Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05-26-15-R
APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Public inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s 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 Rice Creek Commons -TCAAP Update Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF Transportation Update John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer MEMO.PDF Spring Cleanup Day Update Ryan Streff, City Planner CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft Minutes April 13, 2015, Special City Council Work Session April 20, 2015, City Council Work Session May 2, 2015, Special City Council Work Session 04 -13 -15 -WS.PDF, 04 -20 -15 -WS.PDF, 05 -02 -15 -WS.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will 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. Claims And Payroll Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Ashley Bertrand, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF 2014 4th Quarter Financial Reports Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Dave Perrault, Finance Analyst MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF 2015 1st Quarter Actuals Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Dave Perrault, Finance Analyst MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF Planning Case 15 -009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - 3900 Bethel Drive Ryan Streff, City Planner CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF Planning Case 15 -010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF Consider Quotes For Oak Avenue Storm Sewer Repair John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Under this Public Hearing section, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding TCAAP development. Please be sure to complete a "Request to Appear before City Council" form (available at the back table). Completed forms may be given to the City Clerk. NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 15 -008 - PUD Amendment - Holiday Station - 1920 Highway 96 West Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF Planning Case 15 -012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - 3673 Lexington Avenue N Ryan Streff, City Planner CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS Preliminary Approval Of TCAAP Redevelopment Code Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Fran Holmes Dave McClung Robert Woodburn Regular City Council Agenda May 26, 2015 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: 5.C. Documents: 5.D. Documents: 5.E. Documents: 5.F. Documents: 6. 7. 8. 8.A. Documents: 8.B. Documents: 9. 9.A. Documents: 10. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALPublic inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s 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 COMMENTSRice Creek Commons -TCAAP UpdateJill Hutmacher, Community Development DirectorMEMO.PDFTransportation UpdateJohn Anderson, Assistant City EngineerMEMO.PDFSpring Cleanup Day UpdateRyan Streff, City PlannerCC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTES Draft Minutes April 13, 2015, Special City Council Work Session April 20, 2015, City Council Work Session May 2, 2015, Special City Council Work Session 04 -13 -15 -WS.PDF, 04 -20 -15 -WS.PDF, 05 -02 -15 -WS.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will 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. Claims And Payroll Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Ashley Bertrand, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF 2014 4th Quarter Financial Reports Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Dave Perrault, Finance Analyst MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF 2015 1st Quarter Actuals Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Dave Perrault, Finance Analyst MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF Planning Case 15 -009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - 3900 Bethel Drive Ryan Streff, City Planner CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF Planning Case 15 -010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF Consider Quotes For Oak Avenue Storm Sewer Repair John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Under this Public Hearing section, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding TCAAP development. Please be sure to complete a "Request to Appear before City Council" form (available at the back table). Completed forms may be given to the City Clerk. NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 15 -008 - PUD Amendment - Holiday Station - 1920 Highway 96 West Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF Planning Case 15 -012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - 3673 Lexington Avenue N Ryan Streff, City Planner CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS Preliminary Approval Of TCAAP Redevelopment Code Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungRobert Woodburn Regular City Council Agenda May 26, 20157:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:3.B.Documents:3.C.Documents:4. 4.A. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: 5.C. Documents: 5.D. Documents: 5.E. Documents: 5.F. Documents: 6. 7. 8. 8.A. Documents: 8.B. Documents: 9. 9.A. Documents: 10. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALPublic inquiries/informational is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s 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 COMMENTSRice Creek Commons -TCAAP UpdateJill Hutmacher, Community Development DirectorMEMO.PDFTransportation UpdateJohn Anderson, Assistant City EngineerMEMO.PDFSpring Cleanup Day UpdateRyan Streff, City PlannerCC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESDraft MinutesApril 13, 2015, Special City Council Work SessionApril 20, 2015, City Council Work SessionMay 2, 2015, Special City Council Work Session04-13 -15 -WS.PDF, 04 -20 -15 -WS.PDF, 05 -02 -15 -WS.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will 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.Claims And PayrollSue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative ServicesAshley Bertrand, Accounting AnalystMEMO.PDF2014 4th Quarter Financial ReportsSue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative ServicesDave Perrault, Finance AnalystMEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF2015 1st Quarter ActualsSue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative ServicesDave Perrault, Finance AnalystMEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDFPlanning Case 15 -009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - 3900 Bethel DriveRyan Streff, City PlannerCC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDFPlanning Case 15 -010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems CourtMatthew Bachler, Associate PlannerMEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDFConsider Quotes For Oak Avenue Storm Sewer RepairJohn Anderson, Assistant City EngineerMEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS Under this Public Hearing section, citizens have an opportunity to discuss ideas regarding TCAAP development. Please be sure to complete a "Request to Appear before City Council" form (available at the back table). Completed forms may be given to the City Clerk. NEW BUSINESS Planning Case 15 -008 - PUD Amendment - Holiday Station - 1920 Highway 96 West Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF, ATTACHMENT G.PDF, ATTACHMENT H.PDF, ATTACHMENT I.PDF Planning Case 15 -012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - 3673 Lexington Avenue N Ryan Streff, City Planner CC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF, ATTACHMENT E.PDF, ATTACHMENT F.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS Preliminary Approval Of TCAAP Redevelopment Code Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF COUNCIL COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungRobert Woodburn Regular City Council Agenda May 26, 20157:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.3.A.Documents:3.B.Documents:3.C.Documents:4.4.A.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:5.B.Documents:5.C.Documents:5.D.Documents:5.E.Documents:5.F.Documents: 6. 7. 8. 8.A. Documents: 8.B. Documents: 9. 9.A. Documents: 10. Page 1 of 1 DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) Update A presentation on the draft TCAAP Redevelopment Code and preliminary City Council approval of the TRC are scheduled for the May 26, 2015, regular City Council meeting. STAFF COMMENTS – 3A MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 1 DATE: May 26, 2015 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 regarding road construction/transportation in the City of Arden Hills. STAFF COMMENTS – 3B MEMORANDUM STAFF COMMENTS – 3C Page 1 of 1 Requested Action None. Background The Spring Cleanup Day event is scheduled for Saturday, June 6, from 7 am to 1 pm. It will be held at the Ramsey County Public Works Facility at 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive. The event is co- sponsored by the Cities of Arden Hills and Shoreview and open to residents of both cities. Residents that participate in the event will pay a nominal fee based on the vehicle type and load they bring to the event. Cars loads will be charged $10, trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans will be charged $25, and trailers 8’x10’ or smaller will be charged $35. Oversized loads and trailers over 8’x10’ will be subject to an additional charge. Residents must remember to bring their ID and payment in the form of cash or check only. No credit cards will be accepted during this Cleanup Day. Notice of the Spring Cleanup Day was included in both the April and May issues of the Arden Hills Notes, advertised on the City’s website, placed on the TV Bulletin Board, and a flyer was mailed to every resident in the City. Attachments A) Spring 2015 Cleanup Day Flyer MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBECT: Spring 2015 Community Cleanup Day Update SPRING CLEANUP DAY Saturday, June 6, 2015 7 A.M. – 1 P.M. 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive (Hamline Avenue and Highway 96) Charges By Vehicle Type/Loads • Car $10 • All Others $25 • Trailers $35 Oversize loads (over 8’x10’) will be subject to extra charges Items Accepted • Construction Debris • BBQ Grills • Tires • Exercise Equipment • Generators • Lawn Mowers • Mattresses/Box Springs • Snow Blowers • Furniture • Vacuum Cleaners • Televisions • Computers • Water Softeners • Keyboards • Appliances • Landscape Timbers • Printers Not Accepted • Brush/Yard Waste • No oversize items such as hot tubs, boats, sheds, railroad ties No Donations Will Be Accepted Call for pick-up options: Disabled American Veterans – 651.487.2002 Epilepsy Foundation of Minnesota – 651.287.2300 Lupus Foundation of Minnesota – 651.748.0400 Salvation Army – 651.789.0099 Vietnam Veterans of America – 651.778.8387 TwinCitiesFreeMarket.org – Local non-profit network to give and get free stuff If you have items in good condition that you no longer use, nearby drop-off locations include: Goodwill 1627 W. County Road B, Roseville – 651.634.3609 2500 Cleveland Ave. N., Roseville – 651.633.6228 2580 White Bear Ave., Maplewood – 651.770.2401 www.goodwilleasterseals.org Bridging, Inc. 1633 Terrace Dr., Roseville – 651.631.3255 www.bridging.org Electronic Recycling Unwanted electronics will be accepted for recycling, including computers, printers, keyboards and televisions – however, you don’t have to wait till Spring Cleanup Day! Many options are available for convenient year-round collection of these items. Please visit RamseyAtoZ.com or call the Recycling and Disposal Hotline at 651.633.EASY (3279), answered 24/7, for more details. Household Hazardous Waste If you are only bringing household hazardous waste items – for example, a couple of old paint cans – you can avoid long wait times at Cleanup Day. Just visit RamseyAtoZ.com or call 651.633.EASY (3279), answered 24/7, to learn options for other drop-off dates and locations. ACCEPTED ITEMS • Home Improvement Items Paint/thinners/solvents/adhesives/driveway sealant/wood preservatives/stains/aerosol cans/lead/paint chips • Automotive Products Used oil and filters/brake fluid/gasoline/antifreeze/auto batteries • Lawn and Garden Chemicals Weed killer/insecticides/pesticides • Items with Mercury Thermometers/fluorescent lights/switches/thermostats/vapor lamps • Cleaning Products Drain openers/oven cleaners/bathroom cleaners/rust removers • Recreational Products Rechargeable batteries/ button batteries/ propane tanks/ pool chemicals/ gas cylinders Residents MUST present a Shoreview or Arden Hills ID Please remember: The gate will be closed at 1:00 P.M. Yard waste and donations will not be accepted during the Cleanup Day. More information: 651.490.4650 www.shoreviewmn.gov Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 13, 2015 5:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the special City Council work session at 5:35 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Robert Woodburn (arrived at 5:37 p.m.) Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson; Finance Analyst Dave Perrault; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; City Attorney Joel Jamnik; and City Clerk Amy Dietl 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that Kimley-Horn has completed work on the second part of the Fit Test. A memo from Michael Lamb, Kimley-Horn, describing the assumptions used for Option 2 as well as general recommendations was included in the agenda packet. During the Fit Test, Ramsey County and Kimley-Horn consulted with Maxfield Research on residential market trends. Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, has provided staff and Council with a comparison of tax values in Options 1 and 2. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, has updated the City financial model based on current cost estimates for pre- development work, trunk utilities and storm water, and parks. A memo describing costs, fees, and financing mechanisms and detailed spreadsheets was included in the agenda packet. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that at the February 24, 2015, special work session, the Council made revisions to the draft TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC). A clean copy of the draft TRC was given to the Council in the agenda packet and changes were highlighted. She noted that a new Attachment 7 has been inserted which lists recommended color ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 13, 2015 2 palettes for all buildings. The color palettes are based on Sherwin Williams paints in the America’s Heritage, Suburban Traditional, and Suburban Modern collections. Ramsey County Commissioner Huffman provided an overview of the shared goals of the County and City with regard to Rice Creek Commons. He wanted this site to be someth ing special. He discussed the Fit Study and appreciated the Council’s work on the TRC. There were a few concerns with the constraints within the TRC, which resulted in fewer people living and working within Rice Creek Commons than was originally planned. He wanted to see 4,000 people living and 4,000 people working on this site. Michael Lamb, Kimley-Horn, discussed Option 2 for the Fit Test with the Council in detail. He noted he received feedback from Mary Bujold from Maxfield Research, which was extremely helpful. He reviewed the proposed density of 1,580 units suggesting a wide variety of building types and reduced lot sizes within Option 2. He noted that park area was reduced within the Hill neighborhood and a larger portion of land was set aside for retail and commercial mixed use in the Town Center neighborhood. He stated that a wider range of unit types was suggested after speaking with Ms. Bujold from Maxfield. Mr. Lamb reviewed how Option 2 would amend the Hill, Creek and Town Center neighborhoods. He commented that lot sizes had been reduced to address the comments provided by Maxfield. He further discussed how Ms. Bujold from Maxfield responded to the proposed development on Rice Creek Commons. He reported that the Hill could be more dense that previously proposed. Mayor Grant saw there was significant activity in home sales around the $400,000 to $600,000 price point. Councilmember McClung clarified that a Maxfield study was not completed on the site, but rather comments from an employee at Maxfield had been provided to the County. Mr. Lamb stated that this was correct but provided comment on the broad depth of experience that Ms. Bujold had at Maxfield in evaluating the market potential for this site. Councilmember Holden did not support the location of the parks within the residential area. She believed that the lighting would be a concern to the surrounding homeowners. Mr. Lamb compared the differences between Option 1 and Option 2 with the Council. Councilmember Woodburn asked how the amount of retail space was determined within the Town Center. Mr. Lamb explained that the retail within the Town Center would be to provide convenience and supportive retail. He reported that the retail in the Town Center was fairly compact. He recommended that the Council consider amending the land use boundaries to provide for a more dense development. He suggested a street and block pattern that would reinforce frontage along the Spine Road and the Town Center. He also suggested additional retail within the Town Center area. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 13, 2015 3 Mayor Grant stated that Option 2 of the Fit Test was a possibility for the Rice Creek Commons site but it is not a master plan. Mark Ruff, Ehlers & Associates, discussed the financial implications between Option 1 and Option 2 of the Fit Test. He reviewed the differential in the tax base between the options, noting that there was a $50 million difference for residential property value. This equates to $6 million a year in Option 1 for taxes and $6.76 million in taxes for Option 2. Mr. Ruff provided comment on several charts on how taxes would be impacted for the City, County, and School District based on Option 1 and Option 2. The land sale potential for the County was discussed. He estimated that there was a $5 million difference between the two options. He anticipated that based on the costs that would be incurred by the County for the property, the County would incur a loss. Ramsey County Commission Huffman noted that Option 1 was 100 units below the Council’s plan and Option 2 was approximately 100 units over the City’s plan. It was his opinion that Option 2 was a great option for the Rice Creek Commons site. He encouraged the Council to broaden the housing types within the three neighborhoods and proceed with Option 2 of the Fit Test. He encouraged the Council to approve Option 2 in May. Mayor Grant asked for comments from the Council. Councilmember Holden stated that she did not recall that the City was on board with 4,000 new residents in Arden Hills. She was not in favor of creating housing for as many people as possible on this site. She stated that she could not support Option 2 as it did not support the original Maxfield Study. While she agreed that the housing types on Rice Creek Commons should be broadened, she wanted to see more single family homes than townhomes and condos. She reported that the 1,700 housing units was derived by the Council through the AUAR. She feared that the density proposed by the County would create major traffic concerns. She stated that she was going to do what was best for the City of Arden Hills. Ramsey County Commissioner Huffman noted that the difference between Fit Test Option 2 and the TRC was only an increase in density of 7%. Councilmember Woodburn stated that he mostly agreed with Councilmember Holden’s comments. Councilmember McClung stated that he supported Option 2. He had concerns with Option 1. He wanted Rice Creek Commons to be a high-class development across all of the varying aspects of the development (commercial, retail, and residential). He appreciated the proposed diversification. Councilmember Holmes believed that the changes within Option 2 benefited the Town neighborhood. She indicated that the City had a planner assist with the TRC. She questioned why additional plans continue to be created for this site. She inquired why the Creek and the Hill neighborhoods were changed so drastically by the County. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 13, 2015 4 Mayor Grant did not support Option 2 of the Fit Test. He believed that no matter the number of units on TCAAP, the product types can be diversified. He recommended that this argument be avoided. He believed that the Hill and Town neighborhoods would benefit from more flexibility. He feared that it would be difficult for people to build to exact zoning classifications, and for this reason, the Council was recommending more flexibility. Mayor Grant did not like the way the Hill neighborhood was redesigned. He understood that the County wanted to achieve a nice taxable value for the property, but he also wanted to create unique and desirable neighborhoods that are not overly dense. He saw the value in the Fit Test and learned a great deal about how the Town neighborhood should be designed. Mr. Lamb provided further comment on the Creek neighborhood as discussed with Ms. Bujold from Maxfield. He indicated that she felt it would be appropriate for this neighborhood to have larger single family lots abutting the creek and smaller lots to the central portion of the Creek. The density should then be increased in the other portions of the Creek neighborhood. Councilmember Holmes expressed concern that none of this information has been provided to the Council and differed greatly from the previous Maxfield Study and developer information that the Council has received. Councilmember Holden hoped that the County would provide the City with additional information regarding how the property would be marketed as well as address the water feature in the near future. Mr. Ruff stated that there are always uncertainties with development. He provided further comment on how municipal entities can manage land sales. He suggested that the City Attorney and JDA Attorney work through and discuss the issues surrounding the land sales. Mayor Grant explained that the Council would need to consider how to amend the TRC given the new information that has been provided to the City. City Administrator Klaers discussed the Council’s meeting schedule and upcoming agenda items. Mayor Grant was in favor of moving forward and taking action on the TRC. He wanted to see the City and County make some headway on the water feature and some other outstanding issues. Councilmember McClung was prepared to meet when necessary in order to get the TRC approved. However, he did not see how the City could bridge the differences between Fit Test Option 2 and the City’s TRC. City Administrator Klaers stated that the City has learned a lot from the Fit Test. He believed that the City Council needed to digest this information and would then need to review the TRC in detail in order to keep this item moving forward. Mayor Grant recessed the City Council work session at 6:58 p.m. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 13, 2015 5 Mayor Grant reconvened the City Council work session at 10:09 p.m. Councilmember McClung left the work session. Mayor Grant requested that Stacie Kvilvang provide the Council with a presentation on her findings. Councilmember Holmes believed that the presentation from Ms. Kvilvang would take a great deal of time and should take place at another time. She indicated that she had a number of questions and some concerns regarding SAC and WAC fees. She stated that the numbers did not add up and were hard to understand. Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, started to give her presentation on the utility and engineering numbers with the Council. Councilmember Holmes recommended that given the late hour, this matter be further discussed at a future work session. Mayor Grant agreed with this suggestion. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES None. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the special City Council work session at 10:15 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Amy Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION APRIL 20, 2015 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council work session at 5:06 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung, and Robert Woodburn Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Public Works Director Terry Maurer; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; City Attorney Joel Jamnik; and City Clerk Amy Dietl Mayor Grant suggested that the Council discuss Item B first as a resident was present to discuss the Canadian Pacific Railroad. 1. AGENDA ITEMS B. Canadian Pacific Railroad Councilmember Woodburn explained that the railroad track was a nuisance in the City, but there was little the Council could do. He reported that the tanker cars moving through Arden Hills were empty and of little danger to the City. He believed it would be nice if the Council drafted a letter to the local and state representatives asking that a pipeline be built, as this would be a more efficient manner to transfer oil. He commented that he was concerned with the vapor pressure of the tanker cars. Councilmember Holmes stated that the Council could discuss pipelines, but they take 10 to 12 years to build. Mayor Grant discussed the three main rail lines that ran into the cities. He provided comment on his experience with the train as he lives near the rail lines. Further discussion ensued regarding the rail traffic and train horns blowing in the City. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 2 Councilmember Holmes understood that the train conductors only sound the horns if there are animals or if it is an at-grade crossing. She noted that the other noise issue is related to the trains stopping, backing up, and starting again. Councilmember Holden suggested that the City request that the train horns not blow unless absolutely necessary. City Planner Streff commented that he has spoken with Andy Cummings, Canadian Pacific, about these issues in the City and Mr. Cummings stated that he would be available to attend a future City Council work session if the Council wanted to have a discussion with Canadian Pacific. Councilmember Holden did not believe it was the City’s place to write letters to the federal government regarding the railroad. She suggested that an open house be held with the railroad representatives versus a work session with the Council. Councilmember Holmes agreed. Mayor Grant indicated that the number of trains was on the rise and this was concerning to him. He suggested that an open house meeting with the railroad be held in conjunction with the City of New Brighton. Vince Pellegrin, Chief Operating Officer at Metro Transit and Arden Hills resident - 1977 Thom Drive, discussed train safety and asked that the City encourage Canadian Pacific to slow down the speed at which the trains pass through the City. City Administrator Klaers commented that staff would contact railroad representatives at Canadian Pacific to inquire about an open house meeting. A. Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) City Administrator Klaers stated that the staff report from Community Development Director Hutmacher was in the agenda packet for the Council’s review. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that at the January 20, 2015, City Council work session, as the City was nearing the completion of work on the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC), Ramsey County asked that the City delay final approval of the TRC until a “Fit Test” could be completed. The Fit Test included two possible development scenarios: 1. Option 1 in which development patterns and densities adhered strictly to the draft TRC; and 2. Option 2 which replicated how a developer might lay out the site to meet market demand for product types. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that Option 2 was presented at the April 13, 2015, special work session. City Councilmembers expressed concerns and directed staff ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 3 to schedule Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) as the topic for this April 20, 2015, work session for further discussion. Mayor Grant questioned how the Council wanted to proceed with the TRC given the information that was provided to the City from the Fit Test. He reported that Fit Test Option 2 does not work for him. He suggested that the Council review the neighborhoods one at a time and work through the housing styles and density. He proposed that the Council begin discussion with the Creek and move to the Hill neighborhood. Councilmember McClung believed that a big picture, broad view of the TRC had to be considered prior to taking this approach. Mayor Grant was encouraged by what the Council learned from the Fit Test regarding the Town neighborhood, as it may be overly dense and require more flexibility. He understood that the County wanted to see more flexibility. However, he did not understand how this worked into the City’s vision, especially with the Hill and Creek neighborhoods. He wanted to ensure that the Council’s vision was realized on the TCAAP property. Councilmember Holmes requested further information on the Land Use Plan. Community Development Director Hutmacher discussed how the City would use the Land Use Plan for the TCAAP site. Councilmember McClung stated that if the Council supported the Land Use Plan as it stands today, the City would not be able to practically meet the maximum density of 1480 units within the TRC. He commented that flexibility would have to be written into the TRC in order to reach the proposed number of units. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated that this was the case. She reported that if the Council supported 1480 units on TCAAP, staff would appreciate direction in order to begin making adjustments to the TRC to achieve this number. Councilmember Woodburn was in favor of looking at the overall density instead of a specific number. Councilmember Holden explained that she has been running the numbers and did not want to see the site over-developed. It was her opinion that Fit Test Option 2 was too dense. She was in favor of seeing more detail on how the residential roadways would be connected throughout the neighborhoods. Public Works Director Maurer reported that the County has given up on the idea of bringing a roadway from County Road I to the Creek neighborhood. He asked the County to split the entrance road to the Creek neighborhood for safety purposes. The Council further discussed Neighborhood district density. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 4 Community Development Director Hutmacher reviewed the comments provided by Mary Bujold with Maxfield with regard to density within the three neighborhoods. She reported that Ms. Bujold was recommending more NB-2 and suggested slightly smaller and fewer lots in NB-1. Councilmember Holden indicated that the Council would have to decide what it wanted to see in the Creek neighborhood, whether this means 64 larger lots with ample room for homes or dropping the lot size to increase the density. She explained that the Council would have to determine if it really wanted to reach the 1480 unit number. Mayor Grant wanted the Creek and Hill neighborhoods to resemble a suburban style neighborhood. He explained that the majority of Arden Hills’ lots were 85 to 95 feet wide. Councilmember Woodburn agreed, stating that he wanted to see the City build TCAAP in the way that they wanted. Councilmember Holden expressed frustration that the City was being asked to ignore the previous Maxfield studies and their findings. She believed that the County was taking TCAAP in an entirely different direction than the previous findings. Mayor Grant did not think it would be wise to ignore these earlier findings. Councilmember Holden recommended that the Council go back and reread the findings from the most recent (2013) Maxfield study. Councilmember McClung stated that his vision for TCAAP was to reach the upper bookmark with regard to density. He wanted to see TCAAP to be a high class, different destination that drew people to the site. He was hoping that a high-caliber development would take shape. He anticipated that higher density would lead to more mass transit options. He wanted to see high grade commercial development, along with retail, which also required density. He supported Fit Test Option 2 as he believed this closely aligned with this vision. Councilmember Holden indicated that the County has committed $1.7 million to the water feature. She believed that density would not ensure that TCAAP was a destination. She stated that the retail that decided to locate within the development is what would make TCAAP a destination. She recommended that the sustainability of the development be considered more valuable than it being high-class. She did not want to see the Council focusing too much on a certain density level given the fact that mass transit would not be guaranteed. She did not want to see the lots in the Hill and Creek neighborhoods to be too crammed together. She wanted to see these neighborhoods be special or unique and not typical. Councilmember Holmes was in favor of getting rid of the 110-foot wide lots in the Creek neighborhood. She believed that this was too wide. Councilmember Woodburn thought that the design in TCAAP was inconsistent with the rest of Arden Hills. It was his opinion that the density should be reconsidered. He would like to see the Town Center area pushed in between the commercial and industrial areas towards Highway 10, ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 5 enlarging it slightly. He approved of increasing the density slightly with twinhomes, with the remainder at the development being single family homes. Mayor Grant discussed the differences between Fit Test Option 1 and Fit Test Option 2 in relation to the Maxfield study. He stated that he could support smaller lot sizes in several areas of TCAAP. However, he was not convinced that row homes would sell. He indicated that he could support the twinhome concept. He wanted to see owner-occupied properties. His limit for apartment units was 400. Councilmember Holden asked if the park was included in the right-of-way acreage. Community Development Director Hutmacher commented that the park was not included in the 41.5 acres of right-of-way. Councilmember McClung questioned what level of flexibility would be needed to get the TRC to align with the Land Use Plan. Mayor Grant commented that the Land Use Plan has yet to be approved by the Council and could be revised or amended if necessary. Councilmember Holden discussed the difference between the number of square feet within 110 foot wide residential lots versus 85 foot wide lots. She reviewed a proposed density for the Creek neighborhood. She proposed the Creek have 10 lots 90’ x 150’, 40 lots at 85’ x 140’, 33 lots at 75’ x 130 and 33 lots at 65’ x 130’. She stated that this scenario closely resembled Option 2 of the Fit Test. Mayor Grant questioned how the Council could achieve this density within the Creek neighborhood. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that she could take this direction from Council to the City Attorney and other staff to create options. She stated that the NB-1 maximum density could also be changed from 2.0 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. Mayor Grant could support a slight increase in the Creek and Hill neighborhoods and recommended that the Town density be reduced. Councilmember Woodburn believed that the Creek should be entirely single family larger owner-occupied homes. He did not want the Council to have to worry about numerous rental units within NB-1 and NB-2. Councilmember Holden believed there needed to be a variety of housing types on TCAAP in order to meet the needs of the market. Mayor Grant brought the conversation back to flexibility. He supported the Creek having a certain level of flexibility if purchased by a single developer so long as the City’s overall vision was being realized. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 6 Mayor Grant asked if Councilmember Holden’s plan for the Creek was a reflection of Fit Test Option 1 or Option 2. Councilmember Holden stated that her plan did not align with either Fit Test but more closely coordinated with the Land Use Plan. She explained that her numbers offered additional flexibility to a future developer. Councilmember McClung believed that the suggested flexibility would work for both the Hill and Creek neighborhoods. However, the Town neighborhood would need different consideration. Councilmember Woodburn stated that he would appreciate less density. Councilmember Holden understood this concern, but wanted to see flexibility written into the proposed neighborhoods through varying lots sizes in order to create a diverse housing stock. Community Development Director Hutmacher summarized the Council’s direction with regard to the Creek neighborhood. It was noted that the number of lots would be changed. She believed that the proposed numbers from Council would assist staff in more closely aligning the TRC with the Land Use Plan. Mayor Grant believed it would be difficult for staff to come to an exact number, but rather, he wanted to see assurances that the Council’s vision was being met. Councilmember Woodburn stated that he did not want to see any NB-3 on TCAAP. He supported 11,000 square foot lots on the site. Councilmember McClung did not believe the Council had a clear vision at this time and that it would be difficult for staff to establish a density number without clarifying this vision. Mayor Grant understood there were differing opinions on the Council and that the vision for TCAAP needed further clarification. However, the three distinct neighborhoods have not been disputed, only the number of units and sizes of lots within each neighborhood. He thanked the Council for their input and turned the discussion to the Hill neighborhood. Councilmember McClung commented that his same concerns apply to the Hill neighborhood as with the Creek. Councilmember Holmes reported that the Land Use Plan calls for 268 total units in the Hill. She thought that what the Council discussed with the densities in the Creek neighborhood could also be applied to the Hill. She indicated that Fit Test Option 1 has 223 units and Fit Test Option 2 has 462 units. She was troubled by Option 2 as it would double the number of units within this neighborhood. She supported this neighborhood more closely reflecting Option 1. She questioned why the acreage in the Hill neighborhood decreased by four acres between Option 1 and Option 2. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that this was due to a reduction in the size of the parks. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 7 Councilmember Holmes was in favor of not decreasing the park sizes. Mayor Grant asked if staff completed a park space analysis and questioned if the adult softball fields were necessary. Public Works Director Maurer reported that the analysis was completed by staff and noted that the original size of the adult softball complex was cut in half. Community Development Director Hutmacher discussed the park amenities within Option 1 and Option 2 of the Fit Test. She then reviewed the zoning requirements with regard to parks. The Council further discussed the density within the NB-1 and NB-2 Zoning Districts. Councilmember Holden supported staff adjusting the lot sizes within the Hill neighborhood to reach the 268 units. Mayor Grant was in favor of staff adjusting the density levels within the Hill to reflect the proposed units within Option 1 of the Fit Test, which was closer to the Land Use Plan. Community Development Director Hutmacher discussed how the Hill neighborhood would be impacted if the NB-1 and NB-2 densities were adjusted to match the Creek. Mayor Grant stated that he would rather the Council come up with a vision for the property than having a magic number be achieved for density. Councilmember McClung questioned what level of flexibility would be needed to have the TRC be more closely aligned with the Land Use Plan. He believed the most important number would be the buildable number of units. Mayor Grant questioned what direction the Council wanted to provide staff with regard to the Town neighborhood. Councilmember Holden wanted to see senior housing within the Town neighborhood and questioned what actions the Council had to take in order for this to occur. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that property could be zoned in a certain manner to provide for senior housing. Councilmember Holden stated that she liked the layout of Option 2 of the Fit Test for the Town. She appreciated the vision provided through Option 2 and wanted to see the cul-de-sac removed. She did not believe there was a strong need for rental apartments on TCAAP and suggested that some proposed apartment buildings be turned into NT-1 or NT-2. Public Works Director Maurer did not believe the City would be able to get the Land Use Plan number of 1085 units within the Town given the level of infrastructure and parking that would be required. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 8 Councilmember Holden was in favor of having somewhere between 680 to 700 units within the Town, which would include a senior housing development. Mayor Grant agreed that the City was trying to push a number that was too high. He supported Councilmember Holden’s recommendation. He asked if the Town had too much retail. Councilmember Holden explained that Option 2 had first floor retail with second floor office. Mayor Grant questioned how many units the Land Use Plan called for within the Town neighborhood. Community Development Director Hutmacher reported that the Land Use Plan calls for 680 apartment units which was consistent with Fit Test Option 1. Councilmember Holden stated that she could support 500 apartment units. Mayor Grant indicated that he would approve of 450 units as this more closely reflected the recommendations within the Maxfield study. Community Development Director Hutmacher discussed the residential products that would fit well into the NT-1 and NT-2 Zoning Districts within the Town neighborhood. Councilmember Holden wanted to see language drafted into the TRC that would not allow row after row of townhouses. Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the façade composition requirements for townhomes within the TRC. Further discussion ensued regarding the proposed apartment buildings and townhomes within the Town. Mayor Grant supported staff’s idea in pursuing manor homes and believed that these were a suitable housing product. Councilmember Holden inquired how many overall units should be in the Town. She stated that between the Fit Test Options 1 and 2 and the Land Use Plan, this number ranges from 977 to 1085 units. Mayor Grant stated that he could support 900 units in the Town. Councilmember Holden suggested that the NT Zoning Districts allow for 6-10 units per acre. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated that the Council may want to raise this to 6-12 units per acre. She reviewed how this density level would impact the Town. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – APRIL 20, 2015 9 None. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council work session at 8:30 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Amy Dietl David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MAY 2, 2015 9:00 A.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the special City Council work session at 9:08 a.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung (arrived at 9:30 a.m.), and Robert Woodburn Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Patrick Klaers and Director of Finance and Administrative Services Sue Iverson Mayor Grant asked the Council if they wanted to tape record the work session. It was the consensus of the Council to not tape record the work session. 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) Mayor Grant requested that the Council discuss the Creek neighborhood. Councilmember Holden stated that she liked the site plan for the Watermark proposal in Lino Lakes. This site plan was included in the September 22, 2014, handout that was in the agenda packet. She stated that overall, the TCAAP proposal has too many townhouses and that all of the small lots should not be developed with townhouses. Councilmember Holmes stated that she also liked the Watermark proposal and that she thinks Fit Test Option 2 for the Creek looks pretty good. Councilmember Holden stated that she could support Fit Test Option 2 for the Creek. Mayor Grant talked about the Council establishing a vision for TCAAP and then having the Code changed to fit the Council’s vision. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 2, 2015 2 Discussion took place on some of the definitions for neighborhood densities. Councilmember Woodburn discussed his vision for TCAAP. He stated that the Council should set the vision and let staff do the detailed work for how the vision can be accomplished. He distributed a marked up copy of Attachment 1 that displayed his vision for TCAAP. This map showed more area in the NB-1 subdistrict (colored yellow) than previous proposals. Councilmember Holmes disagreed with letting staff implement the Council’s vision without clear direction from the Council. She stated that staff and developers need Council direction because the Council wants a variety of housing in TCAAP. She stated that the Council needs to direct staff on how this variety should be achieved. Councilmember McClung arrived at 9:30 a.m. Councilmember Holden reviewed the acreage and density in Watermark. She stated her support for Fit Test Option 2 for the Creek and noted that what the Council approves also needs to be supported by the County. Councilmember McClung stated that he liked the staff memo that outlined how the February 24 land use plan could be adjusted to realize an actual housing yield of about 1450 units. He stated that he could support the plan and the suggested changes as listed in the staff memo. Mayor Grant stated that the Council’s vision for TCAAP should come first and the consideration of our partner’s (Ramsey County) position should come second. Councilmember McClung stated that he would like to see more residential development on the site but that he could support the plan as outlined in the staff memo. Councilmember Woodburn stated that he thought that Fit Test Option 2 for the Creek has too much density and that he couldn’t support it. Mayor Grant stated that the City needs to approve a plan so the County can respond to the City’s position and vision. Councilmember Holden stated that she looked at the County as a land owner and developer and that the City always worked together with the developers on projects. Mayor Grant stated that he could also support Fit Test Option 2 for the Creek. Mayor Grant summarized the Council’s discussion on the Creek as the majority being in support of Fit Test Option 2 which shows a housing unit yield of 149. Mayor Grant asked for the Council to discuss the Hill neighborhood. Councilmember Holmes stated that she thought that a Watermark type development could also work for the Hill neighborhood. She stated that she also likes parts of Fit Test Option 2 for the Hill. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 2, 2015 3 Councilmember Holden agreed but expressed concern with the row houses in the Hill as outlined in Fit Test Option 2. Councilmember Holmes commented that the Watermark development showed 42-foot wide lots. Councilmember Holden stated that, based on the work session with the residential developers, she understood that 50-foot frontage was the minimum that the market would support. Councilmember Woodburn stated that he thought that Fit Test Option 2 and the Watermark proposal were too dense for the Hill. Councilmember Holden reviewed information that was included in the packet on the Hazelnut neighborhood in Arden Hills. Councilmember Holmes stated that she did not see a need for any NB-1 in the Hill and that the City should only do NB-2 and NB-3 in the Hill. Councilmember Holden agreed. She suggested that the entire NB-1 be moved to the NB-2 subdistrict. The Council agreed with this suggestion. Mayor Grant noted that the densities in the neighborhoods will be higher than what exists in the rest of Arden Hills. Discussion took place regarding the minimum and maximum densities in the subdistricts. Mayor Grant stated that if the Hill layout follows the Creek layout, then he thought that the housing yield would be about 321. Councilmember Holden wanted the Council to discuss what should be allowed to be built in the NB-3 subdistrict. Discussion took place on various types of attached and detached housing units. Councilmember Holden noted that the developers have stated that they will build mostly attached townhouses when the density gets to five units per acre or more. She stated that the Council may need to look at the neighborhood density (high, medium, and low) definitions that are in the TRC. She stated that she wanted the Council to consider some definitions that would require single family houses on 50-foot lots. Councilmember Holmes suggested dividing the NB-3 subdistrict into NB-3A and NB-3B and allowing only single family homes in one of the areas. Mayor Grant suggested establishing an NB-3A and an NB-3B subdistrict for attached and detached housing. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 2, 2015 4 Councilmember Woodburn discussed the very nice townhouses that he recently saw in Oakdale. The Council requested that the definition of Small Lot Single Family on page 28 of the TRC be changed to read as: “A single-family residential lot that measures fifty (50) feet wide or less.” The Council requested that NB-3A only allow Single Family developments and that NB-3B allow all the other uses from the original NB-3 subdistrict. The Council further agreed that the NB-3 land area in the Hill be split 50/50 between NB-3A and NB-3B. The Council discussed what the resulting housing yield would be based on information in Fit Test Option 2 and the new definitions and areas for the subdistricts. The Council agreed that there could be about 62 houses built in the 30 acres that are in the NB-2 subdistrict; about 113 houses built in the 16.25 acres that are in the NB-3A subdistrict; and about 98 homes built in the 16.25 acres that are in the NB-3B subdistrict. Mayor Grant noted that between the Hill and Creek neighborhoods, there is about 16.25 acres of multifamily and the rest is single family. The Council took a break from 11:00 to 11:10 a.m. Mayor Grant requested that the Council discuss the Town neighborhood. It was noted that Fit Test Option 2 has about 5 acres less available for residential development as the retail space was expanded by 1.3 acres and the pedestrian corridor green space was expand by 3.6 acres. The Council discussed the proposed change in acreage for apartments from the February 24 land use plan (17 acres at 40 units/acre for 680 total maximum units) to the proposal from April 20 (11.25 acres at 40 units/acre for 450 total maximum units). It was noted that this was a decrease of over 200 units and that this subdistrict would include multi-family developments for seniors. The Council discussed the Maxfield Study as it relates to senior housing; maximizing the value of the developed land; the demand for apartments and that high quality amenities are a requirement; the need for some but not too many Townhouses; and the County’s concerns with a TCAAP plan that includes densities that are too low to meet their redevelopment goals. Councilmember Holmes stated that she liked the layout in Fit Test Option 2 for the pedestrian/green space areas and how it worked with the neighborhoods. Councilmember Holden stated that a developer only needs 2-3 acres for the building footprint to get 150 units in a four (4) floor project. Councilmember Holmes suggested that 10 acres be dedicated to apartments and the balance of the area be split between NT-1 and NT-2. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 2, 2015 5 Councilmember Holden stated that the density for multi-family would need to be increased to 45units/acre in order to get a yield of 450 apartment units from 10 acres. Also, by using 19.5 acres for both NT-1 and NT-2 and a housing yield of 9 units per acre for NT-1 (total of 176) and 12 units per acre for NT-2 (total of 234), would equate to a housing unit yield of 860 in the Town neighborhood. The Council was in general agreement with this housing unit yield and mix for the Town. Councilmember Holden noted that the definition, as listed on page 30 of the TRC, for Transition Medium Density needs to be adjusted by deleting the phrase “or multi-family”. The Council concurred with this proposal. The Council discussed the housing yield for the total project being in the 1360 range. This is broken down into the Creek at 149, the Hill at 350, and the Town at 860 (apartments at 450 and Town Transition at 410). It was noted that the maximum densities for these areas and subdistricts would be higher than what was discussed at this work session because the development only yields between 89 and 95 percent of the maximum densities due to parcel sizes and configurations and road alignments. The Council noted that allowing the subdistricts in the Creek and the Hill to move around (provided that the entire neighborhood was platted all at once) should improve the development efficiencies. The Council discussed allowing this flexibility for the Town neighborhood. It was further noted that when it comes to housing yield, some subdistricts, such as for the apartments, could be more efficient than other subdistricts, such as the NB-1 in the Creek. Overall, at 92% efficiency, a maximum density of 1480 would yield approximately 1362 housing units. Mayor Grant asked if the Council wanted to review and discuss any changes to the TRC. Mayor Grant stated that he had concerns with warehousing and allowing a height of 24 feet. Councilmember Holden stated that she was only prepared to discuss the three neighborhoods at this work session. She had not planned to review her Code issues or the “blue” area on the land use map. Councilmember Holmes stated that she did not agree with the definition of warehousing as listed on page 35 of the TRC. She stated that allowing 70% warehousing was too much. Additionally, she stated that the section of the Code (7.6) dealing with the Gateway Overlay District was lame. Councilmember Woodburn suggested that the concerns of the Council may be able to be addressed by not allowing any bulk warehousing. The Council discussed the definition of warehousing and the need for businesses to have a working inventory of materials and finished products. No one on the Council wanted the area to have warehousing as a primary use in TCAAP. Councilmember Holden reviewed, and the Council discussed, the Maxfield Study definitions (on page 121) for office showroom, office warehousing, and bulk warehousing. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 2, 2015 6 It was discussed that bulk warehousing is not allowed in the TRC. The Council talked about the businesses in the Round Lake area, and specifically Delkor, and the type of businesses that the Council expected to see in TCAAP. The Council discussed businesses that require a large area for its products that they sell, such as a Mattress Factory, a car dealership, or a telecommunication or cell phone business, and the type of retail that is desired in TCAAP. It was unknown if a 70/30 definition for warehousing would impact these businesses. Mayor Grant started that he was okay with allowing a height of 24 feet in the flex or blue area. The Council discussed the definition of warehousing. It was stated that the only time in which warehousing is allowed is if it is part of a manufacturing and processing operation; and this is only allowed as an accessory use. Councilmember Holmes stated that one of her major concerns is that 70% of a building can be used for warehousing and she feels this amount of space is not an accessory; but rather a primary use. She was also concerned that the TRC didn’t state that an office use could not have warehousing. Councilmember Holmes stated that the Gateway Overlay District section needed to be fixed because it was too vague. A better description of what the City wants to see in this district needs to be added to the Code. She also noted that the Table of Contents needs to be corrected. Councilmember Holmes stated that she wanted warehousing taken out of the TRC. She wanted it removed from pages 33 and 35. Mayor Grant was okay with removing warehousing from the Code. Councilmember Holden was okay with removing warehousing from the Code. However, she stated that the Council was also okay with warehousing being in the TRC in February or else it would not be in the final draft that is dated April 2015. She wanted staff to remind her why the Council made the decision that they did regarding warehousing. She stated that staff on Monday should be able to discuss with the Council the rational for having warehousing in its current form in the TRC. The Council discussed Table 5.1: TRC Zoning District Land Use Table as well as Table 5.2 Additional Use Criteria Table. The Council majority agreed to continue this work session to 6:00 p.m. on Monday, May 4, 2015. Councilmember McClung disagreed with continuing the work session. ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 2, 2015 7 ADJOURN Mayor Grant recessed the special City Council work session at 1:15 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Patrick Klaers David Grant City Administrator Mayor Page 1 of 1 DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services, Ashley Bertrand, Accounting Analyst SUBJECT: Claims & Payroll Requested Action: 1. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item – Claims and Payroll Supporting Documents: Payroll 2015 Payroll #11 .................................................................................... $ 82,463.88 Total Payroll $ 82,463.88 Accounts Payable Claims Through 05/22/2015 Paid Claims (Check No 0 Sales Tax EFT) ............................................. $ 7,248.00 Paid Claims (Check No 44669-Check No 44713) ................................. $ 253,663.13 Paid Claims (Check No 44714-Check No 44715) ................................. $ 201,193.75 Total Accounts Payable $ 462,104.88 Total Claims $ 544,568.76 CONSENT ITEM - 5A MEMORANDUM CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAYROLL # 11 CHECKS DATED: 05/22/15 Biweekly: 05/02/15 - 05/15/15 EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS AMT.Payment Method FIT 6,347.11 EFT SIT 2,613.14 EFT FICA Oasdi 4,181.04 EFT FICA Medicare 977.82 EFT TOTAL TAXES 14,119.11 Health Premium 1,983.29 A/P Check* Dental Premium A/P Check* FSA Health Care Reimb. 275.00 A/P Check* FSA Dependent Care Reimb. 370.83 A/P Check* TOTAL FLEXIBLE SPENDING 2,629.12 HSA Health Saving 1,667.35 Health Care Savings Plan EFT Health Care Savings Plan-2% 286.56 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-4% 177.96 EFT TOTAL HEALTH SAVINGS 2,131.87 PERA 4,220.76 EFT ICMA 4,850.24 EFT Central Pension Fund-Union 614.40 A/P Check* MN State Retirement System 342.85 EFT TOTAL RETIREMENT 10,028.25 IUOE 49 Dues (Union) 132.00 A/P Check* LTD/STD Insurance 0.00 A/P Check* PERA Life Insurance 32.00 A/P Check* 5,138.69 0.00 0.00 4,870.13 268.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 CITY BENEFIT 4,181.04 977.82 5,158.86 PERA Life Insurance 32.00 A/P Check Life/Addl/Dep Life 124.45 A/P Check* Public Employee Long Term Care 93.72 A/P Check* UNUM 42.55 A/P Check* AFLAC 237.92 EFT Avesis-Vision Care 5.22 A/P Check* TOTAL VOLUNTARY 667.86 Total Employee Deductions 29,576.21 Net Payroll 0.00 Direct Deposit 42,590.12 EFT Gross Payroll Tie-Out 72,166.33 STD/LTD Gross - Up 0.00 Plus City Paid Benefit 10,297.55 ICMA Benefit Held 0.00 TOTAL PAYROLL COST 82,463.88 FICA TIE-OUT Gross Payroll 72,166.33 Less Total FSA 2,629.12 Plus Employer Match ICMA 0.00 Plus ICMA Benefit Held 0.00 Net P/R Subject to FICA 69,537.21 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20% 4,181.04 FICA Medicare @ 1.45% 977.82 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. 0.00 0.00 1 Ashley Bertrand From:MN Revenue e-Services [eservices.mdor@state.mn.us] Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:25 AM To:Ashley Bertrand Subject:Your Recent Return and Payment Requests 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 20-May-2015 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 Time: 12-May-2015 10:24:40 AM Legal Name: ARDEN HILLS CITY OF Federal Employer ID: 41-6008992 User Who Submitted: Accounting Analyst Type of Request Submitted: Return for 4/30/2015 Account Name: ARDEN HILLS CITY OF Minnesota ID: 9047998 Return Summary Return Confirmation Number: 0-001-991-552 Account Type: Sales & Use Tax Filing Period: 30-Apr-2015 Projected Amount/Credit Due: $7,248.00 Payment Summary Payment Confirmation Number: 1-075-733-376 Account Type: Sales & Use Tax Filing Period: 30-Apr-2015 Payment Amount: $7,248.00 Payment Type: Return Payment Date: 20-May-2015 Bank Name: US BANK NA Bank Account Number: ********9377 Contact Us If you need further assistance, contact our Sales and Use Tax Division at 651-296-6181, (toll-free) 800-657-3777, 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. Accounts Payable User: Printed: ashley.bertrand 5/21/2015 2:12 PM Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 0192 Grainger, Inc 05/15/2015ACH 9718771273 PW Parts PW Parts 9.50 9722610335 PW Parts PW Parts 9.50 19.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0192: 0285 Xcel Energy 05/15/2015ACH 453747521 March 2015 Utility Bill March 2015 Utility Bill 1,603.33 1,603.33Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0285: 0431 Royal Concrete Pipe, Inc.05/15/2015ACH 163204 SWM Repair SWM Repair 1,620.00 1,620.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0431: 0772 ESS Brothers & Sons, Inc.05/15/2015ACH UU1585 PW Parts PW Parts 445.50 445.50Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0772: 4889 Community Footworks 05/15/2015ACH 05062015-CF May 2015 Foot Clinic May 2015 Foot Clinic 367.20 367.20Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4889: 5596 Jamar Company 05/15/2015ACH 384818 PW Parts PW Parts 235.50 235.50Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5596: MNLI Minnesota Native Landscapes, Inc 05/15/2015ACH 11560 April 2015 City Hall Prairie Maintenance April 2015 City Hall Prairie Maintenance 340.00 340.