Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PL PACKET 09202011
Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIII IIIIIIII 104994 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 09202011 CITY OP ST. ANTHONY _ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAY,r SEPTEMBER 201, 2011 - --- REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER. II. ROLL CALL. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 16, 2011 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 1. SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT(AND SITE PLAN UPDATE) — 2912 PENTAGON DRIVE, ST ANTHONY SHOPPING CTR. 2. ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE FOR FRONT PORCH — 3408 MAPLEWOOD DRIVE 3. GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT— 2610— 30TH AVENUE NE VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS. 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- 2428—2428 ANTHONY LANE S 2. 3219 STINSON BOULEVARD — GARAGE VARIANCE AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE 3. LA NEL ASSISTED LIVING N SITE REVIEW 4. CHANDLER PLACE — ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE INTO FRONT YARD OF PORTE-COCHERE IX. REPORTS FROM STAFF. X. OTHER BUSINESS. XI. COMMUNITY FORUM. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item notincludedon the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium,sign their name and address on the form at the podium,state their name and address for the Cerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes The Planning Commission may refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. XIII. ADJOURNMENT. F:\Planning\PC Agendas\201 1\0920201 1 pc agenda.doc A i 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 AUGUST 16, 2011 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 I. CALL TO ORDER. 9 10 Chair Jensen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 11 12 II. ROLL CALL. 13 14 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Jensen; Commissioners Chaput, Cincoski, Crone, Heinis, 15 Niccum, and Poucher. 16 Absent: None. 17 Also Present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 18 19 III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 20 21 Chair Jensen invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 22 23 IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. 24 25 Chair Jensen noted the addition of agenda item VIII.3. (Garage Setback Permit and Variance 26 Request—2610 30th Avenue NE). 27 28 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes requested that agenda item IX.1. (City Manager Search)be 29 removed from the agenda because there is not enough information available to make a report at 30 this time. 31 32 Motion by Commissioner Chaput, second by Commissioner Niccum,to approve the meeting 33 agenda of August 16,2011, as amended. 34 35 Motion carried 7-0. 36 37 V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES. 38 39 Chair Jensen requested that line 25 on page 2 be revised to state"that the way the garage and 40 driveway are shown on the sketch may require a deuble move left and right turn with a ..." He 41 also requested that the parenthetical note to the Chair on line 28 of page 2 be stricken. 42 43 Motion by Commissioner Niccum, second by Commissioner Crone,to approve the July 19,2011 44 Meeting Minutes as amended. 45 46 Motion carried 5-0-2; Abstain Chauut and Cincoski. 47 48 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. 49 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 16, 2011 Page 2 1 Chair Jensen stated that he will plan to attend the August 23, 2011, City Council meeting. 2 Commissioners Chaput and Cincoski also agreed to attend if necessary. 3 4 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 5 6 1. GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT—2609 PAHL AVENUE 7 8 Chair Jensen opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. 9 10 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes advised that the property owners submitted an application 11 to build a double car garage to replace their existing detached single car garage. She stated that 12 the property owners would like the new garage to be built in the same location as the existing 13 garage, with placement 1.6' from the north property line and 1.8' from the west property line, 14 which is consistent with the placement of garages of adjacent neighbors. She noted that the 15 proposed garage location next to the alley is generally in keeping with the characteristic of the 16 neighborhood and the setback permit would allow the property owners to keep the existing 17 garage location and access to their alley and driveway. She indicated that the property owners 18 plan to build a 528 square foot garage with one dimension being 24 feet and this will allow them 19 to preserve the only tree in the back yard. She stated that in this situation, requiring the property 20 owners to move the rebuilt garage to within three feet of the property lines would move the 21 garage further from the alley; in addition, moving the location of the rebuilt garage would put the 22 structure's alignment at odds with the other garages in the alley, thereby changing the sight lines 23 and making it more difficult to maneuver into the alley. She added that the setback permit would 24 be consistent with the City's comprehensive land use plan and granting the variance would be in 25 harmony with the general intent of the zoning code. 26 27 Lindsay and Tom Wernimont,2609 Pahl Avenue,appeared before the Planning Commission and 28 presented several drawings of the existing and proposed garage. Ms. Wernimont noted that they 29 changed the angle of the garage,per the recommendation of the Planning Commission,which 30 puts the garage more in line with their neighbor's garage. She added that they propose to build a 31 22 x 24 garage. 32 33 Commissioner Chaput asked the property owners to explain the difficulty caused by their 34 inability to meet the 3' setback requirement of the City Code. 35 36 Ms. Wernimont explained that they would like to preserve the cherry tree, which is the only tree 37 in their back yard,and that they would like to keep the sight line of the existing garages in the 38 alleyway. She presented photographs of the garages of their adjacent neighbors to show how the 39 garages are lined up. 40 41 Chair Jensen closed the public hearing at 7:18 p.m. 42 43 Chair Jensen indicated that if the Planning Commission approves the garage setback permit,the 44 motion should indicate that this is a 3.4' variance from the 5' rear setback requirements and a 45 1.2' variance from the 3' side yard setback requirements. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 16, 2011 Page 3 1 Motion by Commissioner Cincoski, second by Commissioner Niccum, to recommend that the 2 City Council approve a 3.4' variance from the 5' rear setback requirements and a 1.2' variance 3 from the 3' side yard setback requirements. 4 5 Motion carried 7-0. 6 7 Chair Jensen stated that this item will be considered by the City Council at its August 23, 2011, 8 regular meeting. 9 10 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS. 11 12 1. SIGN DESIGN PLAN— ST. ANTHONY SHOPPING CENTER 13 14 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes advised that the owners of the St. Anthony Shopping 15 Center are planning to update the look of the Center and introduced Mr. Greg Kozulla of Kozulla 16 &Associates. 17 18 Mr. Kozulla explained that the project includes removal of the existing canopy on the storefronts 19 and replacing with a stucco facade of varying heights and colors,mill and overlay of the front 20 parking lot, restriping of the parking lot, blacktop patching around the back alley, sidewalk 21 replacement, and painting and cleaning up of miscellaneous items on the face of the building on 22 all three sides. He presented photographs of the current building and stated that they plan to 23 completely remove the panel fascia on the building as well as the fabric screen and replace it 24 with a parapet on the rooftop. He noted that the tenants will be offered an opportunity to have 25 new signs installed. He stated that they also intend to provide new fixtures at the tops of the light 26 poles and will be using LED fixtures which will provide better light coverage and foot candle 27 coverage. He indicated that they also intend to regrade the sidewalks and blacktop back to a 6" 28 curb with handicapped accessibility. He also discussed the work to be performed on the back of 29 the building, including replacement of rotted door and window frames. He advised that they 30 currently plan to start the fagade project in mid-October and the mill and overlay will be 31 completed in April next year. 32 33 Commissioner Cincoski asked if the existing signs will utilize backlighting. 34 35 Mr. Kozulla replied that they will not utilize backlighting and indicated that the Comprehensive 36 Sign Plan will include a request that the City grandfather the current signs in so that they do not 37 have to replace all the signs at this time. 38 39 Chair Jensen asked how this type of complete makeover affects a review of the total parking 40 spaces and/or other parking lot plantings. 41 42 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated that because this is a PUD, it will go through a 43 parking plan and sign plan. 44 45 Chair Jensen requested that the property owners contact the City Engineer to determine whether 46 any additional detention or retention is necessary in this area. Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 16, 2011 Page 4 1 2 Mr. Kozulla indicated that they have talked to the City Engineer and the Watershed District; the 3 Watershed District has waived the need to provide additional storm drainage or retention or 4 detention. 5 6 Chair Jensen requested confirmation of this from the property owner. He also requested that 7 staff check to determine whether additional plantings are required either under the City Code or 8 PUD requirements, given the proposed enhancements to the building. 9 10 2. ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE FROM FRONT PORCH— 3408 MAPLEWOOD 11 DRIVE 12 13 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes Kim advised that the property owner is requesting an 14 encroachment variance in order to add a front porch to their home. She stated the property 15 owner is proposing to fill in the space from the side of the garage to the end of the house with a 16 10.5' x 30' enclosed screen porch. She added that the property owner also proposes to add a 17 front stoop with steps that will extend 5.9' beyond the front porch into the front yard setback. 18 She then introduced Ms. Corri Sandwick of Albertsson Hansen Architecture, Ltd., architect for 19 the property owners. 20 21 Ms. Corri Sandwick, Albertsson Hansen Architecture,Ltd.,appeared before the Planning 22 Commission and stated that the variance is requested to allow an increase into the permitted 23 encroachments for front yard setbacks. She indicated that the property owners would like to 24 enhance the home's curb appeal by adding an enclosed screen porch and the goal is to engage the 25 use of the front yard and foster community connections. She presented the site plan which 26 includes an L-shaped house with the garage extending 2.1' over the current front yard setback, 27 and the owners are looking to fill in that portion of the house with a porch as well as a landing 28 and stairs down to grade. She noted that the Ordinance allows property owners to apply a 29 reasonably sized stoop as a 5' encroachment onto the front yard setback and in this case, having 30 only 2.2' available rather than the 5' described in the ordinance represents a practical difficulty 31 for the homeowner because they would like the full safety of a landing and stairs outside the 32 screen door. She presented photographs and architectural renderings of the existing house and 33 proposed porch. 34 35 Commissioner Heinis asked if the setback was established before the garage was built. 36 37 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated that the Code was codified in 1976 and agreed to 38 check the file to determine when the garage was built. 39 40 Chair Jensen suggested that the property owner consider raising the sidewalk at the time of the 41 grading which could reduce the number of steps required on the porch area. He stated that the 42 drainage might also be improved if the pitch is increased and it might minimize the 43 encroachment as well. He indicated that this request appears to be within the intent of the 44 amended variance rules and is in keeping with the harmony of the neighborhood. 