The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-4-13-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-maintained 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.January 9, 2013, Work Session Documents:13 PC WORK SESSION.PDF 2.B.July 10, 2013, Regular Meeting Documents:13 PC REGULAR MEETING.PDF PLANNING CASES 3.A.Planning Case 13Variance Request; 1306 County Road E Ryan Streff, City Planner Prepared By Documents:PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, C.PDF,ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF 3.B.Planning Case 13PUD Amendment; Lexington Station; 3833 Lexington Avenue Public Hearing Matthew Bachler, Community Development Intern Prepared By Documents:PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, C.PDF,ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 13Variance Request; 1221/1233 County Road E Ryan Streff, City Planner Prepared By Documents:PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, C.PDF,ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS 4.A.Report From The City Council Documents: REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF 4.B.TCAAP Update Jill Hutmacher Prepared By Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENTS.PDF A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSIONWORK SESSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 9,2013 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 Planning Commission Work Session meeting at 6:30p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Angela Hames, Andrew Holewa, and Roberta Thompson. Absent:Commissioners Samuel Scott, Janet Stodola (Alternate) and Clayton Zimmerman. Alsopresent were:City Planner Meagan Beekman. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –JANUARY 9,2013 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as amended, removing Item 3 –Approval of Minutes and adding Item 6B –Staff Comments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES This item was removed from the agenda. PLANNING CASES None. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A.2013 Work Plan Discussion City Planner Beekman stated the City Council has asked the Planning Commission to join them for a joint work session discussion at their March 18, 2013, meeting to discuss a work plan for 2013. The discussion will include 2013 projects and zoning code amendments to work on. To assist in that discussion, Staff would like the Planning Commission to provide input to Staff on topics that might be addressed at theMarch 18 meeting. While the Council will make the final ARDENHILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –JANUARY 9, 20132 determination as to the goals and priorities for the coming year, it will be useful for them to have input from the Planning Commission on these items. 2013 Work Plan City Planner Beekman indicated the Planning Commission differs from the City’s other committees and commissions in that the purpose and scope of the Commission’s work is largely determined by State Statute. The review and evaluation of the City’s various Land Use Applications, Zoning Code Amendments, and other planning related projects takes up the vast amount of the Commission’s focus and time. For the most part, Planning Commission agendas are filled with these items, and Planning Staff spends most of their time preparing and evaluating these projects to be brought before the Planning Commission. The majority of the Planning Commission work plan is dedicated to continuing the work of evaluating and providing recommendations on land use applications that come before the City. TCAAP Development City Planner Beekman commented as you are aware the City and Ramsey County have entered into a joint powers agreement to purchase and remediate the TCAAP site. As part of that agreement,Ramsey County is responsible for the purchase of the property and the cost and management of the remediation, which is anticipated to take 30 months.The work would be completed by Bolander & Sons. The City is responsible for completing an AUAR and a Master Plan for the site. The City is contractually obligated to complete this work within 24 months. The City is in the process of preparing an RFP in an effort to hire a consulting team to assist with this process; however, it is anticipated that this project will take a considerable amount of Staff time. The Planning Commission will also be asked to participate and provide input, though the specific planning process has not yet been identified. City Planner Beekman explained the master planning process will also include a regulatory component that requires the Cityto create detailed zoning for the TCAAP property. Because it is no longer anticipated that the City will be working with a single master developer, the existing zoning on the property is not sufficient. Part of this work will also include a review of the City’s existing zoning and subdivision ordinances to ensure that everything is in order in anticipation for development on the TCAAP site. Until a scope of work with the consulting team is completed,it will not be known what specific zoning review and update tasks will be necessary or whether to City or consultant will be responsible for them. Planning Commission and City Council Training Opportunities City Planner Beekman reported as part of the 2012 goals, there was discussion about training opportunities for Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners regarding land use planning and the law. City Planner Beekman stated the League of MN Cities offers an e-learning land use series as part of their loss control program. All of the Planning Commissioners andCouncilmembers were signed up to participate. To date there are still some that have not completed the course. The League, which provides liability insurance to Arden Hills, has found that cities that have Commissioners and Councilmembers who are educatedabout land use law and make sound rulings are less likely to be sued, or to lose lawsuits when they are filed. The website-based ARDENHILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –JANUARY 9, 20133 training is designed to make land use decisions less confusing, and will help cities avoid expensive land use claims and lawsuits. If you have not taken the online course,please do so. City Planner Beekman noted Government Training Services (GTS) also offers land use planning courses. Additional information regarding dates and locations for that series will be emailed out to the City Council and Planning Commission as they are made available by GTS. These courses are designed for Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners, and are typically offered in full and half day sessions throughout the Twin Cities. The courses are very well done and provide a wealth of information regarding land use fundamentals. Planning Commissioners are required to participate in at least one of the GTS courses during their term in order to be appointed to a subsequent term. Chair Larson openedthe floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Holewa questioned when the joint meeting with the Council would begin on th March 18. City Planner Beekman anticipated the meeting would begin at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Holewa requested further information on theTCAAP property. City Planner Beekman indicated Ramsey County would own all 430 acres of the TCAAP site. The plan would be for Ramsey County to bepaid back through land sales, while the City would bepaid back through land use application and building fees.She noted Ramsey County would be constructing the spine road connecting County Road H with Highway 96. She reported trunk utilities would service the site and would be the responsibility of the City. Chair Larson recommended the City work diligently to recover all of its planning expenses through future fees. City Planner Beekmanestimated that the City would spend approximately $1,000 per acre in planning for the TCAAP property. Commissioner Hamesasked if another elementary school would be added to the TCAAP property. City Planner Beekman stated a new elementary school was not being planned by the school district. Further discussion ensued regarding the redevelopment of the TCAAP propertyand the Planning Commissions role. Commissioner Thompson asked what portion of the previous Master Plan would be used by the City. City Planner Beekman explained the Ryan master plan would be used in its entirety but would be revised by staff based on current market trends. ARDENHILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –JANUARY 9, 20134 Chair Larson suggested the plan be flexible to allow the housing developments to follow market demands.He then discussed his experience with commercial development throughout the country. Commissioner Thompson questioned if the City was marketing the property. City Planner Beekman stated the County was already marketing the property to developers.She then discussed the Joint Development Authority (JDA) that would be created by the City and Ramsey County. Commissioner Hames recommended the property be renamed in the nearfuture. The Commission then discussed the future zoning regulations and planning for the TCAAP property. Commissioner Holewa was in favor of having zoning regulations in place to provide guidance, whole not dictating every function of a development. City Planner Beekman discussed several zoning code types and methods of approaching the regulations for TCAAP. She explained a form based code could be selected that would have diagrams and visuals within the code. Commissioner Hames suggested future development plans submitted to the City have visuals for the Commission to review. She found this very helpful when being asked to review and approve plans. Commissioner Thompson agreed. City Planner Beekman discussed the 2013 work plan in further detail. She noted the parks and open space plan for the City would need to be consideredthis year.Lastly, she encouraged the Commission members to seek individuals interested in serving on the Planning Commission. REPORTS A.Report from the City Council City Planner Beekman updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities including approval of a Joint Powers Agreement for the purchase of the TCAAP property between the City and Ramsey County at their November 26, 2012 Regular Meeting. As part ofthe agreement, Ramsey County will purchase the TCAAP site from the General Services Administration and oversee the remediation of the property. The remediation is anticipated to take 30 months. The City will be responsible for completing an AUAR, MasterPlan, and creating a regulatory framework for the property. December 17, 2012, Special Meeting The City Council voted unanimously to approve an amendment to the Arden Village Development Agreement. As part of the request for the amendment,Arden Villagehas converted the 55-unit affordable apartment building into a 60-unit market rate apartment building ARDENHILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –JANUARY 9, 20135 with 4 affordable units. The conversion necessitated a number of minor interior modifications, whichincluded fewer 3 bedroom units and more 1 bedroom units. Additional underground parking was provided, and the footprint was modified slightly. Arden Village is anticipating beginning site work in February. Arden Village was originally approved by the City in March 2010. The City Council unanimously approved Planning Case 202-019 for a Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E to allow the former Holiday Inn to convert into an apartment building. The City Council reduced the number of units from 75 to 74. The City Council also required the developer to complete their portion of the western shared access. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval for this planning case at the November 28, 2012, Special Meeting. The developer anticipates beginning work on the project in February. The City Council accepted the B-2 District Implementation Plan as presented by Bolton & Menk, and adopted Resolution 2012-054 ordering the Feasibility Report for the B-2 District and authorizing staff to enter into a contract with Bolton & Menk for completion ofthe Feasibility Report. The Feasibility Report, along with preliminary engineering, is anticipated to be completed by mid summer. B.Staff Comments City Planner Beekman updated the Commission on the City website improvements. There was discussion on the new agenda system versus paper packets. ADJOURN Commissioner Thompsonmoved, seconded by Commissioner Hames,to adjourn the January 9,2013, Planning Commission Work Session Meeting at 7:58p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JULY 10, 2013 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, Andrew Holewa, Janet Stodola (Alternate), and Roberta Thompson. Absent: Commissioners Angela Hames, Samuel Scott, and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were: Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler; Councilmember Dave McClung; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; and City Planner Ryan Streff. APPROVAL OF AGENDA JULY 10, 2013 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 19, 2013 Planning Commission Special Meeting Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to approve the June 19, 2013, Planning Commission Special Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 13-010; PUD Amendment, Walgreens; 3585 Lexington Avenue North Public Hearing Community Development Intern Bachler stated the applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to include an additional 97.6 square feet of wall signage on the exterior of the building located at 3585 Lexington Avenue North. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 20132 Background Community Development Intern Bachler explained that on July 13, 2009, the City Council approved Planning Case 09-011 for a Master PUD and Final PUD for Phase One of the Arden Plaza Redevelopment Proposal. Phase One of the development included the property at 3585 Lexington Avenue North where the Walgreens store is located. A sign plan for the site was included in the PUD agreement. At the time of approval, the Walgreens store was permitted up to 99 square feet of wall signage. on the east also been installed on these facades above the entry doorways located at the southeast corner of the building. Community Development Intern Bachler indicated the applicant has expressed concerns about the visibility of the Walgreens store from County Road E. Because the primary store entrance and and the Arden Plaza shopping center, the use of the building is not readily apparent to drivers travelling on County Road E. By adding wall signage to the back side of the building, the applicant is hoping to increase commercial activity at the store. Community Development Intern Bachler stated the applicant is requesting an additional 97.6 square feet of wall signage for the exterior of the building. This total would be divided between installed on the building to mirror the existing wall signs, with the two larger signs placed on the middle portion of the north and west building walls and the smaller signs located at the corner where the north and west walls meet. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Community Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Commercial Zoning: B-2 Current Lot Sizes: 1.76 Acres Topography: Level Community Development Intern Bachler reviewed the surrounding area and the Plan Evaluation. 1. Chapter 12 - Sign Code: Section 1240.02 Permitted Sign Type, Area, Height, and Illumination by Sign District Wall Signage Sign District 5 Lexington 3585 Lexington 3585 Lexington South of 694 Avenue Avenue (Permitted) (Existing) (Proposed) Total sign copy area 80 SF 97.6 SF 195.2 SF The property at 3585 Lexington Avenue North is located in Sign District 5. For developments not in a PUD, a typical property would be permitted up to 80 square feet of wall signage. As ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 20133 mentioned previously, the PUD agreement for the site allowed the property up to 99 square feet of wall signage. Currently 97.6 square feet of wall signage is installed on the building. The applicant has requested an additional 97.6 square feet of wall signage, which would bring the total wall sign copy area on the building to 195.2 square feet. This number represents an additional 115.2 square feet than what is permitted by the Sign Code. 2. Chapter 12 - Sign Code: Section 1260.01 Sign Standard Adjustment Section 1260.01 of the Sign Code permits adjustments to sign height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location through the site plan review process if criteria number 1 or 2 is met and the required criteria number 3 is met. The criteria are as follows: 1.There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site; or, 2.The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site; and, 3.The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. While the above criteria are not directly referenced for a PUD Amendment request to add signage to a property, they do provide guidance for evaluating these types of applications. The PUD process itself permits the City to be flexible with signage standards depending on the needs of a particular use. In this case, criteria one and three are most applicable. 3. Chapter 13 Zoning Code: 1325.05, Subd. 8 Additional Design Standards for New Development Redevelopment, and Modifications to Existing Sites in the B2 and B3 Districts Section 1325.05, Subd. 8 of the Zoning Code establishes design standards for the business districts of Arden Hills. The standards in this section are only applicable to the building or site components being developed or altered. In this case, the specific guidelines on signs are pertinent: 1. Business signs shall be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors and details of the building and should be an integral part of the building. Signs shall be incorporated into the facades of the building rather than extending past the roof line and should not project more than twelve (12) inches beyond the plane of the facades. Retail business wall signs shall be located in a position above the front window that is located consistently among stores. 2. All other provisions in Chapter 12, Sign Code, shall apply. The proposed signage in the plan meets the requirements contained in Section 1325.05, Subd. 8 of the Zoning Code. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 20134 Community Development Intern Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1.The Walgreens building was approved by the City on July 13, 2009 as part of Phase One of the Arden Plaza Redevelopment Proposal in Planning Case 09-011. 2.The original Planned Unit Development was approved for 99 square feet of wall signage on the property. 3.An amendment to the PUD permit is required for additional wall signage. 4.The applicant is proposing 97.6 square feet of additional wall signage for the property. 5.The proposed PUD Amendment is in considerable conformance with the requirements of 6. Zoning Code. 7.Where the requested by the applicant due to site conditions unique to the property at 3585 Lexington Avenue North. 8.s regulation through a negotiated process with a developer. 9.The proposed signage would not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Community Development Intern Bachler stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 13-010 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3585 Lexington Avenue North. Staff recommends the following five conditions be included with the approval: 1.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.The 97.6 square feet of wall signage shall be divided between two wall signs measuring 40.2 square feet and 8.6 square feet to be located on the north building wall, and two wall signs measuring 40.2 square feet and 8.6 square feet to be located on the west building wall. 3.Wall signs shall be comprised of individual cut letters and shall not extend more than twelve (12) inches from the wall they are attached to. 4.The applicant shall apply for a sign permit prior to installation of the signs. 5.plicant shall provide fully executed revised development agreements pertaining to the property at 3585 Lexington Avenue. Community Development Intern Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted 3.Recommend Denial 4.Table Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 20135 Chair Larson commented the applicant was requesting double the amount of allowable signage, however, the elevations of the building do show a need for the proposed signage. He indicated the orientation of the building away from the street was also causing the need for additional signage. Commissioner Holewa questioned why the monument sign was being used to advertise the use of the property instead of a wall signage on the north building wall. Dustin Cressen, Walgreens Manager, stated the original intention was to provide branding signs, but after receiving several customer complaints a day, he was now requesting additional signage to assist with advertising the use of the property. Commissioner Stodola asked if the proposed signs could be more diverse. Mr. Cressen commented it would be his preference to have all four signs uniform in design. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 6:46 p.m. Commissioner Thompson supported the uniformity of the proposed signage. She commented the additional signage would invite people in to Walgreens in a more pleasing manner. She sign size. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-010 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3585 Lexington Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the five conditions in the July 10, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). REPORTS A.TCAAP Update Community Development Director Hutmacher reported several buildings on the TCAAP site have already been demolished. All buildings, with the exception of Building 502, will be demolished prior to the end of this year. Carl Bolander & Sons will recycle the majority of the construction debris. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated City and County staff have been meeting regularly with interested brokers and developers to provide information on the project timeline and master planning process. Initial developer feedback has been very positive regarding the and the collaboration between the City and County. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 20136 Community Development Director Hutmacher noted in July, the master planning project management team will be holding one-on-one interviews with several developers to gather insight on the challenges and opportunities of working with a public agency; how the master plan can influence private development decisions; and specific features that may make the TCAAP site more appealing for private investment. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that on June 10, 2013, the City Council approved the Public I planning two public involvement events. Development Panel and Engagement Workshop Community Development Director Hutmacher reported the first TCAAP public involvement event will be held on Tuesday, July 30, from 6:00 to 8:00 pm at the Marsden Conference Room, Ramsey County Public Works Facility. The event will begin with a panel discussion followed by a question and answer period. Following the panel discussion, small break-out groups will hold facilitated discussion on the following topics: Transportation and Access Commercial and Residential Development Active and Passive Open Space Energy and Sustainability This is a public event, but RSVPs are required so that the City can adequately plan for the number of tables, facilitators, and note takers that will be needed for the break-out groups. A and announcements are being made at City Council meetings. two-hour time period. Public Open House Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated the first open house event has been tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, September 17, from 5:30 to 7:30 pm in the Marsden Conference Room. may arrive at any time that is convenient for them. Additional details on this event will be available in August. TCAAP Public Hearings Community Development Director Hutmacher stated in addition to the July 30 and September 17 public events, the City Council will hold a public hearing on TCAAP at the first Council meeting of every month. Residents are invited to attend the public hearings to offer their thoughts and opinions on the TCAAP development. Commissioner Holewa questioned how the Planning Commission would be involved in the TCAAP planning process. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated at this time the consultants were gathering facts and public comments. Later this fall, further direction will be needed from the Planning Commission. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 10, 20137 B.Report from the City Council Councilmember McClung updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities including approval of the Public Involvement Plan for the TCAAP Master Planning Process at the June 10, 2013 City Council Meeting. The Plan outlines the roles and responsibilities of City staff, the JDA, County, and City Council; the goals, objectives, and expected outcomes of the public involvement process; public involvement techniques; and project schedules. June 24, 2013, City Council Meeting The City Council voted to approve Planning Case 13-008 for a Zoning Code Amendment and Conditional Use Permit to allow a higher education use as a tenant in the office building at 2 Pine Tree Drive. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this case at their June 5, 2013 meeting. The City Council also voted to approve Planning Case 13-009 for a PUD Amendment at 1201 County Road to permit a site-wide sign plan for the property. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this case at their June 5, 2013 meeting. Councilmember McClung thanked Community Development Intern Bachler for his dedicated service and assistance to the City of Arden Hills. Community Development Director Hutmacher introduced Ryan Streff to the Planning Commission explaining he was hired as the new City Planner. Ryan Streff introduced himself to the Commission stating he was looking forward to the exciting planning activities that would be taking place in Arden Hills. The Commission welcomed him to the City. C.Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Stodola, to adjourn the July 10, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:06 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). MEMORANDUM 3.A DATE: September 4, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff,City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case#13-012–No public hearing required Applicant: Identi-Graphics (James Nelson) Owner: Theodore Brausen Property Location: 1306County Road E (Shell Station) Request: Variance Requested Action The applicant is requesting a variance to deviate from the signage regulations in order to replace anexistingmanual gasoline price sign with adigital LED(light-emitting diode) price sign. The proposedsignwould be approximately 15.35sq. ft. (35”x 63 1/8”) in sizewith twenty-four (24) inch numbers. Background 1.Overview of Request The applicant, Identi-Graphics,is proposing to replace a portion of thesign face on the existing pole signthat identifies theShell Station located a 1306County Road E. The property is located within the B-2 Zoning District, south of County Road E and east of Highway51.This parcel contains three (3) structures that include the convenience store, gas pump islands and canopy, and carwash. The adjoining parcel to the south is also owned by TheodoreBrausen. The southern property has shared access through the Shell Station propertyand is used commercially as an auto repairshop. The sign,which the applicant intends to modify,is located in the northwest corner of the property. The existing sign is fifteen feet ten inches (15’ 10”)in height and has a sign copy area of eighty-four and one half square feet (84.50).The existing pole sign is described as being a legal non-conforming sign. It has been given this designation as “pole signs” are no longer allowed in Sign District 4 (County Road E Frontage). Freestanding signs in Sign City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 1of 8 District 4are still permitted; however, they must be constructed as a monument type ground sign. There is an existing cabinet area on the sign that measures thirty-five inches by sixty-three and one eighth inches(35” x 63 1/8”)thatthe applicant intends to replace with a digital LED price sign. The digital section of this cabinet would be approximately 15.35 square feetin size with twenty-four (24) inch numbers to display the price. The remaining balance of the sign would remain unchanged other than typical signage updates to the remaining cabinet sections. No other portions of the sign would be digital in nature. The property owner submitted a similar request in 2006, which was approved under the Site Plan Review process, to add a twenty (20) square foot electronic message board to an existing sign. This particular off-premise sign is currently usedto market theauto repair shop just south of the subject property that has no frontage onto County Road E. The applicant has submitted a description ofthe proposedchange in signage (Attachment A), renderings of the sign face (Attachment B) and anaerial site plan of the property (Attachment C). 2.Site Data Future Land Use Plan:CMU: Community Mixed Use Existing Land Use:Commercial (Convenience store and gas station) Zoning:B-2:General Business District Current Lot Sizes:.81acres (35,284square feet) The west/south west portion of the property dropsapproximately six feet from east Topography: to west. 3.Surrounding Area DirectionFuture LandUse PlanZoningExisting Land Use CMU: Community Mixed NorthB-2: General Business DistrictCommercial Use CMU: Community Mixed South B-2: General Business DistrictCommercial Use CMU: Community Mixed East B-2: General Business DistrictCommercial Use HWY 51ROW & Single HWY 51 ROW & LDR: HWY 51 ROW: Single-Family WestFamily Detached Low Density ResidentialResidential Residential City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 2of 8 Plan Evaluation 1.Sign Code Regulations: A.Definitions–Dynamic Display(Section 1210.01) Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes, but is not limited to, any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, projecting, or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lightsmanipulated through digital input, "digital ink," or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. B.Prohibited Signs (Section 1230.02Subd. 2) This section states that Dynamic Display Signsare prohibited. C.Regulations by Sign District(Section 1240.01) Sign District 4: All properties fronting on County Road E east of Highway 51 except for those properties with frontage on Lexington Avenue. 1240.02 –Sign Standards by Sign District District 4 Sign Type -Freestanding Permitted Existing M = Monument TypeP = PoleM/OP O = Temp. Off-Premise Total sign copy In Square Feet50 sf84.50 sf area Max HeightIn Feet& Inches10 ft15 ft 10 in E = External LightingI= InternalE/I/BI B = Backlit SetbacksIn Feet from property line5 ft5+ D.Sign Standard Adjustments (Section 1260.01) This section states that the Sign Standard Adjustment provision shall not be used to permit dynamic display signage. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 3of 8 E.Non-Conforming Signs(Section 1280.01) Non-conforming Sign Continuance. A legal non-conforming sign may be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but shall not be expanded or moved to a new location. 2. Purpose of the B-2 General Business District (Section 1320.04Subd. 7) A.To be a place in which people can live, work and play. B.To create a compact, architecturally diverse, pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly community with a distinct identity. C.To provide a connected sidewalk system and places for people to gather and socialize. D.To implement design standards to promote an attractive environment with lasting and sustainable value. E.To group compatible retail and service business uses that tend to draw trade that is naturally interchangeable and promotes business prosperity. F.To provide an adequate supply of businesses and professional service areas to meet the needs of the residents. G.To minimize the effects of traffic congestion, noise, odor, glare and similar safety problems. H.To implement the Plan known as the "Guiding Planfor the B2 District," which was adopted by the City Council on October 27, 2008. 3.B-2Regulations Applicable B-2Lot Requirements 1.Minimum Lot Area (sf)13,000 A.Lot Size & Dimensions The lot is 35,284 square feet, 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width/depth)100/130 approximately 230 feet wide and 160 feet 3. Height (ft.)50 in depth. 