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor MNLI: 2597 AARP 05/15/201544669 05122015-AARP May 2015 AARP Class May 2015 AARP Class 60.00 60.00Total for Check Number 44669: 3964 Advanced First Aid Inc 05/15/201544670 0415-105 First Aid Supplies First Aid Supplies 157.00 157.00Total for Check Number 44670: 5593 American Legal Publishing Corp.05/15/201544671 0104170 2015 Internet Renewal 2015 Internet Renewal 495.00 495.00Total for Check Number 44671: 6047 Avesis Third Party Administrators, Inc 05/15/201544672 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/21/2015 2:12 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 15F5924-IN May 2015 Vision May 2015 Vision 10.86 10.86Total for Check Number 44672: 0131 Beisswenger's How-To Store 05/15/201544673 570062 PW Parts PW Parts 22.88 22.88Total for Check Number 44673: 0296 City of Arden Hills 05/15/201544674 04082015-PC March 2015 Petty Cash Rec March 2015 Petty Cash Rec 43.78 04082015-PC March 2015 Petty Cash Rec March 2015 Petty Cash Rec 100.41 144.19Total for Check Number 44674: 2935 Continental Safety Equipment 05/15/201544675 439064 Central Garage Supplies Central Garage Supplies 1,788.89 1,788.89Total for Check Number 44675: 8741 CW Houle, Inc.05/15/201544676 10171 SWM Emergency Repair SWM Emergency Repair 6,252.64 6,252.64Total for Check Number 44676: 0176 Frattallone's Hardware, Inc.05/15/201544677 064176-A PW Parts PW Parts 34.07 064189-A PW Parts PW Parts 0.70 064467-A PW Parts PW Parts 13.45 48.22Total for Check Number 44677: 4999 Hirshfield's Paint Mfg., Inc.05/15/201544678 106368 Athletic Field Paint Athletic Field Paint 1,312.50 1,312.50Total for Check Number 44678: 0778 MCFOA 05/15/201544679 05142015-Dietl MCFOA Dues-Dietl MCFOA Dues-Dietl 35.00 05142015-Iverso MCFOA Dues-Iverson MCFOA Dues-Dietl 35.00 70.00Total for Check Number 44679: 3111 Afarin Morgan 05/15/201544680 05072015-AM Baseball/Soccer Refund Baseball/Soccer Refund 40.00 40.00Total for Check Number 44680: 0147 Moundsview Public Schools 05/15/201544681 5812 April 2015 Facility Rental April 2015 Facility Rental 24.41 24.41Total for Check Number 44681: 7025 On Site Sanitation 05/15/201544682 9715 May 2015 Restroom Rental May 2015 Restroom Rental 460.00 460.00Total for Check Number 44682: 8032 Pace Analytical Field Svc 05/15/201544683 12150287 March 2015 Water Test Fees March 2015 Water Test Fees 755.50 12150288 April 2015 Water Test Fees April 2015 Water Test Fees 676.40 Page 2AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/21/2015 2:12 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 1,431.90Total for Check Number 44683: 1074 Precision Landscape & Tree 05/15/201544684 1842 4359/4442 Arden View Drive Tree Removal 4359/4442 Arden View Drive Tree Removal 4,159.50 4,159.50Total for Check Number 44684: 0751 Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc.05/15/201544685 296511 March 2015 PW 12-0029-002-02 Escrow Charges March 2015 PW 12-0029-002-02 Escrow Charges 130.30 296512 March 2015 PW 12-0029-004-02 Escrow Charges March 2015 PW 12-0029-002-02 Escrow Charges 1,744.67 296512 March 2015 PW 12-0029-002-03 Escrow Charges March 2015 PW 12-0029-002-02 Escrow Charges 164.76 296512 March 2015 PW 12-0029-003-03 Escrow Charges March 2015 PW 12-0029-002-02 Escrow Charges 267.82 2,307.55Total for Check Number 44685: 0576 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 05/15/201544686 M21239 3/30 CC Mtg CC/JDA/Plan Com Mtgs 389.00 M21239 4/6 JDA Mtg CC/JDA/Plan Com Mtgs 166.00 M21239 4/8 Plan Com Mtg CC/JDA/Plan Com Mtgs 173.50 728.50Total for Check Number 44686: 24,144.57Total for 5/15/2015: 0285 Xcel Energy 05/21/2015ACH 454618519 April 2015 Utility Bill April 2015 Utility Bill 1,079.45 454618519 April 2015 Utility Bill April 2015 Utility Bill 1,281.69 454618519 April 2015 Utility Bill April 2015 Utility Bill 890.24 454618519 April 2015 Utility Bill April 2015 Utility Bill 386.52 454618519 April 2015 Utility Bill April 2015 Utility Bill 1,205.57 4,843.47Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0285: 0382 ICMA Retirement Trust - 106944 05/21/2015ACH PR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employee Percent 401PR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employee Percent 401 232.75 PR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employer Percent 401PR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employer Percent 401 268.56 501.31Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0382: 0387 ICMA Retirement Trust- #302482 05/21/2015ACH PR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employee PercentPR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employee Percent 529.41 PR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employee DeductionPR Batch 00200.05.2015 ICMA Employee Deduction 4,088.08 4,617.49Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0387: 0431 Royal Concrete Pipe, Inc.05/21/2015ACH 163540 Surface Water Management Repair Surface Water Management Repair 887.00 887.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0431: 5025 Sara Grant 05/21/2015ACH 05182015-SG March-May 2015 Expense Reimbursement March-May 2015 Expense Reimbursement 162.40 05182015-SG March-May 2015 Expense Reimbursement March-May 2015 Expense Reimbursement 20.88 183.28Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5025: 5589 Independent Officials Association, LLC.05/21/2015ACH 543 4/20 Thru 4/30 Umpiring Services 4/20 Thru 4/30 Umpiring Services 936.00 Page 3AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/21/2015 2:12 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 936.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5589: 5596 Jamar Company 05/21/2015ACH 385049 PW Parts PW Parts 296.25 296.25Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5596: 7064 Rotary Club of Arden Hills/Shoreview 05/21/2015ACH 1341 Q2 2015 Dues Q2 2015 Dues 178.10 178.10Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7064: FPTC Flexible Pipe Tool Company 05/21/2015ACH 18608 PW Training PW Training 1,700.00 1,700.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor FPTC: TOII Tokle Inspections, Inc 05/21/2015ACH 05012015-Tokle April 2015 Inspections April 2015 Inspections 2,709.60 2,709.60Total for this ACH Check for Vendor TOII: 1195 Eureka Recycling 05/21/2015ACH 14895 March 2015 Recycling Costs March 2015 Recycling Costs 7,991.88 14895 March 2015 Recycling Costs March 2015 Recycling Costs -267.45 7,724.43Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1195: UB*00119 Gregory & Ruthann Belland 05/21/201544687 Refund Check 4.94 4.94Total for Check Number 44687: UB*00117 Kathleen Brady 05/21/201544688 Refund Check 60.00 60.00Total for Check Number 44688: UB*00118 Joseph Busch 05/21/201544689 Refund Check 28.13 28.13Total for Check Number 44689: CANO Canon Solutions America 05/21/201544690 4015824623 Feb-April 2015 Copier Expenses Feb-April 2015 Copier Expenses 1,787.29 1,787.29Total for Check Number 44690: UB*00120 CC Services Inc 05/21/201544691 Refund Check 16,975.15 Refund Check 15,095.57 Refund Check 1,209.48 33,280.20Total for Check Number 44691: UB*00116 Century 21 Pastrana 05/21/201544692 Refund Check 129.65 129.65Total for Check Number 44692: 0296 City of Arden Hills 05/21/201544693 05202015-PC April 2015 Petty Cash Rec April 2015 Petty Cash Rec 3.79 Page 4AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/21/2015 2:12 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 3.79Total for Check Number 44693: 0319 City of Roseville 05/21/201544694 05152015 2015 Felling Trailer Registration 2015 Felling Trailer Registration 537.62 537.62Total for Check Number 44694: 5597 CoBeck Construction Company, LLC 05/21/201544695 05202015-14-030 PC 14-030 Escrow Release PC 14-030 Escrow Release 630.00 630.00Total for Check Number 44695: DEED Dept of Employment & Econ Dev 05/21/201544696 106-002-Q115 Q1 2015 Unemployment Benefits Paid Q1 2015 Unemployment Benefits Paid 2,601.69 2,601.69Total for Check Number 44696: 0841 Ehlers & Associates, Inc.05/21/201544697 67430 April 2015 TCAAP Expenses April 2015 TCAAP Expenses 5,932.50 5,932.50Total for Check Number 44697: 9508 Exceptional Homes 05/21/201544698 05122015-EH PC 14-026 Escrow Release PC 14-026 Escrow Release 252.00 252.00Total for Check Number 44698: 3657 Hansen, Eric 05/21/201544699 05202015-EH PC 14-025 Escrow Release PC 14-025 Escrow Release 630.00 630.00Total for Check Number 44699: IDAI Ideal Advertising, Inc 05/21/201544700 38261 2015 Summer Rec Order 2015 Summer Rec Order 150.00 38261 2015 Summer Rec Order 2015 Summer Rec Order 2,248.00 2,398.00Total for Check Number 44700: 0916 Lakes Country Service Coop 05/21/201544701 CI073HA9-0615 June 2015 Health Insurance June 2015 Health Insurance 4,746.50 CI073HB7-0615 June 2015 Health Insurance June 2015 Health Insurance 925.50 CI073HE1-0615 June 2015 Health Insurance June 2015 Health Insurance 1,568.50 7,240.50Total for Check Number 44701: 5665 Metering & Technology Solution 05/21/201544702 3481 PW Water Meter Supplies PW Water Meter Supplies 648.88 3482 PW Water Meter Supplies PW Water Meter Supplies 306.00 954.88Total for Check Number 44702: 0266 Minnesota Recreation & Park Assn.05/21/201544703 05152015-MRPA 2015 Summer Softball Registrations 2015 Summer Softball Registrations 504.00 504.00Total for Check Number 44703: 6252 Office Depot 05/21/201544704 1781446051 Office Supplies Office Supplies 73.09 73.09Total for Check Number 44704: 1481 Park Construction 05/21/201544705 Page 5AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/21/2015 2:12 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 05142015-PC County Road E/Pine Tree Drive Improvements Payment #1County Road E/Pine Tree Drive Improvements Payment #1 138,475.54 138,475.54Total for Check Number 44705: 6072 Peterson Companies, Inc 05/21/201544706 29195 Cummings/Perry Parks Ball Field Grading Cummings/Perry Parks Ball Field Grading 6,320.00 6,320.00Total for Check Number 44706: 1208 Premium Waters, Inc 05/21/201544707 610207-04-015 April 2015 City Hall Supplies April 2015 City Hall Supplies 59.28 613317-04-15 April 2015 City Hall Supplies April 2015 City Hall Supplies 113.33 172.61Total for Check Number 44707: 0811 Ramsey County 05/21/201544708 EMCOM-004058 April 2015 CAD Services April 2015 CAD Services 895.50 EMCOM-004073 April 2015 911 Dispatch April 2015 911 Dispatch 4,798.50 EMCOM-004083 April 2015 Fleet Support Fee April 2015 Fleet Support Fee 24.96 5,718.96Total for Check Number 44708: 1193 SelectAccount 05/21/201544709 1098362 May 2015 Particiapnt Fees May 2015 Particiapnt Fees 44.31 44.31Total for Check Number 44709: 2226 Sharrow Lifting Products 05/21/201544710 87607 PW Parts PW Parts 203.90 203.90Total for Check Number 44710: 0925 T-Mobile 05/21/201544711 05222015-TMobil April 2015 Tablet Charges April 2015 Tablet Charges 359.91 359.91Total for Check Number 44711: 5180 Tessman Seed Co.05/21/201544712 S212701-IN Parks Supplies Parks Supplies 3,897.30 3,897.30Total for Check Number 44712: 0576 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial 05/21/201544713 M21264 4/13 CC Mtg 4/13 CC Mtg 425.25 425.25Total for Check Number 44713: 8884 Cascade Engineering 05/21/201544714 30165608 Recycling Carts Recycling Carts 21,660.00 30165612 Recycling Carts Recycling Carts 17,410.00 30165649 Recycling Carts Recycling Carts 28,400.00 30165655 Recycling Carts Recycling Carts 29,470.00 30165813 Recycling Carts Recycling Carts 6,040.00 102,980.00Total for Check Number 44714: 0811 Ramsey County 05/21/201544715 SHRFL-001399 May 2015 RC Sheriff May 2015 RC Sheriff 90,489.32 90,489.32Total for Check Number 44715: 430,712.31Total for 5/21/2015: Page 6AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/21/2015 2:12 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription Report Total (65 checks): 454,856.88 Page 7AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (5/21/2015 2:12 PM) CONSENT ITEM – 5B MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Dave Perrault, Finance Analyst SUBJECT: 2014 4th Quarter Financial Reports Background/Discussion Attached are the 4th Quarter Actuals for 2014. Overall total expenditures were below budget mostly due to capital expenditures as they are budgeted but presented to the City Council and approved on a case by case basis and according to bid costs. Overall Operating revenues ran fairly close to budget estimates. General Fund revenues ran slightly over budget while operating expenditures ran close to the budget estimates. The annual audit will be presented at the June 29, 2015 meeting. One item to note in the General Fund is that we did do a budget amendment to transfer the Fund Balance remaining after the 2013 audit which was over our Fund Balance Policy in the amount of $162,417. We also did a budget amendment to transfer out the TCAAP Capital costs from the original General Fund budget to a TCAAP Capital fund in the amount of $185,398. The actual amount of Revenues over Expenditures for 2014 is $142,629. This is mainly the result of License and Permit revenues and Charges for Services that were more than the budget estimates in the General Fund. (Please refer to the attached reports for details.) An Investment Portfolio has also been included with these financial reports. Per the Investment Policy, our Benchmark Rate is the 4M plus Rate. At December 31, 2014 – this rate was 0.05% and our portfolio is averaging 2.284%. All of our investments are in government secured or government backed deposits. The section listed at the top of the portfolio are the “liquid” investments that we can access at anytime. As we are trying to stay diversified in this area and we will be transferring between these accounts. We are working on cash flows with the PMP and other CIP projects, along with the utility billing cycles to determine how much we can invest and for what time periods. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that Council accept the 4th Quarter 2014 Financial Reports. CONSENT ITEM – 5C MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Sue Iverson, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Dave Perrault, Finance Analyst SUBJECT: 2015 1st Quarter Actuals Background/Discussion Attached are the 1st Quarter Actuals for 2015. Overall expenditures and revenues are running at expected levels. Please remember that we receive 50% of our revenue from property taxes and will not receive the 2nd half until December. Governmental accounting is not done on an accrual basis, therefore the number reflect what was actually taken in as revenue or paid out as expenditures thru March 31, 2015. Accruals, deferred revenue adjustments, etc. are only done at year-end. Basically General Fund expenditures from operating activities are running at or slightly below the budget estimates as are revenues. (Please note that the overall percentages look lower because property taxes, liquor licenses, etc are collected at year-end.) An Investment Portfolio has also been included with these financial reports. Per the Investment Policy, our Benchmark Rate is the 4M plus Rate. At March 31, 2015 – this rate was 0.05% and our portfolio is averaging 2.133%. All of our investments are in government secured or government backed deposits. The section listed at the top of the portfolio are the “liquid” investments that we can access at any time. As we are trying to stay diversified in this area and we will be transferring between these accounts. We are working on cash flows with the PMP and other CIP projects, along with the utility billing cycles to determine how much we can invest and for what time periods. Staff Recommendation Staff requests that Council accept the 1st Quarter 2015 Financial Reports. CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case # 15-009 Applicant: Bethel University Property Address: 3900 Bethel Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit Amendment Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 15-009 for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the May 26, 2015, Report to the City Council. Background Bethel University operates under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for its Campus Master Plan. As the College comes forward with plans or anticipated projects, they are reviewed against the Campus Master Plan for consistency. While building plans or projects that are consistent with the Campus Master Plan require a Site Plan Review, those not included in the original plan must be approved through a CUP Amendment. In this case, a CUP Amendment is required because the soccer facility building is not on the current Campus Master Plan. If approved the Campus Master Plan would be updated to include the proposed structure on the Ona Orth Athletic Field Complex. 1. Overview of Request: Bethel University is proposing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building with a footprint of 1,200 square feet. In addition to the CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 2 of 8 1,200 square foot lower level the design also includes a 400 square foot scoring tower within the upper level for a total floor area of 1,600 square feet. The soccer facility building would be located on the Ona Orth Athletic Field Complex, which is located on the west side of Snelling Avenue across from the main campus. The structure would be positioned along the eastern sideline of the soccer field near midfield and adjacent to Snelling Avenue. In addition to the existing soccer field, the complex also includes six (6) tennis courts and one (1) softball field. The structure would be approximately twenty-three (23) feet in height and comparable in design to the other structures on the athletic field complex. The exterior finish of the structure would largely consist of horizontal plank siding with brick accents on each corner to match the existing structures on the site. Other exterior materials would include rocked faced block and asphalt shingles. The applicant has submitted an application and project narrative (Attachment C), exterior renderings and building plans (Attachment D), and a site plan, grading plan, and landscaping plan (Attachment E). Plan Evaluation 1. Zoning Regulations A. Proposed Use – Meets Requirements The proposed soccer facility building is an auxiliary use to the Bethel University campus, and is permitted under Section 1320.075 Special Requirements of the Single Family Residential (R1) District. B. Setbacks – Meets Requirements The minimum building setbacks in the R-1 Single Family District are forty (40) feet in the front yard, thirty (30) feet in the rear yard, and ten (10) feet minimum in a side yard, with both sides required to total twenty-five (25) feet. All setback requirements stated in the Zoning Code have been met by the proposed soccer facility building. C. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The proposed soccer facility building would remove 1,200 square feet of landscaped area decreasing the landscaping coverage from 78.50 percent to 78.49 percent. The total lot coverage (non-landscaped area) would subsequently increase from 21.50 percent to 21.52 CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 3 of 8 percent. The Campus Master Plan limits the total lot coverage of impervious surfaces to 25 percent and requires a minimum landscaping coverage of 75 percent. As proposed the new structure would not exceed the lot coverage regulations for this use. Section 1325 – General Regulations A. Height and Size – Meets Requirements The Ona Orth Athletic Field complex is located in the R-1 Single Family District where the maximum building height for a structure is thirty-five (35) feet. The proposed soccer facility building as depicted in the building plans (Attachment D) is twenty-three (23) feet in height. The Zoning Code allows accessory structures associated with non-residential uses to be up to 2,184 square feet in floor area. The structure as proposed has a footprint of 1,200 square feet with dimensions of twenty (20) feet by sixty (60) feet. In addition to the 1,200 square foot lower level the design also includes a 400 square foot scoring tower within the upper level for a total floor area of 1,600 square feet. B. Landscaping – Meets Requirements Since the proposal includes additional building space, the City’s landscaping requirements apply. 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 5 caliper inches of tree plantings. Bethel University has proposed five (5) caliper inches of tree plantings on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex. Type/Total Existing Conditions Today Proposed Conditions Square Feet % Square Feet % Building 436,600 5.41% 437,800 5.43% Concrete/Bituminous 1,225,492 15.19% 1,225,492 15.19% Permeable Paver Area 72,643 0.90% 72,643 0.90% Total Coverage (Non-Landscaped Area) 1,734,735 21.50% 1,735,935 21.52% Creek/Pond Area 172,613 2.14% 172,613 2.14% Landscape Coverage 6,162,115 76.36% 6,160,915 76.35% Total Landscape Area 6,334,728 78.50% 6,333,528 78.49% Total Land Area 8,069,463 75.61% 8,069,463 75.61% Lake Valentine 2,603,262 24.39% 2,603,262 24.39% Total Overall Lot (w/Lake) 10,672,725 100% 10,672,725 100% CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 4 of 8 F. Aesthetics – Meets requirement The Zoning Code does not have specific guidelines for building materials in the R-1 District. However, Section 1325.05 Subd. 6 of the Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission and City Council should evaluate the proposed design, scale, massing, materials, height, and other aspects of the proposed structure with respect to structures and properties in the surrounding area. During this evaluation the City should also consider if the appearance of a proposed structure would cause substantial depreciation in the property values in the surrounding area or unreasonably detract from the appearance of the area. The exterior finish of the structure would largely consist of horizontal plank siding with brick accents on each corner to match the existing structures at the athletic field complex. Other exterior materials would include rocked faced block and asphalt shingles. The applicant has provided a rendering of the proposed building elevations in Attachment D. G. Traffic, Access, Circulation, and Parking – Meets requirement The proposed soccer facility building is not expected to impact internal circulation at the athletic field complex or traffic and parking conditions in the surrounding area because the use is accessory to the campus as a whole, and only provides facility space for soccer events that would already be held at the athletic field complex. 2. Conditional Use Permit Criteria Section 1355.04 Subd 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: 1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; 6. Park dedications where applicable; and the CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 5 of 8 7. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 4. Additional Review The City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Building Official, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County have reviewed the project and have not expressed any objections to the proposal. A Building Permit and Grading and Erosion Control Permit will be required by the City. The structure will be built to meet all building and fire code requirements. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 15-009 at their regular meeting on May 6, 2015. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment A. The Planning Commission offers the following findings of fact for consideration: General Findings: 1. The property at 3900 Bethel Drive (Bethel University) is located in both the B-1 Limited Business District and the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 2. The main campus is located in the B-1 District while the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex is located within the R-1 District. 3. The proposed soccer facility building is an auxiliary use to the Bethel University campus, and is permitted under Section 1320.075 Special Requirements of the Single Family Residential (R1) District. 4. The proposed structure would be used during soccer events for team meetings and to protect players and associated personnel in inclement weather conditions. 5. The building would also house a scorekeeper and photographer area in the upper level to provide an unobstructed view of the playing field. 6. The proposed structure would be twenty-three (23) feet in height. 7. The exterior finishes and architectural style would be compatible with or match the existing structures on the site. 8. The proposed structure would meet all setback requirements. 9. The proposed footprint of the structure is 20’ x 60’ or 1,200 square feet in size. 10. The proposed structure includes a 400 square foot scoring tower in the upper lever. 11. The proposed structure has a total floor area of 1,600 square feet. 12. The proposed soccer facility building meets all other requirements of the Zoning Code. 13. No additional parking areas, drives, or access points would be created as a result of the proposed project at the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex. CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 6 of 8 Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 14. The proposed project would not have any impact on traffic or parking conditions because the use is accessory to the campus as a whole, and only provides facility space for soccer events that would already be held at this location. 15. The proposed project will not produce any permanent noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 16. The proposed project will not impact drainage. 17. The proposed project will not impact population density. 18. The proposed project is not expected to have a visual impact on surrounding properties or on land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land or adjoining land values. 19. Park dedications are not applicable. 20. The proposed project does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Recommendation The findings of fact for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment support approval. However, if the City Council chooses to deny the application, the findings of fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 15-009 and unanimously recommends approval (5-0) of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the May 26, 2015, 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 continue to abide by all previous agreements and Conditional Use Permits, as amended by the conditions of approval of this application. 3. That a Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The CUP agreement shall be signed by the applicant and approved by Council prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. That a building permit shall be obtained for the proposed soccer facility building. 5. That the building permit for the soccer facility shall be issued by June 1, 2016, or an extension shall be requested at least 45 days preceding this deadline. 6. That the applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping (materials and installation) prior to the issuance of a CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 7 of 8 building permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC-insured Minnesota bank. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that landscaping is completed in the event that the applicant defaults on the Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 7. That a minimum of two (2) trees shall be planted on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex to meet the Zoning Code requirements. Each deciduous tree is required to be a minimum of two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches and coniferous trees are required to be six (6) feet in height. Proposed Motion Language 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. Public Notice Notice of the public hearing was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin on April 22, 2015, and mailed to all properties within 500 feet of the subject property. Public Comments Staff received an email from Thomas House (1483 Arden Oaks Drive) outlining his concerns regarding the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex (Attachment G). Staff has been in contact with Bethel University and they are working with Mr. House to address the noise related issues addressed in the email received by staff. No other letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regards to this planning case have been received. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 1, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City is required to act on this request by May 30, 2015, (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. CONSENT ITEM – 5D City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 8 of 8 Attachments A) Draft Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2015 B) Planning Commission Report – May 6, 2015 C) Application and Project Narrative D) Exterior Rendering and Building Plans E) Site Plan, Grading Plan, and Landscaping Plan F) Updated Proposed Campus Master Plan G) Resident Comment – Thomas House H) Bethel Letter – Parking & Traffic Safety I) Aerial Map Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Angela Hames (arrived at 6:32 p.m.), Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioners Brent Bartel, and Phillip Neururer. Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JUNE 4, 2015 Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. PLANNING CASES B. Planning Case 15-009; Conditional Use Permit Amendment – Bethel University – 3900 Bethel Drive – Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that Bethel University operates under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for its Campus Master Plan. As the College comes forward with plans or anticipated projects, they are reviewed against the Campus Master Plan for consistency. While building plans or projects that are consistent with the Campus Master Plan require a site plan review, those not included in the original plan must be approved through a CUP Amendment. In this case, a CUP Amendment is required because the soccer facility building is not on the current Campus Master Plan. If approved the Campus Master Plan would be updated to include the proposed structure on the Ona Orth Athletic Field Complex. City Planner Streff explained that Bethel University is proposing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building with the footprint of 1,200 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 2 square feet. The soccer facility building would be located on the Ona Orth Athletic Field Complex, which is located on the west side of Snelling Avenue across from the main campus. The structure would be positioned along the eastern sideline of the soccer field near midfield and adjacent to Snelling Avenue. In addition to the existing soccer field, the complex also includes six (6) tennis courts and one (1) softball field. City Planner Streff reported that the structure would be approximately twenty-three (23) feet in height and comparable in design to the other structures on the athletic field complex. The exterior finish of the structure would largely consist of horizontal plank siding with brick accents on each corner to match the existing structures on the site. Other exterior materials would include rocked faced block and asphalt shingles. Land Use Plan: Site Data Public and Institutional Existing Land Use: Public and Institutional Zoning: B-1: Limited Business District (Main Campus) R-1: Single Family Residential (Athletic Complex) Current Lot Sizes: 191.32 Acres (Including athletic complex, the main campus, and part of Lake Valentine) Topography: The elevation generally decreases toward the northwest. City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Conditional Use Permit Criteria. City Planner Streff indicated that the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed amendment meets all applicable requirements of the Zoning Code and if they would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. Staff offers the following twenty (20) findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The property at 3900 Bethel Drive (Bethel University) is located in both the B-1 Limited Business District and the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 2. The main campus is located in the B-1 District while the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex is located within the R-1 District. 3. The proposed soccer facility building is an auxiliary use to the Bethel University campus, and is permitted under Section 1320.075 Special Requirements of the Single Family Residential (R1) District. 4. The proposed structure would be used during soccer events for team meetings and to protect players and associated personnel in inclement weather conditions. 5. The building would also house a scorekeeper and photographer area in the upper level to provide an unobstructed view of the playing field. 6. The proposed structure would be twenty-three (23) feet in height. 7. The exterior finishes and architectural style would be compatible with or match the existing structures on the site. 8. The proposed structure would meet all setback requirements. 9. The proposed footprint of the structure is 20’ x 60’ or 1,200 square feet in size. 10. The proposed structure includes a 400 square foot scoring tower in the upper lever. 11. The proposed structure has a total floor area of 1,600 square feet. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 3 12. The proposed soccer facility building meets all other requirements of the Zoning Code. 13. No additional parking areas, drives, or access points would be created as a result of the proposed project at the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 14. The proposed project would not have any impact on traffic or parking conditions because the use is accessory to the campus as a whole, and only provides facility space for soccer events that would already be held at this location. 15. The proposed project will not produce any permanent noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 16. The proposed project will not impact drainage. 17. The proposed project will not impact population density. 18. The proposed project is not expected to have a visual impact on surrounding properties or on land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land or adjoining land values. 19. Park dedications are not applicable. 20. The proposed project does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. City Planner Streff stated that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 15-009 for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff recommends that the following seven (7) conditions be included with the approval: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall continue to abide by all previous agreements and Conditional Use Permits, as amended by the conditions of approval of this application. 3. That a Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The CUP agreement shall be signed by the applicant and approved by Council prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. That a building permit shall be obtained for the proposed soccer facility building. 5. That the building permit for the soccer facility shall be issued by June 1, 2016, or an extension shall be requested at least 45 days preceding this deadline. 6. That the applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping (materials and installation) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC-insured Minnesota bank. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that landscaping is completed in the event that the applicant defaults on the Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 7. That a minimum of two (2) trees shall be planted on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex to meet the Zoning Code requirements. Each deciduous tree is required to be a minimum ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 4 of two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches and coniferous trees are required to be six (6) feet in height. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Glenn Hofer, Facilities Manager with Bethel University, explained that Bethel was proposing to construct a 20’ x 60’ building as a part of the University’s sports complex for soccer. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Dennis Foster, 1415 Arden Oaks Drive, stated his property was directly adjacent to the Bethel University football field. He did not object to the new soccer building, but requested that it be placed along the western edge of the soccer field instead of the eastern edge due to the slope of the field. He feared that the new building would block the natural view along Snelling Avenue if placed in its proposed location. There being no additional comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. Bob Bjorklund, Athletic Director at Bethel University, reported that the proposed location would best serve the function of the building and soccer field. Mr. Hofer added that costs would increase significantly if the building were to be shifted to the western edge of the soccer field. Commissioner Hames stated that she read the letter from a resident expressing concern with the noise being generated from the sporting events on campus. She requested that Bethel address this concern, in addition to requiring all event parking to be located on campus. She wanted to see Bethel be better neighbors by addressing the parking and pedestrian safety issues surrounding their sports complex. Chair Thompson requested that Bethel address the type of sound system used on the Ona Orth Athletic Field. Mr. Bjorklund reported that the new building would have no additional speakers added to the system. He commented that the current sound system would remain in place. He explained that he has been in contact with the concerned neighbor to ensure that his concerns were being addressed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 5 Chair Thompson asked if Bethel would be addressing the parking and pedestrian safety concerns surrounding the sports complex. Mr. Bjorklund explained that access to the new building would be through the existing driveway on the site and that pedestrians would cross Snelling Avenue through the designated crossing. He understood that parking was an issue for the campus during large sporting events. Commissioner Holewa suggested that Bethel University hold an annual meeting with adjacent homeowners to discuss its plans for the coming year. Commissioner Jones anticipated that Snelling Avenue would be very busy this summer with the County Road E bridge being out. He encouraged Bethel to take this into consideration when addressing pedestrian safety. Chair Thompson asked if any significant trees would be removed through the proposed project. City Planner Streff reviewed the site plan and reported that all significant trees would remain. It was noted two new trees would be planted per the landscaping section of the Zoning Code. Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-009 for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2015 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case # 15-009 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Bethel University Property Address: 3900 Bethel Drive Request: Conditional Use Permit Amendment Requested Action The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive just west of the main campus. Background Bethel University operates under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for its Campus Master Plan. As the College comes forward with plans or anticipated projects, they are reviewed against the Campus Master Plan for consistency. While building plans or projects that are consistent with the Campus Master Plan require a site plan review, those not included in the original plan must be approved through a CUP Amendment. In this case, a CUP Amendment is required because the soccer facility building is not on the current Campus Master Plan. If approved the Campus Master Plan would be updated to include the proposed structure on the Ona Orth Athletic Field Complex. 1. Overview of Request: Bethel University is proposing a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building with the footprint of 1,200 square feet. The soccer facility building would be located on the Ona Orth Athletic Field Complex, which is located on the west side of Snelling Avenue across from the main campus. The structure would be City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 2 of 9 positioned along the eastern sideline of the soccer field near midfield and adjacent to Snelling Avenue. In addition to the existing soccer field, the complex also includes six (6) tennis courts and one (1) softball field. The structure would be approximately twenty-three (23) feet in height and comparable in design to the other structures on the athletic field complex. The exterior finish of the structure would largely consist of horizontal plank siding with brick accents on each corner to match the existing structures on the site. Other exterior materials would include rocked faced block and asphalt shingles. The applicant has submitted an application and project narrative (Attachment A), exterior renderings and building plans (Attachment B), and a site plan, grading plan, and landscaping plan (Attachment C). 2. Surrounding Area: Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Right-of-Way / Low Density Residential Right-of-Way / R-1 Single Family Residential Right-of-Way / Single Family Residential South Railroad / Low Density Residential Railroad / R-1 Single Family Residential Railroad / Single Family Residential East Right-of-Way / Industrial / Mixed Business Right-of-Way / I-Flex Right-of-Way / Office / Industrial West Low Density Residential / Medium Density Residential R-1: Single Family Residential Single Family Residential 3. Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: Public and Institutional Existing Land Use: Public and Institutional Zoning: B-1: Limited Business District (Main Campus) R-1: Single Family Residential (Athletic Complex) Size: 191.32 Acres (Including athletic complex, the main campus, and part of Lake Valentine) Topography: The elevation generally decreases toward the northwest. Plan Evaluation 1. Zoning Regulations A. Proposed Use – Meets Requirements The proposed soccer facility building is an auxiliary use to the Bethel University campus, and is permitted under Section 1320.075 Special Requirements of the Single Family Residential (R1) District. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 3 of 9 B. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The proposed soccer facility building would remove 1,200 square feet of landscaped area. The total landscape area would decrease to 78.49 percent from the current 78.50 percent. Total lot coverage (non-landscaped area) would subsequently increase to 21.52 percent from 21.50 percent. The Campus Master Plan limits the total lot coverage of impervious surfaces to 25 percent and requires a minimum landscaping coverage of 75 percent. As proposed the new structure would not exceed the lot coverage regulations for this use. C. Setbacks – Meets Requirements The minimum building setbacks in the R-1 Single Family District are forty (40) feet in the front yard, thirty (30) feet in the rear yard, and ten (10) feet minimum in a side yard, with both sides required to total twenty-five (25) feet. All setback requirements stated in the Zoning Code have been met by the proposed soccer facility building. Section 1325 – General Regulations A. Height and Size – Meets Requirements The Ona Orth Athletic Field complex is located in the R-1 Single Family District where the maximum building height for a structure is thirty-five (35) feet. The proposed soccer Type/Total Existing Conditions Today Proposed Conditions Square Feet % Square Feet % Building 436,600 5.41% 437,800 5.43% Concrete/Bituminous 1,225,492 15.19% 1,225,492 15.19% Permeable Paver Area 72,643 0.90% 72,643 0.90% Total Coverage (Non- Landscaped Area) 1,734,735 21.50% 1,735,935 21.52% Creek/Pond Area 172,613 2.14% 172,613 2.14% Landscape Coverage 6,162,115 76.36% 6,160,915 76.35% Total Landscape Area 6,334,728 78.50% 6,333,528 78.49% Total Land Area 8,069,463 75.61% 8,069,463 75.61% Lake Valentine 2,603,262 24.39% 2,603,262 24.39% Total Overall Lot (w/Lake) 10,672,725 100% 10,672,725 100% City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 4 of 9 facility building as depicted in the building plans (Attachment B) is twenty-three (23) feet in height. The Zoning Code allows accessory structures associated with non-residential uses to be a maximum size of 2,184 square feet. The structure as proposed has a footprint of 1,200 square feet with dimensions of twenty (20) feet by sixty (60) feet. The structure also include a 400 square foot scoring tower that is twenty (20) feet by twenty (20) feet within the upper level for a total floor area of 1,600 square feet. B. Landscaping and Tree Preservation – Meets Requirements The proposed project is not expected to impact any significant trees on the property. If any significant trees are removed as a result of the project, mitigation may be required as regulated by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The submitted landscaping plan does indicate nine (9) trees within thirty (30) feet of the proposed structure that would be protected during construction. Since the proposal includes 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 5 caliper inches of tree plantings (1,600 square feet / 320 = 5). Each deciduous tree is required to be a minimum of two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches and each coniferous tree is required to be six (6) feet in height. Bethel University has proposed five (5) caliper inches of tree plantings on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex. C. Lighting – Meets Requirements No additional outside lighting is proposed as part of this project to illuminate the soccer field. However, three (3) recessed can lights would be placed under the soffit/eave area along the west elevation for security purposes. No lighting would be placed on the street side (Snelling Avenue) of the structure. D. Screening and Fencing – Meets Requirements With the exception of the electric meter on the east side of the structure all other mechanical equipment would be enclosed within the building. No additional screening is required as part of this proposal. E. Parking, Loading, and Circulation – Meets Requirements The new soccer facility building is not anticipated to generate an additional parking demand because the structure is only intended to be occupied by teams using the existing field during soccer events. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 5 of 9 F. Aesthetics – Meets requirement The Zoning Code does not have specific guidelines for building materials in the R-1 District. However, Section 1325.05 Subd. 6 of the Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission and City Council should evaluate the proposed design, scale, massing, materials, height, and other aspects of the proposed structure with respect to structures and properties in the surrounding area. During this evaluation the City should also consider if the appearance of a proposed structure would cause substantial depreciation in the property values in the surrounding area or unreasonably detract from the appearance of the area. The exterior finish of the structure would largely consist of horizontal plank siding with brick accents on each corner to match the existing structures at the athletic field complex. Other exterior materials would include rocked faced block and asphalt shingles. The applicant has provided a rendering of the proposed building elevations (Attachment B). G. Traffic, Access, and Circulation – Meets requirement The proposed soccer facility building is not expected to impact internal circulation at the athletic field complex or traffic conditions in the surrounding area because the use is accessory to the campus as a whole, and only provides facility space for soccer events that would already be held at this location. 2. Conditional Use Permit Criteria Section 1355.04 Subd 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: 1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; 6. Park dedications where applicable; and the 7. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 6 of 9 4. Additional Review The City Engineer, Fire Marshall, Building Official, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County have reviewed the project and have not expressed any objections to the proposal. A Building Permit and Grading and Erosion Control Permit will be required by the City. The structure will be built to meet all building and fire code requirements. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed amendment meets all applicable requirements of the Zoning Code and if they would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. Staff offers the following twenty (20) findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The property at 3900 Bethel Drive (Bethel University) is located in both the B-1 Limited Business District and the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 2. The main campus is located in the B-1 District while the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex is located within the R-1 District. 3. The proposed soccer facility building is an auxiliary use to the Bethel University campus, and is permitted under Section 1320.075 Special Requirements of the Single Family Residential (R1) District. 4. The proposed structure would be used during soccer events for team meetings and to protect players and associated personnel in inclement weather conditions. 5. The building would also house a scorekeeper and photographer area in the upper level to provide an unobstructed view of the playing field. 6. The proposed structure would be twenty-three (23) feet in height. 7. The exterior finishes and architectural style would be compatible with or match the existing structures on the site. 8. The proposed structure would meet all setback requirements. 9. The proposed footprint of the structure is 20’ x 60’ or 1,200 square feet in size. 10. The proposed structure includes a 400 square foot scoring tower in the upper lever. 11. The proposed structure has a total floor area of 1,600 square feet. 12. The proposed soccer facility building meets all other requirements of the Zoning Code. 13. No additional parking areas, drives, or access points would be created as a result of the proposed project at the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 14. The proposed project would not have any impact on traffic or parking conditions because the use is accessory to the campus as a whole, and only provides facility space for soccer events that would already be held at this location. 15. The proposed project will not produce any permanent noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 7 of 9 16. The proposed project will not impact drainage. 17. The proposed project will not impact population density. 18. The proposed project is not expected to have a visual impact on surrounding properties or on land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land or adjoining land values. 19. Park dedications are not applicable. 20. The proposed project does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Staff Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 15-009 for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff recommends that the following seven (7) conditions be included with the approval: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall continue to abide by all previous agreements and Conditional Use Permits, as amended by the conditions of approval of this application. 3. That a Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The CUP agreement shall be signed by the applicant and approved by Council prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. That a building permit shall be obtained for the proposed soccer facility building. 5. That the building permit for the soccer facility shall be issued by June 1, 2016, or an extension shall be requested at least 45 days preceding this deadline. 6. That the applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping (materials and installation) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC-insured Minnesota bank. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that landscaping is completed in the event that the applicant defaults on the Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 7. That a minimum of two (2) trees shall be planted on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex to meet the Zoning Code requirements. Each deciduous tree is required to be a minimum of two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches and coniferous trees are required to be six (6) feet in height. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 8 of 9 Proposed Motion Language 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-009 for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15- 009 for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 15-009 for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the following findings of fact….. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 15-009 for a Conditional Use Permit Amendment in order to construct a soccer facility building on the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex located at 3900 Bethel Drive: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice Notice of the public hearing was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin on April 22, 2015, and mailed to all properties within 500 feet of the subject property. Public Comments Staff received an email from Thomas House (1483 Arden Oaks Drive) outlining his concerns regarding the Ona Orth Athletic Field complex (Attachment D). Staff has been in contact with Bethel University and they are working with Mr. House to address the noise related issues addressed in the email received by staff. No other letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regards to this planning case have been received. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 1, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City is required to act on this request by May 30, 2015, City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-009 - CUP Amendment - Bethel University - Soccer Building\Memos_Reports_15-009 Page 9 of 9 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. Attachments A) Application and Project Narrative B) Exterior Rendering and Building Plans C) Site Plan, Grading Plan, and Landscaping Plan D) Updated Proposed Campus Master Plan E) Comments F) Aerial Map From:TCH To:Ryan Streff Cc:David Grant Subject:Thoughts on Bethel University Project PC#15-009 Date:Sunday, April 19, 2015 9:42:30 AM Mr. Streff, Thank you for requesting feedback on the proposed installation of a building on the site of the Ona Orth Athletic Field at Bethel. FYI, we live on Arden Oaks Drive, just south of the railroad tracks, and SE of the Ona Orth field. Some of my neighborhood's background is necessary first before my comments. Three years ago (May 4, 2012), I wrote Dr. Barnes, Bethel President, and ultimately spoke with his Executive Assistant to the President, Richard Sherry, about nuisance noise issues coming from the Bethel campus. In particular, excessive noise was frequently coming from the baseball field just to the north of our neighborhood. We also were experiencing some infrequent noise coming from the Ona North field. This noise was not of issue during sanctioned ball games, but instead when athletes, etc. were allowed to blast rap music, etc, whenever they were practicing or whatever! There was no university control, to the extent that this noise was so loud that I could hear it inside my home Dr. Sherry and I met and determined that the loudspeakers should be relocated to point back at the spectator stands and not in the direction of the outfield ( and our neighborhood). This seems to have resolved most of the nuisance noise coming from the men's ball field. However, we now are facing more of the same from the Ona Orth field. Again, there appears to be no control over who controls the type and sound level of music emanating from the field. FYI, the loudspeakers also point in the direction of our neighborhood. I spoke with Mr. Randy Bergin, Dr. Sherry's replacement, last summer over this issue. The correct solution of relocating the speakers at Ona Orth has not been done, and the nuisance continues. My problem with concurring with the proposed project is that first I would ask Bethel to once and for all resolve this ongoing nuisance noise issue our neighborhood is experiencing. As you know ( unless it has changed in the past year ) Arden Hills does not have a nuisance noise ordinance. We find that we not only have our days disturbed by the frequent trains passing by, blowing their horns at all hours of the day and night, but also this unwanted noise from the Ona Orth facility. Will the new building change this for the better or worse? Probably not, but I still propose that as a condition for approval, Bethel agrees to finally resolve this nuisance noise issue here, and any other place on campus which affects our neighborhood. We want to be good neighbors to Bethel, and expect the same from them. Respectfully, Thomas C. House 651-636-9411 954-725-6312 (cell) 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. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 400.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet400.00200.00 Notes Enter Map Description Legend City Halls Schools Hospitals Fire Stations Police Stations Recreational Centers Parcel Points Parcel Boundaries Lakes - Neighboring Counties Airports City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 1 of 4 CONSENT ITEM – 5E MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-010 Applicant: LoAnn Crepeau and Thomas Ostby Property Address: 3517 Siems Court Request: Minor Subdivision Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the May 26, 2015, Report to the City Council. Background The owners of the property at 3517 Siems Court have applied for a Minor Subdision to sell a 5,540 square foot portion of land to the adjacent property owner at 3535 Siems Court. The new property line would add approximately 40 feet of shoreline to the property at 3535 Siems Court. No new construction or change in use is contemplated as part of the Minor Subdivision request. The land to be transferred includes an existing two-story boathouse with a footprint of 450 square feet. This structure is considered to be a legal nonconforming building because of an encroachment in the required setbacks from the Lake Johanna shoreline and the side property line. With the proposed lot line adjustment, the boathouse would still be within the required setback from the shoreline, but the ten-foot side yard setback for accessory structures would be met. The adjacent property owners at 3535 Siems Court plan to make improvements to the boathouse, but no expansion of the building would be undertaken. A survey depicting the new lot line, the location of existing buildings on the properties, and the proposed structure setback distances is included in Attachment C. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 2 of 4 Plan Evaluation A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at their May 6, 2015, Regular Meeting. The staff report to the Planning Commission on this case is included in Attachment D. The proposed lots at 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court meet the underlying requirements of the R-1 District for lot area and dimensions, structure coverage, and landscape coverage. The proposal would not create any new or increase existing nonconforming setbacks for structures on either property. Subdivision Ordinance Section 1150.04 of the City Code lists the requirements for subdividing and/or consolidating previously platted property. Requirements that must be evaluated as listed under Section 1150.04 include: 1. Survey: A survey showing the existing and proposed lots. 2. Zoning Compliance: The parcels or tracts resulting from the division or consolidation, as depicted in the survey or registered land survey, shall not have an area, dimensions, or setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the zoning district in which the parcels or tracts are located in the zoning ordinance. 3. Public Welfare: It is determined that the proposed division or consolidation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. 4. Conformity with the rest of the Subdivision Ordinance: The proposed division or consolidation shall conform to all requirements of the subdivision Ordinance unless given an exemption by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. Fees: All filing fees must be paid. Additional Review City Engineer The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed Minor Subdivision and has requested that the property owners work with the City to provide a sanitary sewer easement over the existing sewer line that crosses the two properties and a storm sewer easement over the existing utility line at the northwest corner of 3535 Siems Court. City Attorney The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Minor Subdivision and recommended that the City request 12 foot easements centered on rear and other lot lines for utilities and drainage purposes. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 3 of 4 Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 15-010 at their regular meeting on May 6, 2015. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment E. The Planning Commission offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. LoAnn Crepeau and Thomas Ostby are the owners of the property located at 3517 Siems Court. 2. The applicant has requested a Minor Subdivision to sell a 5,540 square foot portion of land to the adjacent property owner at 3535 Siems Court. 3. The properties at 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court are located in the R-1 Single- Family Residential Zoning District. 4. Section 1150.04 of the City Code lists the requirements for subdividing and/or consolidating previously platted property. 5. The submitted survey was prepared by a registered land surveyor and meets the City requirements. 6. The proposed lots at 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court meet the underlying requirements of the R-1 District for lot area and dimensions, structure coverage, and landscape coverage. 7. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not create any new or increase existing nonconforming setbacks for structures on the property at 3517 Siems Court or 3535 Siems Court. 8. The proposed Minor Subdivision is in conformance with Section 1330 – Shoreland Regulations of the Zoning Code. 9. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. 10. The proposed Minor Subdivision is in conformance with all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance 11. All required application fees have been paid. The park dedication requirements under Section 1130.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance do not apply in this case. Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval (5-0) of Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 26, 2015, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following four conditions: 1. The applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within 180 days of the City’s approval. 