45 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes August 16, 2011 Page 5 1 3. GARAGE SETBACK PERMIT AND VARIANCE REQUEST—2610 30TH AVENUE 2 NE 3 4 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes Kim advised that the property owners are considering a 5 garage setback permit to build a two car garage to replace their existing detached single car 6 garage and would like to keep the new garage in the same location because of the shape of the lot 7 and existing driveway. She stated the proposed placement in the rear yard setback is consistent 8 with the placement of garages in the neighborhood and the location is generally the characteristic 9 of the neighborhood. 10 11 Tracy and Glen Bergum, 2610 301h Avenue NE, appeared before the Planning Commission and 12 Ms. Bergman presented several photographs of improvements done to their home since they 13 purchased it in 1998. 14 15 Mr.Bergum presented a sketch of the proposed garage and stated that they are seeking a 16 variance for the increased square footage of the new garage. He explained that they plan to 17 demolish the existing garage and replace it with a 24 x 32 garage, or 768 square feet. He felt that 18 the new garage will be an improvement to their property as well as the neighborhood and will 19 provide additional storage space. He added that the garage will have an attached elevated deck 20 off the side, with a staircase going up to the bonus room. He also presented architectural 21 drawings of the proposed garage. 22 23 Commissioner Heinis asked if the driveway would be made wider. 24 25 Mark from Minneapolis Drafting Services stated that they would not be adding to the driveway 26 and intend to saw cut the asphalt and put a new slab in, given the 2' apron currently in place. 27 28 Chair Jensen asked if a survey would be completed as part of the construction. 29 30 Mark from Minneapolis Drafting Services replied in the affirmative. 31 32 Chair Jensen stated it may be helpful to show the walkways as part of the survey and compare 33 the impervious surface coverage. He noted that the impact in terms of concrete is minimal. He 34 stated that the Planning Commission discussed this request last month and pointed out there 35 would be no issue with the size of the garage if this was a request for an attached garage, but in 36 this case, a variance is required because it is detached. He requested that staff provide further 37 information regarding new homes that have been built with garages larger than the square 38 footage represented by this request, in order to give the Planning Commission comparison data. 39 40 Commissioner Niccum agreed that it does not make sense that a garage can be made as large as 41 the property owners want as long as it is an attached garage and suggested that this be passed on 42 to the City Council for consideration. He requested that the survey also include dimensions of 43 the driveway,the distance between the garage and the house, and the radius when coming out of 44 the garage stall. 45 A Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes ' August 16, 2011 Page 6 1 Chair Jensen suggested that the property owners double check the turning movements required 2 which-could possibly impact how to note the impervious surface in case they need to encroach 3 on the turf area. He stated if the turning movements are important, they may actually decide that 4 skewing the garage will make it easier to come out the stall. He requested that staff compare the 5 impervious surface of this property to what is stated in the City Code. 6 7 IX. REPORTS FROM STAFF. 8 9 None. 10 11 X. OTHER BUSINESS. 12 13 None. 14 15 XI. COMMUNITY FORUM. 16 17 None. 18 19 XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 20 21 None. 22 23 XIII. ADJOURNMENT. 24 25 Motion by Commissioner Chaput, second by Commissioner Heinis, to adjourn the meeting at 26 8:28 p.m. 27 28 Motion carried 7-0. 29 30 Respectfully submitted, 31 Barbara Hughes 32 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. STAFF REPORT To: Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager W,v,J Date: September 20, 2011 Subject: Comprehensive Sign Plan Update Review —St. Anthony Village Shopping Center Background. Greg Kozulla of Kozulla&Associates,is an architect working with the group of owners of the St. Anthony Shopping Center to update the look of the Center. He presented information to the Planning Commission in a concept review at the August 16th Planning Commission on the visual rejuvenation planned for the Shopping Center. Mr. Kozulla showed a proposed color rendering of what the Shopping Center might look like,which included new signs for the tenants,should they request them. The St. Anthony Village Shopping Center received approval by the City Council in 1989,with an update presented and approved in 2003. Mr. Kozulla is before the Planning Commission with a request to approve the proposed update to the information on the technical aspects of the Shopping Center's current comprehensive sign plan. The Shopping Center received approval by the City Council in 1989, and an update was presented and approved in 2003.The owners are planning to renovate the facade of the stores in the Center and will give the individual tenants the opportunity to install new signs,but as stated in the 2011 Comprehensive Sign Plan, the owners will not require the current tenants to install new signs. The tenants will be given the option of reinstalling their old signs,which will be grandfathered in until such time as they are replaced with new signs. The Updated Sign Plan for the Shopping Center includes the following changes: • Allow storefronts to have 3 SF of sign area per lineal foot of frontage with the total signage not to exceed 15% of the total wall area. • Storefronts that exceed 60 feet in length can have a maximum of sign area of 300 SF of sign area but shall not exceed 15% of the total wall frontage. • Multiple rows of signage text shall be permitted and will be calculated individually but the total SF sign area shall not exceed 3 times the total lineal tenant frontage or 15% of the total area of the wall. • Signage logos will be included when calculating the maximum sign area. • All new tenant wall signage will be single wall mounted facing the public street. Raceway color will match the color of the building background on which the raceway is mounted. Profiles,letter size,font,color,etc.,will require property owner approval in prior to submission to the City. • Color of channels and channel letter inserts and letter font shall be determined by tenant with selection open to all colors and fonts available by signage fabricators. • Channel letter size will range from 24" minimum letter size to 48" maximum letter size. • Owner shall have the option to operate lit signs,including pylon sign and future ground sign, such that there is no hourly operation restriction and will be able to operate on a 24/7 basis. • Additional wall signs will be allowed to each tenants but the maximum additional wall signage will be restricted to a maximum of 1.25 SF per lineal foot of wall frontage but not to exceed 15% of the total wall area. VAPlanning\Staff Repoits\20 i i\0920201 t Sign Pane st anthony shopping cenieri concept review stf rpt.doc092020 i i Sign Plane st anthony shopping centers concept review sit rpt.doc Mr. Kozulla also addresses other issues in his letter as the result of questions asked of him by the Planning Commissioners during the concept review regarding the planned renovation for the Shopping Center. He received many questions regarding the parking of the Shopping Center because of the Center's plan to do a mill and overlay. As he states in his letter, the Shopping Center has 86,564 gross square feet of floor area. The City Code requires that a commercial property have one (1) parking space per 300 SF of gross floor area,which gives the Center 294 parking spaces. The Code's requirement would be 288 for the Shopping Center. Mr. Kozulla states,however, due to the existing landscaped islands, the size of the spaces have ranged from 8.5' to 10' wide and 18' long. The City Code requires parking spaces to be at minimum 9'by 19'. The other issue that was important to the Planning Commission was site drainage. Mr. Kozulla states that he has discussed the City's requirements regarding storm water management. Given that the project for the parking lot involves a mill and overlay rather than a total reconstruction of the parking lot,it was determined that an underground storm water management system or specific site retention pond is not required at this time. Attachments. • Comprehensive Sign Plan for St. Anthony Shopping Center and Rendering • Letter regarding Facade and Site Improvements Project, • Rendering of Proposed Renovations with Signs • §155.26 Shopping Centers and the Like;Plan Required • Original Comprehensive Sign Plan, 1989 and Update of Sign Plan,2003 FAPlanning\Staff Reports\20 i 1\0920201 t Sign Plane st anihony shopping centerl concept review stf rpt.doc09202011 Sign Pane st anlhony shopping centerl concept review stf Oi.doc KOZULLA & ASSOCIATES 7851 METRO PARKWAY, SUITE 121 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55425 USA TEL 952-345-0258 FAX 952-854-9403 September 8,2011 Ms.Kim Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager City of St.Anthony St.Anthony City Hall 3301 Silver Lake Road St.Anthony,MN 55418-1699 Re: Faeade and Site improvement Project St.Anthony Shopping Center St.Anthony,MN Dear Ms.Moore-Sykes, I am writing to you with respect to various Zoning Code and City process items we briefly discussed which may assist the City in upcoming reviews and approvals. Easements—Although there are easements associated with this property with either the City or the County,this project is not requesting any new easement or proposing amendment to any existing easement. Variances—This project is not requesting any variances. Parking—It is the intent to mill and overlay and restripe the existing parking lot. Concrete curb&gutter landscape islands and parking lot lighting will remain in their current locations. The current Zoning Code requires parking spaces equating to 1 space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. This property contains three buildings. The north building (46,052 s,f,),the west building(39,388 s.f.)and the Dairy Queen(1,124 s.f.),totaling 86,564 gross square feet. A factor of 300 s.f.suggests 288 parking spaces required. The existing parking lot has a total of 294 spaces,thus meeting current quantity requirements. It is the intent of the proposed parking layout to replicate that of the existing striping layout; however accessible ramp locations and accessible space locations will differ from the existing layout. Space widths vary from 8.78'to 10'depending on the location. Existing striping is 18' long. Because the landscaped islands dimensionally lock the parking lot striping layout,the 18'space length must be maintained. If we find the 18' length can be increased,the design will accommodate. Setbacks—In some cases,this property has zero lot setbacks. It is my understanding that since this project is not a redevelopment project setback restrictions will be grandfathered. Comprehensive Sign Plan—This project submitted a Comprehensive Sign Plan to the City. This Sign Plan was briefly discussed at the August 16 Planning Commission,however not to detail. The City is currently reviewing the proposed property Sign Plan and scheduled to be on the September 20 Planning Commission agenda Site Drainage—Communications were held with the City and WSB&Associates with respect to storm water management. Given it is the intent to do a mill&overlay rather than a replacement,it was determined an underground storm water management system or specific site retention location not be required. Planning Commission and City Council—Given the project is not requesting any rezoning,variances,easements,etc.,it is the opinion of this office the project is more of an administrative City process,however,this project's representatives are willing to work with City staff,Planning Commission and City Council as necessary. Letter to Ms. Moore-Sykes September 8,2011 Page 2 Plan Review and Building Permit—It is the intention to submit the construction documents to the City for Plan Review upon completion of the design documents. Concurrent to the plan review timeframe,the project will be competitively bidding to multiple general contractors. The successful contractor shall apply and pay for the permit. If there are any items of concern which I failed to address above,please let me know and I will address them for you. Respectfully, Kozulla&Associates,Inc. GTEgUrSFJ.Kozulla President r Comprehensive Sign Plan St. Anthony Shopping Center St.Anthony, MN August 2, 2011 St Anthony Shopping Center LLC("Owner") proposes to conform to the City of St.Anthony's Sign Ordinance("Ordinance') as amended within this document. Please let this document be considered St. Anthony Shopping Center's Comprehensive Sign Plan Tenant Signage The Comprehensive Sign Plan will provide for the following: 1. Allow signage on storefronts up to 60'in length to have 3 square feet per lineal foot of tenant frontage, however,the total signage area shall not exceed 15%of the total wall area frontage. 