The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-04-15-PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 4, 2015, Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02 -04 -15PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 15 -003 - Site Plan Review & Variance - 4293 Lexington Avenue North - CSM Properties (No Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 15 -004 - Preliminary And Final Plat, Rezoning, And Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1941 & 1901 County Road E2 (Public Hearing Required) PC 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 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 03 -04 -15 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF TCAAP UPDATE PC 03 04 15.PDF STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Roberta Thompson Commissioners: Brent Bartel Angela Hames Andy Holewa Phillip Neururer Clayton Zimmerman Steven Jones Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission March 4, 2015 6:30 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. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: 3.B. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: 5.C. Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director Documents: 5.D. Prepared By Prepared By Prepared By Prepared By APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESFebruary 4, 2015, Planning Commission Regular Meeting 02 -04 -15PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 15 -003 - Site Plan Review & Variance - 4293 Lexington Avenue North -CSM Properties (No Public Hearing Required) PC MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENT A.PDF, ATTACHMENT B.PDF, ATTACHMENT C.PDF, ATTACHMENT D.PDFPlanning Case 15 -004 - Preliminary And Final Plat, Rezoning, And Comprehensive Plan Amendment - 1941 & 1901 County Road E2 (Public Hearing Required) PC 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 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS COMMISSION COMMENTS & REQUESTS REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL 03 -04 -15 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF TCAAP UPDATE PC 03 04 15.PDF STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Roberta ThompsonCommissioners:Brent BartelAngela HamesAndy HolewaPhillip NeururerClayton ZimmermanSteven Jones Council Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning CommissionMarch 4, 2015 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity 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. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Ryan Streff, City PlannerDocuments:3.B.Ryan Streff, City PlannerDocuments: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. Ryan Streff, City Planner Documents: 5.C. Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director Documents: 5.D. Prepared ByPrepared By Prepared By Prepared By Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 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 Brent Bartel, Andrew Holewa, Steven Jones, Phillip Neururer, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioner Angela Hames Also present were: Community Development Director Jill Hutmacher; City Planner Ryan Streff; Associate Planner Matthew Bachler; and Councilmember Robert Woodburn. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 4, 2015 Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 7, 2015 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to approve the January 7, 2015, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPOINTMENTS A. Planning Commission Appointment City Planner Streff explained that Phillip Neururer submitted an application to be considered for appointment on the Planning Commission. Consistent with the City’s policy on commission and committee appointments, Mr. Neururer was interviewed by a panel consisting of the Mayor, the Chair of the Planning Commission, the Council Liaison to the Planning Commission, and the staff Liaison to the Planning Commission. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 2 City Planner Streff indicated that the interview panel agreed after meeting with Mr. Neururer that he would be a valuable addition to the Planning Commission based on his interview, his qualifications, and his past work experiences. During the Regular City Council meeting on January 12, 2015, the Council unanimously approved the recommendation of the Planning Commission Liaison to appoint Mr. Neururer as a regular member of the Planning Commission. Mr. Neururer’s term expires December 31, 2017. Chair Thompson administered the Oath of Office to newly appointed Planning Commissioner Phillip Neururer. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 14-036; Master and Final PUD and Condition Use Permit – 1235 Red Fox Road – Public Hearing City Planner Streff commented that Roberts Management Group is proposing to construct two (2) multi-tenant light industrial buildings on an 8.04 acre development site located at 1235 Red Fox Road. The site is located in the southeast quadrant of Snelling Avenue North and Interstate 694 and bordered by Health Partners and the Northwoods Office Building to the east and UTC Fire & Security building to the west. City Planner Streff stated that as proposed, the Red Fox Business Center would consist of two (2) buildings totaling 93,300 square feet. Building 1 is proposed at 43,300 square feet in size and Building 2 is proposed at 50,000 square feet in size. The buildings would be designed into individual tenant bays ranging from 5,000 square feet and up to allow businesses to take as much or as little space as needed. Two driveways are proposed to provide access to the development, the first along the eastern property line for passenger vehicles and the second along the western property line for truck traffic. In this case, it is important to separate passenger vehicles and truck traffic whenever possible in order to minimize conflicts. Parking areas for passenger vehicles would be located along the front façade of Building 1 and along the front and side façades of Building 2. As indicated on the plan set, Building 1 provides a parking area consisting of 82 parking stalls and Building 2 has 80 parking stalls incorporated into its design. In this development, truck docks have been provided along the western façade of Building 1 and along the southeast façade of Building 2. The docks on these building have been positioned on the site to minimize their view from adjacent rights-of-way and neighboring buildings. Where less desirable views exist on the site, increased landscaping has been provided by the applicant. City Planner Streff indicated that both of the proposed buildings would be similar in design and use. The applicant expects 50% wholesaling and warehousing uses with the remainder of the space used for office space, business services, research and development, manufacturing and processing (class 1), retail, and other similar uses. Given the visibility of the property from Interstate 694 and Snelling Avenue, Roberts Management Group believes the project could attract some commercial showroom and retail tenants as well. City Planner Streff explained that the buildings would be constructed with high quality tilt-up concrete panels with exposed aggregate. Decorative metal and anodized aluminum would be used as accent materials to provide architectural interest to the building façades and to create focal points for entryways and corners of the buildings. The applicant intends to use a significant ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 3 amount of glass coverage on the front façades of each building by incorporating ribbon windows. Glass coverage on the front façade of both buildings would be approximately 42% with an average of approximately 22%-25% glass coverage when combined between all façades. Building 1 would be designed with a 22 foot clear height and Building 2 would be constructed with a 24 foot clear height in order to allow tenants to maximize the use of their space and the ability to store products vertically. City Planner Streff noted that Planning Case 14-036 includes three requests: 1. Master Planned Unit Development 2. Final Planned Unit Development 3. Conditional Use Permit City Planner Streff 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 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. Land Use Plan: Site Data MB – Mixed Business Existing Land Use: Vacant Zoning: I-Flex District Current Lot Sizes: 8.04 Acres Topography: Fairly Flat City Planner Streff reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation, Sign Code Review, and the Traffic Study. City Planner Streff provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The applicant is requesting approval of a Master & Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a Conditional Use Permit for the Red Fox Business Center development. 2. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. 3. The Red Fox Business Center development is comprised of 8.04 acres. 4. The Red Fox Business Center development is located at 1235 Red Fox Road. 5. The proposed development is located in the I-Flex District. 6. The proposed development is a permitted use in the I-Flex District. 7. The Master and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the requirements set forth in the City’s Zoning Code and design standards. 8. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City’s Zoning Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 4 9. The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) multi-tenant light industrial buildings on the property. 10. The proposed development would be accessed from Red Fox Road. No access from Northwoods Drive would be provided. 11. The proposed plan is in conformance with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property at 1235 Red Fox Road is guided for Mixed Business (MB). The MB area is designated for a variety of businesses including; commercial, certain light industrial uses, warehousing, office, general business, and retail. Conditional Use Findings: 12. A Conditional Use Permit is required for wholesaling and warehousing uses in the I-Flex District. 13. Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit. 14. The proposal will have limited impacts on existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. 15. The proposal will have limited impacts related to noise concerns. 16. The proposal will not affect glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste on the property. 17. The proposal will not affect drainage on the property. 18. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. 19. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 20. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. 21. Where the proposed use is expected to impact the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the owners and occupants of the surrounding land, conditions may be placed on a Conditional Use Permit to mitigate such impacts. City Planner Streff stated that based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 14-036 for a Master & Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Red Fox Business Center project in order to construct two (2) multi-tenant light industrial buildings at 1235 Red Fox Road. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff recommends that the following fourteen (14) 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 obtain a building permit within one year of the PUD approval or the approval shall expire unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval’s expiration date. Extension requests must be submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date. 3. That the development agreement and conditional use permit (CUP) shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The development agreement and CUP shall be executed prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. 4. That the Developer shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, and paving, prior to the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 5 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, and be in a form acceptable to the City. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that site improvements are completed in the event that the developer defaults on the PUD Development Agreement. 5. That the Developer shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, and paving, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The escrow will be used for City costs related to review, approval, and inspection of site improvements or any costs incurred by the City in the event of a developer default. 6. That the Developer shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping 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 developer defaults on the Development Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 7. That the Developer shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping prior to the issuance of a building permit. The escrow will be held by the City for two years after installation of landscaping and used for City costs related to review, approval, and inspection of landscaping, or developer default. 8. That the proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA- NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 9. That the final plans shall be subject to approval by the Building Official and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a building permit. 10. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and City Planner prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 11. That upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as-built shall be provided to the City for review. 12. That the final plans shall be revised to meet the standards as outlined by the Assistant City Engineer in the memo dated 1-27-15. 13. That the final Lighting and Photometric Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 14. That the applicant shall conform to all other City regulations. 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 6 Matt Pacyna, SRF Consulting, discussed the traffic report in detail with the Commission. He explained that SRF was hired by the City to complete the traffic study. The existing site conditions were reviewed along with the planned improvements to the area. He provided comment on the traffic count numbers and stated that he believed his numbers were on the conservative side. He then asked for questions or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Holewa believed that the intersection needed a right turn lane from southbound Lexington Avenue onto Red Fox Road. Commissioner Jones expressed concern with how truck traffic may back up leaving the site during peak traffic hours at Lexington Avenue. He feared that Red Fox Road was too narrow for the proposed truck traffic. Mr. Pacyna stated this would be a balancing act for the business owner. He noted the County was looking into enhancements for the Red Fox Road and Lexington Avenue intersection in order to better accommodate truck traffic. Commissioner Holewa questioned if the Rice Creek Watershed District had reviewed the development proposal. City Planner Streff commented the applicant had met with Rice Creek Watershed District and a permit was required. He further discussed how drainage would be managed on the site. Commissioner Holewa inquired why the number of trees along I-694 had been reduced. City Planner Streff explained that an upgraded façade was being proposed along the I- 694/Snelling Avenue right-of-way and noted that the applicant did not want to block the signage and sight lines for the proposed businesses. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:11 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 7:12 p.m. Commissioner Holewa stated that he supported the proposed request. Commissioner Zimmerman commended the applicant on his proposed plan and his efforts to keep these businesses in Arden Hills. He encouraged the applicant to increase the caliper inches of the trees being planted along I-694. Chair Thompson was concerned with the level of traffic truck in and around this property. She recommended that directional signage be installed in the parking lot. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 14-036 for a Master & Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Condition Use Permit (CUP) in order to construct two (2) multi- ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 7 tenant light industrial buildings at 1235 Red Fox Road based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and as amended by the fourteen (14) conditions in the February 4, 2015, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 15-001; Preliminary and Final Plat and PUD Amendment – 4100 Hamline Avenue North – Boston Scientific – Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that the property at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Master Planned Unit Development that was approved in Planning Case 02-025 for the Guidant Corporation. Boston Scientific acquired Guidant in 2006, and their Cardiac Rhythm Management Campus is now located on the site. The Campus Master Plan approved in 2002 envisioned an additional 1,029,000 square feet of building space on the property to be built out over 10 to 15 years for a total of 2,187,893 square feet. The plan includes twelve individual buildings and seven parking ramps on the property. With the approvals granted in Planning Case 02-025, Guidant was required to submit a Site Plan Review prior to the construction of any new building, addition, or parking ramp on the site as identified in the Campus Master Plan. Associate Planner Bachler explained that a total of 419,500 square feet of additional building space was proposed for Phase 1 of the development, which was scheduled to be completed in 2006. However, due to the change in ownership to Boston Scientific and other market conditions, portions of Phase 1 have not been constructed. To date, 207,560 square feet of new building space has been built on the campus. Since 2002, the City has also approved eleven separate amendments to the original PUD to address modifications to the building footprints, parking areas, and other elements on the site. The campus plan was last revised in the PUD Amendment request in Planning Case 14-015. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that the campus has transitioned over the last few years into a more integrated component of the company’s global operations. As a result, the need for the existing approximately 1.2 million square feet of building space available on the campus has diminished. Boston Scientific has decided to reduce the overall amount of building area on its campus through the sale of Buildings A, B, and C, which are located in the southwest quadrant of the property. The facilities currently located in these three buildings would be consolidated within other buildings on the campus to improve operational efficiencies. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the proposed subdivision would create a 15.6 acre parcel (Lot 1) situated at the corner of Hamline Avenue North and County Road F that would include Buildings A, B, and C and Parking Ramp One, as identified on the Campus Master Plan. The second parcel (Lot 2) would be approximately 78 acres in size and would continue to function as the Boston Scientific campus. In order to accommodate the subdivision, Boston Scientific is requesting an amendment to the PUD. This amendment would accomplish two things: first, the existing PUD would be revised to reflect the change in property boundaries and the proposed updates to the Campus Master Plan; and second, a separate PUD for the Lot 1 would be created allowing the two sites to function independently. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the revision to the Campus Master Plan includes the removal of proposed Buildings H and G, which are currently shown being constructed where the lot division line has been proposed, and minor adjustments from the current campus plan to the location of future buildings and parking ramps on Lot 2. The overall density of building area ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 8 would be reduced as a result of the elimination of Buildings H and G. No additional buildings are proposed at this time on Lot 1. Associate Planner Bachler noted that the Campus Master Plan also shows modifications to the existing surface parking lot located between Buildings A, B, and C and Buildings E and D to create a clearly defined border along the property line between Lot 1 and Lot 2. This would be accomplished by removing existing bituminous surfaces and installing landscaping. A Site Plan Review would be required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council before this work is undertaken. At that time, the City would evaluate items such as grading, landscaping requirements, and parking lot setbacks in detail. Boston Scientific expects to apply for a Site Plan Review in Fall 2015 or Spring 2016 to complete the necessary site modifications to demarcate the properties. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the Campus Master Plan indicates a future second access drive for Lot 1 on Hamline Avenue, just north of the existing entrance to this site. The new access is not being evaluated as part of this proposal. Boston Scientific has included this access drive as a possible option for a future property owner or tenant on the site depending on their needs. Construction of this access would require a Site Plan Review as well as approval through the Ramsey County Public Works Department. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the future development plan for the Boston Scientific Campus would be phased over the next 20 years. The construction of new buildings and parking ramps will be coordinated with the future growth of Boston Scientific Corporation. As is the case with the existing PUD, any new building construction or site modifications identified on the approved Campus Master Plan will require the submittal of a Site Plan Review for City Council approval prior to construction. Proposed construction or site modifications not conforming to the approved Campus Master Plan would require an amendment to the PUD. This requirement would apply to both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Associate Planner Bachler explained 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 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. Associate Planner Bachler reported that in the original Master PUD approval, the City granted the Guidant Corporation flexibility in terms of their front yard setback, building height, structure coverage, and the number of principal buildings allowed on a single lot. The minimum front yard setback for the I-1 District is 55 feet and in the approved PUD, a 50-foot setback was permitted but was applied to the setbacks along all property lines, including rear and side lot lines. The 2002 Campus Master Plan included several proposed buildings with a height in excess of the 35- foot height maximum with the tallest, Building K, proposed at 135 feet. The maximum structure coverage allowed in the I-1 District is 30 percent and at full build out the Master Plan envisioned 32.7 percent structure coverage. Finally, the Zoning Code only permits one principal building per ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 9 lot. Under the PUD, Guidant was permitted to develop multiple principal buildings on a single parcel. Land Use Plan: Site Data Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Light Industrial and Office Zoning: I-1: Limited Industrial / PUD Overlay Current Lot Sizes: 93.3 acres (Lot 1: 15.6 acres; Lot 2: 77.7 acres) Topography: Level Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation, Zoning Code Review and Sign Code requirements. Associate Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The applicant has requested approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat and an amendment to the PUD for the property at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. 2. The subdivision would create two new parcels (Lot 1 and Lot 2) within the existing Boston Scientific Campus plat. 3. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance in Chapter 11 of the Arden Hills City Code. 4. A Master PUD was approved for 4100 Hamline Avenue North in Planning Case #02-025. 5. The applicant has requested an amendment to the PUD to reflect the change in the property boundaries, to update the Campus Master Plan, and to create a separate PUD for the proposed Lot 1. 6. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a property owner. 7. Lot 1 and Lot 2 are located in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District. 8. The proposed uses on Lot 1 and Lot 2 are permitted uses in the I-1 District. 9. The revisions to the Campus Master Plan are in substantial conformance with the original PUD approval granted by the City in Planning Case #02-025. 10. The PUD amendment is in substantial conformance with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Code. 11. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City’s Zoning Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on the approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 12. The PUD amendment would grant flexibility for Lot 1 in terms of building height, front yard setback, and the number of principal buildings allowed on a lot. 13. The PUD amendment would grant flexibility for Lot 2 in terms of building height, front yard setback, structure coverage, and the number of principal buildings allowed on a lot. 14. The applicant has provided a Parking Calculation Plan that shows adequate “proof-of- parking” spaces on Lot 2 in the event that additional parking is needed. 15. The proposal will not adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood or the City as a whole. Associate Planner Bachler stated that staff is supportive of the request from Boston Scientific for a subdivision and amendment to the existing PUD for the campus. The subdivision will allow the company to consolidate their operations on their campus and improve overall efficiencies. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 10 Additionally, the existing facilities on Lot 1 will offer an attractive corporate campus for a new company to relocate to. The PUD amendment is largely consistent with the original PUD approval in 2002 and is primarily needed to accommodate the subdivision and to adjust the location and footprint of a few of the proposed new buildings shown on the Campus Master Plan. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-001, staff would recommend the following twelve (12) conditions be included in the approval: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The applicant and all subsequent owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall continue to abide by the conditions of all previous Development Agreements, Master PUD approvals, and subsequent PUD Amendment approvals. 3. A PUD Amendment Agreement pertaining exclusively to Lot 2 shall be drafted by the City Attorney and shall be executed prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 4. A PUD Agreement pertaining exclusively to Lot 1 shall be drafted by the City Attorney and shall be executed prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 5. The applicant shall submit an agreement for shared management and maintenance of the stormwater facilities prior to the execution of the Final Plat. The agreement shall be subject to City Attorney approval. 6. The applicant shall file the Final Plat of Boston Scientific Campus with Ramsey County within 180 days of the date of the City’s approval of the Final Plat. 7. A Site Plan Review application for the modification of the parking area along the Lot 1 and Lot 2 property line shall be submitted prior to March 1, 2016, or an extension request shall be submitted in writing to the City at least forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration dated. 8. All necessary City permits for the removal of the existing skyway structure connecting Building B and Building E as depicted on the current Campus Master Plan shall be obtained prior to March 1, 2016, or an extension request shall be submitted in writing to the City at least forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration dated. 9. Prior to City approval of a Site Plan Review for Lot 2 that would result in more than an additional 211,940 square feet of new gross building space on Lot 2, the property owner shall be required to complete a traffic study, unless waived by the City Council. 10. New access to Hamline Avenue North shall require approval through the Ramsey County Public Works Department. A right-of-way permit will be required for any construction activity occurring within the County’s right-of-way. 11. New addressing of Lot 1 and Lot 2 shall be determined upon the sale of Lot 1 per the requirements of the Lake Johanna Fire Department. 12. Sprinkler and Fire Alarm testing shall be required prior to the occupancy of new tenants in Buildings A, B, or C. 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 – February 4, 2015 11 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones requested further information on how Lots 1 and 2 would be separated. Associate Planner Bachler explained that Boston Scientific would be required to submit a Site Plan Review before completing any modifications to the parking lot along the Lot 1 and Lot 2 property boundary. Chair Thompson asked how Lot 1 would be managed if it were sold to a new owner. Associate Planner Bachler reported that staff has been working on this issue with the City Attorney. He stated that separate PUD Agreements would be created to cover the proposed Lot 2 and the proposed Lot 1. He indicated that the PUD Agreements would have to be signed prior to the execution of the Final Plat. Commissioner Neururer questioned how many additional parking spaces were being created. Associate Planner Bachler commented that Lot 1 was required to have 878 spaces for office space and 25 parking spaces for manufacturing. He reported that the site currently had 916 spaces and after the modifications the site would have 980 parking spaces. Community Development Director Hutmacher provided further comment on the parking situation with the Commission. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 7:52 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 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-001 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Planned Unit Development Amendment at 4100 Hamline Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the twelve (12) conditions in the February 4, 2015, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6- 0). C. Planning Case 15-002; Preliminary and Final Plat, PUD Amendment and CUP Amendment – 3527-3557 Lexington Avenue North – Arden Plaza – Public Hearing Associate Planner Bachler stated that the City Council approved a redevelopment proposal for the Arden Plaza retail center in 2009 in Planning Case 09-011. The approved Master PUD included the demolition of an existing office complex, the subdivision of the parcel into four lots, and the construction of four new buildings over three phases. A total of 97,035 square feet of retail and commercial building space was approved for the Master PUD. Phase I of the PUD, ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 12 which included the development of a pharmacy in place of the office building, was also approved as part of this planning case. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that a subsequent PUD Amendment in 2011 (Planning Case 11-016) included a revised plat that combined two of the lots in the northeast corner of the site into a single lot for the development of the existing Walgreens Pharmacy. Phase I of the Master PUD was largely completed in 2012, and included the construction of the Walgreens building, modifications to parking and circulation within the retail center area, and the construction of stormwater bio-filtration basins required for the proposed build-out of the site. Associate Planner Bachler explained that prior to the City’s approval of the Master PUD for the retail center, a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) request from Frattallone’s Hardware was approved in Planning Case 97-009 for fencing a part of the parking lot on the property to allow for a seasonal garden sales area. A CUP was required because the Zoning Code does not specifically allow or prohibit outdoor garden sales as a use. The seasonal outdoor sales area continues to operate on the property, although the area was never fenced off as proposed and its footprint has expanded beyond what was originally approved by the City in the CUP. Associate Planner Bachler noted the Master PUD and subsequent amendment, along with the associated plans and the conditions of approval, remain valid. Neither Phase II nor Phase III of the approved Master PUD is being reviewed as part of this amendment request. The buildings included in these future phases would return to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and approval prior to development. Associate Planner Bachler commented that the first component of the application is the Preliminary and Final Plat to subdivide Lot 3 within the existing Arden Plaza plat into three separate parcels. Frattallone’s Hardware, which is a current tenant in the retail center, has approached Wellington Management regarding the purchase of its store and the existing outdoor garden center. To accommodate this, a new Lot 4 would be created comprised of the Frattallone’s portion of the building, the area occupied by the outdoor seasonal sales area, and related parking and service areas. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the new Lot 3 would be comprised of the remaining retail center, the primary parking area, access drives on County Road E and Lexington Avenue, and the stormwater pond at the southeast corner of the site. The common lot line between the remaining portion of the retail building on Lot 3 and the Frattallone’s Hardware store on Lot 4 would be defined by a demising wall. The definition of a demising wall is a wall used jointly by two parties erected upon a line dividing two parcels of land, each of which is a separate real estate entity. The City Building Official and the Lake Johanna Fire Department have been working with the property owner on the specifications of the demising wall and final building permits will be required prior to construction. Approval of the Final Plat will be conditioned on the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed remodeling work. Associate Planner Bachler stated that the new Lot 5 would include the future Building #4, which is proposed to be constructed in Phase III of the approved Master PUD, along with a small parking area. Lot 5 is located along Lexington Avenue. The proposed footprint of Building #4 has increased from the Master PUD approved in 2009. The submitted master site plan indicates ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 13 that this building would be 20,136 square feet in size, an increase of 2,136 square feet from the 2009 PUD approval. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that Wellington Management is requesting an amendment to the Master PUD to address the following items: • Account for the subdivision of Lot 3 within Arden Plaza into three separate lots. • Allow for the creation of a non-conforming parcel (Lot 4) that does not have frontage on a publicly dedicated street. • Include the proposed permanent outdoor seasonal sales area on Lot 4 within the Master Site Plan. • Increase the size of Building #4 on the proposed Lot 5 from 18,000 square feet, as approved in Planning Case 09-011, to 20,136 square feet. • Minor modification to the parking lot at the north end of the retail center to retain 12 existing parking stalls that are shown being removed on the Master Site Plan. Associate Planner Bachler reported that the submitted plans include a detailed Site Plan for the Frattallone’s seasonal sales area. The proposed outdoor garden center would measure 150 feet by 56 feet for a total area of 8,400 square feet. The existing bituminous surface on which the outdoor sales area is now located would be replaced with a four inch high concrete display curb. Fencing along the perimeter of the area would help define and separate the space from the adjacent parking and service areas. A six-foot tall ornamental fence is proposed along the north and east sides of the sales area and an eight-foot tall chain link fence on the south side. Associate Planner Bachler explained the CUP for the outdoor garden center use approved in 1997 remains valid. However, the applicant is seeking approval to expand the overall area of this use on the site. The Zoning Code requires that any enlargement or intensification of a conditional use shall require an amended permit and all procedures shall apply as if a new permit were being requested. Associate Planner Bachler noted 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 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. Associate Planner Bachler commented that when a PUD is comprised of multiple lots, it is often treated as one continuous development. The development as a whole would be expected to meet the landscaping, stormwater, and other similar requirements. For example, one property in the PUD may have 60 percent building coverage, but the development as a whole may not exceed 50 percent building coverage to maintain conformance with the underlying zoning district. In order to maintain shared amenities such as parking spaces, access drives, and stormwater ponds the development is required to create a legal entity to manage and maintain the shared facilities. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 14 Land Use Plan: Site Data Commercial Mixed Use Existing Land Use: Retail/Commercial Zoning: B-2: General Business District Current Lot Sizes: 12.55 Acres (546,717) Topography: The elevation of the lot is lower than Lexington Avenue. There is a stormwater pond in the southeast corner of the property. Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation, the Zoning Code Review and B-2 District Design Standards. Associate Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: Subdivision Findings 1. The applicant has requested approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat for the property at 3527-3557 Lexington Avenue North. 2. The subdivision would create three new parcels (Lot 3, Lot 4, and Lot 5) within the existing Arden Plaza plat. 3. The proposed Lot 3 and Lot 5 are in conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance in Chapter 11 of the Arden Hills City Code. 4. The proposed Lot 4 is not in conformance with the Subdivision Ordinance in Chapter 11 of the Arden Hills City Code because it is an interior parcel with no frontage on a publicly dedicated street. 5. The proposed Lot 4 is entitled to access and parking under an existing Reciprocal Easement Agreement (Doc. No. 2156888) that has been recorded against the property with Ramsey County. 6. The applicant has requested for flexibility through the PUD Amendment process for the proposed nonconforming Lot 4. PUD Amendment Findings 7. The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the Master PUD for the Arden Plaza property. 8. The original Master PUD for the development was approved in Planning Case #09-011. A subsequent PUD Amendment was approved in Planning Case #11-016. 9. The PUD Amendment is being requested in order to accommodate the proposed subdivision, to include an expanded outdoor seasonal sales area on the site, to increase the size of Building #4 to be constructed in Phase III, and to allow for minor modifications to the existing parking lot. 10. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. 11. The Arden Plaza development is located in the B-2 General Business District. 12. The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District that outlines future development principals for the area. 13. The City has adopted Design Standards for the B-2 District within the Zoning Code. 14. The Master PUD Amendment is in substantial conformance with the requirements of the City’s Zoning Code. 15. The Master PUD Amendment is in substantial conformance with the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 15 16. The Master PUD Amendment is in substantial conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 17. The submitted Site Plan for the Frattallone’s Hardware outdoor seasonal sales area is in conformance with the B-2 District Design Standards. 18. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City’s Zoning Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 19. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. CUP Amendment Findings 20. The City approved a Conditional Use Permit in Planning Case 97-009 for a 3,500 square foot outdoor garden sales area on the Arden Plaza site. 21. The proposed Frattallone’s Hardware outdoor sales area would measure 150 feet by 56 feet, or a total area of 8,400 square feet. 22. Section 1345.03 of the Zoning Code states that any enlargement or intensification of a conditional use not specifically permitted by the permit shall require an amended permit and all procedures shall apply as if a new permit were being requested. 23. Section 1355.04 Subd. 3 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code lists criteria for evaluating a Conditional Use Permit. 24. The proposal will have limited impacts on existing and anticipated traffic and parking conditions. 25. The proposal will not affect noise on the property. 26. The proposal will not affect glare, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid and solid waste on the property. 27. The proposal will have limited impacts on drainage on the property. 28. The proposal will not affect the population density on the property. 29. The proposal is unlikely to significantly affect land values on the subject property or on neighboring properties. 30. The park dedication requirement does not apply in this case. Associate Planner Bachler stated that staff is generally supportive of the separate requests within Planning Case 15-002. The proposed subdivision should help with the marketing of the proposed Lot 5 for future development. While Lot 4 would not have frontage on a public street, the existing Reciprocal Easement Agreement for the development will guarantee access to Lot 4 in perpetuity. The amendment to the Master PUD to include an expanded and more permanent outdoor seasonal sales area for Frattallone’s Hardware will better define and formalize this activity within the development. Associate Planner Bachler indicated that staff does have concerns about certain site improvements that were scheduled to be finished during Phase I that have yet to be completed. Additionally, staff would recommend that the execution of the Final Plat be conditioned on the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the building following the completion of the required demising wall between Lot 3 and Lot 4. These concerns are reflected in the recommended conditions of approval. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-002, staff is recommending the following twenty-two (22) conditions of approval: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 16 1. Prior to City Council review of Planning Case 15-002, the issue regarding the design and location of the demising wall between Lot 3 and Lot 4 shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Building Official and Fire Marshall. 2. The applicant shall continue to abide by the conditions of all previous Master PUD Agreements, permits, and reviews, except as hereinafter amended. 3. 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 by the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. 4. A Development Agreement Amendment shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The agreement shall be executed by all parties within the Arden Plaza development prior to the issuance of any building or development permits. 5. The final construction plans for the demising wall between the Frattallone’s Hardware store and the remainder of the Arden Plaza retail building shall meet the standards as outlined by the City Building Official in the memo dated January 29, 2015. 6. The execution of the Final Plat shall be conditioned on the demising wall construction between the Frattallone’s Hardware store and the remainder of the Arden Plaza retail building receiving final approval from the City Building Official. 7. Prior to the execution of the Final Plat, a copy of the supplemental declaration between Frattallone’s Hardware and Arden Plaza, LLC addressing the issues of drainage and driveway maintenance shall be provided to the City. 8. Prior to the execution of the Final Plat, a copy of an agreement addressing the Sewer and Water services provided to Lot 4 thought the building on Lot 3 shall be provided to the City. 9. Prior to the execution of the Final Plat, a copy of an agreement addressing the operation, maintenance, and ownership of all sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer within the development, and the process by which future land use applications will be submitted to the City for properties within the development, shall be provided to the City. 10. The applicant shall file the Final Plat with Ramsey County within 180 days of the date of the City’s approval of the Final Plat. An extension request must be submitted in writing to the City at least forty-five (45) days prior to the expiration date. 11. The Developer shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, and paving prior to the issuance of any development permits related to the construction of the outdoor seasonal sales area. The financial surety shall be in the form of a letter of credit issued by a FDIC- insured Minnesota bank, and be in a form acceptable to the City. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that site improvements are completed in the event of a developer default. 12. The Developer shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, and paving, prior to the issuance of any development permits related to the construction of the outdoor seasonal sales area. The escrow will be used for City costs related to review, approval, and inspection of site improvements or any costs incurred by the City in the event of a developer default. 13. Final grading and erosion plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to the issuance of any development permits related to the construction of the outdoor seasonal sales area. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 17 14. The operations of the Bio-Filtration Area #2 identified on the Master Site Plan shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any development permits related to the construction of the outdoor seasonal sales area. 15. The City currently holds a Letter of Credit (American Bank Letter of Credit No. 2527) for the patching and seal coating of the parking lot next to the Frattallone’s Hardware store. This work shall be completed by September 30, 2015 or the LOC maturity date shall be extended. 16. The applicant shall construct the main parking area and landscaping improvements previously planned for Phase I prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for either Building #2 or Building #4. 17. The fence around the perimeter of the outdoor seasonal sales area shall be made of wrought iron materials and shall not exceed six (6) feet in height. 18. No exterior signage shall be attached to the fence around the outdoor seasonal sales area. 19. The outdoor seasonal sales area must be an extension of and consistent with the applicant’s permitted principal use. 20. The outdoor seasonal sales area shall be used exclusively for the seasonal sale of nursery and garden items, including but not limited to flowers, plants, landscaping materials, and Christmas trees. 21. The site shall be kept in a neat and orderly fashion, free from litter, refuse, debris, junk, or other waste, which results in offensive odors or unsightly conditions. 22. No storage, displays, or sales shall be permitted outside of the outdoor seasonal sales area. 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 Bartel requested further information on the zero lot line setback. Associate Planner Bachler explained that lots are required to maintain certain rear, front, and side yard setbacks. He reviewed Section 1325 of the Zoning Code, noting the exception to the required side yard setback provided that a demising wall is used and if the adjacent buildings are constructed as an integral unit, as was the case with the Arden Plaza shopping center. Further discussion ensued regarding the property line, outdoor storage and future additions to the property. Commissioner Holewa questioned if the proposed eight-foot height of the fencing was at the applicant’s request. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 18 Associate Planner Bachler stated that the applicant had requested an eight-foot chain link fence to be placed along the south side of the seasonal sales area. He reported that staff had concerns with the additional height and that it would be a chain link fence. Commissioner Bartel discussed the parking concerns on the Arden Plaza property and inquired if the proposed number of parking spaces was sufficient. Associate Planner Bachler reviewed the site plan with the Commission and commented that staff believed the proposed number of parking stalls was adequate. He reported that the exact parking needs for the future phases was uncertain at this time. Commissioner Zimmerman provided comment on how the parking and traffic from the future uses would impact this site. He questioned if the current traffic patterns would support the proposed use. Associate Planner Bachler noted that a traffic study was completed with the original PUD request. He commented that a similar amount of building space was being proposed for the site with the current PUD Amendment request. David Bergstrom, Wellington Management, provided comment on the zero lot line with regard to the shopping center. He noted that several parking spaces were lost on the site due to the Walgreens development. Commissioner Jones asked if any additional landscaping would be installed surrounding the seasonal sales area. Mr. Bergstrom explained that the seasonal sales area was a non-permeable surface at this time. He reported that the main focus of the PUD Amendment request was the proposed lot split. Tom Frattallone, Frattallone Hardware, discussed the design of the garden center with the Commission. He commented that a raised concrete area would surround this garden center in order to provide a platform for the fencing. He requested that Condition #22 be removed from the staff’s recommendation for approval. It was his opinion that this condition was holding his property to a higher standard than surrounding uses. Commissioner Holewa believed this was a reasonable request. Associate Planner Bachler supported amending the language within Condition #22 to allow for the continued use of the area under the canopy for outdoor display of merchandise. He was concerned about the outdoor sales continuing into the parking lot or service areas outside of the defined fenced-off garden center. Staff then discussed the requirements for outdoor storage in the B-2 Zoning District. Chair Thompson supported the outdoor storage for Frattallone’s remain in place as is. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 9:08 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 19 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 9:09 p.m. Commissioner Holewa asked if Wellington Management had any prospects for Lot 2. Mr. Bergstrom stated he was in negotiations with a business at this time. Commissioner Jones understood that the building was well screened and for this reason, he supported the outdoor storage. City Planner Streff reported that within the City Code, outdoor storage was only allowed as a conditional use in the I-2 district. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated if the Commission was in favor of allowing outdoor storage, staff could draft appropriate language. Chair Thompson was in favor of allowing outdoor storage on the south side of the building, so long as it did not extend into the parking lot. Commissioner Bartel believed that Frattallone’s was not interested in having outdoor storage along the front of their building, but rather the south side of the building. He discussed how the applicant was expanding their outdoor sales area on the site. Mr. Frattallone explained that he was not requesting any additional storage space than what has been used by his business for the past 17 years. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if bulk product would still be stored on the south side of the building. Mr. Frattallone stated bulk items would still be stored in this location. Commissioner Holewa was in favor of striking Condition #22. Chair Thompson agreed, but suggested that the Council make the final determination on this matter. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-002 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, Planned Unit Development Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 3527-3557 Lexington Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the twenty-one (21) conditions (striking condition #22) in the February 4, 2015, report to the Planning Commission, Commissioner Bartel asked how the property was altered by the Walgreens development. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 20 Associate Planner Bachler discussed how the site was impacted by Walgreens. He noted that several parking spaces would be lost due to the expansion of the seasonal sales area, while several spaces on the north side of the retail center building would be retained through the PUD amendment. Commissioner Zimmerman stated that he could not support the removal of Condition #22 when this went against the City’s Zoning Code. Commissioner Holewa suggested that his motion be amended to reinstate Condition #22, with the word “no” deleted. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Jones seconded an amendment to reinstate Condition #22, with the word “no” deleted. Commissioner Zimmerman stated that the role of the Planning Commission was to uphold the City’s Zoning Code. Commissioner Holewa noted that the request before the Commission was a PUD, which allowed for some level of flexibility. Commissioner Jones stated that the applicant was only requesting to grandfather in a space for storage that was already being used for storing bulk items. Commissioner Bartel did not support the amendment. He suggested that the case be tabled to allow for the storage and parking issues to be further addressed by staff with the applicant. Community Development Director Hutmacher explained that this would allow for additional time for the staff to discuss the storage and parking concerns. She then discussed how tabling the matter would impact the applicant. If the Planning Commission chose to move forward with this item, she recommended Commissioner Holewa withdraw his original motion and friendly amendment, and that a new motion be made. Commissioner Holewa withdrew his motion and friendly amendment. Commissioner Holewa moved and Commissioner Jones seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-002 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, Planned Unit Development Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 3527-3557 Lexington Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the twenty-two (22) conditions (noting only Lot 4 shall be allowed to have outdoor storage and sales) in the February 4, 2015, report to the Planning Commission, The motion carried 4-2 (Bartel and Zimmerman opposed). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 21 A. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Jones discussed the size of the Planning Commission packet. He suggested that the packets be hand delivered by staff instead of sending them via US Mail as this would reduce postage costs. Chair Thompson stated she would be in favor of picking up her packet at City Hall as this would allow her to review the items in a more timely manner. Chair Thompson stated that the Planning Commission Work Session scheduled for this evening would be cancelled due to the late hour. She added that the discussion on the Planning Commission 2015 Work Plan would be moved to the Planning Commission Work Session on March 4th. B. Report from the City Council City Planner Streff updated the Planning Commission on City Council activities from their January 26, 2015, Regular Meeting. The City Council approved (5-0) Planning Case 14-032 for a Minor Subdivision, Lot Consolidation, and Variance at 4605 Prior Avenue and 4703 U.S. Highway 10. Approval of this case allows for the transfer of a 2,673 square foot portion of the Arden Manor property to the adjacent Big Ten Supper Club property. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-032 on January 7, 2015, and recommended approval (5-1, Holewa). City Planner Streff stated that the City Council also approved (5-0) Planning Case 14-045 for a Site Plan Review requested by Frattallone’s Hardware for a reduction in the number of required parking spaces for their proposed office use at 1203 County Road E. The Planning Commission recommended approval (6-0) of this planning case on January 7, 2015. City Planner Streff explained that the City Council continued to discuss the draft TCAAP Redevelopment Code at their three January work session meetings. Discussions this past month have focused on Sections 6 and 7, which address site development and building design standards, and Section 3, which covers the administration of the Code. C. TCAAP Update Community Development Director Hutmacher reported the City Council has been continuing to meet weekly to discuss the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC). The final draft of the TRC will be presented to the City Council at a work session on February 2, 2015. Over the past several weeks, the City has been working with its consultants to revise the draft land use map to reflect the Spine Road realignment and City Council direction regarding land uses. Key points to consider regarding the revised land use map are: • As additional data is developed, the exact acreage of development areas is fluctuating slightly. This affects the estimate of maximum residential units. Parcel sizes are expected to continue to fluctuate slightly until a final land use map is approved. • Please note that the size of development areas shown on the map excludes collector right- of-way. The size of districts/subzones on Table 1.0 below includes collector right-of-way since the City has defined gross density to include right-of-way. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 4, 2015 22 • The Town Center and retail areas have been reconfigured to allow for parcel shapes and sizes that can be more easily developed. The Town Center retail area will be increased slightly in size to better accommodate retail uses. This will decrease the Town Center residential area by approximately 0.3 acres, which is not currently reflected on the draft land use map or Table 1.0. • The Town Center green space has been reshaped to allow a continuous green space from the retail area through the Town Center. Diagonal parking in front of the retail areas along the east/west connector would provide convenient parking for those businesses. • A legend will be added to the next draft, which provides labels for each of the land use categories. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated at a meeting on January 20, 2015, Ramsey County requested that the City delay its approval of the TRC and distribution of the TCAAP Comprehensive Plan Amendment for adjacent city and Metropolitan Council review until a “fit test” could be completed. The County’s stated purpose of the fit test is to: • See how the neighborhoods meet the City’s and County’s shared vision; • Offer the market a more complete view of the TRC; and • Add financial perspective for the TRC and County marketing efforts through a market study. Community Development Director Hutmacher indicated the City Council agreed to postpone its final approval of the TRC, but requested that the fit test not be initiated until the City Council had tentatively approved the TRC. Work on the fit study is expected to take up to 60 days following the City Council’s completion of work on the TRC. Ramsey County has offered to pay for this study. Community Development Director Hutmacher stated following presentation of the final draft TRC to the City Council on February 2, 2015, the City Council and staff will be working to schedule additional review meetings or workshops prior to the Council’s tentative approval of the document. Once the schedule is better defined, a longer-term schedule for the fit test and final approval will be compiled. Public hearings for the TRC and Comprehensive Plan Amendment will be scheduled following the completion of the fit study. D. Staff Comments Chair Thompson reported that since the February 18th Special Planning Commission meeting has been canceled and will be rescheduled at a later date, she requested the Commission members to email staff with any comments or questions on the draft TRC. Planning Commissioners are not to copy other members of the group with their comments. ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to adjourn the February 4, 2015, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:58 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 1 of 8 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 2015 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-003 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Alliant Engineering/CSM Properties Property Location: 4293 Lexington Avenue North (CSM Properties) Request: Site Plan Review and Variance – Parking Lot Expansion Requested Action The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review and Variance in order to expand the parking lot area at 4293 Lexington Avenue North. A Site Plan Review is required for the parking lot modifications. A Variance is required to address the encroachment of the parking lot into the required five (5) foot setback. Background/Overview of Request CSM Corporation owns the Arden Hills Corporate Center, which consists of the four (4) lots and buildings within this particular development located north of the Boston Scientific Campus off of Lexington Avenue. The property at 4293 Lexington Avenue North is zoned I-1 Limited Industrial District. This property is generally positioned north of Cummings Park Drive, south of Cummings Park, east of Hamline Avenue, and west of Lexington Avenue. The applicant is proposing to construct an additional twenty-two (22) parking stalls to meet the needs of the existing tenant at 4293 Lexington Avenue North. The proposed stalls are located along the south side of the existing parking lot on this property. A Variance is required in this case because the proposed expansion would bring the parking lot area within 4 feet - 4 inches of the adjacent property line of 4255 Lexington Avenue North. The Zoning Code requires that parking areas including four or more spaces maintain a setback of five feet from adjacent properties. The CSM Corporation is also the owner of the property at 4255 Lexington Avenue North. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 2 of 8 The applicant has submitted a narrative of the proposed project (Attachment A), a Site Plan depicting the proposed parking lot expansion project (Attachment B), and a preliminary grading plan (Attachment C). 1. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: I/O - Light Industrial and Office Existing Land Use: Mixed Use Industrial/Office Zoning: I-1 – Limited Industrial District Current Lot Sizes: 3.42 Acres Topography: Fairly Flat 2. Surrounding Area Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North I/O - Light Industrial and Office I-1 – Limited Industrial District Mixed Use Industrial/Office South I/O - Light Industrial and Office I-1 – Limited Industrial District Mixed Use Industrial/Office East I/O - Light Industrial and Office I-1 – Limited Industrial District Mixed Use Industrial/Office West Park & Open Space/Low Density Residential Park & Open Space/ R-1 Single Family Residential Park & Open Space/Single Family Detached Plan Evaluation 1. I-1 Limited Industrial District Regulations, Existing Conditions, and Proposed Redevelopment A. Lot Size & Dimensions – Meets Requirements The property located at 4293 Lexington Avenue North is 148,975 square feet in size. B. Site Plan Review – Site Plan Approval Required A Site Plan Review is required by the City Code for the reorganization of parking, drives and entrances within any industrial Applicable I-1 Lot Requirements 1. Minimum Lot Area (sf.) 30,000 2. Minimum Lot Size (ft., width/depth) 100/130 3. Height (ft.) 35 4. Lot Covered by Structure 30% 5. Minimum Landscape Lot Area 35% 6. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front Yard 55 Rear Yard (Principle) 20 Rear Yard (Accessory) 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Minimum/total both yards on lot) 20/40 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 Side Yard Corner 50 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 3 of 8 district. The applicant is proposing to construct an additional twenty-two (22) parking stalls to meet the needs of the existing tenant at 4293 Lexington Avenue North. C. Lot Coverage – Meets Requirements The existing and proposed lot coverage calculations do not exceed the standards set within the I-1 Light Industrial Zoning District. The I-1 Zoning District permits maximum lot coverage of 65% for impervious surfaces and a minimum landscape coverage of 35%. D. Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plan The applicant submitted a Tree Survey and Tree Replacement Plan as part of their tree preservation and mitigation requirements (Attachment B). The following table outlines these numbers and the additional requirements of the tree preservation ordinance pertaining to tree removal and tree mitigation regulations. Caliper Inches Number of Trees Total Existing Trees 647” 32 10% Permitted Removal 64.7” -- Proposed Removal 77” 6 Trees Preserved 570” 28 Replacement Trees Required* 6.15” --** Replacement Trees Proposed 12.5” 5 * Replacement trees are calculated by subtracting the ten percent permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. ** The number of trees required may vary depending on the size of the trees planted by the developer. City Code requires a certain number of caliper inches to be planted. If larger trees are planted then fewer trees would be required. Total Lot Area: 148,975 Sq. Ft. Existing Conditions Proposed Square Feet % Square Feet % Principle Building 25,908 17.39% 25,908 17.39% Accessory Structure 1,745 1.17% 1,745 1.17% Other Impervious Coverage (i.e. Parking Lot and Sidewalk) 65,329 43.85% 69,194 46.45% Total Impervious Coverage 92,982 62.41% 96,810 65.00% Landscape Coverage 55,993 37.59% 52,165 35.00% City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 4 of 8 In total five (5) Autumn Blaze Red Maple trees will be planted, equating to 12.5 caliper inches. Based on the proposed tree removal, the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance requires 6.15 caliper inches to be planted on the site. E. Parking – Variance Required Section 1325.06 of Zoning Code states that Business and Professional Offices are required to provide one (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. Based on this criteria, 210 parking spaces are required for the 52,379 square feet of office space located within the building on the property. The current parking lot contains 127 parking spaces. After the proposed parking lot expansion a total of 149 parking spaces would exist. The Zoning Code also requires that off-street parking areas containing four or more parking spaces must be a minimum of five (5) feet from any side or rear lot line. With the proposed expansion, the parking lot area would be located 4 feet – 4 inches from the adjacent property to south. The applicant is requesting a variance in order to encroach into this required setback. 2. Flood Plain, Wetlands, and Easements The project as proposed is outside of any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 3. Additional Review a. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) reviewed the plans for this request and determined that a RCWD Permit would not be required for the proposed project. b. The City Engineer reviewed the proposal and stated that a Grading and Erosion Control Permit is needed for this project. Type/Total Parcel 1 Building Size (sq. ft.) 52,379 Zoning Code 210 Existing Parking 127 Proposed Parking 149 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 5 of 8 Variance Evaluation Criteria On May 5, 2011, the Governor signed into law new variance legislation that changed the review criteria City’s must use when evaluating variance requests. The new law renames the municipal variance standard from “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties,” but otherwise retains the familiar three-factor test of (1) reasonableness, (2) uniqueness, and (3) essential character. Also included is a sentence new to city variance authority that was already in the county statutes: “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the terms of the variance are consistent with the comprehensive plan”. Therefore, in evaluating variance requests under the new law, in order to find a practical difficulty, cities should adopt findings addressing the following questions: • Is the variance in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance? • Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? • Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? • Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? • Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the Community? As was the case before the new legislation took effect, economic considerations alone cannot constitute a practical difficulty. Furthermore, the new law clarifies that conditions may be imposed on granting of variances if those conditions are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following sixteen (16) findings of fact for review: General Findings 1. The property is located in the I-1 Limited Industrial Zoning District. 2. That a Site Plan Review is required in order to add or reconfigure parking areas on the site. 3. That a Variance is required in order to allow the encroachment of the new parking area within five (5) feet of an adjoining property line. 4. The properties at 4293 and 4255 Lexington Avenue North are owned by CSM Corporation. 5. The lot is 148,975 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 655 feet in width, and 220 feet in depth. 6. The property currently consists of a principal building that has a footprint of 25,908 square feet and an accessory structure that is 1,745 square feet in size. 7. Access to the property is provided off of Cummings Park Drive. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 6 of 8 8. The Zoning Code requires 210 parking spaces be provided on this property for Business and Professional Offices. 9. The parking lot currently contains 127 parking spaces. 10. After completion of the new parking lot area 149 parking spaces will exist. 11. The proposed lot coverage is within the zoning district requirements. Variance Findings: 12. The proposal is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as the Ordinance generally allows flexibility for unique situations when impacts to surrounding properties are minimized. 13. The proposal is consistent with the Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan as it allows the reasonable use of commercial or light industrial property. 14. The proposed variance would have no significant impact to the conditions of the site. 15. The proposed variance is unlikely to have negative impacts to the property or to the neighborhood as a whole. 16. The proposed variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. Recommendation The findings of fact for the Site Plan Review & Variance support a recommendation for approval. However, if the Planning Commission chooses to make a recommendation for denial, the Findings of Fact would need to be amended to reflect the reasons for the denial. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Site Plan Review & Variance, staff recommends the following four (4) conditions: 1. That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. That the applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of all landscaping and trees prior to the issuance of a grading 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 and tree requirements are completed in the event that the developer defaults on the approved plan. 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. 3. That any newly created parking space or parking area shall meet the parking regulations stated in Section 1325.05 of the City Code. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 7 of 8 4. That a Grading and Erosion Control Permit shall be issued by the City before the commencement of any construction, grading or disturbance of soil within the parking lot area. Options 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-003 for a Site Plan Review & Variance to expand the existing parking lot at 4293 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact, the submitted plans, and the four (4) conditions in the March 4, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15- 003 for a Site Plan Review & Variance to expand the existing parking lot at 4293 Lexington Avenue North, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the March 4, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 15-003 for a Site Plan Review & Variance to expand the existing parking lot at 4293 Lexington Avenue North, based on the following findings of fact… 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 15-003 for a Site Plan Review & Variance to expand the existing parking lot at 4293 Lexington Avenue North: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a Site Plan Review does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within three-hundred fifty (350) feet of the subject property. Resident Comment Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regards to this planning case. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-003 - CSM - Site Plan Review & Variance - Parking Lot\Memos_Reports_15-003 Page 8 of 8 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 6, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by March 6, 2015, (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60- day review period. The petitioner was notified on February 13, 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 May 5, 2015 (120 days). The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Site Plan C. Preliminary Grading Plan D. Aerial Map Rezoning Submittal February 11, 2015 Fridley, MN Page 1 of 1 LAND USE APPLICATION SUBMITTAL NARRATIVE 4293 and 4255 Lexington Avenue Arden Hills, Minnesota February 11, 2015 ZONING CLASSIFICATION The properties are currently Zoned (I-1) Limited Industrial District. No zoning change is requested. LAND USE EXISTING CONDITIONS There are existing office buildings at 4293 and 4255 Lexington Avenue with associated parking. The existing tenants are in need of additional parking. PROPOSED PLAN We are proposing to add 22 additional parking stalls at the existing Arden Hills Corporate facility to meet the need of the existing tenants at 4293 and 4255 Lexington Avenue. The proposed stalls are located along the south side of existing parking lot of the 4293 Lexington Avenue Parcel. Zoning Ordinance 1325.06, Subd. 1 Off-Public Street Parking, E. Joint Facilities; allows for joint parking facilities and over common lot lines between the lots involved in the joint parking. The proposed increase in impervious surface is 3,828 square feet. Since the increased impervious surface is less than 10,000 square feet, no review or permits are required by the Rice Creek Watershed District, per Rule C, 2, c. The City Grading and Erosion Control Permit will be submitted by the contractor at time of permit. TIMING/PHASING Construction is anticipated to begin and be completed in May 2015. CONCLUSION The developer seeks approval for the 22 additional parking stalls in order to retain the existing employers/tenants at their Arden Hills Corporate Facility. We have used thoughtful site design to better utilize the property. Variance to reduce the parking setback by 0.6’, from 5’ to 4.4’. 1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. No. The variance has been requested to provide for adequate parking to meet the need of the existing tenants/market demand. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner The plight is due to growth of the existing tenants and the desire to keep them in the existing facility and the City of Arden Hills. 3. The deviation from the Ordinance with any attached conditions will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Yes. The deviation from the Ordinance will still be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. We are proposing to decrease the parking setback 0.6’. 4. The variance will not create a land use not permitted in the zone. No. There is no proposed land use change. 5. The variance will not alter the essential character of the City. No. The deviation of the parking setback is very small and is not visible from adjacent property which is not owned by the applicant. 6. The variance is not for economic reasons alone. No. Due to the existing parcel limited size a variance is being requested to provide for parking to meet the need of the existing tenants and to keep them in the existing facilities and the City of Arden Hills. 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 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 600.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet600.00300.00 Notes Enter Map Description Legend City Halls Schools Hospitals Fire Stations Police Stations Recreational Centers Parcel Points Parcel Boundaries Airports City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 2015 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #15-004 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Landmark of Arden Hills, LLC Property Location: 1941 & 1901 County Road E2 Request: Preliminary & Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requested Action The applicant is requesting approval of a Preliminary & Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the property located at 1941 & 1901 County Road E2 in order to subdivide the two (2) parcels into seven (7) single-family lots. Background Landmark of Arden Hills has a purchase agreement with Bethel University for approximately 4.77 acres of land consisting of two contiguous parcels at 1941 and 1901 County Road E2. The property at 1941 County Road E2 is the site of the former Ramsey County library, which closed in December of 2010. The Minnesota Baptist Conference occupied the facility at 1901 County Road E2 for a number of years beginning in the early 1970s, but this structure is also currently vacant. The applicant is requesting approval for a project that would result in the redevelopment of both properties for seven (7) single-family homes. The property at 1941 County Road E2 is zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and is guided for Public Institutional uses in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The adjacent property at 1901 County Road E2 is now zoned N-B Neighborhood Business and is also guided for Neighborhood Business uses in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is bordered to the north and east by a system of wetlands within Tony Schmidt Regional Park, managed by Ramsey County. Generally, the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 2 of 15 topography of the properties is relatively flat around where the existing structures are located, but slopes down more significantly along the northern and eastern edges of the site. Small wetland areas are present in the far northeast and southeast corners of the site and are currently protected by easements held by the Rice Creek Watershed District. The Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department has a sixty-eight (68) foot wide easement across the western portion of the 1941 County Road E2 property for the purpose of a future trail connection through the wetland complex in Tony Schmidt Regional Park. Project Proposal and Process 1. Project Description The site is approximately 4.77 gross acres in size and located near the intersection of New Brighton Road and County Road E2 and bordered by Tony Schmidt Regional Park to the north. The site is comprised of two contiguous parcels, both of which have existing structures on them that would be demolished as part of the project. Three separate driveways on County Road E2 currently provide access to the properties. After accounting for the right-of-way area that extends into County Road E2 and the flood plain/wetlands areas located on the site, 4.54 acres of net buildable area exists on the site. The applicant is requesting approval to subdivide the site into seven (7) single-family lots. In this case the applicant is proposing four (4) driveways from County Road E2 in order to provide access to the residential lots. This is an increase of one (1) additional driveway from the existing conditions. Limiting driveways from County Road E2 is accomplished by incorporating shared access from the County roadway for six of the proposed lots. The plans as submitted indicate that every other property would share an access with the neighboring property, except the easternmost lot would have its own individual access from County Road E2. In addition to the Preliminary & Final Plat for the subdivision, a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan amendment are being requested. Both properties would be rezoned to the R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District. In order to rezone the properties, the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to reflect the new Very Low Density Residential land use for the site. The applicant has submitted a project narrative explaining the proposed redevelopment in greater detail and why the overall proposal is within the public interest (Attachment A). A complete plan set, including the Preliminary & Final Plat and Tree Preservation Plan, have also been submitted (Attachment B). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 3 of 15 Planning Case 15-004 includes three (3) requests: 1. Preliminary & Final Plat. 2. Rezoning to amend the zoning designation for 1941 County Road E2 and 1901 County Road E2 to R-2 Single and Two Family Residential District. 3. Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the 2030 Future Land Use Map to classify 1941 and 1901 County Road E2 as Very Low Density Residential land use. 2. Surrounding Area: Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North P/OS – Park & Open Space POS – Parks & Open Space P/OS – Park & Open Space South LDR – Low Density Residential R2 – Single & Two Family Residential SFD – Single-family Detached East P/OS – Park & Open Space POS – Parks & Open Space P/OS – Park & Open Space West P/OS – Park & Open Space POS – Parks & Open Space R1 – Single Family Residential P/OS – Park & Open Space SFD – Single-family Detached 3. Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: Existing: 1941 County Road E2 W – P/I Public Institutional; Proposed: VLDR Very Low Density Existing: 1901 County Road E2 W – NB Neighborhood Business; Proposed: VLDR Very Low Density Existing Land Use: Existing: 1941 County Road E2 W – P/I Public Institutional; Proposed: SFD Single Family Detached Existing: 1901 County Road E2 W – NB Neighborhood Business; Proposed: SFD Single Family Detached Zoning: Existing: 1941 County Road E2 W – R1 Single Family Residential; Proposed: R2 Residential Existing: 1901 County Road E2 W – NB Neighborhood Business; Proposed: R2 Residential Lot Size: 4.77 Acres (Both Lots Gross Area) Topography: The lots when combined are wooded along the north, east and west sides and slopes approximate 22 feet downward toward the wetland complex in Tony Schmidt Regional Park along the northern part of the property. Plan Evaluation 1. Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) The City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan lays out the future land uses that are anticipated for all properties within the City. Based on the future land uses, the City can plan for improvements, anticipate infrastructure needs, and create appropriate land use regulations. The City’s Zoning Code identifies specific zoning districts through which the land uses and goals in the Comprehensive Plan can be implemented. The zoning cannot conflict with the future land use designation. When there is a conflict between a city’s comprehensive plan and a zoning code, the city is required to amend the zoning code to comply with the comprehensive plan, unless the city approves an amendment to the comprehensive plan. The Metropolitan Council has the final City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 4 of 15 determination as to whether to allow a CPA or not, though they provide great deference to the City as long as the proposed land use change does not have a negative impact on a regional system (i.e. transportation, sanitary sewer, and regional parks). A city has broad discretion when reviewing whether to rezone a property or amend its Comprehensive Plan. Questions to consider include whether or not the proposed project forwards the broader goals and vision for the City? Would the rezoned property allow for a better development than the current zoning would permit? Is the proposed zoning district appropriate to that particular location? Would the proposed change forward the goals of the comprehensive plan? The request would include the rezoning of property from R -1 Single Family Residential (1941 County Road E2) and N-B Neighborhood Business (1901 County Road E2) to R-2 Single & Two Family Residential District. The official Zoning Map of the City would be updated to reflect this change in zoning if the project is approved. As part of the CPA for the Valentine Bluff project, a change in land use designation from Public Institutional (1941 County Road E2) and Neighborhood Business (1901 County Road E2) to Very Low Density Residential at approximately 1.54 units per acre is being requested. The City’s 2030 Future Land Use Map would be amended to re-designate the property to reflect the change in land use classification. The Very Low Density Residential land use category allows for development at a net density of 1.5 to 3 units per acre. Net density is defined as the number of dwelling units per acre of land when the acreage involved includes only land for residential uses and excludes arterial street rights of way, wetlands and water features, and other publicly dedicated improvements, such as parks and trails. If the City approves the CPA, one of the conditions of approval will be that the project is contingent on final approval from the Metropolitan Council. The request for the Future Land Use Map amendment will need to be submitted to the Metropolitan Council by the City. The Metropolitan Council then has 60 days to review the application, though due to the small size of the project and the lack of negative impacts, the City will be requesting a shortened review timeline of 14 days. Once the Metropolitan Council completes their review, they will notify the City of their decision. If the CPA is approved, the applicant can move forward with filing the Final Plat and applying for development permits. The City must also allow adjacent governments, affected special districts, and affected school districts up to 60 days to review the comprehensive plan amendment. This waiting period allows interested parties to review and comment on the amendment before Metropolitan Council review. However, the Metropolitan Council may prescribe a shorter review and comment period for “minor plan amendments” or may waive the review and comment period if a minor plan amendment involves lands that are not contiguous to other local governmental units. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 5 of 15 2. Chapter 11, Subdivision Regulations Review A. Street Plan & Streets No new streets are being constructed for the Valentine Bluff development. All seven (7) lots will have access from County Road E2 through four (4) access points. Limiting driveways from County Road E2 is accomplished by incorporating shared access from the County roadway. The plans as submitted indicate that every other property would share an access with the neighboring property, except the easternmost lot would have its own individual access from County Road E2. All other requirements pertaining to street access, driveway locations and the finished grade of these facilities are met by the proposed plans. B. Easements City subdivision regulations require twelve (12) foot wide utility and drainage easements dedicated to the City along the right-of-way and centered on common lot lines. The plat includes twelve (12) foot utility and drainage easements that are centered on the common lots lines throughout the development and a twelve (12) foot easement along the County Road E2 right-of-way and along the northern property line adjacent to Tony Schmidt Regional Park. The easements in these areas meet the City’s subdivision regulations. All utility and drainage easements will be dedicated to the public as required by the Subdivision Code. In addition, a sixty-eight (68) foot park, trail, and recreational easement has been provided by the applicant to the Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department for the purpose of a future trail connection through the wetland complex in Tony Schmidt Regional Park. This easement area is located across the western portion of proposed Lot 1. C. Park Dedication The Subdivision Ordinance requires developers of subdivisions to dedicate to the public a reasonable percentage of the tract to be developed. Section 1130.08 Subd. 2 of the Subdivision Ordinance indicates that for a subdivision that results in new dwelling units less than two units per acre, the applicants shall dedicate six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or pay a park dedication fee of six percent of the property’s land value. The City Attorney has indicated that a park dedication based on the purchase price of the two properties is appropriate in this Planning Case. The current purchase agreement between Landmark of Arden Hills, LLC (Developer/Purchaser), and Bethel University (Owner/Seller) indicates a purchase price of $856,000 for the two properties. Based on the purchase price the park dedication if paid in a fee would be $51,360. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 6 of 15 D. Required Improvements – Meets Requirements All other required improvements, including sewer, water, utilities, and driveway connections to County Road E2 will be constructed in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Code. 3. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review Section 1320 – District Provisions (R-2 Single & Two Family Residential District) A. Lot Area & Dimensions The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property into seven (7) single-family lots. As proposed, Lot 1 has a size of 44,483 square feet and Lots 2-7 have a size of 27,202 square feet. The Zoning Code requires a minimum lot size of 11,000 square feet in the R2 District. All lots within the Valentine Bluff subdivision meet the requirements required for lot area. The Code also requires individual lots in the R-2 Zoning District to have a street frontage of at least 85 feet, and a lot depth of at least 120 feet. Lot frontage is measured at the minimum front yard setback, which allows homes to be constructed on a radius, such as on a cul-de-sac or curve. As indicated by the applicant and reflected on the submitted plans all lots meet the minimum width 85 feet and minimum depth of 120 feet. Lot Total Lot Area Square Feet Width (Feet) Depth (Feet) Zoning Code 11,000 85 120 1 44,483 139 320 2-7 27,202 85 320 B. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The FAR is the sum of the gross horizontal area of all floors of a building as measured in square feet from the exterior sides of the exterior walls, but not including covered porches; decks; any space where the average floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or detached garages; and other detached accessory structures. The R-2 Zoning District allows a FAR up to 30% for a residential structure in this district. The applicant has indicated that all lots within the development will not exceed this Code requirement. The diagram below provides an example of the City’s existing FAR requirement of 30% when applied to the Valentine Bluff development. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 7 of 15 Lot Size Home Size with FAR of 30% 27,202 (Smallest Lot Proposed) *8,160 square feet 44,483 (Largest Lot Proposed) *13,345 square feet *Each FAR column indicates the maximum home size in square feet per lot (not including the attached garage, decks, or accessory structures). C. Building Coverage and Landscaped Lot Area The applicants have submitted a site plan that indicates proposed building pads for each lot. The building pads reflect the typical area of each lot that a home would be built upon. Based on a measurement of the proposed building pads, each lot can be constructed to meet the City’s required building coverage maximum and landscaped lot area minimums. The maximum lot coverage for impervious surfaces is 35% and the minimum landscape coverage is 65% in the R-2 Zoning District. D. Building Height and Density The maximum building height in the R-2 District is 35 feet. None of the homes constructed on this site would exceed the City’s height requirements. The maximum density allowed by the Zoning Code within the R-2 District is 5 units per net acre. There are 4.54 buildable acres on this property. The construction of seven (7) single- family units would result in a net density of 1.54 units per acre. The City’s C omprehensive Plan currently sets the minimum density allowed for new development at 1.5 units per acre. The land use classification of Very Low Density is defined as 1.5 to 3 units per acre. If the proposed development is approved the City will reclassify this property in the 2030 Future Land Use Map as Very Low Density. F. Setbacks The minimum building setbacks in the R-2 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard, and 5 feet minimum in a side yard, with both sides required to add up to 15 feet. All setback requirements stated in the Zoning Code are being met by the proposed Valentine Bluff development. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 8 of 15 Section 1325 – General Regulations A. Accessory Structures No accessory structures are proposed to be constructed as part of this application. Future homeowners who choose to construct accessory structures will be required to do so in accordance with the required Zoning Requirements unless a variance is granted by the City. B. Tree Preservation The applicant submitted a Tree Survey and Tree Replacement Plan as part of their tree preservation and mitigation requirements (Attachment B). The following table outlines these numbers and the additional requirements of the tree preservation ordinance pertaining to tree removal and tree mitigation regulations. Caliper Inches Number of Trees Total Existing Trees 1,725 98 10% Permitted Removal 172.5 -- Proposed Removal 546.5 31 Trees Preserved 1,178.5 67 Replacement Trees Required* 187 --** Replacement Trees Proposed 272.5 109 * Replacement trees are calculated by subtracting the ten percent permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. ** The number of trees required may vary depending on the size of the trees planted by the developer. City Code requires a certain number of caliper inches to be planted. If larger trees are planted then fewer trees would be required. Trees proposed to be planted will consist of desirable and native tree species such as Linden, Maple, Hackberry, Locust, Birch, Oak, and mixed types of evergreen trees. The applicant has developed the lots in such a way to preserve as many of the highest quality trees as possible. In total 109 trees will be planted, equating to 272.5 caliper inches. Based on the proposed tree removal, the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance requires 187 caliper inches to be planted on the site. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 9 of 15 4. Traffic Study A traffic study for this site was originally conducted back in December of 2014, for the Valentine Cove development proposal. The new proposal for Valentine Bluff indicates that lots would have direct access to County Road E2. The updated list of conclusions and recommendations provided by SRF Consulting regarding the Valentine Bluff development has been provided in Attachment F. The complete traffic study from December of 2014, has been provided in Attachment G. The traffic study that was completed by SRF Consulting concluded the following: 1) The proposed number of single-family dwelling units has changed from eight (8) units to seven (7) units from the previous analysis. No significant impacts to the previous analysis and/or traffic operations are expected. 2) Realign the western driveway between Lot 1 and 2 across from New Brighton Road to reduce the intersection/driveway skew. The north and south through lanes from New Brighton Road should align with the driveway if possible. 3) Consider signing the driveway between Lot 1 and 2 as “private” to avoid driver confusion. 4) Restripe the south approach of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection to include a northbound shared left-/through lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. 5) Remove the crosswalk on County Road E2 which is currently located approximately 100 feet east of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection. 6) Extend the trail connection to the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection and add a crosswalk on the west side of the intersection. 6. Additional Review A. Building Official & Fire Marshal The Building Official 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. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 10 of 15 B. Public Works Director & City Engineer The Public Works Director and City Engineer have reviewed the plans for the Valentine Bluff development project. Comments from the Public Works Department can be found in Attachment C. All final grading and utility plans will be subject to the approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any development permits. C. Ramsey County Review Ramsey County has reviewed the application for Valentine Bluff and has provided comments to City staff. The County indicated that they do not have any objections to the proposed project and approval has been given to construct the four (4) access driveways onto County Road E2. The County also stated that any work conducted within the right-of-way requires a permit. C. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is charged with reviewing and approving the drainage plan. The proposal for the Valentine Bluff development has been submitted to the RCWD, and they did issue a conditional approval upon receipt of changes (CAPROC) on February 25, 2015 (Attachment D). The changes requested by the RCWD are not expected to impact the plat design. The developer expects to have full approval from the RCWD by the time the proposal proceeds to the City Council. Based on initial comments from the RCWD review, the applicant has included individual infiltration facilities on each lot in order to treat stormwater runoff from the site. These filtration facilities direct stormwater from the front and sides of each lot to the rear or north side of each property where a larger infiltration facility will collect the stormwater before it is released. The infiltration facilities will be maintained by each individual land owner under a maintenance agreement with the RCWD. D. Surrounding Jurisdictions As part of the requirements for amending the City’s Comprehensive Plan, notice of the proposed plan amendment will be sent to the adjacent cities, Mounds View School District, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and Ramsey County if required by the Metropolitan Council. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 11 of 15 Findings of Fact: Staff offers the following nineteen (19) findings of fact for this proposal: General Findings: 1. The proposed Valentine Bluff subdivision is comprised of 4.77 acres. 2. The proposed Valentine Bluff subdivision property located at 1941 County Road E2 is currently zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and the property located at 1901 County Road E2 is currently zoned N-B Neighborhood Business. 3. The Valentine Bluff subdivision is proposed as R-2 Single & Two Family Residential. 4. The R-2 Single & Two Family Residential District permits up to five (5) units per acre. 5. The proposed Valentine Bluff development is proposed at 1.54 units per acre. 6. The Valentine Bluff subdivision property currently has the land use designations of Public & Institutional and Neighborhood Business in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 7. The applicant is proposing to re-plat the property into seven (7) single-family lots. 8. The applicant is proposing to construct seven (7) single-family homes. 9. No new streets will be constructed as a result of this development. 10. The proposed development requires park dedication. 11. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the land in dedication or a fee of six percent of the purchased price or some combination thereof. The current purchase agreement between Landmark of Arden Hills, LLC (Developer/Purchaser), and Bethel University (Owner/Seller) indicates a purchase price of $856,000 for the two properties. Based on the purchase price the park dedication if paid in a fee would be $51,360. 12. As currently designed the proposed plan is not in conformance with the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan in regards to the land use classifications; the property at 1941 County Road E2 is guided for Public & Institutional and the property at 1901 County Road E2 is guided for Neighborhood Business. 13. The development plan would require that both properties be re-zoned to R-2 Single & Two Family Residential District and designated in the Comprehensive Plan as Very Low Density Residential. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Findings: 14. The applicant is proposing to amend the City’s Comprehensive Plan to re-designate the land use classifications at 1941 & 1901 County Road E2 to Very Low Density Residential in order to permit a density of 1.5 to 3 units per net acre. 15. The development will built at approximately 1.54 units per acre. 16. The proposed land use designation of Very Low Density Residential would be compatible with the adjacent land uses. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 12 of 15 17. The proposed redevelopment is a permitted use in the R-2 Residential District. 18. The proposed CPA would advance the City’s goal to promote the development properties that are in keeping with the character of existing and established neighborhoods within the City. 19. The City staff has been in contact with the staff at the Metropolitan Council regarding the proposed development and they have indicated their support for the proposed CPA. Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 15-004 for a Preliminary & Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the Valentine Bluff redevelopment project located at 1941 & 1901 County Road E2. If the Planning Commission recommends approval of this request, staff recommends that the following twenty (20) 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 execution of the Final Plat shall be contingent upon the Metropolitan Council’s approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 3. That the development agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The development agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 4. That the Developer shall submit a park dedication, subject to the approval of the City Council, equal to six percent ($51,360) of the total land area, which is currently under a purchase agreement for $856,000. The City shall use the park dedication to expand the City’s parks, trails, and recreation system. 5. That the Developer shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, retaining walls, stormwater filtration systems, and driveway openings, 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, and be in a form acceptable to the City. The purpose of the letter of credit is to ensure that site improvements are completed in the event that the developer defaults on the Development Agreement. 6. That the Developer shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the estimated costs of site improvements including grading, utilities, retaining walls, stormwater filtration systems, and driveway openings, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The escrow will be used for City costs related to review, approval, and inspection of site improvements or any costs incurred by the City in the event of a developer default. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 13 of 15 7. That the Developer shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping 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 developer defaults on the Development Agreement. The City will hold the letter of credit for two years after the installation of landscaping. The letter of credit should not expire during the two-year period. 8. That the Developer shall submit a cash escrow in the amount of 25 percent of the estimated costs of landscaping prior to the issuance of a building permit. The escrow will be held by the City for two years after installation of landscaping and used for City costs related to review, approval, and inspection of landscaping, or developer default. 9. That the proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA- NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 10. That the final plans shall be subject to approval by the Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. That the final grading, drainage, and utility plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 12. That upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as-built shall be provided to the City for review. 13. Sanitary sewer and water shall be accepted by the City and ready for hookup prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. That the application shall be required to meet the requirements as outlined in the memo from the City Engineer dated 2/19/15. 15. That all landscaping materials shall be put in place as the approved grading plan is completed with the exception of the required three front yard trees, which shall be the responsibility of the applicant to install at the time each house is constructed. 16. That the maintenance agreement between the RCWD and the developer for the stormwater filtration system shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permit. 17. That the RCWD Easements on Lot 7 shall be revised to reflect the flood plain limits or provided in writing to indicated that an encroachment is permitted into the easements held by the RCWD. The easement revision or encroachment permit shall be provided to the City and approved by the City Attorney prior to the execution of the final plat. 18. Driveway easements providing for cross access and maintenance agreements shall be submitted to the City and approved by the City Attorney and recorded by the Developer prior to the execution of the final plat. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 14 of 15 19. That the western driveway between Lot 1 and 2 across from New Brighton Road shall be realigned to reduce the intersection/driveway skew. The plan for this realignment shall be approved by the City Engineer. 20. The applicant shall conform to all other City regulations. Proposed Motion Language 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15-004 for a Preliminary & Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to subdivide the property into seven (7) single-family lots at 1941 & 1901 County Road E2, based on the findings of fact, submitted plans, and the twenty (20) conditions in the March 4, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 15- 004 for a Preliminary & Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to subdivide the property into seven (7) single-family lots at 1941 & 1901 County Road E2, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the March 4, 2015, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 15-004 for a Preliminary & Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to subdivide the property into seven (7) single-family lots at 1941 & 1901 County Road E2 based on the following findings of fact….. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 15-004 for a Preliminary & Final Plat, Rezoning, and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to subdivide the property into seven (7) single-family lots at 1941 & 1901 County Road E2: 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 February 18, 2015, and mailed to all properties within 1,000 feet of the subject property. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2015\PC 15-004 - Valentine Bluff (1901 & 1941 County Road E2) - Preliminary and Final Plat, Rezoning and Comp Plan Amendment\Memos_Reports_15-004 Page 15 of 15 Resident Comment 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 January 26, 2015. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by March 26, 2015, (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60- day review period. The petitioner was notified on February 13, 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 May 25, 2015 (120 days). The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Application and Narrative B. Development Plans C. City Engineer Comments D. RCWD Comments E. Ramsey County Comments F. Traffic Study Update – Valentine Bluff G. Traffic Study – Valentine Cove H. Example Housing Styles I. Aerial Map VALENTINE BLUFF – Narrative Landmark of Arden Hills A new neighborhood in Arden Hills Existing Property Description The land, whose address is listed as 1941 and 1901 Co. Rd. E2 West is located near the intersection of New Brighton Road and Co. Road E2, consists of 5.41 ac and is currently under a purchase agreement with the applicant. The property is bounded on the north by a wetland system and Mounds View High School and to the south by a small single family neighborhood. Existing Land Use and Zoning The property currently features a County Library and a Church and is zoned accordingly as R1 and NB. The proposed zoning for the residential development is R-2. The following table shows the R-2 zoning requirements: R-2 Minimum Lot Area (SF) 11,000 Minimum Lot Size 85’/120’ Front Yard 40’ Rear Yard 30’ Side Yard (min/total) 5’/15’ Side Yard Corner 40’ Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 30% Proposed Neighborhood The proposed neighborhood will have 7 homes on the 5.41 ac. existing parcel of which 0.64 ac will be dedicated to the county for ROW and another 0.227ac is either in flood plain or wetland. This leaves 4.543 ac for a density of 1.54 un./ac. within the limits of the 1.5 to 5.0 un./ac. of the City’s R2 district. All 7 lots have access to County Road E2, as shown on the attached site plan. The site plan shows 3 shared driveway for 6 of the homes and 1 individual driveway for a total of 4 proposed access points onto Country Road E2. We have sent this plan to Erin Laberee, P.E. Ramsey County Department of Public Works and she has responded in support of the 4 driveways to County Road E2 vs. the 7 individual driveways. The Lots The applicant is proposing lots to facilitate a development that proposes minimal changes to the land and enhancing the quality of life for the residents by maintaining and creating ecological functions and biodiversity. The applicant proposes to meet the R-2 zoning, with a min. lot size of more than 11,000 square feet (the minimum square foot requirement for the R-2), the average lot area is 29,670 sf, the smallest lot is 27,202 sf (lots 2-7), the largest lot is 44,483 (lot 1). A front yard setback of 40’and rear yard setback of 30’ and a combined side yard setback of (5’/15’). Homes The homes will fit and reinforce the neighborhood feeling. Each home will be unique and sized to fit R-2 zoning standards. These will be highly detailed, crafted homes consisting of two stories and sited individually to each lot. The exterior of the homes will have a basis in historical architectural style and fine detailing but respect and accommodate the needs of today’s families. The proposed homes will begin at +/-$750k., and will provide a consistent feeling to the neighborhood to the south of E2. Stormwater Treatment Overall hard cover on the site has been reduced by 0.71 acres. Stormwater features are designed to meet Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) requirements. The majority of Stormwater will be direct to filtration trenches in the front and side yards. These 2’ wide x 1’ deep trenches will filter water through a 4” sand layer to a 4” draintile with a 4” clean sand base below. These trenches will direct stormwater to the larger infiltration trench that runs along the rear of the yards. This trench will be 570’ long, 7’, and 3’ deep. This trench shall be filled with clean filter sand. Rear yard water will run over at least 75’ of vegetation prior to meeting this infiltration trench which according to RCWD qualifies as pre-treatment. The combination of these features will achieve RCWD rate and volume goals. In summary, the applicant is employing the resources of highly talented planners, engineers and ecologists to provide the City of Arden Hills with a high quality residential neighborhood. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 19, 2015 TO: Ryan Streff, City Planner FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director John Anderson, Assistant City Engineer SUBJECT: Valentine Bluff We have reviewed the plans for Valentine Bluff prepared by Sather-Bergquist dated 1/22/15 the following are our comments: 1. All work preparing the lots for home construction, as detailed in the plans must be completed before issuing a building permit for an individual lot, with one exception. We assume the portion of the retaining wall on lot 7 adjacent to the home needs to be built along with the foundation of the home. The retaining wall along the driveway will need to be in place prior to home construction to allow access for construction. 2. Water services need to be sized to provide fire protection if required by building code. 3. Water services currently inplace serving 1941 and 1901 Co. Rd. E-2 may be reused if the existing service pipe material is copper. New curb stops need to be installed at the right of way. New curb stops are to be no larger than 1” 4. A Ramsey County right of way permit will be required for all work within the right of way of County Road E-2 5. A construction permit from the MPCA is required for grading the site 6. A permit from Rice Creek Watershed District is required for grading and stormwater treatment 7. A building permit will be required for the retaining wall, all walls over 4 feet require and engineered design and due to the height a fence will be needed along the top of the wall 8. In areas where the bituminous trail is removed to connect the water services the bituminous repair shall be a full width patch. 9. A city issued grading and erosion control permit will be required for the entire project. Building permits will require a survey with grading and erosion control information shown for each lot. At the completion of building a grading asbuilt will need to be provided before issuing a certificate of occupancy. 10. A homeowners association or some other structure will need to be inplace for operation and maintenance of the drainage system. This will not be publicly maintained RiceCreekWatershed DistrictPermit Application StatusUpdate THISISNOT APERMIT PermitApplicationNumber: 14-105 DateofBoardAction: 02/25/2015 Current Status: ConditionallyApprovedPendingReceiptOfChanges (CAPROC) Pleasenotethefollowing: notYouare authorizedtobeginsiteworkuntilallpendingitemsaresatisfiedas enumeratedintheattachedEngineer’sReport. Ifprojectisinitiatedwithout obtaininganRCWDPermit, theprojectwillbestoppedbytheDistrictInspector untilthepermitisobtained. 12monthsYouhave fromthedateofBoardactiontosubmit/satisfyallpending itemsandreceiveapermit. Otherwise theconditional approvalexpiresanda newapplication willneedtobesubmitted andconsideredbytheBoard. RCWD staffisnotauthorizedtograntextensions. two (2) papercopiesTosatisfypendingitems, applicants mustsubmit ofall submittal itemstotheDistrictwiththeexceptionofplansheets. Plansheetsmust 1full-sizedcopies1reduced sizeinclude , and (11by17inchesorsmaller) or electronicfilean . Surety forsuretyamountsof $5000orless, theapplicantmustsubmitacheck madeouttotheRCWD. Forsuretyamountsover $5000, theapplicantmust providethefirst $5000intheformofacheckandhastheoptionofproviding the remainderofthesuretyamountintheformofaLetterofCredit (seewebsitefor template) orperformance bond. Anescrowagreementisrequiredwiththe submittalofsurety. (Publicentitiesarenotsubjecttosuretyobligations.) Easements ifaneasementisrequiredperyourlistofpending itemsinthe attachedEngineer’sReport, thenthelegaldescriptionsoftheseeasements must beprepared bytheapplicant, reviewedandapprovedbytheDistrict, andthen submittedtotheCountyRecorder’sOfficeforrecording. Aneasement template isonthewebsite. WetlandConservationActForms Forprojectsinvolvingwetlandimpactsand replacement, Statelawrequiresthepreparation andrecordingofWetland Legal Formsforreplacementwetlands. Instructions forcompleting andrecordingthese formsareincludedinthewetlandlegalformsdocumentonthewebsite. The wetlandlegaldocuments requiretheapplicanttopreparelegaldescriptions ofall replacementwetlands. Theselegaldescriptionsandtheformsmustbereviewed andapprovedbytheDistrictprior tosubmittaltotheCountyRecorder’sOfficefor recording. StormwaterOperation & Maintenance Forprojectsinvolvingstormwater pondsandinfiltration features, applicantsmustcompleteandrecorda Stormwater OperationandMaintenance Agreement (seewebsitefortemplate) forthesefeaturesunlessaCityassumesthemaintenance responsibilitiesof thesefeaturesasindicatedinanagreementwiththeDistrict. Anexhibitand/or legaldescriptionthatclearlydelineatesandidentifiesallstormwaterand infiltrationfeatures mustaccompanythestormwateroperationandmaintenance agreement. Adraftofthisagreementwithaccompanyingexhibitmustbe submitted totheDistrictforreview andapprovalpriortosubmissiontothe CountyRecorder’soffice. cc: - CityofArdenHills; NathanFair (Landmark ofArdenHills), 13432HansonBlvdNW , Andover, MN 55304 nathanfair@edinarealty.com; CharlesWiemerslage (Sathre-BergquistInc.), 150BroadwayAvenueS. , Wayzata, MN55391 cwiemerslage@sathre.com; OFFICIALDOCUMENT: This Engineer’sreporthasbeenacceptedby theRCWD BoardofManagers. The RecommendationsandStipulations belowareincorporatedasbindingterms ofRCWDPermit14-105 PermitApplication Number: 14-105 Permit ApplicantName: ValentineBluff Applicant: Consultant: NathanFair CharlesWiemerslage LandmarkofArdenHills Sathre-BergquistInc. 13432HansonBlvdNW 150BroadwayAvenueS. Andover, MN55304 Wayzata, MN55391 Ph: 763-438-2561 Ph: 952-476-6000 Fx: Fx: 952-476-0104 nathanfair@edinarealty.com cwiemerslage@sathre.com BobMolstad Sathre-BergquistInc. Ph: 952-476-6000 Fx: 952-476-0104 molstad@sathre.com ProjectName: ValentineBluff Purpose: FSD – FinalSiteDrainage; Redevelopmentoftwocommerciallotstosinglefamily residentialsitedevelopment SiteSize: 2parcelstotaling5.41± acreparcel / 3.6 ± acresofdisturbedarea; existingandproposed imperviousareais1.51± acresand0.80 ± acres, respectively Location: NorthoftheintersectionofWCountyRdE2andNewBrightonRd, ArdenHills T-R-S: NW ¼, Section28, T30N, R23W DistrictRule: C, D Recommendations: CAPROC ItisrecommendedthatthisPermitApplicationbegivenConditionalApprovalPendingReceiptof Changes (CAPROC) andoutstandingitemsrelatedtothefollowingitems. RuleD – ErosionandSedimentControl 1. SubmitthefollowinginformationperRuleD.4: b) Tabulationoftheconstructionimplementation schedule. c) Name, addressandphonenumberofpartyresponsible formaintenanceofallerosionand sedimentcontrolmeasures. h) ProvidedocumentationthatanNPDESPermithasbeenappliedforandsubmittedtothe MinnesotaPollutionControlAgency (MPCA). i) AStormWaterPollutionPrevention PlanforprojectsthatrequireanNPDESPermit. HoustonEngineeringInc. Page1of4 2/25/2015 RCWDPermitNumber14-105 Administrative 2. Sendonefinal, signedfullsizedplansettotheDistrict, ande-mailapdfcopytoboththeDistrict andtheDistrictEngineer. Includealistofchangesthathavebeenmadesinceapprovalbythe RCWDBoard. 3. IfrequiredbytheCityofArdenHills, theapplicantmustsubmitadraftlegaldocumentproviding satisfactory formanddescriptiongrantingpondingandflowageeasementsoverallonsiteponds, wetlands, andotherhydrologicfeatures. 4. TheapplicantmustsubmitaDraftDeclarationforMaintenance ofStormwaterManagement FacilitiesacceptabletotheDistrictforproposedonsitestormwatermanagement andpretreatment features. 5. TheapplicantmustsubmitacopyofreceiptfromCountyRecorderandsigned/notarizedattested legaldocument(s). 6. Theapplicantmustsubmitasurety $5,700alongwithanoriginalexecuted escrowagreement acceptabletotheDistrict. Iftheapplicantdesiresanoriginal copyfortheirrecords, thentwo originalsignedescrowagreementsshouldbesubmitted. Theapplicantmustprovidethefirst 5000intheformofacheckandhastheoptionofprovidingtheremainderofthesuretyamount intheformofacheckoraPerformance BondorLetterofCredit. Stipulations: Thepermitwillbeissuedwiththefollowingstipulationsasconditionsofthepermit. By acceptingthepermit, applicantagreestothesestipulations: 1. Anas-builtsurveyofallstormwaterBMPs (ponds, raingardens, trenches, swales, etc.) istobe submittedtotheDistrictforverificationofcompliancewiththeapprovedplansbeforereturnofthe surety. Exhibits: 1. Plansetcontainingsheets1-3of5, datedandreceived2-6-2015. 2. AltaSurvey (sheetAA-1), datedandreceived1-2-2015. 3. Permitapplicationwithoriginalsignature, dated12-19-2014andreceived12-22-2014. 4. Permitapplication checklist, nodate, received1-2-2014. 5. StormwaterCalculations, dated11-3-2014andreceived 12-19-2014, containing narrative, drainagemaps, HydroCAD reportforthe2-year, 10-year, 100-yearrainfalleventsforproposed andexistingconditionsandthegeotechnicalreport (dated11-3-2014). 6. RevisedStormwaterCalculations, dated1-2-2015andreceived1-9-2015, containingnarrative; drainagemaps; HydroCAD reportforthe2-year, 10-year, 100-yearrainfalleventsforproposed andexistingconditions; thegeotechnicalreport (dated11-3-2014). 7. RevisedStormwaterCalculations, dated1-22-2015andreceived1-23-2015, containingnarrative, drainagemaps, HydroCAD reportforthe2-year, 10-year, 100-yearrainfalleventsforproposed conditionsandthe2-yearrainfall eventforexistingconditionsandthegeotechnicalreport (dated 11-3-2014); wetlanddelineationreport (dated10-17-2014), anddrainageeasementdocument dated3-25-1980). 8. RevisedStormwaterCalculations, dated andreceived1-30-2015, containing narrative, drainage maps, HydroCAD reportforthe2-year, 10-year, 100-yearrainfalleventsforproposed conditions HoustonEngineering Inc Page2of4 2/25/2015 RCWDPermitNumber14-105 andthe2-yearrainfall eventforexistingconditionsandthegeotechnicalreport (dated11-3- 2014); wetlanddelineationreport (dated10-17-2014), anddrainage easementdocument (dated 3-25-1980). 9. RevisedStormwaterCalculations, dated andreceived2-6-2015, containing narrative, drainage maps, HydroCAD reportforthe2-year, 10-year, 100-yearrainfalleventsforproposed conditions andthe2-yearrainfall eventforexistingconditionsandthegeotechnicalreport (dated11-3- 2014); wetlanddelineationreport (dated10-17-2014), anddrainage easementdocument (dated 3-25-1980). 10. RevisedStormwaterCalculations, dated andreceived2-16-2015, containing narrative, drainage maps, HydroCAD reportforthe2-year, 10-year, 100-yearrainfalleventsforproposed conditions andthe2-yearrainfall eventforexistingconditionsandthegeotechnicalreport (dated11-3- 2014); wetlanddelineationreport (dated10-17-2014), anddrainage easementdocument (dated 3-25-1980). 11. Purchaseagreement forproperties, dated10-24-2014andreceived1-5-2015. 12. Agencyletterauthorization, dated1-8-2015andreceived1-9-2015. 13. Responseletter, datedandreceived1-30-2015. Findings: 1. Description – Theproject, locatedinArdenHills, proposestodemolishtwoexistingcommercial lotstotaling5.41± acresandredevelop thepropertyintosevensinglefamilylots, andassociated utilities. Existingandproposedimperviousareasare1.51± acresand0.80± acresrespectively. Theprojectwilldisturb3.6± acresoverall. DrainagefromtheprojectwilldischargetoDNRpublic watercomplex62-184W, referredtoasFarrell’swetland. Fromthere, itdischargesthrougha naturalchanneltoLongLake, theResourceofConcern. Theapplicanthassubmitteda $2,250 applicationfee, whichcorrespondsto1-2.5acresofnew/redevelopedimpervioussurface (thisis correctasitcorrespondstotheoriginalsubmittal) and2.5-10acresoflanddisturbance. 2. Stormwater – TheapplicantisproposingtheBMPsasdescribedbelowfortheproject : ProposedBMPDescription Location Pretreatment: Volumeprovided (CF) Filtrationtrench BackofLot1 See 955 Filtrationtrench BackofLot2 below 1003 Filtrationtrench BackofLot3 993 Filtrationtrench BackofLot4 1,016 Filtrationtrench BackofLot5 1,018 Filtrationtrench BackofLot6 873 Filtrationtrench BackofLot7 730 EastsideofLots1,2, NA – Conveyance4, 5and6Draintilecollectionsystem NA systemWestsideofLots3, 7 Total 6,588 HoustonEngineering Inc Page3of4 2/25/2015 RCWDPermitNumber14-105 Soilsonsiteareprimarilysiltysand (HSGB) topsoil, underlainbysandyleanclays (HSGD) soils. Thus, infiltration isnotconsideredfeasibleandfiltrationisacceptabletomeetthewaterquality requirement. PerRuleC.6(c)(1), theWaterQualityrequirement is2.2-inchesoverthe new/reconstructedarea (35,000± SF) foratotalrequirementof6,417± cubicfeet. Runofffromthe drivewaysisroutedtodepressionalareasinthefrontandcollectedviadraintiletoafiltration trenchinthebackyard, whichwillalsocatchsheetflowfromtherearroofs. Eachlothasa separatetrenchanddrain-tilesystem. Thisprovidesadequatepre-treatment. Thetrenchesare expectedtodraw-downwithin48-hours. Thetrencheshaveprovided3-feetoffiltermaterial abovethedraintile. Groundwaterwasnotencountered. Approximately90% oftheprojectarea hasbeentreated. AdditionaltreatmentorTSSremovalisnotfeasible. Thustheapplicanthas compliedwiththeRuleC.9(c) designrequirementsandprovidedadequatevolumetomeetthe RuleC.6WaterQualityRequirement. 2-year (cfs) 10-year (cfs) 100-year (cfs) DrainageArea Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Westernpropertyline 2.94 0.34 5.22 0.80 10.72 1.99 Eastandsouthern 4.22 1.71 8.04 4.96 17.41 19.88propertyline Totals 7.16 2.05 13.26 5.76 28.13 21.87 10.61 22.5080% ofExisting 5.73 TheprojectislocatedwithintheFloodManagementZone. AsallthedrainageflowstoFarrel’s wetland, theincreaseshownatthe100-yearattheeastern/southernpropertylinewillnothavean adverseimpact. TheprojecthascompliedwiththeRuleC.7requirements. Theprojectwillnot haveameasurableeffectontheFarrel’swetlandcomplex, whichcomplieswiththebounceand inundationcriteriaofRuleC.8. TheprojectcomplieswiththefreeboardrequirementsofRule C.9(g). 3. Wetlands – Awetlanddelineationwithboundaryapprovalwasconductedforthesiteunder reviewfile14-169R. Theprojectwillnotimpactanywetlands. 4. Floodplain – Theregulatory floodplainelevationfortheFarrel’swetlandcomplexis878.5 NAVD88). Theprojectwillnotimpacttheregulatoryfloodplain. 5. ErosionControl – Proposederosioncontrolmethodsincludesiltfence, arockconstruction entrance, inletprotectionandriprap. AnNPDESpermitisrequiredfortheproject. The informationlistedundertheErosionandSedimentationControlRecommendationsmustbe submitted. Otherwise, theprojectcomplieswithRCWDRuleDrequirements. 6. DocumentingEasementsandMaintenance Obligations – Applicantmustprovidedraftdrainage andflowageeasements (ifrequiredbytheCity), andadraftmaintenance declarationforreview, andreceiptshowingrecordationonceapproved. 7. PreviousPermitInformation – Awetland delineationwasconductedforthesiteunderreview file14-169R. HoustonEngineering Inc Page4of4 2/25/2015 February 25, 2015 Ryan Streff City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Re: VALENTINE BLUFF Dear Mr. Streff, I have reviewed the proposed plans to develop 1901 and 1941 County Road E2. The site plans shows four driveway accesses to County Road E2. Three of the proposed driveways are shared driveways. The developer contacted me to discuss the site options and it was agreed that the County would approve a layout showing shared driveways. The proposed plan is acceptable to the County. The developer should be aware that any disturbance occurring within the County right of way will require a permit. Sincerely, Erin Laberee, PE Traffic Engineer Memorandum SRF No. 0148723 To: Ryan Streff, City Planner City of Arden Hills From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate SRF Consulting Group Date: February 26, 2015 Subject: Valentine Bluff (formerly Valentine Cove) Traffic/Site Review – Addendum Introduction As requested, SRF has completed an addendum to the Valentine Bluff (formerly Valentine Cove) Traffic/Site Review, dated December 23, 2014. The proposed development is generally located north of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection, on the site of the former Arden Hills Library and adjacent church in the City of Arden Hills. The main objective of this addendum is to address recent changes to the site plan. The following information summarizes the assumptions, analysis, and results of this review. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on our review of the updated site plan, the following items (also illustrated in the attachment) are offered for consideration: • The proposed number of single-family dwelling units has changed from eight (8) units to seven (7) units from the previous analysis. No significant impacts to the previous analysis and/or area traffic operations are expected. • Realign the western driveway between Lot 1 and 2 across from New Brighton Road to reduce the intersection/driveway skew. The north and south through lanes from New Brighton Road should align with the driveway if possible. • Consider signing the driveway between Lot 1 and 2 as "private" to avoid driver confusion. • Restripe the south approach of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection to include a northbound shared left-/through lane and a dedicated right-turn lane. • Remove the crosswalk on County Road E2 which is currently located approximately 100 feet east of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection. • Extend the trail connection to the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection and add a crosswalk on the west side of the intersection. H:\Projects\8723\TS\Report\8723_ArdenHills_ValentineBluffTrafficStudy_Addendum_150226.docx ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM Ex t e n d t r a i l co n n e c t i o n t o t h e CR E / N e w B r i g h t o n Ro a d i n t e r s e c t i o n an d a d d a cr o s s w a l k o n t h e we s t s i d e o f t h e in t e r s e c t i o n . Re m o v e t h e o l d cr o s s w a l k XX Re a l i g n d r i v e w a y t o li m i t s k e w e d dr i v e w a y / in t e r s e c t i o n . N o r t h / so u t h t h r o u g h l a n e s fr o m N e w B r i g h t o n Ro a d s h o u l d a l i g n wi t h t h e d r i v e w a y i f po s s i b l e . M a y n e e d to s i g n t h i s d r i v e w a y as " p r i v a t e " . Wo u l d n e e d t o re s t r i p e / s i g n w i t h th e a p p r o p r i a t e la n e d e s i g n a t i o n s sh o w n . Memorandum SRF No. 0148723 To: Ryan Streff, City Planner City of Arden Hills From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Senior Associate SRF Consulting Group Date: December 23, 2014 Subject: Arden Hills Valentine Cove Traffic/Site Review Introduction As requested, SRF has completed a traffic operations and site plan review of the proposed Valentine Cove residential development in the City of Arden Hills. The proposed development is generally located north of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection, on the site of the former Arden Hills Library and adjacent church. The main objectives of this review are to identify the change in trip generation from the existing facilities and recommend potential site plan improvements to consider, particularly with respect to pedestrian access and circulation. The following information summarizes the assumptions, analysis, and results of this review. Traffic Review To evaluate potential traffic impacts associated with the proposed development, existing area traffic volumes were reviewed and the proposed development trip generation was developed. Based on this information, a preliminary traffic analysis was completed. The results are summarized as follows: Existing Conditions • Both County Road E2 and New Brighton Road are two-lane undivided roadways. There are no dedicated turn lanes along County Road E2, however there are dedicated left- and right-turn lanes along New Brighton Road. • The County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection is unsignalized, allowing free flow movements along County Road E2. • Existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes (provided by the Minnesota Department of Transportation) along County Road E2 range from approximately 5,300 vehicles per day (vpd) to 7,600 vpd to the east and west of New Brighton Road, respectively. • Existing ADT volumes along New Brighton Road are approximately 2,200 vpd. • Historical ADT volumes along each roadway indicate relatively minimal changes over the past 20 years. ONE CARLSON PARKWAY, SUITE 150 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55447 | 763.475.0010 | WWW.SRFCONSULTING.COM Ryan Streff December 23, 2014 City of Arden Hills Page 2 Proposed Development Trip Generation • The proposed development is located on the site of the former Arden Hills Library (approximately 10,000 square feet) and a small community church (approximately 5,500 square feet), both of which are currently vacant or underutilized. • The proposed development, shown in Figure 1, would replace the library and church facilities with eight (8) single-family homes. • A trip generation comparison between the existing land uses and proposed development shown in Table 1 was completed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition. Table 1. Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Type (ITE Code) Size A.M Peak Hour Trips P.M Peak Hour Trips Daily Trips In Out In Out Existing Uses Library (590) – VACANT 10,000 S.F. 7 3 35 38 562 Church (560) - VACANT 5,500 S.F. 2 1 1 2 50 Total Existing Potential 9 4 36 40 612 Proposed Use Single-Family Homes (210) 8 units 2 5 5 3 76 Change from Existing Potential -7 +1 -31 -37 -536 • Results of the trip generation comparison indicate that the proposed development will generate approximately seven (7) a.m. peak hour, eight (8) p.m. peak hour, and 76 daily trips. • When compared to the potential trip generation of the existing land uses, the proposed development is expected to generate fewer trips. Traffic Operations Review • A planning level ADT capacity review of the study area roadways was completed to determine if the change in use is expected to have an impact to area traffic operations. • This review indicated that two-lane facilities (such as County Road E2 and New Brighton Road) typically can accommodate up 10,000 vpd before improvements may be necessary. • Therefore based on the existing ADT volumes and the proposed development trip generation, no significant impacts to area traffic operations are expected. Ryan Streff December 23, 2014 City of Arden Hills Page 3 Site Plan Review Site Access • The proposed development site access is planned to create the north leg of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection. This access is ideally located from a traffic operations perspective to limit potential conflicts with adjacent intersections or driveways. The existing site access locations to library and church will be closed. • The south approach of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection should be restriped to accommodate the proposed north approach, as well as any signing modifications. o The south approach should be striped as a shared left-/through lane and a dedicated right- turn lane. The north approach can be constructed as a single lane. Pedestrian Facilities • Review of the site plan indicates that no pedestrian facilities (i.e. sidewalks) are planned for the proposed development. Given the relatively low volume and vehicular speeds anticipated within the proposed development, the lack of sidewalks is not expected to pose a significant issue. • It should be noted that there is a multi-use trail located along the south side of County Road E2, east of New Brighton Road. • To improve access to this pedestrian facility from the proposed development, an ADA compliant crosswalk should be considered to provide a more defined crossing location of County Road E2. o Given the location of the current multi-use trail, the crosswalk should be located on the east approach of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection. • A summary of the improvements offered for consideration is illustrated in Figure 2. Conclusions • Based on the existing ADT volumes and the proposed development trip generation, no significant impacts to area traffic operations are expected. • The south approach of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection should be restriped to accommodate the proposed north approach, as well as any signing modifications. o The south approach should be striped as a shared left-/through lane and a dedicated right- turn lane. The north approach can be constructed as a single lane. • Consider installing an ADA compliant crosswalk along the east approach of the County Road E2/New Brighton Road intersection. H:\Projects\8723\8723_ArdenHills_ValentineCoveTrafficStudy_141223.docx N O R T H No r t h 0148723 December 2014 Proposed Site Plan Figure 1 H: \ P r o j e c t s \ 8 7 2 3 \ T S \ F i g u r e s \ F i g 0 1 _ P r o p o s e d S i t e P l a n . c d r Arden Hills Valentine Cove Traffic/Site Review Arden Hills, MN N O R T H No r t h 0148723 December 2014 Improvements for Consideration Figure 2 H: \ P r o j e c t s \ 8 7 2 3 \ T S \ F i g u r e s \ F i g 0 2 _ I m p r o v e m e n t s f o r C o n s i d e r a t i o n . c d r Arden Hills Valentine Cove Traffic/Site Review Arden Hills, MN Install ADA Compliant CrosswalkRestripe/Sign the South Approach NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Pennington Sport UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: SPORT COURT: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,775 1,562 1,437 447 5,221 Two Story - 68’-6” 141 Wildwood Court Mahtomedi, MN NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Pennington Sport UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: SPORT COURT: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,775 1,562 1,437 447 5,221 Two Story - 68’-6” 141 Wildwood Court Mahtomedi, MN NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Pennington Sport UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: SPORT COURT: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,775 1,562 1,437 447 5,221 Two Story - 68’-6” 141 Wildwood Court Mahtomedi, MN NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Pennington Sport UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: SPORT COURT: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,775 1,562 1,437 447 5,221 Two Story - 68’-6” 141 Wildwood Court Mahtomedi, MN NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Westland Bonus UPPER: BONUS ROOM MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: GARAGE SF: Two Story - 63’-0” 16020 58th Place N Plymouth 1,605 465 1,708 1,477 5,255 766 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Westland Bonus UPPER: BONUS ROOM MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: GARAGE SF: Two Story - 63’-0” 16020 58th Place N Plymouth 1,605 465 1,708 1,477 5,255 766 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Westland Bonus UPPER: BONUS ROOM MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: GARAGE SF: Two Story - 63’-0” 16020 58th Place N Plymouth 1,605 465 1,708 1,477 5,255 766 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Westland Bonus UPPER: BONUS ROOM MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: GARAGE SF: Two Story - 63’-0” 16020 58th Place N Plymouth 1,605 465 1,708 1,477 5,255 766 SuperiorALL HAND DRAWN CONCEPTS ARE SHOWN WITH SOME “ARTISTIC LICENSE” USED. THESE ARE NOT INTENDED TO SHOW EXACT CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ARTISTIC LICENSE:www.HANSONBUILDERS.com NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 Two Story - 59’-0” 16045 58th Place N Plymouth, MN UPPER: MAIN: SUMROOM: GARAGE: LOWER: LOWER UNFINISHED: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,680 1,435 144 741 1,234 190 4,493 SuperiorALL HAND DRAWN CONCEPTS ARE SHOWN WITH SOME “ARTISTIC LICENSE” USED. THESE ARE NOT INTENDED TO SHOW EXACT CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ARTISTIC LICENSE:www.HANSONBUILDERS.com NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 Two Story - 59’-0” 16045 58th Place N Plymouth, MN UPPER: MAIN: SUMROOM: GARAGE: LOWER: LOWER UNFINISHED: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,680 1,435 144 741 1,234 190 4,493 SuperiorALL HAND DRAWN CONCEPTS ARE SHOWN WITH SOME “ARTISTIC LICENSE” USED. THESE ARE NOT INTENDED TO SHOW EXACT CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ARTISTIC LICENSE:www.HANSONBUILDERS.com NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 Two Story - 59’-0” 16045 58th Place N Plymouth, MN UPPER: MAIN: SUMROOM: GARAGE: LOWER: LOWER UNFINISHED: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,680 1,435 144 741 1,234 190 4,493 SuperiorALL HAND DRAWN CONCEPTS ARE SHOWN WITH SOME “ARTISTIC LICENSE” USED. THESE ARE NOT INTENDED TO SHOW EXACT CONSTRUCTION PLANS. ARTISTIC LICENSE:www.HANSONBUILDERS.com NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 Two Story - 59’-0” 16045 58th Place N Plymouth, MN UPPER: MAIN: SUMROOM: GARAGE: LOWER: LOWER UNFINISHED: TOTAL FINISHED: 1,680 1,435 144 741 1,234 190 4,493 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Bayfield UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 62’-0” 43 Monarch Way, North Oaks 2,087 1,780 1,57 4 5,441 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Bayfield UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 62’-0” 43 Monarch Way, North Oaks 2,087 1,780 1,57 4 5,441 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Bayfield UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 62’-0” 43 Monarch Way, North Oaks 2,087 1,780 1,57 4 5,441 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Bayfield UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 62’-0” 43 Monarch Way, North Oaks 2,087 1,780 1,57 4 5,441 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Crestview 3 UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 58’-0” 5925 Xene Lane Plymouth MN 2,024 1,760 1,517 5,301 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Crestview 3 UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 58’-0” 5925 Xene Lane Plymouth MN 2,024 1,760 1,517 5,301 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Crestview 3 UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 58’-0” 5925 Xene Lane Plymouth MN 2,024 1,760 1,517 5,301 NOTE: VIOLATION OF COPYRIGHT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE. DAMAGES INCLUDE $100,000 STATUTORY COMPENSATIONS, REIMBURSEMENT FOR ALL PROFIT LOST AND COST OF ALL LEGAL FEES ON COPYRIGHTED PLANS. HANSON BUILDERS SECURES A FEDERAL COPYRIGHT ON ALL OF OUR PLANS. WE HAVE ENFORCED COPYRIGHTS ON THREE SEPARATE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST AND HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL ON EACH OCCASION. www.HANSONBUILDERS.com C COPYRIGHT HANSON BUILDERS INC. 13 4 3 2 H A N S O N B L V D . AN D O V E R , M N 5 5 3 0 4 76 3 - 4 2 1 - 5 4 3 5 LI C . # 0 0 0 4 5 6 8 Crestview 3 UPPER: MAIN: LOWER: TOTAL FINISHED: Two Story - 58’-0” 5925 Xene Lane Plymouth MN 2,024 1,760 1,517 5,301 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 251.7 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet251.70125.83 1941 and 1901 County Road E2 1,5101: 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 1,135.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet1,135.10567.54 Notes Enter Map Description Legend City Halls Schools Hospitals Fire Stations Police Stations Recreational Centers Parcel Points Parcel Boundaries City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for March 4, 2015 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 4, 2015 PC Agenda Item 5.B TO: Planning Commission FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council February 23, 2015, City Council Regular Meeting The City Council approved (3-0) Planning Case 14-036 for a Master & Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the Red Fox Business Center project at 1235 Red Fox Road. In this case, the applicant obtained approval to construct two (2) multi- tenant light industrial buildings. The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 14-036 on February 4, 2015, and recommended approval (6-0). The City Council also approved (3-0) Planning Case 15-001 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Planned Unit Development Amendment at 4100 Hamline Avenue North. This case permitted the subdivision of the Boston Scientific Campus into two separate parcels. The Planning Commission recommended approval (6-0) of this planning case on February 4, 2015. The City Council voted to table (3-0) Planning Case 15-002 for a Preliminary Plat, Planned Unit Development Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit Amendment at 3527-3557 Lexington Avenue North. This case was tabled to the March 9, 2015, City Council meeting so that additional information can be obtained on the Frattallone’s business plan related to the request for outdoor storage. The Planning Commission recommended approval (4-2, Zimmerman and Bartel) of this planning case on February 4, 2015. January City Council Work Sessions The City Council continued to discuss the draft TCAAP Redevelopment Code at their February work sessions. At the work session on February 24th the Council made their final changes to the TRC document so that the County can move forward with the “Fit Test” study. Page 1 of 1 DATE: March 4, 2015 TO: Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: TCAAP Update The City Council reviewed the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) at a special Work Session on Tuesday, February 24, 2015. The City Council made final changes to the document and authorized staff to move forward with the “Fit Test” proposed by Ramsey County. Based on discussions with Ramsey County and Kimley-Horn, staff understands that the fit test will be primarily comprised of two components: 1. An analysis of what could be built based on the current market, recent residential developments, and the requirements of the draft TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC). 2. An analysis of what could be built that would meet the City Council’s vision for TCAAP, but that would need additional flexibility from zoning regulations in the draft TRC. Initial findings of the fit test are tentatively scheduled to be presented to the City Council on March 30, 2015. Staff anticipates that the City Council will give final approval of the TRC and authorize submittal of the TCAAP Comprehensive Plan Amendment for adjacent city and Metropolitan Council review in May 2015. MEMORANDUM