Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-10-14-R-- Dave McClung Ed Werner www.cityofardenhills.org Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, wellmaintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our longstanding tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF AGENDA Public inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Councils attention any items not currently on the agenda. In addressing the Council, please state your name and address for the record, and a brief summary of the specific item being addressed to the Council. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, we ask that individuals limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation. STAFF COMMENTS 3.A.TCAAP Update Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director Documents:MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.A.Approval Of Minutes January 27, 2014, Regular City Council January 27, 2014, Work Session February 10, 2014, Regular City Council Documents:R.PDF,WS.PDF,R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. 5.A.Approve Claims And Payroll Ariel Schmitz and Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Documents:MEMO.PDF 5.B.Approve Resolution 2014015 Appointing Jennifer Stephens To The PTRC Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF Approve Planning Case 14 Lexington Station Final Plat Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF Approve Findings Of Fact And Decision Regarding Application Of Allina Health EMS For A Zoning Code Amendment And CUP Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF 5.E.Approve Findings Of Fact And Decision Regarding Application Of St Paul Ramsey County Public Health Dept For A CUP Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Under this Public Hearing section, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding 7.A.TCAAP Development Discussion Opportunity For Residents Documents:MEMO.PDF NEW BUSINESS 8.A.Planning Case 14 PUD Amendment Lexington Station Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.A.Planning Case 13 Accessory Building Site Plan Review Gradient Financial Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents:CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, to Discuss the B2 District Project STAFF COMMENTS 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: TCAAP Update A brief verbal update on the TCAAP project will be provided at the meeting. Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2014 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:01 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present : City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; City Planner Ryan Streff; City Attorney Joel Jamnik; and City Clerk Amy Dietl PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Grant requested an item be added to the agenda to allow staff to provide an update on the Highway 10/County Road 96 project under Staff Comments. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Kathryn Nelson , 3475 Siems Court, provided comment on Old Snelling. She recommended that the portion of Old Snelling from County Road E to TH 51 be reconstructed when work is completed on the bridge. She stated that this section of roadway is in extremely poor condition. Ms. Nelson suggested the median be reopened on TH 51 to allow access from Snelling Avenue/Highway 51 to North Old Snelling. She recommended the City work with MnDOT on reopening this access as it would benefit both residents and emergency traffic. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20142 A. Recognition of Years of Service and Employee of the Year Mayor Grant stated that the Employee Recognition Committee (ERC) recognized two individuals for Years of Service. The policy states that employees shall be recognized for every five (5) years of employment with the City. Employees shall receive a certificate from the City recognizing them for their years of service. The following employees were awarded certificates for achieving these milestones during 2013 and were recognized on Thursday, January 23, 2014, at the all-employee luncheon: Sherri Eisenbraun 5 years of service Dave Winkel 35 years of service Mayor Grant reported that the ERC also announced the Employee of the Year at an all-employee luncheon on Thursday, January 23, 2014. The 2013 Employee of the Year is Pam Sweeney of the Finance and Administrative Services Department qualities and thanked her for her dedicated service to the City of Arden Hills. He presented the Employee of the Year Award to Pam Sweeney. 3. STAFF COMMENTS A. TCAAP Update Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the second TCAAP open house was held on Wednesday, January 22, 2014. Despite the frigid weather, it was a successful event with over 100 people attending. The boards displayed at the open h website. Public feedback and comments on the draft master plan are being compiled by the master planning consultants and will be presented to the City Council at a future meeting. B. Highway 10/County Road 96 Lighting Update Public Works Director Maurer stated that he spoke with resident Dave Cmiel after the last Council meeting. Mr. Cmiel had concerns regarding the lighting at the Old Highway 10/Highway 96 intersection. Mr. Cmiel referenced the Rice/36 project that has shoebox lights at a lower elevation. Mr. Maurer explained that he reviewed the Rice Street project and discussed it with Ramsey County and was told that the lights are lower due to overhead power lines. He indicated that the County has also spoken with Dave Cmiel regarding this matter. Public Works Director Maurer reported that after speaking with MnDOT, he has found that both the shoebox and Cobra lights are considered preapproved equals and have similar light spreads. The Old Highway 10/Highway 96 signal has the Cobra style lights while other intersections along Highway 96 have the shoebox style. He explained that he was waiting to hear back from Ramsey County on this matter and would provide the Council with further information at a future meeting. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.November 25, 2013, Regular City Council B.December 9, 2013, Regular City Council ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20143 C.December 16, 2013, Work Session MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a motion to approve the November 25, 2013, regular City Council meeting minutes; the December 9, 2013, regular City Council meeting minutes; and the December 16, 2013, work session minutes as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A.Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B.Motion to Approve Pay Equity Report C.Motion to Approve Resolution 2014-009 Appointing Commission and Committee Chairs D.Motion to Approve Planning Case 14-007 Boston Scientific Temporary Walk Way Extension E.Motion to Purchase Central File Storage System F.Motion to Approve Planning Commission Alternate Position Appointment MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 6. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.Round Lake Road Area Improvements Approve Resolution 2014-010 Approve Resolution 2014-011 Public Works Director Maurer stated that at the July 29, 2013, meeting the Council hired Elfering and Associates to prepare a feasibility report for the Round Lake Road, Gateway Boulevard and Gateway Court Area. The feasibility report was received by the Council at the December 9, 2013, meeting at which time Resolution 2013-045 was adopted ordering the public hearing be held on January 27, 2014. Public Works Director Maurer explained that staff has published and mailed the notices of the public hearing required by State Statute. In addition, staff sent notices of the hearing to all tenants of the buildings in the area to keep them informed of the project. Public Works Director Maurer presented a brief history of the discussions regarding road improvements in the area. This history dates back several years. He explained that Kristie Elfering of Elfering and Associates was here to provide a presentation of the feasibility report findings. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20144 Public Works Director Maurer commented that at the close of the public hearing it is recommended that the Council consider adopting the following two resolutions: 1.Resolution 2014-010 Ordering the Improvement for the Round Lake Road, Gateway Boulevard and Gateway Court Improvements 2.Resolution 2014-011 Approving the Plans and Specifications for the Round Lake Road, Gateway Boulevard and Gateway Court Improvements Kristie Elfering , Elfering and Associates, reviewed the Round Lake Road area improvement project timeline along with the scope of the project. She explained that the improvements would improve traffic flow while also providing utility improvements. The proposed utility improvements were further discussed noting the storm sewer in this area would be upgraded. Ms. Elfering stated that several right-of-way modifications would be made through the improvement project. It was noted the project would cost just over $2 million and would be funded through special assessments, tax increment financing (TIF), Municipal State Aid (MSA) along with the Permanent Improvement Revolving (PIR) fund, and water utility and surface water management funds. She reported that a formal assessment hearing would be held after bids were received. She anticipated that bids would be received in April with construction beginning this spring. Councilmember Holden requested that the bidding documents be completed as soon as possible to ensure the City receives a competitive response from local contractors. Mayor Grant agreed and encouraged staff to work quickly to have the plans completed. Ms. Elfering stated that the bidding documents would be completed in February. However, she explained that the project would need to be reviewed and approved by MnDOT in order for the City to use MSA funds. This approval would have to be completed prior to receiving bids. Councilmember Holmes asked if the City charged for the overlay portion of the project. Public Works Director Maurer explained that this expense was included in the project costs. Councilmember Holden questioned how the lights would be installed and maintained. Public Works Director Maurer stated that Xcel Energy would be installing and maintaining the lights for the life of the fixture, which was approximately 25 years. He estimated that the lights would be installed approximately 150 feet apart in this corridor. Councilmember McClung asked if the preliminary assessment roll figures were presented to the business community. Ms. Elfering stated that these numbers were presented to the business community. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20145 Mayor Grant expressed concern that the final lift would not be put in place until the spring of 2015. Ms. Elfering explained that this was quite common and noted that it would allow for a full freeze/thaw cycle and trench settlement to take place on the roadway before the final lift was placed on the roadway. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Chas Arend , Chief Executive Officer of Space Center, Inc., 2501 Rosegate in St. Paul, recommended the Council consider installing additional lighting on Gateway Boulevard. Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #2014-010, Ordering the Improvement for the Round Lake Road Area with additional lighting for Gateway Boulevard. Mayor Grant supported the additional lighting along Gateway Boulevard being completed in conjunction with this reconstruction project. The motion carried (5-0). MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #2014-011, Approving the Plans and Specifications and Ordering the Advertisement for Bids for the Round Lake Road Area Improvements with additional lighting for Gateway Boulevard. Mayor Grant was pleased that the project has been well received by the businesses in the project area. Councilmember Holden recommended that staff closely monitor the utilities in this area throughout the entire project. The motion carried (5-0). B. Approve Resolution 2014-012 Public Works Director Maurer stated that in December 2011, the Council hired Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare final plans for the reconstruction of the Old Snelling Bridge. The plans box culverts. Public Works Director Maurer indicated that Kimley-Horn has been preparing an application for the City for future State Bridge Bonding funds to help with the construction cost of the new bridge. Currently, there are no Bridge Bonding funds available but MnDOT continues to prepare ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20146 a priority list for the next funding provided by the legislature application along with our final plans to MnDOT to get a spot on the priority list, the City must adopt a resolution establishing a Prioritized Bridge Replacement list. Before the Council may consider a resolution establishing this replacement list, a public hearing must be held. The Council adopted Resolution 2014-006 on January 13, 2014, setting the public hearing for the January 27, 2014, Council meeting. Public Works Director Maurer provided a brief presentation and asked for questions from the Council and/or public. At the close of the public hearing, he requested that the Council consider adoption of Resolution 2014-012 establishing a Prioritized Bridge Replacement List which consists of one bridge; Bridge No. 4627 under Old Snelling Avenue. Councilmember Werner asked if the two box culverts were being used to offer additional strength. Public Works Director Maurer stated that the two box culverts would allow for water to flow through this area in a 100 year storm event. Councilmember Werner inquired if the weight restrictions on this roadway would change after the bridge work was completed. Public Works Director Maurer indicated that the road restrictions would be removed as it would be constructed to a 10-ton design. Mayor Grant questioned if the City had received approval of the design from the Rice Creek Watershed. Public Works Director Maurer stated that the Rice Creek Watershed had reviewed and approved the two box culvert design for this bridge. Councilmember Holden asked if the bridge number would remain in place even if culverts were used. Public Works Director Maurer stated that this was the case. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adopt Resolution #2014-012, Creating a Prioritized Bridge Replacement List. The motion carried (5-0). 8. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning Case 13-023 Arden Village Site Plan Review Sign Standard Adjustment ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20147 City Planner Streff stated that the property at 1290 County Road F West is owned by Arden Village, LLC. The property is zoned R-4 Multiple Dwelling District and is located north of I- 694/Highway 10, south of County Road F West, east of Hamline Avenue and west of Lexington Avenue. On March 3, 2010, the City Council approved an application for a four-story, 55-unit, workforce housing development at 1290 County Road F West. The City Council approved Planning Case #09-021 for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, Rezoning, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final Planned Unit Development. City Planner Streff indicated that Arden Village has expressed concerns regarding the visibility of their building for leasing purposes. The applicant has stated that the amount of temporary wall signage allowed by the Code for Sign District 3 is not proportionately adequate for a structure of this size or location. By increasing the amount of temporary wall signage, the applicant is hoping to improve their ability to fully lease the building by enhancing their visibility to the traveling public. City Planner Streff explained that two (2) temporary wall signs are being proposed for the building. The applicant is proposing a sign that measures six (6) feet by forty (40) feet, an area of 240 square feet, on the south elevation adjacent to I-694 and Highway 10. The second sign is being proposed on the north elevation along County Road F West, at a size of six (6) feet by thirty-three (33) feet, an area of 198 square feet. The combined area of the two (2) signs would be 438 square feet. Arden Village would maintain these signs to ensure a like new condition at all times. If a sign is torn or deteriorates it will be repaired and/or replaced. City Planner Streff commented that Section 1250.02 of the Sign Ordinance regulates the use of temporary on-premise signs. The property is zoned R-4 Multiple Dwelling District, therefore, standards for Sign District 3 apply in this case. The Ordinance permits the property to have no more than one (1) temporary sign not to exceed 10 square feet in area. However, because the building currently has space for lease, the property is allowed one (1) additional temporary sign not to exceed 25 square feet in area. City Planner Streff stated that the applicant has indicated that they would like to display the temporary wall signage from the date the sign permit is issued until July 1, 2014. Under the Sign Ordinance, the property is allowed to display a permitted temporary sign for no more than thirty (30) days per calendar year. A sign advertising available space for lease in a building can be displayed until seven (7) days after the building is leased. City Planner Streff reviewed the Plan Evaluation. He explained that the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their January 8, 2014, meeting, and offered the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. The property is located in the R-4 Multiple Dwelling District. 2. The property is located in Sign District 3. 3. In Sign District 3, wall signage up to twenty (20) square feet and freestanding signage up to thirty-two (32) square feet is permitted. 4. For single occupant parcels, no more than one (1) permitted temporary sign shall be permitted at any given time. The area of the temporary signage shall not exceed ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20148 one half of the permitted wall sign area. Displayed for a maximum of thirty (30) days. 5. Buildings with lease or vacant space may obtain one (1) temporary wall sign not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in size. Displayed for a maximum of seven (7) days after the building is leased. 6. The applicant is proposing two (2) temporary wall signs to be located on the building. 7. The proposed temporary wall sign facing I-694 would measure six (6) feet by forty (40) feet, an area of 240 square feet. 8. The proposed temporary wall sign facing County Road F West would measure six (6) feet by thirty (33) feet, an area of 198 square feet. 9. Section 1260 of the Sign Code permits deviation from the Sign Code through the Site Plan Review process. 10. The proposed signs would be displayed from the date the sign permit is issued to July 1, 2014. 11. Sign Code regulations on the permit length of temporary signage would limit the building. 12. The signs would not be in direct view from residential properties. 13. The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the R-4 Multiple Dwelling District. 14. Increasing the amount of temporary wall signage would not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. City Planner Streff reported that the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #13-023 and unanimously recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and Sign Standard Adjustment at 1290 County Road F West, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the January 27, 2014, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following six (6) 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 two temporary wall signs shall be removed by July 1, 2014. 3. That the temporary wall-sign on the south elevation shall be no larger than 240 square feet. 4. That the temporary wall-sign on the north elevation shall be no larger than 198 square feet. 5. That the applicant shall maintain the two signs in like new condition and repair and/or replace a banner if it is torn or deteriorates during the approved timeline. 6. That the applicant shall apply for a sign permit prior to the installation of the sign. Councilmember Holden asked when the applicant would receive a Certificate of Occupancy. City Planner Streff anticipated the Certificate of Occupancy would be issued sometime this spring. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 20149 Megan Carr , Arden Village, LLC, 366 South Tenth Avenue in Waite Park, discussed the construction timeline and anticipated that a Certificate of Occupancy would be applied for sometime in April. Mayor Grant asked if any leases had been signed. Ms. Carr commented that marketing efforts were beginning and explained that the requested signs would greatly assist with these efforts. Mayor Grant asked if the signage could be taken down if the building were to lease quickly. Ms. Carr stated that this was requested by the Planning Commission as well and that the Sand Company would be willing to take the signage down if the building filled quickly. Mayor Grant was pleased with the proposed market rental rates. Councilmember Holden indicated that she has received feedback that people view this building as office space. She encouraged the Sand Company to sign and market the building as leasing rental units. MOTION: Councilmember McClung moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to Approve Planning Case #13-023 for a Site Plan Review and Sign Standard Adjustment that would allow for a deviation from the Sign Code at 1290 County Road F West to increase the amount of temporary wall signage and the amount of time it is permitted to be displayed, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the six (6) conditions in the January 27, 2014, Report to the City Council. Councilmember Holden suggested a seventh condition be added stating if the building is fully occupied before July 1, 2014, that the banners be removed from the building. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a motion amending the original motion adding Condition 7 stating that if the building is fully occupied before July 1, 2014, the banners shall be removed. Councilmember Holden thought it would be important to have these signs removed as soon as possible given the large size. Councilmember McClung supported the amendment. The amendment carried (5-0). The amended motion carried (5-0). B. Planning Case 13-017 Goodwill PUD Amendment ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201410 Associate Planner Bachler stated that in December 2012, the City Council approved Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 1201 County Road E. This planning case allowed the reuse of the existing building on the property for 74 residential apartment units and approximately 20,000 square feet of retail space. A Certificate of Occupancy for the building was issued in October 2013. The City Council later approved a Certificate of Completion for the E Street Flats project in November 2013, which acknowledged that the developer had completed certain site improvements as required by the Development Agreement. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the approved Master PUD consists only of the redevelopment of the existing building on the property and the completion of site improvements. A previous land use application (PC #11-011) submitted by the applicant and approved by the City Council in 2011, included a preliminary plat proposal that would have subdivided the property into two parcels. Approval for this land use application expired prior to the City taking action on Planning Case 12-019. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the Development Agreement states that the property owner intends to develop the eastern two acres of the site into retail or other commercial uses and that any future development will require a separate application to the City. Also included in the Agreement is the provision that any significant changes to the approved plans require a review by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. Staff has determined that the proposed project qualifies as being significant and that an amendment to the existing Master PUD is required. Associate Planner Bachler explained that since 1201 County Road E would continue to be a single parcel of property, the proposal has been evaluated based on whether the entire site will meet the zoning requirements once the new development is completed. It should be noted that the site plan was designed so that the two-acre development site would be in conformance with zoning regulations independent of the entire parcel in terms of building and landscape lot coverage. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the project is being reviewed through the PUD process, which allows the City to grant flexibility within the typical zoning code requirements. Because of this, deviations are not considered variances and the review criteria typically used for variance requests do not apply. The City is not required to grant the requested deviations if there is a rational basis for denial. Additionally, any conditions imposed by the City must have a rational basis related to the expected impacts of the development. Associate Planner Bachler noted that the applicant has proposed constructing a 17,743 square foot retail building that would be located on the undeveloped two acre eastern portion of 1201 County Road E. TAT Properties has been working with Goodwill Industries and plans to sign a long-term lease with the company for use of the building. If the proposal is approved, work on the site is expected to begin in April or May of 2014, with an anticipated construction completion schedule of six months. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the building would be situated at the southeast corner of the lot and would be accessed using the easterly driveway on the property that currently services E Street Flats. Slightly more than half of the building area would be used for retail sales, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201411 with the remaining space divided between offices and a conference room, a donation processing area, and a drive-thru donation center. Parking areas would located behind and adjacent to the building and would be screened from view from County Road E with landscaping and a decorative fence. The loading area would be on the backside of the building and would be enclosed with an eight-foot tall metal screen and gate. Associate Planner Bachler commented that light tan and grey brick would be used as the principal exterior building material. EIFS is proposed as an accent material and would be located along the upper portion of each façade. Architectural features would extend along all four sides of the building. Specific design elements include parapets, corner columns, façade articulation, awnings, windows, and variation in building materials. The proposed landscaping plan includes trees, shrubs, and perennial flowers planted throughout the site with a particular focus along Lexington Avenue. The applicant has submitted a project narrative and a complete plan set. Planning Associate Bachler reviewed the plan evaluation in detail with the Council. He explained that the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 13-017 at their regular meeting on January 8, 2014. A public hearing for this case was held at the meeting. At that time, no comments were submitted by residents or business owners in regard to the proposal. Staff has received several email inquiries about the project. The Planning Commission offers the following twelve (12) findings of fact for consideration: 1. The property is located in the B-2 General Business District. 2. The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District that outlines future development principals for the area. 3. The City has adopted additional Design Standards for the B-2 District within the Zoning Code. 4. The Master PUD at 1201 County Road E was approved by the City on December 21, 2012, in Planning Case 12-019. 5. The Master PUD Development Agreement requires that any significant changes to the approved plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Council. 6. The applicant is requesting approval of an Amendment to the approved PUD to construct a 17,743 square foot retail building on the southeast corner of the property at 1201 County Road E. 7. negotiated process with a developer. 8. The proposed PUD Amendment is in substantial conformance with the requirements of the Zoning Code and the B-2 District Design Standards. 9. Where the plan is not in conformance with the Zoning Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformities. 10. The property is located in Sign District 5. 11. The proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance with the requirements of Sign District 5 of the Sign Code. 12. The proposal is not anticipated to adversely affect the immediate area or the community as a whole. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201412 Associate Planner Bachler explained that the Planning Commission recommends approval (5-1, Bartel dissenting) of Planning Case 13-017 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 1201 County Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the January 27, 2014, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following twenty-two (22) conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans 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. An amendment to the Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The document shall be executed prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of the PUD Amendment approval or the approval shall expire unless extended by the City submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date. 4. The applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, and paving, prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC-insured Minnesota bank, and be in a form acceptable to the City. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that site improvements are completed in the event that the developer defaults on the Development Agreement. 5. The applicant shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, and paving, prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. The escrow will be used for City costs related to review, approval, and inspection of site improvements or any costs incurred by the City in the event of a developer default. 6. The applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC-insured Minnesota bank. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that landscaping is completed in the event that the developer defaults on the Development Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 7. The applicant shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. The escrow will be held by the City for two years after installation of landscaping and used for City costs related to review, approval, and inspection of landscaping, or developer default. 8. The applicant shall complete a sidewalk segment along the north side of County Road E from Lexington Avenue to the easterly driveway into 1201 County Road E. The City is currently holding $50,000 in escrow from the property owner for the completion of sidewalk improvements by the City along the entire length of the 1201 County Road E property. The City will return a portion of this escrow to the applicant based on a calculation of the estimated cost for the City to complete the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201413 remaining sidewalk between the easterly driveway and the western border of the 1201 County Road E property. 9. The plans shall be subject to Fire Marshall and Ramsey County Sheriff approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. A lighting and photometric plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City and the Ramsey County Sheriff prior to issuance of a building permit. 11. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as-built shall be provided to the City for review. 12. The applicant shall provide the City with a copy of the NPDES construction permit required for the site. 13. The applicant shall acquire a Right-of-Way permit from Ramsey County for any work completed in the County Road E and Lexington Avenue Right-of-Way. 14. A fire hydrant shall be located within 150 feet of F.D.C. 15. A Fire Department lock box shall be provided on the site. 16. All spandrel glass used on the retail building shall be light grey or another color that closely matches the appearance of the transparent glass being used. 17. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be completely screened from the ground-level view of adjacent properties and public streets. 18. The property owner shall coordinate with the City to ensure that any plantings in 19. Any future subdivision of the property at 1201 County Road E shall be conditioned on the prohibition of direct access to Lexington Avenue or new access to County Road E. The existing County Road E access may be relocated with City and County approval. 20. The metal screen and gate around the loading area shall be light tan to match the color of the brick used on the building façade. 21. On-site wayfinding signage shall be installed to clearly identify the donation drop- off location. 22. The four (4) dashed parking spaces as shown on the AS100 Site Plan shall be removed in order to accommodate truck maneuvering on site and access to the loading area. Mayor Grant thanked Associate Planner Bachler for his presentation and asked the Council if they had any questions or comments. Councilmember Holden asked if the property owner could subdivide the lot further without City approval. Associate Planner Bachler explained that a subdivision would require review and approval by the City Council. City Attorney Jamnik advised that a subdivision would need to meet City setback requirements or a variance would also have to be requested. Councilmember Holden requested further information regarding the transparency requirements. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201414 Associate Planner Bachler discussed the transparency requirements and noted that the applicant had not and was requesting flexibility. He reviewed the locations on the building that would have spandrel glass windows. He reported that the proposed spandrel windows would be a lighter gray than was used by Walgreens on Lexington Avenue. Mayor Grant questioned if 138 cars per hour was a reasonable estimate for this site. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that this was the estimated number of trips for the midday and evening peak hours and that the proposed development was expected to generate between 1,000 to 1,500 daily trips. Mayor Grant requested further information on how truck traffic would maneuver through the site. He had concerns with the safety of truck traffic entering and exiting the site. Associate Planner Bachler discussed how trucks would maneuver through the site as it was currently designed. Councilmember Holden stated that the property owner would be leasing the building to Goodwill; however, this lease could end and a different tenant could occupy the building. This new tenant could have an impact on the traffic patterns and number of trucks entering and exiting the site. Councilmember McClung expressed concern with the lack of screening on the north side of the building. The lack of screening would give passing traffic a clear view of the donation area. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the landscaping for the site was not included on the presented slides. He reviewed the landscaping plan in further detail with the Council. Mayor Grant asked if staff considered higher screening around the loading dock. Associate Planner Bachler stated that this was not considered by staff, but if this was a concern of the Council, an additional condition for approval could be added. Councilmember Holden asked if the proposed metal fence around the loading area met the B-2 design standards. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the proposed fence did meet the B-2 design standards. He noted that the Planning Commission recommended the fence be painted to match the color of the building façade. Councilmember Holden requested further comment from staff regarding Conditions 19 and 20 as presented to the Planning Commission. Associate Planner Bachler reported that these conditions were put in place to address the concerns with how truck traffic could potentially block traffic or cause congestion along County Road E and read as follows: ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201415 19. No semi-trailer trucks shall enter or exit the site between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. 20. For twelve (12) months following the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the owner/developer may operate without regard to the condition regarding hour restrictions for truck operations (Condition #19). At the end of that period, the City at its discretion may in writing extend the exception to the restriction, allow it to expire, or process a permanent amendment to the PUD. Associate Planner Bachler stated that there was also concern with how the truck traffic would impact pedestrians. He explained that Condition 19 would limit truck traffic during daytime hours. Councilmember Holmes commented that the concern with restricting the times to overnight hours was in regard to how the truck traffic would impact the residents at E Street Flats. The Planning Commission believed that this condition was too restrictive. She reiterated that Goodwill is anticipating having three to five trucks per week. Councilmember Holden requested comment from staff on the traffic study as she did not believe traffic along Lexington Avenue has been decreasing. Matt Pacyna , SRF Consulting, 1 Carlson Parkway, Minneapolis, MN, explained that new data was collected in December 2013 during the mid-day and evening peak hours on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday. These volumes were compared to the most recent historical data collected, which was from 2009. Comparing the data sets, the traffic volumes have decreased. Mayor Grant inquired if the traffic study took into consideration any other economic growth in the area and how this would affect traffic. Mr. Pacyna stated that additional redevelopment was not considered in the study. Councilmember Holmes asked if cars entering and exiting the site would have difficulty with the proposed turning radius. Mr. Pacyna commented that he had reviewed the site circulation and found that passenger vehicles could make the proposed maneuvers without hindering traffic. Mayor Grant questioned if the consultant would align the access point in the same manner as it was being proposed. Mr. Pacyna stated that the access point was aligned with the access to the south for Arden Plaza and this reduced the number of conflict points. He indicated that the only option would be to move the access point to the east, which would create a right-in, right-out situation. Councilmember Holmes inquired if the site could accommodate trees along County Road E at the south side of the parking lot so that the site more closely aligned with the B-2 design standards. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201416 Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the landscaping plan in further detail noting that the site had three existing trees along County Road E. He reported that one additional tree would be planted at the southwest corner of the buildingand that these trees would provide screening between the roadway and the parking lot. Councilmember Holmes asked if any trees could be planted in front of the building on County Road E. Associate Planner Bachler stated that this would be difficult as the building was set at the front setback line along County Road E and there would be a sidewalk and utility easement in the area between the building and road right-of-way. He reported that the County typically did not allow for tree plantings in their right-of-way. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to deny Planning Case 13-017 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 1201 County Road E, due to the proposed size of the building, the traffic circulation, congestion and parking issues. Councilmember Holden expressed concern with the size of the building proposed for this site along with the truck traffic coming to and from the property. She felt this was not the right use for this parcel. Councilmember Werner also had concerns with the proposed size of the building. Mayor Grant stated that the overall size of the building and the location on the lot was also a concern for him. He explained that the parcel was unique, as it was surrounded by roadways and the railroad. In addition, the Goodwill is anticipated to generate a large number of trips per day. He was in favor of a less intensive use locating on this site. He had concern with the traffic entering and exiting the property. Councilmember McClung reported that this corner was currently vacant and he agreed with the comments made thus far. He found the use to be too intense and the building too large given the constraints of the location. He also had concerns with the proposed semi-truck traffic. For these reasons, he could not support the proposal. Councilmember Werner supported the conversion of the Holiday Inn, but would not be supporting a building of this size on the corner of this property. Mayor Grant wanted to see this corner developed and noted there were uses that would better suit the site. He found the Goodwill building and intensity to be too much for the corner of this lot. Mayor Grant asked the applicant if he would like to address the Council. Rob Davidson , TAT Properties,approached the podium and thanked the Mayor and Councilmembers. He indicated that he was surprised at the reaction he was getting tonight. He stated that he and his associates have worked really hard with City staff to design a building that ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201417 complies with virtually every underlining zoning requirement in the B-2 District; including size. He noted that the size of the proposed building is well within the size parameters of the underlying zoning. For the past two or three months, a lot of work has gone into designing a building that would meet the B-2 district standards and what has been designed is a building that would be situated at the property setback line; a building that is brick and glass in character; and a use that has a minimal impact on the community. Mr. Davidson indicated that as the Council rightly points out, this is a tricky site. Access has been limited to County Road E because the County does not want access to Lexington Avenue. As a consequence of the access being directed to County Road E, there are a limited number of users whose business can work in that kind of environment in a retail district. He noted that the site and its access have worked for 25 years with a restaurant, a hotel, and a banquet center that have utilized all kinds of trucks. He noted that there is an exit to the west of this site, but to his knowledge, this particular access has been used for years without any adverse impact to the community; therefore, he is unclear about the access issue. He believed there is no access problem as trucks are currently servicing the retail component on the site. He is distraught that the zoning code is being ignored because there is an opinion that a building is too big. He noted that Ramsey County approved the access to the site, as did the traffic consultant and City staff. He is disheartened that a wonderful use that could help revitalize County Road E is being rejected because of a perceived traffic issue, and he is also disappointed that this proposal has not been embraced by the Council since it does meet the heart and soul of the B-2 District. Mayor Grant reiterated that the size of the proposed building was previously discussed by the Council at a work session (on November 18, 2013) with Mr. Davidson. It should not come as a surprise that the Council did not support the size of the building. Mr. Davidson reported that the proposed building met the B-2 Design Standards and setback zoning requirements. Councilmember Holden questioned why the Council held work sessions with developers to provide input on potential developments when Council comments were not heeded. She appreciated the work completed by staff and the developer on this site; however, she did not support the PUD amendment. Councilmember McClung agreed stating each of the concerns raised this evening were brought to the developer by the Council at a previous work session. He explained that the developer took no initiative to mitigate any of these concerns. The motion carried (5-0). City Attorney Jamnik reported that he would be drafting findings for the Council to approve at its next meeting as part of this case. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 27, 201418 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Werner stated that Metro Cities would be holding a Water Forum this Thursday at the New Brighton Community Center. rd Councilmember Holmes stated that on January 23 she represented the City at the grand opening of Title Boxing Club. She discussed the boxing club and encouraged the public to check out this new business. Councilmember McClung stated that the Ramsey County League of Local Governments would be holding a meeting with local representatives at the end of the month and encouraged the entire Council to be in attendance. He reported that he would be in attendance. Mayor Grant thanked all who were able to attend the TCAAP open house on January 22, 2014. ADJOURN MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the regular City Council meeting at 9:36 p.m. The Council adjourned to a special work session to discuss TCAAP and franchise fees. __________________________ __________________________ Amy Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 27, 2014 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council work session at 9:44 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present : City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; and City Clerk Amy Dietl 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Council accepted the agenda as presented. 2. AGENDA ITEMS A. TCAAP Update City Administrator Klaers stated that the Council recently reviewed the draft Master Plan for TCAAP, which was presented at an open house on January 22, 2014. An item of concern has been the Regional water feature and surface water management plan for the entire site. It was the sooner rather than later in the planning process. He explained that Public Works Director Maurer has been speaking with the County regarding this matter. Public Works Director Maurer indicated that he has met with Beth Engum of Ramsey County regarding a scope of services that could be used to hire a consultant to work on water resources and wetland issues on the TCAAP site. He reported that the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) states that these issues are a joint responsibility between the City and the County. Public Works Director Maurer explained that this study was anticipated, along with a sanitary and water feasibility report while addressing the financial aspects of installing utilities on the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 27, 20142 TCAAP site. The City needs to analyze the expense of these utilities as well as plan how to pay for them. Councilmember Holmes asked how Rice Creek would be involved in this project. Public Works Director Maurer reported that the City would need a Rice Creek Watershed District permit before any water feature could be built or any wetlands could be filled. He explained that the study would assist the City with providing Rice Creek Watershed District with information on the plans for the TCAAP site that they would need prior to issuance of any permit for construction. Councilmember Holmes requested further information on what the City would gain from the proposed study. Public Works Director Maurer indicated that the study would determine what the proposed water feature would look like, how much water would be in it and how the City would keep water in the feature. In addition, the cost and maintenance expense for the water feature would be addressed. He stated that the phasing of the water feature would also be addressed. Finally, the study would deal with the wetlands on the site; which could be avoided, which could be filled, and how and where they would be mitigated. Councilmember Holden expressed concern with completing a report on something that was simply being proposed within the Master Plan. Public Works Director Maurer indicated that a surface water plan needs to be completed for the TCAAP site to ensure that the City is properly managing the storm water prior to site development. Councilmember McClung commented that the City has to understand how storm water should flow through the site and what areas will need to be mitigated. He stated that the proposed report would provide the City with this information while also preparing the City to meet Rice Creek requirements. It is his opinion that the water feature is a key component of the Master Plan and he would like additional information on this matter. Mayor Grant recommended certain points of interest be brought to the Council as the study is completed. Public Works Director Maurer stated that this could be done and explained that the City could take the lea process would be quicker than the County. The Council indicated support for taking the lead in this process. City Administrator Klaers reported that the JDA heard a presentation from Kate Knuth (former member of the Minnesota House of Representatives representing District 50B) regarding developing an energy plan for the TCAAP site. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 27, 20143 Community Development Director Hutmacher reviewed the presentation made by Ms. Knuth in further detail with the Council. City Administrator Klaers indicated that staff saw the energy plan as a separate item to be considered by the City, County, and JDA outside of the TCAAP Master Plan. Councilmember Holden questioned why the County was proposing to lead this matter. She wanted to be sure the City remained a part of the energy plan. City Administrator Klaers commented that a conversation was held with the JDA and the financial responsibility would remain with the County. However, the City would have input on the energy plan. Councilmember Holmes asked if the energy plan would be completed within the rules and regulations by Kimley-Horn. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that the proposed energy plan would be more in-depth; providing technical analysis of how energy would be created, distributed, and used on the TCAAP site. Councilmember McClung did not have enough information on the topic to make a decision regarding how the Council should proceed; however, he recommended that the Council take an interest in this topic. Mayor Grant stated that he heard the presentation as a JDA member and he believed that Ms. Knuth was advocating for energy sustainability and resiliency when she spoke to the JDA. Specifically, she was targeting the opportunities that were available on the site and for the City to remain environmentally conscience. City Administrator Klaers explained that staff would be talking with the JDA again regarding the energy plan and additional information would be provided to the Council on this topic. B. Franchise Fees City Administrator Klaers provided the Council with information from Xcel Energy regarding the proposed franchise fees. It was noted that staff was working to create a PowerPoint th presentation on franchise fees for the February 10 public hearing. He reviewed the cities in the metro area that have franchise fees and stated that this information could be passed along to residents at the upcoming public hearing. He requested feedback from the Council regarding what Councilmember Holden recommended that the franchise fee information from other cities be limited in Mayor Grant suggested that the franchise fee rates of other cities be omitted from the presentation, but that it be noted that Xcel Energy has franchise fee contracts with a specified list of cities. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 27, 20144 Councilmember Holmes stated that residents were interested in learning how the franchise fees would be used by the City City trails and parks, she recommended that this information be passed along to the public at the upcoming hearing. Mayor Grant suggested that presentation along with estimates to complete this work. Councilmember Holmes added that residents need to be made aware that the City no longer receives park dedication funds which have been used to pay for park and trail improvements. Councilmember Holden stated that she wanted to see information presented on the market value of tax exempt properties as compared to the taxable properties. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson explained that she has requested this information from Ramsey County. Councilmember McClung stated that he would like to see the staff presentation address the tools available to fund City projects as well as the financial impacts of each tool. He noted that franchise fees are one option, but that there are other options. He explained that franchise fees Councilmember Werner reported that franchise fees would come at a cost to the residents and business owners in Arden Hills. He did not support the proposed franchise fee. Councilmember Holmes asked who would be making the franchise fee presentation. City Administrator Klaers stated that he would lead the presentation with support from the Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson and Public Works Director Maurer. Councilmember Holden questioned if the Council would allow for a Q & A time at the hearing. Mayor Grant reported that public comments would be taken at the hearing. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council work session at 10:36 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Amy Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2014 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present : City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Assistant City Engineer John Anderson; Park and Recreation Manager Michelle Olson; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Finance Analyst Kyle Howard PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Jack Perry , Briggs & Morgan representing TAT Properties, discussed the recent PUD Amendment denial in Planning Case 13-017 that the Council would be confirming this evening. He reported that he submitted a letter to the City this afternoon regarding this matter. He reviewed the concerns of the applicant and questioned why the Council did not address the conditions for approval at its previous meeting. He explained that his client supported 22 of the making process. He reported that the building size and traffic concerns were not grounds for denial of the PUD. Mr. Perry anticipated that this matter will proceed to the court of appeals. He recommended that the Council reconsider the decision made on the PUD or that action be tabled to a future meeting. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20142 Richard Wenzel , 1931 Noble Road, questioned why the Arden Hills gateway sign on the triangle property at 3151 Lake Johanna Boulevard was not put out for public bid. He believed this went against State Statute. Mayor Grant commented that staff would investigate this matter further. Parks and Recreation Manager Olson reviewed the bidding process for expenses under $100,000. Dan Flaherty king on a water line breakage near his property on Super Bowl Sunday. He appreciated their efforts and encouraged the City to review the drainage near his east entrance, due to the amount of ice buildup. He discussed the B-2 Feasibility Report as well as the amount his property would be assessed ($34,000) if the plan were completed as proposed. He recommended the B-2 Feasibility Plan include only restriping of Connelly Avenue. Mayor Grant thanked Mr. Flaherty for his comments. He recommended that the City Engineer review the drainage at this property. 3. STAFF COMMENTS A. TCAAP Update City Administrator Klaers stated that staff will be meeting with the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) this week to discuss the upcoming surface water management study. The City planning consultants are compiling feedback from the City Council, Planning Commission, Joint Development Authority, developer interviews, and the public open house on January 22, 2014. The project management team will meet at the end of this month to discuss public feedback. Due to the cold weather, little work is occurring on-site at this time. Ramsey County reports that a frost depth of five feet is hampering in-ground work. He then discussed recent action taken by the County Board. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.December 26, 2013, Work Session B.January 13, 2014, Work Session C.January 21, 2014, Work Session Councilmember Holmes requested a change to the January 21, 2014, work session minutes on page three, fourth paragraph from the bottom, stating that her comment should read that she has seen pedestrians walking on the north side of the bridge. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve the December 26, 2013, work session minutes and the January 13, 2014, work session minutes as presented; and the January 21, 2014, work session minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20143 5. CONSENT CALENDAR A.Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B.Motion to Approve Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of TAT Properties, LLC for a PUD Amendment for Property at 1201 County Road E MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 6. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS A.TCAAP Development Discussion Opportunity for Residents Mayor Grant stated that under the Public Hearing section, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding the TCAAP development. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. B.Franchise Fees City Administrator Klaers stated that the City Council requested that the franchise fee public hearing presentation include information on the City Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) so it is clear what capital improvements the City plans to complete as well as why the City is exploring options for generating additional revenues. Accordingly, just under half of the presentation will be dedicated to the City CIP and the remainder of the presentation will be about franchise fees. He explained that the information in this report was previously reviewed by the Council at work sessions in 2013. City Administrator Klaers reported that the purpose of the public hearing was to present information on the City CIP and on franchise fees and to receive public feedback on the proposal. Staff then provided the public with a detailed presentation regarding the CIP and franchise fees proposal. He explained how the City was no longer generating park dedication funds to assist with park and trail improvements. It was noted that the proposed franchise fees could assist the City with improvements in these areas, in addition to street improvement projects. Assistant City Engineer Anderson street projects as proposed for the next 20 years. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20144 Park and Recreation Manager Olson discussed typical park improvements stating that play structures are replaced on a 20 year cycle. The expense for these structures ranges from $40,000 - $100,000 and the structures have to remain in compliance with ADA requirements. She reported that the City has 11 play structures to maintain. She discussed the enhancements planned for Freeway Park and the expense of hard court and ball field reconstruction. It was noted that construction of a dog park could be another possible use for these funds. Park and Recreation Manager Olson reported that Arden Hills has 17 miles of City maintained concrete, bituminous and natural trails. The PTRC has recommended another 15.5 miles of hin this system have been given a high priority for safety reasons. She indicated that the cost per mile to construct a six foot concrete sidewalk is $500,000 per mile or $800,000 - $1.25 million for an 8 to 10 foot bituminous trail per mile. City Administrator Klaers reviewed the balances of the park reserve fund and the PIR reserve fund. Due to the near zero balance in the park reserve fund, the Council has been considering options to fund park and trail improvements. The Council is looking for additional ways to generate revenues. These options include increasing property taxes, a park referendum, or franchise fees. After discussing these options, the Council expressed an interest to explore franchise fees as a source for additional revenues. City Administrator Klaers stated that franchise fees are allowed by State law and the City would coordinate the details with Xcel Energy. He reported that a number of cities have instituted franchise fees to make up for the loss of LGA, or to finance capital and street projects. He discussed the number of cities currently collecting franchise fees, noting Mounds View, New Brighton, Shoreview and Maplewood all have franchise fees. City Administrator Klaers reviewed the benefits of franchise fees noting that all utility customers would be impacted, providing the City with a broader tax base than what is covered by property taxes. He reported that 43% of the City is comprised of tax exempt properties and the franchise fees would diversifurces. He commented that franchise fees are a flat fee and are not based on usage. He reviewed the disadvantages of franchise fees stating that the fees can be viewed as regressive in nature and are not tax deductible. City Administrator Klaers stated that after much discussion by the Council in work session, the Council is looking at a $3.00 electrical franchise fee and a $1.75 gas franchise fee per month for residential property owners. The proposed franchise fee rates would generate $439,000 annually. Staff reviewed the franchise fee rates for commercial and industrial properties along with how a property tax increase would more adversely impact property owners over the long run. He commented that Xcel was willing to work with local business owners to establish fair and equitable franchise fee rates. He explained that if the franchise fees are approved, the Council discussed that it would not go into effect until 2015. Councilmember Holden requested further information on the PMP between the years of 2017 and 2022. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20145 Assistant City Engineer Anderson stated that only a few projects are planned between 2017 and 2022. He discussed the budgeting cycle noting that the City plans to spend an average of $1 million per year over the next 20 years. Councilmember Holden explained that the dog park would be located at the hockey rink and not in the open space at Hazelnut Park. She requested that staff discuss the goals and objectives of the PTRC. Park and Recreation Manager Olson discussed at length the priorities of the PTRC noting that the group meets once per month and is currently seeking new members. Mayor Grant commented that the City recently purchased a parcel of park land for Hazelnut Park that was previously owned by the adjacent church. He further discussed the franchise fees noting that the proposed rates would provide a starting point for discussion and that public input is being accepted tonight. Councilmember McClung asked what the implications would be to the PIR if the City could not wait until 2021 to reconstruct the Indian Oaks neighborhood. Assistant City Engineer Anderson reported that without additional funding, the City would have to bond for these projects. Mayor Grant reviewed the public hearing process. He explained that there will be a second public hearing on February 24, 2014. He requested that people keep their comments respectful as there will be differing opinions. He welcomed comments from the public and requested that residents keep their comments to three minutes. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Gregg Larson , 3377 North Snelling Avenue, stated that it was refreshing to hear both the advantages and disadvantages of franchise fees. He encouraged the Council to consider if the franchise fees are going to be used for an essential need of the City. He discussed the recent park improvements the City has completed without the use of franchise fees. He commented that the City is not fully developed, and as the TCAAP property develops, so will a great deal of park dedication funds. It is his opinion that the franchise fees will be generated for wishes and not needs. He recommended that essential needs of the City be covered by property taxes and not franchise fees. He stated that for 62 years the City has not needed a franchise fee and he does not feel that the City should pursue this option now. Steve Freimuth , 1200 Ingerson Road, thanked the PTRC for their volunteer service. He reported that he is a 30-year resident of Arden Hills and does not support the franchise fees. He is not in does want to see that the roads are maintained. He questioned why Arden Hills is trying to change a fully developed City into something that it is businesses. He then discussed the road replacement on Ingerson Road. He encouraged the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20146 Beverly Aplikowski , 1443 Bussard Court, does not support the franchise fees. She suggested that apital improvements. She fears how the non-profit agencies would be impacted by the franchise fees. She is happy with the parks in their current condition. John Stenglein , 1785 Lake Valentine Road, is against the franchise fees. He is of the opinion that the parks a versus wants. He appreciated that the Council was allowing the public the opportunity to speak to the issue. Paul Trites ,1858 Indian Place, explained that he spoke with the City Administrator regarding the proposed franchise fees. He commented that he is very familiar with franchise fees and their contracts. He encouraged the City to proceed cautiously through the legal process of creating the franchise fees. Rich Rheault , 1139 Tiller Lane,discussed the difference between needs and wants. He is pleased with the condition of the City parks; however, he would support a $57 increase in his fees to the City so long as it is tax deductible. He suggested that a 401(c)(3) parks. Debbie Dondlinger ,1761 Gramsie Road, ils; however, she is opposed to the franchise fees. She supports the large non-profit organizations in the community as these organizations are keeping property values high. She is concerned how elderly residents would be able to continue to pay their utility bills if the rates were to increase. She suggested that the community come together to generate funding for park improvements and that the franchise fees not proceed. Jerry Moehnke , 1463 Bussard Court, reported that he is a 20-year resident of Arden Hills. He not support the franchise fees. Greg Schmitz , 1471 Bussard Court, explained that he has been a resident of Arden Hills for the past 35 years. He thanked Gregg Larson for the comments he made this evening. He questioned why the City has the authority to raise private utility rates. David Sorley , 1125 Edgewater Avenue, appreciates the presentation from staff this evening. He is surprised that the City is proposing to double the amount of trails. He ap trails, but does not feel it is necessary to increase the number of trails. He does not support the proposed franchise fees and feels the parks and trails are fine as is. Linda Swanson , 1124 Ingerson Road, commended the Council for holding a public hearing and for taking comments from the residents. She is pleased that the City is in good financial standing. She reported that she likes but also takes advantage of the local County and State trails. She is not in favor of the franchise fees and suggests that if a fee were to move forward that it be tax deductible. , 1851 Gramsie Road, reported that she has lived in Arden Hills for the past 24 years. She stated that she is a bicyclist and she supports increased trails in the City. She ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20147 commented that there are a lot of unsafe areas in Arden Hills that are in need of trails. She thanked the Council for considering the franchise fees. Mark Kelliher , 3712 Chatham Court,explained that he sent an email to the Council prior to this meeting. He supports the recent improvements that have been made opposes the regressive franchise fees. He suggests the Council raise property taxes instead. John Naumann , 1887 Stowe Avenue, stated that the parks in the City are a good thing and he walks the trails of Schmidt Park often with his wife. He opposes the franchise fee and suggests that a property tax levy be sought for additional park improvements. John Van Valkenburg , 1475 Royal Lane, reported that he serves on the PTRC. He supports the franchise fee and improved parks and trails. He finds this to be a great opportunity to generate additional resources from non-profits that benefit s his opinion that the City needs to continue to invest in its parks and trail system to keep young families moving into Arden Hills. He wants to see better connections between the City to improve safety for students and young children. He sees the $60 franchise fee to be a minimal charge for the numerous benefits that will be gained by the City. Jason Kirchoff , 2015 Thom Drive, expressed concern with the comments voiced by the Council regarding the franchise fee. He encouraged the Council to change its perspective and make further budget cuts before coming after the residents with additional fees. , 1851 Gramsie Road, thanked the Council for holding an open discussion on the franchise fees. He iesidents and students. He stated it would improve connectability and safety. He supports the Council looking into franchise fees for improved parks and trails. Clifford Nimis, 1485 Glenhill Road, explained that he has lived in Arden Hills for 59 years. He that the City work to maintain what it has built and not further expand its facilities. The expansion of the s and trails would increase long-term expenses. He did not want decisions made today to burden the City in the future. He believes that now is not the time for additional park amenities and facilities. Vaughn Morin , 1889 Grant Roadand trails, noting he lives on a trail. However, he does not support the franchise fees. He suggests the City find funds in another manner. He encouraged the City to find better ways to manage pet waste. Ms. Aplikowski, , 1443 Bussard Court appreciated the conversation provided this evening. She suggested that Laura Myers , 1383 Arden Place, opposed the franchise fee. She fears that all of the objections raised this evening will not be considered by the Council, as was the case when her road (Arden Place) was replaced. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20148 Patricia Jacobsen , 3530 Ridgewood Road, support the franchise fees. She recommends Old Snelling be replaced prior to the City considering new trails. She feels that infrastructure needs are more important than parks and trails. Robert Jacobsen , 3530 Ridgewood Road, loves ife within them. He recommends that the City move Old Snelling higher up on its priority list. He suggests that the City further pursue the endowment idea for bettering its parks and trails. He fears that the franchise fees will only continue to rise as utility rates increase in the coming years. Mayor Grant There being no further comments, closed the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. Councilmember Holden was disappointed by the emails and calls she had received from residents prior to this evening. However, she was pleased with the constructive comments received this evening. She reported that the Council has not decided on the franchise fees and would continue to take comments from the public for the next two weeks. She expressed concern that those on public assistance would still be responsible for paying the franchise fees. Mayor Grant discussed the economic downturn and how this has impacted the residents of Arden Hills. He reported that he has heard these concerns from residents and wants to acknowledge them. He reviewed the expense of replacing Old Snelling noting that the City is applying for bridge funding to assist with reducing the expense of this roadway. He understands that the roadway is in poor condition. He explained that the County Road E bridge over Old Snelling would be replaced in 2015. He thanked everyone again for their comments this evening and for the respectful manner in which the comments were presented. Councilmember Werner went on record stating that he is opposed to the franchise fees as it is a regressive fee. Mayor Grant discussed the Arden Hills Foundation and noted that this is a new organization. Councilmember McClung asked if the same presentation would be provided at the February 24, 2014, City Council meeting. Mayor Grant was in favor of having the full presentation made again at the next meeting to all for a full public dialogue. Councilmember McClung was pleased that the Council would be holding two public hearings to take comments on this issue. He appreciated the number of conversations he has had with residents regarding this matter. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.B-2 County Road E Feasibility Report ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 20149 Assistant City Engineer Anderson stated that this item was tabled at the December 9, 2013, Council meeting. He reported that Marcus Thomas from Bolton & Menk, Inc. was present to make a brief presentation of the County Road E Feasibility Report and to answer Council questions. He commented that following the presentation of the County Road E Feasibility Report and questions/answers, the Council has three options for further action: 1.Direct staff to make changes to the Feasibility Report and present it for action on a future Council agenda 2.Adopt Resolution 2014-013 Receiving the Feasibility Report (with minor changes directed by the Council) and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications in the matter of the County Road E (B-2 District) Improvements 3.Adopt Resolution 2014-013 Receiving the Feasibility Report (with no changes) and Authorizing the Preparation of Plans and Specifications in the matter of the County Road E (B-2 District) Improvements. Marcus Thomas , Bolton & Menk, presented the final feasibility report to Council for the County Road E improvements. It was noted that stakeholder meetings have been held regarding the implementation plan. The proposed improvements along County Road E have been reviewed with the Council. He reported that the five lane roadway would be maintained but the lane widths would be narrowed to increase the shoulder width. This would create a safety buffer for pedestrians while also creating space for bicycles. The project proposes to add another left turn lane at County Road E and Lexington which would add capacity to this turning movement. Mr. Thomas reviewed thesignal improvements planned for the corridor along with the pedestrian lighting systems. The improvements planned for Connelly Street were discussed and would be completed as part of the County Road E improvements. The estimated expense for the improvements is $1,786,642. He reports that Mn/DOT would be responsible for $14,402, the County would cover $915,674 of the expenses and the City would need to fund $856,566 of the project. He assessment policy for this thoroughfare and suggested that $428,283 of the project costs be assessed. Councilmember Holmes stated that the lighting expense of $575,000 was too high. She suggested the City pursue additional lighting options through Xcel Energy. She recommended the report not be approved until this expense was decreased significantly. Assistant City Engineer Anderson commented that the lighting could be adjusted according to an aesthetic appeal. Councilmember Holmes was in favor of safe and efficient lighting, but she does not see the need for an elaborate model light along this corridor. Mayor Grant requested further information on the lighting. Mr. Thomas reported that the public provided comment on the lighting along the corridor. He stated that he was offering flexibility with a lighting system that would be owned and operated by the City. The lights were proposed to be placed every 100 feet along the corridor at a height of 15 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 201410 feet. He explained that an Xcel lighting system would provide the City a lower up-front cost, but would come with a flat rate for maintenance over the next 25 years. He indicated that the Xcel lighting schematics would have the lights placed every 200 feet along the corridor. It was his opinion that there would be an aesthetic difference between the lighting if spaced between 100 feet and 200 feet. He stated that this corridor was a unique system in which the City owns the lights along the County roadway. Councilmember Holmes stated that she still did not understand why the lighting expense was so high. She wanted to see the lighting expense reduced by 50%. Mayor Grant questioned how the lights were currently spaced. Mr. Thomas stated that the lights were spread quite far at this time, around 200 hundred feet apart. Mayor Grant was in favor of reducing the lighting expense. Councilmember McClung stated it would be difficult for the Council to determine a proper amount for the lighting from the bench this evening. Instead, the Council would have to determine what look and feel was appropriate for the corridor. Mr. Thomas stated that he could provide the Council with estimated illumination amounts based on proposed lighting plans. Councilmember McClung reported that he was not able to support the feasibility report until the lighting concerns were further addressed. Councilmember Holmes agreed stating she could not approve the plan until she had further information to make an educated decision. Councilmember Holden expressed concern with the traffic congestion with vehicles trying to make a left hand turn from County Road E to Lexington Avenue. She then requested further information regarding the improvements proposed for Connelly Street. Mr. Thomas reviewed the configuration of this roadway in further detail with the Council. Mayor Grant noted that the feasibility report discussed decorative medians where appropriate. He questioned where these would be placed within the plan. Mr. Thomas provided the Council information on the proposed decorative medians explaining that they could have colored concrete all the way through. Mayor Grant asked if the Council had time to further review the lighting options. Mr. Thomas stated this would not be a concern as the City was still working to acquire easements. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 10, 201411 Councilmember Holmes wanted to see more lighting options within the feasibility report including a lighting system from Xcel Energy. Mayor Grant stated that there was consensus among the Council to hold off approving the feasibility report this evening until further information could be provided on the lighting plan to reduce the expense. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to table formal action on this item to the February 24, 2014, City Council meeting. The motion carried (5-0). 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember Werner stated that he wrote a letter to the editor on January 27, 2014, regarding the proposed franchise fees. He read this letter to the Council. Councilmember Holden reported that she received a snow removal concern from a resident. She passed this request on to City staff. She commented that residents have had a tough time with the snow on Lake Lane. Mayor Grant explained that he has received some complaints about the snow on the trails. These complaints were passed along to staff. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the regular City Council meeting at 10:15 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Patrick Klaers David Grant City Administrator Mayor March 10, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City CouncilMembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Ariel Schmitz, Sue Iverson Claims & Payroll 2014 Payroll #5 ................................................................................. $ 88,361.75 Paid Claims (Check No 0 US Bank EFT) .............................................. $ 2,123.82 Paid Claims (Check No 43123-Check No 43149) ................................. $ 35,216.72 Paid Claims (Check No 43150) ............................................................. $ 450.00 Paid Claims (Check No 43151) ............................................................. $ 140,399.45 Paid Claims (Check No 43152-Check No 43186) ................................. $ 222,249.17 Paid Claims (Check No 43187) ............................................................. $ 91,271.86 Paid Claims (Check No 43188) ............................................................. $ 40,728.60 VOID (Check No 43176) ....................................................................... $ -91,449.60 Page of CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAYROLL # 5 CHECKS DATED:02/28/14 Biweekly:02/08/14-02/21/14 Payment Method EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONSAMT.CITY BENEFIT EFT FIT8,219.03 SIT3,340.59 EFT FICA Oasdi4,630.714,630.71 EFT 1,082.97 FICA Medicare1,082.97 EFT TOTAL TAXES17,273.305,713.68 A/P Check* Health Premium0.000.00 0.00 Dental Premium A/P Check* FSA Health Care Reimb.0.00 A/P Check* FSA Dependent Care Reimb.0.00 A/P Check* TOTAL FLEXIBLE SPENDING0.000.00 HSA Health Saving 616.940.00 EFT Health Care Savings Plan0.00 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-2%348.40 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-4%230.40 TOTAL HEALTH SAVINGS1,195.740.00 EFT PERA4,426.235,134.43 0.00 ICMA0.00 EFT Central Pension Fund-Union0.00 A/P Check* EFT MN State Retirement System328.13 TOTAL RETIREMENT4,754.365,134.43 A/P Check* IUOE 49 Dues (Union)0.00 LTD/STD Insurance0.00 A/P Check* PERA Life Insurance0.00 A/P Check* 0.00 Life/Addl/Dep Life0.00 A/P Check* MN Child Support145.82 EFT Public Employee Long Term Care 0.00 A/P Check* UNUM 0.00 A/P Check* AFLAC0.00 EFT Avesis-Vision Care0.00 A/P Check* TOTAL VOLUNTARY145.820.00 Total Employee Deductions23,369.22 Net Payroll3,565.39 PR Check # 17618-17625 Direct Deposit43,927.67 EFT Gross Payroll Tie-Out77,513.64 STD/LTD Gross - Up0.00 Plus City Paid Benefit10,848.11 ICMA Benefit Held0.00 TOTAL PAYROLL COST88,361.75 FICA TIE-OUT Gross Payroll77,513.64 Less Total FSA0.00 Plus Employer Match ICMA0.00 Plus ICMA Benefit Held0.00 Net P/R Subject to FICA77,513.64 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20%4,630.71 FICA Medicare @ 1.45%1,082.97 Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means of utilizing the "Taxtel" Electronic Tax Deposit Service. Trans- fers are typically made two business days after the payroll date. * A/P Checks can be found on the ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Check Approval report. Checks may be paid this week or the following week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arch 10, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2014-015: Appointing Jennifer Stephens to serve on the Parks Trails and Recreation Committee for a term expiring December 31, 2016. Requested Action Motion to approve Resolution No. 2014-015: Appointing Jennifer Stephens to the Parks Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) for a term expiring December 31, 2016. Background The Parks Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) currently has ten members. The guidelines state that this committee can have up to twelve members. Therefore, the PTRC has two current vacancies. Staff recently received an application for this vacancy from Arden Hills resident Jennifer Stephens. A panel of Council Member Fran Holmes (subbing for Council Liaison Dave McClung), PTRC Chair John Van Valkenburg and I reviewed the application and conducted an interview on Monday, February 24, 2014 at 6:15 p.m. After completing the interview, the panel recommends (Resolution 2014-015 - Attachment A) Jennifer Stephens for appointment to the PTRC. The application for Ms. Stephens has been included for your review (Attachment B). Committee terms rotate and both openings on the committee have a three year term expiring on December 31, 2016. Requested Action: Motion to approve Resolution No. 2014-015: Appointing Jennifer Stephens to the Parks Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) for a term expiring December 31, 2016. Attachments Attachment A: Resolution 2014-015 Attachment B: Committee Application for Jennifer Stephens Attachment A CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2014-015 A RESOLUTION APPOINTING JENNIFER STEPHENSTO THE PARKS TRAILS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE (PTRC) FOR A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER31, 2016. WHEREAS, the City Council appoints residents to serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council regarding parks, trails, and recreationissues; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: The City CouncilappointsJennifer Stephensto serve on the PTRCfor a term expiring onDecember 31,2016. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS TH 10DAY OF MARCH, 2014. _________________________________________ David Grant,MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________________ Amy Dietl, CITY CLERK CONSENT ITEM 5C MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-011 Applicant: Roberts Management Group Property Location: 3833 Lexington Avenue North Subject: Lexington Station Final Plat Approval Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-011 for a Final Plat for the Lexington Station redevelopment at 3833 Lexington Avenue North. Background On July 8, 2013, the City Council approved a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development for Phase I, and Preliminary Plat for the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue North in Planning Case 13-003. At that time, Roberts Management Group had also applied for Final Plat approval in Planning Case 13-003. Due to necessary revisions to the Preliminary Plat, a Final Plat was not submitted for Council action with the remaining requests in Planning Case 13-003. The applicant has since completed all required revisions to the Preliminary Plat based on comments received from City and Ramsey County staff. Due to the minor changes made to the plat, staff determined that the Final Plat did not need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission prior to City Council action on the item. Currently, the area that will make up the three phases of the Lexington Station redevelopment is comprised of four parcels and Phase I of the development is divided between two separate City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-011 - Lexington Station - Final Plat\City Council - 03-10-14_14-011 Page 1 of 2 parcels: 3833 and 3831 Lexington Avenue North. These properties have not been previously platted. The site is being platted now in order to simplify the legal description of the land and to combine the two Phase I parcels. The proposal does not include any subdivisions. The City Engineer has reviewed the submitted Final Plat and has no additional comments. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-011 for a Final Plat for the Lexington Station redevelopment at 3833 Lexington Avenue North. Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-011 for a Final Plat for the Lexington Station redevelopment at 3833 Lexington Avenue North. Attachments A.Final Plat of Roberts Addition to Arden Hills City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-011 - Lexington Station - Final Plat\City Council - 03-10-14_14-011 Page 2 of 2 AttachmentA CONSENT ITEM 5D MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of Allina Health EMS for a Zoning Code Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Property at 1209 County Rd E (Planning Cases 14-004 and 14-005) Requested Action Motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of Allina Health EMS for a Zoning Code Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Property at 1209 County Rd E in Planning Cases 14-004 and 14-005. Background On February 24, 2014, the City Council considered the application of Allina Health Emergency Medical Services for a Zoning Code Amendment to allow Ambulance Dispatch Facilities within the B-2 General Business District as a conditional use (Planning Case 14-004) and for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an ambulance substation at 1209 County Road E (Planning Case 14-005). The City Council voted to deny Planning Case 14-004 (3-2) and to deny Planning Case 14-005 (3-2), and directed the City Attorney to draft the Findings of Fact and Decision to be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting on March 10, 2014. The City Attorney has completed the Findings of Fact and Decision document, which is included in Attachment A. Recommendation The City Council is asked to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of Allina Health EMS for a Zoning Code Amendment and Conditional Use Permit for Property at 1209 County Rd E in Planning Cases 14-004 and 14-005. 12 Page of Attachments Attachment A: Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of Allina Health EMS for a Zoning Code Amendment and CUP for Property at 1209 County Rd E (Planning Cases 14-004 and 14-005) 22 Page of AttachmentA CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: APPLICATION OF ALLINA HEALTH EMS FINDINGS OF FACT FOR A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT AND AND DECISION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 1209 COUNTY ROAD E (PLANNING CASES 14-004 and 14-005) On February 24, 2014, the Arden Hills City Council met to consider the applications of Allina Health Emergency Medical Services for a Zoning Code Amendment to allow Ambulance Dispatch Facilities within the B-2 General Business District as a conditional use (Planning Case 14-004) and for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Ambulance Dispatch Facility at 1209 County Road E (Planning Case 14-005). The City Council considered the following information on the proposal: The applications and materials submitted by the applicant, materials and reports provided by City Staff, information from the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 2014 including its report and recommendation; heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and; based upon its knowledge of the subject property and the community, now makes the following: FF INDINGS OF ACT 1. The property is located in the B-2 General Business District. 2. The proposed use is not allowed as a permitted or conditional use under the zoning ordinance. 3. The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District that outlines future development principals for the area. 4. The City has adopted City Code §1320.04, Subdivision 7 stating the purpose of the B-2 District. 5. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for the Zoning Code Amendment and evaluated whether the proposed use would be compatible with the currently permitted uses within the B-2 District, and consistent with the purpose of the B-2 District. The Planning Commission recommended denial (3-2) of the rezoning citing the siren noise, emergency lights, potential conflicts with pedestrians, and congestion on County Road E as reasons why the proposed use is incompatible with the permitted uses within the B-2 District and inconsistent with the purpose of the B-2 District. 6. The nature and intensity of the use includes 24 hour service, a current average of sixteen runs or calls per day that is likely to increase, a location directly abutting the residential mixed use E Street Flats property, and uncontrolled mid-block access on a high volume road, County Road E. 7. The proposed use is incompatible and inconsistent with the Guiding Plan and purpose of the B-2 Zoning District. D ECISION Based upon these findings , the B-2 Zoning District and the community, the application for a proposed Zoning Code Amendment to allow Ambulance Dispatch Facilities in the B-2 Zoning District as a Conditional Use (Planning Case 14-004), is hereby denied. Based upon these findings and the decision to deny the Zoning Code Amendment to allow Ambulance Dispatch Facilities in the B-2 Zoning District as a Conditional Use, the application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an Ambulance Dispatch Facility at 1209 County Road E (Planning Case 14-005), is hereby denied. th ADOPTED by the Arden Hills City Council this 24 day of February, 2014. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS BY: ______________________________ David Grant, Its Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Patrick Klaers, Its City Administrator CONSENT ITEM 5E MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of St. Paul-Ramsey County Public Health Department for a Conditional Use Permit for Property at 1761 Lake Johanna Boulevard (Planning Case 14-008) Requested Action Motion to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of St. Paul-Ramsey County Public Health Department for a Conditional Use Permit for Property at 1761 Lake Johanna Boulevard in Planning Case 14-008. Background On February 24, 2014, the City Council considered the application of the St. Paul-Ramsey County Public Health Department for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Source Separated Organics (SSO) collection site at 1761 Lake Johanna Boulevard (Planning Case 14-008). The City Council voted to deny Planning Case 14-008 (5-0), and directed the City Attorney to draft the Findings of Fact and Decision to be reviewed by the City Council at the meeting on March 10, 2014. The City Attorney has completed the Findings of Fact and Decision document, which is included in Attachment A. Recommendation The City Council is asked to approve the Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of St. Paul-Ramsey County Public Health Department for a Conditional Use Permit for Property at 1761 Lake Johanna Boulevard in Planning Case 14-008 Attachments Findings of Fact and Decision Regarding Application of St. Paul-Ramsey Attachment A: County Public Health Department for a Conditional Use Permit for Property at 1761 Lake Johanna Boulevard (Planning Case 14-008) 11 Page of AttachmentA CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA IN RE: APPLICATION OF ST. PAUL-RAMSEY FINDINGS OF FACT COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND DECISION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY AT 1761 LAKE JOHANNA BOULEVARD (PLANNING CASE 14-008) On February 24, 2014, the Arden Hills City Council met to consider the application of St. Paul- Ramsey County Public Health Department (Department) for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a Source Separated Organics (SSO) collection site at 1761 Lake Johanna Boulevard. The City Council considered the following information on the proposal: The application, detailed project narrative and other materials submitted by the applicant, materials and reports provided by City Staff, information from the Public Hearing and Planning Commission meeting of February 5, 2014 including its report and recommendation; heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and; based upon its knowledge of the subject property and the community, now makes the following: FF INDINGS OF ACT 1. The property is located in the R-2 Single and Two Family Residential Zoning District and is within Tony Schmidt Regional Park. 2. The Source Separated Organics (SSO) collection service is defined as a public use (§ 1305.04) and is allowed as a conditional use under the Zoning Code (§ 1320.05). 3. Conditional Use Permit Applications are evaluated using the criteria listed in § 1355.04, Subdivision. 3 of the Zoning Code, and requires the Planning Commission and City Council consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; drainage; population density; visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; park dedications where applicable, and the orderly development of the neighborhood and the city within the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan for the City. 4. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for the CUP, conducted a public hearing on February 5, 2014, heard testimony and received written comments, and recommended approval of the CUP. Subsequent comments were received by the City and made part of the record provided to the City Council. 5. The Council heard testimony from representatives of the Department and expressed concerns that the Department had not shown that the standards and criteria for the issuance of a CUP would be satisfied if the service was to be provided as proposed, and that the proposed service would significantly affect the use of the park and neighboring properties and residents by increasing odors; increasing litter at the entrance, access road and collection site; attracting unwanted wildlife, and; substantially increasing traffic for a non-park use. D ECISION Based upon the Record before it, its knowledge of the subject property, neighborhood and community, and the Findings above, the application by the Department for a Conditional Use Permit to provide a SSO collection service at 1761 Lake Johanna Boulevard (Planning Case 14- 008), is hereby denied. th ADOPTED by the Arden Hills City Council this 24 day of February, 2014. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS BY: ______________________________ David Grant, Its Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Patrick Klaers, Its City Administrator PUBLIC HEARING 7A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Mayor Grant SUBJECT: TCAAP Development Discussion Opportunity for Residents Discussion Under this Public Hearing, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding TCAAP development. NEW BUSINESS 8A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-010 Applicant: Roberts Management Group Property Location: 3833 Lexington Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-010 for an amendment to the Final PUD for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the March 10, 2014, Report to the City Council. Background 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 North in Planning Case 13-003. The approved Redevelopment Plan Documents included architectural plans for the Phase I building depicting transparent windows on all four sides of the building. Roberts Management Group has recently signed leases with Noodles &Company and Starbucks for spaces within the building. These tenants have requested to use simulated windows in select areas on the east, north, and south façades in order to accommodate kitchen and restroom facilities. The applicant expects to sign leases with at least one additional restaurant tenant who will also likely need to use simulated windows specifically on the central section of the east façade. The Master Planned Unit Development Agreement between the City and Roberts Management Group states that any significant changes to the Redevelopment Plan Documents, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the City Council. City staff met with City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 1 of 5 Roberts Management Group to discuss the proposed changes to the Phase I building design and determined a PUD Amendment should be requested. Overview of Request Roberts Management has proposed using a back-lit, frosted glazing window design on the windows on the east elevation facing Lexington Avenue, two windows on the north elevation facing Red Fox Road, and one window on the south elevation (Attachment A). The west building elevation, which includes the primary entrances to the tenant spaces, would remain unchanged. The window panes would be treated with a frosted glazing and a light fixture would be included on the interior of the building directly above the top sill of each window. This light fixture would be connected to the tenants regular interior lighting systems and would remain on during regular business hours. The frosted window glazing would be opaque, allowing for light from the interior light fixture to pass through the windows. The proposed window design contrasts with the construction of simulated windows using spandrel glass. This is a commonly used approach that involves the application of a colored coating to the glass and the construction of a wall directly behind the window. Darkly shaded spandrel windows can often give retail stores the appearance of being closed and the applicant believes their proposal for back-lit, frosted glazing windows will Roberts Management Group has included a project narrative and a detailed drawing that provides more detail on the proposed window design (Attachment A). Discussion The design standards for properties in the B-3 District require that commercial buildings provide at least 50 percent transparency coverage on the first level façade that fronts a public street. In this case, the Lexington Avenue and Red Fox Road façades would be required to meet this standard. At least 20 percent of all other façades that are reasonably visible from the public right- of-way must include transparent window or door openings. On these façades, simulated windows may be used on service areas. This standard would apply to the two remaining building façades. For one-story buildings, only the first twelve feet of the building façade is used when calculating the transparency coverage. The City may consider a proportional reduction in the transparent window and door requirement on the public street façades if additional transparent glass is used on the remaining sides. For buildings with a use that does not readily allow transparent windows, the transparency requirements may also be reduced at the discretion of the City Council. In Planning Case 13-003, the City approved a certain amount of transparency coverage on all four sides of the building. The proposal would reduce transparency coverage on the east, north, and south façades. The transparency coverage on the west façade and the total amount of City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 2 of 5 window coverage on all four sides would remain unchanged. The following table outlines the proposed window and door transparency for the four sides of the building. Approved Proposed Transparency Transparency Window Coverage Transparency Requirements (PC 13-003) (PC 14-010) (PC 14-010) Lexington Avenue Façade 50% 27.6% 27.6% 0% Red Fox Road Façade 50% 47.5% 47.5% 16.2% West Façade (Primary Building Entrance) 20%* 60.0% 60.0% 60.0% South Façade 20%* 59.6% 59.6% 44.0% *Simulated or opaque windows may be used on service areas The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-010 at their meeting on March 5, 2014, and generally supported the proposed design of the windows. The Planning Commission discussed how the master plan concept for the site shows all of the buildings oriented to face inwards onto a central open area. As a result, the primary entrances to the Phase I and Phase III buildings with frontage on Lexington Avenue will face west away from roadway. The Planning Commission noted that with the proposal, the applicant would still be providing significant transparency coverage on the west façade of the Phase I building. In the Master and Final PUD proposal for Lexington Station, the applicant worked with the City to include design elements on the eastern façade of the Phase I building to give it the appearance of being the front of the building. These features include awnings, light fixtures, landscaping, and the use of brick on the entirety of the façade. The majority of the Commissioners felt that the use of simulated windows on the east building wall would not significantly detract from the overall aesthetic of this façade. It was also noted that the retaining wall and drive-thru lane in front of the building would partially obscure this side of the building from view of pedestrians and drivers on Lexington Avenue. Finally, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed lighting on the interior of the frosted windows and how the light fixtures would be replaced. The applicant explained that a sheetrock wall would be constructed six inches from each window and that an access door would be provided to allow for maintenance of the lights. The Planning Commission made a recommendation that the City Council consider a condition of approval that would require the building owner to regularly service the interior light fixtures and replace burnt-out bulbs. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 3 of 5 Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their March 5, 2014, meeting, and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: 1.The property is located in the B-3 Service Business Zoning District. 2.The City has adopted design standards for the B-3 District within the Zoning Code. 3.The Master Planned Unit Development and Final Planned Unit Development for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project was approved by the City on July 8, 2013, in Planning Case 13-003. 4.The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved Final PUD for Phase I for a revised building plan that would reduce the façade transparency on the Phase I building. The applicant has cited a need to reduce transparency coverage in order to accommodate kitchen and restroom facilities used by tenants in the building. 5.The design standards for the B-3 District allow the City to grant a proportional reduction in the transparency requirement on the public street façades if additional transparent glass is used on the remaining sides. 6.For buildings with a use that does not readily allow transparent windows, the transparency requirements may also be reduced at the discretion of the City Council. 7.The proposed PUD Amendment is in substantial conformance with the requirements of 8.The P regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. Resident Comments Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regard to this planning case. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed this request at their meeting on March 5, 2014, and recommends approval (4-1, Holewa dissenting) of Planning Case 14-010 for an amendment to the Final PUD for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans. The Planning Commission recommended that the following three (3) conditions be included in a motion to approve: 1.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review by the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 4 of 5 2.The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of approval listed in the Master Planned Unit Development Agreement and Phase I Final Plan for Lexington Station (PC# 13-003). 3.A PUD Amendment shall be drafted by the City Attorney and executed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Options 1.Approve the proposal as submitted. 2.Approve the proposal with conditions (Recommended Action). 