Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-6-13-PC1245 W Highway 96 Clayton Larson -- Andy Holewa Sam Scott Roberta Thompson www.cityofardenhills.org Vacant Janet Stodola (Alternate) Dave McClung Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well- infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long-standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 2.A.Draft September 5, 2012 Meeting Minutes Documents: DRAFT MINUTES.PDF 2.B.Draft October 3, 2012 Meeting Minutes Documents: DRAFT MINUTES.PDF Meeting Minutes Documents: DRAFT MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES 3.A.001; 1455 Skiles Lane; Variance Request Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.A.Resilient Communities Project Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS 5.A.Report From The City Council Documents: REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Vice Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Vice Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Angela Hames, Andrew Holewa, Samuel Scott, Clayton Zimmerman and Janet Stodola (arrived at 6:32 p.m.) Absent: Chair Clayton Larson Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman; Community Development Intern Matt Horton, Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher, Councilmember Fran Holmes; and Recording Secretary Debbie Wolfe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 5, 2012 Vice Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.August 8, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman noted on page one of the minutes, last paragraph, first line, the word “that” should be added between “reviewed” and “the”. Councilmember Holmes noted on page three, fourth paragraph, second sentence, add the word “substantially” between “are” and “the same”. Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the August 8, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting as corrected. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Commissioner Stodola arrived at the meeting at 6:32 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 5, 2012 2 B.August 8, 2012 - Planning Commission Work Session Meeting Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Hames, to approve the August 8, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 12-014 – Zoning Code Amendment; City of Arden Hills; Multi- family Dwelling Units Additional Conditional Use Permit Criteria – Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the Planning Commission is requested to consider approval of Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated at their June 25, 2012, regular meeting the City Council approved a city-wide moratorium on multi-family dwelling units while the City conducts a zoning study to look at possible design standards. While the moratorium can last up to one year, the Council directed Staff to move forward quickly and bring forward any proposed zoning code amendments as soon as possible. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that at their July 11, 2012, work session, the Planning Commission reviewed the scope of work for the design standards study and provided direction to Staff on high priority items. Based on that discussion, recommendations from the League of Minnesota Cities, and a review of other communities’ codes; Staff prepared draft regulations of design standards for multi-family dwellings. The draft was presented to the Planning Commission at their August 8, 2012, work session. The Planning Commission provided further direction on a number of items, including special requirements for senior housing and the participation of multi- family housing in the City’s rental registration program. Staff then revised the draft regulations and presented them to the City Council at their August 20, 2012, work session meeting. The Council provided additional direction and revisions and directed Staff to move forward with a public hearing and Planning Commission review. In addition, Staff sent the draft regulations to identified stakeholders in the community, seeking comments. Representatives of TAT Properties and Arden Village submitted comments on the draft regulations. These comments were provided to the Planning Commission. Based on comments received by stakeholders and the City Council, Staff has revised the draft regulations and is now seeking Planning Commission review and a recommendation on the proposed ordinance amendments. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the proposed regulations include: Revising the review process for multi-family housing; allowing it through a conditional use permit process, rather than a planned unit development process Adding a definition for enclosed parking Revising the minimum parking requirements for multi-family housing Creating additional conditional use criteria for multi-family dwellings including: Minimum unit sizes of 600 feet o ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 5, 2012 3 Submission of a security plan and lighting plan at the time of development o proposal A requirement that enclosed parking be provided on a per unit basis o A requirement that common areas be provided o Percentage of efficiency apartments allowed within a specific o development Minimum bike parking requirements o Window covering requirements o City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the City Attorney has reviewed the proposed regulations and has no issue with the proposed language of the regulations. City Planner Meagan Beekman offered the following Findings of Fact for the Planning Commission’s consideration: 1.The proposed amendment advances the City’s land use goals because it creates high development standards for multi-family housing that will visually enhance development and promote compatibility with nearby properties and neighborhood character. 2.The proposed amendment advances the City’s implementation strategies identified in the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by developing design standards for multi-family housing, which is a residential land use, that ensure the construction of high quality, sustainable, and aesthetically enhanced developments. 3.The proposed amendment advances the City’s housing goals because it will promote the development of a variety of housing opportunities that are suitable for a mix of ages, incomes, and household types. 4.The proposed amendment advances the City’s implementation strategies identified in the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan by establishing architectural/design guidelines for new multi-family dwelling units. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 12- 014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this planning case will be on the September 24, 2012 City Council meeting agenda. Commissioner Stodola asked for clarification whether senior housing would fall under the zoning changes while nursing homes and assisted living would not. City Planner Meagan Beekman confirmed she was correct. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if this would apply to new construction and City Planner Meagan Beekman stated it would as any new construction would need to adhere to these standards. Vice Chair Thompson asked about the security plan. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department has a program for security of multi- family housing. The Sheriff’s Department would review the construction plans and suggest a security plan for the project. Vice Chair Thompson asked if the Sheriff’s ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 5, 2012 4 Department can be contacted prior to construction for guidance and City Planner Meagan Beekman stated they can. Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 6:41pm. Mr. Rob Davidson owns 1201 County Road E (former Holiday Inn) stated he is against the proposed new language. He stated the new proposed language would prevent them from converting their property into apartments. He stated Arden Hills is doing everything they can to prevent their property from being developed into apartments. Mr. Davidson stated their plan was denied. He stated the minimum unit size of 600 SF is in conflict with the Building Codes. Mr. Davidson stated this is a targeted change to prevent them from developing their property. All the units would be efficiency apartments. Due to the moratorium their property is of no use to them. Mr. Davidson requested the Commission reject the minimum unit size, and the enclosed parking requirement. Mr. Ed Von Holtum, 1409 Indian Oaks Trail stated he was a member of the Economic Development Commission. He stated when Mr. Davidson proposed the redevelopment project he stated the planned unit sizes were not smaller than other apartments available. He stated if there was a smaller apartment developed for younger people, whose lifestyle would fit into smaller apartment sizes. He believes this is a targeted plan to stop Mr. Davidson’s development. He requested the Commission not approve the revised language. Mr. Stu Nolan, partner of Rob Davidson. He stated he started managing and developing apartments many years ago. He has been involved in the developing of over 10,000 apartments. He has never experienced anything like what he is receiving from the City of Arden Hills. He stated he is insulted and came to the City with a proposal and someone from the City decided they were constructing a “flop house”. These apartments are much safer than a hotel. They would be out of business if they had a bad reputation. In order for someone to rent an apartment, a complete application is completed. It is a very detailed process and thorough checks are run on each application. Criminal, Employment, past rental checks are done. Mr. Nolan asked if the Commission would prefer a hotel. Mr. Nolan does not have a problem with the security plan, lighting plan, registration plan, bicycle parking, window coverings. He stated there are some things in the Ordinance that do make sense. He suggested this Ordinance may be targeting all apartment developers. The City had decided on a unit size contrary to the State mandates. He is opposed to Unit Mix. He has held focus groups and had conversations with many people including the colleges. He asked what it means that common areas need to be approved by the City. He has projects going in many Cities and none of them have any requirements as to what is inside the building. They are proposing a multi- million dollar project in Edina and there is nothing concerning the inside of the building. Common areas would be constructed to fit the profile of the tenants. Mr. Nolan stated the parking area should be determined by the number of bedrooms in the building which determines the number of parking spaces. Generally 1 parking space per bedroom is the norm. The developer is normally required to have some additional parking on site. The underground or attached parking can’t be added to his existing building. Mr. Nolan asked that the portions pertaining to unit size, unit mix, and parking be removed from the proposed zoning code. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 5, 2012 5 Vice Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:06pm. Vice Chair Thompson asked City Planner Meagan Beekman about the State Building Code comment. Ms. Beekman stated the City Attorney reviewed the letter from Mr. Davidson and his position was that the State Building Code states a minimum of 220 sf and a City cannot have a standard less than the State Building Code but can have a higher standard. Commissioner Holewa asked how the City came up with 600 sf minimum unit size. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated staff looked at other Cities (14 in the metro area). The range found from 450 – 650 sf minimum unit size. Commissioner Holewa stated he is not sure he is comfortable with 600 sf. He feels there are many efficiencies less than 600 sf and they are suitable for those looking to rent an efficiency apartment. Commissioner Stodola asked when the last apartment was built. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the last apartment was built in the 1980’s. She stated the moratorium process is allowed in the State. Commissioner Stodola asked if review of this Code at this time is atypical. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated generally the surrounding communities are surveyed and the League of Minnesota Cities is contacted for input. On occasion the scope is broadened nation-wide. Vice Chair Thompson stated when this first came up the Commission did not know where to start. Commissioner Holewa asked for an explanation of the unit mix. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Plymouth and Little Canada were found to have a desire for a mix of unit types within a single building. The City Council directed staff to eliminate independent senior housing and increase the unit mix to 15%. Commissioner Holewa stated he is uncomfortable with the unit size and the unit mix. Commissioner Hames stated she is also uncomfortable with this and feels the City is dictating to developers what they can and can’t do. They are willing to invest money in the community. She stated the unit size is ridiculous and it is not the City’s call to determine unit size. She does not support the revised proposal for Code language. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he concurs with Commissioners Holewa and Hames. He stated the mitigating circumstances are this is an existing building. He would vote against this. Commissioner Hames stated whether it’s new construction or re-development of a building the City should not determine what is inside the walls. Commissioner Stodola stated she misunderstood and thought they were voting for the general Code not for a specific project. Commissioner Hames stated she is against telling any business wanting to come into the City their unit size and unit mix. Commissioner Scott stated he is very happy with staff’s research and recommendation on unit size. He considers the TAT project as new construction. He stated he agrees with staff’s recommendation. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 5, 2012 6 Commissioner Stodola asked if the City has minimum lot size, minimum foundation size and minimum floor ratio. Commissioner Hames stated the City has the right to determine lot size and building size but what is within the building walls is not the City’s concern. Commissioner Scott asked if he had a 10 bedroom house could he rent out bedrooms to others. Commissioner Hames stated if the Zoning Codes and density requirements were met the renting could be done. Vice Chair Thompson stated for the multi-family housing looking at what does the City deem important. She stated the availability of efficiencies within the City is desired. Commissioner Holewa stated the Commission previously agreed to let Northwestern College using the building as housing. Commissioner Hames stated this is a public hearing and our City is very vocal and if residents were opposed to multi-family housing they would be here to voice their opinion. Commissioner Hames moved, lack of second, to not approve Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the Planning Commission unless there are changes made to the Subd. Commissioner Hames withdrew the motion. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Stodola seconded a motion to approve Planning Case 12-014 to add Sections 1305.04 Subd 70 and 1325.045, and to amend Sections 1320.05 and 1325.06 Subd 1.J of the Zoning Code pertaining to Multi-family Dwelling Units in the City, as presented in the September 5, 2012, report to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to amend the previous motion to delete Subd. 1 the minimum unit size from the proposed regulations. Voting in favor were Commissioners Holewa, Hames and Zimmerman. Voting against were Commissioners Stodola, Scott and Thompson. The motion failed (3-3). Commissioner Holewa moved to amend the previous motion to delete Subd.4 and Subd.6 of the proposed regulations. The motion failed due to lack of second. The question was called on the original motion. Voting in favor were Commissioners Stodola, Scott and Thompson. Voting against were Commissioners Holewa, Hames, Zimmerman. The motion failed (3-3). Vice Chair Thompson stated this matter will go forward to the City Council without a Planning Commission recommendation. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 5, 2012 7 None REPORTS A.Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes stated the new website for the City is scheduled to go live on December 7, 2012. She commended Jill Hutmacher on her work on this. At the August 20, 2012 Council Work Session the Council reviewed a tax increment financing policy. The purpose of the policy is to lay out an objective process based on City priorities for reviewing requests for TIF. Councilmember Holmes stated at their August 27, 2012 regular meeting the Council approved 4-0 (Holmes-absent) Planning Case 12-013 for the three variances at 1185 Benton Way. September 15, 2012 is the “Celebrating Arden Hills” fall festival. Events will be held at Tony Schmidt Regional Park (3500 Lake Johanna Boulevard) from 3:00pm until dusk. If residents would be willing to volunteer they should call City Hall. There will be bus tours of TCAAP. There is a brochure in the most recent newsletter and also on the website. You need to sign up for the tours. th The fall community cleanup day will be held on October 6 from 8am-3pm behind the Ramsey County Public Works Facility at 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive. For a small fee, residents may bring items for drop off and recycling. More information about the event can be found on the City’s website. The Council is working on budgeting to keep taxes low and give the residents the services they need. September 27, 2012 Taste of Northwest Youth and Family Service. Cost is $30. B.Planning Commission Comments and Requests Vice Chair Thompson stated volunteers are needed for the fall festival. C.Staff Comments None ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Hames, to adjourn the September 5, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:45 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2012 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Vice Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Vice Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Andrew Holewa, Clayton Zimmerman and Janet Stodola (Alternate) Absent: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Samuel Scott and Angela Hames Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman, Councilmember Fran Holmes, and Recording Secretary Debbie Wolfe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – OCTOBER 3, 2012 Vice Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.September 5, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the September 5, 2012 Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 12-015 – Zoning Code Amendment and CUP; Bartley Blume, Bent Brewstillery; 1160 Red Fox Road – Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the Planning Commission is requested to consider approval of Planning Case 12-015 including a conditional use permit (CUP) for Bent Brewstillery for a micro brewery and micro distillery at 1160 Red Fox Road, as well as, amendments to Sections 1305.04 and 1320.05 of the Zoning Code to allow for the inclusion of microbreweries, micro distilleries and brewpubs as land uses. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 2 City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the City has received a proposal from Bent Brewstillery to obtain a CUP to open a brewery and distillery in a 2,500 square foot bay in the B-4 Zoning District at 1160 Red Fox Road. Bent Brewstillery would like to include a taproom for the consumption of on-sale beer brewed on site, as well as off-sale sales of growlers and 750 ml bottles. The applicant proposes the large retail space and tap room will serve the following purposes: 1.Sell beer growlers (64-oz bottles) and bombers (22-oz bottles) for off-premise consumption as allowed by Minnesota law, 2.Sell pints for on-premise consumption in accordance with the Minnesota Pint Law, 3.Sell spirits for on-premise consumption (when legal) in accordance with Minnesota Law, 4.Sell company swag, 5.Provide free beer (and bourbon when legal) samples, 6.Start and end point for Brewstillery tours, 7.Serve as a gathering spot to discuss beer, bourbon, and other poignant topics of the day. This application includes three distinct requests: 1.Zoning Code Amendment to create three new land uses; micro brewery, micro distillery, and brewpub; and allow the new uses in the B-4 District as Conditional Uses. 2.City Code Amendment to create two new liquor licenses for on and off-sale sales of microbrews brewed on site in a micro brewery. 3.Approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a micro brewery and micro distillery with taproom at 1160 Red Fox Road City Planner Meagan Beekman presented the legal background stating in 2011, the State Legislature amended State Law to allow taprooms in microbreweries in Minnesota. This bill was commonly referred to as the “Surly Bill” and was first proposed by the owner of Surly Brewery. The law allows microbreweries that produce fewer than 250,000 barrels of beer in a year to have a taproom where they can sell beer for on site consumption, which is brewed on site. The law also allows sampling of beer, which is produced on site. State law also allows microbreweries which produce fewer than 3,500 barrels of beer a year to provide off-sale sales of 64 ounce “Growlers” and 750 milliliter bottles; however, off-sale sales of beer by the bottle, case or keg is not permitted by State law. The sale of on and off sale products brewed on site is allowed for microbreweries but not micro distilleries (manufacturers of spirits). Distilleries are allowed by State Statute, but cannot provide on-sale, off-sale, and sales of their products at the location in which the spirits are produced. The spirits must be distributed to another site for on and off sale sales. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 3 Municipal ordinances may be more restrictive than State law in terms of the sale of alcohol. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the proposed land use definitions. Staff was directed at the August 20, 2012 City Council work session, to research amending the zoning code to allow microbreweries and micro distilleries as conditional uses to the maximum extent allowable under state law. These recommendations were brought to the September 5, 2012 planning commission work session where it was recommended to staff that brewpubs also be included as a new, and separate, land use from micro breweries and micro distilleries. Brewpubs are microbreweries that have a restaurant component with on-sale sales of products brewed on site. Brewpubs also provide food and can also serve alcoholic products other than those brewed on site. City Planner Meagan Beekman continued the Planning Commission also discussed allowed prepackaged food to be served on site within a taproom, as opposed to food that is prepared on site. The distinction is important because establishments that have food prepared on site would be considered brewpubs rather than taprooms and have different legal requirements within State Statute. Staff has prepared draft amendments to the zoning code that reflect these recommendations. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed currently Arden Hills Zoning Code allows breweries and distilleries, as well as distributors of alcohol, in zoning districts that allow manufacturing and processing. The draft zoning code amendments create new land uses for microbreweries, micro distilleries and brewpubs. Microbrewery and micro distillery land uses would allow the manufacture and distribution of intoxicating alcohol, as currently allowed by State Statute, in the assigned zoning districts. Microbreweries would also be permitted to have a retail component. A land use for brewpubs would also be created to differentiate microbreweries that do not have a food component and brewpubs that do have a food service component. Applications for micro breweries, micro distilleries and brewpubs would be approved through the conditional use permit process. The application has submitted information addressing their request for a Zoning Code Amendment and CUP. Rather than make adjustments to the existing land uses within the Code, Staff is recommending creating three new land uses that would then be added to appropriate districts throughout the City. The new land uses would be micro-breweries, micro distilleries, and brew pubs. Staff is recommending that micro breweries and micro distilleries be allowed as Conditional Uses in the B-2, B-3, B-4, GB, I-FLEX and MB zoning districts. Staff is also recommending that brewpubs be allowed as Conditional Uses in the B-2, B-3, B-4 and MB zoning districts. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the following CUP criteria would apply to micro breweries, micro distilleries in the B-4 District: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 4 Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit Amendment. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety convenience, and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: 1.Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2.Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3.Drainage; 4.Population density; 5.Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; 6.Park dedications where applicable; and the 7.Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. The following findings assume that the Zoning Code is amended to allow micro breweries and micro distilleries as Conditional Uses in the B-4 District. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 1.The applicant has shared parking agreements with the property to the south, which will mitigate any parking impacts. 2.The proposal will have minimal impacts on noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat liquid, and solid waste. 3.The proposal is not anticipated to have an impact on odors because the State regulates odor emissions and other micro breweries have not adversely affected communities that they are located in. 4.The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. 5.The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. 6.The proposal would not be incompatible with the other buildings in the B-4 Zone. 7.The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 8.The park dedication requirement does not apply in this application. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated no letters, e-mails or telephone calls from property owners or occupants have been received regarding this planning case. Staff Recommendations Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of Planning Case #12-015 for a Zoning Code Amendment and Conditional Use Permit at 1160 Red Fox Road. Staff recommends the following three conditions be included with the approval: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 5 1.The applicant shall abide by all state laws regarding the manufacturing, distribution and sale of alcohol. 