The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-07-22 PC Agenda PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 9, 2022 Planning Commission Regular Meeting DRAFT 11 -09 -22 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 22 -022 –1861 Highway 96 W –Variance (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 22 -023 –3565 Pine Tree Drive –PUD Amendment (Public Hearing Required) AMENDED MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Paul Vijums Commissioners: Jonathan Wicklund Marcie Jefferys Kurt Weber Arlene Mitchell Joshua Collins Shelley Blilie Clayton Zimmerman (Alt) Steven Jones (Alt) Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission December 7, 2022 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. This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESNovember 9, 2022 Planning Commission Regular MeetingDRAFT 11 -09 -22 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 22 -022 –1861 Highway 96 W –Variance (No Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Planning Case 22 -023 –3565 Pine Tree Drive –PUD Amendment (Public Hearing Required) AMENDED MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Paul VijumsCommissioners:Jonathan WicklundMarcie JefferysKurt WeberArlene MitchellJoshua CollinsShelley BlilieClayton Zimmerman (Alt)Steven Jones (Alt)Council Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning Commission December 7, 2022 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 desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: December 7, 2022 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2022 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Paul Vijums called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Paul Vijums, Commissioners Shelley Blilie, Joshua Collins, Marcie Jefferys, Arlene Mitchell, Kurt Weber, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Steven Jones (Alternate) and Clayton Zimmerman (Alternate). Also present were: Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – NOVEMBER 9, 2022 Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the November 9, 2022, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 5, 2022 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Wicklund moved, seconded by Chair Vijums, to approve the October 5, 2022, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 22-019; 3588 Ridgewood Road – Variance – Public Hearing Not Required Community Development Director Jagoe stated at the August 16, 2021 Work Session, the Arden Hills City Council first discussed selling the city-owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road—now the Subject Property of this planning case. At the subsequent meeting, the Planning ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 2 Commission reviewed the interest in selling the parcel for consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has verified that the parcel is not dedicated for a public purpose that would prohibit the sale (i.e. park land or public improvements) or as a site for future development to meet the needs of city infrastructure or operational activities, and it was found that the sale of the Subject Property would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Community Development Director Jagoe reported during the discussions, the City was evaluating the parcel size based off of Ramsey County Property Records and GIS mapping as there was no certificate of survey on record for the Subject Property. Ramsey County Property Records have the deeded acreage as 0.31 acres (approx. 13,500 square feet). The Subject Property came from the State through the County as part of the turn back of the Old Snelling Avenue (now referred to as Snelling Avenue North) corridor ROW to the City. Based on the best information available from Ramsey County, city staff initially identified that the total lot area of the parcel would be nonconforming since the minimum lot area requirement in the R-1 District is 14,000 square feet. A preliminary analysis of lot dimensions was completed as part of the Planning Commission review utilized the County’s GIS mapping in order to garner th e approximate lot width and lot depth. Community Development Director Jagoe explained over the next year, city staff worked through the process to facilitate the sale of the Subject Property. On August 8, 2022, the City Council approved the purchase agreement for the Subject Property from Ahmed Ali and Nawal Hirsi. The purchase agreement included an acknowledgement of the Applicant’s responsibility for all costs associated with due diligence which includes the variance review due to the nonconforming lot size. As part of the due diligence via a survey, it was determined that the lot measured approximately 14,472 square feet, and would not require a variance for lot area but would require a variance for lot depth. Community Development Director Jagoe reviewed the site data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required R-1 Zoning District lot depth, front yard setback, and driveway access at the Subject Property, 3588 Ridgewood Road. 2. The Subject Property is a nonconforming lot of record deeded to the City through the State and County from the Old Snelling Avenue corridor right-of-way (now referred to as Snelling Avenue North). 3. The Subject Property is a nonconforming lot with a mean lot depth of 97.4 feet and does not comply with the minimum R-1 district standards for lot depth of 130 feet. 4. The Subject Property is currently undeveloped. 5. The Planning Commission has determined that a potential sale of the City owned property at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 6. The proposed single-family dwelling would not require a side yard setback variance. 7. The proposed single-family dwelling on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 Zoning District. Variance Findings: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 3 8. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 9. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 10. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 11. A 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. 12. The nonconforming lot depth for the R-1 Zoning District is a unique circumstance that is attributed to the dimensions of the Old Snelling Avenue corridor right-of-way (now referred to as Snelling Avenue North) turned over to the City. 13. The proposed single-family dwelling would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the configuration of development on the Subject Property would be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. 14. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Community Development Director Jagoe reviewed the options available for Planning Case 22- 019 to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions of the Variance at 3588 Ridgewood Road, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 9, 2022, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s PW/Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. 4. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as-built shall be provided to the City. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Applicants during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site 7. The Applicants shall be responsible for providing verification of approval and obtaining any permit necessary from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the start of any site activities. 8. A separate right-of-way permit for each roadway shall be required for work performed within the City right-of-way. 9. All Public Works Director/City Engineer comments as stated in the November 9, 2022 Staff Report for driveway access connection and utility connections shall be addressed and are adopted herein by reference. The Applicants shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of the costs for connections. 10. The Applicants shall be responsible for obtaining a Sanitary Sewer Connect Permit. 11. The Applicants shall be responsible for obtaining a Water Connect Permit. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 4 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicants shall be financially responsible for 100 percent of all applicable sewer connection, sewer availability, water connection, water availability and Metropolitan Council SAC charges. 13. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required as part of the Building Permit application for the new dwelling. Any tree removal, preservation, and mitigation shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1325.055. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Weber asked if water and sewer connections were available for this property. Community Development Director Jagoe stated water and sewer lines had not been run to this property. She noted the homeowners were aware of this and would have to extend utilities to the property from Ridgewood Road. Commissioner Collins questioned if the City anticipated this lot would become a residential lot. Community Development Director Jagoe explained the City was anticipating this property would be developed with a single-family dwelling. She reported the City understood that they could not control what was being requested on the lot for variances from the R-1 District requirements. Commissioner Blilie inquired what the footprint was for the lots to the north and south. Community Development Director Jagoe stated she did not have this information, but reviewed the table in the staff report with the preliminary analysis of setbacks for the proposed future development at 3588 Ridgewood Road in comparison to the two adjacent parcels. Commissioner Blilie discussed how the neighboring properties were extremely close to the lot lines. She asked if either of these properties had received a variance. Community Development Director Jagoe reported both of the neighboring properties comply with the City’s minimum setback requirements for the R-1 zoning district. Commissioner Blilie was of the opinion the proposed lot would be keeping in line with the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Wicklund questioned if the City had previously granted setback variances that were approaching 75%. Community Development Director Jagoe stated in her time with the City she was not aware of a variance to this degree, but variances had been approved for setbacks. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 5 Commissioner Wicklund inquired if the challenges of this lot were communicated to the buyer prior to purchasing this property. Community Development Director Jagoe explained this information was passed along to the buyer prior to the purchase agreement and language was included in the listing agreement. Commissioner Jefferys asked what the footprint of the home would have to be in order to meet City requirements. Community Development Director Jagoe stated she was uncertain and recommended the applicant speak to this. Chair Vijums questioned what the buyer knew, as far as restrictions on the lot, prior to making the purchase. Community Development Director Jagoe explained the buyer knew the lot was non- conforming for lot size and the City acknowledged that they would have to issue a variance for lot size. The City stated in the listing that the property would have to adhere to all other district requirements, including setbacks, and would have to be constructed in conformance with City Code. In addition, the property was to be accessed from Ridgewood Road. Chair Vijums inquired if any type of design for the home was attempted to meet the City’s zoning criteria. Community Development Director Jagoe indicated this would be a question for the applicant. She reported no plans were presented to the City that met R-1 District requirements. Chair Vijums requested the applicant or builder to come forward and address this question. He asked if another design for this property could be considered in order to meet the City’s setback requirements. Owen Norcut, Norcut Homes, stated he hired a surveying company to stake the lot and find the setbacks for the property. He noted the red outline was the size of the building pad, which was not very large. He explained the applicant was proposing to build a two story home with a three car garage with a walk out basement. He was of the opinion there was no way to build a home in within the small building pad area. Chair Vijums questioned if the applicant was aware of all of the non-conformities on this lot before making the purchase. Ahmed Ali, 1290 County Road F, explained he was aware the lot was non-conforming and he knew the lot dimensions would require a variance. He indicated the City did not have a survey for this lot. Chair Vijums asked if Mr. Ali did his research regarding the setback requirements for this lot. Mr. Ali commented he researched what was needed, but did not do a lot of research. He explained he understood he would have to find a builder and a surveyor for this lot to see if he ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 6 could build the house he wanted on this lot. He understood that he could build the home he wanted, but it would require a variance. Commissioner Weber inquired if the applicant was aware of the fact the City would require access to this lot from Ridgewood Road. Mr. Ali stated he was aware of this fact. Commissioner Weber questioned if all potential buyers for this lot were made aware of the fact access would have to be made off of Ridgewood Road. Community Development Director Jagoe reported this requirement was stated in the listing language so that all potential buyers were made aware of this fact. She explained the City received multiple offers for this lot, beside the offer that was accepted from Mr. Ali. Commissioner Weber asked if Snelling Avenue was assumed to be the rear yard. Community Development Director Jagoe indicated this was the case. Commissioner Weber stated he did not believe accessing Ridgewood Road was impossible, but he understood it would be difficult. He was of the opinion this lot should be accessed from Ridgewood Road. Mr. Norcut discussed how a driveway off of Ridgewood Road would require an “S” curve, which would further eat into the buildable lot area. He commented further on the topography of the lot and stated the best access for the family would