Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-24-2020-R
APPROVAL OF AGENDA PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL This is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council meeting. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS Northeast Youth And Family Services (NYFS) Update Jerry Hromatka, NYFS President and CEO Miriam Ward, Vice Chair/Arden Hills Representative MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF STAFF COMMENTS Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 21, 2020 City Council Work Session 01 -21 -20 -WS.PDF January 27, 2020 Regular City Council 01 -27 -20 -R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Motion To Authorize Staff To Begin Recruitment Process For Maintenance Worker Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve A Professional Services Agreement With HR Green For Hamline Avenue, Shorewood Drive And City Hall Parking Lot Improvements Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2020 -011 Requesting Municipal State Aid Street Funds Advance –2018 Old Snelling Trail And Watermain Project Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Planning Case 19 -018 –Planned Unit Development Amendment And Site Plan Review –Boston Scientific –4100 Hamline Avenue Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Motion To Approve Planning Case 19 -021 –Planned Unit Development Amendment –Brausen Automotive –1310 W County Rd E Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C .PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2020 -012 –Planning Case 19 -020 For Variance 3159 Shoreline Lane Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Fran Holmes Dave McClung Steve Scott Regular City Council Agenda February 24, 2020 7:00 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 3. 4. 4.A. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 6. 6.A. Documents: 6.B. Documents: 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 7.C. Documents: 7.D. Documents: 7.E. Documents: 7.F. Documents: 8. 9. 10. 10.A. Documents: 11. 12. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESPUBLIC PRESENTATIONSNortheast Youth And Family Services (NYFS) UpdateJerry Hromatka, NYFS President and CEOMiriam Ward, Vice Chair/Arden Hills RepresentativeMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFSTAFF COMMENTS Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 21, 2020 City Council Work Session 01 -21 -20 -WS.PDF January 27, 2020 Regular City Council 01 -27 -20 -R.PDF CONSENT CALENDAR Those items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. Motion To Approve Claims And Payroll Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDF Motion To Authorize Staff To Begin Recruitment Process For Maintenance Worker Dave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDF Motion To Approve A Professional Services Agreement With HR Green For Hamline Avenue, Shorewood Drive And City Hall Parking Lot Improvements Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2020 -011 Requesting Municipal State Aid Street Funds Advance –2018 Old Snelling Trail And Watermain Project Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Planning Case 19 -018 –Planned Unit Development Amendment And Site Plan Review –Boston Scientific –4100 Hamline Avenue Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Motion To Approve Planning Case 19 -021 –Planned Unit Development Amendment –Brausen Automotive –1310 W County Rd E Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C .PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2020 -012 –Planning Case 19 -020 For Variance 3159 Shoreline Lane Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott Regular City Council Agenda February 24, 20207:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.4.4.A.Documents:5. 5.A. Documents: 6. 6.A. Documents: 6.B. Documents: 7. 7.A. Documents: 7.B. Documents: 7.C. Documents: 7.D. Documents: 7.E. Documents: 7.F. Documents: 8. 9. 10. 10.A. Documents: 11. 12. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESPUBLIC PRESENTATIONSNortheast Youth And Family Services (NYFS) UpdateJerry Hromatka, NYFS President and CEOMiriam Ward, Vice Chair/Arden Hills RepresentativeMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFSTAFF COMMENTSRice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) UpdateDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESJanuary 21, 2020 City Council Work Session01-21 -20 -WS.PDFJanuary 27, 2020 Regular City Council 01 -27 -20 -R.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.Motion To Approve Claims And PayrollGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorPang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDFMotion To Authorize Staff To Begin Recruitment Process For Maintenance WorkerDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFMotion To Approve A Professional Services Agreement With HR Green For Hamline Avenue, Shorewood Drive And City Hall Parking Lot Improvements Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDF Motion To Approve Resolution 2020 -011 Requesting Municipal State Aid Street Funds Advance –2018 Old Snelling Trail And Watermain Project Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Motion To Approve Planning Case 19 -018 –Planned Unit Development Amendment And Site Plan Review –Boston Scientific –4100 Hamline Avenue Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF Motion To Approve Planning Case 19 -021 –Planned Unit Development Amendment –Brausen Automotive –1310 W County Rd E Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C .PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF PULLED CONSENT ITEMS Those items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS NEW BUSINESS Resolution 2020 -012 –Planning Case 19 -020 For Variance 3159 Shoreline Lane Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott Regular City Council Agenda February 24, 20207:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.4.4.A.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:6.6.A.Documents:6.B.Documents:7.7.A.Documents:7.B.Documents:7.C.Documents: 7.D. Documents: 7.E. Documents: 7.F. Documents: 8. 9. 10. 10.A. Documents: 11. 12. APPROVAL OF AGENDAPUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONALThis is an opportunity for citizens to bring to the Council ’s attention any items not currently on the agenda which are relevant to the City. In addressing the Council, you must first state your name and address for the record. To allow adequate time for each person wishing to address the Council, speakers must limit their comments to three (3) minutes. Written documents may be distributed to the Council prior to the meeting to allow a more timely presentation. Speakers should not use obscene, profane, or threatening language, or make personal attacks. Matters of litigation involving the City shall not be discussed during Public Inquiry by citizens or Council. The Council may not respond to speaker comments, engage in a debate, or take any action on the issues raised by citizens, but may direct City staff to research or follow up on an issue, if desired by Council. If Council directs further review by staff, the results of that review will be presented at a following regular Council meeting.RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIESPUBLIC PRESENTATIONSNortheast Youth And Family Services (NYFS) UpdateJerry Hromatka, NYFS President and CEOMiriam Ward, Vice Chair/Arden Hills RepresentativeMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFSTAFF COMMENTSRice Creek Commons (TCAAP) And Joint Development Authority (JDA) UpdateDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF MINUTESJanuary 21, 2020 City Council Work Session01-21 -20 -WS.PDFJanuary 27, 2020 Regular City Council 01 -27 -20 -R.PDFCONSENT CALENDARThose items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion under a Consent Calendar format. There will be no separate discussion of these items, unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event, the item will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.Motion To Approve Claims And PayrollGayle Bauman, Finance DirectorPang Silseth, Accounting Analyst MEMO.PDFMotion To Authorize Staff To Begin Recruitment Process For Maintenance WorkerDave Perrault, City Administrator MEMO.PDFMotion To Approve A Professional Services Agreement With HR Green For Hamline Avenue, Shorewood Drive And City Hall Parking Lot Improvements Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFMotion To Approve Resolution 2020 -011 Requesting Municipal State Aid Street Funds Advance –2018 Old Snelling Trail And Watermain ProjectTodd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFMotion To Approve Planning Case 19 -018 –Planned Unit Development Amendment And Site Plan Review –Boston Scientific –4100 Hamline Avenue Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFMotion To Approve Planning Case 19 -021 –Planned Unit Development Amendment –Brausen Automotive –1310 W County Rd EMike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C .PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDFPULLED CONSENT ITEMSThose items that are pulled from the Consent Calendar will be removed from the general order of business and considered separately in its normal sequence on the agenda.PUBLIC HEARINGSNEW BUSINESSResolution 2020 -012 –Planning Case 19 -020 For Variance 3159 Shoreline Lane Joe Hartmann, Associate PlannerMike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF ATTACHMENT H.PDF UNFINISHED BUSINESS COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor:David Grant Councilmembers:Brenda Holden Fran HolmesDave McClungSteve Scott Regular City Council Agenda February 24, 20207:00 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone:651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.CALL TO ORDER1.2.3.4.4.A.Documents:5.5.A.Documents:6.6.A.Documents:6.B.Documents:7.7.A.Documents:7.B.Documents:7.C.Documents:7.D.Documents:7.E.Documents:7.F.Documents:8.9.10.10.A. Documents: 11. 12. Page 1 of 1 PUBLIC PRESENTATION – 4A MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Northeast Youth and Family Services Update Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider N/A Background/Discussion Northeast Youth and Family Services President and CEO Jerry Hromatka and Vice Chair/Arden Hills Representative Miriam Ward will provide a presentation update (see Attachment A) at the February 24 Council meeting. Attachment A. Northeast Youth and Family Services Presentation Presentation to the City of Arden Hills February 2020 “Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending. Maria Robinson About NYFS •Primary Population: 5-21 year olds •4,000 youth, adults, families •$3.4 million annual budget •Three program thrusts •Mental Health •Youth Development •Case Management www.nyfs.org Transforming lives today, creating a better tomorrow Three Tier Services General Population 80% Special Service 15% Intense Service 5% NYFS Programs Two Departments Mental Health •Clinic based •School based, •Day treatment Community Services •Diversion •Senior Chore •Community Case Management NYFS Budget: $3,410,433 74 12 3 6 4 Mental Health Com Serv Admin Dvlp Bldg NYFS Revenue Sources What your support buys •Services for residents are assured •Benefits •Educational attainment •Effective workforce •Citizenship •Reduced costs to public •Leverage outside resources 2018-2019 Service Summary Contracted Services #2018 #2019 Counseling 30 $28,875 23 $21,741 Diversion 7 $1,220 4 $820 Senior Chore (seniors/youth)6/2 $6501 7/5 $5,400 Cost of Contracted 45 $36,956 39 $27,961 City Contract $15,839 $16,282 Non Contracted 1 $5,395 NA NA Current Community Trends Trauma Informed Care Resilience Expressive -Cognitive Therapies NYFS Transition Reorganization Succession NYFS Partnerships •Communities Arden Hills, Birchwood Village, Falcon Heights, Hugo, Little Canada, Mahtomedi, Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, Shoreview, St. Anthony, Vadnais Heights, White Bear Lake, White Bear Township •School Districts Mahtomedi, Mounds View, Roseville Area, St. Anthony/New Brighton, White Bear Lake Area •Collaborations Minnesota Youth Intervention Program Association, North Suburban Gavel Club, Ramsey County Children’s Mental Health Collaborative, Roseville Rotary, Shoreview/Arden Hills Rotary, St. Anthony-New Brighton Family Service Collaborative, Suburban Ramsey Family Collaborative, Twin Cities North Chamber of Commerce, Vadnais Heights Economic Development Council, White Bear Chamber •Faith Community •Businesses Future Events Leadership Lunch May 6, 2020 Taste of Northeast October 14, 2020 Page 1 of 1 STAFF COMMENTS – 5A MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: February 24, 2020 Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) and Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $ $ $ A verbal update will be provided at the City Council meeting. Approved: February 24, 2020 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JANUARY 21, 2020 5:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council Work Session meeting at 5:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung and Steve Scott Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault, Finance Director Gayle Bauman, Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, Senior Engineering Technician David Swearingen, Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, Communications Coordinator Dawn Skelly, Recreation Coordinator Sara Knoll, GreenCorps Member Danica Mooney-Jones and Deputy Clerk Jolene Trauba 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. 2020 State of the City Meeting Mayor Grant asked if anyone had a preference on date or location. Communications Coordinator Skelly mentioned that if the event were held at Boston Scientific we would use their food service, at Land O’Lakes we would use their catering service. After discussion it was determined to have the event at Land O’Lakes on April 23. Mayor Grant asked if there were any items anyone would like added or removed from the list of topics. Councilmember Holden would like to have a legislative update. She would like a slide about the foundation and donations. Communications Coordinator Skelly said staff could ask someone from the Red Bulls to speak. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – JANUARY 21, 2020 2 Mayor Grant agreed that would be a good idea to have them give a short presentation. Councilmember Holden said she would also like a representative from AHATS to be there. Discussion ensued on whether a TCAAP item should be added. Mayor Grant will take the topic and decline to answer questions that pertain to litigation. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla suggested having our GreenCorp member at a city booth to answer recycling questions, along with tables for City departments like Park & Rec, the Planning department, and the Engineering department. After discussion it was decided to not recognize a business partner via proclamation at the event, to invite the host to make a few remarks about their business, request facility tours, invite MnDOT and Ramsey County to speak, and that topics would be divided among the Council members. B. Recycling Contract and Cleanup Day Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla said Republic can do a cleanup day event for around $18,000 but that doesn’t include prices for bulk electronics. Republic won’t offer bulk-curbside recycling services for Arden Hills because of problems they’ve had in other cities. Time, location and staff would have to be determined for a cleanup event, although they wouldn’t be available until fall. Councilmember Holmes noted it would be approximately $150 per person and felt we should get rid of cleanup day. Councilmember McClung thought more residents may take advantage of the event if it were just Arden Hills and the lines weren’t as long as with previous joint events. GreenCorps Member Mooney-Jones stated a positive about holding a cleanup day is by bringing in recycling haulers to the event some items would be recycled instead of being brought to the landfills. Councilmember Holden wondered about getting a dumpster in neighborhoods. City Administrator Perrault said staff could research the idea but he had concerns about City liabilities. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla said a cleanup day could be added onto the next recycling contract. Council referred the item back to staff to continue researching options including neighborhood dumpsters. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – JANUARY 21, 2020 3 C. Residential Driveway Parking Standards Associate Planner Joe Hartmann stated that at the October 28, 2019 City Council meeting the council approve a request for variance for a garage with a condition that only four vehicles would be allowed outside between the two driveways on the property. Council directed staff to review the current vehicle parking restrictions for residential properties in the City Code. Staff would like direction regarding properties with two driveways. Councilmember Holden felt a definition for a driveway should be included. Councilmember McClung liked the wording of “no more than a total of four vehicles may be parked on a single lot on an approved surface”. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla said if there is a definition of a driveway they can also stipulate what an approved surface is. Discussion ensued about potential wording of what is a garage or approved surface. City Administrator Perrault asked how many cars would be allowed that are visible on the lot. After discussion it was agreed that a definition of driveway would be established, four vehicles would be allowed and language about visibility added. D. Non-Commercial Signs Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla noted that staff discovered non- conformance with State Statute regarding the number of days non-commercial (political) signs could be placed. State Statue says signs can go up 46 days prior to a State primary election. Staff worked with the City Attorney to revise the language and make it consistent with State Statute. Arden Hills can increase the number of days but can’t go below 46 days. Councilmember Holmes felt people started putting up signs around Labor Day, or about 70 days. City Administrator Perrault wondered if the direction is to have 70 days before the State Primary in August which would be mid-May. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla said the revised text currently reads “any election” that would encompass Federal, State or Local elections. And State Statute says any size sign can go up 46 days before an election. Staff was directed to change the ordinance to 70 days before any election. It will be brought forward to a future Council meeting. Councilmember Holmes also requested that language be added that if a sign is removed the sign owner should be notified. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – JANUARY 21, 2020 4 E. Recreation Programs Review Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom explained Council had requested Staff provide information about the Park and Rec programs. Information provided included a summary of revenue and expenses, an initial comparison of programs with other cities, and a summary of specific programs offered in 2018. Finance Director Bauman handed out a summary of 2019 noting the year hasn’t closed yet but there is a difference between budgeted and actual costs, mostly due to a staff member being on leave for two months. Councilmember Holden expressed concern over the expenditure amount. Finance Director Bauman said a memo was found from 2001 stating their formula at that time was to cover all direct costs plus 40% of overhead. Direct costs are program expenses such as temporary employees, supplies, materials, contractual services etc. Charitable gambling funds also went toward covering those programs. It appears the City is currently covering their direct costs but only a portion of the overhead. Recreation Coordinator Knoll said they could increase fees for Summer Playground program. Councilmember Holden suggested the item be sent to FPAC for discussion. Councilmember Holmes said she would be willing to be on the FPAC as an ad-hoc member or be on the committee. Councilmember McClung felt FPAC could look at the numbers and possibly bring a new policy forward to the Council. City Administrator Perrault asked if they wanted to give FPAC specific direction. Councilmember Holden thought they should be allowed to look at it and come back with a recommendation. Councilmember McClung said he would give it to them with no preconceptions. Finance Director Bauman noted the recreation programs are a service to the community so how much would Council like to be city funded and how much would be user fees? Councilmember Holden suggested asking FPAC to look for up to 50% recoup from user fees. F. Karth Lake Pump and Control Cabinet Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom noted that Staff worked with the Karth Lake Improvement District Board to consider proposals for replacing the pump. Four options are listed in the memo. The Improvement District Board is recommending Option 1 with the full amount ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – JANUARY 21, 2020 5 being levied in 2021 and 2022. They are asking the City to cover the initial cost of the pump and panel so it can be repaired and replaced in the spring of 2020, that the City take responsibility for stabilizing the slope and controlling erosion in the area of the pump and control cabinet, and that the City continue to cover the cost of operating the pump, installing and removing it and storing it in the winter. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom said he would prefer to not put in another retaining wall so they would look at options of stopping the water flow and getting vegetation to grow on the bank. A grant application for a 50% match has been submitted to the Rice Creek Watershed. Councilmember Holden asked if we retrofit the existing cabinet would it be good for ten years. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom responded that the cabinet is stainless steel and even though it is a weathered it is generally still a good cabinet. The price includes putting a phase convertor inside the existing cabinet. He felt the cabinet should be fine for the estimated life of the pump with the assumption that the bank is stabilized with some burming and minor grading to control the drainage. Councilmember McClung wondered if the Improvement District Board understood that fronting money for repair is a one time thing and they need to establish an escrow. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom said they plan to discuss that at their next meeting. Councilmember Holden said she would go with Option 1 with reassurance from the Improvement District Board that is something happens they take care of it in the future. Councilmember Holmes agreed that the Karth Lake Improvement District Board should be responsible for the pump and control cabinet. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom said at the March Karth Lake Improvement District Board meeting he will discuss with the Board that the city will attempt to stabilize the slope but the Board is responsible into perpetuity for the control cabinet and pump. Mayor Grant asked if they could try to push the meeting to February. G. 2020 and 2021 Capital Project Delivery Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom said he was asking for direction on three initiatives. The first is the Asset Management Plan, he would like to move that study in-house to be done by Public Works and Engineering personnel, rather than use a consultant to develop a plan. Asset management planning work is recommended for the street system, water distribution system, sanitary sewer system, storm drainage system, park/trail facilities and vehicle/equipment items. He felt this project is one of the most important things they can do to allow the Council to set priorities. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – JANUARY 21, 2020 6 Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom noted they are looking for direction on how to manage the 2021 Pavement Management Program. The Capital Improvement Program identifies street and utility improvements within the residential area consisting of Jerrold Avenue, Glenpaul Avenue, Edgewater Avenue and Prior Avenue. Roadway improvements along Lake Valentine Road are also included in the proposed project. Construction is scheduled for 2021. Staff strongly recommends an early start for this project to ensure adequate time is available for public engagement, design, state aid approval, and quality control reviews prior to awarding the construction contract. They would like to begin that project early this year. One of the first steps is the feasibility report. He would like to develop that report with staff and put that in their 2020 work plan. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom said the third piece is the 2020 Capital Projects. Three of those projects for the 2020 construction season primarily involve roadway, paving or drainage improvements; the Hamline Avenue Pedestrian Crosswalks, City Hall Parking Lot Improvements, and the Shorewood Drive Drainage Improvements. Each of those individually are not a freestanding project in terms of bidding. He suggested consolidating those projects into one project package is more efficient to bid, they would likely get more competitive bid prices and would be more efficient to manage during construction. He asked if the Council would agree to negotiating with HR Green to put together a common plan set as they have already done some of the work. They would design the parking lot and Shorewood Drive, take the design sheets they have already prepared for the Hamline Avenue crosswalk and merge them into one common set of plans and specifications. After discussion Staff was directed to move forward with all three of the recommended projects as presented in the memo; Asset Management Plan, 2021 Pavement Management Plan and 2020 Capital Projects, and to negotiate a professional services agreement with HR Green for the 2020 Capital projects. H. Council Retreat Discussion Mayor Grant asked if the Council wanted to have a retreat. Councilmember McClung wasn’t sure he saw a huge benefit to it. Councilmember Holden would like to create specific priority lists. Councilmember Scott said no. Councilmember Holmes stated no. Mayor Grant said they could schedule and extra work session rather than a facilitated retreat to discuss priorities. City Administrator Perrault indicated he was in favor of having a Council retreat. He felt it would be beneficial with the newer staff. He’d like to talk about short term priorities. If Council isn’t interested he would like to have a Department head level retreat but felt prioritization and performance talks with the Council would be beneficial. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – JANUARY 21, 2020 7 Council consensus was to have a meeting with Department heads without a facilitator. Staff will discuss internally and bring back a list of discussion topics. I. Council Tracker After discussion, Staff Photo Directory, Brighton Way Vacant House Property Maintenance Issues and Estimated TCAAP Expense Review were removed from the Tracker. 2. COUNCIL COMMENTS AND STAFF UPDATES Councilmember Holden felt the City should have an ordinance regarding time frames that snowmobiles and dirt bikes could be used. Councilmember Holden asked if someone could look into more grant opportunities for the City. Councilmember Scott noted that he may not be at the February 10 meeting. Councilmember Holmes reminded everyone that the City Administrator’s reviews were due the following day. Mayor Grant mentioned that he received census information and has given it to Staff to review. City Administrator Perrault stated the annual staff luncheon would be February 6 and years of service awards would be presented. Mayor Grant explained that the last item was to consider or develop offers of the purchase of property and 2 Pine Tree Drive. This portion of the meeting would be closed per State Statute 13D.05 subd. 3. (c)(3), pending a formal vote to go to closed session. The vote carried unanimously 5-0. J. Land Acquisition Discussion (Closed per Minn. Stat. 13D.05 subd. 3. (c)(3) Consider or Develop Offers for the Purchase of Property) The City Council discussed the consideration or development of offers at 2 Pine Tree Drive in a closed session. ADJOURN Mayor Grant adjourned the City Council Work Session meeting at 7:32 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Jolene Trauba David Grant City Clerk Mayor Approved: February 24, 2020 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 27, 2020 7:00 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor David Grant called to order the regular City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. Present: Mayor David Grant, Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, Dave McClung and Steve Scott Absent: None Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault; Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom; Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla; City Attorney Joel Jamnik; and City Clerk Julie Hanson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve the meeting agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 2. PUBLIC INQUIRIES/INFORMATIONAL Gregg Larson, 3377 North Snelling Avenue, he spoke to the Council regarding Snelling Avenue south of Lindey’s. He indicated this roadway was damaged and deteriorated. He reported the rest of Snelling Avenue was new and repaved because the work had been done by the County. He encouraged the City to consider setting aside funds for the south portion of Snelling Avenue. Mayor Grant requested staff investigate this roadway and report back to the Council at a future meeting. 3. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INQUIRIES None. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 27, 2020 2 4. PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS A. Ramsey County Commissioner Update Ramsey County Commissioner Nicole Frethem provided the Council with an update from Ramsey County. She explained the County’s vision was to create a vibrant community where all are valued and thrive and its mission was to be a county of excellence working with you to enhance quality of life. The services offered by the County was discussed at length. She then commented on her priorities for 2020 and noted the boards and commissions she would be serving on. She encouraged the Council to reach out to her at any time with comments or concerns. Councilmember Holden stated she was happy Toni Carter was appointed Chair of the County Board. She asked if this was a conflict of interest given the fact her son was the Mayor of St. Paul. Commissioner Frethem explained conflict of interest comes into effect when personal profit is concerned. She reported Toni Carter will not personally profit from the decisions she is making. She noted Toni Carter represents St. Paul and all of the Ramsey County suburbs. She indicated Ms. Carter was a very competent and responsible professional. She believed Ms. Carter was very deserving of the Chair position and noted Mary Jo McGuire would be serving as the Vice Chair. Councilmember Holden questioned if Commissioner Frethem would be serving on the JDA. Commissioner Frethem stated while she was interested in serving, the County Board would not be changing the JDA representatives given the pending litigation. Councilmember Holden encouraged Ramsey County to consider updating its website in order to become more user-friendly. Councilmember Holmes thanked Commissioner Frethem for holding office hours for her constituents in Arden Hills. Commissioner Frethem commented further on her office hours and encouraged the City to publicize this information in Arden Hills. Councilmember Holmes requested Commissioner Frethem look into greater efficiencies within the library system. Mayor Grant noted he met with Commissioner Frethem in December. He thanked Commissioner Frethem for her time and for sharing what was going on at Ramsey County. He requested Commissioner Frethem keep the Council apprised as to the projects Ramsey County would be completing in Arden Hills. Councilmember Holden encouraged Commissioner Frethem to hold office hours in Arden Hills at the Ramsey County Public Works Facility. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 27, 2020 3 Mayor Grant thanked Commissioner Frethem for attending this meeting and for providing the City Council with an update. 5. STAFF COMMENTS A. Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) and Joint Development Authority (JDA) Update City Administrator Perrault provided an update on TCAAP stating litigation with Ramsey County was ongoing. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. January 13, 2020, Special City Council Executive (Closed) B. January 13, 2020, Regular City Council Councilmember Holden noted she had several changes to the January 13th Regular City Council meeting minutes and these revisions were submitted to staff. MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve the January 13, 2020, Special City Council Executive (Closed) meeting minutes; and January 13, 2020, Regular City Council meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 7. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Motion to Approve Consent Agenda Item - Claims and Payroll B. Motion to Approve Resolution 2020-007 Appointing Micah Kiernan to the Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee (PTRC) MOTION: Councilmember Holden moved and Councilmember Holmes seconded a motion to approve the Consent Calendar as presented and to authorize execution of all necessary documents contained therein. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 8. PULLED CONSENT ITEMS None. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Chapter 12 Sign Code Amendment Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated at its December 16, 2019 meeting, the City Council directed staff to make necessary ordinance changes to make political signs (non-commercial sign) consistent with existing temporary off-premise signs placement standards to include a distance from the curb or roadway. In addition, Council requested staff to review and bring the ordinance into conformance with State statute for when signs may be placed. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 27, 2020 4 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained City staff has since then initiated proposed amendments to Chapter 12, Section 1230.01, Subd. 2 of the Sign Code. The existing language from section 1230.01, Subd. 2 states: “Non-commercial Signs in an Election Year. Signs of any size containing noncommercial 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.” Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported the ordinance language above is inconsistent with Minnesota State Statute 211B.045. Minnesota State Statute 211B.045 states: “All noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number beginning 46 days before the state primary in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election. Municipal ordinances may regulate the size and number of noncommercial signs at other times.” Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla indicated the existing ordinance language restricts the placement of non-commercial signs until August 1st in an election year. However, Minnesota State Statute 211B.045 permits non-commercial signs to be posted 46 days prior to the state primary election. Minnesota primary elections occur on the second Tuesday of August in election years or on August 11, 2020. Per the statute, signs may be posted 46 days prior to the primary election or June 28, 2020. In response, staff worked with the city attorney on the proposed language below. “Non-commercial Signs in an Election Year. In years where a federal, state or local government election is conducted within the city, non-commercial signs may be posted no more than 46 days prior to that election. These non-commercial signs shall be placed in accordance with Section 1230.02 and 1250.03 Subd 2, 3, and 4. Those responsible for posting the signs shall remove any signs within 10 days following an election.” Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated the proposed language addresses all types of elections and removes the need to address special elections. The proposed language is in conformance with Minnesota State Statute 211B.045 and permits non-commercial signs to be posted no more than 46 days prior to the primary. 46 days is the minimum set by state statute. The number may increase, but may not decrease below 46 days. At a recent City Council Work Session the Council discussed increasing the number of days to 70. A formal motion would be necessary to change the proposed 46 to 70 days. In addition, staff added specific code sections that defines where signs may be located. Section 1230.02 is addresses prohibited sign placement locations and 1250.03 regulates temporary off-premise signs. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented as part of sign code amendment staff revised and restructured section 1250.03, Temporary Off-premise Signs. It is important to note that only subdivisions two (2) through four (4) regulate noncommercial signs in ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 27, 2020 5 section 1250.03. The intent of the revision was to bring non-commercial signs in conformance with other temporary off-premise sign standards. The existing ordinance language was silent on placing signs on publicly owned land and there was no roadway setbacks standards for non- commercial signs. Staff provided a summary of the proposed revisions. Councilmember Holden asked if the proposed changes meet or exceeds State law and meets all City Sign Ordinances. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported this was the case. Mayor Grant opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. With no one coming forward to speak, Mayor Grant closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. 10. NEW BUSINESS A. Ordinance No. 2020-001 Amending Chapter 12 Sign Code Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated at its December 16, 2019 meeting, the City Council directed staff to make necessary ordinance changes to make political signs (non-commercial sign) consistent with existing temporary off-premise signs placement standards. In addition, Council requested staff to review and bring the ordinance into conformance with State statute for when signs may be placed. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the Planning Commission recommend approval of the following amendments to Chapter 12, Sign Code. The intent of the amendment is to clarify existing language to make non-commercial signs in an election year consistent with placement standards of temporary off-premise signs and Minnesota State Statute 211B.045. Staff worked with the City Attorney to bring the proposed language into conformance with Minnesota State Statute 211B.045. The proposed amendment permits non-commercial signs to be posted no more than 46 days prior to the primary. 46 days is the minimum set by state statute. The number may increase, but may not decrease below 46 days. At a recent City Council Work Session the Council discussed increasing the number of days to 70. A formal motion would be necessary to change the proposed 46 to 70 days. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported additional language was added to section 1250.03, Temporary Off-premise Signs. The existing ordinance language for non-commercial signs was silent on placing signs on publicly owned land and there was no roadway setbacks standards for non-commercial signs. In addition, the existing language did not discuss prohibited signs placement locations. The proposed language provides the same setback standards for non-commercial and temporary off-site signs (five feet from the curb). Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained Staff proposed language allowing the property owner to the ability to withdraw sign placement permission at any time. However, at a recent City Council Work Session the Council discussed modifying the language to read, “The property owner shall notify the sign owner prior to withdrawing permission.” If Council selects to amend the proposed language, a formal motion would be required. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 27, 2020 6 Councilmember Holmes asked if 70 days was not proposed within the Code Amendment as was discussed by the City Council at their previous worksession meeting. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented the Council could make a change at this time. He noted the amendment was brought to the Planning Commission with 46 days per State Statute. Councilmember Holmes recommended a change be made to allow signs to be posted 70 days prior to a primary election. MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to adopt Ordinance #2020-001 – Amending Chapter 12, Section 1230.01, Subd. 2 and Section 1250.03 City Code. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holmes moved and Mayor Grant seconded a motion to Amend Subdivision 2 noting this section should read 70 days prior to the election. Councilmember McClung commented this provision would allow signs to be posted 70 days prior to a primary. He commented when there is not a primary candidates would be limited to 46 days. He noted this would traditionally allow candidates to post signs two weeks after Labor Day. The amendment to Subdivision 2 noting this section should read 70 days prior to the election carried (5-0). AMENDMENT: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember McClung seconded a motion to Amend Page 3 of Attachment A, Letter K suggesting the statement read: The property owner may withdraw a sign at any time with notice to the sign owner. Councilmember Holmes explained she understood this would be a difficult item to enforce but she saw benefit in the sign owner being notified if a sign was being removed because it could be used at another location. She saw this amendment as a courtesy. Mayor Grant suggested a friendly amendment to the motion stating the sign owner/campaign committee be notified. Councilmember McClung indicated he supported the proposed friendly amendment. Councilmember Holmes reported she was trying to keep the terminology consistent within the Sign Code. Councilmember Holden stated she did not support this amendment. She believed it would be too difficult for the City to enforce. Councilmember Holmes commented she believed the proposed change would be a courtesy and understood it would be difficult to enforce. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 27, 2020 7 Councilmember Scott agreed with Councilmember Holden that it would be difficult to enforce this type of requirement. He believed sign owners were assuming a risk when signs were placed on private property. He did not want property owners to be responsible for receiving approval for a sign owner in order to remove a campaign sign. Councilmember McClung stated he understood Councilmember Holmes’ intent, but he also agreed it would be difficult to enforce this type of sign code language. For this reason, he suggested staff draft a one page flyer regarding campaign sign etiquette. He believed this would address the concerns the City has regarding signs versus putting further language into the Sign Code. Mayor Grant stated he did not support the proposed amendment. He believed it was a property owners right to remove the sign at any time. He indicated the proposed amendment would not be enforceable. Councilmember Holden explained she did not believe it was the City’s responsibility to manage sign removal courtesies. Councilmember Holmes withdrew her amendment. The motion to adopt Ordinance #2020-001 – Amending Chapter 12, Section 1230.01, Subd. 2 and Section 1250.03 City Code as amended carried (5-0). MOTION: Councilmember Holmes moved and Councilmember Scott seconded a motion to Authorize Staff to Publish Summary Notice of Ordinance #2020-001. The amended motion carried (5-0). 11. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. 12. COUNCIL COMMENTS City Clerk Hanson provided the Council with information regarding early voting on the Presidential Primary. She explained early voting would take place now through March 3, 2020 and noted that voters would need to declare their party in order to receive the appropriate ballot. Councilmember Scott stated he received a letter from a high school constituent requesting the Council consider banning plastic bags in Arden Hills. Councilmember Scott reported on Tuesday, January 28, 2020 a Town Hall Meeting would be held at the Shoreview Library at 7:00 p.m. with local elected officials. Councilmember Scott commented he possibly may not be in attendance at the February 10, 2020 City Council meeting. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL – JANUARY 27, 2020 8 Councilmember McClung stated he attended the Lake Johanna Fire Board meeting last Wednesday with the City Administrator. He explained the cities received the 2019 Annual Report from the Lake Johanna Fire Chief and that this information is public. Councilmember Holmes reported the Bulletin was no longer in publication. She thanked CTV for assisting the City by providing quarterly news updates on Arden Hills. She noted the first CTV event would convey information to the public regarding snow plowing. Councilmember Holden questioned how many neighborhood meetings would be held regarding the redevelopment of the fire station property. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla briefly discussed the City’s neighborhood meeting policy. Councilmember Holden stated that the City’s Communications person could include information about the Lake Johanna Fire Department’s annual report in the City’s newsletter. Councilmember Holden commented on the importance of the City seeking funding for trails and trail maintenance. Mayor Grant asked when the CTV snow plowing video would be ready for public viewing. Public Works Director/City Engineer Blomstrom anticipated this video would be ready for viewing in approximately one month. Mayor Grant reported the 2020 Census would begin shortly. He encouraged all residents to fill out their Census information. He also explained the State was seeking Census takers and individuals could apply online via the Census website. ADJOURN MOTION: Councilmember McClung moved and Councilmember Holden seconded a motion to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Mayor Grant adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:06 p.m. __________________________ __________________________ Julie Hanson David Grant City Clerk Mayor CONSENT ITEM 7A MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Gayle Bauman, Finance Director Pang Silseth, Accounting Analyst SUBJECT: Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider A. Approve Claims and Payroll or B. Reject Claims and Payroll Background Payroll is processed biweekly and accounts payable is processed weekly. Budget Impact NA Attachments 2020 Payroll #4 ……………………………………………………………. $114,825.34 Total Payroll $114,825.34 Paid Claims---02/01/2020through 02/14/2020 (Check Nos. 49093-49132 and ACH Checks) ……………………………... $447,451.65 Total Accounts Payable $447,451.65 Total Claims $562,276.99 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS PAYROLL # 4 CHECKS DATED: 02/21/20 Biweekly: 02/01/20 - 02/14/20 EMPLOYEE DEDUCTIONS AMT.Payment Method FIT 7,398.18 EFT SIT 3,374.88 EFT FICA Oasdi 5,976.39 EFT FICA Medicare 1,397.73 EFT TOTAL TAXES 18,147.18 Health Premium 1,684.47 A/P Check* Dental Premium 386.04 A/P Check* FSA Health Care Reimb. 0.00 A/P Check* FSA Dependent Care Reimb. 208.33 A/P Check* TOTAL FLEXIBLE SPENDING 2,278.84 HSA Health Saving 428.33 Health Care Savings Plan-Retirement 0.00 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-2% 495.09 EFT Health Care Savings Plan-4% 385.29 EFT TOTAL HEALTH SAVINGS 1,308.71 PERA 4,673.04 EFT ICMA 2,699.34 EFT Central Pension Fund-Union 529.92 A/P Check* MN State Retirement System 750.00 EFT TOTAL RETIREMENT 8,652.30 IUOE 49 Dues (Union) 122.50 A/P Check* LTD/STD Insurance 0.00 A/P Check* PERA Life Insurance 32.00 A/P Check* Life/Addl/Dep Life 77.94 A/P Check* Life/Addl non-tax 28.20 A/P Check* UNUM 19.51 A/P Check* AFLAC 22.76 EFT TOTAL VOLUNTARY 302.91 Total Employee Deductions 30,689.94 Net Payroll 0.00 Direct Deposit 69,942.83 EFT Gross Payroll Tie-Out 100,632.77 Plus City Paid Benefit 14,192.57 TOTAL PAYROLL COST 114,825.34 FICA TIE-OUT Gross Payroll 100,632.77 Less Total FSA 2,278.84 Less Total H.SA 1,308.71 Less Voluntary Ins 50.96 Less Non Taxable Reimbursement 990.00 Plus ICMA Employer 389.76 Net P/R Subject to FICA 96,394.02 FICA Oasdi @ 6.20% 5,976.39 FICA Medicare @ 1.45% 1,397.73 Note: Federal and State Payroll Tax obligations are satisfied by means of utilizing the US Bank Easy Tax Deposit Service. Transfers are typically made up to two days after the payroll date. * A/P Checks can be found on the ACCOUNTS PAYABLE Check Approval report. Checks may be paid this week or the following week. 5,781.73 7,374.12 CITY BENEFIT 5,976.39 1,397.73 389.76 911.72 0.00 911.72 125.00 125.00 5,391.97 0.00 0.00 Accounts Payable User: Printed: pang.silseth 2/19/2020 4:54 PM Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 0189 Gopher State One-Call, Inc.02/07/2020ACH 0010184 January Locates 16.65 0010184 January Locates 16.65 0010184 January Locates 16.65 49.95Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0189: 0192 Grainger, Inc 02/07/2020ACH 9424855709 Tools 145.51 9427495255 Supplies 47.03 192.54Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0192: 0285 Xcel Energy 02/07/2020ACH 670687971 12/15/19-01/16/20 52.21 670687971 12/15/19-01/16/20 962.26 670687971 12/15/19-01/16/20 2,679.66 670687971 12/15/19-01/16/20 1,451.50 670687971 12/15/19-01/16/20 238.26 670687971 12/15/19-01/16/20 1,686.12 670687971 12/15/19-01/16/20 2,299.82 9,369.83Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0285: 0319 City of Roseville 02/07/2020ACH 0228426 4th Qtr 2019 Water 192,386.51 0228432 February IT Support 5,862.00 0228476 Milestone VMS License 298.00 198,546.51Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0319: 0382 ICMA Retirement Trust - 106944 02/07/2020ACH PR 20-03 PR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employer Percent 401PR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employer Percent 401 389.76 PR 20-03 PR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employee Percent 401PR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employee Percent 401 337.79 727.55Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0382: 0387 ICMA Retirement Trust- #302482 02/07/2020ACH PR 20-03 PR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employee PercentPR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employee Percent 252.52 PR 20-03 PR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employee DeductionPR Batch 00100.02.2020 ICMA Employee Deduction 2,003.54 2,256.06Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0387: 0453 Continental Research Corp.02/07/2020ACH 0010120 Supplies 132.60 0010120 Supplies 530.40 663.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0453: 1183 Bauer Built Inc.02/07/2020ACH 180258419 Trailer Tires 1,384.60 Page 1AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/19/2020 4:54 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 1,384.60Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1183: 1408 Supply Solutions LLC 02/07/2020ACH 26453 CH Supplies 91.17 91.17Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1408: 1785 EcoEnvelopes LLC 02/07/2020ACH 1822 January UB Processing 400.49 1822 January UB Processing 400.49 1822 January UB Processing 400.50 1,201.48Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1785: 3096 Auto Plus 02/07/2020ACH 039140838 Equipment Repair Supplies 9.86 39151954 Equipment Repair Supplies 144.24 154.10Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 3096: 4445 Pioneer Rim and Wheel Co.02/07/2020ACH 01BT0481 Trailer Parts 282.36 282.36Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4445: 491177SM Stepp Manufacturing Co., Inc 02/07/2020ACH 056910 Trailer Part 34.53 34.53Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 491177SM: 5173 Badger Meter, Inc.02/07/2020ACH 80047007 Service Agreement Jan-Jun 2020 780.00 780.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5173: 6060 Batteries Plus 02/07/2020ACH P23748883 Trailer Parts 65.70 65.70Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 6060: 7025 On Site Companies -OSSTC Inc.02/07/2020ACH 0000873285 Restrooms-February 285.00 285.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7025: 7064 Rotary Club of Arden Hills/Shoreview 02/07/2020ACH 1903 Q1 2020 Dues 233.50 233.50Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7064: 8870 Chet's Shoes Inc.02/07/2020ACH 48919 Boots-DM 175.00 49074 Boots- MA,TB,MC 589.46 764.46Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 8870: ALPI Allegra Print & Imaging Inc.02/07/2020ACH 160274 Business Cards 173.59 173.59Total for this ACH Check for Vendor ALPI: TOII Tokle Inspections, Inc 02/07/2020ACH Page 2AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/19/2020 4:54 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 02052020 January Electrical Inspections 3,126.88 3,126.88Total for this ACH Check for Vendor TOII: ASTL Astleford International 02/07/202049093 T473917 Dump Truck Part 72.34 72.34Total for Check Number 49093: 0131 Beisswenger's Do It Best 02/07/202049094 269260 Supplies 20.37 20.37Total for Check Number 49094: CWBL City of White Bear Lake 02/07/202049095 12326 2020 RC GIS 961.89 961.89Total for Check Number 49095: 10353 Department of Corrections 02/07/202049096 586410 Buckthorn-10/20/19 525.00 525.00Total for Check Number 49096: AR-Frat Frattalone Companies Inc 02/07/202049097 WP 2018-01334 Escrow Refund: WP 2018-01334, 4800 Hamline Avenue 2,500.00 2,500.00Total for Check Number 49097: 5649 Galles Painting & Drywall, LLC.02/07/202049098 01312020 City Hall Interior Painting 2,912.00 2,912.00Total for Check Number 49098: 10330 Klein Underground, LLC 02/07/202049099 80044 Watermain Break 1201 County Rd E 2,709.00 2,709.00Total for Check Number 49099: 0222 League of Minnesota Cities 02/07/202049100 316623 Safety & Loss Control Workshop 40.00 40.00Total for Check Number 49100: AR-Lee 2 Lee Homes, LLC 02/07/202049101 GE 2018-00294 Escrow Refund: GE 2018-00294, 1939 Thom Drive 3,375.00 3,375.00Total for Check Number 49101: 3100 Provident Life and Accident Ins Co 02/07/202049102 E0471136.0120 January Insurance 39.02 39.02Total for Check Number 49102: 0811 Ramsey County 02/07/202049103 PUBW-018387 Salt Purchases Nov/Dec 2019 18,538.00 PUBW-018419 Services to Emergency Pre-emption System Jul-Dec 613.92 19,151.92Total for Check Number 49103: 0282 Republic Services Inc. #899 02/07/202049104 0899-003497905 January Recycling 8,242.96 Page 3AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/19/2020 4:54 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 8,242.96Total for Check Number 49104: 260,932.31Total for 2/7/2020: 0243 Metropolitan Council-Waste Water 02/14/2020ACH 0001106014 March Wasterwater 67,355.40 67,355.40Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0243: 0320 Health Partners Inc.02/14/2020ACH 95445891 February Insurance 144.99 95445891 March Insurance 1,312.35 1,457.34Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0320: 0327 Staples, Inc.02/14/2020ACH 3436196447 Supplies 74.07 3436414531 Supplies 35.98 3436414531 Supplies 62.07 3436414533 Supplies 44.54 3436414533 Supplies 18.58 3436414534 Supplies 2.09 3436489173 Supplies 1.49 3437019528 Supplies 19.29 3437019529 Supplies 68.94 3437019529 Supplies 25.89 352.94Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0327: 0940 Zee Medical Services Inc.02/14/2020ACH 54051919 First Aid Supplies 42.50 54051919 First Aid Supplies 12.30 54.80Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 0940: 10344 Joe Hartmann 02/14/2020ACH 02072020 Mileage Reimbursement 27.60 27.60Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10344: 10363 Minute Maker Secretarial 02/14/2020ACH M1009 Jan 27 CC Meeting 161.25 161.25Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 10363: 1125 Bolton & Menk, Inc.02/14/2020ACH 0245515 Colleen Ave Drainage 412.50 412.50Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1125: 1330 MN CLN SERVICES Inc.02/14/2020ACH 0220NN01 January Janitorial 1,554.58 1,554.58Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 1330: 4372 DLT Solutions, LLC Inc 02/14/2020ACH 4825289 03/2020-03/2021 Annual Subscription 1,064.25 1,064.25Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 4372: Page 4AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/19/2020 4:54 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 5518 KorTerra, Inc.02/14/2020ACH 19859 2020 Annual Service 1,600.00 1,600.00Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 5518: 7501 Kelly & Lemmons, P.A.02/14/2020ACH 52440 January Prosecution 4,040.43 4,040.43Total for this ACH Check for Vendor 7501: ALPI Allegra Print & Imaging Inc.02/14/2020ACH 160269 Jan/Feb Newsletter 1,746.29 1,746.29Total for this ACH Check for Vendor ALPI: 4050 Advanced Engineering and Enivornmental Serv Inc.02/14/202049105 66519 Water System Model-December 2019 1,096.00 1,096.00Total for Check Number 49105: 10200 Badger State Inspection LLC 02/14/202049106 1000784 Sprint - Telecommunications #424 3,192.00 3,192.00Total for Check Number 49106: UB*00395 Christine Bonn 02/14/202049107 Refund Check 002029-000, 1369 Forest Lane 99.25 99.25Total for Check Number 49107: UB*00363 Brian Burgeson 02/14/202049108 Refund Check 001286-000, 3759 New Brighton Road 285.10 285.10Total for Check Number 49108: UB*00390 Daniel & Mary Carlson 02/14/202049109 Refund Check 000591-000, 1172 Amble Drive 175.44 175.44Total for Check Number 49109: UB*00391 Cash for Houses, Inc 02/14/202049110 Refund Check 012261-000, 3205 Lexington Avenue N 132.48 132.48Total for Check Number 49110: UB*00399 Patience Caso 02/14/202049111 Refund Check 003155-000, 1225 Ingerson Road 41.78 41.78Total for Check Number 49111: UB*00394 Wendy Hamilton 02/14/202049112 Refund Check 000158-000, 4440 Hamline Avenue N 2.88 2.88Total for Check Number 49112: 0447 I.U.O.E Local 49 Benefit Fund-Insurance 02/14/202049113 0320BP3 March Insurance 8,855.00 0320NB4 March Insurance 1,527.00 10,382.00Total for Check Number 49113: 0390 INT'L Union Operating Engineers-Union Dues02/14/202049114 02032020 February Dues 245.00 Page 5AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/19/2020 4:54 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 245.00Total for Check Number 49114: UB*00393 Daniel Kuechenmeister 02/14/202049115 Refund Check 001975-000, 3372 Lake Johanna Boulevard 52.30 52.30Total for Check Number 49115: 0495 Lake Johanna Fire Department Inc.02/14/202049116 721 2019 Cap Equip Replacement 33,361.79 33,361.79Total for Check Number 49116: UB*00389 John Lawyer 02/14/202049117 Refund Check 000130-000, 4539 Keithson Drive 70.18 70.18Total for Check Number 49117: 5138 League of MN Cities Ins. Trust 02/14/202049118 40002626-0120 2020 Worker's Comp 40,538.00 40,538.00Total for Check Number 49118: 10286 Minnesota Occupational Health 02/14/202049119 335957 Drug Screening 124.00 124.00Total for Check Number 49119: 10271 MN PEIP 02/14/202049120 939620 March Insurance 11,570.52 11,570.52Total for Check Number 49120: UB*00392 Bill & Darcy Newham 02/14/202049121 Refund Check 003075-000, 1678 Brueberry Lane 20.50 20.50Total for Check Number 49121: 1208 Premium Waters, Inc 02/14/202049122 610207-01-20 January Water 35.34 613317-01-20 January Water 122.78 158.12Total for Check Number 49122: 0811 Ramsey County 02/14/202049123 PUBW-018399 Bridge Inspection 190.00 190.00Total for Check Number 49123: 6748 Reliance Standard 02/14/202049124 GL154938.0220 February Insurance 1,527.85 1,527.85Total for Check Number 49124: 10238 Roadkill Animal Control 02/14/202049125 012020 January Animal Control 119.00 119.00Total for Check Number 49125: 9111 Safe Assure Consultants Inc.02/14/202049126 2723 Safety Training 2,111.87 Page 6AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/19/2020 4:54 PM) Check No Check DateVendor NameVendor No Check Amount Invoice No ReferenceDescription 2,111.87Total for Check Number 49126: UB*00396 Shibaji Shome 02/14/202049127 Refund Check 010812-000, 1457 Colleen Avenue 223.71 223.71Total for Check Number 49127: UB*00398 Lori & Jonathan Snow 02/14/202049128 Refund Check 009816-000, 1413 Arden View Drive 16.32 16.32Total for Check Number 49128: 10369 Sorensen Consulting 02/14/202049129 02092020 360 Assessment 375.00 375.00Total for Check Number 49129: 10354 St. Paul Pioneer Press 02/14/202049130 0120572589 PC 19-019 Sign Code 25.80 0120572589 PC 19-017 CUP 29.24 0120572589 Summary Budget 204.68 0120572589 PC 19-021 PUD 28.81 288.53Total for Check Number 49130: UB*00397 Eugene Van Massenhove 02/14/202049131 Refund Check 002324-000, 1303 Ingerson Road 8.09 8.09Total for Check Number 49131: 9755 Verizon Connect 02/14/202049132 OSV000002019275 January Service 284.25 284.25Total for Check Number 49132: 186,519.34Total for 2/14/2020: Report Total (72 checks): 447,451.65 Page 7AP Checks by Date - Detail by Check Date (2/19/2020 4:54 PM) DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Authorize Staff to Begin Recruitment Process for Maintenance Worker Position Budgeted Amount: Estimated Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider Council should consider authorizing staff to begin the recruitment process for any open Public Works Maintenance Worker positions. Background This authorization will allow staff to begin the recruitment process for any Public Works Maintenance Worker vacancies. Anticipated process: -Council approves authorization to begin the recruitment process -Staff posts for the position and reviews candidates -Staff reviews applications, interviews candidates, and selects finalists -Staff will add their recommendation to the consent calendar at a future meeting This position will not be brought forward to the Personnel Committee or City Council for future consideration except for final approval at a City Council meeting. Budget Impact This will not adversely affect the 2020 budget as no additional positions are being added. CONSENT ITEM – 7B MEMORANDUM Page 1 of 2 DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers David Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement with HR Green for Hamline Avenue, Shorewood Drive and City Hall Parking Lot Improvements Budgeted Amount: Funding Source: $345,000 Actual Amount: $106,402 PIR, Building, Surface Water Council Should Consider The City C ouncil is requested to consider awarding a professional services agreement to HR Green for design and construction administration services associated with the Hamline Avenue, Shorewood Drive and City Hall Parking Lot Improvements. Background/Discussion On January 21, 2020, the City Council Work Session included a discussion of engineering services for three projects identified in the Capital Improvement Program for the 2020 construction season primarily involving roadway, paving or drainage improvements. The three projects include the Hamline Avenue Pedestrian Crosswalks, City Hall Parking Lot Improvements, and the Shorewood Drive Drainage Improvements. The three projects are relatively small in terms of individual project bidding and management. During the work session, the City Council indicated support for staff to package the three projects together under one plan set and conduct bidding as a single construction project. The Council also indicated support for staff to negotiate a professional services agreement with HR Green to provide design, plan production and construction administration for the projects based on their current involvement with two of the three projects. Engineering staff worked with HR Green to develop the professional services agreement proposal provided in Attachment A. The proposal includes a scope of work to conduct field surveying, design, plan production, preparation of specifications and contract documents, CONSENT ITEM – 7C MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 assistance with project bidding, construction staking and inspection field visits. The proposal includes 544 hours of consultant work with a total proposed fee of $72,798. Staff recommends approval of the agreement. Budget Impact The Hamline Avenue Pedestrian Crosswalks, City Hall Parking Lot Improvements, and the Shorewood Drive Drainage Improvements are included in the 2020 scheduled projects within the adopted Capital Improvement Program. Funding sources for the Hamline Avenue pedestrian crosswalks include the PIR Capital Projects Fund and cost participation from Ramsey County. Funding for the City Hall Parking Lot is designated from the Equipment/Building Replacement Fund. Funding for the Shorewood Drive Drainage Improvements is designated from the Surface Water Management Fund. Attachments Attachment A: Professional Services Proposal and Agreement, HR Green Version 2.1 02212019 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT For City Hall Parking Lot Final Design & Shorewood Drive Storm Sewer Final Design Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director / City Engineer City of Arden Hills, MN 1245 Highway 96 West Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-792-7846 HR Green Project Numbers: 191801 (City Hall Parking Lot Final Design) 191557.01 (Shorewood Drive Storm Sewer Final Design) Jordan Horejsi, PE – Project Manager (191801) – (651) 659-7776 Bridget Osborn, PE – Project Manager (191557.01) – (651) 659-7773 HR Green, Inc. 2550 University Ave W, Suite 400N Saint Paul, MN 55114 2/21/20 Version2.1 02212019 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3.0 DELIVERABLES AND SCHEDULES INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT 4.0 ITEMS NOT INCLUDED IN AGREEMENT/SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICES 5.0 SERVICES BY OTHERS 6.0 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES 7.0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FEE 8.