2. Allow signage on storefronts which exceed 60'in length to have 3 square feet per lineal foot of tenant frontage up to a maximum of 300 square feet, however,the total signage area shall not exceed 15%of the total wall area frontage. 3. Multiple rows of signage text shall be permitted and shall be calculated independently from the row above or below, but total lineal footage shall not exceed a factor of 3;i.e.:the square foot area of row 1 plus row 2 plus subsequent rows(if desired)shall not exceed 3 times that total tenant frontage or exceed 15%of the total wall area frontage. 4. Signage logos shall be included when calculating maximum signage area. 5. All new tenant wall signage will be single wall mounted aluminum channel letters with plastic inserts facing the public street. All new tenant signage will be backlit on painted raceways. Raceway color will match the color of the building background of which the raceway is mounted. The aluminum raceway profile,channel profile, letter size,font, color,etc.,will require property owner approval prior to submission to the City. 6. All existing tenant signs regardless of size,font,color,raceway,etc.,shall be grandfathered as acceptable should the existing signage be removed and reinstalled for any reason. 7. Color of channels,color of channel letter inserts and letter font shall be determined by tenant with selection open to all colors and fonts available by signage fabricators. 8. Maximum channel letter size will be 48"and minimum channel letter size will be 24". 9. Owner shall have the option to operate lit signs(including existing pylon or future ground signs)such that there is no hourly operation restriction and be able to operate on a 2417 basis if desired. 10. Allow additional wall signs to each of the tenants,but,wall signage area allowed will be maintained at a maximum of 1.25 square feet per lineal foot of wall width yet not exceed 15% of the total wall area. Ground Signage(Site Signage) 1. At the time of this Comprehensive Sign Plan execution,the Owner is not planning for new ground signs and chooses to keep the existing pylon/monument sign intact and make non- structural improvements to the sign. If the Owner would like to install Grounds Signs in the future it will coordinate with City staff.As part of the Comprehensive Sign Plan,the owner shall not be obligated to remove and/or replace the existing site signage or,if the owner determines existing site signage be removed,that it not be obligated to install new site signage. Given this property has two main vehicular entrances,the owner shall have the option to provide a future ground sign at the Kenzie Terrace entrance in addition to the Service Drive entrance. tLL � f 'r AM k�•, , - � " STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: September 20, 2011 Subject: 3408 Maplewood Drive — Variance to Front Yard Setback for Porch and Stoop Requested Action: Public Hearing Date Application Received: August 18, 2011 Property Address: 3408 Maplewood Drive Zoning District: R1 60-Day Expires: October 17, 2011 Waiver Letter Required: Yes Date Sent: No Future Action: Council consideration and action at September 27, 2011 Council Meeting Background: Carri Sandwick of Albertsson Hansen Architecture, Ltd.,met with Staff to discuss the possibility of obtaining an encroachment variance for her clients, the owners of 3408 Maplewood Drive, who would like to add a front porch to their home. Ms. Sandwick and the property owners,Barbara and Culley Johnson,met with the Planning Commission on August 16,2011 in a concept review. Ms. Sandwick reported that an addition of a front porch to their home is part of a renovation project that they are planning for the front of their home. Their garage extends beyond the front of the house by approximately 10 feet. The home owners are proposing to fill in that space from the side of the garage to the end of the house with a 9' 11.5" x 30' (approx.300SF) enclosed screen porch. As presented on the site plans,it does appear that the garage currently encroaches approximately 2' 10" feet into the front yard setback and the proposed front porch will encroach into the front yard setback as well. The owners are proposing to add a front stoop and steps to the proposed front porch. This structure will extend another five feet into the front yard setback. The front stoop and steps are necessary in order to enter and exit the proposed front porch and home. Analysis: The property owners are responsible for demonstrating why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for them by preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; that the variance if granted, will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties (City Code §152.245(C)). 092020113408 MaplewooJ b ive hncroachrrient Variaiice.doc Mr. and Mrs.Johnson have stated in their written statement that their plight is completely due to the fact that the footprint of the house was not designed by them nor altered to its current configuration by them. The house was constructed in 1960, prior to the codification of the City's Zoning Ordinance and the house was purchased by the current owners in 2007. The Johnsons are interested in improving their property by updating the curb appeal of the front of their home by adding a front porch. The front porch would also support the City's goal of being a livable community as it would invite and enhance neighborly relationships and a"Village feel". Mr. and Mrs. Johnson state that they understand the intention of the City's Ordinance that allows a 5' encroachment is meant to provide for a reasonably sized front porch, stoop and steps but in their situation,without the variance,it would only allow 2'2" for a stoops with steps. The owners feel that having only 2' 2" available for a landing and steeps creates both a practical difficulty in providing access and egress to their porch and a safety issue of not having a full landing to their front porch, thereby severely limiting the use of their proposed improvement. In order to accomplish only a 5' encroachment of the stoop and steps into the front yard would mean that the property owners would have to reduce the size of the proposed front porch from nearly 10' to less than 7,which they feel significantly limits their intent of having a useable living space in the front of their home. Mr. and Mrs.Johnson feel that the variance,if granted,would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. They stated that adding a front porch to the front of their home would definitely not detract from the neighborhood,but rather would contribute to the overall openness and friendliness of the community. Economic considerations are not the only basis for the practical difficulties as previously described. The variance would surely allow them to add value to their home but also to the surrounding neighborhood. Staff received no comments regarding this project. Attachments: • Application and Written Statement • Site Map with Building Elevations • Photographs of Site • Architectural Drawings of Front Porch 092020it 34o8 Maplewood brive bncroachineni Van6ce.doc • nd 3301 Silver Lake Road •St.Anthony,MN 55418 • (p)612.782.3301 • (f)612.782.3302 www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us VARIANCE APPLICATION FEE: $60 Residential $100 Other Zoning Districts A.GENERAL DATA I r, y ' APPLICANT'S NAME: f 94 I Dl� Lea%i The above-named individual,firm,or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following information for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls as found in the City of St. Anthony's Zoning Code. 4uhWlc� ldZ•Sz3•D� 46 Contact Person Last Name First Day Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 2�� 1. Subject Property Address: 08 MAELI!J60io_M V� 2. Specify the nature of the project for which a variance is sought: -M AtA4W Ar/ WXFAye FsAm I'—Q" (0 3'q1 ft VVIC FT04NITT" VIVOMAWAIMIM 11V FXdA/r ~ rVX. stme+ST IXT. 3. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the Ordinance: RLE&3E 9M kit dMQ AygWAmrR 4. Explain in a written statement why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for the applicant,preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner;that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;that the variance if granted,will not alter the essential the character of the locality;and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Please address each of these items in your written statement. (City Code§152.245(C)) 5. Check all additional supporting documents which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: I'Site Plan* ❑ Topographic Map B"Other(specify) *Required Can attach additional pages to fully explain proposal and need for variance. I HEREBY CERTIFY WITH MY SIGNATURE THAT ALL DATA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS,PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. Signa a pplicant Date EXPIRATION Within one(1)year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the property owner or applicant has not substantially started the construction of any building,structure,addition or alteration requested as part of the approval,said variance shall become null and void unless an application for extension of the approval has been submitted. A letter to extend the approval of a variance shall be submitted to the Assistant City Manager not les than thirty(30)days before the expiration of said approval. Such letter shall state the fact for the request,showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance,and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction. The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one(1)year. (Rev.July 2011) F:\2011 website\Variance Amendment Application July 2011.doc Christine L Albertsson AIA/Todd P Hansen AIA Albertsson Hansen Architecture, Ltd. Variance 2800 Lyndale Ave South Suite 220 a,h Minneapolis,MN 55408 Application tel 612 823 0233/fax 612 823 4950 Date: August 18, 2011 Project: Johnson Porch Subject: Description of Variance Request Dear Ms.'s and Sirs, Albertsson Hansen Architecture Ltd has been engaged to apply for this variance on behalf of Barbara and Cully Johnson, Owners of the property at 3408 Maplewood Drive, St Anthony Village and we respectfully submit this request for your consideration. Description of Request: To allow an increase from 5'-0" to 7-9 1/2" for permitted encroachments in front yard setback. Description of Project: The Owners would like to enhance the curb appeal of their home by adding a screened porch on the north (or street side) of their home. Their goal is also to engage the use of their front yard and to foster community connections, as front porches can. The existing house is a colonial with a concrete stoop and steps to grade. There is no cover over the stoop to provide a sheltered entry for visitors to the house. There is also no place to gather in the front yard. From Variance Application: 1. & 2. See Variance Application 3. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the Ordinance: As stated above the goal of the project is to provide a gathering spot for the Owners of the house and to engage the neighborhood. The setback for this house is determined by the average depth of the front yards of the two adjacent properties. The front yard setback is therefore 33.4' (the average of 30.2' and 36.6'). The zoning code allows encroachments for "Steps, stoops, and porches which extend into the front yard not more than 5'-0"." The proposed design continues a line set by the existing garage which encroaches on the current front yard setback by 2'-10". The porch is an extension of this line with a wood stoop and stairs to grade extending from the front line of the porch 5'-0". The proposed variance is in the spirit of the Ordinance by requesting that the Owners be allowed to extend stoops and stairs out from the front plane of their house 5'-0". Albertsson Hansen Architecture, ltd. 2800 Lyndale Avenue South Suite 220 Minneapolis,MN 55408 Page 1 of 2 4. Explain in a written statement why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would: a. Cause practical difficulties for the applicant: We understand the intention of the Ordinance to allow homeowners to provide a reasonably sized front stoop& landing outside the front surface of their house, defined as a 5'-0" encroachment into the front yard setback In this instance, due to the front yard setback being established 2'-10" behind the front surface of the house at the garage, the Owner only has 2'-2" to front of the front surface of the house, rather than the 5'-0" as described in the Ordinance. Having only 2'-2" available for a landing and steps beyond the front plane of the house represents a practical difficulty in that the Owners would like the safety of a full landing outside their screened door. The depth of the porch, when building to the front plane of the house provides for a reasonable depth porch (9'-1" on interior.) Placing a screened porch, stairs and stoop within the permitted encroachment would result in a next to unusable width of 7-0" for the porch thus severely limiting the use of this space. b. Prevent the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner: The proposed design results in a reasonable use of the property The proposed design addresses these issues by providing a sheltered entry way, a place to gather in the front yard The proposed design is to extend the screen porch across the front facade of the building from the northeast corner of the garage to the east side of the house. The depth of the screened porch is determined by the depth of the garage This creates a rectangular plan for the house, and highlights the importance of the front door Pulling the porch to be even with the garage will help to create a welcoming facade for the neighbors and an engaging, active, area for the family to gather. This addition to the house also changes the hierarchy by not having the garage be the most forward projecting feature of the house A stoop and stairs to grade are included in the scope of the project The stoop and stairs will be wood, instead of concrete, to provide an impervious surface. c. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner: The footprint of the house has not been altered by the Owners of the house, and therefore they have not created the circumstances relating to the request for this variance. It is likely that the house was in place before the Ordinance was adopted, which would account for the garage encroaching on the front yard setback. d. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality: If granted, the project will not alter the essential character of the locality, but will positively contribute to the neighborhood. e. Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties: Economic considerations are not the basis of the practical difficulties described above. The granting of this variance will add to the value of the home and the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for considering this application for variance. Sincerely, Corri Sandwick Albertsson Hansen Architecture,Ltd 2800 Lyndale Avenue South Suite 220 Minneapolis,MN 55408 Page 2 of 2 C = II JI ,p `1 � A1C' _ � J� •' 1ow��!'^ =T ,�'( �F-4 ;AFt �4"i � •:.«{ yip ,ter {�);�. . It'x t. �L M t ly�• s 't�.:rr�'� eN� �• 1 } A,. Nk dw ar i. 1 , ..� � �� 4 Glx .F+•.. ; J �� u�t} s'�F .• + r .�JM 4pY a ti .. � Ii � f _ a , c S � ., ----------------------- -------------- ----------------- -- I I 60 1 - 5 q 13 I II I I •W K } I c� �_; � I 1 cg y' O I V ' I --- 5 I a I / 60 �� x-oc .gyp <'O Q gill®Z �''�b� � �s z � 3 $ o x �i 8m8NF Johnson Remodeling a. �,. w.a.a.. _ ,L 3408 Maplewood Drive, "'"°'' °" t O c fin St. Anthony Village, MN 55418 b� 28W Ir...A—S.5w szoN�e,�ssme• el 612 B23 0233 m 612 823 4o5D ....,ola,da�.o.• h Alberisson Hansen Architecture,ltd 4+ f� m 0 o '^ Y� O P c � om LO N N LO Z �_ d 1 2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN O a AB1.0 Scale- 1/8'= 1'-0" N o tY °� > ¢ o C c CCa -oO N W C T N I I s O Q g o I I OtM z NT I I L—————————J Issue Dares M•x Programming 06/08/11 ;I I Schematic Design 06/28/11 Design Development It 08/09/11 — II I As$ulll Drowtngs Floor Plans M' Scale 1/8'-I11-5 'O' � -J :� :w AB 1 .0 1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN ABl 0 Scale 1/8"= 1'-0" a,sh Albertsson Hansen Architecmre,Ltd MW I ®®m ----- --- -- -- - ---- g � � N 1 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 2 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION N N AB2 0 Scale- 1/8"= 1'-0" Z AB2.0 Scale 1/8"= 1'-0" _ z N O E o a °11 > Q o O 3 0 J N In Z £ m 0 C >N L O Q g o A in � � ❑❑ B _ _ Issue Dates _ = Programming 06/08/11 Schematic Design 06/28/11 Design Development ——— 08/09/11 As-Built Dmvnngs ——— ——— Exterbr Elevations Scale 1/8'-1'-0' 3 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION 4 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION AB2 0 Scale, 1/8"= V-0" AB2 0 Scale 1/8'= 1'-0' AB 2.0 4�4�i_CYlI.F»¢, O f I I I to I I I I I �P I I Z 1 I � I I i I I �yl I• II I 1 � III r I 1 INM I I I IIIII I I ' Ifq { b P-I�'NIpIOI flB®m I l--1 I• III I I I nr-ti L-J' I lu I I 1__J uF_, L-J�--- 1 p_Ilr D N O N n 0 0 8 S Z f ®z D -D g Johnson Remodeling „� 6,,,,��w•�,b cQ` 3408 Maplewood Drive, s — __ o St. Anthony Village, MN 55418 J.28001pdde A+eeoo Sc Sone 220 Aa Plk M 55400• 146,28230233 6a 612 823 4950 —W—N— a. 33 = I I I I I I F1 6 dys�b3 E I I I I C i i i m ii V Y O II � I 9 O 00000 00 ® *00 O �+ II apcc=55Ei,5-pgM1 Pe4 � � II I III I ,+ 2 k I II o I I I B 3 II I II - II FRI � I III C I III jl _ II II y II I N{r I I I O $ II I O i � II _ II Q II m v - 8 4 N a 0 Egm IT � D r N N �y O O 0 I I I 4 I I I I�® N R O� b 0 ❑ Q Johnson Remodeling >> i f �c �o� -o 8 N N m,=�� 3408 Maplewood Drive, � a g St. Anthony Village, MN 55418 2800 tpd,6 A. S,5—220 W—p h M 5UOB• W 412 8210273 l0.el2 823 4050 ..�oM1md.ea.e o:m 2 STAFF REPORT To: Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: September 20, 2011 Subject: Variance Request—2610-30th Avenue NE Requested Action: Public Hearing Date Application Received: August 24, 2011 Property Address: 2610—30`s Avenue NE Zoning District: R1 60-Day Expires: October 24, 2011 Waiver Letter Required: N/A Date Sent: No Future Action: City Council review and decision, September 27, 2011 Background. The property owners,Glenn and Traci Bergum,-attended a concept review of their plans to rebuild an existing double care garage on their property. The current garage exists nearly on the rear property line were considering a Garage Setback Permit to build a double car garage to replace the existing detached single car garage. Since then,the Bergu ns have provided an updated site plan that shows the proposed garage 5 feet from the rear property line and 5 feet from the side property line. The Bergums maintain in their written statement that the new location for the garage is compliant with the setback requirements for both the rear yard and the side yard, according to the City's Zoning Code. The proposed garage is planned to be 768 SF,significantly larger than the 528 SF allowed by the Code for a private garage in the rear yard (152.176 ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, (F). The Bergums have argued that the Code also allows for an accessory building of up to 1000 SF and which is not larger that the principal structure. In an R-1 Zoning District,the principal structure is defined as a single family detached house. The Bergums also are precluded from constructing a garage this large by the City's lot coverage limitation of 35% for a 9,000 SF interior residential lot(152.039 DIMENTIONAL REGULATIONS, (H)). The Bergum's lot is 70" by 134" or 9,380 SF. The proposed 768SF garage gives them lot coverage of 37.5%;whereas a garage of 528 SF gives them 34.9% lot coverage. Staff maintains that the Bergum s do need to obtain a Garage Setback Permit to locate the proposed detached garage in the rear yard;that the garage in the rear setback cannot be larger than 528 SF;and no dimension of the garage can be larger than 24 feet. Staff agrees with Mr. Bergum that the new site plan does show the proposed garage compliant with the sideyard setbacks but that the Ordinance says". . . F:\Planning\StaffReports\2011\09202011 2610 30th garage permitstf rpt.doc09202011 2610 30th garage permitstf rpt.doc within the side setbacks and/or rear setbacks." (§152.008 DEFINITIONS; §152.039 DIMENTIONAL REGULATIONS, (F) (G);Standard Residential Setbacks). The Bergums,in addition to the Garage Setback Permit,will need a variance of 2.6% to the City's Lot Coverage and a variance of 240 SF to the square footage limitation of the Garage Setback Permit if they are to be able to reconstruct their existing garage with the one they propose. The property owners are responsible for demonstrating why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for them by preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner; that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; that the variance if granted,will not alter the essential the character of the locality; and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties (City Code §I52.245(Q. They have stated in their written statement that their plight is completely due to the fact that existing garage is in the rear yard;that the variance, if granted will allow for the construction of a new garage that will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;and that there are no economic considerations that were factored into their decision to construct the proposed garage. Staff has received one comment against the proposed plan to build a garage larger than the one that currently exists.They oppose the project because they feel that the garage is too large and does not fit the essential characteristic of the neighborhood. Staff does not recommend approval of a Garage Setback Permit for 2610—30th Avenue NE for the proposed garage as currently presented based on the findings that the size of the proposed garage would require additional variances for size and lot coverage. Stall also did not find that the size of the existing garage was a practical difficulty unique to the property. Attachments. • Property Owner's Application • Site Plan • Property Owner's Written Statement • Letter of Opposition from Property Owners behind Subject Property • Photos F:\Planning\Staff Reports\2011\09202011 2610 30th garage permitstf rpt.doc0920201 l 2610 30th garage permitstf rpt.doc • 3301 Silver Lake Road •St.Anthony,MN 55418 • (p)612.782.3301 • (f)612.782.3302 www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us VARIANCE APPLICATION FEE: $60 Residential $100 Other Zoning Districts A.GENERAL DATA APPLICANT'S NAME: V I U I (10"sT wn OIJ �L The above-named individual,firm,or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following information for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use zoning controls as found in the City of St.Anthony's Zoning Code. r m&- VA-t l PA--rrev- yy6 Jg2443-W9 Contact Person Last Name First Day Phone B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Subject Property Address: a&aw- 30'!-f? e— n 2. Specify the nature�of the project for which a variance is sought: New 6gaX6E' w/�A R s.soyG &X,; S e20sc,2.1 (50n~� C'a-csfref Mea.) oisfx 3A 42~6e- 3. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the Ordinance: 4. Explain in a written statement why the strict enforcement of the Ordinance would cause practical difficulties for the applicant,preventing the subject property to be used in a reasonable manner;that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;that the variance if granted,will not alter the essential the character of the locality;and that economic considerations alone are not the basis of the practical difficulties. Please address each of these items in your written statement.