HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-9-13-PC1245 W Highway 96
Clayton Larson
--
Andy Holewa
Sam Scott
Roberta Thompson
www.cityofardenhills.org
Brent Bartel
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
APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER
2.A.Appointment Of Brent Bartel
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Prepared By
Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3.A.September 4, 2013, Regular Meeting
Documents:13 PC.PDF
PLANNING CASES
4.A.Planning Case 13Zoning Code Amendment; Parks & Open Space Public Hearing
Matthew Bachler, Community Development Intern
Prepared By
Documents:PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF,
C.PDF,ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF,
G.PDF,ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF
4.B.Planning Case 13CUP Higher Education; Bethel University; 2 Pine Tree Drive Public Hearing
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Prepared By
Documents:PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF,
C.PDF,ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF,
G.PDF,ATTACHMENT H.PDF
Planning Case 13Variance; 1226 Ingerson Road
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Prepared By
Documents:PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF,
C.PDF,ATTACHMENT D.PDF
COMMENTS AND REPORTS
5.A.Report From The City Council
Ryan Streff, City Planner
Prepared By
Documents:REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF
5.B.TCAAP Update
Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
Prepared By
Documents:MEMO.PDF
A quorum of the City Council may be present at
this meeting.
MEMORANDUM
2.A
DATE:
October 9, 2013
PC Agenda Item
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Ryan Streff,City Planner
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission Appointment
Background/Discussion
Brent Bartel submitted an application to be considered for appointment on the Planning
Commission. Consistent with the City’s policy on commission and committee appointments, the
applicant was interviewed by a panel consisting of the Mayor, the Chair of the Planning
Commission, the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, and the staff Liaison to the
Planning Commission.
The interview panel agreed that Mr. Bartel would be a valuable addition to the Planning
Commission based on his interview, his qualifications, and his experience.
Mayor Grant asked that staff prepare a recommendation for the City Council to appoint Mr.
Bartel to the Planning Commission.
City Council Action
Duringthe Regular City Council meeting on September 30, 2013, the Council unanimously
approved the recommendation from Mayor Grant to appoint Mr. Bartel to the Planning
Commission.
Attachments
A.Application
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Commission\PC Miscellaneous\Interview\2013 Planning Commission Interview
Page 1of 1
Attachment A
Approved:
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 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 Angela Hames, Andrew Holewa, Janet
Stodola (Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman.
Absent: Commissioner Samuel Scott
Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler;
Councilmember Dave McClung; and Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA SEPTEMBER 4, 2013
Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 9, 2013 Planning Commission Work Session Meeting
Commissioner Holewa requested a correction on Page 4, the middle of the page the word whole
should be changed to while.
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to approve the
January 9, 2013, Planning Commission Work Session Meeting minutes as amended. The
motion carried unanimously (6-0).
July 10, 2013 Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to approve the July
10, 2013, Planning Commission Regular Meeting minutes as presented. The motion carried
unanimously (6-0).
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20132
PLANNING CASES
A.Planning Case 13-012; Variance Request; 1306 County Road E Not a Public
Hearing
City Planner Streff stated the applicant has requested a variance to deviate from the signage
regulations in order to replace an existing manual gasoline price sign with a digital LED (light-
emitting diode) price sign. The proposed sign would be approximately 15.35 sq. ft. ( x 63
-four (24) inch tall numbers.
City Planner Streff indicated the applicant, Identi-Graphics, is proposing to replace a portion of
the sign face on the existing pole sign that identifies the Shell Station located a 1306 County
Road E. The property is located within the B-2 Zoning District, south of County Road E and east
of Highway 51. 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
Theodore Brausen. The southern property has shared access through the Shell Station property
and is used commercially as an auto repair shop.
City Planner Streff commented the sign, which the applicant intends to modify, is located in the
northwest corner of the p
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
are no longer allowed in Sign District 4 (County Road E Frontage). Freestanding signs in Sign
District 4 are still permitted; however, they must be constructed as a monument type ground sign.
City Planner Streff indicated there is an existing cabinet area on the sign that measures thirty-five
inches by sixty-
with a digital LED price sign. The digital section of this cabinet would be approximately 15.35
square feet in size with twenty-four (24) inch tall 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.
City Planner Streff noted 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 used to market the
auto repair shop just south of the subject property that has no frontage onto County Road E.
Site Data
Future Land Use Plan: CMU: Commercial Mixed Use
Existing Land Use: Commercial (Convenience store and gas station)
Zoning: B-2: General Business District
Current Lot Sizes: .81 acres (35,284 square feet)
Topography: The west/south west portion of the property drops approximately
six feet from east to west.
City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance
Evaluation Criteria.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20133
City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review:
General Findings
1. The property is located in the B-2 Zoning District and within Sign District 4.
2. The existing service station on the property operates under the conditions of a special use
permit/conditional use permit and conforms to the uses in the B-2 Zoning District.
3. The existing pole sign on the property is considered a legal non-conforming sign due 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
a legal non-conforming sign.
5.
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 tall 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-2 Zoning 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 1306 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 with the purpose and intent of the ordinance
because the ordinance generally 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 with the comprehensive plan because it allows the reasonable
use of commercial property.
4. Signs are permitted 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 owner when 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 sign is unlikely to have a negative impact on the property
or the
neighborhood.
7. The sign as proposed would be visible from County Road E, which abuts Highway 51;
however, the sign and its intensity should not affect the area as the sign has technology in
place to adjust its brightness during daylight and evening hours.
8. The proposed variance for the digital LED price sign does not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
City Planner Streff explained the findings of fact for this variance request support a
recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a
recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons
for the denial.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20134
If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this variance, Staff recommends the
following ten (10) conditions:
1. That the dynamic display portion of 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 product that is 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 animated in any way. The display shall not incorporate rotating
panels or 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 increased or 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 adjusted during daylight and
evening hours so that traffic is not distracted.
10. That a sign permit and electrical permit shall be obtained prior to the installation of the
sign.
City Planner Streff 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.
Commissioner Zimmerman did not object to the sign variance request as the applicant was trying
to update his sign technology and which would be more efficient.
Theodore Brausen, 1306 County Road E, stated the proposed request would update his sign with
LED lights and the full Shell package. He indicated the new sign would fit into the property
nicely.
Commissioner Hames asked if the flags would be coming down with the new sign. Mr. Brausen
commented the flags would be coming down, noting they were erected to draw traffic into the
site over the summer.
Commissioner Thompson appreciated that Shell has stayed in compliance with City Code on
their existing sign and supported the variance request.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20135
Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to
recommend approval of Planning Case 13-012 for a Variance Request at 1306 County
Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10)
conditions in the September 4, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. The motion
carried unanimously (6-0).
B.Planning Case 13-014; PUD Amendment; Lexington Station; 3833 Lexington
Avenue Public Hearing
Community Development Intern Bachler stated the applicant has requested
a Planned Unit
Development (PUD) Amendment for a sign plan for the Lexington Station redevelopment project at
3833 Lexington Avenue North.
Community Development Intern Bachler
stated 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 Group is
now requesting an amendment to the existing PUD to include a sign plan for the property. The
applicant has submitted plans that include the dimensions and locations of the proposed monument
sign and wall signage.
Community Development Intern Bachler
explained that the monument sign would be located on
Lexington Avenue towards the southern end of the Phase I development, adjacent to the access
driveway currently 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 26 feet and 9 ½ inches.
Community Development Intern Bachler
indicated there are a total of ten retail bays in the Phase I
building. For the two larger bays at the southern and northern ends of 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 walls on the end units. For the remaining eight central bays, 115 square feet of
wall signage is being requested. This amount would be divided between the western façade facing
the interior of the development and the eastern façade facing Lexington Avenue.
Community Development Intern Bachler
stated 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.
Site Data
Future Land Use Plan: Commercial
Existing Land Use: Vacant
Zoning: B-3: Service Business District
Current Lot Sizes: 1.34 Acres
Topography: Level
Community Development Intern Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation
along with portions of City Code Chapters 12 and 13.
Community Development Intern Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review:
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20136
1. The property is located in the B-3 Zoning District and in Sign District 5.
2. The Planned Unit Development at 3833 Lexington Avenue was approved by the City on
July 8, 2013 in Planning Case 13-003. The approved Planned Unit Development did not
include a sign plan for the property.
3. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved PUD for a sign plan that
includes a monument sign and wall signage.
4. The City has adopted special design standards for the B-3 Zoning District, which include
provisions on signage.
5. The proposed PUD Amendment is in considerable conformance with the requirements of
6.
Zoning Code.
7. Whe
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 t
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 orientation of the property on which the signs
would be located.
Community Development Intern Bachler stated Staff is generally supportive of the Lexington
Station sign 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 back from Lexington Avenue, reducing its visibility from the roadway.
Since the primary entrances to the building face the interior of the development and the building
fronts Lexington Avenue as well, the building will need to have a presence on both sides, which
includes signage. The additional signage will have the added benefit of enlivening the eastern
side of the building.
However, staff believes the overall amount of signage being requested is excessive. In the
conditions of approval, staff is recommending a reduction in the amount of wall signage per
retail bay and in the height of the monument sign. These recommendations are based on what
staff believes is an 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.
Community Development Intern Bachler explained that based on the submitted plans and
findings of fact, Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 13-014 for a Planned Unit
Development Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue. Staff recommends the following ten (10)
conditions be included with the approval:
1. The signage plan 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20137
2. The retail bay at the northern 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 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 façade and 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 30 square feet of wall signage per additional bay occupied. This
amount shall be divided between up to 15 square feet of signage on the west façade and
up to 15 square feet of signage on the east façade.
6. Wall signs shall be comprised of individual cut letters and shall not extend more than 12
inches from the 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 Avenue shall 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 window coating shall be reviewed with staff prior to installation. If it
is determined the window coating qualifies as commercial signage, no more than 35% of
each window area shall be covered and the total coverage of the window coating shall not
exceed 5% of the building façade.
10. Sign permits shall be applied for prior to the installation of any signage on the property.
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.
Commissioner Holewa questioned why staff was making a recommendation that was not
requested by the applicant.
Community Development Intern Bachler reviewed the request along with the conditions for
approval in detail with the Commission.
Commissioner Holewa requested further information on the blade signs.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20138
Community Development Intern Bachler noted the signs would not be lit internally, but would
provide advertisement for the building tenants and would be uniform size.
Commissioner Holewa asked the height of the proposed monument sign and the staff
recommendation regarding the height of the sign.
Community Development Intern Bachler stated the staff recommendation was for the monument
sign not to exceed 20 feet in height. Given the site conditions and setback from Lexington
Avenue, staff was willing to allow additional height on the monument sign.
Commissioner Thompson inquired if a monument sign would be allowed on Red Fox Road.
Community Development Intern Bachler clarified that under the sign code, the applicant would
be allowed to have two monument signs, however, the applicant would be building only one
along Lexington Avenue. He advised that the Planning Commission could add a condition for
approval stating only one monument sign, along Lexington Avenue, would be allowed and that a
second monument sign along Red Fox Road not be permitted.
Commissioner Stodola asked if the west side of the Phase I building would have blade signs.
Community Development Intern Bachler commented blade signs would only be located on the
west side of the building.
Commissioner Zimmerman
removed from the monument sign and be placed on the building instead.
Community Development Intern Bachler stated this conversation was not held with the applicant.
Chair Larson stated there would be five buildings constructed as part of the Lexington Station
redevelopment and that this may not be the correct course of action for the City to take.
Nicolas Roberts, 1851 Berkley Road, White Bear Lake, discussed the proposed signage further
with the Commission.
Commissioner Stodola inquired if additional monument signs would be added with the future
phases.
Mr. Roberts anticipated this would be the case after the future buildings were completed.
Community Development Intern Bachler explained that this development had a single
Development Agreement, but covered three separate parcels. He stated each of the parcels would
be permitted to have wall and free standing signage as allowed within City Code. He indicated
that a Final PUD with a sign plan would have to be submitted by the applicant when Phase II and
Phase III were ready for development.
Mr. Roberts commented he was not prepared to request signage for the other parcels this evening
and would have to come back to the City at a future date.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 20139
Commissioner Holewa asked how many tenants would be allowed space on the monument sign.
Mr. Roberts indicated there would be room for seven tenants to have panels on the monument
sign. The proposed sign size would allow for the panels to be readable to passing traffic for the
high class development.
Commissioner Thompson requested comment from the applicant on the proposed conditions for
approval.
Mr. Roberts explained he has been working with the City and his only concern remained with the
80 square feet wall sign limit. It was his opinion that the blade signs should not count towards
the 80 square feet of allowable signage.
Commissioner Stodola recommended the signage in Lexington Station complement the existing
signage in the Shoreview developments.
Commissioner Holewa asked if the applicant was comfortable with the downsized signs as
recommended by staff.
Mr. Roberts was hoping to have the monument sign be 26 feet and 9 ½ inches in height and
requested the blade signs not count against the total allowable signage per tenant. He requested
there be a compromise and that several of the conditions for approval be modified.
Commissioner Hames appreciated the architectural beauty of the monument sign and supported
the 26 foot and 9 ½ inch proposed height as it suited the scale of the building. She recommended
the monument sign be approved at 26 feet and 9 ½ inches as requested by the applicant.
Commissioner Holewa did not support the proposed 26 foot and 9 ½ inch monument sign.
Commissioner Stodola questioned if the applicant was comfortable with the fact that not all
tenants would have access to the monument sign.
Mr. Roberts understood this fact and stated this was acceptable. He then discussed Condition 9,
regarding non-branded window film. He requested the Commission allow for non-branded
window film as this would add architectural interest to windows for tenants. He did not want to
have to come back to the City each time a tenant requested window coatings.
Community Development Intern Bachler stated this condition was added to address branded or
advertising window coatings. Staff did not object to window coatings and explained that non-
Chair Larson recommended the language within Condition 9 be clarified prior to this item
moving on to the City Council. He did not support the use of window films with graphics, but
was in favor of allowing frosted window film.
Commissioner Hames was not in favor of having the Planning Commission dictate what film can
and cannot be used for the tenants.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201310
Chair Larson suggested staff review this matter further with the applicant prior to this item
proceeding to the City Council.
Mr. Roberts asked if the Commission was willing to compromise on the blade signs and have
this square footage removed from the total allowable wall signage. He requested that the eight
central tenants be allowed 100 square feet of wall signage, which would allow for 50 feet on the
west façade of the building and 50 feet on the east façade of the building.
