" GYP BOARD 2x RIBBON R-20 CLOSED CELL SPRAY INSUL. @ RIM SIDING PER ELEVATION TYVEK HOUSE WRAP 7/16" OSB SHEATHING 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. R-21 FIBERGLASS INSUL. 1/2" GYP BOARD GRADE 1/2" GYP. BOARD FLASHING 3 1/2" POURED CONC. SLAB w/ 6-8" GRAVEL DRAINFIELD R-49 LOOSE BLOWN F/G INSUL. 4mil POLY VAPOR BARRIER 1/2" GYP. BOARD TYP. O.H. 3 1/2" POURED CONC. SLAB w/ 6-8" GRAVEL DRAINFIELD 15" HEEL HGT. 12 5 ** TRUSS MANUF. TO VERIFY TRUSS DESIGN & HEEL HEIGHTS ** TOP CHORD BRG. GRADE TYP. O.H. 8" CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 2" LEDGE 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. 2" RIGID INSUL. (R-10) @ WALKOUT PERIMETER 4" DUAL DRAINTILE w/ FABRIC FILTER & ROCK TRENCH 35'-0"37'-0" 3'-6" 3'-6" 9 '-1 7 /8 " 3'-6" 9 '-1 1 /8 " 8 '-1 0 " 4 '-0 " 9 '-1 1 /8 " 36'-10" 2" 8 '-1 0 " 6 '-6 " 2 '-3 " 1 5 '-8 1 /2 " 8 '-0 " 1 7 '-0 " SSTTOORR.. 8" CONC. PLANKS 4" POURED CONC. FLR BBAASSEEMMEENNTT SSPPOORRTT CCOOUURRTT 33--CCAARR GGAARRAAGGEE HHOOUUSSEE PRE-MANUFACTURED TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. ALUM. ROOF EDGE ALUM. FASCIA COVER ALUM. SOFFIT PANELS BBUUIILLDDIINNGG SSEECCTTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 22 44 CLOSET ACCESSED FROM SPORT COURT 2x6 SUB-FASCIA 12" CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 6" LEDGE 32"x10" CONC. FTG. SEE ENGINEER'S SHEET 12 5 15" HEEL HGT. 12 5 ** TRUSS MANUF. TO VERIFY TRUSS DESIGN & HEEL HEIGHTS ** CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENT ASPHALT SHINGLES 15# ROOF FELT 7/16" OSB SHEATHING w/ H-CLIPS TYP. O.H.TYP. O.H. ASPHALT SHINGLES 15# ROOF FELT 7/16" OSB SHEATHING w/ H-CLIPS 8" CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 2" LEDGE 32"x10" CONC. FTG. SEE ENGINEER'S SHEET LEDGE SIDING PER ELEVATION TYVEK HOUSE WRAP 7/16" OSB SHEATHING 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. R-21 FIBERGLASS INSUL. 1/2" GYP BOARD R-20 CLOSED CELL SPRAY INSUL. @ RIM 1/2" GYP. BOARDSIDING PER ELEVATION TYVEK HOUSE WRAP 7/16" OSB SHEATHING 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. R-21 FIBERGLASS INSUL. 1/2" GYP BOARD 3 1/2" POURED CONC. SLAB w/ 6-8" GRAVEL DRAINFIELD8" CONC. WALL 6" CURB, 2" LEDGE 20" x 8" CONC. FTG. 4" DUAL DRAINTILE w/ FABRIC FILTER & ROCK TRENCH 3 1/2" POURED CONC. SLAB w/ 6-8" GRAVEL DRAINFIELD 2" RIGID INSUL. (R-10) @ WALKOUT PERIMETER 4" DUAL DRAINTILE w/ FABRIC FILTER & ROCK TRENCH R-49 LOOSE BLOWN F/G INSUL. 4mil POLY VAPOR BARRIER 1/2" GYP. BOARD 1/2" GYP. BOARD 20" FLOOR TRUSSES @ 19.2" O.C. 3/4" T&G SUBFLOOR 5 " 2x12 SPF FLASHING 2x DECK LEDGER APPROVED JST HANGER 5/4 DECKING 2x TRTD. DECK JOISTS STAGGERED LAG BOLTS @ 5" O.C. PER CODE SECTION R507, FIGURE 507.2.1 750# CAPACITY HOLD DOWN DEVICES AT 4 LOCATIONS, EVENLY DISTRIBUTED ALONG DECK & 1 WITHIN 2' OF EACH END OF LEDGER. LAG SCREWS REQUIRE 3" MIN. PENETRATION SIDING PER ELEVATION 7/16" OSB SHEATHING R-20 CLOSED CELL SPRAY INSUL. @ RIM FLOOR TRUSSES HELD BACK 1 3/4" FOR 1) LVL RIM BOARD SIDING PER ELEVATION 7/16" OSB SHEATHING 2x6 WALL FRAMING R-21 FIBERGLASS INSUL. 2x6 WALL FRAMING R-21 FIBERGLASS INSUL. LLEEDDGGEERR DDEETTAAIILL @@ WWAALLKKOOUUTT//LLOOOOKKOOUUTT SSCCAALLEE:: 11//22"" == 11''--00"" 44 44 M N B u i l d e r L i c e n s e #B C 6 8 6 6 1 4 1 8 9 0 W o o d d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 4 0 0 W o o d b u r y , M N 5 5 1 2 5 (6 5 1 )7 3 1 -2 3 4 5 K o o t e n i a H o m e s Sheet No: Project No: C 2 0 1 6 l a w s w i l l b e p r o s e c u t e d . A l l v i o l a t o r s o f t h e s e u n l a w f u l u s e o f o u r p l a n s . K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C f r o m l a w s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w s . T h e s e c o p y r i g h t e d a n d p r o t e c t e d A l l K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C p l a n s a r e Last Revision: Drawn By: Date: Date:Rev By: 16XX L A R S O N R E S I D E N C E 