be from Snelling Avenue. Commissioner Mitchell stated she was concerned with people backing out onto a County road and asked if the lot would have turnaround space for safety purposes. Mr. Norcut reported there would be enough room for vehicles to turn around and drive forward out onto Snelling Avenue. Commissioner Mitchell discussed the size of the buildable lot area for this property and stated the main issue would be whether or not the City would be willing to make this lot buildable by providing variances. She noted she drove along both Ridgewood Road and Snelling Avenue to view the property, noting a retaining wall was already in place on this lot. She stated it was her understanding the house to the north accessed their home from Snelling Avenue. She requested further information regarding how the proposed home would be situated on the lot. Mr. Norcut described how the home would be placed on the lot. Commissioner Weber asked how many trees would be lost on the lot. Mr. Ali reviewed the survey and spoke to the number of trees that would be lost. Mr. Norcut explained the lot would not be clear cut, rather only the trees on the building pad and driveway would be removed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 7 Community Development Director Jagoe stated a tree preservation plan would have to be submitted by the applicant, along with a grading plan for the building permit. She explained Mr. Ali had attended a Council Worksession meeting and based on the feedback made by the City Council, adjustments had been made to the plan. Chair Vijums opened the meeting for public comments. Steven Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, stated the City was establishing a precedent by dumbing down the requirements for this lot in an attempt to raise funds. He noted the applicant was aware of the setback and lot size requirements, as well as the access requirement from Ridgewood Road. He encouraged the Commission to consider the precedent that would be set if this variance were approved, especially given the fact the applicant knew the rules prior to purchasing the lot. Matthew Dreon, 3586 Ridgewood Road, stated he lived two houses to the north from the subject property. He believed the City made a mistake by selling this lot, when it was not buildable. He feared the City put this family in a tough spot because a house would not fit on this lot. He reported 25% of the proposed home would not fit on this lot. He stated he was not anti- development, but he anticipated a dangerous precedent would be set if the City were to approve the requested variances. He indicated this lot was not designed for a 2,300 square foot foundation home and recommended the Commission deny the requested variance. Chair Vijums closed the meeting for public comments. Chair Vijums commented when this property went for sale he reluctantly approved the sale, but he did so with the understanding the lot would require a variance for lot size. He stated the buyers purchased the lot with the understanding the lot was non-conforming. He indicated he would not be supporting the requested variances, because the requests were well beyond what the City would typically see. Commissioner Wicklund explained this was an incredibly complex situation. He believed the City should take some responsibility for the complexity of the situation, which was unfortunate. He stated his preference would be to find a workable solution. He suggested a structure be pursued that was put into the buildable area red triangle that was modern and required only five extra feet versus the requests that were currently before the Commission. He indicated he would not be able to support the variances as requested from the applicant. Commissioner Jefferys stated the variance request process was arbitrary and the applicant knew variances had been approved by the City in the past. However, the applicant may have been taking too big of a risk when purchasing this property. Commissioner Collins agreed the variance issue was complicated. He indicated the applicant was requesting a standard house that fit the character of the neighborhood. He noted the setbacks were to the property line and do not infringe on the neighbors, but rather infringe on the roadways. He believed the applicant had significant right-of-way from the house to the streets. He reported the driveway requirement was a safety issue for him because the City did not complete a survey on the property to see if a driveway could even be accessed from Ridgewood Road. He noted the property to the north accesses Snelling Avenue and for this reason he could ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 8 support the subject property having access to Snelling Avenue. He believed a modern home would not fit into the neighborhood and stated he would be in favor of the variances as requested. Commissioner Wicklund clarified for the record that the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the City Council on this item and the final decision on this variance would be made by the City Council. Community Development Director Jagoe reported this was the case. She noted if the Commission wanted the applicant to reconsider the home on the lot, or the home size, action on the variance could be tabled to a future Planning Commission meeting. Chair Vijums stated the Commission could table action on this item in order to allow the applicant to reconsider his plans that meets or more closely meets the setback requirements. He indicated this would allow the applicant to come back with a design that more closely meets the design criteria of the City. Community Development Director Jagoe reported an extension would be required from the applicant if the Commission were to table action on this item. Further discussion ensued regarding how the right-of-way was measured for this property. Councilmember Holmes commented on the discussions the applicant had with the City Council at the October Work Session meeting. Commissioner Wicklund commented that either way this property was accessed, whether from Ridgewood Road or Snelling Avenue, the driveway would be steep. He stated he was not recommending action on this item be tabled because this would carry the action over into 2023 and a new City Council that was not familiar with this property. Chair Vijums questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed. Commissioner Blilie asked if the Commission could approve with a strong recommendation requesting the applicant to pursue other architectural designs to reduce the variances requested. Chair Vijums commented the applicant was requesting specific variances and the Commission had to make a decision whether or not to support the requested variances. Commissioner Blilie stated she would approve the variances at this time. Commissioner Collins explained he would support the variances as well. Commissioner Weber indicated he was torn on this request, but stated he believed he could support the request at this time. Commissioner Mitchell reported she would vote to approve the variances for this unique lot. She stated she would like to see the property utilized for a single family home. She commented the encroachment would be on the streets and not unto the neighboring homes. For this reason, she would be voting to support the requested variances. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 9 Commissioner Jefferys stated these were all good points, but noted she would not be able to support the variances as requested. Commissioner Wicklund indicated he would also vote to deny the variance given the fact the setbacks requested were significant. Chair Vijums commented he would also be voting to deny the variance because the requests were too significant for the lot. Community Development Director Jagoe clarified the City would be required to issue a variance for the non-conforming lot depth component in order for any future development on the lot to occur. She explained the Commission could make two motions on this Planning Case in order to separate the non-conforming lot depth from the setback/driveway access variances. Commissioner Blilie reported the City sold this lot for residential developmental purposes. She believed it would be outrageous to sell the lot without approving the lot depth variance. Commissioner Weber stated the reason this lot was sold was because it was excess property of the City that did not have a designated use. Community Development Director Jagoe stated the City Council was willing to sell the lot after being approached by a prospective buyer. She explained the Council completed a title report and found there were no future park purposes, encumbrances or deed restrictions, which then led the Council’s decision to sell the land. The Planning Commission as part of the process for disposal of city land also had approved last year that the potential sale would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Councilmember Holmes clarified for the record, when the City sold this land the listing stated a variance would be granted for the non-conforming lot depth. She stated development could not occur on this lot without approval of a lot depth variance. Chair Vijums recommended the Commission break up the action for this Planning Case into two separate motions. The first motion would be for the non-conforming lot depth variance and the second would be for the setback/driveway access variances. Commissioner Collins questioned why the Commission had to take action on the non- conforming lot variance when it was assumed this would be approved by the City Council. Chair Vijums stated the Commission had to make a recommendation to the City Council on this Planning Case for the requested variances. Commissioner Collins moved and Commissioner Blilie seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-019 for the Variance at 3588 Ridgewood Road on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the thirteen (13) conditions in the November 9, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion failed 3-4 (Commissioners Jefferys, Weber, Wicklund and Chair Vijums opposed). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 10 Commissioner Wicklund anticipated the lot depth variance would be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Community Development Director Jagoe requested the Commission still make a recommendation to the City Council on the lot depth variance. Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Mitchell seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-019 for the Non-Conforming Lot Depth Variance at 3588 Ridgewood Road on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the thirteen (13) conditions in the November 9, 2022, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Community Development Director Jagoe requested the Commission make a motion denying the setback and driveway access variances with findings for the recommendation of denial. Chair Vijums moved and Commissioner Wicklund seconded a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-019 for the Lot Setbacks and Driveway Access Variances at 3588 Ridgewood Road based on the degree of the setback variance requests being too significant, the site was to be accessed from Ridgewood Road, and for safety purposes when it comes to the driveway access. The motion carried 4-3 (Commissioners Blilie, Collins and Mitchell opposed). B. Planning Case 22-021; City of Arden Hills – Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Design Standards and Tree Preservation – Public Hearing Required Community Development Director Jagoe stated at their September 19th work session, the City Council discussed draft language for a proposed tree preservation ordinance. The City Council had previously requested Staff to investigate changing the City’s ordinance as it relates to tree preservation. Staff was directed to research whether or not the scope can be broadened to include items, such as landscaping or other green spaces. The City Attorney in his preliminary review of the draft changes believed the amendment would accomplish the flexibility being sought. The general consensus of the City Council was to move forward with the proposed amendments as presented in the work session and with the references to “green space” being modified to “landscaping”. Community Development Director Jagoe commented staff was directed to finalize the language with the City Attorney and bring forward the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission for the first review and to hold a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the draft ordinance language with recommendation of the Planning Commission would be brought to the City Council for subsequent discussion and adoption. Community Development Director Jagoe explained staff has prepared a draft ordinance showing stricken language to be deleted and new language added in red font for your review. The general consensus of the City Council was that the current ordinance language is narrowly focused on tree preservation. The city code defines landscaping as “plantings such as trees, grass, shrubs.” Under the tree preservation ordinance as written, the City Attorney confirmed that the tree fund or a fee in lieu of planting may only be used for tree related expenses. The Council noted that there are projects (i.e. parks, right-of-way) in the City that could be considered or in ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 11 need of all types of landscaping as defined in the ordinance (i.e. trees, grasses, shrubs). The City Council requested Staff develop language that would be broadened the ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping or other green spaces. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the proposed amendments would add language applicable to all zoning districts that revises and updates the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to restate when a mitigation plan is required for extensive tree removal on a parcel of land, what is required of a landscape plan and the calculation of fees for tree loss when replanting on the affected site is not practical, and clarifies that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes. To be clear, the proposed amendment is not modifying the minimum requirements for tree preservation and/or replacement. Instead, the draft language is intended to add language within the landscaping and tree preservation sections of the city code to allow for both forms of plantings to function as one “landscaping fund” in satisfaction of the ordinance going forward. It should be noted that any tree funds remaining will need to be kept separate and still need to be spent solely on tree related expenses. Community Development Director Jagoe reviewed the proposed Ordinance amendment in further with the Commission and offered the following Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language applicable to all zoning districts that would revise and update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping and other green spaces. 2. The proposed ordinance amendment will reaffirm when a mitigation plan is required on a parcel of land, what is required of a landscape plan, and the calculation of fees for tree loss when replanting on the affected site is not practical. 3. The proposed ordinance amendment clarifies that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes. 4. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 5. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Community Development Director Jagoe 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 Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jefferys asked how these changes would project forward. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 12 Community Development Director Jagoe stated the current ordinance requires fees paid in lieu of plantings to be used only for trees. She noted the change going forward would allow these funds to be used for landscaping and trees. Councilmember Holmes explained the proposed change would allow for greater flexibility when beautifying City right-of-way’s, parks and lands when a developer pays fees in lieu of plantings. Commissioner Weber questioned what the balance was of the tree fund. Community Development Director Jagoe explained she was uncertain of the fund balance. Commissioner Weber supported the City setting a percentage on what portion of the fund will be spent on trees and what percentage would be spent on landscaping. He indicated diseased trees were a big problem and he wanted the City to have funding set aside to replace diseased trees. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Collins seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-021 for a Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance 2022-007 to Chapter 13 in Section 1325.05 – Design Standards and Section 1325.55 – Tree Preservation of the Arden Hills City Code to add language to revise and update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping and further clarify mitigation plan requirements and that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes as presented in the November 9, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jefferys stated trees were important to her. She indicated she would like more information on this topic and suggested action on the item be tabled. Commissioner Wicklund pulled his motion from the floor in order to allow for further discussion. Commissioner Collins pulled his second from the motion. Chair Vijums explained he had thought this item would be considered rather quickly because the City Council had the right to make decisions on where these funds were spent. He explained he would not support a motion to table action on this item. Commissioner Jefferys stated she was not judging the Council’s decision making, but she would like more information. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 13 Commissioner Jefferys moved, seconded by Commissioner Weber, to table action on Planning Case 22-021 – City of Arden Hills – Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Design Standards and Tree Preservation to a future Planning Commission meeting to allow staff to come back with further information on the City’s tree fund and to provide data with how this money is spent on a yearly basis. The motion failed 2-5 (Commissioners Blilie, Collins, Mitchell, Wicklund and Chair Vijums opposed). Commissioner Wicklund moved and Commissioner Collins seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-021 for a Zoning Code Amendments Ordinance 2022-007 to Chapter 13 in Section 1325.05 – Design Standards and Section 1325.55 – Tree Preservation of the Arden Hills City Code to add language to revise and update the City’s current tree preservation ordinance to include items, such as, landscaping and further clarify mitigation plan requirements and that those collected fees can be expended for tree and landscape purposes as presented in the November 9, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried 6-1 (Commissioner Weber opposed). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She explained the Council would be meeting to discuss the Mounds View High School Trail on Wednesday, November 16. She reported the Council would be holding a Truth-in-Taxation Hearing on Monday, December 12 at 7:00 p.m. She stated the City hired a new Recreational Supervisor and this individually would begin at the end of the month. She was pleased to report the Mounds View High School has all of their parking lot improvements in place. She noted the Council voted to reduce the residential speed limit to 25 miles per hour and this would go into effect in February 2023. Community Development Director Jagoe updated the Council on the Launch Properties project and noted Panera recently pulled out of this agreement due to the rising cost of construction. She reported Launch Properties was pursuing a new tenant for this space. She then noted the unnamed grocery coming into the Lexington Station 3 property has on a national scale suspended all construction activity of future stores at this time. She understood that the unnamed grocer was still committed to being in Arden Hills, but this project was put on hold. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Chair Vijums asked when Lexington Avenue would be completed. Community Development Director Jagoe encouraged residents to visit the Ramsey County project page in order to find this information. ADJOURN ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 9, 2022 14 Chair Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell to adjourn the November 9, 2022, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:46 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 of 10 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: December 7, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-022 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Katie Bach and Nate Cmiel Property Location: 1861 Highway 96 W. Request: Variance Requested Action Katie Bach and Nate Cmiel (“Applicants”) have requested a front yard setback variance for future demolition and redevelopment of a single-family residential dwelling on the property located at 1861 Highway 96 W. (“Subject Property”). To construct the proposed single-family dwelling, the applicants are requesting a reduced front yard setback of 28 feet rather than 40 feet as required by the city code. Background 1. Overview of Request The Subject Property is currently developed with a single-family residential dwelling (727 SF) and detached garage (584 SF). The dwelling was constructed in 1939 and the detached garage was added in 1961. The original legal description for the subject property has a described property boundary of 1.0689-acres (46,561 SF). Between 1949 and 2014, there have been four acquisitions of land by the State of Minnesota and Ramsey County for highway right-of-way purposes. As a result of the ROW dedication, the parcel size has been reduced to 0.62-acre (27,098 SF) as shown on the survey provided. The reduction in lot area due to the dedication of ROW is primarily along the north and northeast sides of the property which is considered to be the front yard for the Subject Property. Today, the property is considered legal nonconforming with a front yard setback of 25 feet as measured from the northeast corner of the home. The Applicants are proposing to demolish the existing structures and rebuild one principal structure (i.e. single family dwelling with attached garage) on the Subject Property. In considering the city code requirements and environmental features of the property, the Applicants have determined the most suitable location to rebuild would be to shift and orientate the new structure south/southeast of the current structure location. The new home location would require a variance to allow a front yard setback of 28 feet versus 40 feet as required by Page 2 of 10 city code. The proposed project complies with all other applicable city code requirements for the R-1 Zoning District (i.e. structure coverage, FAR, impervious surface, etc.) and Shoreland regulations. At their October 17, 2022 meeting, the City Council reviewed the concept plans for the proposed redevelopment of the Subject Property. Overall, the City Council acknowledged the rational for the reduced front yard setback request given the additional right-of-way acquisitions that had occurred over time. At that time, there were no suggested changes to the conceptual site layout. The Applicants were encouraged to review the rear yard sightlines to make sure that the view of the adjacent property was not obstructed by the placement of the new dwelling. 2. Site Data 1861 Highway 96 W., the Subject Property, is zoned R-1, Single-Family Residential District. It is designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The subject property is currently developed with a single-family residential dwelling. 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential District Lot Size: 0.62 acres/27,098 square feet The Subject Property is located on the north side of Round Lake, west of the Highway 96 and Old Highway 10 intersection. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and is guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. This is a riparian lot abutting Round Lake subject to applicable Shoreland regulations under City Code Section 1330. The chart below identifies the adjacent land uses. Direction 2040 Comp. Plan Land Use Zoning Existing Land Uses North HDR – High Density Residential R-4, Multiple Dwelling District Manufactured Home Park East/SE LDR – Low Density Residential R-1, Single Family District Single Family Residential West IND – Light Industrial & Office GB – Gateway Business District Office, Light Industrial, and Warehouse Aerial Image of Subject Property Page 3 of 10 3. Proposed Use The Applicants are proposing to rebuild a single-family dwelling with an attached garage on the Subject Property. They’ve enlisted the services of an architect to help with the design of their house plans. The Applicants have stated in their application that there are several factors of the lot that the Planning Commission is asked to consider in reviewing the proposed variance: • Irregular lot shape causes 40’ front setback to be applied on north and northeast sides, greatly reducing buildable lot area • Current home is nonconforming (25’ setback) • Need to maintain existing driveway location and grade • Low elevation in south part of lot would restrict basement due to lake ordinary high water height • Large mature trees restrict home placement options • Guidance to allow 20’ clearance from foundation during construction • One large cottonwood will be removed Proposed Redevelopment Building Site Existing ROW Front Yard Existing Development Proposed Development Page 4 of 10 4. Approvals The Planning Commission is being asked to determine whether a variance request for flexibility on the front yard setback should be approved. A site plan overlaid on the certificate of survey has been submitted showing the location of the proposed dwelling. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320, Shoreland Regulations in Section 1330, and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property has a lot area of 27,098 square feet. Section 1320 – District Provisions of the Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 14,000 square feet per single-family dwelling unit. Structure Setbacks In the R-1 District, the minimum front and rear setback requirements are 40 feet and 30 feet, respectively. The Shoreland regulations require a 75 foot setback from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) Level of Round Lake. The minimum side yard setback is 10 feet. The Subject Property is a legal non-conforming lot, as the current structure is located approximately 25 feet from the front yard property line. The proposed single-family dwelling would be setback 28 feet and 11 inches from the front yard property line. The table below provides the minimum district requirements for the R-1 District and Shoreland regulations along with a preliminary analysis of setbacks for the proposed development: R-1 District Standards Shoreland Overlay District Existing Proposed Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet 40 feet 25.05 feet (North) 28.92 feet (North)* Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet 75 feet from OHW -30.34 feet (West) as measured from Property Line -92.9 feet as measured from OHW - 36.83 feet as measured from West Property Line - 141.08 feet as measured from OHW Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet (min)/25 feet (total) N/A 71.81 feet (East) 30.83 feet (East) *Variance requested by Applicants Landscaped Area, Structure Coverage, and Floor Area Ratio The proposal complies with all other applicable city codes. In the R-1 District, the minimum landscaped area required without a variance is 65% of the property or 17,614 square feet. The Page 5 of 10 Applicants are proposing a landscaped area of 79.4% or 21,516 square feet. The R-1 District allows for a maximum structure coverage of 25% or 6,775 square feet. The Applicants are proposing a structure coverage of 13.7% or 3,712 square feet. In the R-1 District, the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is 0.3, or 8,129 square feet. The applicants are proposing a FAR of 0.12 or 3,252 square feet. The table below provides the district standards for the R-1 District and the preliminary analysis for the proposed development: Required Proposed Lot Area Minimum 14,000 SF 27,098 SF Front Yard Setback Minimum 40’ 28’ 11” Side Yard Setback 10’ Minimum 30’ 10” Setback from OHWL 75’ Minimum 141’ 1” Landscaped Area Greater than 65% 79.4% Structure Coverage Less than 25% 20.6% Floor Area Ratio Less than 0.3 0.12 Maximum Height 35’ 26’ 8” 2. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the city’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the front setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicants are requesting a front yard setback variance to demolition and reconstruct a single- family dwelling on the property located at 1861 Highway 96 W. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the applicants do not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Page 6 of 10 The Applicants have stated “the new home proposed will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of setback requirements. In the front, the proposed home generally meets the 40’ setback requirement, especially when the nature of the highway easements which define the setbacks are considered, and is positioned similarly to neighboring homes which are set at less than 40’. In the rear, the new home is well back from the 75’ minimum OHW setback, is positioned as far from the lake as possible given the lot shape and tree locations, and will not obstruct the neighboring home’s lake view.” The land use will remain single family residential as zoned. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. According to the Applicants, “meeting all front setback requirements and adjacent property OHW setback requirements would overly restrict the available build area size and shape and would not allow reasonable use for residential purposes.” b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. According to the Applicant’s written narrative, “as shown in the attached presentation, the property size has been eroded over time due to highway easements which define the front setback requirements. Additionally, the unique irregular lot shape, position on Round Lake, and lot elevations restrict possible home placement.” c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The Applicants have stated that the “essential character of the city will not be altered by the new home’s placement on our property. In fact, the proposal preserves the majority of mature trees on the property, which help to define the character of the city.” 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The Applicants have stated that “the variance is not for purely economic reasons. Due to position of mature trees, existing driveway location, and property elevation, the proposed home location is the only practical solution to use our property to build a new home that meets our family’s needs.” 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Page 7 of 10 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 any demolition or construction activity taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. PW permits will be required prior to any land disturbance or right-of-way work. These items have been included in the draft recommended conditions of approval. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources The variance request was forwarded to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for comment. At the time of writing this report, the City has not received their review feedback. A verbal update will be provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Rice Creek Watershed District The variance request was forwarded to the Rice Creek Watershed District for comment. At the time of writing this report, the City has not received their review feedback. A verbal update will be provided to the Planning Commission at the meeting. Ramsey County Public Works The Ramsey County Public Work Department has reviewed the plans and has no issues with the variance request as proposed. Findings of Fact 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 for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required R-1 Zoning District front yard setback at the Subject Property 1861 Highway 96 W. 2. The Subject Property is a nonconforming lot of record attributed to State and County right- of-way acquisitions for highway purposes that resulted in a front yard setback encroachment of 25.05 feet and does not comply with the minimum R-1 district standards of 40 feet. 3. The proposed redevelopment would bring the Subject Property closer to conformance with the R-1 district standards and reduces the front yard setback encroachment at 28.92 feet. 4. The proposed single-family dwelling would not require a side yard, rear yard, or Shoreland setback variance. 5. The proposed single-family dwelling on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 Zoning District. Variance Findings: 6. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Page 8 of 10 7. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging redevelopment that is complimentary to and enhances the character of the City’s established neighborhoods. 8. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 9. A 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. 10. The nonconforming front yard setback for the R-1 Zoning District is a unique circumstance that is attributed to acquisitions of additional highway right-of-way by the State and County. 11. The proposed single-family dwelling would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the configuration of development on the Subject Property would be consistent and compatible with the neighborhood. 12. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-022 for a Variance at 1861 Highway 96 W., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the December 7, 2022, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to the commencement of demolition and for the new home construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s PW/Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 4. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as-built shall be provided to the City. 5. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director/City Engineer and Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Applicants during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site 7. The Applicants shall be responsible for providing verification of approval and obtaining any permit necessary from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to the start of any site activities. 8. A right-of-way permit shall be required for work performed within the City right-of- way. Page 9 of 10 9. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required as part of the Building Permit application for the new dwelling. Any tree removal, preservation, and mitigation shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1325.055. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 022 for a Variance at 1861 Highway 96 W., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the December 7, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 22-022 for a Variance at 1861 Highway 96 W., based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 22-022 for a Variance at 1861 Highway 96 W.: a specific reason and 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 500 feet of the Subject Property on November 21, 2022. A public meeting notice for this planning case was published in the Pioneer Press on November 22, 2022. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. Public Comments The City has not received any public comments regarding this planning case as of November 30, 2022. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 1, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by December 30, 2022 (60 days). Based on the land use application submission date, the meeting schedule for the Planning Commission and subsequent City Council in January of 2023 will result in the City’s inability to process this planning case within the 60-day period. This is due to the cancellation of the City Council’s second regular meeting of the month in December. Therefore, it was necessary to extend the review period from 60 days to 120 days so that this planning case may be heard by the City Council. The City notified the Applicants of this requirement and received email confirmation of the Applicants extending the time period for City action under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The time period is extended until February 28, 2023 (120 days). Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map Page 10 of 10 C. Written Statement D. Site Survey E. Project Plans F. Applicant’s Supporting Presentation To: Arden Hills Planning Commission From: Katie Bach and Nate Cmiel 1861 Highway 96 W Arden Hills, MN 55112 Subject: Setback variance request for new home build – 1861 Highway 96 W Date: 17 Nov 2022 Dear Arden Hills Planning Commission members, We are requesting a variance to front yard setback requirements in order to build a new home (house with attached garage) to replace the existing structures (house and detached garage) on our property at 1861 Hwy 96 West. Specific variances requested is: • Front yard minimum setback of 28’11”, rather than 40’ as required per section 1320.06 for residential R1 We have included an attached presentation which provides background on our property and proposal, including historical changes to property lines over time due to highway expansion, proposed new home placement with requested front setback variance, and comparison to neighboring homes front setbacks. We have also attached our proposed project plan and site survey. Below is a summary of our proposal relative to the city’s evaluation criteria for a variance: 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls Meeting all front setback requirements would overly restrict the available build area size and shape and would not allow reasonable use for residential purposes. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner As shown in the attached presentation, the property size has been eroded over time due to highway easements which define the front setback requirements. Additionally, the unique irregular lot shape, position on Round Lake, and lot elevations restrict possible home placement. 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance The new home proposed will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of setback requirements. In the front, the proposed home generally meets the 40’ setback requirement, especially when the nature of the highway easements which define the setbacks are considered, and is positioned similarly to neighboring homes which are set at less than 40’. 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone Land use will remain single family residential as zoned. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City Essential character of the city will not be altered by the new home’s placement on our property. In fact, the proposal preserves the majority of mature trees on the property, which help to define the character of the city. 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone The variance is not for purely economic reasons. Due to position of mature trees, existing driveway location, and property elevation, the proposed home location is the only practical solution to use our property to build a new home that meets our family’s needs. Thank you for the consideration. Sincerely, Katie and Nate 83838383/$.(6+2/27%/2&./$.(6+25(+20(6,7(66 (6 (6 (06 (06 (1 (1 (1 :6 :6 :(;&(37,21(;&(37,21*$5$*(:+:<+,*+:$<:(676+25(/,1(*5$9(/'5,9(:$<&21&5(7(:$//&21&5(7(%/2&.:$//5('3,1(6358&(/,1'(15('3,1(5('3,1(5('3,1(0$3/(0$3/($6+5('3,1(5('3,1(6358&(0$3/(0$3/(6358&(6358&(60$3/( 6358&(2$.0$3/(0$3/(0$3/($6+$6+&27721:22'(/0&27721:22'6358&(&27721:22'('*(2)75((6&21&5(7($3521&21&5(7(&21&&21&&21&%,780,12863$7+%,780,12863$7+0,12863$7+('*(2)%,780,1286%,780,12866:$/(('*(2)%,780,1286;;;;;;;;;&+$,1/,1.)(1&(&+$,1/,1.)(1&(*8$5'5$,/*8$5'5$,/%$5%(':,5()(1&(%$5%(':,5()(1&(%$5%(':,5()(1&( 5,*+73,'2:1(56(/0(5 3$75,&,$&0,(/3,'2:1(586$50<&25362)(1*,1((565,*+72):$<:,'7+9$5,(6)281'5$06(<&2817<&$67,52102180(171257+48$57(5&251(52)6(&715:%(*,11,1*&5,%('/,1(1257+/,1(2)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&7,21715:6 (32,17)((76287+$1')((7:(672)7+(($67/,1(2)7+(1257+($6748$57(52)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&715:6287+/,1(2)7+(1257+2)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&7,21715:)281',5213,3(($67/,1(2)7+(1257+($6748$57(52)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&715:1 (1 ()281',5213,3(1 ()281',5213,3(5/61257+:(67(5/<(;7(16,212)7+(6287+:(67(5/</,1(2)/27%/2&./$.(6+25(+20(6,7(632,172)7(50,1$7,212)'(6&5,%('/,1(6287+:(67(5/<&251(52)/27%/2&./$.(6+25(+20(6,7(6:(67/,1(2)/27%/2&./$.(6+25(+20(6,7(602671257+(5/<&251(52)/27%/2&./$.(6+25(+20(6,7(61 :6 (1 :56 :532,172)%(*,11,1*2)(;&(37,2132,172)%(*,11,1*2)(;&(37,21)281'3,1&+(',5213,3(1257+:(67(5/<(;7(16,212)7+(1257+($67(5/</,1(2)/27%/2&./$.(6+25(+20(6,7(63(50$1(17+,*+:$<($6(0(17'2&126$ 6287+/,1(2)7+(1257+)((72)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)7+(1257+($6748$57(52)6(&715:1257+/,1(2)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&7,21715::(67/,1(2)7+(($67)((72)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&715:+,*+:$<($6(0(17'2&12$1 :6 :6 :1 :/ 5 & &%5* 6 : $&&(6623(1,1*'2&12$+,*+:$<($6(0(17'2&126 (($67/,1(2)7+(:(67)((72)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&715:3,'/,1()((7:(672)$1'3$5$//(/:,7+7+(($67/,1(2)7+(1257+:(6748$57(52)6(&715:2:1(51$7+$1&0,(/127( *$3%(7:((17+(($67/,1(2)7+(:(67)((72)7+(1257+($6748$57(52)6(&7,21$1'7+(:(67/,1(2)/27%/2&./$.(6+25(+20(6,7(6$77+(6287+:(67&251(52)/276 (0,11(627$'(3$570(172)75$163257$7,2167$7,21& )52176(7%$&. )52176(7%$&. 6,'(6(7%$&.25',1$5<+,*+:$7(5/(9(/722+:722+:722+:&21&&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(&85%&21&5(7(0(',$1/$1(6($67%281'/$1(6:(67%281'0%)22735,17 64)7)/225(/(9 522)3($.(/(9 )22735,17 64)7(/(9 522)3($.(/(9 &21&5(7(:$//$'-$&(17*$5$*($'-$&(175(6,'(1&(/$.