Chair Larson suggested that the blade signs not be counted against the total wall signage for
tenants. The Commission supported this recommendation.
Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:45 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 7:46 p.m.
Chair Larson suggested the Commission review the conditions for approval one at a time before
making a motion for approval. Discussion ensued regarding the conditions and the Commission
requested Condition 7 be altered to assure that the blade signs were not included in the total
square footage for the permitted area for wall signs.
Commissioner Hames recommended Condition 8 be amended to allow the monument sign to be
26 feet and 9 ½ inches in height as it fit into the design of the proposed building.
Commissioner Stodola, Commissioner Thompson and Chair Larson agreed with this suggestion.
Commissioner Zimmerman recommended the Lexington Station letters be removed from the
monument signs and be placed on the building, as this would allow the monument sign height to
be reduced.
Commissioner Holewa supported the monument sign height no higher than 22 feet.
Chair Larson indicated the consensus of the Commission was for the monument sign height to be
allowed as requested by the applicant.
Chair Larson explained the Commission would like Condition 9 rewritten by staff prior to this
item going before the City Council. He summarized the proposed changes to the conditions in
detail and questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed.
Commissioner Thompson suggested Condition 11 be added to assure that only one monument
sign be permitted with this development along Lexington Avenue.
Community Development Intern Bachler stated the development agreement does state that any
additional signage would require a PUD amendment, which would need to be approved by the
City. For this reason, Condition 11 would not be necessary.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201311
Commissioner Hames moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to
recommend approval of Planning Case 13-014 for a PUD Amendment at Lexington Station
at 3833 Lexington Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as
amended by the ten (10) conditions, amending Conditions 7, 8 and 9 as discussed this
evening and found in the September 4, 2013, report to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Zimmerman discussed the film already present on the back side of the current
building along County Road E.
The motion carried (5-1) (Zimmerman opposed).
C.Planning Case 13-015; Variance Request; 1221/1233 County Road E Not a Public
Hearing
City Planner Streff stated the applicant has requested 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.
City Planner Streff explained 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,
north of County Road E, south of railroad tracks, east of HWY 51 and west of Lexington
Avenue. The facility contains one (1) structure made up of both office and warehouse uses,
which total 112,200 square feet. There are 27,200 square feet of office space and 85,000 square
feet of warehouse space at the facility.
City Planner Streff indicated the applicant is proposing this change in order to provide additional
parking accommodations to their regular employees. By providing the additional parking, their
employees would not have to regularly subject themselves to treacherous winter weather
conditions on their walk to and from leased parking areas on adjacent properties. Staples would
continue to lease other parking areas; however, these locations would be mainly used as overflow
parking for special meetings and events.
City Planner Streff reported currently the Staples property has eighty-four (84) parking spaces on
site and leases forty-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 security fence.
City Planner Streff stated 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 for additional dock doors, a dock addition and a revised parking
plan.
Site Data
Future Land Use Plan: CMU: Community Mixed Use
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201312
Existing Land Use: Commercial (Staples Distribution Center)
Zoning: B-2: General Business District
Current Lot Sizes: 5.22 acres (227,384 square feet)
Topography: The property drops approximately six feet from east to west.
City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation along with the variance
evaluation criteria.
City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for 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 would further 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.
Variance Findings:
1. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance because the
request minimizes the impact of the parking area by adding additional screening along
County Road E.
2. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it allows the reasonable
use of commercial property.
3. A parking lot is a permitted and reasonable use within the B-2 Zoning District.
4. 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.
5. Since the proposed expansion does not encroach into the required front yard setback for
the structure, or place parking directly in front of the building, the expansion is unlikely
to have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood.
6. The parking lot expansion would be visible from the front of the property, which abuts
County Road E; however, the applicant would add additional trees and landscaping to the
front of the property.
7. The proposed variances for the additional parking spaces do not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
City Planner Streff stated the findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation
for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for
denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends the
following eight (8) conditions:
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201313
1. That a maximum of sixteen (16) additional parking spaces shall be allowed to be
constructed on the property.
2. That the parking spaces shall be constructed in accordance with the submitted site plan.
3.
standards for hard surfacing.
4. That the property owner shall maintain shared 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 be two 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.
8. That the applicant shall work with the City to provide the necessary easement along
County Road E for pedestrian movements.
City Planner Streff 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.
Chair Larson requested further information on the design standards for parking lots and if the
City would require curb and gutter. He explained the access road did not have curb and gutter,
and neither did the parking lot.
City Planner Streff stated he would have to review the design standards further to determine if
curb and gutter would be required. He indicated it would be reasonable to require the applicant
to install curb and gutter for the new parking spaces.
Chair Larson suggested the City Engineer review the parking lot plans further to assure the site
drains properly and that the fence placement does not interfere with the parking stalls.
Commissioner Holewa questioned if the fencing would interfere with the existing landscaping.
City Planner Streff did not anticipate that the fence would interfere with the existing landscaping.
Community Development Director Hutmacher explained the proposed fencing would be similar
to the fence installed at the E Street Flats building at 1201 County Road E and would be
decorative in nature while still providing screening.
Commissioner Holewa inquired if the City had requirements regarding permeable and non-
permeable surfaces.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201314
City Planner Streff stated the City did not have any standards addressing this specifically, but
rather had landscaping coverage and lot coverage requirements.
Commissioner Stodola commented the building at 1221/1233 County Road E was constructed
prior to the existing landscaping requirements.
Commissioner Holewa asked if the easement required for the planned County Road E
improvement project would take additional permeable space. He recommended the water runoff
on this site be dealt with onsite and not be passed along to an adjacent property.
City Planner Streff indicated the documents for County Road E show a retaining wall that would
be located adjacent to the sidewalk.
Commissioner Zimmerman questioned if the flagpoles would be relocated.
City Planner Streff recommended this question be directed to the applicant.
impervious surfaces to this site. He indicated the property was already non-compliant and there
were questions with the drainage. For this reason, he recommended the City Engineer provide
comment on this request and report back to the Commission.
Commissioner Hames supported this suggestion.
Commissioner Zimmerman was in favor of tabling this item to a future meeting.
Chair Larson agreed stating there were a number of questions that remained unanswered.
Commissioner Hames suggested this item be noticed for a public hearing for the next Planning
Commission meeting to assure adjacent property owners are made aware of the proposed
improvements.
Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Thompson seconded a motion to table
action on Planning Case 13-015 for a Variance Request at 1221/1233 County Road E based
on the fact the Planning Commission did not have enough information to take action on the
request this evening. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).
COMMENTS AND REPORTS
A.Report from the City Council
Councilmember McClung updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities including
approval of 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
at their July 8, 2013 Meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this case at
their June 19, 2013, meeting.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201315
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 their July 10, 2013,
meeting. This item will be brought forward to the September 9, 2013, City Council meeting.
B.TCAAP Update
Community Development Director Hutmacher reported the TCAAP redevelopment project is
moving ahead.
Community Development Director Hutmacher explained only one building remains on site.
Building 502, which contains asbestos, will be remediated throughout the winter months and
demolished in the spring of 2014. Bolander has now begun sub-grade work where allowed, as
they wait for approval of the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to do work throughout the
h 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
Bolander estimates that by project completion, 400,000 tons of bituminous and concrete will be
recycled and reused for road bed, foundation work, and other uses.
Community Development Director Hutmacher noted 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.
Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that 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
se 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
conditions, 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.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201316
Community Development Director Hutmacher stated 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-
is now a mixed-use redevelopment with a diversity of housing types, retail, commercial and
public amenities such as parks and trails. It is approximately 1,800 acres, and is nearing 70%
completion.
Community Development Director Hutmacher reported these developments gave JDA members
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.
Commissioner Stodola questioned if the entire TCAAP site would be cleaned to a residential
level.
Community Development Director Hutmacher explained the contract between Bolander and
Ramsey County would have the entire TCAAP site cleaned to residential standards. She reported
the price upgrade for this was approximately $2 million and was a worthwhile investment for the
County.
Commissioner Holewa asked who would benefit from the recycled materials on the TCAAP
property.
Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated these benefits were factored into the
demolition contract by Bolander & Sons.
C.Planning Commission Comments and Requests
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if any further action had come before the City regarding the
brewery and distillery request.
Community Development Director Hutmacher explained the business owner was contract
brewing in another community at this time.
in 2014 and that it be compared to neighboring communities.
Commissioner Holewa indicated he visited the triangle property. He commended staff for their
work on this project.
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION September 4, 201317
D. Staff Comments
Community Development Director Hutmacher stated the State of the City will be held on
Thursday, September 12, 2013,
businesses and residents are encouraged to attend.
ADJOURN
Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Hames, to adjourn the
September 4, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:55 p.m. The motion carried
unanimously (6-0).
MEMORANDUM
4.A
DATE:
October 9, 2013
PC Agenda Item
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Matthew Bachler, Community Development Intern
SUBJECT: Planning Case #13-004 - This application requires a PUBLIC HEARING
Request:
Zoning Code AmendmentParks and Open Space District and
Conservation District
Action Requested
Approve Ordinance Number 2013-009 for amendments to Section 1305.04 and Section 1320 of
the Zoning Code related to the proposed Parks and Open Space District. Approve Ordinance
Number 2013-010 for amendments to Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to the proposed
Conservation District.
Background
In September of 2009, the City Council adopted the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The
and priorities. Several policies and goals contained in the plan address protecting and developing
open space and recreational amenities:
Chapter 6 - Land Use:
Evaluate and amend the land use regulations to achieve the highest possible development
standards, enhance the natural environment, protect public health, support a vital mix of
land uses, and promote flexible approaches to implement the Comprehensive Plan.
Provide a balanced mix of residential, park, open space, and commercial land uses.
Chapter 9 Parks and Recreation:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-004 - Zoning Code Amendment - Parks and Open Space and Park
Preserve District (Pending)
Page 1 of 7
Develop, maintain, and encourage the use of a system of neighborhood parks and
pathways that are safe and engaging.
Protect and maintain access to lakes, marshes, and wooded areas for active and passive
recreation.
Chapter 10 Protected Resources:
Develop or enhance
lakes, wetlands, and other unique or significant natural resources.
In the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map designates a total of 65 parcels covering
529 acres of land for use (Attachment C). The plan defines this land use
category as The City owns and maintains 19 of these parcels
as public parks, which cover 153 acres. Ramsey County Parks and Recreation manages an
additional 11 parcels of land totaling 338 acres. The remaining parcels are owned by several
entities, including the City, Ramsey County, the State of Minnesota, and private property
owners/homeowners associations (Attachment D). Existing uses on these lands include trails,
municipal utilities, stormwater easement ponds, and single family homes.
Park Preserve is also a land use designation applied to open space areas in the City. Park
Preserve is defined reas designated as natural or scenic areas
1,449 acres are categorized as
park preserve in the plan, all of which are located on the Arden Hills Army Training Site
(AHATS) on the eastern portion of the former TCAAP property (Attachment C).
Currently there are not districts specifically designated for parks or open space areas within the
Zoning Code (Attachment E). These facilities are integrated into residential or business-oriented
zoning districts as permitted or conditional uses. Minnesota State law mandates that local zoning
codes are consistent with adopted comprehensive plans. Establishing a Parks and Open Space
District and a Conservation District would help the City meet this requirement. Further, the new
districts will assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan by solidifying
land use objectives within the Zoning Code.
Summary of Proposed Ordinance Amendments and Additions
Staff has prepared a draft of Ordinance Number 2013-009 for a Parks and Open Spaces (POS)
District and Ordinance Number 2013-010 for a Conservation (CD) District. Preliminary versions
of the drafts were presented at the April 3, 2013, Planning Commission regular meeting, the
April 15, 2013, Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee meeting, and the May 28, 2013, City
Council work session. The discussion at each meeting focused on what types of uses should be
allowed in the districts, special regulations that should be adopted, and how to address privately
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-004 - Zoning Code Amendment - Parks and Open Space and Park
Preserve District (Pending)
Page 2 of 7
owned parks and open spaces (Attachments G, H, and I). Staff has attempted to incorporate the
concerns raised at these meetings into the current drafts of the ordinances.
The proposed POS District would reflect the goals for the Parks and Open Space District
identified in the Comprehensive Plan and could be applied to City and County Parks in Arden
Hills. Additionally, this district could be appropriate for City-owned parcels that are either being
used as public open space or that might be incorporat
The Conservation District would correspond with the Park Preserve District in the
Comprehensive Plan, and in its current draft could only be applied to the Arden Hills Army
Training Site. It should be noted that no rezoning of any property is being proposed at this time.
Staff has provided a hypothetical illustration of the Zoning Map if the new districts were to be
applied (Attachment F).
If adopted, Ordinance Number 2013-009 and Ordinance Number 2013-010 would amend or add
regulations to two chapters of the Zoning Code:
A.1305.04 Definitions (new definition)
B.1320 District Provisions (new regulations)
A general discussion on the changes to each chapter is outlined in the sections below. The
ordinances are included in their entirety in Attachments A and B.
1305.04 Definitions
would be a
permitted use in the Parks and Open Space District. While there is currently a definition for
pecifically associated with City
and County-owned parks should be distinguished from the broader category of public uses. The
Zoning Code provides the following definition for public use:
The use of any lot, parcel of land and any structure or building thereon exclusively for
public purposes by any department or branch of government, federal, state, county or
city, excluding independent school districts, without reference to the ownership of said
lot, parcel of land, building or structure.
No new or revised definitions have been proposed for the Conservation District.
1320 District Provisions
1320.04 Purpose
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-004 - Zoning Code Amendment - Parks and Open Space and Park
Preserve District (Pending)
Page 3 of 7
The District purpose statement is meant to outline the specific reasons for why the City is
adopting a particular set of land use regulations. Cities are granted considerable leeway in
establishing land use regulations as long as there is a clear intent in the regulations to address
public health, safety, and/or welfare concerns.
The primary purpose of the Parks and Open Space District is to create land use regulations that
support and are specific to the parks and open spaces managed by Arden Hills or Ramsey
County. Setting aside land for active and passive recreational uses addresses public health and
welfare concerns through supporting community health, promoting ecological stewardship, and
conserving environmental resources.
The Conservation District would apply only to AHATS, which is owned by the federal
government. Recognizing that portions of the site could be transferred to private entities in the
future, the purpose of creating the Conservation District is to ensure that any future development
on the property is staged and that a sustainable level of public expenditures for utilities and
services is maintained.