1 5 0 0 A R D E N P L A C E A R D E N H I L L S , M N 1-28-16 JEN 8-9-16 JEN 4-7-16 4 4-13-16JEN 5-11-16JEN 6-8-16JEN JEN 6-24-16 JEN 7-1-16 JEN 7-13-16 JEN 8-9-16 4 '-6 " 3 '-0 " 4'-6"6'-0" 9 '-1 1 /8 " 1 3 '-0 " 1 2 '-0 " HALF WALL w/ WOOD CAP HEAT & GLO 6000 SERIES GAS F.P. SPECS ON BLDR. TREND (RAISE F.P. BOX 1-1/2") CABINET SPECS BY OTHERS FLOOR TO CEILING STONE AT F.P. FACE ONLY MMAAIINN FFLLOOOORR FF..PP.. EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//22"" == 11''--00"" 11 55 6"x8" BOX MANTLE 2 '-0 " 3 '-1 0 " 8'-8" OPEN CUBBIES w/ BENCH MMAAIINN FFLLOOOORR MMUUDDRROOOOMM CCUUBBBBIIEESS SSCCAALLEE:: 11//22"" == 11''--00"" 22 55 8 '-1 0 " 4 '-6 " 7'-6" HEAT & GLO 6000 SERIES GAS F.P. SPECS ON BLDR. TREND (RAISE F.P. BOX 1-1/2") 6"x8" BOX MANTLE LLOOWWEERR LLEEVVEELL FF..PP.. EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//22"" == 11''--00"" 44 55 6'-0" NOTE: SEE BLDR. TREND FOR CONSTR. DETAILS 1X6 HOOK STRIP 3/4" PLYWOOD BENCH w/ 1x4 APRON FRONT B.B. BACK OPEN BELOW LLOOWWEERR LLEEVVEELL BBEENNCCHH SSCCAALLEE:: 11//22"" == 11''--00"" 33 55 M N B u i l d e r L i c e n s e #B C 6 8 6 6 1 4 1 8 9 0 W o o d d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 4 0 0 W o o d b u r y , M N 5 5 1 2 5 (6 5 1 )7 3 1 -2 3 4 5 K o o t e n i a H o m e s Sheet No: Project No: C 2 0 1 6 l a w s w i l l b e p r o s e c u t e d . A l l v i o l a t o r s o f t h e s e u n l a w f u l u s e o f o u r p l a n s . K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C f r o m l a w s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w s . T h e s e c o p y r i g h t e d a n d p r o t e c t e d A l l K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C p l a n s a r e Last Revision: Drawn By: Date: Date:Rev By: 16XX L A R S O N R E S I D E N C E 1 5 0 0 A R D E N P L A C E A R D E N H I L L S , M N 1-28-16 JEN 8-9-16 JEN 4-7-16 4-13-16JEN 5-11-16JEN 6-8-16JEN 5 JEN 6-24-16 JEN 7-1-16 JEN 7-13-16 JEN 8-9-16 11"3'-2" 1'-11"16'-2"7'-11" 26'-0" 2 0 '-0 " 2 0 '-0 " 26'-0" 3 0 6 8 16' x 7' RAISED PANEL O.H. DOOR 2-14" LVL MMAAIINN FFLLOOOORR PPLLAANN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 66 66 30" O.H. FFRROONNTT EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 11 66 30" O.H. 12 5 ARCHITECTURAL ASPHALT SHINGLES VINYL SIDING VINYL TRIM ALUM. SOFFIT & FASCIA VINYL TRIM 30" O.H. RRIIGGHHTT EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 22 66 12 5 30" O.H. 30" O.H. 66 33 SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" RREEAARR EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN 30" O.H. 12 5 30" O.H. 66 44 SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" LLEEFFTT EELLEEVVAATTIIOONN 30" O.H. 12 5 2 0 '-0 " 26'-0" GGAARRAAGGEE FFOOUUNNDDAATTIIOONN SSCCAALLEE:: 11//44"" == 11''--00"" 55 66 4" FLOATING SLAB w/ THICKENED FOOTING AT PERIMETER M N B u i l d e r L i c e n s e #B C 6 8 6 6 1 4 6 1 8 9 0 W o o d d a l e D r i v e , S u i t e 4 0 0 W o o d b u r y , M N 5 5 1 2 5 (6 5 1 )7 3 1 -2 3 4 5 K o o t e n i a H o m e s Sheet No: Project No: C 2 0 1 6 l a w s w i l l b e p r o s e c u t e d . A l l v i o l a t o r s o f t h e s e u n l a w f u l u s e o f o u r p l a n s . K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C f r o m l a w s a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t u n d e r f e d e r a l l a w s . T h e s e c o p y r i g h t e d a n d p r o t e c t e d A l l K o o t e n i a H o m e s , L L C p l a n s a r e Last Revision: Drawn By: Date: Date:Rev By: 16XX L A R S O N R E S I D E N C E 1 5 0 0 A R D E N P L A C E A R D E N H I L L S , M N 1-28-16 JEN 8-9-16 JEN 4-7-16 4-13-16JEN 5-11-16JEN 6-8-16JEN JEN 6-24-16 JEN 7-1-16 JEN 7-13-16 JEN 8-9-16 From:Reward119 To:Matthew Bachler Subject:Site proposal for Variance for 1500 Arden Place Date:Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:28:49 AM GerryHagen. 