4. Lot Covered by Structure45% 5. Min.Landscape Lot Area20% B.Structure Setbacks No changes to the structures on the lot are 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) being requested. Front yard20 Rear Yard (Principle)20 C.Lot Coverage Rear Yard (Accessory)10 No changes in lot coverage requirements Side Yard Interior -Principal are being requested. (Min/total both yards on lot)10/20 Side Yard Interior -Accessory10 D.Structure Height Side Yard Corner20 No change to the height of any structure is being requested. VarianceEvaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria citiesmust use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 4of 8 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 withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof 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 Digital price readers are becoming the industry standard for displaying the cost of petroleum products. Signs, such as the one being proposed, will allow the property owner the ability to use the latest technological advancements to their advantage to market theirproductsin an effective and cost efficient way. Theyefficiencyallow the service station attendant more time to assist customers inside the store. No longer would the attendant need to leave the station unattended to change the sign to a different price. The ease of a digital system allows the attendant to change the price via remote from inside the station without having to bare the weather conditions to change the price manually. Safety of the station attendant and the security of the store are twoof the greatest concerns of the owner. The proposed sign shouldnot interfere with traffic along Highway51 or County Road E. Customers should find a digital sign much clearer and easier to read,which inturn will allow drivers to concentrate on safe driving. The sign has the technology in place to increase or decrease the brightness settings for daylight andevening hours.The sign as proposed cannot display other messages such as time & temperature, advertisements, and other similar messages. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following tenfindings of factfor review: General Findings 1.The property is located in the B-2 Zoning District and within Sign District 4. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 5of 8 2.The existing service station on the property operates under the conditions of a special use permit/conditional use permitand conforms to theuses in the B-2 Zoning District. 3.The existingpole sign on the property is considered alegal non-conformingsigndue to its type, sign copy area, and height. 4.The proposed change in signage to the existing pole sign would still render the sign to be alegal non-conforming sign. 5.The existing sign located in the northwest corner of the property is 15’ feet 10” inches in height and has a total sign copy area of 84.50 square feet. 6.The proposed section within the existing sign to be replaced with a digital price sign is 15.35 square feet with twenty-four (24) inch letters. 7.The proposed change in signage should not conflict with the intent of the zoning ordinance, comprehensive plan or Guiding Plan for the B-2Zoning District. 8.The proposed digital price sign should not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district or current land use in which the property is located. 9.The sign will be used to advertise the price of petroleum products on the property located at 1310 County Road E. 10.There is an existing electronic message board located on the property in the northeast corner used to market the auto repair shop just south of the subject property. This off- premise electronic message board is approximately twenty (20) square feet in size. Variance Findings: 1.The proposal is generally in harmony withthe purpose and intent of the ordinance because the ordinance general allows flexibility for signage related matters. 2.The sign copy area is not being increased in size, which should minimize visual impact of the digital LED price sign on adjacent property owners and the traveling public. 3.The proposal is consistent withthe comprehensive plan because it allows the reasonable use of commercial property. 4.Signsarepermitted and reasonable uses within the B-2 Zoning District. 5.Unique circumstances as it relates to signage affect the use of the lot as a functioning service station. Safety of the station attendant and the security of the store pose unique circumstances for the applicant and property ownerwhen digital technology is not utilized. 6.Since the sign remains static the majority of the time and only displays the cost of one petroleum product, the signis unlikely to have a negative impact on theproperty or the neighborhood. 7.The signas proposed would be visible from County Road E, which abuts Highway51; however,the sign and itsintensity should not affect the area as the sign has technology in place to adjust itsbrightness during daylight and evening hours. 8.The proposed variance for the digital LED price sign doesnot appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 6of 8 Staff Analysis The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval.However, if the Planning Commission choosesto 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 ten (10)conditions: 1.That the dynamic display portionof the sign shall not exceed 15.50 square feet. 2.That the dynamic display shall only display the cost of petroleum products. 3.That the dynamic display shall remain static other than to change the price of the one (1) petroleum productthatis being sold. 4.That the dynamic display shall not display the price of multiple petroleum products during the course of any 24 hour period. 5.That no part of the sign including the dynamic display portion shall rotate, move, flash, blink, project, or be animatedin any way. The display shall not incorporate rotating panelsor technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. 6.That the total sign copy area of the sign shall not be increasedor expanded. 7.That advertising not related to the business located at 1306 County Road E shall be strictly prohibited. 8.That the brightness of the dynamic display shall not distract automobile traffic. That the City may require the applicant to adjust the brightness of the sign if the City determines that the sign is distracting drivers. 9.That the intensity or brightness setting on the sign shall be adjustedduring daylight and evening hoursso that traffic is not distract. 10.That a sign permit and electrical permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of the sign. Options The findings in this report currentlysupportapproval of this variance. With a motion to deny the variance, the findings must be amended. 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 13-012for a variance at 1306 County Road E,based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the ten (10)conditions in the September 4, 2013, planning case report. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 13- 012 for a variance at 1306 County Road E, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, as presented in the September 4, 2013, planning case report. 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 13-012 for a variance at 1306 County Road E based on the following findings of fact… City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 7of 8 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 13-012 for a variance at 1306 County Road E:a specific reason and/orinformation request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, apublic meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The Cityhas not received any commentsfrom neighboring residentsor property owners. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August5, 2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 3, 2013,(60 days), unless theCity provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. Attachments A.Application and Supporting Materials B.Signage Plans and Maps C.Aerial Site Map D.County Road E Improvement Map E.Photographs of the Site City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 -Brausen_Shell Signage Variance Page 8of 8 Property Boundary The zoning district designations represented on this map correspond to the City of Arden Hills official Zoning Map. ¯ Questions concerning the Zoning Map should be directed to City Hall. Zoning designations are subject to change. Location of Sign Please refer to the Zoning Code for complete information. Map Date: August 29, 2013 P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012 MEMORANDUM 3.B DATE: September 4, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Community Development Intern SUBJECT:Planning Case #13-014-This application requires a PUBLIC HEARING Applicant: Roberts Management Group Property Location: 3833 Lexington Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action The applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a sign planfor the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue North. Background 1.Overview of Request: On July 8, 2013, the City Council approved a Master Planned Unit Development and Final Planned Unit Development for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue in Planning Case 13-003. A signage plan for the Phase I development was not included in the approved PUD. Roberts Management Groupisnowrequesting an amendment to the existing PUDto include asign plan for the property.The applicant has submitted plans that includethe dimensions and locations of the proposed monument sign and wall signage (Attachment A). The monument sign would be located on Lexington Avenue towards the southern end of the Phase I development, adjacent to the access drivewaycurrently serving 3771 Lexington Avenue. The sign copy area would measure 15 feet tall by 9 feet wide, or 135 square feet. The height of the sign would be 26feet and 9 ½ inches. There are a total of ten retail bays in the Phase I building. For the two larger bays at the southern and northern endsof the building, the applicant has requested a total of 240 square feet of wall signage. The signage would be divided equally between the three building wallson the end units. For the remaining eight central bays, 115 square feet of wall signage is being requested. This City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 1of 9 amount would be divided between the western façadefacing the interior of the development and the eastern façadefacing Lexington Avenue. Small blade signs are also proposed to be located between retail bays on the western side of the building. These signs would measure four(4)square feet in area and would hang from a rod extending approximately three feet from the building wall. A total of seven blade signs are proposed. 2.Surrounding Area: DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use NorthCommercialB-3:ServiceBusiness DistrictRestaurant/Hotel SouthCommercialB-3:ServiceBusiness DistrictRetail East CommercialC-1: Retail ServiceRetail/Bank (Shoreview) WestMixed BusinessB-4:Retail Center DistrictOffice/Flex Industrial 3.Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: Commercial Existing Land Use: Vacant Zoning: B-3:Service Business District Lot Size: 1.34Acres Topography:Level Plan Evaluation 1.Chapter 12 –Sign Code: Section 1240.02 Permitted Sign Type, Area, Height, and Illumination by Sign District FreestandingSignage 3833 Lexington Ave Sign TypeSign District 5 PUD Amendment (Permitted) (Proposed) FREESTANDING TypeMonumentMonument Max Area (Sign 1) 100SF135 SF Max Area (Sign 2)50SF-- Max Height16’26’–9 ½” City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 2of 9 The property at 3833 Lexington Avenueis located in Sign District 5.For properties not included in a Planned Unit Development, 100square feet of freestanding signage is permittedin this District. Since the sitefronts two public streets(Lexington Avenueand Red Fox Road),the propertyis allowed an additional freestanding sign not to exceed 50square feet. Freestanding signs are not permitted to be more than16feet in height.The total area of a freestanding sign (including sign copy, decorative features, and structural supports) must be no more than 1.5 times the permitted sign copy area of the sign. The Sign Code also includesspecific design standards for freestanding signsin this District. Only freestanding monument signs are permitted and the signs must be designed so that thesign copyissupported by a solid base of brick or rock-faced block in a color similar or complimentary to the main structure on the site. Materials used forthe signbase are required to extend at least one-half way up the sides of the sign face. Due to the sign being located approximately 60 feet from Lexington Avenue, the applicant has expressed concerns about the visibility of the individual tenant signs and is requesting flexibility on the height and area requirements. The applicant is also requesting a larger monument sign on Lexington Avenue in part because a second freestanding signon Red FoxRoad, which would be permitted by the Sign Code,will not be installed. A total of 135 square feet of copy area is proposed for the Lexington Avenue monument sign, an additional 35 square feet than what is allowed in the Sign Code. The proposed 26’ –9½”height of the sign exceeds the sign requirementsby 10’–9 ½”.The total area of the sign would be approximately 310 square feet. If the requested 135 square feet of copy area was to be permitted, the total area of the sign could be up to 203 square feetbased on the Sign Code requirements. The base of themonumentsign would be constructed with rough face cast stone, and modular brick would be used on the sideof the sign that facesaway from Lexington Avenue.These materials match the principal building materials used for the Phase I building. While brickis used along the western side of the sign, the materialextendsone-half way upalongonly one of the sides.Internal lighting would be used to illuminate the sign. Wall Signage 3833 Lexington Ave Sign TypeSign District 5 PUD Amendment (Permitted) (Proposed) WALL 2 Large Bays: 240 SF Total Area per Tenant80 SF 8 Small Bays: 115 SF Total Area for Building800 SF1,428SF Max HeightNone- City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 3of 9 Properties in Sign District 5arepermitted a total of 80 square feet of wall signage. In multi- tenant buildings or sites, the permitted sign area may be installed by each individual business establishment that has some exclusive use of the primary level of the building. The applicant has requested 240 square feet of wall signage for the two cornerbays in the development, which each have three visible building façades.Each façade couldhave up to 80 square feet of signage. This total amount represents an additional 160 square feet than what is permitted in the Sign Code. Thecorner bayshave two façades eachmeasuring 38 feet and one 70-foot façade. The remaining eightsmaller retail bays would be allowed 115 square feet of signageeach, divided between up to 60 square feet on the west side facing the interior of the development and 55 square feet on the east side facing Lexington Avenue. This total amount represents an additional 35 square feet than what is permitted in the Sign Code. The smaller bays each have 20 feet of façade on either side of the building. As a point of comparison,staff reviewed the amount of wall signage currently installed at several retail baysin the Shannon Square development(Attachment C). Both the UPS Store and Subway occupy bays with façadelengths that are comparable to the smaller retail bays in the Lexington Station building. The UPS Store has a wall sign measuring 26 square feet and the Subway has a sign with an area of 48 square feet. The Caribou coffee shop is located in a corner storefront with an approximately 30-foot façadealong thenorthbuilding walland a 40-foot façadeon the east. This façade areais roughly half of the total façadeareaofthe two Lexington Station corner bays. Caribou has one 40 square foot sign on the north façade and one 40 square foot sign on the east façade. Seven blade signs are also proposed for the western building façade. The signs would be located between the smaller retail baysapproximately eight (8)feet above ground level. Each sign would have an area of four (4) square feet.Based on the proposal, it is unclear how the seven signs will be distributed between the eight small bays. This type of sign would be counted towards the allowed wall signage per tenant. Window Signage The sign plan includes non-branded window banner coatings on several of the window panes of the retail bays at the northern and southern end of the building.The applicant is currently working with potential tenants for these stores,buthas been unable to obtain specific plans for the windows. Generally, the window treatment would be semitransparent, graphic in form, and would not include any advertising for the stores(Attachment D). As the windowcoatings have been described to staff, they wouldnot be counted as window signageas long as no commercial branding, logos, or icons are included. The purpose of the window treatment is to cover those windows that will look onto food preparation and storage areas in the stores. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 4of 9 2.Chapter 12 –Sign Code: Section 1230.02 Prohibited Sings Section 1230.02 of the Sign Code states that projecting signs shall be prohibited in all sign districts. The code defines projecting signs as, “a sign, other than a wall sign, that is attached to and projects more than eighteen (18) inches from the building façade. The proposed blade signs extend 3’ –4” from the building façadeand are considered projecting signs.These types of signs can be permitted by the City through the Sign Standard Adjustment review process in Section 1260.01 of the Sign Code. 3.Chapter 12–Sign Code: Section 1260.01 Sign Standard Adjustment Section 1260.01 of the Sign Code permits adjustments to sign height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location through the site plan review process if criteria number 1 or2 is met and the required criteria number 3 is met. The criteria are as follows: 1.There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site; or, 2.The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site; and, 3.The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. While the above criteria are not directly referenced or required for PUD Amendmentrequests to add signage to a property, theydo provide guidance for evaluating these types of applications. The PUD process itself permits the City to be flexible with signage standards depending on the needs and impact of a particular use. 4. Chapter 13 –Zoning Code: 1325.05, Subd. 8 Additional Design Standards for New Development Redevelopment, and Modifications to Existing Sites in the B2 and B3 Districts Section 1325.05, Subd. 8 of the Zoning Code establishes design standards for the business districts of Arden Hills. The standards in this section are only applicable to the building or site components being developed or altered. In this case, the specific guidelines on signs are pertinent: 1.Business signs shall be architecturally compatible with the style, composition, materials, colors and details of the building and should be an integral part of the building. Signs shall be incorporated into the facades of the building rather than extending past the roof line and should not project more than twelve (12) inches beyond the plane of the facades. Retail business wall signs shall be located in a position above the front window that is City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 5of 9 located consistently among stores. 2.All other provisions in Chapter 12, Sign Code, shall apply. The signageplan meetsthe requirements contained in Section 1325.05, Subd. 8 of the Zoning Code. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed PUD Amendment at 3833Lexington Avenuewould adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: 1.The propertyis located in the B-3Zoning District and in Sign District 5. 2.The Planned Unit Development at 3833 Lexington Avenuewas approved by the City on July 8, 2013 in Planning Case 13-003.The approved Planned Unit Developmentdid not include a sign plan for the property. 3.The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved PUD for asign plan that includesa monumentsignand wall signage. 4.The City has adopted special design standards for the B-3 Zoning District, which include provisions onsignage. 5.The proposed PUD Amendment is in considerableconformance with the requirements of the City’s Sign Code. 6.The proposed PUD Amendment is inconformance with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Code. 7.Where the plan is not in conformance with the City’s Sign Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant due to the site conditions unique to the property at 3833 Lexington Avenue. 8.The PUD Amendment approval process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. 9.The signage plan would not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole and it is consistent with the size and orientationof the property on which the signs would be located. Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to residents within five hundred(500) feet of the subject property. Resident Comments City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 6of 9 Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regard to this planning case. Staff Recommendation Staff is generally supportive of the Lexington Stationsign plan. There are unique site conditions that warrant granting flexibility for additional monument and wall signage. The right of way between the Lexington Avenue curb and the property line is unusually wide. As a result, the proposed monument sign will be situated approximately 60 feet backfrom Lexington Avenue, reducing its visibility from the roadway. Since the primaryentrances to thebuilding facethe interior of the developmentand the building fronts Lexington Avenueas well, the building will need to have a presence onboth sides, which includes signage.The additional signage will have the added benefit of enliveningthe eastern side of the building. However, staff believes the overall amount of signagebeingrequested is excessive. In the conditions of approval, staff is recommending a reduction in the amount of wall signage per retail bayand in the height of the monument sign. These recommendations are basedonwhat staff believes isan appropriate amount of signage given the proportions of the building and the individual retail bays. They also take into consideration the amount of signage that will be provided for each tenant on the monument sign. Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 13-014for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue. Staff recommends the followingten (10)conditionsbe included with the approval: 1.The signageplanshall 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 retail bay at the northern endof the Phase I building shall be permitted no more than 140square feet of wall signage. The total wall signage shall be divided between 40 square feet on the west façade, 60 square feet on the north façade, and 40 square feet on the east façade. 