1320.05 Land Use Chart
The land use chart lists the permitted and conditional uses in all zoning districts. If a use is not
listed, it is automatically prohibited. In the Parks and Open Space District, permitted uses would
include park facilities and utility distribution lines. Conditional uses in this district would include
public uses, utility transmission, and antenna, dish, or tower uses. In the Conservation District,
utility distribution lines would be the only permitted use. Conditional uses in the district would
include public uses, utility transmission and antenna, dish, or tower uses.
1320.06 District Requirements Chart
The district requirement chart lists the basic requirements for the development of a lot, such as
minimum lot area, setbacks, and lot coverage. No minimum lot area or lot size has been set for
either the Parks and Open Space or Conservation Districts. The lot coverage and setback
requirements reflect the existing requirements for the Citresidential districts. City and County
owned parks are currently zoned either R-1 (Single Family Residential) or R-2 (Single and Two
Family Residential) and are therefore already subject to the district requirements being proposed
for the Parks and Open Space District.
1320.145 Special Requirements for the Parks and Open Space District
Some zoning districts have additional special requirements that need to be met. These
requirements may include standards on development, design, or permitted uses. For the Parks
and Open Space District, two provisions are proposed for the special requirement section, one on
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-004 - Zoning Code Amendment - Parks and Open Space and Park
Preserve District (Pending)
Page 4 of 7
conditional uses in the district and the other on development standards. The first would direct the
City Council to evaluate conditional use applications on the compatibility of the proposed use
with the natural features and recreational amenities found on the site, along with the conditional
use evaluation criteria established in Section 1355.04 Subd. 3. The second would allow the City
to require certain development standards if in its review of development plans it concludes that
potential impacts on natural features will require mitigation.
1320.15 Special Requirements for the Conservation District
The special requirements section for the Conservation District includes one provision regarding
permitted uses. It states that in addition to the permitted uses specified in the land use chart, any
facility, building, use, or activity controlled by the Minnesota National Guard or the Army
Reserve on AHATS is permitted. Municipal governments do not have the authority to regulate
land use or development on federally-owned lands. While the City may zone AHATS as they see
fit, those land use regulations are not enforceable. The purpose of including this provision is to
acknowledge that these land uses will be present on AHATS regardless of the other requirements
for the Conservation District found in the Zoning Code.
Findings of Fact
Staff offers the following five (5) findings of fact for consideration:
1.The City Council approved the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan on September 28,
2009.
2.The proposed Parks and Open Space District is in substantial conformance with the Parks
and Open Space District defined in the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Future
Land Use Map.
3.The proposed Conservation District is in substantial conformance with the Parks Preserve
District defined in the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map.
4.The proposed Parks and Open Space District and Conservation District would work
toward implementing goals and recommended policies in the Arden Hills 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
5.The proposed Parks and Open Space District and Conservation District would work
toward bringing the City in compliance with Minnesota State law, which mandates that
local zoning codes are consistent with adopted comprehensive plans.
Notice
Notice on this planning case was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-004 - Zoning Code Amendment - Parks and Open Space and Park
Preserve District (Pending)
Page 5 of 7
Public Comments
The City has not received any public comments regarding this planning case.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Ordinance Number 2013-009 and Ordinance Number 2013-010.
If the Planning Commission would like to make changes to the ordinance, those changes can be
included with a motion to approve.
Options & Proposed Motion Language
1.Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance Number
2013-009 for amendments to Section 1305.04 and Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related
to the proposed Parks and Open Space District, and motion to recommend approval of
Ordinance Number 2013-010 for amendments to Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to
the proposed Conservation District as presented in the October 9, 2013, planning case report.
2.Recommend Approval with Changes: Motion to recommend approval of Ordinance Number
2013-009 for amendments to Section 1305.04 and Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related
to the proposed Parks and Open Space District, and motion to recommend approval of
Ordinance Number 2013-010 for amendments to Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to
the proposed Conservation District as presented in the October 9, 2013, planning case report
with the following changes.
3.Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Ordinance Number 2013-009 for
amendments to Section 1305.04 and Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to the proposed
Parks and Open Space District, and motion to recommend denial of Ordinance Number
2013-010 for amendments to Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to the proposed
Conservation District as presented in the October 9, 2013, planning case report: findings to
deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be
mitigated.
4.Table: Motion to table Ordinance Number 2013-009 for amendments to Section 1305.04 and
Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to the proposed Parks and Open Space District, and
motion to table Ordinance Number 2013-010 for amendments to Section 1320 of the Zoning
Code related to the proposed Conservation District as presented in the October 9, 2013,
planning case report: a specific reason and information request should be included with a
motion to table.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-004 - Zoning Code Amendment - Parks and Open Space and Park
Preserve District (Pending)
Page 6 of 7
Attachments
A.Ordinance Number 13-009 (Proposed Sections 1305.04 Subd. 140, 1320.04 Subd.18,
1320.06, 1320.07, and 1320.145)
B.Ordinance Number 13-010 (Proposed Sections 1320.04 Subd. 19, 1320.06, 1320.07, and
1320.15)
C.Arden Hills 2030 Future Land Use Map
D.Arden Hills 2030 Future Land Use Map, Parks and Open Space District Parcel
Ownership and Use Map
E.City of Arden Hills Official Zoning Map
F.Arden Hills Zoning Map including proposed Parks and Open Space District and
Conservation District
G.Planning Commission Minutes, April 3, 2013
H.Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee Minutes, April 15, 2013
I.City Council Work Session Minutes, May 28, 2013
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-004 - Zoning Code Amendment - Parks and Open Space and Park
Preserve District (Pending)
Page 7 of 7
AttachmentA
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-009
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-009
AN ORDINANCE ADDING THE DEFINITION, PURPOSE, LAND USE CHART,
DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS CHART, AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
POS PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT
The Arden Hills City Council hereby ordains that Section 1305.04 Subd 140 shall be added and
subsequent subdivisions renumbered accordingly; Section 1320.04 Subd 18 shall be added;
Sections 1320.06 and 1320.07 and its subdivisions are hereby amended; and Section 1320.145
shall be added to the Arden Hills City Code to read as follows:
1305.04Definitions.
Subd. 140
Park Facilities. The use of any lots or parcel of land and any structure or
building thereon for public active and passive recreation purposes by the Arden Hills
Parks and Recreation Department or the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation
Department.
1320.04Purpose of Districts.
Subd. 18
POS Parks and Open Space District.
A.To establish regulations that will support the Arden Hills Parks, Trails,
and Open Space Plan and the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation
System Plan.
B.To provide an area for publicly owned lands that have recognized outdoor
recreational or open space resources.
C.To support community health through the provision of active and passive
outdoor recreational opportunities.
D.To promote natural and ecological stewardship.
E.To conserve vital environmental resources.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-009
1320.05Land Use Chart.
Zoning Districts:
R1R2R3R4NBB1B2B3B4CCGBI1I-2I-FLEXMRPOS
MB
Uses:
Antenna, Dish or Tower
CACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA
Boarding house
CCCC======C====
Brewpub
CCCC
Business service
========APPPCPPPPP
Clinic, medical office
========PPPPPCPPPPP
Club or lodge
(nonprofit)
========PPP==C====P
Club, sports & fitness
========APPPCPPPP
Commercial recreation - indoor
========PPP==PP
Daycare Facility, over 10
PPPPPPPPPP
Daycare, family - 10 or less
AAAAAAA
Daycare, group family - 14 or less
CACACACACACACA
Dog kennel
========CC======
Dog run
AAA============A
Drive-up windows
========CCCA==CA
Dry cleaning & laundry, pick-up station
========CAA==A==P
Dry cleaning & laundry, self-service laundry
C==CC==========
Dwelling: density zoning
DDDD========P==
Dwelling: multiple family
====CCCC====CC==P==
Dwelling: single-family attached
CCDDP====
Dwelling: singlefamily detached
PPPP==========P====
Dwelling: twofamily
CCPPC==========P====
Dwelling: live-work unit
========CC====
Financial institution & service
========PPPPPCPPPP==P
Garage, truck
================CC====
Home occupation: Class I
AAAAAAA==
Home occupation: Class II
CACACACACA======C====CA==
Hospital
D
Hotel/motel
========CPCCC==CP
House of worship
CCCCCCCCCCCP
Manufactured home park
====C====================
Manufacturing & processing: Class I
AAAPPPP==C
Manufacturing & processing: Class II
================P====
Microbrewery
CCCCCC
Microdistillery
CCCCCC
Mortuary, funeral home
========PP==C======C
Multiple occupancy building
========CCCCCCCCCC==P
Nursery
CCCC============CA
Nursing home and assisted living
CCCCDC========CP
2
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-009
POS
R1R2R3R4NBB1B2B3B4CCGBI1I-2I-FLEXMRMB
Uses:
Office
========PPPPPPPPPPP
Park Facilities
P
Pawn shop
Personal services
CAPPPCPAP
Public use
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCPP
Research and development facility
CPCCCPPPPP
Research animals
CCCP
Residence Hall, dormitory
======CCD==============CP
Residential facility, state licensed, serving 1-6
PPPPPP==========P
Residential facility, state licensed, serving 7-16
CCCCCCC
Restaurant and restaurant-fast food
========CAPPPCPCCP
Retail sales & service
========PAPPPCAAAAP
School, general education
CCCC======C====CP
School, higher education
D======CC==CC====CP
School, specialized education
========CCCCC====CP
Service station
========CC==CCCC
Storage, exterior
==================CA
Studio
========CCPPPC====P
Theater, indoor
========ACP==C====P
Utility distribution line
P
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Utility substation
================CCCC
Utility transmission
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
========CC======C
Vehicle - motorized, service
========CC======C
Warehousing
========AAAACPPCA
3
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-009
1320.145 Special Requirements for the Parks and Open Space District.
Subd. 1 Procedure. The application and the administrative and review procedure
established in Section 1355.04 Subd 3, Conditional Use Permits shall be followed for all
development that requires a Conditional Use Permit. This provision is subject to any
modifications or additions set forth in this Section.
Subd. 2 Conditional Uses. In addition to the evaluation criteria established in Section
1355.04 Subd. 3, applications for conditional uses within the POS District will be
evaluated by the City Council based on the following consideration:
A. The compatibility of the proposed use with the natural features and
recreational amenities of the Parks and Open Space District area.
Subd. 3 Development Standards. If the City determines in its review of site and
building plans for developments within the District that the protection of natural features
requires certain performance standards, the City may require additional development
standards to protect those features.
5
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-009
Effective Date
. This Ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication.
Adoption Date.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills the ___ day of
October, 2013.
DAVID GRANT, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PATRICK KLAERS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Publication Date:
6
AttachmentB
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-010
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-010
AN ORDINANCE ADDING THE PURPOSE, LAND USE CHART, DISTRICT
REQUIREMENTS CHART, AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
CD CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The Arden Hills City Council hereby ordains that Section 1320.04 Subd 19 shall be added;
Sections 1320.06 and 1320.07 and its subdivisions are hereby amended; and Section 1320.15
shall be added to the Arden Hills City Code to read as follows:
1320.04Purpose of Districts.
Subd. 19
CD Conservation District
A.federally owned lands on the Arden Hills Army
Training Site to ensure that future development is staged, maintains a sustainable
level of public expenditures for utilities and services, and protects those areas
generally determined to be unsuitable for development due to the presence of
wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, certain drainage and soil conditions, and
critical wildlife habitat.
1
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-010
1320.05Land Use Chart.
Zoning Districts:
R1R2R3R4NBB1B2B3B4CCGBI1I-2I-FLEXMRCD
MB
Uses:
Antenna, Dish or Tower
CACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACACA
Boarding house
CCCC======C====
Brewpub
CCCC
Business service
========APPPCPPPPP
Clinic, medical office
========PPPPPCPPPPP
Club or lodge
(nonprofit)
========PPP==C====P
Club, sports & fitness
========APPPCPPPP
Commercial recreation - indoor
========PPP==PP
Daycare Facility, over 10
PPPPPPPPPP
Daycare, family - 10 or less
AAAAAAA
Daycare, group family - 14 or less
CACACACACACACA
Dog kennel
========CC======
Dog run
AAA============A
Drive-up windows
========CCCA==CA
Dry cleaning & laundry, pick-up station
========CAA==A==P
Dry cleaning & laundry, self-service laundry
C==CC==========
Dwelling: density zoning
DDDD========P==
Dwelling: multiple family
====CCCC====CC==P==
Dwelling: single-family attached
CCDDP====
Dwelling: singlefamily detached
PPPP==========P====
Dwelling: twofamily
CCPPC==========P====
Dwelling: live-work unit
========CC====
Financial institution & service
========PPPPPCPPPP==P
Garage, truck
================CC====
Home occupation: Class I
AAAAAAA==
Home occupation: Class II
CACACACACA======C====CA==
Hospital
D
Hotel/motel
========CPCCC==CP
House of worship
CCCCCCCCCCCP
Manufactured home park
====C====================
Manufacturing & processing: Class I
AAAPPPP==C
Manufacturing & processing: Class II
================P====
Microbrewery
CCCCCC
Microdistillery
CCCCCC
Mortuary, funeral home
========PP==C======C
Multiple occupancy building
========CCCCCCCCCC==P
Nursery
CCCC============CA
Nursing home and assisted living
CCCCDC========CP
2
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-010
CD
R1R2R3R4NBB1B2B3B4CCGBI1I-2I-FLEXMRMB
Uses:
Office
========PPPPPPPPPPP
Pawn shop
Personal services
CAPPPCPAP
Public use
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCPP
Research and development facility
CPCCCPPPPP
Research animals
CCCP
Residence Hall, dormitory
======CCD==============CP
Residential facility, state licensed, serving 1-6
PPPPPP==========P
Residential facility, state licensed, serving 7-16
CCCCCCC
Restaurant and restaurant-fast food
========CAPPPCPCCP
Retail sales & service
========PAPPPCAAAAP
School, general education
CCCC======C====CP
School, higher education
D======CC==CC====CP
School, specialized education
========CCCCC====CP
Service station
========CC==CCCC
Storage, exterior
==================CA
Studio
========CCPPPC====P
Theater, indoor
========ACP==C====P
Utility distribution line
P
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
Utility substation
================CCCC
Utility transmission
C
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
========CC======C
Vehicle - motorized, service
========CC======C
Warehousing
========AAAACPPCA
3
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-010
1320.15 Special Requirements for the Conservation District.
Subd. 1 Procedure. The application and the administrative and review procedure
established in Section 1355.04 Subd 3, Conditional Use Permits shall be followed for all
development that requires a Conditional Use Permit.