1532 Arden Place. Arden Hills, MN 55112 25th August 2016 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission. City Hall 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills. MN 55112 Dear, City of Arden Hills Planning Commission, This letter is in support of the requested variance for 1500 Arden Pl. Our neighbor Jerry and Laura Larson are requesting a variance for the minimum structures setback for the construction of their new home. The layout of the lot coupled with their building plan will be a minimum impact on the community and a nice addition to the block. We have discussed the plans with Jerry and laura and we do not have any concerns about the proposed building plans or the impact on the surrounding area. We request that their variances granted. Sincerely, Gerry Hagen 651-269-5034 Reward119@gmail.com From:Rosehill To:Matthew Bachler Subject:1500 Arden Place Variance Proposal Date:Thursday, August 25, 2016 7:21:40 AM Mike and Amy Hagen. 1540 Arden Place. Arden Hills, MN 55112 25th August 2016 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission. City Hall 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills. MN 55112 Dear Ms. Reader, This letter is in support of the requested variance for 1500 Arden Pl. Our neighbor Jairus and Laura Larson are requesting a variance for the minimum structures setback for the construction of their new home. The proposed site will be a great fit for the neighborhood and we feel will fall in line with the layout of the lot and the surrounding houses in he area. We have discussed the plans with Jerry and laura and we do not have any concerns about the proposed building plans or the impact on the surrounding area. We request that their variances granted. Sincerely, Amy and Mike Hagen 651-324-7080 Mjhagen426@hotmail.com Thank you, Mike Hagen 651-324-7080 You Lord give perfect peace to those who keep their purpose firm and their trust in You. Isaiah 26:3 Thank you, Mike Hagen 651-324-7080 You Lord give perfect peace to those who keep their purpose firm and their trust in You. Isaiah 26:3 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 7, 2016 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 7, 2016 PC Agenda Item 5.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council August 8, 2016 City Council Regular Meeting The City Council approved Ordinance 2016-007 in Planning Case 16-020 to opt-out of the requirements of Minnesota Statute regarding temporary family health care accessory dwellings. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their meeting on August 3, 2016, and unanimously recommended approval of the Ordinance. Page 1 of 1 DATE: September 7, 2016 PC Agenda Item 5.B TO: Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) and Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update Meetings • City and County staff, Ehlers and the Master Developer held their weekly project meetings on August 10th, 17th and 24th. • On August 15th the City Council and JDA held a joint meeting to review the preliminary plans from the Master Development Team. • On August 22, 2016, the City Council held a work session with the Master Development Team to go over the proposed plan in more detail. They overviewed both the single- family residential and multi-family residential developments and provided a comparison of the approved Master Plan to their proposal. They overviewed changes in park development (i.e. size, location, etc.) and discussed Town Center concepts. The next work session scheduled with the Council is on September 19, 2016. At the meeting they will be providing requested information and plan updates based upon feedback received from the City Council. Communications/Media • On August 9, 2016 the communications subcommittee (Grant, Wicklund), along with staff (Iverson, Kvilvang) interviewed four (4) communication consultant groups. Based upon those interviews, they are recommending hiring Zipko Strategies and Connelly Kuhl as the communications consultants