2. The property owner at 3517 Siems Court will work with the Public Works Department to provide easements for existing public utility lines on the property as well as the standard 12 foot drainage and utility easement centered along the property perimeters. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 4 of 4 3. The property owner at 3535 Siems Court will work with the Public Works Department to provide easements for existing public utility lines on the property as well as the standard 12 foot drainage and utility easement centered along the property perimeters. 4. Monuments or stakes shall be installed to demarcate the new side property line between 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court. 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. Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property. Public Comments The City has received one comment from a resident (1580 Oak Avenue) in support of the proposal. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 6, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 5, 2015 (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. Land Use Application B. Aerial and Site Maps C. Certified Land Survey D. Planning Commission Report, May 6, 2015 E. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, May 6, 2015 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. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 400.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet400.00200.00 Notes Enter Map Description Legend3517 Siems Court City Halls Schools Hospitals Fire Stations Police Stations Recreational Centers Parcel Points Parcel Boundaries Airports 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. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 200.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet200.00100.00 Notes Enter Map Description Legend3517 Siems Court City Halls Schools Hospitals Fire Stations Police Stations Recreational Centers Parcel Points Parcel Boundaries Lakes - Neighboring Counties MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2015 PC Agenda Item 3.C TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-010 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: LoAnn Crepeau and Thomas Ostby Property Address: 3517 Siems Court Request: Minor Subdivision Requested Action The applicant has requested a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court to sell a small portion of land to the adjacent property owner at 3535 Siems Court. No new construction or change in use is contemplated as part of the Minor Subdivision request. Background 1. Overview of Request The owners of the property at 3517 Siems Court have applied for a Minor Subdision to sell a 5,540 square foot portion of land to the adjacent property owner at 3535 Siems Court. The new property line would add approximately 40 feet of shoreline to the property at 3535 Siems Court. No new construction or change in use is contemplated as part of the Minor Subdivision request. The land to be transferred includes an existing two-story boathouse with a footprint of 450 square feet. This structure is considered to be a legal nonconforming building because of an encroachment in the required setbacks from the Lake Johanna shoreline and the side property line. With the proposed lot line adjustment, the boathouse would still be within the required setback from the shoreline, but the ten-foot side yard setback for accessory structures would be met. The adjacent property owners at 3535 Siems Court plan to make improvements to the boathouse, but no expansion of the building would be undertaken. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 1 of 6 The Minor Subdivision would leave both lots in conformance with the Zoning Code requirements for lot size and lot coverage, and would not create any new or increase existing nonconforming setbacks for the structures on the lots. A survey depicting the new lot line, the location of existing buildings on the properties, and the proposed structure setback distances is included in Attachment C. 2. Surrounding Area: Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District Single-Family Detached South Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District Single-Family Detached East Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District Single-Family Detached West Water (Lake Johanna) Water (Lake Johanna) Water (Lake Johanna) 3. Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Detached Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential District Size: 36,982 square feet (0.85 acres) Topography: Sloping down towards Lake Johanna (elevation change of approximately 30 feet) Plan Evaluation 1. Zoning Ordinance Lot Size and Dimensions With the proposed Minor Subdivision, both properties would be in conformance with the R-1 District requirements for lot size and dimensions. 3517 Siems Court would have a total lot area of 31,442 square feet with dimensions of approximately 140 feet in width by 216 feet in depth. 3535 Siems Court would have a total lot area of 66,272 square feet with dimensions of approximately 250 feet in width by 294 feet in depth. Applicable R-1 Lot Requirements 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf.) 14,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth) 95/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area 65% 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front Yard 40 Rear Yard (Principal) 30 Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Minimum/total both yards on lot) 10/25 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 40 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 2 of 6 Both properties are shoreland lots on Lake Johanna, which is classified as a General Development Lake. Properties on Lake Johanna must have a minimum water frontage of 75 feet. The amount of shoreline frontage for the property at 3517 Siems Court would decrease to 106 feet as a result of the lot line adjustment. Structure Setbacks The principal structure at 3517 Siems Court is considered to be legal nonconforming due to an encroachment into the required front yard setback of 40 feet. The existing home is situated 20.6 feet from the front property line along Siems Court. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not create any new or increase existing nonconforming setbacks for structures on this property. The principal structure at 3535 Siems Court is in compliance with the setback requirements for the R-1 District. The existing accessory boathouse at 3517 Siems Court would be transferred to 3535 Siems Court as part of the Minor Subdivision. This structure is now considered to be legal nonconforming due to an encroachment into the required 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of Lake Johanna and 10 foot setback from the side property line. As a result of the lot line adjustment, this structure would come into conformance with the required 10 foot side yard setback for accessory structures, but the structure would continue to encroach into the required setback from the shoreline. Lot Coverage The maximum structure coverage allowed in the R-1 District is 25 percent. Under the proposed subdivision, the property at 3517 Siems Court would have structure coverage of 1,543 square feet, or 4.9 percent. The structure coverage for 3535 Siems Court would increase to 5,301 square feet, or 8.0 percent. A minimum of 65 percent of each lot is required to be maintained with landscape coverage. With the lot line adjustment, the landscape lot coverage would be 86.2 percent on the property at 3517 Siems Court and 79.0 percent on the property at 3535 Siems Court. Proposed Lot Coverage 3517 Siems Court 3535 Siems Court Square Feet Percentage Square Feet Percentage Lot Area (min. 14,000 sq. ft.) 31,442 - 66,272 - Structure Coverage (max 25%) 1,543 4.9% 5,301 8.0% Landscape Coverage (min 65%) 27,116 86.2% 52,340 79.0% City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 3 of 6 2. Subdivision Ordinance Section 1150.04 of the City Code lists the requirements for subdividing and/or consolidating previously platted property. Requirements that must be evaluated listed under Section 1150.04 include: 1. Survey: A survey showing the existing and proposed lots. 2. Zoning Compliance: The parcels or tracts resulting from the division or consolidation, as depicted in the survey or registered land survey, shall not have an area, dimensions, or setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the zoning district in which the parcels or tracts are located in the zoning ordinance. 3. Public Welfare: It is determined that the proposed division or consolidation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. 4. Conformity with the rest of the Subdivision Ordinance: The proposed division or consolidation shall conform to all requirements of the subdivision Ordinance unless given an exemption by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. Fees: All filing fees must be paid. Additional Review City Engineer The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed Minor Subdivision and has requested that the property owners work with the City to provide a sanitary sewer easement over the existing sewer line that crosses the two properties and a storm sewer easement over the existing utility line at the northwest corner of 3535 Siems Court. City Attorney The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed Minor Subdivision and recommended that the City request 12 foot easements centered on rear and other lot lines for utilities and drainage purposes. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: 1. LoAnn Crepeau and Thomas Ostby are the owners of the property located at 3517 Siems Court. 2. The applicant has requested a Minor Subdivision to sell a 5,540 square foot portion of land to the adjacent property owner at 3535 Siems Court. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 4 of 6 3. The properties at 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court are located in the R-1 Single- Family Residential Zoning District. 4. Section 1150.04 of the City Code lists the requirements for subdividing and/or consolidating previously platted property. 5. The submitted survey was prepared by a registered land surveyor and meets the City requirements. 6. The proposed lots at 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court meet the underlying requirements of the R-1 District for lot area and dimensions, structure coverage, and landscape coverage. 7. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not create any new or increase existing nonconforming setbacks for structures on the property at 3517 Siems Court or 3535 Siems Court. 8. The proposed Minor Subdivision is in conformance with Section 1330 – Shoreland Regulations of the Zoning Code. 9. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. 10. The proposed Minor Subdivision is in conformance with all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance 11. All required application fees have been paid. The park dedication requirements under Section 1130.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance do not apply in this case. Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff is recommending the following four (4) conditions be included with the approval: 1. The applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within 180 days of the City’s approval. 2. The property owner at 3517 Siems Court will work with the Public Works Department to provide easements for existing public utility lines on the property as well as the standard 12 foot drainage and utility easement centered along the property perimeters. 3. The property owner at 3535 Siems Court will work with the Public Works Department to provide easements for existing public utility lines on the property as well as the standard 12 foot drainage and utility easement centered along the property perimeters. 4. Monuments or stakes shall be installed to demarcate the new side property line between 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 5 of 6 Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15- 010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property. Public Comments The City has received one comment from a resident (1580 Oak Avenue) in support of the proposal. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 6, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 5, 2015 (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. Land Use Application B. Aerial and Site Maps C. Certified Land Survey City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-010 - Minor Subdivision - 3517 Siems Court\Memos_Reports_15-010 Page 6 of 6 Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL C. Planning Case 15-010; Minor Subdivision – LoAnn Crepeau and Thomas Ostby – 3517 Siems Court – Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that the owners of the property at 3517 Siems Court have applied for a Minor Subdivision to sell a 5,540 square foot portion of land to the adjacent property owner at 3535 Siems Court. The new property line would add approximately 40 feet of shoreline to the property at 3535 Siems Court. No new construction or change in use is contemplated as part of the Minor Subdivision request. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the land to be transferred includes an existing two- story boathouse with a footprint of 450 square feet. This structure is considered to be a legal nonconforming building because of an encroachment in the required setbacks from the Lake Johanna shoreline and the side property line. With the proposed lot line adjustment, the boathouse would still be within the required setback from the shoreline, but the ten-foot side yard setback for accessory structures would be met. The adjacent property owners at 3535 Siems Court plan to make improvements to the boathouse, but no expansion of the building would be undertaken. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the Minor Subdivision would leave both lots in conformance with the Zoning Code requirements for lot size and lot coverage, and would not create any new or increase existing nonconforming setbacks for the structures on the lots. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential District Current Lot Sizes: 36,982 square feet (0.85 acres) Topography: Sloping down towards Lake Johanna (elevation change of approximately 30 feet) Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area and the Plan Evaluation. Associate Planner Bachler explained that the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 2 1. LoAnn Crepeau and Thomas Ostby are the owners of the property located at 3517 Siems Court. 2. The applicant has requested a Minor Subdivision to sell a 5,540 square foot portion of land to the adjacent property owner at 3535 Siems Court. 3. The properties at 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court are located in the R-1 Single- Family Residential Zoning District. 4. Section 1150.04 of the City Code lists the requirements for subdividing and/or consolidating previously platted property. 5. The submitted survey was prepared by a registered land surveyor and meets the City requirements. 6. The proposed lots at 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court meet the underlying requirements of the R-1 District for lot area and dimensions, structure coverage, and landscape coverage. 7. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not create any new or increase existing nonconforming setbacks for structures on the property at 3517 Siems Court or 3535 Siems Court. 8. The proposed Minor Subdivision is in conformance with Section 1330 – Shoreland Regulations of the Zoning Code. 9. The proposed Minor Subdivision would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. 10. The proposed Minor Subdivision is in conformance with all requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. 11. All required application fees have been paid. The park dedication requirements under Section 1130.08 of the Subdivision Ordinance do not apply in this case. Associate Planner Bachler stated that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff is recommending the following four (4) conditions be included with the approval: 1. The applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within 180 days of the City’s approval. 2. The property owner at 3517 Siems Court will work with the Public Works Department to provide easements for existing public utility lines on the property as well as the standard 12-foot drainage and utility easement centered along the property perimeters. 3. The property owner at 3535 Siems Court will work with the Public Works Department to provide easements for existing public utility lines on the property as well as the standard 12-foot drainage and utility easement centered along the property perimeters. 4. Monuments or stakes shall be installed to demarcate the new side property line between 3517 Siems Court and 3535 Siems Court. 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 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 3 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no additional comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-010 for a Minor Subdivision at 3517 Siems Court, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Page 1 of 2 DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Oak Avenue Storm Sewer Requested Action Accept Quotation with Dave Perkins Contracting Inc. for the repair of the Oak Avenue Storm Sewer in the Amount of $36,841.00 and authorize staff to schedule this work. Background/Discussion City staff has been inspecting portions of the city storm sewer system and as part of that process prioritizing repairs and maintenance work needed. The repairs identified are then divided into two categories. The first being repairs that our public works staff have the staff and equipment to undertake. The second being those which the city would be better served by hiring a contractor that has resources needed for that repair. We have identified the repair of the Oak Avenue storm sewer to fall in the contractor repaired category. The Oak Avenue storm sewer picks up street drainage on Oak Avenue and then conveys it along an easement that runs along a private driveway to 1680 Oak Avenue, see Attachment A for location. At the low point in the driveway the storm sewer turns and discharges to the south side of the driveway and eventually running through Tony Schmidt Park. The discharge point of this storm sewer has eroded the slope downstream of the outlet and has the potential to erode the private driveway, which is the only access point to the home at 1680 Oak Avenue, see site photos in Attachment B. We have been in contact with the resident and they have expressed concern about the driveway washing out to the point where it becomes dangerous to travel on the driveway. Staff has solicited quotes for this repair from three contractors. We received a quote from one contractor. We received a reply from a second contractor stating they do not have time in their schedule this summer to complete this work. The third contractor did not respond. The quote we did receive was submitted by Dave Perkins Contracting Inc. in the amount of $36,841.00 a copy of which is in Attachment C. CONSENT ITEM - 5F MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 This work was anticipated and budgeted for in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) shown on Attachment D. The quote we received is well below the $75,000 estimated in the CIP. In order to get favorable pricing the solicitation does allow a lot of latitude in completion of this work specifying that the work be complete by October 1, 2015. This work would be funded by the Surface Water Management Fund and is part of the City’s overall NPDES permit requirement to identify and repair these types of problems in the City’s storm sewer system. Attachments Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Site Photos Attachment C: Contractor Quote Attachment D: CIP Item 1761 3900 1686 36571543 1555 1567 1580 1680 16081612 1628 1620 3581 1600 3682 3586 1660 3551 1535 3744 3576 1539 3568 1525 1666 1535 1 6 1 9 3582 3715 1655 1541 3740 3 7 4 8 3719 1 6 3 6 1 5 5 0 3708 3635 1611 3712 3720 1 5 5 6 1 7 2 8 3716 1611 3 7 0 4 1 5 8 7 1 7 2 4 3583 3716 1613 1 5 7 4 1 6 7 1 3558 1 6 6 8 1 6 0 5 1 7 0 3 1 6 7 5 1 7 3 2 1 6 7 2 1 7 6 7 1 6 7 6 3641 3 7 0 0 1636 1 7 2 0 1659 1 6 9 9 3 7 5 2 1 6 5 2 1651 1 5 8 4 1 6 4 4 3 7 2 0 1644 1 7 5 6 1 6 6 7 1 7 6 8 1 7 6 4 1641 1 7 5 9 1 7 5 2 1640 1635 1 7 4 8 1 6 7 9 3 7 0 7 1 7 6 0 1 7 6 3 1 7 5 3 3708 1 7 4 5 1 7 2 7 1 7 3 7 1647 1 6 9 1 1 6 8 3 1 6 0 5 1 7 4 1 1 6 8 8 3712 1 7 7 2 1 6 8 7 1 7 3 6 1 7 3 1 3711 1 7 4 9 1 7 1 6 1 6 8 0 1 7 4 4 3 7 5 6 1 6 8 4 1 6 0 9 1 7 4 0 1 7 1 2 1 6 9 2 1 7 0 8 1 6 9 6 1 6 1 8 1 7 0 0 1 6 2 2 1 7 0 4 1578 1 6 1 6 1 6 0 0 1 5 9 4 1 5 9 0 1 6 2 1 1646 1 6 7 8 1678 1791 3743 OA K AV E R I D G E W O O D R D M C C R A C K E N L N R I D G E W O O D C T C H A T H A M C T CHATHAM CIR L A K E J O H A N N A B L V D C H A T H A M A V E S I E M S C T O L D H W Y 1 0 Prepared by:City of Arden Hills Engineering Department5/21/2015 mapdoc:oakrepair.mxdmap:oakrepair.pdf Oak AvenueStorm Sewer Repair Legend CatchBasin StormPip e µ 0 0.08 0.160.04 Miles Location of Repair Oak Avenue Storm Sewer Outlet Photo 1 – Erosion at Outlet Photo 2 – Erosion downstream City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 1 of 7 NEW BUSINESS – 8A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-008 Applicant: Holiday Stationstore, Inc. Property Location: 1920 West Highway 96 Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 15-008 for a PUD Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the four conditions in the May 26, 2015, Report to the City Council. Background In 2005, the City approved a Master PUD and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in Planning Case 05-013 for the development of a Holiday service station and convenience store at 1920 West Highway 96. A CUP was required for the proposed use of the property as a service station with convenience retail and car wash in the G-B - Gateway Business District. The site was developed through the PUD process and allowed the developer flexibility on parking lot setback requirements and use of certain building materials in exchange for additional landscaping on the property and an overall superior building design. Overview of Request Holiday Stationstores, Inc. has proposed to install accent lighting on the canopy and building of the existing service station and convenience store. The accent lighting would be comprised of individual LED lights contained within a 0.75 inch diameter translucent blue tube designed to diffuse and dim the lighting. The light fixtures would be placed along the entire length of the City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 2 of 7 building roofline and along the top edge of the canopy. Photographs of the existing conditions on the site and where the accent lights would be installed are included in Attachment C. The applicant has provided details on the specific product that would be used and photographs of the lighting installed at a Holiday services station in Bloomington, Minnesota (Attachments D & E). An amendment to the PUD is required in this case to update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. The applicant has provided a narrative on how the visual impacts of the proposed accent lights would be minimized through the design of the product (Attachment A). The narrative also notes that the proposed accent lights are made by a different manufacturer than the LED lighting that is now installed on the monument sign located on the property. Plan Review A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at their May 6, 2015, Regular Meeting. The staff report to the Planning Commission on this case is included in Attachment H. Based on the findings of fact included in the report to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 15-008 the staff recommendation was for denial. The following plan review section has been updated to reflect the discussion had by the Planning Commission and their reasons for recommending approval of this case. 1. Chapter 12, Sign Code Review A. General Sign Regulations – Section 1240.02, Subd. 3 – Meets Requirements The Sign Code states that service area canopies are permitted 25 square feet of illuminated signage on each edge of the canopy facing a public street. However, no other part of the face of the canopy is allowed to be illuminated. Because the plastic tube containing the LED light fixtures is designed to significantly dim the lighting, the Planning Commission determined that the proposal would not further illuminate the canopy. 2. Chapter 13, Zoning Code Review A. Special Requirements for the G-B District – Section 1320.13 – Meets Requirements The use of accent lighting on buildings and sites in the Gateway Business District may be permitted after review by the City. The Zoning Code requires that for exterior lighting the source of illumination be hooded, concealed, or controlled in a manner so as not to be visible from adjoining lots, streets, highways, or residential areas east and south of Round Lake. The proposed LED accent lights would be fully surrounded by plastic tubing that would conceal the source of illumination. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 3 of 7 B. Exterior Lighting – Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 Direction – Meets Requirements Lighting is required to be arranged so as to direct light away from adjoining lots and public streets. Direct or sky-reflect glare shall not be directed at adjoining lots or public streets. Glare is commonly defined as excessive or uncontrolled brightness that results in visual discomfort or reduced visibility. The Planning Commission determined that the tube containing the LED light fixtures would diffuse the light and reduce the overall intensity of the illumination. As a result, the accent lighting would not result in visual discomfort or reduced visibility. Concealment or Hooding of Source – Meets Requirements The source of illuminate is required to be hooded, concealed, or controlled in a manner so as to direct lighting pattern only on the site to which the lighting is intended. The proposed LED accent lights would be surrounded by plastic tubing that would control the source of illumination so that cast light from the LED lights would only fall on the surface of the site. Intensity – Meets Requirements Any light or combination of light cannot cast light that exceeds a meter reading of 1.0 foot candle on the travel lanes of adjoining public streets. A Photometric Plan was completed for the original development of the property in 2005 (Attachment F). The plan indicates that the approved lighting for the site would not result in a foot candle reading of more than 1.0 on any adjoining public street. The proposed LED accent lights create very minimal cast light which is difficult to measure through a photometric analysis. The addition of the accent lights would not result in an increase in the foot candle readings on adjoining streets. Exterior Lighting of Building Façade – Meets Requirements For non-residential properties visible from residentially zoned property, a maximum of 25 percent of the façade visible from such residential property may be illuminated by direct lighting from spot lights or flood lights. The Holiday service station property is visible from the Arden Manor Manufactured Home Park to the north of West Highway 96 and from the residentially zoned lots along the east side of Round Lake. The proposed accent lights would not result in more than 25 percent of the building façade being illuminated. 3. Administration and Procedures – Conditional Use Permits – Section 1355.04 Subd 3 The Special Requirements for the G-B District in Section 1320.13 of the Zoning Code states that proposals for modifications to a building’s exterior shall be reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating Conditional Use Permits as listed in Section 1355.04, Subd 3. This section of the Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the effect of the proposal upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 4 of 7 1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; 6. Adjoining land values; 7. Park dedications where applicable; and the 8. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Discussion The Planning Commission has recommended two conditions that would require automatic dimmers to be installed to reduce the nighttime brightness of the proposed architectural accent lighting and the existing LED lights on the Holiday monument sign. Each dimmer would reduce the light output of the fixtures to 350 nits at night. As a point of comparison, Holiday recently recorded a reading of 1,113 nits for the blue LED lights on the monument sign. The applicant has agreed to these conditions and would work with staff on completing a test of the light fixtures after installation to ensure compliance. A nit measures luminance, or how bright a light fixture is at its source. The technical definition for this unit of measurement is one nit is equal to one candela per square meter. A common candle has a luminous intensity of approximately one candela. Currently, the City does not have standards in place for the permitted luminance of decorative accent lighting. The Zoning Code only regulates the illuminance of a light fixture, which is the amount of light falling onto a surface. The nighttime requirement of 350 nits or less recommended by the Planning Commission was based on standards adopted by the City of Bloomington, Minnesota. Bloomington requires that unshielded decorative lighting on sites which are visible and within 500 feet of residential properties maintain a reading of no more than 350 nits during nighttime hours. This also corresponds with the recommendation of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America (OAAA), which has determined 300-350 nits to be acceptable for nighttime brightness. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 15-008 at their regular meeting on May 6, 2015. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment I. The Planning Commission offers the following findings of fact for consideration: City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 5 of 7 1. The applicant has requested approval of a PUD Amendment for the property at 1920 West Highway 96. 2. A Master PUD was approved for 1920 West Highway 96 in Planning Case #05-013. 3. The applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to install a single tube of LED illuminated architectural accents at the roofline of the canopy and building on the property. 4. The amendment would update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. 5. Section 1240.02, Subd. 3 of the Sign Code does not permit service station canopies to be illuminated other than by lighting associated with approved signage. 6. The LED light fixtures would be contained within a plastic tube designed to dim and diffuse the lighting and would not further illuminate the canopy. 7. Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code states that direct glare shall not be directed at adjoining lots or public streets. 8. The plastic tube containing the LED light fixtures would dim and diffuse the light and reduce the overall intensity of the illumination. 9. The accent lighting would not result in visual discomfort or reduced visibility. 10. The proposed accent lighting would be in conformance with the requirements regarding exterior lighting within Section 1320.13 and Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code. 11. The proposal will not impact existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. 12. The proposal will not affect noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste on the property. 13. The proposal is not expected to create glare visible from adjoining public streets and residential areas to the east and north of the property. 14. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. 15. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. 16. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 17. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. 18. The proposal is in conformance with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Recommendation The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval (5-0) of Planning Case 15-008 for a PUD Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 26, 2015, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following four 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 Agreement shall be drafted by the City Attorney and shall be City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 6 of 7 executed prior to the issuance of an Electrical Permit for the installation of the LED accent lights. 3. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED accent lights on the canopy and building to no more than 350 nits. 4. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed on the existing monument sign on the property to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED lights on the sign to no more than 350 nits. 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. Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property. Resident Comments Staff received a letter from the East Round Lake Residents and Property Owners dated May 5, 2015, regarding this planning case. The letter is included in Attachment G. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 26, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by May 25, 2015 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The petitioner was notified on May 7, 2015, of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must now act on this request by July 24, 2015 (120 days). The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 7 of 7 Attachments A. Land Use Application and Project Narrative B. Site and Aerial Map C. Existing Conditions and Proposed Location of Accent Lights D. Tetra Contour Accent Lighting - Product Information E. Tetra Contour Accent Lighting – Bloomington, Minnesota Example F. Approved Photometric Plan (Planning Case #05-013) G. East Round Lake Residents and Property Owners Letter, dated May 5, 2015 H. Planning Commission Report, May 6, 2015 I. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, May 6, 2015 Attachment to the Application of Holiday Stationstores to amend the building and canopy exterior elevations of the PUD to allow installation of 0.75 inch diameter LED illuminated architectural accents on the canopy and building at 1920 Hwy. 96. Holiday proposes to install 0.75 inch diameter blue LED illuminated architectural accents at the roofline of the canopy and building at this site. See Exhibit One. The architectural accents will be GE Tetra Contour LED lights within a guide/tube. See Exhibit Two “GE Tetra Contour LED Architectural Series”. Exhibit Three “Architectural Accents at Bloomington Stationstore” illustrate how they appear when installed. This is a different lighting product by a different manufacturer than the LED lighting that has been installed on the freestanding sign at this site. Shielding the LED light source by surrounding it with a translucent guide/tube both diffuses and dims the lighting greatly reducing the potential for glare. See the top of page two of Exhibit Two for detail on the installation. The reduction of luminous intensity at the source (candelas) achieved by shielding the light source is illustrated in the display “Light Output” on that same page. The guides/tubes that will be installed conceal and control the source of the light similar to the way the face of an illuminated sign conceals and controls the source of the light behind an illuminated sign’s face. The accents are part of the evolving and continuous application of new technologies to update and reinforce the Holiday brand and the image of its sites. For example at this site the accents would replace the painted stripes on the canopy. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land The sole impact of approval of the amendment will be visual. The architectural accents will add a marginal increment to the existing illumination on the site and not change its visual image in a significant way. No noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics will be generated. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions will not be affected. The Holiday site is completely surrounded and any visual impact buffered and mitigated by the roadways: I35W and the off ramp to Hwy. 96 to the west, Hwy. 96 to the north, and Round Lake Rd wrapping around the site on the east and south. The nearest residences are in the Arden Manor Park across Hwy. 96. Walls installed along Hwy. 96 visually shield all residences except those few directly at the entrance of the Park from any view of the Holiday site. The next nearest residences are east across Round Lake, facing Hwy. 10. Round Lake, across Round Lake Road from the Holiday site, is not presently available for public recreation and public use of its shoreline is discouraged. South along Round Lake Road are the office and warehouse industrial uses of the Gateway Industrial Park. 1 Attachment to the Application of Holiday Stationstores to amend the building and canopy exterior elevations of the PUD to allow installation of 0.75 inch diameter LED illuminated architectural accents on the canopy and building at 1920 Hwy. 96. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the city within the general purpose and intent of this Zoning Code and the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Holiday has been part of the community at this site since 2005. The slight, incremental, visual effect of the addition of the proposed architectural accents at this site are buffered and mitigated by the dimming and diffusion of the LED lighting with the installation proposed and the character of the surroundings with no sensitive receptors, assuring continued compatibility of the Holiday Stationstore with its neighbors. Approval of this application for an amendment within a PUD will create no city wide permission nor establish a precedent for the use of these accents elsewhere in the City without amendment or other specific approval or permission. 3/24/15 2 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. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS 600.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet600.00300.00 1920 West Highway 96 3,6001: 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. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS 200.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet200.00100.00 1920 West Highway 96 1,2001: Exhibit One A – Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accents Holiday Stationstore 1920 Highway 96 127( (OHYDWLRQGUDZLQJVDUHIRUFXVWRPHUDSSURYDORQO\GUDZLQJVDUHQRWWREHXVHGDVDQ\LQVWDOODWLRQJXLGHDOOGLPHQVLRQVPXVWEHYHULILHGEHIRUHLQVWDOODWLRQ &9*45*/( 130104&% $"/01:#-%( -0(0%&5"*- 4$"-&w w hh )LOH1DPH 3UHSDUHG%\ 'DWH (QJ &XVWRPHU /RFDWLRQ )0-*%":45"5*0/4503&4 .3 3"3%&/)*-4 ./4503&4*(/1"$,"(& 1RWH &RORURXWSXWPD\QRWEHH[DFWZKHQYLHZLQJRUSULQWLQJWKLVGUDZLQJ$OOFRORUVXVHGDUH306RUWKHFORVHVW&0<. HTXLYDOHQW,I WKHVHFRORUVDUHLQFRUUHFWSOHDVHSURYLGHWKHFRUUHFW306PDWFKDQGDUHYLVLRQWRWKLVGUDZLQJZLOOEHPDGHVW6WUHHW6RXWKZHVW 32%R[ :DWHUWRZQ6' ZZZSHUVRQDVLJQVFRP %*453*#65&%#:4*(/61$0.1"/: "3%&/)*--4 ./ Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accent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w w hh Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accent Exhibit One B – Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accents Holiday Stationstore 1920 Highway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roposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accent 127( (OHYDWLRQGUDZLQJVDUHIRUFXVWRPHUDSSURYDORQO\GUDZLQJVDUHQRWWREHXVHGDVDQ\LQVWDOODWLRQJXLGHDOOGLPHQVLRQVPXVWEHYHULILHGEHIRUHLQVWDOODWLRQ &9*45*/( 130104&% )LOH1DPH 3UHSDUHG%\ 'DWH (QJ &XVWRPHU /RFDWLRQ )0-*%":45"5*0/4503&4 .3$. 3"3%&/)*-4 ./4503&4*(/1"$,"(& 1RWH &RORURXWSXWPD\QRWEHH[DFWZKHQYLHZLQJRUSULQWLQJWKLVGUDZLQJ$OOFRORUVXVHGDUH306RUWKHFORVHVW&0<. HTXLYDOHQW,I WKHVHFRORUVDUHLQFRUUHFWSOHDVHSURYLGHWKHFRUUHFW306PDWFKDQGDUHYLVLRQWRWKLVGUDZLQJZLOOEHPDGHVW6WUHHW6RXWKZHVW 32%R[ :DWHUWRZQ6' ZZZSHUVRQDVLJQVFRP %*453*#65&%#:4*(/61$0.1"/: "3%&/)*--4 ./ -0(0%&5"*- 4$"-&w w hh Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accent Exhibit One C – Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accents Holiday Stationstore 1920 Highway 96 127( (OHYDWLRQGUDZLQJVDUHIRUFXVWRPHUDSSURYDORQO\GUDZLQJVDUHQRWWREHXVHGDVDQ\LQVWDOODWLRQJXLGHDOOGLPHQVLRQVPXVWEHYHULILHGEHIRUHLQVWDOODWLRQ #6*-%*/(4*(/%&5"*- 4$"-&w w &/5&34*(/%&5"*- 4$"-&w w h h &9*45*/( 130104&% w w )LOH1DPH 3UHSDUHG%\ 'DWH (QJ &XVWRPHU /RFDWLRQ )0-*%":45"5*0/4503&4 .3$. 3"3%&/)*-4 ./4503&4*(/1"$,"(& 1RWH &RORURXWSXWPD\QRWEHH[DFWZKHQYLHZLQJRUSULQWLQJWKLVGUDZLQJ$OOFRORUVXVHGDUH306RUWKHFORVHVW&0<. HTXLYDOHQW,IWKHVHFRORUVDUHLQFRUUHFWSOHDVHSURYLGHWKHFRUUHFW306PDWFKDQGDUHYLVLRQWRWKLVGUDZLQJZLOOEHPDGHVW6WUHHW6RXWKZHVW 32%R[ :DWHUWRZQ6' ZZZSHUVRQDVLJQVFRP %*453*#65&%#:4*(/61$0.1"/: "3%&/)*--4 ./ #6*-%*/(4*(/%&5"*- 4$"-&w w hh h Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accent 127( (OHYDWLRQGUDZLQJVDUHIRUFXVWRPHUDSSURYDORQO\GUDZLQJVDUHQRWWREHXVHGDVDQ\LQVWDOODWLRQJXLGHDOOGLPHQVLRQVPXVWEHYHULILHGEHIRUHLQVWDOODWLRQ &9*45*/( 130104&% &/5&34*(/%&5"*- 4$"-&w w w w )LOH1DPH 3UHSDUHG%\ 'DWH (QJ &XVWRPHU /RFDWLRQ )0-*%":45"5*0/4503&4 .3$. 3"3%&/)*-4 ./4503&4*(/1"$,"(& 1RWH &RORURXWSXWPD\QRWEHH[DFWZKHQYLHZLQJRUSULQWLQJWKLVGUDZLQJ$OOFRORUVXVHGDUH306RUWKHFORVHVW&0<. HTXLYDOHQW,I WKHVHFRORUVDUHLQFRUUHFWSOHDVHSURYLGHWKHFRUUHFW306PDWFKDQGDUHYLVLRQWRWKLVGUDZLQJZLOOEHPDGHVW6WUHHW6RXWKZHVW 32%R[ :DWHUWRZQ6' ZZZSHUVRQDVLJQVFRP %*453*#65&%#:4*(/61$0.1"/: "3%&/)*--4 ./ #6*-%*/(4*(/%&5"*- 4$"-&w w h h Proposed LED Illuminated Architectural Accent GE Lighting Solutions Tetra Contour is comprised of a flexible LED light engine and a rigid, optically diffused light guide that can be heat formed to fit a variety of architectural needs. With a variety of colors to choose from, designers can mix-n-match components to create bold designs and attractive accent lighting without the typical worries of working with fragile neon glass. Applications Tetra Contour is ideal for border lighting, interior art, cove and accent lighting. Features & Benefits • Up to 40% more energy efficient than neon • Low-voltage 24VDC system • Dimmable with GE 0-10V Dimming Driver or GE Dimming Module and compatible dimming controller • Contains no lead, mercury or glass. RoHS compliant • Long rated life of 50,000 hours • Multiple ANSI bin color temperatures: red, green, blue, white & warm white • Light guide colors: red, green, blue, white & clear Tetra® Contour LED ARCHITECTURAL SERIES ARCH016-R071911 OLP-2873 Viewing Lumens Viewing Angle Lumens ft/m Product Description Wavelength/ Angle (light engine ft/m (light engine Watts ft/m Watts ft/m Code Code Color Color Temp (light engine) w/ light guide) (light engine) w/ light guide) (light engine strip) (system) 75481 GERDXNLE1-A Red 625nm 110 330 59/194 47/154 3.24/10.63 3.81/12.50 75484 GEGLXNLE1-A Green 532nm 110 330 101/331 55/180 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 75485 GEBLXNLE1-A Blue 467nm 110 330 23/75 19/162 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 75487 GEWWXNLE1-27K-A White 2700K 110 330 107/351 70/230 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 75488 GEWWXNLE1-30K-A White 3000K 110 330 117/384 76/249 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 75489 GEWWXNLE1-35K-A White 3500K 110 330 125/410 81/266 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 75490 GEWWXNLE1-40K-A White 4000K 110 330 131/430 85/279 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 75493 GEWHXNLE1-50K-A White 5000K 110 330 156/512 101/331 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 75486 GEWHXNLE1-65K-A White 6500K 110 330 144/472 94/308 2.88/9.45 3.39/11.12 Lumen values are typical. Allow +/- 15% for binning tolerance. Performance Data Technical Specifications Specification Item Specification Module Dimensions 0.44 in. x 0.44 in. x 16.25 in. (10 mm x 10 mm x 413 mm) Length of Light Engine 8 ft. (2.44 m) Light Engine Packaging Quantity Red only - 12/PK, All other colors - 6/PK GE LED Drivers 74917 (GE020/G/V24T1-B), 74915 (GE080/G/V24T1-A), 74916 (GE100/MV/V24T1-A), 62189 (GE180/MV/V24T1-C) & 79045 (GE080/MV/D24T1-A) , 0-10V dimming Operating Voltage 24 VDC Minimum Loading 74917, 74915, 74916, 62189 & 79045: 8 in. (0.20 m) Maximum Loading 74917: 6 ft. (1.83 m) 74915 & 79045: 24 ft. (7.32 m) 74916: 30 ft. (9.14 m) 62189: 27 ft. (8.23 m) per Bank/54 ft. (16.46 m) per Driver Remote Mounting Standard length of 1-30 ft. (0.3-9.14m) with 18AWG (0.82mm2) supply wire; for greater lengths refer to the installation instructions. Ambient Temperature -40°C to +55°C Limited Warranty 5 years IP Rating Light Engine IP54: Dry or damp location rated; Light Engine and Light Guide IP66: Dry, damp or wet location rated System Certifications 96.0 0.71 0.98 1.10 light engineTetra Contour light engine with light engine clip light engine, light guide & mounting clip 0.44 0.44 1.100.43 0.98 0.63 0.51 Typical Dimensions shown are in inches 0°20°10° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° 130° 140° 150°160°170°180°-170°-160°-150° -140° -130° -120° -110° -100° -90° -80° -70° -60° -50° -40° -30°-20°-10° Accessories IES files can be downloaded at www.gelightingsolutions.com Light Output Candela (Cd) measurements taken at 6500K 0°20°10° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100° 110° 120° 130° 140° 150°160°170°180°-170°-160°-150° -140° -130° -120° -110° -100° -90° -80° -70° -60° -50° -40° -30°-20°-10° 13 10 7 3 47 35 23 12 Light Engine Light Engine w/Light Guide Product Description Product Code Code Description Quantity 75514 9409 18 AWG Supply Wire 500 ft. (0.82 mm2) (152.4 m)/PK 75494 GEXNWB2 Weather Box (Outdoor Use Only) 20/PK 75498 GEXNMCAC Light Engine Mounting Clip 20/PK 75520 GEXNMC15 Light Guide Mounting Clip 50/PK 75537 GEXNBA 16 in. Silicone Bend-Aid (Reuseable) 12/PK 75612 GEDM1-A Tetra Dimming Module (0-10V) 1/EA For a complete list of accessories including Light Guides, refer to the Tetra Contour Component Guide Photograph courtesy of Blake Marvin-HKS, Inc. GE Lighting Solutions • 1-888-MY-GE-LED • www.gelightingsolutions.com 1 - 8 8 8 - 6 9 - 4 3 - 5 3 3 GE Lighting Solutions is a subsidiary of the General Electric Company. Tetra is a trademark of GE Lighting Solutions. The GE brand and logo are trademarks of the General Electric Company. © 2011 GE Lighting Solutions. Information provided is subject to change without notice. All values are design or typical values when measured under laboratory conditions. Exhibit Three A – Architectural Accents Bloomington Stationstore Holiday Stationstores 1920 Hwy 96 Exhibit Three B – Architectural Accents Bloomington Stationstore Holiday Stationstores 1920 Hwy 96 Date: May 5, 2015 To: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner Roberta Thompson, Planning Commission Chair Fran Holmes, Planning Commission Council Liaison From: East Round Lake Residents and Property Owners Katie Bach & Nate Cmiel 1861 W. Hwy 96 David & Diane Cmiel 44xx Old Hwy 10 Leonard & Cheryl Grudnoske 4445 Old Hwy 10 Mike & Lacy Loosbrock 4535 Lakeshore Place Barb Stack 1690 Wedgewood Circle Lisa Anderson 4419 Old Hwy 10 Toni Walton 4453 Old Hwy 10 Larry Van Grootheest 4471 Old Hwy 10 Troy Worwa 4541 Lakeshore Place Cary and Lisa Welter 4477 Old Hwy 10 George and Christine Winiecki 4175 Old Hwy 10 Paul Anderson and Kay Dimmick 4355 Old Hwy 10 Brad and Cindy Blair 4345 Old Hwy 10 JoAnn Cirks 1687 Wedgewood Circle Elmer and Pat Cmiel 4549 Lakeshore Place Bev and Reed Schilleman 4463 Old Hwy 10 Subject: Residents’ Response to Planning Case #15-008 Holiday Stationstore Planned Unit Development Amendment We are writing to express our opposition to the amendment and support of the Staff Recommendation to deny Planning Case 15-008 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the addition of architectural accent lighting along the top of the canopy and the roofline of the building at the Holiday service station at 1920 West Highway 96. As discussed in the Memorandum from Matthew Bachler to the Planning Commission for the May 6, 2015 meeting, the visual effect of the addition of blue accent lighting will have a negative impact on those travelling along Hwy 96 as well as residents of both the manufactured home park to the north and the homes on Round Lake to the east. In the 2015 Land Use Application (Attachment A), the applicant states “The Holiday site is completely surrounded and any visual impact buffered and mitigated by the roadways … Round Lake Rd wrapping around the site on the east and south … The next nearest residences are east across Round Lake, facing Hwy. 10.” As the Planning Commission is aware, the Holiday Stationstore is uniquely situated on the northwest corner of Round Lake, a designated wildlife refuge. The fact that the Holiday station is located across the street from the lakeshore does not constitute sufficient visual buffer to avoid the impact of added light affecting homes across the lake. As the Planning Committee can imagine, the homes “facing Hwy 10” along the east side of Round Lake derive significant value from the lakeshore view, which would be negatively impacted by the requested lighting. Additionally, Round Lake and its surrounding lakeshore are managed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, which has recently discussed future plans for use of the lake including a fishing pier, wildlife observation points, and walking path for community use, and has emphasized the importance of maintaining the lake as a viable habitat and wildlife sanctuary. The lake is home to nesting bald eagles, rare species of diving ducks, and other migratory bird species. The requested lighting would not only detract from visual enjoyment for current residents, but would also detract from the wildlife observation and nature appreciation available to future users of the lake. We do not believe that a mitigation such as dimming the light’s intensity at night is sufficient; a blue hue outlining the perimeter of the structure will remain an obtrusively artificial visual element at odds with the natural serenity of the lake. Finally, we would like to address the memo’s statement that “Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regards to this planning case.” It should be noted that the notice prepared by the City was mailed only to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property, which excludes the properties on Round Lake represented by this letter. Given the Holiday Stationstore’s unique location on Round Lake, and Staff’s own assessment that residents on the east side of Round Lake would be affected by the proposal, we believe that notification should have been extended to the homes on Hwy 96, Lakeshore Place, Old Hwy 10, and Wedgewood Circle which border Round Lake. Please consider this letter our formal response to the planning case, in addition to a request to be included in the mailing zone for any future proposals related to the Holiday Stationstore or other businesses on Round Lake Rd. Thank you for your consideration and continued support of Arden Hills residents. Sincerely, East Round Lake Residents and Property Owners City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2015 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Matthew Bachler, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-008 - Public Hearing Required Applicant: Holiday Stationstore, Inc. Property Location: 1920 West Highway 96 Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action Holiday Stationstores, Inc. has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to install a single tube of LED architectural accent lights along the top edge of the canopy and the roofline of the building at the Holiday service station located at 1920 West Highway 96. The amendment would update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. Flexibility has been requested in this case through the PUD process because the proposed accent lighting does not conform to the City Code regulations on exterior lighting. Background In 2005, the City approved a Master PUD and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in Planning Case 05-013 for the development of a Holiday service station and convenience store at 1920 West Highway 96. A CUP was required for the proposed use of the property as a service station with convenience retail and car wash in the G-B - Gateway Business District. The site was developed through the PUD process and allowed the developer flexibility on parking lot setback requirements and use of certain building materials in exchange for additional landscaping on the property and an overall superior building design. 1. Overview of Request Holiday Stationstores, Inc. has proposed to install accent lighting on the canopy and building of the existing service station and convenience store. The accent lighting would be comprised of individual LED lights contained within a 0.75 inch diameter translucent blue tube designed to City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 2 of 8 diffuse and dim the lighting. The light fixtures would be placed along the entire length of the building roofline and along the top edge of the canopy. Photographs of the existing conditions on the site and where the accent lights would be installed are included in Attachment C. The applicant has provided details on the specific product that would be used and photographs of the lighting installed at a Holiday services station in Bloomington, Minnesota (Attachments D & E). An amendment to the PUD is required in this case to update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. Flexibility has been requested through the PUD process because the proposed accent lighting does not conform to the City Code regulations on exterior lighting. The accent lighting creates glare that would impact cars driving on adjoining public streets and properties within residential districts. The service station canopy would also be illuminated beyond what is permitted by the Sign Code. The applicant has provided a narrative on how the visual impacts of the proposed accent lights would be minimized through the design of the product (Attachment A). The narrative also notes that the proposed accent lights are made by a different manufacturer than the LED lighting which is now installed on the monument sign located on the property. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process: The Planned Unit Development process is a tool that provides additional flexibility for development that an underlying zoning district would not otherwise allow. For example, a PUD may make exceptions to setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, signage, building materials, or landscaping requirements. It is intended to overcome the limitations of zoning regulations and improve the overall design of a project. While the PUD process allows the City to negotiate certain aspects of the development, any conditions imposed on the PUD must have a rational basis related to the expected impact of the development. A PUD cannot be used to permit uses that would not otherwise be permitted in the underlying zoning district. 3. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Medium Density Residential R-3: Townhouse & Low Density Multiple Dwelling District Manufactured Home Park South Light Industrial and Office G-B: Gateway Business District Light Industrial East Water (Round Lake), Low Density Residential Water (Round Lake), R-1: Single-Family Residential Water (Round Lake), Single- Family Detached Residential West Right-of-Way (Interstate 35W) Right-of-Way (Interstate 35W) Right-of-Way (Interstate 35W) City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 3 of 8 4. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Commercial Zoning: G-B: Gateway Business District Size: 121,096 square feet (2.78 acres) Proposed Density: N/A Topography: Relatively level Plan Review 1. Chapter 12, Sign Code Review A. General Sign Regulations – Section 1240.02, Subd. 3 – Flexibility Requested The Sign Code states that service area canopies are permitted 25 square feet of illuminated signage on each edge of the canopy facing a public street. However, no other part of the face of the canopy is allowed to be illuminated. The Holiday service station currently has three illuminated signs each measuring 7.7 square feet on the north, east, and south canopy faces. The proposed LED accent lights would illuminate the canopy face beyond the illumination associated with the existing signage. 2. Chapter 13, Zoning Code Review Section 1320 – District Provisions A. Special Requirements for the G-B District – Section 1320.13 – Meets Requirements The use of accent lighting on buildings and sites in the Gateway Business District may be permitted after review by the City. The Zoning Code requires that for exterior lighting the source of illumination be hooded, concealed, or controlled in a manner so as not to be visible from adjoining lots, streets, highways, or residential areas east and south of Round Lake. The proposed LED accent lights would be fully surrounded by plastic tubing that would conceal the source of illumination. The applicant has noted in their application that the visual effect of the illumination produced by the LED accent lights would be similar to the face of an illuminated sign that conceals the source of light behind the sign’s face. Section 1325 – General Regulations A. Exterior Lighting – Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 4 of 8 Direction – Flexibility Requested Lighting is required to be arranged so as to direct light away from adjoining lots and public streets. Direct or sky-reflect glare shall not be directed at adjoining lots or public streets. Glare is commonly defined as excessive or uncontrolled brightness that results in visual discomfort or reduced visibility. What qualifies as glare is subjective as sensitivity to light varies from individual to individual. The tube containing the LED light fixtures would help diffuse the light and reduce the overall intensity of the illumination. However, the accent lights would still create some degree of glare for cars travelling on Round Lake Road and West Highway 96, as well as potentially for residents in the Arden Manor Manufactured Home Park and residents on the east side of Round Lake. Concealment or Hooding of Source – Meets Requirements The source of illuminate is required to be hooded, concealed, or controlled in a manner so as to direct lighting pattern only on the site to which the lighting is intended. The proposed LED accent lights would be surrounded by plastic tubing that would control the source of illumination so that cast light from the LED lights would only fall on the surface of the site. Intensity – Meets Requirements Any light or combination of light cannot cast light that exceeds a meter reading of 1.0 foot candle on the travel lanes of adjoining public streets. A foot candle is a measurement used to determine how much light is falling onto a surface a certain distance away from the light source. A Photometric Plan was completed for the original development of the property in 2005. This plan is included in Attachment F. The plan indicates that the approved lighting for the site would not result in a foot candle reading of more than 1.0 on any adjoining public street. The proposed LED accent lights create very minimal cast light which is difficult to measure through a photometric analysis. The addition of the accent lights would not result in an increase in the foot candle readings on adjoining streets. Exterior Lighting of Building Façade – Meets Requirements For non-residential properties visible from residentially zoned property, a maximum of 25 percent of the façade visible from such residential property may be illuminated by direct lighting from spot lights or flood lights. The Holiday service station property is visible from the Arden Manor Manufactured Home Park to the north of West Highway 96 and from the residentially zoned lots along the east side of Round Lake. The proposed accent lights would not result in more than 25 percent of the building façade being illuminated. 3. Administration and Procedures – Conditional Use Permits – Section 1355.04 Subd 3 The Special Requirements for the G-B District in Section 1320.13 of the Zoning Code states that proposals for modifications to a building’s exterior shall be reviewed according to the criteria for evaluating Conditional Use Permits as listed in Section 1355.04, Subd 3. This section of the Zoning Code states that the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider the effect of the proposal upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 5 of 8 occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: 1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; 6. Adjoining land values; 7. Park dedications where applicable; and the 8. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Discussion Staff has two primary concerns about Holiday’s proposal for accent lighting at their service station. First, the lighting is intentionally designed to have a blue hue in order to further brand the site as a Holiday service station. Holiday has installed similar light fixtures on many of the canopies, buildings, and monument signs at their other locations in the metro region. The effect of the accent lighting would be to turn the length of the canopy and building roofline into architectural advertising for the business. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the precedent that could be set if the City approves this type of lighting fixture, which also has a commercial branding purpose. The second issue identified in the staff evaluation is the glare that would result from the accent lighting. Staff has discussed with the applicant the need to minimize the visual impact of the lighting through improved design. A different manufacturer would be used for the proposed accent lights than the LED lighting which is now installed on the monument sign on the property. However, staff believes that the lighting would still create glare that could have a negative impact for those travelling along Highway 96 and Round Lake Road, as well as for residents in the Arden Manor manufactured home park and residents on the east side of Round Lake. In the Recommendation section below, staff has included two conditions for the Planning Commission’s consideration if a motion to approve is made that would require the accent lighting and the existing LED lights on the monument sign to be dimmed during nighttime hours to reduce their visual impact. The Planned Unit Development process provides additional flexibility that an underlying zoning district would not otherwise allow. It is intended to overcome the limitations of zoning regulations and to achieve a higher quality project than would otherwise be possible. In considering whether to grant a PUD Amendment in this case, the Planning Commission should consider if the proposal forwards the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the community. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 6 of 8 Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eighteen (18) findings of fact for consideration: 1. The applicant has requested approval of a PUD Amendment for the property at 1920 West Highway 96. 2. A Master PUD was approved for 1920 West Highway 96 in Planning Case #05-013. 3. The applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to install a single tube of LED illuminated architectural accents at the roofline of the canopy and building on the property. 4. The amendment would update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. 5. Section 1240.02, Subd. 3 of the Sign Code does not permit service station canopies to be illuminated other than by lighting associated with approved signage. 6. The proposed accent lights would illuminate the canopy face beyond the illumination associated with the existing signs. 7. Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code states that direct glare shall not be directed at adjoining lots or public streets. 8. The accent lights would create glare that would have a negative impact for those travelling along Highway 96 and Round Lake Road, as well as for residents in the Arden Manor manufactured home park and residents on the east side of Round Lake 9. The proposed accents lights would be in conformance with the other requirements regarding exterior lighting within Section 1320.13 and Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code. 10. The proposal will not impact existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. 11. The proposal will not affect noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste on the property. 12. The proposed lighting would create glare visible from adjoining public streets and residential areas to the east and north of the property. 13. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. 14. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. 15. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 16. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. 17. Where the proposal is not in conformance with the Zoning Code and Sign Code the applicant has requested flexibility through the PUD process. 18. Based on the submitted plans and evaluation included in the staff report to the Planning Commission, the flexibility being requested through the PUD process would not be in the overall best interest of the community. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 7 of 8 Staff Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends denial of Planning Case 15- 008 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the addition of architectural accent lighting along the top of the canopy and the roofline of the building at the Holiday service station at 1920 West Highway 96. If the Planning Commission makes a motion to approve Planning Case 15-008, the findings of fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasoning for their decision. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider including the following four (4) conditions if a motion to approve is made: 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 Agreement shall be drafted by the City Attorney and shall be executed prior to the issuance of an Electrical Permit for the installation of the LED accent lights. 3. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED accent lights on the canopy and building to sixty percent (60%) of the daytime level. 4. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed on the existing monument sign on the property to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED lights on the sign to sixty percent (60%) of the daytime level. Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-008 for a PUD Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96, as amended by the four (4) conditions in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission, based on the submitted plans and the following findings of fact: findings to approve should specifically reference the reasons for approval. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15- 008 for a PUD Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96 based on the submitted plans and the following findings of fact: findings to approve should specifically reference the reasons for approval. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 15-008 for a PUD Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96, based on the submitted plans and the findings of fact in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-008 - Holiday Station - PUD Amendment\Memos_15-008 Page 8 of 8 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 15-008 for a PUD Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96 in order to gather the following information: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners 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. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on March 26, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by May 25, 2015 (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. Existing Conditions and Proposed Location of Accent Lights D. Tetra Contour Accent Lighting - Product Information E. Tetra Contour Accent Lighting – Bloomington, Minnesota Example F. Approved Photometric Plan (Planning Case #05-013) Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL A. Planning Case 15-008; Planned Unit Development Amendment – Holiday Stationstores, Inc. – 1920 West Highway 96 – Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that in 2005, the City approved a Master PUD and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in Planning Case 05-013 for the development of a Holiday service station and convenience store at 1920 West Highway 96. A CUP was required for the proposed use of the property as a service station with convenience retail and car wash in the G-B - Gateway Business District. The site was developed through the PUD process and allowed the developer flexibility on parking lot setback requirements and use of certain building materials in exchange for additional landscaping on the property and an overall superior building design. Associate Planner Bachler reported that Holiday Stationstores, Inc. has proposed to install accent lighting on the canopy and building of the existing service station and convenience store. The accent lighting would be comprised of individual LED lights contained within a 0.75-inch diameter translucent blue tube designed to diffuse and dim the lighting. The light fixtures would be placed along the entire length of the building roofline and along the top edge of the canopy. The applicant has provided details on the specific product that would be used and photographs of the lighting installed at a Holiday services station in Bloomington, Minnesota. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that an amendment to the PUD is required in this case to update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. Flexibility has been requested through the PUD process because the proposed accent lighting does not conform to the City Code regulations on exterior lighting. The accent lighting creates glare that would impact cars driving on adjoining public streets and properties within residential districts. The service station canopy would also be illuminated beyond what is permitted by the Sign Code. Associate Planner Bachler explained that the applicant has provided a narrative on how the visual impacts of the proposed accent lights would be minimized through the design of the product. The narrative also notes that the proposed accent lights are made by a different manufacturer than the LED lighting that is now installed on the monument sign located on the property. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the Planned Unit Development process is a tool that provides additional flexibility for development that an underlying zoning district would not otherwise allow. For example, a PUD may make exceptions to setbacks, lot coverage, parking requirements, signage, building materials, or landscaping requirements. It is intended to ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 2 overcome the limitations of zoning regulations and improve the overall design of a project. While the PUD process allows the City to negotiate certain aspects of the development, any conditions imposed on the PUD must have a rational basis related to the expected impact of the development. A PUD cannot be used to permit uses that would not otherwise be permitted in the underlying zoning district. Site Data Land Use Plan: Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Commercial Zoning: G-B: Gateway Business District Current Lot Sizes: 121,096 square feet (2.78 acres) Proposed Density: N/A Topography: Relatively level Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area and the Plan Review noting staff has two primary concerns about Holiday’s proposal for accent lighting. First, the lighting is intentionally designed to have a blue hue in order to further brand the site as a Holiday service station. Holiday has installed similar light fixtures on many of the canopies, buildings, and monument signs at their other locations in the metro region. The effect of the accent lighting would be to turn the length of the canopy and building roofline into architectural advertising for the business. The Planning Commission may wish to consider the precedent that could be set if the City approves this type of lighting fixture, which also has a commercial branding purpose. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the second issue identified in the staff evaluation is the glare that would result from the accent lighting. Staff has discussed with the applicant the need to minimize the visual impact of the lighting through improved design. A different manufacturer would be used for the proposed accent lights than the LED lighting that is now installed on the monument sign on the property. However, staff believes that the lighting would still create glare that could have a negative impact for those travelling along Highway 96 and Round Lake Road, as well as for residents in the Arden Manor manufactured home park and residents on the east side of Round Lake. Staff has included two conditions for the Planning Commission’s consideration if a motion to approve is made that would require the accent lighting and the existing LED lights on the monument sign to be dimmed during nighttime hours to reduce their visual impact. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the Planned Unit Development process provides additional flexibility that an underlying zoning district would not otherwise allow. It is intended to overcome the limitations of zoning regulations and to achieve a higher quality project than would otherwise be possible. In considering whether to grant a PUD Amendment in this case, the Planning Commission should consider if the proposal forwards the goals of the City’s Comprehensive Plan and is in the best interest of the community. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following eighteen (18) findings of fact for consideration: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 3 1. The applicant has requested approval of a PUD Amendment for the property at 1920 West Highway 96. 2. A Master PUD was approved for 1920 West Highway 96 in Planning Case #05-013. 3. The applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to install a single tube of LED illuminated architectural accents at the roofline of the canopy and building on the property. 4. The amendment would update the building and canopy elevations for the approved PUD. 5. Section 1240.02, Subd. 3 of the Sign Code does not permit service station canopies to be illuminated other than by lighting associated with approved signage. 6. The proposed accent lights would illuminate the canopy face beyond the illumination associated with the existing signs. 7. Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code states that direct glare shall not be directed at adjoining lots or public streets. 8. The accent lights would create glare that would have a negative impact for those travelling along Highway 96 and Round Lake Road, as well as for residents in the Arden Manor manufactured home park and residents on the east side of Round Lake 9. The proposed accents lights would be in conformance with the other requirements regarding exterior lighting within Section 1320.13 and Section 1325.05, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code. 10. The proposal will not impact existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. 11. The proposal will not affect noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste on the property. 12. The proposed lighting would create glare visible from adjoining public streets and residential areas to the east and north of the property. 13. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. 14. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. 15. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 16. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. 17. Where the proposal is not in conformance with the Zoning Code and Sign Code the applicant has requested flexibility through the PUD process. 18. Based on the submitted plans and evaluation included in the staff report to the Planning Commission, the flexibility being requested through the PUD process would not be in the overall best interest of the community. Associate Planner Bachler discussed a letter received by staff on May 5, 2015, from East Round Lake residents and property owners expressing concern and opposition to the proposed accent lighting. Associate Planner Bachler stated that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends denial of Planning Case 15-008 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for the addition of architectural accent lighting along the top of the canopy and the roofline of the building at the Holiday service station at 1920 West Highway 96. If the Planning Commission makes a motion to approve Planning Case 15-008, the findings of fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasoning for their decision. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider including the following four (4) conditions if a motion to approve is made: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 4 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 Agreement shall be drafted by the City Attorney and shall be executed prior to the issuance of an Electrical Permit for the installation of the LED accent lights. 3. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED accent lights on the canopy and building to sixty percent (60%) of the daytime level. 4. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed on the existing monument sign on the property to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED lights on the sign to sixty percent (60%) of the daytime level. 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 Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Hames questioned the hours of operation for the lighting. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the lighting would be on 24 hours a day. Commissioner Jones asked if the store was open 24 hours a day. Associate Planner Bachler deferred this question to the applicant. Michael Cronin, representative of Holiday Stationstores, addressed the Commission regarding glare and light branding. He believed that the store was open 24 hours a day. He discussed how light source glare can be mitigated and explained how the light would be diffused through the tubing. He understood that staff has recommended that a dimmer be installed for nighttime hours. He approved of this recommendation, which would assist in reducing the blue LED lights by 60% on both the existing monument sign and the building and canopy. He indicated Holiday Stationstores would be applying the same lighting techniques that were used in the City of Bloomington. He provided comment on the distance the LED lights would be from adjacent homes. He was certain that the installation of the LED lights as proposed at the Holiday site would have a minor impact on adjacent properties. He requested that the blue lights not be construed to be signage, but rather architectural. He provided the Commission with alternate findings and recommended that the Commission approve the PUD amendment. Chair Thompson asked if Holiday had a new standard for their building and canopy appearance. Mr. Cronin explained that Holiday was making the proposed changes to take advantage of the changes in LED lighting technology. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 5 Commissioner Hames questioned the distance someone had to be away from the Bloomington Holiday station, in order to not see the blue LED lighting. Mr. Cronin indicated that he drove by this sign on his way home each night. He commented this sign has been dimmed and was only visible from approximately three-fourths of a mile away. Commissioner Zimmerman inquired if the LED lighting was being proposed to differentiate Holiday from other stations such as SuperAmerica or Marathon. Mr. Cronin stated that the blue LED lighting was in place to illuminate and brand the site. Commissioner Jones asked if the dimmer would be run by a photo sensor or timer. Mr. Cronin reported that the dimmer would be run by a timer. Chair Thompson requested staff review the location of the existing monument sign. Associate Planner Bachler reviewed a map of the site with the Commission noting the location of the monument sign. Commissioner Hames questioned where the single-family homes were located with respect to the Holiday station. Associate Planner Bachler discussed the location of adjacent residential properties in further detail. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Commissioner Holewa was sympathetic to the applicant but understood that the City has received complaints regarding the lighting on the Holiday sign. He believed it would have benefited the applicant to have installed the dimmer on the monument sign prior to requesting additional LED lighting. Commissioner Jones did not believe that the proposed blue lighting was obtrusive and was pleased that the new lighting would be diffused and placed on a dimmer. He believed that the lighting was architectural and he supported the applicant’s request. Commissioner Hames agreed and she was pleased that the lighting would be placed on a dimmer. She did not believe that the blue lights would be visible from across the lake. It was her opinion that the exterior of the canopy would be updated, fresh and enhanced architecturally with the addition of the blue LED lights. She did not believe that the lights would stand out and for this reason, she supported the applicant’s request. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 6 Chair Thompson stated that when she originally reviewed the planning case she was concerned because she thought the monument sign was too bright. She appreciated the fact that the applicant was proposing to dim the monument sign. She questioned if the dimmer percentage could be regulated by the City. Associate Planner Bachler deferred this question to the applicant. Mr. Cronin indicated that the Commission could amend the condition and recommend that the LED lighting reach no more than 350 nits. He would be happy to work with staff to ensure that the dimmer was properly set. Commissioner Zimmerman did not want more light on the Holiday site than what was currently present. He encouraged Holiday to be sensitive to the surrounding properties and to blend in with the adjacent residential and commercial uses. He did not want to see an island of light created from this site. Commissioner Holewa discussed the amount of light pollution in the metro area. He was in favor of a dimmer being installed on the monument sign whether or not the PUD amendment was approved. Chair Thompson asked how the Commission should address the LED dimmer condition. She questioned if staff was willing to work with the applicant on the nits measurement. Associate Planner Bachler stated that he would recommend that the nits standard be followed as this would provide a clear and objective measurement on the amount of light coming from the site. Commissioner Hames questioned how staff would like the language within Condition 3 to read. Associate Planner Bachler suggested that Condition 3 be amended to read: An automatic dimmer module shall be installed to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED accent lights on the canopy and building to sixty percent (60%) of the daytime level during night time hours and reduced to a nits reading of no more than 350 if complaints are received. He believed it may be more effective to have the 350 nits requirement in place from the beginning as it would be easier to enforce. Commissioner Holewa asked if staff was provided with the applicant’s findings of fact. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the applicant’s findings of fact were provided to staff prior to the meeting. He explained that if the Planning Commission were to approve the Planning Case, it would need to state, for the record, findings of approval. Commissioner Jones encouraged the residents that did not support the PUD amendment to be present at the City Council meeting on May 26, 2015, when this matter will be reviewed. Chair Thompson noted that the City Council meeting to be held on May 26th would not consist of another public hearing for this planning case. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 7 Commissioner Hames moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-008 a PUD Amendment at 1920 West Highway 96, as amended by the four (4) conditions provided by staff in the May 6, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission, based on the submitted plans and the findings of fact amending Condition #3 and Condition #4 as follows: 3. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED accent lights on the canopy and building to 350 nits. 4. An automatic dimmer module shall be installed on the existing monument sign on the property to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED lights on the sign to 350 nits. Additional Findings: The Commission finds that the proposed PUD amendment does not increase the lighting on site and would in fact decrease the lighting through the dimmer module on the monument sign. The tubular design of the lighting would diffuse and dim the proposed blue LED lighting. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-012 Applicant: Caribou Coffee Property Location: 3673 Lexington Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Requested Action Motion to approve Planning Case 15-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the May 26, 2015, report to the City Council. Background Caribou Coffee Company is proposing to construct a drive-thru lane and pick-up window along the eastern side of the Shannon Square retail center building which fronts Lexington Avenue North. The purpose of the drive-thru addition is to improve the overall customer experience, accommodate different types of customers, and stay competitive within the market. The property is located at 3673 Lexington Avenue North within the B-3 Service Business District. Restaurants including those with drive-thru windows are permitted as principal uses in the district. However, special regulations for drive-thru windows in the B-3 District exist to ensure proper placement, design, and use. 1. Overview of Request: Caribou Coffee Company is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to construct a customer drive-thru lane and pick-up window. The pick-up window addition would NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 2 of 8 be located on the east side of the retail center requiring only minor modifications to the façade to accommodate the 36 square foot addition. As indicated by the applicant, the drive-up window addition would be constructed with masonry units to match the existing structure. The construction of the drive-thru lane would involve the reconfiguration of the parking lot on the eastern side of the building to accommodate the drive-thru lane and vehicle stacking area. Sixteen (16) parking spaces would be eliminated from the site to provide stacking for approximately twelve (12) vehicles. The sidewalk that currently exists on the eastern side of the building would be removed in order to facilitate the drive-thru lane and pick-up window. The proposed plans also include the installation of a menu board and speaker for placing orders and a canvas awning placed above the pick-up window to shield customers. As depicted on the site plan a new landscaping island would be installed along with additional landscaping within former parking stalls that are now adjacent to the area required for vehicle stacking requirements. A new sidewalk and stairway connection from Lexington Avenue to the retail center would be constructed to the north of the existing connection to provide for safe pedestrian movements. The applicant has submitted a project narrative describing the request (Attachment C) and a development plan set (Attachment D) illustrating the existing and proposed conditions. Plan Evaluation 1. Zoning Regulations A. Special Requirements for Drive-Up Windows in the B-3 District – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that drive-up windows in the B-3 Zoning District maintain a distance of 1,320 feet from one another unless the following conditions are met: 1. The operation consists of one or more drive-up windows and is an integral part of a building containing one or more other allowed uses, or the operation is part of an architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive- up windows 2. Shared access drives and shared parking are utilized by all such businesses using drive-up windows in said building or complex. 3. Only one building or architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive-up windows will be allowed in addition to one freestanding business using a drive-up window. 4. The architecture and the site, grading, circulation, landscaping, screening and signage plans shall unify the appearance and function of the complex or building. 5. An architecturally unified complex may consist of one or more buildings on one or more parcels if the intent of providing a unified appearance and function is not compromised. NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 3 of 8 6. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. B. Additional Requirements for Drive-up Windows – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code also identifies additional minimum requirements for drive-up windows, and businesses in the City. Because the building and use is preexisting, many of the additional requirements do not apply to this case. 1. Location. The Zoning Code requires that the drive-up window not create an unreasonable traffic volume. In this case, the traffic volume is not anticipated to significantly increase as a result of the installation of a drive-thru. It is expected that the construction of the drive-thru will off-set the number of customers that will use the drive-thru versus customers going into the store to make a purchase. The site as a whole has ample space, with traffic circulation patterns in place to handle the traffic and parking demand. The Code requires a distance of at least 1,320 feet between drive-up windows. At the present time there are three drive-up windows within 1,320 feet of the subject property: Cub Foods Pharmacy, Walgreens Pharmacy, and Arby’s. Criteria for waiving the minimum distance requirement are outlined above. 2. Site Development Standards. A. Electronic Devices. A speaker will be installed as part of the proposal to meet the Zoning Code requirement. The City’s Zoning Code requires a minimum distance of 50 feet from any adjacent lot. B. Snow Storage. The applicant has indicated that snow will be plowed to the perimeter of the parking area at the rear of the building and should not impact the new addition or drive-thru lane. C. Design. The proposed plan for the project indicates that the drive-up window addition would be constructed with masonry units to match the existing structure and that an awning would be constructed over the pick-up window. D. Access and Circulation. The Zoning Code requires at least two access points on the subject premises for drive-up windows. This requirement is met by the current configuration of the site. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is not anticipated to be negatively impacted by the proposed project. C. Landscaping – Meets Requirements The proposed plan indicates that landscaping on the site will increase by 2,178 square feet due to the construction of the center island and landscaping within former parking stalls along the drive-thru lane. The proposed amendment would involve an addition to the building onto what is currently an impervious surface. NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 4 of 8 E. Lighting – Meets Requirements The proposed lighting plan indicates that five (5) new lighting fixtures will be installed on the eastern façade of the Caribou Coffee store. Four (4) of these fixtures will provide accent lighting and one (1) will supply lighting under the canopy for the drive-up window (Attachment D). F. Additional Design standards to modifications in the B3 District The City has in place additional design standards for new development, redevelopment, and modifications to existing sites in the B3 District. Because the proposal includes minor modifications to the property’s exterior and parking lot, most of the City’s design standards do not apply. The proposed plan for the project indicates that the drive-up window addition would be constructed with masonry units to match the existing structure and that an awning would be constructed over the pick-up window. For further details on the proposed design and exterior materials, see Attachment D. G. Off Street Parking Spaces – Meets Requirements Within the B-3 Service Business District the Zoning Code requires one (1) parking space for every 150 square feet of gross retail floor space. With approximately 70,000 square feet of retail space between Shannon Square Shoppes and Cub Foods, 467 parking spaces would be required. There are currently 510 parking spaces on site and if the proposed amendment is approved the number of stalls would be reduced to 494. The Shannon Square retail center has a shared parking agreement with the Cub Foods to the north, and both properties are owned and managed by Inland Shannon Square, LLC. Parking is not anticipated to be negatively impacted in this case because of the amount of remaining parking stalls within the development. H. Vehicle Stacking – Flexibility Requested The Zoning Code requires fifteen (15) vehicle stacking spaces for Fast Food Restaurants with customer pick-up windows. The plan indicates that twelve (12) vehicle stacking spaces are proposed within the drive-thru lane. It is not expected that the reduction in stacking spaces from fifteen (15) to twelve (12) will have any significant impact on the remaining parking area or vehicle circulation within the site. Zoning Code Proposed Development Vehicle Stacking 15 12 Zoning Code Existing Proposed Development Off Street Parking 467 510 494 NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 5 of 8 2. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria – Section 1355.04 Subd 3 Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, which can also be used to evaluate PUD Amendments. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: 1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; 6. Park dedications where applicable; and the 7. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. 4. Additional Review A. Building Official, City Engineer & Fire Marshal The Building Official, City Engineer, and Fire Marshal have reviewed the application and do not have any objections to the proposed project. All final plans will be subject to the Building Official’s and Fire Marshal’s approval prior to the issuance of any permits. The Fire Marshal indicated that the access width between the existing building and the landscaping island in the drive-thru lane is adequate for emergency response vehicles. He also noted that stacking of vehicles within the drive-thru lane should not create any issues as an alternate access to the service side of the building exists. B. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the plans for the proposed project and has determined that a RCWD Permit is not required for this project. C. Ramsey County Public Works Ramsey County was notified and provided with the plans for the proposed project. After their review of the project they found the potential for some additional traffic at the Shannon Square entrance due to the construction of the drive-thru. However, they concluded that the additional traffic would not significantly impact Lexington Avenue. NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 6 of 8 5. Discussion At the City Council Work Session on March 16, 2015, the Council reviewed a concept plan for the drive-thru and pick-up window for Caribou Coffee. During this review the Council discussed the width of the drive-thru lane, stacking counts and timing, emergency vehicle access, distance of adjacent drive-thru businesses, and snow removal procedures. The minutes from the March 16th Work Session have been provided in Attachment F. The applicant has since modified the plans for the Caribou Coffee project in order to follow the Council’s direction. The parking island on the new plan has been adjusted to provide a driving lane that is a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width to give vehicles additional space for maneuvering. Vehicle stacking counts have been increased on the plan to accommodate approximately 12 vehicles. Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 15-012 at their regular meeting on May 6, 2015. Draft minutes from the meeting are included in Attachment A. The Planning Commission offers the following findings of fact for consideration: General Findings: 1. The Caribou Coffee use is a conforming use in the B-3 Service Business District. 2. The addition of a drive-thru lane and pick-up window requires an amendment to the PUD. 3. The drive-up window would be located within 1,320 feet of three (3) other drive-up windows. 4. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Code pertaining to drive-up windows, with the exception of the 1,320 foot separation requirement. 5. The Zoning Code specifies criteria for waiving the 1,320 feet separation requirement. 6. The proposal meets all criteria specified in the Zoning Code for waiving the 1,320 foot separation requirement. 7. No additional signage is being requested as part of the PUD Amendment. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 8. The proposed project is not expected to negatively impact traffic flow or parking on the site because the modifications to the parking are minimal. It is expected that the removal of the parking spaces will be off-set with the number of customers that will use the drive- thru versus customers going into the store to make a purchase. Furthermore, the site as a whole has ample space, with traffic circulation patterns in place to handle the traffic and parking demand. 9. The proposed project will not produce any permanent noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste. NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 7 of 8 10. The proposed project will not affect drainage on the property. 11. The proposed project will not affect the population density on the property. 12. The proposed project and use are compatible with the other buildings and uses within the B-3 Zoning District. 13. The proposed project is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 14. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this application. 15. The proposed project does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Recommendation The findings of fact for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment support approval. However, if the City Council chooses to deny the application, the findings of fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 15-012 and unanimously recommends approval (5-0) of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as presented in the May 26, 2015, Report to the City Council, as amended by the following seven (7) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall continue to abide by all previous agreements, as amended by the conditions of approval of this application. 3. That a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The PUD agreement shall be signed by the applicant and approved by Council prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. That a building permit, grading and erosion control permit, and RCWD permit if required shall be obtained for the proposed project. 5. That the building permit for the addition shall be issued by June 1, 2016, or an extension shall be requested at least 45 days preceding this deadline. 6. That the applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping (materials and installation) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC-insured Minnesota bank. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that landscaping is completed in the event that the applicant defaults on the Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. NEW BUSINESS – 8B City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for May 26, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 8 of 8 7. That no additional wall signage beyond what is permitted in the Zoning Code shall be permitted as part of this application. The additional signage depicted within the Development Plan Set A1.1 is not being considered at this time. Proposed Motion Language 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. Public Notice A public hearing notice was mailed to properties within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin on April 22, 2015. Public Comments Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regard to this planning case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 6, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City is required to act on this request by June 4, 2015 (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. Draft Planning Commission Minutes – May 6, 2015 B. Planning Commission Report – May 6, 2015 C. Application & Project Narrative D. Development Plan Set E. Aerial Site Map F. Minutes from City Council Work Session – March 16, 2015 Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 2015 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Angela Hames (arrived at 6:32 p.m.), Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioners Brent Bartel, and Phillip Neururer. Also present were: City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JUNE 4, 2015 Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. PLANNING CASES D. Planning Case 15-012; Planned Unit Development Amendment – Caribou Coffee – 3673 Lexington Avenue N – Public Hearing City Planner Streff stated that Caribou Coffee Company is proposing to construct a drive-thru lane and pick-up window along the eastern side of the Shannon Square retail center building, which fronts Lexington Avenue North. The purpose of the drive-thru addition is to improve the overall customer experience, accommodate different types of customers, and stay competitive within the market. City Planner Streff indicated that the property is located at 3673 Lexington Avenue North within the B-3 Service Business District. The purpose of this district among other things is to serve the community and motorist with a broad range of service and goods; ensure acceptable traffic operations; keep retail services compact, convenient and close to arterial streets; and promote flexibility in land uses and development standards. Restaurants including those with ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 2 drive-thru windows are permitted as principal uses in the district. However, special regulations for drive-thru windows in the B-3 District exist to ensure proper placement, design, and use. City Planner Streff commented that the site is positioned north of the railroad tracks owned by Canadian Pacific, south of Cub Foods, east of the Transwestern property occupied by Taylor Corporation, and west of Lexington Avenue North. Other tenants within the retail center include Subway, H&R Block, Great Clips, and UPS. City Planner Streff explained that Caribou Coffee Company is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow for the expansion of their business to include a customer drive-thru lane and pick-up window. The pick-up window addition would be located on the east side of the Shannon Square retail center requiring only minor modifications to the façade in order to accommodate the 36 square foot addition. The modification would include the removal of a façade section that is approximately eleven (11) feet in length in order to construct the pick-up window addition. The existing side entrance door would be relocated to the southeast corner. As indicated by the applicant, the drive-up window addition would be constructed with masonry units to match the existing structure. City Planner Streff stated that the construction of the drive-thru lane would involve the reconfiguration of the parking lot on the eastern side of the building in order to accommodate the drive-thru lane and vehicle stacking area. Sixteen (16) parking spaces would be eliminated from the site to provide stacking for approximately twelve (12) vehicles within the drive-thru lane. The sidewalk that currently exists on the eastern side of the building would be removed in order to facilitate the drive-thru lane and pick-up window. City Planner Streff indicated that the proposed plans also include the installation of a menu board and speaker for placing orders and a canvas awning placed above the pick-up window to shield customers. As depicted on the site plan a new landscaping island would be installed along with additional landscaping within former parking stalls that are now adjacent to the area required for vehicle stacking requirements. A new sidewalk and stairway connection from Lexington Avenue to the retail center would be constructed to the north of the existing connection to provide for safe pedestrian movements. New curb and gutter would also be constructed within the drive-thru area to ensure proper drainage of the site. Land Use Plan: Site Data COM – Commercial Existing Land Use: COM – Commercial Zoning: B-3 Service Business District Current Lot Sizes: 4.04 Acres (Shannon Square & CUB = 9.07 Acres) Topography: Fairly Flat City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Streff reported that at the City Council Work Session on March 16, 2015, the Council reviewed a concept plan for the drive-thru and pick-up window for Caribou Coffee. During this review the Council discussed the width of the drive-thru lane, stacking counts and timing, emergency vehicle access, distance of adjacent drive-thru businesses, and snow removal ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 3 procedures. The applicant has since modified the plans for the Caribou Coffee project in order to follow the Council’s direction. The parking island on the new plan has been adjusted to provide a driving lane that is a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width to give vehicles additional space for maneuvering. Vehicle stacking counts have been increased on the plan to accommodate approximately 12 vehicles. City Planner Streff indicated that the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following fifteen (15) findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The Caribou Coffee use is a conforming use in the B-3 Service Business District. 2. The addition of a drive-thru lane and pick-up window requires an amendment to the PUD. 3. The drive-up window would be located within 1,320 feet of three (3) other drive-up windows. 4. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Code pertaining to drive-up windows, with the exception of the 1,320-foot separation requirement. 5. The Zoning Code specifies criteria for waiving the 1,320 feet separation requirement. 6. The proposal meets all criteria specified in the Zoning Code for waiving the 1,320-foot separation requirement. 7. No additional signage is being requested as part of the PUD Amendment. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 8. The proposed project is not expected to negatively impact traffic flow or parking on the site because the modifications to the parking are minimal. It is expected that the removal of the parking spaces will be off-set with the number of customers that will use the drive- thru versus customers going into the store to make a purchase. Furthermore, the site as a whole has ample space, with traffic circulation patterns in place to handle the traffic and parking demand. 9. The proposed project will not produce any permanent noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste. 10. The proposed project will not affect drainage on the property. 11. The proposed project will not affect the population density on the property. 12. The proposed project and use are compatible with the other buildings and uses within the B-3 Zoning District. 13. The proposed project is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 14. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this application. 15. The proposed project does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. City Planner Streff stated that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 15-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff recommends that the following seven (7) conditions be included with the approval: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 4 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall continue to abide by all previous agreements, as amended by the conditions of approval of this application. 3. That a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The PUD agreement shall be signed by the applicant and approved by Council prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. That a building permit, grading and erosion control permit, and RCWD permit shall be obtained for the proposed project. 5. That the building permit for the addition shall be issued by June 1, 2016, or an extension shall be requested at least 45 days preceding this deadline. 6. That the applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping (materials and installation) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC-insured Minnesota bank. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that landscaping is completed in the event that the applicant defaults on the Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 7. That no additional wall signage beyond what is permitted in the Zoning Code shall be permitted as part of this application. The additional signage depicted within the Development Plan Set A1.1 is not being considered at this time. City Planner Streff reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Jerry Roper, Caribou Coffee representative, thanked the Commission for considering his request this evening. Commissioner Hames asked if Caribou had any concerns with the seven conditions recommended by staff. She questioned if Caribou was proposing any additional signage. Mr. Roper reported that the new awning being installed would have no additional signage or logos. Commissioner Zimmerman appreciated the placement of the wrought iron fence. He inquired if the drive-thru facility would reduce the need for parking spaces. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – May 6, 2015 5 Mr. Roper believed that the drive-thru would likely reduce the need for parking by approximately 30%. Chair Thompson questioned how the car stacking would be managed for the drive-thru. Mr. Roper indicated that the drive-thru lane would allow for twelve cars to be stacked and noted a reserved area would be maintained to allow for large drive-thru orders to be hand delivered to the customer’s vehicle. Paul Meyer, Paul Meyer Architects, commented that the Rice Creek Water District would not be requiring a permit for the proposed PUD amendment. He requested that Condition #4 be removed or amended. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Hames was pleased that Caribou Coffee would be adding a drive-thru. Chair Thompson commended Caribou Coffee for addressing the pedestrian safety concerns on their site. Commissioner Hames moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions, amending Condition #4 to add the words “if required” after RCWD Permit, in the May 6, 2015, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 1 of 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: May 6, 2015 PC Agenda Item 3.D TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-012 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Caribou Coffee Property Location: 3673 Lexington Avenue North Request: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment Requested Action The applicant has requested a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment in order to construct a drive-thru lane and pick-up window for the existing Caribou Coffee that is located in the Shannon Square retail center. Background Caribou Coffee Company is proposing to construct a drive-thru lane and pick-up window along the eastern side of the Shannon Square retail center building which fronts Lexington Avenue North. The purpose of the drive-thru addition is to improve the overall customer experience, accommodate different types of customers, and stay competitive within the market. The property is located at 3673 Lexington Avenue North within the B-3 Service Business District. The purpose of this district among other things is to serve the community and motorist with a broad range of service and goods; ensure acceptable traffic operations; keep retail services compact, convenient and close to arterial streets; and promote flexibility in land uses and development standards. Restaurants including those with drive-thru windows are permitted as principal uses in the district. However, special regulations for drive-thru windows in the B-3 District exist to ensure proper placement, design, and use. The site is positioned north of the railroad tracks owned by Canadian Pacific, south of Cub Foods, east of the Transwestern property occupied by Taylor Corporation, and west of Lexington Avenue North. Other tenants within the retail center include Subway, H&R Block, Great Clips, and UPS. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 2 of 10 1. Overview of Request: Caribou Coffee Company is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow for the expansion of their business to include a customer drive-thru lane and pick-up window. The pick-up window addition would be located on the east side of the Shannon Square retail center requiring only minor modifications to the façade in order to accommodate the 36 square foot addition. The modification would include the removal of a façade section that is approximately eleven (11) feet in length in order to construct the pick-up window addition. The existing side entrance door would be relocated to the southeast corner. As indicated by the applicant, the drive-up window addition would be constructed with masonry units to match the existing structure. The construction of the drive-thru lane would involve the reconfiguration of the parking lot on the eastern side of the building in order to accommodate the drive-thru lane and vehicle stacking area. Sixteen (16) parking spaces would be eliminated from the site to provide stacking for approximately twelve (12) vehicles within the drive-thru lane. The sidewalk that currently exists on the eastern side of the building would be removed in order to facilitate the drive-thru lane and pick-up window. The proposed plans also include the installation of a menu board and speaker for placing orders and a canvas awning placed above the pick-up window to shield customers. As depicted on the site plan a new landscaping island would be installed along with additional landscaping within former parking stalls that are now adjacent to the area required for vehicle stacking requirements. A new sidewalk and stairway connection from Lexington Avenue to the retail center would be constructed to the north of the existing connection to provide for safe pedestrian movements. New curb and gutter would also be constructed within the drive-thru area to ensure proper drainage of the site. The applicant has submitted a project narrative describing the request (Attachment A) and a development plan set (Attachment B) indicating the existing and proposed conditions of the property. 2. Surrounding Area: Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Com – Commercial MB – Mixed Business B-3 Service Business District B-4 Retail Center District LI – Light Industrial South RR – Right-of-Way CMU – Community Mixed Use RR – Right-of-Way B-2 General Business District RR – Right-of-Way COM – Commercial East City of Shoreview City of Shoreview City of Shoreview West I/O Light Industrial and Office B-3 Service Business District LI – Light Industrial 3. Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: COM – Commercial Existing Land Use: COM - Commercial City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 3 of 10 Zoning: B-3 Service Business District Lot Size: 4.04 Acres (Shannon Square & CUB = 9.07 Acres) Topography: Fairly Flat Plan Evaluation 1. Zoning Regulations A. Special Requirements for Drive-Up Windows in the B-3 District – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code states that drive-up windows in the B-3 Zoning District maintain a distance of 1,320 feet from one another unless the following conditions are met: 1. The operation consists of one or more drive-up windows and is an integral part of a building containing one or more other allowed uses, or the operation is part of an architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive- up windows 2. Shared access drives and shared parking are utilized by all such businesses using drive-up windows in said building or complex. 3. Only one building or architecturally unified complex containing two or more businesses using drive-up windows will be allowed in addition to one freestanding business using a drive-up window. 4. The architecture and the site, grading, circulation, landscaping, screening and signage plans shall unify the appearance and function of the complex or building. 5. An architecturally unified complex may consist of one or more buildings on one or more parcels if the intent of providing a unified appearance and function is not compromised. 6. The applicant shall submit a circulation plan that demonstrates that the use will not interfere or reduce the safety of non-motorized movements, specifically pedestrian and bicyclists. B. Additional Requirements for Drive-up Windows – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code also identifies additional minimum requirements for drive-up windows, and businesses in the City. Because the building and use is preexisting, many of the additional requirements do not apply to this case. 1. Location. The Zoning Code requires that the drive-up window not create an unreasonable traffic volume. In this case, the traffic volume is not anticipated to significantly increase as a result of the installation of a drive-thru. It is expected that the construction of the drive-thru will off-set the number of customers that will use the drive-thru versus customers going into the store to make a purchase. The site as a whole has ample space, with traffic circulation patterns in place to handle the traffic and parking demand. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 4 of 10 Furthermore, the Code requires a distance of at least 1,320 feet between drive-up windows. At the present time there are three drive-up windows within 1,320 feet of the subject property: Cub Foods Pharmacy, Walgreens Pharmacy, and Arby’s Restaurant. Criteria for waiving the minimum distance requirement are outlined above. 2. Site Development Standards. A. Electronic Devices. A speaker will be installed as part of the proposal to meet the Zoning Code requirement. The City’s Zoning Code requires a minimum distance of 50 feet from any adjacent lot. B. Snow Storage. The applicant has indicated that snow will be plowed to the perimeter of the parking area at the rear of the building and should not impact the new addition or drive-thru lane. C. Design. The proposed plan for the project indicates that the drive-up window addition would be constructed with masonry units to match the existing structure and that an awning would be constructed over the pick-up window. D. Access and Circulation. The Zoning Code requires at least two access points on the subject premises for drive-up windows. This requirement is met by the current configuration of the site. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is not anticipated to be negatively impacted by the proposed project. C. Landscaping – Meets Requirements The proposed plan indicates that landscaping on the site will increase by 2,178 square feet due to the construction of the center island and landscaping within former parking stalls along the drive-thru lane. The proposed amendment would involve an addition to the building onto what is currently an impervious surface. There will be no reduction in landscaping coverage with this amendment. D. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The B-3 Service Business District requires that no more than 40% of the lot be covered by structures. The proposed building foot print is 104,736 square feet (including the 36 square foot addition), while the two parcels in the development total 395,088 square feet. This results in approximately 26.5% of the lot being covered by structures. Zoning Code Existing Proposed Development Building Coverage 40% Maximum 26.5% 26.5% E. Lighting – Meets Requirements No additional outside lighting is proposed as part of this project. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 5 of 10 F. Additional Design standards to modifications in the B3 District The City has in place additional design standards for new development, redevelopment, and modifications to existing sites in the B3 District. Because the proposal includes minor modifications to the property’s exterior and parking lot, most of the City’s design standards do not apply. The proposed plan for the project indicates that the drive-up window addition would be constructed with masonry units to match the existing structure and that an awning would be constructed over the pick-up window. For further details on the proposed design and exterior materials see Attachment B. G. Off Street Parking Spaces – Meets Requirements Within the B-3 Service Business District the Zoning Code requires one (1) parking space for every 150 square feet of gross retail floor space. With approximately 70,000 square feet of retail space between Shannon Square Shoppes and Cub Foods, 467 parking spaces would be required. There are currently 510 parking spaces on site and if the proposed amendment is approved the number of stalls would be reduced to 494. The Shannon Square retail center has a shared parking agreement with the Cub Foods to the north, and both properties are owned and managed by Inland Shannon Square, LLC. Parking is not anticipated to be negatively impacted in this case because of the amount of remaining parking stalls within the development. H. Vehicle Stacking – Flexibility Requested The Zoning Code requires fifteen (15) vehicle stacking spaces for Fast Food Restaurants with customer pick-up windows. The plan indicates that twelve (12) vehicle stacking spaces are proposed within the drive-thru lane. It is not expected that the reduction in stacking spaces from fifteen (15) to twelve (12) will have any significant impact on the remaining parking area or vehicle circulation within the site. Zoning Code Proposed Development Vehicle Stacking 15 12 Zoning Code Existing Proposed Development Off Street Parking 467 510 494 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 6 of 10 I. Setbacks – Meets Requirements The minimum building setbacks in the B-3 Service Business District are fifty (50) feet in the front yard, twenty (20) feet in the rear yard, and twenty (20) feet minimum in a side yard. All setback requirements stated in the Zoning Code have been met by the proposed addition to the Caribou Coffee. Zoning Code Proposed Development Front Yard Setback 50 Feet 72 Feet Rear Yard Setback 20 Feet 20 Feet Side Yard Setback (North) 20 Feet 50 Feet Side Yard Setback (South) 20 Feet 143 Feet J. Wall Signage – Meets Requirements No additional wall signage is being requested as part of this application. The additional signage depicted within the Development Plan Set A1.1 is not being considered at this time. 2. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Criteria – Section 1355.04 Subd 3 Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists the criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit Amendment, which can also be used to evaluate PUD Amendments. The Planning Commission and City Council should consider the effect of the proposed use upon the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, in particular, and the community as a whole, in general, including but not limited to the following factors: 1. Existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions; 2. Noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics; 3. Drainage; 4. Population density; 5. Visual and land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land; adjoining land values; 6. Park dedications where applicable; and the 7. Orderly development of the neighborhood and the City within the general purpose and intent of this ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 7 of 10 4. Additional Review A. Building Official, City Engineer & Fire Marshal The Building Official, City Engineer, and Fire Marshal have reviewed the application and do not have any objections to the proposed project. All final plans will be subject to the Building Official and Fire Marshal’s approval prior to the issuance of any permits. The Fire Marshal indicated that the access width between the existing building and the landscaping island in the drive-thru lane is adequate for emergency response vehicles. He also noted that stacking of vehicles within the drive-thru lane should not create any issues as an alternate access to the service side of the building exists. B. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the plans for the proposed project and has determined that a RCWD Permit is required for this project. Approval from the RCWD is required before any building permits can be issued for this project. C. Ramsey County Public Works Ramsey County was notified and provided with a site of plans for the proposed project. No comments have been received from the County at this time. 5. Discussion At the City Council Work Session on March 16, 2015, the Council reviewed a concept plan for the drive-thru and pick-up window for Caribou Coffee. During this review the Council discussed the width of the drive-thru lane, stacking counts and timing, emergency vehicle access, distance of adjacent drive-thru businesses, and snow removal procedures. The minutes from the March 16th Work Session have been provided in Attachment D. The applicant has since modified the plans for the Caribou Coffee project in order to follow the Council’s direction. The parking island on the new plan has been adjusted to provide a driving lane that is a minimum of fifteen (15) feet in width to give vehicles additional space for maneuvering. Vehicle stacking counts have been increased on the plan to accommodate approximately 12 vehicles. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 8 of 10 Findings of Fact: The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following fifteen (15) findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The Caribou Coffee use is a conforming use in the B-3 Service Business District. 2. The addition of a drive-thru lane and pick-up window requires an amendment to the PUD. 3. The drive-up window would be located within 1,320 feet of three (3) other drive-up windows. 4. The proposal meets all requirements of the Zoning Code pertaining to drive-up windows, with the exception of the 1,320 foot separation requirement. 5. The Zoning Code specifies criteria for waiving the 1,320 feet separation requirement. 6. The proposal meets all criteria specified in the Zoning Code for waiving the 1,320 foot separation requirement. 7. No additional signage is being requested as part of the PUD Amendment. Conditional Use Permit Evaluation Findings: 8. The proposed project is not expected to negatively impact traffic flow or parking on the site because the modifications to the parking are minimal. It is expected that the removal of the parking spaces will be off-set with the number of customers that will use the drive- thru versus customers going into the store to make a purchase. Furthermore, the site as a whole has ample space, with traffic circulation patterns in place to handle the traffic and parking demand. 9. The proposed project will not produce any permanent noise, glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid or solid waste. 10. The proposed project will not affect drainage on the property. 11. The proposed project will not affect the population density on the property. 12. The proposed project and use are compatible with the other buildings and uses within the B-3 Zoning District. 13. The proposed project is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 14. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this application. 15. The proposed project does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 9 of 10 Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 15-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff recommends that the following seven (7) conditions be included with the approval: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall continue to abide by all previous agreements, as amended by the conditions of approval of this application. 3. That a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The PUD agreement shall be signed by the applicant and approved by Council prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. That a building permit, grading and erosion control permit, and RCWD permit shall be obtained for the proposed project. 5. That the building permit for the addition shall be issued by June 1, 2016, or an extension shall be requested at least 45 days preceding this deadline. 6. That the applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping (materials and installation) prior to the issuance of a building permit. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC -insured Minnesota bank. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that landscaping is completed in the event that the applicant defaults on the Conditional Use Permit Amendment Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 7. That no additional wall signage beyond what is permitted in the Zoning Code shall be permitted as part of this application. The additional signage depicted within the Development Plan Set A1.1 is not being considered at this time. Proposed Motion Language 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the seven (7) conditions in the May 6, 2015, report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15- 012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for May 6, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-012 - PUD Amendment - Caribou Coffee - Shannon Square\Memos_Reports_15-012 Page 10 of 10 window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the May 6, 2015, report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 15-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 15-012 for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for a drive-thru lane and pick-up window at 3673 Lexington Avenue North: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice A public hearing notice was mailed to properties within 500 feet of the subject property and published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin on April 22, 2015. Resident Comments Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regard to this planning case. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 6, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statue, the City is required to act on this request by June 4, 2015 (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. Application & Project Narrative B. Development Plan Set C. Aerial Site Map D. Minutes from City Council Work Session – March 16, 2015 CARIBOU COFFEE GEORGE'S SHOE & LEATHER REPAIR SUBWAY AVAILABLE GREAT CLIPS UPS STORE H&R BLOCK NAILS 3000 AR D E N HI L L S T A B A C C O BAJA SOL GRILL CLEAN N PRESS DAVANNI'S ALLSTATE GREEN GINGER GARDEN AVAILABLE Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N ISSUE/REVISIONS PR O J E C T # 1 5 1 9 2 . 0 8 A 04-06-2015 PUD AMENDMENT Ca r i b o u C o f f e e C o m p a n y , I n c . 39 0 0 L a k e b r e e z e A v e . N o r t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 2 9 A1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN SITE DATA 3717 LEXINGTON (CUB)3673 LEXINGTON TOTAL BUILDING AREA 68,442 SF 29,196 SF 97,638 SF EXISTING PARKING 315 195 510 PROPOSED PARKING 315 179 494 SCALE: 1 A1.0 SHANNON SQUARE SHOPPES SITE AND TENANT PLAN 1" = 30'ON 24x361" = 60'ON 11x17 NORTH INFORMATION FOR THIS PLAN WAS TAKEN FROM A SITE PLAN PREPARED BY SUPERVALUE FOR THEIR CUB FOODS DRIVE-THRU ADDITION, DATED 02-16-12 1 A1.1 A1.0 OVERALL SITE PLAN A1.1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1of1 PARTIAL BOUNDRY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY C1.1 SITE DEMOLITION PLAN C2.1 SITE PLAN C3.1 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN C8.1 DETAIL SHEET L1.1 LANDSCAPE PLAN SHEET INDEX PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL SIGN PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL SIGN Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N ISSUE/REVISIONS PR O J E C T # 1 5 1 9 2 . 0 8 A 04-06-2015 PUD AMENDMENT Ca r i b o u C o f f e e C o m p a n y , I n c . 39 0 0 L a k e b r e e z e A v e . N o r t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 2 9 SCALE: 5 A1.1 EXISTING ELEVATION - SOUTH 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x36 1/16" = 1'-0"ON 11x17 SCALE: 4 A1.1 EXISTING ELEVATION - EAST 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x36 1/16" = 1'-0"ON 11x17 SCALE: 3 A1.1 EXISTING ELEVATION - NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x36 1/16" = 1'-0"ON 11x17 SCALE: 8 A1.1 PROPOSED ELEVATION - SOUTH 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x361/16" = 1'-0"ON 11x17 DOWN SPOUT EXIT DOOR SCALE: 7 A1.1 PROPOSED ELEVATION - EAST 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x361/16" = 1'-0"ON 11x17 LIGHT FIXTURE ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE AWNING STROREFRONT TO MATCH EXISTING METAL CAP FLASHING TO MATCH EXISTING MASONRY TO MATCH EXISTING BOLLARD SCALE: 6 A1.1 PROPOSED ELEVATION - NORTH 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x361/16" = 1'-0"ON 11x17 6" 8' - 0 " 4' - 8 " 12 ' - 8 " CARIBOU COFFEE SUITE A SCALE: 1 A1.1 PROPOSED DEMOLITION PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x36 1/16" =1'-0"ON 11x17 REMOVE SIDEWALK REMOVE STOREFRONT AND WALL BELOW OPENING FOR EXIT DOOR 4 A1.1 5 A1.1 3 A1.1 CARIBOU COFFEE SUITE A SCALE: 2 A1.1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 1/8" = 1'-0"ON 24x36 1/16" =1'-0"ON 11x17 42" ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE CONCRETE SIEDWALK, CURB & GUTTER STOREFRONT PIPE BOLLARD MASONRY WALL TO MATCH EXISTING ALUMINUM DRIVE-THRU SLIDING WINDOW AWNING ABOVE PIPE BOLLARD LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA EXIT DOOR CONCRETE STOOP 3'-4" 10 ' - 8 " 7 A1.1 8 A1.1 6 A1.1 PROPOSED EXTERIOR FROM EAST EXISTING EXTERIOR FROM EAST A1.1 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN AND EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS AERIAL VIEW OF EXISTING SITE FROM THE NORTHEAST Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N 04-01-2015 Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Civil Engineering Land Surveying 7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (763) 424-5505 www.LoucksAssociates.com Jonathan J. Donovan - PE 44613 License No.Date --/--/-- I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. C1-1 DEMOLITION PLAN N Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. DEMOLITION SYMBOLS 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID DAMAGE TO ADJACENT SURFACE FEATURES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 2. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. 3. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 4. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURES IN, OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 6. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. SITE DEMOLITION GENERAL NOTES Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N 04-01-2015 Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Civil Engineering Land Surveying 7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (763) 424-5505 www.LoucksAssociates.com Jonathan J. Donovan - PE 44613 License No.Date --/--/-- I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. C2-1 SITE PLAN N Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. SITE PLAN GENERAL NOTES 1.AREA CALCULATIONS - SEE SHEET C2-2 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TOTAL SITE AREA:~395,088 SF EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA: 54,564 SF = 13.81% EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 340,524 SF = 86.19% PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA: 56,742 SF = 14.36% PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:338,346 SF = 85.64% *THIS PROJECT IS REDUCING IMPERVIOUS AREA. EXISTING BUILDING AREA:104,700 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION:36 SF EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE:26.50% PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE:26.50% EXISTING LANDSCAPE ISLANDS:9,439 SF = 2.39% PROPOSED LANDSCAPE: 9,988 SF = 2.52% 2. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER SHEET C8-1 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 3. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT. AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY (SIDEWALK, STREET OR DRIVEWAYS) 4. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. 5. ANY SIGN OR FIXTURES REMOVED WITH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR AS PART OF THE SITE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. CLEAR SITE DEBRIS PRIOR TO GRADING. ALL REMOVED MATERIAL SHALL BE HAULED FROM THE SITE DAILY. ALL CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVALS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS. EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY ESTABLISHED UPON REMOVAL. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ALL PERMITS FROM THE CITY AS REQUIRED FOR ALL WORK WITH THE STREET AND PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. 8.CONSTRUCTION NOTES: A. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL BE PROVIDED AT THE LOCATIONS SHOWN AND AS SHOWN PER THE LANDSCAPE SITE PLANS. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAW-CUT BITUMINOUS AND CONCRETE PAVEMENTS AS REQUIRED PER THE SPECIFICATIONS. REMOVE EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER AND INSTALL B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER. 9.SEE SHEETS C3-1 AND C4-1 FOR GRADING AND UTILITIES. SEE SHEET C8-1 FOR DETAILS. 50.0' BUILDING SETBACK Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N 04-01-2015 Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Civil Engineering Land Surveying 7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (763) 424-5505 www.LoucksAssociates.com Jonathan J. Donovan - PE 44613 License No.Date --/--/-- I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. C2-2 PERVIOUS/ IMPERVIOUS EXHIBIT AREA CALCULATIONS: PARCEL ID: 273023440013 SITE AREA: 5.03 ACRES ~ 219,106 SF PARCEL ID: 273023440015 SITE AREA:4.04 ACRES ~ 175,982 SF TOTAL SITE AREA:~395,088 SF EXISTING PERVIOUS AREA: 54,564 SF = 13.81% EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 340,524 SF = 86.19% PROPOSED PERVIOUS AREA: 56,742 SF = 14.36% PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:338,346 SF = 85.64% *NOTE: THIS PROJECT IS REDUCING IMPERVIOUS AREA. EXISTING BUILDING AREA:104,700 SF PROPOSED BUILDING ADDITION:36 SF EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE:26.50% PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE:26.50% EXISTING LANDSCAPE ISLANDS:9,439 SF = 2.39% PROPOSED LANDSCAPE: 9,988 SF = 2.52% PROPERTY INFORMATION: PARCEL BOUNDARY INFORMATION WAS GATHERED FROM THE RAMSEY COUNTY GIS ONLINE VIEWER CALLED MAPRAMSEY. THE PARCEL BOUNDARY SHP FILE WAS DOWNLOADED FROM THIS SITE AND IS DISPLAYED IN THIS EXHIBIT. THE AERIAL USED DISPLAYED IS FROM PICTOMETRY ONLINE AND WAS TAKEN ON 03/13/15. THE AREA CALCULATIONS WERE DETERMINED USING AUTOCAD CIVIL 3D AND THE RESULTS ARE DISPLAYED BELOW. THE AREA CALCULATION WERE DRAWN FROM THE AERIAL AND THE BOUNDARY. THESE CALCULATIONS ARE AN APPROXIMATION. LEGEND: IMPERVIOUS PERVIOUS PROJECT LOCATIONPARCEL BOUNDARY DRIVE AISLE AND LANDSCAPING NOT INCLUDED IN AREA CALCULATIONS AS IT IS SHOWN OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N 04-01-2015 Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Civil Engineering Land Surveying 7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (763) 424-5505 www.LoucksAssociates.com Jonathan J. Donovan - PE 44613 License No.Date --/--/-- I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. C3-1 GRADING DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN N Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL NOTES 1.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS, VESTIBULES, SLOPED PAVING, EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, ENTRY LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF DOWNSPOUTS. 2.ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS NOT IN PLANTING BEDS ARE TO RECEIVE MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES OF TOP SOIL AND SOD. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR UNTIL THE SOD IS GROWING IN A HEALTHY MANNER. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 4.THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. 5.IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 6.THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURES IN, OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. 7.EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET C-8 OF THE PROJECT PLANS. 8.ALL ENTRANCES AND CONNECTIONS TO CITY STREETS SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL PERMITS AND NOTIFICATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. 9.SEE UTILITY PLAN AND STORM SEWER PROFILES FOR FURTHER DETAIL REGARDING THE STORM SEWER. Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N 04-01-2015 Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Civil Engineering Land Surveying 7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (763) 424-5505 www.LoucksAssociates.com Jonathan J. Donovan - PE 44613 License No.Date --/--/-- I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. C8-1 CIVIL DETAILS 2" BIT. WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPWEA240B TACK COAT, MN/DOT 2357 2" BIT. NON-WEAR COURSE, MN/DOT 2360 SPNWB230B 6" AGG. BASE, CLASS 5 OR 2 MN/DOT 3138 SURFACE COMPACTION FINISHED GRADE DRAWN 1/2014 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2030STANDARD BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTION NOTE: PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION TO MATCH EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION. DRAWN 1/2014 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2034CONCRETE SIDEWALK SECTION 4" CONCRETE WALK MN/DOT 2521 4" GRANULAR MATERIAL MN/DOT 3149 DRAWN 12/2013 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3000 SILT FENCE PRE-ASSEMBLED OR MACHINE SLICED 6" 6" NOTES: 1.PLACE BOTTOM EDGE OF FENCE INTO 6 IN DEEP TRENCH AND BACKFILL IMMEDIATELY. 2.POSTS SHALL BE: x 6 FT MAX. SPACING. x 2 IN X 2IN HARDWOOD, OR STANDARD STEEL T-TYPE FENCE POSTS. x 5' MIN. LENGTH POSTS, DRIVEN 2 FT INTO THE GROUND. 3.ATTACH FABRIC TO WOOD POST WITH A MIN. OF 5, 1 INCH LONG STAPLES. 4.ATTACH FABRIC TO STEEL POST WITH A MIN. OF 3 ZIP TIES IN TOP 8 INCHES OF FABRIC. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER MNDOT 3886 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC PER MNDOT 3886 15' (MIN) SIGN 24"X36"X3/4" PLYWOOD PAINT PLYWOOD FACE WHITE WITH 4"MIN. STENCILED LETTERS PAINTED BLACK 8'TREATED 4"X4" POST CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA WASHOUT AREA MUST BE IMPERMEABLE. CONTRACTOR TO CONSTRUCT APPROPRIATE IMPERMEABLE CONTAINMENT SYSTEM & REMOVE/PUMP LIQUID ONCE THE LEVEL EXCEEDS TWO-THIRDS OF THE SURROUNDING BARRIER CONTRACTOR TO PLACE THE CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MIN. 8" DIA BIO LOGS MIN. 2FT HIGH SOIL BERM DRAWN 12/2013 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3005CONCRETE WASHOUT DRAWN 12/2013 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 3010INLET PROTECTION - EXISTING STORM STRUCTURES HIGH-FLOW FABRIC CURB DEFLECTOR PLATE OVERFLOW 1-CENTER OF FILTER ASSEMBLY OVERFLOW 2 - TOP OF CURB BOX POLYESTER SLEEVE MANHOLE COVER ASSEMBLY FILTER ASSEMBLY 27" 27" SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER 2'X3' SEDIMENT CONTROL BARRIER ROAD DRAIN HIGH-FLOW INLET PROTECTION CURB AND GUTTER MODEL WIMCO ROAD DRAIN, OR APPROVED EQUAL STANDARD GUTTER 8"A 6" 13.5" 1 2" RAD. 24"B624 B618 18" B612 12" CURB TYPE "A" MIN. OF 4" AGG. BASE UNDER CURB (IF TOTAL THICKNESS OF SECTION ALLOWS) 3/8 " LIP 3" RAD. 1 3 3" RAD. AGG. BASE VARIES PAVEMENT SECTION VARIES SEE PAVEMENT SECTION DETAIL SLOPE GUTTER TO MATCH PARKING LOT DRAINAGE (3/4" PER FT. TYP.) TIP GUTTER OUT AS REQ'D DRAWN 1/2014 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2009B6 STYLE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER MINIMUM 1' BEHIND BACK OF CURB 7" SPECIFICATION NOTES: 1.UPON COMPLETION, CURBING SHOULD BE SPRAYED WITH A MEMBRANE CURING COMPOUND PER MNDOT 3754. 2.EXPANSION JOINTS AT MAX. SPACING OF 200'. 3.CONSTRUCT IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT 2531. DRAWN 1/2014 LOUCKS PLATE NO. 2038BOLLARD 1/2" CROWN 1" CROWN 24" DIA. 2,500 PSI CONCRETE 6" DIP, CONC. FILLED, PAINTED OSHA YELLOW Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N 04-01-2015 Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Civil Engineering Land Surveying 7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (763) 424-5505 www.LoucksAssociates.com Jonathan J. Donovan - PE 44613 License No.Date --/--/-- I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN N Gopher State One Call WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 0.6 1.4 3.8 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.3 3.2 5.3 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.2 2.5 4.9 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.4 3.4 5.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.5 3.6 5.6 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.4 2.2 3.2 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.7 3.0 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.6 3.1 1.7 1.7 2.0 1.7 2.6 1.6 1.8 1.9 2.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.0 1.1 1.7 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.2 1.6 1.5 1.3 0.9 0.9 1.7 1.6 2.4 3.8 4.1 2.6 1.7 1.3 0.8 0.9 1.4 2.7 4.7 2.4 4.5 7.1 7.7 5.0 2.9 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.4 3.0 5.0 2.5 5.7 8.6 8.8 6.5 3.1 1.5 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.6 4.0 6.0 2.1 4.6 8.7 9.2 5.5 2.5 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.4 2.7 3.6 2.2 4.8 8.9 9.5 5.8 2.7 1.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.8 2.5 5.6 8.7 8.7 6.6 3.1 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 2.4 4.4 6.9 7.6 5.0 2.8 1.6 1.0 0.9 1.5 2.3 3.7 4.1 2.6 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.8 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 Lot 1 Bloc k 1 SHA N N O N S Q U A R E Le x i n g t o n A v e n u e 64 . 0 Caribou Store #1140 3673 Lexington Ave North Pr o p o s e d R e m o d e l i n g F o r : Ca r i b o u C o f f e e Sh a n n o n S q u a r e S h o p p e s 36 7 3 L e x i n g t o n A v e N o r t h , S u i t e A Ar d e n H i l l s , M N 04-01-2015 Landscape Architecture Environmental Planning Civil Engineering Land Surveying 7200 Hemlock Lane - Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Telephone: (763) 424-5505 www.LoucksAssociates.com Jonathan J. Donovan - PE 44613 License No.Date --/--/-- I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. LI PHOTOMETRICS PLANN Luminaire Schedule Symbol Qty Label Arrangement Total Lamp Lumens LLF Description 1 AA BACK-BACK 40000 0.680 Existing Twin Metal Halide Shoebox on 25ft Pole 2 AA-1 SINGLE 40000 0.680 Existing Single Metal Halide Shoebox on 25ft Pole 1 L-EM1 SINGLE N.A.0.900 Lithonia #WSR LED 1 10 A 700-40K SR3 4 W SINGLE 5800 0.500 Huberton Forge #305894 Wall Sconce Calculation Summary Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min Parking & Drive Through Surface_Illuminance Fc 2.21 9.5 0.2 11.05 47.50 Calculations by: Charlie Leavitt, LC, MIES Lighting Fundamentals, LLC PO Box 50827 Mendota, MN 55150-0877 LITHONIA WSR LED WALL SCONCE HUBERTON FORGE WALL SCONCE 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. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 200.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet200.00100.00 Notes Enter Map Description Legend City Halls Schools Hospitals Fire Stations Police Stations Recreational Centers Parcel Points Parcel Boundaries Lakes - Neighboring Counties Airports Approved: April 27, 2015 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 16, 2015 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council work session at 5:03 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Fran Holmes, Dave McClung and Robert Woodburn Absent: Councilmember Brenda Holden (excused) Also present: City Administrator Patrick Klaers; Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; Planning Commissioner Andy Holewa; Planning Commissioner Clayton Zimmerman; and Planning Chair Roberta Thompson Mayor Grant requested Item B be discussed prior to Item A. 1. AGENDA ITEMS B. Planning Case 15-005 Concept Review Caribou Coffee Drive-Thru City Planner Streff explained that the property is located at 3673 Lexington Avenue North within the Shannon Square Shoppes. The site is positioned north of the railroad tracks owned by Canadian Pacific, south of Cub Foods, east of the Transwestern property occupied by Taylor Corporation, and west of Lexington Avenue North. Other tenants within the retail center include Subway, H&R Block, Great Clips, and UPS. City Planner Streff indicated that Caribou Coffee Company is proposing to create a drive-thru and pickup window along the eastern side of their building which fronts Lexington Avenue North. The purpose of the drive-thru addition is to improve the overall customer experience, accommodate different types of customers, and stay competitive within the market. This addition would allow customers to come and go more quickly from the site without having to always enter the store to make a purchase. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 16, 2015 2 City Planner Streff stated that the creation of the drive-thru will involve the reconfiguration of the parking lot in order to accommodate the drive-thru lane and the stacking of vehicles in this area. Eleven (11) parking spaces would be eliminated from the site to accommodate the stacking of approximately nine (9) vehicles in the drive-thru lane. City Planner Streff reported that in addition to the drive-thru window location on the outside façade of the building, the plan also includes the installation of a menu board and speaker for placing customer orders. As depicted on the site plan, a new landscaping island would be installed along with additional landscaping within former parking stall areas not utilized by the driving lane. A new sidewalk connection and curbing would be provided along the southern portion of the drive-thru area. City Planner Streff reviewed the zoning code requirements associated with this proposal. Jerry Roper, Caribou Coffee Corporate, introduced himself to the Council and discussed the proposed drive-thru. He explained that the cities of Eagan and Apple Valley have been approached to add a drive-thru as well. He noted that he has spoken to the landlord and hoped that the City would be supportive. He believed that the shoe repair tenant might be relocating his business to another location within Shannon Square. He then discussed the plan for the Arden Hills site and reported that the food offerings at Caribou may be expanded. Paul Meyer, Paul Meyer Architects, explained that Caribou was pursuing a drive-thru at this location due to the fact that it has an end cap location. He commented that the drive-thru would offer a great convenience to its customers. Councilmember Holmes believed that the site was too small to accommodate a drive-thru. She questioned if there would be more room for vehicle stacking if the triangle portion of landscaping were removed. Mr. Roper stated that enlarging the drive-thru area would also mean the loss of additional parking, which may be a concern to the City. He reported that the proposed drive-thru was pretty typical compared to other locations. Mayor Grant questioned if there was enough stacking space available to allow for the timely delivery of orders. Mr. Roper believed that the proposed plan would allow for a five car stack and noted that this would allow for the timely delivery of orders. Planning Chair Thompson asked if the new food offerings would cause delays in order delivery. Mr. Roper did not anticipate that this would be a concern and noted that customers with large orders may be asked to pull ahead to allow for other orders to be filled. Once the large orders were ready, Caribou staff would walk them to the car. Mayor Grant believed that the plan was visually pleasing. He understood that drive-thrus were becoming increasingly popular and that the City may need to reevaluate its Code language. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 16, 2015 3 Councilmember Woodburn stated that he understood that Caribou was providing a service to the public and that Caribou knows what is best for its customers. He supported the request. Councilmember McClung believed that the drive-thru was extremely tight and he had concern with how emergency vehicles would access the site. He agreed that the City Code language regarding drive-thrus should be reevaluated. He commented that he was neutral on the request at this time. Councilmember Holmes supported the drive-thru request and noted that Caribou knew their business. Her only concern was with the landscaping triangle as she thought it should be removed to allow easier turning movements within the drive-thru. Mr. Meyer commented that the landscaping island offered a pedestrian connection that may be able to be shifted. He stated that it would make more sense to align this with the sidewalk along the front of the retail center. Mayor Grant encouraged Caribou to consider this option along with where snow would be stored in the winter months given the fact that the space was tight. Mr. Meyer thanked the Council for their input. Page 1 of 2 DATE: May 26, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Preliminary Approval of TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) Requested Action The City Council is requested to take the following actions on the TCAAP Redevelopment Code: 1. Preliminary approval of TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) pending public hearings and Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. Authorize staff to prepare draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3. Authorize staff to prepare for Public Hearings Preliminary approval will allow staff and consultants to move forward with preparation of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) and to publish notice for public hearings on the TRC and CPA tentatively scheduled for July 8, 2015 at the regular Planning Commission meeting. The City Council will consider any comments provided at the Public Hearings prior to authorizing submittal of the CPA for adjacent jurisdiction and Metropolitan Council review. The City Council will make final approval of the TRC and C PA following Metropolitan Council review. This is expected to occur in late Fall 2015. Discussion In November 2012, the City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Ramsey County. As part of the JPA, the City agreed to complete a TCAAP Master Plan and an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The AUAR was approved by the City Council in July 2014. The City Council approved the Master Plan land use map in June 2014 and has been working on the regulations and policies component of the Master Plan (the “TRC”) since August 2014. UNFINISHED BUSINESS – 9A MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 The City Council has completed its work on the TRC and would like the community to have ample time to review the document prior to Public Hearings tentatively scheduled for July 8, 2015. Preliminary approval on May 26, 2015 will allow staff to prepare for the Public Hearings and to draft the CPA as required by Minnesota Statutes. A presentation on the planning process, key elements of the TRC, and the tentative approval and construction schedule will be provided on May 26. The draft TRC is posted on the City’s website with a link from the home page to allow convenient public review of the document. Attachment Presentation, TCAAP Redevelopment Code, May 26, 2015 Redlined Draft TRC, May 26, 2015 Clean Draft TRC, May 26, 2015 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Requested Council Action: 1.Preliminary approval of TCAAP Redevelopment Code pending public hearings and Met Council approval 2.Authorize staff to prepare draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3.Authorize staff to prepare for Public Hearings 1 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Major Milestones Nov 2012 Joint Powers Agreement signed by City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County. Apr 2013 Ramsey County purchases 427 acres from federal government. Remediation begins. May 2013 City hires Kimley-Horn to assist with AUAR, Master Plan, and Regulations & Policies. July 2013 Developer Panel and Stakeholder Engagement Workshop Sept 2013 TCAAP Open House – Solicitation of Community Preferences Jan 2014 TCAAP Open House – Presentation of Draft Master Plan June 2014 City Council approves Master Plan Land Use Map. July 2014 City Council approves Final AUAR and Mitigation Plan. Aug 2014 City Council begins work on TCAAP Redevelopment Code. 2 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Public Meeting Comments What people like about Arden Hills: •Unique, defined neighborhoods •Abundant parks and open space •Trail system 3 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Public Meeting Comments What people would like to see at TCAAP: •Walkability •Convenient retail and entertainment •Mix of housing products 4 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Developer Comments •Lot sizes are getting smaller •Single-family market is strong •Empty-nester market is strong •Amenities are important for both residential and office development 5 TCAAP Redevelopment Code 6 Land Use Plan June 2014 Regulating Plan May 2015 TCAAP Redevelopment Code 7 Campus Commercial Supports range of commercial uses within a business park setting. Neighborhood 1 •Single-Family Residential •Density up to 2.5 units/acre Creek Neighborhood Neighborhood 2 •Single-Family Residential •Density 2.5 - 4 units/acre Neighborhood 3 •Single-Family Residential •Density 4 - 8 units/acre TCAAP Redevelopment Code 8 Neighborhood Transition •Small & Medium Multi- Family Residential •Density 8 - 15 units/acre Retail Mixed-Use Retail-focused commercial zone Office Mixed-Use Office-focused commercial zone Town Center District •Large Multi-Family Residential •Density up to 45 units/acre TCAAP Redevelopment Code 9 Hill Neighborhood Flex Office District Supports office, manufacturing, and research & development uses Retail Mixed-Use Neighborhood 4 •Small Multi-Family Residential •Density 4 - 8 units/acre Neighborhood 2 •Single-Family Residential •Density 2.5 - 4 units/acre Neighborhood 3 •Single-Family Residential •Density 4 - 8 units/acre Neighborhood 3 •Single-Family Residential •Density 4 - 8 units/acre TCAAP Redevelopment Code 10 Maximum Density Land Use Plan May 26, 2015 Zone Maximum Gross Density Acreage Maximum Units NB-1 2.5 11.5 29 NB-2 4 23.3 93 NB-3 8 4.7 38 Subtotal 39.5 160 NB-2 4 30.0 120 NB-3 8 16.1 129 NB-4 8 16.1 129 Subtotal 62.2 378 NB-3 8 15.0 120 NT 15 24.6 369 TC 45 10.0 450 Subtotal 49.6 939 Total 151.3 1476 Creek Hill Town Center TCAAP Redevelopment Code 11 Pedestrian-friendly Scale and Design •Buildings close to street along pedestrian corridors •Parking and service areas screened •Shaded sidewalks on every street TCAAP Redevelopment Code Landscaping and Open Space •10 – 40% permeable area •Single-family landscaping requirements •Private common open space •Private personal open space 12 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Building Design •High-quality exterior finishes •Abundant windows on commercial buildings •Façade variation including architectural treatments, materials, and color 13 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Gateway Design Enhancements •Architectural features •Gateway monuments •Additional landscaping 14 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Next Steps •Infrastructure Design •Spine Road •County Road H interchange •Natural resources corridor 15 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Next Steps •Comprehensive Plan Amendment •Required by State Law •Approved by the Metropolitan Council •120-day review period 16 TCAAP Redevelopment Code 17 Approval Schedule May 26 Preliminary Council approval of TRC June 3 Planning Commission discussion of CPA June 8 & 15 City Council discussion of CPA July 8 Public Hearings at Planning Commission meeting July 13 City Council authorization of CPA submittal to Met Council Nov 2015 Final approval of CPA and TRC TCAAP Redevelopment Code Construction Schedule 2015 Demolition and remediation complete 2016 Construction of Spine Road and trunk utilities 2017 Private development begins 18 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Public Hearings are tentatively scheduled for the Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Planning Commission meeting. The draft TRC is posted on the City’s website with a link from the home page. 19 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Requested Council Action: 1.Preliminary approval of TCAAP Redevelopment Code pending public hearings and Met Council approval 2.Authorize staff to prepare draft Comprehensive Plan Amendment 3.Authorize staff to prepare for Public Hearings 20 May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 77 • stoops, • eaves, or • balconies (ii) Attached townhome facades shall have variation in architectural features and paint/siding between adjacent units. Variations of architectural features may include one of the following: • porches, • stoops, • eaves, • windows or doorway treatments or framing, or • other architectural features acceptable as variation by community development staff. (iii) Windows and Doors: All building facades of single-family use buildings shall meet the transparency requirements established in Table 7-2. (iv) In a detached single-family development, along each block face a minimum of five (5) façade designs or styles shall be required. and no No home shall have the same design, or style, or paint/siding as the homes immediately adjacent or across the street. The following design standards shall be met: 1. Roofing materials visible from any public right-of-way shall vary materials in each design. 2. Variation to façade designs or styles shall be required through changes to size and location of windows, doorways, or changes in eave lines and massing. 3. In an effort to decrease monotony of design, changing the paint color or material type will not be considered a different design or style. (v) Single Family and Small Multi-Family buildings shall not have more than three materials used on the exterior of the structure. Of the three materials a primary material shall be used for a minimum of 60 percent of facades facing a public street. Primary materials shall be one of the following: 1. Masonry (brick, stone, cast stone, or other durable masonry material; any masonry product shall be mortared in place) 2. Cementitious fiber clapboard with a minimum 50-year warranty 3. Wood, or 4. Other durable material approved by the JDA (vi) Secondary materials may be used up to 40 percent of facades facing a public street. Secondary materials shall be one of the following: 1. A primary building material, or 2. Architectural metal with matte finish, or 3. Stucco utilizing a 3-step process of application. (c) A recommended palette for exterior building colors is included in Attachment 6. Fluorescent colors are prohibited. The colors of roofs, trim and siding, and accents shall work together to create a unified whole. (i) Accent colors shall be used on no more than 10% of any façade. No large expanses such as panels shall be painted in accent colors. May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 80 7.6 Gateway Overlay District: Given the visual importance of certain entrances and gateways to the site, advanced architectural elements or landscaping features are required to be provided for properties within the Gateway Overlay District as identified on the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1). (a) Properties within the Town Center, Retail Mixed-Use, or Office Mixed-Use Districts shall meet the following standards for the Gateway Overlay District: (i) Corner buildings located at a street intersection must incorporate a distinctive architectural feature as part of the building, such as a tower, cupola, turret, or rotunda feature as part of the building (see Section 6.1(b)(ii) for specifications and restrictions). (ii) Principal building structures shall have a minimum of 75 percent of the required primary building materials listed in Section 7.4(a)(i). (iii) Commercial developments greater than 10 acres in size shall provide a prominent gateway monument at the entrance to the development with integrated landscaping. (b) Properties within the Flex Office or Neighborhood Transition Districts shall meet the following standards for the Gateway Overlay District: (i) A landscaped buffer with a minimum width of 20’ shall be provided along all frontages on public streets. (ii) Landscaped buffers shall include a diversity of landscaping materials, including shade, evergreen, and/or ornamental trees, shrubs, and annual and perennial plants. Landscaping shall be a minimum of 50 percent opaque at maturity. 7.7 Design of Automobile Related Building and Site Elements (a) Where permitted under Section 5 of this Code, drive-through lanes, auto service bays, and gas station canopies for commercial uses shall not be located with frontage along any Pedestrian Priority Frontage. Drive-through lanes may be permitted along Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road frontages only if the property has no General or Alley frontage. Drive-through lanes, auto service bays, and gas station canopies shall be hidden behind a 3 feet high Street Screen along both Pedestrian-Friendly and General frontages (see illustrations below). The Street Screen shall be made up of (i) a living screen or (ii) a combination living and primary building material screen (See Section 10.4 for details). (b) No more than 60% of a lot’s frontage along a Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road frontage may be dedicated to drive through lanes, canopies, service bays, and other auto-related site elements. There shall be no such limitation along General or Alley frontages and along highway frontage roads. May 26, 2015 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 1 TCAAP Redevelopment Code May 2015 May 26, 2015 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose and Intent 1.2 Relationship to Adopted Plans 2.0 Components of the Code 2.1 The Regulating Plan 2.2 Development Standards 2.3 Using this Code 3.0 Administration 3.1 Applicability 3.2 Relationship to Other City Ordinances 3.3 Development Review Process 3.4 Special Development Plan 3.5 TCAAP Regulating Plan Map and TCAAP Master Plan Modifications 3.6 Plat Approval 3.7 Hearing requirements 4.0 Definitions 5.0 Schedule of Uses 5.1 Applicability 5.2 Additional Use Criteria 6.0 Building and Site Development Standards 6.1 General to All Zoning Districts 6.2 Campus Commercial 6.3 Town Center 6.4 Office Mixed Use 6.5 Retail Mixed Use 6.6 Flex Office 6.7 Neighborhood Transition 6.8 Neighborhood 7.0 Building Design Standards 7.1 Purpose and Intent 7.2 Building Orientation and Entrances 7.3 Façade Composition 7.4 Non-Residential, Mixed-Use, and Large and Medium Multi-Family Residential Building Materials 7.5 Shading Requirement 7.6 Gateway Overlay District 7.7 Design of Automobile Related Building and Site Elements 7.8 Design of Parking Structures 8.0 Street Design Standards 8.1 Purpose and Intent 8.2 Street Designation Categories 8.3 Project Circulation Plan 8.4 Street Standards May 26, 2015 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 3 9.0 Open Space Standards 9.1 Open Space Approach 9.2 Required Open Space Designations 9.3 Water Infrastructure Designation 9.4 Permeable Area Requirements 9.5 Open Space Classification 9.6 Open Space Requirements 10.0 Streetscape and Landscape Standards 10.1 Sidewalks 10.2 Street Trees and Streetscape 10.3 Single-Family Landscaping and Tree Requirements 10.4 Screening Standards 10.5 Street Lighting 10.6 Exterior Lighting 10.7 Street Furniture 10.8 Utilities 10.9 Parking Lot Landscaping 11.0 Sign Standards 11.1 Applicability 11.2 Prohibited Signs 11.3 Sign Types Permitted 11.4 Sign Standards Attachments: 1: Regulating Plan 2: Palette of Open Space Types 3: Development Review Chart 4: Street Cross Sections 5: Street Type Plan 6: Recommended Color Palette 7: Audubon Minnesota Bird-Safe Building Guidelines May 26, 2015 Section 1: Introduction TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 4 Introduction In 2013, the City of Arden Hills hired the consultant team to create a Master Plan for the Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site, to conduct an Alternative Urban Area Wide Review (AUAR), and to draft local regulations and policies to implement the Master Plan. The Master Plan will amend the City of Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan in an effort to successfully integrate the TCAAP site into the rest of the City. This plan will also help ensure that appropriate development and economic growth occurs and is in line with the vision set forth by the City of Arden Hills and the owner of the property, Ramsey County. It is the goal of this project to “Develop TCAAP in a way that accommodates a mix of land uses that is sensitive to the natural environment, economically sustainable, and a benefit to the community” (Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan, 4). This initiative will be economically and environmentally sustainable and provide for a range of uses and development types. A comprehensive community process resulted in a long-term vision for the redevelopment of this brownfield ammunitions plant site into a true mixed-use development area that incorporates regional employment, shopping and dining and a variety of housing options. This document provides the regulatory tools for redevelopment consistent with the TCAAP Master Plan for this area. 1.1 Purpose and Intent The purpose of the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) is to implement the vision for a walkable, mixed-use, resilient, and vibrant TCAAP development (hereinafter, “Plan Area”) by: (a) Creating regulations that realize market potential and promote the creation of jobs and economic development; (b) Developing a regulatory process that encourages quality growth and saves time in development process; (c) Focusing on predictability for both developers and the community; and (d) Providing a Natural Resources Corridor that offers active and passive recreational features and is an amenity to the site. Therefore, the goals of the TRC are to promote and to provide a more functional and attractive community through the use of recognized community design principles and to allow property owners, applicants or developers flexibility in land use, while prescribing a higher level of detail in building design and form than in the current standards of the Arden Hills City Code (AHC). The standards in this code are not intended to stifle creativity nor over- regulate building design but rather encourage better functional building patterns and to create higher quality pedestrian environments along most streets. 1.2 Relationship to Adopted Plans (a) Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan: In addition to implementing several goals of the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan, the TRC specifically implements the following goals: 1. Develop and maintain a land use pattern that strengthens the vitality, quality, and character of the residential neighborhoods, commercial districts and industrial areas, while protecting the community’s natural resources to develop a sustainable pattern for future development. May 26, 2015 Section 1: Introduction TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 5 2. Develop TCAAP in a way that accommodates a mix of land uses that is sensitive to the natural environment, economically sustainable and a benefit to the community. 3. Promote the development, redevelopment and maintenance of a viable, innovative and diverse business environment that serves Arden Hills and the metropolitan area. 4. Develop and maintain a strong, vital, diverse and stable housing supply for all members of the community. 5. Enhance the health, safety and well-being of all who live, work and play in the City. 6. Create a comprehensive, maintained and interconnected system of parks, pathways and open spaces, as well as a balanced program of recreational activities for residents of all ages, incomes and abilities. 7. Preserve, protect and restore the community’s natural resources, including open spaces, lakes, wetlands other significant natural features, and historic resources. May 26, 2015 Section 2: Components of the Code TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 6 2.0 Components of the Code 2.1 The Regulating Plan The TCAAP Redevelopment Regulating Plan map (herein known as the Regulating Plan) (Attachment 1) is hereby adopted as the official zoning map for the Plan Area. Within any area subject to the approved Regulating Plan, this TRC becomes the exclusive and mandatory regulation unless specified in Section 3.2. It shall establish the following development standards for all properties within the Plan Area: (a) Establishment of TCAAP Zoning Districts – The Plan Area is distinguished into different specialized zoning districts. Each zoning district is intended to create a distinct development pattern based on the TCAAP Master Plan for different sections within the Plan Area. Each zoning district shall establish use and building development standards including standards for building height, bulk, location, functional design and parking. The Regulating Plan classifies all lots within the Plan Area into one of the following seven (7) zoning districts: 1) Campus Commercial (CC) – The Campus Commercial Zoning District facilitates a building format that allows multiple, single tenant buildings or campuses within the northern “Thumb” site of the Plan Area. The goal is to allow for an individual plan approach for each campus or building, based on user preferences within a range of requirements. 2) Town Center (TC) – The Town Center Zoning District creates a vibrant commercial and residential environment that maximizes the potential for an outdoor experience. This district promotes walkability through allowing for housing, office, retail, restaurant, and civic uses all within close proximity of each other. 3) Office Mixed-Use (OMU) – The Office Mixed-Use Zoning District creates a flexible zone that allows and promotes a seamless transition from Retail Mixed- Use but focuses on employment and other compatible uses. This district promotes employment as a primary use, but allows for other commercial uses to be incorporated as vertical mixed-use buildings. 4) Retail Mixed Use (RMU) – The Retail Mixed-Use Zoning District creates a flexible zone that allows and promotes a seamless transition from Office Mixed-Use but focuses on retail and compatible uses. This district promotes retail as a primary use and allows for other commercial uses to be incorporated as vertical mixed-use buildings. 5) Flex Office (FO) – The Flex Office Zoning District creates an opportunity for large scale development for employment and manufacturing uses that take advantage of the highway frontage and automobile access. 6) Neighborhood Transition (NT) – The Neighborhood Transition Zoning District provides for a range of residential (live-work, single family, and small and medium multi-family) transitions between the active retail and employment mixed- use districts and adjoining single-family neighborhoods. Development standards in this district emphasize smaller scale residential uses and establish building transition standards to adjoining neighborhoods. 7) Neighborhood (NB) – The Neighborhood Zoning District provides for a range of attached and detached single-family residential uses. (b) Street Designations – The Streets within TRC shall be classified in two different ways. 1) Street Cross Sections shall address vehicular lane widths, number of lanes, pedestrian accommodation, street tree requirements, on-street parking, snow May 26, 2015 Section 2: Components of the Code TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 7 storage and parkway and median standards. These standards are laid out in Section 8.0 and Attachment 4. 2) Street Priority shall establish the phasing significance (Required or Recommended) of different street segments within the Plan Area. Refer to Section 8.0: Street Design Standards and Attachment 5 for the detailed regulations. (c) Building Frontage Standards – Building Frontage designations shall classify different block frontages based on the pedestrian priority goals of the TCAAP Master Plan on the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1). They shall be classified into one of three frontage designations: (i) Pedestrian Priority Frontage with the highest quality standards for pedestrian-oriented building design; (ii) Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage that balances pedestrian-oriented building design standards while accommodating some service and parking functions; and (iii) General Frontage which mainly accommodates service, utilities and parking functions. (d) Open Space Designation – Open Space within the TRC shall be categorized as Required Open Space. The detailed Open Space Standards for different open space types are included in Section 9.0 and Attachment 2 of this Code. These standards include general character, typical size, frontage requirements and typical uses. (e) Gateway Overlay Designation – The Gateway Overlay District indicates where additional aesthetic treatments are required to create a welcoming environment that establishes the character of the TCAAP Redevelopment Area. The specific standards are included in Section 7.6 of this Code. 2.2 Development Standards: The TRC text portion of this Code enumerates the development standards with text and graphics for Zoning Districts, Frontage Types, building form, landscape, building design, signage and lighting. 2.3 Using This Code The following basic steps should be followed to determine the uses and development standards applicable on property within the Plan Area: (a) Review Table 3-1 to evaluate the applicability of the TRC based on scope of the proposed development. (b) Locate the subject property on the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1). (c) Identify the Zoning District in which the property is located. (d) Review the Schedule of Uses by Zoning District as listed in Table 5-1 to determine allowed uses. (e) Examine the corresponding zone standards in the Building and Site Development Standards in Section 6 to determine the applicable development standards and any Frontage standards. (f) Refer to Section 7.0 for Building Design Standards The information listed in these graphics explain where the building will sit on the lot, the limits on its physical form, the range of uses and the palette of materials that will cover it. May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 8 3.0 Administration 3.1 Applicability (a) The uses and buildings on all properties within the Plan Area shall conform exclusively to the requirements of the TRC unless specifically referenced as otherwise in this TRC. (b) Table 3-1 (Applicability Matrix) shall determine the extent to which different sections of the TRC apply to any proposed development. (c) In addition, Table 3-2 shall determine which sections of the TRC apply at which time in the development review process such as Subdivision Review, Site Plan Review or Building Permit Review. (d) Provisions of the TRC are activated by “shall” when required; “should” or “may” when recommended or optional. (e) Terms used throughout the TRC are defined in Section 4.0: Definitions. For those terms not defined in Section 4.0, definitions in various sections of the AHC shall apply. For terms not defined in either section, they shall be accorded commonly accepted meanings. In the event of conflict, the definitions of the TRC shall take precedence. (f) Where in conflict, numerical metrics shall take precedence over graphic metrics. 3.2 Relationship to other City Ordinances (a) For all properties within the Plan Area, the standards in this Code shall supersede standards under: i. Commercial and Multi-Family Design Standards under Chapter 13, of the AHC, as amended, except as specifically referenced herein. ii. Sign Standards under Chapter 12, as amended, except as specifically referenced herein. iii. Landscaping Standards under Chapter 13, as amended, except as specifically referenced herein. iv. Subdivision Ordinance under Chapter 11, as amended, except as specifically referenced herein. (b) Development standards not addressed in this TRC shall be governed by the AHC, to the extent the AHC standards are not in conflict with the TRC. May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 9 Table 3-1: Applicability Matrix Legend = Section of the Code Applies Blank denotes Standards in this Section of the Code does not apply Co d e Se c t i o n Se c t i o n 5. 0 : S c h e d u l e o f U s e s Se c t i o n 6 .0 : Bu i l d i n g a n d S i t e De v e l o p m e n t St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 7 .0 : B u i l d i n g D e s i g n St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 8 .0 : S t r e e t D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 9 .0 : O p e n S p a c e S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 0 .0 St r e e t s c a p e a n d La n d s c a p e St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 1. 0 : S i g n S t a n d a r d s Bu i l d -to z o n e s a n d se t b a c k s Bu i l d i n g F r o n t a g e Bu i l d i n g H e i g h t Pa r k i n g a n d Se r v i c e A c c e s s Si d e w a l k , St r e e t Tr e e s a n d St r e e t s c a p e St r e e t S c r e e n a n d Pa r k i n g L o t La n d s c a p i n g St r e e t L i g h t i n g a n d Fu r n i t u r e Ut i l i t i e s Type of Development 1) Commercial (retail, office, restaurant), lodging, mixed use building, apartment/multi-family building (3 or more units per lot), and live-work units (more than one of the following may apply to one application based on the scope of the application) a. New Construction All Sections of the TRC apply b. Existing Building Remodel: Existing non-complying structures or sites may be repaired, maintained or altered provided that such repair, maintenance, or alteration shall not create any new non-compliance of all or any part of such structure or site. i. Change of Use/Expansion of Existing Use (without expansion of conditioned building area) (to a permitted or conditional use in the designated Zoning District) ii. Expansion of Existing Buildings (regardless of size of expansion): Structures or sites may be enlarged or expanded provided that such enlargement shall not create any new non-compliance of all or any part of such structure or site. The TRC applicable sections shall apply only to proposed building expansions. c. Expansion of parking area only (with or without a building or use expansion) (includes off-site or accessory parking) i. Up to 10 spaces ii. 11 or more additional spaces d. Existing Signage i. Refacing or changing a panel on an existing sign May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 10 Legend = Section of the Code Applies Blank denotes Standards in this Section of the Code does not apply Co d e Se c t i o n Se c t i o n 5. 0 : S c h e d u l e o f U s e s Se c t i o n 6 .0 : Bu i l d i n g a n d S i t e De v e l o p m e n t St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 7 .0 : B u i l d i n g D e s i g n St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 8 .0 : S t r e e t D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 9 .0 : O p e n S p a c e S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 0 .0 St r e e t s c a p e a n d La n d s c a p e St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 1. 0 : S i g n S t a n d a r d s Bu i l d -to z o n e s a n d se t b a c k s Bu i l d i n g F r o n t a g e Bu i l d i n g H e i g h t Pa r k i n g a n d Se r v i c e A c c e s s Si d e w a l k , St r e e t Tr e e s a n d St r e e t s c a p e St r e e t S c r e e n a n d Pa r k i n g L o t La n d s c a p i n g St r e e t L i g h t i n g a n d Fu r n i t u r e Ut i l i t i e s Type of Development Table 3-1 Continued ii. Signs may be repaired, maintained, altered, or replaced as allowed by state law (M.S. 462.357, Subd. 1e) provided that such repair, maintenance, alteration, or replacement shall not create any new non-compliance, or expansion of any existing nonconformity, of all or any part of such a sign. (applies during sign permit review only) f. New sign or expansion of an existing sign (applies during sign permit review only) 2. Residential Buildings (single family detached, single-family attached, twin home buildings; (1 – 2 units) a. New construction b. Change of Use (to a permitted or conditional use in the designated Zoning District) c. Existing Building Remodels: Structures or sites may be repaired, maintained or altered provided that such repair, maintenance, or alteration shall not create any new non-compliance of all or any part of such structure or site. May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 11 Legend = Section of the Code Applies Blank denotes Standards in this Section of the Code does not apply Co d e Se c t i o n Se c t i o n 5. 0 : S c h e d u l e o f U s e s Se c t i o n 6 .0 : Bu i l d i n g a n d S i t e De v e l o p m e n t St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 7 .0 : B u i l d i n g D e s i g n St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 8 .0 : S t r e e t D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 9 .0 : O p e n S p a c e S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 0 .0 St r e e t s c a p e a n d La n d s c a p e St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 1. 0 : S i g n S t a n d a r d s Bu i l d -to z o n e s a n d se t b a c k s Bu i l d i n g F r o n t a g e Bu i l d i n g H e i g h t Pa r k i n g a n d Se r v i c e A c c e s s Si d e w a l k , St r e e t Tr e e s a n d St r e e t s c a p e St r e e t S c r e e n a n d Pa r k i n g L o t La n d s c a p i n g St r e e t L i g h t i n g a n d Fu r n i t u r e Ut i l i t i e s Type of Development Table 3-1 Continued d. Expansion of existing use/structure (building additions and new accessory building/structure on the lot): Structures or sites may be enlarged provided that such enlargement shall not create any new non-compliance of all or any part of such structure or site. Standards in the TRC applicable sections shall apply only to the building expansions. It shall allow addition of non- conditioned space such as patios, porches, arcades, canopies, private open space, recreational amenities and courtyards/forecourts. May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 12 Table 3.2 Application Review Specific Matrix Legend = Standards in this Section of the Code applies NA = Standards in this Section of the Code does not apply Co d e S e c t i o n Se c t i o n 5. 0 : S c h e d u l e o f U s e s Se c t i o n 6 .0 : B u i l d i n g an d S i t e De v e l o p m e n t St a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 7 .0 : B u i l d i n g D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 8 .0 : S t r e e t D e s i g n S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 9 .0 : O p e n S p a c e S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 0 .0 St r e e t s c a p e a n d La n d s c a p e S t a n d a r d s Se c t i o n 1 1. 