Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-18 PCAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 10, 2018 Special Planning Commission Meeting 01 -10 -18PC.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 17 -029 –Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Vacation Of Easement – 3685 New Brighton Road MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF Planning Case 18 -001 - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, And Variance - 3246 New Brighton Road MEMO.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS Sign Code Update MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 2017 Year -End Report MEMO.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council 02 -07 -18 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF Planning Commission Comments Staff Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Roberta Thompson Commissioners: Matt Dixon Nick Gehrig Steven Jones James Lambeth Clayton Zimmerman              Brent Bartel (Alternate) Angela Hames (Alternate) Council Liaison: Steve Scott Planning Commission February 7, 2018 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 4.B. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. 5.C. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESJanuary 10, 2018 Special Planning Commission Meeting 01 -10 -18PC.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 17 -029 –Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Vacation Of Easement –3685 New Brighton RoadMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF ATTACHMENT I.PDF ATTACHMENT J.PDF ATTACHMENT K.PDF Planning Case 18 -001 - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, And Variance - 3246 New Brighton Road MEMO.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS Sign Code Update MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF 2017 Year -End Report MEMO.PDF COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council 02 -07 -18 - REPORT FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.PDF Planning Commission Comments Staff Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Roberta ThompsonCommissioners:Matt DixonNick GehrigSteven JonesJames LambethClaytonZimmerman             Brent Bartel (Alternate)Angela Hames (Alternate)Council Liaison:Steve Scott Planning Commission February 7, 2018 6:30 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. AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents: 3.B. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 4.B. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. 5.C. 6. Approved: February 7, 2018 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Roberta Thompson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Roberta Thompson, Commissioners Brent Bartel, Nick Gehrig, Steven Jones, James Lambeth. Absent: Commissioner Angela Hames, Matt Dixon and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were: City Planner Matthew Bachler and Councilmember Steve Scott APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JANUARY 10, 2018 Chair Thompson stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 8, 2017 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to approve the November 8, 2017, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 17-027 – Variance – 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard – No Public Hearing Required City Planner Bachler stated the property at 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard is located in the R-2 District on the west side of Lake Johanna. The property has frontage on Lake Johanna Boulevard, but is accessed from the alley off of Fairview Avenue. The applicant previously moved a detached garage from the adjacent property at 3417 Lake Johanna Boulevard on to the property without a Building Permit. The structure was placed on a concrete apron in front of the existing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 2 detached garage on the property. The two structures are separated by approximately three feet. The City typically requires a minimum of six feet of separation between structures, or if that separation is not met that certain fire protection improvements are completed. The property also has an existing small storage shed located in the southwest corner of the lot. Residential lots are not permitted more than two accessory structures and the applicant has agreed to remove the shed if the variance is approved. City Planner Bachler explained the applicant has applied for a variance in order to allow the detached garage to remain in place. A variance is needed in this case because the garage encroaches on the 10-foot side yard setback requirement on both sides of the lot. In its current location, the garage is setback 2.55 feet from the north property line and 7.96 feet from the south property line. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 9,254 square feet Topography: Property slopes down approximately 30 feet from Fairview Avenue to Lake Johanna Boulevard City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and the Variance Evaluation Criteria. City Planner Bachler provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. The property at 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard is located in the R-2 Single & Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is a legal nonconforming lot within the R-2 District. 3. The applicant previously moved a second detached garage on to the property. 4. The accessory structure encroaches 7.45 feet into the required side yard setback from the north property line and encroaches 2.04 feet into the required side yard setback from the south property line. The minimum interior side yard setback for accessory structures in the R-2 District is 10 feet. 5. The impervious surface coverage on the lot exceeds the maximum of 35 percent permitted in the R-2 District; however, this was preexisting and is not being increased with this request. 6. The exterior finish of accessory structures is required to be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure on the property. 7. All other aspects of the proposed construction are in conformance with the Zoning Code requirements for the R-2 District. 8. The proposed accessory structure would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 3 Variance Findings: 9. The variance would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City Code. 10. The variance would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it meets the City’s housing goal of encouraging property investment. 11. The proposed accessory structure is a reasonable use of the property that would not be allowed under the rules of the Zoning Code without the requested variances. 12. The property is unique and presents development challenges because of it is unusually narrow. 13. The unique characteristics of the property were not created by the property owners. 14. The proposed structure would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 15. The requested variance does not appear to be based on economic considerations alone. City Planner Bachler stated based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-027 for a Variance at 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-027, staff is recommending the following five (5) conditions of approval: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The applicant shall obtain a Building Permit and complete all fire protection and other improvements to the new garage required to bring the structure into compliance with the Building Code. 3. The applicant shall paint the new garage so that it is compatible with the appearance of the principal structure. 4. The structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 5. The small shed on the property shall be removed from the property within sixty (60) days of the Building Permit being closed. City Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Bartel asked if this would have come to the City prior to being completed what the variance request would have been. City Planner Bachler stated if the applicant had come forward with this proposal before the garage was placed on the property they would still be requesting the two side yard setback variances for the garage. He explained the City typically requires six feet of separation between buildings for fire safety purposes. Currently, there is three feet between the buildings. Staff ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 4 provided further comment on the options that were discussed with the applicant. He stated the applicant would like to keep the garage in its current location and was willing to add fire protection measures. He reported if the buildings were combined a new request would have to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jones questioned if the existing slab had any footings. City Planner Bachler stated the existing slab was previously their driveway and apron. He did not believe footings were in place on the slab. He explained footings may have to be added to meet building code requirements. Commissioner Bartel commented that if this was not an attached garage, the slab could be a free-floating structure. Commissioner Lambath asked what the width of the garage structure was. City Planner Bachler stated the width of the garage was 20.3 feet with a depth of 22 feet. Commissioner Lambeth inquired if the dimensions of the existing slab matched the garage foot print. City Planner Bachler reported this was the case. Commissioner Lambeth indicated this garage structure did not have a sufficient foundation. City Planner Bachler stated the existing concrete slab was not a sufficient foundation for the garage structure. Further discussion ensued regarding the City’s building code requirements for new and pre-built structures. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the storage shed would have to be removed as a condition of approval. City Planner Bachler explained Condition #5 required the applicant to remove the storage shed from the property within 60 days of the closing the building permit. Commissioner Bartel questioned if the City received any feedback from the neighbors regarding this situation. City Planner Bachler stated he received a call from the property owner to the south at 3407 Lake Johanna Boulevard, expressing concerns regarding the setbacks and the impact of the new structure on stormwater runoff. In addition, there were concerns with the fact the structure did not meet City building code requirements. He stated he also received a phone call from the property owner at 1831 Noble Road expressing concerns with the proposal. Chair Thompson explained this was not a public hearing, but she would like to open the floor for public comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 5 Richard Wentzel, 1931 Noble Road, stated he opposed the variance request. He did not believe this building belonged on this lot. He explained the property owner knew he had a narrow lot when he purchased it. He encouraged the applicant to clean his garage if he would like to store a vehicle in it. He stated he lived in a nice neighborhood and he wanted things to remain that way. Gary Wahlstrom, 1831 Noble Road, commented he had spoken with staff prior to the meeting regarding his concerns with the variance request. He stated if this was going to be approved that the garage should be one structure with a continual roofline, matching exterior details, siding and asphalt shingles. He believed this was critical in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. He presented staff with a document with signatures from many of his neighbors that shared his same concerns and supported his recommendations. City Planner Bachler read the document from Mr. Wahlstrom in full for the record and passed the document to the Planning Commission. He noted the document was signed by 11 property owners. Commissioner Bartel stated he had a hard time with this request knowing that it would be a hardship to remove this structure from the lot. He explained he could not understand why the applicant did not request a variance from the City prior to moving this structure onto his property. He believed it was strange this request had reached this point, because the City would have never approved the placement of this structure in its current location. In addition, he noted the garage size was too large and could set a precedent for the City. Commissioner Lambeth stated after reading through the documents for this case, he understood the new garage would be used for vehicles and the existing garage would be used for a woodshop. He explained he would like to see the structures combined, under one roof. He insisted that the new structure have a foundation when receiving a building permit. Commissioner Jones requested further information on how the applicant could work to meet the City’s accessory structure space requirements. City Planner Bachler noted the City does have a review process for accessory structures exceeding 728 square feet. He stated the Planning Commission could recommend the structures be combined. Commissioner Bartel reported the applicant would still require a variance from the side yard setbacks. It was his opinion the applicant was already requesting a lot of variances. Commissioner Jones noted this was an odd shaped lot but stated he did not want to add two full sized garages to this space. Commissioner Gehrig stated he agreed this was a unique lot with unique circumstances. However, he did not believe the additional garage structure was keeping in harmony with the neighborhood. He indicated the neighbors were clearly concerned and there were issues with the structures façade and foundation that had to be addressed. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 6 Chair Thompson commented this was a non-conforming lot. She agreed with the neighbors that having two structures, even if painted the same, was not in alignment with the neighborhood. She supported the structures being combined into one. She commented further on the fire and building code requirements that had to be met for accessory structures. She noted all accessory structures had to have the same appearance as the house, in order to create consistency. She recommended the Commission add a condition for approval requiring the applicant to combine the garage structures. Commissioner Bartel anticipated that a large number of conditions would have to be added to this request in order to make it workable. He feared all of the “what ifs” that would be involved in trying to combine the two structures. Commissioner Gehrig agreed stating the combination of the buildings may be beyond the scope of the Planning Case’s original intent. He did not want to set a precedent with this request that it was easier to receive a variance after the fact. Chair Thompson anticipated much of these “what ifs” would be addressed through the building permit phase and if the structures could not be combined to meet City and building code requirements, the applicant would have to come before the City with a new request. Commissioner Bartel reviewed the number of variances the applicant was requesting. He asked if the buildings currently had the same roofline. City Planner Bachler indicated the rooflines were generally in line with one another, but he was uncertain as to the roof pitches. He provided further comments on the City’s requirements for accessory structures. Commissioner Lambeth reported he visited the site prior to the meeting and he believed all of the rooflines were a 4/12 pitch. He stated his main concern with this request was getting a foundation under the new garage. Chair Thompson explained this would be covered through the building permit process. Commissioner Jones indicated if the garages were combined the site would have 960 square feet in garage space. He stated he would rather see the original garage added onto than to have two separate buildings. Chair Thompson agreed with this comment. Commissioner Bartel stated the subject property was recently purchased and the owners were well aware of the setbacks on this odd shaped lot. City Planner Bachler stated the maximum allowed square footage for accessory structures was 728 square feet. He noted the City had a provision in place that allows for up to 1,458 square feet without the need for a variance if there are unusual circumstances that justify the deviation. This would require a Site Plan Review and not a variance. He explained if the structures were to be combined and did not exceed 1,458 square feet a Site Plan Review process could be followed going forward. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 7 Commissioner Bartel stated he would be fine looking at a variance to extend the existing garage by 12 feet keeping it under the 728 square feet noting it would have to have the same building materials and shingles. He commented that anything other than that had too many moving parts. For this reason, he recommended denial of the variance request. Commissioner Bartel moved and Commissioner Gehrig seconded a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 17-027 for two variances at 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard, based on the findings of fact: 1. The variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Jones stated he could support the combining of the two buildings so long as the exterior of the buildings were kept in harmony with the home. Commissioner Gehrig commented the original request was overreaching. For this reason, he supported the motion. He wanted to see the variances clearly identified versus trying to pass this request through. Commissioner Bartel did not believe it was the Planning Commission’s role to redesign this project after the fact. He did not want residents rewarded with variances when they acted against City Code. Chair Thompson called the question. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 17-028; Site Plan Review – 1504 Edgewater Avenue – No Public Hearing Required City Planner Bachler stated the applicant has requested a Site Plan Review in order to keep an existing 8-foot by 8-foot, or 64 square foot, accessory storage shed recently installed at 1504 Edgewater Avenue. The City does not require property owners to obtain a permit for accessory structures less than 120 square feet in size and no permit was issued for the shed. The shed is located in front of the single-family dwelling on the property between Edgewater Avenue and the home. The shed is setback approximately 42 feet from the front property line along Edgewater Avenue and 55 feet from the secondary front property line on Ridgewood Road. The Zoning Code prohibits the placement of accessory structures on non-lakeshore lots between a public street and a dwelling. City Planner Bachler indicated the shed is currently used to store a riding lawnmower, snow blower, and other yard tools. The applicant notes that the one-stall garage does not provide adequate space to store this equipment and that the shed was placed in the front yard due to a steep slope along the eastern and southern sides of the property that presents safety concerns for using a riding lawnmower. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 8 Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-1: Single Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 20,473 square feet (0.47 acres) Topography: The property has a fair amount of grade change as the lot slopes from the southwest corner to the east and the north City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area and the Plan Evaluation. Staff offered the following Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 1504 Edgewater Avenue is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The lot is 20,473 square feet in size with approximate dimensions of 102 feet in width by 200 feet in depth. 3. The property currently consists of a single family dwelling with an attached garage and two accessory structures. 4. The property owner recently installed a new accessory storage shed in the front yard of the property measuring 64 square feet in size with dimensions of 8 feet by 8 feet. 5. Section 1325.01, Subd. 3 of the Zoning Code states that accessory structures shall not be located nearer the front lot line than the front yard setback line for the principal structure to which it is accessory. 6. Section 1325.01, Subd. 7 of the Zoning Code allows the City Council to approve a deviation from the accessory structure location requirement when exceptional and unusual circumstances exist on the property through the Site Plan Review process. 7. The accessory storage shed is setback approximately 42 feet from the font property line along Edgewater Avenue and approximately 55 feet from the secondary front property line along Ridgewood Road. 8. The existing conditions on the property meet the minimum lot coverage requirements for properties located in the R-1 Zoning District. 9. The accessory storage shed does not exceed the height limit of 15 feet for accessory structures. 10. Detached accessory structures up to 728 square feet are permitted structures in the R-1 Zoning District. 11. Properties used primarily for residential uses are permitted up to two accessory structures. There is one additional shed located on the property for a total of two accessory structures. 12. The accessory storage shed is located outside of the 100-year flood plain, wetlands, and easements. City Planner Bachler stated the findings of fact provided do not directly support a recommendation for approval or denial. The Planning Commission will need to provide additional findings that support the reason for recommending approval or denial of this case. He noted that the Planning Commission may choose to place conditions on a recommendation to approve as well. City Planner Bachler reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 9 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Gehrig asked what building materials were used to construct the shed. City Planner Bachler deferred this question to the applicant. Chair Thompson stated this was not a Public Hearing, but she opened the meeting for comments from the public. Senay Kindler, 1536 Edgewater Avenue, offered her support for the shed. She explained the applicant would not be able to put the shed in the rear yard of the lot as it was heavily wooded. She indicated this was a unique lot with a large front yard that could accommodate the shed. Kathryn Reyerson, 3201 Ridgewood Road, stated she sent an email to the City with her concerns. She feared a precedent would be set if this request were approved. She did not want to see a proliferation of requests coming before the City if the item were approved. She expressed concern with the aesthetics of the neighborhood and how it would be impacted by having a shed in the front yard. She recommended the Planning Commission require the applicant to follow City Code. Chair Thompson requested the applicant respond to what the shed was made out of. Carrie Martinson, 1504 Edgewater Avenue, reported the shed was made out of maintenance- free durable plastic. She explained she would be willing to plant shrubs around the shed if this assisted with addressing the aesthetics concerns. Commissioner Lambeth reported the zoning code prohibits the placement of accessory structures between the façade of a house and the public street. He stated the current shed violates City Code. He explained that four neighbors have already expressed their displeasure with the appearance and location of this shed, which meant the shed was a source of discontent. He understood that the rear yard was not an option for the shed, which left the Planning Commission with few options for this request. He stated one option would be to deny the Planning Case because it violates zoning code and was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. He noted another option would be to approve the Planning Case with conditions, which would require screening or landscaping. Commissioner Jones stated the shed was currently in the front yard, which was against City Code. While he could sympathize with the homeowner, he explained this was another case where the applicant was requesting approval after the fact. He indicated he could support moving the shed to the rear yard, but would not support its placement in the front yard. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Bartel seconded a motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 17-028 for a Site Plan Review at 1504 Edgewater Avenue, based on the findings of fact in the January 10, 2018 Report to the Planning Commission, and the following additional findings of fact: ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 10 1. Accessory structures are not to be located between the façade of a house and the public street. 2. The property does not have unusual or unique circumstances that justify a deviation in the shed placement. Commissioner Lambeth discussed the topography and steep slope that was located on the property. He anticipated the shed could be located in the rear yard with a bobcat. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 17-029; Preliminary Plat, Final plat, Vacation of Easement – 3685 New Brighton Road – Public Hearing City Planner Bachler explained the existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property as approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. City Planner Bachler commented the existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. City Planner Bachler reported the applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single-family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be located to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. City Planner Bachler stated in order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 11 Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, and the Plan Review. Staff offered the following Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Six percent of the development would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 12 the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. City Planner Bachler stated Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the twenty-two (22) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on January 22, 2018. Staff noted the applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees. 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a twelve (12) foot wide drainage easement to the north of the building pad site on the proposed Lot 2. 3. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a drainage easement around Basin 1 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 891.00, and for a drainage easement around Basin 2 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 889.00. 4. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 6. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 7. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 8. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 9. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 10. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 11. The Developer shall be required to meet the requirements as outlined in the memo from WSB & Associates dated December 7, 2017. 12. The signed Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the drainage basins on Lot 1 shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 13 development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage basins located on Lot 1. 13. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 14. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 15. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 16. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 17. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 18. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 19. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 20. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 21. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 22. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. City Planner Bachler summarized the comments he has received from concerns residents and reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 14 Commissioner Jones asked if the DNR would also have to review this request. City Planner Bachler explained the DNR does not have jurisdiction over this waterway. He provided further comment on the RCWD’s permitting process and noted the applicant was in the process of applying for a permit from this organization. Commissioner Bartel requested further information regarding the easement. City Planner Bachler commented that the City has an easement for operating the lift station on the property and noted that the proposal was to modify the dimensions of the easement. He reported the change to the easement would not impact the operation of the lift station. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted this lift station was reconstructed in 2012 and the area requested to be vacated was not part of any necessary construction area. Commissioner Bartel asked what the minimum lot size was for the City of Arden Hills. City Planner Bachler stated the minimum lot size was 11,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if there had been any thought given to the use of imported fill to make this site buildable and what impact this might have on erosion control. City Planner Bachler indicated he was uncertain as to the amount of fill that would have to be brought in. He recommended the applicant address this question. He noted that a Grading and Erosion Control permit would be required for the proposed subdivision. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, stated he sent a lengthy letter to the City. He described how the proposed request would drastically impact his house. He discussed the privacy in his neighborhood along with the number of trees. He reported he was told in 2012 that the subject property was undevelopable. He commented on the amount of wetland in Tim Horita’s backyard and expressed concern with the development of this property. He provided further comment on the history of the easement on this property. He described the energy efficiency methods that were used in constructing his home noting his windows cannot be covered during the day. He explained with homes being constructed as proposed he would need to have blinds and he would not be able to effectively heat his home. He stated it would cost him $10,000 to $11,000 to install a furnace and an additional expense would be incurred to install blinds on the exterior of his home, which would be another $15,000. He stated he could not afford to make these improvements when the heat for his home was currently free. He believed that the proposed homes would be injurious to adjacent tracts. Lastly, he indicated it would not be desirable to add three driveways to Thom Drive. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 15 Jewell Perry Martin, 3670 New Brighton Road, stated she lives next to Perry Park. She explained she was born and raised on New Brighton Road. She discussed the quaint neighborhood she lives in and did not support the construction of new homes in the lowland. She believed this area was made to be natural wetlands. She feared the new homes would destroy the wetlands and recommended the Planning Commission deny this request. Andy Berg, 3744 Brighton Way, indicated he opposed this project. He stated the developer was trying to cram three homes onto a property with a wetland. He expressed concern with how the wetland would be impacted. He asked if this development would have funds set aside to protect and maintain the wetland. He commented he was concerned with the amount of trees that would be lost, along with the vacation of the sewer easement. He questioned if the City would be able to adequately maintain the lift station if the easement were decreased in size. He inquired who would be paying for the retaining wall next to the lift station. He noted Thom Drive was not a standard City street as it was only 23 feet wide. He stated he feared how Thom Drive would be impacted by the additional traffic from the three proposed driveways. Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, stated he understood the three lots met the City’s standards but reported the new homes would change the character of the neighborhood. He explained he has lived in his home for 42 years. He indicated he moved to this area of Arden Hills for the view and openness of the surrounding area. He feared how his neighborhood would be impacted by cramming three homes onto this property. Dick Kotoski, Coldwell Banker Burnett and representative for the applicant, discussed the amount of fill that would be brought onto the property noting it would not be extensive. He anticipated fill would only be placed on the building pads. Commissioner Jones questioned why the applicant had requested the cottonwood trees not be counted as significant trees. Mr. Kotoski, stated in 2013 the City drafted a newsletter article that claimed buckthorn and cottonwoods were a nuisance. He provided the Planning Commission with a copy of this article. He commented on the expense the developer would have to incur to mitigate and replace the trees for this development. He stated most of the trees in the area of basin one were cottonwoods. He understood that these were heavily wooded lots and noted the lots would remain heavily wooded. Chair Thompson requested further information on the RCWD permit. Mr. Kotoski explained the developer has been in talks with them. He stated he did not anticipate any problems in receiving a permit from the watershed district. Chair Thompson asked if the stormwater management plan was in progress. Mr. Kotoski reported this was the case. Commissioner Jones questioned if this roadway ever floods at the low point. Mr. Kotoski stated he was uncertain but noted a culvert was in place. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 16 Commissioner Lambeth inquired if this property was currently for sale and asked if there were any contingencies. Mr. Kotoski commented this was the case and noted he was the broker for this transaction. He reported the sale of the property was contingent upon the lot splits. He noted he had offers already for both lots. Ashley Farmer, resident of New Brighton, stated she was hoping to purchase Lot 2. She explained she and her husband worked for the New Brighton Fire Department and her husband was a police officer. She indicated they both enjoy giving back to their community. She addressed some of the concerns raised by the public. She stated she wanted the same things as these neighbors, which was the privacy, woods and nature. She understood this was a quaint and desirable neighborhood and she hoped to be able to live in this area too. Eric Sandard, 3731 New Brighton Road, stated this was a difficult issue for him as there were many moving parts. He explained he was opposed to this proposed project as it was a money- making scheme. He encouraged the City to not let this sway their decision on the matter. He expressed concern with the great loss of trees as well. He discussed the character of the neighborhood and stated the three proposed houses would be out of character as they would be crammed tightly together. For this reason, he recommended the Commission not support the request as it was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Brian Jorgensen, 1978 Thom Drive, expressed concern with who would be maintaining the basins and stormwater ponds. Dan Aberg, 3766 Brighton Way North, stated he was concerned with safety along New Brighton Road given the number of homes that have been added to this area of the City. He stated there has been an influx of homes and families, which was making traffic hazardous. He feared how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional homes. There being no additional comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Bartel asked if Thom Drive would ever be expanded or widened. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated the City did not have plans to widen this roadway as it serves a small number of homes. She reported the City had 50 feet of right-of-way along this street if the roadway needed to be widened in the future. Chair Thompson questioned if the City had any plans to add trails in this area. City Planner Bachler indicated the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a future pathway on New Brighton Road, but that this trail had not yet been budgeted for. Commissioner Jones expressed concern with the number of wholes in this project, noting the plans were incomplete. He stated he would like to have more information regarding the drainage and stormwater runoff plans. He indicated he also did not approve of the removal of the cottonwood trees. He commented he would like to table action on this item until the City had all ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 17 of the necessary plans in place, and to learn if the watershed district offered the applicant a permit. City Planner Bachler commented staff was not recommending the cottonwood trees be excluded from the tree preservation plan. He reported it was common for Planning Cases to be reviewed by different government entities and noted the Planning Commissions could choose to table this request. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted the plans presented to the watershed district were also incomplete and explained there were questions regarding the storm basins. Chair Thompson stated she appreciated the comments from Commissioner Jones and from staff. She commented that because of the topography and the uncertainty on the wetlands she wanted to be assured the watershed district supported this project and that all information was complete. She understood that new developments were not always welcomed, but noted the City had to follow the zoning code. She questioned if staff had considered how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional driveways. City Planner Bachler stated a traffic study was not completed and was typically only required for larger developments. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to table Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road to the February 7, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, based on the fact the Planning Commission requires further information on the proposed plans. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Draft 2018 Work Plan City Planner Bachler stated the City Council will be asking the Planning Commission to join them for a joint Work Session in early 2018 to discuss the Work Plan for the upcoming year. To assist in that discussion, staff would like the Planning Commission to provide input on topics that might be addressed at this meeting. While the Council will make the final determination as to the goals and priorities for the coming year, it will be useful for them to have input from the Planning Commission. City Planner Bachler reported the Planning Commission differs from the City’s other committees and commissions in that the purpose and scope of the Commission’s work is largely determined by State Statute. The majority of the Planning Commission work plan is dedicated to continuing the work of evaluating and providing recommendations on land use applications, zoning code amendments, and other planning related items that come before the City. City Planner Bachler explained the City began work on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in March 2017 and the Planning Commission has provided input throughout the update process. The Comprehensive Plan is expected to be completed in early 2018. The Planning Commission is ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 18 expected to review a draft of the entire Comprehensive Plan in February and to hold a public hearing on the plan in March. City Planner Bachler indicated the Land Use chapter in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan includes several recommendations for additional planning studies and evaluations of existing zoning regulations. After the Comprehensive Plan is approved, the City Council and Planning Commission will need to evaluate which of these recommendations should be prioritized for 2018. This may add additional tasks to the 2018 Work Plan. City Planner Bachler commented in 2017, the Planning Commission began the work of reviewing the existing Sign Code and how neighboring communities regulate signage. Staff has continued to work on this item throughout 2017 and expects to complete the review and make any recommended changes between April and July 2018. City Planner Bachler explained the Army was working on an optimization study for the TCAAP property for the groundwater treatment on the site. He anticipated this would be completed during the first quarter of 2018. He indicated staff would be working on infrastructure plans for TCAAP during the coming year as much of this work would begin in 2019. Commissioner Jones asked if the City would be addressing parking behind buildings. He recommended the Commission address this matter prior to the expansion of Lexington Station. City Planner Bachler stated the B-2 and B-3 district design standards were on the 2017 work plan. He understood concerns have been raised regarding the parking situation at the Goodwill and other site. He commented that this matter could be addressed by the City Council and Planning Commission in 2018. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Scott introduced himself to the Planning Commission and provided the group with an update on staffing changes that have occurred at City Hall. He congratulated Dave Perrault on his new appointment as City Administrator and welcomed Sue Polka to the City of Arden Hills. He noted Matthew Bachler was promoted from Senior Planner to City Planner. He thanked all of the residents that spoke to the Commission this evening. Councilmember Scott updated the Planning Commission on activities from the November 13, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting stating the City Council approved Planning Case 17-026 for minor modifications to the Site Plan for the expansion of the Boston Scientific sterilization facility (approved in Planning Case 17-013). The modifications included an expanded paved area adjacent to the facility, a wider curb cut for the existing driveway on Cummings Park Drive, and a reduction in the length of the center island on Cummings Park Drive. The changes to the approved Site Plan were deemed minor and the requirement for a public hearing was waived by the City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 19 Councilmember Scott updated the Planning Commission on activities from the November 27, 2017 City Council Regular Meeting stating the City Council approved Planning Case 17-024 for a PUD Amendment at 1160 County Road E. The approval will allow Arden Square to complete site modifications to accommodate a drive-thru lane for Dunn Brothers Coffee. The City Council approved amendments to the plans regarding traffic control at the southwest corner of the site, signage illumination, and the size of the wall sign on the south building façade. Chair Thompson welcomed Councilmember Scott to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission members introduced themselves to Council Liaison Scott. Councilmember Scott thanked each of the Planning Commissioners for their service to the community. B. Planning Commission Comments Chair Thompson noted the Planning Commission had an open seat at this time for a member and anyone interested in serving in this capacity were encouraged to contact City Hall for further information. C. Staff Comments None. ADJOURN Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Commissioner Bartel, to adjourn the January 10, 2018, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:23 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 1 of 15 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2018 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-029 – Public Hearing Not Required Applicant: Richard Kotoski/Timothy Horita Property Location: 3685 New Brighton Road Request: Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement Requested Action The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat and Final Plat in order to subdivide the existing lot located at 3685 New Brighton Road into three lots for single-family residential dwellings. A Vacation of Easement is also being requested in order to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The City Council is required to hold the public hearing for the Vacation of Easement request. The official public hearing for this case was held on January 10, 2018. A second public hearing is not required at the Planning Commission meeting on February 7, 2018, but the Planning Commission may take public comments. Background The Planning Commission held the public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 at their meeting on January 10, 2018. The Planning Commission voted to table this planning case to allow staff and the Rice Creek Watershed District additional time to review the stormwater management plan for the development. Since that time, staff has completed its review of the stormwater management plan and has no additional comments. The Public Works Director/City Engineer has provided a memo with her comments in Attachment I. The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) has reviewed the plans and granted the project CAPROC status (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) as of January 29, 2018. A copy of the approval is provided in Attachment K. Site work cannot begin until all pending City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 2 of 15 items are satisfied. This includes providing RCWD with a Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities that is acceptable to the RCWD engineer and attorney for the onsite stormwater management features. The Maintenance Agreement would between RCWD and the developer, and RCWD will be responsible for monitoring and enforcing the agreement. 1. Overview of Request The existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property as approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. The existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. The applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single- family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be located to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. In order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. The applicant has submitted a development plan set (Attachment C), Final Plat (Attachment D), and proposed easement vacation plan (Attachment E). City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 3 of 15 2. Surrounding Area: Direction Future Land Use Plan Zoning Existing Land Use North Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential South Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential East Park and Open Space Park and Open Space Park and Open Space West Low Density Residential R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Single Family Detached Residential 3. Site Data: Future Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single-Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Lot Size: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. Plan Review 1. Chapter 11, Subdivision Regulations Review A. Street Plan and Streets No new streets would be constructed for the Horita Acres subdivision. All three lots will have access on Thom Drive. The existing property has an access driveway on New Brighton Road. Staff has recommended as a condition of approval that the driveway be relocated to Thom Drive. New Brighton Road is a Ramsey County roadway and the County has reviewed and approved the access relocation. All other requirements pertaining to driveway location and grades are met by the proposed plans. B. Easements City subdivision regulations require a 12-foot wide utility and drainage easements dedicated to the City along the right-of-way and centered on common lot lines. The Preliminary and Final Plats include 12-foot utility and drainage easements centered on the common lots lines throughout the development and a 12-foot easement along the Thom Drive and New Brighton Road right-of-way, and along the shared lot line with the property to the north. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 4 of 15 The property is traversed by a wetland area along the western boundary of the lot that extends off site to the north and south. In order to satisfy Rice Creek Watershed District requirements, the development will be required to construct two basins on Lot 1 that will capture stormwater runoff from the entire site and allow water to discharge into the adjacent wetland area. The Subdivision Code requires that a drainage easement be provided for wetland areas and stormwater management facilities. The plat provides adequate easements for the wetland, the basins, and the other drainage facilities on the site. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern property line of the lot along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has an easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. The existing easement for the lift station is larger in area than the footprint of the facility. The proposal includes a partial vacation of this easement to accommodate the access driveway for Lot 2. The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the new easement area and determined that it provides adequate area for the City to continue to operate and maintain the lift station. The easement area would also be sufficient if the City need to reconstruct the lift station in the future. The vacation of a public easement requires a public hearing before the City Council. At the time Planning Case 17-029 is reviewed by the City Council, a public hearing will also be held for the proposed vacation. C. Lots Location and Size All lots are required to abut by their full frontage on a public street and meet the minimum lot dimensions required by the Zoning Code. All three lots have full frontage on a public street and meet the minimum standards for the R-2 District. Watercourse Lots abutting upon a wetland are required to have additional width or depth to assure building sites are not subject to flooding. All building areas should be located outside the natural feature and a minimum of two feet above the 100-year flood elevation. Lot 1 abuts a wetland area on the west side of the property. The building pad site is located outside of the delineated wetland area. The lowest level of the proposed dwelling on Lot 1 is 893 feet, and the 100-year high water level for Basin 1 is 888.9 feet and for Basin 2 886.1 feet. Corner Lots Corner lots shall be platted at least 10 feet wider than the minimum requirement for interior lots. The minimum lot width for the R-2 District is 85 feet. Lot 3 is a corner lot and would have a width of 120 feet. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 5 of 15 Drainage Lots shall be graded so as to provide drainage away from building locations and directed down lot lines within drainage and utility easements. The proposed grading plan satisfies this requirement. D. Park Dedication The Subdivision Code requires developers of subdivisions to dedicate to the public a reasonable percentage of the tract to be developed. Section 1130.08 Subd. 2 of the Subdivision Ordinance indicates that for a subdivision that results in new dwelling units of less than two units per acre, the applicant shall dedicate six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or pay a park dedication fee of $6,500 per residential unit. Six percent of the development site would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. As a recommended condition of approval, the developer would be required to pay a park dedication fee of $6,500 per new single-family residential lot, for a total fee of $13,000. The applicant has submitted a letter requesting a reduction in the park dedication fee to a total of $6,500 for both lots (Attachment G). Staff would recommend that a decision on the park dedication requirement be deferred to the City Council. E. Required Improvements All other required improvements, including sewer, water, utilities, and driveway connections to Thom Drive will be constructed in accordance with the City Code. 2. Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review Section 1320 – District Provisions (R-2 Single & Two Family Residential District) A. Lot Area and Dimensions The applicant is proposing to subdivide the existing 1.9 acre property into three single-family residential lots. The westerly lot (Lot 1) would have an area of 42,594 square foot. The central lot (Lot 2) would have an area of 18,936 square feet. The easterly lot with the existing dwelling (Lot 3) would have an area of 21,723 square feet. The minimum lot size for the R-2 District is 11,000 square feet. All three lots would meet the minimum lot area requirement. The Zoning Code requires lots in the R-2 District to have a minimum width of 85 feet measured at the 40-foot front yard setback line, and a depth of 120 feet. Lot 3 is a corner lot and is required to have an additional 10 feet of width for a total width of 95 feet. All three lots meet the minimum dimension requirements for this district. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 6 of 15 Lot Total Lot Area (Square Feet) Width (Feet) Depth (Feet) R-2 District Minimum 11,000 85 (Lots 1 & 2) 95 (Lot 3) 120 1 42,594 141.6 338 2 18,936 97.8 240 3 21,723 120 124 B. Setbacks The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-2 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the rear yard, and a 5-foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 15 feet. In addition to the structure setback requirements, no structures could be placed within any of the drainage and utility easements on the lots. Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built on. The development plans include the approximate building pad areas for Lots 1 and 2. Structure setback distances would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. Based on the preliminary plans, all setbacks could be met for Lots 1 and 2. The table below provides approximate setback distances based on the preliminary building pad areas. Lot Front Yard (Feet) Rear Yard (Feet) Side Yard (Feet) R-2 District Minimum 40 30 5/15 1 140 83 65 (West)/ 6 (East) 2 88 72 9 (West)/ 6 (East) *All setback distances are approximate. Structure setbacks would be verified at the time a Building Permit application is submitted The existing residential dwelling on Lot 3 includes a deck on the west side of the dwelling that would encroach on the side yard setback and drainage and utility easement on the western side of the property. As a recommended condition of approval, the deck would need to be modified or removed so that it does not encroach into the required setback or the easement area. The accessory structures on Lot 3 and the remaining portion of the dwelling meet the 10-foot setback requirement from the side and rear property lines. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 7 of 15 Lot Front Yard (Feet) Side Yard Corner (Feet) Rear Yard (Feet) Side Yard (Feet) R-2 District Minimum 40 40 30 5 3 42 60 82 *Deck encroaches over western lot line C. Structure Coverage and Landscape Lot Area The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-2 District is 25 percent and the minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. The approximate structure coverage and landscape lot area for Lots 1 and 2 was calculated based on the proposed building pad dimensions and the approximate dimensions of the driveways. The structure coverage and landscape lot area requirements would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. Based on the submitted plans, all three lots would meet the lot coverage requirements. D. Building Height and Density The maximum building height in the R-2 District is 35 feet. Building height would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. The applicant has provided example front elevation drawings for the dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 (Attachment A). The maximum residential density permitted in the R-2 District is 5 unites per net acre. There are approximately 1.6 net acres of land that could be built on after subtracting the wetland area. The proposed three lot subdivision would have a net density of 1.86 units per acre. E. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the sum of the gross horizontal area of all floors of a building divided by the total lot area. Floor area is measured from the exterior sides of the exterior walls, but not including covered porches; decks; any space where the average floor-to-ceiling height is less than six feet; attached or detached garages; and other detached accessory structures. The R-2 Lot Structure Coverage (Square Feet) Structure Coverage (Percentage) Landscape Lot Area (Square Feet) Landscape Lot Area (Percentage) R-2 District Requirements -- 25% (max) -- 65% (min) 1 3,000 7.04% 37,343 87.67% 2 3,000 15.84% 13,481 71.19% 3 2,396 11.03% 17,128 78.85% City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 8 of 15 District allows for an FAR of up to 30 percent for residential structures. The FAR of the new residential dwellings would be verified at the time Building Permit applications are submitted. Section 1325 – General Regulations A. Accessory Structures No accessory structures are proposed to be constructed on Lots 1 or 2 as part of this application. Future homeowners who choose to construct accessory structures will be required to do so in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Code. There are two existing accessory structures on Lot 3. Both structures would meet the side and rear yard setback requirement of 10 feet. The maximum number of accessory structures permitted on a residential lot is two and no additional accessory structures would be allowed on Lot 3. B. Tree Preservation The Zoning Code requires that a Tree Preservation Plan be submitted as part of an application for a plat. The development plan set includes a Tree Preservation Plan and a replacement Landscape Plan (Attachment D). The survey indicates there are 81 trees on the site. Nine of these trees are damages or diseased and are not counted as significant trees. Of the remaining 72 significant trees, 22 would be removed for the development. The majority (18) of the removed trees would be on the proposed Lot 1 to accommodate the building pad site and two stormwater basins. Four significant trees would be removed from the proposed Lot 2 and no significant trees would be taken down on Lot 3. The 22 significant trees that would be removed total 544 caliper inches. The required mitigation for this removal is 193 caliper inches of new tree plantings. The Landscape Plan includes 30 new trees including 21 evergreen trees, 3 Red Oaks, and 6 Swamp White Oaks. The total number of replacement caliper inches would be 92.5 for a deficiency of 101 caliper inches. Caliper Inches Number of Trees Total Existing Significant Trees 1,567 72 10% Permitted Removal 157 -- Proposed Removal 544 22 Trees Preserved 1,037 50 Replacement Trees Required* 193.5 -- Replacement Trees Proposed 92.5 30 Replacement Deficiency 101 -- * Replacement trees are calculated by subtracting the ten percent permitted removal from the proposed removal and dividing by two. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 9 of 15 The Zoning Code states that replacement trees are required to be planted on the same site from which the significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees required exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require that the 101 caliper inches of additional trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected. The fee amount is set as the cost of materials and installation, plus 10 percent. The applicant submitted a letter requesting that all Cottonwood trees on the site not be counted as significant trees because they are a nuisance tree (Attachment G). Seven Cottonwood trees are proposed to be removed on Lot 1. If Cottonwood trees were removed from the Tree Preservation Plan, the required replacement tree amount would be 140 caliper inches and the deficiency would be 47.5 caliper inches. The Zoning Code includes the following definition for a significant tree: A tree that is important to the site and the neighborhood character, that is structurally sound and healthy, and that meets at least one of the following standards: • A deciduous hardwood tree that is at least ten (10) caliper inches, including but not limited to, ironwood, catalpa, oak, hard maple, walnut, hickory, birch, black cherry, hackberry, locust and basswood. • A deciduous softwood tree that is at least twelve (12) caliper inches, including but not limited to, cottonwood, poplars/aspen, box elder, willow, silver maple and elm. • A coniferous evergreen tree having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round and which is at least fifteen (15) feet or more in height. • A group of deciduous trees that are at least eight (8) caliper inches or coniferous trees that are at least fifteen (15) feet in height, that provide a buffer or screening along an adjacent public street or between differing land uses. Cottonwood trees that are at least 12 caliper inches in size and are structurally sound and healthy are defined as significant trees under the Zoning Code. Staff would recommend that the Cottonwood trees on the site continue to be counted as significant trees. Additional Review City Building Official The City’s Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no comments at this time. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer and WSB & Associates have reviewed the plans. WSB provided a memo dated December 7, 2017 with items to be addressed (Attachment F). The applicant has since revised the development plans and the Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and provided a memo (Attachment I). A City Grading and Erosion Control permit will be required for the project. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 10 of 15 Ramsey County New Brighton Road is a County roadway and plans were provided to Ramsey County for review. The existing right-of-way on New Brighton Road meets the County Master Street Plan. Since the three lots would have access off Thom Drive, a County right-of-way permit would not be required. Lake Johanna Fire Department The Lake Johanna Fire Department has reviewed the plans and does not have any comments at this time. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) is charged with reviewing and approving the stormwater management and drainage plan for the project. RCWD has reviewed the plans and granted the project CAPROC status (Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt of Changes) as of January 29, 2018 (Attachment K). Site work cannot begin until all pending items are satisfied. A copy of the approved RCWD permit will need to be provided before the City signs the Final Plat. Findings of Fact Staff offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Six percent of the development would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 11 of 15 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. Recommendation Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the nineteen (19) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on February 26, 2018. The applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees (Attachment G). 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 12 of 15 4. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 5. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 6. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 7. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 8. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 9. The signed and recorded Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the stormwater management facilities on the site shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the onsite stormwater management facilities. 10. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 11. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 12. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 13. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 14. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 15. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 16. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 13 of 15 17. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 18. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 19. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. Proposed Motion Language 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, as amended by the nineteen (19) conditions in the February 7, 2018 Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval without Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the February 7, 2018 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case Planning Case Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road for the following reasons: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Notice for the public hearing that was held at the Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2018 was mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property and published in the Arden Hills-Shoreview Bulletin. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 14 of 15 Public Comments Staff has received emails from four residents within the area. Copies of these emails have been provided in Attachment H. Staff received a phone call from the residents at 2033 Thom Court who expressed concerns about drainage issues. Staff also spoke to the resident at 2027 Thom Drive who had concerns about the proposal. The Planning Commission held the official public hearing for Planning Case 17-029 at their meeting on January 10, 2018. Draft minutes from the meeting have been provided in Attachment J. The following is a summary of the comments provided at the meeting: • The resident at 3695 New Brighton Road described how the proposed development would affect energy efficiency systems and design within their home. The resident also expressed concerns about the number of trees removed, the impact on the wetland, and the number of additional driveways on Thom Drive. • The resident at 3670 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the wetland area. • The resident at 3744 Brighton Way expressed concerns about the impact of the development on the wetland area, the number of trees that would be taken down, and the proposed partial vacation of the easement area for the lift station. The resident also had concerns about additional traffic on Thom Drive. • The resident at 3707 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about how the character of the neighborhood would be impacted by the development. • The resident at 3731 New Brighton Road expressed concerns about the loss of trees and the character of the neighborhood changing. • The resident at 1978 Thom Drive questioned who would be responsible for maintaining the stormwater basins. • The resident at 3766 Brighton Way North stated they were concerned about the amount of traffic on New Brighton Road and recommended a walking path be constructed to help improve safety. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 4, 2017. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City was required to act on this request by February 2, 2018 (60 days), unless the City provided the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The applicant was notified on January 11, 2018 of the City’s request for an additional 60-day review period. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must now act on this request by April 24, 2018. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-029 - 3685 New Brighton Road Preliminary and Final Plat and Easement Vacation\Memos_Reports_17-029 Page 15 of 15 Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Site and Aerial Maps C. Horita Acres Preliminary Plat & Site Plans D. Horita Acres Final Plat E. Depiction and Legal Description for Vacation of Easement F. Memo from WSB & Associates, December 7, 2017 G. Letter from Timothy Horita, January 3, 2018 H. Public Comments I. Memo from Public Works Director/City Engineer, dated January 16, 2018 J. Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, January 10, 2018 K. Rice Creek Watershed District Status Update, January 29, 2018 This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 600.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet600.00300.00 3685 New Brighton Road 3,600 Enter Map Description Notes This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. © Ramsey County Enterprise GIS Division 200.0 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION 1: NAD_1983_HARN_Adj_MN_Ramsey_Feet Feet200.00100.00 3685 New Brighton Road 1,200 Enter Map Description Notes IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE SUMMARY LOT PRO. IMP. (SQFT)COVERAGE 1 5251 12.5% 2 4610 + 845 29.4% 3 4595 21.4% (LIFT STATION) LOCATION MAP 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-COVR 1 PRELIMINARY PLAT/EXISTING COND. GRADING PLANSITE/UTILITY PLAN LEGEND SHEETCOVER SHEETSHEET INDEX1.2. 4. 5.6. HORITA ACRES PRELIMINARY PLAT & SITE PLANS ARDEN HILLS MINNESOTA COVER SHEET Know what's below. before you dig.Call R I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 7.DETAILS 3. EROSION CONTROL PLAN L1.LANDSCAPE PLANT1.TREE PRESERVATION PLAN 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-LEGEND 2LEGEND SHEET I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-EXCOND 3PRELIMINAY PLAT & EXISTING CONDITIONS c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota 42299 Peter J. Hawkinson HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 11-08-2017 HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-SITE-UTIL 4SITE / UTILITY PLANI hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-GRAD 5GRADING PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments LEGEND 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-EROS 6EROSION CONTROL PLAN I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments · · · · · · 01-ENG-117282-SHEET-DTLS 7DETAILS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota c 7OF JMM Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 PJC/JMM 19860 11-08-2017 Paul J. Cherne HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments2. 01-10-18 City Comments 00-PLAN-117282-SHEET-LAND L1LANDSCAPE PLAN c OF Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments 1TML TML 00-PLAN-117282-SHEET-TREE T1TREE PRESERVATION PLAN c OF Name Reg. No.Date Revisions Date Designed Drawn 2017 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Mendota Heights, MN 55120 2422 Enterprise Drive (651) 681-1914 Fax: 681-9488www.pioneereng.com LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTSLAND SURVEYORSLAND PLANNERSCIVIL ENGINEERS I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 44763 Jennifer L. Thompson HORITA ACRES ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA 11-08-2017 HORITA 3685 NEW BRIGHTON ROAD ARDEN HILLS, 55112 1. 11-29-17 City Comments 1TML TML CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SheetDescription Sketch for:1 of 1c 2015 Pioneer Engineering, P.A. Tim Horita CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND PLANNERS LAND SURVEYORS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 (651) 681-1914 www.pioneereng.comFax: 681-9488 Cad File: 117282-EASEMENT VACATE.dwg Folder #: 4378 Drawn by:TSS 701 Xenia Avenue South | Suite 300 | Minneapolis, MN 55416 | (763) 541-4800 Building a legacy – your legacy. Equal Opportunity Employer | wsbeng.com K:\03455-000\Admin\Docs\Plan Reviews\2017-12-07 Horita Acres\3455-000 Horita Acres Review Submittal 171207.docx Memorandum To: Sue Polka – Arden Hills Public Works Director / City Engineer From: Matt Schulz – WSB Date: December 7, 2017 Re: Horita Acres Stormwater Review Comments WSB Project No. 03455-000 WSB has reviewed the documents provided by Pioneer Engineering P.A. on 12/04/17 for the Horita Acres Project. Documents reviewed include: · Storm Water Management Plan dated 11/03/17, Revised 11/29/17 · Full Plan Set Dated 11/08/17 We offer the following comments based on review of the above documents. 1. General a. Please note, a permit will need obtained from the Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) for Rule D and Rule F. Additional RCWD Rules may apply. Verify with RCWD as necessary. b. Provide a maintenance agreement to ensure that the BMPs will be inspected and maintained long term. The agreement at a minimum shall include the following: i. Who will conduct maintenance ii. Inspection frequency. iii. Maintenance necessary to ensure effective performance. iv. Maintenance intervals. v. Removal of settled materials. vi. Maintenance of vegetation. 2. Plat a. Drainage easements shall be at least twelve feet wide per City Code 1130.05. Drainage easement to the north of lot two is shown as a 10’ easement. Please revise. b. Ponding easements shall be taken to two feet above the emergency overflow elevation per City Code 1130.05. On this site that equates to elevation 891.00 around Pond 1 and 889.00 around Pond 2. Easement line around ponding areas appear to be lower that this elevation on the proposed grading plan. Please revise. 3. Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) a. The drainage areas listed in Table in section III.A of the SWMP do not match the drainage areas in the HydroCAD report. Please correct the discrepancy or explain the difference. Example, 1.636 acres total in HydroCAD and 1.879 acres total in table. This comment was also made on previous submittal. b. The site appears to receive off site drainage from New Brighton Road and Thom Drive based on the existing contours in the drainage area maps. Please verify and revise the proposed and existing drainage areas as necessary to account for all offsite drainage tributary to the site and Pond 1. This comment was also made on previous submittal. Horita Acres Review Comments December 7, 2017 Page 2 K:\03455-000\Admin\Docs\Plan Reviews\2017-12-07 Horita Acres\3455-000 Horita Acres Review Submittal 171207.docx 4. Stormwater, Grading, and Drainage a. We recommend that the outlet control structures be revised to use larger orifices. The proposed outlet control structures will likely clog with debris at the 1” and 1.5” orifices without sufficient protection, especially when the orifice is located at the pond invert. A trash grate should be installed. Efforts should be made to protect the low orifices from ice formation. If clogging of the small orifices occurs the ponds will fill with stormwater which will degrade the aesthetics of the pond and attract mosquitos and other insects. The MPCA stormwater manual highly recommends a minimum orifice of 3” when in tandem using an external trash rack and minimum of 1” when using an internal orifice protection. If a small orifice is utilized, the basin should be modeled assuming this orifice is clogged to verify that the stormwater basin still meets freeboard and peak rate discharge requirements. b. We recommend installing a type of trash rack, grate, or end treatment over the top of the 8” riser to prevent clogging of the outlet device from debris and floatables. c. We recommend sloping the stormwater basins to provide adequate overland drainage to the outlet device. This will prevent the creation of small ponding depressions which will degrade the aesthetics of the ponds. 5. Storm Sewer a. Culvert analysis in HydroCAD shows the same drainage area parameters for both drainage areas routed to the culvert. Please verify drainage areas are correct, revise as necessary, and verify culvert is still sized appropriately. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Matt Schulz Highway Drainage Engineer (612) 322-2124 mschulz@wsbeng.com From:Tim Graff To:Matthew Bachler Subject:PC #17-029 Date:Thursday, January 04, 2018 9:18:36 PM Dear Mr. Bachler, I am replying to you in regards to the upcoming public hearing for the property at 3685 New Brighton Rd on January 22. I have several concerns with this proposal and a few questions. The first question would be what does a partial vacation of the sanitary lift station mean. I would understand that as the city would be giving up our public easement so applicant can divide up his lot. In doing so who would absorb the costs involved with relocation of the lift station and what would said costs be? It looks as though there would be a lot of cost incurred with the removal and replacement of water lines and water drainage. My utmost concern with doing this and building on that land would be the effects this would have on the wetlands behind that property and my property. It is very important to my family that this is preserved at all cost. If any of these costs would be past on to Arden Hills residents, I feel there would be better use of these monies. For example, a path could be built so that the 30+ kids in the neighborhood could safely access Perry Park along the high speed New Brighton Rd. My family has been in this neighborhood for 2.5 years now and the appeal of our lot on the west side of New Brighton Rd was the size and the nature. I feel dividing up these amazing lots only to cram more houses in takes the uniqueness and appeal out of it for future buyers of lots and especially for current residents. Please advise me on defining partial vacation and what cost my neighbors and I would incur with the proposed building. I would also like to know the environmental impacts of any plans. Thanks, Tim Graff Sent from my iPhone From:BRIAN JORGENSON To:Matthew Bachler; Brenda Holden; David Grant; Fran Holmes; Dave McClung; Steve Scott; Pellegrin, Vince Subject:planning case #17-029 Date:Tuesday, January 09, 2018 8:37:53 PM Matthew Jane and I received the information from the city regarding the sub division of the lot at 3685 Thom drive. After reading the available information I wanted to let you know that I do have some concerns about how this may affect our neighborhood. It seems like it may be out of the character of the area to try to shoehorn 3 lots with homes on that parcel of land. Most of the lots on Thom are larger than what is to platted out at 3685 Thom. What makes it more problematic is it is part of the RCWD drainage system that involves our very important wetlands. That drainage ditch has been in place and effective for a very long time. This area is blessed with an abundance of wildlife. I have seen deer and foxes, turkey, possum and other land animals. I have also enjoyed eagles, falcons, owls,ducks,woodpeckers, hummingbirds, and dragon flies who visit or live in this area. There is also a variety of trees and plants that are unique to the area. Any time we over- develop an area we lose a little bit of what makes Arden Hills a special place to live. Jane and I want to share the beauty of our neighborhood with new neighbors but feel that 1 home site may work better at that location. That would keep more of the area natural with less need to cut down so many trees. One concern I have is the drainage ditch and holding ponds and who will maintain it ? That water flows through the railroad easement and across Thom drive north into that lot.I am sure that there are city employees there who remember that several years ago it became blocked raising the water levels substantially. These last few years have seen a lot of development in similar areas, for example, Katie lane, the E2 library site and Thom. We have lost a lot of open areas. Our 2008 build on Thom Drive involved a similar situation where 1 large lot was divide into 3 lots, Same developer as 3685, We had issues with the way the lots were graded and still have some concerns about a current build going up west of our property. Also, In hindsite, the decision to sub divide the existing lot at 1998 where we built, into 3 lots instead of 2 was also non conforming and resulted in some justifiably unhappy neighbors. It would be wrong to make the same mistake a second time. Our hopes are that, in spite of our strong opposition to the proposed plan , that if approved the city will be very diligent in making sure all the building regulations are followed,including the replanting of trees at that location and full payment of the "park dedication " fee. To sum it up. We feel that having 3 homes on that divided lot is detrimental and non- conforming to our neighborhood. There are risks involved with the upkeep and maintenance of the wetlands that are part of RCWD. Also a vacation of any easement sets a bad precedent for any future requests for any easement vacation. There is no way to deny the fact that the plan poses a significant risk to to the drainage and utility easements in place there. Brian and Jane Jorgenson 1978 Thom Drive Arden Hills From:Sean O"Ryan To:Matthew Bachler Subject:Planning Case #17-029 Date:Monday, January 08, 2018 3:34:06 PM Mr. Bachler, I’ve got concerns regarding the subdivision of 3685 New Brighton Road (Planning Case #17- 029). The largest concern of mine is the owner is planning to subdivide the lot into three lots, and then move out. If the owner were to stick around after the fact, it wouldn’t feel as much like the neighbors are getting a raw deal. Outside of what appears to be a cash grab, the loss of trees changing the landscape of the area, and the Drainage Engineer’s concerns about the water pooling at the drainage ditches gives me concern for the Horita Acres plan going forward. Thanks for your time, Sean O’Ryan 3724 Brighton Way Arden Hills, MN 55112 From:Joe Federer To:Matthew Bachler Subject:Subdivision of 3865 New Brighton Road Date:Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:29:58 PM Attachments:image.png I apologize for reference, spelling, or other errors. I did my best to be accurate and clear. I only had a few days to come up with this due to the notice being sent to the wrong house; I appreciate your patience. I only plan to read the last section if I speak. 17-029 should be recommended for denial for the following list of reasons: Wetland protection: Subdivision rules require stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) - I do not see one. 7.7 and 8.3 grade on driveway AWAY from the basin... then gravity pulls directly down even steeper grade to wetland. I showed the plans to a hydrologist at a federal science agency and he indicates that almost none of the water that hits the driveways would infiltrate as it does now and none of it would make it into the southerly basin and, instead, would flow south of the basin "creating erosion and potential water quality issues and additional sedimentation in the wetland" for lot 1 and added flow to the street for lot 2. I also contacted RCWD and they have many concerns (including the myriad problems noted in the WSB review)[ but not limited to the basins being so close to the wetlands that there isn't room for infiltration and the fact soil borings have not been provided, Further, stormwater basins require maintenance. The city has stated multiple times they are not responsible for maintenance. What wording is being included to ensure they are maintained and inspected properly and what penalty is there for not doing so? Who will be ensuring their they are maintained, safe (there are lots of very young children in the area - including my 2 year olds), that they don't stagnate and turn into mosquito nests? With the owner moving and the applicant not being from the city, I'm concerned this won't be well done in the out years. Property Sizes: Previous attempts to split lots in this area have resulted in comments about density[2][7] as well as being less willing to split "when there is currently reasonable use of the property."