Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-27-14-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 3.B.Transportation Update John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer Documents:MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.A.Approval Of Minutes April 14, 2014, Special TCAAP Work Session April 14, 2014, Regular City Council April 14, 2014, Special Work Session Documents:TCAAP WS.PDF, R.PDF,WS.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 Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Ariel Schmitz, Accounting Department Documents:MEMO.PDF 5.B.Approve Hard Court Maintenance At Johanna Marsh Michelle Olson, Parks and Recreation Manager Documents:MEMO.PDF Planning Case 14 PUD Amendment Boston Scientific Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF Recycling Contract Addendum Adding Single Sort Collection Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents:CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF 5.E.Approve Purchase Of Building Department Vehicle Dave Scherbel, Building Official Documents:MEMO.PDF 5.F.Xcel Energy Contract Lighting Installation Round Lake Road John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer 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 NEW BUSINESS 8.A.Planning Case 14 Setback Variance 1850 Venus Avenue 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 8.B.Planning Case 14 PUD Amendment Arden Plaza Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Documents:MEMO.PDF,ATTACHMENT A.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS May 27, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, ActingCity Administrator Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director TCAAP Update On May 1, 2014, Ramsey County received four proposals for the development and design of on- The selection committee has made a recommendation, and Ramsey County is negotiating the final contract with the consultant. A kick-off discussion with the consultant team is scheduled for the June 30, 2014, City Council work session. Public comments on the draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan are being accepted until May 28, 2014. The City Council is tentatively scheduled to review the final document on June 30, 2014, with approval in July. With City Council approval of the master plan land use map scheduled for June 30, 2014, staff and consultants are beginning to schedule work for the regulations and policies component of the master planning process. Work session discussion topics will be defined in the next month. Special and regular City Council work session meetings have been scheduled to discuss issues related to the Master Plan and City infrastructure. Discussion topics are tentatively planned as follows: May 27, 2014 (Tuesday), Special Work Session at 6:00 pm, Community Room I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Discussion June 16, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Review Revised Master Plan Review Aesthetics for I-35W Bridges Page of June 30, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan Kick-off Discussion with Infrastructure Development/Design Consultant Team June 30, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers Approve Master Plan Municipal Consent for I-35W/Highway 96 July 14, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 21, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan It is anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. Page of STAFF COMMENTS 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Transportation Update Background A brief oral update will be provided at the meeting on the US Highway 10 and County Road 96 project. 11 Page of Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 2014 5:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the special TCAAP work session at 5:30 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung (arrived at 5:40 p.m.), and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present : 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; and City Clerk Amy Dietl APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Council accepted the agenda switching the order of Items 2A and 2B, and adding Item 2E Council Needs. 1. AGENDA ITEMS B.Review AUAR Environment Report Beth Kunkel , Kimley-Horn, stated that she has prepared a draft AUAR and Mitigation Plan for the Council to review. The purpose Responsible Government Unit (RGU), and the proposed review and approval schedule was discussed in detail with the Council. Councilmember Holden asked how staff determined the minimums and maximums for retail and non-retail spaces. Ms. Kunkel reported that input from the Master Planning team was used to create the minimum and maximum scenarios. It was noted that retail generates more trips than non-retail commercial spaces. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20142 Mayor Grant requested further information on storm water mitigation. Ms. Kunkel described how the water would be divided on the site noting which portion would flow to Rice Creek. She noted that the water resources portion of the RFP would provide the City with more information on this topic. Public Works Director Maurer further discussed how storm water would be managed on TCAAP. Mayor Grant asked if any of the existing 70-year-old piping would be used. Public Works Director Maurer stated that he was not sure the age of the pipes or how they would be used on the site. He discussed the pond at Highway 10 and County Road 96. Councilmember Holden questioned if the City would be responsible for purchasing credits for the wetlands. Public Works Director Maurer stated that he believed that the property owner and/or future developers would be responsible for purchasing credits if any wetlands were going to be mitigated off of the TCAAP site. Ms. Kunkel discussed the permitting process that the County or future developers would have to follow on the site. She explained that this process could be more clearly defined in the final AUAR or Mitigation Plan. Councilmember Holmes inquired if a lift station in Mounds View would be used for TCAAP. Public Works Director Maurer stated that a portion of the TCAAP property was being serviced by a Metropolitan Waste Control Commission lift station located in Mounds View. He believed that this lift station would continue operating, but the agreement the Army had with Mounds View to convey sewage to the lift station would need to be reestablished to remove the Army. Councilmember Holden asked how the City would meet the water runoff standards, as the City was not to exceed existing conditions after impervious surfaces and buildings are developed. Public Works Director Maurer commented that Rice Creek will look at the redevelopment conditions in comparison to some phase when TCAAP is operational. The amount of water runoff will be evaluated after the site is fully developed and roughly 80% of the peak flow will leave the site. He discussed ways that the City could reduce or minimize this flow. Councilmember Holmes requested further information on the vapor issues. Ms. Kunkel stated that the vapor issue was not specifically addressed. Brian Smalkoski, , Kimley-Horn reported that the ground would be cleaned to residential standards. He stated that this topic will be covered under the contamination section. If any subterranean construction were to take place, there would be a potential for vapors to enter ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20143 through the basement; therefore, special construction methods to seal the basement from the vapor would be required. Councilmember Holmes asked if the special construction requirements would be covered in the AUAR. Ms. Kunkel stated that language could be added to the final AUAR regarding development practices. Councilmember HoldenCouncilmember McClung and agreed that this should be made a part of the AUAR. Councilmember Holden discussed the proposed building heights for TCAAP. Mr. Smalkoski reported that the current plan allows for buildings up to five stories in height. He indicated that the City may want to consider increasing the height to eight stories for the corporate campus area in the thumb. Code. Councilmember Holden inquired if the proposed scenarios aligned with the current Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smalkoski explained that the minimum and maximum development scenarios were was beyond the scope of the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the draft Master Plan was in between the minimum and maximum development scenarios at this time. Councilmember McClung asked if the draft Master Plan was within the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Smalkoski reported that the current draft Master Plan exceeded the current zoning by approximately 15%. Councilmember Holden questioned how bird issues would be addressed. Ms. Kunkel stated that this was a good question and she would investigate this matter further. She discussed how the Council could address the coatings on or the transparency of glass. Councilmember Holden inquired how commercial solid waste would be managed. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that the City could have different regulations for the TCAAP property and could require commercial recycling in TCAAP. Councilmember Holmes asked where Old County Road H intersects with County Road 96. Mr. Smalkoski clarified that the references to Old County Road H should read Old County Road 8. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20144 Councilmember Holden questioned how the additional traffic in and around TCAAP would increase the decibel levels in the area. Mr. Smalkoski discussed the anticipated decibel levels for the intersections leading to and from the TCAAP property. Councilmember McClung inquired how staff was able to establish a baseline. Ms. Kunkel stated that existing data from the Highway 10 and County Road 96 study was used for the decibel levels. This information was gathered prior to the completion of the road construction project. Councilmember Holden asked how the residential and commercial traffic counts were determined. Ms. Kunkel discussed how the traffic counts were disbursed between residential, multi-family residential and commercial areas for the TCAAP site. Mayor Grant encouraged the Council to contact Kimley-Horn with additional questions. He inquired about the next steps for the AUAR. Ms. Kunkel explained that the City Council will review the final AUAR and Mitigation Plan, including responses to public comments, on June 30, 2014. Staff explained that final City Council approval will be sought at the meeting on July 28, 2014. A.Financial Modeling Mark Ruff , Ehlers & Associates, provided the Council with financial modeling information for the construction of City utilities on the TCAAP site. The funding mechanisms that cities typically use to fund utilities, storm water and sewer improvements, and charts showing specific funding scenarios for several development projects were reviewed with the Council in detail. He discussed how the utility project may be broken down between a fee based system or assessments. Staff described how the City would then have to provide for maintenance fees for the utility system. Councilmember Holden asked the time period in which assessments would be paid back by the developer. Mr. Ruff explained that this would be negotiated with the developer, but could be up to 10 years. Further discussion ensued regarding the negotiation process that would need to occur between the City and the County. Public Works Director Maurer commented that Mark Ruff and Stacie Kvilvang at Ehlers had the expertise to assist the City in this area. Mayor Grant questioned if Ehlers was representing the City or the County on this project. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20145 Mr. Ruff stated that Ehlers is representing the Joint Development Authority (JDA). It is his opinion that there is a partnership between the County and the City on these efforts and the feasibility rests within the JDA. Mr. Ruff explained that the City may have to fund a portion of the utilities without being refunded until development occurred. He indicated that fees would have to be built into the system in order to properly compensate the City for these expenses. He then discussed SAC and WAC fees that have been used in other communities. Councilmember Holmes asked if the City would have to bond for the utility improvements. Mr. Ruff commented that the City could bond for a portion to assist with carrying the cost of the improvements. Mayor Grant indicated that the Council would have to further discuss this matter in order to better understand the financial implications on the City. C.Review of Public Comments Community Development Director Hutmacher reviewed the comments received to date on the TCAAP project. She asked if the Council had any comments for staff. Councilmember Holmes stated that none of the comments stood out to her. She questioned if staff saw anything that the Council should be addressing. Mr. Smalkoski believed that the majority of the comments received were positive. He indicated that the only adverse comment received was regarding a concern that the TCAAP site would have too much park space. D.Schedule of Meetings and City Approvals Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the Joint Powers Agreement indicates that the City will complete the AUAR within 18 months and the Master Plan within 24 months of the effective date of the JPA, December 17, 2012. In the JPA, the Master Plan is defined to include regulations and policies. The proposed meeting and approval schedule allows the City to move forward in a timely manner. City Council approval of the Master Plan land use map will be requested on June 30, 2014, so that staff and consultants can begin working on the regulations and policies which are expected to take the remainder of this year. Community Development Director Hutmacher noted that the chart in the staff memo highlights the dates at which City Council approvals (via a vote at a regular meeting) will be needed. The master planning process will culminate with approval of zoning regulations, a future land use map, and a comprehensive plan amendment which will provide the regulatory framework for development. Council approvals of infrastructure components are also noted, although the dates of those approvals may be adjusted once a consultant is hired. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20146 Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that special City Council work sessions on the second and last Mondays are expected to continue for the remainder of 2014 as work progresses on regulations and policies. Staff memos will specifically state what direction or decisions are needed from the City Council at each meeting. She noted that discussion topics leading up to master plan map and AUAR approval on June 30 and July 28, respectively, are as follows: April 14, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Review Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan Financial Modeling for Trunk Utilities Review of Public Comments on the Draft Master Plan April 21, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Ramsey County Economic Development and Redevelopment Goals for TCAAP PTRC Recommendations for Park and Open Space City Goals for Surface Water Management April 28, 2014, Special Work Session following the regular meeting, Council Chambers I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Design Status & Concept Review May 12, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Infrastructure Study Update and City Cost Participation Agreement Residential Development and Densities City Utilities Financial Modeling May 27, 2014 (Tuesday), Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Flex Space Land Use Discussion I-35W/Highway 96 Interchange Discussion June 9, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) June 16, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chamber Review Revised Master Plan Review Aesthetics for I-35W Bridges June 30, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Review Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan June 30, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers Approve Master Plan Municipal Consent for I-35W/Highway 96 July 14, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20147 July 21, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room Discussion topics to be determined (infrastructure, regulations and policies, etc.) July 28, 2014, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers Approve Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan Staff indicated that the meeting schedule will be revised and presented to the City Council on a periodic basis over the next several months. Mayor Grant adjourned the special TCAAP work session at 6:56 p.m. to the regular City Council meeting. Mayor Grant reconvened the special TCAAP work session at 7:32 p.m. E.Council Needs Councilmember Holden requested that staff provide the Council with additional information on the SAC and WAC fees, along with Master Plan and AUAR expenses. She stated that this information would assist the City in determining how the site will develop and how the project will be funded. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson indicated that staff could provide the Council with a projection on the sources and uses for TCAAP. She reported that staff did not have information on the infrastructure work at this time, but that it would be provided to the Council after the study has been completed. Councilmember Holden stated that regular meetings are taking place between City and County staff and asked that City staff call the Council to provide information as needed. This would keep the Council apprised on what is happening with TCAAP. Mayor Grant agreed that this should be completed by staff. Councilmember McClung suggested that the information be summarized in an email to reduce the staff time needed to call each Councilmember. Councilmember Holden recommended that staff call each of the Councilmembers as emails are public documents and she wanted to be able to speak freely with staff and provide feedback. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that she would speak with City Administrator Klaers regarding this matter in order to find the best method to disseminate the information to the Council. She reported that some of the information presented at the meetings is not meant to be passed along directly to the Council until it can be presented to the County Board. Councilmember Holmes encouraged staff to use their discretion and pass along the proper information to the Council while keeping other items confidential, when necessary. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20148 Councilmember Holden wanted to see an improvement in the communication level between the County and the Council. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson recommended that Ms. Hutmacher and Mr. Klaers discuss the request and report back to the Council at a future meeting. Mayor Grant asked that the financials of this project be explained further. He believed that more detail is needed in order for the Council to gain a better understanding. He wanted the Council to be out in front of this project and not be caught off guard. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson stated that she could put minimum and maximum numbers in a financial model based on the development scenarios. This would provide the Council with an estimate of the numbers. She also clarified that she needed time to work on this and would not have the numbers for a month or so. Mayor Grant wanted the Council to be knowledgeable throughout the entire planning and development process. Community Development Director Hutmacher reviewed the upcoming Council meeting schedule noting several meeting topics would address finances specifically. Councilmember Holmes recommended that the Council also review the JPA in order to better understand what the City is responsible for and what the County is responsible for. Further discussion ensued regarding the infrastructure improvements needed on TCAAP and how negotiations would have to be completed between the City and the County. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the JPA states that the City will not install the utilities under the spine road until there is a developer. The County cannot require that the City complete this work unless they or another party is willing to assume responsibility for the costs. She indicated that the City would only bond for these expenses if an agreement with the County is in place. Councilmember Holden asked when policies or design standards for TCAAP will be developed. Community Development Director Hutmacher believed that this would take place after the Master Plan land use map was approved. She stated that according to the approval timeline, the design and policy work would be completed by consultants after approval of the Master Plan land th use map on June 30. She noted that a future land use map would have to be approved and would become a regulatory document observed by the Met Council. She further reviewed the potential timeline along with how the policies that would be prioritized. Councilmember McClung suggested that a draft policy document be started with ideas from the Council. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that staff would create a draft document and would forward it to the Council. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL TCAAP WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20149 Councilmember McClung questioned who Stacie Kvilvang worked for. Community Development Director Hutmacher clarified that Stacie Kvilvang worked for the City. She discussed the work that had been completed by Mark Ruff noting that he is a consultant to the JDA and is working on a sources and uses financial model for the County. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES None. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the special TCAAP work session at 8:15 p.m. to a special City Council work session. __________________________ __________________________ Amy Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING APRIL 14, 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 : Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; and City Clerk Amy Dietl PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Mark Anderson , student at Bethel University, explained that he was observing the Council meeting for a Group Communications class. 3. STAFF COMMENTS A. TCAAP Update Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the infrastructure study was released last week. Proposals are due on May 1, 2014. City staff will participate in the selection committee, which will meet in early May. It is anticipated that the City Council will be asked to review and approve a cost participation agreement for the City utilities ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14, 20142 The final consultant selection and project initiation is expected in mid-May. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that at the April 7, 2014, Joint Development Authority (JDA) meeting, the Commission discussed the application process and requirements for Livable Communities grants administered by the Metropolitan Council. Grants are available to cities that have negotiated long-term affordable and lifecycle housing goals housing chapter of the current Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the City has agreed to a goal range for the number of new affordable and life-cycle housing units for the years 2011-2020. The range is based on TCAAP redevelopment plans contemplated in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Affordable Housing Goals Range Life-Cycle Housing Goals Range 187-288 285-800 Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the staff memo to the JDA, which describes the grant programs, eligible expenditures, and the application process as well as the HAP is included in the Council packet. A City Council resolution of support is required for any LCA application. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that special and regular City Council work sessions have been scheduled to discuss issues related to the Master Plan and City infrastructure. Discussion topics are tentatively planned as follows: April 14, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm; Community Room Review Draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and Mitigation Plan Financial Modeling for Trunk Utilities Review of Public Comments on the Draft Master Plan April 21, 2014, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm; Council Chambers Ramsey County Economic Development and Redevelopment Goals for TCAAP PTRC Recommendations for Park and Open Space City Goals for Surface Water Management April 28, 2014, Special Work Session following the regular meeting; Council Chambers I-35W/Highway 96 Intersection Design Recommendation May 12, 2014, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm; Community Room Residential Development and Densities Infrastructure Update City Utilities Financial Modeling May 27, 2014 (Tuesday), Special Work Session at 5:30 pm; Community Room Flex Space Land Use Discussion I-35W/Highway 96 Intersection Discussion ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14, 20143 Staff anticipated that additional regular and special work session meetings will be scheduled to discuss TCAAP issues. Future meeting topics will be defined as those dates draw nearer. Councilmember Holmes asked when the Council would be approving a Resolution of Support for the LCDA Grants. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that staff would need to bring a thst Resolution of Support to the April 28 deadline. Councilmember Holden Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that the HAP was negotiated for a 10 year time frame (2011 to 2020). She did not believe that the plan had to be amended as the numbers within the plan were goals and not requirements for the City. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A.February 24, 2014, Regular City Council B.March 10, 2014, Regular City Council C.March 10, 2014, Work Session MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Werner seconded a motion to approve the February 24, 2014, Regular City Council meeting minutes, March 10, 2014, Regular City Council meeting minutes; and March 10, 2014, 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 Authorize City Staff to Begin Summer Work Hours on May 27, 2014, and Conclude on August 29, 2014 C.Motion to Approve Ramsey County Joint Powers Agreement for Recycling Funding 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 ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14, 20144 A.TCAAP Development Discussion Opportunity for Residents Mayor Grant stated that under the Public Hearing section, citizens would have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding the TCAAP development. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 10. COUNCIL COMMENTS Councilmember McClung requested that staff provide the Council with an update on the Highway 96/County Road 10 project at future meetings. Mayor Grant supported this suggestion and requested Public Works Director Maurer provide the Council with a transportation update at future Council meetings. Councilmember McClung reported that the Ramsey County League of Local Government was th scheduled to meet on April 24, which conflicted with the Metro Cities Annual Meeting. He st noted that the Ramsey County League of Local Government meeting has been moved to May 1 and will be held at the White Bear Lake Public Safety Training Meeting Room. th Councilmember McClung stated that the Friends of the Park tree sale runs through April 18. Additional information regarding the tree sale can Councilmember McClung discussed an email that was received by the Council regarding the with Comcast. The hearing will be held on Thursday, April 17, 2014, at the Shoreview Community Center. Councilmember Werner stated that he will be attending the Metro Cities Annual Meeting on th April 24. He noted that Mark Seely is the guest speaker. Councilmember Holden requested an update from staff on the Round Lake Road improvement project. Mayor Grant reported that Representative McCollum was having a meeting on this project and information will be coming forward to the Council. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL APRIL 14, 20145 Councilmember Holmes encouraged residents to attend and provide comments at the Comcast th hearing on April 17 at 6:30 at the Shoreview Community Center. Councilmember McClung noted that written comments regarding Comcast will be accepted st until May 1. Mayor Grant stated that a Girl Scout in Arden Hills recently received the Gold Award. He requested that staff invite her to an upcoming meeting to acknowledge this achievement. Mayor Grant provided comment on CTV and the franchise agreement with Comcast. ADJOURN MOTION: Mayor Grant moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the regular City Council meeting at 7:24 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Amy Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 2014 IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the special City Council work session at 8:16 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present : Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; and City Clerk Amy Dietl APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Council accepted the agenda as presented. 1. AGENDA ITEMS A.Delinquent Utility Billing Account Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson explained that at the March 31, 2014, City Council meeting, the Mayor directed staff to put together information regarding Mr. done some research of the records and put together a report. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson stated that Mr. Khurana contacted several members of staff, including her; Accounting Clerk, Pang Silseth; and Public Works Director, Terry Maurer; several times over the course of the past few months. Staff has found no reason to believe that the informed that staff is not allowed to write off any of his bill without approval of the City Council. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20142 Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson reported that Mr. Khurana could have a leak in his irrigation lines. She indicated that the water lines have been tested and there th are no problems She reported that this testing took place on October 24. It is opinion that Mr. Khurana used the recorded amounts of water. She requested that the bill. Councilmember Holden commented that the irrigation company had noted that several heads were leaking, which would also lead to additional water usage. Mayor Grant was in favor of Mr. Khurana paying the entire water bill. He further reviewed the th water testing completed by the City on October 24. He noted that Mr. Khurana was using approximately 65 gallons of water per hour when his irrigation system was turned on. He questioned if the City sent out leak notices. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson explained that the City sent out over 200 leak notices and received a great deal of calls from residents regarding these letters. She reported that these letters assist residents in managing leaking irrigation systems or running toilets. Councilmember Werner stated that based on the letter Mr. Khurana received from Great Northern Irrigation, he believed that the resident used the water and was not in favor of making an adjustment to the bill. The Council directed staff to contact Mr. Khurana and explain that his bill will not be adjusted and to encourage him to investigate the leaks he has in his irrigation system. B.Discuss Purchasing Policy Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson explained that Policy was last updated in 2004. Since that time, the State Legislature has revised Minnesota Statute 471.345 on Competitive Bidding and Quotes. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson indicated that the Financial Planning and Analysis Committee (FPAC) is doing a review of all of policies and has recommended the following updates: 1. Reflect current Minnesota State Statutes in regards to Competitive Bidding and Quotes. 2. concerns regarding our internal controls and the ability of the departments to manage their budgets if they are not coding their own invoices. (We may receive an audit comment in this area for 2013.) 3. New IRS regulations requiring the City to have a completed IRS Form W-9 on file before payments can be processed for vendors. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20143 Staff requested that Council provide feedback on the proposed changes recommended by the Financial Planning and Analysis Committee. Councilmember Werner asked if the triangle sign had to be advertised for bid. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson reported that the City followed State Statute word for word on the triangle sign and received several quotes for the project. Councilmember Holmes recommended policy reflected back to Minnesota State Statute. Councilmember McClung suggested that Item 4 read: Other provisions as listed in State Statute. Councilmember Holden requested that the language regarding payment of bills be changed to - Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson stated that she would make these changes. Councilmember Holden recommended that the job title listed within the purchasing policy refer only to the Finance Director. Further discussion ensued regarding how invoices should be coded by City staff. Mayor Grant Councilmember McClung and stated that the City did have a fiduciary Director Iverson responsibility to its residents and that was alerting them to proper accounting auditors. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson stated that each department is allowed to delegate this coding work to a designee. She also commented that the finance department was short-handed at this time. She discussed how duties had to be delegated for auditing purposes. Councilmember Holmes was in favor of letting staff determine how invoices would be coded. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson thanked the Council for their input. She asked if the Council was comfortable with the Purchasing Policy coming back for approval on the Consent Agenda at the next City Council meeting. The Council was in favor of this action. C.Discuss Fund Balance Policy Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson explained that Balance Policy was last updated in 2011 when the new GASB Standards took effect. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20144 Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson reported that the Financial Planning and Analysis Committee (FPAC) is doing a review of all City policies and has recommended the following updates. The recommended updates to the policy are to: 1. Update titles and add in language for the internal service funds which we did not have at that time, and revision dates. 2. Change the language in item 3.a. under Policy Statements to have the Director of Finance and Administrative Services transfer any amount that exceeds 50% of the final fund balance after the audit number is known to the PIR Fund for the year. Staff requested Council feedback on the proposed changes recommended by the Financial Planning and Analysis Committee. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson discussed how staff completed General Fund transfers based on audit deadlines. Further discussion ensued regarding the General Fund balance. Councilmember Holmes recommended that all transfers be made and that the fund balance information be brought to the Council. She was in favor of having the funds transferred to the PIR Fund when the balance was over 50%. Mayor Grant wanted to see PIR Fund transfers approved by the City Council. Councilmember Holmes did not believe that any transfers to the PIR Fund would need to be approved by the Council. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson reported that she would bring the transfer to the City Council for approval after the audit was completed and update the language in the policy and bring the policy forward for approval. 3. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES Councilmember Holden recommended that the Council have a discussion on City SAC and WAC fees and on how the TCAAP SAC credits from Met Council will be disbursed. Director of Finance and Administrative Services Iverson updated the City Council in regard to a previous question on delinquent utility bills and small balances that was brought up at the March 31, 2014, meeting. She explained that according to State Statutes and City Ordinances, letters need to be sent out to all accounts informing them of the upcoming certification of their past due balances and a public hearing. She noted that between the time the notifications were sent out and the hearing/certification date, some customers made payment plans or partial payments and these amounts are what remains of the original amount. Staff would not normally certify small balances, but these are from the original assessment roll and remain there as part of the process. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 14, 20145 Council was satisfied with this process. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the special City Council work session at 9:06 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Amy Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor May 27, 2014 Honorable Mayor and City CouncilMembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services, Ariel Schmitz, Accounting Department Claims & Payroll 2014 Payroll #11 ............................................................................... $ 82,483.71 Paid Claims (Check No 0 Sales and Use Tax) ....................................... $ 9,804.00 Paid Claims (Check No 43449-Check No 43469) ................................. $ 93,096.41 Paid Claims (Check No 43470-Check No 43496) ................................. $ 122,425.63 Page of Payment Method EFT FIT7,123.79 SIT2,938.70 EFT 4,248.72 FICA Oasdi4,248.72 EFT 993.65 FICA Medicare993.65 EFT A/P Check* Health Premium2,099.390.00 Dental Premium0.00 A/P Check* FSA Health Care Reimb.238.33 A/P Check* FSA Dependent Care Reimb.442.66 A/P Check* HSA Health Saving 616.940.00 EFT Health Care Savings Plan0.00 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-2%272.19 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-4%172.28 4,707.83 EFT PERA4,058.46 ICMA3,658.68341.04 EFT Central Pension Fund-Union614.40 A/P Check* EFT MN State Retirement System328.13 A/P Check* IUOE 49 Dues (Union)131.04 LTD/STD Insurance0.00 A/P Check* PERA Life Insurance32.00 A/P Check* Life/Addl/Dep Life124.450.00 A/P Check* MN Child Support145.82 EFT Public Employee Long Term Care 93.72 A/P Check* UNUM 83.86 A/P Check* AFLAC163.96 EFT Avesis-Vision Care5.22 A/P Check* Total Employee Deductions28,586.39 Net Payroll0.00 PR Check # Direct Deposit43,606.08 EFT Gross Payroll Tie-Out72,192.47 STD/LTD Gross - Up0.00 Plus City Paid Benefit10,291.24 ICMA Benefit Held0.00 Gross Payroll72,192.47 Less Total FSA2,780.38 Plus Employer Match ICMA0.00 Plus ICMA Benefit Held0.00 Net P/R Subject to FICA69,412.09 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20%4,248.72 FICA Medicare @ 1.45%993.65 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. From:eservices.mdor@state.mn.us To:Ashley Bertrand Subject:Your Recent Return Request Date:Friday, May 16, 2014 8:58:38 AM This email is an automated notification and is unable to receive replies. Sales and Use Tax - Return Submitted Thank you, your request has been submitted. Please allow 3 business days for your return to appear online. Please allow 3 business days from 16-May-2014 for your payment to appear online. You can change or cancel this request until 5:00 p.m. Central time. Confirmation Summary Submitted Date and 16-May-20148:58:15 AM Time: Legal Name:ARDEN HILLS CITY OF Federal Employer ID:41-6008992 User Who Submitted:Accounting Analyst Type of Request Return for 4/30/2014 Submitted: Account Name:ARDEN HILLS CITY OF Minnesota ID:9047998 Return Summary Return Confirmation 1-391-772-288 Number: Account Type:Sales & Use Tax Filing Period:30-Apr-2014 Projected Amount/Credit $9,804.00 Due: Payment Summary Payment Confirmation 0-854-901-376 Number: Account Type:Sales & Use Tax Filing Period:30-Apr-2014 Payment Amount:$9,804.00 Payment Type:Return Payment Date:16-May-2014 Bank Name:US BANK NA Bank Account Number:********9377 Contact Us If you need further assistance, contact our Sales and Use Tax Division at (Metro Area) 651-296-6181, (Greater Minnesota) 800-657-3777, (TTY Users) Call 711 for Minnesota Relay, or (email) SalesUse.Tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday. How to View and Print this Request You can see copies of your requests by going to the History Tab. This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient and may contain nonpublic / private data. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, use, or distribution of the information included in this message and any attachments is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us and immediately and permanently delete this message and any attachments. Thank you. !"#$%&'&()* =1* >#$('$?&"*$@$A 22&,'$('$=1* >$?&"* +#*,-&,.*)0# 12."3 %,.!"*/-$45675689:$$;-:6$ < !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"-,$.)' :7::B64BC D%8459E5689:$948088 :7:48 F%G ))*H,&$%,.!"$I$G2&H.!H8459E5689:$9J67C06: :7:498979K*.##L*!H*,M#$N L@O $A" ,*8459E5689:$4:0:; :7:46989;K*"1*)$+!.P*,#."'8459E5689:$CE70B4 :7:47879B=."'$ Q$D #*P.))*8459E5689:$96J7:C076 :7:4:8;:9R1)*,#$I$ ## .&"*#J$G! 08459E5689:$7JE6;0C4 :7:44696BR)Q*,.!H$I$ ## .&"*#8459E5689:$76JC78088 :7:4E99B4R ,*>&$D* ' ).!H8459E5689:$CJ67908B :7:4C877BS*,H # !$T&"*,L ,>#$649E8459E5689:$;;068 :7:4;89B6U,&.!H*,J$G! 8459E5689:$;E90CE :7:4BC489V*))'$I$F*22 !#J$%0 08459E5689:$7J:6704; :7:E844B:A1*.)&$V,*W .8459E5689:$B:6048 :7:E98:B4F&>*$X 1&!!&$S.,*$?*Y&,"2*!"$G! 08459E5689:$6EJ7980B: :7:E68664F.)).*$A ( ,(&!$Z*L#Y&Y*,#8459E5689:$97E049 :7:E799BC< S&,)&!/$N&!# !$G! 08459E5689:$7860CE :7:E:9BB4<.!!*# "&$?*Y&,"2*!"$ Q$Z&" ,&)$D*# , *#8459E5689:$B8088 :7:E489:C< !/#P.*L$% (). $A 1 )#8459E5689:$9J888088 :7:EE666EA1&,, L$F.Q".!H$%, / "#8459E5689:$9B;0:7 :7:EC876CA"&Y)*#$K #.!*##$ /P&!"&H*8459E5689:$9J8B406; :7:E;8B64O@< (.)*8459E5689:$74B0B9 :7:EBBBBBTTU *"# 1$ ## .&"*#J$G! 08459E5689:$9:70C9 O "&)$Q ,$459E5689:-$B7J8BE0:9 =N89;BU Y1*,$A"&"*$[!*@=&))J$G! 0845675689:$76E0B4 =N87;6G=< $D*".,*2*!"$O, #"$@$98EB::845675689:$E7408: =N87;CG=< $D*".,*2*!"$O, #"@$\786:;6845675689:$7J7E:0E; :7:C844;C=RA$G2&H.!H845675689:$E8088 :7:C9879B=."'$ Q$D #*P.))*845675689:$7JE96064 :7:C68768N*&)"1$%&,"!*,#845675689:$9J6990;8 :7:C7NR%=N*L)*""$%& >&,/$= 2Y&!'845675689:$E;6088 :7:C:97C6N.)) ,*#"$ !.2&)$N #Y."&)845675689:$669088 :7:C444;BG!/*Y*!/*!"$[QQ. .&)#$ ## .&". !J$FF=0845675689:$:B:088 :7:CE4EC4X&# !$F.!/] .#"845675689:$7;C0B9 :7:CC869:FOU$% L*,$R] .Y2*!"845675689:$98B046 :7:C;86:7<*", Y )."&!$= ! .)@T&#"*$T&"*,845675689:$4:J8C80:; :7:CB8C79<G?T ^$S[D?845675689:$9J7C:0BC :7:;8;86B<<VD$I$= J$% 845675689:$6J784088 :7:;986B6[_'H*!$A*,P. *$= 2Y&!'J$G! 0845675689:$940E8 :7:;6;876%& *$ !&)'". &)$S.*)/$AP 845675689:$E;7088 :7:;7968;%,*2. 2$T&"*,#J$G! 845675689:$9E60BE :7:;:EC8E`7$= !",& ".!H845675689:$:J6E;088 :7:;48;99D&2#*'$= !"'845675689:$7:JE4709E :7:;E4ECCD&2#*'$= !"'$<&#"*,$U&,/*!*,#845675689:$48088 :7:;C9889AY,.!"5Z*_"*)$= 22 !. &". !#845675689:$69C0BB :7:;;876CA"&Y)*#$K #.!*##$ /P&!"&H*845675689:$4860EC :7:;B4EC:A" &,"= 845675689:$9J:880;4 %$=1* >#$('$?&"*$@$A 22&,'$('$=1* >$?&"*$a45675689:$$;-:6$ <b%&H*$9 !"#$( )*$+"#$( )*$+"#&, !"%&' !"-,$.)' :7:B884CEO.2*A&P*,$[QQ$A."*$A* ,*"&,.&)845675689:$B:E048 :7:B9O[GGO >)*$G!#Y* ". !#J$G! 845675689:$;J8C9068 :7:B678BBO,.@A"&"*$K ( &"J$G! 0@F."")*$=&!&/&845675689:$BB8088 :7:B7868;+!.A*)* "$+A 845675689:$78:04: :7:B:99E9c&))*'@D. 1$= 0J$G! 0845675689:$:B7068 :7:B44ECE? , "1'$c&L"*,845675689:$E78088 :7:BEE844T1."*$K*&,$D*!"&)$I$A&)*#845675689:$9;807E O "&)$Q ,$45675689:-$966J:640E7 D*Y ,"$O "&)$a49$ 1* >#b-$694J46608: %$=1* >#$('$?&"*$@$A 22&,'$('$=1* >$?&"*$a45675689:$$;-:6$ <b%&H*$6 CONSENT ITEM 5C MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-015 Applicant: Boston Scientific Corporation Property Location: 4100 Hamline Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council. Background Boston Scientific is requesting a Master PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 gross square foot addition on the south side of Building 10, which is located in the south central portion of the Boston Scientific Campus. Building 10 is also identified on the campus Master Plan as Building D. The purpose of the addition is to provide storage and support for ongoing product development and research. The addition would infill an existing paved courtyard area and would not bring Building 10 any closer to the property lines of the campus or result in a decrease in landscape coverage. The structure of the building would be concrete masonry with a steel beam and deck roof structure and would match the adjacent roofline at approximately 13 feet above grade. The exterior finish will be face brick with color and coursing to match the existing construction. The landscaped area on the south side of Building 10 is turf grass with a mix of mature trees. All areas disturbed by the construction will be restored to their previous condition. Building 10 is City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 1 of 4 screened from the south by a wooded wetland area located between the building and County Road F. One additional tree planting is proposed in order to meet the requirements, which would be added on the east side of Innovation Way near the Cumming Park Drive turnaround. Boston Scientific Master Plan The campus Master Plan was originally approved in 2002. A total of 419,500 square feet of building space was proposed for Phase 1, which was scheduled to be completed in 2006. Due to the change in ownership from Guidant to Boston Scientific in 2006, as well as other market conditions, portions of Phase 1 have not been constructed. Two new buildings (L and K) and an addition to Building I were expected to be finished during Phase I. Of this additional building area, only Building L and the Building I addition have been built. Plans for Building K have not yet been submitted. The Master Plan requires a traffic study be completed at the end of Phase 1. The Building J addition (90,000 square feet) was moved from Phase 2 to Phase 1 (PC 04-01); however, this addition has not been constructed. Three additions to Building N (14) were also approved for Phase 1 (PC 03-024, PC 06-033, and PC 13-021), which has added 40,250 square feet to the campus to date. The 1,310 square foot addition to Building N (14) approved by the City Council in PC 13-021 will be constructed in the summer of 2014. Since the Master Plan was approved in 2002, the City has approved 297,560 square feet of new space, of which 206,250 square feet have been constructed. Master Plan - Approved Planning CaseBuildingPhase 1 (s.f.)Size (s.f.)Built (s.f.) PC 03-06 L108,000112,000Yes PC 03-07 I52,30054,000Yes Not yet submittedK259,2000No Original Phase 1 Subtotal 419,500166,000166,000 PC 13-21N (14)1,3101,310No PC 06-33N (14) 2,2502,250Yes PC 04-01 J80,00090,000No PC 03-24N (14) 38,00038,000Yes Amended Phase 1 Subtotal 121,560131,56040,250 Phase 1 Original and Amended Total541,060297,560206,250 Proposed Addition (PC 14-15)D (10)730730Proposed Final Total 541,790298,290206,250 City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 2 of 4 Plan Review The proposal is in conformance with the zoning and design standard requirements for properties located in the I-1 Limited Industrial District. A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at their May 7, 2014, Regular Meeting. The staff report to the Planning Commission regarding this case is included in Attachment E. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-015 at their regular meeting on May 7, 2014. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment F. The Planning Commission offers the following eight (8) findings of fact for consideration: 1.A Master PUD was approved for 4100 Hamline Avenue North in Planning Case #02-025. 2.The proposed 730 square foot addition to Building 10 was not included in the approved Master Plan and an amendment to the PUD is therefore required. 3.The Master PUD requires that a Site Plan Review be applied for prior to the construction of any building or addition. 4.The property is located in the I-1: Limited Industrial District. 5.The proposal is in conformance with the zoning and design standard requirements for the I-1: Limited Industrial District. 6.T 7.The proposal is not expected to exceed noise limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 8.The proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. 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 residents in regards to this planning case. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 3 of 4 Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommends approval of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans as presented in the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following three (3) conditions: 1.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.A PUD Amendment drafted by the City Attorney shall be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3.The Master PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the project has not begun. Option 1.Approve the proposal as submitted. 2.Approve the proposal with conditions (Recommended Action). 3.Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, 4.Table for additional information. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 7, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 6, 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 Project Narrative B.Site and Aerial Map C.Project Plans D.Property Photographs E.Planning Commission Report, May 7, 2014 F.Draft Planning Commission Minutes, May 7, 2014 City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 - Boston Scientific - PUD Amendment - Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 4 of 4 AttachmentA MEMORANDUM COMM. NO. :613101211 CLIENT :Boston Scientific PROJECT :Building 10 Courtyard Conversion SUBJECT :Land Use Application Narrative MEMO BY :Joseph Ford, RSP Architects DATE :April 7, 2014 ATTENTION :Ryan Streff, City Planner, City of Arden Hills COPY :Marte Byrne, Boston Scientific Boston Scientific would like to request a PUD amendment for an addition to Building 10 in the southern central portion of its Arden Hills Campus. The purpose of the addition is to provide storage and support space for ongoing product development and research work in Building 10. The proposed addition is 730 gross square feet, single-story and will infill an existing paved courtyardat the south side of Building 10. The height of the addition shall match the existing roofline at approximately 13’ above grade. The building structure will be concrete masonry with a steel beam and deck roof structure. The exterior finish will be face brick with color and coursing to match existing adjacent construction. Other exterior materials will include prefinished metal coping. One makeup air unit sized to serve the new square footage will be installed on the roof. This unit will be smaller in size than other existing equipment and will therefore not contribute to maximum noise levels. The nearest property line from the addition is approximately 260 feet away, with the closest neighbor being the Xcel Energy substation. The closest residential property is the new multifamily development on County Road F and is approximately 900 feet away. The existing landscaped area at the addition is turf grasswith a mix of mature trees. The area disturbed by construction will berestored to its previous condition. Building 10 is heavily screened from the south by the wooded wetland area between the building and County Road F. Boston Scientific proposes that additional trees needed to meet the City’s landscape requirementsbe added to the east side of Innovation Way near the turnaround at Cummings Park Drive, where additional landscaping would be noticeable. The Rice Creek Watershed District does not require Stormwater Management or Erosion & Sedimentation Control permits for projects that involve less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface (Rule C: 2.(a)) or disturbance of vegetative cover (Rule D: 2.(a., 2)). The proposed project will include 730 SF of impervious surface, with zero net increase since the construction replaces a paved area. Disturbance of vegetated areas will be only that needed for excavation of new foundations and construction access. This area of disturbance is estimated at 1,800 square feet. AttachmentB 4100 Hamline Avenue North - Boston Scientific 1,030.472,060.9Feet 2,060.9 0 1:12,366 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 eunevA notgnixeL eunevA enilmaH AttachmentE MEMORANDUM 3.B DATE: May 7, 2014PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case #14-015-This application requires a Public Hearing Applicant: Boston Scientific Corporation Property Location: 4100 Hamline Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review Requested Action The applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730square foot addition on the south side of Building 10 ontheBoston Scientific Corporation Campus. Background 1.Overview of Request th Boston Scientific is requestinga Master PUD (11)Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 gross square foot addition on the south side of Building 10, which is located in the south central portion of the Boston Scientific Campus.Building 10is also identifiedon the campus Master Planas Building D.The purpose of the addition is to provide storage and support for ongoing product development and research. The addition wouldinfill an existing paved courtyard and would match the adjacent roofline at approximately 13feet above grade.The structure of the building wouldbe concrete masonry with a steel beam and deck roof structure.The exterior finish will be face brick with color and coursing to match the existing construction. The existing landscaped area where the addition will be constructed is turf grasswith a mix of mature trees. All areas disturbed by the construction will be restored to their previouscondition. Building 10 is heavily screened from the south by a wooded wetland area located between the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 1of 9 building and County Road F. The additional trees needed to meet the City’s landscaping requirements would be added on the east side of Innovation Way near theCumming Park Drive turnaround. 