HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05-15 JDA
AGENDA
Monday, January 5, 2015
5:00 p.m.
Arden Hills City Hall—Council Chambers
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes, 11/3/14
4. Public Inquiries/Informational
a. The intent of the Public Inquiries/Informational part of the agenda is to provide
interested parties with an opportunity to speak to the JDA about an issue or concern
about a past or future agenda item. The current agenda for tonight's meeting is
structured to ensure that the JDA accomplishes their business within that agenda. If
there is a public hearing scheduled as an agenda item, the public will be invited to speak
to that agenda item. In addressing the JDA, please state your name and address for the
record, and a brief summary of the specific matter being addressed. To allow adequate
time for each person wishing to address the JDA, individuals should limit their comments
to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the JDA prior to the
meeting, or as bench copies, to allow a more timely presentation.
5. Consent Agenda
a. None
6. Old Business
a. None
7. Public Hearing
a. None
8. New Business
a. None
9. Development Director’s Report
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
10. Administrative Director’s Report
a. Discussion re: upcoming work sessions (please bring your calendar)
11. Commissioner Updates
12. Adjournment
Joint Development Authority
Monday, November 3, 2014
Arden Hills City Council Chambers
Minutes
5:00 pm
Present:
Joint Development Authority: Chair David Sand, Commissioner Blake Huffman,
Commissioner Brenda Holden, Commissioner David Grant, Commissioner Rafael Ortega
Also present: Patrick Klaers, Jill Hutmacher, (Arden Hills); Heather Worthington, (Ramsey
County)
Roll call taken.
Approval of agenda.
Motion by Commissioner Holden seconded by Commissioner Ortega to approve the agenda as
presented. Motion carried.
Approval of October 6, 2014 minutes.
Motion by Commissioner Ortega seconded by Commissioner Holden to approve the minutes as
presented. Motion carried.
Public Inquiries/Informational
None
Consent Agenda
None
Old Business
None
Public Hearing
None
New Business
TCAAP Energy Integration Resiliency Framework: Policy White Paper Review
Greg Mack introduced himself to the JDA and explained he was working with Ramsey County as
a project liaison with the TCAAP Energy Resiliency Advisory Board. The members of the Energy
Resiliency Advisory Board (ERAB) introduced themselves to the JDA.
Lyle Salema, Chair of the ERAB, thanked the JDA for appointing him Chair. He reported the
ERAB had taken on a large task when asked to consider how to design the TCAAP site in a
sustainable manner. Various energy savings methods were discussed. He commented that Xcel
Energy was pushing solar and geothermal energy use.
Michael Ahern, Evergreen Energy, introduced his associates and company to the JDA. He then
provided the group with a PowerPoint presentation. It was his hope that TCAAP would become
a national model with its energy use, efficiency and infrastructure were considered. Models of
energy consumption were reviewed. It was estimated that 90% of the energy consumption
would be non-residential. Energy system options were discussed in detail along with potential
methods to incentivize future developers. He reported his team would continue to work on a
cost benefit analysis and would report back to the JDA in mid-March.
Discussion ensued regarding energy use and infrastructure design for TCAAP.
Commissioner Holden fully supported the efforts of the ERAB and the consultants. She
appreciated the presentation and looked forward to their Phase II presentation in March.
Chair Sand questioned what the next step was for the JDA.
Administrative Director Worthington recommended the JDA approve the guiding principles and
mission statement for the ERAB as this would provide the group with clear direction on how to
move forward.
Motion by Commissioner Huffman seconded by Commissioner Holden to approve the guiding
principles and mission statement for the Energy Resiliency Advisory Board, directing the group
to proceed with Phase II. Motion carried.
Informational Item - Bus Rapid Transit: A Line Extension
Administrative Director Worthington reported that she and Development Director Hutmacher
both served on an advisory committee for the A Line. It was noted the group would be
discussing connectivity to the TCAAP site.
Development Director’s Report
Development Director Hutmacher reviewed her report and the City Council’s upcoming
meeting schedule with the JDA.