... which there certainly is. In 2006 [7] a development with 3695 and 3685 New Brighton Road was proposed with less density (it included the same total number of houses, but included 3695 New Brighton Road as well) and there were significant concerns about it - many are the same now, but worse. The future use plan labels this area "low density residential". As platted with drainage, easements, and wetland, it will/could be 3 houses, all 15 feet from each other. That's not low density and certainly doesn't fit with the neighborhood - where, during summer, I literally can't see another house from my back yard. These lots are extremely skinny - lot 2 is functionally 66 feet wide. It flares at the road by way of including the easement to meet the minimum road width rules. It's only actually 31 feet wide at the road if you remove the easement. The fact the original property is being squeezed so much that they have to 1) move their driveway, 2) change the orientation of their home so it fronts Thom drive, and 3) still rip off a deck to meet minimum side setbacks[1] speaks to this overdevelopment. These three properties will average .6 acres - with the smallest two are under half an acre and the biggest being largely made up of wetland and need-to-be-constructed retaining ponds. [3] The smallest includes the proposed, smaller, easement and is still 45% easement. Average property size on New Brighton Road from near the corner of E2 ot the train tracks is 1.32 acres.. all but 3 larger than .9 acres (and those are .62,.69 and .81 acres). If you include adjacent properties on Thom adjacent to property the average is 1.25 acres. These would set the new standard for smallest properties by a large margin and be less than 1/3 the size of the average property. While they fit the R-2 minimums, they are too cramped for the area and will negatively impact property values. The planning commission has historically cared about keeping lots similar in size and cramming houses in is not in the best interests for the city. PC 07 005, also involving Richard Kostok, involved creating lots roughly the size we are talking about and was denied at 2015 Thom. ... which has adjacent properties much smaller than 3685 does. Specifically, the commission stated that "Density was not the objective [of the city]" and that "reasonable use exists in its' current state" Further, the current planning commission has said "Given the wetland and protected drainage areas, a significant area of Lots 1 and 2 could not be built on." [1] and Tim, himself, said in a previous application for development that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] Easement: The lift station is oldest in the city - bulit in 1971[4]. Easement is approx 8600 sqft. Both it and the easement have been there well before Tim bought his property. The 2007 attempt to place one additional house on 3685 New Brighton road resulted in the easement potentially shrinking by 2000 square feet. At that time, it was stated from the city engineer that the shrunken easement "may not be sufficient for reconstructing the lift station in the future".[5] Staff review recommended enlarging the easement by 10 feet on the side opposite the proposed vacated area and then noted that only "with the boundary adjustment, the city engineer [and public works director] determined that partially vacating the easement would not impact the function, maintenance, or reconstruction of the lift station."[6] The current proposal shrinks the easement to by about 4000 square feet. That is about twice as much vacated space as was deemed unacceptable last time. It also includes utility lines, driveways, new trees, and an engineer-required retaining wall will be going under, on top of, around, and beside... surely this will result in additional expenses down the road when a rebuild is required. Driveways: When this was attempted in 2006, the western part of 3685 New Brighton Road was not considered undevelopable by both the commission and the developer. Putting in a private drive (not going to Thom drive... but out to New Brighton Road) was requested and the planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] They further found a finding of fact that, "Given the size of the original two lots [3695 and 3685 combined], it may be possible to have 4 lots adjacent toThom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] The developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot because of lot size and topology".[8] This plan involves adding three driveways to a non-conforming, skinny, winding road. When this came up, modified, with one driveway on Thom, multiple people stood up or wrote about adding traffic to that road, safety, etc (in addition to concerns about wildlife, wetland, grading, trees, additional development where everyone assumed there would be no more, etc).[7] The same happened with the same realtor wanted to split other properties on Thom drive. Thom is almost too skinny to park on and the proposed driveways are too skinny to allow parking as either. Retaining wall: Who pays when it's injured by lift station rebuilds and maintenance work? This retaining wall is 4 feet tall. I believe this requires an engineered wall / permit. Tree preservation: The 2006 plan involved clearing 17% of the land of trees.[2] At that time the, even with no tree preservation ordinance, the planning commission had concerns about this 'major tree removal', preservation of natural space, and the fact "it does not appear there would be much tree cover left".[7] This plan is clear cutting 40% of all the combined land...[3] and if you exclude the untouched lot 1, the untouchable wetland, and the new smaller (treeless) easement... they are clear-cutting 78% of the land area [3]. Further, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are mere feet from the construction entrances and/or building site pads. I contacted a landscape architect about this and she informs me construction traffic needs to stay outside the drip line, especially oaks (being very susceptible to soil compaction issues) I was told they would assuredly be killed by construction traffic and soil compaction. I contacted a builder and was informed that trees that overhang (or are near) building pads are almost always directly cut down for construction access. Additionally, I have 4-5 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of the northern basin[3] and other trees marked as 'save' are diseased including trees labeled as “Major decay on trunk”, “Mechanical damage at base”, and “Top broken, internal decay at base”. The number of trees labeled for removal on this plan, while already egregious, is lower than reality. Their mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat is woefully inadequate. These are large, mature, healthy trees that build the city character and add value to the whole area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the 30 healthy trunks plan has removing, the average size is 5 and a half FEET around (65 inches average to be exact) at chest height. Some of these trees have been here since before MN was state. The plan involves replacing them with 30 trees, mostly evergreens, averaging 3.5 caliper inches. What is the point of a tree preservation plan if this is allowed to happen?? People move to this area of Arden hills for the large private lots with mature trees and nature...the plan as stands significantly damages that value. Developers: Tim Horita, the owner of 3685 New Brighton Road is moving away from the area soon. He won't be around to follow this through and as he's not selling the homes, just the lots, he won't care if how things fit within the neighborhood. Richard Kotosk, the applicant, has done (or attempteed) this in multiple places in the immediate vicinity... 1978 Thom, 2015 Thom, 3985 New Brighton Road, and perhaps others. The development around 1978 Thom was not finished according to the orginal plans adn his promises to retain trees and setup and/or maintain grading or drainage. I'm concerned that with Tim moving away (and having no vested interest in maintaining the area) and Kotosk's history, any plans here would not be followed through fully or correctly. Injures my property and home: We looked at this property and saw the nature, privacy, neighborhood character and density would work for us. Because of the tree maintenance plan the city has and the neighboring lots being fully wooded and fully developed we felt the privacy of 3685 would be something we could count on. Further, from talking to neighbors, we learned that property had been more- or-less deemed undevelopable by the planning commission unless our lot was included when they gave a variance for a private road. I've subsequently found that The planning commission considered it a finding of fact that connecting to Thom drive was "hardship" and not just an inconvenience. [7] though I understand a plan allowing this was eventually passed that included my land. They further found a finding of fact that, "Given the size of the original two lots [3695 and 3685 combined], it may be possible to have 4 lots adjacent to Thom drive and New Brighton road with separate driveways... which would not be desirable." [7] The developer, on Tim's behalf, went on further to indicate "there is no other way to access the new lots without the creation of a central outlot because of lot size and topology".[8] and Tim, himself, said that much of the lot [3685] was lift station or wetlands and "to look at the entire square footage was misrepresenting the fact that there was space to build on and[or] there was room to encroach into his back area" [7] Either way, we felt our expectation of having a private lot was very very solid.... enough so that we banked the viability of our house on it. We designed our house to be extremely energy efficient - we have 24 inch thick walls packed with insulation and used unique construction methods so that, at time of completion, we were the 'tightest house in MN'. We included all the recommendations for design that the JDA, city, and county, has been suggesting for years[p2]. Our windows are unique and were sized and located such that, combined with the other efficiency measures taken in our house, almost all of our heating needs comes from solar gains; we do not have a traditional furnace or venting system in our home.[p3] This is only possible if our windows have full solar access -- which means blinds or planted privacy walls closer to the house than a certain angle are not an option. We bought this property specifically with this type of house in mind, knowing that to the south we'd have, and need to have, the privacy to give us the access to solar we needed. Everything was calculated, angled, sized, and situated according to an energy model that falls apart if we cover the east, south, or west-facing windows. To be clear, our house's viability in winter is dependent on clear access to the sun. From a privacy standpoint [p4], functionally, our windows are effectively floor-to-ceiling - including rooms like our bedroom.[5] This is acceptable if woods are next door or people are at grade level - it's unacceptably public if multiple houses are in the proposed location. Houses going in next door would require us to both get expensive external blinds[6] as well as an entirely new and different heating system to make up for the lost solar at a sum total of $26,895[p7] Not to mention the ongoing costs. We cannot afford either the upfront nor the ongoing costs and would potentially have to move (and take a significant hit to our property value due to the various other issues with this plan as already noted). This is not mere inconvenience. City code states "The subdivision will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located;"... this is quite injurious to me, an adjacent tract. Not even counting the lowered property values for the area in general. It's worth noting that access to passive solar was noted as a reason for approval of variance in setback of a house at siems court and arden place[p8] so Arden hills has a long standing position of valuing solar as well as it being enshrined more recently in various rules and regs: it was suggested be part of TCAAP guidelines, the 2040 comprehensive plan, the minimum requirements for Arden Hills and other places.[p9] It has been used in many other places and appears to be enshrined into city codes. Beyond direct costs and impact to the viability of our home, the proposed basin plans include basins so close to some of the trees on my property that it would most assuredly kill them. These are the trees that shield my house from the Ford's house[10] [1] Memo_4 - staff notes [2] May 3, 2006 [3] Attachment C with property sizes... also in Memo_4 somewhere [4] http://www.cityofardenhills.org/documentcenter/view/1344 [5] Attachment F [6] 03-12-07-R - city council meeting discussion of partial easement vacation [7] PCP 06-07-2206 - Planning commission discussion of PC06-013. It's worth noting there is a file error on the system taht caused these to the be notes for the previous month meeting. [8] PCP 05-03-2006 - Includes plans and discussion of PC06-013 [p1] - historical comments [p2] - City/County/JDA recommendations for resiliency - The JDA, Cityt, and County have, for years, assessed and indicated it desires passive solar building design. The policy white paper from 11-03-14 andd again in 2015 and elsewhere recommends that the city could consider including prioritization of energy efficiency, climage change adaptation, or energy resilience as party of it's comprehensive plan. (TOD: look into JDA response to 11-03-14 JDA memo) They include ene for design sthat include proper orientation, large south-facing glazing, massing, building transparecy to maximize solar heat gain, etc, etc... even going so far as to show that passive solar can cover 60-80% of their needs with passive solar. (we cover more) Inline image 1 [p3] - There is a small aux heating system, roughly the power of a space heater, spec'd to kick in as needed when the temps drop below -4 and the sun is not out for a few days. It did not get turned on at all in the 2016-2017 winter. [p4] We sited our house on our property, combined with wall and window location, so as to minimize views (both in and out) of other existing houses and to maintain our privacy. [p5] A good example is that our master bedroom contains a window that is 8 feet wide and goes down to my knees. This window looks out upon our backyard and the wooded area in the back of 3685. For someone on the ground, it's quite private. If a houses are located at the proposed locations, it makes blinds almost a requirement for any semblance of privacy in our previously perfectly-private bedroom. [p6] Due to the inward-tilt-and-turn design of our windows, blinds cannot go on the inside of many of our windows. [p7] We just got a quote for installing a furnace and the install costs alone would be $10,895 (quote provided from Total Air and Furnace upon request) The exterior blinds, themselves, would cost more than $15,000 installed (quote provided from builder upon request). [p8] 81-24 [p9] 07-25-16-SWS, JDA policy white paper from 11-03-14 andd again in 2015. In 2016, (07- 25-16-SWS) indicates that access to direct solar is important in the 2040 comprehensive plan as well as being included in the checklist of minimum requirements for arden hills and a requirement to protect solar access within the 7-county metro area. [p10] kill tree info Page 1 of 1 DATE: January 16, 2018 TO: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner FROM: Sue Polka, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Horita Acres – Preliminary Plat/Easement Vacation I have completed a review of the subject plans and have the following comments: 1. A City grading and erosion control permit will be required. 2. Rice Creek Watershed District approval will be required prior to issuance of City permits. 3. All other comments have been addressed. MEMORANDUM Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2018 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL PLANNING CASES C. Planning Case 17-029; Preliminary Plat, Final plat, Vacation of Easement – 3685 New Brighton Road – Public Hearing City Planner Bachler explained the existing property at 3685 New Brighton Road is approximately 1.9 acres in size and is comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. The dwelling and accessory structures are located towards the eastern side of the property and the one access driveway for the lot is on New Brighton Road near the intersection with Thom Drive. The property as approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage along Thom Drive. City Planner Bachler commented the existing topography of the lot generally slopes west from New Brighton Road to a wetland complex located on the western parcel boundary. This wetland complex covers approximately 0.3 acres of the property and extends off the property to the north and south. The City has a sanitary lift station located on the southern edge of the property approximately in the middle of the lot. The remainder of the lot is heavily wooded. City Planner Bachler reported the applicant has proposed a subdivision of the existing property to create three lots for single-family residential dwellings. The existing dwelling and other improvements would be retained and located on the proposed Lot 3. Two new lots (Lot 1 and Lot 2) would be located to the west of Lot 3 with frontage and driveways on Thom Drive. The existing access driveway for Lot 3 would be located to Thom Drive so that all three parcels are similarly oriented with their principal frontage on Thom Drive. There is a purchase agreement in place for the easterly lot (Lot 2) and the applicant expects construction to begin on this lot immediately if City approval is received. The westerly lot (Lot 1) is being marketed for sale. City Planner Bachler stated in order to support the proposed development, a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement is requested. The easement vacation is needed to vacate a portion of the public utility easement for the City lift station on the property. The development is required to meet Rice Creek Watershed District regulations and the proposed grading plan shows that two basins would be constructed on Lot 1 to capture stormwater runoff from the site and allow it to discharge into the adjacent wetland. Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be graded to direct water flow from these properties to one of the two basins. The site is heavily wooded with 72 significant trees. A Tree Preservation Plan has been provided indicating 22 of these trees would be removed. Replacement tree plantings are proposed as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 2 Site Data Land Use Plan: Low Density Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Detached Residential Zoning: R-2: Single & Two Family Residential Current Lot Sizes: 83,253 square feet (1.91 acres) Topography: Property slopes east to west approximately 28 feet from New Brighton Road to the wetland complex on the western boundary. City Planner Bachler reviewed the surrounding area, and the Plan Review. Staff offered the following Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 3685 New Brighton Road is located in the R-2 – Single and Two-Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The subject property is 83,253 square feet in size with approximately 124 feet on frontage on New Brighton Road and 378 feet of frontage on Thom Drive. 3. The subject property is currently comprised of a single-family residential dwelling, detached garage, and shed. 4. The City has an existing lift station located along the southern line of the subject property along Thom Drive. This lift station is located on private property and the City has a utility easement that permits the City to operate and maintain the lift station. 5. The applicant has requested a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement in order to subdivide the subject property to create three (3) lots for single-family residential dwellings. 6. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets the Minimum Subdivision Design Standards included in Section 1130 of the Arden Hills City Code. 7. The park dedication requirement for this application is six percent of the buildable land area in the subdivision or a park dedication fee of $6,500 per lot. Six percent of the development would be 0.11 acres which would not allow for a feasible park area. The park dedication fee of $6,500 per new lot will be applied in this case. 8. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision meets or will be required to meet the Required Improvements for subdivisions included in Section 1140 of the Arden Hills City Code. 9. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would result in three (3) lots that would conform to the minimum lot area and dimension requirements for the R-2 District. 10. The R-2 District permits residential densities of up to five (5) units per net acre. 11. The proposed Horita Acres subdivision would have a density of approximately 1.86 units per net acre. 12. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 could be developed for a single-family residential dwelling and meet the setback, lot coverage, height, and FAR requirements for the R-2 District. 13. The proposed Lot 3 would meet the lot coverage requirements for the R-2 District. 14. The existing dwelling on Lot 3 has a deck that would encroach into the proposed western side yard setback and within a drainage and utility easement. 15. The existing accessory structures on Lot 3 would meet the accessory structure setback requirements for the R-2 District. 16. Based on the submitted Tree Preservation Plan 193.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings are required based on the amount of significant tree caliper inches removed. 17. The applicant has proposed a Landscape Plan that includes 92.5 caliper inches of new tree plantings. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 3 18. Section 1325.055 of the City Code states that replacement trees are required to planted on the same site from which significant trees are removed, unless the City determines that the number of replacement trees exceeds the number of trees that can practically fit on the site. The City may require the additional replacement trees be planted off-site, or a fee in lieu of the off-site plantings may be collected set as the cost of materials and installation, plus ten percent. City Planner Bachler stated Based on the submitted plans and findings of fact, staff recommends approval of Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road. If the Planning Commission votes to recommend approval of Planning Case 17-029, staff is recommending the twenty-two (22) conditions of approval listed below. The first recommended condition is that the Preliminary Plat approval be contingent on the City Council approval of the Vacation of Easement request, which will be reviewed at a public hearing on January 22, 2018. Staff noted the applicant has submitted a letter responding to the recommended conditions on tree replacement requirements and park dedication fees. 1. The Preliminary Plat approval shall be contingent upon City Council approval of the request to vacate a portion of the existing easement for the City lift station on the proposed Lot 2. 2. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a twelve (12) foot wide drainage easement to the north of the building pad site on the proposed Lot 2. 3. The Final Plat shall be revised to provide for a drainage easement around Basin 1 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 891.00, and for a drainage easement around Basin 2 on the proposed Lot 1 at an elevation of 889.00. 4. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be executed prior to execution of the Final Plat. 6. The Developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $13,000, subject to the approval of the City Council. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 7. The Developer shall provide the City with a copy of the approved Rice Creek Watershed District Permit prior to the execution of the Final Plat by the City. 8. The developer shall file the Final Plat with the Ramsey County Recorder and provide the City with a recorded copy within sixty (60) days of approval. 9. The proposed project may require permits, including, but not limited to, MPCA-NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, MPCA- Sanitary Sewer Extension, Ramsey County and City Right of Way, and City Grading and Erosion Control permits. Copies of all issued permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 10. Final grading and drainage plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the commencement of any construction on the site. 11. The Developer shall be required to meet the requirements as outlined in the memo from WSB & Associates dated December 7, 2017. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 4 12. The signed Maintenance Agreement between the RCWD and the Developer for the drainage basins on Lot 1 shall be provided to the City before the issuance of any development permits. The City shall not be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage basins located on Lot 1. 13. Before construction, grading, or land clearing begins, trees or tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and city-approved tree protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with the approved tree preservation plan. 14. A Letter of Credit in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation for the required replacement tree plantings shall be provided prior to the issuance of a Grading and Erosion Control permit. The Letter of Cred shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation of the replacements trees. 15. The Developer shall work with the City to find alternative locations for the 101 caliper inches of replacement trees off-site, or a fee in lieu of the replacement tress will be required equaling the cost of materials and installation plus ten percent, as determined by the City Council. 16. Survey monuments shall be placed and installed at all block corners, angle points, points of curves in streets, and at intermediate points as shown on the Final Plat. Pipes or streel rods shall be placed at the corners of each lot. 17. The Developer shall be required to stake metal markers along the drainage easement abutting the infiltration basis and wetland with signs stating the area is a natural vegetation/infiltration area and no dumping is allowed. The design of the signs shall be approved by the City prior to installation. 18. Sewer and water for the subdivision shall be obtained by connections to the City water and sewer systems. Extension of City services shall be subject to review and approval by the City Engineer and all associated costs shall be the responsibility of the developer. 19. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 20. The deck on the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be removed or modified in order to meet the side yard setback requirement and not encroach on any drainage and utility easement prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the removal of the deck within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 21. The driveway for the existing single-family dwelling at 3685 New Brighton Road shall be relocated to Thom Drive prior to the issuance of a building permit for Lot 1 or Lot 2, or the Developer shall be required to submit a cash escrow with the City to ensure the relocation of the driveway within six (6) months from the approval of the Final Plat. 22. The Developer shall conform to all other City regulations. City Planner Bachler summarized the comments he has received from concerns residents and reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted. 