Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-05-25 PC PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 8, 2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes 10 -08 -25 PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 25 -010 –1580 Oak Avenue –Minor Subdivision Elena Fransen, Senior Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Planning Case 25 -012 –1103 County Road E –Sign Standard Adjustment Elena Fransen, Senior Planner 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: Joshua Collins (2027) Commissioners: Brad Bjorklund (2025) Steve Erler (2026) Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026) Patrick Burlingame (2027) Nancy Jacobson (2027) Jessica Birken (2027) Katie Stromberg - Alternate (2026) SJ Julius -Alternate (2027) Council Liaison: Kurt Weber Planning Commission November 5, 2025 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. Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills. https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -Meetings 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 MINUTESOctober 8, 2025 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes10-08 -25 PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 25 -010 –1580 Oak Avenue –Minor Subdivision Elena Fransen, Senior Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Planning Case 25 -012 –1103 County Road E –Sign Standard Adjustment Elena Fransen, Senior Planner 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:Joshua Collins (2027)Commissioners:Brad Bjorklund (2025)Steve Erler (2026)Ben Lindau, Vice Chair (2026)Patrick Burlingame (2027)Nancy Jacobson (2027)Jessica Birken (2027)Katie Stromberg -Alternate (2026)SJ Julius -Alternate (2027)Council Liaison:Kurt Weber Planning Commission November 5, 2025 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.Members of the public may attend a meeting in -person at City Hall or they may view the meeting remotely on the City ’s website using the below link. Meetings are also broadcast on Cable Channel 16 for those that live in Arden Hills.https://cityofardenhills.org/320/Watch -City -MeetingsAgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved:November 5, 2025 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 8, 2025 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Collins called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Joshua Collins, Commissioners Jessica Birken, Brad Bjorklund, Patrick Burlingame, Stephen Erler, Nancy Jacobson, and Ben Lindau. Also present were: City Administrator Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director Jacob Reilly, Senior Planner Elena Fransen and Council Liaison Kurt Weber. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – OCTOBER 8, 2025 Commissioner Erler moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindau, to approve the October 8, 2025, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 3, 2025 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Jacobson moved, seconded by Commissioner Birken, to approve the September 3, 2025, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner Bjorklund abstained). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 25-011 – 3254 Hamline Avenue North – Variance – Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Fransen stated dREamodel, Inc. (“The Applicant”), on behalf of the property owner, has requested a variance from the required rear yard setback for decks in the R-1 Zoning District to build a new, larger deck in place of an existing deck at 3254 Hamline Avenue North (“Subject Property”). To construct the proposed deck, the Applicant is requesting a reduced rear yard setback of 8.8 feet rather than 24 feet as required by city code. The proposed 568 square foot deck would replace the existing 249 square foot deck attached to the south side of the single-family dwelling. The existing deck extends approximately 18.28 feet south and the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 8, 2025 2 proposed deck would expand the footprint to the south approximately five (5) additional feet to accommodate a ramp. The proposed deck would extend approximately 23.5 feet south and increase the deck footprint but would not encroach beyond the existing nonconforming rear yard setback. Senior Planner Fransen 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 rear yard setback for decks at the Subject Property 3254 Hamline Avenue North. 2. The principal structure and existing deck on the Subject Property are nonconforming with the required rear yard setback and have a setback of 8.8 feet. 3. The proposed new deck would expand the footprint of the existing deck and therefore a variance is required. 4. The proposed new deck would not extend beyond the existing nonconforming 8.8-foot rear yard setback. 5. The proposed deck would not require variances for front yard, side yard setbacks, impervious surface coverage, or structure coverage. 6. The Subject Property is a riparian lot with frontage on Lake Josephine and is subject to Shoreland Regulations. 7. The proposed deck would be set back 153.78 feet from Ordinary High Water Level and would be located outside of the required structure setback of 50 feet and the shore impact zone of 25 feet as measured from OHW. 8. The Applicant has submitted a shoreland mitigation plan for the proposed deck. 9. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-1 Zoning District and the Shoreland Regulations. Variance Findings: 10. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 11. The proposed deck 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 proposed deck would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 13. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 25-011 for a variance to construct a new deck with an 8.8-foot rear yard setback at 3254 Hamline Avenue North: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to the 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. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, RCWD and DNR, prior to the start of any site activities. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 8, 2025 3 5. Final grading, drainage, 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. The submitted shoreland mitigation plans shall be completed in accordance with City Code Section 1330.03 Subd. 7. E. within one year of the plan's approval unless otherwise approved by the City. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Collins opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Birken asked if the property owner were to need a new deck at some point in the future would the applicant have to apply for another variance in the future. Senior Planner Fransen stated the variance would be tied to the property and the deck could be replaced with the proposed footprint. Commissioner Burlingame commented he believed this variance request was pretty straight forward and the setback situation was existing. He noted the variance was about adding accessibility improvements to the property. Commissioner Jacobson questioned if the easement down to the lake was driven on or was it a pedestrian path. Senior Planner Fransen reported there was no paving, but rather the easement provided access to the water. Commissioner Jacobson noted there was 30 feet of shoreland adjacent to the lake and this surface was not paved but provided access to the lake. Senior Planner Fransen stated this was the case. Commissioner Jacobson noted if the variance was approved for the deck and there was a change of ownership, the new owner would assume the variance that was in place. Senior Planner Fransen reported this was the case. Commissioner Jacobson inquired whereof the shoreland mitigation work would be done by the applicant. Senior Planner Fransen explained the shore impact zone was a 25-foot area between the ordinary high water level and the 25 feet from there. Commissioner Erler moved, and Commissioner Birken seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-011 for a variance to construct a new deck with an 8.8-foot rear yard setback at 3254 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in October 8, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 8, 2025 4 Commissioner Bjorklund stated he supported the proposed variance. Commissioner Lindau explained he supported the variance as requested as well. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Weber provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He reported the Council approved the chicken ordinance with the removal of ducks and setting a limit for chickens to six. He explained that the Council approved a preliminary levy of 18.32% for 2026. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Bjorklund indicated he would like to better understand if the consultant was addressing affordable housing in the zoning ordinance updates. He noted he also wanted to see ADUs addressed. City Administrator Jagoe reported the Council would be addressing affordable housing at their next work session meeting on October 13 and that the conversation about ADUs would take place at a later work session. ADJOURN Commissioner Bjorklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Lindau, to adjourn the October 8, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:08 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (7-0). Page 1 of 7 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner Jake Reilly, AICP, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Supplemental memo for Planning Case #25-010 Request: Minor Subdivision 1580 Oak Avenue, 1578 Oak Avenue, and 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd Requested Action Dan Ashbach (“The Applicant”) requests the approval of a Minor Subdivision for properties located at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd (“Subject Property A”), 1580 Oak Avenue (“Subject Property B”) and 1578 Oak Avenue (“Subject Property C”). Following further review during preparation of the materials for the Planning Commission meeting on November 5, 2025, staff and the City Attorney concur that the lot split application that would result in a portion of Subject Property C being subdivided for sale to the owner of Subject Property A, should be considered separately from any application associated with the adjustment of the easterly lot line for Subject Property B. Based on the staff report and review prepared on Friday, October 31, the resulting subdivision and lot line adjustment fails to sufficiently correct the existing legal nonconformities and creates an additional new nonconformity. The application to split a portion of Subject Property C off for sale to the adjoining property (Subject Property A) creates neither new nor remedies any existing legal nonconformities, therefore no variance application is required. A variance application may be required if and when the property owner chooses to submit an application to address lot lines associated with Subject Properties B and C. The updated staff recommendation to the Planning Commission is to consider Mr. Ashbach’s withdrawal of the application requesting the lot line adjustment and to proceed with a recommendation to the City Council regarding the lot split. Images reflecting the existing (Figure 1) and future (Figures 2-4) property conditions are shown below. Page 2 of 7 Figure 1. Existing Subject Properties Figure 2. Future Subject Property A Page 3 of 7 Figure 3. Future Subject Property B Figure 4. Future Subject Property C Page 4 of 7 1. Site Data All subject properties are zoned R-1 – Single Family Residential District and are guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Surrounding parcels to the north, east, and west are also zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Future Land Use Plan. 