(City Code§152.245(C)) 5. Check all additional supporting documents which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: ❑ Site Plan* ❑ Topographic Map ❑ Other(specify) *Required Can attach additional pages to fully explain proposal and need for variance. I HEREBY CERTIFY WITH MY SIGNATURE THAT ALL DATA ON MY APPLICATION FORMS,PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. Signature of Applicant Date EXPIRATION Within one(1)year after the approval of a variance or appeal if the property owner or applicant has not substantially started the construction of any building,structure,addition or alteration requested as part of the approval,said variance shall become null and void unless an application for extension of the approval has been submitted. A letter to extend the approval of a variance shall be submitted to the Assistant City Manager not les than thirty(30)days before the expiration of said approval. Such letter shall state the fact for the request,showing a good faith attempt to utilize the variance,and it shall state the additional time being requested to begin the proposed construction. The City Council may grant extensions not to exceed one(1)year. (Rev.July 2011) F:\2011 website\Variance Amendment Application July 2011.doc 08 -24111 Minneapolis Drafting Services, Inc. & MDS Staffing 134 FEET 3055 Old Hwy 8 Suite 102 Minneapolis, MN 55418 612-623-0000 IS12 —7813244 fax - - - - - - T - - - - - - -1 ISM REM EXISTING DECK 191 sq.ft.l I I I I �SICREMOVE EW CONCRETE W I I I W 1 HWPERVIOUS REPLACEALK AND AVERS I IR15 OFSNiI NIl1®ER 52'-0" y,o amrt PROJECT Ne1Wr tzi I w Ee r — —I I MTE 8/23/11 CD r -71 r - - EXISTING HOUSE I I 14' 0 I PROJECT rJwucEx I=— I 9P rl". I 1365 sq.ft. I i I ORte++airMAD CD U I� — I I I a+E�Of I I I I I I •Errors may occur in the transmission of electronic fees.The 16msapolis Drafting is not / responsible far any claims, damages or expenses arising out of the unauthorized use of the information contained in electronic I / / O •Electronic files may not accurately reflect I V :;r- the final as—built conditions. It is the — — — — — — — — — J — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — J PERVIOUS PAVER `" NEW GARAGE responsibility of the user to verify all APRON layouts, dimensions and other related information. 768 sq.ft. .This document may not be used or copied without prior written consent. 1286 sq.ft. PteuEcr — — _ — — — — BERGUM RESIDENCE IACI—2610 30TH AVE NE NEW SITE PLAN ST. ANTHONY, MN 55418 SCALE: 1 " = 10' -0" SHU MIX SIM MAW 2 OF 3 August 24, 2011 Subject: Construction of Garage at 2610 30'h Ave NE Owners: Glenn and Traci Bergum Contractor: Mark Van Patter—MVP Construction Project Description: This project entails the demolition of a 1949 vintage 2-stall garage whose dimensions are roughly 20'X 22'. The garage is leaning because no wall sheathing was used beneath the siding on the original structure giving it less rigidity than a modern construction. Age and other unknown factors have produced a distinct lean to the westerly direction. The owners wish to replace the garage with a new 2-stall garage with an upper"bonus room" which will be used for scrapbooking and other creative and wholesome crafts. It is not clear that any variances are needed since the proposed structure(24'X 32')falls within the square footage allowances for a garage in an R-1 District. With the given dimensions the square footage totals 768 square feet. On pg. 50 of the St.Anthony Village code it is stated that an accessory building(garage)cannot be larger than the principal structure or be more than 1000 square feet. This criteria is met. The current garage(approx.455 sq.ft)sits within the setback zone at the rear of the property as it is approximately two feet from the rear property line. The new garage will be moved out of the setback zone(five feet from rear and side property lines)and will therefore be in compliance with city code. In section 152.176(B)the minimum setback for an accessory building is defined to be three feet from any property line. In section 152.176(F) it is stated that a garage that covers no more than 528 sq.ft. may be located within the side and/or rear setbacks if a permit is issued. This appears to be a square footage limitation for garages within the setback zone and does not apply to the subject project as the new structure will be moved out of the setback zones. The homeowner's interpretation is that variances are not required either for setback or square footage. Despite the opinion of the owner that the proposed project meets the above city codes,it is my understanding that a variance was requested for either setback or square footage. Therefore,to support any application for variances the following evidence is provided, per section 152.245(C) (2)of the city code. Strict enforcement of the city code causes practical difficulties because;(a)the property will simply include a 2-stall garage to replace the current 2-stall garage with the addition of a bonus room above the garage. The height of the new garage will be less than the height of the house and will therefore comply with city code. (b)The plight of the homeowner is entirely due to the fact that the original garage was located within the rear setback. The new plans however rectify this by providing five feet of buffer to the rear and side property lines.(c)If any variance is granted,the new structure will not alter the essential character of the locality,and in fact will enhance the neighborhood by removal of the old structure. (d)There are no economic considerations that factored into the proposed structure which resulted in any of the practical difficulties addressed here. Respectfully, IL �*Mq Glenn R. Bergum,PE September 12, 2011 Ms. Kim Moore Sykes,Assistant City Manager Planning Commission Members City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St.Anthony,MN 55418 RE: Variance Request—2610—300'Avenue NE Dear Ms. Sykes and Planning Commissioners: We are unable to attend the September 20, 2011, Planning Commission, and request our comments be submitted for review regarding the Garage Setback permit and Variance request for the Oversized Garage project at 2610—301h Avenue NE. We are located directly behind the property at 2610—301'Avenue, and the proposed oversized garage structure will impact our property, and ask the Planning Commission to consider our comments when considering the variance. It appears unusual a variance request would be considered in the absence of a detailed building plan, and does not allow resident opportunity to review plan and design specifics to determine potential impacts to neighboring properties. In addition,a site plan survey performed by a professional surveyor licensed by the State of Minnesota should be required before issuance of a building permit to determine correct lot lines. The existing garage is now located 2.5 feet from our fence line and resides inside the five foot rear yard setback area (see attached photos). We request further clarification of City Code Section 152.176(F)Garage Setback Permit in regards to the maximum allowable size of the garage and what is the rear yard setback requirement. City Code Section 152.039(H)requires a maximum allowed lot coverage of 35%. This variance request changes the lot coverage and raises the issue of how will the additional impervious surface coverage exacerbate recent and historical drainage issues to adjacent properties. In addition,the plan submitted noted the use of pervious surface pavers. Does the use of pervious surface pavers apply to the calculation of the total lot coverage? If not,has it been proven that pervious surface pavers do not contribute to additional drainage? An oversized garage structure's design and materials play a role. City Code Section 152.176(E)requires structures "must be designed and constructed in a manner consistent with the design and general appearance of the principle structure". Without a design plan it is questionable whether the plan achieves this requirement. With such a large structure, it seem appropriate to require the mass of the building be broken-up with enhanced siding and windows on all sides, and require landscaping and maintaining of landscaping behind the structure facing our property. This proposed oversized structure is uncharacteristic and oversized in comparison to neighboring structures where adjacent residential lots measure only 59-60 feet wide. Allowing oversized/large structures on smaller lots change the characteristics and charm of St.Anthony neighborhoods. We appreciate your consideration of our comments, and ask the Commission to respect and maintain the rear yard setback,maintain 35%maximum lot coverage,address the drainage concerns,require a detailed building plan and professional survey performed by a surveyor licensed by the State of Minnesota to determine accurate lots lines before building permit issuance, and require enhanced garage design and landscape features to lessen the impact of the oversized structure as it relates to our property. Thank you for your consideration, Jeff and Jan Rosemeyer 2609 West Armour Terrace St.Anthony,MN 55418 612-789-3278 Page I of 1 2600 606 2610 2614 4 _ 2 2605 2609 2613 http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/output/HC—PROPERTY—MAP—www85660756420.JPG 09/07/2011 r i J .,• Y w a, lop Y t yi r�9 L, A' t Flo t s: . .rte SlC�4. STAFF REPORT To: Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager �N6 Date: September 20,2011 Subject: 2824-2828 Anthony Lane South;LI CUP for Mountain of Fire Miracles Ministry Requested Action: Concept Review Date Application Received: August 17, 2011 Property Address: 2824- 2828 Anthony Lane Zoning District: Light Industrial 60-Day Expires: October 17,2011 Waiver Letter Required: Yes Yes Date Sent: No Future Action: Public Hearing Background. Staff met with Mr. Tom Baker,KW Commercial, and the applicant in April to discuss the proposed purchase of 2428 and 2828 Anthony Lane South and to use it as an assembly and meeting place for their members. Mr. Baker advised Staff that his client is the pastor of the Mountain of Fire Miracles Ministry,a Christian denomination based in Houston,TX. Mr. Baker and his client were advised by Staff of the need for a conditional use permit in order to use a property in the Light Industrial Zoning District as an assembly place. It was then that Staff discovered that as the result of the re-codification process,a portion of Section 152.142 PERMITTED CONDITIONAL USES that included (G) Assembly,meeting lodge or convention halls,was inadvertently removed and not published. This recodified Code was subsequently adopted by City Council without that language. When Staff discussed the issue with the City Attorney,he advised that since the Council had unintentionally adopted the recodified version without(G), the City Council would have to amend 152.142 to replace the missing language. The City Council did replace the omitted language and re-adopted the Code. Mr. Baker was then advised by the Staff to attend a concept review for their proposal. Staff has contacted the Fire Department to advise staff on any fire suppression needs for a potential occupancy of 200-400 people. This number was determined based on the information provided by Preliminary Furniture Plan. Parking may also have to be addressed. Staff has received calls from one of the tenants at 2428-2828 Anthony Lane South for status updates on the disposition of this application. The caller,who works for the University of Minnesota,has requested that Staff keep them updated on the status because if the City approves the Mountain of Fire Miracles Ministry's application and the sale goes through,they will be required by law to find another place to rent. F:\Planning\StaffReports\2011\09202011 Kenzie Terrace Assisted living concept stf rpt.doc09202011 Kenzie Terrace Assisted living concept stf rpt.doc Mr. Baker and his client will be at the concept review scheduled for September 20, 2011 to discuss their proposal. Attachments. • Application • Written Statement from Pastor Nnaemeka C. Uchegbu • Floor Plan • Site Plan F:\Planning\StaffReports\2011\09202011 Kenzie Terrace Assisted living concept stf rpt.doc09202011 Kenzie Terrace Assisted living concept stf rpt.doc 3301 Silver Lake Road •St.Anthony,MN 55418 • (p)612.782.3301 • (f)612.782.3302 www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION $130 Conditional Use Permit Fee A. GENERAL DATA NAME OF APPLICANT: MOu 0"I CEJ VVE 'PRE 61 (R A G LAS M10l 577ZV MQ HQ The above-named individual,firm or corporation hereby respectfully submits the following data in support of the preliminary information provided on the accompanying zoning application summary from dated for the purpose of securing a Conditional Use Permit. CONTACT PERSON: E i P,u to 1'(z A N A C AA S,).9 - b 91 Last Name First Daytime Phone Number PROPERTY ADDRESS: ?