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 5 Chair Thompson opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones asked if the DNR would also have to review this request. City Planner Bachler explained the DNR does not have jurisdiction over this waterway. He provided further comment on the RCWD’s permitting process and noted the applicant was in the process of applying for a permit from this organization. Commissioner Bartel requested further information regarding the easement. City Planner Bachler commented that the City has an easement for operating the lift station on the property and noted that the proposal was to modify the dimensions of the easement. He reported the change to the easement would not impact the operation of the lift station. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted this lift station was reconstructed in 2012 and the area requested to be vacated was not part of any necessary construction area. Commissioner Bartel asked what the minimum lot size was for the City of Arden Hills. City Planner Bachler stated the minimum lot size was 11,000 square feet in the R-2 zoning district. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if there had been any thought given to the use of imported fill to make this site buildable and what impact this might have on erosion control. City Planner Bachler indicated he was uncertain as to the amount of fill that would have to be brought in. He recommended the applicant address this question. He noted that a Grading and Erosion Control permit would be required for the proposed subdivision. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Chair Thompson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. Joe Federer, 3695 New Brighton Road, stated he sent a lengthy letter to the City. He described how the proposed request would drastically impact his house. He discussed the privacy in his neighborhood along with the number of trees. He reported he was told in 2012 that the subject property was undevelopable. He commented on the amount of wetland in Tim Horita’s backyard and expressed concern with the development of this property. He provided further comment on the history of the easement on this property. He described the energy efficiency methods that were used in constructing his home noting his windows cannot be covered during the day. He explained with homes being constructed as proposed he would need to have blinds and he would not be able to effectively heat his home. He stated it would cost him $10,000 to $11,000 to install a furnace and an additional expense would be incurred to install blinds on the exterior of his home, which would be another $15,000. He stated he could not afford to make these improvements when the heat for his home was currently free. He believed that the proposed homes would be injurious to adjacent tracts. Lastly, he indicated it would not be desirable to add three driveways to Thom Drive. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 6 Jewell Perry Martin, 3670 New Brighton Road, stated she lives next to Perry Park. She explained she was born and raised on New Brighton Road. She discussed the quaint neighborhood she lives in and did not support the construction of new homes in the lowland. She believed this area was made to be natural wetlands. She feared the new homes would destroy the wetlands and recommended the Planning Commission deny this request. Andy Berg, 3744 Brighton Way, indicated he opposed this project. He stated the developer was trying to cram three homes onto a property with a wetland. He expressed concern with how the wetland would be impacted. He asked if this development would have funds set aside to protect and maintain the wetland. He commented he was concerned with the amount of trees that would be lost, along with the vacation of the sewer easement. He questioned if the City would be able to adequately maintain the lift station if the easement were decreased in size. He inquired who would be paying for the retaining wall next to the lift station. He noted Thom Drive was not a standard City street as it was only 23 feet wide. He stated he feared how Thom Drive would be impacted by the additional traffic from the three proposed driveways. Ivan Gilbert, 3707 New Brighton Road, stated he understood the three lots met the City’s standards but reported the new homes would change the character of the neighborhood. He explained he has lived in his home for 42 years. He indicated he moved to this area of Arden Hills for the view and openness of the surrounding area. He feared how his neighborhood would be impacted by cramming three homes onto this property. Dick Kotoski, Coldwell Banker Burnett and representative for the applicant, discussed the amount of fill that would be brought onto the property noting it would not be extensive. He anticipated fill would only be placed on the building pads. Commissioner Jones questioned why the applicant had requested the cottonwood trees not be counted as significant trees. Mr. Kotoski, stated in 2013 the City drafted a newsletter article that claimed buckthorn and cottonwoods were a nuisance. He provided the Planning Commission with a copy of this article. He commented on the expense the developer would have to incur to mitigate and replace the trees for this development. He stated most of the trees in the area of basin one were cottonwoods. He understood that these were heavily wooded lots and noted the lots would remain heavily wooded. Chair Thompson requested further information on the RCWD permit. Mr. Kotoski explained the developer has been in talks with them. He stated he did not anticipate any problems in receiving a permit from the watershed district. Chair Thompson asked if the stormwater management plan was in progress. Mr. Kotoski reported this was the case. Commissioner Jones questioned if this roadway ever floods at the low point. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 7 Mr. Kotoski stated he was uncertain but noted a culvert was in place. Commissioner Lambeth inquired if this property was currently for sale and asked if there were any contingencies. Mr. Kotoski commented this was the case and noted he was the broker for this transaction. He reported the sale of the property was contingent upon the lot splits. He noted he had offers already for both lots. Ashley Farmer, resident of New Brighton, stated she was hoping to purchase Lot 2. She explained she and her husband worked for the New Brighton Fire Department and her husband was a police officer. She indicated they both enjoy giving back to their community. She addressed some of the concerns raised by the public. She stated she wanted the same things as these neighbors, which was the privacy, woods and nature. She understood this was a quaint and desirable neighborhood and she hoped to be able to live in this area too. Eric Sandard, 3731 New Brighton Road, stated this was a difficult issue for him as there were many moving parts. He explained he was opposed to this proposed project as it was a money- making scheme. He encouraged the City to not let this sway their decision on the matter. He expressed concern with the great loss of trees as well. He discussed the character of the neighborhood and stated the three proposed houses would be out of character as they would be crammed tightly together. For this reason, he recommended the Commission not support the request as it was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Brian Jorgensen, 1978 Thom Drive, expressed concern with who would be maintaining the basins and stormwater ponds. Dan Aberg, 3766 Brighton Way North, stated he was concerned with safety along New Brighton Road given the number of homes that have been added to this area of the City. He stated there has been an influx of homes and families, which was making traffic hazardous. He feared how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional homes. There being no additional comment Chair Thompson closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Commissioner Bartel asked if Thom Drive would ever be expanded or widened. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka stated the City did not have plans to widen this roadway as it serves a small number of homes. She reported the City had 50 feet of right-of-way along this street if the roadway needed to be widened in the future. Chair Thompson questioned if the City had any plans to add trails in this area. City Planner Bachler indicated the City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a future pathway on New Brighton Road, but that this trail had not yet been budgeted for. Commissioner Jones expressed concern with the number of wholes in this project, noting the plans were incomplete. He stated he would like to have more information regarding the drainage and stormwater runoff plans. He indicated he also did not approve of the removal of the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 10, 2018 8 cottonwood trees. He commented he would like to table action on this item until the City had all of the necessary plans in place, and to learn if the watershed district offered the applicant a permit. City Planner Bachler commented staff was not recommending the cottonwood trees be excluded from the tree preservation plan. He reported it was common for Planning Cases to be reviewed by different government entities and noted the Planning Commissions could choose to table this request. Public Works Director/City Engineer Polka noted the plans presented to the watershed district were also incomplete and explained there were questions regarding the storm basins. Chair Thompson stated she appreciated the comments from Commissioner Jones and from staff. She commented that because of the topography and the uncertainty on the wetlands she wanted to be assured the watershed district supported this project and that all information was complete. She understood that new developments were not always welcomed, but noted the City had to follow the zoning code. She questioned if staff had considered how the neighborhood would be impacted by three additional driveways. City Planner Bachler stated a traffic study was not completed and was typically only required for larger developments. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to table Planning Case 17-029 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Vacation of Easement at 3685 New Brighton Road to the February 7, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, based on the fact the Planning Commission requires further information on the proposed plans. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Rice Creek Watershed District Administrative Permit Application Status Update THIS IS NOT A PERMIT Permit Application Number: 17-121 Applicant: Timothy Horita Project Location: 3685 New Brighton Road Application Received: 12/05/2017 Date of Administrative Action: 01/29/2018 Current Status:Conditionally Approved Pending Receipt Of Changes(CAPROC) CAPROC Expiration Date: 01/29/2019 Please note the following: Status- Pursuant to RCWD Resolution 2009-09,this application is being granted CAPROC status administratively after staff review and notice to the RCWD Board of Managers.. You are not authorized to begin site work until all pending items are satisfied as enumerated in the attached Staff Review. If the project is initiated without obtaining an RCWD Permit, it will be stopped by the District Inspector until the permit is obtained. You have 12 months from the Date of Administrative Action to submit/satisfy all pending items and receive a permit.Otherwise the conditional approval expires and a new application, materials and fee will need to be submitted to the RCWD for consideration. To satisfy pending items,applicants must submit two(2) paper copies of all submittal items to the District with the exception of plan sheets. Plan sheets must include 1 full-sized copy, and 1 reduced size(11 by 17 inches or smaller) or an electronic file. Surety-for surety amounts of$5000 or less,the applicant must submit a check made out to the RCWD. For surety amounts over$5000,the applicant must provide the first$5000 in the form of a check and has the option of providing the remainder of the surety amount in the form of a check, Letter of Credit(see website for template) or performance bond. Easements— if an easement is required per your list of pending items in the attached Engineer's Report,then the legal descriptions of these easements must be prepared by the applicant, reviewed and approved by the District,and then submitted to the County Recorder's Office for recording. An easement template is on the District's website. Wetland Conservation Act Forms- For projects involving wetland impacts and replacement,State law requires the preparation and recording of Wetland Legal Forms for replacement wetlands. Instructions for completing and recording these forms are included in the wetland legal forms document on the website. The wetland legal documents require the applicant to prepare legal descriptions of all replacement wetlands. These legal descriptions and the forms must be reviewed and approved by the District prior to submittal to the County Recorder's Office for recording. Stormwater Operation &Maintenance- For projects involving stormwater ponds and infiltration features,applicants must complete and record a Stormwater Operation and Maintenance Agreement(see website for template) for these features unless a City assumes the maintenance responsibilities of these features as indicated in a letter to the District. An exhibit and/or legal description that clearly delineates and identifies all stormwater and infiltration features must accompany the stormwater operation and maintenance agreement. A draft of this agreement with accompanying exhibit must be submitted to the District for review and approval prior to submission to the County Recorder's office. Authorized Signature: 6Q Phil Belfiori,Admi strator Date of Issuance: 01/29/2018 cc: City of Arden Hills;Timothy Horita, 3685 New Brighton Road,Arden Hills,MN 55112 timhorita@yahoo.com;Jerry Carlson (Lee Homes),409 lake Ave,White Bear Lake,MN 55110 leehomescorp@gmail.com; Paul Cherne (Pioneer Engineering, PA), 2422 Enterprise Drive, Mendota Heights,MN 55120 pcherne@pioneereng.com; Richard Kotoski (CB Burnet), 100 Village Center Dr., North Oaks,MN 55113 rkotoski@CBburnet.com mo R Cvur D OFFICIAL DOCUMENT:The Recommendations and Stipulations below are incorporated as bindingf, RICE CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT terms of RCWD Permit 17-121 issued by the Administrator under delegated authority of the RCWD Board of Managers. Permit Application Number: 17-121 Permit Project Name: Horita Acres Applicant: Consultant: Timothy Horita Richard Kotoski 3685 New Brighton Road CB Burnet Arden Hills, MN 55112 100 Village Center Dr. Ph: 612-986-8549 North Oaks, MN 55113 timhorita@yahoo.com Ph: 651-486-5507 Fx: 651-483-3681 rkotoski@cbburnet.com Paul Cherne Pioneer Engineering pcherne(a pioneereng.com 2422 Enterprise Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 651-681-1914 Prosect Name: Horita Acres Purpose: FSD— Final Site Drainage, LD—Land Development; splitting lots, 1 lot into 3 lots Site Size:Site size is 1.88 acres, existing and proposed impervious area is 0.12 ±acres and 0.34± acres, respectively Location: 3685 New Brighton Road, Arden Hills T-R-S: SW1/4 Section 28, T3ON, R23W District Rule: C, D Recommendations: CAPROC It is recommended that this Permit Application be given Conditional Approval Pending Receipt of Changes (CAPROC) and outstanding items related to the following items. Rule D— Erosion and Sediment Control 1. Submit the following information per Rule D.4: c) Name, address, email, and phone number of party responsible for maintenance of all erosion and sediment control measures. Administrative Rice Creek Watershed District Page 1 of 4 1/31/2018 RCWD Permit Number 17-121 2. The applicant must submit a Draft Declaration for Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities acceptable to District engineer and attorney for proposed onsite stormwater management features. 3. The applicant must provide an attested copy of any and all signed and notarized legal document(s)from the County Recorder. Applicant may wish to contact the County Recorder to determine recordation requirements prior to recordation 4. The applicant must submit the appropriate cash surety amount of$1,000 along with an executed escrow agreement acceptable to the District. If the applicant desires an original copy for their records, then two original signed escrow agreements should be submitted. Stipulations: The permit will be issued with the following stipulations as conditions of the permit. By accepting the permit, applicant agrees to these stipulations 1. An as-built survey of all stormwater BMPs (ponds, rain gardens, trenches, swales, etc.) is to be submitted to the District for verification of compliance with the approved plans before return of the surety. Exhibits: 1. Revised project plans dated 1-10-2018 (revisions date) and received 1-11-2018, including cover sheet, legend, preliminary plat/existing conditions, site utility plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, details, landscape plan, and tree preservation plan 2. Revised Stormwater Calculations, dated 1-10-2018 and received 1-12-2018, containing narrative, soils information, drainage maps, HydroCAD report for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year rainfall events for proposed and existing conditions. 3. Braun Intertec Boring logs dated 6-1-2006 and received 1-11-2018 4. Earth Science Testing boring logs (for home locations) dated 11-8-2017 and received 1-11-2018 5. Proposed plat including drainage and utility easement information undated and received 1-11- 2018 6. Revised project plans dated 11-29-2017 (revision date) and received 12-12-2017, including cover sheet, legend, preliminary plat/existing conditions, site utility plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, details, landscape plan, and tree preservation plan 7. Revised Stormwater Calculations, dated 11-29-2017 and received 12-08-2017, containing narrative, soils information, drainage maps, HydroCAD report for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100- year rainfall events for proposed and existing conditions. 8. Project plans dated 11-08-2017 and received 11-16-2017 including cover sheet, legend, preliminary plat/existing conditions, site utility plan, grading plan, erosion control plan, details, landscape plan, and tree preservation plan. 9. Stormwater Calculations, dated 11-03-2017 and received 11-16-2017, containing narrative, drainage maps, HydroCAD report for the 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year rainfall events for proposed and existing conditions. 10. Permit application dated 12-04-2017 and received 12-05-2017. Rice Creek Watershed District Page 2 of 4 1/31/2018 RCWD Permit Number 17-121 11. Application fee dated 12-04-17 and received 12-05-17. 12. RCWD Review File#17-208R Findings: 1. Description—This project proposes the subdivision of an existing 1.88±acre lot into 3 total lots. An existing home located on the lot will remain, while 2 additional lots with single family homes will be created. The existing and proposed impervious area is 0.12 ± acres and 0.34 ± acres, respectively. Approximately 0.75 ± acre of land will be disturbed. Flows onsite will be directed into two rate control basins, before discharging to a large public water wetland (Farrel's wetland), then ultimately Long Lake, the Resource of Concern. The applicant has submitted a$100 application fee which correspond to less than 2.5 acres of land disturbance. 2. Stormwater—The applicant is proposing the following rate control BMPs as described below for the project: Proposed BMP Volume Required EOF Description Location Filtration Basin 1 NW Corner of Site Rate Control Only 887.0 Filtration Basin 2 West Side of Site Rate Control Only 889.0 Per Rule C.2(g), the applicant is exempt from the water quality treatment requirement, however the filtration basins are required to meet the rate control requirements of C.7. Based off the submitted geotechnical and soil survey information, the soils on site are primarily loamy fine sands and peat(HSG B/D). Due to the proximity of the adjacent wetland and the groundwater elevation (883.5), infiltration is not considered feasible onsite, thus filtration is acceptable to meet the rate control requirements. The applicant will wrap the drain tile with a course filter aggregate before discharging through an orifice and into the adjacent wetland. Emergency overflow spillways will be stabilized with seed and erosion control blanket. 2-year(cfs) 10-year(cfs) 100-year(cfs) Drainage Area Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed West to Public Water Wetland 0.62 0.42 2.17 1.72 6.91 5.15 Totals 0.62 0.42 2.17 1.72 6.91 5.15 80%of Existing 0.50 1.74 5.53 The project is located within the Flood Management Zone. The submitted information indicates that the project will not increase peak runoff leaving the site. The highest 100-year water level is located at 888.8 (Basin 1) and the lowest floor opening is located at 893, thus meeting the 2-foot freeboard requirement of Rule C.9 (g). The applicant has met the bounce and inundation hydroperiod standards of Rule C.B. Rice Creek Watershed District Page 3 of 4 1/31/2018 RCWD Permit Number 17-121 3. Wetlands—Wetlands are located on site; however, no wetland impacts are proposed. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation dated 10-16-2017 and received on 10-20-2017 under RCWD permit file#17-208R. The District issued a WCA Notice of Decision on 11-22-2017. 4. Floodplain—The site is not in a regulatory floodplain. 5. Erosion Control— Proposed sediment and erosion control measures include silt fence, rock construction entrance, bio-logs and riprap. Basins will be blanketed and seeded. Turf areas will be stabilized with seed and mulch. Less than 1 acre of soil will be disturbed, thus an NPDES permit is not required. The information listed under the Erosion and Sedimentation Control Recommendations needs to be submitted. Otherwise, the project complies with RCWD Rule D requirements. 6. Documenting Easements and Maintenance Obligations— Draft drainage and utility easements are shown on the plan and a proposed plat has been provided. The future homeowner will be required to maintain the basins onsite. Applicant must provide a draft maintenance declaration for stormwater features and receipt showing recordation once approved. 7. Previous Permit Information—RCWD Review File#17-208R relates to the wetland delineation and associated Wetland Notice of Decision for the site; RCWD Permit File#06-036 was for a previous proposed subdivision project that was never completed. Rice Creek Watershed District Page 4 of 4 1/31/2018 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2018\PC 18-001 - 3246 New Brighton Road - Preliminary & Final Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Variance, CUP\Memos_Reports_18-001 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2018 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #18-001 Applicant: Journey Home Minnesota Property Location: 3246 New Brighton Road Request: Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance Requested Action Continue this item to a future meeting. Background The application was not complete in time to include on the February 7, 2018 Planning Commission agenda. Staff requests that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 18-001 until such time that a full review can be completed on the proposal. A motion to table to a future meeting is necessary because this item had already been noticed as a public hearing for this evening prior to it being pulled from the agenda. Proposed Motion Language Motion to table Planning Case 18-001 to the March 7, 2018 Planning Commission meeting. Public Notice Notice of the public hearing for the Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, and Variance was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin on January 24, 2018, and mailed to all properties within 1,000 feet of the subject City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2018\PC 18-001 - 3246 New Brighton Road - Preliminary & Final Plat, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Variance, CUP\Memos_Reports_18-001 Page 2 of 2 property. Notice of the rescheduled public hearing will be advertised in the newspaper and mailed again to residents in the area. Public Comments Staff has not received any public comments to date on this application. Attachments None _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 1 of 8 DATE: February 7, 2018 PC Agenda Item 4.