2.Surrounding Area DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use Low Density Residential, R-1: Single Family Residential, Single Family Residential, North Light Industrial and OfficeI-1: Limited IndustrialOffice Light Industrial and Office,I-1: Limited Industrial,Office, Utility, South High Density ResidentialR-4: Multiple DwellingMultiple Family Residential PUD (Townhouses & Offices)/Single Family Detached East RL-Residential / Office / R-3:Multiple Dwelling Residential / Office / Multiple (Shoreview)RH-Residential ResidentialFamily WestLow Density ResidentialR-1: Single Family ResidentialSingle Family Residential 3.Site Data Future Land Use Plan:Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use:Light Industrial and Office Zoning:I-1: Limited Industrial / PUD Overlay Size:92.8acres Proposed Density:N/A Topography:Level 4.Past Boston ScientificPlanning Cases The City has reviewed the following requests for this property: Planning Case#RequestCommentsCC Action 14-007Permit ExtensionTemporary Walkway01/27/14 (Approved) th 1,310square foot addition Master Plan PUD 10 13-021 01/13/14 (Approved) Amendmentto Building N(14) 08-032Permit ExtensionTemporary Walkway11/24/08 (Approved) Master Plan PUD 9th Nitrogen storage tank and 08-02510/27/08 (Approved) Amendmentliquid nitrogen vaporizer City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 2of 9 th Master Plan PUD 82,250 square foot addition 06-03311/27/06 (Approved) Amendmentto Building N(14) th Master Plan PUD 710,225 square foot addition 08/28/06 (Approved) 06-024 Amendmentto Building N(14)Expired th Master Plan PUD 6 06-010 Parking Modifications04/24/06 (Approved) Amendment Installation of nitrogen th Master Plan PUD 5 04-018generator, vaporizers, and 10/25/04 (Approved) Amendment 50-foot tall storage tank th Master Plan PUD 4 04-017Parking Modifications07/12/04 (Approved) Amendment Satellite antennae for 04-013Special Use Permit 07/12/04 (Approved) Building L 04-004Site Plan ReviewTemporary Walkway02/23/04 (Approved) rd Master Plan PUD 3Moving Addition J from 04-001Amendment and Final Phase 2 to Phase 1 and 02/23/04 (Approved) PUDslightly larger Addition J nd Master Plan PUD 2Site layout change to allow 03-02509/29/03 (Approved) Amendmentfor Building N Addition 03-024Site Plan ReviewBuilding N Addition09/29/03 (Approved) 03-023Site Plan ReviewParking Ramp #109/29/03 (Approved) 03-007Site Plan ReviewBuilding Addition I03/31/03 (Approved) 03-006Site Plan ReviewBuilding L03/31/03 (Approved) st Master Plan PUD 1Site layout changes to 03-00503/31/03 (Approved) AmendmentBuildings I, K, L, and M 03-004Final PlatFinal Plat and Vacation06/30/03 (Approved) Master Plan PUD, Guidant 3-phase Master 02-02511/12/02 (Approved) Preliminary PlatPlan and Preliminary Plat Lexington Avenue and 01-025Sign Variances 09/24/01 (Approved) Water Tower Signage 5.Boston ScientificMaster Plan The campus Master Plan was originally approved in 2002. A total of 419,500 square feet of building space was proposed for Phase 1, which was scheduled to be completed in 2006. Due to the change in ownership from Guidant to Boston Scientific in 2006, as well as other market conditions, portions of Phase 1 have not been constructed. Two new buildings (L and K) and an City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 3of 9 addition to Building I were expected to be finished during Phase I. Of this additional building area, only Building L and the Building I addition have been built. Plans for Building K have not yet been submitted. The Master Plan requires a traffic study be completed at the end of Phase 1. The Building J addition (90,000 square feet) was moved from Phase 2 to Phase 1 (PC 04-01); however,this addition has not been constructed. Threeadditionsto Building N (14) were also approved for Phase 1(PC 03-024,PC 06-033, and PC 13-021), whichhas added 40,250square feet to the campusto date.The 1,310 square foot addition to Building N (14) approved by the City Council in PC 13-021 will be constructed in the summerof 2014. Since the Master Plan was approved in2002, the City has approved 297,560square feet of new space,of which 206,250 square feet have been constructed. As noted above, Phase 1 originally proposed 419,500 square feet of new space. Master Plan-Approved Planning CaseBuildingPhase 1 (s.f.)Size (s.f.)Built (s.f.) PC 03-06L108,000112,000Yes PC 03-07I52,30054,000Yes Not yet submittedK259,2000No Original Phase 1Subtotal419,500166,000166,000 PC 13-21N (14)1,3101,310No PC 06-33N (14) 2,2502,250Yes PC 04-01J80,00090,000No PC 03-24N(14) 38,00038,000Yes Amended Phase 1 Subtotal121,560131,56040,250 Phase 1 –Original and Amended Total541,060297,560206,250 Proposed Addition (PC 14-15)D (10)730730Proposed Final Total541,790298,290206,250 Plan Review 1.Zoning – Meets Requirement The Boston Scientific campus is located in the I-1: Limited Industrial Zoning District. The approved Master Plan PUD for the propertyacts as an additional governing documentfor the campus. The proposed addition would meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district as well as the Master Plan. The proposed construction would fill in an open courtyard space and City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 4of 9 would not bring Building 10 any closer to the property linesof the campus. Currently,Building 10 is approximately 185feet away from the closest property line.A minimum setback of 50 feet is required in the Master Plan. The height of the addition would be approximately 13feet tall. The maximum building height allowed in the I-1 District is35feet. 2.Landscape Lot Coverage– Meets requirement Boston ScientificCampus: 92.8Acres(4,042,646 square feet) Landscape CoverageLandscape CoverageLandscape Coverage I-1 CriteriaExisting:Proposed: Square FeetPercentSquare FeetPercentSquare FeetPercent 1,418,03035% Min2,155,60053.322,155,60053.32 The proposal is in conformance with the landscape coverage requirements and the impervious surface limits for the I-1 District. The project will include 730 square feet of impervious surface with zero net increase since the construction replaces an existing paved area. 3.Landscaping Requirements– Meets requirement Since the proposalincludes additional building space, the City’s landscaping requirements apply (Zoning Code, 1325.05 Subd. 1 Landscaping). The minimum landscape requirements are determined based on the gross square footage of new building space. In this case, the applicant would be required to provide 2.3caliper inches of trees (730square feet/ 320 = 2.3). Boston Scientific has proposed planting oneBlack Hills Spruce treetotaling 2.5 caliper inches on the east side of Innovation Way near the CummingsPark Drive turnaround. 4.Aesthetics – Meets requirement The exterior finish of the addition will be face brick with color andcoursing to match the existingconstruction. Other exterior materials will include prefinished metal wall capping.The applicant has provided a rendering ofthe proposed building elevations(Attachment C). The Zoning Code does not have specific guidelines for building materialsin the I-1 District. Under Section 1325.05 Subd. 6 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is instructed to consider if the appearance of a proposed structure would cause substantial depreciation in the property values in the surrounding area or to unreasonably detract from the appearance of the area. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 5of 9 5.Parking – Meets requirementwith Proof of Parking Plan Based on the proposed use of the addition (Other Business and Industry), one parking space for each 1,000 square feet of floor area is required. In this case, one additional parking space would need to be provided. The addition is not expected to increase demand for parking on the campus and no new parking spaces are being proposed with the application. The propertycurrently has a parking deficit of 702spaces based on Zoning Code requirements. With the proposed addition, this number would increase to 703spaces. Boston Scientific has acknowledgedthat existing parking on the property satisfies the current parking demand on the campus. They have proposed that the net deficit of parking spaces be accommodated by “Proof of Parking.” The applicant has provided a Parking Calculation Plan (Attachment C)that shows 767“Proof of Parking” spaces that could be built in the event that additional parking was needed. 6.Traffic, Access, and Circulation – Meets requirement The proposed addition will not have animpact on internal campus circulation or traffic conditions in the surrounding area. Since the total amount of building space proposed in Phase 1 has not been reached, the current proposal does not warrant a traffic study. A study to determine if any road improvements are neededwill be required before the campus exceeds the proposed 419,500 square feet in Phase 1. 7.Lighting – Meets requirement There are noproposed changes to the lighting on Building 10that would impact neighboring properties. 8.Grading and Utilities – Meets requirement The proposed construction would not include any grading or utilities work. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has determined that a Grading and Erosion Control permit will not be required. The Rice Creek Watershed District has also reviewed the project and determined that a RCWD permit will not be necessary because the building addition would disturb an area of less than 10,000 square feet. 9.Screening andNoise – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code requires screening to be provided where any business or industrial use is adjacent to a residential zoning district. The existing stand of mature coniferous and deciduous trees between Building 10and County Road Fline satisfies this requirement.This landscape buffer area measures approximately 400feet in width. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 6of 9 One makeup air unit sized to serve the new square footage will be installed on the roof of Building 10. This unit will be smaller in size than other existing roof equipmentand will therefore not contribute to maximum noise levels. The nearest property line from the addition is approximately 260 feet away, with the closestneighbor being the Xcel Energy substation. The closest residential property is the Arden Village multi-family development on County Road F and is approximately 900 feet away. The Zoning Code does not include specific regulations regarding acceptable levels of noise. However, all properties in the City must meet the noise rules established by the State of Minnesota. The State sets noise limits by establishing “noise area classifications” based on the land use at the location of the person that hears the noise. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been given statutory authority to enforce the state noise rules. 10.Additional Review The City Engineer and Building Official have reviewed the application and do not have any additional comments. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue Northwould adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eight (8) findingsof factfor consideration: 1.A Master PUD was approved for 4100 Hamline Avenue Northin Planning Case #02-025. 2.The proposed 730square foot addition to Building 10was not included in the approved Master Planand an amendment to the PUD is therefore required. 3.The Master PUD requires that a Site Plan Reviewbe applied forprior to the construction of any building or addition. 4.The property is located in the I-1: Limited Industrial District. 5.The proposalis inconformance with the zoningand design standardrequirements forthe I-1: Limited Industrial District. 6.The applicant has provided a Parking Calculation Plan that shows adequate “Proof of Parking” spaces in theevent that additional parking is needed. 7.The proposal is not expected to exceed noise limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 8.The proposalwill not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 7of 9 Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletinand 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 residents in regards to this planning case. Staff Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-015for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site PlanReview at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. Staff recommends the following three (3)conditions to be included with the approval: 1.The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2.A PUD Amendment drafted by the City Attorney shall be executed prior to the issuance of abuilding permit. 3.The Master PUDAmendment and Site Plan Review shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the project has not begun. Options 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14-015for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Reviewat 4100 Hamline Avenue Northbased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the three (3)conditions in the May 7, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14- 015for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue Northbased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in theMay 7, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 8of 9 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 14-015for a Planned Unit Development Amendmentand Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue Northbased onthe following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 14-015for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue Northin orderto gather the following information: a specific reason and/orinformation request should be included with a motion to table. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 7, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 6, 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, extendthe review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A.Land Use Application and Project Narrative B.Site and Aerial Map C.Project Plans City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-015 -Boston Scientific -PUD Amendment -Building Addition\Memos and Reports_14-015 Page 9of 9 AttachmentF Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 2014 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL A.Planning Case 14-015; PUD Amendment & Site Plan Review Boston Scientific 4100 Hamline Avenue North Public Hearing Chair Larson recused himself on this item. Associate Planner Bachler stated the applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 square foot addition on the south side of Building 10 on the Boston Scientific Corporation Campus. Associate Planner Bachler reported that Boston Scientific is requesting a Master PUD (11) th Amendment and Site Plan Review to construct a 730 gross square foot addition on the south side of Building 10, which is located in the south central portion of the Boston Scientific Campus. Building 10 is also identified on the campus Master Plan as Building D. The purpose of the addition is to provide storage and support for ongoing product development and research. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that t he addition would infill an existing paved courtyard and would match the adjacent roofline at approximately 13 feet above grade. The structure of the building would be concrete masonry with a steel beam and deck roof structure. The exterior finish will be face brick with color and coursing to match the existing construction. Associate Planner Bachler commented that t he existing landscaped area where the addition will be constructed is turf grass with a mix of mature trees. All areas disturbed by the construction will be restored to their previous condition. Building 10 is heavily screened from the south by a wooded wetland area located between the building and County Road F. The additional trees needed to meet uirements would be added on the east side of Innovation Way near the Cumming Park Drive turnaround. Site Data Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Light Industrial and Office Zoning: I-1: Limited Industrial / PUD Overlay Size: 92.8 acres Proposed Density: N/A Topography: Level Associate Planner Bachler Cases, Master Plan and the Plan Review. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION May 7, 2014 2 Associate Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. A Master PUD was approved for 4100 Hamline Avenue North in Planning Case #02-025. 2. The proposed 730 square foot addition to Building 10 was not included in the approved Master Plan and an amendment to the PUD is therefore required. 3. The Master PUD requires that a Site Plan Review be applied for prior to the construction of any building or addition. 4. The property is located in the I-1: Limited Industrial District. 5. The proposal is in conformance with the zoning and design standard requirements for the I-1: Limited Industrial District. 6. 7. The proposal is not expected to exceed noise limits set by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 8. The proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. Associate Planner Bachler stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. Staff recommends the following three (3) conditions to be included with the approval: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. A PUD Amendment drafted by the City Attorney shall be executed prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3. The Master PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review shall automatically expire and become void one (1) year after the date on which the Council granted such approval if work on the project has not begun. 