Administrative Director’s Report
Administrative Director Worthington presented the October activity report. She recommended
the JDA cancel its December meeting as it would conflict with the County’s Truth in Taxation
meeting. She suggested the group hold a work session meeting with staff in mid-December.
Commissioner Updates
Chair Sand discussed the design meeting he attended on October 31, 2014.
Future Meeting Schedule
The next meeting is to be determined.
Meeting adjourned at 5:57 pm.
Approved _____________________________________ _______________________
David B. Sand, Chair Date
1
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
DATE: January 5, 2015
TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners
FROM: Jill Hutmacher, JDA Development Director
SUBJECT: Development Director’s Report
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
n/a n/a n/a
Requested Action
Discuss and provide any Commissioner comments.
Discussion
The Arden Hills City Council has been meeting weekly over the past several months in order to finalize
the TCAAP master plan and zoning regulations. Recent discussions have focused on density, zoning, and
design standards for residential development. Panel discussions with private developers have been
held, and Councilmembers have given specific direction to staff and consultants.
Summary of Developer Input
Following is a brief summary of the developer panel discussions with single-family and multi-family
developers.
Single-Family Residential
Private developers see demand for a range of product types.
There is demand in the market for upscale empty nester housing. These housing products vary
in size but generally include a higher level of interior finishes.
Single-family homes targeted towards families with school-age children will be a desired
product. Lots that are large enough for front-loaded garages will be predominant.
AGENDA ITEM 9
MEMORANDUM
2
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Private developers feel the Creek neighborhood is most suitable for upscale, large-lot single
family and twin homes targeted towards families and empty nesters. Density would be in the
range of 1 ½ to 2 units per acre.
Developers see the Hill neighborhood as largely single-family homes on lots of at least 50 feet.
According to Mattamy Homes, a 65x65 foot lot is their best seller which equates to a density of
3 units per acre.
Townhomes and Row Homes
Townhomes or row homes are usually developed as 3- or 4-unit buildings since the end units are
most popular. Detached townhomes are generally around 5 or 6 units per acre. Row homes can
be built at up to 10 units per acre. Developers suggested that an average of 7 to 8 units per acre
for townhome products is reasonable.
Townhomes are most likely to be developed in the neighborhood transition area, but the
market could also support a limited number of townhomes in the Hill or Creek neighborhoods.
Senior Housing, Apartments, and Condominiums
Senior housing and apartment buildings need 150-250 units per building in order to support the
common areas and amenities desired by the market. Apartment buildings would likely be 4
stories of apartments (3-5 acre parcels) above one story of underground or enclosed parking.
Senior housing and apartment development wants to be located close to goods and services.
Density in new senior and apartment developments averages approximately 40 units per acre.
The demographics of renters have changed over the past 20 years. Today’s renters want high-
end finishes and amenities – essentially a condominium-type product but without ownership.
Mixed-use residential has not been successful in suburban markets. Developers felt that
requiring commercial readiness standards on the first floor of pedestrian-oriented frontages
would be a financial burden and a disincentive for development.
Developers want a 10-year payback period for any “green” upgrades. Most energy savings are
being realized through technological advances in construction and building materials.
Condominiums are only currently being built in very selective areas and are usually very high-
end. In order for the developer to get construction financing, 70% of the units must be sold.
As the market improves, there may be limited demand for upscale condominium units in
buildings of approximately 50 units. Developers cautioned that there is limited and untested
demand for this product type – maybe a maximum of one or two buildings in the Neighborhood
Transition area in a location near both retail and open space.
In nearly every conversation, developers have stressed the need for flexibility to respond to changes
in market demand and to allow for innovation and creativity in development style.
Hill and Creek Neighborhoods
On November 3 and 24, 2014, the City Council discussed the Hill and Creek neighborhoods and provided
direction regarding zoning and design standards. The City Council approved “Option B” in which the
Neighborhood District is replaced by three new zoning districts:
3
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
NB – Low Density
NB – Med Density
NB – High Density
Residential use definitions have been created or amended as follows:
NB Low Density Single family use developed at a gross density of no greater than two (2)
units per acre.