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential District Lot Size: 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd (Subject Property A): 16,452 SF 1580 Oak Avenue (Subject Property B): 65,481 SF 1578 Oak Avenue (Subject Property C): 216,788 SF 2. Approvals The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether a minor subdivision request should be granted. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the requirements of Chapter 11 – Subdivisions and Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, District Provisions in Section 1320. The applicable requirements and evaluations of the proposed subdivision are addressed in the next section. Plan Evaluation Chapter 11, Subdivisions Regulations Review 1. 1150.04 Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record The application is to divide one or more existing platted lots designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the office of the recorder or registrar of titles for the county, into one or more separately described parcels. While the minor subdivision request does not create new lots, the request further divides the subject properties. The Application is subject to compliance with the conditions for Survey, Relation to Zoning Ordinance, Public Welfare, Conformity, and Filing Fee. The application meets the requirements for these conditions except Conformity, which requires that the proposed division shall conform to such other requirements in the Subdivision chapter of the City Code. The proposed adjustments do not bring Subject Property B into full conformance with the Subdivision code as it relates to lot location on a public street, however considering the lot split alone, the proposal does not increase any nonconformity beyond the existing nonconformities of Subject Properties B and C. Location - Nonconforming All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street. Subject Property C has frontage on Oak Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and would be considered a corner lot with the front lot line being along Oak Avenue. The existing Subject Property A does not have any frontage on a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The Applicant’s request would not change this, nor would it create another lot that would not have full frontage on a public street. Subject Property B has frontage on Lake Johanna Blvd but the property does not have direct access to this roadway and the front building line of the principal structure is oriented toward Oak Avenue. Page 5 of 7 Lake Johanna Blvd is a county road and is identified as a community street in the Subdivision code and as a collector street in the Zoning Code. Section 1325.06 of the Zoning Code requires single- family dwellings to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces and all off-street parking spaces shall have access driveways and access directly to public streets. Any residential lot, with frontage on both a local street and a collector street must access the property only from the local street. Based on the code requirements, Subject Property B is required to be accessed from a local street, in this case the requirement is met by the access off Oak Avenue. Size – Meets Requirements All lots are required to meet the minimum lot dimensions and lot area required by the Zoning Code. The minimum lot area in the R-1 District is 14,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 95 feet and the minimum depth is 130 feet. The subject properties will comply with the minimum lot area, width, and depth in the R-1 District. These conditions are met by the proposed resulting properties A and B. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 2. District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions – Meets Requirements The proposed subject properties will comply with the required lot size and dimensions. Structure Setbacks with Adjusted Lot Lines – Meets Requirements No structural changes are proposed on any subject property. The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-1 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard (Principal), a 10- foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 25 feet (Principal), and 10 feet in the rear and side yard (Accessory). The existing principal structure on Subject Property B is shown on the existing survey as having a footprint that goes over the property line into Subject Property C. Based on the consideration of the lot split alone, these requirements are met, and existing legal nonconformities will not be changed. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-1 District is 25 percent of the lot area. The minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. All Subject Properties meet the structure and landscape coverage requirements after the proposed subdivision. Accessory Structures – Nonconforming, existing legal Subject Properties B and C are nonconforming with zoning requirements for accessory structures. On existing Subject Property C, there is a 780 square foot detached garage where there is no principal structure, and the detached garage is not located behind the front building line of a principal structure which are not permitted. Per Section 1325.01, no accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal structure to which it is accessory. Additionally, accessory structures in the R-1 District shall not be located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the principal structure to which it is accessory. The existing detached garage is therefore an existing and legal nonconformity that will not change. The Applicant owns and uses Subject Properties B and C together and has not pursued development of Property C as a separate residential use. Subject Property B has four existing Page 6 of 7 accessory structures: two sheds, a gazebo, and a pool with an approximate total of 1,356 square feet. The existing accessory structures on Subject Property B do not comply with the code provisions for number of accessory structures and total floor area for accessory structures. These accessory structures also do not comply with the location requirement for accessory structures, as all four are located within the principal structure’s front yard as measured to the south property line, the front lot line for the existing Subject Property B. This condition is an existing legal nonconformity and will not change. Driveway and Residential Access – Nonconforming In Section 1325.06 Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation, each property which abuts one or more public streets, shall be entitled to at least one access to a public street. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) access per property. The existing Subject Property A does not abut a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The request would not change this existing legal nonconformity. Subject Property B, which abuts Lake Johanna Boulevard, does not have access along this roadway and instead uses a driveway partially located on Subject Property C for access to Oak Avenue. The request would not change this existing legal nonconformity 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 Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. 2. City Staff received a withdrawal of the portion of the land use application addressing the lot line adjustment for the property addressed as 1580 Oak Avenue. 3. The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 4. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. 5. 1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. 6. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the number, size and location of accessory structures and driveways for 1580 Oak Avenue and 1578 Oak Avenue. 7. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the requirements for street access for 1580 Oak Avenue. 8. The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd. 9. The proposed would not create a new lot of record. 10. The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. 11. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. 12. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Page 7 of 7 Options and Motion Language Staff provides the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission may consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Based on the findings above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment: 1. The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City’s approval. 2. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines for Property A, and Property B. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval as submitted of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment. • Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for the minor subdivision request on September 30, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by November 28, 2025 (60 days) unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Attachments A. Presentation B. Original staff report. Page 1 of 12 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-010 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Dan Ashbach Property Location: 1580 Oak Avenue, 1578 Oak Avenue, and 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd Request: Minor Subdivision Requested Action Dan Ashbach (“The Applicant”) requests the approval of a Minor Subdivision for properties located at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd (“Subject Property A”), 1580 Oak Avenue (“Subject Property B”) and 1578 Oak Avenue (“Subject Property C”). As part of the Minor Subdivision, the Applicant proposes adjusting the shared lot lines, which would result in increased lot areas for Subject Properties A and B and decreased lot area for Subject Property C. No new lots would be created as part of the Minor Subdivision. Background 1. Site Conditions The subject properties are adjacent properties with shared property lines. Subject Properties B and C are both owned by the Applicant. Subject Properties A and B are developed with single-family residential dwellings. Subject Property C does not have a single-family residential dwelling but there are several improvements on the property, including a detached garage, tennis court, and driveway, all of which are used by the Applicant in association with Subject Property B. Subject Property A, which was developed with no public street frontage, is accessible by way of a driveway easement to Lake Johanna Boulevard. Subject Property B has property frontage on Lake Johanna Boulevard, but the property is accessible from Oak Avenue by a driveway that is located on both Subject Properties B and C. In 2008, the Applicant submitted a land use application to update and expand the detached garage located on Subject Property B. The City deemed the application incomplete until the property lines were replatted or subdivided, with the garage being platted on the same lot as the primary structure to which it is accessory. The Applicant withdrew the application and did not pursue the minor subdivision at that time. Page 2 of 12 The existing property lines are shown below. Existing Subject Properties 2. Overview of Request The Minor Subdivision is requested to allow for the alteration of the property lines between the subject properties. The alterations would increase the lot area of Subject Properties A and B. Adjusting the lot line would effectively incorporate all improvements associated with Subject Property B and C, including the principal structure, driveway, tennis court, and accessory structures into Subject Property B. The proposal will decrease the lot area of Subject Property C and that property will have no improvements and be considered vacant land. No future development of Subject Property C is included with the request. The proposed Minor Subdivision does not include a proposal to create new lots and would not include new uses on the lots. Although the lot shown as Subject Property C could be sold, and/or subdivided in the future, any such future proposed development would be subject to zoning and building requirements and would undergo further review. The proposed future lot lines and lot areas to be changed are shown below. Page 3 of 12 Proposed Subject Properties Lot area impacted by lot line adjustments The Applicant’s request includes two objectives, the first of which includes changing the shared lot line between Subject Property A and Subject Property C. This change would allocate 43,838 additional square feet to Subject Property A from Subject Property C. The Applicant intends to sell the area from Subject Property C to the neighbor at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, to be combined Page 4 of 12 with the existing lot. As part of the land use application, the property owner of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd states in a letter that he will purchase the land from the Applicant and combine it with the existing property. He states that there is no plan for improvements to the area. He intends to remove buckthorn and dead trees in the area and may look into building a garage or out building in the future. Any potential accessory structure(s) contemplated in the future would be subject to zoning and building permit application requirements, depending on the proposed size. The second objective of the proposed Minor Subdivision is to bring Subject Property B more into conformance with zoning requirements by allocating 52,535 additional square feet from Subject Property C to Subject Property B. The Applicant notes that adjusting the property line will provide the required side yard setback for the principal structure on Subject Property B. Staff has identified that in addition to the side yard setback for the principal structure, the proposed will increase the property’s conformance with requirements for street access. However, Staff’s review of the proposal also identified existing nonconformities, some of which would be increased through the proposal. Subject Property B is nonconforming with Zoning Code requirements for accessory structure location, number, and total floor area. The proposal would not remedy the first nonconformity and would increase the latter two nonconformities. It is staff’s finding that after the Minor Subdivision application was deemed complete, and through the drafting of this report and evaluation of the application materials submitted by the Applicant, the proposed would require variances to address nonconformities created by the minor subdivision. For a variance application to be deemed complete, the Applicant is required to address how the application meets the six hardship criteria established in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. This information has not been submitted as part of this current proposal and would be required in order to have full consideration of the effects of the proposed request. 3. Site Data All subject properties are zoned R-1 – Single Family Residential District and are guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Surrounding parcels to the north, east, and west are also zoned R-1, Single Family Residential District and designated for Low Density Residential Uses in the Future Land Use Plan. 2040 Future Land Use Plan: LDR – Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Dwelling Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential District Lot Size: 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd (Subject Property A): 16,452 SF 1580 Oak Avenue (Subject Property B): 65,481 SF 1578 Oak Avenue (Subject Property C): 216,788 SF 4. Approvals The Planning Commission is asked to determine whether a minor subdivision request should be granted. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the requirements of Chapter 11 – Subdivisions and Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, District Provisions in Section 1320. As noted in the Overview of the Request, staff identified through the drafting of this report that the proposal should also be evaluated based on the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4, due to the nonconformities created by the proposal. The proposal does not resolve all existing nonconformities with the subdivision or zoning requirements. Staff’s review identifies that the Page 5 of 12 proposal would reduce a street access nonconformity but it does not conform with subdivision requirements for lot location on a public street and also does not conform with Zoning Code requirements for number and size of accessory structures. The proposed would address four nonconforming accessory structures for location while creating a new nonconforming accessory structure for location and increasing the nonconformities of number and size of accessory structures for Subject Property B. The applicable requirements and evaluations of the proposed subdivision are addressed in the next section. Plan Evaluation Chapter 11, Subdivisions Regulations Review 1. 1150.04 Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record The application is to divide one or more existing platted lots designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the office of the recorder or registrar of titles for the county, into one or more separately described parcels. While the minor subdivision request does not create new lots, the request further divides the subject properties. The Application is subject to compliance with the conditions for Survey, Relation to Zoning Ordinance, Public Welfare, Conformity, and Filing Fee. The application meets the requirements for these conditions except Conformity, which requires that the proposed division shall conform to such other requirements in the Subdivision chapter of the City Code. The proposed adjustments to the lot lines impacting Subject Properties B and C do not bring Subject Property B into full conformance with the Subdivision code as it relates to lot location on a public street. The proposed also does not bring all subject properties into conformance with the Zoning Code, which is evaluated in the next section. Location - Nonconforming All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street. Subject Property C has frontage on Oak Avenue and Lake Johanna Boulevard and would be considered a corner lot with the front lot line being along Oak Avenue. The existing Subject Property A does not have any frontage on a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The Applicant’s request would not change this, nor would it create another lot that would not have full frontage on a public street. Subject Property B has frontage on Lake Johanna Blvd but the property does not have direct access to this roadway and the front building line of the principal structure is oriented toward Oak Avenue. Lake Johanna Blvd is a county road and is identified as a community street in the Subdivision code and as a collector street in the Zoning Code. Section 1325.06 of the Zoning Code requires single- family dwellings to provide two (2) off-street parking spaces and all off-street parking spaces shall have access driveways