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Professional Services Agreement Page 1 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 THIS AGREEMENT is between The City of Arden Hills (hereafter “CLIENT”) and HR GREEN, INC. (hereafter "COMPANY"). 1.0 Project Understanding 1.1 General Understanding 1.2 Design Criteria/Assumptions 2.0 Scope of Services Refer to attached letter scope of services. 3.0 Deliverables and Schedules Included in this Agreement Refer to attached letter scope of services. 4.0 Items not included in Agreement/Supplemental Services Refer to attached letter scope of services. Supplemental services not included in the AGREEMENT can be provided by COMPANY under separate agreement, if desired. 5.0 Services by Others Refer to attached letter scope of services. 6.0 Client Responsibilities Refer to attached letter scope of services. 7.0 Professional Services Fee 7.1 Fees The fee for services will be based on COMPANY standard hourly rates current at the time the AGREEMENT is signed. These standard hourly rates are subject to change upon 30 days’ written notice. Non-salary expenses directly attributable to the project such as: (1) living and traveling expenses of employees when away from the home office on business connected with the project; (2) identifiable communication expenses; (3) identifiable reproduction costs applicable to the work; and (4) outside services will be charged in accordance with the rates current at the time the service is done. 7.2 Invoices Invoices for COMPANY’s services shall be submitted, on a monthly basis. Invoices shall be due and payable upon receipt. If any invoice is not paid within 15 days, COMPANY may, Professional Services Agreement Page 2 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 without waiving any claim or right against the CLIENT, and without liability whatsoever to the CLIENT, suspend or terminate the performance of services. The retainer shall be credited on the final invoice. Accounts unpaid 30 days after the invoice date may be subject to a monthly service charge of 1.5% (or the maximum legal rate) on the unpaid balance. In the event that any portion of an account remains unpaid 60 days after the billing, COMPANY may institute collection action and the CLIENT shall pay all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. 7.3 Extra Services Any service required but not included as part of this AGREEMENT shall be considered extra services. Extra services will be billed on a Time and Material basis with prior approval of the CLIENT. 7.4 Exclusion This fee does not include attendance at any meetings or public hearings other than those specifically listed in the Scope of Services. These service items are considered extra and are billed separately on an hourly basis. 7.5 Payment The CLIENT AGREES to pay COMPANY on the following basis: Time and material basis with a Not to Exceed fee of $72,798. Professional Services Agreement Page 3 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 8.0 Terms and Conditions The following Terms and Conditions are incorporated into this AGREEMENT and made a part of it. 8.1 Standard of Care Services provided by COMPANY under this AGREEMENT will be performed in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing at the same time and in the same or similar locality. 8.2 Entire Agreement This AGREEMENT and its attachments constitute the entire understanding between CLIENT and COMPANY relating to COMPANY’s services. Any prior or contemporaneous agreements, promises, negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth herein are of no effect. Subsequent modifications or amendments to this AGREEMENT shall be in writing and signed by the parties to this AGREEMENT. If the CLIENT, its officers, agents, or employees request COMPANY to perform extra services pursuant to this AGREEMENT, CLIENT will pay for the additional services even though an additional written agreement is not issued or signed. 8.3 Time Limit and Commencement of Services This AGREEMENT must be executed within ninety (90) days to be accepted under the terms set forth herein. The services will be commenced immediately upon receipt of this signed AGREEMENT. 8.4 Suspension of Services If the Project or the COMPANY’S services are suspended by the CLIENT for more than thirty (30) calendar days, consecutive or in the aggregate, over the term of this AGREEMENT, the COMPANY shall be compensated for all services performed and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the receipt of notice of suspension. In addition, upon resumption of services, the CLIENT shall compensate the COMPANY for expenses incurred as a result of the suspension and resumption of its services, and the COMPANY’S schedule and fees for the remainder of the Project shall be equitably adjusted. If the COMPANY’S services are suspended for more than ninety (90) days, consecutive or in the aggregate, the COMPANY may terminate this AGREEMENT upon giving not less than five (5) calendar days' written notice to the CLIENT. If the CLIENT is in breach of this AGREEMENT, the COMPANY may suspend performance of services upon five (5) calendar days' notice to the CLIENT. The COMPANY shall have no liability to the CLIENT, and the CLIENT agrees to make no claim for any delay or damage as a result of such suspension caused by any breach of this AGREEMENT by the CLIENT. Upon receipt of payment in full of all outstanding sums due from the CLIENT, or curing of such other breach which caused the COMPANY to suspend services, the COMPANY shall resume services and there shall be an equitable adjustment to the remaining project schedule and fees as a result of the suspension. 8.5 Books and Accounts COMPANY will maintain books and accounts of payroll costs, travel, subsistence, field, and incidental expenses for a period of five (5) years. Said books and accounts will be available at all reasonable times for examination by CLIENT at the corporate office of COMPANY during that time. 8.6 Insurance COMPANY will maintain insurance for claims under the Worker's Compensation Laws, and from General Liability and Automobile claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage, and Professional Liability insurance caused by the negligent performance by COMPANY's employees of the functions and services required under this AGREEMENT. 8.7 Termination or Abandonment Either party has the option to terminate this AGREEMENT. In the event of failure by the other party to perform in accordance with the terms hereof through no fault of the terminating party, then the obligation to provide further services under this AGREEMENT may be terminated upon seven (7) days’ written notice. If any portion of the services is terminated or abandoned by CLIENT, the provisions of this Schedule of Fees and Conditions in regard to compensation and payment shall apply insofar as possible to that portion of the services not terminated or abandoned. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any phase of the project, the fee for Professional Services Agreement Page 4 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 services performed during such phase shall be based on COMPANY's reasonable estimate of the portion of such phase completed prior to said termination, plus a reasonable amount to reimburse COMPANY for termination costs. 8.8 Waiver COMPANY's waiver of any term, condition, or covenant or breach of any term, condition, or covenant, shall not constitute a waiver of any other term, condition, or covenant, or the breach thereof. 8.9 Severability If any provision of this AGREEMENT is declared invalid, illegal, or incapable of being enforced by any Court of competent jurisdiction, all of the remaining provisions of this AGREEMENT shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect, and no provision shall be deemed dependent upon any other provision unless so expressed herein. 8.10 Successors and Assigns All of the terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and are binding upon the parties hereto, and their respective successors and assigns, provided, however, that no assignment of this AGREEMENT shall be made without written consent of the parties to this AGREEMENT. 8.11 Third-Party Beneficiaries Nothing contained in this AGREEMENT shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action in favor of a third party against either the CLIENT or the COMPANY. The COMPANY’s services under this AGREEMENT are being performed solely for the CLIENT’s benefit, and no other party or entity shall have any claim against the COMPANY because of this AGREEMENT or the performance or nonperformance of services hereunder. The CLIENT and COMPANY agree to require a similar provision in all contracts with contractors, subcontractors, sub-consultants, vendors and other entities involved in this project to carry out the intent of this provision. 8.12 Governing Law and Jurisdiction The CLIENT and the COMPANY agree that this AGREEMENT and any legal actions concerning its validity, interpretation and performance shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota without regard to any conflict of law provisions, which may apply the laws of other jurisdictions. It is further agreed that any legal action between the CLIENT and the COMPANY arising out of this AGREEMENT or the performance of the services shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of Minnesota. 8.13 Dispute Resolution Mediation. In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise during the design or construction of the project or following the completion of the project, the CLIENT and COMPANY agree that all disputes between them arising out of or relating to this AGREEMENT shall be submitted to non-binding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The CLIENT and COMPANY further agree to include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with independent contractors and consultants retained for the project and to require all independent contractors and consultants also to include a similar mediation provision in all agreements with subcontractors, sub-consultants, suppliers or fabricators so retained, thereby providing for mediation as the primary method for dispute resolution between the parties to those agreements. 8.14 Attorney’s Fees If litigation arises for purposes of collecting fees or expenses due under this AGREEMENT, the Court in such litigation shall award reasonable costs and expenses, including attorney fees, to the party justly entitled thereto. In awarding attorney fees, the Court shall not be bound by any Court fee schedule, but shall, in the interest of justice, award the full amount of costs, expenses, and attorney fees paid or incurred in good faith. 8.15 Ownership of Instruments of Service All reports, plans, specifications, field data, field notes, laboratory test data, calculations, estimates and other documents including all documents on electronic media prepared by COMPANY as instruments of service shall remain the property of COMPANY. COMPANY shall retain these records for a period of five (5) years following completion/submission of the records, during which period they will be made available to the CLIENT at all reasonable times. Professional Services Agreement Page 5 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 8.16 Reuse of Documents All project documents including, but not limited to, plans and specifications furnished by COMPANY under this project are intended for use on this project only. Any reuse, without specific written verification or adoption by COMPANY, shall be at the CLIENT's sole risk, and CLIENT shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless COMPANY from all claims, damages and expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of or resulting therefrom. Under no circumstances shall delivery of electronic files for use by the CLIENT be deemed a sale by the COMPANY, and the COMPANY makes no warranties, either express or implied, of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose. In no event shall the COMPANY be liable for indirect or consequential damages as a result of the CLIENT’s use or reuse of the electronic files. 8.17 Failure to Abide by Design Documents or To Obtain Guidance The CLIENT agrees that it would be unfair to hold COMPANY liable for problems that might occur should COMPANY’S plans, specifications or design intents not be followed, or for problems resulting from others' failure to obtain and/or follow COMPANY’S guidance with respect to any errors, omissions, inconsistencies, ambiguities or conflicts which are detected or alleged to exist in or as a consequence of implementing COMPANY’S plans, specifications or other instruments of service. Accordingly, the CLIENT waives any claim against COMPANY, and agrees to defend, indemnify and hold COMPANY harmless from any claim for injury or losses that results from failure to follow COMPANY’S plans, specifications or design intent, or for failure to obtain and/or follow COMPANY’S guidance with respect to any alleged errors, omissions, inconsistencies, ambiguities or conflicts contained within or arising as a result of implementing COMPANY’S plans, specifications or other instruments of service. The CLIENT also agrees to compensate COMPANY for any time spent and expenses incurred remedying CLIENT’s failures according to COMPANY’S prevailing fee schedule and expense reimbursement policy. 8.18 Opinion of Probable Construction Cost As part of the Deliverables, COMPANY may submit to the CLIENT an opinion of probable cost required to construct work recommended, designed, or specified by COMPANY, if required by CLIENT. COMPANY is not a construction cost estimator or construction contractor, nor should COMPANY’S rendering an opinion of probable construction costs be considered equivalent to the nature and extent of service a construction cost estimator or construction contractor would provide. This requires COMPANY to make a number of assumptions as to actual conditions that will be encountered on site; the specific decisions of other design professionals engaged; the means and methods of construction the contractor will employ; the cost and extent of labor, equipment and materials the contractor will employ; contractor's techniques in determining prices and market conditions at the time, and other factors over which COMPANY has no control. Given the assumptions which must be made, COMPANY cannot guarantee the accuracy of its opinions of cost, and in recognition of that fact, the CLIENT waives any claim against COMPANY relative to the accuracy of COMPANY’S opinion of probable construction cost. 8.19 Design Information in Electronic Form Because electronic file information can be easily altered, corrupted, or modified by other parties, either intentionally or inadvertently, without notice or indication, COMPANY reserves the right to remove itself from its ownership and/or involvement in the material from each electronic medium not held in its possession. CLIENT shall retain copies of the work performed by COMPANY in electronic form only for information and use by CLIENT for the specific purpose for which COMPANY was engaged. Said material shall not be used by CLIENT or transferred to any other party, for use in other projects, additions to this project, or any other purpose for which the material was not strictly intended by COMPANY without COMPANY’s express written permission. Any unauthorized use or reuse or modifications of this material shall be at CLIENT’S sole risk. Furthermore, the CLIENT agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold COMPANY harmless from all claims, injuries, damages, losses, expenses, and attorneys’ fees arising out of the modification or reuse of these materials. The CLIENT recognizes that designs, plans, and data stored on electronic media including, but not limited to computer disk, magnetic tape, or files transferred via email, may be subject to undetectable alteration and/or uncontrollable deterioration. The CLIENT, therefore, agrees that COMPANY shall not be liable for the completeness or accuracy of any materials provided on electronic media after a 30-day inspection period, during which time COMPANY shall correct any errors detected by the CLIENT to complete the design in accordance with the intent of the contract and specifications. After 40 days, at the request of the CLIENT, COMPANY shall submit a final set of sealed drawings, and any additional services to be performed by COMPANY relative to the submitted electronic materials shall be subject to separate agreement. The CLIENT is aware that differences may exist between the electronic files delivered and the printed hard-copy construction documents. In the event Professional Services Agreement Page 6 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 of a conflict between the signed construction documents prepared by the COMPANY and electronic files, the signed or sealed hard-copy construction documents shall govern. 8.20 Information Provided by Others The CLIENT shall furnish, at the CLIENT’s expense, all information, requirements, reports, data, surveys and instructions required by this AGREEMENT. The COMPANY may use such information, requirements, reports, data, surveys and instructions in performing its services and is entitled to rely upon the accuracy and completeness thereof. The COMPANY shall not be held responsible for any errors or omissions that may arise as a result of erroneous or incomplete information provided by the CLIENT and/or the CLIENT’s consultants and contractors. COMPANY is not responsible for accuracy of any plans, surveys or information of any type including electronic media prepared by any other consultants, etc. provided to COMPANY for use in preparation of plans. The CLIENT agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold harmless the COMPANY from any damages, liabilities, or costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and defense costs, arising out of or connected in any way with the services performed by other consultants engaged by the CLIENT. COMPANY is not responsible for accuracy of topographic surveys provided by others. A field check of a topographic survey provided by others will not be done under this AGREEMENT unless indicated in the Scope of Services. 8.21 Force Majeure The CLIENT agrees that the COMPANY is not responsible for damages arising directly or indirectly from any delays for causes beyond the COMPANY's control. CLIENT agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold COMPANY, its consultants, agents, and employees harmless from any and all liability, other than that caused by the negligent acts, errors, or omissions of COMPANY, arising out of or resulting from the same. For purposes of this AGREEMENT, such causes include, but are not limited to, strikes or other labor disputes; severe weather disruptions or other natural disasters or acts of God; fires, riots, war or other emergencies; failure of any government agency to act in a timely manner; failure of performance by the CLIENT or the CLIENT’S contractors or consultants; or discovery of any hazardous substances or differing site conditions. Severe weather disruptions include but are not limited to extensive rain, high winds, snow greater than two (2) inches and ice. In addition, if the delays resulting from any such causes increase the cost or time required by the COMPANY to perform its services in an orderly and efficient manner, the COMPANY shall be entitled to a reasonable adjustment in schedule and compensation. 8.22 Job Site Visits and Safety Neither the professional activities of COMPANY, nor the presence of COMPANY’S employees and sub- consultants at a construction site, shall relieve the general contractor and any other entity of their obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means, methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending or coordinating all portions of the work of construction in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety precautions required by any regulatory agencies. COMPANY and its personnel have no authority to exercise any control over any construction contractor or other entity or their employees in connection with their work or any health or safety precautions. The CLIENT agrees that the general contractor is solely responsible for job site safety, and warrants that this intent shall be made evident in the CLIENT's AGREEMENT with the general contractor. The CLIENT also agrees that the CLIENT, COMPANY and COMPANY’S consultants shall be indemnified and shall be made additional insureds on the general contractor’s and all subcontractor’s general liability policies on a primary and non-contributory basis. 8.23 Hazardous Materials CLIENT hereby understands and agrees that COMPANY has not created nor contributed to the creation or existence of any or all types of hazardous or toxic wastes, materials, chemical compounds, or substances, or any other type of environmental hazard or pollution, whether latent or patent, at CLIENT's premises, or in connection with or related to this project with respect to which COMPANY has been retained to provide professional services. The compensation to be paid COMPANY for said professional services is in no way commensurate with, and has not been calculated with reference to, the potential risk of injury or loss which may be caused by the exposure of persons or property to such substances or conditions. Therefore, to the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold COMPANY, its officers, directors, employees, and consultants, harmless from and against any and all claims, damages, and expenses, whether direct, indirect, or consequential, including, but not limited to, attorney fees and Court costs, arising out of, or resulting from the discharge, escape, release, or saturation of smoke, vapors, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, toxic chemicals, liquids gases, or any other materials, irritants, contaminants, or pollutants in or into the atmosphere, Professional Services Agreement Page 7 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 or on, onto, upon, in, or into the surface or subsurface of soil, water, or watercourses, objects, or any tangible or intangible matter, whether sudden or not. It is acknowledged by both parties that COMPANY’S Scope of Services does not include any services related to asbestos or hazardous or toxic materials. In the event COMPANY or any other party encounters asbestos or hazardous or toxic materials at the job site, or should it become known in any way that such materials may be present at the job site or any adjacent areas that may affect the performance of COMPANY’S services, COMPANY may, at its option and without liability for consequential or any other damages, suspend performance of services on the project until the CLIENT retains appropriate specialist consultant(s) or contractor(s) to identify, abate and/or remove the asbestos or hazardous or toxic materials, and warrants that the job site is in full compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Nothing contained within this AGREEMENT shall be construed or interpreted as requiring COMPANY to assume the status of a generator, storer, transporter, treater, or disposal facility as those terms appear within the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.A., §6901 et seq., as amended, or within any State statute governing the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of waste. 8.24 Certificate of Merit The CLIENT shall make no claim for professional negligence, either directly or in a third party claim, against COMPANY unless the CLIENT has first provided COMPANY with a written certification executed by an independent design professional currently practicing in the same discipline as COMPANY and licensed in the State in which the claim arises. This certification shall: a) contain the name and license number of the certifier; b) specify each and every act or omission that the certifier contends is a violation of the standard of care expected of a design professional performing professional services under similar circumstances; and c) state in complete detail the basis for the certifier's opinion that each such act or omission constitutes such a violation. This certificate shall be provided to COMPANY not less than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the presentation of any claim or the institution of any judicial proceeding. 8.25 Limitation of Liability In recognition of the relative risks and benefits of the Project to both the CLIENT and the COMPANY, the risks have been allocated such that the CLIENT agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to limit the liability of the COMPANY and COMPANY’S officers, directors, partners, employees, shareholders, owners and sub- consultants for any and all claims, losses, costs, damages of any nature whatsoever or claims expenses from any cause or causes, including attorneys’ fees and costs and expert witness fees and costs, so that the total aggregate liability of the COMPANY and COMPANY’S officers, directors, partners, employees, shareholders, owners and sub-consultants shall not exceed $50,000.00, or the COMPANY’S total fee for services rendered on this Project, whichever is greater. It is intended that this limitation apply to any and all liability or cause of action however alleged or arising, unless otherwise prohibited by law. 8.29 Design Without Construction Observation It is agreed that the professional services of COMPANY do not extend to or include the review or site observation of the contractor's work or performance and the CLIENT assumes all responsibility for interpretation of the contract documents and for construction observation. It is further agreed that the CLIENT will defend, indemnify and hold harmless COMPANY from any claim or suit whatsoever, including but not limited to all payments, expenses or costs involved, arising from the contractor's performance or the failure of the contractor's work to conform to the design intent and the contract documents. COMPANY agrees to be responsible for its employees’ negligent acts, errors or omissions. 