Subd. 2 Permitted Uses. Permitted uses are allowed as specified on the Land Use Chart,
Section 1320.05. The following uses are also permitted:
A.Any facility, building, or structure controlled by either the Minnesota
National Guard or Army Reserve located on the Arden Hills Army
Training Site.
B.Any use or activity carried out by either the Minnesota National Guard
or the Army Reserve on the Arden Hills Army Training Site.
5
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-010
Effective Date
. This Ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication.
Adoption Date.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills the ___ day of
October, 2013.
DAVID GRANT, MAYOR
ATTEST:
PATRICK KLAERS
CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Publication Date:
6
Attachment C
Arden Hills 2030 Future Land Use Map
VLDR - Very Low Density Residential
LDR - Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
HDR - High Density Residential
MR - Mixed Residential
NB - Neighborhood Business
CMU - Community Mixed Use
COM - Commercial
MB - Mixed Business
I/O - Light Industrial and Office
P/I - Public & Institutional
UTL - Utility
P/OS - Park and Open Space
PP - Park Preserve
RR - Railroad right-of-way
ROW - Right-of-Way
WAT - Water
Adopted: September 28, 2009
Last Updated: June 25, 2013
Attachment D
Arden Hills 2030 Future Land Use Map
Parks and Open Space District
Parcel Ownership and Land Use
Arden Hills - Parks and Recreation
Arden Hills - Open Space
Arden Hills - Trails
Ramsey County - Parks and Recreation
State of Minnesota - Open Space
Public Easement - Trails
Private Property
Municipal Services
Prepared by:
City of Arden Hills
Community Development Department
October 3, 2013
Data Sources:
* Ramsey County
* City of Arden Hills
Arden Hills Zoning Map
M-B - Mixed Business
M-R - Mixed Residential
R-1 - Single Family Residential
R-2 - Single & Two Family Residential District
R-3 - Townhouse & Low Density Multiple Dwelling District
R-4 - Multiple Dwelling District
B-1 - Limited Business District
B-2 - General Business District
B-3 - Service Business District
B-4 - Retail Center District
N-B - Neigborhood Business
C-C - Civic Center District
G-B - Gateway Business
I-1 - Limited Industrial District
I-2 - General Industrial District
I-FLEX District
Railroad
Right-of-Way
Water
Adopted: April 12, 1993
Last Updated: July 29, 2013
Attachment F
Arden Hills Zoning Map with
Proposed Parks and Open Space District
and Conservation District
POS - Parks and Open Space District (Proposed)
CD - Conservation District (Proposed)
M-B - Mixed Business
M-R - Mixed Residential
R-1 - Single Family Residential
R-2 - Single & Two Family Residential District
R-3 - Townhouse & Low Density Multiple Dwelling District
R-4 - Multiple Dwelling District
B-1 - Limited Business District
B-2 - General Business District
B-3 - Service Business District
B-4 - Retail Center District
N-B - Neigborhood Business
C-C - Civic Center District
G-B - Gateway Business
I-1 - Limited Industrial District
I-2 - General Industrial District
I-FLEX District
Railroad
Right-of-Way
Water
*The zoning district designations represented on
this map do not correspond to the City of Arden
Hills official Zoning Map.
Prepared by:
City of Arden Hills
Community Development Department
October 3, 2013
Data Sources:
* Ramsey County
* City of Arden Hills
AttachmentG
Approved: May 8, 2013
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 3, 2013
6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
A.Planning Case 13-004 Zoning Code Amendment; Parks and Open Space Zoning
District Discussion
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler reviewed the Planning Commission is
requested to review the draft Parks and Open Space (P/OS) Ordinance and Park Preserve (PP)
Ordinance and provide further direction. They will also review the Diversion and Disposal of
Recreation Areas Ordinance and recommend amendments, if necessary.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler stated the City completed its Parks, Trails,
and Open Space (PTOS) Plan in 2002. The PTOS Plan addresses demographic and recreational
trail, and recreation needs. Several recommendations entail
renovating existing park space, as well as improving the accessibility of these resources. The
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee and City staff have since made significant progress in
implementing the goals listed in the PTOS Plan.
In September 2009, the City Council adopted the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The
priorities, and decision-making processes. Several policies and goals contained in the plan
address the protection of open space and outdoor recreational amenities:
Chapter 6 Land Use
Evaluate and amend the land use regulations to achieve the highest possible
development standards, enhance the natural environment, protect public health,
support a vital mix of land uses, and promote flexible approaches to implement the
Comprehensive Plan.
Provide a balanced mix of residential, park, open space, and commercial land uses.
Chapter 9 Parks and Recreation
Develop, maintain, and encourage the use of a system of neighborhood parks and
pathways that are safe and engaging.
Chapter 10 Protected Resources
trees, lakes, wetlands, and other unique or significant natural resources.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler showed the 2030 Future Land Use Map
indicating Park and Open Space and Park Preserve Lands. The Park Preserve area is entirely
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2013 2
located on the Training Site. He showed the Current Zoning Code and noted there is not a
distinct district set aside for parks or open space areas within zoning regulations.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler stated the Comprehensive Plan identifies a
total of 576 acres of park and open space land, and categorizes P/OS as an existing and future
land use designation. Park Preserve (PP) is an additional existing and future land use designation
applied to open space areas in the City. Currently there is not a district set aside for parks or
open space areas within zoning code regulations.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler reviewed the drafts for the proposed Park and
Open Space Ordinance and Park Preserve Ordinance currently include three primary sections:
1. A description of the intent of the ordinance
2. A subdivision outlining permitted uses, and
3. A subdivision listing special regulations.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler suggested additional points of discussion:
Do the current draft adequately address privately-owned park and open space land
uses;
Should the ordinance language on permitted uses be prescriptive or general
Is an additional section needed for acceptable conditional uses and an approval
process for such uses;
natural areas, are more stringent development and design standards needed to
regulate any development that might occur on these lands
Other special regulations that might be appropriate.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler stated also under discussion at the November
9, 2011 meeting was whether to include a provision in the Parks and Open Space Ordinance that
would require the City to replace any converted or transferred park space with an equivalent
amount of park land within city limits. Upon further research, Staff found that such an ordinance
already exists in the Arden Hills City Code (Section 720.09 Diversion and Disposal of
Recreation Areas). A copy is attached for Commission review.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler requested the Planning Commission review
the draft Parks and Open Space (P/OS) Ordinance and Park Preserve (PP) Ordinance and provide
further direction. Review Diversion and Disposal of Recreation Areas Ordinance and
recommend amendments, if necessary.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler suggested separate zoning districts should be
created for the Park and Open Space and Park Preserve land uses.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler provided drafts of Special Requirements for
the Parks and Open Space (P/OS) District and Special Requirements for the Park Preserve (PP)
District.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler provided discussion questions:
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2013 3
1. Do the current drafts adequately address privately-owned park and open space land uses?
2. Should the ordinance language on permitted uses be prescriptive or more general?
3. Is an additional section needed for acceptable conditional uses and an approval process
for such uses?
4. Given that much of ontains sensitive natural
areas, are more stringent development and design standards needed to regulate any
development that might occur?
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler reviewed Chapter 7 Recreation Areas, 720.09
Diversion and Disposal of Recreation Areas. Key provisions:
1. Park and Recreation Committee review and recommendation
2. Public hearing held by City Council
3. City Council approval
4. Commitment of resources to acquire substitute recreational areas.
Staff does not see a need to amen
Chair Larson asked how much privately owned park space is there and City Planner Meagan
Beekman stated she is not aware of any.
Commissioner Hames stated she believes according to the map there are many privately owned
park areas. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the first thing needed is to create the districts
after which the rezoning could be done. The property owners would be notified of the new
zoning districts. Commissioner Hames asked if a separate designation would be needed for
private park land. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that would not be necessary. The park
plan would not be amended. Only the zoning designation would be changed.
Commissioner Holewa asked if rezoning of private park land would remove it from the tax rolls
and City Planner Meagan Beekman stated it would still be taxed but at a lower rate. Pulte will be
building a park within the development.
Commissioner Hames asked if the designations would be recognized by Ramsey County. City
Planner Meagan Beekman stated there are many that have different zoning for parks and
open space.
Chair Larson asked if each parcel would need a PID number and City Planner Meagan Beekman
stated it would. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated even unplatted properties have PID
numbers. She noted one parcel can have multiple zoning designations.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated developments have generated fees for park dedication rather
than land. In looking at TCAAP there may be a large amount of land for park dedication. He
asked if we are coordinated well enough with this ordinance that we could realize the park space
that is planned. City Planner Meagan stated there is a system in place regarding park dedication.
For TCAAP there is one owner the County. A cohesive master plan will be needed that will
identify the open space and park land. The zoning code has a lot of detail regarding the park
land and open space requirements. Commissioner Zimmerman asked who the gate-keeper will
ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 2013 4
be to ensure this happens. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the City will develop the
Master Plan. The joint development authority will be the gate-keeper based on documents
created by the City of Arden Hills.
Commissioner Hames stated the discussion is getting off topic. She stated she approves of the
two designations and the drafts provided by staff.
Commissioner Holewa thanked Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler and City
Planner Meagan Beekman for their work on this.
Commissioner Holewa sugg
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler stated the City cannot dictate on Federal
owned property. He referred to 1320.14 Subd 1 #E & F.
Commissioner Hames stated Commissioner Holewa had asked about buildings on parkland that
are used to maintain the parkland. Commissioner Holewa stated if a building is constructed in a
park that was not used for the park, it would have to be mitigated by the City Council.
Chair Larson stated the drafts seem sufficiently flexible. Chair Larson asked if tools are in place
for eliminating encroachment. Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler stated the City
of Roseville has a Park and Recreation District with detailed design standards. He stated there is
a provision that talks about requiring any building that goes into a park, have a setback. Chair
Larson stated he is more concerned about properties adjoining open space. City Planner Meagan
Beekman stated the tools are in place to manage that.
Commissioner Thompson referred to Attachment F and Community Development Intern
Matthew Bachler stated that is from Brooklyn Park.
Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler stated all questions were addressed by
commissioners.
AttachmentH
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
PARKS, TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING
TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013
ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL
A. Parks and Open Space and Park Preserve Ordinances
Community Development Intern Bachler asked that the PTRC review the draft Parks and Open
Space Ordinance and Park Preserve Ordinance which was included in their packets and then provide
further direction. He explained the Parks, Trails and Open Space Plan addresses demographic and
and that the Comprehensive
Plan addresses the issue of protecting open space and outdoor recreation space in the City. He
indicated the Comprehensive Plan also created a 2030 future land use map which shows the two
districts. There are 576 acres identified as park and open space and a total of 1,472 acres
categorized as park reserve, which are all located on the Arden Hills Army Training site on the
eastern portion of the TCAAP property. He indicated that staff recommended the separate zoning
districts be created for the park and open space and park reserve land uses, because the zoning code
did not provide enough guidance on use of park and open space areas. The drafts were created by
reviewing what other communities in the metro region have done in their zoning codes to regulate
parks and open spaces and also based on work that was previously done in 2011. He stated that
feedback from the Planning Commission has been incorporated.
Committee Development Intern Bachler indicated further points of discussion include whether any
types of uses or facilities should be permitted that are not currently listed in the draft ordinances, do
they contain enough guidance to effectively evaluate potential conditional uses and their potential
impact on park and open space land, and any special regulations that might be appropriate.
Previously, the Planning Commission had requested that staff include a provision in the Parks and
Open Space Ordinance that would require the City to replace any converted or transferred park
space with an equivalent amount of park land within city limits. Upon further research staff found
that such an ordinance already existed in the City Code. In such cases where the City is looking to
transfer park and recreation land to a private entity that would use that land for a different use the
proposal would be brought to the PTRC. If the PTRC supported the proposal a public hearing would
be held by the City Council and the City Council would need to approve such an agreement by a
majority vote. At that point there would need to be a commitment of resources to acquire substitute
recreational land so that in the end a substitute amount of land would replace the land that was taken.
He reported the existing ordinance adequately addresses this issue.
Committee Member Michaelson questioned if a publicly owned golf course would qualify under the
permitted uses for either of these areas. Mr. Bachler stated he believed that Attachment C - City
Owned Park Facilities and Recreational Facilities under the parks and open space district could be
interpreted to include a publicly owned golf course.
Committee Member Kramlinger stated he did not feel an owner of privately held land would want
the value of the land controlled by the City. Mr. Bachler indicated the City is not proposing that
staff retroactively rezone privately held land as parks and open space land use because that would
directly diminish the value of that land. Ms. Beekman indicated if the City wanted to dispose of a
Parks, Trails & Recreation Committee Meeting Minutes April 16, 2013
Page 2
City owned park or open space they could not just do that but would need to follow the process in
place. She stated, the park preserve, however, is owned by the Army and if they want to rezone it,
the City has no authority over that land.
Committee Member Kramlinger asked whether land is gifted to the City when a new development is
made. Ms. Beekman stated the way that park dedication works is the City gets a percentage of the
land or value of the land and the City is statutorily required to use that toward the creation of new
trails or park connections.
Committee Member Michaelson questioned whether the City would have some control over uses if
the Army decided to sell some of the land. Ms. Beekman indicated since the land is owned by the
Federal Government, if the Army wanted to do something with the land, the City would not have
much say in the matter.
MOTION:
Committee Member Garretson motioned to proceed with the draft ordinances as
presented seconded by Committee Member Scott. The motioned carried (9-0).
AttachmentI
Approved: June 24, 2013
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING
MAY 28, 2013
6:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS
A.Parks and Open Space District and Park Preserve District Discussion
Community Development Intern Bachler
indicated that staff has been working on a Parks and
Open Space Ordinance and Park Preserve Ordinance for the past two months. These ordinances
will create formal zoning districts for park and open space land in the City. He commented that a
Parks and Open Space Ordinance is necessary to bring the Zoning Code into compliance with the
approved 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Community Development Intern Bachler
explained that staff looked at several other cities
across the metropolitan area to gain a sense of how each regulated park and open space land.
After reviewing these documents, staff was able to create draft ordinances. He noted that these
draft documents have been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the PTRC. He requested
feedback and further direction from the Council on the draft documents.
Councilmember Holmes
questioned the purpose of the ordinances.