and access directly to public streets. Any residential lot, with frontage on both a local street and a collector street must access the property only from the local street. Based on the code requirements, Subject Property B is required to be accessed from a local street, in this case, Oak Avenue. Double Frontage Lots – Permitted Exception By incorporating the existing driveway into Subject Property B, the property would become a double frontage lot as defined by the Subdivision Code or through lot as defined by the Zoning Code. The Subdivision code states that double frontage lots shall be avoided except where lots back on an arterial or community street. Lake Johanna Boulevard acts as a community street and Page 6 of 12 therefore the proposed will bring the property in line with the zoning requirements for access and would be a permitted exception to the Subdivision requirements. Size – Meets Requirements All lots are required to meet the minimum lot dimensions and lot area required by the Zoning Code. The minimum lot area in the R-1 District is 14,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 95 feet and the minimum depth is 130 feet. After the proposed lot adjustment, the subject properties will comply with the minimum lot area, width, and depth in the R-1 District, as shown in Tables 1 and 2 below. Table 1. Lot Area for Subject Properties R-1 Requirements Existing Proposed Subject Property A 14,000 square feet 16,452 square feet 60,290 square feet Subject Property B 65,481 square feet 118,016 square feet Subject Property C 216,788 square feet 120,415 square feet Table 2. Lot Width and Depth R-1 Requirements Existing Minimums Proposed Minimums Subject Property A 95 feet/130 feet 112.5 ft/150 ft 112.5 ft/150 ft Subject Property B 161.3 ft/311.93 ft 192.22 ft/512.04 ft Subject Property C 348.89/220.48 ft 348.89 ft/220.48 ft Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 2. District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions – Meets Requirements The proposed subject properties will comply with the required lot size and dimensions. Structure Setbacks with Adjusted Lot Lines – Meets Requirements No structural changes are proposed on any subject property. The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-1 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard (Principal), a 10- foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 25 feet (Principal), and 10 feet in the rear and side yard (Accessory). The front lot line is the boundary of a lot abutting a street. Existing Subject Property B abuts Lake Johanna Blvd, making the south property line the front lot line. With the proposed lot line alterations, the property would turn it into a through lot. On a through lot, the determination of whether the street frontage is to be considered a front yard or rear yard shall be subject to the provisions of the code. The existing Subject Property B only has access on Lake Johanna Blvd but given the incorporation of the existing driveway to Oak Avenue into the property, and the Page 7 of 12 orientation of the principal structure on the property, the north property line is evaluated as the updated front lot line for the proposed Subject Property B. The existing principal structure on Subject Property B is shown on the existing survey as having a footprint that goes over the property line into Subject Property C. The Minor Subdivision proposal would adjust the east side property line of Subject Property B, effectively eliminating encroachment of the principal structure to instead establish a 23.2-foot side yard setback. This change brings the structure into compliance with the zoning district setback requirements. Setbacks are evaluated in Table 3 and the adjusted lot lines are shown in the images below. Table 3. Setbacks R-1 Requirements Existing Proposed Subject Property A Principal Structures Front yard – 40 feet Rear yard – 30 feet Side yard – 10 feet interior/25 feet total 20.5 ft ~65 ft 10.1 and 16.4 ft/26.4 ft 20.5 ft ~65 ft 10.1 and 166.4 ft/176.5 ft Subject Property B ~138 ft (to South lot line) ~110 ft (to North lot line) 95.8 and encroachment of 6.8 ft/95.8 ft ~360 ft (to North lot line) ~138 ft (to South lot line) 95.8 ft and 23.2 ft/119 ft Subject Property C NA NA Existing Subject Property A Proposed Subject Property A Page 8 of 12 Existing Subject Property B Proposed Subject Property B Existing Subject Property C Proposed Subject Property C Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-1 District is 25 percent of the lot area. The minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. All Subject Properties meet the structure and landscape coverage requirements after the proposed subdivision. Accessory Structures – Nonconforming, Variances Required Subject Properties B and C are nonconforming with zoning requirements for accessory structures. On existing Subject Property C, there is a 780 square foot detached garage where there is no principal structure, and the detached garage is not located behind the front building line of a principal structure which are not permitted. Per Section 1325.01, no accessory structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal structure to which it is accessory. Additionally, accessory structures in the R-1 District shall not be located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the principal structure to which it is accessory. The existing detached garage is therefore nonconforming with these requirements. The Applicant owns and uses Subject Properties B and C together and has not pursued development of Property C as a separate residential use. By adjusting the lot line and incorporating the lot area where the detached garage is located into Subject Property B, the accessory structure Page 9 of 12 could conform with the first requirement as it would be associated with a principal structure. Subject Property C will then follow zoning code requirements for accessory structures. However, the proposal does not remediate the nonconforming location of the structure on Subject Property B as the accessory structure would be closer to the front lot line, which would be the north lot line under the proposal, than the front building line of the principal structure. Additionally, Subject Property B already has four existing accessory structures, two sheds, a gazebo, and a pool with an approximate total of 1,356 square feet. Staff reviewed City records and could not find building permit applications or staff reviews on file for the gazebo or pool, both of which would have triggered the requirement for a building permit. Similarly, there is not a record for a building permit associated with the detached garage on Subject Property C. In addition to the requirements for accessory structures noted for Subject Property C and its associated accessory structure, the accessory structures on Subject Property B are evaluated by the provisions that residential uses are permitted no more than two (2) accessory structures and accessory structures shall not exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet in floor area. Another provision is that under no circumstances shall accessory structures associated with a residential use in the R- 1 district exceed one thousand four hundred and fifty-eight (1,458) square feet without an approved variance. The existing accessory structures on Subject Property B do not comply with the code provisions for number of accessory structures and total floor area for accessory structures. These accessory structures also do not comply with the location requirement for accessory structures, as all four are located within the principal structure’s front yard as measured to the south property line, the front lot line for the existing Subject Property B. The designation of the north property line as the front lot line as part of the proposal would resolve the nonconforming location of the accessory structures. However, the proposal would increase the nonconformities of number of accessory structures and accessory structure floor area. The lot line adjustment would result in five accessory structures on Subject Property B for a total of 2,136 square feet of accessory structures. Table 4. Accessory Structures on Subject Properties C and B Existing Subject Property C Existing Subject Property B Proposed Subject Property B Accessory Structure – 780 sf Gazebo (front yard) – 400 sf Gazebo (rear yard) – 400 sf Two Sheds (front yard)– 156 sf Two Sheds (rear yard) – 156 sf Pool (front yard) – 800 sf Pool (rear yard) – 800 sf Accessory Structure (front yard) – 780 sf Existing total – 780 square feet Existing total - 1,356 square feet Proposed total - 2,136 square feet The proposal will not bring Subject Property B into full conformance with requirements for accessory structures and the property would be less complaint with requirements for the permitted number of accessory structures and the maximum floor area permitted for accessory structures. The request will therefore require a variance to allow for Subject Property B to exceed the permitted number of accessory structures and the permitted square footage of detached structures Page 10 of 12 associated with a residential use. Staff notes that there could be other variances required, subject to the review of variance application materials submitted by the Applicant. Driveway and Residential Access – Nonconforming In Section 1325.06 Requirements for Parking, Loading and Circulation, each property which abuts one or more public streets, shall be entitled to at least one access to a public street. Single family uses shall be limited to one (1) access per property. The existing Subject Property A does not abut a public street and is accessible by a driveway easement from Lake Johanna Blvd. The request would not change this and Subject Property A would remain nonconforming with this standard. Subject Property B, which abuts Lake Johanna Boulevard, does not have access along this roadway and instead uses a driveway partially located on Subject Property C for access to Oak Avenue. As proposed, the Minor Subdivision would incorporate the lot area where the driveway is located into Subject Property B, which addresses street access requirement for the property and brings the property into compliance with the driveway access provision. Further Review As demonstrated, the Minor Subdivision request would require additional requests for variances based on the nonconformities identified through the review of the initial request. For consideration of these variances, the Applicant would need to submit a narrative that addresses the six hardship criteria as outlined in Section 1355.04 Subd. 4 in the Zoning Code. The criteria are included as reference: 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent provisions of City's Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan. 