HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-18-WSAGENDA ITEMS
Ramsey County Sheriff Introduction
Undersheriff Rich Clark
MEMO.PDF
Concept Plan Review –Lyngblomsten And North Heights Lutheran Church
Matthew Bachler, City Planner
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
ATTACHMENT E.PDF
Committees And Commissions -Joint Work Sessions With Council
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
Utility Bonding
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
ATTACHMENT E.PDF
Residential Zoning Districts
Matthew Bachler, City Planner
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
ATTACHMENT E.PDF
Residential Accessory Structures
Matthew Bachler, City Planner
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Council Technology Reimbursement
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
City Planner Out Of Class Pay
Dave Perrault, City Planner
MEMO.PDF
Planning Services RFP
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:
David Grant
Councilmembers:
Brenda Holden
Fran Holmes
Dave McClung
Steve Scott
City Council
Work Session Agenda
May 21 2018
5:00 p.m.
City Hall
Address:
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills MN 55112
Phone:
651 -792 -7800
Website :
www.cityofardenhills.org
City Vision
Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential
neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our
long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.
CALL TO ORDER
1.
1.A.
Documents:
1.B.
Documents:
1.C.
Documents:
1.D.
Documents:
1.E.
Documents:
1.F.
Documents:
1.G.
Documents:
1.H.
Documents:
1.I.
Documents:
2.
AGENDA ITEMSRamsey County Sheriff IntroductionUndersheriff Rich Clark MEMO.PDFConcept Plan Review –Lyngblomsten And North Heights Lutheran ChurchMatthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFCommittees And Commissions -Joint Work Sessions With CouncilDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFUtility BondingDave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
ATTACHMENT E.PDF
Residential Zoning Districts
Matthew Bachler, City Planner
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
ATTACHMENT E.PDF
Residential Accessory Structures
Matthew Bachler, City Planner
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
Council Technology Reimbursement
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
City Planner Out Of Class Pay
Dave Perrault, City Planner
MEMO.PDF
Planning Services RFP
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott City Council Work Session AgendaMay 21 20185:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.1.A.Documents:1.B.Documents:1.C.Documents:1.D.
Documents:
1.E.
Documents:
1.F.
Documents:
1.G.
Documents:
1.H.
Documents:
1.I.
Documents:
2.
AGENDA ITEMSRamsey County Sheriff IntroductionUndersheriff Rich Clark MEMO.PDFConcept Plan Review –Lyngblomsten And North Heights Lutheran ChurchMatthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFCommittees And Commissions -Joint Work Sessions With CouncilDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFUtility BondingDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFResidential Zoning DistrictsMatthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFResidential Accessory StructuresMatthew Bachler, City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFCouncil Technology ReimbursementDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFCity Planner Out Of Class PayDave Perrault, City Planner MEMO.PDFPlanning Services RFPDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott City Council Work Session AgendaMay 21 20185:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.1.A.Documents:1.B.Documents:1.C.Documents:1.D.Documents:1.E.Documents:1.F.Documents:1.G.Documents:1.H.Documents:1.I.Documents:
2.
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Ramsey County Sheriff Introduction
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council will be receiving an update from the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office, there are no
items for consideration.
Background
Undersheriff Terry Soukkala has retired from the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department, and
Undersheriff Rich Clark has been selected to fill his role. Undersheriff Clark will be present to
introduce Commander Jeff Ramacher and Inspector Ashlee Bryant (Bryant may not be present at
the meeting), as they will be stepping into Rich’s previous role. This allows the City Council to
meet their points of contact for the City and provide any feedback to the Sheriff’s department.
Attachment
N/A
AGENDA ITEM –1A
MEMORANDUM
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for May 21, 2018
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2018\PC 18-012 - Lyngblomsten & North Heights Lutheran - Concept
Review\Memos_Reports_18-012
Page 1 of 4
AGENDA ITEM – 1B
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case 18-012 – Concept Plan Review
Lyngblomsten Senior Housing Development – 1700 Highway 96 West
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Background
Lyngblomsten has requested a Concept Plan Review for a proposed senior housing development
on the south end of the North Heights Lutheran Church property at 1700 Highway 96 West. The
applicant is seeking feedback from the City Council on the concept plan.
The City Council considered a Concept Plan Review application from Lyngblomsten for a
similar development on the site at the March 20, 2017 Work Session. The Council expressed
concerns about building height, massing, traffic, and the required property rezoning. The minutes
from the Work Session are provided in Attachment E. The Council also provided direction that
the northwest corner of the property should be considered for the development. The applicant
evaluated this site and determined that development would not be feasible due to the presence of
several large wetlands and additional construction costs.
The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments
and questions regarding proposed developments. A concept review is considered advisory and is
nonbinding to the City and applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal
action can be taken at a Work Session. A formal application will be subject to the full review
process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for May 21, 2018
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2018\PC 18-012 - Lyngblomsten & North Heights Lutheran - Concept
Review\Memos_Reports_18-012
Page 2 of 4
Discussion
Existing Conditions
North Heights Lutheran Church owns the approximately 41 acre parcel with an address of 1700
Highway 96 West located on the south side of Highway 96 and directly east of U.S. Highway 10.
The church chapel and education wing are located roughly in the center of the property. The
chapel of the North Heights Lutheran Church was constructed in 1986 and the education wing
was completed in 1998. Two large surface parking areas are located on the north and east side of
the chapel and educational wing. The remainder of the site is wooded and includes wetland areas
and stormwater infrastructure required for the existing development.
The principal access to the site is from Highway 96 between Snelling Avenue and U.S. Highway
10. This access point is directly south of where the main roadway on the Twin Cities Army
Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) redevelopment site will be constructed. A secondary access is
located in the northeast corner of the site on Snelling Avenue. As part of the original approval for
the church campus, the City required that no right turns be permitted out of the Snelling Avenue
driveway so as to direct traffic to the north. Currently, the main entrance and the Snelling
Avenue intersection with Highway 96 are not signalized. A signal is planned for the North
Heights entrance with the construction of the main TCAAP roadway.
The majority of the property is zoned R-1 – Single-Family Residential District. Approximately 6
acres of land at the northwest corner of the site adjacent to the Highway 96 and U.S. Highway 10
interchange is zoned B-1 – Limited Business District. The entire property is guided for Public
and Institutional use in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The City has not discussed any changes to
the future land use designation of the property as part of its current 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Update process. In terms of the surrounding area, the 427-acre TCAAP redevelopment site is
located north of the property across Highway 96, and there are primarily single-family residential
neighborhoods to the east and west. Royal Hills Park borders the property to the south.
North Heights
Property North South East West
Zoning
R-1 (35 acres)
B-1 (6 acres)
TRC – Flex
Office, Retail
Mixed Use
Parks and
Open Space R-1 R-1
Future
Land Use
Public &
Institutional
Flex Office,
Retail Mixed
Use (TCAAP)
Parks and
Open Space
Low Density
Residential,
Very Low Density
Residential
Low Density
Residential
Concept Plan Proposal
Lyngblomsten is a Christian non-profit social ministry organization that serves older adults and
their families through housing, health care, and community-based services. The organization
currently owns and operates a senior housing campus in the Como Park area of St. Paul.
Lyngblomsten is considering purchasing approximately 6.5 acres of the southern portion of the
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for May 21, 2018
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2018\PC 18-012 - Lyngblomsten & North Heights Lutheran - Concept
Review\Memos_Reports_18-012
Page 3 of 4
North Heights property for the purpose of developing a senior living community with up to 200
units. The project would be include a mix of independent living, assisted living, and memory
care units, as well as campus amenities such as dining services, a fitness center, and a chapel.
The development would also be occupied by 2nd Half with Lyngblomsten staff, which provides
off-site services for individuals in the area that choose to continue to live in their existing homes.
The proposed senior housing development would be located on the western portion of the new
parcel adjacent to U.S. Highway 10 and directly south of the North Heights education wing and
parking lot. The building is proposed to be four stories with a flat roof and have an approximate
height of 47 feet. The principal exterior materials on the building would be stone and glass,
comprising approximately 75 percent of the exterior façade area. Different types of care would
be segmented within the building, and the preliminary plans indicate approximately 100
independent living units, 50 assisted living units, and 48 skilled units. The plans also include
landscaped grounds, walking paths, and outdoor seating areas.
Parking is proposed to include 100 underground parking stalls for the independent living units
and 94 surface parking stalls for employees and guests. The surface parking is proposed to be
located in two separate lots between the building and Snelling Avenue. The primary access to the
site would be on Snelling Avenue north of the intersection with Royal Hills Drive. A fire access
lane is proposed along the west side of the building that would connect with the adjacent North
Heights parking lot. However, this is not proposed to be a regular access for residents,
employees, or guests.
Lyngblomsten has provided a preliminary site plan, building rendering, site cross section, and
conceptual views of the building from Snelling Avenue and U.S. Highway 10. The preliminary
timeline assumes the organization would begin construction in spring 2019 and complete the
project by summer 2020.
Based on an initial review, staff believes the proposal would require the following land use
requests:
• Preliminary Plat and Final Plat for subdivision
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change designation of development site from Public
and Institutional to High Density Residential
• Rezoning of development site from R-1 – Single-Family Residential District to R-4 –
Multiple Dwelling District
• Conditional Use Permit for Nursing Home and Assisted Living use in the R-4 District
• Planned Unit Development for performance standard flexibility (at a minimum, density
and building height)
The table below provides the performance standards for the R-4 District and the preliminary
analysis for the proposed development:
City of Arden Hills
City Council Work Session for May 21, 2018
P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2018\PC 18-012 - Lyngblomsten & North Heights Lutheran - Concept
Review\Memos_Reports_18-012
Page 4 of 4
R-4 District Standards Lyngblomsten Proposal
Minimum Lot Area per Unit 3,630 s.f./unit Approximately 1,407 s.f./unit
Maximum Building Height 35 feet 47 feet (52 feet at entrance)
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.3 Unable to Determine
Maximum Structure Coverage 25% of lot area Approximately 18%
Minimum Landscape Lot Area 65% of lot area Approximately 66%
Maximum PUD Density 12 units/acre 30.9 units/acre
Minimum Front Yard Setback 40 feet Complies
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 30 feet Appears to comply
Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet (min)/15 feet (total) Appears to comply
Traffic Analysis
Westwood Professional Services completed a traffic study for the proposed project in May 2017
(Attachment D). The conceptual site plan has changed slightly since then, but the findings of the
study are still relevant. The study looked at the number of peak hour trips that are expected to be
generated by the site and the impact of the development on the Snelling Avenue and Highway 96
intersection.
The site is expected to generate a total of 660 trips per weekday. It is estimated the total number
of vehicles entering and leaving the site during the AM peak would be 35, and during the PM
peak 55. For the analysis, it was assumed that all of the trips generated by the site would be
coming from and going to the intersection at Snelling Avenue and Highway 96.
When the study was completed in 2017, roadway construction on Interstate 694 resulted in
higher traffic volumes on Highway 96 because of traffic diversion. The additional traffic
volumes on Highway 96 did not allow Westwood to properly assess the impact of the
development on the Snelling Avenue and Highway 96 intersection. The study assumes that since
the Lyngblomsten development will generate a relatively small number of trips, once Highway
96 reverts back to normal traffic patterns the development should have minimal impact on the
functioning of the intersection.
Attachments
A. Land Use Application
B. Project Narrative
C. Preliminary Development Plans and Renderings
D. Westwood Traffic Impact Study, May 22, 2017
E. City Council Work Session Minutes, March 20, 2017
Page 1 of 3
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
Telephone (651) 792-7800
Fax (651) 634-5137
www.cityofardenhills.org
For Office Use Only
Planning Case No. 18-
Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Accepted by
Receipt Number
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
2018 LAND USE APPLICATION
Applicant Information
Applicant:
Address:
Telephone No.: Other:
Fax No.:
Email Address:
Property Information
Property Owner:
Owner Address:
Owner Telephone No. Other:
Address of Property Involved:
Legal Description:
Property ID No.:
Type of Use:
Zone: Property Acreage:
Type of Request
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 +
Escrow: $1,000)
Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP
Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,000)
Final Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,000)
Concept Plan Review (Fee: $150 + Escrow:
$1,000)
Master Planned Unit Development or Master Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Planned Unit Development Amendment or Special Development Plan Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Site Plan Review (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts
Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000) Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)
Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)
Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000
Page 2 of 3
Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project):
Filing & Information Requirements
The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application
process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified
survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be
found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications.