0 : S i g n S t a n d a r d s Bu i l d -to z o n e s a n d se t b a c k s Bu i l d i n g F r o n t a g e Bu i l d i n g H e i g h t Lo t S t a n d a r d s Pa r k i n g a n d S e r v i c e Ac c e s s St r e e t T r e e s a n d St r e e t s c a p e St r e e t S c r e e n a n d Pa r k i n g L o t La n d s c a p i n g St r e e t L i g h t i n g a n d Fu r n i t u r e Ut i l i t i e s Type Application Review 1. Subdivision Plan Review (includes revised plats) 2. Site Plan Review 3. Building Permit Review * = Applies for residential development only * = Applies during Sign Permit review only May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 13 3.3 JDA Development Review Process (a) Pre-submittal Meeting Required: All projects shall have a pre-submittal meeting with the JDA Development staff prior to submitting the approved application form for development in the Plan Area. At the pre-submittal meeting, the staff shall provide information on the requirements for development and submittal within the Plan Area, including related necessary City building permit and related final construction approvals. (b) Site Plan Required: A Site Plan shall be required for all proposed developments within the Plan Area. Requirements for Site Plans are listed per Section 1355.03 of the AHC. A site plan is reviewed by staff prior to preliminary plat submittal. (c) JDA Review Generally: Projects that comply with all standards of the TRC and projects that require Permitted Adjustments shall be processed by the Joint Development Authority (JDA). The JDA shall review and consider projects which meet all TRC standards as recommended by staff, with approval of such projects subject to a majority vote of all the members of the JDA. Please refer to Attachment 4 Development Review flow chart for information on the development review process. The JDA may amend its development review process at any time, subject to any applicable requirements of the Joint Powers Agreement (the “JPA”). (d) JDA Permitted Adjustments: The JDA may approve Permitted Adjustments per the criteria set in Table 3-3 below, subject to a 3/5 vote of the JDA. The Permitted Adjustment process may be used only to authorize a less restrictive standard and may not be used to impose a higher standard than is established under the TRC on the subject property. A JDA Development staff report and recommendation is required for the JDA to make a determination on a Permitted Adjustment. Public notices shall be issued for all Permitted Adjustment hearings; however, such hearings may be combined with any other JDA hearing process, such as for consideration of approval of a project and its related transactional documents. (e) In reviewing any Permitted Adjustment request, the JDA shall use the following criteria: i. The goals, intent and vision of the adopted Regulating Plan Map and TCAAP Master Plan; ii. The extent to which the proposal fits the adjoining design context by providing appropriate building scale and use transitions; iii. The extent to which the proposal provides public benefits such as usable civic and open spaces, livable streets, affordable housing, living wage jobs, structured and/or shared parking and linkages to transit; iv. The extent to which the proposal does not hinder future opportunities for higher intensity development; v. The extent to which the proposal provides a demonstration of advanced energy resilience which may have an educational value; and vi. Considerations of health and welfare to the general public. (f) In reviewing any Permitted Adjustment, the JDA shall not grant flexibility for the following: i. Deviation from requirements of Section 5.0 (Schedule of Uses); ii. Building height; iii. Definitions included in Section 4.0; iv. Density parameters for residential land uses; and v. Clear height. May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 14 Table 3-3: Permitted Adjustments Table Code Standard Extent of Adjustment Permitted Criteria 1. Regulating Plan Map a. Location of any Required Street (Town Center, Retail Mixed-Use, Office Mixed-Use, and Neighborhood Transition Districts) Streets shall be on a grid system with block faces (measured right-of-way to right-of-way) no less than 200 feet and no more than 500 feet. Block faces may be adjusted no more than 50%. Block faces longer than 500 feet shall include mid-block pedestrian connections. Pedestrian connections to adjacent park and open space areas shall be no further apart than 750 feet. Pedestrian connections to parks and open space areas shall be at least 50 feet wide. i. Shall maintain the connectivity intended by the Regulating Plan ii. Shall maintain the continuation and/or connectivity with any existing streets where possible iii. Pedestrian connectivity must be maintained iv. JDA staff, City Community Development and Public Works staff approval b. Location of any Required Street (Neighborhood District) Streets shall be on a modified grid pattern. Public views and access to open space areas are required. The use of cul-de-sacs should be minimized and must include pedestrian connections from the cul-de-sac to streets or open space located behind private lots. Block faces longer than 500 feet shall include mid- block pedestrian connections. Pedestrian connections to adjacent park and open space areas shall be no further apart than 750 feet. Pedestrian connections to parks and open space areas shall be at least 50 feet wide. i. Shall maintain the connectivity intended by the Regulating Plan ii. Shall maintain the continuation and/or connectivity with any existing streets where possible iii. JDA staff, City Community Development and Public Works staff approval c. Area and Location of any Required Open Space Area may be reduced by no more than 10%. The location of parks in the Hill Neighborhood may be moved within that neighborhood. i. Shall include required amenities identified by the City’s TCAAP Master Parks and Open Space Plan ii. JDA staff, City Community Development and Public Works staff approval 2. Building Form and Development Standards a. Build to zones/setbacks No more than a 20% change in the maximum or minimum setback applicable or 6 feet whichever is greater. 1) Changes to the build-to-zones and setbacks may only occur when there is cause by one or more of the following: i. A change to the street cross sections established in Attachment 4; or ii. Need to accommodate existing buildings and structures on the lot that meet the overall intent and vision for redevelopment in the Plan Area; or iii. Need to accommodate other required modes of transportation (transit, bike, pedestrian), storm water drainage, water quality, or low impact development (LID) elements on the site; or iv. Need to accommodate overhead or underground utilities and/or easements; or v. Need to preserve existing heritage trees on the property. 2) In no case shall the sidewalk be less than 8 feet in width along the “Spine Road” and 6 feet in width along all other streets when sidewalks will be publicly maintained. May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 15 3.4 Special Development Plan (SDP): The JDA may approve an SDP for projects comprising of 25 acres or more in the Neighborhood (NB) District and 10 acres or more in all other Zoning Districts, which require additional flexibility in the application of the TRC not otherwise available under Table 3-3 above. JDA approval of an SDP is subject to a 4/5 vote of the JDA. The SDP process may be used only to authorize a less restrictive standard and may not be used to impose a higher standard than is established under the TRC on the subject property. Public notices shall be issued for all SDP hearings; however, such hearings may be b. Building Frontage No more than a 15% reduction in the required building frontage (applicable in the designated zoning district) along each block or subject lot with Pedestrian Priority Frontage designation or no more than a 25% reduction in the required building frontage (applicable in the designated zoning district) along each block or subject lot of a Pedestrian- Friendly Frontage designation. Any reduction in the required building frontage shall be to address one or more of the following: i. To accommodate porte-cocheres for drop-off and pick-up; or ii. To accommodate existing buildings and site elements; or iii. To accommodate other required transit, bike and pedestrian related, storm water drainage, water quality, or low impact development (LID) elements on the site. Parking garages and porte-cocheres are allowed along Pedestrian Priority Frontage and Pedestrian-Friendly streets per authorization from the JDA. Allowed when necessary for building design. c. Corner Lot Building Frontage Reduction of building frontage requirements for lots with two or more Pedestrian Priority frontages (applicable Frontage Standard for the zoning district of the subject corner lot) Frontage requirement along one Pedestrian Priority designated frontage may be replaced with the corresponding standard for Pedestrian-Friendly frontage designation instead. In determining which Pedestrian Priority frontage may be changed to a Pedestrian-Friendly frontage, precedence shall be given to matching any existing building Pedestrian Priority frontages of adjoining blocks or lots on either side of the street. Reduction of building frontage requirements for lots with two or more Pedestrian-Friendly frontages (applicable Frontage Standards for the designated zoning district of the subject corner lot) Frontage requirement along one Pedestrian-Friendly designated frontage may be replaced with the corresponding standard for General frontage designation instead. In determining which Pedestrian-Friendly frontage may be changed to a General frontage, precedence shall be given to matching any existing building Pedestrian- Friendly frontages of adjoining blocks or lots on either side of the street. d. Sidewalk and Streetscape standards Sidewalks, street tree planting, street lighting, and other streetscape standards may be adjusted based on the development context and street cross section. Any changes to the streetscape standards shall be based on specific development context such as existing vegetation, natural features, drainage, and fire access and is subject to approval by the JDA. e. Required Parking Spaces Reduction in the number of required parking spaces up to 10% of total spaces Reduction in the number of parking spaces shall be based on one or more of the following: i. A shared parking plan for parking within 1,000 feet of the subject property; or ii. A parking study for the uses proposed on the site; or iii. A combination of the above 3. Other a. Any other numerical standard in the code A modification up to 10% (increase or decrease) i. A modification of a numerical standard is needed to accommodate existing conditions. ii. The proposed development still meets the intent of the TRC. b. Phased Developments Deferment of building frontage standards i. Phased developments may defer building frontage requirements as long as they meet the build-to-zone and parking setback requirements May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 16 combined with any other JDA hearing process, such as for consideration of approval of a project and its related transactional documents. (a) In reviewing any SDP, the JDA shall use the following criteria: i. The goals, intent and vision of the adopted Regulating Plan Map and TCAAP Master Plan; ii. The extent to which the proposal fits the adjoining design context by providing appropriate building scale and use transitions; iii. The extent to which the proposal provides public benefits such as usable civic and open spaces, livable streets, affordable housing, living wage jobs, structured and/or shared parking and linkages to transit; iv. The extent to which the proposal does not hinder future opportunities for higher quality development; v. The extent to which the proposal provides a demonstration of advanced energy resilience which may have an educational value; and vi. Considerations of health and welfare to the general public. (b) In reviewing any SDP, the JDA shall not grant flexibility for the following: i. Deviation from requirements of Section 5.0 (Schedule of Uses); ii. Building height; iii. Definitions included in Section 4.0; iv. Density parameters for residential land uses; and v. Clear height. (c) Special Development Plan Submittal: i. Applicant shall meet with JDA Development staff to clarify and determine SDP requirements and discuss applicant's development concept. ii. Applicant shall submit SDP Concept Plan to JDA Development staff. iii. Applicant is encouraged to have community meetings where appropriate (Optional). iv. Applicant shall submit SDP Master Plan to JDA Development staff. v. JDA conducts public hearing(s) on the SDP Master Plan and takes action on the SDP Master Plan. vi. The SDP Master Plan, as approved, including all applicable documents, is adopted as the governing development plan for the SDP property. vii. Applicant submits Final SDP Plan for elements that are to be developed imminently. A Final SDP Plan will be submitted for each stage of development and construction. viii. JDA reviews Final SDP Plan and takes action on the Final SDP Plan. ix. Applicant applies for all necessary permits to begin construction. 3.5. TCAAP Regulating Plan Map and TCAAP Master Plan Modifications: Upon denial by the JDA of an application which requires an amendment to the TCAAP Regulating Plan Map (the “Map”) and/or the TCAAP Master Plan (individually or collectively a “Plan Amendment”), or a modification of the text of the TRC (“Text Change)”, or where the applicant has requested such a change, the application shall be referred by the JDA to the City Council for its consideration. A Community Development staff report and recommendation is required for a Plan Amendment or Text Change request to be heard by the City Council. Public notices shall be issued for all Plan Amendment or Text Change hearings. The City Council shall consult with the County in the Council’s consideration, approval or denial of a Plan Amendment or Text Change as required by § 3.0 of JPA. i. If the City Council approves the Plan Amendment or Text Change, the JDA shall consider the application, as amended pursuant to such approval. May 26, 2015 Section 3: Applicability TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 17 ii. A proposed denial of a Plan Amendment or Text Change by City Council shall not be delivered to the JDA and such decision shall constitute final denial of the application. iii. Upon such final denial of a Plan Modification or Text Change, the applicant may reapply to the JDA to seek JDA approval of a revised project meeting the requirements of the TRC, or a revised project requiring a Permitted Adjustment consistent with Table 3-3. 3.6 Plat Approval: The TRC incorporates by reference Chapter 11 of the AHC for plat approval for the purpose of design review, subject to the requirements for public infrastructure per the TRC. This process includes City approval of grading/erosion control plans and utilities plans. Fees or charges for public infrastructure or facilities established by or applicable to subdivisions processed under the AHC shall be applied to subdivisions processed under the TRC. 3.7 Hearing Requirements: The JDA shall conduct public hearings for consideration of all development applications for the Plan Area. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City at least ten days prior to the day of the hearing. In addition, JDA action on subdivision requests in the Plan Area shall be governed by Minnesota Statutes 462.358. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 18 4.0 Definitions Many terms used in this document are defined in the AHC, Chapters 1 and 13. Definitions are only included here if not defined in the AHC, or if the definition for this document differs from the AHC. In case of a conflict between the definitions under this Section and the AHC, Chapters 1 and 13, the definitions in this section shall supersede. A Arcade A portion of the main façade of the building that is at or near the property line and a colonnade supports the upper floors of the building. Arcades are intended for buildings with ground floor commercial or retail uses and the arcade may be one or two stories. The ground floor area within the arcade may be conditioned or non-conditioned space. Images of Arcade Buildings May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 19 B Build-to Zone (BTZ) The area between the minimum and maximum front setbacks from the property line. The principal building façade line shall be located within this area. Illustration indicating the location of the build-to zone relative to the minimum and maximum setbacks and the building façade line Building and Site Development Standards The standards established for each Zoning District including but not limited to building placement, building height, parking, service access, and other functional design standards. Building Façade Line The location of the vertical plane of a building along a street frontage. Section View – Gallery Building Section View – Arcade Building May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 20 Plan View Building Façade Line Illustrations Building Frontage The percentage of a building’s façade line that is required to be located within the Build-to Zone (BTZ) as a proportion of the lot’s width along the fronting public street. Required stairs to access entrances, parks, plazas, squares, improved forecourts, and pedestrian breezeway frontages shall count towards the required building frontage. Image showing Building Frontage calculation May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 21 Building Height The vertical distance from the average elevation of the grade along a face of a building to the highest point of the roof surface of flat roofs, the deck line of mansard roofs, or the average height between the eaves and the highest ridge of gable, hip, or gambrel roofs. The height of a stepped or terraced building shall be the height of the tallest segment of the building. Building Step-Back Building step-back is the setting back of the building façade line away from the street at a specific floor or height. Illustration of a Building Step-Back C D Clear Height The distance from the top of the finished floor to the bottom of the finished ceiling in portions of commercial buildings used for warehousing or manufacturing. Complete Street A complete street is a transportation policy and design approach that requires streets to be planned, designed, operated, and maintained to enable safe, convenient and comfortable travel and access for users of all ages and abilities regardless of their mode of transportation. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 22 Cottage/Patio Home The Cottage or Patio Home building type consists of small, one and two-story single-family detached residential units that are built close to the street and each other. They are typically sideyard/zero lot line homes with a small yard or patio space. This type of building enables appropriate infill residential within existing neighborhoods and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. Image of a Cottage or Patio Home Cottage Court The Cottage Court building type consists of a series of small, detached structures, providing multiple units arranged to define a shared court that is typically perpendicular to the street. The shared court takes the place of a private rear yard and becomes an important community- enhancing element. This residential building type is appropriately-scaled to fit as transitions between single-family neighborhoods and commercial corridors. It enables appropriately- scaled, well-designed infill residential and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. Image of a Cottage Court E Encroachment Any structural or non-structural element such as a sign, awning, canopy, terrace or balcony that breaks the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit, extending into a setback, into the public right-of-way, or above a height limit. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 23 F Façade Area The surface area of a building’s elevation (including all floors) not counting minor indentations fronting a particular street. Ground floor façade area is the surface area of a building’s ground floor elevation not counting minor indentations fronting a particular street. Upper floor façade area is the surface area of a building’s upper floor elevations not counting minor indentations fronting a particular street. G H I Gallery A roofed promenade or canopy, especially one extending along the wall of a building and supported by arches or columns on the outer side. The gallery space is unenclosed (non- conditioned) space and may be two (2) or more stories tall. Illustration of a Gallery Gross Density The number of residential dwelling units per acre of a given land area, including public rights- of-way for Town and Collector Streets but excluding publicly-owned recreation areas or open space and public right-of-way for arterial roads. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 24 J K J-Swing Garage A home with a driveway that loads from the primary street and swings into the side of the home to enter the garage. Two of these homes side-by-side should share a driveway or a curb- cut to driveways and have garages facing each other. Images of a home with a J-Swing Garage from the front and side of home. L Large Multi-Family A building containing more than fifty residential units which may include apartments or condominiums. Live-Work Unit A dwelling unit that is also used for work purposes, provided that the ‘work’ component is restricted to the uses of professional office, artist’s workshop, studio or other similar use as allowed as a home occupation under the AHC and is located on the street level and constructed as a separate unit under a condominium regime or as a single unit. The ‘live’ component may be located on the street level (behind the work component) or any other level of the building. Live- work unit is further distinguished from a home occupation otherwise defined by the AHC in that the work use is not required to be incidental to the dwelling unit; non-resident employees may be present on the premises and customers may be served on site. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 25 M Manor Home/Multi-Unit House A multi-unit building (3 to 8 units) that is designed to appear as a large home from the exterior, but functions as a multi-unit building on the interior. Manor Homes have one main front door for the building, but may also have side and rear entries. Parking is accessed from an alley or a driveway to the rear of the lot. Parking does not face a public right-of-way. Image of Manor Home Medium Multi-Family Use A building containing nine to fifty multi-family units which may include stacked flats, apartments, or condominiums. Mixed-Use Building A building that includes a combination of commercial, cultural, institutional, or light industrial uses inside a single structure. Residential uses are not permitted within mixed-use buildings. N O Numerical Standard Any standard that has a numerical limit (minimums and maximums) or value as established within both the text and graphic standards of the TRC. P Q Parking Setback Line The distance that any surface parking lot is to be set back from either the principal building façade line or property line along any street frontage (depending on the specific standard in the Zoning District). Surface parking may be located anywhere behind the parking setback line on the property. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 26 Illustration of a parking setback line Perimeter Frontage The measurement of the proportion of public street frontage of the total exterior perimeter of a park or open space area. Illustration showing how Perimeter Frontage is calculated for Open Space along a Public Street Permitted Adjustment A requested modification to TRC zoning district standards per the Permitted Adjustment provision of Section 3.0. The JDA shall have the authority to approve a request for a Permitted Adjustment. Primary Entrance The public entrance located along the front of a building facing a street or sidewalk that provides access from the public sidewalk to the building. It is different from a secondary entrance which may be located at the side or rear of a building providing private controlled access into the building from a sidewalk, parking or service area. Private Common Open Space A privately owned outdoor or unenclosed area, located on the ground or on a terrace, deck, porch, or roof, designed and accessible for outdoor gathering, recreation, and landscaping May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 27 and intended for use by the residents, employees, and/or visitors to the development. This may or may not be accessible to the public, but shall be maintained privately. Property Line A line dividing one lot or property from another or from a right-of-way. Public Open Space A publicly accessible open space in the form of parks, courtyards, forecourts, plazas, greens, playgrounds, squares, etc. provided to meet the standards in Section 9.0 of this Code. Open Space may be privately or publicly owned and/or maintained. R Residential Use Building A building that is built to accommodate only residential uses on all floors of the building such as a detached single-family home, attached single-family home (i.e., townhome), two family home (i.e. twin home), Manor Home (3 to 8 units), or apartment building (under single ownership or under multiple owners within a condominium regime). Right-of-Way An area dedicated to public use for vehicular and bicycle movement. Pedestrian facilities, public utilities, and private utilities may be accommodated within the right-of-way or outside of the right-of-way within public easements on private property. Right-of-Way Line The lines that form the boundary of a publicly-owned right-of-way. S Service-Related Uses All uses that support the principal use on the lot including parking access, garbage/trash collection, utility meters and equipment, loading/unloading areas and similar uses. Setback The minimum distance by which any building or structure must be separated from a right-of- way or property line. Single Family Use A building containing one or two primary living units and which may include twin homes, detached townhomes and cottage/patio homes. Small Lot Single Family A single-family residential lot that measures less than fifty (50) feet wide. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 28 Image of a Small Lot Single Family Small Multi-Family Use A building containing three to eight residential units and which may include townhomes, row homes, manor homes/multi-unit houses, stacked flats, or triplexes/quadplexes. Small Retail or Office Building The Small Retail/Office Building is a commercial building that is generally located at street intersections or as transitions between higher intensity commercial uses and lower intensity residential uses. The ground floor space can be used for office, personal service or retail uses. It is especially appropriate for incubating neighborhood-serving retail and service uses and allowing some adjoining streets and multi-modal corridors to expand as the market demands. Stacked Flats Stacked flats building type is a medium-sized structure that consists of less than 12 side-by-side and/or stacked dwelling units, typically with one shared entry. This type of building can include a courtyard apartment. This residential building type is appropriately-scaled to fit within medium-density neighborhoods or as transitions between neighborhoods and commercial corridors. It enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed infill residential and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. Image of a Stacked Flat Street Frontage Designation As identified on the Regulating Plan, existing and recommended streets in the TRC area are designated as Pedestrian Priority, Pedestrian-Friendly or General Streets. Each frontage designation establishes a certain development context in order to improve walkability and pedestrian orientation within the TRC Plan Area. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 29 Street Screen A freestanding wall or living fence or combination fence built along the frontage line or in line with the building façade along the street. It may screen a parking lot or a loading/service area from view or provide privacy to a side yard and/or strengthen the spatial definition of the public realm. Image of a combination masonry and living street screen Street Wall Indicates the creation of a “wall” or a sense of enclosure along the street with buildings placed immediately adjacent to the street/sidewalk. A street wall has a “void” if there is a surface parking lot or service area adjacent to the sidewalk/street. T U V W X Y Z TCAAP Natural Resources Corridor The Natural Resources Corridor within the TCAAP Site Redevelopment will be designed with the goal of maximizing compatibility and functionality of regional storm water, wetland mitigation, the Rice Creek re-meander, floodplain restoration, and groundwater requirements. An additional goal is to provide visual features and active and passive recreational amenities to support adjacent land uses. TCAAP Redevelopment Regulating Plan (Regulating Plan) The official Zoning Map for the TRC Plan Area. The Regulating Plan graphically depicts development standards including Zoning Districts, Street Designations and Special Requirement(s) applicable to properties within the TRC Plan Area. Townhouse/Rowhouse The Townhouse or Rowhouse is a small- to medium-sized typically attached structure that consists of 3–8 houses attached horizontally, not stacked vertically. This type of residential building is typically located in a location that transitions from a single-family neighborhood into a commercial corridor. This type of building enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed residential infill and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. A townhouse/rowhouse is a single structure and does not require adjacent townhomes/rowhomes to maintain stability. Triplex/Quadplex A Triplex/Quadplex building is a medium-sized attached structure that consists of 3–4 houses placed side-by-side and/or stacked dwelling units. This residential building type is typically located in a location that transitions from a primarily single-family neighborhood into a commercial corridor. This building type enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed residential infill and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. May 26, 2015 Section 4: Definitions TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 30 Image of a Triplex/Quadplex Twin Home The Twin Home, also known as a duplex, is a small- to medium-sized structure that consists of two side-by-side or stacked dwelling units, both facing the street, and within a single building structure. This residential building type has the appearance of a medium to large single-family home and is appropriately-scaled to fit within primarily single-family neighborhoods or medium-density neighborhoods. It enables appropriately-scaled, well-designed residential infill and is important for providing a broad choice of housing types and promoting walkability. Image of a Twin Home May 26, 2015 Section 5: Schedule of Permitted Uses TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 31 5.0 Schedule of Permitted Uses 5.1 Applicability: General use categories have been identified by Zoning District (Table 5-1). Uses that are not listed are prohibited. Uses that are allowed as accessory uses may only remain in conjunction with an active principal use. Table 5-1: TRC Zoning District Land Use Table P = Permitted | -- = Prohibited | P/C = Permitted with Criteria in Table 5.2 A = Accessory | A/C = Accessory with Criteria in Table 5.2 Zoning District Uses Ca m p u s Co m m e r c i a l To w n C e n t e r Of f i c e Mi x e d -Us e Re t a i l Mi x e d -Us e Fl e x O f f i c e Ne i g h b o r h o o d Tr a n s i t i o n Ne i g h b o r h o o d 1 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 3 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 4 Additional Requirements Sub-District NB-1 NB-2 NB-3 NB-4 Residential Uses Bed & Breakfast -- P -- -- -- P P/C P/C P/C P/C See Table 5-2 Home Occupation: Class I -- A -- -- -- A A A A A Large Multi-Family -- P -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Live/Work -- P -- -- -- P -- -- -- -- Medium Multi-Family -- P -- -- -- P -- -- -- -- Nursing Home and Assisted Living -- P -- -- -- P/C -- -- -- P/C See Table 5-2 Residential Facility -- P/C -- -- -- P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C See Table 5-2 Senior Independent Living -- P -- -- -- P/C -- P/C P/C P/C See Table 5-2 Single Family -- -- -- -- -- -- P P P -- Small Lot SF Residential -- -- -- -- -- -- -- P P -- Small Multi-Family -- -- -- -- -- P -- -- -- P/C See Table 5-2 Commercial Uses Automotive Washing -- -- P/C P/C P/C -- -- See Table 5-2 Brewpub -- P P P P -- -- Business service P P P P P -- -- Clinic, medical office P P P P P -- -- Club, sports & fitness A P P P P -- -- Cocktail Lounge -- P -- P -- -- -- Commercial Off-Street Parking P/C* P/C* P/C* P/C* P/C* P/C* -- * Permitted as an accessory use with a primary building only Commercial recreation - indoor -- -- -- -- P -- -- Daycare Facility A P P P P P* -- * Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in Neighborhood Transition District Daycare, family - 10 or less P P P P P -- May 26, 2015 Section 5: Schedule of Permitted Uses TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 32 Table 5-1: TRC Zoning District Land Use Table P = Permitted | -- = Prohibited | P/C = Permitted with Criteria in Table 5.2 A = Accessory | A/C = Accessory with Criteria in Table 5.2 Zoning District Uses Ca m p u s Co m m e r c i a l To w n C e n t e r Of f i c e Mi x e d -Us e Re t a i l Mi x e d -Us e Fl e x O f f i c e Ne i g h b o r h o o d Tr a n s i t i o n Ne i g h b o r h o o d 1 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 3 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 4 Additional Requirements Sub-District NB-1 NB-2 NB-3 NB-4 Dog kennel -- -- -- -- P* -- -- * Completely enclosed; no outside runs Drive-Up Windows A -- P/C P/C P/C -- -- See Table 5-2 Dry cleaning & laundry, pick-up station -- P -- P -- -- -- Dry cleaning & laundry, self-service laundry -- P -- P -- -- -- Financial Institution & service P P P P P P* -- * Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in Neighborhood Transition District Food Preparation P P P P P P -- Hotel/ motel P P P P P -- -- Microbrewery -- P -- P P -- -- Microdistillery -- P -- P P -- -- Mortuary, funeral home -- -- -- -- P/C -- -- See Table 5-2 Office P P P P* P P** -- * As part of a mixed-use building that includes retail on the ground floor ** Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in Neighborhood Transition District Personal services A P P P P P* -- * Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in Neighborhood Transition District Pet Services P -- P P P -- -- Research and development facility P -- P -- P -- -- Restaurant and restaurant fast-food A* P P P P P** -- *May be integrated within a buildings that has another permitted primary use in the Campus Commercial Zone ** Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in the Neighborhood Transition Zone Retail sales & service -- P P P P P* -- * Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in Neighborhood Transition District May 26, 2015 Section 5: Schedule of Permitted Uses TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 33 Table 5-1: TRC Zoning District Land Use Table P = Permitted | -- = Prohibited | P/C = Permitted with Criteria in Table 5.2 A = Accessory | A/C = Accessory with Criteria in Table 5.2 Zoning District Uses Ca m p u s Co m m e r c i a l To w n C e n t e r Of f i c e Mi x e d -Us e Re t a i l Mi x e d -Us e Fl e x O f f i c e Ne i g h b o r h o o d Tr a n s i t i o n Ne i g h b o r h o o d 1 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 2 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 3 Ne i g h b o r h o o d 4 Additional Requirements Sub-District NB-1 NB-2 NB-3 NB-4 Service station -- -- -- P/C P/C -- -- See Table 5-2 Storage, exterior -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Studio -- P -- P P P* -- * Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in the Neighborhood Transition Zone Theater, indoor -- A P P P -- -- Vehicle – motorized, leasing and rentals -- -- P/C -- P/C -- -- See Table 5-2 Vehicle –motorized, service -- -- P/C P/C P/C -- -- See Table 5-2 Civic Uses Antenna or Tower P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C P/C -- See Table 5-2 Club or lodge (non-profit) -- P P P P -- -- House of worship -- P P P P P* -- * Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in the Neighborhood Transition Zone Park Facilities (Public) P P P P P P P Public use P P P P P P -- School, general education -- P -- -- -- P P School, specialized education -- P P P -- P* -- * Less than 5,000 sq. ft. in the Neighborhood Transition Zone Industrial Uses Garage, Truck -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Manufacturing & processing: Class I P/C -- -- -- P/C -- -- Warehousing permitted as an accessory use Manufacturing & processing: Class II -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Utility Substation P* -- -- -- P* -- -- *Equipment shall be screened to not be seen from any public right of way and shall not be placed in the front of any parcel Warehousing A/C -- -- -- A/C -- -- Other Uses Adult-Oriented Businesses -- -- -- -- -- -- -- May 26, 2015 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 34 5.2 Additional Use Criteria: All uses listed as P/C in Table 5-1 shall also meet the following standards in Table 5-2. Table 5-2 Additional Use Criteria Table Use Zoning District Location & Design Criteria Residential Uses Bed & Breakfast Neighborhood i. No more than 6 rentable rooms permitted. Shall be owner-occupied. Parking shall be placed behind the building, or screened from view of the public right-of-way. Nursing Home and Assisted Living Senior Independent Living Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood i. Homes shall be designed as either a collective of single-family or duplex homes to fit the scale of the surrounding development. ii. These homes may also be mixed with mixed-generational housing. Residential Facility Town Center Neighborhood Transition i. Residential Facility shall be licensed by the State of Minnesota; and ii. Residential Facility shall serve no more than sixteen (16) residents at any given time. Neighborhood i. Residential Facility shall be licensed by the State of Minnesota; ii. Residential Facility shall serve no more than six (6) residents at any given time. Small Multi-Family Neighborhood i. Parking shall be placed against an alley or in the rear of the lot and be screened from the public right-of-way. ii. Entrances to units that are not accessible from the front entries may have access from the rear or the side of the building. Commercial Uses Automotive Washing Vehicle – motorized, leasing and rentals Vehicle- motorized, service Office Mixed-Use Flex Office Retail Mixed-Use i. Automotive drive through lanes, service bays, and/or gas station canopies shall meet the design standards in Section 7, Building Design Standards of this code. ii. Outdoor storage of vehicles or other products sold shall NOT have direct frontage along Pedestrian Priority Streets. Outdoor storage of vehicles and/or other products sold shall be screened with a required street screen along Pedestrian-Friendly Streets and General Streets (see Section 10 for standards). Service Station Retail Mixed-Use Flex Office Commercial Off-Street Parking Campus Commercial Town Center Office Mixed-Use Retail Mixed-Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition i. New surface parking lots shall be permitted as an interim use only in the case of phasing. ii. Applications for new surface lots shall include in-fill building concepts on the lot with a site plan that meets the build-to-zone and building frontage standards of the specific character zone. iii. New surface parking shall be set back a minimum of 30’ from the edge of the right-of-way of Pedestrian Priority Streets. iv. New surface parking shall not be located at a street intersection (of any Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian-Friendly Streets only) for minimum of 30’ from the intersection along each street. Mortuary, funeral home Flex Office i. Pick-up and drop-off lanes, storage of vehicles, service areas, and drive through facilities shall NOT have direct frontage along Pedestrian Priority Streets. ii. All such areas along other streets shall be screened with a required street screen (see Section 10 for standards). Drive-Up Windows Retail Mixed-Use Flex Office Office Mixed-Use Drive through or drive-up facilities shall meet the design standards in Section 7, Building Design Standards of this code. Civic Uses Antenna or Tower Campus Commercial Town Center Office Mixed-Use Retail Mixed-Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition i. Located on top of a building or architectural component only. ii. Shall conform to additional design and location requirements for antennas and towers included in Section 1325 of the AHC. Industrial Uses Manufacturing and Processing: Class I Campus Commercial Flex Office For buildings where manufacturing and processing are a principal or accessory use, a minimum of 30 percent of the gross building square footage must be in office use. Warehousing Campus Commercial Flex Office Warehousing is only allowed as an accessory use to Manufacturing and Processing. For buildings where warehousing is an accessory use, a minimum of 30 percent of the gross building square footage must be in office use. May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 36 6.0 Building and Site Development Standards All parcels within the TRC are assigned to one of seven (7) Zoning Districts: 1. Campus Commercial 2. Town Center 3. Office Mixed-Use 4. Retail Mixed-Use 5. Flex Office 6. Neighborhood Transition 7. Neighborhood In addition to standards that apply to all Zoning Districts, Building and Site Development standards applicable to each Zoning District are described in Sections 6.2 – 6.8. The images and graphics in the first subsection of each zoning district standards are provided as illustrative of intent and are advisory only without the power of law. Refer to the standards on the following pages for the specific Building and Site Development Standards. In addition, the graphics used to illustrate the building and development standards in each Zoning District are NOT intended to indicate exact conditions within each Zoning District. Rather illustrations are conceptual and standards are to be applied based on the specific frontage types designated along the subject property or site. For example, a specific site may not have frontages along all streets as indicated in the illustrations and only the standards applicable to designated building frontages on the property should be used. In addition, the illustrations may depict other site elements to establish context and only the standards regulated by the specific subsection shall apply. For example, the Building Placement graphics may depict sidewalks for context purposes only and the graphic should only be used to establish standards for building placement on the site. Building form graphics in these sections are NOT TO SCALE. 6.1 General to All Zoning Districts (a) Building Frontage Designations: The Building Frontage designations are established on the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1) to specify certain building and site development standards along each street based on the priority placed on pedestrian-orientation. The Regulating Plan illustrates the Building Frontage designations within the TRC. For the purposes of this code, all Building Frontages are classified into one of the following three categories: i. Pedestrian Priority Frontages – Pedestrian Priority Frontages are intended to provide the most pedestrian-friendly and contiguous development context. Buildings and sites along Pedestrian Priority Frontages shall be held to the highest standard of pedestrian-oriented design and few, if any, gaps shall be permitted in the ‘Street Wall’. Breaks in the street wall may be permitted for courtyards, forecourts, sidewalk cafes and pedestrian connections between the individual sites and the public sidewalk. These street frontages are the main retail, restaurant, entertainment streets, or are important neighborhood connectors, as identified in the Regulating Plan. 1. Specific to Pedestrian Priority Frontages: The area between the building facade and property line or edge of any existing sidewalk along any street with Pedestrian Priority Frontage shall be designed such that the sidewalk width shall be a minimum as determined by the street type (see Attachment 4) and the remainder of any setback area shall be paved flush with the public sidewalk. Sidewalk cafes, public art, landscaping within tree-wells or planters may be incorporated within this area. May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 37 Illustration showing requirements along Pedestrian Priority Frontages only ii. Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages – Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages are also intended to be pedestrian-oriented with a mostly contiguous development context. However, in some locations, where access to a General Frontage street or Alley is not available, Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages may need to accommodate driveways, parking, service/utility functions, and loading and unloading. In such cases, Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages may balance pedestrian orientation with automobile accommodation. Typically, they shall establish a hybrid development context that has a more pedestrian-supportive development context at street intersections and accommodates auto-related functions and surface parking in the middle of the block. Surface parking shall be screened from the roadway following the Street Screen Standards in Section 10.4. Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages are designated on the Regulating Plan. iii. General Frontages – General Frontages are intended to accommodate more auto- oriented uses, surface parking and service functions on a site with a more suburban/automobile orientation. The General Frontages shall be building frontages not designated as either a Pedestrian Priority or Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage on the Regulating Plan. Surface parking shall be screened following the Street Screen Standards in Section 10.4. May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 38 Graphic Illustrating the Application of Street Type Designation Based on the Development Context (b) Treatment of Street Intersections: i. Corner building street facades along intersections of Pedestrian Priority Frontages and Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages shall be built to the BTZ for a minimum of 20’ from the intersection along each street or the width of the corner lot, whichever is less regardless of the building frontage percentage required along that street. This requirement shall not prohibit incorporation of curved, chamfered building corners or recessed entries or civic/open spaces at such intersections. In addition, this standard shall apply regardless of the frontage requirement along the intersecting street even if it is a General Street. Illustration showing minimum frontage requirements at street intersections ii. Corner Building Height Allowance: Corner buildings may exceed the maximum building height by 25% along no more than 20% of the building’s frontage along each corresponding street façade. The purpose of the allowance is to encourage inclusion of architectural features and no mechanical equipment shall be located on top of a roof area that takes advantage of this allowance. Corner Building Height Allowances are not permitted in the Neighborhood Zone. May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 39 Illustration showing Corner Building Height Allowance (c) Parking and Service Access: i. Location of parking (both structured and surface) shall be per the Zoning District specific building standards (Section 6.2 – 6.8). ii. Required off-street parking spaces shall be provided per Table 6-1 below. Table 6-1 Parking Ratios Zoning District TC/OMU/RMU CC/FO NT/NB Additional Criteria Min. Off-Street Vehicular Parking Requirement Retail 1 space/200 sq. ft. of gross retail sales floor area 1 space/200 sq. ft. of gross retail sales floor area. 1 space/400 sq. ft. of gross retail sales floor area. 1. Plans that include shared parking or a reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be approved by the JDA as a Permitted Adjustment with the provision of a parking demand study (See Section 3.0). 2. On-street parking located along any public street shall count towards the required off-street parking. 3. Landscaping within surface parking lots shall meet standards in Section 10.0 of this Code. Office Uses 1 space/250 sq. ft. of gross floor area 1 space/250 sq. ft. of gross floor area. 1 space/400 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Industrial Uses N/A 1 space/500 sq. ft. of gross floor area for general manufacturing/ industrial; 1 space/ 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for warehousing/storage N/A All other Non- Residential Uses 1 space/300 sq. ft. of gross floor area. 1 space/300 sq. ft. of gross floor area 1 space/400 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Residential – Single Family and Two-Family Uses N/A N/A 2.0 spaces/dwelling unit -- Residential – Multi- Family Uses 1.0 space/efficiency and one-bedroom units; 1.5 spaces/two- bedroom+ units N/A 1.0 space/efficiency and one-bedroom units; 2.0 spaces/two- bedroom+ units 1. See Section 1325.045 of the Arden Hills Code for additional criteria for multi- family uses. 2. Plans that include shared parking or a reduction in the required number of parking spaces may be approved by the JDA as a Permitted Adjustment with the provision of a parking demand study (See Section 3.0). 3. Landscaping within surface Residential – Senior Independent Living, Nursing Home, and Assisted Living Uses 1.0 space/unit for Senior Independent Living units; 0.75 space/unit for Nursing Home and Assisted Living units. N/A 1.0 space/unit for Senior Independent Living units; 0.75 spaces/unit for Nursing Home and Assisted Living units. May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 40 Lodging Uses (Hotels and Motels) 0.5 spaces per guest room; all other areas shall be parked at the non-residential rate above 0.75 spaces per guest room; all other areas shall be parked at the non-residential rate above N/A parking lots shall meet standards in Section 10.0 of this Code. Min. Bicycle Parking Requirement (# of Bicycles) All Uses 10% of all provided off-street automobile spaces 5% of all provided off-street automobile spaces N/A 1. Location of Bicycle Parking: For retail buildings, 25% of all provided bicycle parking shall be located within 50 feet of a primary building entrance. 2. See Section 1325.045 of the Arden Hills Code for additional criteria for multi- family uses. iii. Driveways and Service Access: 1. Unless otherwise specified in the specific Zoning District standards in Sections 6.2 through 6.8, driveway access and off-street loading and unloading may be along General Frontages only. 2. Unless otherwise specified in the specific Zoning District standards in Sections 6.2 through 6.8 or through permitted adjustments, driveway and off-street loading and unloading may be located with access along a Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage street only if the property has no access to either a General Frontage street or joint use easement to an adjoining property with direct driveway access to any other street. 3. Unless otherwise specified in the specific Zoning District standards in Sections 6.2 through 6.8 or through permitted adjustments, driveways and off-street loading and unloading may be located with access along a Pedestrian Priority Frontage street only if the property has no access to either a Pedestrian-Friendly or General Frontage Street or joint use easement to an adjoining property with direct access to any other street. 4. Along Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages, driveway spacing shall be limited to one driveway per each block face or per 200 feet of block face for blocks greater than 400 feet in length. 5. Shared driveways, joint use easements or joint access easements shall be required to adjoining properties when driveway and service access is off a Pedestrian Priority Frontage or Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage. 6. Service and loading/unloading areas shall be screened per standards in Section 10.0. 7. Unless required to meet minimum fire access or service access standards all commercial, mixed-use and multi-family residential driveways shall be a maximum of 20 feet in width. Driveways used for service access (trash, fire, deliveries, etc.) shall be a maximum of 30 feet in width. Driveways wider than 24 feet in width shall only be located off of General Frontage Streets. Driveways along County controlled roadways shall meet Ramsey County Standards or the City’s adopted standards. 8. Additional easements may be required if shared driveways or access agreements are established. 9. Residential Driveways and Garages: May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 41 a. Unless required to meet minimum fire access or service access standards, driveways for Single-Family Residential Use Buildings shall be a maximum of 12 feet in width at the curb cut. b. Garages for Residential Buildings shall be located on streets with General Frontage or at the rear of residential buildings. c. If front-loaded garages are utilized on residential uses, each bay of the garage shall be no greater than 24 feet wide and set back at least 3 feet behind the front façade line, unless a front porch meets the requirements of Section 6.1(c)(iii)(9)(d) below. Lots less than 75 feet in width shall not have more than 24 feet of garage facing the street. Front-loaded garages on residential lots less than 50 feet wide shall not be allowed. Townhomes and courtyard apartments shall utilize garages at the rear of the lot with access from streets with General Frontage or from Alleys. d. If garage is flush with the main façade, a porch shall be added to the main façade measuring 50 percent of the façade length and a minimum of seven (7) feet in depth. e. Front driveways shall be a minimum of 20 feet long and designed to fit at least 2 parked vehicles and ensure that vehicles are parked outside of the public right-of-way. (d) Street Screen Required: i. Any non-residential parking lot frontage along a public right-of-way with surface parking shall be defined by a Street Screen. This required Street Screen shall be located at the right-of-way edge. Refer to the Section 10.0: Streetscape and Landscape Standards of this Code for more specifications. (e) Loading Dock Standards: i. Facilities that include a loading dock shall have a maximum clear height of 24 feet as measured from the surface of the ground floor to the lowest point on the ceiling. ii. No more than one loading dock shall be allowed per 10,000 square feet of building area. iii. Cross docks, where loading docks are situated along two (2) walls of the same building, shall not be permitted. iv. Loading docks shall be located in the side or rear yard and shall be screened from view of the public right-of-way. (f) Fire Separation Requirement: Side and rear setbacks shall be based on minimum fire separation required between buildings, if applicable. (g) Recessed Entry Setbacks: Building façade lines on recessed entries and arcade buildings shall be measured from the front of façade with the recessed entry or arcade (see Section 4.0 Definitions for illustration). (h) Measuring Heights: i. Elevator and stair enclosures; public flagpoles and monuments; and chimneys are exempt from the height limit. ii. Spires, belfries, cupolas, and domes of churches shall not exceed a height of 65 feet as measured from the ground level. iii. Vents, tanks, solar energy systems, HVAC equipment, and other mechanical enclosures shall be exempted from the height limits so long as they do not extend more than 12 feet above the roof upon which they are located. May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 42 iv. Internal building height shall be measured from finished floor to bottom of the structural members of the ceiling. v. Floor to ceiling heights shall not apply to parking structures or civic buildings. (i) Encroachments: i. Encroachments into the public right of way shall not be permitted ii. Encroachments over Required Setbacks: Canopies, awnings, galleries, and balconies may encroach over any required setback areas per standards established in each zoning district as long as the vertical clearance is a minimum of 10 feet from the finished sidewalk elevation. 1. Maximum of 50% of the depth of the sidewalk or 10 feet (whichever is less) (except blade signs which shall encroach no more than 6 feet from the building façade line). 2. In no case shall an encroachment be located over an on-street parking or travel lane. 3. Additional license agreements are required for all encroachments over public right- of-way. (j) Phased Developments: Due to the long-term development vision within the TRC, certain building form and site development standards may be deferred for phased development projects meeting the following criteria: i. Submission of a site plan that illustrates how development and any related private improvements will be phased over time. Each phase of the site plan shall independently comply with all applicable standards of the TRC unless a Permitted Adjustment is granted. ii. Required private landscaping and open space amenities may also be phased with the building. iii. If a full block is being phased in development, design and development standards may be measured at the full block level in order to accommodate the various phases of the development. (k) Required Public Improvements: All site plans that require public improvements such as sidewalk and streetscape improvements may be deferred through the payment of a proportional fee-in-lieu when the entire length of that block is not within the site plan. Campus Commercial Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 43 6.2 Campus Commercial (CC) (a) Illustrations and Intent The Campus Commercial Zoning District facilitates a building format that allows multiple, single tenant buildings or campuses within the northern “Thumb” site of the Plan Area. The goal is to allow for an individual plan approach for each campus or building, based on user preferences within a range of requirements. TCAAP Master Plan Vision for Campus Commercial Zone Campus Commercial Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 44 (b) Building Placement Public Open Space • 50’ min. setback • Setback must be screened with vegetation and landscaping. • If loading or service is oriented towards Rice Creek Regional Park or public trails, appropriate screening shall be required General Frontage 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Side No min.; no max. Rear No min.; no max. (c) Building Height (i) Principal Building Standards Building maximum 65’ max. First floor to ceiling height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 10’ min. for all frontages Ground floor finish level 12” max. above sidewalk for all buildings with Pedestrian Priority designation ADA Code applies Upper floor(s) height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 9’ min. (ii) Accessory Building Standards Accessory buildings shall meet the standards for Principal Building standards in the CC Zone. K M N L Campus Commercial Zoning District May 26, 2015 TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 45 (d) Parking & Service Access (i) Surface Parking Setbacks (with new building) Public Open Space Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Public Open Space 50’ min. setback Setback must be screened with vegetation and landscaping If loading or service is oriented towards Public Open Space or public trails, appropriate screening shall be required General Frontages 10’ min. Side 0’ min. Rear 0’ min. (ii) Structured Parking or Below Grade Parking Setbacks Public Open Space Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Ge n e r a l F r o n t a g e Public Open Space 50’ min. setback Setback must be screened with vegetation and landscaping If loading or service is oriented towards Public Open Space or public trails, appropriate screening shall be required General Frontages 10’ min. Side 0’ min. Rear 0’ min. (iii) Below Grade Parking May be built up to the property line. P R Q Q’ P R C Ge n e r a l Fr o n t a g e Ge n e r a l F r o n t a g e O Ge n e r a l F r o n t a g e Town Center Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 46 6.3 Town Center (TC) Zone (a) Illustrations and Intent The Town Center Zoning District creates a vibrant commercial and residential environment that maximizes the potential for an outdoor experience. This district promotes walkability through allowing for housing, office, retail, restaurant and civic use, all within close proximity of each other. TCAAP Master Plan Vision for Town Center Zone Town Center Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 47 (b) Building Placement (i) Build-to Zones (BTZs) and Setbacks (Distance from property line to edge of the zone) Pedestrian Priority/Open Space Frontage BTZ 10’ min. setback – 15’ max. setback Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage BTZ 10’ min. setback – 25’ max. setback General Frontage BTZ 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Side – Adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District Side – All other adjacencies 10’ min.; no max. setback 0’ min.; no max. setback Rear – Adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District Rear – All other adjacencies 10’ min.; no max. setback 0’ min.; no max. setback (ii) Building Frontage (Percentage of building façade built within the BTZ) Pedestrian Priority Frontage 60% min. Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage 50% min. General Frontage None Required (iii) Gross Density Residential Maximum of 45 dwelling units/acre Non-Residential No maximum A B C D D* E F Town Center Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 48 (c) Building Height (i) Principal Building Standards Building maximum 55’ max. First floor to ceiling height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 10’ min. for all frontages Ground floor finish level 12” max. above sidewalk for all buildings with Pedestrian Priority Frontage ADA Code applies Upper floor(s) height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 9’ min. (ii) Accessory Building Standards Accessory buildings shall meet the standards for Principal Building standards in the TC Zone. K M N L Town Center Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 49 (d) Parking & Service Access (i) Surface Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian Priority or Open Space Frontage Shall be located behind the principal building along that street frontage; or Min. 3’ behind the building façade line along that street Pedestrian- Friendly Frontage Min. 3’ behind the building façade line along that street General Frontage Min. 3’ behind the property line along that street Side 6’ (min) only if adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District; 0’ min. for all other adjacencies Rear 6’ (min) only if adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District; 0’ min. for all other adjacencies (ii) Structured Parking Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian Priority or Open Space Frontage Ground floor - Shall be min. of 30’ from the property line Upper Floors – may be built to the façade line along that street Pedestrian- Friendly Frontage or General Frontage May be built up to the building façade line along a that street; or If no building is located along the street frontage; then the structured parking shall meet the setback standards along that specific frontage. Side 10’ (min) only if adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District; 0’ for all other adjacencies Rear 10’ (min) only if adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District; 0’ min. for all other adjacencies (iii) Below Grade Parking May be built up to the property lines along all streets O P R O Q O* R P Q* Pedestrian Priority or Open Space Frontage Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District Town Center Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 50 (e) Residential Transition Standards The following transition standards shall apply to all new building construction and all upper story additions to existing buildings located adjacent to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District. This requirement shall NOT apply if an alley or other similar right-of-way separates the subject lot and the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood district. i. Transition Area 25’ min. ii. Max. Building Height within Transition Area 2 stories or 30’ iii. Required setback Min. 10’ A Residential Transition Area fence (6 feet high) shall be required when adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood Districts and shall be optional for all other adjacencies. The required fence shall NOT be chain link or vinyl. A 6-foot wide landscape buffer with evergreen shrubs planted at 3’ on center and 6’ min. in height at maturity shall also be required to be planted within the landscape buffer parallel to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District border. (see surface parking setbacks illustration). U V W Office Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 51 6.4 Office Mixed-Use (OMU) (a) Illustrations and Intent The Office Mixed-Use Zoning District creates a flexible zone that allows and promotes a seamless transition from Retail Mixed-Use but focuses on employment and compatible uses. This district promotes employment as a primary use, but allows for other commercial uses to be incorporated as vertical mixed-use buildings. TCAAP Master Plan Vision for Office Mixed-Use Zone Office Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 52 (b) Building Placement (i) Build-to Zones (BTZs) and Setbacks (Distance from property line to edge of the zone) Pedestrian-Priority/Open Space Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 25’ max. setback Pedestrian-Friendly/Spine Road Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 75’ max. setback General or Highway Frontage 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Side 0’ min.; no max. setback Rear 0’ min.; no max. setback (ii) Building Frontage (Percentage of building façade built within the BTZ) Pedestrian-Priority/Open Space Frontage 50% min. Pedestrian-Friendly 40% min. General Frontage None Required B C A D E D* F Office Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 53 (c) Building Height (i) Principal Building Standards Building maximum 65’ max. First floor to ceiling height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 10’ min. for all frontages Ground floor finish level 12” max. above sidewalk for all buildings with Pedestrian Priority Frontage ADA code applies. Upper floor(s) height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 9’ min. (ii) Accessory Building Standards Accessory buildings shall meet the standards for Principal Building standards in the OMU Zone. K M N L Office Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 54 (d) Parking & Service Access (i) Surface Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian- Priority, Pedestrian- Friendly, Open Space or Spine Road Frontage Shall be located behind the principal building along that street frontage; or Min. 3’ behind the building façade line along that street; If no building is located along the street frontage; then surface parking shall be setback a minimum of 6’ from the property line. Highway Frontage Min. 15’ from the property line and include a street screen and landscape buffer General Frontage Min. 10’ behind the property line Side 0’ Rear 0’ (ii) Structured Parking or Below Grade Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian- Priority or Open Space Frontage Ground floor - Shall be min. of 30’ from the property line Upper Floors – may be built to the façade line along that street Pedestrian Friendly, General or Highway Frontage May be built up to the building façade line along that street frontage; or If no building is located along the street frontage; then the structured parking shall meet the setback standards along that street. Side 0’ Rear 0’ (iii) Below Grade Parking May be built up to the property line along all streets. O P R O Q Q* Q’ P R Pedestrian Priority, Pedestrian-Friendly, Open Space or Spine Road Frontage Retail Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 55 6.5 Retail Mixed Use (RMU) (a) Illustrations and Intent TCAAP Master Plan Vision for Retail Mixed Use Zone The Retail Mixed-Use Zoning District creates a flexible zone that allows and promotes a seamless transition from Office Mixed-Use, but focuses on retail and compatible uses. This district promotes retail as a primary use, but allows for other commercial uses to be incorporated as vertical mixed-use buildings. Retail Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 56 (b) Building Placement (i) Build-to Zones (BTZs) and Setbacks (Distance from property line to edge of the zone) Pedestrian Priority /Open Space Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 25’ max. setback Pedestrian-Friendly /Spine Road Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 75’ max. setback General or Highway Frontage 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Side – Adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District Side – All other adjacencies 10’ (min); no max setback; 0’ min; no max setback Rear – Adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District Rear – All other adjacencies 10’ (min); no max setback 0’ min; no max setback (ii) Building Frontage (Percentage of building façade built within the BTZ) Pedestrian Priority /Open Space Frontage 60% min. Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage 50% min. General Frontage None Required C A B E F D D* Retail Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 57 (c) Building Height (i) Principal Building Standards Building maximum 65’ max. First floor to floor height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 10’ min. for all frontages. Ground floor finish level 12” max. above sidewalk for all buildings with Pedestrian Priority Frontage ADA Code Applies Upper floor(s) height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 9’ min. (ii) Accessory Building Standards Accessory buildings shall meet the standards for Principal Building standards in the Retail Mixed-Use Zone. K N M L Retail Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 58 (d) Parking & Service Access (i) Surface Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian Priority, Pedestrian Friendly, Open Space or Spine Road Frontage Shall be located behind the principal building along that street frontage; or Min. 3’ behind the building façade line along that street Highway Frontage Min. 15’ from the property line and include Street Screen and landscape buffer General Frontage Min. 3’ behind the property line along that street Side 6’ (min) only if adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District; 0’ min. for all other adjacencies Rear 6’ (min) only if adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District 0’ min. for all other adjacencies. (ii) Structured Parking or Below Grade Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian Priority or Open Space Frontage Ground floor - Shall be min. of 30’ from the property line Upper Floors – may be built to the façade line along that street Pedestrian- Friendly, General or Highway Frontage May be built up to the building façade line along a that street; or If no building is located along the street frontage; then the structured parking shall meet the setback standards along that specific frontage. Side 10’ min. (adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District ) 0’ min. (all other adjacencies) Rear 10’ min. (adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District ) 0’ min. (all other adjacencies) (iii) Below Grade Parking May be built up to the property line along all streets. O P R Q Q* Q’ O P R Pedestrian Priority or Open Space Frontage Retail Mixed-Use Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 59 (f) Residential Transition Standards The following transition standards shall apply to all new building construction and all upper story additions to existing buildings located adjacent to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District. This requirement shall NOT apply if an alley or other similar right-of-way separates the subject lot and the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District. iv. Transition Area 25’ min. v. Max. Building Height within Transition Area 2 stories or 30’ vi. Required setback Min. 10’ A Residential Transition Area fence (6 feet high) shall be required when adjacent to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District and shall be optional for all other adjacencies. The required fence shall NOT be chain link or vinyl. A 6-foot wide landscape buffer with evergreen shrubs planted at 3’ on center and 6’ min. in height at maturity shall also be required to be planted within the landscape buffer parallel to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District border. (see surface parking setbacks illustration). U V W Flex Office Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 60 6.6 Flex Office (FO) Zone (a) Illustrations and Intent TCAAP Master Plan Vision for Flex Office Zone The Flex Office Zoning District creates an opportunity for large scale development for employment, and manufacturing uses that take advantage of the highway frontage and automobile access. Flex Office Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 61 (b) Building Placement (i) Build-to Zones (BTZs) and Setbacks (Distance from property line to edge of the zone) Pedestrian Priority / Open Space Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 25’ max. setback Pedestrian-Friendly /Spine Road Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 95’ max. setback General or Highway Frontage 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Side – Adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District Side – All other adjacencies 30’ min setback; no max setback 0’ min setback; no max setback Rear – Adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District Rear – All other adjacencies 30’ min setback; no max setback 15’ min setback; no max. setback (ii) Building Frontage (Percentage of building façade built within the BTZ) Pedestrian Priority or Open Space Frontage 50% min. Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage 40% min. General Frontage None Required C A B E F D D* Flex Office Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 62 (c) Building Height (i) Principal Building Standards Building maximum 45’ max. 65’ max. for buildings with at least 75% office use. First floor to floor height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 10’ min. for all frontages Ground floor finish level 12” max. above sidewalk for all buildings with Pedestrian Priority Frontage designation ADA Code Applies Upper floor(s) height (fin. floor to ceiling structure) 9’ min. (ii) Accessory Building Standards Accessory buildings shall meet the standards for Principal Building standards in the Flex Office Zone. K N M L Flex Office Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 63 (d) Parking & Service Access (i) Surface Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section below. Highway Frontage 15’ min. from the property line and include a street screen and landscape buffer Pedestrian- Friendly 3’ min. behind the building façade line along that street General Frontage 10’ min. behind the property line along that street Side 30’ min - adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District; 0’ min. - all other adjacencies Rear 30’ min - adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District; 0’ min - all other adjacencies (ii) Structured Parking or Below Grade Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian Priority / Open Space Frontage Ground floor - Shall be min. of 30’ from the property line Upper Floors – may be built to the façade line along that street Pedestrian- Friendly, General or Highway Frontage Shall be min. of 10’ from the property line; If no building is located along the street frontage; then the structured parking shall meet the setback standards along that specific frontage. Side 30’ min -adjacent to Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District 0’ min - all other adjacencies Rear 30’ min - adjacent to residential uses or Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District 0’ min - all other adjacencies (iii) Below Grade Parking May be built up to the property line along all streets. O Q* P R O P R Q’ Flex Office Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 64 (e) Residential Transition Standards The following transition standards shall apply to all new building construction and all upper story additions to existing buildings located adjacent to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District. This requirement shall NOT apply if an alley or other similar right-of-way separates the subject lot and the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District. i. Transition Area 40’ min. ii. Max. Building Height at within Transition Area 2 stories or 25’ iii. Required setback Min. 30’ A Residential Transition Area fence (6 feet high) shall be required when adjacent to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District and shall be recommended for all other adjacencies. The required fence shall NOT be chain link or vinyl. A 6-foot wide landscape buffer with evergreen shrubs planted at 3’ on center and 6’ min. in height at maturity shall also be required to be planted within the landscape buffer parallel to the Neighborhood Transition or Neighborhood District border. (see surface parking setbacks illustration) U V W Neighborhood Transition Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 65 6.7 Neighborhood Transition (NT) Zone (a) Illustrations and Intent TCAAP Master Plan Vision of the Neighborhood Transition Zone The Neighborhood Transition Zoning District provides for a range of residential (live-work, townhomes, duplexes, patio homes, manor homes, etc.) transitions between the active retail and employment mixed-use districts and adjoining single- family neighborhoods. Design standards in this district emphasize smaller scale residential uses and establish building transition standards to adjoining neighborhoods. Neighborhood Transition Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 66 (b) Building Placement (i) Build-to Zones (BTZs) and Setbacks Pedestrian-Friendly or Civic/Open Space Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 20’ max. setback General Frontage 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Side – Adjacent to SF-detached Residential lot 5’ min. setback; no max. setback Side – All other adjacencies 0’ min. setback; no max. setback Rear – Adjacent to SF-detached Residential lot 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Rear – All other adjacencies 0’ min. setback; no max. setback (ii) Building Frontage (Percentage of building façade built within the BTZ) Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage 50% min. General Frontage None Required (iii) Gross Density Neighborhood Transition (NT) Minimum density of 8 dwelling units/acre Maximum density of 15 dwelling units/acre (c) Lot Standards Lot Width Min. 20’ for single-family attached/duplex/townhome buildings Min. 40’ for single-family detached buildings Min. 50’ for front-loaded or J-swing units. See Section 6.1 (c) iii 9. For driveway and garage size requirements Less than 50’ wide lots shall be alley-loaded lots. No lot size requirement for multi-family C A D* E B B D Neighborhood Transition Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 67 (d) Building Height (i) Principal Building Standards Building maximum 40’ max. First floor to floor height (fin. floor to fin. floor) 8’ min. for single-family uses (all frontages) 9’ min. for all other uses (all frontages) Ground floor finish level 18” min. above sidewalk for ground floor residential uses along Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages that are also setback less than 10’ from the front property line ADA Code applies on buildings with public access Upper floor(s) height (fin. floor to fin. floor) 8’ min. (ii) Accessory Building Standards Building Height 15’ maximum BTZ/Setbacks Shall be placed behind the front façade of the principal building along all frontages. Building Footprint Shall be limited to no more than 50% of the principal building footprint or 728 square feet, whichever is less. K M N L Neighborhood Transition Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 68 (e) Parking & Service Access i. Surface Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Pedestrian-Friendly or Civic/Open Space Frontage Shall be located behind the principal building along that street frontage; or Min. 3’ behind the building façade line along that frontage General Frontage At or behind the building façade line along that frontage; or Min. 6’ behind the property line along that street Side 6’ min - Adjacent to SF- detached residential lot 0’ min – all other adjacencies Rear 6’ min - Adjacent to SF- detached residential lot 0’ min – all other adjacencies (f) Residential Transition Standards The following transition standards shall apply to all new multi- family, mixed-use and non-residential building construction and all upper story additions to existing buildings located adjacent to existing single-family detached lot(s). This requirement shall NOT apply if an alley or other similar right-of-way separates the subject lot and the existing single-family detached residential lot(s). i. Transition Area 20’ min. ii. Max. Building Height at within Transition Area 2 stories or 25’ iii. Required setback Min. 10’ A Residential Transition Area fence (6 feet high) shall be required when adjacent to an existing single-family detached residential lot and shall be optional for all other adjacencies. The required fence shall NOT be chain link or vinyl. A 6-foot wide landscape buffer with evergreen shrubs planted at 3’ on center and 6’ min. in height at maturity shall also be required to be planted within the landscape buffer parallel to the SF- residential lot line. (see surface parking setbacks illustration) U V W O Q* Q R R* P R’ Neighborhood Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 69 6.8 Neighborhood (NB) Zone (a) Illustrations and Intent TCAAP Master Plan Vision of the Neighborhood Zone The Neighborhood Zoning District provides for a range of attached and detached single-family residential. Neighborhood Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 70 (b) Building Placement (i) Build-to Zones (BTZs) and Setbacks Civic/Open Space/Water Infrastructure Frontage (BTZ) 10’ min. setback – 20’ max. setback General Frontage 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Side – Adjacent to SF-detached residential lot 5’ min. setback; no max. setback Side – All other adjacencies 0’ min. setback; no max. setback Rear – Adjacent to SF-detached residential lot 10’ min. setback; no max. setback Rear – All other adjacencies 0’ min. setback; no max. setback (ii) Building Frontage (Percentage of building façade built within the BTZ) Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage 50% min. General Frontage None Required (iii) Gross Density Neighborhood Sub-District 1 (NB-1) Maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units/acre Neighborhood Sub-District 2 (NB-2) Minimum density of 2.5 dwelling units/acre Maximum density of 4 dwelling units/acre Neighborhood Sub-District 3 (NB-3) Neighborhood Sub-District 4 (NB-4) Minimum density of 4 dwelling units/acre Maximum density of 8 dwelling units/acre (c) Lot Standards Lot Width Min. 20’ for single-family attached/duplex/townhome buildings Min. 40’ for single-family detached buildings Min. 50’ for front-loaded or J-swing units. See Section 6.1 (c) iii 9. For driveway and garage size requirements Less than 50’ wide lots shall be alley-loaded lots. C A D* E D B Neighborhood Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 71 (d) Building Height (i) Principal Building Standards Building maximum 30’ max. First floor to floor height (fin. floor to fin. floor) 8’ min for single-family uses (all frontages) 9’ min. for all other uses (all frontages) Ground floor finish level 18” min. above sidewalk for ground floor residential uses along Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages that are also setback less than 10’ from the front property line ADA Code applies on buildings with public access Upper floor(s) height (fin. floor to fin. floor) 8’ min. (ii) Accessory Building Standards Building Height 15’ maximum BTZ/Setbacks Shall be placed behind the front façade of the principal building along all frontages. Building Footprint Shall be limited to no more than 50% of the principal building footprint or 728 square feet, whichever is less. K M N L Neighborhood Zoning District May 26, 2015 Section 6: Building and Site Development Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 72 (e) Parking & Service Access i. Residential Parking Setbacks Standards for S and T in the illustrations above are referenced in standards for Driveways and Service Access section 6.1(c) iii. Civic/Open Space Frontage Min. 3’ behind the building façade line along that frontage; or Shall be located behind the principal building along that street frontage General Frontage Min. 6’ behind the property line along that street; or At or behind the building façade line along that frontage Side / Rear 4’ min; no parking permitted on driveway, OR 20’ min; parking permitted on driveway Alley Fence 4’ min from edge of typical pavement or 8’ min from edge of typical paving where above ground franchise equipment exists (f) Residential Transition Standards The following transition standards shall apply to all new multi- family, mixed-use and non-residential building construction and all upper story additions to existing buildings located adjacent to existing single-family detached lot(s). This requirement shall NOT apply if an alley or other similar right-of-way separates the subject lot and the existing single-family detached residential lot(s). i. Transition Area 20’ min. ii. Max. Building Height at within Transition Area 2 stories or 25’ iii. Required setback Min. 10’ A Residential Transition Area fence (6 feet high) shall be required when adjacent to an existing single-family detached residential lot and shall be optional for all other adjacencies. The required fence shall NOT be chain link or vinyl. A 6-foot wide landscape buffer with evergreen shrubs planted at 3’ on center and 6’ min. in height at maturity shall also be required to be planted within the landscape buffer parallel to the SF- residential lot line. (see surface parking setbacks illustration) U V W O O P P S T R Q May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 73 7.0 Building Design Standards 7.1 Purpose and Intent The Building Design Standards for the TRC shall establish a coherent character and encourage enduring and attractive development. Site and/or building plans shall be reviewed by the JDA for compliance with the standards below (see Table 7-1 for more detail). The key design principles establish essential goals for the redevelopment within the Plan Area to be consistent with the vision for a vibrant mixed-use development with a range of commercial, employment and residential uses serving the neighborhoods and the region. Buildings shall be located and designed so that they provide visual interest and create enjoyable, human-scaled spaces. The key design principles include: (a) New and redeveloped buildings and sites shall utilize building and site elements and details to achieve a pedestrian-oriented public realm with glazing, shading and shelter; (b) Design compatibility is not meant to be achieved through uniformity, but through the use of variations in building elements to achieve individual building identity; (c) Building facades shall include appropriate architectural details and ornament to create variety and interest; (d) Open space(s) shall be incorporated to provide usable public areas integral to the environment; and (e) Increase the quality, adaptability, energy efficiency, sustainability, and resilience in Arden Hills’ building stock. Table 7-1: Review Process for Building Design Standards Ap p l i c a b l e S u b s e c t i o n 7. 2 B u i l d i n g O r i e n t a t i o n & En t r a n c e s 7. 3 F a ç a d e C o m p o s i t i o n 7. 4 Bu i l d i n g M a t e r i a l s 7. 5 Sh a d i n g R e q u i r e m e n t s 7. 6 G a t e w a y O v e r l a y Di s t r i c t 7. 7 D e s i g n o f A u t o -Or i e n t e d Si t e E l e m e n t s 7. 8 D e s i g n o f P a r k i n g St r u c t u r e s Site Plan Review Building Permit Review 7.2 Building Orientation and Entrances (a) Buildings shall be oriented towards Pedestrian Priority Frontages, where the lot has frontage along Pedestrian Priority Frontages. If a building has no frontage along a Pedestrian Priority Frontage, then it shall front a Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage. All other buildings may be oriented towards General Streets or Civic/Open Spaces. (b) Primary entrances to buildings shall be located on the street along which the building is oriented (See Figure 7-1). At intersections, corner buildings may have their primary entrances oriented at an angle to the intersection. Building entrances shall be provided for all separate ground floor commercial use tenant spaces that are located along a Pedestrian Priority or Pedestrian-Friendly frontage. (c) All primary entrances shall be oriented to the public sidewalk for ease of pedestrian access and entrances may be placed on the corner of the building in order to serve May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 74 both the sidewalk and the parking lot. Secondary and service entrances may be oriented to parking areas or alleys. (d) Primary Entrance Design: Primary building entrances along Pedestrian Priority Frontages and Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages shall consist of at least two (2) of following design elements so that the main entrance is architecturally prominent and clearly visible from that street (see Figures 7-2): i. Architectural details such as arches, friezes, awnings, canopies, arcades, tile work, murals, or moldings; or ii. Integral planters or wing walls that incorporate landscape or seating elements; or iii. Prominent three-dimensional, vertical features such as belfries, chimneys, clock towers, domes, spires, steeples, towers, or turrets. Figure 7-1 Figure showing required building orientation and location of primary entrances May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 75 Figures 7-2 Examples of Primary Entrance Designs 7.3 Façade Composition (a) Commercial Use, Mixed-Use and Large and Medium Multi-Family Buildings: (i) Facades greater than 60’ in length along all Pedestrian Priority Frontage, Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages and Civic/Open Spaces shall meet the following façade articulation standards: 1. Include facade modulation suc h that a por tion of the facade steps back or extends forward with a depth of at least 24 inc hes (see Figure 7-3). 2. The distance from the inside edge of a building projection to the nearest inside edge of an adjacent projection shall not be less than 20 feet and not greater than 60 feet (see Figure 7-3). (ii) All other facades shall be articulated by at least one discernable architectural element every 20 feet. Such architectural elements include, but are not limited to: 1. Changes in material, color, and/or texture either horizontally or vertically at intervals not less than 20 feet and not more than 60 feet (see Figure 7-3); or 2. The construction of building entrances, bay windows, display windows, storefronts, arcades, façade relief, panels, balconies, cornices, bases, pilasters, or columns (see Figures 7-4). Figure 7-3 Illustration showing building articulation requirement 60 ’ m a x . May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 76 Figures 7-4 Images showing examples of appropriate building articulation (iii) Façade Transparency Required: 1. All facades shall meet the minimum requirement for façade transparency (percentage of doors and windows) as established in Table 7-2 below. 2. In order to reduce building heat loss, a maximum of 40 percent transparency coverage is recommended for the upper floors of northern facing facades. Table 7-2 Required Minimum Façade Transparency by Façade Frontage Type Façade Frontage Type Pedestrian Priority or Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage General Frontage All other facades Commercial Use or Mixed-Use Buildings Ground Floor 50% (min.) None None Upper Floor(s) 25% (min) None None Residential Use Buildings Ground Floor 25% (min.) None None Upper Floor(s) 20% (min.) None None (b) Single-Family and Small Multi-Family Use Buildings (i) At least one of the following shall be added along single-family building facades to add pedestrian interest along the street: • porches, Images showing appropriate transparency required along Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 77 • stoops, • eaves, or • balconies (ii) Attached townhome facades shall have variation in architectural features and paint/siding between adjacent units. Variations of architectural features may include one of the following: • porches, • stoops, • eaves, • windows or doorway treatments or framing, or • other architectural features acceptable as variation by community development staff. (iii) Windows and Doors: All building facades of single-family use buildings shall meet the transparency requirements established in Table 7-2. (iv) In a detached single-family development, along each block face a minimum of five (5) façade designs or styles shall be required. No home shall have the same design, style, or paint/siding as the homes immediately adjacent or across the street. The following design standards shall be met: 1. Roofing materials visible from any public right-of-way shall vary materials in each design. 2. Variation to façade designs or styles shall be required through changes to size and location of windows, doorways, or changes in eave lines and massing. 3. In an effort to decrease monotony of design, changing the paint color or material type will not be considered a different design or style. (v) Single Family and Small Multi-Family buildings shall not have more than three materials used on the exterior of the structure. Of the three materials a primary material shall be used for a minimum of 60 percent of facades facing a public street. Primary materials shall be one of the following: 1. Masonry (brick, stone, cast stone, or other durable masonry material; any masonry product shall be mortared in place) 2. Cementitious fiber clapboard with a minimum 50-year warranty 3. Wood, or 4. Other durable material approved by the JDA (vi) Secondary materials may be used up to 40 percent of facades facing a public street. Secondary materials shall be one of the following: 1. A primary building material, or 2. Architectural metal with matte finish, or 3. Stucco utilizing a 3-step process of application. (c) A recommended palette for exterior building colors is included in Attachment 6. Fluorescent colors are prohibited. The colors of roofs, trim and siding, and accents shall work together to create a unified whole. (i) Accent colors shall be used on no more than 10% of any façade. No large expanses such as panels shall be painted in accent colors. May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 78 (ii) A darker value than façade colors is recommended for roofing materials. White roofs are prohibited on pitched roof buildings. (d) Best practices for bird safety are recommended as described in Attachment 7. Residential buildings with porches, fencing, balconies and stoops to add interest along the street. 7.4 Non-Residential, Mixed-Use, and Large and Medium Multi-Family Residential Building Materials (a) On Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian Friendly Frontages, primary building structures shall have a minimum of 60 percent of the following primary building materials: (i) Masonry (brick, stone, cast stone, etc. that is mortared in place) (b) On General Frontages, primary building structures shall have a minimum of 40 percent of the following primary building materials: (i) Masonry (brick, stone, cast stone, etc. that is mortared in place) (c) Secondary materials shall only be used for up to 40 percent of the primary building façade for Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian Friendly frontages. On General Frontages, secondary materials may be used for up to 60 percent of the primary building façade. (i) Secondary materials include: 1. Architectural metal with matte finish 2. Cementitious fiber clapboard with a minimum 50-year warranty May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 79 3. Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS), on all frontages shall not be used on the ground floor level. Use of EIFS is limited to 10% per total façade area. 4. Stucco utilizing a 3-step process of application. (d) Accessory buildings shall maintain the same building materials as the primary building. (e) For tilt-up wall construction, a veneer system of materials shall be used to come into conformance with the above listed materials. (f) Canvas awnings are not permitted. 7.5 Shading Requirement: Shading of public and publicly accessible sidewalks, especially sidewalks located along Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian-Friendly frontages shall be important to implementing the vision for walkable mixed-use in the Plan Area. Shading may be achieved through any combination of canopies, awnings, street trees and other similar devices. To this end, the following standards shall apply (see Figure 7-5): (a) Shaded sidewalks shall be provided alongside at least: (i) 50 percent of all building facades with Pedestrian Priority Frontage designation per the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1). (ii) 50 percent of all building facades with frontage along an off-street surface parking lot (b) When adjacent to a surface parking lot, the shaded sidewalk shall be raised above the level of the parking lot by way of a defined edge, such as a curb. ADA ramps along the building must also be shaded. (c) A shaded sidewalk must meet the following requirements: (i) Along a street, a shaded sidewalk shall comply with the applicable sidewalk standards for its designated street type. If not otherwise required, the shaded sidewalk shall provide trees planted no more than 50 feet on center. (ii) Along any surface parking adjacent to the building (both off-street or on street), the shaded sidewalk shall consist of a minimum 5 foot clear zone and 5 foot planting zone, planted with trees no more than 50 feet on center, or a 5 foot clear zone with a minimum 5 foot wide over- head weather protection. (iii) Building entrances along Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian-Friendly frontages shall be located under a shade device, suc h as an awning or por tico. Figure 7-5 Images showing examples of shading along sidewalks May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 80 7.6 Gateway Overlay District: Given the visual importance of certain entrances and gateways to the site, advanced architectural elements or landscaping features are required to be provided for properties within the Gateway Overlay District as identified on the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1). (a) Properties within the Town Center, Retail Mixed-Use, or Office Mixed-Use Districts shall meet the following standards for the Gateway Overlay District: (i) Corner buildings located at a street intersection must incorporate a distinctive architectural feature as part of the building, such as a tower, cupola, turret, or rotunda (see Section 6.1(b)(ii) for specifications and restrictions). (ii) Principal building structures shall have a minimum of 75 percent of the required primary building materials listed in Section 7.4(a)(i). (iii) Commercial developments greater than 10 acres in size shall provide a prominent gateway monument at the entrance to the development with integrated landscaping. (b) Properties within the Flex Office or Neighborhood Transition Districts shall meet the following standards for the Gateway Overlay District: (i) A landscaped buffer with a minimum width of 20’ shall be provided along all frontages on public streets. (ii) Landscaped buffers shall include a diversity of landscaping materials, including shade, evergreen, and/or ornamental trees, shrubs, and annual and perennial plants. Landscaping shall be a minimum of 50 percent opaque at maturity. 7.7 Design of Automobile Related Building and Site Elements (a) Where permitted under Section 5 of this Code, drive-through lanes, auto service bays, and gas station canopies for commercial uses shall not be located with frontage along any Pedestrian Priority Frontage. Drive-through lanes may be permitted along Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road frontages only if the property has no General or Alley frontage. Drive-through lanes, auto service bays, and gas station canopies shall be hidden behind a 3 feet high Street Screen along both Pedestrian-Friendly and General frontages (see illustrations below). The Street Screen shall be made up of (i) a living screen or (ii) a combination living and primary building material screen (See Section 10.4 for details). (b) No more than 60% of a lot’s frontage along a Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road frontage may be dedicated to drive through lanes, canopies, service bays, and other auto-related site elements. There shall be no such limitation along General or Alley frontages and along highway frontage roads. May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 81 Image illustrating the appropriate design of retail/restaurant drive-throughs (Corner Lot) Image illustrating the appropriate design of auto-related site elements (Gas stations, auto-service uses, and bank drive-throughs) (c) Any automobile related retail sales or service use of a site or property with Pedestrian Priority, Pedestrian-Friendly, or Spine Road frontage designation shall have a primary building entrance along its Pedestrian Priority Frontage. A primary building entrance may be along a building’s Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road Frontage only if the site has no Pedestrian Priority frontage designation. (d) Drive through access (driveways only) may be from a Pedestrian Priority Frontage only if the lot has no access to any Pedestrian Friendly or General Frontage. Drive May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 82 through access may be from a Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road Frontage only if the lot has no access to any General Frontage. In cases where drive through access is provided from a Pedestrian Priority Frontage, a joint access easement shall be required to adjoining properties providing alternative access to a Pedestrian-Friendly or General Frontage. Image illustrating the appropriate design of retail/restaurant drive throughs (Interior Lot) (e) All off-street loading, unloading, and trash pick-up areas shall be located along alleys or General Frontages only unless permitted in the specific building form and development standards in Section 6 of this Code. If a site has no General Frontage or Alley access, off-street loading, unloading, and trash pick-up areas may be permitted along a Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road Frontage. (f) All off-street loading, unloading, or trash pick-up areas shall be screened using a Street Screen that is at least as tall as the trash containers and/or service equipment. The Street Screen shall be made up of (i) a living screen or (ii) a combination living and primary building material screen. 7.8 Design of Parking Structures (a) All ground floors of parking structures located on Pedestrian Priority frontages shall be constructed in order to accommodate ground floor retail/commercial uses to a minimum depth of 24 feet. (b) To the extent possible, the amount of Pedestrian Priority frontage devoted to a parking structure shall be minimized by placing the shortest dimension(s) of the parking structure along the Pedestrian Priority frontage edge(s) (see Figures 7-8 for illustrations below). May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 83 Figures 7-8 Allowed Parking Garage Configurations (c) Where above ground structured parking is located at the perimeter of a building with Pedestrian Priority Frontage, it shall be screened in such a way that cars on all parking levels are completely screened from view (see Figures 7-9 for illustrative images). Architectural screens shall be used to articulate the façade, hide parked vehicles, and shield lighting. Ramps within parking garages shall not be visible from any Pedestrian Priority Frontages. Ramps shall not be located along the exterior perimeter of the parking structure. Figures 7-9 Illustrative Examples of Parking Garage Screening May 26, 2015 Section 7: Building Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 84 (d) Ground floor façade treatment (building materials, windows, and architectural detailing) shall be continued to the second floor of a parking structure along all Pedestrian Priority Frontages (see Figures 7-10). Figures 7-10 Images showing required façade treatment of parking garages along Pedestrian Priority Frontages (e) When parking structures are located at street intersections, corner emphasizing elements (such as towers, pedestrian entrances, signage, glazing, etc.) shall be incorporated. (f) Parking structures and adjacent sidewalks shall be designed so pedestrians and bicyclists are clearly visible (through sight distance clearance, signage, and other warning signs) to entering and exiting automobiles. May 26, 2015 Section 8: Street Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 85 8.0 Street Design Standards 8.1 Purpose and Intent: The Master Plan Vision for the TRC recognizes the importance of providing adequate public infrastructure, which includes an ultimate Street Network that maximizes connectivity, and other needed infrastructure to serve the vision for redevelopment within the Plan Area. Street design and connectivity is envisioned to support and balance automobile, bicycle, and walking trips in addition to becoming the “living” space for development. The “living” nature of streets will not only serve private redevelopment, but the community at large and the people who live in and use it. This section establishes context sensitive standards for Street Design and Connectivity. 8.2 Street Designation Categories: In order to service multiple modes of transportation within an appropriate redevelopment context, streets within the TRC are designated under two (2) major categories: (a) Street Classification: The Street Classification designation establishes standards for the actual cross-section of the street itself. The Street Classification includes information on automobile, bicycle, pedestrian, and parking accommodation. It typically addresses the space allocation within the public right-of-way and its emphasis towards different modes of transportation. The TCAAP Street Type Plan (Attachment 5) identifies the Street Classification designations within the Plan Area and Attachment 4 provides cross sections for the different Street Classifications. (b) Street Network: In addition to Street Classification designations, streets in plan are identified as Required streets to implement the ultimate street network in the Master Plan Vision. The TCAAP Street Type Plan (Attachment 5) illustrates the Street Network within the TRC. 1. Required Streets – these are mainly existing, improved or new streets that are needed to implement the ultimate street network envisioned in the Vision for the TRC. They shall be mandatory at the time of redevelopment including the requirement to dedicate right-of-way as identified in the Regulating Plan. The alignment of new Required Streets may be modified per Permitted Adjustments in Section 3.3 of this Code. 8.3 Project Circulation Plan: A Project Circulation Plan must be submitted with a site plan or subdivision application (whichever comes first) for an area of four (4) acres or larger that is subject to the requirements of this section. The Project Circulation Plan shall be developed and reviewed for its consistency with this section and the Regulating Plan, which illustrates proposed locations for new and improved streets within the Plan Area. Required streets on the Regulating Plan shall be mandatory and their alignments may be adjusted per Section 3.3 Permitted Adjustments. (a) A Project Circulation Plan must demonstrate: 1. How the proposed circulation meets the intent of the Master Plan Vision for redevelopment of TCAAP; 2. How the on-site circulation system integrates with existing and planned streets, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and trails in the surrounding area; 3. How new street alignments conform with the Regulating Plan or how modifications from the Regulating Plan, in terms of street placement, alignment, and design are consistent with the intent of this Code; 4. How new street design conforms with the street cross section standards in Attachment 4; May 26, 2015 Section 8: Street Design Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 86 5. How the plan considers all modes of transportation including walking, biking, and automobiles; and 6. How the plan provides adequate linkages between different destinations within the Plan Area. (b) For a subdivision, a private restrictive covenant depicting the Project Circulation Plan shall be recorded and referenced on the plat. The covenant may be amended if the JDA approves a revision to the Project Circulation Plan as authorized under this section. (c) Approvals: A Project Circulation Plan may only be approved by the JDA. 1. The Project Circulation Plan shall create interconnected blocks bounded by streets to the extent feasible. The JDA may approve a Project Circulation Plan containing blocks bounded by Highway right-of-way, subdivision boundary lines, or natural and infrastructure features if no reasonable alternatives are available. 2. When required, revisions to the Project Circulation Plan may be approved by the JDA after considering the circulation characteristics of a proposed development plan, the need for access to adjoining properties, phasing of a larger-scaled project, and the context of surrounding development. 3. The JDA, with the recommendation of the Arden Hills Public Works and Community Development Departments, may waive the requirement for a Project Circulation Plan through the Permitted Adjustment process. This is permitted if the JDA finds that a plan is not necessary due to the nature of the proposed development on the site, the existence of surrounding incompatible development, or other factors unique to the property which make strict compliance unfeasible. 4. A subdivision or site plan may not be approved if the Project Circulation Plan is not approved. 5. Joint Access and Public Cross-Access Easements: If necessary to ensure access management goals along the Spine Road and to meet the intent of the recommended alley/public cross-access easements as indicated on the Regulating Plan, the JDA may require joint use driveways or public cross-access easements within the site to adjacent properties and/or easements. 8.4 Street Standards: Attachment 4 shall establish standards for all elements within the public right-of-way including travel lane(s), on-street parking, bicycle accommodation, streetscape/parkway standards, and sidewalk standards. The process and standards in the Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual shall apply to the extent that they do not conflict with the design and context standards in Attachment 4 and the Master Plan Vision for streets in TCAAP. Landscaping within the public right-of-way shall be per standards in Section 10 in the TRC. Attachment 4 provides recommended cross sections for public streets within the TRC based on available right-of-way and intended development context per the Master Plan Vision. May 26, 2015 Section 9: Open Space Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 87 9.0 Open Space Standards 9.1 Open Space Approach: The Master Plan Vision for TCAAP recognizes the importance of providing a network of open spaces with a multitude of passive and active recreational opportunities. These opportunities are to be accommodated in a variety of spaces ranging from large scale open spaces to small scale pocket parks located within the Plan Area. The open space network will be serviced by an interconnected network of trails and paths for pedestrians and bicyclists alike, providing desired amenities for future residents and visitors alike. The approach to Open Space facilitates the implementation of the Master Plan Vision for the TRC. This vision for redevelopment is based on the City of Arden Hills’ goal to create a comprehensive, maintained and interconnected system of parks, pathways and open spaces, as well as a balanced program of recreational activities for residents of all ages, incomes and abilities. The Open Space approach recognizes that the development context, with varying density and building types, is required to ensure quality open spaces that serve both recreational and placemaking goals of the Master Plan. 9.2 Required Open Space Designations: This section establishes standards for Open Space within the TRC. The TRC Regulating Plan (Attachment 1) designates areas for required Open Spaces within the TRC. The detailed Open Space Standards for each type are included in Attachment 2. These standards include general character, design, typical size, frontage requirements, and typical uses. (a) Required Open Spaces are the areas shown on the Regulating Plan with specific locations of future Open Spaces (including parks, plazas, greens, and squares). These spaces have been identified on the Regulating Plan due to the certainty of their location within the context of the overall Plan Area. Such required spaces shall be publicly accessible open spaces. The specific location of parks, particularly in the Hill and Creek neighborhoods, are likely to change based on developer input, but will need to include the amenities identified in the TCAAP Master Parks Plan. 9.3 Water Infrastructure Designation: The Natural Resources Corridor within the TCAAP Site Redevelopment will be designed with the goal of maximizing compatibility and functionality of regional storm water, wetland mitigation, the Rice Creek re-meander, floodplain restoration, and groundwater requirements. An additional goal is to provide visual and active and passive recreational features to support adjacent land uses. The Natural Resources Corridor is intended to be an amenity to the site’s uses and users. 9.4 Permeable Area Requirement: (a) All development is required to maintain a permeable ground area per Table 9-1. In limited areas, the JDA may grant flexibility on these requirements in accordance with MPCA guidelines. Table 9-1 Permeable Area Requirements (b) Permeable ground area shall be on-site within the parcel limits of the development. (c) Up to 100% of Private Common Open Space may count towards the permeable ground area requirements if the materials and ground cover for the Private Common Open Space meets the standards of permeability. District Min Pervious Lot Area Neighborhood 40% Transition 20% TC, Retail, Office 10% Flex Office, CC 25% May 26, 2015 Section 9: Open Space Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 88 (d) Street screening for parking lots that utilize vegetative screening may count towards the permeable ground area requirements. (e) Permeable materials include: i. Any natural vegetation or landscaping that allows direct water infiltration ii. Permeable paving materials designed and engineered to allow direct water infiltration. Any new material not listed in any best practice guides for permeable paving will be evaluated and considered by Community Development Staff and may be approved by the JDA. Permeable paving materials shall not count towards more than 20 percent of the total permeable area requirements. iii. Any material that requires a sheet flow and collection system for water infiltration shall not be considered permeable cover. (f) Design and placement: i. In Town Center, Retail Mixed-Use and Office Mixed-Use Zones, permeable area that is adjacent to or visible from the public right-of-way shall be designed in context with the public realm and not interrupt the walkable form of the public realm. An interruption may be considered any design that blocks pedestrian walkability and clear zones, blocks views of entryways and windows, or blocks access to any ingress/egress of a building. ii. In the Neighborhood Transition, Neighborhood, Flex Office or Campus Commercial Zones, any yard or buffer space on site shall be designed in context with the primary building(s) and shall not block views or ingress/egress access to the buildings. 9.5 Open Space Classification: For the purposes of this Code, all open space shall fall into one of the following 3 major classes: (a) Public Open Space: Open air or unenclosed to semi-unenclosed areas intended for public access and use and located per the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1). These areas range in size and development and serve to compliment and connect surrounding land uses and Code requirements. (b) Private Common Open Space: A privately owned outdoor or unenclosed area, located on the ground or on a terrace, deck, porch, or roof, designed and accessible for outdoor gathering, recreation, and/or landscaping and intended for use by the residents, employees, and/or visitors to the development. This may or may not be accessible to the public, but shall be maintained privately. (c) Private Personal Open Space: A privately owned outdoor or unenclosed area, located on the ground or on a balcony, deck, porch, or terrace and intended solely for use by the individual residents of a condominium or multi-family dwelling unit. 9.6 Open Space Requirements (a) All non-residential development shall provide 4.0 sq.ft. of Private Common Open Space for every 100 sq. ft. of non-residential building space or fraction thereof. This standard shall only apply to site plans two (2) acres in size or larger. (b) All residential development of five (5) attached dwelling units or more, on a single parcel, shall meet the Private Common Open Space standards established in this Section. Table 9-2 establishes the Private Common Open Space requirement based on the proposed intensity of residential development. May 26, 2015 Section 9: Open Space Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 89 Table 9-2 Private Common Open Space Requirements Residential Density (dwelling units per acre) Private Common Open Space Standard Proposed (area of private common space per dwelling unit) 0 – 4 DU / acre Not required 5 – 19 DU / acre Provide minimum of 160 sf per dwelling unit 20 – 29 DU / acre Provide minimum of 120 sf per dwelling unit 30 DU / acre or greater Provide minimum of 80 sf per dwelling unit (c) All residential development with seven (7) or more attached units within the TRC shall also meet the Private Personal Open Space standards established in this Section. Table 9-3 establishes the Private Personal Open Space requirement based on the proposed intensity and type of residential development. Nursing Home and Assisted Living residential uses and Live-work units are exempted from Private Personal Open Space requirements. Table 9-3 Private Personal Open Space Requirements Residential Density (dwellings per acre) Private Personal Open Space Standard Proposed 7 - 19 DU / acre Ground floor units located on a Pedestrian Friendly or Pedestrian Priority Frontage: all dwelling units shall have private personal open space including one of the following: Porch, Stoop, Patio, or Deck or combination Upper floor units: 60% of all dwelling units shall have a balcony. 20 – 29 DU / acre Ground floor units located on a Pedestrian Friendly or Pedestrian Priority Frontage: all dwelling units shall have one of the following: Porch, Stoop, Patio, or Deck Upper floor units: 60% of all dwelling units shall have a Balcony. 30 or greater DU / acre Ground floor dwelling units located on a Pedestrian Friendly or Pedestrian Priority Frontage: All units shall include one of the following: Porch, Stoop, Patio, or Deck Upper floor dwelling units: 50% of all upper dwelling units shall have a Balcony. (d) Attachment 2 shall provide the palette of open space types. May 26, 2015 Section 10: Sidewalk and Landscape Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 90 10.0 Streetscape and Landscape Standards 10.1 Sidewalks. Publicly accessible sidewalks are required for all development under this Code and shall meet the standards of Table 10-1 and shall be based on the Street Classification per Attachment 4. The minimum sidewalk width requirement shall apply regardless of the available right-of-way. If necessary to meet the required sidewalk width, the sidewalk shall extend onto private property to fulfill the minimum requirement, with a permanent public access easement provided. Sidewalks shall consist of two zones: a planting zone located adjacent to the curb, and a clear zone (see Figures 10-1). (a) Planting Zone: The planting zone is intended for the placement of street trees, if required, and street furniture including seating, street lights, waste receptacles, fire hydrants, traffic signs, newspaper vending boxes, bus shelters, bicycle racks, public utility equipment suc h as electric transfor mers and water meters, and similar elements in a manner that does not obstruct pedestrian access or motorist visibility (see Figure 10-1). This zone may be planted with vegetation along the street or paved to match the grade of the clear zone. Landscaping and streetscaping shall follow the City of Arden Hills Street Design Manual for details and process. (b) Clear Zone: The clear zone shall be hardscaped, shall be located adjacent to the planting zone, shall comply with ADA and Minnesota Accessibility Code and shall be unobstructed by any permanent or nonpermanent element for the required minimum width and a minimum height of ten (10) feet (see Figure 10-1). Accessibility is required to connect sidewalk clear zones on adjacent sites. (c) Fee In-Lieu Option: An applicant may opt to pay a proportional fee in-lieu for the required sidewalk if the development project is phased or the sidewalk improvements need to match the timing of a programmed City capital project affecting that street frontage. Figures 10-1 Illustrations delineating the Streetscape Zone elements 10’ min Clear Height May 26, 2015 Section 10: Sidewalk and Landscape Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 91 Table 10-1 Required Public and Publicly Accessible Sidewalk Standards Street Classification Spine Road (Various) Town Street Collector Road (Various) Neighborhood (Various) Standard Min. Streetscape Zone width (includes planting zone and clear zone) (feet) Varies 11’ (two-sides) 11’ (two-sides) 11’ (two-sides) 6’ (one-sided sidewalk; planting zone on side without sidewalk) Min. Planting Zone width (feet) Varies 6’ 6’ 6’ Min. Clear Zone (feet) Varies 5’ (within public access easement) 5’ (within public access easement) 5’ (one-side min.) Street Trees Required (see Section 10.2 for standards) Yes Yes Yes Varies 10.2 Street Trees and Streetscape: (a) Street trees shall be required per Attachment 4 within the Planting/Furnishings Zone. (b) Street trees shall be centered within the Planting Zone and be planted a minimum of 3 feet from the back of curb. (c) Spacing shall be an average of 40 feet on center (measured per block face) along all Streets as required by Attachment 4. (d) Requirements for minimum caliper size and height are included in the Public Works Design Manual. Each tree shall be planted in a planting area no less than 36 square feet. (e) Preferred street tree species are identified in the Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual. Arrangement of species shall be interspersed in order to prevent wholesale loss of street trees in the case of disease. (f) Area between the building facade and property line or edge of existing sidewalk along Pedestrian Priority Frontages shall be such that the sidewalk width shall be a minimum of 10’ (with public access easement if necessary) with the remainder of the setback area paved flush with the public sidewalk. Sidewalk cafes, landscaping within tree-wells or planters may be incorporated within this area. (see Illustration in Section 6.1) (g) Placement of trees shall not impede the clear vision area as required in Section 1325.05, Subsection 1 of the AHC. 10.3 Single-Family Landscaping and Tree Requirements (a) The following table sets the required trees and landscaping requirements for single- family residential uses per lot size: Table 10-2 Single-Family Landscaping and Tree Requirements Lot Size Requirement Less than 40 feet wide 40 percent of permeable area requirement shall be shrubbery or perennial; no on-site trees required. 