Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-13 PC Minutes Approved: December 4, 2013 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2013 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Angela Hames, Andrew Holewa, Janet Stodola (Alternate), and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioners Roberta Thompson and Sam Scott Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Community Development Intern Matthew Bachler; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; and Councilmember Dave McClung. APPROVAL OF AGENDA OCTOBER 9, 2013 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER City Planner Streff explained that Brent Bartel submitted an application to be considered for 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. City Planner Streff indicated that 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. City Planner Streff stated Mayor Grant asked that staff prepare a recommendation for the City Council to appoint Mr. September 30, 2013, the Council unanimously approved the recommendation from Mayor Grant to appoint Mr. Bartel to the Planning Commission. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20132 Council Liaison McClung administered the Oath of Office to Commissioner Brent Bartel and welcomed him to the Planning Commission. A round of applause was offered by all in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 4, 2013 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the September 4, 2013, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 13-004; Zoning Code Amendment; Parks & Open Space Public Hearing Community Development Intern Bachler stated that in September of 2009, the City Council cies 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: 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: trees, lakes, wetlands, and other unique or significant natural resources. Community Development Intern Bachler explained that in the Comprehensive Plan, the Future Land Use Map designates a total of 65 parcels covering 529 acres of land The plan defines this land use 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. Existing uses on these lands ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20133 include trails, municipal utilities, stormwater easement ponds, and single-family homes. Preserve is defined in the that are to be 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. Currently there are not districts specifically designated for parks or open space areas within the Zoning Code. 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 land use objectives within the Zoning Code. Community Development Intern Bachler commented that 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 owned parks and open spaces. 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 incorporated into the in the future. 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 was noted that no rezoning of any property is being proposed at this time. 1305.04 Definitions Community Development Intern Bachler explained that staff is proposing to add a definition Space District. Whi believes that the uses specifically 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20134 Community Development Intern Bachler explained that 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 Community Development Intern Bachler explained that 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 Community Development Intern Bachler explained that 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 ently 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 Community Development Intern Bachler stated that 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 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20135 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 Community Development Intern Bachler stated that 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. Community Development Intern Bachler offered 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. Community Development Intern Bachler stated that staff is recommending approval of Ordinance Number 2013-009 in Planning Case 13-004 for amendments to 1305.04 and Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to the proposed Parks and Open Space District as presented in the October 9, 2013 planning case report. Community Development Intern Bachler stated that staff is recommending approval of Ordinance Number 2013-010 in Planning Case 13-004 for amendments to Section 1320 of the Zoning Code related to the Conservation District as presented in the October 9, 2013 planning case report. If the Planning Commission would like to make changes to the ordinances, those changes can be included with a motion to approve. If the Planning Commission makes a recommendation on this planning case, it will likely go before the City Council at their October 28, 2013 regular meeting. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20136 Community Development Intern Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1.Recommend Approval as Submitted. 2.Recommend Approval with Changes. 3.Recommend Denial. 4.Table. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Holewa requested further information on the differences between a conditional use permit and a conditional accessory use permit. Community Development Intern Bachler indicated that a conditional accessory use was seen as an accessory to the principle use on the property. Chair Larson opened the public hearing for Ordinance 2013-009 at 6:58 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a 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 as presented in the October 9, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Chair Larson opened the public hearing for Ordinance 2013-010 at 7:02 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 7:03 p.m. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a 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, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B.Planning Case 13-013; CUP Higher Education; Bethel University; 2 Pine Tree Drive Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated the applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit to allow higher education as the principal use within the facility located at 2 Pine Tree Drive (Country Financial Building). City Planner Streff indicated 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20137 Tree Drive. The University has negotiated a purchase agreement in order to acquire the 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. City Planner Streff explained that 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 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 Country 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. City Planner Streff stated the property located at 2 Pine Tree Drive is currently owned by Mutual Services Life Insurance Company (c/o Country Life Insurance Company) also known as Country Financial. The property is generally positioned 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 use of 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 up of mainly woodlands and wetlands. City Planner Streff commented that 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, 189,804 square foot multi-tenant office building, of which 181,432 is rentable. At this time approximately 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. City Planner Streff stated