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 Vice Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Vice Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 6:57 p.m. Vice Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Vice Chair Thompson There being no additional comment closed the public hearing at 6:58 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION May 7, 2014 3 Vice Chair Thompson asked if the proof of parking would be sufficient to meet the needs of the site. Associate Planner Bachler explained that Boston Scientific has not had any issues with parking on the campus, and had reserved areas that could be developed into additional parking if there was an increase in demand. He indicated that staff was recommending that the proof of parking be accepted in lieu of additional parking stalls. Vice Chair Thompson questioned if there were noise concerns that should be considered with the proposed addition. Associate Planner Bachler stated this was discussed with Boston Scientific. He reported that one small additional rooftop unit would be added to Building 10. He did not anticipate that this unit would impact the surrounding properties as it was a substantial distance from neighboring properties. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-015 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the May 7, 2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). CONSENTITEM –5D MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Recycling Contract Addendum–Adding Single Sort Collection Action Requested Approve the addendum to the recycling services contract in order to transition the City to a single sort recycling collectionsystem. Background During the City Council Work Sessionon April 21, 2014, the Council directed staff to prepare an addendum to the recycling contractto change the collection system fromdual sort to single sort. If approved, theCity will transition its recycling program to single sort, whilecontinuingto use the recycling bins that are currently being used by City residents. There would be no impact to the cost, frequency of pickup, or route changes during the transition to single sort collection. Eureka Recycling has since prepared the attached addendum to the recycling services contract. The addendum to the contractincludesthe following changes:transition from dual sort collection to single sort collection;expansion of the accepted recyclable plastics and beverage packaging materials; andthe change inrevenue that will be owed to the City from theinclusion oftheadditional recyclables. At this time, Eureka Recycling and the City havedetermined thatatentative date ofJuly 15, 2014, could be set as the official transition date to single sort collection, based on the approval of the contract addendum and the time to develop and send educational materials to the City residents. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2014\Single Stream\Memos_Reports_Single Stream 12 Page of Attachments A)Proposed Addendumto Recycling Contract B)Current Recycling Contract with Eureka C)Draft City Council Work Session meeting minutes –April 21, 2014 D)City Council Work Session Memo –April, 21, 2014 City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2014\Single Stream\Memos_Reports_Single Stream 22 Page of Attachment A Attachment C Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 21,2014 5:00 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grantcalled to order the City Council work session at 5:04p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant;CouncilmembersBrenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Ed Werner Absent: None Also present :City AdministratorPatrick Klaers;City Attorney Joel Jamnik; Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; Parks and Recreation Manager Olson; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; City Planner Ryan Streff; and City Clerk Amy Dietl APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Councilaccepted the agenda as presented. 1.AGENDA ITEMS C.Single Stream Recycling City Planner Streff explained that the City of Arden Hills has contracted for curbside recycling service since 1992,for single family, duplex, triplex and fourplex residential dwelling units. Currently the City utilizes a dual stream collection process that requires residents to separate recyclables into two groups of materials: 1) all food and beverage containers; and 2) all paper and fiber products. Eureka Recycling has submitted a request to change the collection method from dual stream to single stream collection. The change to single stream would also include the expansion of recyclable plastic food packaging containers (#4 and #5) to be collected including; • Tubs and bowls such as yogurt, butter and produce containers; ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION –APRIL 21, 20142 • Transparent deli and “to go” containers City Planner Streff indicated that Eurekacurrently only targets plastic bottletypes #1 and #2 in Arden Hills. Single stream collection allows the comingling of recyclable materials into one container. However, before the transition to single stream can take place, the recycling contract requires that written approval be obtained from the City. Eureka Recycling is currently transitioning several communities thatthey serve (including Lauderdale, Roseville, St. Paul and White Bear Lake) to single stream recycling.Eureka recently converted their material recovery facility (MRF) to be able to process materials from a single stream method. City Planner Streff reported that cities throughout the Twin Cities metro area, Minnesota and the country are continuing to make the transition to single stream recycling collection. Single stream recycling improves convenience to residents and therefore, increases recycling rates and participation. The net result is an increase in the overall amount of materials recycled.Staff has prepared two options for the Council to consider for implementing a single stream recycling collection system. Option 1 Transition the City’s recycling program to single stream collection while continuing to use the recycling bins that are currently being used by City residents. Other than moving to the single stream method and adding additional plastics, no other services provided by the recycling contract or the recycling program would be changed. There would be no impact to the cost, frequency of pickup, or route changes during the initial transition to single stream collection. Before any official changes to the program take place the City and Eureka would provide educational materials to residents to ensure correct collection procedures. Once the transition to single stream collection has been made, the City would then begin discussions on how to most effectively switch the program from recycling bins to recycling carts. A new contract could be negotiated for the services needed for a single stream collection system with the use of carts. The City would decide if they should own the recycling carts or if the contractor should own the carts. In either case, the contractor could be tasked with managing the carts and other tasks that include; conducting the cart roll-out and cart storage, inventory, repairs, and replacements. The City would also need to consider the frequency of collection, types and sizes of carts, cart distribution, impacts to revenue share and recycling and processing fees and other value added services such as multifamily recycling, public education and organics collection. Option 2 Delay the transition from dual stream to single stream collection until a new contract is negotiated between the City and a recycling contractor. At that time, the City would need to determine if the recycling carts should be purchased by the City or the contractor. The City would also need to consider the frequency of collection, types and sizes of carts, cart distribution, impacts to revenue share and recycling and processing fees and other value added services such as multifamily recycling, public education and organics collection. City Planner Streff requested comment from the Council on how to proceed. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION –APRIL 21, 20143 Councilmember Holden questioned when the City’s recycling contract was up for negotiation. City Planner Streff reported that the contract ran through March of 2015. Mayor Grant preferred to see acompetitive bid for recycling services. Councilmember Werner stated that Shoreview has single stream recycling. He anticipated that this service would cost the City more money. City Planner Streff reviewed the pricing information stating that the rates would vary depending on whether the City kept weekly pickup, or changed to every other week pickup,for recyclables. Councilmember Holden asked if there was a market now for the #4 and #5 plastics. City Planner Streff understood that #3 and #6 plastics were the only recyclables that had no market. All other plastic recyclables had a market. Chris Goodwin , Eureka Recycling, statedthatthe reason #4 and #5 plastics were not collected before was because there was not a proper chain of custody. Hereported that over the past five years, there has been a lot of market development in the plastics industry for these materials. Mayor Grant stated that if the City were to move to single stream recycling, residents may have a difficult time storing the larger container. This would then create a code enforcement issue if residents stored the container outside of their garage. Councilmember McClung commented that he has received a number of phone calls from residents requesting single streamrecycling,with the large carts. He supported the single stream recycling and wanted to see staff pursue this option. He believed that the project should be competitively bid. Councilmember Holden questioned if the current recycling contract could be amended to allow for single stream recycling. City Planner Streff explained that a contract amendment would allow for single stream recycling through March 1, 2015, without purchasing carts and changing vendors. He indicatedthatstaff could pursue bids from othervendors in the meantime, to assist in lowering the costs to residents. Mayor Grant discussed the revenue share plan with Eureka. He inquired if the revenue sharing would continue going forward. City Planner Streff understood that the City currently receives50% of the revenues from Eureka, but that could changeif the City were to pursue single stream recycling or another recycling vendor. Mayor Grant asked if Eureka had the ability to manage single stream recycling from the City’s current bins. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION –APRIL 21, 20144 Mr. Goodwin reported that Eureka doeshave the ability at their plant to collect and manage single stream recycling. He indicated that the City could move to carts at a later time. He discussed the education process that needsto take place in order to move from dual to single stream. Councilmember Werner questioned if the fees for recycling would increase if the City changed to single stream. Mr. Goodwin stated that there couldbe a slight increasein the processing fees, but noted that participation wouldlikelyincrease greatly, which would increase the amount of revenue share. Councilmember Holmes inquired if the City had to move to carts. Mr. Goodwin commented that the carts were easy and had a great deal of capacity. He noted that there were smaller carts available for residents. He reportedthatthe carts were more efficient for the drivers. Further discussion ensued regarding the options available for recycling bins and pickup. Councilmember Holden was in favor of the Council selectingOption #1, maintaining the use of the existing binswith staff completing the competitive bid processor RFPfor single stream recycling between now and March 2015. There was Council consensus to direct staff to proceed in this manner. Attachment D AGENDA ITEM –1C MEMORANDUM DATE: April21, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Single Stream Recycling Action Requested Provide direction on the transition to single stream recycling. Background The Cityof Arden Hills has contracted for curbside recycling service since 1992 for single family, duplex, triplex and fourplex residentialdwelling units. Currently the City utilizes a dual streamcollection process that requires residents to separate recyclables into two groups of materials: 1) all food and beverage containers; and 2) all paper and fiber products. Eureka Recycling has submitted a request to change the collection methodfrom dual stream to single streamcollection.The change to single stream would also include the expansion of recyclable plastic food packaging containers (#4 and #5) to be collected including; Tubs and bowls such as yogurt, butter and producecontainers; Transparent deli and “to go” containers Currently Eureka only targetsplastic bottles types #1 and #2 in Arden Hills. Single stream collection allowsthe comingling of recyclable materialsinto one container. However, before thetransition to single stream can take place,the recycling contract requires that written approval be obtained from the City.Eureka Recycling is currently transitioning several communities they serve to single stream recyclingincluding Lauderdale, Roseville, St. Pauland White Bear Lake. Eureka recently converted their City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for April 21, 2014 P:\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2014\Single Stream\Memos_Reports_Single Stream Page 1of 3 AGENDA ITEM –1C material recovery facility(MRF)to be able to process materials from asingle stream method. Cities throughout the Twin Cities metro area, Minnesota and the country are continuing to make the transition tosingle stream recycling collection.Single stream recycling improves convenience toresidentsand therefore, increasesrecycling rates and participation. The net result is an increase in the overall amount of materials recycled. Transition to Single Stream Staff has prepared two options for the Council to consider for implementing asingle streamrecycling collectionsystem. Option 1 Transition the City’s recycling program to single streamcollectionwhile continuing to use the recycling bins that are currently being used by City residents. Other than moving to the single streammethod and adding additional plastics,no other services provided by the recycling contract or the recycling program would be changed. There would be no impact to the cost, frequency of pickup, or route changes during the initial transition to single stream collection. Before any official changes to the program take place the City and Eureka would provide educational materials to residentsto ensure correct collection procedures. Once thetransitionto single stream collection has been made,the City would then begindiscussions on how to most effectivelyswitch the program from recycling bins to recycling carts.Anew contract couldbe negotiated for the services needed for a single stream collection system with the use of carts.TheCity would decide if theyshould own the recycling carts or if the contractor should own the carts.In either case, the contractor could be tasked with managing the cartsand other tasks that include;conducting the cart roll-outand cart storage, inventory,repairs, and replacements. The City would also need to consider the frequency of collection, types and sizes of carts, cart distribution,impacts to revenue share and recycling and processing feesand other value added services such as multifamily recycling, public education and organics collection. Option 2 Delay the transition from dual stream to single stream collection until a new contract is negotiated between the City and arecycling contractor.At that time, the City would need to determine if the recycling cartsshould be purchased by the City or the contractor.The City would also need to consider the frequency of City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for April 21, 2014 P:\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2014\Single Stream\Memos_Reports_Single Stream Page 2of 3 AGENDA ITEM –1C collection, types and sizes of carts, cart distribution, impacts to revenue share and recycling and processing fees and other value added services such as multifamily recycling, public education and organics collection. Discussion Questions 1)Should option 1 or 2 be used for the transition to single stream recycling? 2)Should staff begin the process to convert to a cart collection system? Attachments A)Current Recycling Contractwith Eureka City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for April 21, 2014 P:\Planning\Recycling & Garbage\2014\Single Stream\Memos_Reports_Single Stream Page 3of 3 CONSENT ITEM 5E MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator FROM: Dave Scherbel, Building Official SUBJECT: Inspections Vehicle Replacement Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Sources: $20,000 (CIP) $24,366.67 Building/Equipment Replacement Fund Requested Action Approve expenditure of $24,366.67 for the purchase of a 2014 Ford Escape from the Minnesota State contract. Discussion The current Inspections vehicles consist of a 2004 Chevrolet Blazer and a 2003 Ford F250 obtained from our Public Works Department. Both vehicles are ten or more years old and are requiring more repairs each year. Staff is seeking to replace the Ford F250 with a new vehicle. The new vehicle will preferably be versatile enough to meet several needs a seating capacity for at least five people for group off-site meetings; an enclosed cargo area to haul items such as confiscated signs or Park and Recreation Department equipment; and off-road capability for construction sites. A vehicle that meets these needs and comes highly recommended from the Ramsey County Public Works Department is a Ford Escape. Ramsey County uses this vehicle for their inspections staff. The total price from the State contract for the Ford Escape with taxes and fees is $24,336.67. Retail value on a new 2014 Ford Escape is around $30,000. A used 2012 Ford Escape would be approximately $19,000 based on Blue Book values. Staff believes that purchasing a new vehicle at the State contract price provides the City the best value. Staff would continue to use the 2004 Chevy Blazer mainly for inspections and code enforcement. 