for TCAAP. On August 29, 2015, the Council will be asked to allow staff to negotiate and enter into a contract with them for services. It is anticipated that they will be at a future work session with the full Council to discuss priorities for TCAAP communications. • The attached articles were printed in relation to TCAAP following the Joint JDA meeting on August 15th and the work session with the Council on August 22nd. MEMORANDUM Project Status Memo 2 Star Tribune Developer's vision for Arden Hills mega-site gets pushback Developer proposes town center with 12-story buildings. By David Peterson Star Tribune August 15, 2016 — 10:57pm The company chosen to oversee one of the biggest developments in the state is asking the suburb of Arden Hills to move its City Hall onto the site and to approve residential buildings as high as 12 stories. Developer Bob Lux of Alatus LLC on Monday outlined the company’s vision for a town center on hundreds of acres at the site of the old Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. Anticipating criticism, Lux told City Council members, “please don’t throw things at me.” It has long been clear that crunch time for the megaproject would arrive when a private developer with its own money on the table laid out the type of density and intensity it would need to make Rice Creek Commons profitable. The idea of building a new City Hall and perhaps also a library and museum drew instant pushback. “Not sure about moving City Hall, sorry,” said Council Member Brenda Holden. “We’re in the middle of our community right here. That doesn’t hold my interest.” Others were willing at least to consider it, but the idea of residential towers met a lot of resistance. Lux and his colleagues outlined a project whose town center would resemble Santana Row, the celebrated Parisian-style development in San Jose, Calif., with waterfront amenities recalling the band shell area on Lake Harriet in Minneapolis. Another model for a town center featuring movie theaters and restaurants would be St. Louis Park’s West End. “People from North Oaks and White Bear Lake would be coming here for entertainment and meals,” Lux said. “The people who designed West End are working for us and learned some lessons from it.” The informal workshop, which also involved commissioners from Ramsey County, a key partner in the project, is expected to be the first of a sequence stretching into autumn. The key to making the new project a walkable, pleasant environment, the developer stressed — rather than “seas of parking lots” — would be a mass grading of the entire property. That would Project Status Memo 3 allow for large stretches of underground parking below commercial and multifamily sites while creating fill to be used elsewhere. “You would have no competition almost anywhere in the metro area,” he said, adding that the site is within easy driving distance of both big downtowns. Negotiations, in effect, over the height of buildings began almost at once: It has long been clear that where Ramsey County is comfortable with an urban village, Arden Hills prefers something more suburban. Asked what he can make work, Lux said that financially speaking, “eight stories would be the minimum” for some town-center areas. “I know it works with 12; if capped, 10 to 12 I know could work, I’d probably say 10. Tour some projects with me and I think you’ll be more comfortable with the height.” He described the build out as a 10-year process. Alatus won the right to become master developer after a competition against some of the region’s and the nation’s biggest firms, promising a visionary, even “spectacular,” addition to the suburban landscape. Arden Hills Mayor David Grant murmured: “Eight to 12 stories, we’d need a lot of conversation on that — as well as perhaps the apartments” the developers also propose — promised as “high- end, not low-income.” Project Status Memo 4 Finance and