(6+25(3/833(5/(9(/(1&/26('833(5/(9(/ &$17,/(9(5833(5/(9(/'(&.325&+352-(&75(9,6,216&+('8/(12'$7(',6&5,37,21BBBBBBBB21/<86(&855(17'5$:,1*6(7)25&216758&7,217$* BBBBBBBB MAINLEVELELEV=9035 2 8 'Ǧ1 1 " 39'Ǧ7" 45'Ǧ11"33'Ǧ11"SETBACKLINE25'Ǧ0"40'Ǧ0" 4 0 'Ǧ0 "30'Ǧ0"30'Ǧ0"1146'Ǧ8"141'Ǧ1"30'Ǧ10"OHWEXISTINGSTRUCTURE:HOUSEFOOTPRINT:(DEMO) 24'Ǧ4"x28'Ǧ4" 727SQ.FT.GARAGEFOOTPRINT:(DEMO) 24'Ǧ2"x24'Ǧ2" 584SQ.FT.SUBǦTOTAL: 1,311SQ.FT.EXISTINGHOUSEHEIGHT:20'EXISTINGGARAGEHEIGHT: 13'HOUSE&GARAGEDISTANCEFROMPROPERTYLINE:REFERTOMARKKEMPERSURVEYDATEDJAN28,2022IMPERVIOUSSURFACE:EXISTINGCONCRETEPATIO&WALKWAY:(DEMO) 440SQ.FT.EXISTINGCONCRETESTOOP&STEPS:(DEMO) 56SQ.FT.EXISTINGGRAVELDRIVEWAY:(DEMO) 2,532SQ.FT.SUBǦTOTAL: 3,028SQ.FT.PROPOSEDNEWHOUSE&GARAGE:HOUSEFOORPRINT:1,824SQ.FT.DECKFOOTPRINT: 189SQ.FT.SCREENEDPORCH: 396SQ.FT.GARAGEFOORPRINT:1,300SQ.FT.SUBǦTOTAL: 3,709SQ.FT.PROPOSEDIMPERVIOUSSURFACE:CONCRETEWALKWAY 189SQ.FT.LANDING,ENTRYPORCH 249SQ.FT.NEWBITUMINOUSDRIVEWAY: 1,436SQ.FT.SUBǦTOTAL: 1,874SQ.FT.TOTALEXISTING&PROPOSEDBUILDINGCOVERAGE:3,709SQ.FT.TOTALEXISTING&PROPOSEDIMPERVIOUSSURFACE:1,874SQ.FT.TOTALBUILDING&IMPERVIOUSSURFACECOVERAGE:5,583SQ.FT.(20.6%OFNETPROPERTYAREA)ORDINARYHIGHWATERLEVEL(OHWL):890PROPOSEDMAINFLOORLEVEL:903PROPOSEDBASEMENTFLOORLEVEL:893'(6&5,37,21)/225$5($5$7,21$785$/*5$'($7)281'$7,210$;+(,*+7)7$//2:('BBB 352326('6(7%$&.6)5217<$5'1257+ 1257+($676,'(<$5'6287+($67 =21,1*352326(' 0,1 727$/3$5&(/,'/27$5($$&5(6675((7)5217$*(/$.(6+25(3/$&(/27'(37+BBB1861HWY96W,ARDENHILLS,MN55112 $1' $''5(66),567)/225(/(9$7,210$;+(,*+7(/(9$7,21BBB&2'(127(6BBB.(<%8,/',1*+(,*+7(/(9$7,216=21,1*,1)250$7,2156,1*/()$0,/<5(6,'(17,$/6+25(/$1'0$1$*(0(17',675,&75281'/$.(5,&(&5((.:$7(56+('27+(5BBB=21,1*$5'(1+,//6081,&,3$/,7</27'(37++$5'&29(5 +$5'&29(56)BBB BBB$&&(6625<%8,/',1*61$BBBBBBBBBBB BB 0D[EXLOGLQJKHLJKWBB BB 3HDNKHLJKWRIKLJKHVWURRIBB BB 0DLQOHYHOVXEIORRUBB BB +LJKHVWJUDGHDWIRXQGDWLRQBB BB 1DWXUDOJUDGHDWIURQWRIKRPHBB BB /RZHUOHYHOVODEHOHYDWLRQ 83'$7('BBBBBBBB BBBBBB%$&.<$5':(67%8,/',1*&29(5 BBB BBB%8,/',1*&29(56)BBBBBBBBBBBB0,1 25$9(5$*(2)$'-$&(17':(//,1*0,186 68%' 68%'2+:25',1$5<+,*+:$7(5/(9(/AREASUMMARY:DESCRIBEDPROPERTY:46,561SQ.FT.OR1,0689ACRESPORTIONWITHINHIGHWAYEASEMENTS:19,463SQ.FT.OR0.4468ACRESNETPROPERTY:27,098SQ.FT.OR0.6221ACRESLOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//6016+((7,1'(;A1 TITLESHEET&SITEPLANA1.1 ARCHITECTURALSITEPLANA2 LOWERFLOORPLANA3 MAINFLOORPLANA4 UPPERLEVELFLOORPLANA6 EXTERIORELEVATIONSA7 EXTERIORELEVATIONSA8 EXTERIORPERSPECTIVES $6,7(3/$1:6859(< $WWDFKPHQW( 83MAINLEVELELEV=9035 28 'Ǧ11 " 39'Ǧ7" 45'Ǧ11"36'Ǧ10"39'Ǧ0"EXISTINGBITUMINOUSROADNEWPROPOSEDBITUMINOUSDRIVEWAY5 5 EXISTINGRETAININGWALLTOREMAINHIGHWAYEASEMENT57"COTTONWOODTOBEREMAIN27"SPRUCETOREMAIN21"MAPLETOREMAIN15"OAKTOREMAIN15"MAPLETOREMAIN12"MAPLETOREMAIN18"MAPLETOREMAIN15"MAPLETOREMAINPROPOSEDGARAGEPROPOSEDSCREENPORCHPROPOSEDDECKPROPOSEDHOMEWALKWAYENTRYPORCHHIGHWAYEASEMENTPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINE25'Ǧ0"30'Ǧ0"30'Ǧ0"30'Ǧ0"4 0 'Ǧ0 " 40'Ǧ0"SETBACKLINESETBACKLINESETBACKLINE57"COTTONWOODTOBEREMOVED146'Ǧ8"141'Ǧ1"OHW34'Ǧ2"30'Ǧ10"89089011.THEINTENTOFTHEDRAWINGSANDSPECIFICATIONISTOPROVIDEFORAWATERTIGHT&WEATHERTIGHTBUILDING.THECONTRACTORSHALLREVIEWALLDETAILSRELATINGTOTHISINTENTANDBYBIDDINGORENTERINGINTOTHISCONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTWARRANTSFORONEFULLYEARTHEADEQUACYOFTHESEDETAILS.SHOULDTHECONTRACTORTAKEEXCEPTIONTOTHESEDETAILS,THEYSHALLNOTIFYTHEARCHITECTPRIORTOBIDDING.ANYDEVIATIONFROMTHISGENERALINTENTSHOULDBEBROUGHTTOTHEARCHITECTFORCLARIFICATIONPRIORTOCONSTRUCTION.2.THEINTENTOFTHEDRAWINGSANDSPECIFICATIONSISTOPROVIDEFORAPLUMB,LEVELANDSQUARESTRUCTUREUNLESSOTHERWISENOTED.ANYDEVIATIONFROMTHISGENERALINTENTSHOULDBEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEARCHITECTFORCLARIFICATIONPRIORTOCONSTRUCTION.3.THEBUILDINGSHALLBECONSTRUCTEDINFULLCOMPLIANCEWITHALLAPPLICABLECODES,ORDINANCESANDREGULATIONSASWELLASTHEDRAWINGANDSPECIFICATIONS.ANYCODEDEFICIENCIESINTHEDRAWINGSRECOGNIZEDBYTHECONTRACTORSHOULDBEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEARCHITECTFORCLARIFICATIONPRIORTOCONSTRUCTION.4.THECONTRACTORSHALLBERESPONSIBLEFORTHEACCURATEPLACEMENTOFTHEBUILDINGONTHESITEANDVERIFYALLDIMENSIONSANDEXISTINGCONDITIONS.DISCREPANCIESBETWEENDRAWINGSANDACTUALSITECONDITIONSSHALLBEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEARCHITECTBEFOREBIDDINGTHEPROJECTORTHECOMMENCEMENTOFWORK.THEOWNERSHALLNOTBERESPONSIBLEFORCHANGESTOTHEWORKDUETOTHEFAILUREOFTHECONTRACTORTOFAMILIARIZEHIMSELFWITHEXISTINGCONDITIONS.5.DONOTSCALEDRAWINGS:ALLDIMENSIONSSHALLHAVEPREFERENCEOVERSCALEANDBEFIELDVERIFIEDANDCOORDINATEDWITHWORKOFALLTRADES.IFNODIMENSIONSAREGIVENORDISCREPANCIESFOUND,THECONTRACTORSHALLNOTIFYTHEARCHITECTFORCLARIFICATIONBEFOREBIDDINGORCOMMENCINGTHEWORK.6.DETAILSAREINTENDEDTOSHOWMETHODANDMANNEROFACCOMPLISHINGWORK.MINORMODIFICATIONSMAYBEREQUIREDTOSUITJOBDIMENSIONSORCONDITIONS,ALLINCLUDEDASPARTOFTHEWORK.7.THECONTRACTORSHALLPROVIDEALLPERMITSANDINSPECTIONSNECESSARYFORTHEPROPEREXECUTIONOFTHEWORKINACCORDANCEWITHAPPLICABLECODESANDGOVERNINGREGULATIONS.8.THECONTRACTORSHALLVERIFYTHESIZESANDLOCATIONSOFALLMECHANICALANDELECTRICALEQUIPMENTPADSANDBASES,ASWELLASPOWER,WATERANDDRAINREQUIREMENTSFORSUCHEQUIPMENTWITHEQUIPMENTMFG.DEVIATIONOFTHEAFOREMENTIONEDREQUIREMENTSSHOULDBEBROUGHTTOTHEATTENTIONOFTHEARCHITECTFORCLARIFICATIONPRIORTOCONSTRUCTION.9.ALLWALLWIDTHSARESHOWNANDDIMENSIONEDWITHNOMINALDIMENSIONS.GRIDSANDDIMENSIONSFORFRAMEDWALLARESHOWNTOFACEOFSTUDSANDORFACEOFFOUNDATION.*(1(5$/127(6LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 $$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1 ''$$MECH.ROOM0(&+&+$6($%29(4'Ǧ0"4"6"++*)$$$%PINGPONGTABLESHOPFAMILYROOMPOWDERROOM3'Ǧ0"5'Ǧ0"3'Ǧ0"5'Ǧ0"9'Ǧ0"5'Ǧ0"UNEXCAVATED56'Ǧ31/2"34'Ǧ91/2"15'Ǧ0"DECKABOVESCREENPORCHABOVE16'Ǧ1"20'Ǧ6"&10"ICFWALLW/2X2FURRINGSTRIP&1/2"GYPBD(27'Ǧ91/2"7'Ǧ0"12'Ǧ0"28'Ǧ0"40'Ǧ0"3'Ǧ0"26'Ǧ0"7'Ǧ10"29'Ǧ0"4'Ǧ5"17'Ǧ6"6"12'Ǧ7"10'Ǧ11"11'Ǧ0"10'Ǧ0"35'Ǧ31/2"LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 $/2:(5)/2253/$1 $''$$49'Ǧ91/2"MUDROOMKITCHEN13x16DININGFAMILYBEDROOM12x132CARGARAGEENTRYFURNITUREEDGEOFLOFTABOVESCREENPORCHFRONTENTRYPORCH19X19BATHROOMW.I.CLOSETSPOWDERPLAYROOM10'x9'Ǧ7"BENCHCLOSETPANTRY8'Ǧ01/2"BOATCURBLESSSHOWER3'Ǧ81/4"LINENQUEEN4'Ǧ0"+22.60(&+&+$6(3'Ǧ6"5'Ǧ0"5'Ǧ23/8"10'Ǧ0"18'Ǧ0"18'Ǧ0"12'Ǧ8"FIREPLACE/PIZZAOVEN++**)$$$%26'Ǧ0"3'Ǧ0"20'Ǧ0"SHELVES&CABINET9'Ǧ7"4'Ǧ1"56'Ǧ4"12'Ǧ0"28'Ǧ0"29'Ǧ0"27'Ǧ91/2"7'Ǧ0"7'Ǧ0"15'Ǧ8"14'Ǧ0"3'Ǧ8"40'Ǧ0"56'Ǧ4"7'Ǧ0"9'Ǧ10"DECK12'Ǧ8"x15'15'Ǧ0"&(10"ICFWALLW/2X2FURRINGSTRIP&1/2"GYPBDLOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 $0$,1)/2253/$1 838383''$BEDROOM2BEDROOM410'Ǧ8"X12'Ǧ9"BEDROOM38'Ǧ6"X12'Ǧ8"56'Ǧ31/2"49'Ǧ91/2"OPENTOBELOW12X1356'Ǧ31/2"6'Ǧ91/2"CLOSETCLOSETLAUNDRYCURBLESSSHOWERBATHW.I.CLOSETLINEN+*)$$$%13'Ǧ63/4"BATH4'Ǧ5"4'Ǧ6"9'Ǧ5"8'Ǧ5"4'Ǧ6"12'Ǧ1"RAILINGVALLEYROOFRIDGEBALCONY&(3'Ǧ0"4'Ǧ21/4"12'Ǧ11"LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 $833(5)/2253/$1 '$+*)$$$%&(LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 $522)3/$1 LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 $($67(/(9$7,21 $1257+(/(9$7,21 LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 $6287+(/(9$7,21 $:(67(/(9$7,21 LOONPROJECT3608 15th Ave S Minneapolis MN 55407 612-827-8988 sjm@LoonArchitects.comDateThese documents were prepared by the Architect and are instruments of service for use solely with respect to this project. The Architect shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including the copyright. The owner shall not reuse or permit the reuse of the Architects's documents except by mutual agreement in writing. ArchitectsFOR REVIEW ONLY -NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION&?8VHUV?9X?6\QRORJ\'ULYH?3URMHFWV?&PLHO%DFK?B5HYLW?%DFK'(6,*1'(9(/320(176&+(0(UYW1$7(&0,(/ .$7,(%$&+$9$5,$1&(6(71(:5(6,'(1&(+:<:$5'(1+,//601 1861 Hwy 96 W Variance request –New home proposal November 2022 Katie Bach and Nate Cmiel Overview 1.Summary statement 2.Historical views of property with easements added over time 3.Proposed new home position 4.Comparison to neighboring homes front setback 2 Background statement Variance to front setback and adjacent dwelling OHW setback eeded for new home placement The existing home at 1861 Hwy 96 W was built in 1939 by Frank Cmiel, Nate’s grandfather, and has housed 5 generations of the Cmiel family. We love the property location and setting on Round Lake, and want to continue maintaining the family home here, but the house is in need of major updates to bring it to modern standards for comfort, energy efficiency, and safety. After assessing many options and consulting with an architect, we have determined that renovation/expansion of the existing structure is not practical, and instead that a tear-down and rebuild is the only practical and cost-effective way to achieve a modern family home, built with newer energy efficient construction materials and methods. One of the most desirable features of our property is the many mature oak, maple, spruce, and cottonwood trees which were planted by family members many years ago and now provide shade, screening, foliage, and wildlife habitat. One of our top priorities is to preserve as many trees as possible when considering the placement and design of our new home. After brainstorming and reviewing concepts with an architect, we have determined that a variance against the front setback requirement is necessary due to the unique irregular lot shape, tree placement, and elevations on the property which restrict options for new home placement. The new home proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, where our existing home and closest neighboring homes are non- conforming to the 40’ front setback required by the city zoning code. In fact, the new home proposal results in moving the house further back from the road than the existing structure, and generally meets the 40’ setback requirement, in keeping with the spirit of the zoning code. The following slides detail: 1.Historical changes to property lines over time due to highway expansion 2.Proposed new home placement with requested front setback variance 3.Comparison of proposed new home front setback to neighboring homes 3 Historical views of property with easements added over time Historical property line changes Hwy easements have eroded property size and usable shape over time The exact details, original dates, and contractual agreements of all easements are not known. The following slides represent our best understanding of historical changes and easement implications based on changes to surrounding roads and review of available records. All images are from Ramsey County GIS https://www.ramseycounty.us/residents/property/maps-surveys/interactive-map-gis 5 1940 aerial 6 •Only home in area •Hwy 96 is smaller (County Rd G) •No Old Hwy 10 or Lakeshore Place County Rd GMounds View Rd 1953 aerial 7 •County Hwy 96 expanded •US Hwy 10 expanded •Lakeshore Place added •Hwy easement for Hwy 96 reduces north property line •“Sign” easement for Lakeshore Place taken from northeast corner Hwy 96 1985 aerial •Old Hwy 10 (Snelling Ave) has been added •Hwy easement further cuts into north property line •Easement is listed as US Hwy 10 (federal) 8 Hwy 96 2011 aerial •Prior to 2013 Hwy 10/96 construction 9 Hwy 96 2018 aerial Current state •Additional easement for diagonal power lines along Lakeshore Place •Current property lines as reflected on Ramsey County map 10 Hwy 96 2022 aerial Current state –closer view •Easement area inset into driveway is no longer used for original purpose (US 10/Old Hwy 10) •Power lines follow diagonal path •Lakeshore Place pavement ends just under power lines (along diagonal path) 11 Hwy 96 New home proposal Buildable area per zoning •Irregular lot shape causes 40’ front setback to be applied on north and northeast sides, greatly reducing buildable lot area •Current home is nonconforming (25’ front setback) •Need to maintain existing driveway location and grade •Low elevation in south part of lot would restrict basement due to lake ordinary high waterheight •Greater OHW setback required due to adjacent lot dwelling setback •Large mature trees restrict home placement options •Guidance to allow 20’ clearance from foundation during construction •One large cottonwood will be removed 13 New home proposal Meets spirit of code •40’ setback is generally met, with exception of garage corner and 5” of front porch •Hwy easement inset into driveway (where 40’ setback not met) is holdover from Old Hwy 10 and no longer used for road or utilities •Garage would be compliant if setback were applied from diagonal extension of property line (ie, following power line path instead of unused easement) 14 Comparison to neighboring homes Front yard setbacks Neighboring home front setbacks •3 closest neighbors have front setbacks from approx. 29-35’ to property line •Setback to road edge is approx. 37-43’ •While not part of zoning code, may be useful when looking at character of neighborhood and spirit of zoning requirement Ramsey County GIS 16 Page 1 of 8 PC Agenda Item – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: December 7, 2022 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #22-023 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Arden Hills RE, LLC on behalf of New Perspective Senior Living Property Location: 3565 Pine Tree Drive Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action Arden Hills RE, LLC (“Applicant”), on behalf of New Perspective Senior Living, has submitted an application for an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development for the property located at 3565 Pine Tree Drive (“Subject Property”). The proposal is for flexibility from the City Code on a proposed signage plan for the New Perspective Senior Living building. The Applicant is seeking flexibility on the size, type, design, location, and number of freestanding and wall signs. Background 1. Overview of Request The Applicant has submitted a land use application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment, seeking flexibility on the size, type, design, location, and number of freestanding and wall signs at the New Perspective Senior Living building. The Applicant shares an existing multi-tenant sign with Bethel University. The Applicant is proposing three additional signs, a main entrance monument sign, a wall sign, and a directional sign. The proposed main entrance monument size requires flexibility on the design, location, and number/size. The proposed wall sign requires flexibility on the size. 2. Planning Case Background At its January 25, 2021 meeting, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the property at 3665 Pine Tree Drive. On February 8, 2021, the Council subsequently approved a Planned Unit Development and a Site Plan for this development, allowing for the construction of a four (4) story multi-family senior living facility. This approval did not include signs. A Condition of Approval was included in the City Council’s approval that required a separate sign permit for all proposed signage and for all signage to meet the requirements of Sign District 4. The Conditions of Approval also required the Applicant to provide City staff with written approval from Bethel University, the owner of Outlot A, permitting the construction of the proposed monument sign on Page 2 of 8 Bethel’s property. In a letter dated September 27, 2021, the Applicant agreed to forego the right to an individual monument sign on Outlot A to be part of a multi-tenant sign with Bethel University. The multi-tenant sign has since been constructed and is currently located on Outlot A, where Pine Tree Drive meets the access road to New Perspective Senior Living and Bethel University’s Anderson Center. The location of existing multi-tenant monument sign and the three proposed signs is shown below. 3. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Community Mixed Use (CMU) Existing Land Use: Senior Living Facility Zoning: General Business District (B-2) Size: 6.4 Acres Approvals 1. Planned Unit Development Amendment A Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to alter the original Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan for the New Perspective Senior Living building located at 3565 Pine Tree Drive. The original PUD for the Subject Property did not include a request for flexibility on signage. A condition of approval stated that all proposed signage shall meet the requirements of Sign District 4. Installation of future signage would be reviewed by planning staff as part of the permit process for verification of compliance with sign regulations. Plan Evaluation Chapter 12, Sign Code A. Wall Signs – Flexibility Requested Page 3 of 8 1. Sign Copy Area The Applicant is proposing one (1) wall sign on the northwest side of the existing building, facing Snelling Avenue. The proposed wall sign would have a sign copy area of 177.5 square feet and would be located 148 feet from the northwest property line. Sign District 4 allows for walls signs with a sign copy area of no more than 50 square feet. The Applicant is requesting flexibility to allow an additional 127.5 square feet of wall signage to construct the proposed wall sign. As part of the application, the Applicant submitted a lighting plan for the proposed wall sign, showing the foot candles produced by the sign at various distances. The proposed sign would be located 148 feet from the nearest property line. The internally lit channel letters produce 0.12 foot candles of light at 100 feet and 0.05 foot candles of light at 150 feet. The Arden Hills City Code states lighting shall not exceed 0.4 foot candles at the property line. The proposed wall sign is pictured below. 2. Type – Roof Signs Under Sign Code Section 1230.02, roof signs are listed as a prohibited sign. The sign code defines a roof sign as “a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or on a parapet wall that is above the roof line.” The proposed wall sign on the northwest side of the building will be located on a parapet wall above the roof line. The Applicant is seeking flexibility to allow this type of sign as part of this PUD Amendment. Page 4 of 8 B. Monument Signs – Flexibility Requested 1. Number of Freestanding Signs Sign District 4 also allows no more than one freestanding sign on any site except in cases where properties front more than one public street. For properties that front more than one public street, an additional freestanding sign may be permitted for each street front provided that each additional freestanding sign does not exceed half the size of the maximum sign area allowed for a freestanding sign in the underlying sign district. The Subject Property shall be permitted one (1) freestanding sign as it has frontage on one (1) public street, Snelling Avenue. The Applicant is proposing a main entrance monument sign on the east side of their property. This would be their second freestanding sign. New Perspective Senior Living currently has freestanding signage installed on the multi-tenant sign owned by Bethel University located off of Pine Tree Drive. As part of the multi-tenant signage PUD review in a letter dated September 27, 2021, the Applicant agreed to forego the right to an individual freestanding/monument sign on Outlot A in order to be part of a multi-tenant sign with Bethel University. According the Applicant, the existing multi-tenant sign shall not be considered their one permitted freestanding sign for the Subject Property as it is located on Outlot A, owned by Bethel University. 2. Size of Freestanding Signs - Copy Area Sign District 4 allows freestanding signs up to 10 feet in height with a sign copy area no more than 50 square feet. The proposed freestanding sign is 7.5 feet in height and includes a sign copy area of 24.82 square feet. As noted above, the Applicant currently has freestanding signage as part of the multi-tenant sign owned by Bethel University and is seeking flexibility as part of this PUD Amendment to allow a second freestanding sign. The sign code does allow for an additional freestanding sign for each street front provided that each additional freestanding sign does not exceed half the size of the maximum sign area allowed for a freestanding sign in the underlying sign district . Again, the maximum sign copy area allowed in Sign District 4 is 50 square feet. For any additional freestanding signs, the maximum sign copy allowed would be 25 square feet. The Applicant’s sign copy area on the existing multi-tenant monument sign is 10.875 square feet, less than half the size of the maximum sign area allowed for a freestanding sign in Sign District 4. Existing Freestanding Sign Proposed Second Freestanding Sign Page 5 of 8 If a second freestanding sign was approved under the PUD Amendment, both the proposed and existing freestanding signs would comply with the maximum copy area allowed in Sign District 4. However, due to the request for flexibility to allow a second freestanding sign, staff also asks the Planning Commission to take into consideration the size of existing and proposed freestanding signs as part of this review. 3. Location of Freestanding Signs The Applicant is seeking flexibility on the location of the second freestanding sign. The proposed sign will not face the Subject Property’s public street front and will instead face the private drive (i.e. Outlot A) the Property shares with Bethel University. It should be noted that freestanding signs shall be located at least five (5) feet from any property line and shall not project over the property line. The proposed freestanding sign will be located on the south side of their driveway access and setback eight (8) feet from the east property line abutting Outlot A in compliance with this sign code requirements. 4. Design of Freestanding Signs The Arden Hills Sign Code requires freestanding signs in Sign Districts 4 and 5 to be monument type ground signs with the copy resting on and supported by a solid base of brick or rock -faced block in a color similar to or complimentary to the main structure on the site. The material of the base must extend at least one-half way up the sides of the sign face. The Applicant is seeking flexibility on this provision as the base does not extend up the side of the sign face on the proposed sign. Other design standards in evaluation of the proposed freestanding sign are that the total area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 1.5 times the permitted sign copy area of a freestanding sign. The total area of the proposed sign is 75 square feet, 1.5 time the permitted sign copy area of 50 square feet. Lastly, the freestanding sign will be externally lit using ground lighting, as permitted by Sign District 4. Proposed Freestanding Sign Page 6 of 8 C. Directional Signs – Complies with Requirements The Applicant is proposing one (1) directional sign in compliance with Chapter 12 – Sign Code of the Arden Hills City Code. As stated in the application, the directional sign will direct visitors to either the delivery area or the main entrance. According to the Applicant, this is necessary because the loading/off- loading area is located at the back of the building, and the directional sign is placed at the point at which truck deliveries need to be notified to turn. It will also help quickly identify the main entrance for family visitors as well as emergency services. D. Sign Standard Adjustments, Section 1260.01 The Applicant requests flexibility on the size, type, design, location, and number of freestanding and wall signs. City Code Section 1260.01, Sign Standard Adjustments states “adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Plann ed Unit Development process.” In order to approve an adjustment, the Planning Commission will need to make a determination that the following criteria in the sign code has been satisfied: 1. Subd. 1 There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site. According to the Applicant, the size and location of the wall sign is necessary for it to be legible due to the speed of the traffic on Snelling Avenue. The Applicant also states that due to the proximity to the Bethel Anderson Campus, the New Perspective building needs identification on Snelling Ave to identify that the building is not student housing for Bethel University. The proposed wall sign will help the community easily recognize the building’s use and avoid confusion for potential residents, families, and students. 2. Subd. 2 The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site. According to the Applicant, the main entrance sign will be the Subject Property’s stand- alone monument sign. It will have the New Perspective community logo and will have colors and materials that match the exterior of the building. This sign is proposed to be lit using flood lights. 3. Subd. 3 The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. According to the Applicant, all proposed exterior signs, with the exception of the wall sign, are within the City’s Sign Ordinance. Page 7 of 8 Application Review 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. The applicant or its representative shall be given the opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission to answer questions or give explanations regarding the proposal. Upon completion of the public hearing and its study and consideration of the application, the Planning Commission shall submit its written report, containing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations as to the application, to the City Council. Under Section 1355.06 subd.4, an application for an amendment shall be administered in the same manner as required for a new application. Any structural alteration, enlargement or intensification change in site plan, or similar change not specially permitted, shall require City Council action and all procedures shall apply as if a new application were being requested; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived. Findings of Fact 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 for consideration: 1. The Applicant submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. 2. The Subject Property is located within the General Business District (B-2) and is guided for Community Mixed Use (CMU) in the Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property is approximately 6.4 acres and is owned by Arden Hills RE, LLC. 4. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. 5. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested for the size, type, design, location, and number of freestanding and wall signs. 6. The proposed signage plan will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. 7. A public hearing for a Planned Unit Development Amendment is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial.  Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22-023 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3565 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the December 7, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission: Page 8 of 8 1) All conditions of the original Preliminary/Final Plat, Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review shall remain in full force and effect. 2) A separate sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 4.  Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 22- 023 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3565 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the December 7, 2022 Report to the Planning Commission.  Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 22-023 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3565 Pine Tree Drive: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated.  Table: Motion to table of Planning Case 22-023 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3565 Pine Tree Drive: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on November 23, 2022. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Staff has not received any public comments regarding this case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 21, 2022. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by January 19, 2022 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The sixty (60) day timeline begins on the day the City is in receipt of what has been determined to be a complete application. The City may, with the petitioner’s consent, extend the review period beyond the 120 days. Based on the land use application submission date, the meeting schedule for the Planning Commission and subsequent City Council in January of 2023 will result in the City’s inability to process this planning case within the 60-day period. This is due to the cancellation of the City Council’s second regular meeting of the month in December. Therefore, it was necessary to extend the review period from 60 days to 120 days so that this planning case may be heard by th e City Council. The City notified the Applicant of this requirement and received email confirmation of receipt of the 120 extend time period for City action under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The time period is extended until March 20, 2023 (120 days). Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Narrative D. Proposed Sign Plan Page 1 of 3 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112 Telephone (651) 792-7800 Fax (651) 634-5137 www.cityofardenhills.org For Office Use Only Planning Case No. 22- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2022 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant Information Applicant: Address: Telephone No.: Other: Fax No.: Email Address: Property Information Property Owner: Owner Address: Owner Telephone No. Other: Address of Property Involved: Legal Description: Property ID No.: Type of Use: Zone: Property Acreage: Type of Request  Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 + Escrow: $2,500)  Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500)  Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000)  Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750)  Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500)  Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000)  Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Development Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500)  Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500)  Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)  City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500)  Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500)  Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)  Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)  Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)  Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000 Arden Hills RE, LLC 1110 North Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive 414-875-7518 florent.ilazi@boldt.com Arden Hills RE, LLC 1110 North Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive 414-875-7518 3565 Pine Tree Drive, Arden Hills, MN , Suite 610, Milwaukee, WI 53203 , Suite 610, Milwaukee, WI 53203 Page 2 of 3 Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project): Filing & Information Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications. Complete/Incomplete Applications Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or C ity Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. Payment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the City Planner on a project by project basis. Notice of Meeting Attendance In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. *IMPORTANT*  Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Waters hed District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information.  The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be required upon approval of a land use application.  All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the City. Applying for PUD amendment to allow for building wall sign on the building. Page 3 of 3 Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner. 2022 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change) TENTATIVE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday at 6:30 p.m.) TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE* (Generally held on the fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMISSION (1st day of the preceding month) January 5 January 24 December 1 (2021) February 9 February 28 January 3 March 9 March 28 February 1 April 6 April 25 March 1 May 4 May 23 April 1 June 8 June 27 May 2 July 6 July 25 June 1 August 3 August 22 July 1 September 7 September 26 August 1 October 5 October 24 September 1 November 9 November 28 October 3 December 7 January 9 (2023) November 1 January 4 (2023) January 23 (2023) December 1 Acknowledgement and Signature I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements . I fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. __________________________________________________ ________________ Property Owner Signature (Required) Date ________________________________________________ ________________ Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date Please contact the City Planner at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications 11/1/2022 Location Map Tax Parcels _Query result Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 11/30/2022, 1:57:34 PM 0 0.1 0.20.05 mi 0 0.2 0.40.1 km 1:8,000 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN 2022-11-17 Jessica Jagoe City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Jessica: Arden Hills RE, LLC, developer of the New Perspective Senior Living community located at 3565 Pine Tree Dr., Arden Hills, MN, is submitting our site signage plan to the City of Arden Hills. From our review of the signage ordinance, we believe that all of our proposed exterior signs, with the exception of the wall sign (sign #3 below), are within the City’s Sign Ordinance. We have submitted for a PUD amendment to allow for the wall sign (#3) described below and depicted in the exterior signage package submitted with this letter. 1. Main Entrance Monument Sign a. Main entrance sign will be our stand-alone monument sign per the ordinance. This will have our community logo and will have colors and materials that match the exterior of the building. This sign is proposed to be lit using flood lights. Foot candles shown on site lighting plan. 2. Directional Sign a. Once you enter our site, there will be a directional sign that directs you to either the delivery area or the main entrance. This is necessary given that our loading/off-loading area is located at the back of the building, and this is the point at which truck deliveries need to be notified to turn. This also helps very quickly identify the main entrance for family visitors as well as emergency services. 3. Building “Senior Living” Wall Sign a. Due to the proximity to the Bethel Anderson Campus, our building needs identification on Snelling Ave to identify that this building is not student housing for Bethel University. This sign will help the community easily recognize the building’s use and avoid confusion for potential residents, families, and students. This sign is proposed to be lit by LED modules installed within the channel letters. Foot candles for this are provided on the rendering b. The size and location of this sign is necessary for it to be legible due to the speed of the traffic on Snelling. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, Florent Ilazi Arden Hills RE, LLC DELIVERIES/ MOVE INGARAGE ENTRYPATIOTRASH4 STORY BUILDING1 STORY BUILDING1 STORY BUILDINGEXISTING PONDMONUMENT SIGNPINE TREE DRIVESNELLING AVENUE1418104101066 STALLSNEW PONDTRANSFORMERGENERATORLAWN BOWLINGDOG RUNPLAYGROUNDWALKING TRAILEXISTING PARKING5' - 0"8' - 0"STONE OVER 20"x20" CONC. PIER W/ (8) #6 VERT. W/ #3 TIES @ 12" OC4" PRECAST CAP4"3' - 6"2' - 4"2' - 0" 8' - 10" 2' - 0"6' - 2"2' CONC. FOOTING W/ 2 #5 CONT.3'x3'x1' CONC. FOOTINGS W/ 3#5 EA. WAYSITE PLANAUGHQ HLOOV MLQQHVRWDNEW PERSPECTIVE ARDEN HILLS 6&$/( L1SCALE1/2" 1'-0"1MONUMENT SIGN ELEVATIONPARKING SUMMARYPARKING SPACES PROVIDED: SITE 66 SPACES GARAGE 2 SPACES TOTAL 5 SPACES ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING INDEXL1 SITE PLANA1 GARAGE FIRST FLOOR PLANA2 SECOND FLOOR PLANA3 THIRD FLOOR PLANA4 FOURTH FLOOR PLANA5 ROOF PLANA6 BUILDING ELEVATIONSABUILDING ELEVATIONSBethelHighwaySign140'-0"5'-0"12'-0"35'-0"14'-0"248'-0"4Sign Locations1) Monument sign at main entrance. This mightneed to be converted into a smaller directional sign,but we will process as shown for now.2) Building "Senior Living" sign, similar to the NPSL-Franklin project.3) Monument sign that is visible on Snelling Avenue4) If #3 above is not favorable to City, we can askBethel if they can allow us to be on their SnellingAve. Sign (see pg 5.)5) We will have a slot on the Multi-tenant sign thatBethel is installing (see pg. 6). Bethel is goingthrough city approvals for this sign at this time.510'3565 Pine Tree Dr., Arden Hills, MN4New Perspective Sign Locations1. Main Entrance Monument Sign2. Building "Senior Living" Sign3. Directional Sign4. Existing Bethel Multi-tenant Sign3 Attachment D B-12B-14B-15B-13B-11B-16B-17B-18B-19B-20SB-3SB-2SB-4SB-5SB-6SB-1PLAYGROUNDLAWN BOWLINGCOURTYARDCOURTYARDDOG RUNEXISTING STORMWATERMANAGEMENT AREASNELLING AVE./COUNTY RD. E RAMPP R I V A T E D R I V EWET DETENTION BASINASSISTED LIVING113 UNITS33 MEMORY CARE UNITSNO PARKINGNO PARKINGTRAIL EXTENSIONSANITARYSEWEREASEMENT20' SETBACK10' SETBACK10' SETBACK10' SETBACKPROPOSEDPROPERTYLINEPROPOSED PROPERTY LINEEXISTINGPROPERTYLINEEXISTING PROPERTY LINE24.0'9.0'18.0'9.0'18.0'9.0'18.0'9.0'18.0'24.0'24.0'24.0'22.0'24.0'10.5'10.0'8.0'AAAAAAABBDDEFFAGGGGBIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGHHHHCCC9.0'9.0'18.0'LMMCCOBEGINOENDLMR66R90R15R15R15R50R75R85R12R37R59R44R69R45R325.0'IIEEKKKKKKKKCCLLOOBBCCR45AAPPR1018.0'6.2'5.0'DNR131.0'4.0'6.0'R352.0'QQR40PREPARED FORSITE PLANC400ARDEN HILLS SENIORLIVINGNEW PERSPECTIVEARDEN HILLSMNBUILDING DATA SUMMARYAREASPROPOSED PROPERTY278,757 SF (6.4 AC)BUILDING AREA64,644 SF (23% OF TOTALPROPERTY AREA)PARKINGREQUIRED PARKING72 SPACESPROPOSED PARKING116 SPACES(62 ABOVEGROUND,29 UNDERGROUND, 25OFFSITE)ADA STALLS REQ'D / PROVIDED4 SPACES/ 6 SPACES(4 ABOVEGROUND,2 UNDERGROUND)PROPERTY SUMMARYARDEN HILLS SENIOR LIVINGTOTAL PROPERTY AREA278,757 SF (6.4 AC)PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA155,428 SF (3.6 AC)PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA123,329 SF (2.8 AC)TOTAL DISTURBED AREA242,784 SF (5.6 AC)ZONING SUMMARYEXISTING ZONINGB-2 GENERAL BUSINESSDISTRICTPROPOSED ZONINGB-2 GENERAL BUSINESSDISTRICTPARKING SETBACKSSIDE/REAR = 10'ROAD = 20'BUILDING SETBACKSFRONT = 20'SIDE = 10'REAR = 10'PROPOSED CURB AND GUTTERPROPERTY LINEPROPOSED FENCESETBACK LINERETAINING WALL (BY OTHERS)PROPOSED STANDARD DUTY ASPHALTPROPOSED CONCRETE PAVEMENTPROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AREAPROPOSED CONCRETE SIDEWALKLEGENDPROPOSED HEAVY DUTY ASPHALTKEYNOTE LEGENDCONCRETE SIDEWALKMATCH EXISTING EDGE OF PAVEMENT/ CURB & GUTTERACCESSIBLE CURB RAMPACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNACCESSIBLE PARKINGAREA STRIPED WITH 4" SYSL @ 45° 2' O.C.STANDARD DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTHEAVY DUTY ASPHALT PAVEMENTLANDSCAPE AREA - SEE LANDSCAPE PLANSHEAVY DUTY CONCRETE PAVEMENTB612 CURB & GUTTER (TYP.)TRANSITION CURBFLAT CURBNO PARKING SIGNCONCRETE BLOCK RETAINING WALL (BY OTHERS)GUARD RAILSTEEL BOLLARD PER DETAIL ON SHEET C702ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQThis document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.SHEET NUMBER 2018 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.767 EUSTIS STREET, SUITE 100, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COMK:\TWC_LDEV\Boldt\arden hills senior living\3 Design\CAD\plansheets\C4-SITE PLAN.dwg December 13, 2021 - 10:09am©BYREVISIONSNo.DATE1REVISED PER ADDENDUM #3 08/24/2021 DLE2CB #1 11/08/2021 MJS3RFI-14 GUARD RAIL 11/16/2021 DLE4STORM ST-4A REVISION 11/30/2021 MJS5CB #3 12/10/2021 DLESITE PLAN NOTES1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL CITY/COUNTY REGULATIONSAND CODES AND O.S.H.A. STANDARDS.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACTLOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF VESTIBULES, SLOPE PAVING, SIDEWALKS, EXITPORCHES, TRUCK DOCKS, PRECISE BUILDING DIMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILDINGUTILITY ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.3. ALL INNER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 5' AND OUTER CURBED RADII ARE TO BE 10'UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. STRIPED RADII ARE TO BE 5'.4. ALL DIMENSIONS AND RADII ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.5. EXISTING STRUCTURES WITHIN CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ARE TO BE ABANDONED,REMOVED OR RELOCATED AS NECESSARY. ALL COST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASEBID.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL RELOCATIONS, (UNLESSOTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS) INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL UTILITIES,STORM DRAINAGE, SIGNS, TRAFFIC SIGNALS & POLES, ETC. AS REQUIRED. ALLWORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNING AUTHORITIES REQUIREMENTSAND PROJECT SITE WORK SPECIFICATIONS AND SHALL BE APPROVED BY SUCH. ALLCOST SHALL BE INCLUDED IN BASE BID.7. SITE BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHY, UTILITY AND ROAD INFORMATION TAKEN FROM ASURVEY BY SUNDE LAND SURVEYING, DATED 02/06/2020.KIMLEY-HORN ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR ANY ERRORS, INACCURACIES, OROMISSIONS CONTAINED THEREIN.8. TOTAL LAND AREA IS 6.4 ACRES.9. PYLON / MONUMENT SIGNS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY OTHERS. SIGNS ARESHOWN FOR GRAPHICAL & INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR TOVERIFY SIZE, LOCATION AND ANY REQUIRED PERMITS NECESSARY FOR THECONSTRUCTION OF THE PYLON / MONUMENT SIGN.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFERENCE ARCH / MEP PLANS FOR SITE LIGHTING ANDELECTRICAL PLAN.11. NO PROPOSED LANDSCAPING SUCH AS TREES OR SHRUBS, ABOVE ANDUNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, OR OTHER OBSTRUCTIONS SHALL BE LOCATEDWITHIN EXISTING OR PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENTS AND RIGHTS OF WAY UNLESSSPECIFICALLY NOTED ON PLANS OTHERWISE.12. REFERENCE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE DETAILS.13. REFER TO FINAL PLAT OR ALTA SURVEY FOR EXACT LOT AND PROPERTYBOUNDARY DIMENSIONS.14. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT.15. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST TENTH FOOT.16. ALL PARKING STALLS TO BE 9' IN WIDTH AND 18' IN LENGTH UNLESS OTHERWISEINDICATED.17. THERE ARE ±1.02 ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS.18. ANY PROPOSED BOLLARDS ARE TO BE PAINTED IN A COLOR TO MATCH THE COLOROF THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE BEING PROTECTED FROMVEHICLE IMPACT.19. ALL WASTE MATERIALS MUST BE CONTAINED IN COVERED DUMP BOXES AND SHALLNOT BE ALLOWED TO SCATTER ON OR OFF SITE. LOOSE AND/OR WIND-BLOWNDEBRIS WILL RESULT IN AN IMMEDIATE STOP WORK ORDER.