Complete/Incomplete Applications
An incomplete application will delay the processing of land use requests. The application ap proval time
commences and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined
the application and determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is
complete or incomplete shall be made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application.
When the application is deemed to be “complete” it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning
Commission meeting provided that all required public notices have been sent and published.
Payment of Fees and Escrows
The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed
complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. Each separate land use request shall be
charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in
reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City.
Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and
mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount,
the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may
withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees
have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of
an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the City Planner on a project by project basis.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a
designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the
next available agenda.
*IMPORTANT*
• Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Watershed District.
Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information.
• The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that may be
required upon approval of a land use application.
• All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs
associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an escrow to the
City.
Page 3 of 3
Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule
The deadline for submittal of land use applications is required according to the schedule outlined below. There
are no exceptions. Failure to submit all application materials by the deadline date may delay the review
process. Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each
month at 6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings
are held typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at
the City of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated.
Applicants are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary upon
approval of the Planning Commission.
2018 SCHEDULE (*subject to change)
APPLICATION
DEADLINE
DATE*
TENTATIVE
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING DATE*
(Generally held on the
first Wednesday after the first
Monday at 6:30 p.m.)
TENTATIVE
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DATE*
(Generally held on the
fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.)
December 4 (2017) January 10 January 22
January 2 February 7 February 26
February 5 March 7 March 26
March 5 April 4 April 23
April 2 May 9 May 29
May 7 June 6 June 25
June 4 July 11 July 23
July 2 August 8 August 27
August 6 September 5 September 24
September 4 October 3 October 22
October 1 November 7 November 26
November 5 December 5 January 14 (2019)
December 3 January 9 (2019) January 28 (2019)
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of Arden Hills Land Use Application and
fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this
application.
__________________________________________________ ________________
Property Owner Signature (Required) Date
________________________________________________ ________________
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at 651-792-7800
if you have any questions regarding this application.
Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications
City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Phone 651-792-7800 Fax 651.634.5137 www.cityofardenhills.org
Escrow Account Set Up Form
Date: _______________________
Site Address: __________________________________________________________________
Deposit made by: _______________________________________________________________
Amount: $___________________
Address to send statements: _______________________________________________________
Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________
Telephone No.: ____________________ Email Address: ____________________________
Purpose of Escrow Account: ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
Arden Hills Finance Department policy requires that escrow deposits be held for six months once
a permit has been closed in order to ensure all costs associated with the project have been
covered. Please note: Land Use Applications may be required to maintain a minimum balance as
established by the City, and will require replenishment when balances fall below the minimum
balance. I acknowledge that I have read this policy and fully understand that any remaining
escrow balance will be released after a six-month waiting period.
___________________________________ __________________
Applicant Signature Date
Office Use Only
Staff Name: _______________________________ Department: ________________________
Type of Escrow:
Landscaping
Grading & Erosion (PW#______________)
Site Improvements (PW#______________)
Security Deposit – Do Not Charge
Land Use Application (PC#____________)
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
Other: _____________________________
Additional Notes: _______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
The Site: The property is nestled in the southeast quadrant at Highway 96 and Highway 10 in Arden Hills, Minnesota. Situated on the northern portion of the property is the sanctuary, education wing, and parking lots for the congregation of North Heights Lutheran Church. Several acres of undeveloped land are at the southern edge of the property. This land has varied terrain and a fair amount of mature tree coverage. Royal Hills Park borders the southern property boundary and was deeded to the City by Northern Heights. Round Lake is visible across Highway 10. The faith community of St. Katherine Orthodox Church borders much of the western edge of the property. The inactive Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site to the north of Highway 96 is slated for a mixed-use development in the coming years. Lyngblomsten proposes to purchase approximately 6.46 acres on the southern portion of the property owned by North Heights Lutheran Church located at 1700 West Highway 96 in Arden Hills, Minnesota, for the purpose of developing a senior living community. The vision is to create a vibrant continuum-of-care campus offering up to a total of 200 units comprised of a mix of independent living, assisted living, and memory care/enhanced care suites/skill nursing care plus complementary campus amenities.
The Project: In alignment with the mission of Lyngblomsten and the demand for more senior housing in the area, Lyngblomsten seeks to create a second campus offering a full continuum of services for older adults. The majority of units would be independent and assisted living for those age 62+. The market-rate units are planned to be mid-range in price, amenities, and size (variety of 1- and 2-bedroom units), with a goal of serving people from a variety of income levels. Overall, like we’ve done on our Como Park campus (St. Paul), Lyngblomsten seeks to create a comfortable Christian home for older adults of all faiths and cultures that is welcoming, creates community, values individual preferences, and promotes dignity. Not only will this development address the shortage of senior housing in the area, but for those wishing to continue living in their existing homes, services through 2nd Half with Lyngblomsten that would be part of the Arden Hills campus can help support their decision to remain and their needs associated with that decision. The preliminary plan for the site positions the building south of the North Heights education wing and parking lots. Underground parking spaces would be provided to accommodate the parking needs of the residents in the independent living units. Parking for guests and staff would be provided via a new surface lot, positioned between the building and Snelling Avenue. Most likely a landscaped retention pond would be created to manage water drainage, although other options are also being explored. Vehicular access to the property would be from a new entrance on Snelling Avenue. The building plan does not physically connect the Lyngblomsten building with the North Heights buildings. However, we anticipate a sidewalk or pathway between the two properties so that Lyngblomsten residents and North Heights congregants will have access for use of common spaces or participation in activities as agreed upon by both parties.
The proposed development is anticipated to provide:
• A four-story, continuum-of-care building that includes a Life Enrichment Center (2nd Half with Lyngblomsten), Independent Senior Housing, Assisted Living, Memory Care, Short-term Transitional Care, and Enhanced Care Suites or Long-Term Skilled Nursing Care. The apartments would be a combination of one- and two-bedroom units.
• Courtyards and balconies will afford fresh air, nice views, and enjoyment of the outdoors
• Main floor town center offering amenities such as bistro style or fine dining, a pub, a cinema, a chapel, a fitness center and a gift shop.
• Planned events and activities, including concerts with professional local musicians
• Heated underground parking for tenants
• Surface-level parking lot for visitors and staff
• Vehicular entrance from Snelling Avenue
• Professionally landscaped grounds; outdoor spaces for tenants and visitors to enjoy
• Possible shuttle service to Lyngblomsten’s Como Park campus for additional amenities—concerts, art classes, etc.
• Sidewalk for pedestrian passage between Lyngblomsten campus and North Heights campus
• Pathway around the building for emergency vehicle access when needed but designed for daily use as a walking path by both Lyngblomsten tenants and North Heights congregants
• Professional on-site management and service coordination staff We have attached to this narrative a concept drawing, a site plan, as well as a photo of our current market-rate independent (with services) senior apartments (The Heritage at Lyngblomsten) in St. Paul. The plans show the proposed parcel, boundaries, and preliminary site plan. Lyngblomsten will use quality materials to produce a solid structure that is timeless in appearance and complements the natural beauty of the site. It will be built to last and be well maintained as Lyngblomsten plans to own and manage the property in perpetuity.
Project Timeline: Due Diligence Completed 10/31/2018 Close on Land Acquisition 03/01/2019 Construction Commencement 04/01/2019 Construction Completion 07/01/2020
About Lyngblomsten:
Lyngblomsten is a Christian nonprofit social ministry organization serving older adults and their families through healthcare, housing, and community-based services. Partnered in ministry with more than two dozen Christian congregations across the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Lyngblomsten provides a continuum of care to meet the needs of adults as they travel the later years of their life’s journey. Our services nurture the whole person—body, mind, and spirit.
For more than a century, Lyngblomsten has been caring for the elderly and providing support for their loved ones while engaging the hearts of generous volunteers and donors who help carry out our mission:
Influenced by Christ, Lyngblomsten provides a ministry of
compassionate care and innovative services to older adults
in order to preserve and enhance their quality of life. Our first building opened in 1912 on the same property from where we serve today at Midway Parkway and Pascal Street (referred to as our Como Park campus), 7¾ miles from North Heights’ Arden Hills campus. We are rooted deeply in the Saint Paul community and expect to be so for at least another century. The women who dreamed of Lyngblomsten and incorporated in 1906 set out to build a Christian home for the elderly. Today we still honor that vision and additionally offer a robust continuum of care to help older adults receive the services they need while staying close to the communities and congregations they love. We embrace the whole person and strive to provide as much independence and access to options as possible, with a goal of promoting dignity and purpose. While we believe that our early predecessors engaged area churches in their endeavor to create a Christian home for the elderly, we know that a formal partnership with area congregations was created in 1960 when Lyngblomsten gifted the organization to what is now the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, and area congregations were invited to become members of Lyngblomsten. North Heights became a member congregation in 1975 and remains active as one of our 27 member churches. Over the years, in addition to members of North Heights serving on the boards of directors for Lyngblomsten and serving as delegates for North Heights, Lyngblomsten has enjoyed hosting many events at North Heights’ beautiful Arden Hills facilities. In addition to the formal member partnerships with churches, Lyngblomsten also collaborates with area congregations to support ministry to, with, and for older adults. Today this is accomplished primarily through 2nd Half with Lyngblomsten, supporting the ministries of congregations and enriching the lives of older adults through a variety of caregiver services, memory loss respite care, coaching, training (such as older adult ministry forums and congregational care volunteers via Care Team Ministry), and leading/sponsoring the Parish Nurse Ministry Resource Group. These services in collaboration with St. Paul area congregations have been a hallmark of Lyngblomsten for two decades. As we look to the future, Lyngblomsten’s goal is to develop a second campus that will become a vital part of the Arden Hills community. Just like our century-old Como Park campus, the development will remain Lyngblomsten owned and managed for generations to come.
MEMORANDUM
TBPLS Firm No. 10074302
Date: May 22, 2017
Re: Traffic Impact Study – Lyngblomsten Senior Living, Arden Hills, MN
File R0011753.00
To: Judd Fenlon, Tanya Bell, Grand Real Estate Advisors
From: Steve Manhart, P.E. PTOE, PTP
Westwood Professional Services has conducted a traffic study for the proposed
Lyngblomsten Senior Living development in Arden Hills, Minnesota. The
development is proposed at the south end of the North Heights Lutheran Church
campus on the west side of Snelling Avenue south of County Road 96. Lyngblomsten
Senior Living is projected to a provide continuum senior living facility with a variety
of services including independent living, assisted living, memory care and skilled
nursing. There are as many as 248 beds proposed for the development.
The main access for this development would be onto Snelling Avenue south of
Highway 96 between Keithson Drive and Royal Hills Drive. To assess existing traffic
conditions, Westwood looked at existing traffic volumes for the roadways in the area.
Figure 1 shows the average annual daily traffic volumes (AADTs) recorded by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). The daily two-way traffic
volume of Highway 96 was recorded as 18,500 vehicles per day in 2015. The average
daily two-way traffic volume for Snelling south of Highway 96 was recorded as 1,000
vehicles per day in 2013.
Figure 1 – Average Annual Daily Traffic
(Source: Minnesota Department of Transportation Traffic Data website)
Highway 96 Snelling Ave.
May 22, 2017
Page 2
For this study, Westwood conducted weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hour turning
movement counts at the intersection of County Road 96 and Snelling Avenue. These
counts are summarized on Figure 2. The results of these counts show very heavy peak
hour traffic volumes on Highway 96, while traffic volumes along Snelling Avenue are
relatively light.
In addition, Westwood was asked to look at the traffic volumes at the weekday a.m.
and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the existing church driveway at Highway 96.
Because the counts occurred during weekdays, the trip volumes to and from the church
during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours were .very light.
Table 1 illustrates the existing performance and operation of the study intersections.
Westwood utilized the industry standard Synchro and SimTraffic software to
determine levels of service and queuing lengths. Levels of service are defined in the
Appendix. The 95th-percentile queue is defined as the length of the queue (in vehicles)
that has only a 5-percent probability of being exceeded during the analysis time period.