8.37 Municipal Advisor The COMPANY is not a Municipal Advisor registered with the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) as defined in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. When the CLIENT is a municipal entity as defined by said Act, and the CLIENT requires project financing information for the services performed under this AGREEMENT, the CLIENT will provide the COMPANY with a letter detailing who their independent registered municipal advisor is and that the CLIENT will rely on the advice of such advisor. A sample letter can be provided to the CLIENT upon request. Professional Services Agreement Page 8 of 8 Version2.1 02212019 This AGREEMENT is approved and accepted by the CLIENT and COMPANY upon both parties signing and dating the AGREEMENT. Services will not begin until COMPANY receives a signed agreement. COMPANY’s services shall be limited to those expressly set forth in this AGREEMENT and COMPANY shall have no other obligations or responsibilities for the Project except as agreed to in writing. The effective date of the AGREEMENT shall be the last date entered below. Sincerely, HR GREEN, INC. Chris Harrington, Client Services Manager Approved by: Printed/Typed Name: Title: Date: THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS Accepted by: Printed/Typed Name: Title: Date: 2550 University Ave. West, Suite 400N |St. Paul, MN 55105 Main 651.644.4389 + Fax 651.644.9446 HRGREEN.COM February 19, 2020 Todd Blomstrom, PE City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743 Subject: City Hall Parking Lot Final Design, Shorewood Drive Final Design, and Hamline Avenue Crosswalks Final Design Dear Todd: The following proposal covers three projects: Hamline Avenue Crosswalks Final Design, City Hall Parking Lot Final Design, and Shorewood Drive Storm Sewer Final Design. This proposal assumes one set of construction documents that includes all projects with combined Title sheet, Layout sheet, SEQ/Tabulations and special provisions, which will be included in the Parking Lot Final Design hours estimate. Should the projects be separated into separate construction document packages, additional time will be requested as an amendment to this proposed contract. A summary of the status and tasks for each project are included below: Hamline Avenue Crosswalks Final Design · Original Contract for $21,954 signed on March 28, 2019 · Final plans were submitted on August 12, 2019 · At a City Council work session on September 9, 2019 the City Council requested that the RRFB’s be included in the plans – City will discuss with Ramsey County and decide if RRFB’s will be permitted in the final design · Title sheet, layout, SEQ, quantities tabulations, and construction notes and standard plates need to be combined with the Parking Lot and Shorewood Drive Final Design projects. · Construction Administration, Staking, and Observation – 37 hours included in the original contract, 17 hours for staking, 16 hours for observation (including for the RRFB’s), and five hours for contractor questions, materials testing, and quantities coordination. Arden Hills City Hall Parking Lot Final Design (New Project) · Project Management · Topographic Survey · Construction Documents · Construction Administration · Merging of Title sheet, layout, SEQ, quantities tabulations, and construction notes and standard plates (for purposes of project scoping, the effort to incorporate Hamline Avenue & Shorewood Drive projects is included in this task) Shorewood Drive Storm Sewer Final Design (New Project) · Project Management · Construction Documents · Construction Administration Page 2 The Hamline contract was signed on March 28, 2019 with a total cost of $21,954. The following attachments include scopes and costs estimates for the City Hall Parking Lot Final Design and the Shorewood Drive Storm Sewer Final Design projects. The contracted effort for these two new projects, is estimated as a total cost of $72,798. We are available to begin work on the Shorewood Drive portion immediately upon notice to proceed. The parking lot design can begin once the topographic survey is complete, which is weather dependent. We will determine an agreed upon schedule during the kick off meeting with the City. We appreciate the opportunity to provide services to Arden Hills on these projects and will strive to exceed your expectations. Please contact Jordan Horejsi at 651-659-7716 or Bridget Osborn at 651- 659-7773 with any comments or questions. HR Green, Inc. Jordan Horejsi, PE Bridget Osborn, PE, CFM Project Manager Project Manager 3 | P a g e City Hall Parking Lot Final Design PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The existing parking lot pavement at Arden Hills City Hall is in poor condition and needs to be replaced for structural capacity and safety. The existing handicap parking stalls and sidewalks need to be replaced to meet PROWAG standards, and the lighting needs to be replaced. The City of Arden Hills has requested that HR Green provide consulting engineer services regarding planned improvements to the parking lot. The goal of our proposed work is to provide design services to the City of Arden Hills for construction of features that will improve the parking lot pavement and design loading structural capacity, improve the pedestrian facilities to be ADA compliant, and will improve the striping, lighting, and drainage of the parking lot. DELIVERABLES HR Green will provide the following deliverables: 1. Topographic survey of Arden Hills City Hall parking lot a. Termini of area to be surveyed includes entrance driveway from 15’ north of Hwy 96, includes one panel of the concrete driveway entrance, to 5’ outside of the back of curb on the north side of the parking lot; and includes the sidewalk at the building entrance to the rip rap at the curb cuts on the east end of the parking lot. b. Gopher State One Call c. Topo survey within the area of including: i. Existing sidewalk, crosswalk, and pedestrian ramps including storm and sanitary sewer structures, all visible utilities, underground utilities that have been marked per the Gopher State One Call, signs, sidewalks, curbs (straight-ways, corners and curves), pedestrian ramps, large vegetation (trunks greater than 4 inches), landscaping edges, and retaining walls (shots taken at low ground in front of and at high ground in back of retaining wall), fences. ii. The spacing of survey shots on the gutter line, top back of curb, center line of road and ground shots for surface elevations shall not exceed 25 feet. iii. For large parking lot spans, shots will be taken in a grid every 50 ft. and also at any obvious grade breaks as determined by the surveyor. d. Construction staking i. All staking will be one-time staking, wrecked or ruined stakes are re- staked at cost of the contractor. ii. Staking includes curb and gutter, parking lot, entrance roadway, and pedestrian ramps at the City Hall parking lot. iii. Parking lot staking every 50’ and at grade breaks as necessary iv. Surveyor mobilization is assumed to mobilize a maximum of three times to the project site for staking e. Coordinate Reference System i. Mapping data will utilize the Ramsey County Coordinate System, NAD83 (2011 adjustment). Published MNDOT Geodetic Stations and Public Land Survey corners as noted and published by the Ramsey County Survey 4 | P a g e Division or Ramsey County control monuments may be relied upon to establish the coordinate system. ii. Elevations will be based upon NAVD88. All units (horizontal and vertical) will be in US Survey feet and given to the 0.01 foot. f. Mapping (CAD) Files i. CAD files provided by surveyor shall be drawn using NCS (National CAD Standards) for layer naming. Layer color and line type shall follow MnDOT. g. A text (txt) file of all survey point coordinates i. including project control, in the following format: Point Number, Northing, Easting, Elevation, Description (P,N,E,Z,D). The survey point code key used must be provided along with the survey point file. h. A statement describing control monuments i. from which both vertical and horizontal data were derived and the project site local control to which those data were transferred and used for this survey, including their coordinates, and locations. i. A 2-D plainimetric file in AutoCAD 2019 (DWG) format. i. Such file, named X-C-BASE, will show all survey located items and line- work with a legend indicating all symbols used. It will also show spot elevations in text. 2. Construction documents (plan sheets) will include: a. Title Sheet* b. Layout Sheet* c. Statement of Estimated Quantities* d. Quantities Tabulations* e. Soils and Construction Notes and Standard Plates* f. Typical Section (roadway and parking lot) g. ADA Standard Plan Sheets h. Removal Sheets i. Construction and ADA Sheets i. Site sheet with point tables included j. Parking Lot Striping Sheets k. Signing details (handicap signing will likely need to be updated or moved) l. Lighting Sheets – with conduit for security camera m. Erosion Control Sheets n. SWPPP Sheets Plan submittals include: 60% plans with OPC and comment responses 90% plans, OPC, special provisions, and comment responses 100% plans, OPC, special provisions, and comment responses Design files will be converted to CAD for City use at the completion of the as-built plan set 5 | P a g e 3. Figure for median change (up to two alternatives) a. Change in curb and gutter and medians to accommodate more efficient garbage truck movements – turning movement diagrams will be included on figures 4. Pavement design – based off of Geotechnical Report provided by WSB to be included in the typical sections in the plans 5. Special provisions* - MnDOT 2018 boiler plate. Prepare Bid/Proposal form and merge special provisions into City supplied front end documents to produce a Project Manual. 6. Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 7. Final CAD files in AutoCAD 2019 (unless a different version is requested by the City) 8. Review of shop drawing submittals limited to: storm structures and piping and bituminous or concrete mix. 9. Attendance to one City Council work session to discuss the parking lot construction cost – one HR Green representative 10. Bid opening and preconstruction meeting attendance 11. Review of shop drawing submittals limited to: a. bituminous mix design b. concrete mix design c. truncated domes d. lighting poles and luminaires. 12. Construction administration includes the following items: a. response to contractor questions during advertisement and issue addenda b. bid opening meeting c. preconstruction meeting with awarded contractor d. construction staking e. Ten hours for material testing coordination for aggregate, bituminous, and concrete * Includes combined information for the Shorewood Drive Final Design and Hamline Ave Crosswalks Final Design projects ASSUMPTIONS · City will upload construction documents to Quest CDN for construction advertisement and will be responsible for posting any question responses and maintaining the webpage throughout the advertisement length · Pavement design will be based off of Geotechnical Report provided by WSB dated September 19, 2019 · No traffic control sheets needed – City staff will coordinate with nearby business · No permit with Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) will be required because reconstructed surface will be under 10,000 sq. ft. A desktop review shows that the 6 | P a g e reconstruction of the driveway and all of the sidewalks in the parking lot is approx. 6500 sq. ft. The parking lot is approx. 23,500 sq. ft. · No BMP design unless reconstructed area is greater than 10,000 sq. ft. · R-value for pavement design will be determined from Geotechnical Report from WSB and the MnDOT Flexible Pavement Design Guidance and the Stabilometer R-values by Soil Type · No traffic counts for ESAL calculations for pavement design · Sidewalk between the staff parking lot and the public lot (running E-W) will not be replaced solely if it is non-compliant with PROWAG guidelines, but rather if the concrete is in poor condition or has settled to cause vertical displacement greater than 0.5” · Preferred light poles and lighting units will be supplied by the City for inclusion in the plan. Existing wiring will be used and new pole foundations, poles, and luminaires will be included in this scope of services · Lighting plans will include conduit from the building to an existing light pole for installation of a new security camera. HR Green will coordinate location of conduit to provide 110v power with the City of Arden Hills. The installation and design of the attachment for the security camera is not included in this scope of services · Point by point photometric analysis will not be used for light placement · Existing pedestrian ramps crossing the city hall entrance (associated with TH 96 sidewalk) will remain in place and are considered outside the scope of services for this project · Any construction observation time can be contracted under an amendment. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Additional Services are not included in this Agreement. If authorized under a Supplemental Agreement HR Green could furnish or obtain from others the following services: 1. Landscaping design and plan sheets for medians. 2. Drainage BMP design if the reconstructed area is larger than 10,000 sq. ft. a. BMP design – filtration basins b. Filtration basin details c. Draintile d. Permit and coordination with RCWD e. Quantities and drainage tabs 3. Construction observation a. Mark removal extents for parking lot, driveway, curb and gutter, and sidewalks b. Pedestrian ramp observation c. Concrete pouring d. Lighting base and wiring observation e. Quantity confirmation with contractor 4. Carport or canopy plans 5. Point by point photometric analysis 6. Provide a permanent survey control landmark at City Hall CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES Arden Hills shall provide the following items: 7 | P a g e 1. Base CAD file (if it exists) 2. All available existing site utility plans for the parking lot and surrounding area 3. Survey information (if it exists) 4. Bid tab, advertisement, and contractor selection and contracting 5. Front end specification and City specific information to be included in special provisions 6. Garbage service, post office/mail, and fire department coordination for improved services/movements in the parking lot 7. Traffic control plan – parking and pedestrian routes during construction 8. Carport or canopy coordination for City vehicles 9. Geotechnical report (provided by WSB) – basis for pavement design – delivered to HR Green September 19, 2019 10. Onsite construction observation LEVEL OF EFFORT The total fee for this work will be billed in accordance with the terms of the contract as indicated on the Professional Services Agreement to which this scope and schedule of services is attached. The following task hour table demonstrates the estimated fee for the Arden Hills City Hall Parking Lot Final Design portion of the project. Task Project Manager Sr. Engineer Project Engineer/ Sr. Tech. Staff Engineer/ Survey Admin. TOTAL Project Management 12 6 18 Topographic Survey 2 10 12 24 Construction Documents 48 30 98 88 4 268 Construction Admin. 16 2 22 40 Hours 78 30 110 122 10 350 Hourly Rate $145.00 $185.00 $130.00 $115.00 $91.00 Total Labor by Role $11,310.00 $5,550.00 $14,300.00 $14,030.00 $910.00 $46,100.00 Direct Expenses (Mileage, Equipment)$440.00 Project Total Cost $46,540.00 Total Labor - Project Hours by HR Green Team Role Shorewood Drive – Storm Sewer Improvements – Final Design Phase PROJECT UNDERSTANDING The residents at 3203 Shorewood Drive have been experiencing excess overland flows onto their property from the City street. There is a single inlet in the center of the street that receives flow from the newly resurfaced road and bituminous curb. The inlet has a tendency to become clogged during a rain event and flows spread to the lowest lying area, which happens to be the 3203 Shorewood Drive driveway. HR Green has completed an alternatives analysis to reduce impacts to the adjacent private property. Based on the analysis, the City of Arden Hills has requested HR Green complete the design of a stormwater inlet upstream of the 3203 Shorewood Dr. driveway, a raised bituminous driveway with a concrete driveway apron connecting into concrete curb and gutter, and a roughly 15-foot long concrete overflow path for excess water to the channel to Lake Johanna. DELIVERABLES HR Green will provide the following deliverables: 1. 90% and Final Construction documents (plan sheets) will include effort for one round of comments from the City after the 90% submittal. Proposed plan sheets are expected to include: a. Title Sheet* b. Layout Sheet* c. Statement of Estimated Quantities* d. Driveway, Street & Overflow Typical Sections e. Standard Plans f. Removal Sheet g. Construction, Erosion Control and Turf Establishment Sheet h. Stormsewer Plan and Profile Sheet i. Overflow Details j. SWPPP Sheets 2. Special provisions* - MnDOT 2018 boiler plate 3. Engineer’s Opinion of Probable Construction Cost 4. Final CAD files in AutoCAD 2019 (unless a different version is requested by the City) 5. Review of shop drawing submittals limited to: storm structures and piping and bituminous or concrete mix. 6. Construction administration includes the following items: a. response to contractor questions during advertisement b. bid opening meeting c. preconstruction meeting with awarded contractor d. construction staking e. material testing coordination for aggregate, bituminous, and concrete. Page 9 * Includes combined information for the City Hall Parking Lot Final Design and Hamline Ave Crosswalks Final Design projects ASSUMPTIONS · The title, layout and statement of estimated quantity sheets as well as special provisions are included in the City Hall Parking Lot level of effort. Should the Shorewood Drive plans be completed as a separate plan set, an amendment will be requested. · Survey completed by HR Green during the Shorewood Drive alternatives assessment will be sufficient for design. No additional survey will be required. · No landscaping plans will be completed. · No geotechnical investigations are expected. Dewatering responsibilities will be identified in the project specifications. · No stormwater management, erosion control, floodplain alteration, wetland alteration, or conveyance system crossing permits from Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) will be required for this project since it disturbs less than 10,000 square feet. · No NPDES permit will be required since the project disturbs less than 1 acre. · The existing fire hydrant between the 3203 Shorewood Drive driveway and the Lake Johanna and Little Lake Johanna channel will not be relocated or replaced. Should this be required, an amendment to this contract will be requested. · The City will coordinate and prepare any temporary construction easements. Should the City request this service from HR Green, an amendment to this contract will be requested. · Any construction observation time can be contracted under an amendment. ADDITIONAL SERVICES BY HR GREEN Additional Services are not included in this Agreement. If authorized under a Supplemental Agreement HR Green could furnish or obtain from others the following services: 1. Additional survey 2. Landscaping design and plan sheets for private property. 3. Hydrant and watermain relocation 4. Temporary construction easements 5. Construction observation a. Pipe installation b. Driveway installation c. Overflow path installation CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES Arden Hills shall provide the following items: 1. A single point of communication for the purpose of project coordination, deliverable review and comment 2. Communication with the resident at 3203 Shorewood Drive 3. Temporary construction easements Page 10 4. A template for front-end specifications 5. Bid tab, advertisement, and contractor selection and contracting 6. Onsite construction observation LEVEL OF EFFORT The total fee for this work will be billed in accordance with the terms of the contract as indicated on the Professional Services Agreement to which this scope and schedule of services is attached. The following table demonstrates the estimated fee for the Shorewood Drive portion of the project. ADDED VALUE SERVICES – NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCOPE Although, it would not be required by a RCWD permit, HR Green recommends looking at options to install a water quality BMP in the project. These options would likely be small and potentially include a sumped manhole, a SAFL baffle (or other in-structure treatment) or a Rain Guardian or pretreatment measure on the overflow. If the City chooses to implement one of the options, RCWD cost share funding could be requested. Design and coordination efforts would be under an amendment to this contract. Task Project Engineer Project Manager/ Sr. Engineer Sr. Technician Staff Engineer/ Survey Admin. TOTAL Project Management 8 6 14 Topographic Survey 0 Construction Documents 12 16 96 36 160 Construction Administration 4 16 20 Total Hours 12 28 96 52 6 194 Hourly Rate $145.00 $185.00 $130.00 $115.00 $91.00 Total Labor by Role $1,740.00 $5,180.00 $12,480.00 $5,980.00 $546.00 Total Labor - Project $25,926.00 Direct Expenses (Mileage, Equipment $332.00 Project Total Cost $26,258.00 Hours by HR Green Team Role Page 1 of 2 DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers David Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Funding Advance Request for Municipal State Aid Funds Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A $1,321,273.32 MSA Construction Allotment Council Should Consider The City Council is requested to consider adoption of the attached Resolution Requesting a Municipal State Aid Street Funds Advance. Background/Discussion On September 16, 2019, the City Council Work Session included a discussion of the status of Municipal State Aid (MSA) funding for street projects. This discussion included a review of funding for the 2018 Old Snelling Trail and Water Main Project. When the project was awarded, the project funding plan assumed $1.47 million would be derived from MSA funds. However, construction funds were not available at the time of contract award, and a funding request was not submitted to the State Aid office to receive future construction allotment payments. Based on Council direction during the work session, staff began the process to request a MSA funding advance from the City’s future construction allotment to allow the City to reconcile the funding for the Old Snelling Trail and Water Main project. The State Aid office has reviewed the request and notified the City to provide a City Council resolution outlining the amount and conditions of the funding advance as the next step in the process. A resolution is provided in Attachment A. Budget Impact A Municipal State Aid advancement of $1.32 million from future annual construction allotments would provide the necessary funding to reconcile the 2018 Old Snelling Trail and Watermain CONSENT ITEM – 7D MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 2 project ($1.47 million) and the outstanding balance of existing MSA funded projects as listed in Attachment B ($30,213), based on a current balance in the City’s MSA construction allotment of $178,339.68. The funding advancement amount included in the attached resolution would encumber a majority of the City’s annual MSA construction allotment for the next five years during the repayment period for the advancement. Attachments Attachment A: Resolution Requesting Municipal State Aid Funds Advance Attachment B: Active Municipal State Aid Projects CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2020-011 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET FUNDS ADVANCE WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills is implementing Municipal State Aid Street Projects in 2017 through 2020 which will require State Aid funds in excess of those available in its State Aid Construction Account; and WHEREAS, the City of Arden Hills is prepared to deliver said projects through the use of an advance from the Municipal State Aid Street Fund to supplement the available funds in their State Aid Construction Account; and WHEREAS, the advance is based on the following determination of estimated expenditures: Account Balance as of February 6, 2020 $178,339.68 Less estimated disbursements: Project #187-020-021 $ 28,200.00 Project #187-020-022 $ 28,200.00 Project #187-020-023 $ 1,413,000.00 Project #187-020-016 $ 4,186.00 Project #187-108-002 $ 26,027.00 Total Estimated Disbursements $ 1,499,613.00 Advance Amount (amount in excess of acct balance) $ 1,321,273.32 WHEREAS, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.14, Subd. 6 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820.1500, Subp. 10b; and WHEREAS, the Municipality acknowledges advance funds are released on a first-come- first-serve basis and this resolution does not guarantee the availability of funds. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA: That the Commissioner of Transportation be and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid Street Projects of the City of Arden Hills in an amount up to $1,321,273.32. The City Council hereby authorize repayments from subsequent accruals to the Municipal State Aid Street Construction Account of said Municipality from future year allocations until fully repaid. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. ______________________________ ATTEST: DAVID GRANT, MAYOR __________________________________________ JULIE HANSON, CITY CLERK City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 Page 1 of 4 CONSENT ITEM – 7E MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #19-018 Applicant: Lorne Rothbuaer of Boston Scientific Property Location: 4100 Hamline Avenue Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider the Following Motion to approve Planning Case 19-018 for an Amended Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for Boston Scientific Corporation, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission Background/Summary The applicant is requesting to construct a 700 square foot addition to the south side of Building 10 adjacent to Innovation Way. The proposed addition consists of two (2) dock doors and a new curb cut access onto Innovation Way. Boston Scientific is regulated under a PUD that permits the Subject Property to operate medical manufacturing provided those uses maintain harmony and compatibility with surrounding uses and are in keeping with the architectural character and design standards of existing uses and development. The underlying Zoning District that guides the uses allowed within the parcel is the I-1 Limited Industrial District. Plan Evaluation A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission on February 5th, 2020. The staff report to the Planning Commission on this case is provided in Attachment E. Draft minutes from the February 5th, 2020 meeting are included in Attachment F. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 Page 2 of 4 Additional Review Building Official The Building official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has provided The Applicant with a comment letter included as Attachment D and all comments shall be adopted herein by reference as a condition of approval. Findings of Fact 1. The Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. 2. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). 3. New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 4. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. 5. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan. 6. A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a hearing may be waived. 7. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total area within the PUD, and given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a public hearing in this case. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions by a 5-0 vote of Planning Case 19-018 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment and Site Plan Review at 4100 Hamline Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 24th, 2020 Report to the City Council, as amended by the following 10 conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the January 24th, 2020 Engineering Division memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 Page 3 of 4 3. 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. 4. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 5. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 7. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $2,500 shall be submitted. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 10. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. Public Notice Under Section 1355.06 subd.4, an application for an amendment shall be administered in the same manner as required for a new application. Provided, however, that when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived. The structural alterations, enlargements or changes proposed by the Applicant are entirely internal to the site, so staff deems the changes to the PUD Agreement and Campus Master Plan insignificant. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total area within the PUD. Given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a public hearing in this case. Although this request does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff did not receive any inquiries from the public regarding this request. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 Page 4 of 4 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 14th, 2020. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by March 14, 2020 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Budget Impact NA Attachments A. Application B. Location Map C. Submittal Documents D. Engineering Comment Letter E. Planning Commission Staff Report F. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, February 5th, 2020 Disclaimer: This map is intended for reference purposes only and is not a legally recorded map or survey. The City of Arden Hills shall not be liable for any damages or claims that arise due to accuracy,availability, use or misuse of the information herein pursuant to MNStatute 466.03 Subd 21. Location Map High w a y 1 0 Innovation WayCounty Road F WestHamline Avenue NorthInterstate 694 Quality DriveCummings Park Drive Boston Scientific Drive Interstate 69 4± Subject Parcel Project Location DOCUMENT PACKAGE ISSUED: 16 DECEMBER 2019 PACKAGE: CITY SUBMITTAL OWNER ARCHITECT RSP Architects, Ltd. 1220 Marshall Street NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone: 612-677-7100 Contact:Frances Glebus CIVIL ENGINEERS Boston Scientific 4100 Hamline Avenue N Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: 651-582-5356 Contact: Matt Ruetten PROJECT TEAM Rehder & Associates, Inc. 3440 Federal Drive, Suite 110 Eagan, Minnesota 55122 Phone: 651-452-5051 Conatact: Nick Adam LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Damon Farber Landscape Architects 401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone: 612-332-7522 Contact: Kevin Henn 0 0 Name Elevation ELEVATION / LEVEL TAG REVISION REFERENCE MATCH LINE SEE X/XXX MATCH LINE XXXXPARTITION TAG T.O. FOOTING EL. = 96'-0" DRAWING TITLE NORTH ARROW A101 1 SIM 1 A101 SIM ELEVATION TAG -SINGLE VIEWA101 1 ELEVATION TAG - MULTIPLE VIEWA1012 DETAIL TAG WALL SECTION TAG 1 A101 SIM BUILDING SECTION TAG ENLARGED PLAN OR DETAIL REFERENCE A101 1 SIM 234 ROOM TAG KEYNOTE 1t WINDOW TAG EQUIPMENT TAG 101 DOOR TAG FINISH TAG - WITH EXTENT OF FINISH FINISH TAG -ALL SURFACES FINISH TRANSITION VB1 CPT1 CPT-01 CPT-02 VIEW NAME 1/8" = 1'-0"12 NORTH XX EL. = 100'-0"SPOT ELEVATION 0 COLUMN OR GRID LINE -NEW COLUMN OR GRID LINE -EXISTING 0 23 ROOM NAME 101 150 SF PNT1 CPT1 VB1 (WALL FINISH) (BASE FINISH) (FLOOR FINISH) (ROOM NAME) (ROOM NUMBER) (ROOM AREA) 1 NORTH DRAWING SYMBOLS X LOCATION MAP NORTH PROJECT SITE AREA OF WORK PROJECT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project scope involves addition of loading dock and access to new loading dock. No change in occupancy APPLICABLE CODES: 2015 Minnesota Building Code (Ch. 1305, 2012 IBC) 2015 Minnesota Fire Code (Ch. 7511, 2012 IFC) 2015 Minnesota Energy Code (Ch. 1323, 2012 IECC & ASHRAE 90.1-2010) 2015 Minnesota Accessibility Code (Ch. 1341, 2012 IBC, ICC/ANSI117.1-2009) 2015 Mechanical & Fuel Gas Code (Ch. 1346, 2012 IMC & IFGC) 2015 Minnesota Plumbing Code (Ch. 4714, 2012 UPC) 2017 National Electric Code OCCUPANCY: Existing: Group B -Business Proposed: Group B -Business Project Area: 819 GSF BUILDING ADDITION 7778 SF ADDING PAVED AREA TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Type IIB FIRE RESISTIVE REQUIREMENTS: Types I and II are those types of construction in which the building elements listed in Table 601 are of noncombustible materials. Table 601 FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (hours) BUILDING ELEMENT TYPE II B Primary Structural frame 0 Bearing walls Exterior 0 Interior 0 Nonbearing walls and partitions Exterior 0 (per Table 602) Interior 0 Floor construction 0 Roof construction 0 EXITING REQUIREMENTS: Per Chapter 10 Occupant Load -Existing: 539 Occupant Load -Proposed: 548 Exits required:3 Exits provided:3 Stair exit width required: 110" Stair exit width provided: 136" EXIT ACCESS: Exit Access Travel Distance:300 feet IBC Section 1004.2.4. Common Path of Egress Travel:100feet IBC Section 1014.3 Corridor Fire-Resistance Rating:0 hours IBC Section 1018.1 Dead Ends:50 feet IBC Section 1018.4 CODE SUMMARY CITY SUBMITTAL - 16 DECEMBER 2019(REVISION 1 - 10 JANUARY 2020) CITY SUBMITTAL - 16 DECEMBER 2019(REVISION 1 - 10 JANUARY 2020) L001PLANTING NOTESProject No.Revisions1220 Marshall Street NEMinneapolisMinnesota 55413-1036612.677.7100612.677.7499 faxwww.rsparch.comRSP ArchitectsCertificationProject ForI hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly licensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.DateRegistration NumberSignatureDrawn ByChecked ByDateNOTICE: The designs shown and described hereinincluding all technical drawings, graphics, and modelsthereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied,duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or inpart, without express written permission of RSPArchitects. These are available for limited review andevaluation by clients, consultants, contractors,government agencies, vendors and office personnelonly in accordance with this Notice.