2.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 3.Nuisance odors shall be kept in compliance with State Law. Commissioner Holewa asked about the land use chart presented and requested Ms. Beekman go through the zoning areas the micro-breweries would not be allowed. Ms. Beekman stated the City has no land in the I-2 District. The I-1 District is encompassed by Land O’Lakes and Boston Scientific corporate campuses. City Planner Beekman provided the definition of Brew Pubs. Mr. Bartley Blume 3287 Owasko Heights Road, Shoreview appeared before the Commission and explained his plan for craft beers and craft spirits. He would like to be the pioneer in the production of craft spirits. He wants his facility to be a tourist attraction where people would come to visit his business and have tours of the facility. He also plans a taproom where people can relax and have a beer. The on-sale/off-sale license is unique. Only the beers and spirits produced there can be sold there. The hours of operation would be very different from the surrounding businesses and would most likely be 4 – 10 p.m. This is a very high traffic area and he is hoping to get business from the traffic that is already there. There would be no odors.Mr. Blume stated the Blue Fox is possibly concerned about competition but he has spoke with a manager and they are very interested in carrying his line in their bar/restaurant. This business would be a family owned business that would bring tax monies into the City. He feels it would be an advantage to the City. Commissioner Holewa asked when the business would be operational and Mr. Blume stated hopefully by the first of the year with the taproom opening 3-4 months after that. Commissioner Holewa asked about the food requirement. Mr. Blume stated most licenses require with a liquor license food be served that is prepared onsite. Commissioner Holewa asked who signed the memorandum of understanding regarding parking and Mr. Blume stated Roberts Development Co. Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. No one appeared to address the Commission. Vice Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 6:56 p.m. The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on September 11, 2012. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City must act on this request by November 11, 2012 (60 days) unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Vice Chair Thompson asked about the liquor license. City Planner Beekman stated the application for the liquor license will go to the Council at their October 29, 2012 City Council Meeting ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 6 Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to recommend approval of amendments to Sections 1305.04 and 1320.05 of the Zoning Code to allow for the inclusion of micro breweries, micro distilleries, and brewpubs as land uses as presented in the October 3, 2012, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to recommend approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) to allow a micro brewery and micro distillery at 1160 Red Fox Road, based on the findings of fact, as amended by the Conditions of Approval presented in the October 3, 2012, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). This planning case will be on the October 29, 2012, City Council meeting agenda. B.Planning Case 12-016 – Site Plan Review – Fence Standard Adjustment; Paul and Matthew Trites, 1850 Indian Place – Not a Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the applicants are requesting a site plan review to construct a six (6) foot fence within the 40 foot front yard setback on the property located at 1850 Indian Place. The proposed fence would end 12 feet from the front property line on both side lot lines. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the applicants own the residential property and are proposing to construct 56 lineal feet of 6-foot high fence. The fence would be located along the side lot property line with 28 lineal feet on either side of the front yard. The Zoning Code permits three (3) foot high fencing within the front yard setback without commission and council review. The applicant has submitted a letter addressing the reasoning for the application, a plat map of the property, a sketch of the location of the fence and photographs of the site. Staff has also provided an aerial photograph of the site. There are no known variance requests on file for this property. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the lot is irregular in shape. Staff has determined the lot line that fronts the cul-de-sac to be the front yard and the north and west lot lines to be the side yards. In additional to this planning case, the applicants have been issued two separate fence permit applications for 600 feet of six (6) foot high fencing throughout the side and rear yards; which met all requirements of the Zoning Code. The applicants are seeking to extend the approved fence another 28 feet on both side yards; however, this additional fencing will extend into the 40-foot required front yard setback for 6-foot tall fences. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the Zoning Code allows for a property owner to construct a fence that deviates from what the code allows in exceptional and unusual circumstances, if approved through a Site Plan Review. 1325.05 Subd. 4 D.7 states that the “objective of this provision is to improve...” -Livability -Appearance ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 7 -Security City Planner Meagan Beekman offered the following nine findings of fact for review: 1.The height of the fence exceeds the maximum allowable height in the front yard structural setback. 2.A three foot fence is allowed in the proposed location without a site plan review process. 3.The proposed fence will not damage the abutting property. 4.The finished side of the fence will face the adjoining property. 5.The proposal does not improve the livability of the property. 6.The proposal does not improve the appearance of the property, as the proposed fence location is not consistent with other properties in the area. 7.The proposal does not improve the security of the property, as a three-foot fence would effectively provide security for the property. 8.There is a documented history of conflict between the applicant and the adjoining property owners. 9.The proposal will not alleviate the conflict amongst the property owners as there are other remedies available outside of erecting a 6-foot fence in the front yard. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the findings of fact for this Site Plan Review support a recommendation for denial. If the Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation for approval, the findings of fact must be amended to reflect the reasons for the approval. Staff has received comments from four residents. Christine Pulzer called Staff today to speak in favor of the proposal. Commissioner Zimmerman asked about the findings of fact that the fence would not resolve the conflicts with the neighbors. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated staff reviewed this with the City Attorney and there are other remedies available to resolve the conflicts. Commissioner Stodola asked if shrubs or hedges could be planted. City Planner Beekman stated some vegetation could be planted and could grow quite high however if any of the vegetation were to grow on the neighbors property they would have the right to cut the portion on their property. Vice Chair Thompson asked if plantings can be done on the right-of-way. City Planner Beekman stated plantings can be done in the right-of-way; however, it is subject to removal if necessary. Commissioner Holewa verified there are four houses on the cul-de-sac. City Planner Beekman showed the location on the existing fences on the aerial view. Ms. Beekman noted there is a 20 foot easement at the back of the property. Mr. Matt Trites, 1850 Indian Place, stated the northern fence is not placed correctly on the aerial view. It will not connect to anything. The southwest property line fence has a gate. There are two trees planted on the property line, which will not be disturbed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 8 Vice Chair Thompson asked Mr. Trites had any further presentation. Commissioner Stodola asked about the gate and if the entire backyard will be fenced in. Mr. Trites stated it would and would prevent trespassing. Mr. Trites stated the fencing material is the best available. He stated it is a very strong fence and is maintenance free. Separate sections of the fence can be easily replaced if necessary. Vice Chair Thompson called for a 5 minute recess at 7:17 p.m. to give the Commissioners an opportunity to review additional information received recently: Two letters against the variance request from Larry and Becky Erickson, 1860 Indian Place. A letter against the variance request from Steve and Viola Gericke, 1840 W. County Road E. An email against the variance request from Chuck Mertensotto, 3473 Lake Johanna Blvd. A letter from Nathan J. Krogh, Krogh Law Firm, P.A. in support of the variance request. Vice Chair Thompson called the meeting back to order at 7:24 p.m. Commissioner Holewa stated the Commission read through all input and is bound to what the Ordinance states. Vice Chair Thompson stated she agrees with Commissioner Holewa’s comment. The ordinance is in place regarding fences in a front yard for a reason. She stated they want to consistently meet the standards. City Planner Meagan Beekman clarified the 6 foot fence would not go in front of the property just along the sides where there is an existing fence. The applicant could put a three foot fence in front of the property if they desired as the code allows for that. Commissioner Holewa asked about the easement that goes into the landlocked house. 100% of the access to that property is through the easement. Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman to recommend denial of Planning Case 12-016 for a site plan review at 1850 Indian Place to allow a six foot fence within the 40 foot front yard setback, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the October 3, 2012, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). This planning case will be on the October 29, 2012, City Council meeting agenda. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None REPORTS ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 9 A.Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes stated the City Council vote (3-2) to approve Ordinance 2012- 007, in Planning Case 12-014, adopting Zoning regulations regarding multi-family dwelling units with an amendment to lower the minimum amount of required parking spaces for efficiency and one bedroom units from 1.5 to 1.l. The fall community cleanup day will be held on October 6 from 8 a.m.-3 p.m. behind the Ramsey County Public Works Facility. For a small fee residents may bring items for drop off and recycling. The Walgreens is now open. Meetings regarding traffic flow have been held and the final meeting of the B2 District th Corridor will be held on October 8. Vice Chair Thompson requested a copy of the report be provided to the Planning Commission. The intersection of Hamline and County Road F is closed and will be closed for one month for the installation of a traffic signal. Commissioner Holewa asked for an update on the City sign that was to be constructed near Walgreens. Councilmember Holmes stated that would be a gateway sign that was going to be put in the corner of Lexington and County Road E. but it was determined not to be the best place for a sign. The northwest corner may be a better choice but also has some problems. Staff has been directed to look at other options for the location of the sign. Walgreens has contributed funds to pay for the sign. Commissioner Zimmerman suggested the city sign be placed East of the Walgreens sign. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated when discussing with the County it was found there was many underground utilities. B.Planning Commission Comments and Requests Vice Chair Thompson stated the Arden Hills celebration was wonderful. She commended staff on their efforts. The attendance was very good. Commissioner Holewa asked when Walgreens will open and it was noted it is open. Commissioner Holewa asked if the Pulte Development is totally sold. Ms. Beekman stated she believes 5 lots are still available. Commissioner Holewa asked how Johanna Shores development was proceeding. Ms. Beekman stated they are planning to move the residents into the new site. Demolition of the old primary building will happen in stage two with completion of the primary building and landscaping is planned for Spring of 2014. C.Staff Comments None ADJOURN ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – October 3, 2012 10 Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Stodola, to adjourn the September 5, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:45 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION – SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2012 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Angela Hames, Andrew Holewa, Samuel Scott, Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman Absent: Commissioner Janet Stodola (Alternate) Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman, Councilmember Fran Holmes, and Recording Secretary Debbie Wolfe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – NOVEMBER 28, 2012 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 12-019 – Master and Final PUD; TAT Properties, Rob Davidson; 1201 County Road E – Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman provided the background of the Planning Case, the project overview, and the project analysis. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, advances the goals, and principles within the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, and would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. Staff offered the following findings for consideration: General Findings 1.The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing building at 1201 County Road E into a 75-unit multiple-family building, with approximately 20,000 square feet of attached retail. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 28, 2012 2 2.The proposed redevelopment is located in the B2 – General Business District. 3.The proposed use is allowed through a Planned Unit Development process in the B-2 District. 4.The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. 5.The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B2 District that outlines future development principals for the area. 6.The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Code and design standards. 7.The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the Guiding Plan for the B2 District. 8.The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 9.Where the plan is not in conformance with the City’s Zoning Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 10.The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11.The proposal would increase vehicle trips to and from the site by 98 trips per day. The increase is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the mobility of surrounding streets. Staff Recommendations City Planner Meagan Beekman stated staff acknowledges that this site is an important gateway to the B-2 District, and yet remains vacant. Two other development applications have been reviewed by the City and approved in the past two years on this property, both of which did not come to fruition. Further, the City denied a development application earlier in 2012, which requested 120-units of residential with unknown uses for the remainder of the building or a newly created Lot 2. The applicants has made significant changes to their previous proposal, including reducing the number of units, eliminating the subdivision request, and completing the entire building as part of a single phase of construction. Staff understands the frustration of both the City and the developer to find a mutually beneficial and productive reuse of this property. In that vein, if the Planning Commission chooses to approve this application, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1.The applicant shall address all engineering comments, listed in the November 16, 2012 staff comments memo to the applicant, to the satisfaction of the public works department before proceeding to the City Council. 2.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3.Development agreements, drafted by the City Attorney, shall be signed by the property owners prior to the issuance of development permits. 4.The applicant shall provide a roadway and utility easement, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of Ramsey County, prior to the issuance of development permits. 5.The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of the City, prior to the issuance of development permits. 6.The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of the City, prior to the issuance of development permits. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 28, 2012 3 7.The applicant shall meet and negotiate in good faith with the adjacent property owners to the west, and the City, to implement a shared access along the shared property line to the west of 1201 County Road E. 8.If a shared access along the west property line of 1201 County Road E can be negotiated, the applicant agrees to convey up to a 20-foot wide shared access easement along the west property line, and additional easement as may be necessary to accommodate truck turn around movements on the north side of the property. 9.The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits, including, but not limited to, NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, and City Erosion Control Permits. Copies of all necessary permits shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 10.The property owner and property management shall participate in the Crime Free Multi- Family Housing Program. 11.The applicant shall submit a financial surety in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation of the landscaping plan prior to the City issuing any development permits. The City shall retain the financial surety for at least two years after full implementation of the landscaping plan. The surety for at least two years after full implementation of the landscaping by the City Planner, which shall only occur during the growing season. 12.The applicant shall submit a financial surety in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation of the sidewalk along County Road E. prior to the City issuing any development permits. 13.The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the multi-family units within one year of the approval date of the development agreement, or the Master and Final PUD approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Council prior to the PUD approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval’s expiration date. Extension requests must be submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date. 14.All improvements illustrated on the approved plans, as amended by these conditions of approval, shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 15.The security plan shall be implemented by the applicant, and inspected and approved by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 16.The applicant shall comply with the Building Official and Fire Marshall’s comments dated November 20, 2012. 17.Building shall comply with Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems, of the State Building Code, which requires the installation of a fire sprinkler protection system that complies with NFPA 13, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshall. 18.Fire Hydrants shall be located within 150 feet of the Fire Department Connections (FDC) to each building on Lot 1 and Lot 2. 19.Building shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding property maintenance, subject to the approval of the Building Official. 20.The applicant shall consult with the County regarding sidewalk placement to ensure that the sidewalk placement will work with the County Road E and Lexington Avenue intersection’s geometric changes planned for the future. 21.The applicant shall agree to waive their right to appeal future assessments related to the installation of landscaping, street lighting, benches, and other features associated with the 22.County Road E streetscape improvements, in an amount not to exceed $350 per linear foot of County Road E street frontage. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 28, 2012 4 23.The applicant shall provide to the City temporary construction easements for implementing the County Road E streetscape improvements, provided the City repair and replace any disturbances on applicant’s property. Chair Larson asked about the size of the units not meeting the size criteria but staff is still recommending approval. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated there have been a number of discussions with the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding this and minimum standards were desired but there was a general understanding that this is an existing building and should be treated differently than a newly constructed building. The focus was more on the total units rather than the square footage of each unit. Since this is a PUD, flexibility can be granted in this area. Chair Larson stated there is no subdivision on this property. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that was correct. Chair Larson stated he does not see parking as being an issue. Commissioner Holewa asked about the two turn lanes and whether they would be done by the County. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that has not been thoroughly decided. It would be a County program and may be constructed as Phase I improvements on County Road E and the City may be constructing parts of this. Commissioner Holewa questioned where in the staff report was the recommendation for approval noted. Commissioner Holewa also asked about park dedication and confirmed that’s only when a lot is split. Commissioner Holewa also confirmed that the applicant is planning a sidewalk. City Planner Beekman stated that the lack of a recommendation was an oversight in the memo, and that Staff was recommending approval for the Planning Case. She confirmed that the applicant will be constructing a sidewalk on Lexington Avenue and that the applicant would be paying for a sidewalk on County Road E, but that the City would construct the sidewalk when the County Road E streetscaping project moved forward. Commissioner Holewa asked about a watermain. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the City Public Works Engineer had suggested a watermain be constructed in a previous application. He felt the watermain would be more tied to a subdivision. Commissioner Holewa noted the traffic study showed an assumed 10% reduction in trips based on mode share and 0% reduction based on pass-by trips. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the Director of Public Works is satisfied with the traffic study. Commissioner Holewa stated the traffic study concluded that the proposed redevelopment would not have a significant impact on intersection operations in the area. Commissioner Thompson asked about the parking stall in the front (28 stalls) and if that was sufficient parking lots for the retail. She asked how it compared to Shannon Square. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the retail will require 114 parking stalls total and the 28 stalls located in the front would not meet all the parking demand for the retail. There will still be some shared parking on the side and in the rear of the building. There will be a rear building access with a cut-through that would allow visitors to access the retail areas through the back of the building. Commissioner Thompson stated she was surprised about the access from the back and it seems a narrow area to access the retail. Commissioner Zimmerman asked how many total parking spaces are required. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated 241 are required but 284 are provided in the plan. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if a parking ramp was considered. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated a parking ramp would make the project cost not feasible. The proposed plan would provide the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 28, 2012 5 security aspects of a service parking lot rather than an enclosed parking ramp. Commissioner Zimmerman stated some properties charge more for parking in the ramp and the cost may be justified by doing that. Chair Larson stated since it is a pre-existing building there is not the luxury of having a below ground parking area. Commissioner Scott asked if the build out would be all at once. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated there would be a single build out and the construction would take one year. Commissioner Holewa referred to the retail space layout and asked if the apartment residents could access the retail area without going outside. It was noted they could not. Commissioner Holewa referred to the east access and City Planner Meagan Beekman noted some additional review would be needed. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the access may need some further discussion. Commissioner Zimmerman asked about the property be marketed to college students and if commuter buses would be utilized to transport the students to the colleges. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that is not something that is part of the applicant’s plan. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there was a bus provided by the colleges would that have an impact on the access. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated a shuttle could easily enter and exit on the north side. Mr. Rob Davidson appeared before the Commission. He stated they worked hard to address the requests of the Commission and feels this plan is a win-win proposal. Chair Larson asked how the 4-door unit would work. Mr. Davidson stated the construction of a 3- or 4-bedroom unit would combine 3 or 4 hotel rooms with the living area in the center. They are suggesting a movable wall and are attempting to create flexibility depending on the market. Commissioner Hames commented this is also a family-friendly plan that would meet the needs of families. Commissioner Holewa asked about the shared access with the adjoining property. Mr. Davidson stated the idea of combining the three driveways is a good idea; however, they are being asked to create a turnaround on the property and fund a combined driveway with no monetary compensation coming to the owner. Mr. Davidson stated TAT Properties may be interested in selling the other business a portion of their property. The easement is an issue that the private landowners should discuss and resolve. Commissioner Holewa asked if there is a loading dock for their plan. Mr. Davidson stated there would not generally be semi-trucks accessing the property. Commissioner Hames asked if the turnaround is for emergency vehicles. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the turnaround is for the other properties and would accommodate a semi-truck. City Planner Meagan Beekman noted currently there is a shared easement of which the current Holiday Inn property is not part of. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 28, 2012 6 Commissioner Hames asked if the other properties are contributing to the easement and City Planner Meagan Beekman answered in the affirmative and indicated from the City’s perspective, it would be a shared easement among the property owners. Commissioner Scott stated he believes it should be a matter discussed between the property owners. Commissioner Hames agreed. It was noted the property owners would need to pay for the portion of the improvements they are benefitting from. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated it is important that it be discussed at this time. Commissioner Thompson asked if there have been any discussions among the property owners. Mr. Davidson stated no one has ever approached him about the access. Commissioner Hames asked Mr. Davidson’s feeling about the sideway and gateway sign easement. Mr. Davidson stated the easement suggested is part of the PUD and they are attempting to accommodate the City’s requirements. This would not affect the outcome of the project. Mr. Davidson stated they are not comfortable with #21 of the conditions regarding appeal of future assessments. Commissioner Thompson stated a retail owner of one the smaller retail sites may have some concern about where their customers would park. Mr. Davidson stated retail space #8 is a very deep space. A long-term lease has been signed with the local bike store. They would not have more than 4-5 customers in the shop at a time. All employees would be parking on the north side of the building. Commissioner Thompson asked how wide the hallway would be to access the other retail spaces from the back. Russ Rosa, architect, stated it would be a 12-foot wide corridor. Commissioner Hames asked what types of businesses might be in retail spaces #1, #2, #3. Mr. Davidson stated he hopes one tenant would occupy #1-3. Commissioner Hames asked if the apartment residents would have marked spaces or signage to assign parking spaces for the residents. Mr. Davidson stated they would not assign parking to begin with and with the number of spaces, parking should not be an issue. He noted that once parking is assigned, it becomes a management issue. Commissioner Holewa asked if the workout area would be open to non-residents. Mr. Davidson replied it would not and would be for the residents only. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Von Holtum, 1409 Indian Oaks Trail, Arden Hills, a member of the Economic Development Commission, stated he has known Mr. Davidson for a number of years and knows he does good projects. Mr. Von Holtum stated he is in favor of the project. Mr. Steve Jurigen, Northwestern College employee and not a resident of Arden Hills, stated this is a good use of the building. He questioned if on-street parking has been considered along County Road E. He also asked what is happening with the space under the old McGuire’s and if it could possibly be utilized for parking. He suggested a buzzer be installed to allow access. Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 28, 2012 7 Commissioner Thompson requested condition #8 be revised or struck to allow for private discussion. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated she views #7 and #8 as placeholders to be revised after further discussion. Commissioner Thompson stated she does want to see the consolidation of accesses go away. Commissioner Hames stated she agrees with striking #7 and #8 and would like to also strike #21 as a party should not be held to waive their right of appeal. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated #21 is standard language and included in some form or another in all projects. Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to recommend approval of Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the 22 conditions in the November 28, 2012, planning case report. Commissioner Hames moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to amend the motion, to strike conditions #7 and #8 and direct staff to reword the conditions to direct the landowners to reach an agreement on the shared driveway. The motion to amend carried unanimously (6-0). Commissioner Scott stated he wants to see this project go forward but is hesitant on the square footage of the units. He asked whether there is a backup plan for the efficiency units if they aren’t rented. Mr. Davidson stated as this project has evolved, they have looked at who the target market is and it was determined to be students. The units proposed are exactly the same square footage as new student housing construction. Mr. Davidson noted there is a possibility of combining two efficiency units into a one bedroom. Commissioner Thompson stated she appreciates the true Master Plan approach to this project with the detail provided. Commissioner Holewa concurred with Commissioner Thompson’s comment. The motion for approval carried unanimously (6-0). REPORTS A.Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes reported at the City Council’s October 29, 2012 Regular Meeting the Council, on a 4-1(Holden dissenting) vote, lifted the City-wide moratorium on multi-family dwelling units. She also reported the City Council voted unanimously to approve Planning Case 12-015 for a Zoning Code Amendment and CUP Application at 1260 Red Fox Road to allow a microbrewery with taproom. Councilmember Holmes reported at their November 13, 2012 Work Session, the City Council discussed a proposal from Sand Companies, Inc. to amend their development agreement for the development of the Arden Village apartment Building at 1245 County Road F. Sand Companies is requesting to convert their proposed development from affordable workforce housing units to market rate units. Four units would remain affordable. As part of the proposal, Sand Companies is also proposing to increase the number of units in the building from 55 to 60. The building ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – November 28, 2012 8 footprint would remain the same, as several 3-bedroom units would be converted to 1- and 2- bedroom units. The Council has requested to see revised plans. There will be a Truth Taxation Meeting on December 10, 2012, with a work session prior to discuss the B-2 District. On December 7, 2012, the new website will go live at 5 p.m. The City will partner with the County on a joint development agreement for the TCAAP property. B.Planning Commission Comments and Requests None C.Staff Comments None ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to adjourn the November 28, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). MEMORANDUM 3.A DATE: March 6, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case #13-001 – No public hearing required Applicant: Mathew and Ann Wessberg Property Location: 1455 Skiles Lane Request: Variance Requested Action The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a below grade garage and above grade addition that would be 16 feet from the side property line. Because of the configuration of the lot the side yard faces Skiles Lane and a 40 foot setback is required. Background 1.Overview of Request The applicants own the property at 1455 Skiles Lane, which is zoned R-1. The existing home encroaches 9 feet into the required 40 foot front yard setback. The existing structure is a one-story walk-out facing Skiles Lane towards the west. The topography drops towards the east and rear of the home. Skiles lane curves to the east, wrapping around two sides of the parcel, which also abuts Snelling Avenue to the east. The Code requires a 40-foot front yard setback on three sides of the property, as it is wrapped on three sides by roadway. Presently, the dwelling has a two car tuck under garage that faces the rear of the property. The existing driveway enters the property from the south and curves to the west to access the existing garage. The property owner is proposing to construct a new 576 square foot, two-stall, garage adjacent to the existing garage to the south of the property. The new garage would be oriented to the south of the property, as opposed to the existing garage, which is oriented to City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 1 of 8 the east. The addition would remain in line with the front and rear of the existing structure. The new garage would encroach 24 feet into the required 40-foot side yard setback. Because the property is a walk-out that drops to the east and rear of the property, the garage addition would not be visible from the front of the home, and would only be partially visible from the side of the property. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 192 square foot addition and deck at-grade, on top of the new garage. The at-grade addition would encroach nine feet at its nearest point in the required 40-foot side yard setback, and would remain in line with the existing home’s setbacks. The applicant is proposing to step back the at-grade addition in line with the curve of Skiles Lane and to maintain the architectural lines and continuity of the structure. In total, approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach in to the front yard setback; of this only 96 square feet would be visible from Skiles Lane. The applicant submitted a substantially similar variance request in 2007, which was approved by the City. The project was never built, and the variance approval expired. The current proposal is identical to the previous proposal with the exception of the orientation of the garage which as been rotated to face the south as opposed to the east. The applicant has submitted a description of the proposed addition, a response to the variance evaluation criteria, a letter describing the landscaping plan, and a site plan of the property (Attachment A and C). 2.Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Detached Home Zoning: R-1: Single-Family residential district Current Lot Sizes: .32 acres (13,939 square feet) Topography: The property drops approximately eight to ten feet from the west to the east 3.Surrounding Area DirectionFuture Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached North Low Density Residential district Residential R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached South Low Density Residential district Residential R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached East Low Density Residential district Residential R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached West Low Density Residential district Residential City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 2 of 8 Plan Evaluation 1.R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A.Lot Size & Dimensions Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements The lot is 13,939 square feet, 130 feet 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf) 14,000 wide and 108 feet long. The lot size is nonconforming in the R-1 Zone. 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width/depth) 95/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 B.Structure Setbacks – Variance Required 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% As noted above, the existing house 5. Min. Landscape Lot Area 65% encroaches nine feet into the forty foot front yard setback to Skiles Lane. The 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) proposed garage and addition would Front yard 40 extend 24 feet into the front yard setback. Rear Yard (Principle) 30 The at-grade portion of the addition would Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 encroach nine feet into the setback. The Side Yard Interior - Principal rest of the structure meets all required (Min/total both yards on lot) 10/25 setbacks. Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 40 C.Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements. The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-1 Zone. The amount of impervious coverage would be reduced as part of the proposed plan because the size of the driveway would be greatly reduced. Existing Proposed Square Feet % Square Feet % House/garage 1,497 10.7% 2,073 14.9% Driveway 1,685 12.1% 1,035 7.4% Sidewalk 179 1.3% 179 1.3% Total Coverage 3,361 24.1% 3,287 23.6% Lot Size 13,939 13,939 D.Structure Height – Meets Requirements The existing dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. E.Tree Preservation This addition will impact a spruce tree to the south of the property and an oak tree to the east. Both trees are located within the footprint of the proposed changes. The applicant is taking actions to preserve the oak tree if possible by moving the driveway away from it. If any trees are removed as a result of the project, the application will be required to meet the City’s tree preservation standards, and mitigation may be necessary. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 3 of 8 2.Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3.Additional Review This application may require Rice Creek Watershed District approval prior to the issuance of any building permits. If the variance is approved, a condition has been added requiring RCWD review prior to the issuance of building permits. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Discussion The applicant has submitted a revised plan that attempts to solve the issues of the site while bringing the structure into greater conformance with the building code. By using the grade changes that are already on site, the applicant has been able to build most of the addition below grade, thus reducing its visibility from the street. The architecture and materials for the addition appear to be in line with the character and style of the existing home, and the at-grade portion of City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 4 of 8 the addition would be in line with the existing setback of the home. The applicant feels that this location and configuration of the garage has the least impact on the neighborhood. The property is unique compared to most other properties because the 40 foot front yard setback applies to the south, east, and west property lines. This is due to the property’s location along the curve of Skiles Lane and adjacency to Snelling Avenue. If the lot were a traditional lot with a side yard, no variance would be required. The grade change from the front to the back yard would permit most of this addition to be located below grade and thus not be visible from Skiles Lane. Because of this lot configuration, alternative locations for a two car garage that meets building code are limited. Staff did additional research and found that a 30 foot setback is common along Skiles Lane; additionally, setback variances have been approved for other properties in the neighborhood along Skiles Lane and Arden Place for similarly shaped lots. While the granting of previous variance requests does not set a precedent for approval of this variance request, it does help provide additional context to the neighborhood. A full survey of the neighborhood would be needed to verify the exact setbacks of other lots. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following fifteen findings of fact for review: General Findings 1.The lot depth and width exceed the minimum R-1 requirements. The lot size of 13,939 square feet is nonconforming in the R-1 Zone. 2.The existing structure encroaches nine feet into the 40-foot front yard setback along Skiles Lane. The structure meets all other R-1 setback requirements. 3.The proposed addition would encroach 24 feet into the front yard setback. Approximately 480 square feet of the proposed addition would encroach into the front yard setback, of this 96 square feet would be at-grade and visible from Skiles Lane. The area of the addition outside of the setbacks does not require a variance. The proposed addition would be in line with the existing home, and the portion visible from Skiles Lane would step back with the existing structure. 4.The proposed addition does not encroach on the required setback along Snelling Avenue. 5.The existing and proposed lot coverage meets the R-1 Zone requirements. 6.The existing garage does not meet the ceiling height requirements of the Building Code, thus the proposed garage would bring the property into greater conformance with modern building code requirements. 7.The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 8.Dwellings and garages are permitted structures within the R-1 Zone. 9.The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 5 of 8 Variance Findings: 10.The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance because it utilizes the topography of the parcel to minimize visual impact from the addition. 11.The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 12.A garage and addition are permitted and reasonable uses within the R-1 Zone. 13.The lot is comparably unique in the City. The property is situated on the curve of Skiles Lane as it intersects with Snelling Avenue, thus creating three front yard setback requirements to the south, east, and west sides of the lot. 14.The topographic conditions are unique in that there is a significant slope downward from the west to the east which allows the majority of the addition to be built below grade. 15.Since the proposed above grade addition would not encroach any farther into the front yard setback than the existing structure, the addition is unlikely to have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood. The continued encroachment would have a minimal visual impact from Skiles Lane. 16.The addition would be visible from the rear of the property, which abuts Snelling Avenue; however, the area is heavily wooded and the closest neighbor on this side is over 300 feet away. 17.The proposed plans and setback variance for the dwelling do not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Staff Analysis The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends the following six conditions: 1.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission. 2.The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District, and a copy of the RCWD permit or a waiver shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3.The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 4.The addition shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 6 of 8 Options The findings in this report currently support approval of this variance. With a motion to deny the variance, the findings must be amended. 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-001 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the four conditions in the March 6, 2013, planning case report. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13- 001 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, as presented in the March 6, 2013, planning case report. 3.Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 13-001 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane based on the following findings of fact… 4.Table: Motion to table Planning Case 13-001 for a variance at 1455 Skiles Lane: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has not received any comments from neighboring residents. The applicant did submit letters from neighbors from the previous variance application from 2007, in support of the project (Attachment A) Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 4, 2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by April 5, 2013 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 7 of 8 Attachments A.Application and Supporting Materials B.Air Photo and Photographs of the Site C.Site Plan and Supplementary Elevations City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-001 Wessberg Variance (Pending)\UPDATE - PC Report - Wessberg Variance.doc Page 8 of 8 Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Attachment A Legend County Offices City Halls Schools Hospitals Fire Stations Police Stations Recreational Centers Parcel Points Parcels Notes Enter Map Description 30.6061.2 0Feet 61.2 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feetaccurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS DivisionTHIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION ATTACHMENT B ATTACHMENT B Looking West from Snelling Avenue towards Proposed Addition Looking Northwest from Driveway towards Proposed Addition Attachment C Architects / Consultants P. A. 212 Third Avenue North, Suite 460 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 www.foundationarch.com phone. 612.340.5430 fax. 612.340.5431 I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duly registered _______________________ under the laws of the state of ________________________________ ________________________________ Date ________ Reg. No. ___________ RevisionNo.Date Date Project No. Attachment C Attachment C Architects / Consultants P. A. 212 Third Avenue North, Suite 460 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 www.foundationarch.com phone. 612.340.5430 fax. 612.340.5431 I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duly registered _______________________ under the laws of the state of ________________________________ ________________________________ Date ________ Reg. No. ___________ RevisionNo.Date Date Project No. Attachment C Architects / Consultants P. A. 212 Third Avenue North, Suite 460 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 www.foundationarch.com phone. 612.340.5430 fax. 612.340.5431 I certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision & that I am a duly registered _______________________ under the laws of the state of ________________________________ ________________________________ Date ________ Reg. No. ___________ RevisionNo.Date Date Project No. MEMORANDUM 4.A DATE: March 6, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commissioners FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Resilient Communities Project Requested Action No action requested. Background TheResilient Communities Project (RCP) is a program through the University of Minnesota and administered by the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA). The program selects one Minnesota city per year to participate. The program matches University coursework with community projects that have a sustainability impact. The program defines sustainability broadly to include environmental, social, and financial sustainability for a community. The projects should have a relatively narrow scope and clear deliverable. Once a city is selected, CURA staff match up the individual projects with graduate courses at the University of Minnesota that have a community-project component related to one or more of the city's needs. The purpose of the program is intended to better connect University resources with communities, regional entities, and organizations interested in sustainability in the Twin Cities and other metropolitan areas in Minnesota. RCP provides the community with access to hundreds of students and faculty across a range of academic disciplines, from design, planning, law and engineering to business, environmental sciences, and the humanities. The selected community and their projects are imbedded throughout the University of Minnesota curriculum, which provides extensive resources to which the community would not otherwise have access to. In addition, the program offers students real-world opportunities to apply their knowledge and training, as well as to engage with professionals and students in other programs and fields of study. The University of Minnesota calculates the value of work produced through the project at approximately $175,000. City of Arden Hills March 6, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting 14 Page of RCP program administrators work closely with the selected community to ensure that each selected project has a clear scope of work and concrete deliverable in order to ensure a high value return for the community. The City of Minnetonka was selected to participate in the RCP pilot program for the 2012-2013 academic year. While they have only completed half of their projects and coursework, Minnetonka staff has indicated they have been impressed with the quality of the work that they have received from University students. Application Process At their February 11, 2013, meeting, the City Council directed Staff to prepare an application to the RCP program. RCP Staff have indicated that they will make a decision on the applications in mid-March. As part of the application process, communities are asked to identify 15-30 projects that might be included. Not all projects will be a good fit, but the intent is to provide a broad enough list of projects that most will fit into the program. A project’s scope is limited by the timeline of the program. The selected community will participate in the 2013-2014 academic year and work with courses over both semesters. Project deliverables will likely be completed at the end of each semester. Staff has prepared a list of 19 projects to include as part of our application (Attached). Projects generally fall into three categories: Projects directly related to TCAAP, taken from the Master Plan RFP that, if Arden Hills was selected to participate in RCP, would reduce the cost of the consultant contract to complete the Master Plan. House-keeping projects that have a City-wide impact and need to be completed; however, are only indirectly related to TCAAP and not included in the Master Plan RFP. Projects that would add value to the City if the City had more resources to complete them, but are not imperative to City operation. In addition, Ramsey County Administration has identified a project related to the creation of a strategic communications plan for the TCAAP redevelopment project that is related to an existing project Kate Knuth is working on with the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. Communities are asked to identify a project lead for each project. The project lead will work with the program administrator and the professor(s) of the matched course to guide the scope of work and the project as needed. Staff time obligations will vary depending on the unique needs of each project; however, at a minimum, the staff project leader will meet with program administrators and the course professor at least once prior to the beginning of the project to narrow and clarify the scope of work. Periodic check-ins with the class may be necessary, and City of Arden Hills March 6, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting 24 Page of the project lead will likely attend any final class presentations related to the project. In addition, the selected community will identify a project coordinator who will oversee the progress of each project. As part of the application, communities are also asked to provide a financial contribution, in addition to staff time. A minimum amount has not been identified; however, communities are asked to show some financial commitment to the program. Communities