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. b) Unique Circumstances. The plight of property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. c) Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. Based on information provided by the Applicant for the proposed minor subdivision, it is staff’s assessment based on existing permitting and property ownership records that the Applicant, as the owner of Subject Properties B and C, is responsible for the accessory structures that are present on the two lots. Therefore, the circumstances requiring a variance were created by the landowner which does not meet the Unique Circumstances criteria. Staff has conveyed to the Applicant that they are invited to submit the materials required for a variance request application for full review and evaluation based on the hardship criteria. Additional Review Public Works Director/City Engineer Page 11 of 12 The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. Ramsey County Public Works The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the submitted plans and has no additional comments at this time. 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 Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. 2. The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 3. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. 4. 1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. 5. The proposed Minor Subdivision would remedy the street access nonconformity for 1580 Oak Avenue and the accessory structures nonconformity for 1578 Oak Avenue. 6. The proposed would increase the accessory structure nonconformities of 1580 Oak Avenue. 7. The proposed would require a variance for the existing and proposed accessory structure nonconformities. 8. The Applicant has not submitted the required application materials for a variance request. 9. The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue. 10. The proposed would not create a new lot of record. 11. The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. 12. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. 13. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Options and Motion Language Staff provides the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission may consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. Based on the staff-identified need for a variance application, staff recommends that the Planning Commission move to table the item pending receipt of the required variance application. The staff recommended motion is listed first. Page 12 of 12 • Table: Move to table Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue due to additional information including a variance application being needed in order for the Planning Commission to make a fully informed decision. The following potential recommendations are not recommended by staff: • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City’s approval. 2. Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines adjusted between Property A, Property B, and Property C. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval as submitted of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Notice Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on October 23, 2025. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property 1580 Oak Avenue. As of report drafting, the City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for the minor subdivision request on September 30, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes Section 15.99, the City must act on this request by November 28, 2025 (60 days) unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Neighboring Property Owner Narrative E. Proposed Site Survey Location Map 10/28/2025, 4:12:40 PM 0 0.06 0.120.03 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:3,600 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN From:Dan Ashbach To:Elena Fransen Subject:Fwd: Narrative Date:Tuesday, September 30, 2025 2:08:59 PM Attachments:image001.png ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dan Hanson <dhanson@egrud.com> Date: Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 1:54 PM Subject: Narrative To: Dan Ashbach <dan.ashbach@gmail.com> BOUNDARY LINE AGREEMENT NARRATIVE. I, Dan Ashbah, present the accompanying Boundary Line Agreement request for City of Arden Hills Review. I currently own Ramsey County PID No. 33-30-23-11-0001 (Parcel B) and PID No. 34-30-23-22- 0001 (Parcel C). My neighbor Erik Anderson owns PID No. 33-30-23-11-0035. I intend to sell that portion of Parcel C, directly adjacent to Parcel A, to my neighbor Erik Anderson. This portion will be permanently attached to Parcel A, and a new legal description for the entirety of the property is enclosed in both the Certificate of Survey and electronic word document. Parcel B and Parcel C are both owned by myself and I have used them as one parcel throughout the entirety of my ownership. I have improvements on both parcels that service my enjoyment and my home addressed as 1580 Oak Avenue. I intend to transfer portions of Parcel C, to Parcel B in order to move all improvements on site to one Parcel, that being Parcel B. Once completed, all improvements and impervious surfaces will be located on the proposed Parcel B. Parcel C will not have any impervious surfaces on site. Existing conditions on site start with 3 parcels of land, after line transfers the end results are 3 parcels of land. All 3 proposed parcels meet existing zoning regulations and do not exceed impervious surface regulations. Thank you, Dan Ashbach Daniel S. Hanson P.L.S. #52140 www.egrud.com DIRECT: (651) 361-8241 FAX: (651) 361-8701 ADDRESS: 6776 Lake Drive NE, Suite 110 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 The electric data is transmitted for your convenience and is the sole property of E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc. By accepting, the recipient agrees to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc., from and against any and all damages, liabilities, claims, losses and expenses (including attorney's fees) arising from the use of this data. This electronic data is subject to change and updates are the responsibility of the recipient. E. G. Rud & Sons, Inc., is not responsible for updating the data or for compatibility with recipient's hardware and / or software. Please check this file for virus contamination prior to use. From:Erik Anderson To:Elena Fransen Cc:Dan Ashbach Subject:Erik Anderson - Land Purchase from Dan Ashback Date:Monday, September 15, 2025 9:00:16 AM You don't often get email from eanderson@impactconnects.com. Learn why this is important Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution. Hi Elena, Dan Ashbach let me know that the city wanted to understand what my intended use is for the land that I plan to purchase from him. My intention is to have that parcel merged into my existing homestead. The plan would be to remove some buck thorn and dead trees, and then have it remain woods for the kids to play in. At some point, I may look into building a garage or some type of out building. But no plan for that in the immediate future. Please let me know if you need any more detail from my on intended land use, prior to your meeting tomorrow. Thanks! Erik This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation. Planning Case #25-010 Applicant: Dan Ashbach Property Location: 1580 Oak Avenue Request: Minor Subdivision Zoning: R-1 – Single Family Residential District Land Use: Low Density Residential Proposal – Minor Subdivision •Adjust the shared lot lines for the subject properties •Increase lot area for Property A •Decrease lot area for Property C •No new lots created as part of the Minor Subdivision •No new development is proposed for the subject properties •Existing nonconformities remain unchanged 2 Subject Properties 3 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd Subject Property A 1580 Oak Ave Subject Property B 1578 Oak Ave Subject Property C Subject Properties 4 Property Address Evaluated as Existing Characteristics and Improvements Proposed Characteristics and Improvements 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd “Subject Property A” – Blue Residential dwelling No street frontage, lot accessed via easement off Lake Johanna Blvd Residential dwelling No street frontage, lot accessed via easement off Lake Johanna Blvd 1580 Oak Avenue “Subject Property B” – Green Residential dwelling and four accessory structures Lake Johanna Blvd street frontage, lot accessed via Oak Ave Driveway partially on other property North property line – rear lot line Residential dwelling and five accessory structures (adding detached garage) Lake Johanna Blvd street frontage and access via Oak Ave Driveway on property North property line – front lot line 1578 Oak Avenue “Subject Property C” – Purple No residential dwelling Lot with tennis court, driveway, and detached garage Frontage on Oak Ave and Lake Johanna Blvd No residential dwelling No tennis court, driveway, or detached garage Frontage on Oak Ave and Lake Johanna Blvd Existing Survey 5 Proposed Result 6 Objective •Property A – Change the shared lot line between Subject Properties A and C, increasing A by 43,838 square feet •To sell portion of C to be consolidated with A Plan Evaluation Subdivisions – Chapter 11 Meets requirements •Survey, Relation to Zoning Ordinance, Public Welfare, and Filing Fee •Size 7 Plan Evaluation Subdivisions – Chapter 11 Nonconforming •Location – All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street. •Subject Property A is nonconforming •Subject Property B – frontage on Lake Johanna Blvd but no access to Lake Johanna Blvd 8 Proposed Subject Property