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-004: Sign Code Review Requested Action Review preliminary revisions to the Sign Code and provide comments and recommendations. Background At the Planning Commission meeting on February 8, 2017, staff presented the following topics regarding the City’s Sign Code: • Review of planning cases from past 5 years that included a deviation from the Sign Code • Comparison of the Arden Hills Sign Code with sign regulations adopted by cities in the surrounding area in the following areas: wall signage, freestanding signage, dynamic display signs, temporary signs, and projecting signs A copy of the staff report from the meeting is included in Attachment A and the minutes from the meeting are provided in Attachment B. Based on their discussion, the Planning Commission recommended focusing on the following areas: • Permit wall signage as a percentage of the building elevation area rather than a set square foot amount • Allow for greater flexibility in the use of dynamic display sign while ensuring quality of signs and reducing distraction • Allow for larger freestanding signs for properties with highway frontage • Permit the use of projecting signs • Evaluate temporary sign regulations, including how regulations address devices such as inflatable mascots MEMORANDUM _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 2 of 8 Sign Districts The Sign Code currently includes nine sign districts in the City based on land use and geographical location. Generally, properties in commercial and industrial zoning districts are permitted more signage than properties in residential districts, and properties with frontage on main commercial corridors like Lexington Avenue are allotted greater signage than properties on secondary roadways. The purpose of this is to grant appropriate signage for business visibility in the City’s commercial districts while minimizing the negative impacts of signage in residential areas. As part of its evaluation of the Sign Code, staff reviewed the current sign districts. Staff is recommending that the sign districts be reorganized based on similar zoning districts rather than geographical location. The zoning districts generally conform to geographical areas and road corridors in the City already, and creating sign districts based on zoning districts will allow for easier administration of the Sign Code. The table below outlines the proposed and existing sign districts. The zoning districts with primarily industrial uses (B-4, I-Flex, I-1, I-2, and Gateway Business) would be grouped together as Sign District 7. The primarily office and retail districts (B-1, B-2, B-3, and Neighborhood Business) would be grouped in three different sign districts given the different intensity of development in these districts. Staff is only recommending a change to the number ordering for the residential sign districts at this time. A new overlay district is also proposed for properties with frontage on I-694, I-35W, or U.S. Highway 10. Sign District Proposed Existing District 1 Residential properties (R-1/R-2) Residential properties (R-1/R-2) District 2 Residential properties (R-3/R-4) Non-Residential Uses (R1-R4) District 3 Non-Residential Uses (R1-R4) Residential properties (R-3/R-4) District 4 B-1 and Neighborhood Business Districts Properties fronting on County Road E east of Hwy 51 except properties with frontage on Lexington Ave. District 5 B-2 District Properties fronting Lexington Ave. south of I-694 District 6 B-3 District Properties fronting Lexington Ave. north of I-694, Highway 96, and properties in B-1 District District 7 B-4, I-Flex, I-1, I-2, and Gateway Business Districts Properties in I-Flex, Gateway Business or without frontage on roadway designated above. District 8 Civic, Institutional, Parks and Open Space, and Conservation Districts Neighborhood Business District _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 3 of 8 Sign District Proposed Existing District 9 Removed Parts of TCAAP not fronting Highway 96 Highway Overlay District Commercial properties fronting I- 694, I-35W, or Hwy 10 Wall Signage Currently, the Sign Code allows a set square footage of wall signage based on the sign district the property is located in. This one size fits all approach can result in signs that are not proportional to the size of the building a business is located in. For example, under the current Sign Code properties in Sign District 5 (properties fronting Lexington Avenue south of Interstate 694) are allowed 80 square feet of wall signage. This applies to both a large store like Cub Foods as well as a tenant in a multiple occupancy building, such as Subway. Staff has worked on updates to allow wall signage based on a percentage of the building elevation area. From reviewing other cities’ regulations, this approach is commonly used for business and industrial districts and not residential or public/institutional districts. The range is generally between 5 and 10 percent of the elevation area. One wall sign per building would be permitted, but properties with frontage on more than one public street would be allowed an additional sign for each elevation with frontage. The table below provides examples of how much wall signage would be allowed for different businesses in the City. Business (Elevation) 5% Elevation Area 10% Elevation Area Existing Wall Signage Cub Foods (Lexington Ave.) 429 sq. ft. 859 sq. ft. 681 sq. ft. Walgreens (Lexington Ave.) 179 sq. ft. 359 sq. ft. 40 sq. ft. Aspect LED (Dunlap St.) 55 sq. ft. 110 sq. ft. unknown Potbelly (Lexington Ave.) 20 sq. ft. 40 sq. ft. 40 sq. ft. Based on these calculations, using 5 percent of the building elevation for larger buildings (Cub Foods and Walgreens) appears to work better than using 10 percent. Conversely, for tenants in multiple occupancy buildings (Potbelly), 10 percent of the building elevation results in a more appropriately sized sign. Staff would recommend setting the permitted wall signage at 5 percent of the building elevation and establishing a minimum square footage for wall signage in each district. This would ensure that tenants in multiple occupancy buildings have adequate signage. Staff is recommending that wall signage be allocated as a set square footage for properties in residential districts, and in the B-1, Neighborhood Business, Civic Center, Institutional, Parks and Open Space, and Conservation Districts. The following table outlines recommendations for wall sign copy area. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 4 of 8 Sign District Proposed Wall Sign Copy Area Notes District 1 Residential properties (R-1/R-2) 8 square feet District 2 Residential properties (R-3/R-4) 20 square feet District 3 Non-Residential Uses (R1-R4) 24 square feet District 4 B-1 and Neighborhood Business Districts 30 square feet Maximum height: 14 feet District 5 B-2 District 5% of front building elevation Minimum area: 40 square feet District 6 B-3 District 5% of front building elevation Minimum area: 40 square feet District 7 B-4, I-Flex, I-1, I-2, and Gateway Business Districts 5% of front building elevation Minimum area: 60 square feet District 8 Civic, Institutional, Parks and Open Space, and Conservation Districts 40 square feet Highway Overlay District Non-residential properties with frontage on I-694, I-35W, or U.S. 10 8% of building elevation with highway frontage Minimum area: 100 square feet Freestanding Signage Staff is recommending minor changes to what is allowed for freestanding signage. The City has received fewer requests for additional freestanding sign area or height as compared to requests for additional wall signage. Where additional height or copy area is needed for a freestanding sign, property owners can still request flexibility through the sign standard adjustment process. Generally, the changes that were made would increase the amount of sign copy area in industrial districts to 80 square feet (currently most industrial properties are allowed 25 or 45 square feet), and allow for additional sign copy and height for properties with highway frontage. Sign District Proposed Sign Copy Area Height Type District 1 Residential properties (R-1/R-2) 6 square feet 8 feet Pole/Monument District 2 Residential properties (R-3/R-4) 32 square feet 8 feet Pole/Monument District 3 Non-Residential Uses (R1-R4) 48 square feet 8 feet Pole/Monument _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 5 of 8 Sign District Proposed Sign Copy Area Height Type District 4 B-1 and Neighborhood Business Districts 60 square feet 8 feet Pole/Monument District 5 B-2 District 60 square feet 10 feet Monument District 6 B-3 District Lexington Ave: 100 square feet Other Frontage: 60 square feet Lexington Ave: 16 feet Other Frontage: 10 feet Monument District 7 B-4, I-Flex, I-1, I-2, and Gateway Business Districts 80 square feet 8 feet Pole/Monument District 8 Civic, Institutional, Parks and Open Space, and Conservation Districts 60 square feet 8 feet Monument Highway Overlay District Commercial properties with frontage on I-694, I- 35W, or U.S. 10 100 square feet 20 feet Pole/Monument Dynamic Display Dynamic display refers to signs that use technologies such as LCD or LED to display content including videos, digital images, or text. The Sign Code defines dynamic display as: Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes, but is not limited to, any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, projecting, or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink," or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. Dynam ic display signs are currently prohibited in the City. In the past, staff has interpreted digital display to refer to a sign with any type of digital content, including weather data and gas prices. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 6 of 8 At the Planning Commission meeting on February 8, 2017, commissioners expressed an interest in allowing for certain types of dynamic display signs if standards were put in place to ensure quality and to reduce distraction to drivers. Staff reviewed standards adopted by Roseville, New Brighton, Shoreview, and Mounds View for dynamic display signs and has summarized the main types of standards below. Based on Planning Commission feedback on this item, additional work would need to be completed on possible standards for dynamic display signs. Duration and Transition The City can regulate how long a sign image is displayed for before there is a transition to another image. This would ensure that video or a rapid sequence of images were not used that could cause distraction. Roseville requires a minimum duration of 25 seconds and the three other communities require a minimum of 8 seconds. The transition between images could be required to be instantaneous. Transitions that include fading, dissolving, scrolling, traveling, or any other illusion of movement could be prohibited. Brightness To reduce the visual impact of dynamic display signs at night, the City could consider setting maximum brightness levels. The unit for measuring the brightness of the face of a sign is a nit (candelas per square meter). Roseville has adopted a maximum illumination of 5,000 nits during daylight hours and 500 nits between dusk and dawn as measured from the sign’s face at maximum brightness. Roseville also requires that dynamic display signs include a dimmer control that automatically reduces the illumination level of the sign between one half-hour before sunset and one half-hour after sunrise. Sign Content The Sign Code currently prohibits outdoor advertising signs, which are signs that advertise a product, business, service, event, or any other matter that is not available or does not take place on the same premises as the sign. If dynamic display signs were permitted, the messages displayed would be required to be for products and services offered on the property. An exception could be time and temperature display signs. Size The area of a dynamic display sign would be included in the maximum sign area permitted for the sign type. The City could place limits on how much of a sign area could be comprised of dynamic display. For example, in certain districts Shoreview limits the area that can be a dynamic display to 50 percent of the total sign area or 50 square feet whichever is less. Location The City could limit dynamic display signs to non-residential sign districts. Additionally, location, orientation, and hours of display regulations could be put in place to impact the impact of these signs on adjacent residential uses. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 7 of 8 General Prohibitions The City could retain the current prohibitions on any dynamic display sign that includes video display, fluctuating light intensity, flashing, blinking, or any other technology that creates the illusion of movement. Projecting Signs The Sign Code currently does not permit projecting signs. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows for projecting signs that extend up to six feet from the building wall they are attached to or 50 percent of the width of the public sidewalk, whichever is less. If the City chooses to allow projecting signs in areas outside of TCAAP, staff would not recommend adopting these same dimensions given the difference in the type of development that is expected on TCAAP. Staff would recommend considering adopting regulations similar to Roseville, which allows for projecting signs that extend up to 30 inches from the building wall. Staff would recommend that a projecting sign be counted towards the overall amount of wall signage permitted for a property. Temporary Signs For temporary signage, Arden Hills allows property owners to install up to one-half of the area allowed for a permanent wall or freestanding sign. Temporary signs may be displayed on three occasions per calendar year, with a maximum of 10 days each time. The three occasions may also be combined for one 30-day period. General Temporary Signs Staff would recommend simplifying the allowed temporary signage area to 32 square feet for businesses. Temporary signs must follow the height limit established for the sign district that the property is located in. Staff would also recommend changing the allowed display length to up to four occasions per year with a maximum of 14 days on each occasion. Grand Opening & Leasing Signs New businesses with a grand opening and buildings with vacant space are eligible for temporary signage. For grand openings, a sign may be in place for up to 30 days. Leasing signs may stay in place until seven days after a space is leased. Staff would not recommend any changes to the display length for these temporary signs. Staff would recommend that both grand opening and leasing signs be limited to 32 square feet. Property owners would still be limited to one temporary sign at a time. Inflatables and Banners The Sign Code currently lists streamers, banners, balloons, and inflatables as types of temporary signs that are regulated by the temporary on-premise sign requirements. These types of _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 8 of 8 commercial message displays would need to meet the area and height requirements for all temporary signs. Next Steps Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will complete additional work on possible revisions to the Sign Code. Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission for further discussion and review recommendations with the City Council before a public hearing is scheduled for any changes to the Sign Code. Attachments A. Planning Commission February 8, 2017 Packet B. Planning Commission February 8, 2017 Minutes _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 1 of 3 DATE: February 8, 2017 PC Agenda Item 5.C TO: Planning Commission Chair Thompson and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #17-004: Sign Code Review Requested Action Review past planning cases that included deviations from the Sign Code requirements, and provide further direction on how the Sign Code could be updated to improve the City’s sign regulations. Background The Planning Commission’s work plan for 2015 included completing a review and update of the City’s Sign Code. Staff began work on this item last fall, with the first task being a review of planning cases from the previous five years that included a request to deviate from the Sign Code. The purpose of this review was to identify areas of the Sign Code that may not be consistent with what businesses currently need for signage. A table summarizing these cases is included in Attachment B. The City has approved 15 planning cases since 2012 that included the following breakdown of specific requests: • Greater area for wall sign: 7 cases • Greater area for freestanding sign: 4 cases • Greater height for freestanding sign: 2 cases • Longer display period for temporary sign: 3 cases • Greater area for temporary sign: 4 cases • Electronic sign: 1 case • Projecting sign: 1 case MEMORANDUM _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 2 of 3 Sign Code Review Staff compared the sign ordnances of the cities of Roseville, New Brighton, Shoreview and Mounds View to the current Arden Hills sign ordinance based on the most common types of deviations requested (Attachment C). The sign regulations included in the TCAAP Redevelopment Codes were also reviewed. The purpose of this comparison was to identify sections of the Sign Code that are or are not consistent with neighboring communities. Wall Signage Currently, the sign ordinance allows a set square footage of wall signage based on the sign district the property is located in. This can be problematic, as it does not account for different sized buildings within the same district. Mounds View is the only other city in the study that regulates wall signage in this manner. The other cities regulate the amount of wall signage permitted based on a percentage of the building square footage or façade area. This allows for signage that fits individual buildings best, rather than a one size fits all approach. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code uses a combination of both, allowing either a set square footage or percent of the façade area, whichever is less. Monument and Freestanding Signs A monument sign is a type of freestanding sign where the sign face is mounted on the ground or a base rather than a pole. Sign Districts 4 and 5 only allow monument signs for freestanding signs. For all districts, freestanding signs are allowed a set square footage and height based on the sign district the property is located in. While none of the other cities limit the style of freestanding signs to individual districts, Roseville, New Brighton and Mounds View all regulate them in the same manner as Arden Hills; a set square footage based on sign district. Shoreview allows a set square footage based on the gross floor area of the principal structure. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows a set square footage for “Highway Monument Signs” and a percentage of the street frontage for “Corridor Monument Signs.” Electronic/Dynamic Display Signs Currently, the Sign Code does not allow any electronic or dynamic display signs. All four cities that were reviewed allow for some type of dynamic display signs. They are regulated as follows: • Roseville: Must be static and remain for a minimum duration of 25 seconds. • New Brighton: No animation or video is permitted and a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • Shoreview: No animation or video is permitted and a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • Mounds View: Must be static and remain for a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • TCAAP Redevelopment Code: Allowed only on “Marquee Signs.” A Marquee Sign is located at a theatre or other public venue and displays the name of the establishment or event details. Message board may be changeable copy provided that the copy does not change more than once every 15 minutes. _________________________________________________________________________________________ City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 8, 2017 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2017\PC 17-004 - Sign Code Amendment\Memos_Reports_17-004 Page 3 of 3 Projecting Signs The Sign Code defines a projecting sign as a sign, other than a wall sign, that projects more than 18 inches from the building façade. These types of signs are not permitted in Arden Hills, New Brighton, or Shoreview. Roseville regulates them as a wall sign, and they may only project up to 30 inches from the building façade. Mounds View allows them with a set square footage by zoning district. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows the lesser of a set square footage or 15% of the façade area. They may project no more than 50% of the width of the sidewalk, or six feet from the building façade line, whichever is less. Temporary Signs For temporary signs, Arden Hills allows up to half of the area allowed for permanent wall or freestanding signage to be displayed on three occasions throughout the year, with a maximum of 10 days each time. Businesses may also combine the three occasions to display a temporary sign for one 30-day period per year. Other cities’ regulations are as follows: • Roseville: Allows a maximum of 32 square feet up to 60 days in one year. • New Brighton: Allows up to 32 square feet on four occasions, up to 14 days each. • Shoreview: Allows either 32 or 64 square feet (depending on building size) on four occasions, up to 14 days each. • Mounds View: Allows temporary signage on four occasions, with a maximum of 21 days each. Can obtain a fifth permit for a banner only. • TCAAP Redevelopment Code: Maximum area of 150 square feet or 10% of the façade area, whichever is less. Maximum of thirty days per calendar year. Next Steps Based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will complete additional research on possible revisions to the Sign Code. Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission for further discussion and review recommendations with the City Council before a public hearing is scheduled for any changes to the Sign Code. Attachments A. Planning Case History Table B. Neighboring Cities Comparison C. Arden Hills Sign Code Arden Hills Sign Code Review - Planning Case History Table Planning Case Property Type of Request Permitted Signage Approved Signage 12-008 - PUD Amendment Cub Foods - 3717 Lexington Ave.Wall signage 80 s.f. wall sign 800 total s.f. 13-005 - Sign Standard Adjustment E Street Flats - 1201 County Rd E Temporary wall signage ● 40 s.f. wall sign ● 30-day period ● Two 216 s.f. signs ● Issued date until 30 days after Cert. of Occupancy 13-006 - Sign Standard Adjustment Ramsey County - TCAAP Redevelopment Site Temporary freestanding signage ● 22.5 s.f. freestanding sign ● 30-day period ● Four 32 s.f. signs ● Duration of TCAAP demolition (30 months) 13-009 - PUD Amendment E Street Flats - 1201 County Rd E Master Sign Plan: ● Monument signage ● Wall signage ● One 50 s.f. and one 25 s.f. monument sign ● 50 s.f. wall sign per business ● Two 51.2 s.f. monument signs ● 275 s.f. total wall signage (assumed 4 businesses) 13-010 - PUD Amendment Walgreens Pharmacy - 3585 Lexington Ave.Wall signage 80 s.f. wall sign 196.6 s.f. 13-012 - Variance Shell Gas Station - 1306 County Rd. E Digital LED gas price sign Electronic signs are not permitted 15.35 s.f. digital LED sign with 2 ft. numbers to display gas price 13-014 - PUD Amendment Lexington Station - 3833 Lexington Ave. N Master Sign Plan: ● Monument signage ● Wall signage ● One 100 s.f. and 50 s.f. monument sign, max height: 16 ft. ● 80 s.f. wall sign per tenant, 800 s.f. total for building ● One 135 s.f. monument signs, 20 ft. high ● 1,428 s.f. total wall signage 13-018 - Sign Standard Adjustment Gradient Financial - 4105 Lexington Ave. N Wall signage 60 s.f. 126 s.f. Arden Hills Sign Code Review - Planning Case History Table Planning Case Property Type of Request Permitted Signage Approved Signage 13-023 - Sign Standard Adjustment Arden Flats - 1290 County Road F West Temporary wall signage ● One 10 s.f. wall sign, 30 days ● One 25 s.f. wall sign, until 7 days after building is leased ● 438 s.f. total temporary wall signage ● Permitted for approximately 6 months (issue date until July 1, 2014) 14-006 - Sign Standard Adjustment Transwestern - 3725, 3728, 3750, 3757, 3768 Dunlap St. & 1230 Grey Fox Rd. Freesanding signage One freestanding sign per frontage, 37.5 s.f. total sign area One freestanding sign per property (6), 63 s.f. total sign area 16-003 - Master & Final PUD Arden Square - 1160 County Road E Monument sign 75 s.f. 107.25 s.f. 16-006 - Sign Standard Adjustment Scherer Bros. Lumber Co. - 4797 Highway 10 Wall signage 45 s.f.165 s.f. 16-018 - Sign Standard Adjustment Land O' Lakes - 4001 Lexington Ave. N Temporary freestanding signage 22.5 s.f., max height: 12 ft.120 s.f., at 13 ft. high 16-024 - Final PUD MedExpress - 1150 County Road E West Wall signage 80 s.f. 147.9 s.f. Arden Hills Sign Code Review - Neighboring Cities Comparison Municipality Wall Signs Freestanding Signs Dynamic Display Signs Projecting Signs Temporary Signs Arden Hills A percentage of the wall depending on the square footage of the building Signs must be monument type depending on district. Set square footage depending on sign district Not permitted Not permitted 3 occasions with a max of 10 days each. Allowed half of the area allowed for permanent signage Arden Hills - TCAAP Redevelopment Code For "Building Identity Sign", Lesser of set square footage or percent of façade area, which varies by location. Set square footage for "Highway Monument Sign". 0.7 sq. ft. per linear foot of street frontage up to 150 sq. ft. for "Corridor Monument Sign". Electronic message boards are allowed on "Marquee Signs" provided that copy does not change more than once every 15 minutes 200 sq. ft. or 15% of the façade area, whichever is less. Sign may project no more than 50% of the width of the sidwalk or six ft. from the building façade, whichever is less Maximum area of 150 sq. ft. or 10% of the façade area, whichever is less. Maximum 30 days per calendar year unless an extension is granted by CD Department. Roseville 1-1.5 sq. ft. per lineal foot of tenant space or building front (main public entry as per determination by CD Department) depending on district Set square footage depending on zoning district Minimum duration of 25 seconds and image must be static. Regulated as a wall sign and may not project more than 30 inches 60 days. Max 32 sq. ft. New Brighton Either a set square footage or percentage of the "signable area" which varies by zoning district Set square footage depending on zoning district Minimum duration of 8 seconds. No animation or video is permitted Not permitted 4 occasions with max 14 days each. Max 32 sq. ft. Arden Hills Sign Code Review - Neighboring Cities Comparison Municipality Wall Signs Freestanding Signs Dynamic Display Signs Projecting Signs Temporary Signs Shoreview A percentage of the wall depending on the square footage of the building Set square footage depending on gross floor area of principal structure and sign type (cabinet style or individual letter) Minimum duration of 8 seconds. No animation or video is permitted Not permitted 4 occasions with max 14 days each. 32 sq. ft. for buildings less that 50,000 sq ft. in area. 64 sq. ft. for buildings over 50,000 sq. ft. in area. Mounds View Set square footage based on district GROUND SIGN: Set square footage based on zoning district Minimum of 8 seconds. Must be static. Set square footage based on zoning district 4 occasions with max 21 days each. 5th permit is allowed for banner only. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-1 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Chapter 12 - Sign Code Section 1200 – Purpose and Intent 1200.01 Recitals. This Chapter shall be known, cited and referred to as the Arden Hills Sign Code, except as referred to herein, where it shall be known as “this Chapter.” 1200.02 Purpose and Findings. The purpose and findings of this Chapter are as follows: Subd. 1 Purpose. This Sign Code is intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of sign control that accommodates the need for a well-maintained, safe, and attractive community, and the need for effective communications, including business identification. It is the intent of these sign regulations, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public in all areas of the City. It is not the purpose or intent of this Chapter to regulate the message displayed on any sign. The purpose of this Chapter is to authorize: A. Permanent signs which establish a high standard of aesthetics and are appropriate for the planned character in each sign district as established in Section 1240; B. Signs which are compatible with their surroundings; C. Signs which are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or create a hazard to motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists; D. Signs that are proportioned to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, principal structures; E. Permanent signs which give preference to the on-premise owner or occupant; F. Temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity to advertise while restricting signs that create visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections; G. Minimize adverse effects on nearby property; and, H. Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set forth herein under the authority of the City. Subd. 2 Findings. The City finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community to control the construction, location, size, and maintenance of signs. Further, the City finds: City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-2 Adopted: March 10, 2008 A. Permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on and relationship to the image and aesthetic of the community; B. The manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community; C. An opportunity for viable identification of community businesses, residences, and institutions must be established; D. The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that create a hazard for drivers, particularly from dynamic display signs; E. Installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and an obstacle to effective fire-fighting and other emergency service; F. Uncontrolled and unlimited signs and sign types, particularly dynamic display signs, adversely impact the image and aesthetic attractiveness of the community and thereby undermine economic value and growth; G. Uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logical flow of information; H. Commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and I. The right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be protected, subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number. 