Table 1 – Existing Operational Performance and Queuing
(Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2017)
Intersection
Delay and
LOS
Level of
Service
Approach
Delay
(sec)
95th %ile
Queue
(ft)
Intersection
Delay and
LOS
Level of
Service
Approach
Delay
(sec)
95th %ile
Queue
(ft)
EB Left - -
EB Thru A 1.2 A 2.0 19
EB Right A 2.0 A 1.9 7
WB Left B 10.9 10 D 31.0 45
WB Thru A 4.3 18 A 3.7 11
WB Right - -
NB Left F 630.0 615 F 1603.6 523
NB Thru - -
NB Right F 472.0 615 F 1957.4 523
SB Left - -
SB Thru - -
SB Right - -
EB Left - -
EB Thru A 0.2 A 1.1
EB Right A 0.1 -
WB Left A 5.3 15 -
WB Thru A 1.7 A 1.5
WB Right - -
NB Left -8 -20
NB Thru - -
NB Right A 2.0 8 B 14.0 20
SB Left - -
SB Thru - -
SB Right - -
Delay = 1.1
LOS = A
Delay = 1.3
LOS = A
PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour
Existing
Delay = 15.7
LOS = C
Delay =15.9
LOS = C
Highway 96 and
Church Access N
Intersection Lane Assignment
Intersection
Traffic
Control
Highway 96 and
Snelling N
Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive
Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Toll Free (888) 937-5150
May 22, 2017
Page 4
One significant finding involved the p.m. peak hour traffic queues along eastbound
Hwy 96. The resulting 95th percentile queue lengths along Snelling can extend up to
one-eighth mile during the peak hours. The eastbound queues were seen extending
from the signalized intersection at Lexington Avenue past the signalized intersection at
Hamline and through the intersection of Snelling Avenue. The p.m. peak hour queue
even extended past the access to North Heights Church.
These excessive delays along Highway 96 during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours are the
likely impacts of the construction along I-694 between I-35E and TH 10. Local traffic
is likely diverting onto Highway 96 rather than face the delays along I-694. As a
result, the Highway 96 traffic volume is artificially high, and the Snelling Avenue
traffic, although negligible, has a more difficult time turning right or left than would
normally be the case.
This is reflected in the failing levels of service for Snelling traffic at the intersection
with Highway 96. Because the Snelling Avenue approach is a side-street stop
condition only, there are no gaps in the Highway 96 traffic created by signalization.
Further, the existing volumes are not heavy enough to warrant signalization at that
intersection. Therefore, the existing traffic must wait excessively for either gaps in the
traffic or considerate Highway 96 drivers to let the side street traffic complete their
turns.
Unfortunately, recent turning movement traffic counts for the intersection of Highway
96 and Snelling Avenue unaffected by the I-694 construction are not readily available.
Proposed Development
Westwood utilized the rates and equations in the Trip Generation Manual, Ninth
Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, to calculate the number
of peak hour trips that could be generated by the site. Table 2 lists the daily and peak
hour trips that are projected to enter and exit the site.
Table 2 – Trip Generation
(Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, 2012 & Westwood Professional Services, 2017)
Please note that although Lyngblomsten Senior Living will incorporate several levels
of senior care, it was recommended by the Ramsey County’s traffic engineering
ITE
Land Use Code Size Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit
Assisted Living 254.2 248 beds 330 330 23 12 24 31
330 330 23 12 24 31
Weekday AM peak PM Peak
660 35 55
May 22, 2017
Page 5
consultant that ITE Code 254 – Assisted Living be used for the site. As a result, it is
projected that during the a.m. peak hour, 23 trips will be entering the site while 12 trips
will be leaving the site. Conversely, during the p.m. peak hour, 24 trips will be
entering the site while 31 trips will be leaving the site.
For this analysis, it was assumed that 100% of the trips generated by the site will come
to and from the north; specifically, the intersection of Highway 96 and Snelling.
Further, it was projected that the development traffic will be distributed at the same
turning ratios of the Snelling Avenue traffic at Highway 96.
Figure 3 illustrates the background traffic with the added Lyngblomsten peak hour
traffic. In addition, Table 3 lists the operational performance and queuing for the
intersections in the Build condition.
Table 3 – Build Operational Performance and Queuing
(Source: Westwood Professional Services, 2017)
Intersection
Delay and LOS
Level of
Service
Approach
Delay
(sec)
95th %ile
Queue
(ft)
Intersection
Delay and LOS
Level of
Service
Approach
Delay
(sec)
95th %ile
Queue
(ft)
EB Left - -
EB Thru A 1.3 A 2.1
EB Right A 1.1 18 A 2.0
WB Left A 7.9 18 D 25.2 53
WB Thru E 39.0 13 A 3.8 11
WB Right - -
NB Left F 841.3 889 F 1851.5 1073
NB Thru - -
NB Right F 968.1 889 F 1868.7 1073
SB Left - -
SB Thru - -
SB Right - -
EB Left - -
EB Thru A 0.5 A 1.3
EB Right -0.0 -
WB Left D 32.4 15 E 39.6 12
WB Thru A 1.4 A 1.4
WB Right - -
NB Left -11 -15
NB Thru - -
NB Right A 3.1 11 C 15.4 15
SB Left - -
SB Thru - -
SB Right - -
EB Left A 4.5 33 -46
EB Thru -A 4.2
EB Right -33 -46
WB Left - -
WB Thru - -
WB Right - -
NB Left - -
NB Thru A 0.1 A 0.1
NB Right - -
SB Left - -
SB Thru A 0.4 A 0.4
SB Right A 0.5 A 0.4
Poroposed Access
and Snelling N Delay = 0.6
LOS = A
Delay = 31.3
LOS = D
Highway 96 and
Church Access N Delay = 1.0
LOS = A
Intersection Lane Assignment
Intersection
Traffic
Control
Highway 96 and
Snelling N Delay = 25.0
LOS = C
2023 BUILD
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay = 1.4
LOS = A
Delay = 1.0
LOS = A
Phone (952) 937-5150 7699 Anagram Drive
Fax (952) 937-5822 Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Toll Free (888) 937-5150
May 22, 2017
Page 7
As an option for future access, Westwood also looked at the traffic conditions at the
intersection of Highway 96 and the North Heights Lutheran Church driveway. This,
like Highway 96 & Snelling Avenue, is a full access intersection. This church access
has been suggested as a possible back access route through the church parking lot to
the Lyngblomsten site.
Currently, the intersection operates at LOS-A in both a.m. and p.m. peak hours. There
is very little traffic turning into or out of the church access during the weekday peak
hours. Despite the diversion of traffic from I-694, the operational performance and
queuing levels at this access intersection are acceptable.
This intersection is being projected as the site of a full-access intersection with the
main spine road for the redevelopment of the old Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant
(TCAAP) site to the north of Highway 96. While not yet indicated on preliminary
plans, the spine road intersection with Highway 96 will be a candidate for signalization
once the north leg is constructed and redevelopment is underway. Figure 5 shows the
location of the spine road intersection as well as the year 2030 AADT traffic volume
projections in this area.
Figure 1 – Year 2030 Projected Roadway Network
(Source: 2030 Comprehensive Plan, City of Arden Hills, September 2008)
Conclusions
The roadway construction on I-694 has created deceptively high traffic volumes along
Highway 96. The traffic diverted from I-694 will likely continue throughout the 2017
construction season. Unfortunately, this diversion will not allow for normal traffic
conditions to be assessed any time soon. Therefore, impacts of the Lyngblomsten
Senior Living development at the intersection of Highway 96 and Snelling Avenue
will be difficult to assess in the near term.
Highway 96 Snelling Ave. Lyngblomsten site
Church site
May 22, 2017
Page 8
MnDOT’s existing counts indicate minor traffic volumes on Snelling Avenue. The
trip generation of an assisted living center are quite small when compared with other
land use types (i.e., office, commercial retail, etc.). Because many residents may no
longer drive, daily traffic to and from an assisted living facility is often comprised of
staff members.
Under normal conditions, Lyngblomsten Senior Living would be a minor trip
generator adding minimal impacts to the adjacent roadway network. It is anticipated
that once the I-694 construction is complete, traffic conditions at this intersection will
return to normal. Unfortunately, this analysis was not able to discern what “normal” is
for this intersection. There would likely be, however, greater gaps in the Highway 96
traffic stream to allow for left and right turn movements to and from Snelling Avenue.
It is likely that levels of service would revert to acceptable conditions.
A question has been raised whether this intersection could be signalized. Current
traffic volumes to not meet signalization warrants. Likewise, traffic added by the
potential Lyngblomsten Senior Living will not be enough to meet warrants for
signalization.
Further, the redevelopment of the TCAAP property and the potential alignment of the
spine road to the current North Heights Lutheran Church access intersection means
any future access from the north at Snelling Avenue will likely not be signalized.
Access management guidelines will prevent a future signalization at Snelling.
Nevertheless, the spine road intersection with Highway 96 is currently built with dual
left turn lanes and an eastbound right turn lane. As a result of the anticipated traffic
generated by the TCAAP redevelopment and by the church, the spine road/church
access intersection will likely be signalized in the future. Therefore, an access,
whether primary or secondary to and from Lyngblomsten Senior Living, would benefit
from the connection to Highway 96 at the signalized intersection.
May 22, 2017
Page 9
APPENDIX
A. Intersection Capacity Analysis
Traffic operations for the peak hour conditions within the study area were analyzed
using the industry-standard Synchro/SimTraffic Version 9 software package, which
uses the data and methodology contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual,
published by the Transportation Research Board. The software model was calibrated
to replicate existing conditions as accurately as possible before being used to assess
future conditions.
The operating conditions of transportation facilities, such as traffic signals, stop-
controlled intersections and roundabouts, are evaluated based on the relationship of the
theoretical capacity of a facility to the actual traffic volumes on that facilit y. Various
factors affect capacity, including travel speed, roadway geometry, grade, number and
width of travel lanes, and intersection control. The current standards for evaluating
capacity and operating conditions are contained in the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM). The procedures describe operating conditions in terms of a Level of Service
(LOS). Facilities are given letter designations from A, representing the best operating
conditions, to F, representing the worst. Generally, Level of Service D (LOS-D)
represents the threshold for acceptable overall intersection operating conditions during
a peak hour.
At intersections, Levels of Service are assigned differently for signalized or
unsignalized intersections (which include Two-Way Stop Control [TWSC], All-way
Stop Control [AWSC] and roundabouts). For signalized intersections, Level of
Service is calculated by taking the total Intersection Delay and converting it to a letter
grade as shown in the right side of Table A-1. For an unsignalized intersection, Level
of Service is calculated by taking the Intersection Delay and converting it to a letter
grade, as shown in the left side of Table A-1. While similar, the signalized control
delay totals are higher than that of unsignalized intersections. In any condition, when
the LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio exceeds 1.0, the LOS is always F.
Under the 2010 HCM, common movements are included into lane groups. Control
Delay is then determined for each lane group and Levels of Service are based on this
Control Delay. For each lane group, Control Delay is quantified by number of
seconds. Control Delay is defined as the difference between the travel time that would
have occurred in the absence of the intersection control, and the travel time that results
because of the presence of the intersection control. Levels of Service are then based
on the control delay per vehicle.
May 22, 2017
Page 10
Table A-1 - Level of Service vs. Control Delay - Signalized and Unsignalized
Intersections (TWSC, AWSC & Roundabouts)
TWSC, AWSC & Roundabouts
Signalized Intersections
LOS by Volume to
Capacity Ratio (≤ 1)*
Control Delay per
Vehicle
(Seconds)
LOS by Volume to
Capacity Ratio (≤ 1)*
Control Delay per
Vehicle
(Seconds)
A ≤10 A ≤10
B >10 and ≤15 B >10 and ≤20
C >15 and ≤25 C >20 and ≤35
D >25 and ≤35 D >35 and ≤55
E >35 and ≤50 E >55 and ≤80
F >50 F >80
Per the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board.
* NOTE: When LOS by Volume to Capacity Ratio >1.00, LOS is F.
The acceptable Level of Service threshold for a particular movement at an intersection
depends on both the priority assigned to that movement and its traffic volume. In
general, the higher the priority and the higher the traffic volume, the more stringent the
acceptable threshold will be. For example, the acceptable threshold for a high-
priority/high-volume rural movement might be C, while LOS F on a low-priority/low-
volume urban movement might be appropriate.