are also encouraged to partner with other agencies on individual projects, and pool funding resources. Each project does not need an individual funding source; some projects have clear funding sources, while others do not. The application and project list are reviewed as a package, and the goal would be to cobble together resources from enough projects to include in the City’s application. Funding Sources City Staff have been in contact with Ramsey County Environmental Health to discuss possible project partnerships. Out of those discussions three City projects were identified that Ramsey County Environmental Health thought would be valuable to their organization. The projects are: Design Standards to Promote Recycling; Site-wide Participation in a City Recycling Contract on TCAAP; and Reduction of Construction Waste. More details on the projects are included in the attached project list. Ramsey County Environmental Health has a Public Entities Innovation Grant program to which County Environmental Health staff has encouraged the City to apply. They have tentatively committed $25,000 of grant money to provide to the City as part of our participation in RCP, provided that the City is selected to participate in RCP, and that the three projects are included in the final project list. Ramsey County Administration has also committed $10,000 towards the City’s RCP application. Two of the City’s 19 proposed projects relate to the creation of a social media policy for the City and the launch of a social media presence. Due to the communications and technology component of these projects, the City can include funding from the Cable Fund to assist in completing these items. The City will contribute $10,000 from the Cable Fund to complete this work. An additional two if the City’s 19 proposed projects are for creating work-flow efficiencies for the public works crews related to the tracking of sanitary sewer inspections, hydrant flushes, and other in-field work. The Public Works Director has indicated that finding solutions to these work-flow problems would be very valuable in saving staff time and resources. The City will contribute $10,000 from Utility Funds be included in the City’s RCP application. All of the projects offer value to the community, and the City has included a contribution of $5,000 from the general fund as part of the application. City of Arden Hills March 6, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting 34 Page of w;­zŒz;“·/š’’Ò“z·z;­t©š†;-·Cғ7z“m{šÒ©-;­ FundingSourceFundingAmount RamseyCountyAdministration$10,000 RamseyCountyEnvironmentalHealth$25,000 CableFund$10,000 UtilityFunds$10,000 GeneralFund$5,000 Total$60,000 Requested Action No action requested. Attachments Proposed Project List City of Arden Hills March 6, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting 44 Page of ATTACHMENTA ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ArdenHills ProposedProjectList,20132014 1.ZoningDesignStandardstoPromoteRecyclingandOrganicsCollection a.ProjectLead:CityPlanner b.Thepurposeoftheprojectwouldbetoidentifyzoningcoderegulationsthatcould require/promotetheparticipationandcollectionofrecyclingfromabuildingandsite layoutperspective.Thescopewouldincludemultifamilyresidentialandcommercial newconstruction. c.Aretherewayssitedesignandbuildinglayoutcanencouragerecyclingparticipation? Aretheresitedesignrequirementsthatmakerecycling/organicsstorageandcollection easier?Howcansuchstandardsbedesignedforflexibilitytoaccommodateevolving approachesandtechnologiesforcollectionofrecyclingandorganics?Whatarethe differencesbetweenmultiunit/familystandardsandthoseforcommercialbuildings, andwilltherebesignificantdifferencesfordifferenttypesofcommercialusesthat wouldbeallowedinthisnewmixeduseareaoftheCity? d.Deliverable:Recommendationsforbestpracticesinzoningregulationsrelatedto designingintositeplansandbuildinglayoutsrecyclingaccommodationsforconsumers, residents,andemployees,aswellaseaseofcollectionbyrecyclingserviceproviders. e.SustainabilityImpact:Promotionofwastereduction.ThisisimportanttotheCityaswe moveforwardwithTCAAPdevelopmenttoensureresidentialandbusiness developmentprovidesadequateaccesstorecyclingservices,andeaseofcollection. f.RamseyCountyEnvironmentalHealthStaffandEurekaRecycling 2.SitewideParticipationinCityRecyclingContract a.ProjectLead:CityPlanner b.Theprojectwouldexploreoptionsforefficient,effectiveprovisionofrecyclingand organicscollectionservicesforcommercialandmultifamilyproperties,includingthe optionofexpandingCitycontractingforrecycling.Thescopeofworkwouldinclude boththeimplementationofprovidingrecyclingandorganicscollectionservices,aswell asareviewofthelogisticsofcollection. c.AretherecommunitiesinMinnesotathatoffercitycontractedrecyclingservicesto multifamilyresidentialpropertiesandbusinesses?Whatarethebestpracticesrelated tocitywiderecyclingandorganicscollectionsforcommercialproperty?Whatare mechanismsthatwillallowacitytoenforceparticipation? d.Deliverable:Descriptionofbestpracticesforensuringandmaximizingrecyclingand organicscollectionservicesandparticipationformultifamilyandcommercialbuildings. TheserecommendationsmayleadintoCityCodeamendmentsrelatedtomultifamily andcommercialrecyclingandorganicscollectionparticipation. e.SustainabilityImpact:Promotionofwastereduction.TheCityisinterestedinexploring expansionofitsrecyclingservicetocommercialandmultifamilyproperties,alongwith otheroptions f.RamseyCountyEnvironmentalHealthStaffandEurekaRecycling ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENTA 3.ReductionofConstructionWaste a.ProjectLead:CityPlanner b.Thepurposeoftheprojectistoidentifywaystoreduceonsitedemolitionand constructionwasteandpromoterecyclingduringthebuildoutofTCAAP.Thescopeof theworkwouldincludepolicies,programs,incentives,orregulationsthatwouldreduce demolitionandconstructionwaste,andincreaserecyclinganduseofrecycledcontent materials. c.Whatarebestpracticesrelatedtothereductionofonsitegeneratedconstruction waste?WhataresolutionsthatcouldbeutilizedduringtheconstructionofTCAAP? d.Deliverable:Literaturereviewtodeterminewhathasbeendoneinthisareaalready. BestpracticesandrecommendationsforwhattheCitycandotoreducedemolitionand constructionwasteandpromoterecyclingduringlargescaleconstructionprojects,and alsoforsmallerscaledevelopmentandredevelopmentprojects e.SustainabilityImpact:Promotionofwastereduction.TheCityisinterestedminimizing theamountoftrucktrafficandpromotingwastereductionduringsuchalarge constructionproject. f.RamseyCountyEnvironmentalHealthStaff 4.ParksandRecreationNeedsAssessment a.ProjectLead:ParksandRecreationManager b.Thepurposeofthisprojectwouldbetoidentifyaformulaforassessingparksand recreationneedsontheTCAAPsitethatwillbeusedtocreateaparkdedicationpolicy andordinance.Theassessmentwouldalsobeincorporatedintothe/z·äx­MasterPlan fortheTCAAPsiteaspartofaParksandOpenSpacePlan. c.WhatisthecurrentlevelofparksandrecreationamenityofferedtoArdenIzŒŒ­x residents,andisitadequate?WhatshouldtheCityexpectwillbetheneedsoffuture residentsandemployeesontheTCAAPsite?Whatisareasonableparkdedication approachontheTCAAPsite? d.Deliverable:AnassessmentoffutureparksandrecreationneedsonTCAAP,aformula fordeterminingparkdedicationbasedonprojectedbuildoutnumbers,and recommendationsonimplementingaparkdedicationpolicy. e.SustainabilityImpact:Accesstorecreationandconservationofparkland.ArdenHillsis dedicatedtoprovidingleisureandpassiveopenspaceopportunitiesforresidentsand employeesintheCity. f.RamseyCounty,asthepropertyowneronTCAAP,isastakeholderforthisproject. 5.LandscapeandTreePreservationRequirements a.ProjectLead:CityPlanner b.ThepurposeoftheprojectistoreviewandupdatetheCitylandscapeandtree preservationrequirementswiththedevelopmentofTCAAPinmind. c.Whatarethe/z·äx­currentlandscapeandtreepreservationrequirements?Arethe currentregulationsadequate?Whatareothercommunitiesdoingabouttree preservationandlandscaping?Aretherewaystoencouragemoresustainable landscapingpractices?HowcouldtheCityofArdenIzŒŒ­xtreepreservationand landscapingrequirementsbeimproved/clarified/simplified? ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 2 of 8 ATTACHMENTA d.Deliverable:Recommendationsonrevisionstothe/z·äx­regulationspertainingtotree preservationandlandscaping. e.SustainabilityImpact:Sustainablelandscapingandtreepreservation.Treeprotectionis ahighpriorityinArdenHills.TheCitywantstoencourage/requiremoresustainable landscapingpractices. f.Nooutsidestakeholdershaveyetbeenidentified. 6.TransportationDemandManagementPolicy a.ProjectLead:AssistantCityEngineer b.Thepurposeoftheprojectistoidentifytransportationdemandmanagement techniquesthatmightbeeffectiveontheTCAAPsitetodecreasepeakhourdemandon theroadnetwork.Theprojectareaisnotcurrentlyservedbytransit. c.Whatarebestpracticesincomparablecommunities?Whatistheprocesstogetnew transitservicetoanarea?DoesMetroTransithavepopulationordensitywarrants? Whatisthelongtermpotentialforfixedroutetransitoptions? d.Deliverable:BestpracticesindevelopingaTDMplanfortheTCAAPsiteandestablishing aTDMpolicyforTCAAP. e.SustainabilityImpact:Transportationmanagementthroughreductionofvehiclemiles traveled.TheCityisinterestedinbringingtransitservicetotheTCAAPsite. f.MetroTransit,RamseyCountyRegionalRailAuthority,andRamseyCountyPublicWorks maybestakeholdersinthisproject 7.RenewableEnergyRegulations a.ProjectLead:CityPlanner b.Thepurposeoftheprojectistoexploreregulationsforparcelspecificrenewableenergy installationsontheTCAAPsite.Examplesincludetheuseofgeothermalandwind turbines. c.Whatarebestpracticesrelatedtomunicipalregulationsofrenewableenergy installations?ArethereregulationstheCityshouldhaveinplacetoaddresstheseuses? Arethereothercommunitiesregulatingtheseuses?ShouldtheCityencouragewind turbinesand/orotherrenewableenergypractices? d.Deliverable:bestpractices,policies,andapproachesofothercommunities;regulatory barriers;andrecommendationsforTCAAPspecificpoliciesonparcelspecificrenewable energyinstallations. e.SustainabilityImpact:TheprojectexploresrenewableenergyonTCAAP. f.Nooutsidestakeholdershaveyetbeenidentified. 8.SocialMediaPolicy a.ProjectLead:CityClerk b.TheCityofArdenHillsdoesnotcurrentlyutilizesocialmedia.Obstaclestotheuseof socialmediaincludestaffresistance,lackofcleargoalsforandbenefitsofsocialmedia, andconcernsregardingthenecessityandramificationsofallowingcommunity generatedposts.Studentswilldraftasocialmediapolicythataddressestheseissues whilebeingsensitivetothelegalandpoliticalrealitiesoflocalgovernment. ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 3 of 8 ATTACHMENTA c.Whatpracticalbenefitsdoessocialmediaoffertolocalgovernment?Howcancities controltheirmessagethroughsocialmedia?Howcanlegalorpoliticalconcernswith socialmediabeaddressed? d.Deliverable:DraftSocialMediaPolicyreadyforpresentationtoexecutivestaffandthe CityCouncil e.SustainabilityImpact:Moredemographicallydiverseandaccessiblecommunity engagement f.Nooutsidestakeholdershaveyetbeenidentified. 9.SocialMediaImplementationPlan a.ProjectLead:CityClerk b.AssumingCityapprovalofthesocialmediapolicydescribedabove,theCityneedsto implementsocialmediainamannerthatdoesnotoverburdenexistingstaffresources, reachestargetedaudiences,andutilizesthemosteffectivesocialmediachannels.The implementationplanwillspecificallyaddresshowandwhensocialmediashouldbe usedtocommunicateinformationontheTCAAPproject. c.HowcantheCityusesocialmediatoreachtargetpopulations?Whichsocialmedia toolswillbethemosteffectivefortheCityandwhy?HowcantheCityusesocialmedia tomaximizeitsbenefitsandminimizeresourcesnecessarytomanageinformation? d.Deliverable:SocialMediaImplementationPlan e.SustainabilityImpact:Moredemographicallydiverseandaccessiblecommunity engagement f.Nooutsidestakeholdershaveyetbeenidentified. 10.AnalysisofCommercial/IndustrialProperty‘TaxRevenuesvsCostofService a.ProjectLead:CommunityDevelopmentDirector b.AbroadmixofcommercialandindustrialpropertyisanticipatedfortheTCAAPsite.Tax revenuesgeneratedfromthecommercialpropertiesgeneralarehigherthanresidential properties.TheCityisinterestedinunderstandingwhatthetaxcapacitymightbe comparedwithcostofprovidingservices. c.Whatpublicservicesaredemandedbycommercialandindustrialproperty?Isthe demandforserviceimpactedbytheamountofcommercialpropertyinagivenarea? Howdoesthetaxcapacityofvacantcommercialpropertycomparetothatofresidential properties?Howdoesdemandforservicescomparetoprojectedpropertytaxrevenue forcommercialandindustrialproperty? d.Deliverable:Analysisofpublicservicesbycategoryofcommercialproperty;Comparison ofservicedemandstorevenueprojections;Finalreportincludingexecutivesummary e.SustainabilityImpact:FiscalsustainabilityofCityprogramsandservices f.RamseyCountyandtheJointDevelopmentAgencyarestakeholdersinthisproject. ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 4 of 8 ATTACHMENTA 11.AnalysisofTCAAPHousingDensityandType‘TaxRevenuesvsCostofService a.ProjectLead:CommunityDevelopmentDirector b.Singlefamily,multifamily,andseniorhousingwillbeproposedfordevelopmenton TCAAP.CitiesseeagreaterdemandforCityservicesfromresidentialusesthanfrom commercialuses.Taxrevenuesandamountofservicesrequiredvarydependingon housingtype.TheCityneedstounderstandtheservicedemandsofhousingtypesand variousdensitiesincomparisontotherevenuegenerated. c.Whatpublicservicesaredemandedbysinglefamily,multifamily,andseniorhousing? Doesdemandforserviceschangeaccordingtodensitywithineachtypeofresidential use?Howdoesdemandforservicescomparetoprojectedpropertytaxrevenueper typeofresidentialuse? d.Deliverable:Analysisofpublicservicesbyhousingtypeanddensity;Comparisonof servicedemandstorevenueprojections;Finalreportincludingexecutivesummary e.SustainabilityImpact:FiscalsustainabilityofCityprogramsandservices f.RamseyCountyandtheJointDevelopmentAgencyarestakeholdersinthisproject. 