1200.03 Scope of Regulations. The sign regulations set forth in this Chapter shall apply to all structures and all land uses. This Chapter describes the signage standards for the nine sign districts that overlay the zoning districts of the City. Specific additional regulations are established for signs which are unique in purpose and not easily addressed by district regulations. No person, property owner, lessee shall place, erect, alter, modify, enhance or change in any way a sign that does not conform to the requirements of this Chapter and all other applicable regulations. 1200.04 Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase, or other part of this Chapter is for any reason held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portion of this Chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the Chapter in each section, subsection, sentence, or phase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subjections, sentences, clauses, or phrases are declared invalid. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-3 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1210 - Definitions 1210.01 Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicated a different meaning:  Auxiliary sign. A sign that provides direction for internal circulation, parking or entry, restrictions on parking, security warnings, or other similar primarily noncommercial signs that are directed at people that are entering, exiting, or on a particular property. Auxiliary signs do not include outdoor advertising signs.  Banner. Any temporary sign of lightweight fabric or similar material mounted to a pole or a building at one (1) or more edges.  Billboard. See “Outdoor advertising sign.”  Canopy/awning sign. A message or logo on an awning or canopy which is constructed according to the requirements of the building code, is an integral part of the building, and is consistent with the architecture and design of the building.  Clear vision area. The clear vision area shall be an area within a triangle that is measured along the edge of the driving surface of the road starting at the intersection of two roads (public or private) and extending thirty (30) feet in each direction from the intersection and then a line connecting these two end points.  Changeable message sign. A message that is not permanently attached to the sign face but is not a dynamic display. The message is changed manually.  Commercial message sign. Any message which identifies a business or product or promotes the sale of any product or service.  Dynamic Display. Any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes, but is not limited to, any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, projecting, or animated display City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-4 Adopted: March 10, 2008 and any display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink," or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays.  Freestanding sign. A self-supporting sign usually held up by uprights placed in the ground or any other base that is anchored to the ground.  Grand opening. Commencement of operation of a new business. For purposes of the ordinance, a grand opening is considered to occur if there is a business name change or change in type of business or activity.  Graphic sign. A sculpture attached to or sign painted directly on a wall that is primarily symbolic or representational in nature and not alpha or numeric in content or copy.  Illuminated sign. Any sign, which has characters, letters, figures, designs or outlines which is illuminated by an artificial light source.  Incidental sign. Any sign that is generally not understandable or readable from property other than where the sign is located, such as from adjacent property or a public street, as determined by the City Administrator of their designee.  Lighting, backlit. An illuminated sign where the light source which illuminates the wall behind individual sign letters is hidden from view. The sign letters are opaque and appear as a silhouette against the lighted surface.  Lighting, external. The sign is illuminated by means of external light fixtures directed at the sign.  Lighting, internal. An illuminated sign having the source of illumination located inside a translucent panel and is not directly visible.  Monument sign. A freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign and is less than sixteen (16) feet in height.  On-premise sign. A sign whose message is related to the property or the activity and use occurring on the property on which the sign is located. On-premise signs include multi-tenant identification signs that may advertise tenants on different property provided such tenants are within the same approved PUD and parking is shared between properties.  Outdoor advertising sign. Any sign that is located outdoors and that advertises a product, business, service, event, or any other matter that is not available, or does not take place, on the same premises as the sign. Outdoor advertising signs are commonly called billboards. An outdoor advertising sign does not include a sign that is not readily understandable or readable from property other than where the sign is located, such as from adjacent property or a public street, as determined by the City Administrator or their designee. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-5 Adopted: March 10, 2008  Permanent sign. Any sign that is not temporary.  Pole sign. A freestanding sign that is elevated off the ground by one or more poles.  Portable sign. A temporary sign with or without copy and graphic that is designed or intended to be moved or transported but not including banner signs. Examples of portable signs include, but are not limited to: A-frame or T-frame signs, sandwich signs; signs designed to be transported by trailer or on wheels; and signs mounted on a vehicle for advertising purposes, except signs identifying a business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day operation of that business. A sign may be a portable sign even if it has wheels removed, was designed without wheels, or is attached to the ground, a structure, or other sign.  Projecting sign. A sign, other than a wall sign, that is attached to and projects more than eighteen (18) inches from the building façade.  Public sign. A traffic control sign in Minnesota State Statutes; any identification sign installed in a public park by a public authority; and any other identification, regulatory, or warning sign approved by the City Council for installation on public land.  Re-facing. The process of replacing the sign copy, message, logo, or graphic on a sign without altering or moving the structure to which the sign face is attached.  Roof sign. A sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or on a parapet wall that is above the roof line.  Rotating sign. A sign or a portion of a sign which moves in a rotating oscillating or similar manner other than changing signs.  Service area canopy. Open air roof-like structure that projects from the wall of a building or is freestanding and is for the purpose of shielding equipment and/or people from the elements; is often found covering service or gasoline station islands.  Sign. Any written message, pictorial presentation, number, illustration, decoration, banner or other device that is used to announce, direct attention to, identify, advertise or otherwise make anything known. For purpose of maintenance or removal, the term “sign” shall also include frames and support structures.  Sign area. The area in square feet of smallest rectangle, circle, or triangle that contains the sign copy.  Sign height. The distance measured perpendicular from the highest point of the sign structure to the average elevation of the street used for access to the property. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-6 Adopted: March 10, 2008  Temporary sign. A sign designed to be displayed for a limited period of time that is not permanently affixed to the land or to a structure.  Wall sign. A sign attached to or erected against an exterior wall surface of a building or structure.  Window sign. A sign mounted inside of a building within the window area that is applied or fastened to the window in a manner that is intended to be viewed from outside the building. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-7 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1220 – Permit and Review Process 1220.01 Permit Required. Except for those signs listed in Section 1230.01, no sign shall be erected, altered, reconstructed, maintained, moved, or enhanced in the City without obtaining a sign permit from the City. The content of the message or speech displayed on the sign shall not be considered when approving or denying a sign permit; however, the content must be submitted to evaluate the sign copy area and to restrict permanent off-premise signs. A separate sign application shall be required for each sign. 1220.02 Application Process. An application for a sign permit shall be on the City’s official sign application. Unless waived by the City Administrator or their designee, each application shall contain the following information or it shall be considered incomplete: Subd. 1 Name, signature, address, and phone number of the property owner (required). Subd. 2 Name, signature, address, and phone number of the applicant (if different than the property owner). Subd. 3 Parcel ID of the property. Subd. 4 A complete set of plans drawn to scale showing the necessary elevations, setbacks, size, and details to fully and clearly represent the construction and place of the signs(s). Subd. 5 Type of sign (wall, monument, pole, etc.). Subd. 6 Certification by the applicant(s) indicating the application complies with all requirements of this Chapter. Subd. 7 A separate building permit may also be required from the Building Official for signs involving new or modified sign structures. Subd. 8 If the applicant is not the property owner, the applicant shall obtain written permission from the property owner and provide a copy to the City prior to approval of the permit. 1220.03 Review Process. The City Administrator or their designee shall approve or deny the sign permit application in an expedited manner, no more that thirty (30) days from the receipt of the completed application, including applicable fees. All permits not reviewed within thirty (30) days shall be deemed approved. Applicants shall be notified in writing if the application is denied, including the reasons for denial. 1220.04 Appeals Process. Appeals shall be made to the Planning Commission in writing within fifteen (15) days of the confirmed delivery of the denial letter for the sign permit application. The Planning Commission shall hold a hearing as soon as practicable but not more than forty-five (45) days after confirmed receipt of the appeal to review the appeal and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall review the Planning Commission’s recommendation as soon as practicable but not more than forty-five (45) days after the Planning Commission’s recommendation. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-8 Adopted: March 10, 2008 1220.05 Fees. Sign permit fees and the impoundment fee shall be set by the City Council by ordinance on an annual basis. 1220.06 Inspection & Enforcement. Subd. 1 Inspection Authority. All signs shall be subject to inspection by the City Administrator or their designee, who is hereby authorized to enter upon any property of premise to ascertain whether the provisions of this Chapter are being obeyed. Such entrance shall be made during business hours unless an emergency exists. Subd. 2 Signs in Disrepair. The City Administrator or their designee may order the removal of any sign that is not maintained in accordance with the maintenance provisions of this ordinance. Upon failure to comply with such notice within the time specified in such order, the City Council may declare the sign to be a public nuisance, impound it, and assess the cost of removal to the sign owner or the sign owner’s agent. Subd. 3 Impoundment of Signs on Public Property or Within Public Right-of-way. The City Administrator or their designee may, at any time and without notice, impound signs that have been installed on public property, within a public right-of way, or within a public easement that are in violation of this Chapter. The sign owner or their agent may retrieve an impounded sign subject to the following rules: A. Payment of an impoundment release fee. Any subsequent impoundment(s), within one calendar year, for a particular property or sign owner will require payment of double the initial impoundment release fee. B. Any impounded sign may be retrieved from the impound area within three (3) business days of the impoundment or the City Administrator or their designee may dispose of it. The impound area can be located by contacting City Hall. Any cost incurred by the City for disposal of an impounded sign may be assessed to the sign owner or the sign owner’s agent. C. The City shall have no obligation to notify a property owner that it has impounded a sign. D. The City shall not be held liable for any damage to an impounded sign. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-9 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1230 – Exempt and Prohibited Signs 1230.01 Exemptions. All signs shall require an approved sign permit prior to placement except for the signs specifically noted in this section. Exempted signs shall not reduce the permitted signage for a property. These exemptions shall not relieve the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its maintenance and its compliance with the provisions of this Chapter or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. Subd. 1 Government Signs. All governmental signs, including but not limited to traffic control and other regulatory purpose signs, street signs, identification signs, informational signs, danger signs and railroad crossing signs. Subd. 2 Non-commercial Signs in an Election Year. Signs of any size containing non-commercial speech may be posted from August 1 in any general or City election year until ten (10) days following the general election and thirteen (13) weeks prior to any special election until ten (10) days following the special election provided that the signs are in compliance with Minnesota Statutes. These non-commercial signs shall be placed in accordance with Section 1250.03 Subd 2, 3, and 4. Subd. 3 Address Signs. Address identification not exceeding four (4) square feet in area for each structure or portion of a structure with an assigned address. Street identification numbers are required in all sign districts and should be clearly visible from the street. Subd. 4 Exempt Residential Signs. Properties in Sign Districts 1 and 3 shall be allowed up to eight (8) square feet of signage provided that a single sign is no larger than six (6) square feet, the signs are not illuminated, and freestanding signs are at least five (5) feet from any property line. Subd. 5 Temporary Off-premise Signs. Temporary off-premise signs as designated in Section 1250.03; Subd. 6 Portable Signs. Portable A-frame, T-frame, sandwich , or other similar signs that do not exceed six (6) square feet in size, are not illuminated, are located within fifteen (15) feet of the primary entrance to a building, and are displayed only during the hours of business operation. No more than two of these signs shall be in place at any given time. Subd. 7 Incidental Signs. Incidental signs or signs within a building provided that the sign is not readily visible from the public right-of-way, adjacent properties, and are not illuminated; and, Subd. 8 Window Signs. Window signs that are inside of a building shall not require a permit but shall be in accordance with Section 1240.02 Table 1. Subd. 9 Non-commercial Signs. Any sign display or device allowed under this section may contain, in lieu of other copy, any otherwise lawful noncommercial message that does not direct attention to a business operated for profit, or to a commodity service for sale, and that complies with the size, height and lighting requirements of this Chapter. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-10 Adopted: March 10, 2008 1230.02 Prohibited Signs. The following signs shall be prohibited in all sign districts: Subd. 1 Signs with Moving, Swinging, Revolving, or Rotating parts. Subd. 2 Dynamic Display Signs. Subd. 3 Roof Signs. Subd. 4 Projecting signs. Subd. 5 Noncompliant Signs. Any sign not constructed, wired, assembled, attached or supported in conformance with applicable building or other codes and regulations; Subd. 6 Signs in the Right-of-way. Signs in the public right-of-way except as provided for in Section 1250.03, by Minnesota Statutes, or allowed by the agency regulating the right-of-way; Subd. 7 Signs attached to public utility poles, trees, street signs, stoplights, or fences; Subd. 8 Permanent outdoor advertising sign, including billboards; Subd. 9 Portable Signs. Portable signs shall be prohibited, except for portable A– frame, T-frame, sandwich, or other similar signs that do not exceed six (6) square feet in size. Subd. 10 Signs in the Clear Vision Area. Subd. 11 Signs Imitating Traffic Control Signs. Signs which are designed to resemble official traffic signs except signs which are used to control traffic on private property; Subd. 11 Any sign, sign type, sign lighting, or sign technology not specifically listed as permitted in this Chapter shall be prohibited. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-11 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1240 – General Sign Regulations 1240.01 Regulation by Sign District. For the purpose of regulating signs, the following nine sign districts are adopted: District Description 1 All residential properties zoned R-1 or R-2. 2 All non-residential uses in the R-1 through R-4 zoning districts. 3 All residential properties zoned R-3 and R-4. 4 All properties fronting on County Road E east of Highway 51 except for those properties with frontage on Lexington Avenue. 5 All properties fronting on Lexington Avenue South of Interstate 694. 6 All properties zoned for commercial or industrial use fronting on Lexington Avenue north of Interstate 694, properties along Highway 96, and properties located in the B-1 zoning district. 7 All properties in the I-Flex, Gateway Business, or other commercial or industrial district without frontage on a roadway designated above. 8 All properties zoned Neighborhood Business. 9 The parts of the TCAAP area not fronting on Highway 96. 1240.02 Permitted Sign Type, Area, Height, and Illumination by Sign District. All signs shall conform to the applicable standards in Table One: Sign Standards by Sign District. The following provisions shall also apply: Subd. 1 Wall Sign. Wall signs shall not extend more than eighteen (18) inches from the wall they are attached to. Subd. 2 Freestanding Pole or Monument Signs. A. No more than one freestanding sign shall be permitted on any site except in cases where properties front more than one public street. For properties that front more than one public street, an additional freestanding sign may be permitted for each street front provided that each additional freestanding sign does not exceed half the size of the maximum sign area allowed for a freestanding sign in the underlying sign district. B. The sign area of a freestanding sign shall only be calculated using one side of the sign. If the two sides are different sizes, the larger side shall be used for determining sign area. C. Freestanding signs in Sign Districts 4 and 5 shall be monument type ground signs with the copy resting on and supported by a solid base of brick or rock-faced block in a color similar to or complimentary to the main structure on the site. The material of the base must extend at least one- half way up the sides of the sign face. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-12 Adopted: March 10, 2008 D. Freestanding signs shall be located at least five (5) feet from any property line and shall not project over the property line. However, if the bottom edge of the sign copy is not located at least ten (10) feet above the ground with supports that do not encroach on the clear vision area of approaching traffic, the sign shall be located to preserve the clear vision area. E. The total area of a freestanding sign shall not exceed 1.5 times the permitted sign copy area of a freestanding sign. The total sign area includes all sign copy, graphics, decorative features, borders, and structural supports except for the poles. Subd. 3 Service Area Canopy. Each edge of a service area canopy facing a street is permitted twenty-five (25) square feet of sign area in addition to all other sign area permitted on the site. Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other part of the face of the canopy shall be illuminated. Subd. 4 Awnings and Canopies. No part of an awning or sun canopy shall be less than eight (8) feet or greater than twelve (12) feet above grade. Any sign area on the awning, if illuminated, will be deducted from the permitted wall sign area. The fabric or material used for the awning or canopy must be opaque and no internal illumination is permitted. City of Arden Hills Chapter 12 - Sign Code 12-13 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Sign Type District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7 District 8 District 9 Residential R1/R2 Non- Residential Uses R1-R4 Residential R3/R4 County E Frontage Revised December 3, 2008 Lexington S of 694 Lexington N of 694, 96 & B1 I FLEX & Gateway, Non-Frontage Commercial Neighborhood Business TCAAP without frontage on Highway 96 Total sign copy area 8 sf 20 sf 20 sf 50 sf 80 sf 60 sf 45 sf 30 sf 30 sf Max Height none none none none none none none 14 ft 14 ft Lighting (a)Not permitted external Not permitted E/I/B E/I/B E/I E/I Not permitted Not permitted Type (b)M/P/O M/P/O M/P/O M/O M/O M/P/O M/P/O M/P/O Not permitted Total sign copy area 6 sf 48 sf 32 sf 50 sf 100 sf 45 sf 25 sf 60 sf Not permitted Max Height 8 sf 6 ft 8 sf 10 ft 16 ft 12 ft 8 ft 8 ft Not permitted Lighting Not permitted E/I E E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B E E/I Not permitted Total sign area Not permitted 25% of wall Not permitted 25% of wall 25% of wall Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Max Height Not permitted none Not permitted none none Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Lighting Not permitted external Not permitted external external Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Maximum coveage area Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted 35% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building façade 35% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building façade 35% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building façade 35% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building façade 20% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building façade 35% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building façade Max sign copy area per sign 2 sf 4 sf 4 sf 8 sf 8 sf 6 sf 8 sf 6 sf 6 sf Wall Height Not permitted 4 ft 4 ft 8 ft 8 ft 6 ft 8 ft 6 ft 6 ft Freestanding Height 2 ft 4 ft 4 ft 8 ft 8 ft 6 ft 8 ft 6 ft 6 ft FREESTANDING GRAPHIC WINDOW Table 1 1240.02 - Table 1: Sign Standards by Sign District WALL (c) Single pole support only. (b) M = monument, P = pole, O = temporary off-premise sign (see 1250.03) AUXILIARY (a) E = external, I = internal, B = backlit 12-14 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Subd. 5 Adult Use Signs. In addition to this Chapter, all adult use oriented signs shall comply with the sign requirements in the Adult Use Ordinance. Where any provisions of this Chapter conflict with the Adult Use Ordinance, the provision that is more stringent shall be applied. 1240.03 Manual Changeable Message Sign. No more than thirty-five (35) percent of the actual sign area of a permitted sign in a non-residential sign district shall be capable of displaying manually changing messages. The remainder of the sign area shall not have the capability to change messages even if not used. Manual changing message signs shall not include dynamic displays. 12-15 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1250 – Special Provisions 1250.01 Allocation of Permanent Signs on Multi-Tenant Developments and Sites. In multi- tenant buildings or sites, the permitted sign area and sign types, except for freestanding signs, may be installed by each individual business establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside. Tenants located on the street or otherwise primary level in a center with a common mall or atrium shall be considered to have direct access to the outside for the purpose of this section. The management and ownership of any business establishment proposing to install signage must be separate and distinct from the management and ownership of any other establishment in the same building or on the same building lot. Each establishment must be separated from all other establishments by demising walls [as per the International Building Code] having no openings or passages. Subd. 1 Multi-tenant Buildings and Properties Sign Allocation. Signage for establishments occupying a multi-tenant building or site but not located on the street or primary level of the building must be provided from the allocation of sign area and type to the occupants of the street or primary level of the building as determined by the property owner. Subd. 2 Freestanding Signs on Multi-tenant Buildings and Properties. For freestanding signs, a multi-tenant parcel shall be considered one parcel and freestanding signs shall be permitted in accordance with Section 1240.02 Table 1. In the case of multiple tenant sites, the permitted freestanding sign area shall be allocated by the property owner among its tenants. 1250.02 Temporary On-premise Signs. Except as provided for in 1250.03, all other temporary signs shall require an approved sign permit prior to placing the sign and shall conform to the following: Subd. 1 Temporary Sign Permit Length. Temporary signs, including portable signs, streamers, pennants, banners, balloons, inflatables or other similar object with a commercial message, may be displayed on three (3) occasions per calendar year with a maximum of ten (10) days for each occasion. The three (3) occasions may be used consecutively with one permit. Temporary sign permits are nontransferable to other properties or establishments on the same property. Subd. 2 Single occupant parcels. A. No more than one permitted temporary sign shall be permitted at any given time. The area of the temporary signage shall not exceed one half of the permitted sign area as allowed in Section 1240.02 Table 1 for a particular sign type in the underlying sign district; B. Freestanding temporary signs shall only be permitted in districts where freestanding signs are permitted as allowed in Section 1240.02 Table 1. If a conforming freestanding sign is already in place, the temporary freestanding sign shall be attached to or near to the existing freestanding sign; Subd. 3 Multi-tenant parcels. 