*PER CODE: 1 FOR EVERY 4 RESIDENTS PLUS 1 FOR EACH EMPLOYEE ONMAJOR SHIFT PLUS 1 FOR EACH ON-CALL MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.IT IS ASSUMED THERE IS ONE EMPLOYEE PER 10 UNITS, AND 1 MEDICALPROFESSIONAL ON CALL PER 20 UNITSPROPOSED GUARD RAILNORTHNOTE: PAVEMENT SECTIONS ARE SHOWN FORREFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO THE GEOTECHREPORT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION5515'-0"1243'-0"3148'-0"8'-0" SCALE:1/2” = 1’SITE PLAN - NOT TO SCALENEED STAKED INSTALLLOCATION PICTUREFILE NAME: NEW-PERSPECTIVE-ARDEN-HILL-ENTRANCE-MON-NL-DL-V2.AIAll original designs are exclusive property of Scenic Sign Corp. BOX 881 ST. CLOUD MN 56302 (320) 252-9400 | 1320 5th AVE NE FARGO, ND 58078 1-800-486-8517The client warrants that the subject matter to be printed is not copyrighted by a third party. The client also recognizes that because subject matter does not have to bear a copyright notice in order to be protected by copyright law, absence of such notice does not necessarily assure a right to reproduce. The client further warrants that no copyright notice has been removed from any material used in preparing the subject matter for reproduction. To support these warranties, the client agrees to indemnify and hold Scenic Sign harmless for all liability, damages and attorney fees that may be incurred in any legal action connected with copyright infringement involving the work production of provided.ELECTRICAL: THIS SIGN IS INTENDED TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 600 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES. THIS INCLUDES PROPER GROUND AND BONDING OF THE SIGN.011/21/43/41/83/85/87/821/21/43/41/83/85/87/8STRUCTURE: ROUND PIPEQTY (2)BASE POLE:O.D.: 4.5”LENGTH: 12’ - 6“DRILLED PIER FOOTING:2’ DIAMETER 5’ - 0” DEEPSTD 4” CONCRETE PAD W/EMBEDDED WIRE MESHPIPE FOOTINGDATE: 11/8/22SALESMAN: DARYL KIRTDRAWN BY: AARON REE LOCATION: ARDEN HILLS, MNSQ FT: MONUMENT/PYLON/EMC SIGNWO: # VOLTAGE: 120/277PHOTO EYE:NOÀÁĄőʘÁőÁʘÁőÁÁőőĄÀőőĄÀőőĄÀőÁőőÀÁőőÁÁÁÀőʘÁÁĄĄőʘÁÁĄĄÁÀÁÁÁĄĄőÀĄÀĄőőĄÁőőőÁʘÁőÁʘÁőÁÁőőÁőÁĄÁÁÁőʘÁÀÁőĄĄĄĄÁőÁÁÁÁĄÁĄőÁĄÁőĄĄÁÀĄĄőÀĄĄĄĄĄőĄÀőÁĄÁʘőőĄÀőÁĄÁʘőBethelHighwaySign140'-0"5'-0"12'-0"35'-0"14'-0"248'-0"4Sign Locations1) Monument sign at main entrance. This mightneed to be converted into a smaller directional sign,but we will process as shown for now.2) Building "Senior Living" sign, similar to the NPSL-Franklin project.3) Monument sign that is visible on Snelling Avenue4) If #3 above is not favorable to City, we can askBethel if they can allow us to be on their SnellingAve. Sign (see pg 5.)5) We will have a slot on the Multi-tenant sign thatBethel is installing (see pg. 6). Bethel is goingthrough city approvals for this sign at this time.510'3565 Pine Tree Dr., Arden Hills, MN4New Perspective Sign Locations1. Main Entrance Monument Sign2. Building "Senior Living" Sign3. Directional Sign4. Existing Bethel Multi-tenant Sign3MONUMENT SIGNINSTALL LOCATION10 ft - 0 in120 in10 ft - 5 in125 in5 in7 ft - 6 in90 in3 ft - 11 in47 in3 ft - 2 in38 inCUSTOM BENCHMARK BASE AND CAPCAP PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 156 C STONE/COLOR TO MATCH BUILDINGSAMPLES TO BE PROVIDED TO BENCHMARK TO MATCHCUSTOM SINGLE-SIDED NON-LIT MONUMENT SIGN1-1/2” STEEL SQUARE TUBE FRAME.090 ALUMINUM CLADDINGTOP PORTION PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 7593 CLOWER PORTION PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 4292 C“NEW PERSPECTIVE”13MM WHITE SINTRA LETTERS1” STANDOFFS DECORATIVE SWOOSH FLUSH MOUNT ROUTED 13MM SINTRASWOOSH PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 156 C“INDEPENDENT...CARE”3M OPAQUE WHITE VINYLTO BE GROUND LIT (LIGHTING BY OTHER)ffff110000ff10 100f10 f0 fff1fft-t-tt-ttt - -t tt tii55i55in5 inn55 in5 inn5 in5in122512111251252521251125252125 2251225 512512iiiininninininininin18.5’ Wide8.5’ Wide x 2.92’ High = 24.82 SQ FEET 2.92’ High Stone matches building accent stoneLogo & - 1” Stand-off from sign faceText - 1/2” dimensional letters mounted to sign faceINDEPENDENT | ASSISTED | MEMORY CARE1 SCALE: 3/4” = 1’SITE PLAN - NOT TO SCALENEED STAKED INSTALLLOCATION PICTUREFILE NAME: NEW-PERSPECTIVE-ARDEN-HILL-DIRECTIONAL-PP-V1.AIAll original designs are exclusive property of Scenic Sign Corp. BOX 881 ST. CLOUD MN 56302 (320) 252-9400 | 1320 5th AVE NE FARGO, ND 58078 1-800-486-8517The client warrants that the subject matter to be printed is not copyrighted by a third party. The client also recognizes that because subject matter does not have to bear a copyright notice in order to be protected by copyright law, absence of such notice does not necessarily assure a right to reproduce. The client further warrants that no copyright notice has been removed from any material used in preparing the subject matter for reproduction. To support these warranties, the client agrees to indemnify and hold Scenic Sign harmless for all liability, damages and attorney fees that may be incurred in any legal action connected with copyright infringement involving the work production of provided.ELECTRICAL: THIS SIGN IS INTENDED TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 600 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES. THIS INCLUDES PROPER GROUND AND BONDING OF THE SIGN.011/21/43/41/83/85/87/821/21/43/41/83/85/87/8DATE: 11/8/22SALESMAN: DARYL KIRTDRAWN BY: AARON REE LOCATION: ARDEN HILLS, MNSQ FT: POST AND PANELWO: # VOLTAGE: 120/277PHOTO EYE:NOÀÁĄőʘÁőÁʘÁőÁÁőőĄÀőőĄÀőőĄÀőÁőőÀÁőőÁÁÁÀőʘÁÁĄĄőʘÁÁĄĄÁÀÁÁÁĄĄőÀĄÀĄőőĄÁőőőÁʘÁőÁʘÁőÁÁőőÁőÁĄÁÁÁőʘÁÀÁőĄĄĄĄÁőÁÁÁÁĄÁĄőÁĄÁőĄĄÁÀĄĄőÀĄĄĄĄĄőĄÀőÁĄÁʘőőĄÀőÁĄÁʘőBethelHighwaySign140'-0"5'-0"12'-0"35'-0"14'-0"248'-0"4Sign Locations1) Monument sign at main entrance. This mightneed to be converted into a smaller directional sign,but we will process as shown for now.2) Building "Senior Living" sign, similar to the NPSL-Franklin project.3) Monument sign that is visible on Snelling Avenue4) If #3 above is not favorable to City, we can askBethel if they can allow us to be on their SnellingAve. Sign (see pg 5.)5) We will have a slot on the Multi-tenant sign thatBethel is installing (see pg. 6). Bethel is goingthrough city approvals for this sign at this time.510'3565 Pine Tree Dr., Arden Hills, MN4New Perspective Sign Locations1. Main Entrance Monument Sign2. Building "Senior Living" Sign3. Directional Sign4. Existing Bethel Multi-tenant Sign3POST AND PANEL SIGNINSTALL LOCATION9 ft - 0 in108 in4 ft - 0 in48 in5 ft - 0 in60 in3 ft - 4 in40 in2 ft - 6 in30 in2 in6 in10 inCUSTOM SINGLE-SIDED POST AND PANEL SIGN4” ALUMINUM SQUARE TUBE POSTS AND FRAMEDECORATIVE BENT .063 ALUMINUM CAPSSTRUCTURE PAINTED WHITE.090 ALUMINUM FACE PANELTOP SECTION PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 4292 CBOTTOM SECTION PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 7593 C3M OPAQUE WHITE VINYL LETTERS AND LOGODIGITALLY PRINTED OR PAINTED VINYL ARROWS TO MATCH PMS 156 CBACK AND SIDES/TOP/BOTTOM OF PANEL PAINTED WHITE4 in2 SCALE: 1/4” = 1’BEFORE: NOT TO SCALEBEFORE: NOT TO SCALEAFTER: NOT TO SCALECHANNEL LETTERSMILKY WHITE ACRYLIC FACESTD BLACK TRIM CAPSTD BLACK RETURNWHITE LEDS48 ft - 5 in581 in3 ft - 8 in44 inFILE NAME: NEW-PERSPECTIVE-ARDEN-HILL-LARGE-CHL-V2.AIAll original designs are exclusive property of Scenic Sign Corp. BOX 881 ST. CLOUD MN 56302 (320) 252-9400 | 1320 5th AVE NE FARGO, ND 58078 1-800-486-8517The client warrants that the subject matter to be printed is not copyrighted by a third party. The client also recognizes that because subject matter does not have to bear a copyright notice in order to be protected by copyright law, absence of such notice does not necessarily assure a right to reproduce. The client further warrants that no copyright notice has been removed from any material used in preparing the subject matter for reproduction. To support these warranties, the client agrees to indemnify and hold Scenic Sign harmless for all liability, damages and attorney fees that may be incurred in any legal action connected with copyright infringement involving the work production of provided.ELECTRICAL: THIS SIGN IS INTENDED TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 600 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES. THIS INCLUDES PROPER GROUND AND BONDING OF THE SIGN.011/21/43/41/83/85/87/821/21/43/41/83/85/87/8DATE: 11/17/22SALESMAN: DARYL KIRTDRAWN BY: BRET SCHWINGHAMMER LOCATION: ARDEN HILLS, MNSQ FT: CHANNEL LETTERS ON RACEWAYWO: # 47178.3VOLTAGE: 120/277PHOTO EYE:NOAFTER: NOT TO SCALELighting Details3 LLFLED8NA Need help? Tech help line: ((888)) 722-10000 Email: ssales@rablighting.comm Website: wwww.rablighting.com Copyright © 2022 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice Page 1 of 2 Same small package. Bigger output. Replaces 50W MR16 Floodlight. Color: Bronze Weight: 1.6 lbs Project:Type:Preparedd By:Date: Driverr Info Type Constant Current 120V 0.14A 208V 0.09A 240V 0.08A 277V N/A Input Watts 7.2W LEDD Info Watts 8W Color Temp 4000K (Neutral) Color Accuracy 82 CRI L70 Lifespan 100,000 Hours Lumens 469 lm Efficacy 65.1 lm/W Technicall Specifications Compliance ULL Listed: Suitable for wet locations. Suitable for ground mounting. IESNAA LM-799 && LM-800 Testing: RAB LED luminaires and LED components have been tested by an independent laboratory in accordance with IESNA LM-79 and LM-80 LEDD Characteristics LED: High-output, long-life LED Colorr Consistency: 4-step MacAdam Ellipse binning to achieve consistent fixture-to-fixture color Colorr Stability: LED color temperature is warrantied to shift no more than 200K in color temperature over a 5-year period Colorr Uniformity: RAB's range of Correlated Color Temperature follows the guidelines of the American National Standard for (SSL) Products, ANSI C78.377-2017. Optical Spott Lens: Optional spot lens enables a tool-less conversion to a NEMA Type 3H x 3V. Great for accent lighting or grazing buildings for an artistic touch. Spot reflector kit available here. Narroww Spott Lens: Optional narrow spot lens enables a tool-less conversion to a NEMA Type 3H x 3V. Great for accent lighting or grazing buildings for an artistic touch. Narrow spot reflector kit available here. Construction Coldd Weatherr Starting: The minimum starting temperature is -40°C (-40°F) Ambientt Temperature: Suitable for use in up to 40°C (104°F) Thermall Management: Optimized using computational fluid dynamics software to ensure long LED and driver lifespan Housing: Precision die-cast aluminum, lens frame and mounting arm Lens: Microprismatic diffuser produces a smooth distribution and low glare Gaskets: High-temperature silicone LLFLED8NA Need help? Tech help line: ((888)) 722-10000 Email: ssales@rablighting.comm Website: wwww.rablighting.com Copyright © 2022 RAB Lighting All Rights Reserved Note: Specifications are subject to change at any time without notice Page 2 of 2 Technicall Specificationss (continued)ConstructionFinish:Our environmentally friendly polyester powdercoatings are formulated for high-durability and long-lasting color, and contains no VOC or toxic heavymetalsGreenn Technology: Mercury and UV free. RoHS-compliant components. OtherWarranty:RAB warrants that our LED products will be free fromdefects in materials and workmanship for a period offive (5) years from the date of delivery to the enduser, including coverage of light output, colorstability, driver performance and fixture finish. RAB'swarranty is subject to all terms and conditions found at rablighting.com/warranty. Patents: The design of the LFLED is protected by Taiwan Patent 01510966 and pending patents in US, Canada, China, and Mexico Buyy Americann Actt Compliance:RAB values USA manufacturing! Upon request, RABmay be able to manufacture this product to becompliant with the Buy American Act (BAA). Pleasecontact customer service to request a quote for theproduct to be made BAA compliant.Electrical Driver: Constant Current, Class 2, 50/60 Hz, 100-240VAC: 0.20Amps Dimensions Features Microprismatic diffuser produces a smooth distribution and low glare 4H x 4V NEMA beam spread Optional spot and narrow spot hood reflectors available Runs cool; prevents burning foliage or fingers 5-Year, No-Compromise Warranty Orderingg Matrix Family Wattage Colorr Temp Finish LFLED 8 N A 88 == 8W BBlankk == 5000K Cool NN == 4000K Neutral YY == 3000K Warm AA == Bronze WW == White BB == Black VGG == Verde Green SCALE: 1/2” = 1’FILE NAME: NEW-PERSPECTIVE-ARDEN-HILL-MULTI-TENANT-PY-V5.AIAll original designs are exclusive property of Scenic Sign Corp. BOX 881 ST. CLOUD MN 56302 (320) 252-9400 | 1320 5th AVE NE FARGO, ND 58078 1-800-486-8517The client warrants that the subject matter to be printed is not copyrighted by a third party. The client also recognizes that because subject matter does not have to bear a copyright notice in order to be protected by copyright law, absence of such notice does not necessarily assure a right to reproduce. The client further warrants that no copyright notice has been removed from any material used in preparing the subject matter for reproduction. To support these warranties, the client agrees to indemnify and hold Scenic Sign harmless for all liability, damages and attorney fees that may be incurred in any legal action connected with copyright infringement involving the work production of provided.ELECTRICAL: THIS SIGN IS INTENDED TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 600 OF THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL CODES. THIS INCLUDES PROPER GROUND AND BONDING OF THE SIGN.011/21/43/41/83/85/87/821/21/43/41/83/85/87/8STRUCTURE: ROUND PIPEBASE POLE:O.D.: 6.625”LENGTH: 16’DRILLED PIER FOOTING:3’ DIAMETER 6’ DEEPPIPE FOOTINGTWO PIPEDATE: 4/13/21SALESMAN: DARYL KIRTDRAWN BY: TONY OLAUSON LOCATION: ARDEN HILLSSQ FT: PYLON SIGNWO: # VOLTAGE: 120/277PHOTO EYE:NOCUSTOM CABINETFRAME MATERIAL: 1½” ALUM. SQ. TUBECLADDING: .063 ALUMINUM2 INCH RETAINER1½ INCH DIVIDER BARPAINTED BLACKLEXAN FACEDIGITAL PRINT TRANS VINYL TO MATCH PMS 7700DIGITAL PRINT TRANS VINYL TO MATCH PMS 7597DIGITAL PRINT TRANS VINYL TO MATCH PMS 337WHITE LEDSCUSTOM CABINETFRAME MATERIAL: 1½” ALUM. SQ. TUBECLADDING: .063 ALUMINUM2 INCH RETAINER1½ INCH DIVIDER BARPAINTED BLACKLEXAN FACEDIGITAL PRINT TRANS VINYL (COLOR TO BE DECIDED)DIGITAL PRINT TRANS VINYL (COLOR TO BE DECIDED)WHITE LEDS1 ft - 2 1/8 in14 1/8 in2 ft - 9 1/4 in33 1/4 in21 3/4 in6 ft - 0 in72 in8 ft - 0 in96 in68 in4 in24 in1 ft - 8 in20 inTHE BRICK SHOWN IN THE RENDERINGABOVE IS A PLACEHOLDER. THE BRICK TOBE INSTALLED IS SHOWN IN THE IMAGETO THE LEFT, WHICH WILL MATCH THEANDERSON CENTER BUILDING.Bethel Anderson Center Multi-Tenant Sign54Existing Bethel Multi-Tenant Sign