Commerce Alatus talks tall buildings, high density at TCAAP By: Janice Bitters August 16, 2016 12:15 pm 0 An early look at master developer Alatus’ draft plan for the state’s largest superfund site left some Arden Hills officials shifting in their seats Monday over the increased density and taller buildings than planners had envisioned. “I feel like you’re trying to build a mini-Minneapolis here in my suburb,” Arden Hills City Council Member Brenda Holden said at a meeting. “I worry about this for a suburb.” The former Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant site has a master plan, created by a Joint Development Authority between the city and Ramsey County, which calls for buildings reaching up to 65 feet, or about six stories, and a maximum of 1,431 units throughout the 427-acre site. But if Minneapolis-based Alatus has its way, the site’s early phases would include a town center anchored by a grocery store eventually surrounded by up to 1,500 high-end residential units, a hotel, a theater and 16,000-square-feet of restaurant space in mixed-use buildings. Later phases would add up to 466 single-family homes and townhouses. Condominium buildings reaching as high as 12 stories would be built near the entertainment and retail, helping to create an active town center to draw homeowners in the later stages, Alatus Principal Bob Lux said at the meeting. Lux noted he wants to build condos at the site despite state laws that have made many developers shy away from them in recent years. Existing statutes allow condo owners to sue developers and others involved in the projects for defects up to a decade after the units are built. “If you had asked me two years ago if I’d ever stand in front of a body in Arden Hills and say that we would consider doing condominiums there, I would have said absolutely not,” Lux said. “I am convinced, from the research that we are doing, that there is a need for condominiums.” But in order to limit liability to the developer and its team of more than 30 planners on the project, Lux said the condominiums need to be built with concrete, which is more expensive than other building materials and not as cost-effective in shorter buildings. “You eliminate 90 percent of those [liability] problems if you start with concrete,” Lux said. If city and Ramsey County planners can’t envision at least 10-story condominium buildings at the site, condos won’t likely make it into the final draft of Alatus’ plan, Lux added. One of the primary goals of the redevelopment, planners and the developer agree, is to increase the tax value of the site, also known as Rice Creek Commons. The land has been vacant and undergoing a $22.5 million soil cleanup and remediation for the past three years. Project Status Memo 5 Alatus’ plan would increase the tax value “significantly,” Lux said. “We believe with the development we are proposing that we will increase the value … in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if we can execute on it the way that we’re planning, the way that this team has committed to doing,” he told planners. The Joint Development Authority, Arden Hills City Council and Alatus will continue to meet through September to iron out the details before a final draft is released. As of Tuesday, the developer was already beginning to refine plans in response to the feedback Alatus received, Lux said in a statement Tuesday. But not all parts of Alatus’ draft proposal Monday elicited concern from planners. The developer wants to create a walkable environment with an underground parking system throughout the town center and hopes to attract a bus rapid transit line to the site to draw more tenants and visitors. A pedestrian-friendly bridge would be built over a major road that runs through the development to keep the site feeling like one cohesive development. The stream running though the property would be fashioned similar to the Chain