12 Page of If the City were to purchase a vehicle with the 2014 State contract price, it would need to be purchased by May 30, 2014. After that date, the contract expires and the City would need to wait four months to purchase a new 2015 vehicle at most likely an increased cost. The 2014-2018 Capital Improvement Plan includes $20,000 for purchase of a vehicle in 2014. Funding for this purchase comes from the Building/Equipment Replacement Fund. If a new Inspections vehicle is purchased, the Ford F250 will be returned to the Public Works Department to be used by seasonal workers. This will help coordinate streets and parks activities as Public Works is short one vehicle in the summer. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the purchase of a 2014 Ford Escape from the Minnesota State contract in the amount of $24,366.67. 22 Page of CONSENT ITEM 5F MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Xcel Energy Contract Lighting Installation Round Lake Road/Gateway Boulevard Requested Action Authorize the execution of the contract with Xcel Energy for the installation of 31-30 foot poles with 150W Cobra Cutoff Fixtures for Round Lake Road and Gateway Boulevard. Background/Discussion As part of the Round Lake Road Area improvement project it was proposed to install street lighting through Xcel Energy. Originally, the Feasibility Report proposed lighting only along the east side of Round Lake Road as that is where the pedestrian facility will be built. However, at the Public Hearing a business owner asked the Council to consider lighting Gateway Boulevard also. The Council gave this direction to staff after the Public Hearing. Attached is the contract for the installation of the lights by Xcel Energy. The total cost for installation is $120,481.40. After installation the monthly cost for energy and maintenance of the lights is $6.94 per light. Attachment Xcel Energy contract for light installation 11 Page of ATTACHMENT A NEW BUSINESS 8A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case #14-014 Applicant: Kyle Irestone & Katherine Ahmann Property Location: 1850 Venus Avenue Request: Variance Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback in order to construct a twenty-four (24) foot by thirty-eight (38) foot garage addition, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the seven (7) conditions in the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council. Background 1.Background The applicants in this case own the property located at 1850 Venus Avenue. The property is Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County Road E2 West, south of Venus Avenue, east of Interstate 35W and west of Snelling Avenue North. The subject property is considered by the Zoning Code to be a corner lot, as it is situated at the corner of Venus Avenue and Rolling Hills Road. However, Rolling Hills Road is an unimproved City right-of-way that terminates approximately 200 feet south of Venus Avenue and is used solely for trail purposes. This area was platted in 1956 as Shorewood Hills Addition No. 6 and Rolling Hills Road was stubbed in for a future connection to County Road E2 West. The connection to County Road E2 West was never completed and is City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 18 Page of unlikely to be developed as the land to the south is within Tony Schmidt Regional Park and the need for an additional access to this subdivision is unwarranted at this time. 2.Overview of Request The applicants are proposing to construct a twenty-four (24) foot by thirty-eight (38) foot or 912 square foot attached garage to the east side of the single family dwelling. The garage would be constructed between the existing dwelling and the east property line. As proposed, the new addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the platted right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road. The required forty (40) foot setback along Venus Avenue would be maintained along with the remaining rear and side yard setbacks. A variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback is being requested, which would leave a setback of ten (10) feet from the east property line. Grading would be conducted along the north and east sides of the home in order to prepare the new garage pad and driveway, and to reclaim the existing driveway area back to a natural vegetative state. The site plan indicates that some amount of grading would occur in the -of-way along Rolling Hills Road. Any grading to be completed in the right-of- way would require approval by the City in conjunction with a Grading and Erosion Control Permit. The applicants have indicated that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new garage addition would match the materials on the existing home. Following the construction of the new addition the existing tuck-under garage would be converted to functioning living space, the existing driveway and stairway up to the front door would be removed and new landscaping would be installed. In order to create a finished look the façade area on the former garage would be designed to match the existing home so that a consistent exterior façade is maintained. Once removed the old concrete driveway area would be graded to match the existing grade along the front of the home. Two new trees would be planted to fulfill the Tree Preservation Ordinance and tree mitigation standards. The applicant has submitted a narrative of the proposed addition and a response to the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment C), and survey and a site plan of the property (Attachment D). Plan Evaluation 1. R-1 Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot Size & Dimensions City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 28 Page of The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width, and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-1 Zoning District, the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. The minimum lot size in the R-1 Zone is 95 feet in width and 130 feet in depth. B.Structure Setbacks Variance Required The existing single family dwelling meets the setback requirements for the R-1 Zoning District. In the R-1 Zoning District, a combined total of twenty-five (25) feet is required between the two side yard setbacks with a minimum of at least 10 feet on one side. However, on a corner lot a forty (40) foot setback is required along the secondary front yard; in this case the additional front yard setback is along the unimproved right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback. As proposed the attached garage would be ten (10) feet from the east property line if the variance was approved. The existing dwelling is approximately thirty (30) feet from the west property line making the combined total of both side yard setbacks forty (40) feet. All other setbacks would conform to the district requirements. C.Lot Coverage Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-1 Zoning District. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. Proposed Lot Coverage = 23.98% Proposed Landscape Coverage = 76.02% 2.Tree Preservation A tree preservation plan for the property will be required before the building permit is issued. The proposed addition would require the removal of one (1) significant tree on the property. There are currently thirteen (13) significant trees on the property that total two hundred and nineteen (219) caliper inches. The removal of the twenty-four (24) inch Pyramid Linden Tree would account for 10.9% of the total caliper inches on the lot. The property owner is permitted to remove up to 10% of the caliper inches. The mitigation rate of one (1) inch replacement for every two (2) inches lost is required after 10% of the total caliper inches are City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 38 Page of removed. The property owner has indicated that two (2) new trees will be planted upon conclusion of the project. The ordinance requires 1.05 caliper inches to be replaced. 3.Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewed the plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 1850 Venus Avenue. b. The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and had no additional comments. c. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is needed for this project. d. Scott Yonke from Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department did contact staff about the project. Mr. Yonke informed staff that after reviewing the proposal the County would have no objections to the plan; however, they did have concerns about grading and wanted the applicant to be aware that no grading, retaining walls or other structures will be allowed on th. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review variance stand familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 48 Page of imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Discussion The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. A single family home is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District, and the addition is not an unreasonable use within this district. If approved the variance is unlikely to create a negative impact on the neighborhood or City as the lot would function as a typical non-corner lot with side yard setbacks that conform to the R-1 Zoning District. It does not appear that the variance is based on economic considerations alone. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed this application at their May 7, 2014, meeting and have offered the following findings of fact for your consideration: General Findings: 1.The property is in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2.The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width, and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-1 Zoning District, the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. 3.The existing dwelling and attached tuck-under garage meet all property line setbacks. 4.The proposed garage addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. 5.The proposed addition does not encroach into the rear yard setback or the front yard setback along Venus Avenue. 6.The platted section of right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road is used solely for the purposes of a city and county trail. 7.The unimproved right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road extends approximately 200 feet from Venus Avenue, where it terminates at the adjacent property line for Tony Schmidt Regional Park. At this time, there are no plans to extend the right-of-way or construct a roadway in this area. 8.The existing garage would be converted into living space and the existing driveway would be removed if a variance is granted. 9.The proposed structure and landscaping coverage are within the zoning district requirements. 10.The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 11.Single Family Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-1 Zoning District. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 58 Page of 12.The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 13.The property directly east of the subject property located at 1834 Venus Avenue encroaches into the secondary front yard setback along Rolling Hills Road approximately fifteen (15) feet. Variance Findings: 14.The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 15.The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 16.Single family dwelling are permitted and a reasonable use within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 17.The lot has rather unique characteristics for a corner lot within the City. The property is situated on a corner lot, of which only one of the right-of-ways, Venus Avenue, consists of an improved surface. The right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road along the east side of the property is unimproved and is used for trail purposes only. There are no plans at this time to extend or improve this right-of-way. 18.The proposed addition would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the addition would not be inconsistent in terms of setbacks and lot coverage requirements for typical non-corner lots. The property owner would match the materials used for siding and roofing to the existing dwelling, which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 19.The proposed addition is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. Based on the proposed setbacks the property would function as a typical non-corner lot within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The trail that has been constructed within the right-of-way of Rolling Hills Road is not likely to be affected by the proposed addition. 20.The proposed plans and variance request for the addition to the single family dwelling does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the City Council chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-014 and recommends approval (5-1) of the variance request for the property located at 1850 Venus Avenue, based on the findings of fact City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 68 Page of and the submitted plans as presented in the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following seven (7) 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 applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. 3.That the final grade of the lot including the grade of the existing driveway shall be approved by the City. The final grade shall match the character of the neighborhood and the existing grade along the front of the home. 4.That grading shall not be allowed outside the property boundary lines without consent from the adjacent property owner. 5.That a tree preservation plan and financial surety or escrow for these improvements shall be submitted to the City before the building permit is issued. 6.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That a building permit for the construction of the garage and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 7.That the exterior façade of the addition and the existing garage area shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. The final façade shall be approved by the City Planner. Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback in order to construct a twenty-four (24) foot by thirty-eight (38) foot garage addition, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans as amended by the seven (7) conditions in the May 27, 2014, Report to the 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 support approval of this variance. With a motion to deny the variance, the findings must be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 78 Page of Notice Although a variance does 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. Resident Comment The City has not received any comments from surrounding residents in regards to this planning case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 7, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 6, 2014 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review permission. Attachments A.Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2014 B.Planning Commission Report May 7, 2014 C.Application and Narrative D.Survey and Site Plan E.Aerial Photo F.Property Photos G. Elevations and Isometric View City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 - Variance - 1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 88 Page of Attachment A Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 7,2014 6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Chair Clayton Larson Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Angela Hames, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones (Alternate), Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioner Brent Bartel and Sam Scott. Also present were:City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA –MAY 7,2014 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 9,2014–Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewamoved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the April 9,2014, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 14-014;Variance;1850 Venus Avenue –Not a Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated the applicant has requested avariance to construct a twenty-four(24) foot by thirty-eight (38) foot or 912 square foot garage addition to 1850 Venus Avenue that would encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –May 7, 20142 City Planner Streff reported that the applicants in this case own the property located at 1850 Venus Avenue. The property is Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County Road E2 West, south of Venus Avenue, east of Interstate 35W and west of Snelling Avenue North. The subject property is considered by the Zoning Code to be a corner lot, as it is situated at the corner of Venus Avenue and Rolling Hills Road. However, Rolling Hills Road is an unimproved City right-of-way that terminates approximately 200 feet south of Venus Avenue and is used solely for trail purposes. This area was platted in 1956 as Shorewood Hills Addition No. 6 and Rolling Hills Road was stubbed in for a future connection to County Road E2 West. The connection to County Road E2 West was never completed and is unlikely to be developed as the land to the south is within Tony Schmidt Regional Park and the need for an additional access to this subdivision is unwarranted at this time. Staff explained that the applicants are proposing to construct a twenty-four(24) foot by thirty- eight (38) foot or 912 square foot attached garage to the east side of the single family dwelling. The garage would be constructed between the existing dwelling and the east property line. As proposed, the new addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the platted right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road. The required forty (40) foot setback along Venus Avenue would be maintained along with the remaining rear and side yard setbacks. A variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback is being requested, which would leave a setback of ten (10) feet from the east property line. City Planner Streff indicatedthat grading would be conducted along the north and east sides of the home in order to prepare the new garage pad and driveway, and to reclaim the existing driveway area back to a natural vegetative state. The site plan indicates that some amount of grading would occur in the City’s right-of-way along Rolling Hills Road. Any grading to be completed in the right-of-way would require approval by the City in conjunction with Grading and Erosion Control Permit. City Planner Streff stated that the applicants have indicated that the façade and roofing materials to be used on the new garage addition would match the materials on the existing home. Following the construction of the new addition the existing tuck-under garage would be converted to functioning living space, the existing driveway and stairway up to the front door would be removed and new landscaping would be installed. In order to create a finished look the façade area on the former garage would be designed to match the existing home so that a consistent exterior façade is maintained. Once removed the old concrete driveway area would be graded to match the existing grade along the front of the home. Two new trees would be planted to fulfill the Tree Preservation Ordinance andtree mitigation standards. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-1: Single Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: .3574 Acres (15,569 Square Feet) Topography: The eastside of the has a fair amount of grade change in the location of the proposed garage ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –May 7, 20143 City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings 1.The property is in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2.The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width, and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-1 Zoning District the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. 3.The existing dwelling and attached tuck-under garage meet all property line setbacks. 4.The proposed garage additionwould encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. 5.The proposed addition does not encroach into the rear yard setback or the front yard setback along Venus Avenue. 6.The platted section of right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road is used solely for the purposes of a city and county trail. 7.The unimproved right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road extends approximately 200 feet from Venus Avenue, where it terminates at the adjacent property line for Tony Schmidt Regional Park. At this time, there are no plans to extend the right-of-way or construct a roadway in this area. 8.The existing garage would be converted into living space and the existing driveway would be removed if a variance is granted. 9.The proposed structure and landscaping coverages are within the zoning district requirements. 10.The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 11.Single Family Dwellings are permitted structures within the R-1 Zoning District. 12.The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 13.The property directly east of the subject property located at 1834 Venus Avenue encroaches into the secondary front yard setback along Rolling Hills Road approximately fifteen (15) feet. Variance Findings: 14.The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique parcels and situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 15.The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of residential property. 16.Single family dwelling arepermitted and a reasonable use within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 17.The lot has rather unique characteristics for a corner lot within the City. The property is situated on a corner lot, of which only one of the right-of-ways, Venus Avenue, consists of an improved surface. The right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road along the east side of the property is unimproved and is used for trail purposes only. There are no plans at this time to extend or improve this right-of-way. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –May 7, 20144 18.The proposed addition would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the addition would not be inconsistent in terms of setbacks and lot coverage requirements for typical non-corner lots. The property owner would match the materials used for siding and roofing to the existing dwelling, which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 19.The proposed addition is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. Based on the proposed setbacks the property would function as a typical non-corner lot within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The trail that has been constructed within the right-of-way of Rolling Hills Road is not likely to be affected by the proposed addition. 20.The proposed plans and variance request for the addition to the single family dwelling does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Streff statedthatthe findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval on this variance, Staff recommends the following seven (7) 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 applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. 3.That the final grade of the lot including the grade of the existing driveway shall be approved by the City. The final grade shall match the character of the neighborhood and the existing grade along the front of the home. 4.That grading shall not be allowed outside the property boundary lines without consent from the adjacent property owner. 5.That a tree preservation plan and financial surety or escrow for these improvements shall be submitted to the City before the building permit is issued. 6.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. That a building permit for the construction of the garage and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 7.That the exterior façade of the addition and the existing garage area shall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure. The final façade shall be approved by the City Planner. 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION –May 7, 20145 Chair Larson openedthe floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Thompson requested further information on how the property will be graded. City Planner Streff reported this had been discussed with the City Engineer and he understands that the majority of the site would drain towards Venus Avenue to the north and to the east along the Rolling Hills Road right-of-way. Commissioner Holewa asked if this property abutted a City right-of-way. City Planner Streff stated that Venue Avenue and Rolling Hills Road are both City right-of- ways. He commented that City staffhas discussed the possibility of vacating this right-of-way, which could eliminate the need for a variance. However, after discussion among staff, this was not recommended as a feasible option. Chair Larson stated if the right-of-way was vacated, the property would have to be divided between the two adjacent property owners. Commissioner Hames explained she lived across the street from the subject property. She indicated the original intention was to extenda road through between these houses with a cul-de- sac.Shenoted that a fire hydrant was located within the Rolling Hills Road right-of-way area. She stated for the record that she fully supported the applicant’s request. Commissioner Hamesmoved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-014for a Varianceat 1850 Venus Avenuebased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the seven (7)conditions in the May 7,2014, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried 5-1 (Holewa opposed). MEMORANDUM 3.A DATE: May 7, 2014 PC Agenda Item TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT:Planning Case#14-014–No Public HearingRequired Applicant: Kyle Irestone & Katherine Ahmann Property Location: 1850 Venus Avenue Request: Variance Requested Action The applicant is requesting a variance to construct atwenty (24) foot by thirty-eight(38) foot or 912square foot garage addition to1850 Venus Avenue that would encroachthirty (30) feetinto the secondary front yard setback. Background 1.Background The applicants in this case own the property located at 1850 Venus Avenue. The property is Zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is generally positioned north of County Road E2 West, south of Venus Avenue, east of Interstate 35W and west of Snelling Avenue North. The subject property is considered by the Zoning Code to be a corner lot, as it is situated at the corner of Venus Avenue and Rolling Hills Road. However, Rolling Hills Road is an unimproved City right-of-way that terminates approximately 200 feet south of Venus Avenue and is used solely for trail purposes. This area was platted in 1956 as Shorewood Hills Addition No. 6 and Rolling Hills Road was stubbed in for a future connection to County Road E2 West. The connection to County Road E2 West was never completed and is unlikely to be developed as the land to the south is withinTony Schmidt Regional Park and the need for an additionalaccessto this subdivisionis unwarranted at this time. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 110 Page of 2.Overview of Request The applicants are proposing to construct a twenty (24) foot by thirty-eight(38) foot or 912 square foot attached garage to the east side of the single family dwelling. The garage would be constructed between the existing dwelling and the east property line. As proposed, the new addition would encroach thirty (30) feet intothe forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the platted right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road. The required forty (40) foot setback along Venus Avenue would be maintained along with the remaining rear and side yard setbacks.A variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback is being requested, which would leave a setback of ten (10)feet from the east property line. Grading would be conducted along the north and east sides of the home in order to prepare the new garage pad anddriveway,and toreclaim the existing driveway area back to anatural vegetative state.The site plan indicates that some amount of grading would occur in the City’s right-of-way alongRolling Hills Road. Any grading to be completed in the right-of- way would require approval by the Cityin conjunction with Grading and Erosion Control Permit. The applicantshave indicatedthat the façade and roofing materials to be used on thenew garage addition would match the materials on the existing home.Following the construction of the new addition the existing tuck-under garage would be converted to functioning living space, the existing driveway and stairway up to the front door would be removed and new landscaping would be installed. In order to create a finished look the façade area onthe former garage would be designed to match the existing home so that a consistent exterior façade is maintained. Once removed the old concrete drivewayarea would be graded to match the existing grade along the front of the home. Two new treeswould beplanted to fulfill the Tree Preservation Ordinance and tree mitigation standards. The applicant has submitted a narrative of the proposed additionanda response to the variance evaluation criteria (Attachment A), andsurvey and a site plan of the property (Attachment B). 3.Site Data Future Land Use Plan:Low Density Residential Existing Land Use:Single Family Detached Residential Zoning:R-1:Single Family Residential Current Lot Sizes:.3574Acres (15,569Square Feet) The east side of the has a fair amount of grade change in the location of the Topography: proposed garage City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 210 Page of 4.Surrounding Area DirectionFuture Land Use PlanZoningExisting Land Use Single Family Detached NorthLow Density ResidentialR-1: Single Family Residential Residential R-1: Single Family Residential South Park and Open SpacePark and Open Space POS: Park and Open Space Single Family Detached East Low Density ResidentialR-1: Single Family Residential Residential Single Family Detached WestLow Density ResidentialR-1: Single Family Residential Residential Plan Evaluation 1.R-1Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A.Lot Size & Dimensions Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with 1.Minimum Lot Area (sf.)14,000 approximate dimensionsof 133.5feet in width, and 116.5feet in depth. Although 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth)95/130 the total square footage of the lotmeets 3. Height (ft.)35 the requirements in the R-1 Zoning 4. LotCovered by Structure25% District the actual dimensions of the lot do 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area65% not meet the minimum size requirements. 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) B.Structure Setbacks –Variance Required Front Yard40 Rear Yard (Principle)30 The existing single family dwelling meets Rear Yard (Accessory)10 the setback requirementsfor the R-1 Side Yard Interior -Principal Zoning District. (Min/total both yards on lot)10/25 Side Yard Interior -Accessory10 In the R-1 Zoning District, a combined Side Yard Corner40 total of twenty-five (25)feet is required between the two side yard setbacks with a minimum of at least 10feet on one side. However, on a corner lot aforty (40) foot setback is required along the secondary front yard;in this case the additional front yard setback is along the unimproved right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. The applicant is requesting a variance to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback. As proposed the attached garage would be ten (10) feet from the east property lineif the variance was approved. The existing dwelling is approximately thirty (30) feet from the west property line making the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 310 Page of combined total of both side yard setbacks forty (40) feet.All other setbacks would conform to the district requirements. C.Lot Coverage –Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage does not exceed the lot coverage limitations of the R-1Zoning District.The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65%. Proposed Lot Coverage =23.98% Proposed Landscape Coverage =76.02% ExistingProposed Square Feet%Square Feet% House/Garage 1,3828.88%2,29414.73% Decks/Patios-------- Driveway6744.33%1,3328.56% Sidewalk36.23%107.69% Structural Coverage 2,09213.44%3,85423.98% Landscaping Coverage86.56%76.02% Lot Size15,569 D.FAR (Floor Area Ratio) –Meets Requirements Although the new garage addition does not Square Feet% Sq. Ft. / Lot Size increase the FAR(Floor Area Ratio),the existing FAR -Existing2,28714.69% garage when converted to living space would FAR -Maximum4,67030% increase the FAR.In the R-1 Zoning District a FAR -Proposed 2,76417.75% max FAR of 30% is permitted. The proposed project would increase the FAR to17.75%. Lot Size 15,569 *Floor Areais the sum of all floors of the structure not including covered porches, decks; any space where the average floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or detached garages and other detached accessory structures. *Floor Area Ratio(FAR) is the ratio obtained by dividing the sum of a building’s floor area by the amount of lot area. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 410 Page of E.Structure Height –Meets Requirements The proposed addition would not exceed the 35-foot height maximum for principal structures. 2.Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The proposed addition is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3.Tree Preservation A tree preservation plan for the property will be required before the building permit is issued. The proposed addition would require the removal of one (1) significant treeon the property. There are currently thirteen (13) significant trees on the property that total two hundred and nineteen (219) caliper inches. The removal of the twenty-four (24) inch Pyramid Linden Tree would account for 10.9% of the total caliper inches on the lot. The property owner is permitted to remove up to 10% of the caliper inches. The mitigation rate of 1:2 or one (1) inch for every two (2) inches lostis required after 10% of the total caliper inches are removed. The property owner has indicated that two (2) new trees will be plantedupon conclusion of the project. Caliper InchesNumber of Trees Total Existing Trees21913 10% Permitted Removal21.9-- Proposed Removal241 Trees Preserved197.112 Replacement Trees Required*1.05 Greater than 1.05 caliper Replacement Trees Proposed 2 New Trees inches *Replacement trees are calculated by subtracting the ten percent permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 510 Page of 4.Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District reviewedthe plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project at 1850 Venus Avenue. b. The Building Official reviewed the plans for the project and hadno additional comments. c. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion Control Permitis needed for this project. d. Ramsey County has reviewed the proposal and has no objections to the project; however, the County has stated that no grading, retaining walls or other structures will be allowed on their property. Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan”. Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: Is the variance in harmony withthe purposes and intent of the ordinance? Is the variance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstancesto the property not created by the landowner? Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential characterof the locality? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Discussion The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. A single family home is a permitted use in the R-1 Zoning District, and the addition is not an City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 610 Page of unreasonable use within this district.If approved the variance is unlikely to create a negative impact on the neighborhood or City as the lot wouldfunction as a typical non-corner lot with side yard setbacks that conform to the R-1 Zoning District. It does not appear that the variance is based on economic considerations alone. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following twenty (20)findings of fact for review: General Findings 1.The property is in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2.The lot is 15,569 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 133.5 feet in width, and 116.5 feet in depth. Although the total square footage of the lot meets the requirements in the R-1 Zoning District the actual dimensions of the lot do not meet the minimum size requirements. 3.The existing dwelling and attached tuck-under garage meet all property line setbacks. 4.The proposed garage addition would encroach thirty (30) feet into the forty (40) foot secondary front yard setback along the right-of-way platted as Rolling Hills Road. 5.The proposed addition does not encroach into the rear yard setback orthefront yard setbackalong Venus Avenue. 6.The platted section of right-of-way for Rolling Hills Road is used solely for the purposes of a city and county trail. 7.The unimproved right-of-wayknown as Rolling Hills Road extends approximately200 feet from Venus Avenue, where it terminatesat the adjacent property linefor Tony Schmidt Regional Park. At this time,there are no plans to extend the right-of-way or construct a roadway in this area. 8.The existing garage would be converted into living space and the existing driveway would be removed if a variance is granted. 9.The proposed structure and landscaping coveragesare within the zoning district requirements. 10.The dwelling with the proposed addition would not exceed the 35 foot height limit. 11.Single Family Dwellings arepermitted structures within the R-1Zoning District. 12.The existing dwelling and the proposed garage are outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. 13.The property directly east of the subject property located at 1834 Venus Avenue encroaches into the secondary front yard setback along Rolling Hills Road approximately fifteen (15) feet. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 710 Page of Variance Findings: 14.The proposal is in harmony withthe purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance asthe Ordinance generally allows flexibility for uniqueparcelsand situationswhen impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 15.The proposal is consistent withthe Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan asit allows the reasonable use of residential property. 16.Single family dwelling arepermitted and a reasonable use within the R-1Single Family Residential Zoning District. 17.The lot has rather unique characteristics for a corner lot within the City. The property is situated on a corner lot, of whichonly one of the right-of-ways, Venus Avenue,consists of an improved surface. The right-of-way known as Rolling Hills Road along the east side of the property is unimproved and is used for trail purposes only. There are no plans at this time to extend or improve this right-of-way. 18.The proposed addition would be visible from neighboring properties; however, the addition would not be inconsistentin terms of setbacks and lot coverage requirements for typical non-corner lots. Theproperty owner would match the materials used for siding and roofingto the existing dwelling, which should minimize the impacts on surrounding property owners. 19.The proposed addition is unlikely to have negative impacts to the propertyor to the neighborhood as a whole. Based on the proposed setbacks the property would function as a typical non-corner lot within the R-1 Single Family Residential District. The trail that has been constructed within the right-of-way of Rolling Hills Road is not likelyto be affectedby the proposed addition. 20.The proposed plans and variance request for theaddition to the single family dwelling does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The findings of fact for this variance request support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval ofthis variance, Staff recommends the following seven (7)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 Commissionand City Council. 2.That the applicant shall obtain a Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City before the building permit is issued. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 810 Page of 3.That the final grade of the lot including the grade of the existing driveway shall be approved by the City.The final grade shall match the character of the neighborhood and the existing grade along the front of the home. 4.That grading shall not be allowed outside the property boundary lines without consent from the adjacent property owner. 5.That a tree preservation plan and financial suretyor escrowfor these improvements shall be submitted to the City before the buildingpermit is issued. 6.That the structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code.That a building permit for the construction of the garage and a zoning permit for the construction of the driveway shall be required. 7.That the exterior façadeof the additionand the existing garage areashall be the same color and use the same construction materials as the existing structure.The final façade shall be approved by the City Planner. Options The findings in this report currently support approval of this variance. With a motion to deny the variance, the findings must be amended. 1.Recommend Approval with Conditions:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback,based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the seven(7) conditions in the May 7, 2014,Report to the Planning Commission. 2.Recommend Approval as Submitted:Motion to recommend approvalof Planning Case 14- 014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback,based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the seven (7)conditions in the May 7, 2014, Report to the Planning Commission. 3.Recommend Denial:Motion to recommend denialof Planning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setbackbased on the following findings of fact… 4.Table:Motion to tablePlanning Case 14-014 for a variance at 1850 Venus Avenue to encroach thirty (30) feet into the secondary front yard setback:a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 910 Page of Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, apublic meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment The City has not received any comments from surrounding residents in regards tothis planning case. Scott Yonke from Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department did contact staff about the project. Mr. Yonke informed staff that after reviewing the proposal the County would have no objections to the plan; however, they did have concerns about grading and wanted the applicant to be aware that no grading, retaining walls or other structures will be allowed on the County’s property. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 7, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 6, 2014(60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. The City may extend the review period beyond the 120 days, with the applicant’s permission. Attachments A.Application and Narrative B.Survey and Site Plan C.Aerial Photo D.Property Photos City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 7, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-014 -Variance -1850 Venus Avenue\Memos_Reports_14-014 1010 Page of Attachment C Arden Hills Planning Commission, This proposed variance is for the construction of an attached garage on the east side o at 1850 Venus Avenue along with the construction of a driveway leading to the new garage from Venus Avenue and a new sidewalk connecting the proposed driveway to the exist home. An annotated survey of the property containing the high level pl approval of the variance the homeowners will work with an architd builder for the detailed plan. The request for variance request is due to the east side of the house being platted as a road (where the Elmer L. Anderson Memorial Trail walking path is located), and the lot therefore being considered a corner lot (despite no road being present to the east). That current 40 foot side yard setback of a corner lot does not allow for a sufficiently sized attached garage to be constructed. This request meets the defined Hardship Criteria due to the aforementioned limited side yard setback available on the east side of the home limiting the reasonable space available for an attached addition to the home. The circumstances of the property were not created by the homeowand adjoining road were platted prior to their taking ownership, and the platted road to the east of the property is unlikely to be constructed in the future due to the existing walki in the platted roads location. Granting this variance request will retain the spirit and inteordinance as the east side of the home at 1850 Venus Avenue is not a typical corner lot due to the adjacent walking path. This variance request will retain the essential character of the adjacent connected garages within the neighborhood as well as throughout Arden Hills which are similar to the proposed structure in this request. Additionally, there are several examples of corner lot structures (some of which are garages) in the neighborhood which are closer to the side yard setback than the designated 40 feet setback for a corner lot. The proposed garage will match the existing house structure in s board siding which matches the house as well as asphalt shinglesg roof. Following construction of the new garage, driveway, and sidewalkxisting garage space will be reclaimed as basement living space for the home, the garage door and adjacent service door will be removed and replaced with windows + brick or concrete board siding, the existing concrete driveway and concrete stairs to the front door will be removed, the existing driveway area and concrete stairs area will be re-graded to tie into existing elevations so the area will not appehave been a driveway, and landscaping/trees will be added in the location of the existing driveway. Tree Preservation Plan: Our plan for the proposed garage and driveway requires the remov, which is located in the proposed location of the new garage, and the driveway will be constructed in a manner to avoid removal of any front yard trees. The tree which is located in the proposed garage space is a Linden with a 24 inch trunk diameter. There are 13 significant property with a trunk diameter of 12 inches or greater. The total trunk diameter of trees is 219 inches. The Linden therefore accounts for 10.9% of overall significan diameter on the property. We plan to plant at two trees at the conclusion of the project to account for the removed tree. The planned trees are one Northern Red Oak and one Black Hills Spruce. Proposed garage: Dimensions - 24 x 38 (912 sq ft) Proposed driveway: Dimensions 30 wide at garage and 20 wide at street driveway with an approximate 64 length (1332 sq ft) Removal of existing driveway (674 sq ft) will result in a net 658 square feet of added driveway The proposed driveway will be a curved design to account for the yard with a goal of not removing either tree as a part of this project. Proposed sidewalk leading from proposed driveway to existing front door: Dimensions - 17 x 3 (51 sq ft) Removal of existing concrete staircase (36 sq ft) leading from cnt door will result in a new 15 square feet of added sidewalk Existing house structure: 52 x 26 = 1352 square feet Setback distances of proposed garage: 10 from Northeast corner of proposed garage to side property line 19 from Southeast corner of proposed garage to side property line 30 from Southeast corner of proposed garage to rear property link Thank you, Kyle Irestone and Katie Ahmann 1850 Venus Avenue Homeowners N:\Projects\14025\14025PDF.dwg, 2/24/2014 1:07:46 PM eunevA notgnixeL eunevA enilmaH 5/22/2014 7:05:56 PM 5/22/2014 7:06:51 PM NEW BUSINESS 8B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 27, 2014 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #14-018 Applicant: Arden Plaza, LLC Property Location: 3527 Lexington Avenue N and 1150 County Road E West Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3527 Lexington Avenue North and 1150 County Road E West, based on the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council. Background In June 2009, the City Council approved a Master Planned Unit Development for the Arden Plaza retail center on the southwest corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The approved Master PUD included the demolition of an existing office building, the subdivision of the parcel, and construction of four buildings to be completed over three phases. As part of this application, approval was also granted for a Final PUD for Phase I of the project. The City Council later approved an amendment to the Final PUD for Phase I and an updated Preliminary and Final Plat in August 2011. In addition to revising the number of lots and reducing the number of buildings to be constructed as part of the Master PUD, the amendment also allowed for a new timeline for the completion of the three project phases. Under the current development agreement between the City and Arden Hills, LLC, the submittal deadline for the Final PUD Phase II application was June 1, 2013. The submittal deadline for the Final PUD Phase III application is June 1, 2014. Due to the slow economic recovery, Arden _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-018 - Arden Plaza - PUD Amendment\Memos_14-018 14 Page of Plaza, LLC has been unable to successfully market the two pad sites on the property that would allow for the completion of Phase II and III as outlined in the Master PUD plan. The property owner is therefore requesting a PUD Amendment to extend the submittal deadlines for the future phases of the project. Included in Attachment A is a letter from Arden Plaza, LLC providing additional background on this request. Previous Planning Cases To date, the City has approved four separate planning cases related to the Arden Plaza redevelopment project: Planning Case # Request Comments CC Action Master PUD, Final PUD Master Plan and Phase I of 07/13/09 09-011 Phase I, Preliminary the Arden Plaza (Approved) and Final Plat Redevelopment Project One-year extension for submitting building permit 07/12/10 st 10-008 PUD 1 Amendment applications and filing the (Approved) Final Plat Updated Phase I plans, reduced number of 08/29/11 nd 11-016 PUD 2 Amendment buildings to be constructed (Approved) in Master PUD, revised Preliminary and Final Plat Additional wall and window 09/09/13 rd 13-010 PUD 3 Amendment signage for the Walgreens (Approved) building on Lot 1 Overview of Request The chart below outlines the submittal deadline extensions for Phase II and Phase III of the Master PUD as proposed by Arden Plaza, LLC. At this time, there are no additional amendments to the development agreement being requested. Existing Deadline Proposed Deadline Submittal of PUD No later than June 1, 2013 No later than June 1, 2015 Final Plan for Phase II Submittal of PUD No later than June 1, 2014 No later than June 1, 2016 Final Plan for Phase III _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-018 - Arden Plaza - PUD Amendment\Memos_14-018 24 Page of Discussion Staff is currently working with the City Attorney and the Arden Plaza property owners on an Amended and Restated Development Agreement for the site. This effort was initiated so that the development agreements pertaining to the City approvals granted for the project can be properly recorded with Ramsey County. The Amended and Restated Development Agreement will encompass all previous development agreements and amendments, and going forward will be the principal regulatory document for the parcels within the PUD. Staff presented a draft version of the Amended and Restated Development Agreement to the City Council at a Work Session on April 21, 2014. The draft document included two substantive changes from what was originally approved by the City. One of these changes was the extension now being reviewed in Planning Case 14-018. Following its discussion, the City Council directed staff to have Arden Plaza, LLC submit a formal application requesting this extension. The Pamela Couch Trust and JGC Trust, joint owners of the parcel where Walgreens is located, also requested a change that would have removed the condition that waives their right to appeal assessments levied against their property for the B-2 District streetscape improvements. The City Council directed staff to keep the existing language regarding the assessment in the document. Staff is continuing to work with the Trusts and Walgreens on how they would like to proceed. Once this issue is resolved, a final Amended and Restated Development Agreement will come back to the City Council for review. The Agreement will incorporate any approvals granted by the City Council in Planning Case 14-018. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3527 Lexington Avenue North and 1150 County Road E West, based on the May 27, 2014, Report to the City Council. Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 14-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 3527 Lexington Avenue North and 1150 County Road E West, based on the May 27, 2014, Report to the 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. If the City denies the petitioners request, _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-018 - Arden Plaza - PUD Amendment\Memos_14-018 34 Page of 4.Table for additional information. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on May 13, 2014. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by July 12, 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 Narrative _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 27, 2014 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2014\PC 14-018 - Arden Plaza - PUD Amendment\Memos_14-018 44 Page of AttachmentA