For two-way stop-controlled intersections, a key measure of operational effectiveness
is the side street LOS. Since the mainline does not have to stop, the majority of delay
is attributed to the side-street/minor approaches. Long delays and poor LOS can
sometimes result on the side street, even if the overall intersection is functioning well,
making it a valuable design criterion. As the side-street/minor approach delay
approaches and exceeds 60 seconds per vehicle, drivers may divert to another route or
become impatient and accept gaps in the mainline traffic that are less than
acceptable/safe gaps resulting in the potential for traffic safety concerns. Therefore,
depending on priority and traffic volume, acceptable side-street LOS can range from D
to F. Side streets can operate at LOS F without the intersection warranting a change in
traffic control.
A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular
queuing, as defined the line of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An
intersection can operate with an acceptable Level of Service, but if queues from the
intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land
uses, unsafe operating conditions could result.
May 22, 2017
Page 11
In reporting Levels of Service, the information from the signalized intersection
analysis comes directly from the Synchro 9 and SimTraffic 9 reports. Intersection
Levels of Service are reported based on the Control Delay calculated for the overall
intersection and for each critical movement as determined by SimTraffic 9, and as
adjusted for driver behavior.
For queuing, the 95th Percentile and the Maximum Queue Lengths that are generated
after five runs. In this report, the 95th Percentile Queue Length is used to discern
adequate lengths of turn lanes. The 95th Percentile Queue Length refers to that length
of queue that has only a five-percent probability of being exceeded during an analysis
period. This is the standard factor used to determine optimal turn lane lengths.
B. Synchro/SimTraffic Files – Operational Performance & Queuing
(See attached)
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing AM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
2: Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)1.2 2.0 10.9 4.3 630.6 472.0 15.9
6: Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.0 5.3 1.7 2.0 1.1
9: Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.2 0.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)17.5
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing AM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 2:
Movement WB WB NB
Directions Served L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft)31 41 643
Average Queue (ft)1 3 273
95th Queue (ft)10 18 615
Link Distance (ft)564 1351
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)270
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6:
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LR
Maximum Queue (ft)31 23
Average Queue (ft)2 1
95th Queue (ft)15 8
Link Distance (ft)878 467
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9:
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report Existing PM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
2: Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.3
Total Del/Veh (s)2.0 1.9 31.0 3.7 1603.6 1957.4 15.7
6: Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)1.1 1.5 14.0 1.3
9: Performance by movement
Movement NBT SBT All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.5 0.4
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)17.6
Queuing and Blocking Report Existing PM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 2:
Movement EB EB WB WB NB
Directions Served T R L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft)56 22 53 32 496
Average Queue (ft)2 1 15 1 294
95th Queue (ft)19 7 45 11 523
Link Distance (ft)878 564 1351
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)258 270
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6:
Movement NB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft)23
Average Queue (ft)5
95th Queue (ft)20
Link Distance (ft)467
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9:
Movement
Directions Served
Maximum Queue (ft)
Average Queue (ft)
95th Queue (ft)
Link Distance (ft)
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report 2017 Build AM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
2: Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 2.1 0.6 2.6 0.0 0.4
Total Del/Veh (s)1.3 1.1 7.9 3.9 841.3 968.1 25.0
6: Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)0.5 0.0 32.4 1.4 3.1 1.0
9: Performance by movement
Movement EBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1
Total Del/Veh (s)4.5 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.5
Total Del/Veh (s)26.4
Queuing and Blocking Report 2017 Build AM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 2:
Movement EB WB WB NB
Directions Served R L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft)46 31 38 878
Average Queue (ft)2 3 1 462
95th Queue (ft)18 18 13 889
Link Distance (ft)564 1351
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)258 270
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6:
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LR
Maximum Queue (ft)31 20
Average Queue (ft)2 2
95th Queue (ft)15 11
Link Distance (ft)878 467
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9:
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft)31
Average Queue (ft)9
95th Queue (ft)33
Link Distance (ft)438
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
SimTraffic Performance Report 2017 Build PM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 1
2: Performance by movement
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.0 0.0 2.3 0.7 68.6 0.0 1.2
Total Del/Veh (s)2.1 2.0 25.2 3.8 1851.5 1868.7 31.3
6: Performance by movement
Movement EBT WBL WBT NBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2
Total Del/Veh (s)1.3 39.6 1.4 15.4 1.4
9: Performance by movement
Movement EBL NBT SBT SBR All
Denied Del/Veh (s)0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Del/Veh (s)4.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 1.0
Total Network Performance
Denied Del/Veh (s)1.4
Total Del/Veh (s)33.2
Queuing and Blocking Report 2017 Build PM Peak
Baseline 05/19/2017
SimTraffic Report
Page 2
Intersection: 2:
Movement WB WB NB
Directions Served L T LR
Maximum Queue (ft)56 34 967
Average Queue (ft)20 1 681
95th Queue (ft)53 11 1073
Link Distance (ft)564 1351
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)270
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 6:
Movement WB NB
Directions Served L LR
Maximum Queue (ft)31 20
Average Queue (ft)2 3
95th Queue (ft)12 15
Link Distance (ft)878 467
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Intersection: 9:
Movement EB
Directions Served LR
Maximum Queue (ft)50
Average Queue (ft)24
95th Queue (ft)46
Link Distance (ft)438
Upstream Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Storage Bay Dist (ft)
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
Network Summary
Network wide Queuing Penalty: 0
Approved: April 10, 2017
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JOINT MEETING WITH
PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 20, 2017
5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. AGENDA ITEMS
A. NORTH HEIGHTS LUTHERAN AND LYNGBLOMSTEN CONCEPT
REVIEW
Interim City Planner Eric Zweber discussed the site plan and a number of slides depicting the
proposed project. The project would consist of independent living, assisted living and
memory/enhanced/skilled nursing care. He noted the trail where fire equipment could be driven
as well as other trails and parking. Lyngblomsten would most likely request a rezoning to R-4.
Interim City Planner Zweber reviewed the table of R-4 standards versus the proposed project.
The Lyngblomsten plans would require six different requests: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from P/I – Public & Institutional to HDR - High Density Residential, Rezoning from R-1- Single
Family Residential District to R-4 – Multiple Dwelling District, Conditional Use Permit for a
Nursing Home and Assisted Living Use, Planned Unit Development for Performance Standards
Increases (at least height and density), Preliminary Plat and Final Plat.
Grand Real Estate Advisors Developer Judd Fenlon noted Lyngblomsten is proposing using an
approximate 6.5 acre parcel with 200 total units. They are looking toward a Spring 2018 opening.
Lyngblomsten Representative Patricia Montgomery gave a verbal presentation on
Lyngblomsten’s history, services offered and anticipation of needs in the Arden Hills area.
North Heights Church President John Oldfield stated that a goal of the church has been to
provide long term housing and assisted living for their members. They feel the Lyngblomsten
proposal will meet those needs.
Mr. Fenlon discussed a market analysis that was done of Arden Hills and surrounding area,
supporting the need for senior housing.
Wold Architects and Engineers’ Rick Moore spoke about maintaining the natural aspects of the
site and being in a location adjacent to the church for potential shared activities. The west side of
the property is the flattest and has the least trees so that is where they propose to build the project.
Tuann Johnson noted the color scheme of the structure. She mentioned they would like to build
a trail connecting to Royal Hills Park.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 20, 2017 2
Mr. Fenlon stated that he feels they can be competive in price points and packages they offer
compared to the rest of the market.
Mayor Grant asked if the property was ever zoned multi-family.
Councilmember McClung stated that nothing other than a hostel has ever been proposed as
residential for the property.
Councilmember McClung questioned the demand analysis, wondering if the analysis took any of
the properties currently being developed into account and if it took any of the TCAAP
development into consideration.
Mr. Fenlon replied that any properties currently built or being built were a part of the demand
analysis, but possible TCAAP units were not.
Councilmember Holmes stated that her biggest concern is the traffic pattern going out to
Snelling Avenue and Highway 96.
Councilmember McClung concurred.
Councilmember Holden wondered what the active membership at North Heights is currently.
Mr. Oldfield stated that membership is down about 50 per-cent from the previous high.
Councilmember Holden then asked how much traffic would be produced by this development.
Mr. Fenlon stated that they are estimating 480 trips per day.
Councilmember Holden said she thinks 65 feet for the building height is way too high.
Mayor Grant reiterated the number of senior living units coming into the area and stated that
Lyngblomsten’s risk is not the Council’s concern.
Councilmember McClung also expressed concern about the height of the current proposed
structure.
Councilmember Scott is also concerned about the traffic patterns, and pedestrian traffic going to
and from the park.
Mayor Grant agreed that traffic, changing zoning, and building height are all concerns.
Councilmember Holmes said she didn’t have a problem with the zoning, but felt it may be too
isolated from the rest of the community.
Councilmember McClung inquired if they had considered placing the building on the
northwestern section of the property.
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MARCH 20, 2017 3
Mr. Moore responded that they had considered it, but that placing it there would fill up most of
the area and would require alteration to the existing parking lot.
Councilmember McClung stated that he cannot support the current proposal. He has traffic
concerns, zoning concerns and massing/height concerns.
Councilmember Holden felt the use of land that is currently idle is good and as well as the
connection to the TCAAP area and parks. She said she would support rezoning in this situation.
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Committee and Commission Joint Meetings
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council should provide further direction on future joint meetings with the City’s committees
and Commissions.
Background
In previous years, the City Council has met with the various City’s Commissions and
Committees for a joint work session. In the past two years, the Committees and Commissions
may or may not have met due to timing, availability of members, or other prohibiting factors.
City staff would like feedback if the City Council would like to continue all of the joint
meetings, select meetings, or on an as-needed basis. Below are the Committees and
Commissions, the timeframe of the typical joint meeting, and when the last joint meeting was
held.
Committee/Commission Typical Meeting Last Meeting Held
Planning Commission 1st Quarter of Year March 20, 2017
EDA/EDC January January 25, 2016
PTRC March May 15, 2017
FPAC N/A N/A
Attachment
N/A
AGENDA ITEM –1C
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Utility Bonding
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council should provide further direction on bonding decisions.
Background
At the City Council meeting on May 14, 2018, the City Council approved new utility rates
following the results of the utility rate study conducted by Ehlers. As part of the study, Ehlers is
also recommending the City issue bonds to ensure sufficient funds to pay for upcoming capital
projects. The City Council requested staff bring forward proposed bonding amounts for a future
discussion. Attached are the scenarios for issuing varying levels of debt at three different
scenarios. The three levels are below:
AGENDA ITEM –1D
MEMORANDUM
Fund Par Amount of Bond Issuance Cost Par + Issuance
Water 2,000,000 65,000 2,065,000
Sewer 525,000 15,000 540,000
Total 2,525,000 80,000 2,605,000
Fund Par Amount of Bond Issuance Cost Par + Issuance
Water 2,250,000 70,000 2,320,000
Sewer 525,000 15,000 540,000
Total 2,775,000 85,000 2,860,000
Fund Par Amount of Bond Issuance Cost Par + Issuance
Water 2,500,000 70,000 2,570,000
Sewer 525,000 15,000 540,000
Total 3,025,000 85,000 3,110,000
Scenario A
Scenario B
Scenario C
Attachment
Attachment A: Scenario A Projected Cash Balances
Attachment B: Scenario B Projected Cash Balances
Attachment C: Scenario C Projected Cash Balances
Attachment D: Bonding Details
Attachment E: Project Listings
City of Arden HillsUtility Rate Study20185/16/2018Water Fund(500,000)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Historical and Projected Cash BalancesWater Fund$2.0 million Bond in 20186.5% annual rate increase thru 2022Targeted Working CapitalProjected Cash BalancesScenario A
City of Arden HillsUtility Rate Study20185/16/2018Sewer Fund(1,000,000)(500,000)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20212022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Historical and Projected Cash BalancesSewer Fund$525,000 Bond in 20186.5% rate increas thru 2021Targeted Working CapitalProjected Cash Balances
City of Arden HillsUtility Rate Study20185/16/2018Water Fund(500,000)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Historical and Projected Cash BalancesWater Fund$2.25 million Bond in 20186.5% annual rate increase thru 2022Targeted Working CapitalProjected Cash BalancesScenario B
City of Arden HillsUtility Rate Study20185/16/2018Sewer Fund(1,000,000)(500,000)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20212022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Historical and Projected Cash BalancesSewer Fund$525,000 Bond in 20186.5% rate increas thru 2021Targeted Working CapitalProjected Cash Balances
City of Arden HillsUtility Rate Study20185/16/2018Water Fund(500,000)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Historical and Projected Cash BalancesWater Fund$2.5 million Bond in 20186.5% annual rate increase thru 2022Targeted Working CapitalProjected Cash BalancesScenario C
City of Arden HillsUtility Rate Study20185/16/2018Sewer Fund(1,000,000)(500,000)0500,0001,000,0001,500,0002,000,0002014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 20212022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028Historical and Projected Cash BalancesSewer Fund$525,000 Bond in 20186.5% rate increas thru 2021Targeted Working CapitalProjected Cash Balances
Citv of Arden Hills, Minnesota
$2,605,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 20184
lssue Summary
Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 25bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon lnterest Tota! P+l Water Sewer
0a0tn0t9
02t0tDo20
02/0U2021
02t0U202s
02/0v2026
o2tolt2027
235,000.00
240,000.00
270,000.00
275,000.00
2.20U/o
2.30U/o
37,061.36
304,130.00
303,960.00
239,807.50
240,737.s0
241,367.50
64,322.50
63,222.50
62,072.50
- 37,061.36
69,130.00
63,960.00
29.382.91 7,678.45
02/ot/2022 245,000.00 2.40U/o 58,440.00 303,440.00
o2/o1DO23 245,OOO.OO 2.500% 52,s60.00 297,560.00 236,687.s0 60,872.s0
265,000.00 2.700% 39,805.00 304,80s.00 241,612.50 63,192.50
6t,707.502.800% 32,650.00 302,650.00
2.85U/o 25,090.00 300,090.00
240,942.50
239,922.50 60,16'1.50
o2lot/2028 2s5,000.00 295u/o 17,252.s0 302,252.50 ?38,652.50 63,600ff
Totsl $2.605.m0.00 $451,228.86 $3,056,228.E6 $2,422940.41 ffi!,294€
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars
Ar":qg,""*Li-t
Lt'-*;1.