-qL L/ - ZqZ /I ST. dgkJ -Hop / B. PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Specify the section of the ordinance which applies to this project: 2. Brief narrative description of this request and address each of the following items as they relate to your project: a.) The use is one of the conditional uses specifically listed for the zoning district in which the property is located; b.) The City Council specify conditions that it deems necessary to make the use compatible with other uses in the area; C.) The use will not be detrimental to the health,safety,or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the values of property in the vicinity; d.) The use will provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of public convenience and will contribute to the general welfare. Written justification for the request,including discussion of how any potential conflicts with existing nearby land uses will be minimized: 3. Check all additional supporting documents and data which are being submitted to help explain this project proposal: ❑ site plan ❑ engineering plans ❑ topographic map ❑ landscaping plans ❑ detailed narrative ❑ elevations ❑ operation plans I hereby certify with my signature thatd a p 'cation forms,plans and specifications a ue and correct to the best of my knowledge: i � Signature olt t F:\Planning\Forms\2005 CUP Application Information.doc 08 -*17i 1 1 May 13, 2011 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes Saint Anthony Village 3301 St. Anthony Road St. Anthony, MN 55418 Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes: We appreciate the City of St. Anthony reviewing the conditional use permit application for Mountain of Fire Miracles Ministry in the use of the property at 2�?4-2028 Anthony Lane. The reason for the conditional use permit is for the church to purchase and make use of a minimally leased office/industrial building in southern St. Anthony. This is in an area of industrial/office use with some other uses that have required a conditional use, such as a daycare. The property currently has two tenants and is 26% leased. The building value has dropped by 52% from the purchase in 2005. The church is negotiating final terms of a purchase agreement which is based on receiving the Conditional Use Permit from the City of St. Anthony. The church will allow the two tenants to stay in the building, at their option, but does not plan to lease any space in the building after these tenants vacate. Mountain of Fire Miracles Ministry is a Christian Church with a national headquarters in Houston. The church would have the highest use of the property when the majority of the other businesses are closed or operating minimally. The church would use the building for Sunday services with smaller groups through the week. The church has normal attendance of 150-165 at the Sunday service. The current on site parking will handle parking for 170. The removal of 13,595 square feet of vacant space will allow the vacancy factor for the city to be favorably adjusted. The weekend use will provide activity in the area when other businesses are closed. This will be an excellent use of the building in an area bordered by industrial, retail and cemetery uses. We appreciate your consideration of the application for a Conditional Use Permit and look forward to working with the city staff on this process. Sincerely, Pastor Nnaemeka C. Uchegbu Il6'-0" -O" 160'-O" 8'-O 205 215 225 235 245 255 265 275 `r LL (VERIFY) w w 0 01 5PRINKLEw T WATER MAIN 00 O (VERIFY) VERIFY DRAIN- FP RAINoFD W HVAC, w 200 220 230 12501 260 N REV DATE DE56RIPTION C) MFM MINNE50TA EX I ST I NCS PLAN 5/13/11 UPDATED N PASTOR NNAEMEKA UGHEGBU 2 R 6651-214-9224 2828 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH 0 a DRAFTING 8448 GREEK RIDGE LANE ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 55418 AND SAVAGE, MN. 55318 CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DATE SGALE SHEET NO. (612) 965-39gG RPG 3/9/I 1 1"=20'-0" A l 0 ESTI MATI N6 F 116'-0" —p" 160'-0" 8'p 205 215 225 12351 12451 12551 12651 275 , m u u u u u u u u u n u u u u u u u u u u u u u u n n u u u I I I u n u n u 0 SPRINKLER/ WATER I 11 II II MAIN 11 II oo II 11 Ilr. II II� ==J I I I II II j Ir,===�1 L lL II I II II VERIFY J� -Ji,J DRAIN I q I� F2222—� FJ II II o LJ 11 II I I ii ii ii HV G w ii II 200 12201 230 2401 12501 260 N REV DATE DESCRIPTION MFM MINNESOTA DEMOLITION PLAN Al 4/8/11 I CLIENT REVIEW N PASTOR NNAEMEKA UGHEOBU Al5/13/11 UPDATE5 651-2-74-1224 2828 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH 3 a DRAFT N6 g448 GREEK RIDGE LANE ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 5540 AND 5AVAGE, MN. 55318 GHEGKEO BY DRAWN Ely DATE SGALE SHEET NO. Q (612) 165-3111 RPG 3/q/I I I"=20'-0" D 1 5 ESTIMATING 116'-0" 160'-01, 8'-0 F2 0-51 215 225 275 BOOK LIBRARY > > > > STORE O O O O O GOAT I6 r ROOM 0 m WINDOW OFFICE OFFICE STORAGE moh�owo° s NW GRYIN6 EN N GE SOUND ROOM LOBBY p 5ANGTUAR( SPRIN K L ER/ HA ONGREGATION SIZE, no MAIN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFIGE5 cz MEETING HALL \� NEW) I FD° J ALTER ° ti�- HVAG w N 200 230 260 N REV DATE DE5GRIPTION MFM HINNE50TA10, PRELIMINARY PLAN 4/8/11 CLIENT REVIEW N PASTOR NNAEMEKA UGHEGBU MFM MINNESOTA 2 5/13/11 UPDATE5 > R 6651-274-6224 2828 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH A 8 a DRAFTING q44& GREEK RIDGE LANE ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 5541 4 AND 5AVAGE, MN. 55318 GHEGKED BY DRAWN BY DATE 5GALE SHEET NO. (612) G65-3agq RPG 3/G/11 I"=20'-O" a 5 ESTIMATING Ilb'-0" -p" 160'-0" 8'-O' 205 215 225 275 BOOK LIBRARY > > > > STORE o O O O O OAT 16 ROOM a m WNDOW OFFICE OFFICE STORAGE N W ENTt NGE 4 s sacro CUE= ROOM a LOBBY 000000 0000❑ao Doom s 000000 0000000 00000 p 42" SANGTUARY MAIN 42- SPRINKLER/ r i worms WNSRE5A�O } WATER 000000000 Arlo] 00 CT77007370oomErnO ADMINISTRATIVE nnnnnonnnno y OFFICES 000 J NEt$ tt,QQQQUUQUU _ 00000000 L / W NFyJ 1 5Eh( UNI SEATING FOR 210 0 boo ��d�sbs�6 Fp J U U U U U 000000 0000000000 O H\/AG w N 200 230 260 N REV DATE DESCRIPTION ol MFM MINNE50TA PRELIMINARY PLAN — FURNITURE 4/8/11 GLIENT REVIEW N PASTOR NNAEMEKA UGHECBU MFM' M I NNESOTA 2 5/13/11 UPDATE5 651-214-9224 2828 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH n DRAFT NC x448 GREEK RIDGE LANE ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 55418 4 AND SAVAGE, MN. 55318 GHEGKEL? BY DRAWN BY DATEF!5CALE SHEET NO. (612) 965-3999 RPG 5/15/11 0'-0" A 3 5 ESTIMATING ANTHONY LANE SOUTH I NEW00 -� ENTRY z EXISTING BUILDING w XD- I I EXISTING PARKING - - N REV DATE DE5GRIPTION MFM MINNE50TA SITE PLAN A 5/13/11 UPDATE5 PA5TOR NNAEMEKA UGHEGBU 2 R 6651-2 f4-G224 2g2g ANTHONY LANE SOUTH 0 DRAFTING 8448 GREEK R106E LANE ST. ANTHONY, MINNESOTA 55418 ffH AND SAVAGE, MN. 55318 CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DATE SCALE 5HEET NO. (612) 1165-381111 RPG 4/8/11 I"=40'-O" O ESTIMATING STAFF REPORT To: Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager Date: September 20,2011 Subject: 3219 Stinson Boulevard—308SF Variance to Rebuild a Garage Requested Action: Concept Review Date Application Received: N/A Property Address: 3219 Stinson Boulevard Zoning District: R-1 60-Day Expires: N/A Waiver Letter Required: Yes Date Sent: No Future Action: Public Hearing Background. Staff was reviewing a building permit application for 3219 Stinson Boulevard to replace a garage that was severely damaged as the result of a strong summer storm. As part of the review,Staff pulled the property file and discovered that the former owner had proposed to build a "garage addition' to an existing garage in 2003. Apparently,Staff at the time was under the impression that the existing garage would be removed for the construction of the replacement garage. The building inspector noted on April 30,2003 that the owner needed to"remove all other roofed structures immediately—they are hazardous buildings." On May 26, the building inspector noted that the garage was"re-inspected not ready— see photos&correction order." Then on June 30,2003 the building inspector again sent the previous owner a correction notice and advised him to "Call for a re-inspection after all the deficiencies have been corrected and all of the framing is complete." There is nothing in the file that indicates that the owner ever removed the existing garage or called the building inspector for a framing re-inspection. Apparently,both garages were built. The current property owner,Rachel Sanzone,who purchased the property two years ago,was called and advised that she could not rebuild the size of garage that she previously had;that it had been built illegally. She responded that she used the garage and expected to be able to replace it;that she had called her insurance company about the storm damage and had contractors ready to start rebuilding. Ms.Sanzone was told she could apply for a variance but it was unlikely that the City would allow her to rebuild the 1000 SF garage. Attachments. • Site Plan from 2003 • 2011 Building Permit Application F:\Planning\Staff Reports\2011\09202011 3219 Stinson Blvd concept stf rpt.dotm09202011 3219 Stinson Blvd concept stf rpt.dotm e. M 4 Feet 4 Feet April 18, 2003 N F Te%pol, To St. Anthony d. Building Permit Department (D SgJudy LL 8'x ' 1 d- 32 Sf 1, '74, Creig A Schmidt Castle Inspection Service -----22 Feet —�_ Office 8-9 am 652-731-7881 jj Schedule Inspection 651-636-5555 T a �0 From Property Owner " b)-2? ° o V Bob Koivula N i oco -r3 ii ,- �',' 0 3219 Stinson Blvd U_ C5 `o 2 Ft. 2' o t T St. Anthony, Mn 55418 ! Dear Creig and Judy, Here is the Lot Layout for pour- ing the concrete floor. Existing Lot Length 163 Garage Lot Width 50 i octal 8150 sf N LL M N +; X SIO Roof Height = 12 feet N a - tL Allowable Hardcover 3264 sf C\j 00 (To top of roof peak.) X d �� ° '��"' Existing Hardcover Square Feet House 1051 Garage 480 ^ Driveway 1128 20 Feet —►! New Hardcover Garage Addition 396 Shed 32 PlayArbor128 Total Hardcover 3251 sf 26 Feet For the record, nothing final has been built on the 4 Feet property, thou it looks like it has. What has been tacked together # �ck$SeP are the 3 outside walls, and the 4x9=36 s t I center wall, and a roof rafter idea. This was done to help Existing House PLAN the structure. Existing This was done to get the "feel"of the property and best building. Driveway (Counted big overhanging eves I am putting more slope on the as part of hardcover) roof, for more interest to building. 1128 Height = 18 Feet Square (to top of roof peak.) 36 Ft Detail of the roof rafters to follow, Feet after pouring concrete, if OK with you. Main 26x36 936 Front Porch 16x9 54 Everything can be taken down, Front Step 5x5 25 while concrete is poured, Back Step 4x9 36 it necessary. 1051 sf THANK YOU ! Bob Koivula -4-12 ft. — 9 Ft Front Porch 16x9=54 sf 952-471-9821 Lot sty Length 5x5-25 163 Feet 16 Feet 26 Feet Robert Koivula ----------------------------- Lot Width 50 Feet Print- Maps Page 1 of 1 bing Maps ' ---- - — - it My Notes 4". FREE!Use Bing 411 to find movies, businesses &more; 909-BING-411 27 i*lI4. II s 27 f - t. �.♦ 'Sir; 1, �► . Bird's eye view maps can't be printed, so another map view has been substituted. http://www.bing.com/maps/print.aspx?mkt=en-us&z=19.1765 83 318748395&s=b&cp=45.... 