Community Development Intern Bachler
commented that at this time, the City does not have a
park land zoning designation. Currently, all park and recreation property exists in the zoning code
under residential or business districts and is allowed as a permitted or conditional use. He
indicated that a separate district for these uses will further regulate the land uses, while adding
another layer of protection to these resources.
Councilmember Holmes
discussed the permitted uses within publicly and privately owned parks.
She asked how Ramsey County parks
Community Development Intern Bachler
indicated that Ramsey County has two parks in the
City of Arden Hills. He noted that the City could draft language to zone that property and dictate
how the park space is used. He stated that as the TCAAP property develops, these ordinances
could greatly benefit the City.
Councilmember Werner
expressed concern that vegetables could be grown in a community
garden space.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 28, 20132
City Administrator Klaers
commented that this could be changed from a permitted use to a
conditional use on City owned property. This change would allow for conditions to be placed on
the use.
Discussion ensued regarding conditional uses and permitted uses within the Park and Open Space
Ordinance, in addition to the City regulation of publicly and privately owned park spaces.
Councilmember Holmes
asked if the renewable energy language is necessary within the park
ordinances. She does not want to see wind turbines allowed on City owned property.
Community Development Intern Bachler
stated that there is potential for a renewable energy
system to be installed in a City park, such as solar panels for electricity on top of a warming
house. He commented that Items C and E could be removed from the proposed ordinance to
reduce confusion.
Councilmember Holmes
understands that the Council can not anticipate every item that may
come up in the future, but she is in favor of having additional language within the ordinance to
address public and private park usage.
Community Development Intern Bachler
commented that the purpose statement could be
reworded to provide clarity.
Mayor Grant
discussed the special regulations in the parks and open space district. It is his
opinion that Item A is a goal and not a regulation.
Community Development Intern Bachler
recommended that Item A within this section be
removed.
City Administrator Klaers
thanked the Council for their comments this evening.
MEMORANDUM
4.B
DATE:
October 9, 2013
PC Agenda Item
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Ryan Streff, City Planner
SUBJECT:Planning Case #13-013–Public Hearing Required
Applicant:
Bethel University
Property Location:
2 Pine Tree Drive
Request:
Conditional Use Permit–Higher Education
Requested Action
The applicant is requestinga Conditional Use Permit withPlanning Case#13-013 to allow
higher education as the principal use within the facility located at 2 Pine Tree Drive(County
Financial Building).
Background
1.Overview of Request
The City has received a proposal from Bethel University to obtain a conditional use permit to
allow higher education as the principal use of the property at 2 Pine Tree Drive. TheUniversity
has negotiated a purchase agreement in order toacquirethe property from Country Financial,
contingent on the approval of a conditional use permit that would allow the entire facility to be
used for higher education and other general administrative uses. If approved this site would
function as the east Campus for Bethel University.
2.Background
The applicant has applied to expand the higher educational use at 2 Pine Tree Drive to
encompass the entire 189,804 square foot facility. Their objective is to purchase the building,
and as leases expire, fully occupy the structure within 5 to 15 years. Bethel University has a plan
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 1of 9
to slowly expand their higher education uses, including administrative offices, general and
specialized classrooms, meeting rooms and other general educational uses into the space. Bethel
University previously obtained a conditional use permit (Planning Case#13-008) from the City
to occupy approximately 26,000 square feet of the County Financial building for higher
education. The approval was granted for higher education but requires the University to seek
additional approval for any expansion or intensification of the use.
Theproperty located at 2 Pine Tree Driveiscurrently owned by Mutual Services Life Insurance
Company (c/o Country Life Insurance Company)alsoknown as Country Financial.The
property is generallypositioned north of Lake Josephine, south of County Road E, east of
Highway 51/Snelling Avenue and west of Lexington Avenue. The property consists of three (3)
parcels that total approximately forty-three (43) acres.Of the three (3) continuous parcels only
the northern two have associated functions that currently relate to the proposed principle useof
the property.The northern parcel which is 21.52 acres in size contains the access road off of
Pine Tree Drive and the majority of the surface parking. The center parcel which is 19.16 acres
in size contains the one (1) existing building and a small fraction of the surface parking. The
remaining undeveloped parcel to the south is 2.43 acres in size and is made upof mainly
woodlands and wetlands.
The property is located within the B-2 General Business District, where higher educational uses
are permitted by conditional use permit.The property includes a five (5) story, 189,804square
foot multi-tenant office building, of which 181,432 is rentable. At this timeapproximately
75,000 square feet of the building is occupied by Country Financial and other tenants of the
building.Approximately sixty percent (60%)of the building is currently vacant.
According to the information provided by Bethel University the property would have a diverse
mixture of normaldaytime office uses along with both daytime and evening classes. The
University is planning for a mix of transportation modes to be used between the two campuses,
including shuttle service, carpooling, personal vehicles, walking and biking. Shuttle services to
and from the main campus would be provided to the students, guests, faculty and administration
staff on a daily basis.A pedestrianand bicycletrail connecting the two campuses is also a desire
of the University in order to provide safe routes for theirentire student body.
Primarilyclasses at the Pine Tree location would be held between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00
pm, Monday through Friday. Evening classeswould also be offeredand would generally be
between the hours of 5:00 pm and 9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday.Peak classroom usage,
Monday through Friday,is between 350 and 500 students during daytime hoursand peaks
between 240 and 375 students during the evening hours,Monday through Thursday. As shown
by the applicant,two scenarios have been developed to understand the use of the Pine Tree
Campus in terms of its student, faculty and administrative populations. Scenario 1 indicates the
likely useof the facility at full capacitywould be 797 people/seats.Thisscenarioaccounts for
237 staff or faculty and 560 classroom seats. Scenario 2 suggests the maximum capacityof the
facility would be873 people/seats. This scenario indicates that 203 staff or faculty and 670
classroom seatswould utilize the facility.(See Attachment C & D)
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 2of 9
The current surface parking lot on the property consists of approximately 777 parking spaces, or
roughly one (1) space per 260 square feet of gross building area. The zoning ordinance states
that one (1) space per 250 square feet of gross floor area is required for businessand professional
office uses. Bethel has prepared a class scheduling analysisindicating how theirstaggered
classroom usage mitigates the parking concernon the property.(Attachment E)
The applicant has provided a detailed narrative(Attachment B) of the proposed use along with
preliminary plans for the layout of the facility. (Attachment C & D).
3.Surrounding Area:
DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use
CMU –Community B-2General Business
NorthCommercial
Mixed UseDistrict
P/OS –Park and Open
R-1 Single Family Residential and Parks/Open
SouthSpace and LDR –Low
ResidentialSpace
Density Residential
B-2 General Business
CMU –Community
District; R-4 Multiple
Mixed Use;HDR –High
Dwelling District; and R-
EastDensity Residential;and Commercialand Residential
3 Townhouse & Low
LDR –Low Density
Density Multiple
Residential
Dwelling District
LDR –Low Density R-1 Single Family
WestResidential
ResidentialResidential
4.Site Data:
Future Land Use Plan:CMU –Community Mixed Use
Existing Land Use:Commercial
Zoning:B-2General Business District
Size:43.11acres (3 Parcels -2Pine Tree Drive, 12 Pine Tree Drive, and
4300 Dunlap Street N) with a 189,804 square foot office building
Topography:Relatively Flat
Plan Evaluation
1.B-2Zoning Regulations
The B-2General Business District allows higher education usesby conditional use permit.
Higher education is defined in the Zoning Code as “junior colleges, colleges and universities
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 3of 9
approved by the Minnesota Higher Education Coordinating Board for the Minnesota Department
of Education”.
According to Section 1320.04 Subd. 7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the stated purpose of the B-2
District is as follows:
1.To be a place in which people can live, work and play.
2.To create a compact, architecturally diverse, pedestrian-and bicycle-friendly community
with a distinct identity.
3.To provide a connected sidewalk system and places for people to gather and socialize.
4.To implement design standards to promote an attractiveenvironment with lasting and
sustainable value.
5.To group compatible retail and service business uses that tend to draw trade that is
naturally interchangeable and promotes business prosperity.
6.To provide an adequate supply of business and professional service areas to meet the
needs of residents.
7.To minimize the effects of traffic congestion, noise, odor, glare and similar safety
problems.
8.To implement the Plan known as the “Guiding Plan for the B2 District,” which was
adopted by the City Council on October 27, 2008.
2.Parking–
Meets Requirements
The current surface parking lot on the property consists of approximately 777 parking spaces, or
roughly one (1) space per 260 square feet of gross building area. The zoning ordinance states
that one (1) space per 250 square feet of gross floor area is required for business and professional
office uses.
SRF Consulting conducted a Parking Analysis of the site and determined that the site has more
than adequate parking to accommodate the proposed use.
3.Traffic
A traffic study and parkinganalysis has been completed by SRF Consulting to determine what
changes may beneeded in order for the site to operate effectively for a higher education use. For
additional details regarding the Traffic Study and Parking Analysis,please seeAttachment F.
Summary of Conclusions & Recommendations -
Results of the existing capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate
at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. No significant
side-street delays were observed.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 4of 9
Results of the year 2018 (Phase 2) build operations analysis indicates that all study
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOSC or better, except the
County Road E/Old Snelling intersection during the p.m. peak hour. The 95th percentile
queues in both the eastbound and southbound directions are expected to extend up to
approximately 500 feet.
This intersection is expected to be approaching capacity by year 2018, regardless of the
o
proposed expansion.
To address the poor operations at the County Road E/Old Snelling intersection under year
2018 (Phase 2) build conditions, construction/installation of a roundabout or traffic signal
should be considered.
However, since the poor operations would likely occur for only a short period each day
o
(i.e. one or two hours), the City/County may deem this acceptable given the relatively
high costs associated with these improvements.
Results of the year 2025 (Phase 3) build operations analysis indicate similar operations to the
year 2018 Phase 2 build conditions are expected. Therefore, the potential mitigation
identified under year 2018 is considered adequate.
Based on the review of the existing parking supply/demand and the ITE calculations for
future conditions, the current 777 parking spaces are more than adequate to meet the future
demand of the facility.
Given that the travel times would be relatively similar between the two potential shuttle
service routes and the desire to keep “local” trips away from “regional” type of facilities, it is
recommended that the proposed shuttle service utilize a route along Old Snelling, County
Road E, and Pine Tree Drive.
When planning the loading/unloading zones for the shuttle service, the location/size of the
zones and pedestrian waiting areas should be designed to ensure there is sufficient space for
passengers to safely wait, while limiting any sight distance impacts or conflicts with
driveway aisles.
There are multiple gaps (i.e. a lack of connectivity) within the existing pedestrian/bicyclist
system which likely limits activity in the area, particularly along Old Snelling. If these areas
were to be improved, more pedestrians/bicyclists would be expected to utilize these facilities.
The type of improvements that could be implemented to improve connectivity include multi-
use trails, sidewalks, and/or shoulder expansion.
Alternative pedestrian/bicyclist connections were developed to provide a more direct route
between the two campuses and increase the potential for pedestrian/bicyclist activity.
However, further discussion with impacted stakeholders would be necessary since several of
these routes travel through and/or cross areas owned privately, by MnDOT, or the railroad.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 5of 9
4.Sign Code Regulations –
Meets Requirements
The property is within Sign District 7 that permits forty-five (45) square feet of wall signage and
twenty-five (25) square feet of freestanding signage. At this time theapplicant only intends to
change the existing signage to reflect the change in use. No other signage is being requested at
this time.
5.Lighting–
Lighting plan required
The Ramsey County Sheriff would like toconductan analysis of the lighting on the property to
determine if changes need occur to ensure safety onthe site.Lighting on the property may need
to be changed to reflect the change in use. However, at this time Bethel is not proposing to
change the location or arrangement of the lighting on the site as part of the proposed use.
6.Additional Review
The Building Official has reviewed this project and has determined that the following items ata
minimum need to be addresswithin the building.
The facility needs to be brought up to the current Minnesota State Accessibility Code
standards.
The main staircase and entrance/exit doors within the structure need to be updated to
meet building code.
7.Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria –Section 1355.04 Subd 3
The following CUP criteria would apply to schools for higher education in the B-2District:
Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a
Conditional Use Permit Amendment. The Planning Commission and City Council should
consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general
welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the
community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors:
1.Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions;
2.Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid
waste, and other nuisance characteristics;
3.Drainage;
4.Population density;
5.Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land;
6.Adjoining land values;
7.Park dedications where applicable; and the
8.Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose
and intent of the Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the
City.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 6of 9
Findings of Fact
The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application
would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the
aforementioned factors.Staff offers the following findings for consideration:
General Findings:
1.The applicant is proposing ause ofhigher education for thefacility located at 2 Pine Tree
Drive.
2.The proposed use within 5-15 years will encompass the entire building which is 189,804
square feet.
3.Higher education uses are permittedby conditional use permit within the B-2 General
Business District.
4.No additional buildings or facilities are being planned for this property at this time.
5.In order to provide safe pedestrian movements between campuses a trail will need to be
constructed.
6.The property consists of three (3) parcels of land totaling 43.11 acres.
7.That approximately 777 surface parking spaces exist on the property.
8.The proposed use will not increase the occupancy beyond the original design of the
building.
9.That no changes in lot coverage, landscaping, setbacks or height are being proposed.
Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings:
1.The proposed use will occupy theexistingbuilding and parking areas during both
daytime and evening hours for students, administrationstaffand faculty. Shared parking
on the site will be used for other weekday officeusers.
2.The proposal will have minimal impacts on noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air
pollution, heat, liquid andsolid waste.
3.The proposal will not affect drainage on the property.
4.The proposed usewill not affect the population density on the propertybeyond the
original occupancy design of the building.
5.The proposed land use complies with the intent of the zoning ordinance and is compatible
with uses and structures on surrounding property.
6.The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on
neighboring properties.
7.The park dedicationrequirement does not apply in this application.
Notice
Notice was published in the Arden Hills/ShoreviewBulletinand notice was prepared by the City
and mailed toallproperty ownerswithin five hundred(500) feet of the subject property.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 7of 9
Resident Comments
Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants
in regard to this planning case.
Staff Recommendation
Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case
#13-013for a Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree Driveto allow higher education.Staff
recommends the following twelve (12)conditions be included with the approval:
1.That 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 Commissionand City
Council.
2.That the permitted use shall exclusively pertain to the existing building that is 189,804
square feet in size. Thatany additionalbuildings, facilities, recreational fields or
structures shall require City Approval.