6.237 Yeus
4v:eff-99v!9!*..
Net Interest Cost (NIC)
2.7773793%
2.9697892%'-'"*;Bs/is4vl
Irysl*:st "9g'(llgJ""^ -*-- -""-..* "s-q$_!g! &!,Arbiqgg $t.!q*1,2.7696434o/o
i.iioiiiz"z,st]-l"slu!'y_c_9g*.elc)
6.237 Years
Series Z)18A CiO Utility B I ls3ue Summary 1 t162018 | 10:54 AM
EH LE RS
tEAotRs n PUEuc IilAircE
Scenario A
Citv of Arden Hills, Minnesota
$2,860,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 20184
lssue Summary
Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 25bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon lnterest Total P+]Water Sewer
02/0v2019 - 40,697.53
2.700o/o
2.800%
43,692.50
35,862.50
27,602.50
40,697.53
33s,912.50
330,192.50
329,2t2.50
333,692.50
330,862.50
327,602.50
33,019.08 7,678.45
271,590.00 64,322.50
266,970.00 63,222.50
267,140.00 62,072.50
270,500.00 63,192.50
269,155.00 61,707.50
oaov2020
0210U2021
02/01/2022 265.000.00
02/01/2025 290,000.00
02/01/2026
0a0112027
260.000.00 2.2000/o 75,912.50
260.000.00 2300%70.192.50
2.4N% 64.212.50
o2tot/2023 270,000.00 2.500% 57,852.50 327,552.50 26r,980.N 6,9,8.7.?.29
336,102.s0 271,480.@ 64,622.s0
295,000.00
300,000.00 2.850%267,435.00 60,167.s0
oztott2ozs 3ts,ooo.oo 2.950% 19,052.50 334,052.50 270,452.50 63,600.99
oztottlDs 32o,ooom @ 329,760.00 26?,930.00 61,830.00
$2,860,m0.00 $495,940.03 $3,355,940.03 $2,722.651.38 $633r88.4s
Yield Statistics
Bond YearDollars $17'853 28
*-,ssssli{,e"-..
Average CouDon
Net Interest Cost (NIC).?.?-?ggP-oft
6.242Yars-ri7;ffi4%
-!*q-hE!:qt co:! (IIq)-- -.* - _*_2.9855485%
277013470/o
3.28637000/o
.Es.3l:j:g*L*rtrl3cg-
+lllrgg:ry-"-qos-Cl:I9-
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 2.7778654%
if iea;;Weighted Average Maturity
Series 2018A GO Utility B I lssue Summary | v16/2018 | 10:50AM
EHTERS
Scenario B
Citv of Arden Hills, Minnesota
$3,110,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 20184
lssue Summary
Assumes Current Market BQ AA+ Rates plus 25bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon lnterest Total P+l Water Sewer
02/01/2019
02t0U2020 280,000.00
02t0U2021
02t0r/2025 315,000.00
- 44,258.65 44,258.65 36.580.20 7,678.45
298,232.50 64,322.50
298,172.50 63,222.50
02t01/2026
02t01/2027
320,000.00
330,000.00
2.7N%
2.8OOo/o
2.850%
47,575.00
39,070.00
30,1 10.00
362,555.00
361.395.00
362,575.N
359,070.00
360.1 10.00
299,382.50
297,362.50
299,942.50
63,192.50
61,70?.50
60,167.50
2.2Wo/o 82,555.00
285,000.00 2300% 76,395.00
02t01/2022 290.000.00 2.400o/o 69,840.00 359,840.00 29?,767 .s0 62,072.50
0210t/2023 29s,000.00 2.scf,% 62,880.00 3s7,880.00 297,007.s0 60,87250
0a0U2028 340,000.00 2.950o/o 20,70s.00 360,705.00 29?,105.00 63,600.00
Total $3,110,000.00 - $s39,s68.5s $3,6{9568.65 S},016rE0.20 $633r8E.4s
Yield Statistlcs
Bond Year Llollars
llsl l$ejestqq{O,r9,
s19,422.31
6.mi Years
f115-lqtsregqggl$lc,)_. - *.
2.7780875o/o
3.2619547%
2.9702377%- z.xiili'i;t"'2n$48t%
tr:9!j.e]9_!r-{1-u_'tg*_Se-o3e
l"!l f glslyp 9o:t (4r9,)
IRS Form 8038
2.7780875o/o
6.)4s viii;
Series 2018A GO Utility B I lssue Summary | 5nO2018 | 10:53 AM
EHLERS
[tlotns n PUsLtc Ht^rct
Scenario C
ProjectsProject Number2018 2019 2020 2021 2022EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE & PROJECTSWater Tower Repair & Repainting 12-W-001 520,000CR E2 Water Replacement/Old Hwy 10 Loop 17-W-001 1,050,000Booster Station Repair/Upgrade (Roseville) 18-W-001 400,000 154,000County Road F Watermain Replacement 18-W-002 300,000Future PMP 18-Str-005 400,000 400,000Indian Oaks/Floral Dr PMP - 2018 PMP 18-Str-065 751,000Watermain Replacement 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000Total Existing Infrastructure & Projects 3,021,000 404,000 650,000 250,000 650,000Actual CIP (2018 Dollars)20183,021,000 404,000 650,000 250,000 650,000 Percent Inflation 3%3%3%3%3%3,021,000 416,120 689,585 273,182 731,581 Total Projects to be Bonded for: 5-Year Term 0 0 0 0 010-Year Term 2,500,000 0 0 0 015-Year Term00000Capital Projects – Water Fund10• Recommend 2018 bonding amount at $2.5 million• Water Fund does not have sufficient cash to pay for capital projects without external borrowing
Capital Projects – Sewer Fund• Sewer fund does not have sufficient cash to pay for projects without external borrowing• Bonding in 2020 and 2022 encompass 2 years’ worth of projects20ProjectsProject Number2018 2019 2020 2021 2022EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTSSewer Lining/Rehabilitation 09-Sew-002 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000Reconstruct Lift Station 11 10-Sew-003Future PMP 18-Str-005 400,000 400,000Indian Oaks/Floral Dr PMP - 2018 PMP 18-Str-065 270,000Lift Stations 60,000 175,000Actual CIP (2018 Dollars)2018530,000 375,000 600,000 400,000 400,000 Percent Inflation 3%3%3%3%3%Inflated Project Costs 530,000 386,250 636,540 437,091 450,204 Total Projects to be Bonded for: 5-Year Term 0 0 0 0 010-Year Term 525,000 0 1,100,000 0 900,00015-Year Term 0 0 0 0 0
Capital Projects – Storm Water Fund• Storm Water fund has sufficient cash to pay for projects.27ProjectsProject Number2018 2019 2020 2021 2022EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTSStorm Pond Maintenance 09-Storm-001 50,000Storm Water Inlet/Outlet Repairs 13-Storm-001 25,000Storm Water BMP Study/Construction 17-Storm-001Old Snelling Ave PMP w/ Bridge Reconstruction 17-Str-004 50,000Future PMP 18-Str-005 200,000 200,000Indian Oaks/Floral Dr PMP - 2018 PMP 18-Str-065 555,000Surface Water Project (Undetermined) 18-Storm-001 200,000Actual CIP (2018 Dollars)2018755,000 125,000 200,000 0 200,000Percent Inflation3% 3% 3% 3% 3%Inflated Project Costs 755,000 128,750 212,180 - 225,102 Total Projects to be Bonded for: 5-Year Term 0 0 0 0 010-Year Term0000015-Year Term00000
Page 1 of 5
AGENDA ITEM – 1E
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner
SUBJECT: R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Background
At the City Council meeting on February 26, 2018, the City Council requested that staff and the
Council review the R-1 and R-2 Zoning District standards. The purpose of this agenda item is to
provide additional information on the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts and to request additional
direction from the City Council.
Existing Residential Zoning District Review
There are currently four primarily residential zoning districts in the City outside of the TCAAP
redevelopment area. For reference, a copy of the Arden Hills Zoning Map has been provided in
Attachment A:
• R-1 – Single Family Residential District
• R-2 – Single & Two-Family Residential District
• R-3 – Townhouse & Low-Density Multiple Dwelling District
• R-4 – Multiple Dwelling District
The majority of residential properties are zoned either R-1 or R-2 District. In general, the R-2
District is located in the southwest corner of the City west of Lake Johanna and Tony Schmidt
Park and south of County Road E2. There are also several properties zoned R-2 on the east side
of Lake Josephine south of Ingerson Road. The remaining areas of the City developed as single-
family residential neighborhoods are zoned R-1 District. An exception is the Hunters Park and
Katie Lane neighborhoods, both of which are zoned R-3 District. The purpose statements for the
R-1 and R-2 Districts are provided in Attachment B.
Page 2 of 5
The following table provides the main residential uses allowed in the R-1 and R-2 Districts.
While the R-1 District is identified as the Single-Family Residential District, both the R-1 and R-
2 Districts allow two-family dwellings with a Conditional Use Permit. The full land use chart
from the Zoning Code has been included in Attachment C.
Use R-1 District R-2 District
Single-Family
Attached Dwelling C C
Single-Family
Detached Dwelling P P
Two-Family
Dwelling C C
Multiple Family
Dwelling -- --
“P” = Permitted; “C” = Conditional Use Permit
The table below provides the lot size, lot dimension, and density requirements for the two
districts. The R-2 District permits smaller lots than the R-1 District in terms of overall area and
width and depth. The minimum lot area provided assumes single-family residential use of the
property. Properties used for a two-family dwelling are required to have a larger lot area.
District
Minimum Lot
Area
Minimum
Lot Width
Minimum
Lot Depth
Maximum
Density
R-1 District 14,000 square feet 95 feet 130 feet 3 units/acre
R-2 District 11,000 square feet 85 feet 120 feet 5 units/acre
The R-1 and R-2 Districts have the same principal structure setback requirements for the front
yard and rear yard. The R-1 District has a greater side yard setback requirement than the R-2
District. For both districts, there is a minimum side yard setback and a combined side yard
setback that is calculated by adding the two side yards together.