9/15/2011 STAFF REPORT To: Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Assistant City Manager Date: September 20,2011 Subject: Autumn Woods,Kenzie Terrace Requested Action: Concept Review Date Application Received: N/A Property Address: Kenzie Terrace Zoning District: R-4 Planned Unit Development 60-Day Expires: N/A Waiver Letter Required: N/A Date Sent: No Future Action: Public Hearing Background. LaNel,owners of Autumn Woods have met with Staff throughout the summer discussing the possibility of constructing an additional facility adjacent to the current Autumn Woods apartments. This facility will be an assisted living facility for those folks who want and can continue to live an independent life but need assistance for some day to day cares. The architect and the owners will be in attendance to discuss their ideas and plans for the vacant lot east of their current facility. Attachments. • Site Map • General Site Plan • Landscaping Plan • Property Owner's Written Statement F:\Planning\Staff Reports\2011\09202011 Kenzie Terrace Assisted living concept stf rpt.doc09202011 Kenzie Terrace Assisted living concept stf rpt.doc Autumn Woods Assisted Living is a 72 unit assisted living facility, offering a variety of unit types to attract a number of different residents; those needing CareSuite services, looking to downsize in home size to Studio or 1 bedroom units or couples looking for larger 2 bedroom units. The building has a wide variety of common area spaces. Those spaces include an outdoor patio, fitness room, beauty parlor, 'spa' rooms, movie theater, dining room and full service kitchen, in-house Chapel, craft room, library and a number of Parlors and sitting areas to promote social activities. Landscaping on the site will be to the high standard known at other Lang-Nelson communities. A variety of perennial and shrub planting as well as Deciduous and Coniferous Tree Planting. This will give the building a more residential feel and also create natural barriers from the existing buildings and homes around the area. Parking for the building will consist of 18 underground stalls for residents and staff, as well as 13 street parking stalls on the North East end of the building on Kenzie and 13 striped parking stalls on the south west end of the building. Parking will also be available via our existing parking lot at Autumn Woods, which is under common ownership. This area has 59 stripped parking spaces which are seldom used by residents. W ST.CHARLES 2501 2513 2517 2527 2525 2617 2701 27 27 2713 CATHOLIC PAHL AVENUE CHURCH 2500 25062512 2520 252 2604 2808 2612 2616 27 2704 2712 8 O ?716 Q r Q SCHOOL O U Q w ti J 2805 immm 2509 2513 J25172521 2525 2601 2609 2613 2617 a777-05 2108 2713 m 27th AVENUE NE 2653 2 2408 241 241 2420 N54- 2504 25 22516 2520 2524 2600 2604 2608?412 2616 27 27 27 271 28 � z O z ry1 0 ti LOWRY GROVE Gly, Ate' SUNSET 2613 261 LOWERY AVENUE �-ccvnvl SCS f'�S�S�d LtV�v� � Ct,�c-� =GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION Project AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING END LEG • V,• NORiN ERON>fFp DUSTING Location oo KWE TERRACE //, RRAr>u w nn ti ST AN{NONY,MN 5UC 8 ' ,` • \1\ % n Client LANG NELSON ® /\ EXISTING BUILDING o _� /� (l FFE=917 33 Architect • BSMT=90817 JAY P.NELSON 7 1 ARCHITECT / '`,� ♦ Re ane/•� \ •' ''� �\.i ----- _-_ um.w.Ni�„a:'° Civil Engineer m �,� infra _ �'r vxwouo ewmc p�°�� „'� \ •w•••H•••••u i�:.m Lego`aw � - �\l. ,�q�w: �v` /� 4� ® (I � 1�ae�.•rnrw.ona vmn,..waun „w�,�w•us,m ii !`` ` /�. il.F.l!•.. •.•t i.•' I MF�ie.na..a.ren.�wwwsn•o..a,u ^^F. Certification .'��- a • d'•i'- f - - SLG M>a, qw! ( f��/1y, /r. 4Y�✓ GENERAL[ONSTRUCTIN�OT.,o.vor.ur.mewor•su.nuwaen —®r,.....r... ` � _- y,IP•09�ar fl�ID� / / y+`��4� '�I ,C��,��/ _t e �' \i �aitl•u miwblo u�mmmeR•R vs•iau•onrmimnomn .. �/ ', IiOF'S �{^ — ���"th'S'-_ -,��• (��.'�'/T ^�! uu rouwou.nwVn�.runl �'t\', �•�. EXISTING BUI Y- r T• Xis " ' `" •'l:i"` T '� l FFE-9161' ....x.....m,�....w,..�•m®®a"•.n.®•.��.•.�. Summary B.IMT=906 '''ii } ....t"`➢,'s- •rso°n r I r n,.,,•.. '` ao.m.,w,a,NN,.•...�.rt..da.u.,,.aro,.N,�,n, .....o•w.•. Revision History .o, I.. , ''[ l �:v-`.I t, I\ ° I .�¢• � ---- o Ncw+I•.Iix.aa I o�,....L i I r I I I _ ��1\_ ».e•m.,o•n.o,�...a„m•�..we.��...®•..ww.••.,m.,.a �.uL..m..m,..•L......rt...� ,.,,.L�.o,•,o•� wee "��11>> / ix •.••mm., .aw.w•waw.xuN .�>...Im,.w�•.Nm.»G,mx.,.m,. 5��,,�, [ S — I I �SHEEr INDEA =REMOVALKETNOTES —GENERAL SRECLEARING AND REMOVALS NOTES SWO DESCIIIRNON C1 01 O)•IDUgxfAOD.WUfIIXInAx Sheet Title p �wNMxNxNN.wxN� •� N.rtNn °,.•o..N.N N. gym^. »,�4..�.>...,w°.wx.rt. TITLE SHEET, j p"° ° waoxssvlAm mNxoL ENR.• � EXISTING p N'vm „p,,,,L„,,,,,,,,pN„p,,,,,,,q,um,,,, OpgM6NDIMdICOMROLx0166EkTULS CONDITIONS& p»a+a..w,n..pw.mno..n�.n wl•>Ilnw�.m.I..x. mono••w•am .....,Am....�....m N».....m mNw�n•n,wnxart x•m... aoL s.N*AmlwA,[n sRLna>L.w aa ENs.wEANAx n•Im SITE CLEARING PLAN p. 'm"'e,..'m"""` _ ..�..ww..,..xN•m.•.n.�m•..I.a.wm.•w..wxw••.pm Sheet No. Revision C1.01 ®�.,�... m••.. .m.••w�•m.•....we,w•,.R.x. ..�Na.,an>..o.•,.,•,... Project No. L ®u.ox.omla.•.wrnxoao>mmlo....� "�•w.°• x ® Project AUT AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING o ® a..,........�,..,....�.,.,.,...°..,.,.,.. Location wu . vn KENZIE TEKMQ ,(:� / � s � nu.m._,ms�_vv.va.•,m,��v�i..eer.®e®.rep �, .s....,_ m ,.nm...•d__�,.,.,,.....a_.� Client • . `�,\\ J° IoM..,..®e....._ e �,.m......�... LANG NELSON • -� j � '�dt:; �; EXISTING BUILDING FFE=91 7 43 Ad® �,�.�,v.....�o....•m..... Architect BSMT-909 17 i ���_ _ s®v ,o .,,,.,,•,,,. JAY P.NELSON /. �^ ' � �� � � ®�"'�„ 0,�•m"_'.�.v.,m ARCHITECT zr. _ m _ v ram wiu.ow, ao "��; J// � //r��` • `4� 1u � vv.nr.A•w.mwn.w v� s m_ia�n�,v Yi.rn_wviu "�,u.m ,�; r - _ `a.• •--�°-° •'°••°��° CMI Engineer infra 411 _wrrra Certification ��1 � i .0 Y'� t^. tuWa fIW r � .®o�_�.�..._m.o®�,�•.am.,a=.._a�.. �. r.........,.. �P/�� ./'� ^l�� �� 'ym 1?!' .mt°a ,vw•w mw.,s_ ,u®..,o_.��,�v.osv �. _ EAISTING BI,11' FFE=96 ...�.,,...,..,..,,, .,,_.�..., Summary BSMT-9C6 _ _ Revision History � I 1 I � -1 ��l�• Sheet Title j GRADING PLAN �GRADINGKEYNDTES 0— 0— O— O— Sheet No. Revision C2.01 Project No. i Project AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED WING • Location non. KE BE TERRACE ST ANTHONY,—sS w h Client LANG NELSON I I ��I �.nme.,_.m•. EuSTlru; EUILDIrIC. + FFE=917 3.', HMT=906 17 Architect JAY P.NELSON i ,•�- 4 _ `- ARCHITECT Ma.w.+w Civil Engineer vnfra AY ,'- �R.m•B � � a ter" UAL 922 EXISTI1,I6 EUI FFE=91u Summary E_ (Oii `MT=dd„•P _ ��'-' �•l'J hn •� N/ �l I❑ W LL�l Revision History ti.- r.smw ,r•r,w. ur,N., �1 NKroln sc..,c nK,.°. I i,sc,u,[/ r I .rrr mem seeKm/A,.aa C vee1�ti �� v< 1 SE I —GRADING REY NOTES Sheet Title ^+a•�••^�•�•�•�-• E 0-1— :,•�- SITE PAVING, Im m ..m.� ”"m �.mm.m...m•,. .....na�. SPOT ELEV. & p,..s-..,em.�e. - \ •�m..n...nn•.�. .n..�m,,...r..e�. .. -+ems-y d.m_ KENZIETERR. PARKING PLAN t o. m.m,.w .. . ,,.MWS � -• -Wo:� s-----_.m I`' r _ �,,,,,, ^' .°� Sheet No.//Revision 1 •a�Fl\�Orm.w.r•nmw evarv°nwann 0u rcmw.m.no .www.eeessnv.me.nmwn 02.02 3 PAVEMENT SECTIONS re 2 TYPICAL PARKING LANE SECTION ON KENLE TERRACE CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER Protect No. o e o Project ''�mb].eNa aia•a,m ��� AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED WING Location x TH - % �i����;��ro(•mm pm wsn �q _� P,ST 9 {a°w 10 ST Sf ANTHONY,RNQ TNOMN 55418 I Client "• I 0 LANG NELSON EXISTING EUILDIN, FFE=917R,Tj �SEOUENCE OE CONsTRucnON E=MT=90817 ,,,,, Architect JAY NELSON �pmma ,nP�mme..e mr..iw ARCHITECT ,� .• '=-� _ ___ N Civil Engineer infra 4 6 • ` ' � � � � •._- \ ,%' �GEN�RAI[ONSTIIUCRON NOTESY so,av�.s.We�Pwvn Arr %:' i ' � PR01'040 RAOwG � St'f tw1°Oi `� 'I,Pn Guu.or.o.nn Pun�.nm rom�muPw rP,w+m Pl,m u,in« NeeR.�W � LORx IC.fL 91] ! I i n�pP,e•mn Pn �p�i�wY� •F"� � >v b• ' a ro..in.,P.n.�.....,.r..no.n,,,.w«�.mP..�.P ..v.....°n w....�...,P...e.. r' ^� - S' "S• �° �;Y k� I`...mPnu.vc, or.mm,w.o.mn.a.m.am�moeummmm,LT,o. Certffl !on — % E�,ISTING EUI>mn. P, ..nP® FFE=) Sum 16 o . :� o nProP. P..e..a� .P =mar!— //ikw Y n.. '=GiT.. "P?'-i !.�,'�f)2 _ .- _ _ _ \. ESMT=906GENE.NOTES�� •i7r _---- -- ~_—____.��_ _ "' r��1 \ �i o.m.,mn.�o°..rn.woi.o,mn°..nwc Revision History rr READY MIX CONCRETE TRUCK AND BATCH PIANT WASH-OUT WATER= w.uenwuerwr°wnam..o.,omws�.mow.rPnmuwa QJ�i(loy� ..L �' I CONTRACTOR IF7-„ S.,P..i.........iT�nP.......�..P.L,,,m S� I L;'„[• - ..T.n.n.nn.n«.n°.Nn , i I I ] KEY NOTES =AREA sUMMAIITINACRES e .' ”'P'"n"n`n®•mnonPP°'°'nmmm.n°.w.. Lro Sheet Title I wn®on m�e�nuom°gmm®nn�n ®.n uu pass.au p SOILEROSN)N/SEDIMENTAT]ONCONTROLOPERATIONTIMESCREDULE EROSION& — j0 Pn mnsmurnonsmuDa Nro ssr Nnv xc Na N SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN p.�n.®.nwm,W.o,wcmnuwm.woan mn �RosION CONTROL MATERuus ouANrlrlEs= p mRm«Nn.N,o,.uuane nnmmnwTnnNi,].P PT.i Sheet No. Revision C3.01 P WI roR cnrrm.ROR Ox 4ErvFW mrtnwcmn io[PpLEIF i.N£wt«,M°SrtOnC°eo,ER lwfDPE L Project N0. Project AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING EROSION&SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES&DETAILS/"SITE MAP'• Location t;.iu,n.e St.Anthony I\ KENZIE TERRACE ST.ANTHONY,MN 55418 L'. N Client ,w ruxcrme cvnvA,.w,swu unr ro,rx�nrtux,urv, },u..mm,nw:xspc,rn,ry xuxrzx ce •iiwx.x.x�i.,.,.....,,.... •'•'»•�'•°'••••• �", P( M � V O` V ^.? .a<,�,o-.a,.....xae..ma., ..,.�• .w. ..,,„<a,,..,o,,:,,,,.,.w,,.,,w, w_._..•..,.._w.. i .,.. J� i T ilt . J LANG NELSON ,o.w..,... •• - N nswc SITE .w..R,.,...m..,.w,_.,....",,.,,,.x»"...,,,,.,w,. vw..,x,..,M.,M.,..,.�,.�, .....:....,. ...x.,x.,..•..W..,.,. 1.4e `SITE wWw.....,,,.....,,.:,..,...,....,o..,.,,.,.. ...:•.......Mx....,x,..,,...<m.,,.::.x.w, .<.d.,,m:,•:..,xw.... .........:». aq� — �,_ 1 ✓ _ Architect J JAY P.NELSON v,•.,_.<,...x .,.,.,w„m.,., w.,.•w.,•.,..,,•,.••®w.x...._,...- sem .¢.. -- - ARCHITECT w.u..,".•ww<n..w,v....wx...x.o.:."w:•<,•• ••,• ••••n,•,•••x.:..,w...x,,.,x...:.:,....:w:. ",..,�v,f.rt...w:.e..o::.:w...nwn.<....,.,..x �s_SITE LOCATION MAP io�U5G5 MAPMn.,•wx...xe.sox _ _ _ ,...."..:x..w:„.x,.,•..w,,,:„ ••,••„^^•..^-^,•� Civil Engineer ww.,,.w�»,.xwx.�.�.” ,x ....x_ ..�...��:•._.:�w.,.._...m_.e...,,... �� �u,...,x�w� ,.�.._. �„�. � .�,�w�._,,.<��„�.s.,. Amf ..F....�.� «.wx_:, ,<,_.w:«,,,...xw.,:.,»....x...,.,>,. x,,.»•..w�.,..,� ,,..,m..•...,...,.::..�.. x,w..,a,.n,�,,, �,�4„<. Certification..x,x.,....n...px. ,Y .. .x ... 77 nr:-.�..r.:,. ._,.ww,w..•..,,, ..,...w ,�.._,o..,,.,,wx.xwx,.,.,.,..,.. _ ,,,, lem.ecm,�,�wn, � ,,..., i :.,n.ur...,rc.uaw�iq. .v,..,,,wimx.,..�.wx„ .,u,urtxor.e,._._._„_,..,,.,,..•».x,.»._. .gar ao+x., .:...,.,.:,.:...,:.,,•.:�...• FABRIC SILTATION FENCE .,x...,.:,:x,,..:..•.:,......•:....,..x..„,,,..:_,...,,. w_.o,...x.:..,,.-u...uv.w....,.�.....,.:•.,.,.....,,w,.. :...x,.x,..e,.wn.,.ww_..::.,,.,u...,n.x, ....ter..... :,,:«..,..:x<,A x,.,.w,. �„�.b.,.,x,x,:a.,..,,, ..,.....,_:,�::..,,.:.,xx.w.,..,..., x.. .....�,:..,...,. R,d� �• $� Summary S �l,�raxms :,,..w,xa,..,,....•:_.,:,::,,.....,••.x•,_•:.•,.....,::. .,....,,.,.<,,..x.,,,..,..W�..,...:x,x..w,...w,.,,,x.,. ,,..,.:w,..:.,.,.....,:w.,.,,.<,x.x,... _...... •>x, ---�_.. Revision History ,....�,,.,.�.., ..e:..,w.,.,4,,..:o_x.,.x.s.,,.. � .,.�,.w.a�,,.�w,,.:.xx�...,,.<,..n,. ,.,a.w:o_.,„...,,, .:_..•.,.,:.,,.» v_., �t�Qv .:,x..,.o„w,...,w..,.,,.w,»°.,,..,w ,..,a.,x... � � W,......,...,_,,.p.,..,,.�:..•„sp�..” ..,,.xm:<odw,...�:�,...�, �\���EP TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION S(L,QS ,,.,.•,.x,.,ioo,_:_�...w:,..wx.,, ,. ,. ENTRANCEIEXIT i :�,.a...,.._.,_w:•,.,,.,x.,. _ _. Sheet Title H EROSION& SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES& DETAILS _ Md .„u0„< `➢,.�.n o,oM <a„ Sheet No. Revision — -�'� CATCH BASIN INLET PROTECPON OETAIL 1P o u .O f Project No. Project AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING Location KENZIE TERRACE ST NIfNOw.MN S"18 Client _zz LANG NELSON UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES Architect JAY P.NELSON ARCHITECT I T, Civil Engineer infra 6 Z Certification OF Summary Revision History 1 0 aIJTUTVKEY NOTES (D Sheet Title SANITARY SEWER AND WATER SERVICE PLAN Sheet No. Revision KENZIE TERRACE RESTORATION PWNG SECTIONS C4.01 Project No. y' ® Protect AUTUMN WOODS aRTH ASSISTED LIVING Location /S KDOE TERRACE ST ANTHONY.MN 551]R Client �eumcomTNucnON NOTES LANG NELSON EXISTING BUILDING m�p���®ro�TM�•m� FFE=�17?3 B;M T=905 17 Architect JAY P.NELSON ARCHITECT '/'F � r 4�m�.,o •\ - ---- _ ,�,,,. ..,an�,.w.,Qa.m..am.aw,«.,m w...rtm,.,.,e..mn.. Civil Engineer uN .. . infra /� � LfW51 LOOP 9]J� / �I u.vn,ro,ww.mmmu•®ara nmsamo.vnwiv„w OYA.N1� ��I' \\`�- � � y I ® .,IwI wvlNrtV n¢m,xofuvu nnluARum,m v Certification \� lL/ '1 4 ®�� � w,..ul..�.....n�v.u..wn.....,on wl:.m.mu,m.l..,a wu. �• ......�.�... v.,... i_r--- E STINT, BLIT n l �I.N..N,r111v.,1.......a,. .' -�'1 ,.,, x1y`�• .a+11.:-.--lam. FFE=915 "I m�.ne,..,b,.11.,..mrt,rt Summary tts �` ::s���s•+�,7Y.R;.ink,"�..�..-� - -�,--,�r�„_,-„��-„:�,.Ax--._ -” \ 55M T=906 .,.mm...w.IL -..-- - -x• ':; i--- w«<..........,...a..�a..v,..,,.,,.�.o...,......... Revision History ED \ e..rnl.. LL��I I � I I � •�\ '11 \ �4 I I tm�,KEY NQrEt Sheet Title 1 p..N.,1 ....,�. SI�,N:1YVFRSiRttiTU :�,,,, STORM SEWER I ,ro _ o uw .,I,wou• � PLAN (INCOMPLETE) Sheet No. Revision ° C5.01 y - Project No. t Project AUTUMNWOODS ASSISTED LIVING a ����- ..a....