3.That a trail connection shall be provided to address pedestrian movements between the
University’s east and west campuses.That the applicant shall work with the City to
determine the best route to ensure safe pedestrian and bicycle movements.
4.That bus transit between the two campuses shall be provided to accommodate class
schedules at the University.
5.That no undergraduate programs shall be implemented on the site until the trail
connection between the two campuses iscomplete.
6.That bicycle parkingshall be provided at a minimum of one (1)space per ten (10)vehicle
parking spaces.
7.That vehicle parking on the site shall be provided at a minimum of (1) space per 250
square feet of gross floor area.
8.That a lighting plan shall be submitted and approved by the Cityand the Ramsey County
Sheriff.
9.That loading/unloading zones and shuttleservice routes shall be consistent with the
recommendations made by SRF Consulting during the Traffic Study and Parking
Analysis.
10.That the applicant will apply for City approval for any changes to exterior signage.
11.That the applicant will request an amendment to the conditional use permit for any
increase in intensity of the higher education use.
12.That all Building Code and Fire Marshal requirements shall be met prior to occupancy of
each are being remodeled.
Options
1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case
#13-013for a Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree Drivebased on the findings of fact and
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 8of 9
the submitted plans as amended by the twelve (12)conditions in the October 9, 2013, report
to the Planning Commission.
2.Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case #13-
013for a Conditional Use Permit at2 Pine Tree Drivebased on the findings of fact and the
submitted plans in the October 9, 2013, report to the Planning Commission.
3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case #13-013 for a
Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree Drivebased 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 #13-013for a Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree
Drivein order to gather the following information: a specific reason and/or information
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 September 9,
2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by November 5,
2013(60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-
day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period
beyond the initial 120 days.
Attachments
A.Land Use Application
B.Narrative of Proposed Use
C.Scenario 1 –Likely Use Plan
D.Scenario 2 –Maximum Use Plan
E.Maximum Use –Class Scheduling Analysis
F.Traffic Study–SRF Consulting
G.Aerial Site Map
H.Photos of the Site
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use
Page 9of 9
Attachment A
Attachment F
Memorandum
SRF No. 0138264
To:
Ryan Streff, City Planner
City of Arden Hills
From:
Matthew Pacyna, PE, Associate
Emily Gross, EIT, Engineer
Date:
October 4, 2013
Subject:
Bethel University Expansion Traffic Study
Introduction
As requested, SRF has completed a traffic study for the proposed Bethel University expansion into
the existing Country Financial building located along Pine Tree Drive, south of County Road E in
the City of Arden Hills (see Figure 1: Project Location). The main objectives of this study are to
review existing operations within the study area, evaluate traffic impacts to the adjacent roadway and
pedestrian/bicyclist network, and recommend any necessary improvements to accommodate the
proposed expansion. It should be noted that Bethel University is expected to eventually occupy the
entire Country Financial building. Therefore, multiple expansion phases were included as part of
this study. The following information provides the assumptions, analysis, and recommendations
offered for consideration.
Existing Conditions
The existing conditions were reviewed to establish a baseline to compare and determine any future
impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions includes
peak hour intersection counts, field observations, and an intersection capacity analysis.
Data Collection
Intersection vehicular and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected by SRF during the a.m. and
p.m. peak periods on Thursday September 26, 2013 at the followin
County Road E and Old Snelling (CSAH 76)
County Road E and Snelling Avenue (TH 51) West Ramps
County Road E and Snelling Avenue (TH 51) East Ramps
County Road E and Pine Tree Drive
Pine Tree Drive and Country Financial Access
Lexington Avenue N and Harriet Avenue
It should be noted that there are several major roadway projects under construction within the
general vicinity of the proposed expansion that are impacting area travel patterns.
OCP,S150|M,MN55447|763.475.0010|..
NE ARLSON ARKWAY UITE INNEAPOLIS WWWSRFCONSULTINGCOM
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 3
To establish a baseline condition that does not include any construction impacts, historical peak
hour and daily traffic volume information, provided by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (MnDOT), was reviewed. This data was compared to
intersection counts, which were then modified accordingly to reflect year 2013 non-construction
conditions within the study area.
In addition to the intersection counts, observations were completed to identify roadway
characteristics within the study area (i.e. roadway geometry, posted speed limits, and traffic controls).
Currently, County Road E is primarily a three-lane roadway west of Snelling Avenue and a five-lane
roadway to the east. The posted speed limit along County Road E within the study area is 35 miles
per hour (mph). Lexington Avenue is also a three-lane roadway, but has a 40 mph posted speed
limit, while Old Snelling is a two-lane roadway with a 45 mph posted speed limit. The remaining
study area roadways are two-lane roadways with 30 mph posted spe
Study intersections along County Road E at Pine Tree Drive, the Snelling Avenue West Ramps, and
the Snelling Avenue East Ramps are currently signalized. The County Road E/Old Snelling
intersection is unsignalized and has all-way stop control. The other study intersections are also
unsignalized, but have side-street stop control. The existing geometrics, traffic controls, and
volumes within the study area are shown in Figure 2.
Intersection Capacity Analysis
An existing intersection capacity analysis was completed to establish a baseline condition to which
future traffic operations could be compared. The existing study intersections were analyzed using a
combination of the Synchro/SimTraffic (Version 8.0) and Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
software. Capacity analysis results identify a Level of Service (LOS) which indicates how well an
intersection is operating. Intersections are ranked from LOS A through LOS F. The LOS results are
based on average delay per vehicle, which correspond to the delay threshold values shown in
Table 1. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation and LOS F in
demand exceeds capacity. Overall intersection LOS A through D is generally considered acceptable
by drivers in the study area.
Table 1.Level of Service Criteria for Signalized and Unsignalize
Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection
LOS Designation
Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds) Average Delay/Vehicle (seconds)
A
B - -
C - -
D - -
E - -
F
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 5
For side-street stop controlled intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for
the level of service of the side-street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection
with side-street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall
intersection level of service. This takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the
intersection and the capability of the intersection to support these volumes. Second, it is important
to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority
of delay is attributed to the side-street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline
traffic volumes to experience high levels of delay (i.e. poor levels of service) on the side-street
approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of serv
Results of the existing capacity analysis shown in Table 2 indicate that all study intersections
currently operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, with
the existing traffic control, geometric layout, and signal timing. Furthermore, no significant side-
street delays were observed. However, relatively minor queuing i
westbound left-turn movement at the County Road E/Snelling Avenue West Ramp intersection and
the southbound left-turn movement at the County Road E/Old Snelling intersection during the
peak hours. These queues occasionally (i.e. approximately 10 to 15 percent of the peak hour) extend
beyond their current turn lane storage. It should be noted that there is a planned bridge
improvement that is expected to be constructed in the year 2015 which would provide additional
turn lane storage at the County Road E/Snelling Avenue ramp terminal intersections. Additional
details of the planned bridge improvement are discussed later in this document.
Table 2.Existing Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Intersection
LOS Delay LOS Delay
County Road E and Old Snelling B 2 sec. C 22 sec.
County Road E and Snelling Avenue West Ramps B 7 sec. B sec.
County Road E and Snelling Avenue East Ramps B sec. B 8 sec.
County Road E and Pine Tree Drive A A 7 sec.
Pine Tree Drive and Country Financial Access A/A sec. A/A 6 sec.
Lexington Avenue N and Harriet Avenue A/A 7 sec. A/B 3 sec.
Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all-way stop control
Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop conoach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
Proposed Bethel University Expansion
Bethel University intends to purchase the existing Country Financial building located along Pine
Tree Drive and eventually occupy the entire 191,000 square foot facility within the next five to
15 years. Two development scenarios (i.e. Ñlikely useÒ and Ñmaximum useÒ) were identified.
However, for purposes of this study, the Ñmaximum useÒ was analyzed since it provides a
conservative estimate of the future conditions. Once fully occupied, the design capacity is expect
to support a total of 873 people, which accounts for approximately 203 staff and up to 670
students/classroom seats.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 6
Bethel University is expected to occupy the Country Financial building in three phases. A summary
of the proposed expansion and details of each phase are outlined in Table 3. Based on this
information, Bethel University is expected to fully occupy the Country Financial building by year
2025. The only access to the proposed expansion is not expected to change and will remain in its
current location along Pine Tree Drive. Shuttle service is prop
no more than four buses in circulation during peak periods. Pedestrian/bicyclist use is also expected
to occur between the two campuses. However, these facilities are relatively limited and would need
to be improved upon to increase utilization and provide a more safe connection. Additional
information regarding the existing pedestrian/bicyclist facilities is discussed later in this study.
Table 3.Maximum Use Phasing Summary
Classroom Full Design Bethel Remaining
Phase/Timeframe Staff/Faculty
Seats Capacity Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
-
Phase 2 -
---
Phase 3 - 873
Finally, there are approximately 777 surface parking spaces currently provided on site. No changes
to the parking configuration are planned. However, with the proposed land use change, a review of
the current parking was completed to determine if the existing p
the future demand. The detailed parking analysis is summarized later in this study.
Traffic Forecasts
Since the proposed expansion is expected to occupy the Country Financial building in multiple
phases, two specific development timeframes were selected for analysis. This approach was selected
since Phase 2 and Phase 3 are expected to generate the highest amount of traffic. Therefore, for
purposes of this study, year 2018 (i.e. Phase 2) and year 2025 (i.e. Phase 3) conditions were reviewed.
The following information provides additional details of the traffic forecast development.
Background Growth
To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half percent
was applied to the existing turning movement counts to develop year 2018 and year 2025
background traffic forecasts. This growth rate is consistent with future traffic volume projections
identified in the City of Arden Hills - 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Development
Since trip generation for universities can vary significantly ba
employees, class times, and access to amenities, specific weekday vehicular counts were reviewed at
the existing Bethel University access locations. This informatio Bethel
University Traffic Study Intersection Control Evaluation/Existing Conditions Analysis dated April 12, 2012. A
summary of the existing Bethel University trip generation is provided in Table 4.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 7
Table 4.Existing Bethel University Trip Generation (Average Week
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Daily
Hour Trips Hour Trips
Land Use Type Size
Trips
In Out In Out
Bethel University 96 27
Trip Generation Rate per Student 2.73
Note: This data is based on actual driveway counts collected and averaged over a three-day period Tuesday through Thursday.
The information presented in Table 4 was used as the basis for t
proposed expansion. As previously mentioned, Bethel University is expected to occupy the Country
Financial Building in multiple phases. Therefore, trip generation estimates were developed for each
phase to illustrate how the site generated traffic is expected to change over time. It should be not
that the Bethel University data was compared to the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition and
found to be comparable.
Results of the proposed expansion trip generation, shown in Table 5, indicate that Phase 2 is
expected to generate the highest amount of total site trips, which includes approximately 252 a.m.
peak hour, 256 p.m. peak hour, and 2,539 daily trips. It should be noted that approximately one-
third of the trips are associated with the existing leased space within the building. Under Phase 3, the
site is expected to generate approximately 145 a.m. peak hour, 194 p.m. peak hour, and 1,957 daily
trips, which is roughly a 30 percent reduction in total site tri
Table 5.Trip Generation Estimates Ï Proposed Expansion
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Daily
Hour Trips Hour Trips
Land Use Type (ITE Code, if applicable) Size
Trips
In Out In Out
-
- Existing Leased Office (Actual Count) 2 82 827
- Existing Vacant Office -- -- -- -- --
- Bethel University (Bethel Rate)
- Bethel University Shuttle Service NA
PT 3
hase otal Site Trips7
Phase 2 -
- Existing Leased Office (Actual Count) 2 82 827
- Remaining Office (710) 7 6
- Bethel University (Bethel Rate) Seats 87
- Bethel University Shuttle Service NA 8 8 8 8
Phase 2 Total Site Trips 2 69 87 2,
Phase 3 -
- Bethel University (Bethel Rate)
- Bethel University Shuttle Service NA 8 8 8 8
Phase 3 Total Site Trips 33 78 9
The daily rate was based on the ITE Code for general office spac
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 8
Since the Phase 1 site generated trips are lower than both the P
Phase 1 was not reviewed from an operations perspective. Theref
for Phase 2 and Phase 3 were distributed throughout the study ar
shown in Figure 3, was developed based on existing area travel patterns and engineering judgmen
The resultant year 2018 (Phase 2) and year 2025 (Phase 3) traffic volumes, which include the
background traffic and trips generated by the proposed expansion, are shown in Figures 4 and 5,
respectively.
Year 2018 (Phase 2) Build Conditions
Intersection Capacity Analysis
To determine if the existing roadway network can accommodate the year 2018 Phase 2 build traffic
forecasts, a detailed traffic capacity analysis was completed. However, it should be noted that
MnDOT is currently planning to reconstruct the County Road E bridge over Snelling Avenue in the
year 2015. This improvement will likely include lengthening exis
Road E at the two Snelling Avenue ramp terminal intersections as well as a new multi-purpose trail
located along the south side of County Road E. Since this project is currently planned, it was
assumed to be constructed by year 2018 and is included as part of the traffic operations analysis.
The study intersections were once again analyzed using a combination of the Synchro/SimTraffic
and HCM software.
Results of the year 2018 (Phase 2) build operations analysis shown in Table 6 indicates that all study
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours, with the existing traffic controls and assumed geometric layout, except the County
Road E/Old Snelling intersection. During the p.m. peak hour, the
intersection is expected to operate at LOS E (although near the LOS D/E threshold) with the
existing all-way stop control. In addition to the poor LOS at this intersection, the 95th percentile
queues in both the eastbound and southbound directions are expected to extend up to
approximately 500 feet. No other significant delay or queuing issues are expected under the year
2018 (Phase 2) build condition.
Table 6.Year 2018 (Phase 2) Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Intersection
LOS Delay LOS Delay
County Road E and Old Snelling B E36 sec.
County Road E and Snelling Avenue West Ramps B B
County Road E and Snelling Avenue East Ramps B C 23 sec.
County Road E and Pine Tree Drive A 6 sec. A 9 sec.
Pine Tree Drive and Country Financial Access A/A A/A 6 sec.
Lexington Avenue N and Harriet Avenue A/A 7 sec. A/B
Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all-way stop control
Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop conoach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 12
To address the poor operations at the County Road E/Old Snelling intersection under year 2018
(Phase 2) build conditions, modification of the existing traffic control should be considered.