District
Front Yard
Setback
Rear Yard
Setback
Side Yard
Setback
R-1 District 40 feet 30 feet
10 feet (minimum)/
25 feet (total both yards)
R-2 District 40 feet 30 feet
5 feet (minimum)/
15 feet (total both yards)
There are approximately 530 parcels in the City zoned R-2 District. However, 128 of these
properties, or roughly 25 percent, are at least 14,000 square feet in size and have 95 feet of street
frontage, meeting the R-1 District minimum requirements. This calculation was based on
property data from Ramsey County. The County’s data provides the linear feet of street frontage
a lot has, but the Zoning Code requires lot width to be measured at the 40-foot front yard setback
line. Therefore, some of the properties with 95 feet of street frontage may not have sufficient
width at the front setback line to meet the R-1 requirements. This analysis also does not take into
Page 3 of 5
consideration whether the lots have the minimum depth of 130 feet required for the R-1 District
because the County’s data does not include that information for properties.
There are approximately 1,539 properties in the R-1 District. Of this total, approximately 420
properties have an area less than the 14,000 square foot minimum requirement for the district.
R-1 and R-2 District Potential Redevelopment
Staff analyzed the number of properties in the R-1 and R-2 Districts that could potentially be
further subdivided and meet the minimum lot area and width requirements for that district. It
should be noted there are other factors, such as topography, existing structures, and access,
which may prohibit the subdivision of lots.
In the R-1 District, a property would need to have a minimum area of 28,000 square feet and a
minimum width of 190 feet to be subdivided into two conforming lots. Of the approximately
1,539 properties in the R-1 District, 32 lots are both 28,000 square feet or greater in size and
have at least 190 feet of street frontage. Staff reviewed these properties and only 16 appear to be
able to be subdivided based on other district requirements.
In the R-2 District, a property would need to have a minimum area of 22,000 square feet and a
minimum width of 170 feet to be subdivided into two conforming lots. Of the 530 total lots in
the R-2 District, 12 lots have an area of at least 22,000 square feet and 170 feet of street frontage.
Staff reviewed these 12 lots and determined only 7 appear to be able to be subdivided based on
the other district requirements.
District
Total # of
Properties
Potential for
Subdivision
R-1 District 1,539 16
R-2 District 530 7
Public and Institutional Uses
There are several non-residential properties within the R-1 and R-2 Districts that are guided for
Public and Institutional uses in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Attachment E). The
following table provides the location, use, size, and zoning of the properties:
Address Use Property Size Zoning
3243 New Brighton Road Church – Trinity Lutheran 2.9 acres R-2
3246 New Brighton Road Public – Lake Johanna Fire Station (Vacant) 2.8 acres R-2
1770 County Road E2 School – Valentine Hills Elementary 11.0 acres R-1
1900 Lake Valentine Road School – Mounds View High School 56.3 acres R-1
1929 Lake Valentine Road Public - MnDOT 4.2 acres R-1
1700 Highway 96 Church – North Heights Lutheran 41.1 acres R-1
1600 Highway 96 Church – Ukrainian Orthodox 4.9 acres R-1
1212 Highway 96 Church – Pilgrim House Unitarian 1.1 acres R-1
Page 4 of 5
If any of the above properties were to be redeveloped for residential uses, a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would be required to change the land use designation from Public and Institutional
to a residential land use category.
Discussion
Residential teardowns and lot splits within established neighborhoods are an issue impacting
numerous communities within the metro area. The most common concerns with these types of
projects are loss of neighborhood character, the bulk and height of new dwellings, spacing
between dwellings, loss of mature trees, construction impacts, and drainage.
The communities of Edina, Golden Valley, Minneapolis, and St. Paul have taken steps to update
Zoning and Subdivision Codes so that redevelopment is more sensitive to the local context of the
neighborhood. Some examples of changes that have been made to their regulations include:
• Loss of Neighborhood Character
- Require larger minimum lot size if average size of lots within certain distance of
subject parcel have an average lot area of a certain amount or more
- Lot width measured at front setback line and must be maintained to 70 feet from
front lot line
- Require developer to hold neighborhood meeting
• Building Height
- Measure building height to ridgeline of roof instead of mid-point of roof
- Reduced height for narrower lots
• Spacing Between Dwellings
- Changes to side yard setbacks and allowed encroachments
• Bulk/Massing
- Residential Floor Area Ratio requirement
• Construction Impact
- Construction Management Plan
Next Steps
Staff is requesting feedback from the City Council on the following questions. Depending on the
scope of changes to residential zoning and subdivision requirements, the City may need to hire a
consulting firm to assist with the work.
1. Is there additional research the City Council would like staff to complete on the R-1 and
R-2 Districts?
2. Are there changes to the Zoning Map or the Future Land Use Map that the City Council
would like staff to research?
Page 5 of 5
3. Would the City Council like to consider regulations for residential subdivisions or new
development within existing neighborhoods that would require context-sensitive design?
Attachments
A. Arden Hills Zoning Map
B. Purpose of Districts – R-1 and R-2 Districts (Section 1320.04)
C. Land Use Chart (Section 1320.05)
D. District Requirements Chart (Section 1320.06)
E. Arden Hills 2030 Future Land Use Map
STOWE AVE
LA
K
E
V
A
L
E
N
T
I
N
E
R
D
RED FOX RD
GREY FOX RD
INGERSON RDROUND LAKE RD WA
M
B
L
E
D
R
SIEMS CTSNELLING AVE NCOLLEEN AVE
GLEN PAUL AVE
TILLER LN
HAMLINEVENUS AVE
THOM DR
ARDEN VIEW DR
GLENARDEN RDCHATHAM AVE
AMBLE RD
NOBLE RD
GRAMSIE RD
ARDEN PL
GRANT RD
OAK AVE
EDGEWATER AVE
JERROLD AVE DUNLAP ST NHARRIET AVE
FLORAL DR W
GLENVIEW AVE
KARTH LAKE DR
GATEWA
Y
B
L
V
D
WYNCREST
CARLTON DRFOREST LNPRIOR AVE NCUMMINGS PARK DR
ROYAL LN
KATIE LN PINE TREE DRFAIRVIEW AVE NRIDGEWOOD RDCRYSTAL AVE PLEASANT DRA R D EN OAKS DR
V A L E N T IN E A V E
BENTON WAYINDIAN OAKS TRL
SKILESLNBRIAR
BECKMAN AVE
LAMETTI LN
MCCRAC
K
E
N L
N KEITHSON DRASBURY AVE NNURSERY HILL LN
BUSSARD CT
DAWN CIR W JAMES AVEJANET CT
CANNONGLENHILL RDNORMA AVEARDENVIEWCTROY
KATIE CT
G
L
ENARDENCTRIDGEWOOD CTKARTH LAKE
C
IR
GALE CIRMCCLUNG DR
WY
N
C
R
E
S
T
L
N
SA
N
D
E
E
N
R
D
PARKSHORE DR EIDE CIR
NORTH-WOODS DRNURSERY HILL CT
CU
M
M
I
N
G
S
L
N
V
A
L
E
N
T
I
N
E
C
T
INGERS
O
N
C
T
COLLEEN
CT
GL
E
N
V
I
E
W
CT
HUNT
E
R
S
CT
SHORELINELNPASCAL AVE NLAKE LN NCONNELLY AVE
THOM CT AMBLE CIRCHATHAM CTCOLLEEN CIRROLLING HILLS RDARDEN OAKS CTNORMA CIRI
N
D
I
A
N
P
L
EDGEWATER AVENORMAAVE TILLER LNSNELL
ING
AVE
NDUNLAP ST NARDENPLSKILES LNFAIRVIEW AVE NHAMLINE AVE NGLENHILL RD
WYN
R
I
D
G
E
PLEASANT CIR
ARDEN
INDIAN OAKS CT
JAMES CIRDELLVIEW AVEDELLVIEW AVEDELLWOOD STGATEWAY CT
VALENTINE CREST RD BRUEBERR Y LN
BRIARKNOLL CIR
DELLWOOD AVELAMETTI CIRWALDEN PLWEDGEWOODCIRPRIOR AVEINDIAN OAKS CIR
CH
A
T
H
A
M
CIR
L A K E JO H ANNABLVDLAKE JOHANNA BLVDRIDGEEDGEWATER AVEFAIRVIEW AVE NFERNWOOD STSNELLING AVE NSHORELINELNKATIE
LN
COUNTY ROAD D W SHOREWOODDR
LAKE LN
COUNTY ROAD E W LAKEJOHAN N A BLVD
GLEN PAUL AVECLEVELAND AVE NN
EW
B
R
I
G
H
T
O
N
R
DNEW BRIGHTON RDHUDSON RDTHOM DRCLEVELAND AVE NBRIGHTON WAYNEW BRIGHTON RDINTERSTATE 35WCOUNTY ROAD E2 W
COUNTY ROAD E
2
WLAKEVIEWCT
C H A TH A M A V E
SIEMS CTARDEN PL
GLE N ARDENRDSNELLING
AVE
NARDEN OAKS DRSNELLING AVE NBETHEL DROLD HIGHWAY 10SNELLING AVE NVENUS AVEINTERSTATE 35WLAKE VALENTI
N
E
R
DINTERSTATE 35WROUNDLAKERDWOL
D
H
I
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
LAKE
S
H
O
R
E
P
L
INTERSTATE 694
INTERSTAT
E
6
9
4
HI
G
H
W
A
Y
1
0
COUNTY ROAD 96 W COUNTY ROAD 96 W
ABELE ST (Private)TODD DR (Private)TODD DR (Private)
PRIOR
AV
E
N
(P
ri
vate)LISA LN (Private)LIS
A
C
T
(Pri
v
a
t
e
)PRIOR CT(Private)TODD DR
(P
r
iva
te
)PRIOR AVE N(Private)COUNTY ROAD I W COUNTY ROAD I W
LEXINGTON AVE NLEXINGTON AVE NKNOL
L
D
R VISTA CTDAWN CIR E
COLLEEN A V E ARDENVI
EW
DR
COUNTY ROAD F W INNOVATION WAY (Private)FERNWOOD STPLEASANT DR
AM
B
L
E
D
R
COUNTY ROAD 96 W
LEXINGTON AVE NLEXINGTON AVE NDRCT
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC DR (Private)
B
E
T
H
E
L
D
R
BETH
E
L
D
R
COUNTY ROAD E W
LEXINGTON AVE NBENTON WAYAVE
INGERSON RD
AVE NWOOD RDCOUNTY ROAD E W HAMLINE AVE NHAMLINE AVE NPrivateKATIE LNKEITHSON DR
AL HILLS DRThe zoning district designations represented on this map correspond to the City of Arden Hills official Zoning Map. Questions concerning the Zoning Map should be directed to City Hall. Zoning designations are subject to change. Please refer to the Zoning Code for complete information.
Adopted: April 12, 1993Updated: October 4, 2017
Zoning Map
¯0 1,750 3,500Feet
TRC CC- Campus Commercial
TRC CO- Civil/Open Space
TRC FO- Flex Office
TRC RMU- Retail Mixed Use
TRC NR-1- Residential
TRC NR-2- Residential
TRC NR-3- Residential
TRC NR-4- Residential
TRC OMU- Office Mixed Use
TRC OS- Open Space
TRC TC-1- Town Center
TRC TC-2- Town Center
TRC TC-3- Town Center
TRC- Water Infrastructure
R-1 - Single Family Residential District
R-2 - Single & Two Family Residential District
R-3 - Townhouse & Low Density Multiple Dwelling District
R-4 - Multiple Dwelling District
B-1 - Limited Business District
B-2 - General Business District
B-3 - Service Business District
B-4 - Retail Center District
NB - Neigborhood Business District
CC - Civic Center District
INST - Institutional District
GB - Gateway Business
I-1 - Limited Industrial District
I-2 - General Industrial District
I-FLEX District
POS - Parks and Open Space District
CD - Conservation District
Railroad
ROW
WATER
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 1 of 4
Chapter 13 – Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
1320.04 Purpose of Districts (Updated 9/25/17)
Subd. 1 R-1 Single Family Residential District (revised 6/23/11)
A. To establish areas for the development of single family detached housing
at a maximum density of approximately three (3) units per net acre.
B. To reserve development areas for single-family housing.
C. To restrict encroachment of incompatible uses.
D. To maintain density limitations.
E. To take advantage of municipal utilities.
F. To preserve open space.
G. To allow educational uses on campus-like settings which are compatible
with adjacent residential uses.
Subd. 2 R-2 Single Family and Two Family Residential District
A. To establish areas for the development of single and two (2) family
housing at a maximum density of approximately five units per net acre.