NB Medium Density Single family use developed at a gross density of no greater than four (4)
units per acre.
NB High Density Single family or small multi-family use developed at a gross density of no
greater than six (6) units per acre.
Single Family Use A building containing one or two primary living units and which may
include twin homes, detached townhomes and cottage/patio homes.
Small Lot Single Family A single-family residential lot that measures less than fifty (50) feet
wide.
Small Multi-Family Use A building containing three to eight residential units and which may
include townhomes, row homes, manor homes/multi-tenant houses,
stacked flats, or triplexes/quadplexes.
Medium Multi-Family Use A building containing nine to fifty multi-family units which may include
stacked flats, apartments, or condominiums.
Large Multi-Family Use A building containing more than fifty residential units which may include
apartments, condominiums, or senior housing.
The City Council has directed staff to propose minimum densities for the new zoning districts in order to
ensure that a variety of housing products is developed. The minimum densities will be presented for
City Council review in January 2015.
Town Center and Transition Neighborhood
The Town Center District allows high-density housing and certain free-standing commercial uses.
Developers have expressed significant concerns regarding mixed-use residential buildings. Developers
felt that requiring commercial readiness on the ground floor of pedestrian frontages (to allow for mixed-
use conversion at a later date) would be financially risky and would be a disincentive for development.
In response to these concerns, the City Council prohibited residential as a component of mixed use
4
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
buildings on TCAAP. Mixed use buildings with office and retail are allowed. The maximum density in the
town center neighborhood is 40 units per acre.
The Transition Neighborhood is zoned to allow small- and medium-density multi-family as well as small-
scale commercial uses such as restaurants, banks, daycares, and retail. This district is intended to
provide a transition from the relatively low-density single-family neighborhoods to the higher-density
Town Center District. While the maximum overall density is expected to be 10 units per acre, the City
Council has directed staff to draft zoning in which the Transition Neighborhood is divided into higher-
and lower-density zones. The City Council’s goal with the new zones is to ensure that diverse housing
products are built. In other words, they would prefer a combination of row homes, townhomes, cottage
homes, and small lot single-family as opposed to one product type across the entire neighborhood. The
new zoning districts will be presented for City Council review in January 2015.
Spine Road Realignment
Ramsey County has requested that the City consider a realignment of the Spine Road to allow a 20-acre
retail parcel on the west side of the Spine Road as well as a 20-acre office parcel that is far enough north
to allow visibility from I-35W. The City Council is generally supportive of this request and has provided
direction on shifts in land uses on the east side of the spine road to accommodate the realignment:
Realign green spaces west of the Spine Road and in the Town Center so that they are along an
east-west pedestrian corridor
Reduce retail space on the east side of the Spine Road by roughly half to approximately 2.5
acres
Increase gross acreage for Town Center to approximately 17 to 18 acres
Projected Density and Number of Units
Based on City Council direction on the residential neighborhoods, the following chart includes estimates
of total units and maximum residential density. The following chart does not take into account shifts in
land uses as a result of the Spine Road realignment. Once the consultants are able to provide updated
maps and acreages, revised numbers will be provided to the City Council and JDA.
Neighborhood Gross
Acres
Maximum
Density
Total
Units
Creek 43 3.0 130
Hill 66 4.4 290
Neighborhood
Transition
47 10.0 470
Town Center 15 40.0 600
Total 171 8.7 1,490
5
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Comparison to Ryan Plan
The following table compares acreages, unit numbers and density between the Ryan Plan and the
current redevelopment plan. The Ryan numbers are from July 2008 shortly prior to Ryan’s withdrawal
from the project.