of Lakes in Minneapolis, which includes lakes Harriet and Calhoun, with bike trails that connect to other regional paths. Lux likened the proposed town center to St. Louis Park’s West End shopping and entertainment center, but noted that the developer was taking lessons from the commercial development to make the Rice Creek Commons even better. “When you drive by [West End] they’re putting up six-story, after six-story, after six-story development, and that to me is not very exciting,” he said. “It’s not looking at it in a visionary fashion … and none of this plan is designed as just building a building.” Alatus is working with RSP Architects on the project, which also designed the West End development and is helping to distill those lessons, Lux said. David Sand, chair of the Joint Development Authority, said Monday he was on board with the principles Alatus is using for the first phase of development. “That is a good mix of development that will attract people that live there in close residential [neighborhoods], plus people … who want to utilize the commercial and recreation area,” he said. Project Status Memo 6 Star Tribune Arden Hills nervous over urban-style plan for former Army site Plan for former Army site in Arden Hills has much higher density than officials wanted. By David Peterson Star Tribune August 22, 2016 — 11:11pm The developer chosen to oversee the creation of a new megaproject on the abandoned 400-acre Army ammunition site in Arden Hills is seeking to make it far more urban than the city has planned. Minneapolis-based development firm Alatus LLC envisions 250 fewer single-family homes than are called for in the city's master plan — and as many as 795 more apartments and condos. "You realize you've bypassed Minneapolis and St. Paul at this point for overall density," Mayor David Grant told senior members of the development team on Monday night. Alatus chief Bob Lux responded that the quest is for vitality. "A place where the streets aren't empty, but have people on them," he added. "I know there are challenges with density; but there are also benefits." During the first informal workshop between the two sides last week, it emerged that Alatus wants to build multifamily structures as tall as 12 stories — an idea that drew pained reactions from some council members. "If I buy a million dollar house on the hill," said Council Member Brenda Holden, "I end up looking at skyscrapers. They want to see green." "We're not downtown," said Council Member Fran Holmes, adding that she worries about the site coping with traffic from that many people. The other partner in the project, Ramsey County, which bought the land, long has warned that greater density would be needed and even desirable, both to allow the developer to make money and to create enough activity on the site to justify mass-transit investments. Ramsey County Commissioner Rafael Ortega last winter predicted that "the tiebreaker will be to put this before the development community, at which point both of us — city and county — will face the reality of what's doable." Planners hope that the new A Line transitway, offering frequent, light rail-like bus service, can be extended north past Roseville's Rosedale Center into Arden Hills. The odds for that improve when the number of potential riders grows. Monday night's session led to a consensus that council members should go on a tour to see what the proposed building products look like close up. . Project Status Memo 7 "We could talk density for hours," the mayor said at one point. "We will need to come back to this probably more than once." Alatus argued that the high density represents just a sliver of the totality of Arden Hills. "We need some volume," Lux said, "to make this work." City staffers said they expect to have informal work sessions on Sept. 19, Oct. 3 and Oct. 17 to nail down a compromise and move toward the formal approvals needed.