B. To reserve development areas for single and two family housing.
C. To restrict encroachment of incompatible uses.
D. To maintain density limitations.
E. To take advantage of municipal utilities.
F. To preserve open space.
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 2 of 4
1320.05 Land Use Chart. (revised 4/25/16)
CD POS
Antenna, Dish or Tower CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA CA
Boarding house C C C C ======C ====
Brewpub C C C
Business service ========A P P P C P P P P
Clinic, medical office ========P P P P P C P P P P
Club or lodge (non‑profit)========P P P ==C ====
Club, sports & fitness ========A P P P C P P P
Commercial recreation - indoor ========P P P ==P
Daycare Facility, over 10 P P P P P P P P P
Daycare, family - 10 or less A A A A A A
Daycare, group family - 14 or less CA CA CA CA CA CA
Dog kennel ========C C ======
Dog run A A A ============
Drive-up windows ========C C C A ==
Dry cleaning & laundry, pick-up station ========C A A ==A ==
Dry cleaning & laundry, self-service
laundry C ==C C ======
Dwelling: density zoning D D D D ========
Dw elling: multiple family ====C C C C ====C C ==
Dwelling: single-family attached C C D D
Dw elling: single‑family detached P P P P ==========
Dw elling: tw o‑family C C P P C ==========
Dwelling: live-work unit ========C
Financial institution & service ========P P P P P C P P P P
Garage, truck ================C C
Higher Educatoin, Campus
Home occupation: Class I A A A A A A
Home occupation: Class II CA CA CA CA CA ======C ====
Hospital
Hotel/motel ========C P C C C ==C
House of worship C C C C C C C C C C
Manufactured home park ====C ================
Manufacturing & processing: Class I A A A P P P P
Manufacturing & processing: Class II ================P
Microbrewery C C C C C
Microdistillery C C C C C
Mortuary, funeral home ========P P ==C ====
Multiple occupancy building ========C C C C C C C C C C
Nursery C C C C ==========
I-2 I-
FLEXUses:
Zoning Districts:
R‑1 R‑2 R‑3 R‑4 NB B‑1 B‑2 B‑3 B‑4 CC GB I‑1
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 3 of 4
Office ========P P P P P P P P P P
Park Facilities P
Pawn shop
Personal services C A P P P C P A
Public use C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Research and development facility C P C C C P P P P
Research animals C C C
Residence Hall, dormitory ======C C D ==============
Residential facility, state licensed,
serving 1-6 P P P P P P ==========
Residential facility, state licensed, serving 7-
16 C C C C C C
Restaurant and restaurant-fast food ========C A P P P C P C C
Retail sales & service ========P A P P P C A A A A
School, general education C C C C ======C ====
School, higher education D ======C C ==C C ====
School, specialized education ========C C C C C ====
Service station ========C C ==C C C
Storage, exterior ==================CA
Studio ========C C P P P C ====
Theater, indoor ========A C P ==C ====
Utility distribution line P P P P P P P P P P P P P A P
Utility substation ================C C
Utility transmission C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Vehicle – motorized, leasing and rentals ========C C ======
Vehicle - motorized, service ========C C ======
Warehousing ========A A A A C P P C
POS
“P” = Permitted; “D” = Planned Unit; “■” = Not Permitted;
I-
FLEX
“C” = Conditional Use Permit; “A” = Accessory; “CA” = Conditional Accessory Use Permit, “I” = Interim Use Permit
Uses:
Zoning Districts:
R‑1 R‑2 R‑3 R‑4 NB B‑1 B‑2 B‑3 B‑4 CC GB I‑1 I-2 CD
1320.06 District Requirements Chart (NEXT PAGE) (revised 4/25/16)
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 4 of 4
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 NB B-1 B-2 *B-3 *B-4 CC *G-B I-1 I-2 I-FLEX CD POS
1. Minimum Lot Area
(SF per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family 14,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 ========================
Two Family 14,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 ========================
Multiple Family PUD ====5,450 3,630 ====2,178 ==================
2. Minimum Lot Area (SF)
Non-Residential Uses 14,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 ==20,000 5 AC 30,000 24,000 24,000 ====
Mixed Use Project or ==
Multiple Occupancy Center ==========13,000 ==5 AC ==20 AC ======
Single Use Project or Free Standing
Building ==========13,000 ==2 AC ==10 AC ==========
3. Minimum Lot Size (ft)
Width/Depth
Non-residential ========100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/100 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 ====
Single Family 95/130 85/120 85/120 85/120 ========================
Two Family 95/130 85/120 85/120 85/120 ========================
4. Height (ft.)35 35 35 35 35 35 50 35 35 35 35 35 45 45 35 35
5. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.8 ==0.6 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3
6. Lot Covered by Structure 25%25%25%25%35%35%45%40%25%40%==30%40%40%25%25%
7. Min. Landscape Lot Area 65%65%65%65%35%25%20%25%25%20%35%35%25%25%65%65%
8. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft)
Front yard 40 40 40 40 20 50 20 50 50 20 50 55 50 50 40 40
Rear Yard (Principle)30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30
Rear Yard (Accessory)10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Side Yard Interior - Principal
(Min/total both yards on lot)10/25 5/15 5/15 5/15 5/15 20/40 10-20 20/40 20/40 10-20 20/40 ** 20/40 20/40 20/40 10/20 10/20
Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Side Yard Corner 40 40 40 40 20 50 20 50 50 20 50 50 50 50 40 40
Other Setbacks
Lakeshore - High Water Mark***
Abutting Residential
Zoning District
========30 100 ==100 100
60
100
100 100 100 100 = = = =
.
20 12 ==========
9. PUD & SUP
Maximum Dwelling Unit
Density Per Net Acre
3 5.5 8 12 ====
====
20 ====
The zoning district designations represented on this map correspond to the City of Arden Hills official Zoning Map. Questions concerning the Zoning Map should be directed to City Hall. Zoning designations are subject to change. Ple ase refer to the Zoning Code for complete information.
Adopted: April 12, 1993Printed: April 1, 2016
Figure 6.12030 Future Land Use
¯0 1,750 3,500Feet
VLDR - Very Low Density Residential
LDR - Low Density Residential
MDR - Medium Density Residential
HDR - H igh Density Residential
NR - Ne ighborhood Residential
TC - Town Center
NB - Neighborhood Business
MB - Mixe d Business
COM - Co mmercial
CMU - Community Mixed Use
CC - Ca mpus Commercial
RMU - Retail Mixed Use
OMU - O ffice Mixed Use
FO - Flex Office
I/O - Light Industrial and Office
P/I - Public & Institutional
UTL - Utility
P/OS - Park and Open Space
PP - Park Preserve
WAT - Water
RR - Ra ilroad right-of-way
ROW - Right-of-Way
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM – 1F
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner
SUBJECT: Residential Accessory Structures
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Background
Staff has included this item on the Work Session agenda based on feedback received from
residents regarding setback requirements for accessory structures.
Discussion
Accessory structures are permitted to be located in the side or rear yard of properties located in
the R-1, R-2, or R-3 Zoning Districts. For all three districts, the minimum setback for accessory
structures is 10 feet from side and rear lot lines. Detached accessory garages may be located in
the front yard of a lakeshore lot provided that the garage is not located within the minimum 40-
foot front yard setback.
Property owners are permitted to have up to two accessory structures on their property.
Accessory structures associated with residential uses cannot exceed 728 square feet in floor area.
However, a Site Plan Review application can be submitted for an accessory structure up to 1,458
square feet in floor area.
An accessory structure is any detached structure which is incidental and related to the principal
structure on the lot. For residential properties, accessory structures typically include detached
garages and storage sheds. Currently, the Zoning Code requires the same side and rear yard
setback for all accessory structure types. Staff has received feedback from residents that the 10-
foot setback can be a burden when finding a location for a storage shed because it requires
additional usable rear yard space be taken up for the setback.
Page 2 of 2
Staff contacted the cities of Shoreview, Mounds View, and Vadnais Heights to ask how
residential accessory structure setbacks are regulated in their communities. The table below
provides a summary of the information collected:
City Side Yard Setback Rear Yard Setback
Arden Hills 10 feet 10 feet
Mounds View 5 feet 5 feet
Vadnais Heights 5 feet 10 feet
Shoreview
5 feet (less than 200 s.f.)
10 feet (200 s.f. or greater) 10 feet
The cities of Mounds View and Vadnais Heights have a standard setback requirement for
accessory structure regardless of size. Shoreview requires a greater side yard setback for
accessory structures that are 200 square feet in floor area or greater.
Arden Hills requires a Building Permit for an accessory structure of 200 square feet or greater in
size. A Zoning Permit is required for structures with a floor area between 120 and 200 square
feet. For structures less than 120 square feet in size, no permit is required but property owners
are required to meet the setback requirements.
Next Steps
Staff is requesting feedback from the City Council on the following questions:
1. Would the City Council support having staff and the Planning Commission review and
make a recommendation on residential accessory structure setback requirements?
2. Does the City Council believe that different setback distances should be required for
accessory structures depending on the size of the structure?
Attachments
A. District Requirements Chart (Section 1320.06)
B. Accessory Structure Regulations (Section 1325.01)
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1320 – District Provisions
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 4 of 4
R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 NB B-1 B-2 *B-3 *B-4 CC *G-B I-1 I-2 I-FLEX CD POS
1. Minimum Lot Area
(SF per Dwelling Unit)
Single Family 14,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 ========================
Two Family 14,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 ========================
Multiple Family PUD ====5,450 3,630 ====2,178 ==================
2. Minimum Lot Area (SF)
Non-Residential Uses 14,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 ==20,000 5 AC 30,000 24,000 24,000 ====
Mixed Use Project or ==
Multiple Occupancy Center ==========13,000 ==5 AC ==20 AC ======
Single Use Project or Free Standing
Building ==========13,000 ==2 AC ==10 AC ==========
3. Minimum Lot Size (ft)
Width/Depth
Non-residential ========100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/100 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 ====
Single Family 95/130 85/120 85/120 85/120 ========================
Two Family 95/130 85/120 85/120 85/120 ========================
4. Height (ft.)35 35 35 35 35 35 50 35 35 35 35 35 45 45 35 35
5. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.8 ==0.6 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3
6. Lot Covered by Structure 25%25%25%25%35%35%45%40%25%40%==30%40%40%25%25%
7. Min. Landscape Lot Area 65%65%65%65%35%25%20%25%25%20%35%35%25%25%65%65%
8. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft)
Front yard 40 40 40 40 20 50 20 50 50 20 50 55 50 50 40 40
Rear Yard (Principle)30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30
Rear Yard (Accessory)10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Side Yard Interior - Principal
(Min/total both yards on lot)10/25 5/15 5/15 5/15 5/15 20/40 10-20 20/40 20/40 10-20 20/40 ** 20/40 20/40 20/40 10/20 10/20
Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Side Yard Corner 40 40 40 40 20 50 20 50 50 20 50 50 50 50 40 40
Other Setbacks
Lakeshore - High Water Mark***
Abutting Residential
Zoning District
========30 100 ==100 100
60
100
100 100 100 100 = = = =
.
20 12 ==========
9. PUD & SUP
Maximum Dwelling Unit
Density Per Net Acre
3 5.5 8 12 ====
====
20 ====
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 - Zoning Code
Section 1325 – General Regulations
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 1 of 3
Chapter 13 – Zoning Code
Section 1325 - General Regulations
1325.01 Accessory Structures. (revised 1/31/11)
Subd. 1 Time of Construction. No accessory structure shall be constructed on
any lot prior to the time of construction of the principal structure to which it is
accessory.
Subd. 2 Height.
A. R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts. Accessory structures in the R-1, R-2, and
R-3 Districts shall not exceed fifteen feet in height or the height of the
principal structure to which it is accessory, whichever is lower.
B. All Other Districts. Accessory structures in all other Zoning Districts
shall not exceed the height of the principal structure to which it is
accessory.
Subd. 3 Location. (revised 7/7/11)
A. Accessory structures in the R-1, R-2, or R-3 Districts shall not be
located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the
principal structure to which it is accessory. Accessory structures as
permitted and regulated in this Code may be located within the rear yard
of the principal structure in the R-1 and R-2 Districts.
B. Detached accessory garages may be located in the front yard
(between dwelling and street) of a lakeshore property provided all of the
following are met:
1. Detached garages shall not be located within the minimum front
yard setback.