that according to the information provided by Bethel University the property would have a diverse mixture of normal daytime 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 pedestrian and bicycle trail connecting the two campuses is also a desire of the University in order to provide safe routes for their entire student body. City Planner Streff reported classes at the Pine Tree location would be held between the hours of 7:00 am and 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. Evening classes would also be offered and 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 hours ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20138 and 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 use of the facility at full capacity would be 797 people/seats. This scenario accounts for 237 staff or faculty and 560 classroom seats. Scenario 2 suggests the maximum capacity of the facility would be 873 people/seats. This scenario indicates that 203 staff or faculty and 670 classroom seats would utilize the facility. City Planner Streff commented that 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. Bethel has prepared a class scheduling analysis indicating how their staggered classroom usage mitigates the parking concern on the property. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: CMU: Commercial Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Commercial Zoning: B-2: General Business District Current Lot Sizes: 43.11 acres (3 Parcels - 2 Pine Tree Drive, 12 Pine Tree Drive, and 4300 Dunlap Street N) with a 189,804 square foot office building Topography: Relatively flat City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The applicant is proposing a use of higher education for the facility 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 permitted by 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. 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. No changes in lot coverage, landscaping, setbacks or height are being proposed. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 1. The proposed use will occupy the existing building and parking areas during both daytime and evening hours for students, administration staff and faculty. Shared parking on the site will be used for other weekday office users. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 20139 2. The proposal will have minimal impacts on noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste. 3. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. 4. The proposed use will not affect the population density on the property beyond 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 dedication requirement does not apply in this application. City Planner Streff stated the findings of fact for this conditional use permit request support a recommendation for approval. 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 conditional use permit, Staff recommends the following twelve conditions: 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 Commission and City Council. 2. That the permitted use shall exclusively pertain to the existing building that is 189,804 square feet in size. That any additional buildings, facilities, recreational fields or structures shall require City Approval. 3. That a trail connection shall be provided to address pedestrian movements between the 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 is complete. 6. That bicycle parking shall 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 City and the Ramsey County Sheriff. 9. That loading/unloading zones and shuttle service 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 area being remodeled. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201310 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3.Recommend Denial. 4.Table. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Stodola asked how a trail connection would be completed between the two campuses. Community Development Director Hutmacher clarified that there was a gap in the trail at this time. She explained the City understood the importance of safe travel for undergraduates traveling between Bethel University and the 2 Pine Tree Drive site. She indicated staff would continue to work with Bethel representatives on this issue. She reported this work may not be completed until the County Road E to have a pedestrian trail that would cross the County Road E bridge. Chair Larson reiterated that staff has recommended no undergraduate students be allowed on the 2 Pine Tree Drive property until the trail connection was complete. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned why this condition was suggested when Bethel was willing to shuttle students between campuses. City Planner Streff reasons. Commissioner Hames asked if Bethel had considered future building expansions on the 2 Pine Tree Drive property. City Planner Streff indicated after speaking with the applicant, nothing was being planned at this time. He commented that any future development would have to be reviewed and approved by the City. Commissioner Hames inquired who would maintain the walking trails currently located on the 2 Pine Tree Drive property. City Planner Streff reported these trails were private and would be the responsibility of Bethel University. Commissioner Bartel questioned if Bethel University had any graduate students currently living on campus. Chair Larson recommended this question be directed to the applicant. He suggested the traffic study be presented at this time. Matt Pacyna , SRF Consulting, discussed the traffic study with the Commission for the proposed development by Bethel University at 2 Pine Tree Drive. He reviewed the existing traffic ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201311 conditions along with the anticipated future traffic forecasts. In addition, impacts to the adjacent intersections were analyzed. He reported Bethel University was proposing to occupy the space in three phases and this was taken into consideration in the traffic study. Mr. Pacyna reviewed how traffic would flow in and out of the site noting the majority of cars would come from the west. He noted the County Road E bridge was planned for reconstruction be completed in 2018, with Phase 3 conditions in place by 2025. It was reported the Intersection of County Road E/Old Snelling Avenue was the only concern. Mr. Pacyna provided comment on the amount of parking spaces available at the 2 Pine Tree Drive site. He noted the current peak parking for this location was 240 spaces. The study found that the current 777 parking spaces were more than adequate to meet the future demands for this property. The proposed shuttle service and suggested driving route was then discussed. Mr. Pacyna reviewed the available pedestrian and bike facilities that would serve the property. He pointed out the gaps within the trail system that would have to be addressed prior to the establishment of Phase 2. It was noted that the proposed route along Old Snelling Avenue and County Road E was approximately 1.5 miles. More direct routes were available but Bethel would need to receive approval from the railroad. Commissioner Hames questioned what hours of the day were used in the traffic study for peak traffic times. Mr. Pacyna explained he used peak hours of 7:15 a.m. to 8:15 p.