12.PerformancebasedStormwaterManagementStrategies a.ProjectLead:AssistantCityEngineer b.TheCitycurrentlyhasminimumgreenspacerequirementsonaperparcelbasiswithin theZoningCode.WiththedevelopmentofTCAAP,theCityisinterestedinadoptinga performancebasedapproachtoparcelspecificstormwatermanagementthatmight includeraingardens,permeablesurfaces,orlowimpactlandscapingmethods.With thegoalofachievinghighvaluestormwatercollectionandonsiteretentiontheCity seekstodevelopgreenspacerequirementsthatareallowamoreflexibleapproach. c.Whatarebestpracticesrelatedtoonsitestormwatercollectionandmanagement? Whatothercommunitiesuseaperformancebasedapproachtostormwater managementintheirzoningregulations?Aretheirbarrierstoimplementation,suchas longtermmaintenanceissues? d.Deliverable:Recommendationsforadoptionofperformancebasedzoningregulations relatedtogreenspaceandonsitestormwatermanagement. e.SustainabilityImpact:Promotionofsustainablelandscapingandmoreeffectiveuseof greenspace. f.RiceCreekWatershedDistrictandRamseyConservationDistrict. 13.WetlandSetbacks a.ProjectLead:CityPlanner b.TheCitycurrentlydoesnothavewetlandsetbackrequirements.Withthedevelopment ofTCAAPitisnecessarytocreateregulationsthatprotectthenaturalwetlandsinthe area. c.Howdoothercommunitiesregulatewetlandsetbacks?DoestheDNRorRiceCreek WatershedDistricthaverecommendationsforbestpractices?Whatmechanismsare availableforlongtermprotectionofwetlandbufferareas? d.Deliverable:Recommendationsforzoningcoderevisionsrelatedtothecreationof wetlandsetbacks. e.SustainabilityImpact:Improvedwaterqualityandwetlandprotection. f.RiceCreekWatershedDistrictandtheDepartmentofNaturalResources. ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 5 of 8 ATTACHMENTA 14.StormwaterFacilitySystemReviewandMapping a.ProjectLead:AssistantCityEngineer b.TheCityhasasystemofstormwaterfacilitiesincludingoutflowpipesandponds.The Citydoesnothaveanefficientprocessinplacetotrackmaintenanceandmaintenance schedulesofthesystem.Theprojectwouldincludefieldinspectionsofstormwater facilities,creatingasystemtoidentify,rank,andclassifyeachfacility,andlocatingeach facilitywiththe/z·äx­handheldGPSdevice,andmappingthesystem.TheCityalso requiresaworkflowplanforregularmaintenanceofthesystem. c.WhattypesofstormwaterfacilitiesdoestheCityhavewithinitssystem?Howarethese facilitiesbestclassified,identified,andranked?Whatmaintenancescheduleisrequired tokeepthesystemfunctional? d.Deliverable:Completionofinfieldinspectionsofstormwatersystem,GPSlocatesand thecreationofaGIStabletoidentifyandrankeachfacility,creationofasystemwide map,recommendationsforworkflowschedulestomaintainthesystem. e.SustainabilityImpact:Improvedwaterquality,efficientuseofCityresourcestomaintain stormwatersystem. f.PublicWorksDepartment 15.WorkflowSolutiontoMappingSanitarySewerInspections a.ProjectLead:AssistantCityEngineer b.TheCitycurrentlyhasaworkflowproblemintheareaofstormsewerinspections.The Cityhasascheduleforsewerinspectionsthataretrackedusingapapermapand highlighters.Thesystemisnotefficientforgatheringrealtimeinformationonproject progress.TheCityhasuniqueidentificationsforeachsegmentofsewerlinethatis alreadypartofaGISshapefile.TheCityneedsaworkflowsolutiontoallowinspectors inthefieldtoenterinformationaboutsanitarysewerinspectionsdirectlyintoour electronicsystem.TheCityhopesthatthissolutioncaneventuallybeexpandedto includeotherinfieldtrackingofwork,suchashydrantflushes,sewercleaning, watermainbreaks,watermeterinstallations,etc. c.Whatareothercommunitiesdoingtoallowinfieldinformationtobeenteredintoan electronicGISsystem?Whatarepossiblesolutionstothe/z·äx­workflowproblem? Whatsolutionisthemostuserfriendlyintermsofeaseofuseforthepublicworks employees? d.Deliverable:Anapplicationthatallowspublicworkscrewstoentersanitarysewer inspectionsdirectlyfromtheirtabletsintothe/z·äx­GISsystem. e.SustainabilityImpact:EfficientuseofCityresourcestomaintainsanitarysewerlines. f.PublicWorksDepartment 16.StormwaterManagementModelingontheTCAAPSite a.ProjectLead:PublicWorksDirector b.TheCityisworkingwithaconsultantteamtocompleteaTCAAPmasterplan.A componentoftheplanwillbeidentifyingregionalstormwatersolutionsforthe stormwatermanagementthatwillberequiredonthesite.TheCitywouldlikethe studentprojectteamtoworkwiththeconsultantteamtomodelthestormwaterrun offthatwillbegeneratedonsitebasedonlanduseassumptions,analyzestormwater ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 6 of 8 ATTACHMENTA managementoptions,andidentifybestpracticesastheyrelatetotheTCAAPsiteand thecreationofaregionalstormwaterfeaturethatcanbeanamenitytothesite. c.Whatarebestpracticesinregionalstormwatermanagement?Whatmodelingis availabletocalculatestormwatergenerationonthesite?Whatarestormwater managementsolutionsthatcomplywithRiceCreekWatershedDistrictrequirements thatcouldbeincorporatedontothesite? d.Deliverable:Stormwatergenerationcalculations,stormwatermanagementoptions, bestpracticesforstormwatermanagementonthesite. e.SustainabilityImpact:Improvedwaterquality,enhancedcommunityparksandopen spacethroughsharedwaterfeature f.RiceCreekWatershedDistrict,ConsultingTeam,ArdenHillsandRamseyCountyPublic WorksDepartments,andtheJointDevelopmentAuthorityarestakeholdersonthis project. 17.TrafficSignManagementPolicy a.ProjectLead:PublicWorksDirector b.TheCityhasnothistoricallyhadatrafficsignpolicy,whichhasleadtovarioussigns beinginstalledwithoutananalysisonwhethertheyarenecessaryorbeneficialtoan intersection.TheCityseeksareviewoftheexistingstreetsigns,ananalysisofbest practicesintrafficsignmanagement,andrecommendationsonwhichsignsintheCity mightberemoved. c.Whatarebestpracticesfortrafficmanagementatvariousresidentialintersections?Do othercommunitieshavetrafficsignmanagementpolicies?Whatprocessshouldthe Citygothroughwhendeterminingtoinstallatrafficsign?Whenaretrafficsigns necessary;whenaretheynotnecessary? d.Deliverable:recommendationsforbestpracticesandatrafficsignmanagementpolicy. e.SustainabilityImpact:MoreefficientuseofCityresources f.PublicWorksDepartment,RamseyCountyPublicWorks 18.CostofTrailMaintenance a.ProjectLead:ParksandRecreationManager b.TheCityhasasystemoftrailsthathavebeenconstructedovertime.TheCityhasnever hadacomprehensiveprocessinplacetomaintainthetrailsystemorunderstandthe longtermcostassociatedwithtrailconstruction.TheCityisseekingareviewofthe trailsystemsexistingconditions,andananalysisofthecostofmaintainingasegmentof trailovera20yeartimeperiod. c.Whataretheavailabletrailmaintenanceoptions?Whatareothercommunitiesdoing intermsoftrailmaintenance?Whatisthe/z·äx­currentworkplanintermsoftrail maintenance?Whatisthecostofimplementingatrailmaintenanceplanovera20year timeperiodforaspecificsegmentoftrail? d.Deliverable:A20yearmaintenancescheduleofanewlyconstructedtrailsegment,the costofimplementingthemaintenanceschedule,bestpracticesfortrailmaintenance. e.SustainabilityImpact:EfficientuseofCityresources,bettermaintainedtrailsystemthat remainsfunctionallonger. f.PublicWorksDepartment ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 7 of 8 ATTACHMENTA 19.PublicArtandPlacemakingonTCAAP a.ProjectLead:CityPlanner b.TheTCAAPsiterepresentsasignificanttimeinthehistoryoftheUnitedStatesandour participationinWorldWarII.Whiletherearenohistoricallysignificantphysical featuresonthesite,thelegacyofthesiteisanimportantpieceofhistorythattheCity wouldliketoincorporateinsomewayintothenewdevelopment.TheCityisseeking conceptsforhowartandplacemakingcanbeutilizedthroughoutthedevelopmentof thesiteincosteffective,yetsignificantways.St.tҌx­PublicArtOrdinancemayserve asamodelforhowtosuccessfullyincorporatepublicartandplacemakingintothesite. c.WhataretheaspectsofthehistoricalsignificanceoftheTCAAPsite?Whatareways thatpublicartandplacemakingcanbeutilizedonsitetohighlightthehistoryofthe property?HowcantheCityandCountyincorporatepublicartandplacemakingina costeffectivewayontheTCAAPsite? d.Deliverable:Identificationofspecificconceptsthatarehistoricallyuniqueand/or significantabouttheproperty,recommendationsforhowtoincorporatetheseconcepts intopublicartandplacemakinginacosteffectivewaythroughoutdevelopmentofthe site. e.SustainabilityImpact:Placemakingandcommunitybuilding f.localartists,RamseyCounty,andtheJointDevelopmentAuthorityarestakeholdersfor thisproject. 20.StrategicCommunicationsPlanforTCAAPRedevelopmentProject a.ProjectLead:RamseyCounty b.TheTCAAPprojectrequiresongoing,transparent,participativecommunicationwith residents,businessesandpropertyownersinRamseyCounty,andimmediately surroundingthesite.Peoplewillbenaturallycuriousabouttheproject,andthereare alsosignificantopportunitiestoclarifyandcorrectinaccurateinformationaboutthesite thatpersists. c.Whatissuesareimportanttostakeholderslivingaroundthesite,andinthebroader RamseyCountycommunity?Howcanpositivestories(i.e.environmentalreinvestment, increasingtaxbase,addinglivingwagejobs)influencecommunitysupportforthe project?Whatisthebestandmosteffectivewaytoreachthesegroupsonaconsistent, factualbasis? d.Deliverable:InconjunctionwithanexistingprojectledbyKateKnuth,HumphreyPolicy Fellow,developastrategiccommunicationplanthatcanbeusedbylaypeopleto explaintheimportanceofthisproject,empowercommunityinvolvementinproblem solving,andidentifyissuesofimportancetothecommunityatlarge.Buildmomentum andsupportthroughbrandingandmarketingstudiesandplansforthesiteasawhole, workinginconjunctionwiththe/z·äx­MasterPlan.ReportfrequentlytotheJoint DevelopmentAgency(JDA). e.SustainabilityImpact:Creationofsustained,communitydrivensupportfortheproject asawhole;educationaroundtheimportanceofdiversetaxbasethatgenerates positiveoutcomesintheformofjobcreation,passiveandactivegreenspace,economic diversity,privateinvestment,andlongtermgrowththatisbeneficialtothecommunity, itsresidentsandfutureopportunities. f.CityofArdenHills,RamseyCounty,CommunityStakeholders ResilientCommunitiesProject‘ProposedProjectList‘ArdenHills‘2/15/2013Page 8 of 8 MEMORANDUM 5.A DATE: March 6, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council January 22, 2013, City Council Work Session The City Council directed Staff to review the multi-family design standards and increase the minimum unit size for 3 bedroom and larger units. Staff will research this item and bring it to the Planning Commission for discussion at a later date. The City Council directed Staff to move forward with acquisition of the triangle parcel owned by Presbyterian Homes and to locate a gateway sign and related landscaping on the site. January 28, 2013, City Council Work Session The City Council reviewed the City’s Zoning and Comprehensive Plan regulations pertaining to the TCAAP site. The County is in the process of completing a market study for the TCAAP site that will be available in the coming weeks. The Council discussed how preliminary results from the market study compared with the existing vision and regulations related to TCAAP. February 11, 2013, City Council Regular Meeting The City Council voted unanimously (4-0, McClung Absent) to approve the development agreement at 1201 County Road E related to the redevelopment of the former Holiday Inn site. Staff is working with the property owner on completing conditions of approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The City Council unanimously (4-0, McClung Absent) voted to appoint David Sand as the Chair of the Joint Development Authority between the City and Ramsey County. Mayor David Grant City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Commission\CC Reports\03-06-13 - PC report - CC report.doc Page 1 of 2 and Councilwoman Brenda Holden were also appointed to the JDA. JDA members will serve three-year terms. The City Council directed Staff to move forward with an application to the Resilient Communities Project (RCP) through the University of Minnesota and the Center for Urban and Regional Affairs (CURA). As part of the application, the Council also directed Staff to apply for a Public Entity Innovation Grant (PEIG) through Ramsey County Department of Environmental Health in the amount of $25,000. February 19, 2013, City Council Work Session The City Council reviewed a concept proposal for the redevelopment of the southwest corner of Lexington Avenue and Red Fox Road. The developer is proposing to construct approximately 60,000 square feet of retail over three phases. The first phase would include demolition of the Blue Fox Restaurant and construction of 15,000 square feet of retail. Phase two would involve the reconfiguration of 1120 Red Fox Road to accommodate larger retail users and reorient the building. Phase three would include the demolition of 3771 Lexington Avenue, and the construction of three new retail/office buildings. Staff is working with the developer on a formal application for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development. Staff anticipates the Planning Commission will review this item at their April 3, 2013, meeting. The City Council reviewed a request from a resident to allow chickens on residential properties in the City. The Council indicated that they were not supportive of changing the City’s 200 foot setback requirements for the keeping of chickens and other fowl at this time. February 25, 2013, EDA Regular Meeting The Economic Development Authority discussed business subsidy and Tax Increment Financing (TIF), and provided feedback to Staff on a TIF report card that would allow requests for TIF to be reviewed as they relate to overall City goals for economic development. The Council provided feedback to Staff on the scoring criteria, and will be asked to review a TIF policy at the next EDA meeting. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 6, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Commission\CC Reports\03-06-13 - PC report - CC report.doc Page 2 of 2