2. Color and roof material of detached garages shall match or
complement the existing primary residential structure, and shall
conform to all other requirements for the zoning district.
Subd. 4 Size. (revised 2/9/11)
A. R-1, R-2, and R-3 Districts.
1. Accessory structures associated with residential uses shall not
exceed seven hundred and twenty-eight (728) square feet in floor
area. Accessory structures associated with non-residential uses shall
not exceed two thousand one hundred eighty-four (2,184) square feet
in floor area; and,
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1325 – General Regulations
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 2 of 3
2. The total floor area of accessory structures located in the rear of a
principal structure, the total floor area of all such accessory structures
shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the minimum required rear
yard area for the principal structure; and,
3. No more than two (2) accessory structures shall be permitted on a
lot primarily used for residential uses.
B. All Districts. Accessory structures in all zoning districts shall not
cause the property to exceed any of the regulations of the underlying
Zoning District in Section 1320.
Subd. 5 Permanent Accessory Structures.
A. Site Plan Review. Permanent accessory structures in any district,
except residential uses in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zoning Districts, and on
through lots in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Zoning District, shall be subject to
Site Plan Review and Council approval.
B. Exterior Finish. The exterior finish of accessory structures shall be
compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure
served by the accessory structure except as provided for in Chapter
1325.01 Subd 5.C of this code.
C. Membrane Structures. Membrane Structures (as that term is defined
in the International Building Code) may be permitted in the B-1, B-2, B-3,
B-4, N-B, I-1, I-2, and I-Flex Districts subject to Site Plan Review and City
Council approval.
Subd. 6 Temporary Accessory Structures. A temporary accessory structure,
including membrane structures (as that term is defined in the International Building
Code), may be permitted subject to the following provisions:
A. Temporary accessory structures may be in place for up to six (6)
months in the B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, NB, GB, CC, I-1, I-2, and I-Flex Districts
with an approved permit from the Building Official. The Building Official
may deny a permit for a temporary accessory structure or limit the size,
time, place, or other feature(s) of the accessory structure if the Building
Official finds that the accessory structure would create a negative impact
on the property on which it is placed or other properties in the City.
B. Temporary accessory structures are allowed for up to two (2) days in
a given thirty (30) day period without a permit in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, B-
1, B-2, B-3, B-4, NB, GB, CC, I-1, I-2, and I-Flex Districts subject to all of
the following provisions:
1. The temporary structures shall not be permanently attached to the
ground;
City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code
Section 1325 – General Regulations
Adopted: November 13, 2006
Page 3 of 3
2. The temporary structure shall not be attached to other permanent
structures.
3. The temporary structure shall only be used for non-commercial
purposes.
Subd. 7 Accessory Structures in Exceptional and Unusual Circumstances in all
Zoning Districts (revised 2/9/11). Deviations from these requirements may be
permitted after Planning Commission review and City Council approval of a site plan
in accordance with Section 1355.04 Subd 5 and with documentation showing the
unusual circumstances justifying the proposed deviation and plans for the proposed
accessory structure. Under no circumstances shall the total floor area of an
accessory structure associated with a residential use in the R-1, R-2, and R-3
districts exceed one thousand four hundred and fifty-eight (1,458) square feet without
an approved variance that meets the requirements of Section 1355.04 Subd 4.
Under no circumstances shall the total floor area of an accessory structure
associated with a non-residential us in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 districts exceed two
thousand one hundred eighty-four (2,184) square feet without an approved variance
that meets the requirements of Section 1355.04 Subd. 4.
Subd. 8 Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. Pursuant to authority granted
by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the City opts-out of the
requirements of Minn. Stat §462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary
Family Health Care Dwellings (added 8/8/16).
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Technology Reimbursement
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council should provide further direction on policy language regarding a technology
reimbursement.
Background
A verbal update will be provided surrounding a policy update.
Attachment
N/A
AGENDA ITEM –1G
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: City Planner Out of Class Pay
Budgeted Amount: Projected Amount: Funding Source:
$33,987.60 $37,286.40 N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council should provide further direction on paying our City Planner out-of-class pay for
their current workload and duties.
Background
The City Planner has been taking on additional duties as our Community Development Director
job remains vacant. These duties include Community Development duties outside the role of
planning (to include, but not limited to, Community Advocacy, Business Retention and
Expansion, Economic Development, TCAAP planning and administration). The City
Administrator is requesting the City Council provide the City Planner with out -of-class pay of
10% for a period up to six months, or when a Community Development Director is hired,
whichever comes first. The Personnel Committee has reviewed this request and is generally
supportive.
Current Pay Rate Proposed Pay Rate
$35.31 $38.84
Attachment
N/A
AGENDA ITEM –1H
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 21, 2018
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Planning Services RFP
Budgeted Amount: Projected Amount: Funding Source:
$100,000 N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council should provide further direction on a Request for Proposal (RFP) for planning
services on an as needed basis.
Background
The City Planner has been taking on additional duties as our Community Development Director
job remains vacant. These duties include Community Development duties outside the role of
planning (to include, but not limited to, Community Advocacy, Business Retention and
Expansion, Economic Development, TCAAP planning and administration). City Staff has
identified a potential need for ad-hoc planning services. The City Planner has drafted an RFP for
such services. This would allow the City Planner, as approved by the City Administrator, to
utilize outside planning services when needed, assuming the cost would not exceed the City
Administrator’s budget authority ($7,500) per project. If the expected services were to exceed
this amount, the request would need to go before the City Council. It should be noted the 2018
budget had approximately $100,000 budgeted for Other Professional Services to help support the
planning function, and absorb any costs due to unexpected projects. To date, this budget has not
had any expenses charged to it. City Staff is expecting to use these services sparingly, and
would only likely be needed in the event of a large or unexpected project.
Attachment
Attachment A: Draft RFP for Planning Services
AGENDA ITEM –1I
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF ARDEN HILLS
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR ON CALL PLANNING SERVICES
Issued: May 14, 2018
SUMMARY
The City of Arden Hills is seeking proposals from qualified consultants to provide professional on call
planning services. Please submit proposals (electronically or hard copy) to:
Matthew Bachler
City Planner
City of Arden Hills
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
MBachler@cityofardenhills.org
CRITICAL DATES
Identified below are the critical dates associated with this Request for Proposal. Further details and
requirements are contained in the specific sections included in this package.
Request for Proposals Issued: May 14, 2018
Proposal Due Date: June 4, 2018
Interviews with Finalists: June 11 – June 15, 2018
Recommendation to City Council: June 25, 2018
Interested parties are encouraged to submit questions regarding the Request for Proposal to
Matthew Bachler (see contact information above) prior to the proposal due date. Responses to
questions will be provided directly by email.
GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Arden Hills is located in Ramsey County approximately 8 miles from the downtown areas of
Minneapolis and St. Paul. The current estimated population is 9,900. Residents enjoy a high quality of life
with access to neighborhood and regional parks and trails, stable neighborhoods, nearby commercial
services, and award-winning local school districts. The City is also home to several large corporations,
including Boston Scientific and Land O’Lakes, numerous small to medium-sized businesses, two private
universities, and more than 11,000 jobs.
The 427-acre Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant redevelopment site, also known as Rice Creek
Commons, is located in the northwest quadrant of City. In 2012, the City entered into an agreement with
Ramsey County that created a Joint Development Authority (JDA) to oversee the redevelopment of this
former brownfield site. The JDA has selected Alatus, LLC as the Master Developer for the project. The
parties are currently finalizing a Master Development Agreement, which is anticipated to be completed
in mid-2018. Public infrastructure plans are expected to be completed in late 2018 to allow construction
on infrastructure to begin in 2019. Private housing and commercial development is anticipated to begin
in early 2020. The site will be developed over several phases and will be fully built out by 2036.
The Community Development Department is comprised of a City Planner, Building Official, and
Residential Building Inspector & Code Enforcement Officer. The Community Development Director
position is currently vacant. The City anticipates filling the Community Development Director position in
the near future. The City is expecting that the selected consultant will continue to provide on call
planning services in support of the TCAAP redevelopment project.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of Arden Hills is seeking a qualified outside consulting firm or individual to provide as needed,
on call planning services. The consultant, working closely with the City’s Community Development
Department, will assist in the performance of duties related to planning and zoning, including but not
limited to: providing both short-term and long term planning recommendations; coordinate and
process various land use applications; and any additional planning matters as requested by the City.
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Provide planning services on an as needed, on call basis.
2. Maintain an accurate understanding of the City’s comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance, subdivision
regulations and other City codes and policies;
3. Assist City staff in organizing the application process in a manner that provides critical information
to applicants so that they can gain an understanding of the procedures they must follow and the
information they must provide with land use applications;
4. In instances when applications are more complex than can be conveyed with standard informational
handouts, meet with applicants to review proposals and identify the proper submittal guidelines to
assure there is a clear understanding of what is required for a complete application;
5. Review and prepare reports on a variety of zoning and land use applications, including but not
limited to: preliminary and final plats, conditional use permits, zoning and comprehensive plan
amendments, variances, planned unit developments, and other applications identified by the City.
6. Confer with appropriate consultants and/or departments, to ensure code compliance and to ensure
timely information is delivered to the Planning Commission and City Council so that they can comply
with statutory decision deadlines;
7. Make appropriate presentations before the Planning Commission and /or City Council as needed;
8. Coordinate permit review with appropriate commissions, committees, consultants and/or
departments;
9. Coordinate with staff and monitor recording of legal documents relating to land use;
10. Represent the City to residents and applicants in a respectful manner and make reasonable efforts
to accurately estimate the cost of application related services.
11. When needed, attend the regular monthly meetings of the Planning Commission as directed by City
staff.
CONTENT OF PROPOSAL
Proposals shall contain the following information:
1. Cover letter and introduction including the name of the firm or individual and the name, telephone
numbers and email address of the person(s) authorized to represent the company regarding all
matters related to the proposal;
2. A description of the consultant’s approach to this project. The consultant should indicate how they
envision providing services to the City.
3. Experience working with other communities with similar geographic profiles and demographics.
4. References from at least three current clients;
5. Resumes of key personnel to be performing the planning functions for the City, including education
and professional certifications;
6. Samples of reports to be submitted to the City which may address one or more of the following:
a. Planning Commission report
b. Concept plan review
c. Responses to inquiries from the public, developers, etc.
7. Preferred method for receiving information from the City;
8. A fee schedule identifying specific rates for services and meeting attendance including billing
schedule and mileage charges.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
The City’s consultant evaluation and selection process is based upon “Best Value” for professional
services. The following criteria will be used in evaluating the proposals:
1. Proposal Content
2. Understanding of Project
3. Approach & Work Plan
4. Qualification and Experience of firm, principle planner and other team members
5. Clarity of Proposal
6. References
7. Costs
The City may also solicit information from any available source concerning any aspect of a proposal, and
seek and review any other information deemed pertinent to the evaluation process. The evaluation
committee shall not be obligated to accept the lowest priced proposal, but shall make an award in the
best interests of the City of Arden Hills.
SELECTION PROCESS
The City may request the top three finalists make a presentation of their proposal to the City. If
scheduled, the interview will be a question/answer format for the purpose of clarifying the intent of any
portions of the proposal and to see samples of previous work products. The City will schedule the times
and location for this meeting. If selected, one or more individuals directly responsible for carrying out
the contract should be present at the interview.
OFFER EXPIRATION DATE
Proposals in response to this RFP will be valid for 60 days from the proposal due date. The City reserves
the right to ask for an extension of time if needed.
CONDITIONS FOR PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE
This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract or to pay any costs incurred for any services. The
City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result
of this RFP, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel this RFP in part or in its entirety.
AGREEMENT AND INSURANCE
The successful consultant will be asked to enter into an agreement and to provide a certificate of
insurance showing coverage for liability, workers compensation, and automobile.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR STATUS
The selected consultant will not be an employee of the City and must meet the IRS requirements for
designation as an independent contractor or firm.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The City of Arden Hills requires consultants disclose conflicts of interest when they may occur. The City,
at its discretion, may arrange for alternative third party support in such cases. In general, the City will
not allow a consultant to review applications from a client of the service provider. Past or pending client
relationships may or may not be determined to be conflicts, but should always be disclosed and
discussed with the City.