3.The retail bay at the southern end of the Phase I building shall be permitted no more than 140 square feet of wall signage. The total wall signage shall be divided between 40 square feet on the west façade, 60 square feet on the south façade, and 40 square feet on the east façade. 4.Each of the eight central retail bays in the Phase I building shall be permitted no more than 80 square feet of wall signage. The total wall signage shall be divided between 40 square feet on the west façadeand 40 square feet on the east façade. 5.In the event that a tenant occupies multiple retail bays in the Phase I building, the tenant shall be allowed up to 30square feet of wall signage per additional bay occupied. This amount shall be dividedbetweenup to 15 square feet of signage onthe west façade and up to 15 square feet of signage on the east façade. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 7of 9 6.Wall signs shall be comprised of individual cut letters and shall not extend more than 12 inches fromthe wall they are attached to. Wall signs shall be consistent in appearance and the spacing between signs shall be balanced. 7.Blade signs shall not extend beyond the front edge of the canopies on the west façade and shall have an area of no more than four (4) square feet. Blade signs shall have a minimum vertical clearance of eight (8) feet from the sidewalk to the bottom of the sign. The area of the blade sign shall be included in calculating the permitted area for wall signs. 8.The monument sign on Lexington Avenueshall not exceed twenty (20)feet in height. The monument sign shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line. 9.Final plans for the windowcoatingshall be reviewed with staff prior to installation. If it is determined the window coatingqualifies as commercial signage, no more than 35% of each window area shall be covered and the total coverageof the window coatingshall not exceed 5% of the building façade. 10.Sign permits shall be applied for prior to the installation of any signage on the property. Options 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 13-014for a PUDAmendment at 3833 Lexington Avenuebased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the tenconditions in the September 4, 2013, Report to the Planning Commission. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 13- 014for a PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenuebased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the September 4, 2013, Report to the Planning Commission. 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 13-014for a PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenuebased on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 13-014for a PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenuein order to gather the following information: a specific reason and/orinformation request should be included with a motion to table. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 12, 2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 11, 2013(60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for anadditional 60 day review period.The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 8of 9 Attachments A.Application and Supporting Materials B.Site Map C.Examples of Commercial Sign Dimensions,Shannon Square D.Examples of Non-Branded Window Coatings City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 9of 9 Attachment A AttachmentB 3833 Lexington Avenue 462.50925.0Feet 925.0 0 1:5,550 NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Notes © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division Enter Map Description This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 3833 Lexington Avenue 154.17308.3Feet 308.3 0 1:1,850 NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Notes © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division Enter Map Description This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION AttachmentC Shannon Square Shopping Center, Arden Hills Commercial Wall Sign Examples .·w D©;· /z¦ 7 w; t{ {·©; wÝ; E27; w; E27; E ·w; {Ò,Þä ·©; z ;m·w E ¦¦©ãz·;ä E;;·u w; D©;· /z¦ ¦¦©ãz·;ä E;;· mu w; Þ zm Þ zm ;Ò©; ¨Ò©; E;;· z ©; 7 ·w; ;Ò©; ¨Ò©; E;;· z ©;u t{ {·©; ;Ò©; ¨Ò©; E;;·u D;©m; {w; µ w;¦z© --Ò¦z; ·©;E©· Þz·w ¦¦©ãz·;ä E· m E27;u w; Þ zm ;Ò©; Shannon Square Shopping Center, Arden Hills Commercial Wall Sign Examples w; /©z,Ò /EE;; w¦ --Ò¦z; -©;© ,ä · {w {¨Ò©;u w; ©·w E27; z ¦¦©ãz·;ä E;;· mu w; ·©; w ; ¨Ò©; E· Þ zm ·wz E27;u w; ;· E27; z ¦¦©ãz·;ä E;;· mu w; ·©; w 77z·z ¨Ò©; E· Þ zm ·wz E27;u AttachmentD 9ã¦; E b.©7;7 z7Þ /·zm «b·;t ; E ·w; Þz7Þ -·zm wÞ w;©; ©; -Ò©©;·ä ,;zm ¦©¦;7 ,ä ·w; MEMORANDUM 3.C DATE: September 4, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff,City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case#13-015–No public hearing required Applicant: Staples(Steve Lilly) Owner: Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc. Property Location: 1221/1233County Road E Request: Variance Requested Action The applicant is requesting a variance to allow flexibility within the zoning regulations to permit a parking lot expansion. The following three variances are being requested;1) Landscape Lot Coverage, 2) B-2 Design Standards and 3) Off-Public Street Parking. The proposed parking lot expansion would add sixteen (16) additional parking spaces. Background 1.Overview of Request The applicant,Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc.,is proposing to increase the size of the parking lot to add sixteen (16) additional parking spaces at their facility located at 1221/1233 County Road E. The property is located within the B-2 Zoning District,northof County Road E, south of railroad tracts, east of HWY 51 and west of Lexington Avenue.The facility contains one (1) structure made up of both office and warehouse uses, which total112,200 square feet. There is 27,200 square feet of office spaceand 85,000 square feet of warehouse space at the facility. The applicant is proposing this change in order to provide additional parking accommodations to their regular employees. By providing theadditional parking their employees would not have to regularly subject themselves to treacherous winter weather City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 1of 8 conditions on their walk to and from leased parking areason adjacent properties.Staples would continue to lease other parking areas, however, these locations would be mainly used as overflow parkingfor special meetingsand events. Currently the Staplesproperty has eighty-four (84) parking spaces on site and leasesforty- four (44) additional spaces from surrounding property owners for a total of 128 parking spaces. Their proposal will add twelve (12) parking spaces along County Road E and four (4) spaces in the rear lot within the securityfence. There are two other planning cases that are associated with this property.In 1969,Planning Case #69-023 approved two variances that allowed a maximum building coverage to increase from forty percent (40%) to forty-seven percent (47%) and a rear yard setback reduction from twenty (20) feet to eighteen (18) feet. In 2001,Planning Case #01-001 approved a site plan review foradditional dock doors, a dock addition and a revised parking plan. The applicant has submitted a description of the proposed change in parking(Attachment A) and parking and landscaping plans(Attachment B). 2.Site Data Future Land Use Plan:CMU: Community Mixed Use Existing Land Use:Commercial (Staples Distribution Center) Zoning:B-2:General Business District Current Lot Sizes:5.22acres (227,384square feet) Topography:The property dropsapproximately six feet from east to west. 3.Surrounding Area DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use I/O: Light Industrial & NorthI-Flex DistrictLight Industrial Office CMU: Community Mixed South B-2: General Business DistrictCommercial Use CMU: Community Mixed East B-2: General Business DistrictCommercial/Light Industrial Use CMU: Community Mixed WestB-2: General Business DistrictCommercial/Light Industrial Use City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 2of 8 Plan Evaluation 1.B-2ZoningRegulations(1320.06) A.Lot Size & Dimensions–Meets Requirements Applicable B-2 Lot Requirements 1.Minimum Lot Area (sf)13,000 The lot is 227,384square feet, approximately 355feet wide and 635feet in depth. 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width/depth)100/130 3. Height (ft.) 50 B.Structure Setbacks–MeetsVariance 4. Lot Covered by Structure45% Approval 5. Min. Landscape Lot Area20% No changeto the structureon the lot isbeing 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) requestedat this time.In 1969 (Planning Front yard20 Case #69-023) a variance was obtained to Rear Yard (Principle)20 reduce the rear yard setback from twenty (20) Rear Yard (Accessory)10 feet to eighteen (18)feet. Side Yard Interior -Principal (Min/total both yards on lot)10/20 C.Lot Coverage by Structure–Meets Variance Side Yard Interior -Accessory10 Approval Side Yard Corner20 No change in lot coverage requirement isbeing requested.In 1969 (Planning Case #69- 023) a variance was obtained to increase the maximum building coverage from forty percent (40%)toforty-seven percent (47%). D.Minimum Landscape Lot Area–Variance Required The existing landscaped area on the lot is approximately thirteen percent (13%)or 30,000 squarefeet. The proposed parking lot addition would further reduce the landscaped area to twelve percent (12%)or 28,000 square feet.The City Code sets a minimum landscaped area oftwenty percent(20%). The applicant has proposed to add four (4)additional pine trees and two (2)additional raised flower beds to the south side of the building. The improved landscapingis being completed as a way to mitigate any affects the added parking might have to the traveling public on County Road E. E.Structure Height–Meets Requirements No change to the height of any structure is being requested. 2.Design Standards –Additional B-2& B-3Design Standards (1325.05 Subd. 8) City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 3of 8 A.Parking –Variance Required The current parking lot on the west side of the facility serves as the main parking area. This parking area has eighty-four (84)parking spaces, of which seventy-one (71)spaces are reserved for employees, seven (7)for visitors and six (6) that are handicap accessible. The proposed parking lot expansion would add sixteen (16) additional parking spaces within the side yard of the facility. In addition to this parking area forty-four (44) spaces are leased from adjacent property owners. At this time one-hundred percent (100%) of the parking on the site is within the side yard of the property. However, if the forty-four (44) leased spaces are taken into account approximately sixty-five percent (65%) of the parking exists in this area. With the proposed expansion of sixteen (16) spaces this percentagewould increase to approximately sixty-nine percent (69%).The City Code states that “No more than fifty percent (50%) of the parking on a site may be between buildings or in the side yard. 3.Off-Public Street Parking (1325.06 Subd. 1) A.Location –Variance Required Theproposed parking area within the security fence is located within five (5) feet of a property line. This parking area has four (4) parking spaces proposed.The City Code states that “In no case shall off-street parking areas containing four (4) or more parking spaces be closer than five (5) feet from any side or rear lot line. 4.Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 5.Tree Preservation The proposed addition would not require the removal of any significant trees on the property. 6.Purpose of the B-2 General Business District (Section 1320.04 Subd. 7) A.To be a place in which people can live, work and play. B.To create a compact, architecturally diverse, pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly community with a distinct identity. C.To provide a connected sidewalk system and places for people to gather and socialize. D.To implement design standards to promote an attractive environment with lasting and sustainable value. E.To group compatible retail and service business uses that tend to draw trade that is naturally interchangeable and promotes business prosperity. F.To provide an adequate supply of businesses and professional service areas to meet the needs of the residents. G.To minimize the effects of traffic congestion, noise, odor, glare and similar safety problems. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 4of 8 H.To implement the Plan known as the "Guiding Plan for the B2 District," which was adopted by the City Council on October 27, 2008. VarianceEvaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria citiesmust 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 withthe 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 withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there uniquecircumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof 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. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following tenfindings of factfor review: General Findings 1.The lot size meets the requirements of the B-2 Zoning District 2.The lot meets the width and depth requirements for the B-2 Zoning District. 3.The existing parking lot contains eighty-four (84) parking spaces. 4.The applicant leases forty-four (44) parking spaces from adjacent property owners. 5.The proposed expansion would add sixteen (16) additional parking spaces. 6.The proposed expansion wouldfurther decrease the amount of landscaped area on the lot from thirteen percent (13%) to twelve percent (12%). 7.The proposed expansion would add additional parking to the side yard. 8.The proposed expansion would add additional parking within five (5) feet of an existing property line. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 5of 8 Variance Findings: 9.The proposal is in harmony withthe purpose and intent of the ordinance because the request minimizes the impact of the parking area by adding additional screening along County Road E. 10.The proposal is consistent withthe comprehensive plan because it allows thereasonable use of commercial property. 11.A parking lot is apermitted and reasonable usewithin the B-2 Zoning District. 12.The lot is comparably unique in the City. Prior property owners created a building that does not allow for expansion due to the size constraints of the lot. The parking areas on this particular lot are further from the ROW than the parking areas on the adjacent lots to the east and west. 13.Since the proposed expansion does notencroach into therequiredfront yard setbackfor the structure,or place parking directly in front of the building,theexpansionis unlikely to have a negative impact on theproperty or the neighborhood. 14.The parking lot expansion would be visible from the frontof the property, which abuts County Road E; however,the applicant would add additional trees and landscaping to the front of the property. 15.The proposedvariances for the additional parking spaces donot 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 choosesto 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 eight(8) conditions: 1.That a maximum of sixteen (16) additional parking spaces shall be allowedto be constructed on the property. 2.That the parking spaces shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted site plan. 3.That that parking spaces shall be constructed of a hard surface and shall meet the City’s standards for hard surfacing. 4.That the property owner shall maintainshared parking agreement(s) with adjacent property owners in order to provide a minimum of twenty-eight (28) additional parking spaces. 5.That a minimum of four (4) additional pine trees and two (2) additional flower beds shall be provided along County Road E as depicted in the landscaping/parking plan. 6.That all additional trees planted shall betwo and one-half (2.5) caliper inches for deciduous trees and six (6) feet in height for coniferous trees. 7.That a decorative rod iron fence four (4) feet in height shall be provided immediately south of the southern parking area. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 6of 8 8.That the applicant shall work with the City to provide the necessary easement along County Road E for pedestrian movements. Options The findings in this report currentlysupportapproval of this variance. With a motion to deny the variance, the findings must be amended. 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 13-015for a variance at 1221/1233 County Road E,based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the eight(8) conditions in the September 4, 2013, planning case report. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 13- 015 for a variance at 1221/1233 County Road E, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, as presented in the September 4, 2013, planning case report. 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 13-015 for a variance at 1221/1233 County Road E based on the following findings of fact… 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 13-015 for a variance at 1221/1233 County Road E:a specific reason and/orinformation request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, apublic meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Property Owner/ResidentComment The Cityhas not received any commentsfrom neighboring property owners or residents. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August5, 2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 3, 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. Attachments City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 7of 8 A.Application and Supporting Materials B.Parkingand Landscaping Plans C.Aerial Site Map D.County Road E Improvement Map E.Photographs of the Site City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 -Staples Parking Variance Page 8of 8 Attachment A Attachment C Property Boundary The zoning district designations represented on this map correspond to the City of Arden Hills official Zoning Map. ¯ Questions concerning the Zoning Map should be directed to City Hall. Zoning designations are subject to change. Please refer to the Zoning Code for complete information. Map Date: August 29, 2013 P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-015 MEMORANDUM 4.A DATE: September 4, 2013PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Report from the City Council July 8,2013, City Council Meeting The City Council voted to approve Planning Case 13-003 for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development for Phase I, and Preliminary Plat of the Lexington Station Redevelopment Proposal. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this case at their June 19, 2013, meeting. July 29, 2013, City Council Meeting The City Council voted to table Planning Case #13-010 for a Walgreens PUD Amendment to allow the applicant additional time to work with staff to address signage related matters on the building. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this case at theirJuly 10, 2013, meeting. This item will be brought forward to the September 9, 2013, City Council meeting. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for September 4, 2013 Page 1of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE:September 4, 2013 TO:Planning Commission Chair Larson and Commissioners FROM:Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT:TCAAP Update The TCAAP redevelopment project is moving ahead. The following memo is intended to provide information on the demolition/remediation project, Master Plan public engagement activities, and the Joint Development Authority site visit to Denver, Colorado. Demolition and Remediation Only twobuildings remain on site. Building 104 isin the process of being demolished. Building 502, which contains asbestos, will be remediated throughout the winter months and demolished in 2014. Bolanderhas now begun sub-grade work where allowed, as they wait for approval of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to do work throughout the site. They have completed work in the “thumb” area at the north end of the site, adjacent to 35W and County Road H. While Bolander continues to make progress on demolition of the remaining buildings, they report the following materials recycled or salvaged, and diverted from landfill: Steel Recycled to date:1,485 tons Wood Salvage and Reclaimed:4 Flatbeds Steel on the ground awaiting recycle:4000 tons Steel beams salvaged for re-use as is:700 tons Steel railroad track salvage and on ground:350 tons Raw Concrete and Bituminous on ground awaiting crushing: 35,000 tons Bolanderestimates that by project completion, 400,000 tons of bituminous and concrete will be recycled and reused for road bed, foundation work, and other uses. 13 Page of Master Plan Public Engagement Developer Interviews On July 10 and 11, staff and consultants met with representatives from CSM Corporation, Pulte Group, Lennar, and Ryan Companies. Developers were asked questions regarding attractive features in a redevelopment site, potential challenges for TCAAP and with working with a public agency, suggestions for the Master Plan and regulations, and expectations for environmental and sustainability features. Developers provided frank and useful feedback. A summary of developer comments is attached. Developer Panel and Public Engagement Workshop On July 30,the City held a developer panel and public engagement workshop. The two-hour event began with a panel discussion of land use and development professionals. The facilitator asked the panel questions regarding development features for TCAAP, likely land uses, and sustainability strategies. Following a question and answer session, attendees divided into four breakout groups to discuss key development issues: commercial and residential development; transportation and access; recreation and open space; and environment/energy/sustainability. Each group summarized their discussion for all event attendees, then attendees had an opportunity to participate in a second breakout group. A summary of panel and breakout group comments