40 feet wide to 75 feet wide 20 percent of permeable area requirement shall be shrubbery or perennial; 2 trees required on-site. Over 75 feet wide 10 percent of permeable area requirement shall be shrubbery or perennial; 3 trees required on-site. May 26, 2015 Section 10: Sidewalk and Landscape Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 92 10.4 Screening Standards (a) Street Screen Required: Any surface parking lot with frontage along a public right of way shall be defined by a 3-foot high Street Screen (see Figure 10-2). Furthermore, along all streets (except alleys), service areas and ground-mounted utility equipment shall be screened in such a manner that the service area shall not be visible to a person standing on the property line on the far side of the adjoining street (see Figure 10-3). Required Street Screens shall be of one of the following: • The same building material as the principal structure on the lot or • A vegetative screen composed of shrubs planted to be a minimum of 75 percent opaque at maturity, or • A combination of the two. i. Street Screens cannot block any required sight triangles along a cross street or driveway. ii. Street Screens may include breaks to provide pedestrian access from any surface parking or service area to the public sidewalk. Figure 10-2 Illustration showing required Street Screen along all frontages without a Building within the BTZ (b) Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment: All roof mounted mechanical equipment (except solar panels) shall be screened from view of a person standing on the property line on the far side of the adjoining street (see Figure 10-3). The screening material used shall be the same as the primary exterior building material used. May 26, 2015 Section 10: Sidewalk and Landscape Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 93 Figure 10-3 Illustration showing required screening of roof and ground mounted equipment 10.5 Street Lighting: Street lighting should be provided on Spine, Town, Collector and Collector with Trail roads. Refer to Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual for lighting palette. The following standards shall apply for pedestrian scale lighting: (a) Vehicular lighting shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height and pedestrian-oriented lighting a maximum of 18 feet in height. (b) Street lights shall be placed at an average of 40 feet on center, approximately three (3) feet behind the back of curb, aligned with street trees, and where street trees are planted. (c) The light standard selected shall be compatible with the design of the street and buildings. (d) All other standards for street lighting shall direct light downward or properly shielded with ¾ or fully shielded fixtures to prevent glare. (e) High efficiency lighting, such as LED lamps, is required. 10.6 Exterior Lighting: All development in the TRC (including surface parking lots) with the exception of Single-Family Attached, Single-Family detached, Townhouse, and Two-Family Residential Uses shall comply with the Exterior Lighting regulations in AHC Section 1325. 10.7 Street Furniture (a) Street Furniture shall be placed within the Plantings/Furnishings Zone or within the front setback area only. Benches and bike racks are recommended along all Pedestrian Priority Frontages and will be placed in alignment with light poles and street trees. (b) Trash receptacles shall be required for all development along Pedestrian Priority Frontages. Trash receptacles should be placed at street corners. If development is located mid-block, place the trash can near front entry. (c) All street furniture shall be located in such a manner as to allow a Clear Zone of a minimum of six (6) feet in width. Placement of street furniture and fixtures shall be May 26, 2015 Section 10: Sidewalk and Landscape Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 94 coordinated with organization of sidewalks, landscaping, street trees, building entries, curb cuts, signage, and other street fixtures. (d) Materials selected for paving and street furniture shall be of durable quality and require minimal maintenance. 10.8 Utilities (a) All utility lines shall be underground. (b) Locations on private property must be found for switchgear and transformer pads needed to serve that property. Such locations shall be either along General Frontages or at the side or rear of the property and screened from view of a person standing on the property line on the far side of any adjoining street (see Figure 10-3). 10.9 Parking Lot Landscaping: All surface parking shall meet the standards for parking lot landscaping in the AHC Section 1325. May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 95 11.0 Sign Standards 11.1 Applicability: Except for sign types, sign dimensional standards, and as specifically listed below, all other signage and sign standards shall comply with the AHC Chapter 12. 11.2 Prohibited Signs: The following types of Signs shall be prohibited in the TRC: (a) Any sign that flashes, blinks, revolves, or is put into motion will not be permitted except as allowed in TRC Section 11.16; (b) Streaming or video signs or screens; (c) Non-shielded LED or flood lights; (d) Streamers and inflatable mascots; (e) Portable or wheeled signs and advertising devices on the site other than sandwich board signs and mounted menu signs permitted in Table 11-1; and (f) Any additional prohibited signage in AHC Section 1230.02. 11.3 Sign Types Permitted: All development to whic h this Section is applicable shall comply with the Sign Regulations in Table 11-1 below. May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 96 Table 11-1 Permitted Sign Types by Character Zone LEGEND Campus Commercial Town Center Retail Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood Sign Type Zoning District Allowed Description Image Standard Permanent Signs HIGHWAY MONUMENT SIGN OMU A sign not attached to a building, but permanently supported by a structure extending from the ground and permanently attached to the ground. 11.4 CORRIDOR MONUMENT SIGNS A sign not attached to a building, but permanently supported by a structure extending from the ground and permanently attached to the ground. A Corridor Monument sign shall be smaller than a Highway Monument Sign. 11.5 CC TC RMU OMU FO NT NB CC RMU OMU FO CC RMU OMU FO May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 97 LEGEND Campus Commercial Town Center Retail Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood Sign Type Zoning District Allowed Description Image Standard BUILDING IDENTITY SIGN CC A Wall Sign attached to the upper floor of a multiple story building or parapet of single tenant one-story building that provides identification of the entire building. (May be used instead of the Building Projecting Sign) 11.6 STOREFRONT/ TENANT WALL SIGNS Wall Sign attached to a retail storefront or sign band area directly adjacent to the retail storefront within a multi- tenant building. (May be used instead of a Tenant Canopy Sign) 11.7 BUILDING PROJECTING SIGNS Wall Sign that extends a distance of more than 18” perpendicular from the building façade. Sign is placed on the upper floors of a multiple story building. (May be used instead of the Building Identity Sign) 11.8 CC TC RMU OMU FO NT NB CC RMU OMU FO TC CC RMU OMU TC CC RMU OMU FO TC May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 98 LEGEND Campus Commercial Town Center Retail Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood Sign Type Zoning District Allowed Description Image Standard ROOF SIGNS Not permitted A sign installed over or on the roof of a building. TENANT CANOPY SIGNS A sign mounted to a canopy or awning that is within or directly adjacent to a retail storefront. (May be used instead of a Storefront/Tenant Wall Sign) 11.9 TENANT BLADE SIGNS Wall Sign that extends a distance more than 18” perpendicular from the building façade and is oriented towards the sidewalk. Sign is mounted to a retail storefront or may be mounted under a canopy. 11.10 CC TC RMU OMU FO NT NB CC RMU OMU FO TC NT RMU OMU TC NT May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 99 LEGEND Campus Commercial Town Center Retail Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood Sign Type Zoning District Allowed Description Image Standard WINDOW SIGNS A sign mounted to or intended to be seen through a window. 11.11 DIRECTIONAL SIGNS A vehicular sign with directional information intended to direct visitors to various destinations within a larger development with multiple buildings. 11.12 DIRECTORY SIGNS A pedestrian oriented sign containing a listing and or map of the tenants and destinations within an area, block, building or development. 11.13 CC TC RMU OMU FO NT NB CC RMU OMU FO TC CC RMU OMU FO TC CC RMU OMU FO TC NT May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 100 LEGEND Campus Commercial Town Center Retail Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood Sign Type Zoning District Allowed Description Image Standard SANDWICH BOARD AND MOUNTED MENU SIGNS A temporary sign with two connected faces usually arranged back to back. A temporary pole or wall mounted sign that displays a restaurant menu. 11.14 ADDRESS SIGNS All A sign containing only the lot, building or retail tenant address. 11.15 CC TC RMU OMU FO NT NB CC RMU OMU TC NT May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 101 LEGEND Campus Commercial Town Center Retail Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood Sign Type Zoning District Allowed Description Image Standard MARQUEE SIGN A sign placed over the entrance to a theatre or other public gathering venue. It has signage stating either the name of the establishment or, in the case of theatres or other public venues, the name of the event, artist, and other details of the event appearing at that venue. The marquee is often identifiable by a surrounding cache of light bulbs, usually yellow or white, that flash intermittently or as chasing lights. Marquee signs may often be combined with Building Projecting signs. 11.16 Temporary Signs BANNERS A temporary fabric or vinyl sign hung from a building façade. 11.17 CC TC RMU OMU FO NT NB RMU TC CC RMU OMU FO TC NT May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 102 LEGEND Campus Commercial Town Center Retail Mixed Use Office Mixed Use Flex Office Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood Sign Type Zoning District Allowed Description Image Standard TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION SIGNS All A temporary sign mounted to a construction fence that announces a new business or construction project. 11.18 CC TC RMU OMU FO NT NB May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 103 11.4 Highway Monument Sign Location Standards (a) I-35W and Hwy 10 Frontages only a. Located within 60 ft. of the edge of I-35W or Hwy 10. b. Maximum height of 30 ft. above the street pavement grade of the elevated portion of the highway. c. Maximum total sign face area of 400 sq. ft (cumulative of all surfaces). Sign face may be divided into multiple segments. Area between segments does not count toward sign face area. d. One sign allowed for lots with at least 1,000 ft. of highway frontage. Two signs permitted for frontages greater than 1,000 ft. Signs to be a minimum of 1,000 ft. apart. 11.5 Corridor Monument Sign Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Maximum area of 0.7 sq. ft. for each linear foot of street frontage with a maximum of 150 sq. ft. for multi-tenant signs. ii. Corridor Monument Sign not permitted for single-tenant buildings, instead multiple single tenants should be combined onto one (1) Corridor Monument Sign. iii. One per lot. For lots with a total street frontage greater than 500 ft., two (2) signs are permitted. Signs must be a minimum of 400 ft. apart. iv. For lots fronting two streets, one sign is permitted on each street. v. Maximum height of 12 ft. above frontage street pavement grade. vi. Monument structure shall include a base, frame, and cap around the sign area. Material shall be the same as the principal structure on the lot. vii. Maximum total area shall not exceed 1.5 times the permitted sign copy area of a sign. 11.6 Building Identity Sign Location Standards (a) I-35W, Hwy 10 and MN-96 Frontages only i. May be used for single tenant commercial, office or institutional buildings only (multiple tenant building shall be subject to 11.7 below). ii. May be used instead of a Building Projecting Sign iii. Maximum area of 200 sq. ft. or 15% of the façade area, whichever is less. iv. Mount in upper third of the facade. (b) All frontages other than I-35W, Hwy 10 and MN-96 i. May be used for single tenant commercial, office or institutional buildings only (multiple tenant building shall be subject to 11.7 below). ii. May be used instead of a Building Projecting Sign iii. Maximum area of 150 sq. ft. or 10% of the façade area, whichever is less. iv. Mount in the upper third of the facade May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 104 11.7 Storefront/Tenant Wall Sign Location Standards (a) IH-35W, Hwy 10 and MN-96 Frontages only i. May be used for multiple tenant commercial, office or institutional buildings only (single tenant building shall be subject to 11.6 above). ii. May be used instead of a Tenant Canopy Sign iii. May be located on the ground floor façade only (sign to be mounted below 25 feet as measured from finished grade outside the facade). iv. One sign per tenant space; area to be calculated at 2 sq.ft. per linear foot of tenant space façade along the building’s frontage up to a maximum of 150 sq.ft. v. Sign to be located between demising walls of leased storefront. vi. Sign shall not overlap architectural features like window lintels, canopy support points, coping, etc. vii. Wall sign may encroach, a maximum of 12”, on to a sidewalk while maintaining a vertical clearance of 8 ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is non-illuminated and 11 ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is illuminated. viii. Building signs may be internally or externally lit. (b) All frontages other than IH-35W, Hwy 10 and MN-96 i. May be used for multiple tenant commercial, office or institutional buildings only (single tenant building shall be subject to 11.6 above). ii. May be used instead of a Tenant Canopy Sign iii. May be located on the ground floor façade only (sign to be mounted below 25 feet as measured from finished grade outside the facade). iv. One sign per tenant space; area to be calculated at 1.5 sq.ft. per linear foot of tenant space façade along the building’s frontage up to a maximum of 100 sq.ft. v. Sign to be located between demising walls of leased storefront. ix. Sign shall not overlap architectural features like window lintels, canopy support points, coping, etc. vi. Wall sign may encroach, a maximum of 12”, on to a sidewalk while maintaining a vertical clearance of 8 ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is non-illuminated and 11 ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is illuminated. vii. Building signs may be internally or externally lit. viii. Live-Work and Home occupations: One sign limited to an area of 30 sq. ft. max. 11.8 Building Projecting Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Building Projecting sign may be permitted in place of a Building Identity Sign. ii. Maximum area of 200 sq. ft. or 15% of the façade area, whichever is less iii. Will not obstruct any pedestrian or vehicular way (vertical clearance of 10 ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is non- illuminated and 11 ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is illuminated). May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 105 iv. Sign may project no more than 50% of the width of the sidewalk or six (6) ft. from building façade line (whichever is less). v. Sign may not extend above building parapet line or eaves line. vi. Maximum of one per façade vii. Signs must be constructed of durable materials. Impermanent materials, such as canvas or flexible vinyl, are not allowed. 11.9 Tenant Canopy Sign Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. May only be used instead of a Storefront/Tenant Wall Sign. ii. One sign per tenant space; area to be calculated at 1.5 sq.ft. per linear foot of tenant space façade along the building’s frontage up to a maximum of 100 sq.ft. iii. Sign to be located between demising walls of leased storefront. iv. Sign shall not extend beyond outermost edges of canopy. v. Signs are to be mounted over the canopy, on the face of a canopy or over any awnings 11.10 Tenant Blade Sign Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. One Blade sign per tenant space ii. May be located on the ground floor façade only (sign to be mounted below 15 feet as measured from finished grade outside the facade) iii. Maximum area of 15 sq. ft. iv. Will not obstruct any pedestrian or vehicular way. Minimum vertical clearance of ten (10) ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is non-illuminated and eleven (11) ft. from the finished sidewalk if it is illuminated. v. Sign may project no more than three (3) ft. from building wall or a distance equal to 50% of the width of the abutting sidewalk (whichever is less). 11.11 Window Sign Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. No permit is required for small-scale (under 1.0 sq. ft. in total area) signs placed at the pedestrian eye level. These exempted signs include: tenant logo and name, website or other social media address store hours and address, and public safety decals as required by applicable codes or government regulations. ii. Window signs include any signage attached to the storefront glazing or located on storefront interior within three (3) ft. of the storefront and intended to be viewed from the storefront exterior. iii. Maximum area of 25% of overall glazed storefront, including doors. May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 106 11.12 Directional Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Permitted only for multi-tenant commercial and mixed-use developments with multiple building within one development. ii. Applies only to signs located at lot entrances accessible from public streets. iii. Maximum size of 60 sq. ft. iv. Maximum height of eight (8) ft. above frontage street pavement grade. v. One sign permitted per development entrance. Maximum of two (2) signs per street frontage. vi. Signs located on interior of site and not intended to be viewed or utilized by traffic on public streets do not require a permit. 11.13 Directory Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Signs located on interior of lot and not intended to be viewed or utilized by traffic on public streets do not require a permit. In such cases, any sign lettering or logos used must be less than 2” (max.). 11.14 Sandwich Board and Mounted Menu Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Permitted only for retail, service, or restaurant tenants. ii. Maximum area of 8 sq. ft. per sign face iii. Maximum height of 4 ft. iv. One per storefront. v. Sign shall not interfere with any pedestrian way and a minimum of 5 ft. of sidewalk shall remain clear. vi. Chalkboards may be used for daily changing of messages. Reader boards (electronic and non-electronic) shall be prohibited. vii. Sandwich Board Signs and Pole-Mounted Menu Signs shall be removed every day after the business is closed. 11.15 Address Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Allowed per AHC Section 1230.01 – Subsection 3. 11.16 Marquee Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Permitted for theatres, auditoriums, and other public gathering venues of 100 persons or more; ii. Marquee signs shall be attached to the building or located above or below a canopy only; May 26, 2015 Section 11: Sign Standards TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 107 iii. Area = 100 sq ft. maximum; iv. Message board may be changeable copy (non-electronic). v. Electronic message boards may be permitted with a Permitted Adjustment. 11.17 Banners Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Maximum area of 150 square feet or 10% of the façade area, whichever is less. ii. For multi-tenant buildings, individual tenant banners shall not exceed the width of the tenant bay. iii. Banners shall only be permitted on a temporary basis for a maximum period of 30 days per calendar year. Upon review of need by Community Development Department, an extension or additional time may be granted with submittal of a new application. 11.18 Temporary Construction Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Must be attached to a part of a temporary construction fence. 11.19 For Sale/Lease Signs Location Standards (a) All per zoning district permitted i. Allowed per AHC Section 1250.02 – Subsection 5. 11.20 Additional Standards a. Signs located on interior of a lot and not intended to be viewed or utilized by traffic on public streets do not require a permit. b. Retail, service, and restaurant business that wrap a building corner creating two or more storefronts will be permitted to place signs on each storefront. c. Encroachments into public right-of-way shall not be permitted. See section 6.1(i) for standards for encroachments over required setback areas. TCAAP Redevelopment Code ATTACHMENTS May 2015 Table of Contents 1: Regulating Plan 2: Palette of Open Space Types 3: Development Review Chart 4: Street Cross Sections 5: Street Type Plan 6: Recommended Color Palette 7: Audubon Minnesota Bird-Safe Building Guidelines May 26, 2015 Town Center Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood 1 Neighborhood 2 Neighborhood 3 Neighborhood 4 Gateway Overlay Pedestrian Priority Frontage Pedestrian Friendly Frontage Civic/Open Space Oce Mixed Use Flex Business Water Infrastructure Campus Commercial Mixed Use Retail Required Open Space Attachment 1 TCCAP REGULATING PLAN May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 111 Attachment 2 Palette of Open Space Types The Open Space Types and Standards contained herein shall be used as a guide to fulfill the required and recommended Open Space requirements of Section 9 of the TRC. These open space types may be Public or Private Common Open Spaces. The following section provides a description of these open space types including the design context and criteria consistent with the Vision for TRC Neighborhoods. 1. Public Open Space Types (a) Pocket Park Standards Pocket Parks are small scale public open spaces intended to provide recreational opportunities where (publicly accessible/park) space is limited. They are often located between buildings and developments; on single vacant lots; and on small irregular pieces of land. Low maintenance landscaping and facilities is recommended in order to support multiple pocket parks in a park system. Development may include pavilions, picnic tables, small performance stage, seating areas, gathering areas, family play areas, gazebos, small game areas, small community gardens, dog parks, and interactive art. Shade and lighting is desired. Typical Characteristics General Character Small open space responding to specific user groups and space available. Range of character can be for intense use or aesthetic enjoyment. Low maintenance is essential. Location and Size 0.25 – 1.99 acres Within walking distance of either a few blocks or up to a ¼ mile of residences Typical Uses Varies per user group May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 112 (b) Green Standards A Green is a public open space available for civic purposes, commercial activity, unstructured recreation and other passive uses. Greens shall primarily be naturally landscaped with many shaded places to sit. Open lawn areas shall encourage civic gathering. Appropriate paths, civic elements, fountains or open shelters may be included and shall be formally placed within the Green. A Green shall be adjacent to a public right of way and be spatially defined by buildings which shall front onto and activate this space. Typical Characteristics General Character Open space Spatially defined by street and building frontages and landscaping Lawns, trees and shrubs naturally disposed Open shelters and paths formally disposed Location and Size 0.25 – 4 acres Minimum width – 25’ Minimum pervious cover – 80% Minimum perimeter frontage on public right of way – 50% Typical Uses Unstructured recreation Casual seating Commercial and civic uses No organized sports May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 113 (c) Square Standards A square is a public open space available for civic purposes, commercial activity, unstructured recreation and other passive uses. The square should have an formal character and be defined by the surrounding building frontages and adjacent tree-lined streets. All buildings adjacent to the square shall front onto the square. Adjacent streets shall be lined with appropriately scaled trees that help to define the square. The landscape shall consist of lawns, trees, and shrubs planted in formal patterns and furnished with paths and benches. Shaded areas for seating should be provided. A civic element or small structure such as an open shelter, pergola, or fountain may be provided within the square. Typical Characteristics General Character Formal open space Spatially defined by buildings and tree- lined streets. Open shelters, paths, lawns, and trees formally arranged Walkways and plantings at all edges Abundant seating opportunities Location and Size 0.25 – 4 acres Minimum width – 25’ Minimum pervious cover – 60% Minimum perimeter frontage on public right of way – 60% Located at important intersections Typical Uses Unstructured and passive recreation – no organized sports. Community gathering Occasional commercial and civic uses May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 114 (d) Plaza Standards A plaza is a public open space that offers abundant opportunities for civic gathering. Plazas add to the vibrancy of streets within the higher density zones and create formal open spaces available for civic purposes and commercial activity. Building frontages shall define these spaces. The landscape should have a balance of hardscape and planting. Various types of seating should be provided from planter seat walls, to steps, to benches, to tables, and chairs. Trees should be provided for shade. They should be formally arranged and of appropriate scale. Plazas typically should be located at the intersection of important streets. A minimum of one public street frontage shall be required for plazas. Typical Characteristics General Character Formal open space A balance of hardscape and planting Trees important for shade Spatially defined by building frontages Location and Size 0.1 – 1 acre Minimum width – 30’ Minimum pervious cover – 20% Minimum perimeter frontage on public right of way – 25% Located at important intersections, at vista termini, or at entrances to public/civic buildings Typical Uses Commercial and civic uses Formal and casual seating Tables and chairs for outdoor dining Retail and food kiosks May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 115 (e) Pocket Plaza Standards A pocket plaza is a small scale public open space that serves as an impromptu gathering place for civic, social, and commercial purposes. The pocket plaza is designed as a well-defined area of refuge separate from the public sidewalk. It is frequently located in a building supplemental zone next to the streetscape. These areas contain a lesser amount of pervious surface than other open space types. Outdoor dining with café tables and chairs, water features, public art and other shaded amenities are appropriate uses. Typical Characteristics General Character Formal open space for gathering Defined seating areas Refuge from the public sidewalk Spatially defined by the building configuration Location and Size Min. 300 s.f. Min. width – 15’ / Max. width 20’ Minimum pervious cover –10 % Minimum perimeter frontage on public right of way – 25% Located at important intersections, at vista termini, or at entrances to public/civic buildings Typical Uses Civic and commercial uses Formal and casual seating May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 116 (f) Pedestrian Passage (Paseo) Standards Pedestrian passages or paseos are linear public open spaces that connect one street to another at through-block locations. Pedestrian passages create intimate linkages through buildings at designated locations. These wide pathways provide direct pedestrian access to residential or other commercial addresses and create unique spaces for frontages to engage and enter off of. Pedestrian passages allow for social and commercial activity to spill into the public realm. Pedestrian passages should consist of a hardscape pathway with pervious pavers activated by frequent entries and exterior stairways. The edges may simply be landscaped with minimal planting and potted plants. Shade is required for the success of the paseo. Typical Characteristics General Character Hardscape pathway with pervious pavers Defined by building frontages Frequent side entries and frontages Shade Required Minimal planting and potted plants Maintain the character of surrounding buildings Standards Min. Width 15 feet Typical Uses Pedestrian connection and access Casual seating May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 117 (g) Multi-Use Trail Standards A multi-use trail is a linear public open space that accommodates two or more users on the same, undivided trail. Trail users could include pedestrians, bicyclists, skaters, etc. A trail frequently provides an important place for active recreation and creates a connection to regional paths and biking trails. Pedestrian amenities add to recreational opportunities. These include drinking fountains, scenic view posts, fitness stations, and directional signs, and may be spread along the trail or grouped in a trailhead area. Typical Characteristics General Character Multi-use trail in Neighborhood Park: Naturally disposed landscape Trees lining trail for shade Appropriately lit for safety Formally disposed pedestrian furniture, landscaping and lighting Multi-use trail along Spine Road or through neighborhoods.: Paved trail with frequent gathering spaces and regular landscaping. Standards Min. Width 12 feet Typical Uses Active and passive recreation May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 118 (h) Family-friendly Play Area Standards Family-friendly play areas are areas within open spaces that are conducive to the recreational needs of families with children. Family-friendly play areas range in style from pocket parks within mixed use developments to playscapes within neighborhood parks. These play areas should serve as quiet, safe places -- protected from the street and typically located where children do not have to cross major streets to access. An open shelter, play structures or interactive art and fountains may be included with landscaping between. Shaded areas and seating shall be provided for ease of supervision. Playscape equipment and design must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation. The need for fencing depends on the surrounding environment. A larger playground may be incorporated into a neighborhood park, whereas a more intimate family oriented design may be incorporated into a pocket park. Typical Characteristics General Character Focused toward family-friendly needs Fencing depends on surroundings Open shelter Shade and seating provided Play structure, interactive art or fountains Standards Min. Size 300 sq.ft. Max. Size N/A As described by open space type in which playground is located Protected from traffic No service or mechanical equipment Typical Uses Active and passive recreation Unstructured recreation Casual seating May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 119 2. Private Common Open Space Types (a) Forecourt Standards Forecourt is a small scale private common open space surrounded on at least two sides by buildings. A forecourt is typically a building entry providing a transition space from the sidewalk to the building. The character serves as a visual announcement of the building to visitors with additional amenities such as signage, water features, seating, planting, etc. Forecourts should be laid out proportionate to building height with a 1:4 (min.) ratio. In order to offset the impact of taller buildings, the detail of the forecourt level should seek to bring down the relative scale of the space with shade elements, trees, etc. The hardscape should primarily accommodate circulation. Seating and shade are important for visitors. Trees and plantings are critical to create a minimum of 30% pervious cover and offset the effect of the urban heat island. Typical Characteristics General Character Small scale private common open space Defined by buildings on at least 2 sides with connection to public sidewalk Size of court should be proportionate to building height Hardscape should accommodate entry circulation Trees and plants are critical Enhance the character of surrounding buildings Standards Min. Width 25’ Minimum Size Depth: Based on building height ratio; Width: Max. of 50% of the building’s frontage along that street Minimum pervious cover – 30% Typical Uses Building Entry Circulation Visual building announcement May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 120 (b) Courtyard Standards Courtyards are small scale private common open spaces surrounded on at least three sides by buildings with a pedestrian connection to a public sidewalk. Courtyards maintain the character and style of the surrounding buildings. Courtyards should be laid out proportionate to building height between 1:1 and 2:1 ratio (width to height of building). In order to offset the impact of taller buildings, the detail of the courtyard level should seek to bring down the relative scale of the space with shade elements, trees, etc. Transition areas should be set up between the building face and the center of the court. The hardscape should accommodate circulation, gathering, seating, and shade. Trees and plantings are critical to create a minimum of 30% pervious cover and offset the effect of the urban heat island. Typical Characteristics General Character Small scale private common open space Defined by buildings on at least 3 sides with connection to public sidewalk Size of court should be proportionate to building height Hardscape should accommodate circulation, gathering, and seating. Trees and plants are critical Maintain the character of surrounding buildings Standards Min. Width 25’ Minimum Area 650 s.f. Minimum pervious cover – 30% Typical Uses Gathering Casual seating May 2015 Attachment 2: Palette of Open Space Types TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 121 (c) Roof Terrace Standards A Roof Terrace is a private common open space serving as a gathering space for tenants and residents that might not be at grade. Up to 50% of the required private common open space may be located on a roof if at least 30 % of the roof terrace is designed as a Vegetated or Green Roof. A Vegetated or Green roof is defined as an assembly or system over occupied space that supports an area of planted beds, built up on a waterproofed surface. Private common open space on a roof must be screened from the view of the adjacent property. The hardscape should accommodate circulation, gathering, seating, and shade. Typical Characteristics General Character Small scale private common open space on roof top Screened from view of adjacent property Vegetated portion critical Hardscape should accommodate gathering, seating, shade Provides common open space that might not be available at grade Standards Min. Area 50% of the roof top Planted area – 30% min. Typical Uses Gathering for tenants and residents Green Roof May 2015 Attachment 3: Development Flow Chart TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 122 Attachment 3 May 2015 Attachment 4: Street Cross Sections TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 123 Attachment 4 Street Cross Sections The following street cross sections are established for the Street Types as established in Regulating Plan for TRC. The cross sections (including vehicular lane and on-street parking configurations, street tree placement, etc.) may be adjusted to fit existing contexts or other development contexts consistent with the vision for the Neighborhood with the approval of the City Engineer. In addition, the proposed cross sections may be adjusted to meet the needs of the Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the City. TOWN STREET May 2015 Attachment 4: Street Cross Sections TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 124 TOWN STREET AT INTERSECTIONS May 2015 Attachment 4: Street Cross Sections TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 125 COLLECTOR ROAD May 2015 Attachment 4: Street Cross Sections TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 126 COLLECTOR ROAD WITH TRAIL May 2015 Attachment 4: Street Cross Sections TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 127 NEIGHBORHOOD STREET May 2015 Attachment 4: Street Cross Sections TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 128 RESIDENTIAL ALLEY COMMERCIAL ALLEY May 26, 2015 Town Center Neighborhood Transition Neighborhood 1 Neighborhood 2 Neighborhood 3 Neighborhood 4 Gateway Overlay Pedestrian Priority Frontage Pedestrian Friendly Frontage Civic/Open Space Oce Mixed Use Flex Business Water Infrastructure Campus Commercial Mixed Use Retail Collector Street Spine Road Collector Street with Trail Spine Road Interection (Final location per nal Spine Road Design) Town Street Required Open Space Attachment 5 TCCAP STREET TYPE PLAN May 2015 Attachment 6: Recommended Color Palette TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 130 Attachment 6 Recommended Color Palette Attachment 6 TCAAP Recommended Color Palette The following recommended color palette is established for exterior building colors within TCAAP. This color palette is based on the Sherwin William paint palette. Other manufacturers may be used provided that the colors are similar in tone, shade, and intensity to the ones listed below. Body/Wall Trim/Accent Renwick Rose Beige 2804 Renwick Beige 2805 Pewter Tankard 0023 Polished Mahogany 2838 Renwick Golden Oak 2824 Downing Straw 2813 Roycroft Vellum 2833 Deepest Mauve 0005 Downing Sand 2822 Rookwood Clay 2823 Rookwood Sash Green 2810 Rookwood Blue Green 2811 Sheraton Sage 0014 Downing Sand 2822 Rookwood Antique Gold 2814 Fairfax Brown 2856 Eastlake Gold 0009 Classical White 2829 Curio Gray 0024 Downing Slate 2819 Pearl Gray 0052 Classic Light Buff 0050 Colonial Revival Stone 2827 Mulberry Silk 0001 Downing Slate 2819 Downing Straw 2813 Rookwood Antique Gold 2814 Rookwood Medium Brown 2807 Downing Earth 2820 Renwick Beige 2805 Rookwood Terra Cotta 2803 Rookwood Dark Brown 2808 Renwick Olive 2815 Downing Sand 2822 Rookwood Dark Green 2816 Rookwood Amber 2817 Craftsman Brown 2835 Roycroft Vellum 2833 Rookwood Brown 2806 Naval 6244 Birdseye Maple 2834 Roycroft Brass 2843 Roycroft Bronze Green 2846 Aurora Brown 2837 Roycroft Pewter 2848 Weathered Shingle 2841 Roycroft Vellum 2833 Roycroft Copper Red 2839 Downing Stone 2821 Sage Green Light 2851 Roycroft Bronze Green 2846 Classic Light Buff 0050 Body/Wall Trim/Accent Rookwood Clay 2823 Pure White 7005 Downing Sand 2822 Teal Stencil 0018 Downing Straw 2813 Roycroft Vellum 2833 Roycroft Pewter 2848 Classic French Gray 0077 Antique White 6119 Roycroft Suede 2842 Creamy 7012 Bunglehouse Blue 0048 Peace Yellow 2857 Rookwood Antique Gold 2814 Classical White 2829 Roycroft Bottle Green 2847 Roycroft Mist Gray 2844 Downing Stone 2821 Extra White 7006 Rookwood Dark Red 2801 Needlepoint Navy 0032 Classic Light Buff 0050 New Colonial Yellow 2853 Antiquarian Brown 0045 Chelsea Gray 2850 Westchester Gray 2849 Decorous Amber 0007 Roycroft Pewter 2848 Downing Sand 2822 Classical White 2829 Toile Red 0006 Rookwood Dark Brown 2808 Colonial Revival Stone 2827 Classical White 2829 Tricorn Black 6258 Rookwood Red 2802 Colonial Revival Gray 2832 Pure White 7005 Downing Slate 2819 Harvester 6373 Colonial Revival Green Stone 2826 Classic Light Buff 0050 Polished Mahogany 2838 Roycroft Bronze Green 2846 Cardboard 6124 Believable Buff 6120 Urbane Bronze 7048 Wool Skein 6148 Hardware 6172 Fired Brick 6335 Universal Khaki 6150 Moderate White 6140 Naval 6244 Summit Gray 7669 Extra White 7006 Greenblack 6994 Restrained Gold 6129 Polar Bear 7564 Forestwood 7330 Virtual Taupe 7039 Accessible Beige 7036 Rustic Red 7593 Poolhouse 7603 City Loft 7631 Peppercorn 7674 Body/Wall Trim/Accent Whole Wheat 6121 Antique White 6119 Raisin 7630 Knitting Needles 7672 Pearly White 7009 Seaworthy 7620 Humble Gold 6380 Wool Skein 6148 Griffin 7026 Jubilee 6248 Extra White 7006 Salute 7582 Green Earth 7748 Nacre 6154 Fiery Brown 6055 Red Barn 7591 Alabaster 7008 Domino 6989 Dormer Brown 7521 Patience 7555 Cordovan 6027 Slate Tile 7624 Grecian Ivory 7541 Manor House 7505 Softer Tan 6141 Foothills 7514 Darkroom 7083 Maison Blanche 7526 Alabaster 7008 Dried Thyme 6186 Carriage Door 7594 Windsor Greige 7528 Thunder Gray 7645 Khaki Shade 7533 Tiki Hut 7509 Brandywine 7710 Burlap 6137 Rice Grain 6155 Bitter Chocolate 6013 Tree Branch 7525 Divine White 6105 Rustic Red 7593 Rare Gray 6199 Casa Blanca 7571 Pewter Green 6208 Dover White 6385 Gateway Gray 7644 Mediterranean 7617 Concord Buff 7684 Pure White 7005 Porpoise 7047 Wool Skein 6148 Artisan Tan 7540 Status Bronze 7034 Bamboo Shoot 7733 Alabaster 7008 Roycroft Pewter 2848 Breezy 7616 Extra White 7006 Rookwood Amber 2817 Tatami Tan 6116 Colony Buff 7723 Homburg Gray 7622 Fresco Cream 7719 Pottery Urn 7715 Carnelian 7580 Dry Dock 7502 Hot Cocoa 6047 Chateau Brown 7510 Body/Wall Trim/Accent Muslin 6133 Straw Harvest 7698 Rural Green 6418 Homestead Brown 7515 Keystone Gray 7504 Moderne White 6168 Outerbanks 7534 Rice Grain 6155 Rookwood Terra Cotta 2803 Extra White 7006 Rushing River 7746 Spiced Cider 7702 Uncertain Gray 6234 Evening Shadow 7662 Peppercorn 7674 Birdseye Maple 2834 Cocoon 6173 Olde Worlde Gold 7700 Retreat 6207 Netsuke 6134 Edgy Gold 6409 Perfect Greige 6073 Popular Gray 6071 Garret Gray 6075 Artifact 6138 Creamy 7012 Ramie 6156 Jogging Path 7638 Intellectual Gray 7045 Thunder Gray 7645 Shoji White 7042 Relaxed Khaki 6149 Hopsack 6109 Restrained Gold 6129 Burlap 6137 Pier 7545 Anjou Pear 6381 Jersey Cream 6379 Warm Stone 7032 Techno Gray 6170 Connected Gray 6165 Alchemy 6395 Rustic City 7699 Dover White 6385 Raisin 7630 Cork Wedge 7539 Smokehouse 7040 Rustic Red 7593 Silvermist 7621 Pure White 7005 Chamois 6131 Stone Lion 7507 Quiver Tan 6151 Incredible White 7028 May 2015 Attachment 7: Audubon Minnesota Bird-Safe Building Guidelines TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 131 Attachment 7 Audubon Minnesota Bird-Safe Building Guidelines Bird Safe Building guidelines 2 BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines Thank you to New York City audubon and their original working group for permission to revise their Bird-Safe Building Guidelines (May 2007). NYC Project director: Kate Orff, rLa , Columbia University GSaPP NYC authors: Hillary Brown, aia , Steven Caputo, New Civic Works NYC audubon Project Staff: e.J. Mc adams, Marcia fowle, Glenn Phillips, Chelsea dewitt, Yigal Gelb Graphics. NYC reviewers: Karen Cotton, Bird-Safe Working Group; randi doeker, Birds & Buildings forum; Bruce fowle, faia , daniel Piselli, fXfOWLe ; Marcia fowle; Yigal Gelb, Program director, NYC audubon; Mary Jane Kaplan; daniel Klem, Jr., Phd., Muhlenberg College; albert M. Manville, Phd., US department of the interior, fish and Wildlife Service; e. J. Mcadams, former executive director NYC, audubon; Glenn Phillips, executive director, NYC audubon. Original publication of these guidelines was made possible with the support of US department of the interior, fish and Wildlife Service through the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation act, Joseph & Mary fiore and the support of NYC audubon members and patrons. Bird-Safe Building Guidelines Over 100 bird species have been recovered from building collisions in Minnesota including lincoln’s sparrow, Black-capped Chickadee, indigo Bunting, Common Yellowthroat, and nashville Warbler The mission of audubon Minnesota is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and their habitats, for the benefit of humanity and the earth’s biological diversity. Audubon MinnesotA 2357 Ventura drive, Suite 106 • Saint Paul MN 55125 mn.audubon.org Published by audubon Minnesota, May 2010 Project director: Joanna eckles (audubon Minnesota) Contributor: edward Heinen (Perkins + Will) reviewers: Mark Martell, Mark Peterson (audubon Minnesota); Lori Naumann (Minnesota department of Natural resources); Chris Sheppard (american Bird Conservancy); Susan elbin (NYC audubon); Jonee Kulman Brigham (Center for Sustainable Building research, UMN), Benjamin Sporer, Paul Neuhaus (Perkins + Will) design Manager: Bonita Jenné (audubon Minnesota) Cover Cityscape artwork: edward Heinen Printing made possible by TogetherGreen Citation: audubon Minnesota. (2010). Bird-Safe Building Guidelines Photographs in this publication are copyrighted by the individual photographers and have been used with permission. Site and lighting diagrams courtesy of the City of Toronto from their Bird-friendly development Guidelines. ji M W il l i AM s ji M W il l i AM s M ik e l e n t z M ik e l e n t z M ik e l e n t z 16 BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines b est PRAC ti C es F o R bi R d s AF et Y Site and Landscape design Objective: Minimize the potential for bird collisions when siting buildings near existing landscape features and when planning new landscapes in close proximity to buildings. A .WELL-INTEGRATED .SUSTAINABLE .DESIGN .enhances .open .space .and .protects .and .restores .habitat .while .enhancing .the .overall . architectural .and .operational .quality .of .a .built .facility . .Efforts .to .integrate .nature .and .attract .wildlife .should .be .balanced .with .specific . considerations .of .a .site’s .impact .on .birds . .Birds .attracted .to .on-site .habitat .are .vulnerable .to .collisions .with .glass . .These .guidelines .encourage . bird-safe .design .strategies .early .in .the .collaborative .design .process .through .consideration .of .site, .existing .habitat, .and .bird-safe .landscaping . analyze the site to determine potential attractions for bird populations. Consult with an ecologist or bird specialist to inventory the site. document the location of nearby vegetated streetscapes and urban parks. identify all sources of food and shelter for migratory and resident bird populations, including plants, water and other natural features. identify human-made features that attract birds, including water sources, nesting and perching sites, and shelter from adverse weather.15 ConsideR site AnALYsis Site building(s) to reduce conflicts with existing and planned landscape features that may attract birds. Where buildings cannot be located away from bird sensitive areas, take special care in treating windows. See “exterior Glass” pages 20-21. Where strategic reductions to building footprint have been made in order to enhance vegetated open space and habitat, assess site conflicts and include bird safe treatments. Use soil berms, furniture, landscaping, or architectural features to prevent reflection in glazed building facades. ConsideR eXistinG hAbitAt L ee d L ee d Coordinate with Leed Credits SS 5.1 Site development: Protect or restore Habitat Coordinate with Leed Credits SS 5.2 Site development: Maximize Open Space urban parks attract birds treat windows near habitat BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines 17 WHILE .BIRDS .COLLIDE .WITH .BUILDINGS .AT .ALL .LEvELS, .ground-level .stories .are .considered .the .most .dangerous .because .this . is .where .habitat .reflections, .glazing .and .internal .planting .are .often .all .quite .prominent . .Analysis .of .bird .collision .data .over .10 .years .in .New . York .City .showed .that .“most .collisions .were .documented .to .occur .during .the .day .at .the .lower .levels .of .buildings .where .large .glass .exteriors . reflected .abundant .vegetation, .or .where .transparent .windows .exposed .indoor .vegetation .”16 Birds are vulnerable to collisions nearly anywhere glass occurs. Habitat in proximity to glass exacerbates this threat unless reflections are avoided or eliminated or visual cues are incorporated in glazing. When planning new landscapes be aware of reflections and see-through effects created by habitat in relation to building features. Place plantings to minimize these effects. alternatively, situate trees and shrubs immediately adjacent to the exterior glass walls, at a distance of less than three feet from the glass.17 Close proximity will minimize habitat reflections. in addition, if a bird does try to fly to a reflection at this range, flight momentum will be minimal, thereby reducing fatal collisions. This planting strategy also provides beneficial summertime shading and reduces cooling loads. if any bird-attracting features (food, water, shelter) are in reflective range of the building(s), use fritting, shading devices or other techniques to make glass visible. See “exterior Glass” pages 20-21. ConsideR LAndsCAPe PLACeMent Birds will mistakenly seek shelter in landscaping located behind glass. Mask views of interior plantings from outside the building. Use screening, window films or treatments to make glass visible. With the increased use of green roof technology, impacts on birds must be considered. Treat glass to minimize the reflection of rooftop landscaping in adjacent building features. Consider foregoing green roof installation or eliminating access to birds if reflection in adjacent buildings will occur. ConsideR inteRioR LAndsCAPinG ConsideR RooFtoP LAndsCAPinG L ee d Coordinate with Leed Credits SS 7.1 Heat island effect: Non-roof SS 7.2 Heat island effect: roof dangerous reflections Confusing interior plants CAnoPY heiGht Glass treatments should be applied to the height of the top of the surrounding tree canopy or the anticipated height of surrounding vegetation at maturity.13 18 BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines b est PRAC ti C es F o R bi R d s AF et Y Building Layout and Massing Objective: Include bird-safe strategies as part of an integrated design approach before construction rather than retrofitting a building that proves problematic. BIRD-SAFE .STRATEGIES .do .not .restrict .the .ability .to .design .creatively . .These .guidelines .encourage .an .integrated .design .approach, . challenging .building .designers .to .include .bird-safe .strategies .to .enhance .aesthetic, .functional, .and .building .performance .goals . .The .layout . of .individual .buildings .and .their .relationship .to .other .structures .on .the .site .can .affect .the .number .of .bird .collisions .that .occur . .Building . layout .and .massing .can .be .planned .along .with .landscaping .to .minimize .the .likelihood .of .bird .collisions . ConsideR sPeCiFiC site FeAtuRes Ground level stories are the most hazardous areas of all buildings and should be designed to minimize bird collisions. Minimize those hazards that bring birds close to buildings such as vegetation, water and other features. Provide uniform covering with bird-safe materials, especially adjacent to landscapes. See “exterior Glass” pages 20-21. Use angled glass, between 20 and 40 degrees from vertical, to reflect the ground instead of adjacent habitat or sky.18 Clear barriers such as transparent bus-shelters, skyways, linkways, railings, windscreens and noise barriers create a serious hazard for birds because they are invisible, causing a deadly fly-through hazard. avoid use of transparent materials in these structures in any location where birds may be present. Use translucent or decorative glazing as an alternative. if clear panels of any kind are in use, incorporate surface treatments to make glass visible. See “exterior Glass” pages 20-21. Clear barriers create a deadly hazard for birds these two birds were fooled by habitat reflections BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines 19 “bird sAfety is eAsier to sell when it overlAps with other green strAtegies. slAnted glAss reduces solAr heAt gAin but Also works to effectively reduce bird injuries. fritted glAss reduces heAt gAin, And if it’s 50% you cAn still see through it.” Jeanne Gang, Studio Gang architects, Chicago Courtyards may contain landscaping and confusing internal corners that limit bird escape routes. These areas often allow sudden access by people that flush birds into glass. Control access to enclosed areas so birds flush away from glass into open areas. Treat glass with bird-safe materials so birds see and avoid glass. driveways can also cause birds to flush from landscaping into reflective glazing as vehicles approach. ensure routes of escape for birds that are using landscaping along driveways and access roads. Take care in routing driveways adjacent to landscaping and reflective glazing. site ventilation grates also present a unexpected danger for birds. an injured bird that falls onto a ventilation grate with large pores can become trapped. Specify ventilation grates with a porosity no larger than 0.8 inches.13 Cover larger grates with netting. Never up-light ventilation grates. Rooftop obstacles such as antennas and media equipment can injure or kill birds and should be minimized. in poor weather and bright lighting conditions birds may congregate on and around rooftops. Co-locate antennas and tall rooftop media equipment to minimize conflicts with birds. Utilize self-supporting structures that do not require guy wire supports. avoid up-lighting rooftop antennas and tall equipment, as well as decorative architectural spires. See “Lighting design” pages 24-25. Confusing corners with multiple reflections Birds can fall through grates after hitting windows 20 BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines exterior Glass MOST .BIRD .COLLISIONS .OCCUR .at .the .glazed .surfaces .of .buildings . .While .circumstances .such .as .lighting .and .other .obstacles .do . contribute, .glass .areas .are .the .primary .focus .of .bird-safe .design .and .retrofit .strategies .regardless .of .the .overall .site, .landscape, .layout .and . massing .features . .Bird-friendly .glass .products .can .contribute .to .aesthetics, .energy .efficiency, .and .effective .daylighting . .For .bird .safety, . efforts .focus .on .creating .visual .markers .to .make .glass .visible .to .birds .and .minimize .reflection .of .habitat .and .sky . ConsideR visuAL MARKeRs Objective: Prevent bird collisions with glazed surfaces, while maintaining transparency for views, daylighting and passive environmental control. White fritted pattern on glass facade at iAC Offices in new York Cityinterior shades and exterior film at the Minneapolis Central library “Visual noise” is what allows us to see glass. it is created by varying materials, textures, colors, opacity, or other features and helps to break up glass reflections and reduce overall transparency.19 Creating these visual markers can alert birds to the presence of glass as an obstacle. This is the most effective way to mitigate the danger that glass poses to birds. Utilize etching, fritting, translucent and opaque patterned glass to reduce transparency and reflection, while achieving solar shading. (Note: although fritting is useful for creating visual noise, it is less effective at reducing reflectance since it is generally applied on the interior face of the glass.) incorporate windows with real or applied divided lights to break up large window expanses into smaller subdivisions. Consider applying acid-etched or sandblasted patterns to glass on the outside surface to “read” in both transparent and reflective conditions. Create patterns that follow the “hand-print” rule (below). Use window films featuring artwork or custom patterns permanently or on a rotating basis. Low-reflectivity glass has not been sufficiently tested for bird safety but may prove beneficial in certain installations. b est PRAC ti C es F o R bi R d s AF et Y did YOU KNOW? Studies show that small birds will attempt to fly through any opening larger than 4 inches wide or 2 inches tall or about the size of a child’s handprint oriented horizontally. When creating “visual noise” on or around a window, optimal openings are no larger than a small handprint.19 n YC A ud u BO n BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines 21 Large expanses of clear exterior glazing do not equate to effective day- lighting for buildings. in fact, over-glazing can contribute to glare, veiling reflections, unwanted heat gain, and also bird collisions. Many strategies used to achieve effective daylighting are compatible with bird safety. Where appropriate, daylighting strategies such as exterior shading devices, fritted glass, and diffuse and translucent glass can also help to prevent bird collisions. in general, the more untreated glass you have, the greater the risk to birds, especially on sites that are in predictable migratory and resident bird areas. ConsideR inteGRAted dAYLiGhtinGConsideR inteRioR And eXteRioR tReAtMent translucent glass can help balance daylighting and prevent bird collisionsAn exterior ceramic framework provides shading and daylighting (new York times) exterior shading or other architectural devices enhance bird safety. Utilize shading devices, screens, and other physical barriers to reduce reflectivity and birds’ access to glass. incorporate louvers, awnings, sunshades, light shelves or other exterior shading/shielding devices to reduce reflection and give birds a visual indication of a barrier. Consider other highly patterned shading/shielding devices that will provide visual cues and encourage bird safety. interior window treatments can provide visual cues for birds and reduce both transparency and reflections. They also help reduce light trespass from buildings. See “Building Operations” page 26. design interior window treatments using light-colored solar reflective blinds or curtains. Partially open blinds during the day. Close curtains and blinds if evening lighting is utilized. for best results, consider photo-sensors, timers and other automatic controls to regulate shading devices, lighting and daylighting. L ee d Coordinate with Leed Credits eQ 8.1 and 8.2 daylight & Views ea 1 Optimize energy Performance WindoW AReA Windows constitute about 25-40 percent of the wall area of effectively designed daylit buildings, an area very similar to the windowed area in non-daylit buildings. 20 24 BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines b est PRAC ti C es F o R bi R d s AF et Y Lighting design Objective: Undertake strategies to reduce light trespass from buildings, particularly during migration seasons. REDUCING .ExTERIOR .BUILDING .AND .SITE .LIGHTING .has .been .proven .effective .at .reducing .nighttime .migratory .bird . collisions .and .mortality . .At .the .same .time, .such .measures .reduce .building .energy .costs .and .decrease .air .and .light .pollution . .These .guidelines . encourage .efficient .design .of .lighting .systems .as .well .as .operational .strategies .to .reduce .light .trespass .from .buildings, .particularly .during . migration .seasons . . ConsideR eXteRoR LiGht tResPAss PReFeRRed disCouRAGed Light pollution is largely a result of inefficient exterior lighting. eliminate light directed upwards by attaching cutoff shields to street- lights and external lights. Highlight building features without up-lighting. reduce the amount of light that spills outside areas where it is needed for safety and security. Maximize the useful light directed to targeted areas. eliminate the use of spotlights and searchlights during bird migration. did YOU KNOW? red lights that don’t flash are most attractive (and therefore deadly) to birds. instead, use flashing white or non-flashing blue or green lights.24 direct exterior lighting downwards and adhere to Lights Out Guidelines Light advertising from above to reduce the light projected skyward lighting diagrams courtesy of the City of toronto BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines 25 ConsideR inteRioR LiGht tResPAss Light trespass from within buildings can be reduced through design and operational changes. design lights to shut off using automatic controls, including photo- sensors, infrared and motion detectors. These devices generally pay for themselves in energy savings within one year. reduce the need for extensive overhead lighting. encourage the use of localized task lighting and shades. reduce perimeter lighting and/or draw shades wherever possible. PReFeRRed disCouRAGed Preferred lighting designs project light downward, reducing waste and light pollution. discouraged lighting designs cause spill light to be directed into the sky where it is not needed. L ee d WAsted LiGht Light pollution is largely the result of bad lighting design, which allows artificial light to shine outward and upward into the sky, where it’s not wanted, instead of focusing it downward, where it is. National Geographic, November 2008 Coordinate with Leed Credits SS 8.0 Light Pollution reduction eQ 6.1 Controllability of Systems: Lighting ea 1 Optimize energy Performance BiRd-sAFe Building guidelines 37 Products and innovations R esou RC es Translucent and decorative Glazing: 3Form (3-form.com) Bendheim (bendheim.com) Cabont nanogel/Aerogel (cabot-corp.com) goldray industries (goldrayindustries.com) kalwall (kalwall.com) Major industries (majorskylights.com) schott (us.schott.com) tg P/Pilkington Profilit (tgpamerica.com) viracon (viracon.com) decorative Ceramic fritting: goldray industries (goldrayindustries.com) Oldcastle glass (oldcastleglass.com) viracon (www.viracon.com) PPg industries (ppg.com) applied Window films and Spectrally Selective Glass: Arnold glas, Ornilux (glaswerke-arnold.de) Collidescape (fetchgraphics.com) solutia / CPFilms inc. (cpfilms.com) surfaceCare usA (surfacecareusa.com) the Convenience group (conveniencegroup.com) u.s . dept. of energy (eere.energy.gov) electrochromic Glass: sage electrochromics inc. (sage-ec.com) smart glass international (smartglassinternational.com) While . .product .innovations .continue .to .emerge, .many .currently .available .products .have .potential .bird-safety .features .even .if .they .were . developed .for .other .purposes .such .as .balanced .daylighting, .innovative .aesthetics, .building .safety .and .security, .and .energy .efficiency . . The .following .material .sources .may .contribute .to .bird .safety .for .new .or .existing .buildings . .Products .and .manufacturers .listed .below .are .for . information .only, .and .are .neither .recommended .nor .endorsed .by .Audubon .Minnesota .and .its .Project .BirdSafe .partners . architectural Metal Mesh: Cambridge Architectural (cambridgearchitectural.com) gkd Metal Fabrics (gkdmetalfabrics.com) johnson screens (johnsonscreens.com) Building-integrated Photovoltaics: PowerFilm (powerfilmsolar.com) uni-solar (www.uni-solar.com) ARCh Aluminum and glass (archaluminum.net) exterior Louvers and Sunscreens: hunter douglas Contract (hunterdouglascontract.com) industrial louvers inc. (www.industriallouvers.com) nysan shading systems (nysan.com) savannah trims (suncontrolers.com) façade-integrated Leds: Cambridge Architectural (cambridgearchitectural.com) gkd Metal Fabrics (gkdmetalfabrics.com) schott (us.schott.com) Window Treatments and Banners: Banner Creations (bannercreations.com) Biographix (rainierdisplays.com/biographix.html) exterior Coverings, Nettings, Screening: Bird-B-gone (birdbgone.com) nixalite bird exclusion netting (nixalite.com) stealthnet (birdbarrier.com) topRite netting (cutlersupply.com) ji M W il l i AM s tennessee Warbler