12-16 Adopted: March 10, 2008 A. Each individual business establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside qualifies for the temporary signs permitted in Section 1250.02 Subd 1. Sign permits shall not be transferrable to other business establishments. B. Temporary wall signage may be permitted for each individual business establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside. The total temporary wall sign area for each tenant shall not exceed one half of the permitted permanent wall sign area as allowed in Section 1240.02 Table 1. Each business shall not have more than one wall or freestanding temporary sign at a time. C. One temporary freestanding sign may be permitted for each individual business establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside. The total area of all temporary freestanding signage for the parcel shall not exceed one half of the permitted area of permanent freestanding signage for the parcel as allowed in Section 1240.02 Table 1. The total permitted temporary freestanding sign area shall be allocated by the property owner or their designee among its tenants. Subd. 4 Grand Openings. New businesses with grand openings are eligible for one additional temporary sign permit of any type permitted in the underlying sign district with an approved permit. The sign may be in place for up to thirty (30) days provided all other requirements in this section are met and the required permits are obtained. This eligibility shall expire six months after the business opens. Subd. 5 Lease or Vacant Space. Buildings or parcels with space for sale or lease may obtain a temporary sign permit for one temporary wall or monument sign that does not expire until seven (7) days after the building or parcel is leased or sold. A wall sign shall not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in size and shall be used in place of a permanent wall sign. A freestanding sign shall not exceed fifteen (15) square feet in size and shall be attached or immediately adjacent to an exiting freestanding sign. All other provisions in this section 1350.02 shall apply. Subd. 6 Temporary Sign Height. A temporary sign shall not exceed the height limits listed in Section 1240.02 Table 1 for a permanent sign of a particular sign type in a given district, including inflatable signs and balloons. Subd. 7 Sign Installation. Temporary signs shall be secured and well-constructed so as not to create a hazard to pedestrians or vehicles. Subd. 8 Illumination. A temporary sign shall not be illuminated. Subd. 9 Location. The permitted location of all temporary signs are subject to change as determined by the City Administrator of their designee in order to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics. 12-17 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Subd. 10 Mounds View, Bethel University, and Northwestern College Banner Signs. Temporary banner signs for athletic fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College shall be exempt from the provisions of this section and shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 1250.04. 1250.03 Temporary Off-premise Signs. Subd. 1 Sign Number Limit. Each residential property is allowed up to five (5) freestanding, temporary, off-premise signs in the City right-of-way or on private property provided that the signs: (revised 5/13/13) A. Are four (4) square feet or less in size, less than four (4) feet high; and at least five (5) feet from the edge of the road; B. Are not illuminated; C. Are within one mile of the property for which the signs are advertising (this provision does not preempt the sign regulations for neighboring communities); D. Displayed no more than three consecutive days in any seven day period. Subd. 2 Permission. The sign owner shall obtain permission from the property owner on which the sign is placed. Failure to obtain permission may result in removal of the sign. If the sign is placed in City right-of-way, the sign owner shall obtain permission from the property owner that shares a property line with the adjoining right-of-way where the sign is located. Failure to obtain permission may result in removal of the sign. Subd. 3 Disclaimer. The City of Arden Hills shall not be responsible for damage to any signs placed in the right-of-way. Subd. 4 Right-of-way Regulatory Authority. Off-premise signs placed in Ramsey County or State of Minnesota right-of-way shall be subject to Ramsey County and State of Minnesota regulations. Failure to obtain permission from the appropriate agency may result in removal of the sign. 1250.04 Temporary Banner Signs for Athletic Fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College. Athletic fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College may be permitted to have temporary banner signs attached to the fences of their athletic fields provided that such signage faces the field of play so that the impact of the signage is directed only to those utilizing the field or watching the sporting event, and not surrounding property owners. In addition, to the greatest extent possible such signage shall not obstruct sightlines to the athletic field for those watching the sporting event from the bleachers or other designated viewing areas. The content of temporary banner signage shall comply with the sponsorship sign regulations as established by Mounds View High School, Bethel University, or Northwestern College for their respective athletic fields. The City Administrator or Administrator’s designee shall determine if the signage is visible from a public roadway or from property outside of Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and 12-18 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Northwestern College. If found to be visible, the signs shall comply with the following size limitations and shall follow the sign permit process as described below: Subd. 1 Individual Sign Area. Temporary banner signs shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet each. Subd. 2 Total Signage Area. The temporary banner sign shall not exceed a massing of over nine hundred and sixty (960) square feet in one area or a total of two thousand (2000) square feet. Subd. 3 Time Limit. Temporary banner sign shall not be displayed for more than ninety (90) consecutive days or more than one hundred and eighty (180) days during the calendar year. Subd. 4 Permit Requirements. Sign permits shall not be required for individual banner signs but shall be required where a new group massing of signage is requested. Subd. 5 Compliance. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this section (including but not limited to: the dimensions of individual banner signs, the dimensions of that group of banner signs, and the total square feet of temporary banner signs). 1250.05 Permanent Scoreboard Signs for Athletic Fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College. Athletic fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College may be permitted to have permanent scoreboard signage at their athletic fields that is clearly secondary to the overall appearance of the scoreboard. Such signage shall face the field of play so that the impact of the signage is directed only to those utilizing the field or watching the sporting event, and not surrounding property owners. The content of scoreboard signage shall comply with the sponsorship sign regulations as established by Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College, for their respective athletic fields. The City Administrator or the Administrator’s designee shall determine if the signage is visible from a public roadway or from property outside of Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College. If found to be visible, the signs shall comply with the following size limitations and shall follow the sign permit process as described below: Subd. 1 Sign Area. Scoreboard signage shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total scoreboard area, nor shall any one scoreboard sign exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total scoreboard area. Subd. 2 Sign Permit Required. Since the scoreboard signs are permanent in nature, the applicant shall be required to obtain sign permit approval prior to the installation of any new scoreboard sponsorship signs; at such time the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this section. 1250.06 Permanent Signs for Athletic Fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College. Athletic fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College may be permitted to have permanent signage at their respective athletic fields. Such signage shall be permanent in nature and shall not be lit by a direct lighting source. Signs may be an entrance gate style sign, signage affixed directly to a press box/grandstand, or 12-19 Adopted: March 10, 2008 signage included on the scoreboard. Such signage shall be constructed of durable materials (finished metal, finished wood, plastic). The City Administrator or Administrator’s designee shall determine if the signage is visible from a public roadway or from property outside of Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College. If found to be visible, the signs shall comply with the following size limitations and shall follow the sign permit process as described below: Subd. 1 Sign Area. The signage area of entrance gate signs shall not exceed thirty (30) square feet, the signage area of press box/grandstand signage shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet, and scoreboard field naming signage shall not exceed forty (40) percent of the total scoreboard area. Subd. 2 Total Sign Area. The cumulative total of permanent signage shall not exceed two hundred (200) square feet. Subd. 3 Sign Permit Required. Since the signage would be permanent in nature, the applicant shall be required to obtain a sign permit approval prior to the installation of any new signage; at such time the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this section. 12-20 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1260 – Sign Standard Adjustments 1260.01 Sign Standard Adjustments. Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this Chapter may be approved with a Site Plan Review or a Planned Unit Development process as described for in Section 1320 and 1355 of the Zoning Code. This provision shall not be used to permit dynamic display signage. In order to approve any sign standard adjustment, the following criteria of Subd. 1 or Subd. 2 shall be satisfied, and the necessary criteria of Subd. 3 shall be satisfied: Subd. 1 There are site conditions which require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site; Subd. 2 The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or a style that will enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the site; Subd. 3 The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. 12-21 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1270 – Maintenance Repair 1270.01 Maintenance and Repair. All signs shall be kept in good repair and free from peeling paint, rust, damaged or rotted supports, framework or other material, broken or missing faces or missing letters. Any structure from which a sign has been moved or removed shall be repaired with materials and/or painted or stained to match the existing background. Subd. 1 Sign Permit Not Required. Activities considered normal maintenance and repair and not requiring a sign or building permit shall include activities such as replacing or repairing lamps, ballasts, transformers, trim, sign fasteners, nuts, or washers; painting the pole of freestanding signs; and painting the cabinet of freestanding signs or building signs. Subd. 2 Sign Permit Required. For any sign that required a permit, the following activities shall not be considered normal maintenance and repair a permit shall be required: A. Re-facing a sign, except for the text on a manual changeable message sign. B. Removing the sign for the repair of the cabinet or any part thereof. C. Changes made to a sign’s size or illumination, including, but not limited to, height, width, weight, area, adding or removing illumination D Changes in poles, structural supports, bases or shrouds, footings or anchor bolts, moving the sign to a new location, or replacement of the interior or exterior cabinet frame, except the sign face. Subd. 3 Building Permit. A building permit may be required for any signs involving the construction of or changes to a sign structure and/or electrical connections as determined by the Building Official. 12-22 Adopted: March 10, 2008 Section 1280 – Non-Conforming Signs 1280.01 Non-conforming Signs. It is the intent of this Chapter that non-conforming signs shall not be enlarged or expanded, nor be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent of this Chapter to permit legal non- conforming signs to remain provided that such signs are safe, maintained so as not to be unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed subject to the following provisions: Subd. 1 Non-conforming Sign Continuance. A legal non-conforming sign may be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but shall not be expanded or moved to a new location. Subd. 2 Non-conforming Sign Discontinuance. If the use of the non-conforming sign or sign structure is discontinued for a period of one (1) year, the sign or sign structure shall not be reconstructed or used except in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter. Subd. 3 Non-conforming Sign Damaged or Destroyed. Should such non- conforming sign or sign structure be damaged or destroyed by any means to an extent greater than fifty (50) percent of its market value or structure and all required permits for its reconstruction have not been applied for within one-hundred eighty (180) days of when the sign or sign structure was damaged, it shall not be reconstructed or used except in conformity with the provisions of this Chapter. Subd. 4 Sign Regulation Conformance. Should such sign or sign structure be permanently moved for any reason for any distance, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the sign district in which it is located after it is moved. Subd. 5 Loss of Non-conforming Land Use. An existing sign devoted to a use not permitted by the Section 1320, Zoning Ordinance, in the zoning district in which it is located shall not be enlarged, expanded or moved except in changing the sign to a sign permitted in the sign district in which it is located. Subd. 6 Loss of Non-conforming Status. When a building or use loses its nonconforming status, all signs devoted to the structure or use shall be removed and all signs painted directly on the structure shall be repainted in a neutral color or a color which will harmonize with the structure. Approved: March 8, 2017 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2017 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS C. Planning Case 17-004 – Sign Code Review Hannah Rybak, WSB, explained the Planning Commission’s work plan for 2015 included completing a review and update of the City’s Sign Code. Staff began work on this item last fall, with the first task being a review of planning cases from the previous five years that included a request to deviate from the Sign Code. The purpose of this review was to identify areas of the Sign Code that may not be consistent with what businesses currently need for signage. The City has approved 15 planning cases since 2012 that included the following breakdown of specific requests: • Greater area for wall sign: 7 cases • Greater area for freestanding sign: 4 cases • Greater height for freestanding sign: 2 cases • Longer display period for temporary sign: 3 cases • Greater area for temporary sign: 4 cases • Electronic sign: 1 case • Projecting sign: 1 case Ms. Rybak reported staff compared the sign ordnances of the cities of Roseville, New Brighton, Shoreview and Mounds View to the current Arden Hills sign ordinance based on the most common types of deviations requested. The sign regulations included in the TCAAP Redevelopment Codes were also reviewed. The purpose of this comparison was to identify sections of the Sign Code that are or are not consistent with neighboring communities. Ms. Rybak explained currently, the sign ordinance allows a set square footage of wall signage based on the sign district the property is located in. This can be problematic, as it does not account for different sized buildings within the same district. Mounds View is the only other city in the study that regulates wall signage in this manner. The other cities regulate the amount of wall signage permitted based on a percentage of the building square footage or façade area. This allows for signage that fits individual buildings best, rather than a one size fits all approach. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code uses a combination of both, allowing either a set square footage or percent of the façade area, whichever is less. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 2 Ms. Rybak reported a monument sign is a type of freestanding sign where the sign face is mounted on the ground or a base rather than a pole. Sign Districts 4 and 5 only allow monument signs for freestanding signs. For all districts, freestanding signs are allowed a set square footage and height based on the sign district the property is located in. While none of the other cities limit the style of freestanding signs to individual districts, Roseville, New Brighton and Mounds View all regulate them in the same manner as Arden Hills; a set square footage based on sign district. Shoreview allows a set square footage based on the gross floor area of the principal structure. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows a set square footage for “Highway Monument Signs” and a percentage of the street frontage for “Corridor Monument Signs.” Ms. Rybak stated currently, the Sign Code does not allow any electronic or dynamic display signs. All four cities that were reviewed allow for some type of dynamic display signs. They are regulated as follows: • Roseville: Must be static and remain for a minimum duration of 25 seconds. • New Brighton: No animation or video is permitted and a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • Shoreview: No animation or video is permitted and a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • Mounds View: Must be static and remain for a minimum duration of 8 seconds. • TCAAP Redevelopment Code: Allowed only on “Marquee Signs.” A Marquee Sign is located at a theatre or other public venue and displays the name of the establishment or event details. Message board may be changeable copy provided that the copy does not change more than once every 15 minutes. Ms. Rybak commented the Sign Code defines a projecting sign as a sign, other than a wall sign, that projects more than 18 inches from the building façade. These types of signs are not permitted in Arden Hills, New Brighton, or Shoreview. Roseville regulates them as a wall sign, and they may only project up to 30 inches from the building façade. Mounds View allows them with a set square footage by zoning district. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code allows the lesser of a set square footage or 15% of the façade area. They may project no more than 50% of the width of the sidewalk, or six feet from the building façade line, whichever is less. Ms. Rybak explained for temporary signs, Arden Hills allows up to half of the area allowed for permanent wall or freestanding signage to be displayed on three occasions throughout the year, with a maximum of 10 days each time. Businesses may also combine the three occasions to display a temporary sign for one 30-day period per year. Other cities’ regulations are as follows: • Roseville: Allows a maximum of 32 square feet up to 60 days in one year. • New Brighton: Allows up to 32 square feet on four occasions, up to 14 days each. • Shoreview: Allows either 32 or 64 square feet (depending on building size) on four occasions, up to 14 days each. • Mounds View: Allows temporary signage on four occasions, with a maximum of 21 days each. Can obtain a fifth permit for a banner only. • TCAAP Redevelopment Code: Maximum area of 150 square feet or 10% of the façade area, whichever is less. Maximum of thirty days per calendar year. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 8, 2017 3 Ms. Rybak stated based on the direction provided by the Planning Commission, staff will complete additional research on possible revisions to the Sign Code. Staff will bring this item back to the Planning Commission for further discussion and review recommendations with the City Council before a public hearing is scheduled for any changes to the Sign Code. Chair Thompson stated she was interested in learning more about dynamic display signs. She indicated she was not necessarily against dynamic display signs if they were well designed and not distracting. Commissioner Hames explained the restrictions on dynamic display signs in the Sign Code were brought about due to electronic billboards that were being introduced in the Twin Cities several years ago. She encouraged the City to differentiate between these large signs and the smaller scale dynamic display signs. She recommended the City not have two separate Sign Codes, one for TCAAP and one for the remainder of the City. She suggested the Sign Code be consistent for all areas of the City. Commissioner Jones believed dynamic display signs could be designed to be iconic features and should be considered within the Sign Code. Commissioner Hames recommended wall signage shift to a percentage of wall surface area, similar to the language within the TCAAP Redevelopment Code. Commissioner Jones was supportive of permitting projecting signs consistent with what is allowed in the TCAAP Redevelopment Code. Commissioner Jones recommended that the City evaluate its regulations on temporary signage to address items such as inflatable mascots and temporary firework sales tents. Commissioner Jones suggested that corporate campuses with highway frontage, such as Land O’Lakes, should be allowed to have larger freestanding signs. Commissioner Lambeth asked how the City defined portable signs. Senior Planner Bachler described how the City defined portable signs. He thanked the Commission for their feedback and summarized based on the comments received, there was support to revise the Sign Code. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Department Records\Quarterly & Year End Reports\2018 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2017 PC Agenda Item 4.B TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: 2017 Planning Commission Year-End Report Summary The purpose of this memo is to provide the Planning Commission with a summary of the planning activities for 2017. The following is a list of the main accomplishments completed over the past year: • Reviewed and processed 32 planning cases that included 44 separate land use requests • Reviewed and made recommendations to the City Council on the Commercial, Industrial, and Higher Education study completed by WSB & Associates • Reviewed draft chapters for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan in anticipation of final adoption in 2018 Planning and Zoning Activities The City reviewed and processed 29 planning cases that included 41 separate land use requests in 2016. Several of these planning cases are still pending. In comparison, the City reviewed 32 planning cases with 44 different land use requests in 2016, and 25 planning cases with 38 different land use requests in 2015. The following chart displays the number of planning requests by type and their outcome for 2017: City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Department Records\Quarterly & Year End Reports\2018 Page 2 of 3 2017 Planning Cases Land Use Request Approved Denied Pending Withdrawn Total Comprehensive Plan Amendment - - 1 1 Conditional Use Permit 1 - - 1 2 CUP Amendment - - - - - Preliminary Plat - - 1 1 2 Final Plat - - 1 1 2 Master PUD 3 - - - 3 Final PUD 4 - - - 4 PUD Amendment 4 - - - 4 Site Plan Review 1 1 - - 2 Zoning or City Code Amendment 2 - 3 1 6 Rezoning 1 - - - 1 Variance 2 - - 2 4 Minor Subdivision 2 - - - 2 Concept Review - - - - 5 Other 2 - 1 - 3 Total 22 1 6 7 41 Significant Development Projects and Planning Efforts The Community Development Department has reviewed the planning cases from the past year and selected several of the more significant development projects and planning efforts to highlight below: Commercial, Industrial, and Higher Education Study The City worked with WSB & Associates to complete a higher education planning and economic development study in 2017. The purpose of the study was to determine the impacts and benefits from higher education land uses and provide recommendations for Zoning Code amendments regarding higher education uses. The Planning Commission reviewed the different components of the study and provided feedback throughout the process. Based on the recommendations of the study, the City Council approved the creation of a new Institutional Zoning District and permitted the higher education campus use only in this district. The Bethel University and University of Northwestern main campuses were rezoned to Institutional District. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 P:\Planning\Department Records\Quarterly & Year End Reports\2018 Page 3 of 3 Lexington Station The City Council approved an amendment to the Lexington Station Master Planned Unit Development (PUD) and the Final PUD for Phase Two of the development on April 24, 2017. The amendment to the Master Plan will change the configuration and footprint of the additional buildings to be constructed in Phase Two and Three, but maintains the overall concept for the development of multi-tenant commercial buildings fronting Lexington Avenue with additional retail and commercial buildings along the rear property line and a central shared parking area. Phase Two of the project includes the redevelopment of the former light industrial building at 1120 Red Fox Road for an approximately 17,000 square foot multi-tenant building that is expected to include retail, restaurant, office, and personal service uses. Roberts Management has demolished the existing building on the site and is expected to begin construction on the new building in spring 2018. Marriott SpringHill Suites On September 25, 2017, the City Council approved a Master and Final PUD for the redevelopment of the former Aerotek office building at 3920 Northwoods Drive for a Marriott SpringHill Suites hotel. The hotel will feature 139 guest rooms, an indoor pool, lounge area, and meeting room space. The developer has completed the demolition of the office building on the site and construction of the hotel is expected to begin in spring 2018. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 7, 2018 Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2018 PC Agenda Item 5.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Matthew Bachler, City Planner SUBJECT: Report from the City Council January 16, 2018 City Council Work Session Staff presented a conceptual plan for a new Arden Hills gateway sign at the southwest corner of Highway 96 and Lexington Avenue. Three gateways signs have been installed to date at the following locations in the City: • County Road E2 at Cleveland Avenue • County Road D at Cleveland Avenue • County Road D at New Brighton Road/Lake Johanna Boulevard The City Council directed staff to investigate additional funding sources for the gateway sign. If funding is secured, the sign could be constructed in 2018. January 22, 2018 City Council Regular Meeting The City Council voted to deny Planning Case 17-028 for a Site Plan Review at 1504 Edgewater Avenue in order to allow an accessory structure to be located in the front yard between the principal structure on the property and the public street. The Planning Commission reviewed this case at their meeting on January 10, 2018 and recommended denial of the request (5-0). The application for a Variance at 3415 Lake Johanna Boulevard (Planning Case 17-027) was withdrawn by the applicant following the Planning Commission meeting on January 10, 2018 and prior to City Council review.