Potential mitigation includes installation of a roundabout or traffic signal. However, discussion with
impacted stakeholders and City/County officials would need to occur prior to any decision.
Furthermore, it is likely that the poor operations would occur for only a short period each day (i.e.
one or two hours), which the City/County may deem acceptable giv
associated with a roundabout and traffic signal. Therefore, for
was assumed moving forward to illustrate the future impact of the proposed expansion. It should
be noted that this intersection is expected to be approaching capacity by year 2018, regardless of the
proposed expansion.
Year 2025 (Phase 3) Build Conditions
Intersection Capacity Analysis
To determine if the existing roadway network with the planned Co
reconstruction project can accommodate the year 2025 Phase 3 build traffic forecasts, a detailed
traffic capacity analysis was completed. Although from a traffic volume perspective the Phase 3
condition is expected to generate less site trips than under Phase 2 conditions, it is likely that
area developments and growth will likely continue to occur (i.e. background traffic). Therefore, the
study intersections were once again analyzed using a combination of the Synchro/SimTraffic and
HCM software.
Results of the year 2025 (Phase 3) build operations analysis shown in Table 7 indicate similar
operations to the year 2018 Phase 2 build conditions are expected. Once again, all study
intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and
p.m. peak hours, with the existing traffic controls and assumed geometric layout, except the County
Road E/Old Snelling intersection. During the p.m. peak hour, the
intersection is expected to operate at LOS E (although near the LOS D/E threshold) with the
existing all-way stop control. In addition to the poor LOS at this intersection, the 95th percentile
queues in both the eastbound and southbound directions are expected to extend up to
approximately 500 feet. No other significant delay or queuing issues are expected.
Table 7.Year 2025 (Phase 3) Build Peak Hour Capacity Analysis
A.M. Peak P.M. Peak
Intersection
LOS Delay LOS Delay
County Road E and Old Snelling B E37sec.
County Road E and Snelling Avenue West Ramps B 3 sec. B 6 sec.
County Road E and Snelling Avenue East Ramps B 2 sec. C 2 sec.
County Road E and Pine Tree Drive A 6 sec. A 8 sec.
Pine Tree Drive and Country Financial Access A/A A/A 6 sec.
Lexington Avenue N and Harriet Avenue A/A 6 sec. A/B sec.
Indicates an unsignalized intersection with all-way stop control
Indicates an unsignalized intersection with side-street stop conoach
LOS. The delay shown represents the worst side-street approach delay.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 13
As previously mentioned, modification of the existing traffic control at the County Road E/
Old Snelling intersection should be considered to address the poor operations under year 2025
(Phase 3) build conditions. Potential mitigation includes installation of a roundabout or traffic signal.
However, discussion with impacted stakeholders and City/County officials would need to occur
prior to any decision. Furthermore, it is likely that the poor operations would occur for only a short
period each day (i.e. one or two hours), which the City/County may deem acceptable given the
relatively high costs associated with a roundabout and traffic signal. It should be noted that given
the current geometric layout and all-way stop control, additional turn-lane improvements would not
be recommended due to potential conflicts/safety issues.
Other Considerations
Parking
The current parking supply includes a total of 777 surface parking spaces, which includes both
regular and handicap spaces. To determine if this supply is considered adequate to meet the future
demand, a detailed parking review was completed. The first step of the parking analysis was to
identify the existing parking demand at the Country Financial building. This was accomplished by
completing parking lot surveys during three periods (i.e. 10:00
typical weekday. Based on these surveys, approximately 240 parking spaces were occupied during
both the 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. periods, which represents approximately 30 percent utilization.
The second step was to review the parking demand based on the ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th
Edition, which is summarized in Table 8.
Table 8.Parking Supply/Demand
Demand Parking Surplus /
Land Use Type (ITE Code, if applicable) Size
Rate Demand (Deficit)
-
3. spaces/
- Existing Office (701)* SF --
- Bethel University (550) people --
person
- 6
-97
Phase 2 -
spaces/
- Existing Office (701) 276 --
- Bethel University (550) people
276 --
person
--
Phase 3 -
- Bethel University (550) 873 people 332 --
person
Phase 3 -- 332
* Although the non-Bethel components total uare feet However,
-occupancy.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 14
The ITE parking generation demand rates use key inputs, such as facility size and travel behavior
characteristics based on utilization surveys of particular land uses, to estimate parking demand. The
ITE Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition estimates an 85th percentile demand based on the study
survey locations. The 85th percentile is a statistical measure that represents the point at which 85
percent of the study sites had an observed peak period parking demand equal to or less than the
value. Furthermore, it is good practice for the parking supply of any facility to equal the peak
parking demand plus an additional 15 percent. This extra supply reduces the unnecessary circulation
of vehicles looking for parking and the perception of inadequate parking.
Based on the review of the existing parking supply/demand and the ITE calculations for future
conditions, the current 777 parking spaces are more than adequate to meet the future demand of the
facility. As Bethel University occupies more of the facility over time, the peak parking demand is
expected to decrease. This is primarily due to the reduction in office space, which typically requires
more parking than a university.
Shuttle Service
A shuttle service is proposed between the main Bethel University
Based on correspondence with Bethel staff, the shuttle service w
the campuses with no more than four buses in circulation during any period. Based on this
assumption, each bus is expected to make two complete round trips during each hour, which
includes dwell time for loading/unloading of passengers.
Specific loading zones and routes of the shuttle service have not been determined at the time of this
study. However, a cursory review of the area indicates there is only one logical route from the
proposed expansion to the main campus. This route, traveling from the proposed expansion, would
utilize Pine Tree Drive, County Road E, and Old Snelling. However, there are two potential routes
from the main campus to the proposed expansion that could be utilized.
The first route would follow the same path previously mentioned,
second route would exit the main campus via Snelling Avenue and utilize the County Road E West
Ramp. Although this second route would likely be slightly faster from a travel time perspective, it is
not ideal to have a ÑlocalÒ type of trip on a more ÑregionalÒ type of facility such as Snelling Avenue,
particularly for only approximately one-quarter mile. Furthermore, direct access to Snelling Avenue
from the main campus may create a potential safety issue due to the speed differential of the buses
and vehicles along Snelling Avenue. Therefore, given that the tr
it is recommended that the proposed shuttle service utilize the first route identified along Old
Snelling.
As previously mentioned, specific shuttle service loading/unloading zones have not been identified.
When planning these locations, the location/size of the loading/unloading zones and pedestrian
waiting areas should be designed to ensure there is sufficient space for users to safely wait, while
limiting any sight distance impacts or conflicts with driveway aisles. This includes zones at both the
main campus and the proposed expansion.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 15
Pedestrian/Bicyclist Facilities
Although shuttle service will be provided between the two campuses, there is the potential that
students/employees may prefer to walk or bike. Since the campuses are located approximately one
and one-half miles apart (via existing pedestrian/bicyclist faci
campuses is expected to be approximately 15 to 25 minutes and less if biking. Given this
information, review of the existing pedestrian/bicyclist facilities was completed, which is illustrated
on Figure 6.
Review of the existing pedestrian/bicyclist facilities between the two campuses indicates that there is
a variety of facilities within the area. The facilities include sidewalks, multi-use trails, and on-street
shoulder areas that are greater than six feet in width, which are considered relatively
pedestrian/bicyclist friendly. It should be noted that this assumes that bicyclists could utilize the
sidewalk, if desired. However, there are also multiple gaps (i.
pedestrian/bicyclist system which likely limits activity in the area, particularly along Old Snelling.
If these areas were to be improved, more pedestrians/bicyclists would be expected to util
facilities. The type of improvements that could be implemented to improve connectivity include
multi-use trails, sidewalks, and/or shoulder expansion.
In addition to identifying current gaps in the system, alternati
were developed. The intent of the alternatives, which are shown in Figure 6, is to provide a more
direct route between the two campuses and increase the potential for pedestrian/bicyclist activity. A
more direct route would be shorter and result in less travel tim
However, to create a more direct route would likely require furt
stakeholders, since several of these routes travel through and/or cross areas owned privately, by
MnDOT, or the railroad. In particular, crossing Snelling Avenue and the railroad appear to provide
the biggest challenge in developing a more direct route between the campuses. However, there are
multiple alternatives that would improve access to existing pede
County Road E that should be considered.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 17
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on the analysis the following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your
consideration:
Intersection vehicular and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected by SRF during the a.m. and
p.m. peak periods on Thursday September 26, 2013.
Results of the existing capacity analysis indicate that all study intersections currently operate at
an acceptable overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. No significant side-
street delays were observed.
Relatively minor queuing issues were identified for the westboun
o
County Road E/Snelling Avenue West Ramp intersection and the southbound left-turn
movement at the County Road E/Old Snelling intersection, where queues occasionally
extend beyond their current turn lane storage.
Bethel University is expected to occupy the Country Financial building in three phases, while
fully occupying the facility by year 2025.
Once fully occupied, the design capacity is expected to support a total of 873 people, which
o
accounts for approximately 203 staff and up to 670 students/clas
To account for general background growth in the area, an annual growth rate of one-half
percent was applied to the existing turning movement counts to develop year 2018 and year
2025 background traffic forecasts.
Since trip generation for universities can vary significantly ba
employees, class times, and access to amenities, specific weekday vehicular counts were reviewed
at the existing Bethel University access locations and used to identify the future expansion trip
generation.
Phase 2 is expected to generate a total of approximately 252 a.m. peak hour, 256 p.m. peak
o
hour, and 2,539 daily site trips while Phase 3 is expected to generate approximately 145 a.m.
peak hour, 194 p.m. peak hour, and 1,957 daily site trips.
Results of the year 2018 (Phase 2) build operations analysis indicates that all study intersections
are expected to operate at an acceptable overall LOS C or better, except the County Road E/
Old Snelling intersection during the p.m. peak hour. The 95th percentile queues in both the
eastbound and southbound directions are expected to extend up to approximately 500 feet.
This intersection is expected to be approaching capacity by year 2018, regardless of the
o
proposed expansion.
To address the poor operations at the County Road E/Old Snelling intersection under year 2018
(Phase 2) build conditions, construction/installation of a roundabout or traffic signal should be
considered.
However, since the poor operations would likely occur for only a short period each day (i.e.
o
one or two hours), the City/County may deem this acceptable given the relatively high costs
associated with these improvements.
Ryan Streff October 4, 2013
City of Arden Hills Page 18
Results of the year 2025 (Phase 3) build operations analysis indicate similar operations to the
year 2018 Phase 2 build conditions are expected. Therefore, the
under year 2018 is considered adequate.
Based on the review of the existing parking supply/demand and the ITE calculations for future
conditions, the current 777 parking spaces are more than adequate to meet the future demand of
the facility.
Given that the travel times would be relatively similar between the two potential shuttle service
routes and the desire to keep ÑlocalÒ trips away from ÑregionalÒ type of facilities, it is
recommended that the proposed shuttle service utilize a route along Old Snelling, County
Road E, and Pine Tree Drive.
When planning the loading/unloading zones for the shuttle service, the location/size of the
zones and pedestrian waiting areas should be designed to ensure there is sufficient space for
passengers to safely wait, while limiting any sight distance imp
aisles.
There are multiple gaps (i.e. a lack of connectivity) within the existing pedestrian/bicyclist
system which likely limits activity in the area, particularly along Old Snelling. If these areas were
to be improved, more pedestrians/bicyclists would be expected to utilize these facilities. The
type of improvements that could be implemented to improve connectivity include multi-use
trails, sidewalks, and/or shoulder expansion.
Alternative pedestrian/bicyclist connections were developed to provide a more direct route
between the two campuses and increase the potential for pedestrian/bicyclist activity. However,
further discussion with impacted stakeholders would be necessary
travel through and/or cross areas owned privately, by MnDOT, or the railroad.
H:\Proects\8264\TS\Report\8264_ArdenHills_BethelExpansionTraffic
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: October 4, 2013
P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013
MEMORANDUM
4.C
DATE:
October 9, 2013
PC Agenda Item
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Ryan Streff,City Planner
SUBJECT:Planning Case#13-016–No public hearing required
Applicant:
David Dudycha
Property Location:
1226 Ingerson Rd
Request:
Variance
Requested Action
The applicant is requestingtwo (2) variances for the proposed project located at 1226 Ingerson
Road.
1)The first variance is being requestedto exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 313 square
feet.
2)The second variance is being requested to allow flexibility in the setback regulations to
expand the existing deck, construct a front entrance overhang and add sunshades to the
south facing elevations of the home.
Background
1.Overview of Request
The applicants own the property located at 1226 Ingerson Road, which is zoned R-1Single
Family Residential.The property is general positioned north of Lake Josephine, south of
Ingerson Road, east of Snelling Avenue/Highway 51 and west of LexingtonAvenue.The
existing structure is a two-story home on slab with no basement with its front access
positioned alongIngerson Road to the north. The topography on the site is fairly flat,
slopping approximately two (2) feet from north to south. Ingerson Court curves to the north,
wrapping around the west side of the parcel, where it intersects withIngerson Road creating
atriangular shaped, which for zoning purposed has three (3) front yards along the north,
south and east sides of the lot. On this property the Zoning Code requires a forty (40) foot
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 1of 9
front yard setback on the north, south and east sides. The existing structure encroaches
approximately fourteen (14) feet along Ingerson Road and thirty-three (33) feet along
Ingerson Court.The remaining yard on the east side of the lot has a typical side yard setback
of ten (10) feet. The residential structure has been determined to benon-conforming as it
relates to the setback requirements within the R-1 SingleFamily Residential District.
The property owner is proposing to construct a 787 square foot third floor addition to the
existing home. The proposed addition would exceed the Floor AreaRatio (FAR) by 313
square feet. For this particular lot a maximum principle structuresize of 2,977 square feet is
permitted under the Zoning Code. The proposed projectwould expand the structure to 3,290
square feet.A variance is being requested to increase the FAR by 313 square feet.
A deck addition is being proposed on the southern side of the structure along Ingerson Court.
The deck addition would expand approximately three (3)feet along the eastern half of the
south façade andfour (4) tofour and one half (4.5) feet along the western half of the south
façade. Sunscreens are also being proposed along the entire southern façade that would
mirror the decks dimensions. The deck and sunscreenswould encroach further into the
existing setbackalong Ingerson Courtthan the existing structure. At its closestpoint the
deck would be approximately two (2)feet from the south property line.A variance is being
requestedto encroach an additional four and one half (4.5) feet into the existing setback.