A Existing Subject Property A Existing Subject Property C Proposed Subject Property C Plan Evaluation District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Area and Dimensions – Meets Requirements 9 R-1 Requirements Existing Lot Area Proposed Lot Area Subject Property A 14,000 square feet 16,452 square feet 60,290 square feet Subject Property B 65,481 square feet 65,481 square feet Subject Property C 216,788 square feet 172,950 square feet R-1 Requirements Existing Minimums Proposed Minimums Subject Property A 95 feet/130 feet 112.5 ft/150 ft 112.5 ft/150 ft Subject Property B 161.3 ft/311.93 ft 161.3 ft/311.93 ft Subject Property C 348.89/220.48 ft 348.89 ft/220.48 ft Plan Evaluation District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Structure Setbacks – Property A Meets Requirements Proposed Subject Property B has existing legal nonconformities 10 R-1 Requirements Existing Proposed Subject Property A Principal Structures Front yard – 40 feet Rear yard – 30 feet Side yard – 10 feet interior/25 feet total 20.5 ft ~65 ft 10.1 and 16.4 ft/26.4 ft 20.5 ft ~65 ft 10.1 and 166.4 ft/176.5 ft Subject Property B ~138 ft (to South lot line) ~110 ft (to North lot line) 95.8 and encroachment of 6.8 ft/95.8 ft ~138 ft (to South lot line) ~110 ft (to North lot line) 95.8 and encroachment of 6.8 ft/95.8 ft Subject Property C NA NA Plan Evaluation District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements Subject Property A – increase in lot area, no increase in coverage Subject Property B – increase in lot area, increase in coverage Subject Property C – decrease in lot area, decrease in coverage 11 R-1 Requirements Existing Proposed Subject Property A Maximum Structure Coverage - 25 % Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage – 35% 16.8 % 30.6 % 4.6 % 8.4 % Subject Property B 7.3 % 15.6 % 7.3 % 15.6 % Subject Property C .5 % 6.4 % .67 % 8 % Plan Evaluation District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Accessory Structures – Existing nonconforming; No change proposed •Existing Conditions •C – One (1) 780 square foot detached garage, nonconforming with size and location •B – Four (4) accessory structures, total of 1,356 square feet, nonconforming with total area, location (4 within designated front yard), number 12 Existing Subject Property B – Accessory structures Plan Evaluation District Provisions (R-1, Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Driveway and Residential Access – Nonconforming Subject Property A – does not abut public street, driveway easement, no change 13 Proposed Subject Property AExisting Subject Property A Additional Reviews Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. Ramsey County Public Works The Ramsey County Public Works Department has reviewed the submitted plans and has no additional comments at this time. 14 Further Review •Following review of the submitted Minor Subdivision application, staff has identified that the requests should be taken separately because the application as deemed complete would require variances due to the changes proposed for Subject Property B. The adjusted lot lines would result in an increase to the number of accessory structures and accessory structure square footage, while creating an accessory structure location nonconformity on the property. •Due to the existing conditions and the proposed, the Applicant has withdrawn consideration of the lot line adjustment. 15 Public Notices •Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. •Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on October 23, 2025. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. •Staff did not receive public comments regarding this planning case prior to drafting this presentation. Staff will provide a verbal update at the meeting. 16 Deadline for Agency Action •The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on September 30, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by November 28, 2025 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. 17 Findings of Fact General Findings: •City Staff received a land use application for a Minor Subdivision to adjust the lot lines between the three existing properties at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue. •City Staff received a withdrawal of the portion of the land use application addressing the lot line adjustment for the property addressed as 1580 Oak Avenue. •The Subject Properties are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. •The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties as Low Density Residential. •1580 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with the code requirements for street access and accessory structures. 1578 Oak Avenue is nonconforming with code requirements for accessory structures. •The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the number, size and location of accessory structures and driveways for 1580 Oak Avenue and 1578 Oak Avenue. •The proposed Minor Subdivision would not change the existing legal nonconforming nature of the requirements for street access for 1580 Oak Avenue. •The proposed would increase the lot area of 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd. •The proposed would not create a new lot of record. •The request proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner for the R-1 Zoning District. •The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. •The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. 18 Options and Recommended Motion Language •Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval with conditions of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd and 1580 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment: •The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City’s approval. •Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines for Property A, and Property B. 19 Options for Other Motion Language •Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval as submitted of Planning Case 25-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission and as amended by the withdrawal of the portion of the application for the lot line adjustment. •Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 25- 010 for a Minor Subdivision at 1613 Lake Johanna Blvd, 1580 Oak Avenue, and 1578 Oak Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 20 Planning Case 25-010 – 1580 Oak Avenue – Minor Subdivision Questions? 21 Page 1 of 8 PC Agenda Item – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: November 5, 2025 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #25-012 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Archetype Sign Makers, Inc. Property Location: 1103 County Road E West (Goodwill Industries) Request: Sign Standard Adjustment (Site Plan Review) Requested Action Archetype Sign Makers, Inc. (“The Applicant”) submitted a land use application for Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process for the property located at 1103 County Road E West (“Subject Property”). The Applicant proposes to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the eastern elevation of the building through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment. Background 1. Overview of Request The Subject Property is located within Sign District 5, where the maximum wall sign copy area allowed is 80 square feet. The property has two wall signs totaling 80 square feet. The Applicant is seeking flexibility through the Site Plan Review process for a sign standard adjustment for size with the proposed additional wall sign, for a total of 160 square feet of wall signage. The proposed wall sign could not be permitted without an approved sign standard adjustment. 2. Planning Case Background With the 2013 approval of Planning Case 12-019, the City entered into a Planned Unit Development Agreement with TAT Properties LLC to allow the reuse of the existing building on the property for 74 residential apartment units and 20,000 square feet of retail space at 1201 County Road E. Planning Case 12-019 established signage requirements for the E Street Flats apartments and the main floor retail tenants. Page 2 of 8 At its March 9, 2015, meeting, the City Council approved Planning Case 13-017 and a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) Amendment at 1201 County Road E to construct a building with retail and warehouse uses on the undeveloped two-acre southeast corner of the property. The proposal did not include a request to subdivide the property. Planning Case 13-017 included the proposed construction of a 17,743 square foot building with frontage along County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The building was proposed to be operated by Goodwill Industries as a long-term tenant. A maximum wall sign copy area of 80 square feet is permitted in Sign District 5, where the Subject Property is located. As part of the land use application for Planning Case 13-017, the Applicant proposed a total of 80 square feet of wall signage for the building, to be divided between two, 40 square foot signs. The proposed signs would be installed on the parapets on the south and west sides of the building. No additional signage was included with the proposal. The Goodwill building was constructed and the sign permit applications were submitted and approved with the signage described in the PUD application. On September 12, 2025, the Applicant submitted a sign permit application for an additional 80 square foot wall sign. Based on the previous PUD Amendment approval and the requirements for the Subject Property’s Sign District, flexibility is required for the proposed signage. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area and/or location of a sign may be approved with a Site Plan Review or Planned Unit Development process. The sign flexibility that the Applicant is seeking under this proposal for the Subject Property has been initiated through the Site Plan Review process. 3. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Commercial Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Multi-family Residential, Community Commercial, Thrift Store Zoning: B-2 General Business District Size (entire property): 8.04 acres (350,078 SF) Size (Portion of Subject Property): 1.77 acres (77,122 SF) 4. Existing Conditions The Applicant submitted the land use application on behalf of Goodwill Industries, which leases the Subject Property. As part of the sign permit application submitted in September 2025 and the Land Use Application, the property owner, TAT Properties LLC, gave approval for the proposed signage. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business Zoning District and is part of Sign District 5 due to it having frontage on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. The Subject Property is guided for Community Mixed Use in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Surrounding properties are located in the B-2 General Business and B-3 Service Business Zoning Districts and include a mix of retail and residential uses. Aerial Map of Subject Property Page 3 of 8 Sign District 5, applicable to the Subject Property, allows for wall signage with a maximum sign copy area of 80 square feet. Currently, two 40-square-foot “Goodwill” signs are installed on the southern and western elevation of the 1103 County Road E building, for a total of 80 square feet. With the current signage, the Subject Property has the maximum sign square footage permitted without flexibility. Approvals 1. Site Plan Review The Applicant proposes to install new wall signage on the eastern elevation of the Subject Property. To install additional signage, the Applicant must request flexibility from the City Code, Chapter 12 – Sign Code through the Site Plan Review process. 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. The Applicant’s request for flexibility is initiated through the Site Plan Review process due to the nature of the sign standard adjustment and the previous land use approvals for the site. The Site Plan Review process allows for the Applicant’s request for an additional 80 square feet of wall Page 4 of 8 signage on the east building elevation. The approval of this application would apply to any use of that particular sign to any subsequent user. If the sign is removed or modified by a subsequent user, then the approval ceases. Additionally, the 2015 City approval for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building included signage that met the requirements for Sign District 5. As such, this request is not for additional signage flexibility but rather for initial flexibility from the sign district standards. It is established in Chapter 12 of the City Code that this flexibility can be granted by a Site Plan Review rather than the full Planned Unit Development amendment process, which would require the drafting of a PUD amendment by the city’s legal counsel and subsequent approvals from the Developer of the PUD and the City Council. The Applicant is not seeking any other flexibility or changes to the site. Plan Evaluation Chapter 12, Sign Code Review 1. Sign Standards by Sign District – Section 1240.02 The Subject Property is located within the B-2 General Business District and falls under Sign District 5. Sign District 5 includes all properties fronting on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. Sign District 5 allows for a maximum of 80 square feet of copy area for wall signage. The Subject Property has a total of 80 square feet in existing wall signage and the Applicant is proposing one (1) additional 80 square foot wall sign on the eastern elevation of the building. The eastern elevation does not currently have any signage. The Applicant is requesting flexibility to allow an additional 80 square feet of wall signage to construct the proposed wall sign and for a total of 160 square feet of wall signage to be permitted on the building. The proposed wall sign would be internally lit with LED-illuminated letter sets, as permitted in Sign District 5. Proposed Signage at Eastern Elevation Page 5 of 8 Proposed Signage 2. Sign Standard Adjustments – Section 1260.01 The Applicant requests flexibility for additional square footage of wall signage area. 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 Planned Unit Development process.” To approve any sign standard adjustment, the Planning Commission must make a determination if the proposed signage meets the sign standard adjustment criteria. The following criteria of Subd. 1 or Subd. 2 shall be satisfied, and the necessary criteria of Subd. 3 shall be 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, a sign adjustment is requested to allow for a sign on the east face of the building. With the existing signage, it is noted that there is little signage visibility for traffic moving west on County Road E West and no signage visibility for traffic moving south on Lexington Avenue North. 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 proposed signage will be designed in keeping with existing signage approved for the site. The proposed signage will be professionally produced and maintained in accordance with all other code requirements. 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, the proposed signage is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as it indicates the name of the retail business occupying the building. The Applicant notes that the amount and placement of signage would be similar to other retail businesses in the vicinity. Page 6 of 8 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications Section 1355.04, Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code states that a public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review, but neighboring property owners shall be notified. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. 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. City Staff offer the following findings for consideration: 1. The Applicant submitted an application for Site Plan Review to install 80 square foot wall signage on the eastern elevation of the building at the subject property, 1103 County Road E West. 2. On February 11, 2013, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Agreement for the Subject Property 3. On March 9, 2015, the City Council approved a Planned Unit Development Amendment to allow for the construction of the 17,743 square foot building at the southeast corner of the Subject Property. 4. The Subject Property is located in the B-2 General Business District and is guided as Community Mixed Use on the 2040 Land Use Plan. 5. The Subject Property is located in Sign District 5, where the maximum wall signage permitted is 80 square feet. 6. The Subject Property has two existing wall signs for a total of 80 square feet. 7. 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. 8. Flexibility through the Site Plan Review process has been requested for an additional 80 square feet of wall signage, bringing the total building wall signage to 160 square feet. 9. The proposed signage plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 12. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. Proposed Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. Page 7 of 8 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 25- 012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the November 5, 2025, Report to the Planning Commission: 1) The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Community Development Director, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2) A separate sign permit shall be required for all proposed signage. 3) All signage shall meet all other requirements of Sign District 5. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Move to recommend approval of Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the November 5, 2025 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Move to recommend denial of Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Move to table Planning Case 25-012 for a Sign Standard Adjustment through the Site Plan Review process to install an additional 80-square-foot wall sign on the east building elevation at 1103 County Road E West: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure on October 23, 2025. Public notices were mailed out on October 23, 2025. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Staff have not received any public comments regarding this application at the time of report drafting. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 8, 2025. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 4, 2025 (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. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Page 8 of 8 Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Applicant Narrative D. Applicant Sign Plan aA "".Anosu rilLLSL__. 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, f\4innesota 551 12 Telephcne (651 ) 792-7800 Fax (651 ) 634-5137 www.cityofa rdenh ills.org Planning Case No. Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Daie .E 2425 LAND USE APPLICATION Applicant lnformation Applieant: Austin Harris - Archetype Sign lt/akers, lnc. Address: 9611 James Ave S Bloominqton, tr4N 55431 Teiephone No.: 952-641 -962 1 Other: Fax No.: Fmail A.ddress: aUstin. harris@a rchetvoesisn.com Fropertv lnformation Property cq$er: Tat ProPerties LLC CwnerAddress: 3900 Northwoods Dr Ste "125 Arden Hills, h,4N 55112 Owner Telephsne No. 651 -481 -629 1 Other: Address of Propertv lnvolved: 1 103 Countv Rd E , Arden Hills, t\r1N 55112 Lecai Description: CIC NC 809 1 103 AND 1 CO RD E PLANNED UNIT 2 Prapertv lD No.: 273423444418 of Use: Zone: 82 General Business District Property Acreage: 1.72 Tvre of Request tl fJ Ccnrpretrenslve Pian Amendment {Fee: 9550 t EEscrow: $2,500) f, Conditional Use or lnterim Use Permit/CUP or tUP trAmendmenl (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500) fJ Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: 52,500) =G finatFlat {Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000) ftr Concept Plan Review (Fee: g300 + Escrow:$750) tl E Maste, Planned Unit Develooment or lvlaster Soecral n Developmenl Plan (Fee: $600 t Escrow' $2 50bi iJ I final Planned Unit Development or Final Special n Developmenl PIan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2 000) U E Planned Uni: De'velopment Amenomenr or Soecral r-r Development Plan Ainendment r'Fee. $400 + fs666q,y' U $1.500i E Sit. Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1.500) Rezonino or TCAAP Reoulatino Plan Amendment iFee: 5560 - Escrow: ${SOO; " Zonire Code or TCAAP Redeveloprnent Cocje Ameniment (Fee: $400 + Escrow $1.500; Citv Cooe Amendment tFee: 5350 + Escrorv $1.500) Lot SplitiMinor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts Only) (Fee; $350 + Escrow: $1 500) Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: S1,000) Vacation of Easernent or Right-of-Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: S1.000) Appeal of Administrative Decisior (Fee: S150 + Escrow: S1 000) Land Use Requests - Not Already Specifleri {Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000 Page I oi'3 For Office Use Only Goodwitl Easter Seals t\{N is reeuestinq approval to place an additional set of channel letters on the Easl face of their buildins. This would qive them visibilitv to traffic headinq West on County Road E West and South on Lexineton Avenue North. "IMPORTANT*. Certain applications are subject to revievv anci approval by the Rice Creek Watershed 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. Elinq & lnformation Requirements The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the Community Development Direclor to discuss th* anplication process. requirernents, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Comnrunily Development Directar or Planning Commission, a certifiecj suruey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with Com pletellncomplete Applications U*der l!4innesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review a[ plans and application materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff wiil provide written comments on the apptication and may request plan revisions. if the applicaiion is determined to be complete, fulinnesota State Statute then reguires the City to approve or deny the application wrlhin 60 days, up to 120 days. lf not comolete, the Clty may require plan revisions andlor additional infcrmaiion before the application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or City Council action. Prolect will not be scheduled far any meeting until the application submittal is found to be ccmplete by the Ccmmunity Developmenl Director. Favment of Fees and Escrows The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands thai before a land use application can be deemed comolete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for ali costs incurred by the City related io 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 applicaticn. Costs expended in reviewirig and processing an applicaticn will be charged against the cash escrow and crediteci to the City. Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and maiiinE cosls. lf, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of iis original amount, the applicant shall deposit additional lunds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may withhold final action on a land use application. withhold buildrng permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees have Lreen paid. Unuseci portions of an escrow are returned to the appiicant upan successful implementatian *f sx 3pprcved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the Community Development Director on a prolect by project basis. Notice of Meetinq Attendance ln order for the Planning Cornmission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a clesignated representative must be present at the scheduled rneeting. lf not, the matter may be tabled until the next available agenda. Pa-se 2 ol'3 r-r.!iril,',;i!ilir ,,1i':.:*"!i'- Meeting Schedule Planning Commission meetings are typically heid on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each monlh at 6;30 Plti, ihough please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and tirne. City Council meetirrgs are held typicaity the last futor:day of the same montii ai 7:00 Pfit. Fvleeiirigs are heid in the Councii Charnbers at the City cf Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, lVinnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules below are for reference purposes only. Project wlll not be scheduled for any ixeeiing rrniil ti':e appiication submittal is found lo be cornplete by the Community Development Direetor. 2025 Planning Gommission and City Council Schedule {"subject tc change} TENTATIVE PLANNING COHT*tSStON I,TEETING DATE* lGer^erally held cr the flrst Wednesday afier the first llonday at 6:30 p.rn") TENTI\TIVE CITY COUNCIL IVIEtr I IIY\, DATE* lGanarellrr hoi,'1 nn ihe fourlh Monday al 7:00 p.m.) DEADLINE FOR LAND USE ArrLt\,A, tl-$l SUBMISSION { I't ciav of i}re preceding iliojlfhi January B February 10 December 1 i2824i February 5 [4arch 10 JanuarV 2 hlarch 5 Aprii 14 February 3 Aprii9 April 28 Ir,4arch 3 May 7 May 26*Apnt r June 4 June 23 ff,Iay 1 July 9 July 28 June 2 August 6 August 25 Julv 1 September 3 September 22 Auqust 1 October I October 27 September i Ncvember 5 Navember 24 Cctober'i December 3 Januarv 12 t2426\November 3 Acknowledcernent and Siq nature I hereby apply for the abcve consideration ancl declare that the inlcrrnation and materral.s submlted v;ith 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. Cigibll! :rf:ed by A!.1:i irarns AU S ti n H a f f i S i;## :::i*$l',:;*i'ii',ffi,:Jiii,1" Darr 2a:5.i914 15: ltjr:ri-cs'& Froperty Owner Signature (Required)Date Zoze Date Please contact the Community Development Drrector at 651-792-7800 if you have any questions regarding this application. Addifbr.a, copte$ of this epplicatian form are available on the City's website: www.citvofardenhitls.orollandusoao*lhations Page 3 of 3 Location Map 10/27/2025, 12:25:26 PM 0 0.06 0.120.03 mi 0 0.1 0.20.05 km 1:3,600 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN To whom it may concern, On behalf of Goodwill – Easter Seals, Archetype Signmakers, Inc is requesting a Sign Standard Adjustment to allow a set of channel letters on the East face of the building at the Northwest corner of County Road E West and Lexington Avenue North. Currently the total square footage of signage allowed for the zoning district (B2 General Business) does not allow for a sign on the East face of the building. With only the existing signage there is little signage visibility for traffic heading West on County Road E West and zero signage visibility for traffic heading South on Lexington Avenue North. The proposed signage will be designed in keeping with existing signage approved for the site. It will be professionally produced and maintained in accordance with all zoning code requirements. The proposed signage is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as it indicates the name of the retail business occupying the building. Additionally, the amount and placement of signage would be similar to other retail businesses in the immediate vicinity. - Austin Harris Project Manager Archetype Signmakers, Inc. ALL DIMENSIONS AND ELECTRICAL ACCESS POINTS MUST BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO FABRICATION Color Schedule - TO MATCH MOUNTING SURFACE (TBD)P1 DESCRIPTION ⃝A CHANNEL LETTERS 5” BLACK ALUMINUM RETURNS (STOCK) 3/16” WHITE HIGH IMPACT ACRYLIC FACES (7328) (CNC) 1” BLACK TRIM CAPS (STOCK) PRE-FINISHED WHITE ALUMINUM BACKS (CNC) ⃝B RACEWAY SIGNCOMP: 2 PIECE 8" CHANNEL LETTER RACEWAY(FRONT 1981/BACK 1982) (OR FABRICATED EQUIVALENT) PAINTED, P1,TO MATCH MOUNTING SURFACE (TBD) Illumination PRISM SYNERGY MINI BLUE LED UNITS 111 L.E.D. MODULES - 62 LINEAL FEET TOTAL (1) SUPERIOR 96W 24V POWER SUPPLY (H96W-SD-24)115-277 VAC - 60 HZ - 1.0A@115 VAC | 0.45A@277VAC TIMER CONTROLLER PHOTOCELL FINAL ELECTRICAL CONNECTION BY OTHERS Install MOUNT TO WALL USING WALL ANCHORS - TYPE & SIZE TBD BY WALL CONDITIONS CHANNEL LETTERS ON RACEWAYS2 PROPOSED ELEVATION1 approval 1.1 date:8.25.25 designer:JB Rev 1 – Rev 2 – Rev 3 – Rev 4 – Rev 5 – Rev 6 – Rev 7 – Rev 8 – Rev 9 – Rev 10 – Rev 11 – Rev 12 – Rev 13 – Rev 14 – Rev 15 – GOODWILL 1103 COUNTY RD E, ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 113647Q Jenny Kruse | 952 641 9602 jennyk@archetypesign.com PROFILE RW 1 RW 2 SURVEY REQUIRED This print is meant as a representation of a sign shown in consideration of being manufactured by Archetype Signs. Materials may influence final result. Samples available upon request. Designs contained herein are not meant to be exhibited to others outside of included parties and employees. Designs received from Archetype Signs may not be manufactured by others without reimbursement for time spent in the creation of these designs or any resemblance. Drawings may contain elements considered artistic intellectual property of Archetype Signs. ©Archetype Signs ILLUMINATED SIGN (CONCEPTUAL) Scale: 1/4"=1'-0" Scale: 1/16”=1’-0” 136'-0" 302" 126" 5"4 3/8" 38" 120"90"A B A B 223 1/2" DESCRIPTION ⃝A FACES (2) NEW 3/16” WHITE HIGH IMPACT ACRYLIC (7328) PANEL ⃝B VINYL GRAPHICS (2) NEW VINYL GRAPHICS (V1) (V2) - APPLIED 1ST SURFACEInstallSLIDE NEW PANELS INTO EXISTING RETAINER SYSTEMFIELD SURVEY REQUIRED PRIOR TO FABRICATION approval 1.2 date:8.25.25 designer:JB Rev 1 – Rev 2 – Rev 3 – Rev 4 – Rev 5 – Rev 6 – Rev 7 – Rev 8 – Rev 9 – Rev 10 – Rev 11 – Rev 12 – Rev 13 – Rev 14 – Rev 15 – Jenny Kruse | 952 641 9602 jennyk@archetypesign.com This print is meant as a representation of a sign shown in consideration of being manufactured by Archetype Signs. Materials may influence final result. Samples available upon request. Designs contained herein are not meant to be exhibited to others outside of included parties and employees. Designs received from Archetype Signs may not be manufactured by others without reimbursement for time spent in the creation of these designs or any resemblance. Drawings may contain elements considered artistic intellectual property of Archetype Signs. ©Archetype Signs GOODWILL 1103 COUNTY RD E, ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112 113647Q SURVEY REQUIRED ACTUAL INSTALL/WIRING MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON LOCATION CONDITIONS CHANNEL | 8” NARROW RACEWAY MOUNT DETAIL DIAGRAM3 Scale: NTS PHOTOCELL 5”4 3/8”ALUM RETURN TRIM CAP 3/16” ACRYLIC FACE LED MODULE LOW VOLTAGE WIRES PRE-FINISH WHITE ALUM BACK CORROSION RESISTANT WALL ANCHOR RACEWAY ASSEMBLY METAL CONDUIT POWER SUPPLY WEEP HOLE TIMER REQUIRED TO CONTROL SIGN ILLUMINATION JUNCTION BOX ( = ELECTRICAL FLOW) ( = LOW VOLT CONNECTION) ELECTRICAL SERVICE BY OTHERS