is attached. TCAAP Open House The first TCAAP Master Plan open house event is scheduled for Tuesday, September 17, 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm in the Marsden Room of the Ramsey County Public Works facility. At this time, the consultants are still in the “discovery” phase of the project and will not be prepared to present findings. Instead, information on how this project differs from earlier redevelopment efforts (i.e., market, access points) will be presented and public input encouraged. RSVPs are not required, and attendees may arrive at any time during the event.The event has been advertised in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin, the City newsletter, and the City website. Postcards are being sent to all Arden Hills addresses. The City hopes for excellent participation at this important event. Denver Redevelopment Visit The Joint Development Authority (JDA) visited the Denver, Colorado metro region on August 1 and 2. The group visited three redevelopments in Denver and Aurora over about 36 hours, beginning with Stapleton, the old airport. Stapleton has been under development for about 15 years, and is approximately 4,700 acres in size. It is a mixed-use development. Next, they toured the Fitzsimons/Anschutz Medical Campus in Aurora. Formerly an Army Medical facility, Fitzsimons is now home to the University of Colorado, and the beginnings of a synergistic medical technology campus. Finally, the group visited with Lowry Redevelopment in Denver. Lowry, a former Air Force Base, closed through the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) process in the mid-1990’s, and is now a mixed-use redevelopment with a diversity of housing types, retail, commercial and public amenities such as parks and trails. It is 23 Page of approximately 1,800 acres, and is nearing 70% completion. A detailed description of the three redevelopment areas is attached. These developments gave JDA commissioners and staff a great deal to consider, and some ideas for how to approach the redevelopment of the TCAAP site.Written comments and insight gained from the trip are currently being collected and compiled. A more detailed presentation of lessons learned will be provided at a future City Council meeting. Attachments Summary of TCAAP Engagement Activities –July 2013 Description of Denver Redevelopment Areas 33 Page of SUMMARY OF TCAAP ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES JULY 2013 The following provides a summary of developer interviews held July 10-11, 2013; and the TCAAP Development Panel and Stakeholder Engagement Workshop held July 30, 2013. Developer Interviews City of Arden Hills staff, Ramsey County staff, and consultants interviewed representatives from Opus, CSM Corp, Lennar, and Ryan Companies. Common themes/highlights: The site is in a desirablelocation and the cleanup to residential standards is attractive. This is a large site; development will need to be phased over a longer period of time (15-20 yrs). Market cannot absorb it all at once. Break into manageable pieces. Have patience to stick with the vision and don’t force solutions, but also be flexible. Create a solid framework/vision, but don’t be too restrictive. More flexibility = more opportunity, because the market will change, and the market drives development. Developers are very cost-conscious and market-driven.They evaluatethe land cost per square foot including costs for infrastructure and amenities. Too much green space or amenities can cause the land to exceed the price point.Density maybe useful to help pay for amenities. Get developer input into the Master Plan to ensure that the community isn’t overpromised a certain design standard,level of amenities, or land use. Access is key. Improvements to H will be very important. Developers viewed the remediation of the property to a residential standard and the preservation of areas north and east of the property for open space as a huge achievement for environmental sustainability. Many sustainability features, particularly building and mechanical systems,are already built in without specific LEED certification. Sometimes getting the plaque isn’t worth the extra investment. Sustainability features can work if payback is within a reasonable period. Must be cost-effective and proven; if not proven, customers won’t pay. Developers are not yet embracing net zero energy and on-site generation. City and County may need to pay if they want these features. The idea of a regional stormwater system makes sense. There is a stigma in the community regarding contamination. The City and County will need to actively work to dispel misinformation and alleviate concerns about the property. The Master Plan should clearly articulate the opportunities and requirements for development so that developersand private investors have certainty regarding what can be approved. The master planning process can add significant value by overcoming political hurdles to development. The City and County should reach out to the brokerage communitysince nearly every office and industrial user is represented by a broker.Businesses, which are represented by a broker,should not be approached directly to avoid alienating the brokerage community.Single-and multi-family brokers also have good insight into consumer preferences. Development Panel Panel consisted of representatives from Duke Realty, Pulte Homes, United Properties, St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, and Urban Land Institute/former Edina City Manager. Common themes/highlights: TCAAP is unique and attractive to develop because thesite is a clean slate for development, large in size, and good location. The needs of “Generation Y”should be considered in planning for development. They want walkability/trails, transit, sustainable features, etc. Amenities are important –green space adds value. A mix of uses isappropriate for the site. August 2013 Any plan needs to have built in flexibility because market will change many times before a full build-out. The site will need to be divided into much smaller pieces to accommodate an extended absorption period. Important to engage a diverse set of stakeholders to communicate expectations and build capacity. Audience Q&A What about retail development? (yes, opportunity for some commercial) How does this development affect the surrounding communities positively or negatively? (linkages are crucial/Gen Y wants to stay connected; growth is good for surrounding co existing businesses and bring in new ones, not just jumping from Should the site be marketed nationally and internationally? (yes) Plan has to be prescriptive enough to reflect values, flexible enough to allow developers, and what does a master plan like that look like? (be a keeper of the vision over time; identify sacred elements create frameworkand then let the market dictate) Breakout Groups Attendees visitedtwo of four stations focusing on specific topics of Commercial and Residential Development, Transportation and Access, Environment/Energy/Sustainability, and Passive and Active Open Space. Commercial and Residential Development Common Themes: Mixed use development desired (good restaurants, housing/residential called out specifically as desired; heavy industrial was undesired) Focus on retail Senior and affordable housing important Balance with surrounding communities and greater Ramsey County Develop land in phases according to access points, infrastructure development and cost, and cleanup Consider departure from current development pattern with continuation of what makes Arden Hills a place where people want to live their full lives Transportation and Access Common Themes: Look into incorporating transit on the site Don’t build high-volume infrastructure Neighborhood oriented streets (low-volume, tight grid) Adequate connections to CR 96 and CR H Multi-modal connections Environment/Energy/Sustainability Common Themes: Investigate regional stormwater systems; find creative ways to reuse stormwater Open to using public financing for systems that make sense, i.e. result in lower overall energycosts, payback over time Capitalize on unique site features like topography and elevation Finding a way to utilize the groundwater is of interest Active and Passive Open Space Common Themes: Investigate recreational and trail access to AHATS outside of the TCAAP reuse area Incorporate significant amounts of greenspace on-site Connect an extensive on-site park network to the external parks and trails system Possibility of a greenspace facility that acts as regional draw to the site Use a complete streets/active streets model for the roadway network Plan early to maximize benefits of the park and trail system August 2013 Denver Redevelopment Areas Stapleton Redevelopment Lauded as a national model of new urbanism and sustainability, Denver’s Stapleton airport redevelopment is 10 years into a 15 year build out. The former airport is 4,700 acres and 10 minutes from Downtown Denver. Cleveland-based Forest City Enterprises is the developer and began construction in 2001. Today more than 4,500 homes have been built as well as 400 apartments, retail and office space. At full build out, Stapleton is expected to be home to some 30,000 residents in 12,000 homes, with six schools, an 80 acres central park, a light-rail station, 10,000,000 sqft of planned office space, 1,500,000 sqft of retail space, and 1,100 acres for parks and open space. The $5 billion development has won numerous awards, including from the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Urban Land Institute, the National League of Cities, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Stockholm Partnerships for Sustainable Development. Fitzsimons/Anschutz Redevelopment Formerlythe Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, the Anschutz Medical Campusis now touted as a model military base conversionanda catalyst ofregional economic development. Its economic impact onthe state amounts tomore than $2 billion in direct campus expenditures.The Anschutz Medical Campus directlyemploys more than 8,000 people andhas a total employment impact of more than 17,000 jobs in Colorado. The development now includes a cutting-edgehealth care campus that bridges education and research with two world-class hospitals and the schools and colleges ofMedicine, Nursing,Dental Medicine,Pharmacyand Public Health. Lowry Redevelopment When Lowry Air Force Base closed in 1994, the cities of Denver and Aurora lost 7,000 jobs and $295 million in annual spending. The Lowry Redevelopment Authority (LRA), a quasi-governmental entity, was created by the cities of Denver and Aurora to redevelop the base. The vision was to create a new urban community based on the best of classic Denver neighborhoods with the best new ideas in urban planning. Today, Lowry is one of Denver's premier neighborhoods and a national model of sustainable development. More than 25,000 people live, work and go to school there. The LRA is the master developer of Lowry, with responsibility for land planning, engineering, environmental cleanup, parks construction and sale of property to residential and commercial developers. It has a board of directors and several committees.