® �••,•• Location KENZIE CE �i.�.,ua u.� • ,.x.�,. a..... a y .®..�n a.a.� ST ANTi40�Y N 55412 Client ELhijan LANG NELSON TF Architect JAY P.NELSON ARCHITECT a,.o T.m Wmq Ymom. Be,]CONCRETE SAI Ifr� �A1 Ifr� CONCRETE MASONRY BLOM infra TRASH aN,� Wfra ��gC2a genfra op W2B AO ID mm . COHOST,s0E\IALN OETAA a. RET—G WALL CATCH BAS01 CASMC ASMOLY Civil Engineer infra �... .. ....®,,.. �, .�...�..., �' �.� Certlflcatlon .T" Summary Revlslon 24'X 38'CATCH BASIN infra , CATC,BASK YN2,OErs�-PI Ifra p STORM SEPEA YA,O,OE �{SI Ifra p 7Y DIAMETER CATCH BAS. fra A ,Y OSA IS DETAL BAR Rfra —� -- -- — -PR R — —� History M If= m4r =1 Sheet Title CIVIL DETAILS Sheet No. Revision C6.01 R (Ofp/ STANDARD SNIITMY Rnfra .W~o s..1 O,OOIN"G �Y -Anfra TYPIGL YA1pi4NH OLWmRG�A nfra p Ci11E V.WSN1ATTµR10 �{Jnfra ppm. OACAN LLAMM -Anfra Project No. 1 rmnpYwt 91EN YANHOE __- �- -�� i AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING Kenzie Terrace St.Anthony,MN PRELMU NARY Alt" i � ONLY 5-12-2011 rl t north Site R � Plan A JAY P. NELSON AR H Site Plan (.scale) 612—812—4628 7601 P'AYZ.VA 00 TLEVMD, 6UREI50 ST, ,P.MF-w 36!?6 •f ............ ... AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING Kerne Terrace St.Anthony,MN PRELDMNARY ONLY 8-12-2011 • ill! 't of II IS , 19 ., North Elevation t�sa►e► Building Elevations JAY P. NELSON .R a' I� . . ,. 1c o !! u ® ■ die. , . o � 612-812-46x8 East Elevation (.w.) 6m q'.U'L1TA aON EV.0 D. s xsa ST.TANS P.W I:.Sail 5 5 t16 AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING Kenzie Teff ce St.Anthony,MN PRELUd NARY _ 1, Q to -- - ONLY 5-12-2011 go IN 11 IN IN 11 on 7 iF■ r� 4- P -- ■ -- - �r p f r-■■ 1 !! a!! : �I !� .■H L■ !! South Elevation Building Elevations �w JAY P. NELSON 11111! If Um if :- ■m III In on !! ■! IN ^i•RcCn~ I T E C'T 1 n !IL!11 1 !ISI! ------• !! West Elevation (..wo 612—812—4628 1601 WAVZATAW EVAXD. SLRTE�f a ST IANS PARI:,AM.SSA 26 AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING Kenzie Terrace St.Anthony,MN PREL AINARY ONLY 8-12 2011 4 1v HIM L .ii s3!' Building Image JAY P. NELSON A R G Fi i T E r. T Image Looking Southwest 612-812-4628 ?Sal WAYL\TA 80MEY'ARD. sum_'1. ST.LONS512 6 •r$i•ry �......v,�..�..A AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING Kenme Terrace St.Anthony,MN PRELDAINARY ONLY 8-12-2011 get" �1 foil Building Image ��� � _ �1 $� JAY P. NELSON i 1 3 Image looking northeast 612—812—4628 MI W.AYZATAaULR-D.. SIIfTE 1 S P Sr I.nU3 PARI:�aJ 55�?6 AUTUMN WOODS ASSISTED LIVING Kenzie Terrace St.Anthony,MN PRELIMINARY ONLY 8-12-2011 Joni �- - moi► Building Image t_ JAY P. NELSON --.. -- - - A N C H I T E C l Image looking northwest 612—812—4628 1.1 P'.\YLATA aOl'LEVA0.U, SINES SU ST LONSPAIO;.MN SSJ!S UNIT SGNEOULE AsWMd LMM of e --------....--- "I ..—'�-�J___— TTT JAY F.NgMN w`wru�".. a m� I dN•'� '\ _ I , �_ lot. / G Fft. '3�,IpI NORTH w. PPOLMMUM _ .. ^,xrt vux ♦- SITE PLAN Is09 LrPirw ,� S •�C OW.1I - - - WWI'r �r�nwEcryw AREA IMAGE-(NO SCN.EI rA1 Nnauu.� -_ AuUann Woods Asdslsd UvbV r+rr..r --- V spun OFF. '. SPA MECHANICAL l FnEss rARF RriCE /ELECTRICAL J (ABBY MECH w CORRIDOR LASH ' .I/ uNEXC"v"TEB,----- ---- 1AYl.NBIAON Couw"r �i ROOIa I EiEV.� � F ELEV �oeer I SIMA E m S70flA0E - I 1 o - I I "v p� MAWTENANCE PRI:UMwMY ONLY LOWER NORTH LEVEL oer+v 2011 r mx JRN .�BweBu�a 3 5 b 7 9 10 11 2 13AUW{ M Woods - - - - _- -- ---- -- --- ------ -- — ArhbdUvwq F1 I ASSIST rtrt LNNG ICI- p -- LIVING/ - - oFF ,:aNF (j-� I �.OtF pRrN. ` DINING SUITE 2 �3 41 _ ,0q1 �yp�49� 66 AREA - UITE SUITE SUITE" �- -- ACTIVITIES` I PROTECTED N OUTDOOR PATIO ',ISS t1_ SS 21 IS" (SS-3) r- p�11 OFF Oi I OOI.�F LJ' i JAY P.NM"N .w - a SPAS , SS-31 (33'1 (SS I) -.. i '1 - 138 21 (Ss 2)) I T VOLTAGE MAIL ,STAM 10 9 8 - 7_ 6 5 PARLOR SUITE SUITE i SUITE SUITE, SUIT SUITE lELEV. sioRE VEST. Loe - _ THEATER 1 - a STREEI ARCADE �. ' aRANo _ _- POR FIRE ACCESS J i PATIO _ LANE/WALK PATH ` 8 PARLOR {_- - I� `` ouN Tv RGGrA�d _ qq I vu; U9 AREA - - t PRIVATE--{- - '•- I f^'T y' oINNoA_I_ � OR WCI9JOooIC LINE �- PREIUMNARY aaY KITCHEN LEVEL ONE - NORTH ro:m 0A',2/20„ .TPN . Ax+ ., ,= A3 — 1=1 mn Woods--1 stedLiving J (N1)BR ! �I�T µ� / 5 9t�7 8p l ( [� BSB < 1 §9 - 1 BR.IB I.4 2� � ' � °na rD10 SBTIUDIO SBTIUDI , _ n I 31 4©(1)BR - t6t� _ - IBiBRF _. (IB)BR , Stair ILJM.tB t.101 - r __ __ -- -_- S� RLW& O I a'-20„B RM. PARLOR, I j JAY T.MESON AKC Mt..:..CT `-R, ,IAWp1Y I � I (B 1-9) (01.7) 17 \R STUDIO Sm. i 1 10 11311 Ina iII M i BE�U7A'�� 0❑ I T i6J Jl111w L1)BR.2.-7 I I mo I ❑ YI 12� FSI (1)(311. IB 112) © J1 F-f14 <".•(1)811. ®6*1t - _ 137 PRELMNMY M . -��' -�)BR. ONLY LEVEL TWO NORTH 0016 t`t1'/y �IPrt r xr+ E6t 3 A4 Autumn Woods Assisted Living I 113 13 r cl 013 C' l 6)t ,• r Bo� 6R7 r�7 STUDIO STUDI STUD 1s) 162) - (91) R+) BR .._. .. 3 .vs i ( R l I x'22 -._ _ _ __.__ _ ... .___.. _._.._ _. _ __- AtAOO) U _ (')B'Y� e1 ,9 ''A'STUDI 21 m9 ' T R PARLOR •_,_ ^,420 o e L(t)BR. ,•.(1)BR.�-� __�(1)BR' ` — _ - _ uLrvoRr eve JAY R.NUMN (6191 (91 ,Q TU;3) OR. c, , 1 ' ® S31 (� LOBBY'-�I<' - 10 , T; r� (1)BR.• I •_y,L 117 (,)6R. r3 (B 1.1 161-x1 I �3 I tel U15 ®® 0) re++) M, p �" p (B%121�'F I �T-,G"A i 1C ` (t)BR- P11:1113impa" .) ONLY LEVEL THREE NORTFI ro:,s BW 12/2011 AN tAsa i Autumn Woods Assisted Uv" t 613 E3 TUDIO S' gl BR A r Ia,) (81-7{�3{) a R. (1)BR. � _ :1 _ _., -a•IJ F�'4-_'�� (014 Stair I1 )B (I - - - _-._ _-_.____- _ _. _._' __.____— A'STUDIO 0 '. -TUB,' 7.T RM.,, PAPIMl e :(1)BR.� JAYLNRtON (B 1.1) 101-71 (81-7) .. C.3 1.1 -1$ -MEI.K rl1 / STUDIO r STOR. i LV r�I (Sit C;, .CCCCLLL111((g,, 0 14 ED o wl, (I)SR. r to -- (61 ILI � I �18RI I I o I Stair •y r � ,I� 10' 012 (?IBR• C3 (1)BR.f-7 .I ���C3 la a,2) "F gAa I s.r.. © ATne 1-S•1 i PRELIMINARY ONLY LEVEL . FOUR OW 1Z 1011 JiM AuWmn W.. I Am ided LMM F � II I I .'{ - •• JAY F.NELSON ED I / WtEUMWMY ONLY ROOF PLAN / NORTH • JR • JPN 3 L Autumn Wood. i AWotad Living 88 F1111 -v .oY r Jim N JAY T.MUM NJRp EI.EV"TION IA.eNIW.'1"SFT - u.coxrw JDpT iA'PRLWr e¢L.SILL—W w.rlRrAeL! - ' y�iew�oon wsllLwe eoLrnl.I .RANPp AeNLM[DOLOR.I-D'AGLENT e-SIDStl6 ><rvleea PApT oven,.w.vaE-'wllL- �e.s Nmn cWdr rRn+-DmR sumo As a«D�AND Reooun K.PieeR GlMNr PAecIA Ano PlRPaRATm aoPFlr PANtL s SA- ASMµT SNpeLES �� 6A�.MtTAI GORNILL'A.p OR GAP PlA5Np6 - A.MTM.NlWAMIGAL LOU'/W �c 'Q I. _ x.aaNw�ITµuoN s-s•NieN PdclNe I �M�.;t` PRe rNeltRAi eRea.spoons t•t--1 Y' if m' t __ .'• '� 'e l..L= �nelDomSNHO�TNd eRewN aLIDINe W�p>uN1m OV6lNlAa eI.RMI WOR ONLY* ,!•' _� _ - ! - - _ — `_ — !.ATRO RLMOOn BUILDING ELEVATIONS - Illu`E.cecc'R,.iM nouNrcy PpTURe r HH:fe ow,vzo„ .—_.s.o..—.--".—.. ._._ ._.. —7 uH.ronae GIOGN sN X.ROOP ptAWEi tFi/.TVTI FNbTNE_FRTN6 � ATTHE N66 FOR AT THE I�DINb AND TO r1{J NHduW� VR¢TFY EYTENT OF BL I iITNb NATF-RTAI 4 Autumn Woods Assisted Llving e fig --- - E, JAY P.NiLiON ".u..`.."T uc T rt[N1eIM ELEVATION IA.IRIGI[1 u.LONrROL�oINT ]A.PRGU3T EILL.SILL WYItY. _ YLYTCRTAlL! i _ Y.•RANLVM ASIIAR COLOR.� ----------------- ES _—_—_—_---_—___— ®PAINT OVER'xN[DR-PNiEL' -.....e.—_ \ --� �!T•—�' �6.e'PIDGR LGM61T TRIM-OTx6l wIOfM3 LJ_J4 No— ISE / --��, A5 9xON1 NO RGOVIR[9. i _ —-—'°'-"Yr'.$E�f-"9 ��ANP ce+ar�Ascu Ano PERGORAree �! •L'C �1 Y•—��-. . �.MITAL wEGMN4f/L LON/Ol —,d ee.PORw RAS ^ f: OG•ORxMxarwl Na......1. �• B Y' s1 C i�r<o eo.aRxN.arwL naxax PGNcNe ._ J:.— — � - 1 i�BS eG.e'NIex SLRHH PGMCa6 ue PRGPDII5NE0 TNERwAL WEAN WINOOHe �.xOL{ON METAL DOOR-bLAZINe AMD PRELIMNARY �.�,..m,.�.._._._.... s...--- —_—._._.—..._..._..�.s..�.�.e_e.._�.�._e. .�._ �""6�-6i '.IccEiRlexGGn+i xi Tl�w�a.eiuR nLmlNe ONLY v:NS—_ °"RA6E 0000 BUILDING K•wTTIC.TIIIpOR o sT� ELEVATIONS ton."raL ROLLAw RRrw. rote o9'tv2ott .pffdRATIVE WAl1 MOVNTlO PI%TIIILG • JPN SEE OSYIL EN62NEERIN6 PN DRAWIN 65 FOR ALL bRADEA a"•P�ctE--- AT THE PLRLDINA AND TO u9•T— VERIFY EXTENT OF RI DINA 1]C•ROOP eRwlKf:r �E/•E NATER2ALS. HVy Aa YIloMEe� LANDSCAPE NOTES 8 DETAILS _ ptono.Poem 1-1—Nom Autumn _ e a... mr_..... .X.._...w. Woods IIQ rte• _��' ..m.ws.,.�wr°+N ,..m.m,.._r.-,_.,..®.rr.•-.+„_.+ Senior Llving r, r✓,,.. I — � — .rm...s..,er.......�..._s.�,.m.,M'..w."`.._'-°'":�."..` �r.,o &&NLRAL MULCH MAINTENANCE STRIP «— _— _ _ .,.,......+,.....,.- X.N.w__X.,,...,....ti...�....•Fa._... SHRUBPLANING-SECTION CONIFEROUS TRE .iC' �ZL���1.1+� •—•— ,•+n m.m..err..._s.._...w r.�_._r -'�•i a a.rr—^r r..w�...w...—=w ems err'�r•a.r r Calyx Design Group,llc DUU P G-SECTION / � -/'` �..�..,,..r..�.N+NF..�•.rm.w..�r .. uua.s.ae ev— BEFBINrtNO��iXE OENEnK�/,F i. B�,°iY'� �cr� .,.. �� \1� .1 _,_�"'"' w�.....w..,.m,m...«+..w..w..n..o......a_...,.._.,.+_,.,....m...... ae•E Fon / /,'�,�`P✓f. COI. 'a� �,:� � '.:.o:"..�:e"���.�w.:�.w m.�"��.,"".o.,.'��isre.,. �ornowE�neora.oF nuc�..Nr�s /. I � /`V��' _, � '��i��lc�rr� ^ /i�.\` i ,C �i�• w..rr`.`w`..,:.�..,.e'°�...�.�.��.,n:.mom.,..n..m`w".w.�'.w:.a�,�" consiwxno,.FwocEaq PROP178ED38UI ' � / -� .. '•- �,i°"- ''-r-';�4?V�11_�L' ` Preliminary �, '' // `$I> •-h';t.; Landscape Plan / ,• / - '� .=/.. / / / - r gym, off. N,F,.. 11-110 fi SEPT 2011 BDH ___ _ ___ .ry, _r,> - >.r}.-�•. ._ - a.n.a er BDH EZI L1%��ium•�. I I' ara anrX MEMORY GARDEN AREA SITE PLAN STAFF REPORT To: Chair and Planning Commissioners From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager 'V" Date: September 20,2011 Subject: 3701 Chandler Drive—Variance to Front Yard Setback Requested Action: Concept Review Date Application Received: N/A Property Address: 3701 Chandler Drive Zoning District: R-4 60-Day Expires: N/A Waiver Letter Required: Yes Date Sent: No Future Action: Public Hearing Background. Staff met with Mr. Alan Plutowski,Trossen Wright Plutowski Architects, PA, to discuss a renovation project at Chandler Place. The property owners are proposing to construct a porte cochere to provide a canopy over the drop-off area at the main entrance to the facility for the safety and convenience of the residents and visitors. Because the building is built up to the property line, the property owners are considering seeking a variance in order to move forward with this proposal. The City Code states that the front yard setback for an R-4 principal structure is 30' from the property line. Staff reviewed the property file and found that Chandler Place was built in 1966, ten years before the City codified its Zoning Ordinance. Since there were no regulations in place to prevent the owners at the time from building at the property line,the current owners have a practical difficulty if they want to build a porte cochere and are required to seek a variance for their project. Staff has checked with the Fire Department for their comments. Attachments. • Email from Mr. Plutowski • Existing and Proposed Site Plan • Rendering of the Main Entrance • Photos of the Current Main Entrance FAPlanning\Staff Reports\2011\09202011 3701 Chandler Dr front yard setback variance concept stf rpt.dotm09202011 3701 Chandler Dr front yard setback variance concept stf rpt.dotm Kim Moore-Sykes From: Alan Plutowski <aplutowski@twparchitects.com> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2011 12:38 PM To: Kim Moore-Sykes Cc: mfisher@thegoodmangroup.com; Burt Elmer Subject: Chandler Place Attachments: Chandler1.pdf; Chandler2.pdf Kim: Attached are existing photos and drawings for the proposed porte cochere we discussed last week. I am submitting these for the concept review meeting next week. It is the owners intent to provide a protected drop off canopy at the main entry for the safety and convenience of the residents. The canopy is proposed to be built within the 30' setback area as the building is built to the setback line. Please confirm that this concept can be reviewed and if there are any other items that are needed for the meeting. Best regards Alan J. Plutowski, AIA Trossen Wright Plutowski Architects, PA 4125 Lakeland Avenue N. Ste. 200 Minneapolis, MN 55422 763-533-7171 x15 aplutowski@twparchitects.com i r i i i SETBACK i 5'-(o' R 29'-6' R it'-m -0' �4'-0� i 29'-6' R i t 30' R i e CHANDLER PLACE SENIOR HOUSING 0 5 15 30 60 NORTH EXISTING SITE PLAN TROSSEN WRIGHT PLUIUWMU P.A. r I I I I SETBACK I I 7V—V[5 0120'—Oa 5'-0' IS'I 24' v N N 24' 4.: ' 6'-9' I 2'1'-6' R 7'-6'i R i If I 30' R I I CHANDLER PLACE SENIOR HOUSING 0 5 15 30 60 NORTH PROPOSED SITE PLAN TRQ6SEN wkidw PLurov d PA Y Li Ulu -E •-o.� .. rte :, _ . Qj CHANDLER NAM SENIOR HOUSING 01 2 4 a �6 PROPOSED SITE PLAN - OPTION 'B' TR06SEN WRIGHT PLUIXWVMaEAii -P-A- • , .,,, ziza 1 �ilia \ 1 ` a t�� � ' � r r � 3i �ti(. s . �; �l�fir; �;. � �' .. ., ;� 1�' yam'. �'� :. ,.: - r.� Y M S"