The applicant is also proposing toconstruct an entrance roof/overhang on the north side of
the structure fronting Ingerson Road. The addition as proposed is approximately four (4) feet
in depth and eight (8) feet in length. This addition would not encroach any further into the
existing setback then the existing home. At its closest point the roof/overhang would be
approximately twenty-seven and one half(27.5)feetfrom the north property line.A variance
is being requested to expand approximately four (4) feet into the existing setback.
The applicant has submitted a narrativeof the proposed addition(Attachment B),a response
to the variance evaluation criteria(Attachment B), a survey and asite plan of the property
along with building elevations(Attachment C).
2.Site Data
Future Land Use Plan:Low Density Residential
Existing Land Use:SingleDetached Home
Zoning:R-1: Single-Family Residential District
Current Lot Sizes:.228acres (9,923square feet)
Topography:The property drops approximately twofeet from the northto the south
3.Surrounding Area
DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 2of 9
R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached
NorthLow Density Residential
districtResidential
R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached
South Low Density Residential
districtResidential
R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached
East Low Density Residential
districtResidential
R-1: Single-Family residential Single Family Detached
WestLow Density Residential
districtResidential
Plan Evaluation
1.R-1Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Development
A.Lot Size& Dimensions
Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements
The lot is 9,923square feet, with
1.Minimum Lot Area (sf)14,000
approximate dimensions of 176 feet on the
north, 191 feet on the south, 100 feet on
2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, width/depth)95/130
the east and 12 feet on the west. The lot
3. Height (ft.)35
size is nonconforming in the R-1Single
4. Lot Covered by Structure25%
Family Zoning District.
5. Min. Landscape Lot Area65%
B.Structure Setbacks–Variance Required
6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft)
The existing houseencroaches
Front yard40
approximately fourteen (14) feetat its
Rear Yard (Principle)30
closest point into the forty (40) foot front
Rear Yard (Accessory)10
yard setbackalong Ingerson Road. The
Side Yard Interior -Principal
current structure has a setback of
(Min/total both yards on lot)10/25
approximately twenty-five and one half
Side Yard Interior -Accessory10
(25.5) feet from thisnorth property line.
Side Yard Corner40
The existing house encroaches approximately thirty-three (33)feet at its closest point into
the forty (40) foot front yard setback alongIngerson Court.The current structure hasa
setback of approximately seven (7)feet from thissouth property line.
Entrance Roof Addition
The proposed entrance roof addition to the north is approximately four (4) feet by eight
(8) feet in size. As proposed the roof addition willnot encroachanyfurther into the forty
(40)foot setbackthan the existing structure.The proposed setback for this addition is
approximately twenty-seven and one half (27.5)feet. The current structure has a setback
of approximately twenty-five and one half (25.5) feetfrom the north property line.
Deck Addition
The proposed deck addition to the south encroachesfour and one half (4.5)feet further
into the front yardsetback along Ingerson Court. The proposed setback for this addition
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 3of 9
is approximately two (2) feetat its closest point.The current structure has a setback of
seven (7) feet from the south property line.
Sunscreen Addition
The proposed sunscreens on the southern sideof the structure will encroach an additional
three (3) feet into the front yard setback along Ingerson Court. As proposed the
sunscreens will be will be no closer than approximately three (3) feet from the property
line. Again the current structure has a setback of seven (7) feet from the south property
line.
C.Permitted Encroachments
Features which are part of the principal structure (i.e.eaves or canopy) may extend three
(3) feet into the required front, side, and rear setbacks. These encroachments shall be no
closer than six (6) feet from any lot line. Decksare allowed to extend six (6) feet into the
required front, side, and rear setbacks. These encroachments shall be no closer than six
(6) feet from any lot line.
D.Lot Coverage–Meets Requirements.
The existing and proposed lot coverage doesnot exceed the lotcoverage limitations of
the R-1Zone.The maximum lot coverage is 35%.The minimum landscape coverage is
65%.
Lot Coverage = 32.7
Landscape Coverage = 67.3
ExistingProposed
Square Feet%Square Feet%
House/Garage
1,58716%1,58716%
Decks/Patios1461.5%3173.2%
Driveway1,33813.5%1,33813.5%
Total Coverage
3,07131%3,24232.7%
Lot Size9,923
E.FAR (Floor Area Ratio) –Variance Requested
The proposed addition would exceed the Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) by 313 square feet. For this particular
Square Feet%
Sq. Ft. / Lot Size
lot a maximum principle structuresize of 2,977
FAR -Existing2,59025%
square feet is permitted under the Zoning Code.
FAR -Max2,97730%
The proposed project would expand the structure to
FAR -Proposed
3,29033%
3,290 square feet.A variance is being requested to
increase the FAR by 313 square feet.
Lot Size9,923
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 4of 9
*Floor Areais the sum of all floors of the structure not including coveredporches, decks;
any space where the average floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or
detached garages and other detached accessory structures.
*Floor Area Ratio(FAR) is the ratio obtained by dividing the sum of a building’s floor
area by the amount of lot area.
F.Structure Height –Meets Requirements
The existing dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height
limit.The proposed height of the structure is twenty-nine (29) feet four (4) inches.
G.Tree Preservation
Theproposed additionsshould not impact the trees on the property. If any trees are
removed as a result of the project, the application will be required to meet the City’s tree
preservation standards, and mitigation may be necessary.
2.Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements
The proposed additionsareoutside of any floodplains, wetlands, or easements.
3.AdditionalReview
a.
The Rice Creek Watershed District did review the plans for thisrequest and
determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at
1226 Ingerson Road.
b.
The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and had no additional
comments.
c.
The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated he hadno comments related to
the project.
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 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:
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 5of 9
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
The property is unique compared to most other properties because the forty (40)foot front yard
setback applies to the north, south and west property lines. This is due to the property’s location
along the curve of Ingerson Court as it intersects with Ingerson Road. With the current setback
requirements the lot would be considered unbuildable. If the lot were a traditional lot with a side
yard minimal variation from the zoning code would be needed. Because of this lot
configuration,options for expansion of this home are very limited.Due to the scope of the
project and size of the proposed additions to the existing home,the character of the
neighborhood isnot expected to be negativity affected.
Findings of Fact
Staff offers the following fifteenfindings of factfor review:
General Findings
1.The lot size of 9,923square feet is considered non-conforming in the R-1Single Family
Residential District.
2.The existing structureencroachesapproximately fourteen (14) feet along Ingerson Road,
and thirty-three (33)feet along Ingerson Court. As built the existing structure meets all
other R-1setback requirements.
3.The proposed entrance roof addition to the north would not encroach any further into the
front yard setbackalong Ingerson Road than the existing structure.The proposed
addition would be inlinewith the existing home.
4.The proposed deck addition to the south would encroach approximately four and one half
(4.5) feet further into the front yard setback along Ingerson Court.
5.The proposed sunscreens on the south façade would encroach approximately three (3)
feet into the front yard setback along Ingerson Court.
6.The existing and proposed lot coverage meets the requirements of the R-1Single Family
Residential District.
7.The proposed FAR exceeds the Zoning Code requirement by 313 square feet.
8.The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 6of 9
9.Dwellings and garages are permitted structures within the R-1Single Family Residential
Zoning District.
10.The existing dwellingand proposed additions are outside of the 100-year flood plain,
wetlands, and easements.
Variance Findings:
1.The proposal is in harmony withthe purpose and intent of the ordinance because the
ordinance generallyallows flexibility for unique parcelswhen impacts to surrounding
properties are minimized.
2.The proposal is consistent withthe comprehensive plan because it allows the reasonable
use of residential property.
3.The homeadditionsaregenerallypermitted and reasonable uses within the R-1Single
Family Residential Zoning District.
4.The lot is comparably unique in the City.The property is situated on the curve where
Ingerson Road intersects with Ingerson Court,thereforecreating three(3)front yard
setback requirements to the north, south, and west sides of the lot.
5.Since the proposed addition would not encroach much furtherinto the front yard setbacks
than the existing structure, the additions areunlikely to have a negative impact on the
property or the neighborhood. The minor encroachmentswould have aminimalvisual
impactfrom Ingerson Road or Ingerson Court.
6.The additionsmaybe visible from neighboringproperties; however,the property is in a
relativity wooded area which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property
owners.
7.The proposed plans and requested variancesfor the dwelling do not appear to be based on
economic considerations alone.
Staff Analysis
The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval.However,
if the Planning Commission 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 four(4)conditions:
1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submittedand dated
9-6-13,as amended by theconditions of approval. Any significant changes to these
plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the
Planning Commissionand City Council.
2.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.
3.That the addition shall be the same color and use the same type or similar
construction materials as the existing structure.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 7of 9
4.That a drainage plan shall be submitted and approved by the City if the current grade
of the lot is altered. An erosion control permit shall be obtained if the City Engineer
determines it is necessary for the project.
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
13-016for a variance at 1226 Ingerson Road,based on the findings of fact, the submitted
plans, and the four(4)conditions in the October 9, 2013, planning case report.
2.Recommend Approval as Submitted:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 13-
016 for a variance at 1226 Ingerson Road, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans,
as presented in the October 9, 2013, planning case report.
3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 13-016for a variance at
1226 Ingerson Roadbased on the following findings of fact…
4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 13-016for a variance at 1226 Ingerson Road: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 comments from neighboring residents.
Deadline for Agency Actions
The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on September 6,
2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by November 4,
2013 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-
day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the
applicant’s permission.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 8of 9
Attachments
A.Application
B.Narrative& Variance Evaluation
C.Site Plan and Building Elevations
D.Aerial Map
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-016 -Variance_1226 Ingerson RD
Page 9of 9
Attachment A
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
1226 Ingerson Road
www.chowastudio.com
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
2500 University Ave. W. Suite F2
Chowa Studio Architects, Inc.
DUDYCHA-VAWTER RESIDENCE
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
1226 Ingerson Road
www.chowastudio.com
St. Paul, Minnesota 55114
2500 University Ave. W. Suite F2
Chowa Studio Architects, Inc.
DUDYCHA-VAWTER RESIDENCE
Attachment D
Lake Josephine
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.
Property Boundary
Please refer to the Zoning Code for complete information.
Map Date: October 4, 2013
P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-012
MEMORANDUM
5.A
DATE:
October 9, 2013 PC Agenda Item
TO:
Planning Commission
FROM:
Ryan Streff, City Planner
SUBJECT: Report from the City Council
September 9, 2013, City Council Meeting
At the September 9, 2013, regular meeting, the City Council voted to approve Planning Case 13-
012 for a sign variance for the Shell Gas Station located at 1306 County Road E. The variance
will allow the property owner to replace a manual gasoline price sign with a digital LED price
sign. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this case at their September 4, 2013,
meeting.
The City Council also voted to approve Planning Case 13-010 for a PUD Amendment for the
Walgreens Pharmacy at 3585 Lexington Avenue. Walgreens had requested to install 57.4 square
feet of additional wall signage and window decal signs on the north building façade. The
Planning Commission recommended approval of this case at their July 10, 2013, meeting.
September 30, 2013, City Council Meeting
On September 30, 2013, the City Council voted to approve Planning Case 13-014 for a PUD
Amendment for the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue. The
requested amendment included a sign plan for Phase I of the project. The Council approved the
amount of wall signage recommended by the Planning Commission and voted to reduce the
overall size of the monument sign to 20 feet in height and 120 square feet in area. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of this case at their September 4, 2013, meeting.
City of Arden Hills
Planning Commission Meeting for October 9, 2013
Page 1of 1
MEMORANDUM
DATE:October 9, 2013
TO:Planning Commission Chair Larson and Commissioners
FROM:Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director
SUBJECT:
TCAAP Update
TCAAP Open House
The first open house for the TCAAP Master Planning process was held on September 17, 2013.
The purpose of this open house was to provide information about the master planning process,
share background information on the redevelopment site including site constraints, and solicit
input on site opportunities and issues. Over 80 people were in attendance.
The following boards were on display and have been posted on the City’s website:
Project timeline and schedule
Site context and features
Key lessons from developer panel/developer interviews
Transportation and access
Environmental features
Topography and elevations
Parks, trails, and open space
Attendees were asked to comment on residential and commercial building types, open space
types, and neighborhood patterns. Attendees also had an opportunity to participate in a land use
exercise in which they could distribute their preferred mix of residential, retail, office, and park
uses across the site. Photos were taken of each completed exercise and projected onto a screen in
the room.
Comments received at the open house largely addressed the following themes:
Emphasize trails and provide multi-modal connectivity
Limit the amount of development to preserve the natural environment
Create regional destination in the form of shopping centers or community attractions and
amenities
Place non-residential uses on the west and residential on the east part of the site
12
Page of
Focus on small and local businesses
Incorporate indoor and outdoor sporting/recreation facilities
Provide lifecycle housing opportunities (young singles, families, retirees)
Find a way to incorporate alternative energy production
Make sure there is ample green space and active space
Make provisions for transit service.
Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR)
Input from public and stakeholder engagement, including City Council and JDA comments, will
be utilized along with technical analysis of traffic, land use, and environmental factors to develop
two scenarios for the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) document.
An AUAR is a form of environmental documentation through Minnesota State Rules that
evaluates a development scenario (or several scenarios) for an entire geographical area rather
than a specific project. The AUAR mustinclude a scenario based on the existing comprehensive
plan.
If actual development -in total or in any subarea -is proposed to exceed the maximum
development studied, the AUAR loses its validity; therefore, the City should include a
development scenario that represents the maximum development expected or allowed. The
AUAR should cover the possible impacts through a “worst case scenario” analysis. Scenarios
developed for the TCAAP site are anticipated to reflect current zoning (which is compatible with
the comprehensive plan, but more specific to TCAAP), as wellas a scenario which reflects
maximum development capacity based on optimal site access. The AUAR will test the
development so the City has information available to make informed decisions about level of
development and mitigation.
An AUAR process is formally initiated by Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU)order, which
establishes the study area and scenarios to be addressed, and officially starts the AUAR process.
The City Council will be requested to initiate the AUAR Order at its October 14, 2013 meeting.
Project Timeline
The master planning process is on schedule. The consultants anticipate having a draft of the
Master Plan prepared for Planning Commission and City Council review in December 2014. At
the next TCAAP open house in January/February 2014, attendees will be asked to provide
feedback on the draft Master Plan. The final Master Plan and the draft AUAR are both expected
to be completed in Spring 2014.
22
Page of