3.Deny the application with reasons for denial. 4.Table for additional information. Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-010 for an amendment to the Final PUD for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the March 10, 2014, Report to the City Council. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 12, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by April 13, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application and Supporting Materials B. Site Map and Aerial Map C. Planning Commission Report, March 5, 2014 D. Planning Commission Draft Minutes, March 5, 2014 City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 5 of 5 AttachmentA Roberts Management Group, LLC 1851 Buerkle Road | White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (651) 773-3485 | FAX: (651) 773-3490 February 11, 2014 Dear Council members, RE: Lexington Station - Glass It has unfortunately come to our attention that our building design with the exterior glass on all four elevations of the Lexington Station project has become a hardship for many of the new tenants. Currently, 5 of the 10 retail bays located in the building are p than one side. At this time, we have executed leases for 2 of the 5 bays with Starbucks Coffee and Noodles & Company and by the time we present this we expect to have executed leases on two more totaling 4 of the 5 bays. As of now all 4 of these tenants have their spaces partially against the glass and each has requested a spandrel glass to hide the walls behind the glass. It first was requested by Noodles & Company on a plan submitted to your building department. Shortly Corporation followed with the same request. of a building that would incor every tenant that has glass on multiple sides has seen that as a be constructed on the back side of the glass to provide privacy. The tenants have requested span presence of a wall which will be built on the inside of the glas After meeting and collaborating with the planning department we believe we have come up with a aesthetically pleasing than looking at a sheetrock wall. approval to use - window areas. This back lighting would patrons on the exterior of the building. By doing this, we feel the tenants will be able to get the privacy they need to block t-public areas while maintaining the illusion of being open during regular business hours. We feel th to businesses have turned to. This helps the community in a way tha We look forward to working with you on this important issue while we all strive to have a building in the community that we can be proud of for many years and will serve as the cornerstone to our retail development. Respectfully yours, ROBERTS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC As Managing Agent for Lexington Station, LLC Tim Gilbert Project Manager Roberts Management Group, LLC AttachmentB 3833 Lexington Avenue 462.50925.0Feet 925.0 0 1:5,550 NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Notes © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division Enter Map Description This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 3833 Lexington Avenue 154.17308.3Feet 308.3 0 1:1,850 NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Notes © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division Enter Map Description This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION AttachmentC MEMORANDUM 3.A DATE: March 5, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-010 - This application requires a Public Hearing Applicant: Roberts Management Group Property Location: 3833 Lexington Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action The applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow for a revised building plan for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project at 3833 Lexington Avenue North. Background 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 North in Planning Case 13-003. The approved Redevelopment Plan Documents included architectural plans for the Phase I building depicting transparent windows on all four sides of the building. Roberts Management Group has recently signed leases with Noodles and Company and Starbucks for spaces within the building. These tenants have requested to use simulated windows in select areas on the east, north, and south façades in order to accommodate kitchen and restroom facilities. The applicant expects to sign leases with at least one additional restaurant tenant who will also likely need to use simulated windows specifically on the central section of the east façade. The Master Planned Unit Development Agreement between the City and Roberts Management Group states that any significant changes to the Redevelopment Plan Documents, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the City Council. City staff met with Roberts Management Group to discuss the proposed changes to the Phase I building design and determined a PUD Amendment should be requested. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 5, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 1 of 6 1.Overview of Request: Roberts Management has proposed using a back-lit, frosted glazing window design on the windows on the east elevation facing Lexington Avenue, two windows on the north elevation facing Red Fox Road, and one window on the south elevation (Attachment A). Each window pane would be treated with a frosted glazing and a light fixture would be included on the interior of the building directly above the top sill of each window. This light fixture would be connected to tenants regular interior lighting systems and would remain on during regular business hours. The frosted window glazing would be opaque, allowing for light from the interior light fixture to pass through the windows. The proposed window design contrasts with the construction of simulated windows using spandrel glass. This is a commonly used approach that involves the construction of a wall directly behind a window with a colored coating applied to the window. Darkly shaded spandrel windows can often give retail stores the appearance of being closed and the applicant believes their proposal for back-lit, frosted glazing windows will help simulate appearance. Roberts Management Group has included a project narrative and a detailed drawing that provide more detail on the proposed window design (Attachment A). 2. Surrounding Area: Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Commercial B-3: Service Business District Restaurant/Hotel South Commercial B-3: Service Business District Retail East Commercial C-1: Retail Service Retail/Bank (Shoreview) West Mixed Business B-4: Retail Center District Office/Flex Industrial 3. Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: Commercial Existing Land Use: Vacant Zoning: B-3: Service Business District Lot Size: 1.34 Acres Topography: Level City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 5, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 2 of 6 Plan Evaluation Chapter 13 Zoning Code: 1325.05, Subd. 8 Additional Design Standards for New Development Redevelopment, and Modifications to Existing Sites in the B2 and B3 Districts Window and Door Openings Commercial Façade Transparency For commercial buildings, at least 50 percent of the first level façade that fronts a public street must be comprised of transparent windows or doors. In this case, the Lexington Avenue and Red Fox Road façades would be required to meet this standard. At least 20 percent of all other façades that are reasonably visible from the public right-of-way must include window or door openings. On these façades, simulated windows may be used on service areas. This standard would apply to the two remaining building façades. For one-story buildings, only the first twelve feet of the building façade is used when calculating the transparency coverage. In Planning Case 13-003, the City approved a certain amount of transparency coverage on all four sides of the building. The proposal would reduce transparency coverage on the east, north, and south façades. The design of the west façade would remain unchanged. The following table outlines the proposed window and door transparency for the four sides of the building. Approved Proposed Transparency Transparency Transparency Requirements (PC 13-003) (PC 14-010) Lexington Avenue Façade 50% 27.6% 0% Red Fox Road Façade 50% 47.5% 16.2% West Façade (Primary Building Entrance) 20%* 60.0% 60.0% South Façade 20%* 59.6% 44.0% *Simulated or opaque windows may be used on service areas The City may consider a proportional reduction in the transparent window and door requirement on the public street façades if additional transparent glass is used on the remaining sides. For buildings with a use that does not readily allow transparent windows, the transparency requirements may also be reduced at the discretion of the City Council. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 5, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 3 of 6 Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eight (8) findings for consideration: 1.The property is located in the B-3 Service Business Zoning District. 2.The City has adopted design standards for the B-3 District within the Zoning Code. 3.The Master Planned Unit Development and Final Planned Unit Development for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project was approved by the City on July 8, 2013 in Planning Case 13-003. 4.The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved Final PUD for Phase I for a revised building plan that would reduce the façade transparency on the Phase I building. The applicant has cited a need to reduce transparency coverage in order to accommodate kitchen and restroom facilities used by tenants in the building. 5.The design standards for the B-3 District allow the City to grant a proportional reduction in the transparency requirement on the public street façades if additional transparent glass is used on the remaining sides. 6.For buildings with a use that does not readily allow transparent windows, the transparency requirements may also be reduced at the discretion of the City Council. 7.The proposed PUD Amendment is in substantial conformance with the requirements of 8. regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to residents within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property. Resident Comments Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regard to this planning case. Staff Recommendation While staff recognizes the importance of providing window transparency on public street façades, the proposed amendment is necessary to accommodate the needs of the businesses that are leasing space in the Lexington Station building. Staff believes the applicant has come up with City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 5, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 4 of 6 a creative approach to addressing the issue and favors the use of the proposed frosted and back- lit windows as opposed to spandrel glass. Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-010 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue. Staff recommends the following three (3) conditions be included with the approval: 1.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review by the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council. 2.The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of approval listed in the Master Planned Unit Development Agreement and Phase I Final Plan for Lexington Station (PC# 13-003). 3.A PUD Amendment shall be drafted by the City Attorney and executed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Options 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-010 for a PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the three (3) conditions in the March 5, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14- 010 for a PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the March 5, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 3.Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 14-010 for a PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4.Table: Motion to table Planning Case 14-010 for a PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue in order to gather the following information: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on February 12, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by April 13, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 5, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 5 of 6 review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Land Use Application and Supporting Materials B. Site Map and Aerial Map City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 5, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-010 - Lexington Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_PC 14-010 Page 6 of 6 AttachmentD Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2014 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 14-010; PUD Amendment; Roberts Management Group; 3833 Lexington Avenue North Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that 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 North in Planning Case 13-003. The approved Redevelopment Plan Documents included architectural plans for the Phase I building depicting transparent windows on all four sides of the building. Roberts Management Group has recently signed leases with Noodles & Company and Starbucks for spaces within the building. These tenants have requested to use simulated windows in select areas on the east, north, and south façades in order to accommodate kitchen and restroom facilities. The applicant expects to sign leases with at least one additional restaurant tenant who will also likely need to use simulated windows specifically on the central section of the east façade. Associate Planner Bachler explained that the Master Planned Unit Development Agreement between the City and Roberts Management Group states that any significant changes to the Redevelopment Plan Documents, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the City Council. City staff met with Roberts Management Group to discuss the proposed changes to the Phase I building design and determined a PUD Amendment should be requested. Associate Planner Bachler stated that Roberts Management has proposed using a back-lit, frosted glazing window design on the windows on the east elevation facing Lexington Avenue, two windows on the north elevation facing Red Fox Road, and one window on the south elevation. Each window pane would be treated with a frosted glazing and a light fixture would be included on the interior of the building directly above the top sill of each window. This light fixture would business hours. The frosted window glazing would be opaque, allowing for light from the interior light fixture to pass through the windows. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the proposed window design contrasts with the construction of simulated windows using spandrel glass. This is a commonly used approach that involves the construction of a wall directly behind a window with a colored coating applied to ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 2014 2 the window. Darkly shaded non-transparent windows can often give retail stores the appearance of being closed and the applicant believes their proposal for back-lit, frosted glazing windows 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 Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area and the Plan Evaluation. He explained the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed PUD Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue North would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eight (8) findings for consideration: 1. The property is located in the B-3 Service Business Zoning District. 2. The City has adopted design standards for the B-3 District within the Zoning Code. 3. The Master Planned Unit Development and Final Planned Unit Development for Phase I of the Lexington Station redevelopment project was approved by the City on July 8, 2013 in Planning Case 13-003. 4. The applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved Final PUD for Phase I for a revised building plan that would reduce the façade transparency on the Phase I building. The applicant has cited a need to reduce transparency coverage in order to accommodate kitchen and restroom facilities used by tenants in the building. 5. The design standards for the B-3 District allow the City to grant a proportional reduction in the transparency requirement on the public street façades if additional transparent glass is used on the remaining sides. 6. For buildings with a use that does not readily allow transparent windows, the transparency requirements may also be reduced at the discretion of the City Council. 7. The proposed PUD Amendment is in substantial conformance with the requirements of 8. regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. Associate Planner Bachler reported that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-010 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue North. Staff recommends the following three (3) conditions be included with the approval: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review by the Planning Commission and review and approval by the City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 2014 3 2. The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of approval listed in the Master Planned Unit Development Agreement and Phase I Final Plan for Lexington Station (PC# 13-003). 3. A PUD Amendment shall be drafted by the City Attorney and executed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Associate Planner 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 Commissioner Holewa discussed the proposed transparency coverage on the building. He was concerned that the Lexington Avenue façade would have the appearance of being the back of the building. Associate Planner Bachler explained this issue was discussed with the applicant. He understood the design of the east façade was a concern, but in order to accommodate restaurant tenants in the building, non-transparent windows were being requested in certain areas on three sides of the building. He indicated the proposed solution was preferred versus the use of spandrel glass. He believed that the frosted windows will allow light from the interior to pass through the windows giving an open appearance. Staff supports the solution proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Holewa indicated that the Planning Commission did not want the east façade to appear to be the rear of the building. He feared that the proposed windows would have this effect. Vice Chair Thompson invited the applicant to speak. Nicholas Roberts , Roberts Management Group, thanked staff for the thorough presentation. He stated his goal was to create a high end retail center that would be the showcase of the entire development. He stated that the building was designed to have four sided architecture given its visibility along Lexington Avenue and that the building was fully wrapped in brick. However, having transparent glass on three sides of the tenant spaces was not conducive to tenants with kitchens. For that reason, he was requesting an amendment to the PUD to address this concern. Mr. Roberts requested that the Planning Commission allow for the frosted glass as proposed. Commissioner Holewa recommended that the tenant space be designed to have the kitchens and restrooms located on the interior wall. This would eliminate the need for frosted glass. He believed that the tenants were just taking the easiest route. Mr. Roberts stated this would not be an option for Starbucks given the location of their drive- thru on the north side of the building. This may be an option for Noodles & Company. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 2014 4 Commissioner Bartel agreed that the tenants were taking the easy route in terms of the interior layout. He recommended the developer view the Noodles/Caribou/Chipotle development in Eden Prairie. Commissioner Hames stated that the rear of the building did face Lexington Avenue and this façade had arched windows, brick, and awnings, as per the request of the Planning Commission. Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:05 p.m. Vice Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment, Vice Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Vice Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones asked how the light fixtures behind the windows would be maintained. Mr. Roberts reported that a sheetrock wall would be installed six inches away from the windows. The wall would have an access panel to allow for the light fixtures to be maintained. Commissioner Jones questioned if the rear side of the building would have tenant signage. Mr. Roberts commented each tenant would have signage on the front and rear façades of the Commissioner Hames supported the proposed window design and was thrilled to see such a nice development coming to the City of Arden Hills. Vice Chair Thompson agreed stating the proposed lighting in the windows would be an improvement in comparison to the non-transparent glass used on the Walgreens on Lexington Avenue. She thought the lighting would improve the appearance of this façade. Commissioner Bartel believed the rear of the building would be quite attractive as it was fully brick, with windows and awnings. He supported the proposed window design. Vice Chair Thompson recommended that the windows on the rear façade remain clean and that the light fixtures be in good working order. Mr. Roberts explained that he would discuss this with the tenants and anticipated that he would be responsible for the lights and windows. He described how the window coating would disburse the light. Vice Chair Thompson recommended that the window and light maintenance be made a condition for approval. Associate Planner Bachler suggested that staff review this recommendation with the City Attorney prior to going before the City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION March 5, 2014 5 Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-010 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3833 Lexington Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the March 5, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried 4-1 (Holewa opposed). UNFINISHED BUSINESS –9A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 10, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case #13-019(This item was tabled at theNovember 25, 2013, Regular City Council meeting) Applicant: Gradient Financial Property Location: 4105 Lexington Avenue Request: Site Plan Review–Accessory Structure Requested Action Motion to Approve Planning Case #13-019 for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the four (4)conditions in the March 10, 2014, Report to the City Council. Background/Discussion Planning Case #13-019 was tabled at the City Council meeting on November 25, 2013, to allow the applicant additional time to research other exterior building materials for the accessory structureand trash enclosurebeing proposed at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, in order to comply with the zoning regulations. The applicant has resubmitted a revised exterior materials list for the accessory structure and trash enclosure to be reviewed by the Council. The materials include a white brick to be used on thefront façade and a cement boardor cement board plankto be used on the side and rear façadesof the accessory structure.As shown bythe photos in Attachment Ethe brickon the City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for November 25, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-013 -Bethel University CUP -Higher Education Use\Memos_Reports_13-013 14 Page of existing building is a non-standard size. The proposed brick for the accessory structure is approximately an inch shorter in heightthan the brick used on the principal structure. The applicant has provided three (3) different,yet similar colors of brickfor the Council’s review. If approved the selected brick would be used for the front façadeof the accessory structure and the three brick sides of the trash enclosure.The applicant has indicated their preference to use the standard-size Oyster Whitebrick in order to matchthe existing building. The preferred cement boardmaterial that is proposed for the side and rear façadesof the accessory structurecomes in four (4) foot by eight (8) foot sheets and provides afinished commercial appearance. The secondary material option of cement board plank(i.e. lap siding) could also be usedif a more residentialappearanceis preferred.Cement board plankis constructed with four (4) inch to eight (8) inch revealsand comes in segments up to twelve (12) feet in length. Both types of cement board are being proposed to be painted to match the dark bronze metal panels on the existing building. The City Council memo (Attachment A) and the minutes (Attachment B) from the November 25, 2013,meeting are included in the packet.A narrative describing the project and the revised list of proposed materials to be used on the accessory structure and trash enclosure can be reviewed in Attachment E. City Council Motion–November 25, 2013 MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to tableaction on this item. The motion carried (5-0). This item was tabledto allow the applicantadditional time to research other exterior building materials for the accessory structure in order to comply with the zoning regulations. The zoning ordinance states that “The exterior finish of accessory structures shall be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure served by the accessory structure”. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their November 9, 2013, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for the Council’sconsideration: 1.Permanent accessorystructureswithin this district are subject to a Site Plan Review and Council approval. 2.The property is located in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 3.The proposed accessory structure would be located in the northwest corner of the lot. 4.The proposed accessory building is 36’x50’, an area of 1,800 square feet. 5.A flat rubber roof is being proposed to mimic the principle buildingon the property. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-019 -Gradient Financial -Accessory Building Site Plan Review\Memos_Reports_13-019 Page 2of 4 6.The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. 7.The applicant has proposed an exterior finishof brick and cement board. 8.The structure will not result in a use that is inconsistent with the purpose or intent of the Zoning Code or the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 9.The placement of an accessory structure in the proposed location should not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #13-019 and unanimously recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and PermanentAccessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North,based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the March 10, 2014, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following four (4)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 andCity Council. 2.That the exterior of the accessory structure be constructed with a material that is compatible to the principle building and approved by the City Planner before a building permit is issued. 3.That a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City before a Building Permit is issued. 4.That the applicant shall apply for a building permit prior to any construction. Requested Action Motion to Approve Planning Case #13-019 for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the four (4)conditions in the March 10, 2014, Report to theCity Council. Options 1.Approve the proposal as submitted. 2.Approve the proposal with conditions (Recommended Action). 3.Deny the application with reasons for denial. 4.Table for additional information. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-019 -Gradient Financial -Accessory Building Site Plan Review\Memos_Reports_13-019 Page 3of 4 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 7, 2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by December 5, 2013 (60 days), unless the City providedthe petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60- day review period. The petitioner was notified on November 27, 2013, of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by February 4, 2014 (120 days). The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. On January 21, 2014, the City received a letter from Gradient Financial requesting an extension beyond the initial 120 day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City is now required to act on this request by April 4, 2014. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the 180 days. Attachments A.City Council Memo, November 25, 2013 B.City Council Minutes, November 25, 2013 C.Planning Commission Memo, November 6, 2013 D.Planning Commission Minutes, November 6, 2013 E.Narrative and Land Use Application F.Site Plan G.Elevations H.Photos of the Property I.Aerial Photo City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for March 10, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-019 -Gradient Financial -Accessory Building Site Plan Review\Memos_Reports_13-019 Page 4of 4 Attachment A NEW BUSINESS –8B MEMORANDUM DATE: November 25, 2013 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case #13-019 Applicant: Gradient Financial Property Location: 4105 Lexington Ave N Request: Site Plan Review –Accessory Structure Requested Action Motion to Approve Planning Case #13-019 for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the four (4)conditions in the November 25, 2013, Report to the City Council. Background Gradient Financialowns the property located at 4105 Lexington Avenue, which is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District. The property is generally positioned north of County Road F, south of Boston Scientific, eastof Hamline Avenue and west of Lexington Avenue.The applicant is proposing a1,800 square foot (36’x50’)accessory structureto be located on the propertyand positioned in the northwest corner of the lot. The purpose of the buildingis for storage ofthe equipment necessary for the maintenanceof the property. The applicant has indicated that the proposed structure would be constructed on a floating slab and builtwith a woodenframe. The building would contain two (2) 10’x10’ garage doors, one (1) 10’x12’ garage door and one (1) 3’x7’ service door. The proposed structure would have fourteen (14) foot tall sidewalls. A flat rubber roof system is being proposed on the accessory structure to mimic the roof of the principle building. (Attachment C) Discussion At the November 6, 2013, Planning Commission meeting the applicant proposed to construct the exterior of the accessory structure with a product that is made from fiber cement and has the texture and finished appearance of brick. The dimensions of each panel are eighteen (18) inches wide by six (6) feet in length with a thickness of 5/8 of an inch. Each panel has coverage of nine (9) square feet. After reviewing the proposed materialthe Planning Commission determined that itwas not compatible in appearance or quality of that used for the principle structure on the property.It was found that the material may resemble brick or achieve the look of brick but is still inferior to the product used on the principle structure. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to select an exterior material for the accessory structure that will meet the regulations stated inthe Zoning Code. The selectedexteriorfinish of the accessory structure would need to be compatible in appearance and quality of material used onthe principal structure. Since the Planning Commissionmeeting, staff has been in contact with the applicant’s contractor regarding the exterior of the accessory structure. Nathan Cote from CoBeck Construction stated that research is being done on other exterior materials and that they hope to have a few additional options available for review by theCity Councilon November 25, 2013. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their November 9, 2013, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: 1.Permanent accessory structureswithin this district are subject to a Site Plan Review and Council approval. 2.The property is located in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 3.The proposed accessory structure would be locatedin the northwest corner of the lot. 4.The proposed accessory building is 36’x50’, an area of 1,800 square feet. 5.A flat rubberroof is being proposed to mimic the principle buildingon the property. 6.The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. 7.The applicant has proposed an exterior finish that is constructed with fiber cement to replicate a brick appearance. 8.Thestructure will not result in a usethat is inconsistent with the purposeor intent of the Zoning Code or theI-1 Limited Industrial District. 9.The placement of an accessory structure in the proposed location should nothave a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for November 25, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-019 -Gradient Financial -Accessory Building Site Plan Review\Memos_Reports_13-019 24 Page of Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #13-019 and unanimously recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North,based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the November 25, 2013, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following four (4)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 exterior of the accessory structure be constructed with a material that is compatible to the principle buildingand approved by the CityPlannerbefore a building permit is issued. 3.That a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City before a Building Permit is issued. 4.That the applicant shall apply for a building permit prior to any construction. Requested Action Motion to Approve Planning Case #13-019 for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the four (4)conditions in the November 25, 2013, Report tothe City Council. Options 1.Approve the proposal as submitted. 2.Approve the proposal with conditions (Recommended Action). 3.Deny the application with reasons for denial. 4.Table for additional information. The findings in this report currently supportapproval of this Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure. With a motion to deny the Planning Case #13-019, the findings must be amendedto reflect the reasons for the denial. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for November 25, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-019 -Gradient Financial -Accessory Building Site Plan Review\Memos_Reports_13-019 34 Page of Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 7, 2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 5, 2013 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A.Narrativeand Land Use Application B.Staff Report, November 6, 2013 C.Draft Planning CommissionMinutes, November 6, 2013 D.Site Plan E.Building Plans F.Exterior Finish G.Aerial Photo H.Photos of the Property City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for November 25, 2013 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-019 -Gradient Financial -Accessory Building Site Plan Review\Memos_Reports_13-019 44 Page of ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – NOVEMBER 25, 2013 7 Mayor Grant commended the efforts of the applicant on the proposed renovations as the building will be nicely improved. MOTION: Councilmember McClung moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #13-018 for a Site Plan Review and Sign Standard Adjustment at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the four (4) conditions in the November 25, 2013, Report to the City Council. Councilmember Holden commented that the proposed sign was 100% larger than the previous sign. She did not oppose the sign size being increased, but requested Condition 2 be amended to read, that one (1) wall sign up to 100 square feet in size shall be permitted. No additional wall signage shall be allowed. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to amend Condition 2 to read that one (1) wall sign up to 100 square feet in size shall be permitted. No additional wall signage shall be allowed. Councilmember Holmes asked for the size of the current wall sign. City Planner Streff indicated that the permitted wall signage in sign District 6 is sixty (60) square feet and Gradient was requesting to have a 126 square foot wall sign. Therefore, the request required a sign standard adjustment. The previous Arden Woods sign has already been removed. Councilmember McClung expressed concern with the size of the “G” and supported the amendment to Condition 2. Councilmember Werner requested comment from the applicant. Chuck Lucius , Gradient Financial building owner, explained that the sign size requested directly correlated with the loss of access to Lexington Avenue. He reviewed how traffic will have to access the property from County Road F. It was noted that the address for this building will remain 4105 Lexington Avenue. The amendment failed (2-3) (Holmes, Werner and Mayor Grant opposed). The motion carried (5-0). B. Planning Case 13-019 Gradient Financial Site Plan Review – Accessory Structure City Planner Streff stated that Gradient Financial owns the property located at 4105 Lexington Avenue, which is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District. The property is generally positioned north of County Road F, south of Boston Scientific, east of Hamline Avenue and west of Lexington Avenue. The applicant is proposing a 1,800 square foot (36’x50’) accessory structure to be ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – NOVEMBER 25, 2013 8 located on the property and positioned in the northwest corner of the lot. The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. City Planner Streff indicated that the applicant has stated that the proposed structure will be constructed on a floating slab and built with a wooden frame. The building will contain two (2) 10’x10’ garage doors, one (1) 10’x12’ garage door and one (1) 3’x7’ service door. The proposed structure will have fourteen (14) foot tall side walls. A flat rubber roof system is being proposed on the accessory structure to mimic the roof of the principal building. At the November 6, 2013, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant proposed to construct the exterior of the accessory structure with a product that is made from fiber cement and has the texture and finished appearance of brick. The dimensions of each panel are eighteen (18) inches wide by six (6) feet in length with a thickness of 5/8 of an inch. Each panel has coverage of nine (9) square feet. After reviewing the proposed material, the Planning Commission determined that it is not compatible in appearance or quality with the material used for the principal structure on the property. It was found that the material may resemble brick or achieve the look of brick but is still inferior to the product used on the principal structure. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to work with staff to select an exterior material for the accessory structure that will meet the regulations stated in the Zoning Code. The selected exterior finish of the accessory structure would need to be compatible in appearance and quality of material used on the principal structure. City Planner Streff explained that since the Planning Commission meeting, staff has been in contact with the applicant’s contractor regarding the exterior of the accessory structure. City Planner Streff reported that the Planning Commission reviewed this application at their November 9, 2013, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. Permanent accessory structures within this district are subject to a Site Plan Review and Council approval. 2. The property is located in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 3. The proposed accessory structure would be located in the northwest corner of the lot. 4. The proposed accessory building is 36’x50’, an area of 1,800 square feet. 5. A flat rubber roof is being proposed to mimic the principal building on the property. 6. The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. 7. The applicant has proposed an exterior finish that is constructed with fiber cement to replicate a brick appearance. 8. The structure will not result in a use that is inconsistent with the purpose or intent of the Zoning Code or the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 9. The placement of an accessory structure in the proposed location should not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. City Planner Streff explained that the Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case #13-019 and unanimously recommends approval of the Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the November 25, 2013, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following four (4) conditions: ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – NOVEMBER 25, 2013 9 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 exterior of the accessory structure be constructed with a material that is compatible to the principal building and approved by the City Planner before a building permit is issued. 3. That a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City before a Building Permit is issued. 4. That the applicant shall apply for a building permit prior to any construction. Mayor Grant requested further information on the proposed building materials that would be used on the maintenance shed. Nate Cote , CoBeck Construction, explained that the white brick on the Gradient building was a non-standard brick size. He has been unable to locate this building material and he was proposing to use a metal panel on the maintenance shed; or he was willing to work with staff to find an agreeable alternative. Mayor Grant questioned if the Council supported an accessory structure on the proposed site. Councilmember Holmes supported the structure and is in favor of allowing staff to resolve the building material issue. Councilmember Werner agreed with this statement. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to approve Planning Case #13-019 for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the four (4) conditions in the November 25, 2013, Report to the City Council. Councilmember Holden thought that the applicant had not addressed the comments from the Planning Commission regarding the building material. City Planner Streff explained that he is seeking further direction from the Council on this matter. He indicated that he was hoping to have more samples from the applicant for the Council to review this evening. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the Planning Commission liked the bronze panels and thought they would be complementary to the principal structure. In addition, the Planning Commission believed the dark color would assist in camouflaging the building, as opposed to a white accessory structure. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – NOVEMBER 25, 2013 10 Mayor Grant asked if the applicant was hoping to construct the accessory structure this winter. He questioned if the Council had time to review the matter further prior to approval. City Planner Streff commented that the deadline for the City was December 5,2013, but this could be extended by the City for an additional 60 days. Chuck Lucius , owner of Gradient Financial, stated the Planning Commission discussed the brick building material at length at their November meeting. He commented that the building would not be built if white was the brick color required. For this reason, he is proposing to construct a bronze-clad building that would blend in with the wooded surroundings. He requested that he be allowed to work with the City Planner through the winter months to find an approved building material. Councilmember McClung stated that he did not like the idea of an accessory structure on this property. He is concerned that the structure will not fit in. He recommended that the matter be tabled to allow the applicant further time to decide on the building materials. Councilmember Holmes supported the proposal from the applicant as the proposed structure would nicely complement the primary structure. She does not want to see a white structure in the woods. Councilmember Holden questioned if the proposed building material will stand up to the wear and tear on the accessory structure. She recommended brick be used on the front face of the building. Mayor Grant supported the size and placement of the accessory structure. However, he wants to see further information from the applicant on the exterior building materials that will be used. He is in favor of tabling the matter to allow the applicant to come back before the Council at a future meeting. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to table action on this item. The motion carried (5-0). 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A.Planning Case 13-013 Bethel University – 2 Pine Tree Drive - CUP City Planner Streff explained that Planning Case #13-013 was continued from the October 28, 2013, City Council meeting. The City Council memo and draft minutes from October 28, 2013, are included in the packet. The Conditional Use Permit and Development Contract have been revised to reflect the amendments to the conditions as approved on October 28, 2013. City Planner Streff reported that during the meeting on October 28, 2013, the City Council reviewed a proposal from Bethel University to obtain a conditional use permit to allow higher education as the principal use of the property at 2 Pine Tree Drive. If approved, this site would function as the east Campus for Bethel University allowing the entire facility to be used for higher education and other general administrative uses. Staff provided a summary of the motions and amendments offered at the October 28, 2013, City Council meeting: Attachment C MEMORANDUM 3.B DATE: November 6, 2013 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case #13-019No public hearing required – Applicant: Gradient Financial Property Location: 4105 Lexington Ave N Request: Site Plan Review –Accessory Structure Requested Action The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for a Permanent Accessory Structure in order to construct a 1,800 square foot accessory structure at the property located at 4105 Lexington Avenue. Background 1.Overview of Request: Gradient Financialowns the property located at 4105 Lexington Avenue, which is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District. The property is generally positioned north of County Road F, south of Boston Scientific, east of Hamline Avenue and west of Lexington Avenue.The applicant is proposing a1,800 square foot (36’x50’)accessory structureto be located on the propertyand positioned in the northwest corner of the lot. The purpose of the buildingis for storage ofthe equipment necessary for the maintenanceof the property. The applicant has indicated that the proposed structure would be constructed on a floating slab and builtwith a woodenframe. The building would contain two (2) 10’x10’ garage doors, one (1) 10’x12’ garage door and one (1) 3’x7’ service door. The proposed structure would have fourteen (14) foot sidewalls. A flat rubber roof system is being proposed on the accessory structure to mimic the roof on principle building. (Attachment C) A product that has the texture and finished appearance of real brick is being proposed as the exterior finish of the structure. This exterior productis madeusing a fiber cement cladding solution and constructed in panels thatare eighteen (18) inches wide by six (6) feet in length. (Attachment D) Gradient Financial is alsoproposing to build a new trash enclosure adjacent to the proposed accessory structure. The enclosure would beapproximately 180 square feet (12’x15’) constructedofmasonry units with a rock face and metal gates to conceal the dumpsters. The existing trash enclosurewould then beremoved from the east side of the principle building. 2.Surrounding Area: DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use I/O -Light Industrial and I-1–Limited Industrial NorthOfficeDistrictLight Industrial/Office I/O -Light Industrial and I-1–Limited Industrial Light SouthOfficeDistrictIndustrial/Office/Commercial City of ShoreviewCity of Shoreview EastResidential (8-20R3 –Multi-Dwelling City of Shoreview (Shoreview)units/acre)ResidentialMulti-Family Residential I/O -Light Industrial and I-1–Limited Industrial WestOfficeDistrictLight Industrial/Office 3.Site Data: Future Land Use Plan:I/O -Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use:Office Zoning:I-1–Limited Industrial District Size:5.17acres Topography:Fairly Flat Plan Evaluation 1.Site Plan Review –Permanent Accessory Structures(Section 1325.01 Subd. 5) A.Site Plan Review –Permanent accessory structures in the I-1 Limited Industrial District are subject to a Site Plan Review and Council approval. B.Exterior Finish –Does Not Meet Requirement Section 1325.01 Subd 5 B-The exterior finish of accessory structures shall be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure served by the accessory structure. The applicant is proposing to construct the exterior of the accessory structurewith a product that has the texture and finished appearanceof brick. The proposed product is made by Nichiha USA, Inc. and is constructed with a fiber cement cladding solution. The brick panel product is from a line of CanyonBrick styles called Shale Brown. The dimensions of each panel are eighteen (18) inches wide by six (6) feetin lengthwith a thickness of 5/8 of an inch. Each panel has coverageof nine (9) square feet. Staff has examined the proposed brick panel (exterior product)that has been supplied by the applicant. After reviewing the proposed product,staff has determined that the material is not compatible to the principle structure. The brick panel material may resemble a brick finish,but in fact it is made up of fiber cement that functions as a brick siding. This proposed product may achieve the look of brick siding; however, this material is far inferior to the product used on the principle structure. Based on exterior material used on the principle structure staff would propose that the exterior of accessory structure be constructed with compatible real brick material. 2.I-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Development Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements A.Lot Size & Dimensions –Meets 1.Minimum Lot Area (sf)30,000 Requirements 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft, 100/13 The lot is 225,205square feet, with width/depth)0 approximate dimensions of 350 feet by 3. Height (ft.)35 640 feet. 4. Lot Covered by Structure30% 5. Min. Landscape Lot Area35% B.Structure Setbacks –Meets Requirements 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) The proposed structure will conform to Front yard55 theminimumsetback requirements for Rear Yard (Principle)20 accessory structures. Rear Yard (Accessory)10 Side Yard Interior -Principal C.Structure Height –Meets Requirements (Min/total both yards on lot)20/40 The structure as proposed is Side Yard Interior -Accessory10 approximately 14 feet in height. Side Yard Corner50 D.Lot Coverage –Meets Requirements The proposed impervious lot coverage is 57% leaving 43% as landscaping area or pervious surfaces. The Zoning Code setsa maximum of 30% of the land area to be covered byprinciple and accessory structures and a minimum landscaping lot area of 35%. ExistingProposed Type/Total Square Feet%Square Feet% Principle Building24,00011%24,00011% Accessory Structure1,8000.8% Decks/Patios2,4401.0%2,4401.0% Parking Lot110,00049%97,00043% Sidewalk2,7001.2%3,5001.5% Total Coverage139,14062%128,74057% Landscape Coverage43% Lot Size225,205 3.Tree Preservation The site plan shows that a few trees will be impacted due to the construction of the accessory building. Staff has determined that fewer than ten (10) percent of the caliper inches of the significant trees on the property will be removed. If additional trees are removed as a result of the project, the applicant may be required to meet the City’s tree preservation standards, and mitigation may be necessary. 4.Lighting No lighting is being proposed on the accessory structure. 5.Flood Plain, Wetlands, andEasements Based on the informationobtained by staff the proposed additions are outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements areas. 6.Additional Review A.The Building Official has reviewed the plansand has no additional comments. B.The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and has determined that a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is required for this project. C.The applicant has submitted their plans to the Rice Creek Watershed District for review. Resident Comments Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regards to this planning case. Notice Although a Site Plan Reviewdoes not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed accessory structure meets thecriteria stated in Zoning Code for accessory structures and if the proposed construction would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood and the community as a whole. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: 1.Permanent accessory structureswithin this district are subject to a Site Plan Review and Council approval. 2.The property is located in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 3.The proposed accessory structure would be locatedin the northwest corner of the lot. 4.The proposed accessory building is 36’x50’, an area of 1,800 square feet. 5.A flat rubber roof is being proposed to mimic the principle buildingon the property. 6.The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. 7.The applicant has proposed an exterior finish that is constructed with fiber cement to replicate a brick appearance. 8.Thestructure will not result in a usethat is inconsistent with the purposeor intent of the Zoning Code or theI-1 Limited Industrial District. 9.The placement of an accessory structurein the proposed location should nothave a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. Staff Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 13-019 for a Permanent Accessory Structureunder the Site Plan Review process.Staff recommends the following four (4) conditions be included with the approval: 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval.Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.That the exterior of the accessory structure be constructed with a material that is compatible to the principle buildingand approved by the CityPlannerbefore a building permit is issued. 3.That a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City before a Building Permit is issued. 4.That the applicant shall apply for a building permit prior to any construction. Options and Proposed Motion Language 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case #13-019for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structureat 4105 Lexington Avenue Northbased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the four (4) conditions in the November 6, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case #13- 019for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structureat 4105 Lexington Avenue Northbased on the findings of fact and the submitted plansin the November 6, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case #13-019for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structureat 4105 Lexington Avenue Northbased on the findings of fact:findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case #13-019for a Site Plan Review and Permanent Accessory Structureat 4105 Lexington Avenue Northin order to gather the following information: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on October 7, 2013. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by December 5, 2013 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A.Narrativeand Land Use Application B.Site Plan C.Building Plans D.Exterior Finish E.Aerial Photo F.Photos of Site Attachment D ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION … November 6, 2013 4 B.Planning Case 13-019; Site Plan Review; Accessory Structure; 4105 Lexington Avenue North Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated the applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for a Permanent Accessory Structure in order to construct a 1,800 square foot accessory structure at the property located at 4105 Lexington Avenue. Gradient Financial owns the property located at 4105 Lexington Avenue, which is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District. The property is generally positioned north of County Road F, south of Boston Scientific, east of Hamline Avenue and west of Lexington Avenue. The applicant is proposing a 1,800 square foot (36x50) accessory structure to be located on the property and positioned in the northwest corner of the lot. The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. City Planner Streff stated the applicant has indicated the proposed structure would be constructed on a floating slab and built with a wooden frame. The building would contain two (2) 10x10 garage doors, one (1) 10x12 garage door and one (1) 3x7 service door. The proposed structu re would have fourteen (14) foot side walls. A flat rubber roof system is being proposed on the accessory structure to mimic the roof of the principle building. City Planner Streff explained a product that has the texture and finished appearance of real brick is being proposed as the exterior finish of the structure. This exterior product is made using a fiber cement cladding solution and constructed in panels that are eighteen (18) inches wide by six (6) feet in length. City Planner Streff noted Gradient Financial is also proposing to build a new trash enclosure adjacent to the proposed accessory structure. The enclosure would be approximately 180 square feet (12x15) constructed of masonry units with a rock face and metal gates to conceal the dumpsters. The existing trash enclosure would then be removed from the east side of the principle building. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: I/O … Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Office Zoning: I-1 … Limited Industrial District Size: 5.17 acres Topography: Fairly Flat City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area and Plan Evalu City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1.Permanent accessory structures within this district are subject to a Site Plan Review and Council approval. 2. The property is located in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 3. The proposed accessory structure would be located in the northwest corner of the lot. 4. The proposed accessory building is 36x50, an area of 1,800 square feet. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION … November 6, 2013 5 5. A flat rubber roof is being proposed to mimic the principle building on the property. 6. The purpose of the building is for storage of the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the property. 7. The applicant has proposed an exterior finish that is constructed with fiber cement to replicate a brick appearance. 8. The structure will not result in a use that is inconsistent with the purpose or intent of the Zoning Code or the I-1 Limited Industrial District. 9. The placement of an accessory structure in the proposed location should not have a negative impact on adjacent properties or the City as a whole. City Planner Streff stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 13-019 for a Permanent Accessory Structure under the Site Plan Review process. Staff recommends the following four (4) conditions be included with the approval: 1.That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.That the exterior of the accessory structure be constructed with a material that is compatible to the principle building and approved by the City Planner before a building permit is issued. 3.That a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be obtained by the applicant and approved by the City before a Building Permit is issued. 4.That the applicant shall apply for a building permit prior to any construction. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3.Recommend Denial. 4.Table. Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Zimmerman anticipated the proposed building would not be visible from County Road F. He questioned if the siding material had to be adjusted if the building would not be seen except by those in the building. Chair Larson discussed the location of the accessory structure and noted the proposed building materials would not match the existing building. Nate Cote, CoBeck Construction, explained that the proposed exterior material would be painted to match the principle structure. He stated the proposed exterior material was superior in design when compared to other products. He reported the brick on the main building was non-standard in size and was proving difficult to find. Chair Larson questioned if staff objected to the proposed exterior color or material. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION … November 6, 2013 6 City Planner Streff stated the exterior material was a cement board and the appearance was not compatible with the existing structure. Commissioner Hames suggested the accessory structure building materials be adapted and be trimmed in bronze to more closely match the principle structure. Chair Larson was comfortable with the condition recommended by staff requiring the exterior of the accessory structure be constructed with a material that is compatible to the principle building and be approved by the City Planner before a building permit was issued. The Commission was in agreement. Chuck Lucius, Gradient Financial building owner, questioned if the accessory structure could be painted brown as this would allow it to blend in with the surrou Chair Larson indicated the structure would have to be compatible with the main building and its color scheme. He encouraged Mr. Lucius to speak further with staff regarding the exterior building materials. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 13-019 for an Accessory Structure at 4105 Lexington Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the November 6, 2013, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). C.Planning Case 13-007; Zoning Code Amendment; B-2 & B-3 Design Standards Public Hearing Community Development Intern Bachler stated in October 2008, the City Council accepted the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District. The plan included design guidelines for development in the B- 2 District and proposed standards for building and site design, façade treatment, pedestrian circulation, and parking. The City Council subsequently approved ordinance amendments that adapted the design guidelines for the Zoning Code. The guidelines now apply to all properties in both the B-2 and B-3 Districts. Since their adoption, four development projects have been evaluated based on these design standards: Planning Case 11-01: McDonalds, USA LLC Master PUD Planning Case 11-16: Arden Plaza PUD Amendment (Walgreens Pharmacy) Planning Case 12-19: 1201 County Road E Master PUD Planning Case 13-04: Lexington Station Master PUD Community Development Intern Bachler commented that through the process of reviewing these developments, the City has had the opportunity to identify sections in the design standards that need adjustments or additions. It is important to strike a balance between having design standards that are either too prescriptive or too permissive. When cities have the effect of deterring development. On the other hand, relaxed standards can result in development that is not in line with a Citys vision and goals for their community. Staff has completed revisions to help clarify certain design requirements and to provide developers with % Attachment Lake Josephine The zoning district designations represented on this map correspond to the City of Arden Hills official Zoning Map. ¯ Questions concerning the Zoning Map should be directed to City Hall. Zoning designations are subject to change. Property Boundary Please refer to the Zoning Code for complete information. Map Date: November 1, 2013 P:\GIS_Data\Planning\Planning Cases\2013\PC 13-019