Table 1 – Land Use Acreage Comparison
Land Use Ryan Plan Current Plan
Road ROW 55.3 25.2
Parks, Open Space & Natural Resources 167.9 64.3
Residential 168.3 170.8
Retail 61.2 21.6
Other C/I 127.3 147.6
Total 580.0 429.5
Notes:
1. ROW for the Ryan Plan includes collectors, parkways, and commercial streets but does not
include streets within residential neighborhoods. ROW for the current plan includes the Spine
Road but does not include any other streets.
2. Parks, open space, and natural resources for the Ryan Plan include the primer/tracer area and
the wildlife corridor.
The following table compares unit types, numbers of units, and density between the Ryan Plan and the
current plan. For the purpose of simplifying the comparison, it was assumed that all units in the
Hill/Creek neighborhoods would be single-family and all units in the Transition neighborhood would be
townhomes. When development occurs, it is likely that some townhomes will be built in the Hill
neighborhood and some small single-family homes will be built in the Transition neighborhood.
Table 2 – Residential Unit Comparison
Ryan Plan Current Plan
Unit Type # of units Acres Average
density
Unit type # of units Acres Average
density
Single Family 320 103.9 3.08 Hill/Creek 420 108.9 3.9
Townhomes 470 41.6 11.3 Transition 470 46.9 9.8
Apartments,
Condos, and
Senior
960 22.77 42.2 Town
Center
600 15.0 40.0
Total 1,750 168.3 10.4 Total 1,490 170.8 8.7
As noted above, ROW for the Ryan Plan includes collectors, parkways, and commercial streets. If these
streets were excluded from the acreage in the current plan, the acreage would decrease and the overall
density would likely increase somewhat. The most significant difference between the Ryan Plan and the
current plan is that the Ryan Plan had fewer single-family homes and more acreage devoted to high-
6
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
density multi-family. Of the 960 apartments, condominiums, and senior housing units in the Ryan Plan,
200 units were condominiums which are not supported by current market conditions.
Conclusion
The City Council has been working diligently on TCAAP zoning for several months and expects to
complete the process by late February 2015. The current version of the draft zoning:
Allows TCAAP to develop in a density and development style that is significantly different than
Arden Hills south of Highway 96;
Preserves the City’s values with regards to open space and high-quality development;
Is consistent with feedback from the private real estate market; and
Is roughly similar in terms of density and diversity of land uses as the Ryan Plan, particularly
given the changes in real estate economics and the loss of a major access point since 2008.
The City Council’s meeting schedule to finalize the TCAAP zoning and begin the review period for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is as follows:
January 5, 2015, Special Work Session at 6:30 pm (following JDA meeting), Council Chambers
Design Standards for Retail, Office, Flex Office and Gateway Districts
Exterior Materials
January 12, 2015, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
Preliminary Plat Review (Infrastructure)
Final Review Chapters 6-7 (Building Site Development Standards, Building Design
Standards)
January 20, 2015, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers
JDA Approval Process
Final Review Chapters 1-3 (Introduction, Components of the Code, Administration)
Ramsey County Response to Draft TRC and Future Land Use Map
January 26, 2015, Special Work Session at 5:30 pm, Community Room
Final Review Future Land Use Map
Final Review Chapters 4-5 (Definitions, Permitted Uses)
February 2, 2015, Special Work Session at 6:30 pm (following JDA meeting), Council Chambers
Final Gateway Planning Workshop
o Presentation of Final Draft of TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC)
o Final Comments and Revisions
February 17, 2015, Regular Work Session at 5:00 pm, Council Chambers
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Discussion
February 18, 2015, Special Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 pm, Council Chambers
7
Joint Development Authority
TCAAP Redevelopment Project
Public Hearings
o Final Master Plan document
o TCAAP Redevelopment Code
o Future Land Use Map
February 23, 2015, Regular Meeting at 7:00 pm, Council Chambers
Approval of Master Plan
Adoption of TRC
Approve release of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for formal review period
Additional regular and special work session meetings may be scheduled to discuss regulations and
policies, the infrastructure study, and other TCAAP issues.
Attachment
“Option B” Draft Regulating Map