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Bartel questioned when the traffic study was completed. Mr. Pacyna indicated the traffic data was collected in late September, which meant schools were in session. Commissioner Hames indicated this area would be drastically impacted in 2015 when the County Road E bridge was reconstructed. Community Development Director Hutmacher affirmed that the bridge was scheduled to be reconstructed in 2015. The bridge was anticipated to be out for three to six months during one construction season. Mr. Pacyna reported that MnDOT would be responsible for mitigating the traffic issues and would establish detour routes. Commissioner Stodola questioned if Highway 96 would be reopened by 2015. City Planner Streff commented this area would be open for traffic in November of 2013. Kathleen Nelson , Senior Vice President for Finance and Administration for Bethel University, several of the questions raised this evening and discussed the conversations she had with staff ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201312 regarding the importance of a trail connection. She expected this issue would receive a great deal of attention going forward. She preferred the pedestrian route along Old Snelling and County Road E. She suggested that Condition #5 read no traditional undergraduate programs be implemented on this site until the trail connection was complete. Ms. Nelson stated Bethel had no plans for additional buildings on this property as it would take 10 to 15 years for the University to occupy the current buildings. She reported that the main campus had no graduate students living on campus. Commissioner Holewa asked if Bethel required freshmen and sophomores to live on campus. Ms. Nelson commented freshmen were required to live on campus unless living at home with a parent. After that time, students could elect to stay on campus or move off campus. She indicated 67% of students choose to live on campus. Commissioner Holewa questioned when Bethel University would take ownership of the Pine Tree property. Ms. Nelson explained Bethel University would be closing on the property by year end if the City approves the conditional use permit. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired how Bethel would manage the current leases on the property. Ms. Nelson stated Bethel would honor all of the existing leases in place and would continue to operate the property as a multi-tenant building. She reported the space was currently 60% vacant. Commissioner Bartel suggested the City more closely define the Ms. Nelson discussed the differences between traditional undergrads and non-traditional undergrads. Chair Larson found this to be an operational item for Bethel that did not need to be regulated by the City. He questioned if the office space design on the Pine Tree campus would properly suit Ms. Nelson commented this has been considered by the leadership team and the space would fit well Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 8:23 p.m. Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Robert Woodburn , 1220 Ingerson Court, discussed the history of the 2 Pine Tree Drive parcel and the surrounding land uses. He wanted to see the surrounding residents and village protected from increased traffic and noise, while still allowing the neighbors to use the private trails. Mr. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201313 if additional buildings would be constructed. Pauline Richards , 3544 Glen Arden Road, stated she lived one block from Snelling Avenue and County Road E. She found this intersection to be dangerous and thought the proposed use on the Pine Tree property would further aggravate the traffic in this area. There being no additional comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Holewa asked if Condition 5 needed to be amended prior to approval this evening. Chair Larson thought it would be reasonable for the Commission to amend this condition. Commissioner Zimmerman Commissioner Hames suggested traditional programs not be allowed on the Pine Tree campus until the shuttle service was available. Ms. Nelson explained adult classes would be offered at the Pine Tree site in Phase I. She reported a shuttle service would not be in place until Phase II of the project when traditional student pro plans would not begin until 2014 or 2015. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned how Condition 5 should read. Ms. Nelson suggested this condition read that no traditional undergraduate programs shall be implemented on this site until a shuttle service is implemented between the main campus and Pine Tree campus. The Commission agreed to this language and directed staff to amend Condition 5. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-013 for a Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree Drive based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the 12 conditions in the October 9, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). C.Planning Case 13-016; Variance; 1226 Ingerson Road Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated the applicant has requested two (2) variances for the proposed project located at 1226 Ingerson Road. 1) The first variance is being requested to exceed the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 313 square feet. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201314 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. City Planner Streff indicated the applicants own the property located at 1226 Ingerson Road, which is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential. The property is generally positioned north of Lake Josephine, south of Ingerson Road, east of Snelling Avenue/Highway 51 and west of Lexington Avenue. The existing structure is a two-story home on slab with no basement with its front access positioned along Ingerson 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 with Ingerson Road creating a triangular shaped lot, which for zoning purposes has three (3) front yards along the north, south and west sides of the lot. On this property the Zoning Code requires a forty (40) foot front yard setback on the north, south and west 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 be non-conforming as it relates to the setback requirements within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. City Planner Streff stated 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 Area Ratio (FAR) by 313 square feet. For this particular lot a maximum principle structure size of 2,977 square feet is permitted under the Zoning Code. The proposed project would expand the structure to 3,290 square feet. A variance is being requested to increase the FAR by 313 square feet. City Planner Streff explained 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 and four (4) to four 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 sunscreens would encroach further into the existing setback along Ingerson Court than the existing structure. At its closest point the deck would be approximately two (2) feet from the south property line. A variance is being requested to encroach an additional four and one half (4.5) feet into the existing setback. City Planner Streff commented the applicant is also proposing to construct 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 than the existing home. At its closest point the roof/overhang would be approximately twenty-seven and one half (27.5) feet from the north property line. A variance is being requested to expand approximately four (4) feet into the existing setback. The applicant has submitted a narrative of the proposed addition, a response to the variance evaluation criteria, a survey and a site plan of the property along with building elevations. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Detached Home Zoning: R-1: Single-Family Residential District ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201315 Current Lot Sizes: .228 acres (9,923 square feet) Topography: The property drops approximately two feet from the north to the south City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1. The lot size of 9,923 square feet is considered non-conforming in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 2. The existing structure encroaches approximately fourteen (14) feet along Ingerson Road, and thirty-three (33) feet along Ingerson Court. As built the existing structure meets all other R-1 setback requirements. 3. The proposed entrance roof addition to the north would not encroach any further into the front yard setback along Ingerson Road than the existing structure. The proposed addition would be in line with 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-1 Single 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. 9. Dwellings and garages are permitted structures within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 10. The existing dwelling and proposed additions are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. Variance Findings: 1. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the ordinance because the ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 2. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 3. The home additions are generally permitted and reasonable uses within the R-1 Single 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, therefore creating 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 further into the front yard setbacks than the existing structure, the additions are unlikely to have a negative impact on the property or the neighborhood. The minor encroachments would have a minimal visual impact from Ingerson Road or Ingerson Court. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201316 6. The additions may be visible from neighboring properties; however, the property is in a relativity wooded area which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 7. The proposed plans and requested variances for the dwelling 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. 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 denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends the following four conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted and dated 9-6- 13, as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. 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. 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. 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 Hames asked if Ingerson Court was in place when the built. Rick Okata , Cho Architects, understood that the Ingerson Court has always been in place, but Commissioner Stodola expressed concern with the number of aging homes in Arden Hills on non-conforming lots. She recommended the City recognize this issue and allow homeowners to make upgrades and improvements to their homes. She reported that many of the current Zoning Code regulations were put in place after these homes were built. Commissioner Holewa stated this may require a Zoning Code Amendment. Chair Larson supported the home improvements proposed by the applicant but had concerns regarding the wrap around deck. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201317 Commissioner Hames indicated these homeowners have an extremely odd shaped non- conforming lot with three front yards. For this reason, she supported the variance request. Commissioner Bartel agreed stating the applicants had little buildable space left on the property. Chair Larson questioned if the triangle shaped lot was unique enough to receive a variance. He believed that because of the lot shape, a variance should be approved. Commissioner Stodola reiterated that the setbacks established were for privacy between homes, but for this property the applicant would be encroaching on the roadway and not a neighboring property. She supported the variance. Commissioner Holewa did not believe that this property was unique as there are a large number of non-conforming lots in Arden Hills. He would not support the variance request. Commissioner Hames moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-016 for a Variance at 1226 Ingerson Road based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four conditions in the October 9, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried (5-1) (Holewa opposed). COMMENTS AND REPORTS A.Report from the City Council September 9, 2013, City Council Meeting Councilmember McClung updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities including approval of 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 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201318 B.TCAAP Update Community Development Director Hutmacher reported 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 100 people were in attendance. The following boards were on display and have been posted on the City 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 Community Development Director Hutmacher reported 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 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. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that 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 must include a scenario based on the existing comprehensive plan. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated if actual development - in total or in any subarea - is proposed to exceed the maximum development studied, the AUAR loses its validity; ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION October 9, 201319 therefore, the City should include a development scenario that represents the maximum development expected or allowed. The AUAR should consider the possible impacts through a current zoning (which is compatible with the comprehensive plan, but more specific to TCAAP), as well as 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. Community Development Director Hutmacher commented 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. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated 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 2013. At the next TCAAP open house in January 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. Commissioner Holewa asked if a sidewalk would be completed along County Road E in front of the Holiday Inn redevelopment. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated a sidewalk would be installed when the County completes their improvements on County Road E in 2015. Chair Larson encouraged staff and Council to continue to pursue trail connections throughout the City to improve the walk-ability of the community. He recommended the TCAAP property have trail segments built into the development as well. ADJOURN Commissioner Hames moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa, to adjourn the October 9, 2013, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:27 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0).