Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-13 PC Minutes Approved:October 9, 2013 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 6:30p.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 Holewarequested 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 Holewamoved, 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 requesteda 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. (35”x63 1/8”) in size with twenty-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 property. The existing sign is fifteen feet ten inches (15’ 10”) in height and has a sign copy area of eighty-four and one half square feet (84.50). The existing pole sign is described as being a legal non-conforming sign. It has been given this designation as “pole signs” are no longer allowed in Sign District 4 (County Road E Frontage). Freestanding signs in Sign 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-three and one eighth inches (35” x 63 1/8”) that the applicant intends to replace 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) inchtallnumbers 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.The existing sign located in the northwest corner of the property is 15’ feet 10” inches in height and has a total sign copy area of 84.50 square feet. 6.The proposed section within the existing sign to be replaced with a digital price sign is 15.35 square feet with twenty-four (24) inchtall 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 generallyallows 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 theinstallation 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 openedthe 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 Holewamoved and CommissionerZimmermanseconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-012for a Variance Request at 1306 County Road Ebased 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 adoptedspecial 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 the City’s Sign Code. 6.The proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance withthe requirements of the City’s Zoning Code. 7.Where the plan is not in conformance with the City’s Sign Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant due to the site conditions unique to the property at 3833 Lexington Avenue. 8.The PUD Amendment approval process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. 9.The signage plan would not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole and it is consistent with the size and 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 signageper 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 openedthe floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Holewa questioned why staff was making a recommendation that was not requested by the applicant. Community Development Intern Bachlerreviewed 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 Bachlernoted 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 theproposed monument sign and the staff recommendation regarding the height of the sign. Community Development Intern Bachlerstated the staff recommendation was for the monument sign nottoexceed 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 Bachlerclarified 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 thatthe 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 buildingwould have blade signs. Community Development Intern Bachlercommented blade signs would only be located on the west side of the building. Commissioner Zimmermanquestioned if the “Lexington Station” identification could be removed from the monument sign and be placed on the building instead. Community Development Intern Bachlerstated this conversation was not held with the applicant. Chair Larson stated there would be five buildingsconstructed as part of the Lexington Station redevelopmentand that this may not be the correctcourse 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 Bachlerexplained 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 IIIwereready 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 complementthe 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 26feet 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 26feetand 9 ½ inchesas 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 Bachlerstated this condition was added to address branded or advertising window coatings. Staff did not object to window coatings and explained that non- branded window film would not count against tenants’ signage. 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 theblade signs and have this square footage removed from the total allowable wall signage.He requestedthat the eight central tenants be allowed 100 square feet of wall signage, which would allow for 50 feet on the west façadeof the building and 50 feet on the east façadeof 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 7:45p.m. Chair Larsoninvited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:46p.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 lettersbe 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 than22 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 beforethe 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, whichwould need to be approved by the City. For this reason, Condition 11 would not be necessary. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –September 4, 201311 Commissioner Hamesmoved and Commissioner Thompsonseconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-014for a PUD Amendmentat Lexington Station at 3833 Lexington Avenuebased 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 are27,200 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 Streffstated 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 thanthe 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.That that parking spaces shall be constructed of a hard surface and shall meet the City’s standards for hard surfacing. 4.That the property owner shall 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 openedthe floor to Commissioner comments. Chair Larson requested further information on the design standards for parking lots and if the City would requirecurb and gutter. He explained the access road did not have curband gutter, and neither did the parking lot. City Planner Streffstated he would have to review the design standards furtherto 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 Streffdid not anticipate that the fence wouldinterfere with the existing landscaping. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained the proposed fencing would be similar to the fence installed at the E Street Flatsbuilding at 1201 County Road Eand 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 Streffstated the City did not have any standards addressing this specifically, but rather had landscaping coverage and lot coverage requirements. Commissioner Stodolacommented the building at 1221/1233 County Road E was constructed prior to the existing landscaping requirements. Commissioner Holewa asked if the easementrequired for the planned County Road E improvement projectwould take additional permeable space.He recommended the water runoff on this site be dealt with onsite and not bepassed along to an adjacent property. City Planner Streffindicated 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 Streffrecommended this question be directed to the applicant. Chair Larson explained there was some resistance on the Commission’s part to adding more 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 propertyowners are made aware of the proposed improvements. Commissioner Holewamoved and Commissioner Thompsonseconded a motion to table action onPlanning Case 13-015for aVariance Requestat 1221/1233 County Road Ebased 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 remainson 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 site. They have completed work in the “thumb” area at the north end of the site, adjacent to 35W and County Road H. While Bolander continues to make progress on demolition of the remaining buildings, they report the following materials recycled or salvaged, and diverted from landfill: Steel Recycled to date: 1,485 tons Wood Salvage and Reclaimed: 4 Flatbeds Steel on the ground awaiting recycle: 4000 tons Steel beams salvaged for re-use as is: 700 tons Steel railroad track salvage and on ground: 350 tons Raw Concrete and Bituminous on ground awaiting crushing:35,000 tons 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 “discovery” phase of the project and will not be prepared to present findings. Instead, information on how this project differs from earlier redevelopment efforts (i.e., market conditions, access points) will be presented and public input encouraged. RSVPs are not required, and attendees may arrive at any time during the event. Theevent 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-1990’s, and is now a mixed-use redevelopment with a diversity of housing types, retail, commercial and public amenities such as parks and trails. It is 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. Amore 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 $2million and was a worthwhile investment for the County. Commissioner Holewa asked whowould 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 CommissionerZimmerman asked if any further action had come before the City regarding the brewery and distillery request. Community Development Director Hutmacherexplained the business owner was contract brewing in another community at this time. Commissioner Hames recommended the City’s Sign Ordinance be reviewed by the Commission 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. D. Staff Comments ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –September 4, 201317 Community Development Director Hutmacher stated the State of the City will be held on Thursday, September 12, 2013,from 7:30 to 9:00 a.m. at Flaherty’s Arden Bowl. She explained businesses and residents are encouraged to attend. ADJOURN Commissioner Holewamoved, seconded by Commissioner Hames,to adjourn the September 4,2013, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:55p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).