© Copyright RSP Architects 2019. All rights reserved.Consultants3/21/2019 5:30:14 PMC:\Revit Projects\A17_02-579_HCR Molding_JLarson.rvtBLDG 10 RTCDOCK ADDITION -PHASE 1KEVIN HENNCHUCK EVENSNo. Date Description401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522CITY REVIEW12/02/196132.012.18SITE AND LANDSCAPE NOTESSITE PREPARATION NOTES1. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIARWITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPEOF WORK.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLAN LAYOUT AND BRING TO THEATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES WHICHMAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN OR INTENT OF THE LAYOUT.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLECODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK AND MATERIALSSUPPLIED.4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS,TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURINGCONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BEREPAIRED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THENECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTIONBEGINS (MINIMUM 10' CLEARANCE).6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE PHASES OF CONSTRUCTIONAND PLANTING INSTALLATION WITH OTHER CONTRACTORSWORKING ON SITE.7. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSTALLED SO THAT TRENCHESDO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF EXISTING TREES TOREMAIN.8. EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB/GUTTER ANDOTHER ELEMENTS ARE BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TOTHE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALLVERIFY DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME.9. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL ALIGNMENT OF PROPOSED WALKS,TRAILS OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENTREQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONSAND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. CHANGES INALIGNMENT AND GRADES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO IMPLEMENTATION.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW THE SITE FOR DEFICIENCIES IN SITECONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANTESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL OR WARRANTY. UNDESIRABLE SITECONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.11. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONGOING MAINTENANCE OFNEWLY INSTALLED MATERIALS UNTIL TIME OF SUBSTANTIALCOMPLETION. REPAIR OF ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICHMAY OCCUR PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION SHALL BE THERESPONSIBILITY OF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR.12. EXISTING TREES OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUB MASSINGS FOUND ON SITESHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED TO BE REMOVEDOR ARE LOCATED IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED. QUESTIONSREGARDING EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THEATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL.13. EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, UPON DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPEARCHITECT, SHALL BE FERTILIZED AND PRUNED TO REMOVE DEADWOOD, DAMAGED AND RUBBING BRANCHES.14. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT A WRITTEN REQUESTFOR THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION INSPECTION OF LANDSCAPEAND SITE IMPROVEMENTS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING FINAL PAYREQUEST.15. CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SUBMIT REPRODUCIBLEAS-BUILT DRAWING(S) OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, IRRIGATIONAND SITE IMPROVEMENTS UPON COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTIONINSTALLATION AND PRIOR TO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION.16. SYMBOLS ON PLAN DRAWING TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCHEDULESIF DISCREPANCIES IN QUANTITIES EXIST. SPECIFICATIONS ANDDETAILS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NOTES.SOIL TESTING1. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A SOIL SAMPLE(S) FROM PROJECT SITEAND/OR SALVAGED TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AND SUBMIT TOINDEPENDENT TESTING AGENCY. ANALYSIS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS FOR (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO)MACRONUTRIENTS, MICRONUTRIENTS, COMPOSITION AND SOLUBLESALTS SHALL BE PROVIDED.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TWO SERIES OF TESTS: FIRST, PRIORTO CONSTRUCTION; SECOND, AFTER SOIL IS AMENDED, PRIOR TOPLANTING.3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ANALYSIS RESULTS ANDRECOMMENDATIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL PRIOR TO SOIL AMENDMENT AND PRIOR TOPLANTING.GRADING1. ROUGH GRADING AND FINISHED GRADING TO BE DONE BY OTHERSEXCEPT WHERE NOTED.2. GRADING LIMITS ARE DEFINED AS THE JUNCTURE OF PROPOSEDGRADE WITH EXISTING GRADE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.3. GRADING LIMITS AND LIMITS OF WORK SHOWN ON PLAN ARE ONLYAPPROXIMATE AND MAY BE ADJUSTED IN FIELD BY LANDSCAPEARCHITECT. WORK OUTSIDE OF THESE LIMITS WILL BE DONE ATLANDSCAPE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE UNLESS DIRECTED BYLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER IN WRITING.4. FILL/CUT AS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE A 1% MINIMUM GRADE AWAYFROM BUILDINGS WITHIN LIMITS OF CONSTRUCTION.5. SALVAGE TOPSOIL FROM THE EARTHWORK AREAS AS APPROPRIATEOR AS INDICATED ON PLANS AND STOCKPILE FOR REUSE.6. MAINTAIN A UNIFORM GRADE BETWEEN CONTOURS IN AREAS TO BEGRADED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.7. ELEVATIONS, IF SHOWN ARE FINISHED ELEVATIONS. SPOTELEVATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER CONTOURS.8. ADD EROSION CONTROL MEASURES IF GRADES GREATER THAN 3:1OR IF CONDITIONS WARRANT. REFER TO MNDOT SPECIFICATIONSFOR EROSION CONTROL.9. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR LOCATION OFUNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES,VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING.LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVEIF DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TOTHE OWNER.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PROPER EROSION CONTROLMEASURES AS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT EROSION IS KEPT TO ANABSOLUTE MINIMUM.11. PROVIDE TEMPORARY COVERING FOR CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES UNTIL FINISHED GRADING IS COMPLETE.12. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE BASINS AS NEEDED.13. PERIMETER SILT FENCE AND ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCESSHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REFER TO STATESPECIFICATIONS FOR AGGREGATE BASE AND SILT FENCE.14. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL CATCH BASIN EROSION CONTROLMEASURES PER LOCAL POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY ANDSPECIFICATIONS.15. WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF FINISHED SITE GRADING, DISTURBED AREASSHALL BE STABILIZED WITH SEED, SOD, MULCH OR ROCK BASE.16. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN EROSION CONTROL MEASURES,INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ACCUMULATED SILT IN FRONT OF SILTFENCES AND EXCESS SEDIMENT IN PROPOSED CATCH BASINS, FORTHE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION.17. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURESAFTER VEGETATION IS ESTABLISHED AND DISPOSE OF OFF SITE.18. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT SOIL CONDITIONS AND COMPACTION ARE ADEQUATE TO ALLOW FOR PROPER DRAINAGEAROUND THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. UNDESIRABLE CONDITIONS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF WORK. IT SHALL BE THELANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE PROPERSURFACE AND SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE IN PLANTING AREAS.PLANTING1. SPRING PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION IS FROM APRIL 15 TO JUNE15.2. FALL CONIFEROUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 21 TOSEPTEMBER 30.3. FALL DECIDUOUS PLANTING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 UNTILNOVEMBER 15.4. ADJUSTMENTS TO PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITINGBY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.5. STAKE PROPOSED PLANTING LOCATIONS PER PLAN FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALL.6. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OFTHE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK, ANSI Z60.1.UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, DECIDUOUS SHRUBS SHALL HAVE ATLEAST 5 CANES AT THE SPECIFIED HEIGHT. ORNAMENTAL TREESSHALL HAVE NO 'V' CROTCHES AND SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NOLOWER THAN 3' FEET ABOVE THE ROOT BALL. STREET ANDBOULEVARD TREES SHALL BEGIN BRANCHING NO LOWER THAN 6'ABOVE PAVED SURFACE.7. INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL AFTER FINAL GRADING ANDCONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.8. INSTALL PLANT MATERIALS PER PLANTING DETAILS.9. SUBSTITUTION REQUESTS FOR PLANT MATERIAL TYPE & SIZE SHALLBE SUBMITTED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FORCONSIDERATION PRIOR TO BIDDING. SUBSTITUTIONS AFTERBIDDING MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND ARESUBJECT TO CONTRACT ADJUSTMENTS.10. ADJUSTMENTS IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIALS MAYBE NEEDED IN FIELD. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIEDPRIOR TO ADJUSTMENT OF PLANTS.11. FERTILIZE PLANT MATERIALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOIL TESTRECOMMENDATIONS. [FERTILIZE PLANT MATERIAL UPONINSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL AND OTHER APPROVEDFERTILIZER MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL (PER THEMANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS) OR TREAT FOR SUMMER ANDFALL INSTALLATION WITH AN APPLICATION OF GRANULAR 10-0-5 OF12 OZ. PER 2.5" CALIPER TREE AND 6 OZ. PER SHRUB WITH ANADDITIONAL APPLICATION OF 10-0-10 THE FOLLOWING SPRING INTHE TREE SAUCER.]12. INSTALL 18" DEPTH OF PLANTING SOIL IN AREAS RECEIVING GROUNDCOVER, PERENNIALS, AND ANNUALS. PLANTING SOIL SHALLCONSIST OF MnDOT 3877-B MODIFIED TO CONTAIN A MAXIMUM OF30% SAND, A PH OF 7.1 MAX, OR AS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED IN THEPROJECT SPECIFICATIONS MANUAL.13. [TREE WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE PAPER APPLIED FROM TRUNKFLARE TO FIRST BRANCH. WRAP SMOOTH-BARKED DECIDUOUSTREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1 AND REMOVEWRAPPING AFTER MAY 1.] [DO NOT WRAP TREES.]14. APPLY PRE-EMERGENT HERBICIDE (PREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL) INANNUAL, PERENNIAL, AND SHRUB BEDS FOLLOWED BY SHREDDEDHARDWOOD MULCH. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION REGARDING USE OF HERBICIDES.MULCHING1. INSTALL [4" DEEP FINELY SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH] RINGS ATCONIFEROUS & DECIDUOUS TREES WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH TREE TRUNK.2. INSTALL [3" DEEP FINELY SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH] RINGS ATSHRUB PLANTING AREAS WITH NO MULCH IN DIRECT CONTACT WITHSHRUB STEMS.3. INSTALL [3" DEEP FINELY SHREDDED MULCH] IN PERENNIALPLANTING BEDS. REMOVE ALL MULCH FROM STEMS OF PERENNIALS;PLANT STEMS SHOULD NOT BE IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH MULCH.WATERING1. PLANTED MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED BY TEMPORARY MEANSUNTIL PLANTS ARE ESTABLISHED.2. TEMPORARY WATERING MEANS, METHODS, AND SCHEDULING SHALLBE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY. REMOVE TEMPORARYWATERING EQUIPMENT UPON PLANT ESTABLISHMENT.WARRANTY1. WARRANTY NEW PLANT MATERIAL THROUGH ONE CALENDAR YEARFROM THE DATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION. NO PARTIALACCEPTANCE WILL BE CONSIDERED.IRRIGATION NOTES1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AN IRRIGATION LAYOUT PLAN AND SPECIFICATION THAT MEETS THEREQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVIDED PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONAS PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK. SUBMIT LAYOUT PLAN ANDSPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPRIOR TO ORDER AND/OR CONSTRUCTION. IT SHALL BE THECONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THATSODDED/SEEDED AND PLANTED AREAS ARE IRRIGATED PROPERLY,INCLUDING THOSE AREAS DIRECTLY AROUND AND ABUTTINGBUILDING FOUNDATION.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY WATER SUPPLY, VOLUME,PRESSURE AND LOCATION FOR SYSTEM TAP PRIOR TO SYSTEMDESIGN.3. [CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY AND INSPECT EXISTINGIRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT, EQUIPMENT, CONDITION ANDOPERABILITY PRIOR TO SYSTEM DESIGN.]4. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM COMPLETE LIMITS OF IRRIGATIONWITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO SUPPLYING SHOPDRAWINGS.5. CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR INSPECTION AND APPROVAL OF AREAS RECEIVING DRIP IRRIGATION PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MULCH.6. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER AND LANDSCAPEARCHITECT WITH AS-BUILT DRAWINGS, DETAILED SYSTEMOPERATION INSTRUCTIONS AND AN IRRIGATION SCHEDULEAPPROPRIATE TO THE PROJECT SITE CONDITIONS AND PLANTEDMATERIAL GROWTH REQUIREMENTS.TURF NOTES1. SOD AREAS DISTURBED DUE TO GRADING UNLESS NOTEDOTHERWISE.2. WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADEOF SOD/SEED SHALL BE HELD 1" BELOW SURFACE ELEVATION OF TRAIL, SLAB, CURB, ETC.3. SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALLHAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. ON SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR INDRAINAGE SWALES, SOD SHALL BE STAKED SECURELY [WITHWOODEN STAKES; NO METAL STAKES ARE ALLOWED].4. UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, THE APPROPRIATE DATES FORSPRING SEED & SOD PLACEMENT IS FROM THE TIME GROUNDHAS THAWED TO JUNE 15.5. FALL SODDING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO NOVEMBER 1. FALL SEEDING IS ACCEPTABLE FROM AUGUST 15 TO SEPTEMBER 15. ADJUSTMENTS TO SOD/SEED PLANTING DATES MUST BE APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.6. NO SOD NETTING ALLOWED ON SITE.CITY SUBMITTAL - 16 DECEMBER 2019(REVISION 1 - 10 JANUARY 2020) INNOVATION WAY E E E E E E E E EEDGE OF WOODSEDGE OF WOODS8" Ash10" Poplar10" Poplar10" Poplar10" Poplar6" Poplar10" Poplar12" Poplar10" Poplar12" Poplar8" Poplar10" Poplar8" Ash12" Box12" Box8" Poplar7" Poplar7" Poplar8" Poplar9" Poplar12" Poplar8" Poplar8" Poplar8" Poplar8" Poplar7" Poplar6" Poplar6" PoplarCDDD.EDFDGD5D6DT-01T-02T-03T-04T-05T-06T-07T-08T-09T-10T-11T-12T-13T-14T-15T-16T-17T-18T-19T-20T-21T-22T-23T-24T-25T-26T-27LIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORKT-28T-29T-304' CLEAR235" CAL. OF TOTAL TREES REMOVED- 131" CAL OF ASH REMOVEDSYMBOL SPECIESCAL/SIZETYPESTATUSPINE8"SOFTWOOD DEMOPOPLAR10"SOFTWOOD DEMOPOPLAR12"SOFTWOOD DEMOASH4"HARDWOOD DEMOSPRUCE7"SOFTWOOD DEMOASH2"EVERGREEN DEMOASH8"HARDWOOD DEMOASH10"HARDWOOD DEMOASH9"HARDWOOD DEMOASH10"HARDWOOD DEMOASH12"HARDWOOD DEMOASH10"SOFTWOOD DEMOPOPLAR8"SOFTWOOD DEMOPOPLAR8"SOFTWOOD DEMOPOPLAR8"SOFTWOOD DEMOASH7"HARDWOOD DEMOASH8"HARDWOOD DEMOASH8"HARDWOOD DEMOBOX2"SOFTWOOD DEMOPOPLAR10"HARDWOOD DEMOASH14"HARDWOOD DEMOASH14"HARDWOOD DEMOASH8"HARDWOOD DEMOASH7"HARDWOOD DEMOSPRUCE8"SOFTWOOD DEMOSPRUCE6"SOFTWOOD DEMOSPRUCE14"SOFTWOOD DEMOCOTTONWOOD3"HARDWOOD DEMOCOTTONWOOD24"HARDWOOD DEMOCOTTONWOOD4"HARDWOOD DEMOT-01T-02T-03T-04T-05T-06T-07T-08T-09T-10T-11T-12T-13T-14T-15T-16T-17T-18T-19T-20T-21T-22T-23T-24T-25T-26T-27TREE PRESERVATION SCHEDULET-28T-29T-30L003TREE PROTECTIONPLANProject No.Revisions1220 Marshall Street NEMinneapolisMinnesota 55413-1036612.677.7100612.677.7499 faxwww.rsparch.comRSP ArchitectsCertificationProject ForI hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly licensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.DateRegistration NumberSignatureDrawn ByChecked ByDateNOTICE: The designs shown and described hereinincluding all technical drawings, graphics, and modelsthereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied,duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or inpart, without express written permission of RSPArchitects. These are available for limited review andevaluation by clients, consultants, contractors,government agencies, vendors and office personnelonly in accordance with this Notice.© Copyright RSP Architects 2019. All rights reserved.Consultants3/21/2019 5:30:14 PMC:\Revit Projects\A17_02-579_HCR Molding_JLarson.rvtBLDG 10 RTCDOCK ADDITION -PHASE 1KEVIN HENNCHUCK EVENSNo. Date Description401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522CITY REVIEW12/02/196132.012.18EXISTING CONDITIONS &SITE REMOVAL NOTESSITE REMOVAL NOTES1. EXISTING SITE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY OTHERS. ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS MAY VARY. FIELD VERIFYUTILITY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.2. THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HAVE BEEN DETERMINED FROM THE BESTINFORMATION AVAILABLE AND ARE GIVEN FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR ACCURACY. PRIOR TO THE START OF DEMOLITIONACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE UTILITY COMPANIES FOR ONSITE LOCATIONS OF EXISTINGUTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT EXISTINGUTILITIES OR STRUCTURES LOCATED AT THE WORK SITE.3. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY THE LOCATION OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY CONSTRUCTIONBY CALLING GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL AT 651-454-0002 (METRO) OR 1-800-252-1166 (OUT-STATE).4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANIES PRIOR TO THE REMOVAL AND/ORRELOCATION OF UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE UTILITY COMPANY CONCERNINGPORTIONS OF WORK WHICH MAY BE PERFORMED BY UTILITY COMPANY'S FORCES AND FEES WHICH ARE TO BEPAID TO THE UTILITY COMPANY FOR THEIR SERVICES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FEES ANDCHARGES.5. ALWAYS VERIFY BENCHMARK ELEVATIONS BETWEEN TWO BENCHMARKS.6. REMOVAL ITEMS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE CONTRACTOR UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE. THECONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING DEBRIS FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSING THE DEBRIS IN A LAWFULMANNER PER LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING PERMITSREQUIRED FOR DEMOLITION AND DISPOSAL. FACILITIES TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE UNDERCUT TO SUITABLEMATERIAL AND BROUGHT TO GRADE WITH SUITABLE COMPACTED FILL MATERIAL PER THE SPECIFICATIONS.7. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, EROSION CONTROL DEVICES ARE TO BE INSTALLED WHERE NECESSARY AND OBTAIN ANNPDES STORM WATER PERMIT. REFER TO CIVIL FOR EROSION CONTROL.8. DAMAGE TO REMAINING EXISTING CONDITIONS WILL BE REPLACED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE AND SHALL BEEQUAL TO OR EXCEED THE QUALITY OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO DAMAGE.9. CONCRETE PAVEMENT, SIDEWALKS, CURB AND GUTTER, AND OTHER POURED CONCRETE ITEMS ARE TO BEREMOVED TO AN EXISTING EXPANSION OR CONTRACTION JOINT.10. CONTRACTOR SHALL LIMIT SAW-CUT AND PAVEMENT REMOVAL TO ONLY THOSE AREAS WHERE IT IS REQUIREDAS SHOWN ON THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. IF DAMAGE IS INCURRED ON THE SURROUNDING PAVEMENT, ETC.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS REMOVAL AND REPAIR AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THEOWNER. BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVALS ARE TO BE MADE WITH A VERTICAL SAW CUT OR TO A NEAT MILLEDEDGE.11. CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE VEGETATION NOT TO BE REMOVED BY CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR RE-SEEDING OR SODDING AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION.12. LOCATION AND ELEVATIONS OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MET (OR AVOIDED) SHALL BE CONFIRMED BY THECONTRACTOR THROUGH FIELD EXPLORATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPORT TO THELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THEIR MEASUREMENTS AND THESE PLANS. CONTRACTORSHALL ALSO MAKE EXPLORATION EXCAVATIONS AND LOCATE EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUFFICIENTLYAHEAD OF CONSTRUCTION TO PERMIT REVISIONS TO PLANS IF REVISIONS ARE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF ACTUALLOCATION OF EXISTING FACILITIES. CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO TAKE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TOPROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN AND OTHER EXISTING LINES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THESEPLANS.13. EXISTING UTILITIES TO REMAIN IN PLACE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY MARKED ON THIS SHEET.BUILDING 10NORTH0SCALE:1" = 10'10 2030CITY SUBMITTAL - 16 DECEMBER 2019(REVISION 1 - 10 JANUARY 2020) INNOVATION WAY E E E E E E E E EMH 101MH 102MH 103CB 1TOP 971.0TOP 972.5TOP 974.0TOP 974.7FE97 0 EDGE OF WOODSEDGE OF WOODS8" Ash10" Poplar10" Poplar10" Poplar10" Poplar6" Poplar10" Poplar12" Poplar10" Poplar12" Poplar8" Poplar10" Poplar8" Ash12" Box12" Box8" Poplar7" Poplar7" Poplar8" Poplar9" Poplar12" Poplar8" Poplar8" Poplar8" Poplar8" Poplar7" Poplar6" Poplar6" PoplarCDDD.EDFDGD5D6DMM-01MODULAR BLOCKRETAINING WALL,SEE CIVILLIMIT OF WORKLIMIT OF WORK4,075 sf - SODED-01MM-01MM-014' CLEAR4" HARDWOOD MULCHED-0122 - RH-A67 - SHCODE DESCRIPTIONQTYDETAILMATERIAL PROFILE/ASSEMBLY MANUFACTURERMM-01TRAP ROCK560 SF 2/L500 TRAP ROCK - 2"-3" @ 4" DEPTH HEDBERGMINERAL MULCH SCHEDULECODE DESCRIPTION QTYDETAILMATERIAL PROFILE/ASSEMBLYED-01STEEL EDGER165 LF3/L500 3/16" BLACK STEEL EDGING STAKED IN PLACEEDGING SCHEDULESHRUBSCODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZECONT.REMARKSRH-A22RHUS AROMATICA `GRO-LOW` / GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC #5 CONT. DO NOTPLANT 48"FROM WALLPERENNIALS/ANNUALS CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZE CONT. REMARKSSH67SPOROBOLUS HETEROLEPIS / PRAIRIE DROPSEED#5DO NOTPLANT 48"FROM WALLGROUND COVERS CODE QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZE CONT. REMARKSSEED 3,050 SF FESCUE MIXSEED SEEDSOD 4,321 SF TURF SODSODPLANT SCHEDULEL100PLANTING PLANProject No.Revisions1220 Marshall Street NEMinneapolisMinnesota 55413-1036612.677.7100612.677.7499 faxwww.rsparch.comRSP ArchitectsCertificationProject ForI hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly licensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.DateRegistration NumberSignatureDrawn ByChecked ByDateNOTICE: The designs shown and described hereinincluding all technical drawings, graphics, and modelsthereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied,duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or inpart, without express written permission of RSPArchitects. These are available for limited review andevaluation by clients, consultants, contractors,government agencies, vendors and office personnelonly in accordance with this Notice.© Copyright RSP Architects 2019. All rights reserved.Consultants3/21/2019 5:30:14 PMC:\Revit Projects\A17_02-579_HCR Molding_JLarson.rvtBLDG 10 RTCDOCK ADDITION -PHASE 1KEVIN HENNCHUCK EVENSNo. Date Description401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522CITY REVIEW12/02/196132.012.18BUILDING 10NORTH0SCALE:1" = 10'10 2030CITY SUBMITTAL - 16 DECEMBER 2019(REVISION 1 - 10 JANUARY 2020) LANDSCAPEDETAILSL500Project No.Revisions1220 Marshall Street NEMinneapolisMinnesota 55413-1036612.677.7100612.677.7499 faxwww.rsparch.comRSP ArchitectsCertificationProject ForI hereby certify that this plan, specification or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervision andthat I am a duly licensed Architect under the laws of theState of Minnesota.DateRegistration NumberSignatureDrawn ByChecked ByDateNOTICE: The designs shown and described hereinincluding all technical drawings, graphics, and modelsthereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied,duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or inpart, without express written permission of RSPArchitects. These are available for limited review andevaluation by clients, consultants, contractors,government agencies, vendors and office personnelonly in accordance with this Notice.© Copyright RSP Architects 2019. All rights reserved.Consultants3/21/2019 5:30:14 PMC:\Revit Projects\A17_02-579_HCR Molding_JLarson.rvtBLDG 10 RTCDOCK ADDITION -PHASE 1KEVIN HENNCHUCK EVENSNo. Date Description401 North 2nd Avenue, Suite 410Minneapolis, MN 55401 p: 612.332.7522CITY REVIEW12/02/196132.012.18PREPARE PLANTING SOIL FORTHE ENTIRE BEDAPPLICATION OF PRE-EMERGENTHERBICIDE3" MULCH; DO NOT PLACE INCONTACT WITH SHRUB STEMPREPARE BED A MIN. 4" DEEPER THAN ROOT BALL 12" MIN.SPACINGSHRUB PLANTING1" = 1'-0"EDGE CONDITION VARIES;REFER TO PLANPLANTING SOIL FOR SHRUBSSCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF ENTIREBED WITH SPADE BY HAND TO BINDWITH PLANTING SOILUNDISTURBED SUBGRADECONTAINER GROWN MATERIALSHALL HAVE ROOTS HAND LOOSENEDP-19 277-0614" MIN.2-3" DIAMETER MINERALMULCH AT 4" MIN. DEPTH;EXPOSE NO FABRICNON-WOVEN GEOTEXTILEFABRIC, OVERLAP 6" MINIMUM,SECURE IN PLACE WITH POLYFABRIC STAPLESCOMPACTED OR UNDISTURBEDSUBGRADE4"6"FACE OF WALLREFER TO PLAN FORSPADED EDGE CONDITIONAND PLANTING EDGECONDITIONCONCEAL FABRIC EDGEREFER TO PLANDETAIL - MINERAL MULCH MAINTENANCE STRIP1" = 1'-0"SECTION-ELEVATIONSECTION-PROFILE22HOLD FINISHED GRADE 1/2"BELOW EDGER- SEE PLAN FOREDGE CONDITION3/16" METAL EDGER W/ STAKEPLANTING AREA- SEE PLANTINGPLANTURF- SEE PLANTING PLANDETAIL - STEEL EDGER1 1/2" = 1'-0"P-19 277-093CITY SUBMITTAL - 16 DECEMBER 2019(REVISION 1 - 10 JANUARY 2020) W E T L A N D 12 CD DD.ED FD GD 5D 6D (-4') (-2') 10-1-1050 LOADING DOCK 10-1-M14 MECH. 155 Swine 2 10-1-M13 MECH. 10-1-1029 Pump 156 Storage 157 Feed Storage 158 Refrig 10-1-R15 RESTROOM 10-1-M16 MECH. 10-1-1035 Large Animal 11 10-1-1036 Large Animal 12 10-1-1038 Large Animal 3 188 CORRIDOR 189 CIRCULATION 190 CIRCULATION 194 CIRCULATION 10-1-1040 Quarantine 140 STORAGE A101 2 SLOPED PAVING A4014 A401 2 A 4 0 1 3 NO WORK IN SHADED AREA 1. PROVIDE STIFFENERS, BRACING, BACKING PLATES AND / OR BLOCKING AS REQUIRED FOR INSTALLATION OF DOORS, DOOR HARDWARE, WALL-MOUNTED CASEWORK / SHELVING AND MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT. 2. INTERIOR CMU WALL TO BE PAINTED PT-X 3. DOCK FLOOR TO BE FINISHED XX-X. GENERAL NOTES: FLOOR PLAN DD.ED FD 6D DOOR ABOVE 8' - 0"10' - 10"8' - 0"12' - 9"8' - 7" +/-10' - 5" +/-DOOR ABOVE 6'W x 8'D DOCK LEVELER 6'W x 8'D DOCK LEVELER 3 ' - 8 " 4 ' - 0 "4 ' - 0 "3 ' - 4 " 3 ' - 4 " 4 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 1 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 4 "13' - 1"7' - 10"157.50°112.50°10-1-1050C 10-1-1050B 10-1-1050A 188 10-1-1050 LOADING DOCK 1 ' - 1 0 " EXTERIOR CANAPOY ABOVE EXTENTS OF INGROUND SNOW MELT SYSTEM 8' - 0" 1 0 ' - 0 "12' - 0" DD.ED FD GD 6D -4'-2' SCREEN WALL MODULAR BLOCK RETAINING WALL INNOVATION WAY WETLAND BUFFER EDGE OF WETLAND SCREEN WALL CANOPY ABOVE EXTENTS OF SNOW MELT AREA NEW STREET POLE NEW STREET POLE TRASH B10 ADDN FIRST -96 96' -0" BDAD CD DD.ED FD GD EXISTING BUILDINGEXTENTS OF ADDITIONEXISTING BUILDING 108' -6 1/2" T/O EXISTING WALL -BLDG D 107' -10 1/2" T/O RF SLAB -BLDG D 96'-0" T/O SLAB -BLDG D B10 ADDN FIRST -96 96' -0" 6D 108' -8 1/2" T/O DOCK WALL -BLDG D 107' -10 1/2" T/O EXISTING RF SLAB -BLDG D 108' -6 1/2" T/O EXISTING WALL -BLDG D 108' -0 1/2" T/O DOCK RF SLAB -BLDG D VIEW SKEWED NEW METAL COPING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW FACE BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING NEW HM DOOR, FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING NEW OVERHEAD DOOR, FINISH TO MATCH EXISTNG NEW EXTERIOR CANOPY NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING B10 ADDN FIRST -96 96' -0" 6D 108' -8 1/2" T/O DOCK WALL -BLDG D 107' -10 1/2" T/O EXISTING RF SLAB -BLDG D 108' -6 1/2" T/O EXISTING WALL -BLDG D 108' -0 1/2 " T/O DOCK RF SLAB -BLDG D VIEW SKEWED NEW METAL COPING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW FACE BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING B10 ADDN FIRST -96 96' -0" 108' -8 1/2" T/O DOCK WALL -BLDG D 107' -10 1/2" T/O EXISTING RF SLAB -BLDG D 108' -6 1/2" T/O EXISTING WALL -BLDG D 108' -0 1/2" T/O DOCK RF SLAB -BLDG D VIEW SKEWED NEW METAL COPING TO MATCH EXISTING NEW FACE BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING ADJACENT BUILDING NEW HM DOOR, FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING NEW OVERHEAD DOOR, FINISH TO MATCH EXISTNG 8 A601 NEW EXTERIOR LIGHTING NEW EXTERIOR CANOPY B10 ADDN FIRST -96 96' -0" 108' -8 1/2" T/O DOCK WALL -BLDG D 108' -0 1/2" T/O DOCK RF SLAB -BLDG D B10 ADDN FIRST -96 96' -0" 6D 4"3' - 3"3' - 3"2"1' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0" PAINTED METAL PANEL SCREEN STONE CLAD AND CAPPED CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE PIER CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE WALL 6D Luminaire Schedule Qty Label LLF Description 2 R1 0.900 XTOR1B-W 2 R2 0.900 XTOR4B-W 1 S1 0.900 GLEON-AF-10-LED-E1-T4FT 1 S2 0.900 GLEON-AF-05-LED-E1-SL4-HSS Calculation Summary Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Loading Dock Illuminance Fc 2.14 13.2 0.1 No. Date Description Project No. 1220 Marshall Street NE Minneapolis Minnesota 55413-1036 612.677.7100 612.677.7499 fax www.rsparch.com RSP Architects Project For Boston Scientific RTC Dock Addition Drawn By Checked By Date 0420184-000-00 TCH JL 10 January, 2020 Consultants E001 NOTICE: The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics, and models thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without express written permission of RSP Architects. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, government agencies, vendors and office personnel only in accordance with this Notice. © Copyright RSP Architects 2020. All rights reserved. Sheet Name Sheet Issues / Revisions ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 1 01/10/20 CITY SUBMITTAL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN CITY SUBMITTAL - 16 DECEMBER 2019 (REVISION 1 - 10 JANUARY 2020) City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112-5743 MEMORANDUM Date: January 15, 2020 To: Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner From: David Swearingen, Senior Engineering Technician Todd Blomstrom, Interim Public Works Director/City Engineer Subject: Boston Scientific Bldg. 10 RTC Dock Addition - Engineering Plan Review This memorandum summarizes engineering review comments for the “City Submittal” copy of construction plans for Boston Scientific Bldg 10 – RTC Dock Addition prepared by RSP Architects dated December 16, 2019. GENERAL LAYOUT COMMENTS 1. A Grading and Erosion Control Permit from the City of Arden Hills will be required due to land disturbance exceeding 2,500 square feet. 2. A Right of Way Permit is required before any modifications to the existing curb. 3. A Sewer Permit is required before modification to the existing sanitary structure. 4. Please provide a thorough description of trucking operations including the estimated number of trucks per day, vehicle types, turning movements, and staging. Overnight on- street parking along Innovation Way is not allowed by City Code 800.03. 5. Provide wetland delineation documentation for “Wetland 12” as depicted on Sheet C1. Add grading details at storm sewer outfall location. 6. Show right of way boundary lines for Innovation Way on Sheet C1. 7. Show dimensions of driveway opening at the street curb line for Innovation Way and adjust driveway opening width in conformance with City Code 1325.06, Subd 3. 8. Install a concrete apron across the proposed driveway opening, connecting existing curb to the north and south of the driveway. Repair all street pavement and curb damaged during construction. 9. Label detail plate codes on Sheet C1. 10. Provide design details and specify materials for proposed block retaining wall. GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL 1. Provide method of final soil stabilization and turf establishment. 2. City inspector may request additional or modifications to BMPs as needed. UTILITIES 1. Verify minimum cover of 7.5-feet over the existing 16–inch diameter watermain along Innovation Way within the proposed project area. a. There shall be no excessive loading or excavation greater than 12-inches over the 16-inch watermain without prior written consent from the City Engineer. 2. Verify location of gate valve for the 8-inch diameter water service crossing the proposed project area. Due to the critical importance of the existing 16-inch diameter water main, a fully functioning isolation valve is required on the existing 8-inch diameter water service east of the proposed project area prior to the start of construction. 3. A riser section must be installed if adjustment rings exceed 12-inches on sewer structures. Verify number of existing adjustment rings on manholes within project area. 4. Existing 6–inch diameter sanitary service must be temporarily plugged with bypass pumping during sanitary sewer construction. 5. Verify sufficient grade for new sanitary sewer alignment during construction. Provide invert elevations on as-built drawings submitted to the City. 6. Existing catch basin located in the south boundary of the proposed street connection is not located in proposed curb line. Narrow driveway opening to match existing curb line in Innovation Way to the north of this catch basin or provide detail for reconstruction of catch basin. 7. Show new location of light pole denoted as “relocate light pole”. 8. Add Insulation detail provided by the City of Arden Hills. 9. Add Sanitary structure detail provided by the City of Arden Hills. HARD SURFACE 1. Label type of curb, proposed and existing. 2. Driveway apron and depressed curb to be constructed of concrete. a. Provide detail plate. b. Draw on Sheet C1. The applicant should respond in writing as to how the above comments will be addressed. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-018 - Boston Scientific -SP\PC Packets Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #19-018 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Lorne Rothbauer, Boston Scientific Property Location: 4100 Hamline Avenue N Request: Amended Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review Requested Action Lorne Rothbauer of Boston Scientific (“The Applicant”) is requesting Amended Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for a proposed project on 4100 Hamline Avenue N (“Subject Property”) to renovate a 700 square foot addition to the south side of Building 10 near Innovation Way for the delivery of research resources to the Research Therapies Center (“RTC”) facility. Background 1. Overview of Request The Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. The proposed addition to Building 10 (Attachment B) is not shown on the current Master Plan and a PUD Amendment is therefore being requested. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (I-1 Limited Industrial District) – Section 1320 Under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Boston Scientific campus is guided as Light Industrial and Office on the land use plan. The Subject Property is a permitted use as a manufacturer of City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-018 - Boston Scientific -SP\PC Packets Page 2 of 6 medical devices within this district. The changes to the Campus Master Plan that the Applicants propose to add are entirely exterior and complementary to the use of the Subject Property as a medical device manufacturer. Boston Scientific is regulated under a PUD that permits the Subject Property to operate medical manufacturing provided those uses maintain harmony and compatibility with surrounding uses and are in keeping with the architectural character and design standards of existing uses and development. The underlying Zoning District that guides the uses allowed within the parcel is the I-1 Limited Industrial District. A.Site Plan Review Design Standards - Section 1325.05, subd. 1 Exterior elevation plans submitted by the Applicant indicate that the proposed addition will utilize metal coping and brick on the face of the RTC building that will match the existing materials on- site. The proposed addition to the site will feature hollow metal doors and new overhead garage doors installed for vehicle loading and unloading that will match the style and finish of other doors found throughout campus. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that The Applicant submit a materials board to compare proposed materials against the existing buildings on campus. Landscaping- Section 1325.55, subd. 1 According to City Code Section 1325.55, subd. 1, all districts developed uses shall provide and maintain a landscaped area along streets. This area shall be kept clear of all structures, storage, and off-street parking, and except for driveways, the area shall extend along the entire frontage of the lot and along both streets in the case of a corner lot. The Applicant submitted a landscaping City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-018 - Boston Scientific -SP\PC Packets Page 3 of 6 plan highlighting the planting schedule for replacement after the construction is complete. Twenty (20) shrubs will be planted in the vicinity of the project area as well as a mix of annual and perennial plants. The plans call for the replacement of approximately 8,860 square feet of turf to be re-seeded or re-sodded by the completion of the project. As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security shall be submitted and held for up to two years to ensure the viability of the landscaping. Tree Preservation - Section 1325.55, subd. 1 A Tree Preservation Plan is required as part of an application when City grading permit or erosion control permit is required. The Tree Protection Plan submitted by the Applicant shows that 253 caliper inches of trees are set for removal. The majority of the trees in the existing wooded area are invasive Buckthorn or trees that do not meet the City’s definition of a significant tree. Only five (5) significant trees will be removed, which accounts for 76 caliper inches. Ordinance requires tree replacement if more than 10 percent of the inches of significant trees on the site are impacted by the project. The proposed project area is four (4) percent the total site area. Lighting - Section 1325.05, subd 3 Staff determined that a single overhead light will be installed directly underneath the door to the addition. Given the minimal outdoor lighting for the project, the photometric plan shows that none of the light emanating from the source will not reach beyond the project area. Given the project area is interior to the site, Staff do not anticipate any issues with regard to lighting. Screening and Fencing – Section 1325.05, subd. 4 Screens and fencing help minimize adverse impacts of public nuisances, such as noise. According to City Code Section 1325.05, subd. 4, mechanical equipment requires screening to be constructed and located so as to completely screen them from view of adjacent streets and differing land uses. The Applicant is proposing a retaining wall along the south side of the project area that will further screen the RTC building and contain erosion resulting from the removal of trees in the area. The intent is to match the existing fencing onsite. In addition, the site is screened by a row of shrubs along Innovation Way. The Applicant is proposing to add rooftop equipment on Building 10 as a part of this request, with a short parapet wall to help screen the equipment. The equipment proposed is approximately four (4) feet tall, and Staff finds that the equipment is positioned on the south wall of the addition, helping to reduce the angle of view. The existing roof top mechanical equipment on the RTC building is not screened, as is not noticeable from the property lines because the addition is internal to the Boston Scientific property. Parking, Traffic, and Circulation – Section 1325.05, subd. 8, M The Applicant submitted Proof of Parking calculations along with the site plans for the project area. The Proof of Parking calculations show that an additional 280 parking spaces could be provided on campus near the project area and an additional 319 spaces could be provided elsewhere on campus. Given there is no interior renovation associated with this project, no need City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-018 - Boston Scientific -SP\PC Packets Page 4 of 6 for additional plantings nearby, and no change to the number of staff or visitors on-site, staff does not anticipate the need to devote additional space for a new parking lot in light of this request. The Applicant submitted turning templates illustrating the movement for a typical garbage truck and a semi-truck navigating the project area once construction is complete. The template indicates that a garbage truck would nose in, back up in the dock area and leave nose out whereas the semi-truck would back into the dock from Innovation Way and leave nose out. According to the Applicant, Boston Scientific does not anticipate parking trucks on Innovation Way, only pausing long enough to make the backing maneuver for semi-trucks. Staff does not anticipate any issues related to traffic or circulation on Innovation Way due to the project. 2. 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. The applicant or its representative shall be given the opportunity to appear before the Planning Commission to answer questions or give explanations regarding the proposal. Upon completion of the public hearing and its study and consideration of the application, the Planning Commission shall submit its written report, containing its findings, conclusions, and recommendations as to the application, to the City Council. Under Section 1355.06 subd.4, an application for an amendment shall be administered in the same manner as required for a new application. Any structural alteration, enlargement or intensification change in site plan, or similar change not specially permitted, shall require City Council action and all procedures shall apply as if a new application were being requested; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived. The structural alterations, enlargements or intensification changes proposed by the Applicant is entirely internal to the site, so staff deems the changes to the PUD Agreement and Campus master Plan insignificant. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total area within the PUD. Given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a public hearing in this case. Additional Review Building Official The Building Official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has provided The Applicant with a comment letter (Attchment D) and all comments shall be adopted herein by reference as a condition of approval. Findings of Fact City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-018 - Boston Scientific -SP\PC Packets Page 5 of 6 The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: 1. The Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. 2. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). 3. New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 4. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. 5. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan. 6. A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a hearing may be waived. 7. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total area within the PUD, and given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a public hearing in this case. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-018 for a Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission: 1. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the January 24th, 2020 Engineering Division memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 3. 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. 4. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 5. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-018 - Boston Scientific -SP\PC Packets Page 6 of 6 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 7. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $2,500 shall be submitted. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 10. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19- 018 for a Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 19-018 for a Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 19-018 for a Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure. Public notices were mailed out on Friday, January 24th and no comments were received from the public. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 14th, 2020. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by March 14, 2020 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Application B. Location Map C. Submittal Documents D. Engineering Comment letter E. Truck Turning Exhibit Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Nick Gehrig called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Nick Gehrig, Commissioners James Lambeth, Subbaya Subramanian, Paul Vijums, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Commissioner Steven Jones and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were: Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember Steve Scott. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 5, 2020 Chair Gehrig stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 8, 2020 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the January 8, 2020, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 19-018; Boston Scientific PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review – No Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated Lorne Rothbauer of Boston Scientific (“The Applicant”) is requesting Amended Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for a proposed project on 4100 Hamline Avenue N (“Subject Property”) to renovate a 700 square foot addition to the south DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 2 side of Building 10 near Innovation Way for the delivery of research resources to the Research Therapies Center (“RTC”) facility. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan and a PUD Amendment is therefore being requested. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. 2. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). 3. New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 4. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. 5. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan. 6. A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a hearing may be waived. 7. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total area within the PUD, and given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a public hearing in this case. Associate Planner Hartmann recommended the Commission approve a Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission: 1. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the January 24th, 2020 Engineering Division memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 3. 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. 4. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 3 5. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 7. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $2,500 shall be submitted. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 10. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. Associate Planner Hartmann 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the applicant had provided staff with information regarding the proposed truck movements and number of trucks that would be moving through the site. He believed that the site was a little tight for the proposed truck movements. Matt Ritton, Boston Scientific, explained the volume of trucks per day would be between zero and five or six. He indicated this would be a very low volume dock compared to the other docks at Boston Scientific. He noted this building expansion would have two bays for truck deliveries. He stated he understood the turning radius was tight, but because the volume of trucks would be quite low, he did not anticipate this would be a problem. Commissioner Subramanian questioned why the applicant was proposing two more dock bays if the truck volume would be low. Mr. Ritton reported this dock was on the research facility and would be used for receiving. He stated safety would be improved by adding this dock versus having on-grade deliveries. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 4 Commissioner Vijums asked if the driveway width should be increased for turning radius purposes. Mr. Ritton commented the driveway width had been widened to make the turning safer. He indicated he would work with the delivery drivers to ensure they were heading south on Innovation Drive after deliveries. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the width of the driveway was somewhat limited given the location of a wetland on the property. Commissioner Lambeth questioned what the construction schedule was for this project. Mr. Ritton reported construction would begin in the spring of 2020 pending approval from the City. Chair Gehrig moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-018 for Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). B. Planning Case 19-020; 3159 Shoreline Lane Variance Request – No Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated Justin Brown (“The Applicant”) has requested a variance for an ordinary high water (OHW) yard setback of five feet, six inches (5’ 6”) to construct a new deck behind a single-family dwelling located at 3159 Shoreline Lane (“Subject Property”). Associate Planner Hartmann reported on October 16th, 2019 Curtin and Sons Construction LLC submitted a building permit for construction of a new deck in the rear yard of the Subject Property (“2019-01063”). Staff inspected the property and determined that the previous deck, which was approved under a building permit in 2007 (“B07-9967”), had been removed and the contractor was planning to build a larger deck, based on photos of the property from 2017 and the evidence that the posts for the new deck had been dug farther out than the posts for the previous deck. Under 2019-01063, the contractor indicated the replacement deck proposed was 13 feet, 6 inches wide and 34 feet, 3 inches long where the previous deck under B07-9967 was built to eight feet (8’) wide and 30 feet long. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Applicant is requesting a variance to the setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The required setback is 50 feet but the Zoning Ordinance allows a six foot (6’) encroachment into the required setback. The proposed deck exceeds the allowed setback and encroachment by five and a half feet (5.5’). Associate Planner Hartmann indicated staff notes that building plans are not required as part of a submission for a Land Use Application, but because the nature of the request is regarding a pre- existing structure encroaching on the setbacks for the property, previous building permits have been included in the Land Use Application for comparison. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the OHW setback requirement should DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 5 be approved. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320.06 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the Plan Evaluation, Variance Criteria and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new deck behind the single family dwelling at the Subject Property 3159 Shoreline Lane. 2. The Subject Property is located in the R-2 One and Two Family Residential District. 3. A deck on a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 district. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-2 districts standards for minimum lot width requirements. 5. The rear setback to the property is determined by the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) for Lake Josephine, which is 50 feet. 6. The principle structure is 52 feet from the OHWL. 7. Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six feet (6’) into required setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six feet (6’) from any lot line. 8. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. 9. The proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 10. A variance may be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for practical difficulties. Associate Planner Hartmann stated recommends approval of the Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. Associate Planner Hartmann 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Vijums asked if other deck variances on Lake Josephine have been approved. Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff found one other instance where a variance was approved on Lake Johanna in 1995. He commented further on the previous variance request. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 6 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented the City’s Shoreline Ordinance was not approved until 2010. Chair Gehrig questioned if staff had visited the site and if so, were there any concerns about any extended deck interfering with sight lines. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff has visited the site numerous times. He explained views and sight lines were not to be take into consideration for variance requests but rather the zoning level only. Commissioner Lambeth asked what the width of this property was. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the lot was 45 feet at its narrowest point. He stated the lot was a legally non-conforming property. Commissioner Lambeth reviewed the comments the City had received from the neighbors noting there was concerns regarding views and sight lines. He stated five and half feet was not a great deal of space and he wondered how this small of a variance would inconvenience the neighbors. He anticipated the neighbor’s six foot solid fence blocked more views than the proposed deck would. He explained he supported the proposed deck and found it to be reasonable. Commissioner Subramanian questioned if the owners would consider redesigning the deck to maintain a length that did not require a variance. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla deferred this question to the applicant. Curt Kirklin, Kirklin & Sons Construction, stated he was representing the applicant. He reported the deck would not be functional if it were angled. He noted this was an awkward lot that was developed prior to all of the current City Code. He explained the proposed deck would have clear glass railings so as not to obstruct any views. Commissioner Lambeth asked how long the applicant has lived in the home. Justin Brown, 3159 Shoreline Lane, stated he has lived in the home since 2013. He explained the home was owned between six of his family members. He reported the deck was being proposed to provide more space for the family when recreating at the lake home. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if Mr. Brown was aware of the existing restrictions and setbacks when he purchased the home. Mr. Brown explained he looked at replacing the deck last year after the existing trusses began to give out. He stated the new deck would be made out of composite materials. Commissioner Lambeth inquired if Mr. Brown had spoken to the neighbors who objected to the new deck. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 7 Mr. Brown stated he had spoken to Catherine and Trace Robinson, the homeowners to the north, along with the neighbors to the south. He explained he has had a relationship with these neighbors since 2013. He noted the Robinson’s use their lake home as a vacation property noting they live in Houston, Texas. Commissioner Wicklund requested further information regarding the footings that were already in the ground. Mr. Kirklin reported these footings were for the existing deck. He noted these would be removed and only two would be put in place. Chair Gehrig stated the applicant was requesting a 13’ 5” deck. He questioned how this deck would be used by the applicant. Mr. Brown explained the deck would be used for outdoor dining space. John Lily, attorney representing Catherine Robinson and Trace Ritt, stated his client’s home was at 3167 Shoreline Lane. He noted he provided the City with a written submission. He respectfully disagreed with Commission Lambeth noting the proposed deck would impact the neighbors. He commented on the legal requirements for a practical difficulty and stated this request had not met the standards. He feared if the City were to approve this variance request a precedent would be set for future deck expansion requests. He anticipated there were many homes on the lake that wanted to extend their decks closer to the lake. He explained there was than enough usable space to install a deck. While he understood this lake lot was uniquely sized, he stated this was not enough of a reason to approve the variance. He commented further on how the proposed deck would adversely impact the view his clients have of the lake. He reiterated that financial difficulty did not meet the standard within Statute to approve a variance. Commissioner Wicklund stated after hearing comments from the neighbors representative he had several questions. He asked if staff recommended it was not advisable to make decisions based on views. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct. He noted the City had reached out to the watershed district and the DNR and received no comments. He reported staff had also discussed the matter with the City Attorney and he was advised a determination on the variance should be made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wicklund questioned who governed docks and dock sizes. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City had some regulations in place for dock widths at the shoreline. Commissioner Wicklund stated it may be helpful, from an educational standpoint, to let the residents that have raised concerns know about the City’s dock standards. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff would follow up with these residents. He commented further on the impervious surface questions that were raised by the neighbors. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 8 Chair Gehrig thanked staff for outlining the Commission’s purview for this request. He commented on the practical difficulties for this request. He suggested the fact that the home was built 52 feet from the high water mark was a difficulty given the fact it left no room for a deck. He stated these things happen and noted how City Code has changed over the years. He believed an eight foot deck was simply a balcony space and a 13’ 5” deck would be more useable. In addition, he did not believe the proposed deck would alter the character of the neighborhood. He stated he supported the variance as requested. Commissioner Vijums agreed stating this property was legally non-conforming. He supported the applicant being able to have a useful deck versus simply a walking space. Commissioner Vijums moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 19-021; Brausen Family Automotive PUD Amendment – No Public Hearing Required Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated Brausen Automotive Repair (“The Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Applicant is requesting flexibility in the color scheme and materials proposed for the renovation and remodel of the existing automotive repair garage, service station and car wash. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained at its June 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Land Use Application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review at Brausen Automotive Repair. At that time, the Applicant proposed to demolish the exiting service station and carwash. The structures would be replaced with a new 7,978 square foot convenience store and a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the Applicant proposed a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. During the PUD process the Applicant received approval for the general site design, building architecture and materials, parking, carwash access, stormwater ponding, landscaping and lighting. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported since receiving their approvals, the Applicant is requesting to modify the approved building architecture and materials. The intent of the modifications are to improve the aesthetics of the proposed buildings to better complement the existing repair garage. In order to incorporate the existing repair garage into the design the Applicant is requesting flexibility to utilize pre-cast panels on the proposed carwash and repair garage addition. Pre-cast concrete panels are a construction material produced by casting concrete in a mold and then is cured. After the product is cured, it is transported to the construction site and lifted/tilted into place (Figure 1). The Applicant is requesting to utilize pre- cast panels because the product can be formed to match the existing structure design. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated however, the City Code section below depicts pre-cast panels as an undesirable material. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 9 1325.05 Subd 7. (D)(3)Undesirable materials shall include simulated brick, vinyl or aluminum siding, sheet or corrugated metal siding, plain concrete blocks or panels, brightly colored metal roofing or canopies, pre-cast tilt-up walls, mirrored or reflective glass, and materials that represent corporate colors or logos not in conformance with approved building materials. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented due to the requested use of an undesirable material staff directed the Applicant to submit a Land Use Application requesting a Concept Plan Review. The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments and questions regarding the proposed development on the general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and Applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a Work Session. If the applicant decides to proceed with the project, a formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City Council heard this request at their November 18, 2019 work session meeting. The Applicant and their contractor discussed with the City Council their request to use pre-cast panels on the carwash and repair garage addition. In addition, the Applicant stated they would propose minor changes to the north and west elevation to better complement the existing repair garage as well. During the meeting, Councilmembers asked questions about the pre-case panels and reviewed proposed elevation changes. Council requested the Applicant to break up the east elevation as the propose plans had no windows or breaks in the pre-cast. However, the Council was overall supportive of the proposed changes. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 1310 W County Road E is located in the B-2 General Business District. 2. The Applicant received Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review approvals on June 24, 2019. 3. The applicant has submitted an Amended Planned Unit Development application. 4. The Master PUD substantially conforms to the requirements of the City Code. 5. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 6. Flexibility through the Amended PUD process has been requested in the following areas: building materials. 7. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: lot size, building coverage, landscape coverage, setbacks, street trees, perennials and shrubs, planting islands, drainage wetlands and flood plain tree selection, lighting, screening. 8. The Master PUD is in conformance with the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property at 1310 W County Road E is guided for Community Mixed Use. Community DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 10 Mixed Use areas are intended to offer a broad range of retail, services, and office space to meet community needs. 9. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla recommended approval of the Amended PUD at 1310 W County Road E., based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 19-001) shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Amended Planned Unit Development approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Final Planned Unit Development Agreement. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the proposed South elevation had reflective glass. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this elevation would have standard glass and not reflective glass. Commissioner Vijums questioned if the tip up panels were being used for cost savings measures. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported he was uncertain if this was a factor. He indicated the reason for changing the building materials was to make the existing and new portions of the building more closely align from a visual standpoint. Commissioner Vijums moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-021 for an Amended PUD at 1310 West County Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. DRAFT ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 11 REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Scott provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the action the Council took on three Planning Cases. He reported the Council appointed Interim City Engineer/Public Works Director Blomstrom as the City’s Engineer. He explained the City Council also appointed Board and Commission positions. He commented on the Presidential Primary election and encouraged residents to vote on Tuesday, March 3rd. He indicated two of the City’s precincts had changed, Precinct 2 was now located at the Anderson Center and Precinct 3 would be hosted at North Heights Lutheran Church. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. C. Staff Comments None. ADJOURN Commissioner Lambeth moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to adjourn the February 5, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:46 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). DRAFT City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen - APUD Page 1 of 4 CONSENT ITEM – 7F MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case # 19-021 Applicant: Brausen Family Automotive Repair Property Location: 1310 W County Road E Request: Amended Planned Unit Development Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider the Following: Motion to approve Planning Case 19-021 for an Amended Planned Unit Development for Brausen’s Automotive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions of approval in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission. Background/Summary At its June 24, 2019 meeting, the City Council reviewed and approved a Land Use Application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review at Brausen Automotive Repair. At that time, the Applicant proposed to demolish the exiting service station, and an associated carwash. The structures would be replaced with a new 7,978 square foot convenience store and a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the applicant is proposing a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. During the PUD process the Applicant received approval for the general site design, building architecture and materials, parking, carwash access, stormwater ponding, landscaping and lighting. Since receiving their approvals, the Applicant has requested to modify the approved building architecture and materials. The intent of the modifications is to better blend the existing repair garage façade with the new additions. However, in order to incorporate the existing repair garage into the design the Applicant is requesting the flexibility to utilize pre-cast panels on the proposed carwash and repair garage additions as shown on the image on the next page. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen - APUD Page 2 of 4 City Code section 1325.05 subd. 7, (D)(3) section depicts pre-cast panels as an undesirable material. Due to the requested use of an undesirable material staff directed the Applicant to submit a Land Use Application requesting a Concept Plan Review. The City Council heard this request at their November 18, 2019 work session meeting. The Applicant and their contractor discussed with the City Council their request to use pre-cast panels on the carwash and repair garage addition. In addition, the Applicant stated they would be propose minor changes to the north and west elevation to better complement the existing repair garage as well. During the meeting, Councilmembers asked questions about the pre-case panels and reviewed proposed elevation changes (Attachment C). Council requested the Applicant to break up the east elevation as the propose plans had no windows or breaks in the pre-cast. However, the Council was overall supportive of the proposed material modifications. Plan Evaluation A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission on February 5th, 2020. The staff report to the Planning Commission on this case is provided in Attachment E. Draft minutes from the February 5th, 2020 meeting are included in Attachment F. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen - APUD Page 3 of 4 Additional Review Building Official The Building official has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. Findings of Fact 1. The property located at 1310 W County Road E is located in the B-2 General Business District. 2. The Applicant received Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review approvals on June 24, 2019. 3. The applicant has submitted a Amended Planned Unit Development application. 4. The Master PUD substantially conforms with the requirements of the City Code. 5. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 6. Flexibility through the Amended PUD process has been requested in the following areas: building materials. 7. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: lot size, building coverage, landscape coverage, setbacks, street trees, perennials and shrubs, planting islands, drainage wetlands and flood plain tree selection, lighting, screening. 8. The Master PUD is in conformance with the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property at 1310 W County Road E is guided for Community Mixed Use. Community Mixed Use areas are intended to offer a broad range of retail, services, and office space to meet community needs. 9. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions by a 5-0 vote of Planning Case 19-021 for a Amended Planned Unit Development at 1310 W County Road E., based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 24th, 2020 Report to the City Council, as amended by the following three (3) conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 19-001) shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Amended Planned Unit Development approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Final Planned Unit Development Agreement. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen - APUD Page 4 of 4 Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 24, 2019. The City provided the petitioner with written extension for an additional 60-day review period on February 17, 2020. The reason for the extension was because the next available City Council meeting was outside of the 60 day window. The extended review period ends on April 17, 2020. With consent of the applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Notice and Public Comments A public hearing notice was published in the Pioneer Press on January 25, 2020. Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regards to this planning case. Under Section 1355.06 subd.4, an application for an amendment shall be administered in the same manner as required for a new application. Provided, however, that when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived. The material changes are deemed insignificant as the pre-cast material has been previously reviewed by council and is located on the least publicly visible sections of the proposed building. The south side of the building faces a wooded landscaped area belonging to Bethel University. The east side of the building faces neighboring businesses. However, the majority of the existing tree screening/buffer between the site and the eastern neighbor will be maintained, minimizing the appearance of the building. Budget Impact NA Attachments A. Application B. Location Map C. City Council Memo and Work Session Minutes D. Elevations E. Planning Commission Staff Report F. Draft Planning Commission Minutes City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session for November 18, 2019 Page 1 of 2 AGENDA ITEM – XX MEMORANDUM DATE: November 18, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case # 19-001 Applicant: Brausen Family Automotive Repair Property Location: 1310 W County Road E Request: Concept Plan Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments and questions regarding proposed development in regards to general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills . A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a Work Session. If the applicant decides to proceed with the project a formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Background At their June 24, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved a Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for Brausen Family Automotive Repair. The Applicant is proposing to remove the existing convenience store and carwash and constructing a new 7,978 square foot convenience store, a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the applicant is proposing a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. Discussion: Since receiving their approvals, the Applicant has approached the City requesting to amend the Final Planned Unit Development. The Applicant is requesting to utilize pre-cast panels on the proposed carwash and garage addition. The approved plans show the use of rock face concrete City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session for November 18, 2019 Page 2 of 2 block, EIFS and brick on the carwash and garage addition (Attachment A). However, ordinance depicts pre-cast panels as an undesirable material. 1325.05 Subd 7. (D)(3)Undesirable materials shall include simulated brick, vinyl or aluminum siding, sheet or corrugated metal siding, plain concrete blocks or panels, brightly colored metal roofing or canopies, pre-cast tilt-up walls, mirrored or reflective glass, and materials that represent corporate colors or logos not in conformance with approved building materials. The Applicant has requested Concept Plan Review to present to council how the times and conditions have changed for per-cast panels since the ordinance was adopted in 2013. In addition, the Applicant would like to discuss if there is support for the use of the material on the carwash and repair garage addition. Budget Impacts: NA Attachments: A. Approved Building Elevation B. City Council Public Hearing Memo ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 18, 2019 5 B. Brausen Family Automotive Repair Concept Plan Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated at the June 24, 2019 meeting, the City Council approved a Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for Brausen Family Automotive Repair. The Applicant proposed to remove the existing convenience store and carwash and constructing a new 7,978 square foot convenience store, a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the applicant proposed a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained since receiving approvals, the Applicant has approached the City requesting to amend the Final Planned Unit Development. The Applicant is requesting to utilize pre-cast panels on the proposed carwash and garage addition. The approved plans show the use of rock face concrete block, EIFS and brick on the carwash and garage addition. However, ordinance depicts pre-cast panels as an undesirable material. The Applicant has requested Concept Plan Review to present to council how the times and conditions have changed for per-cast panels since the ordinance was adopted in 2013. In addition, the Applicant would like to discuss if there is support for the use of the material on the carwash and repair garage addition. Councilmember Holden asked if the Council originally approved the plans. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported this was the case but noted one of the materials had changed to tip-up panels which was not considered a desirable building material by the City. Ted Brausen, Brausen Family Automotive Repair, explained he was requesting a change to the plans on two walls (east and south). He reviewed the proposed plans with the Council and noted all other building materials would remain as is. He reported the proposed tip up walls would eliminate a number of challenges the building was facing, and the new walls would be would be stronger and warmer. Councilmember Holden requested further information regarding the proposed changes to the building. Mr. Brausen discussed the changes in more detail with the Council noting which panels would be pre-cast. He described the differences between rock-faced block and EIFS. It was noted the proposed materials would match with the existing materials. Councilmember Holden stated she would like to see more on these surfaces to break up the color and look of the building. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the original plans had windows to break up the east elevation of the car wash. He reported the applicant is requesting to use a material the Council has deemed undesirable but would be painted to match the existing building. Councilmember Holden questioned how the City would ensure a high quality precast EIFS product was being used. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – NOVEMBER 18, 2019 6 Paul Stone, Stone Construction, discussed EIFS quality and how cement block was going away because it did not meet energy efficiency standards. He commented further on the R value of precast EIFS products. Mr. Brausen reported Land O’Lakes was allowed to have EIFS. He indicated there was a lot of EIFS in the City of Arden Hills. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated Land O’Lakes was in a different zoning district. He commented further on how the quality of EIFS had improved. Councilmember Holden requested the applicant consider adding something more to the east elevation to break up the building. Mr. Brausen stated he could consider adding more windows and noted this would bring additional natural light into the service bays. He commented this building would be beautiful when it was done. He noted the windows along the car wash would be spandrel glass. Councilmember Holden reported she could support the use of EIFS so long as it was aesthetically pleasing and was a high-quality building material. Councilmember Scott stated he did not oppose the requested material. He appreciated the fact the Brausen’s were improving and expanding their building. Mayor Grant indicated he was pleased the requested material would have the same look and feel as the existing building. He asked if the gas station would remain a Shell. Mr. Brausen explained the gas station would be changed to a Holiday gas station. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the next steps the applicant would have to complete for this request. It was noted the applicant would like to begin construction on this project in March of 2020. D. State of the City Date Communications Coordinator Skelly stated the State of the City meeting was moved from its annual fall timeframe to the spring to include more forward-looking news about upcoming city projects. After last year’s event, a change in location also was discussed. Staff has reviewed the proposed 2020 city meetings calendar and recommends one of the following Thursday mornings, from 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.: February 27, March 5, or March 12, 2020. Staff has talked with representatives from Boston Scientific and Land O’Lakes, who have expressed interest in hosting the event, following tonight’s discussion staff can continue to work with the potential host sites. Communications Coordinator Skelly reported staff is also requesting direction from the City Council on topics to cover in the State of the City presentation. In the past, the following general topics have been covered: Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved PlansPlansPlansPlansPlansPlansPlansPlans ProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposedProposed PlansPlansPlansPlansPlansPlansPlansPlansPlans Approved South Elevation Proposed South Elevation Material/design change from approved plans Precast Material/design change from approved plans Approved North Elevation Proposed North Elevation Material/design change from approved plans Approved East Elevation Proposed East Elevation Material/design change from approved plans Approved West Elevation Proposed West Elevation City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen PUD Amendment Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5th, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.C TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case # 19-021 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Brausen Family Automotive Repair Property Location: 1310 W County Road E Request: Planned Unit Development Amendment Requested Action Brausen Automotive Repair has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Applicant is requesting flexibility in the color scheme and materials proposed for the renovation and remodel of the existing automotive repair garage, service station and car wash. Background At its June 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Land Use Application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review at Brausen Automotive Repair. At that time, the Applicant proposed to demolish the exiting service station, and an associated carwash. The structures would be replaced with a new 7,978 square foot convenience store and a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the applicant is proposing a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. During the PUD process the Applicant received approval for the general site design, building architecture and materials, parking, carwash access, stormwater ponding, landscaping and lighting. Since receiving their approvals, the Applicant has requested to modify the approved building architecture and materials. The intent of the modifications are to improve the aesthetics of the proposed buildings to better complement the existing repair garage. In order to incorporate the existing repair garage into the design the Applicant is requesting the requesting flexibility to utilize pre-cast panels on the proposed carwash and repair garage addition. Pre-cast concrete panels are a construction material produced by casting concrete in a mold and then is cured. After the product is cured, it is transported to the construction site and lifted/tilted into place (Figure 1). The Applicant is requesting to utilize pre-cast panels because the product can be formed to match the existing structure design. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen PUD Amendment Page 2 of 5 Fig. 1. Crane sets Precast Panels supplied by Wells Concrete with a Grove GMK5165-2 crane. Accessed on 29 January 2019 <https://cranemarket.com/blog/daves- crane-wrecker-service-sets-precast-panels-supplied-by-wells-concrete-with-a-grove-gmk5165-2-crane/> However, the City Code section below depicts pre-cast panels as an undesirable material. 1325.05 Subd 7. (D)(3)Undesirable materials shall include simulated brick, vinyl or aluminum siding, sheet or corrugated metal siding, plain concrete blocks or panels, brightly colored metal roofing or canopies, pre-cast tilt-up walls, mirrored or reflective glass, and materials that represent corporate colors or logos not in conformance with approved building materials. Due to the requested use of an undesirable material staff directed the Applicant to submit a Land Use Application requesting a Concept Plan Review. The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments and questions regarding proposed development in regards to general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a Work Session. If the applicant decides to proceed with the project, a formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. The City Council heard this request at their November 18, 2019 work session meeting. The Applicant and their contractor discussed with the City Council their request to use pre-cast panels on the carwash and repair garage addition. In addition, the Applicant stated they would be propose minor changes to the north and west elevation to better complement the existing repair garage as well. During the meeting, Councilmembers asked questions about the pre-case panels and reviewed proposed elevation changes (Attachment C). Council requested the Applicant to break up the east elevation as the propose plans had no windows or breaks in the pre-cast. However, the Council was overall supportive of the proposed changes. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen PUD Amendment Page 3 of 5 Plan Review 2. Design Standards – Section 1325.05 Subd. 8 Building Materials –Flexibility Requested For new development, redevelopment, or modifications in the B-2 District, at least 75 percent of the exterior building materials shall be of brick masonry, tile masonry, natural stone (or synthetic equivalent), decorative concrete plank, transparent glass or any combination thereof. Flexibility in exterior building materials is requested to better incorporate the addition into the existing repair garage structure. Based on the submitted revised elevations, approximately 48 percent of the building exterior will be comprised of materials required by the Zoning Code. The east and south sides of the proposed building are where the Applicant is proposing to use pre- cast panels. The image above compares the approved and proposed east elevation. The Applicant added windows to break up the east elevation per the Councils request and the proposed pre-cast utilized patterns and colors to match the existing repair garage. The south side relatively stays the same as the previously approved plans besides the utilization of pre-cast and the removal of EIFS. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen PUD Amendment Page 4 of 5 The east and south sides of the building are the least visible to the public. The south side of the building faces a wooded landscaped area belonging to Bethel University. The east side of the building faces neighboring businesses. However, the majority of the existing tree screening/buffer between the site and the eastern neighbor will be maintained, minimizing the appearance of the building. The minor modifications to the north and west elevations include removing the wood like metal siding and replacing it with EIFS. In addition, on the west the Applicant is proposing rock face block to match the repair garage. Suggested Findings of Fact Staff offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. The property located at 1310 W County Road E is located in the B-2 General Business District. 2. The Applicant received Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review approvals on June 24, 2019. 3. The applicant has submitted a Amended Planned Unit Development application. 4. The Master PUD substantially conforms with the requirements of the City Code. 5. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 6. Flexibility through the Amended PUD process has been requested in the following areas: building materials. 7. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: lot size, building coverage, landscape coverage, setbacks, street trees, perennials and shrubs, planting islands, drainage wetlands and flood plain tree selection, lighting, screening. 8. The Master PUD is in conformance with the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property at 1310 W County Road E is guided for Community Mixed Use. Community Mixed Use areas are intended to offer a broad range of retail, services, and office space to meet community needs. 9. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19- 021 for an Amended PUD at 1310 W County Road E., based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 19-001) shall remain in full force and effect.\ 2. The Amended Planned Unit Development approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-021 - Brausen PUD Amendment Page 5 of 5 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Final Planned Unit Development Agreement. 2. Recommend Approval without Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-021 for an Amended PUD at 1310 W County Road E., based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the June 5, 2019, Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 19-021 for an Amended PUD at 1310 W County Road E. based on the following findings of fact: the Planning Commission should identify findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table 19-021 Amended PUD at 1310 W County Road E. for the following reasons: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice and Public Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on January 25, 2020. Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or residents in regards to this planning case. Attachments A. Application B. Location Map C. City Council Work Session Minutes D. Approved Elevations E. Proposed Elevations F. Elevation Comparison Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Nick Gehrig called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Nick Gehrig, Commissioners James Lambeth, Subbaya Subramanian, Paul Vijums, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Commissioner Steven Jones and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were: Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember Steve Scott. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 5, 2020 Chair Gehrig stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 8, 2020 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the January 8, 2020, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 19-018; Boston Scientific PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review – No Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated Lorne Rothbauer of Boston Scientific (“The Applicant”) is requesting Amended Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for a proposed project on 4100 Hamline Avenue N (“Subject Property”) to renovate a 700 square foot addition to the south DRAFTcalled to order the regular Planning DRAFTcalled to order the regular Planning , Commissioners DRAFT, Commissioners James Lambeth, DRAFTJames Lambeth, Subbaya Subram DRAFTSubbaya Subram bsent: Commissioner Steven Jones and Clayton Zimmerman. DRAFTbsent: Commissioner Steven Jones and Clayton Zimmerman. Community Devel DRAFTCommunity Development Manager DRAFTopment Manager Planner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember DRAFTPlanner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember Steve Scott DRAFTSteve Scott APPROVAL OF AGENDA DRAFTAPPROVAL OF AGENDA – DRAFT– FEBRUARY 5DRAFTFEBRUARY 5DRAFTDRAFTstated the agenda will stand as published. DRAFTstated the agenda will stand as published. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 2 side of Building 10 near Innovation Way for the delivery of research resources to the Research Therapies Center (“RTC”) facility. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan and a PUD Amendment is therefore being requested. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. 2. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). 3. New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 4. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. 5. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan. 6. A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a hearing may be waived. 7. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total area within the PUD, and given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a public hearing in this case. Associate Planner Hartmann recommended the Commission approve a Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission: 1. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the January 24th, 2020 Engineering Division memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 3. 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. 4. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. DRAFTThe Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planne DRAFTThe Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planne Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant DRAFTUnit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City DRAFTThe last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Bui DRAFTapproved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Bui New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus DRAFTNew building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. DRAFTMaster Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. For building construction or site modific DRAFTFor building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD DRAFTations not included on the Master Plan, a PUD DRAFTAmendment is required. DRAFTAmendment is required. 5. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan. DRAFT5. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan. A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be DRAFTA public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be he City Council; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed DRAFThe City Council; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed DRAFTinsignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a hearing may be waived. DRAFTinsignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a hearing may be waived. 7. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total DRAFT7. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total ea within the PUD, and given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a DRAFTea within the PUD, and given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 3 5. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 7. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $2,500 shall be submitted. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 10. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. Associate Planner Hartmann 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the applicant had provided staff with information regarding the proposed truck movements and number of trucks that would be moving through the site. He believed that the site was a little tight for the proposed truck movements. Matt Ritton, Boston Scientific, explained the volume of trucks per day would be between zero and five or six. He indicated this would be a very low volume dock compared to the other docks at Boston Scientific. He noted this building expansion would have two bays for truck deliveries. He stated he understood the turning radius was tight, but because the volume of trucks would be quite low, he did not anticipate this would be a problem. Commissioner Subramanian questioned why the applicant was proposing two more dock bays if the truck volume would be low. Mr. Ritton reported this dock was on the research facility and would be used for receiving. He stated safety would be improved by adding this dock versus having on-grade deliveries. DRAFTAll light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be DRAFTAll light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush DRAFTpressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be DRAFTlenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under DRAFTshoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under ntries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens.DRAFTntries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on DRAFTreviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions DRAFT1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted DRAFT2. Recommend Approval as Submitted opened the floor to CDRAFT opened the floor to CommissionDRAFTommission asked if the applicant had provided staff with information regarding DRAFTasked if the applicant had provided staff with information regarding ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 4 Commissioner Vijums asked if the driveway width should be increased for turning radius purposes. Mr. Ritton commented the driveway width had been widened to make the turning safer. He indicated he would work with the delivery drivers to ensure they were heading south on Innovation Drive after deliveries. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the width of the driveway was somewhat limited given the location of a wetland on the property. Commissioner Lambeth questioned what the construction schedule was for this project. Mr. Ritton reported construction would begin in the spring of 2020 pending approval from the City. Chair Gehrig moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-018 for Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). B. Planning Case 19-020; 3159 Shoreline Lane Variance Request – No Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated Justin Brown (“The Applicant”) has requested a variance for an ordinary high water (OHW) yard setback of five feet, six inches (5’ 6”) to construct a new deck behind a single-family dwelling located at 3159 Shoreline Lane (“Subject Property”). Associate Planner Hartmann reported on October 16th, 2019 Curtin and Sons Construction LLC submitted a building permit for construction of a new deck in the rear yard of the Subject Property (“2019-01063”). Staff inspected the property and determined that the previous deck, which was approved under a building permit in 2007 (“B07-9967”), had been removed and the contractor was planning to build a larger deck, based on photos of the property from 2017 and the evidence that the posts for the new deck had been dug farther out than the posts for the previous deck. Under 2019-01063, the contractor indicated the replacement deck proposed was 13 feet, 6 inches wide and 34 feet, 3 inches long where the previous deck under B07-9967 was built to eight feet (8’) wide and 30 feet long. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Applicant is requesting a variance to the setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The required setback is 50 feet but the Zoning Ordinance allows a six foot (6’) encroachment into the required setback. The proposed deck exceeds the allowed setback and encroachment by five and a half feet (5.5’). Associate Planner Hartmann indicated staff notes that building plans are not required as part of a submission for a Land Use Application, but because the nature of the request is regarding a pre- existing structure encroaching on the setbacks for the property, previous building permits have been included in the Land Use Application for comparison. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the OHW setback requirement should DRAFTseconded a motion t DRAFTseconded a motion t DRAFTSite Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue DRAFTSite Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue DRAFTthe findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the DRAFTthe findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10 DRAFTten (10 DRAFTlanning Commission. T DRAFTlanning Commission. The motion ca DRAFThe motion ca DRAFT3159 Shoreline Lane Variance Request DRAFT3159 Shoreline Lane Variance Request stated DRAFTstated Justin Brown (“The Applicant”) has requested a variance DRAFTJustin Brown (“The Applicant”) has requested a variance for an ordinary high water (OHW) yard setback of f DRAFTfor an ordinary high water (OHW) yard setback of f deck behind a single-family dwelling located at 3159 Shoreline Lane (“Subject Property”). DRAFTdeck behind a single-family dwelling located at 3159 Shoreline Lane (“Subject Property”). Associate Planner Hartmann DRAFTAssociate Planner Hartmann DRAFTreported on October 16th, 2019 Curtin and Sons Construction DRAFTreported on October 16th, 2019 Curtin and Sons Construction LLC submitted a building permit for construction of a new deck in the rear yard of the Subject DRAFTLLC submitted a building permit for construction of a new deck in the rear yard of the Subject 01063”). Staff inspected the property and determined that the previous deck, DRAFT01063”). Staff inspected the property and determined that the previous deck, which was approved under a building permit in 2007 (“B07DRAFTwhich was approved under a building permit in 2007 (“B07 ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 5 be approved. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320.06 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the Plan Evaluation, Variance Criteria and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new deck behind the single family dwelling at the Subject Property 3159 Shoreline Lane. 2. The Subject Property is located in the R-2 One and Two Family Residential District. 3. A deck on a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 district. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-2 districts standards for minimum lot width requirements. 5. The rear setback to the property is determined by the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) for Lake Josephine, which is 50 feet. 6. The principle structure is 52 feet from the OHWL. 7. Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six feet (6’) into required setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six feet (6’) from any lot line. 8. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. 9. The proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 10. A variance may be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for practical difficulties. Associate Planner Hartmann stated recommends approval of the Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. Associate Planner Hartmann 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Vijums asked if other deck variances on Lake Josephine have been approved. Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff found one other instance where a variance was approved on Lake Johanna in 1995. He commented further on the previous variance request. DRAFTDecks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six feet (6’) into DRAFTDecks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six feet (6’) into in no case shall these encroachments be less than six feet (6’) from DRAFTin no case shall these encroachments be less than six feet (6’) from The proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other DRAFTThe proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. DRAFTrequirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. The proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or DRAFTThe proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or A variance may be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for DRAFTA variance may be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for Associate Planner Hartmann DRAFTAssociate Planner Hartmann stated recommen DRAFTstated recommen DRAFTLane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: DRAFTLane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. DRAFTA Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. DRAFT2. The proposed building shall conforDRAFT2. The proposed building shall confor ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 6 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented the City’s Shoreline Ordinance was not approved until 2010. Chair Gehrig questioned if staff had visited the site and if so, were there any concerns about any extended deck interfering with sight lines. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff has visited the site numerous times. He explained views and sight lines were not to be take into consideration for variance requests but rather the zoning level only. Commissioner Lambeth asked what the width of this property was. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the lot was 45 feet at its narrowest point. He stated the lot was a legally non-conforming property. Commissioner Lambeth reviewed the comments the City had received from the neighbors noting there was concerns regarding views and sight lines. He stated five and half feet was not a great deal of space and he wondered how this small of a variance would inconvenience the neighbors. He anticipated the neighbor’s six foot solid fence blocked more views than the proposed deck would. He explained he supported the proposed deck and found it to be reasonable. Commissioner Subramanian questioned if the owners would consider redesigning the deck to maintain a length that did not require a variance. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla deferred this question to the applicant. Curt Kirklin, Kirklin & Sons Construction, stated he was representing the applicant. He reported the deck would not be functional if it were angled. He noted this was an awkward lot that was developed prior to all of the current City Code. He explained the proposed deck would have clear glass railings so as not to obstruct any views. Commissioner Lambeth asked how long the applicant has lived in the home. Justin Brown, 3159 Shoreline Lane, stated he has lived in the home since 2013. He explained the home was owned between six of his family members. He reported the deck was being proposed to provide more space for the family when recreating at the lake home. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if Mr. Brown was aware of the existing restrictions and setbacks when he purchased the home. Mr. Brown explained he looked at replacing the deck last year after the existing trusses began to give out. He stated the new deck would be made out of composite materials. Commissioner Lambeth inquired if Mr. Brown had spoken to the neighbors who objected to the new deck. DRAFTreviewed the comments the City had received from the neighbors DRAFTreviewed the comments the City had received from the neighbors noting there was concerns regarding views and sight lines. He stated five and half feet was not a DRAFTnoting there was concerns regarding views and sight lines. He stated five and half feet was not a mall of a variance would inconvenience the DRAFTmall of a variance would inconvenience the six foot solid fence blocked more views than the DRAFTsix foot solid fence blocked more views than the He explained he supported the proposed deck and found it to be DRAFTHe explained he supported the proposed deck and found it to be questioned if the owners would consider redesigning the deck to DRAFTquestioned if the owners would consider redesigning the deck to maintain a length that did not require a variance. DRAFTmaintain a length that did not require a variance. Community Development Manager/DRAFTCommunity Development Manager/DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla , Kirklin & Sons Construction, staDRAFT, Kirklin & Sons Construction, sta reported the deck would not be functional if it were angled. He noted this was DRAFTreported the deck would not be functional if it were angled. He noted this was that was developed prior to all of the current City Code. He explained the proposed deck would DRAFTthat was developed prior to all of the current City Code. He explained the proposed deck would gs so as not to obstruct any views. DRAFTgs so as not to obstruct any views. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 7 Mr. Brown stated he had spoken to Catherine and Trace Robinson, the homeowners to the north, along with the neighbors to the south. He explained he has had a relationship with these neighbors since 2013. He noted the Robinson’s use their lake home as a vacation property noting they live in Houston, Texas. Commissioner Wicklund requested further information regarding the footings that were already in the ground. Mr. Kirklin reported these footings were for the existing deck. He noted these would be removed and only two would be put in place. Chair Gehrig stated the applicant was requesting a 13’ 5” deck. He questioned how this deck would be used by the applicant. Mr. Brown explained the deck would be used for outdoor dining space. John Lily, attorney representing Catherine Robinson and Trace Ritt, stated his client’s home was at 3167 Shoreline Lane. He noted he provided the City with a written submission. He respectfully disagreed with Commission Lambeth noting the proposed deck would impact the neighbors. He commented on the legal requirements for a practical difficulty and stated this request had not met the standards. He feared if the City were to approve this variance request a precedent would be set for future deck expansion requests. He anticipated there were many homes on the lake that wanted to extend their decks closer to the lake. He explained there was than enough usable space to install a deck. While he understood this lake lot was uniquely sized, he stated this was not enough of a reason to approve the variance. He commented further on how the proposed deck would adversely impact the view his clients have of the lake. He reiterated that financial difficulty did not meet the standard within Statute to approve a variance. Commissioner Wicklund stated after hearing comments from the neighbors representative he had several questions. He asked if staff recommended it was not advisable to make decisions based on views. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct. He noted the City had reached out to the watershed district and the DNR and received no comments. He reported staff had also discussed the matter with the City Attorney and he was advised a determination on the variance should be made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wicklund questioned who governed docks and dock sizes. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City had some regulations in place for dock widths at the shoreline. Commissioner Wicklund stated it may be helpful, from an educational standpoint, to let the residents that have raised concerns know about the City’s dock standards. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff would follow up with these residents. He commented further on the impervious surface questions that were raised by the neighbors. DRAFT explained the deck would be used for outdoor dining space. DRAFT explained the deck would be used for outdoor dining space. , attorney representing Catherine Robinson and Trace Ritt, stated his DRAFT, attorney representing Catherine Robinson and Trace Ritt, stated his at 3167 Shoreline Lane. He noted he provided the City with a written submission. He DRAFTat 3167 Shoreline Lane. He noted he provided the City with a written submission. He respectfully disagreed with Commission Lambeth noting the proposed deck would imp DRAFTrespectfully disagreed with Commission Lambeth noting the proposed deck would imp neighbors. He commented on the legal requirements for a practical difficulty and stated this DRAFTneighbors. He commented on the legal requirements for a practical difficulty and stated this He feared if the City were to approve this variance request a DRAFTHe feared if the City were to approve this variance request a precedent would be set for future deck expansion request DRAFTprecedent would be set for future deck expansion requests. DRAFTs. homes on the lake that wanted to extend their decks closer to the lake. DRAFThomes on the lake that wanted to extend their decks closer to the lake. than enough usable space to install a deck. While he understood this lake lot was uniquely sized, DRAFTthan enough usable space to install a deck. While he understood this lake lot was uniquely sized, he stated this was not enough of a reason to approve the variance. DRAFThe stated this was not enough of a reason to approve the variance. the proposed deck would adversely impact the view his clients have of the lake. He reiterated that DRAFTthe proposed deck would adversely impact the view his clients have of the lake. He reiterated that financial difficulty did not meet the standard within Statute to approve a variance. DRAFTfinancial difficulty did not meet the standard within Statute to approve a variance. mmissioner Wicklund DRAFTmmissioner Wicklund stated after hearing comments from the neighbors representative he DRAFTstated after hearing comments from the neighbors representative he had several questions. He asked if staff recommended it was not advisable to make decisions DRAFThad several questions. He asked if staff recommended it was not advisable to make decisions ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 8 Chair Gehrig thanked staff for outlining the Commission’s purview for this request. He commented on the practical difficulties for this request. He suggested the fact that the home was built 52 feet from the high water mark was a difficulty given the fact it left no room for a deck. He stated these things happen and noted how City Code has changed over the years. He believed an eight foot deck was simply a balcony space and a 13’ 5” deck would be more useable. In addition, he did not believe the proposed deck would alter the character of the neighborhood. He stated he supported the variance as requested. Commissioner Vijums agreed stating this property was legally non-conforming. He supported the applicant being able to have a useful deck versus simply a walking space. Commissioner Vijums moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 19-021; Brausen Family Automotive PUD Amendment – No Public Hearing Required Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated Brausen Automotive Repair (“The Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Applicant is requesting flexibility in the color scheme and materials proposed for the renovation and remodel of the existing automotive repair garage, service station and car wash. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained at its June 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Land Use Application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review at Brausen Automotive Repair. At that time, the Applicant proposed to demolish the exiting service station and carwash. The structures would be replaced with a new 7,978 square foot convenience store and a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the Applicant proposed a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. During the PUD process the Applicant received approval for the general site design, building architecture and materials, parking, carwash access, stormwater ponding, landscaping and lighting. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported since receiving their approvals, the Applicant is requesting to modify the approved building architecture and materials. The intent of the modifications are to improve the aesthetics of the proposed buildings to better complement the existing repair garage. In order to incorporate the existing repair garage into the design the Applicant is requesting flexibility to utilize pre-cast panels on the proposed carwash and repair garage addition. Pre-cast concrete panels are a construction material produced by casting concrete in a mold and then is cured. After the product is cured, it is transported to the construction site and lifted/tilted into place (Figure 1). The Applicant is requesting to utilize pre- cast panels because the product can be formed to match the existing structure design. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated however, the City Code section below depicts pre-cast panels as an undesirable material. DRAFTbased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the DRAFTbased on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the DRAFT, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried DRAFT, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried DRAFTBrausen Family Automotive PUD Amendm DRAFTBrausen Family Automotive PUD Amendm City Planner Mrosla DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla stated DRAFTstated (“The Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. DRAFT(“The Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Applicant is requesting flexibility in the col DRAFTThe Applicant is requesting flexibility in the color scheme and materials proposed for the DRAFTor scheme and materials proposed for the renovation and remodel of the existing automotive repair garage, service station and car wash. DRAFTrenovation and remodel of the existing automotive repair garage, service station and car wash. Community Development Manager/DRAFTCommunity Development Manager/DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla meeting, the Planning Commission revieDRAFTmeeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Land Use Application for a Final DRAFTwed and approved a Land Use Application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review at Brausen Automotive Repair. At that DRAFTPlanned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review at Brausen Automotive Repair. At that DRAFTtime, the Applicant proposed to demolish the exiting service station and carwash. The structures DRAFTtime, the Applicant proposed to demolish the exiting service station and carwash. The structures with a new 7,978 square foot convenience store and a 1,600 square foot DRAFTwith a new 7,978 square foot convenience store and a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the Applicant proposed a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. DRAFTcarwash. In addition, the Applicant proposed a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 9 1325.05 Subd 7. (D)(3)Undesirable materials shall include simulated brick, vinyl or aluminum siding, sheet or corrugated metal siding, plain concrete blocks or panels, brightly colored metal roofing or canopies, pre-cast tilt-up walls, mirrored or reflective glass, and materials that represent corporate colors or logos not in conformance with approved building materials. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented due to the requested use of an undesirable material staff directed the Applicant to submit a Land Use Application requesting a Concept Plan Review. The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments and questions regarding the proposed development on the general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and Applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a Work Session. If the applicant decides to proceed with the project, a formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City Council heard this request at their November 18, 2019 work session meeting. The Applicant and their contractor discussed with the City Council their request to use pre-cast panels on the carwash and repair garage addition. In addition, the Applicant stated they would propose minor changes to the north and west elevation to better complement the existing repair garage as well. During the meeting, Councilmembers asked questions about the pre-case panels and reviewed proposed elevation changes. Council requested the Applicant to break up the east elevation as the propose plans had no windows or breaks in the pre-cast. However, the Council was overall supportive of the proposed changes. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 1310 W County Road E is located in the B-2 General Business District. 2. The Applicant received Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review approvals on June 24, 2019. 3. The applicant has submitted an Amended Planned Unit Development application. 4. The Master PUD substantially conforms to the requirements of the City Code. 5. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 6. Flexibility through the Amended PUD process has been requested in the following areas: building materials. 7. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: lot size, building coverage, landscape coverage, setbacks, street trees, perennials and shrubs, planting islands, drainage wetlands and flood plain tree selection, lighting, screening. 8. The Master PUD is in conformance with the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property at 1310 W County Road E is guided for Community Mixed Use. Community DRAFTIf the applicant decides to proceed with the project, a formal application will be subject to the full DRAFTIf the applicant decides to proceed with the project, a formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. DRAFTreview process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. City Planner Mrosla DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla explained the City Council heard DRAFTexplained the City Council heard this request at their November 18, 2019 work session meeting. The Applicant and their DRAFTthis request at their November 18, 2019 work session meeting. The Applicant and their contractor discussed with the City Council their request to use pre DRAFTcontractor discussed with the City Council their request to use pre-DRAFT-cast panels on the carwash and DRAFTcast panels on the carwash and repair garage addition. In addition, the Applicant stated they would propose minor changes to the DRAFTrepair garage addition. In addition, the Applicant stated they would propose minor changes to the north and west elevation to better complement the existing repair garage as well. During the DRAFTnorth and west elevation to better complement the existing repair garage as well. During the meeting, Councilmembers asked questions about the pre DRAFTmeeting, Councilmembers asked questions about the pre case panels and reviewed proposed DRAFTcase panels and reviewed proposed elevation changes. Council requested the Applicant to break up the east elevation as the propose DRAFTelevation changes. Council requested the Applicant to break up the east elevation as the propose plans had no windows or breaks in the pre DRAFTplans had no windows or breaks in the pre-DRAFT-DRAFTcast. However, the Council was overall supportive of DRAFTcast. However, the Council was overall supportive of Community Development Manager/DRAFTCommunity Development Manager/City Planner MroslaDRAFTCity Planner Mrosla Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: DRAFTPlan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: DRAFTThe property located at 1310 W County Road E is located in the BDRAFTThe property located at 1310 W County Road E is located in the B ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 10 Mixed Use areas are intended to offer a broad range of retail, services, and office space to meet community needs. 9. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla recommended approval of the Amended PUD at 1310 W County Road E., based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 19-001) shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Amended Planned Unit Development approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Final Planned Unit Development Agreement. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the proposed South elevation had reflective glass. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this elevation would have standard glass and not reflective glass. Commissioner Vijums questioned if the tip up panels were being used for cost savings measures. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported he was uncertain if this was a factor. He indicated the reason for changing the building materials was to make the existing and new portions of the building more closely align from a visual standpoint. Commissioner Vijums moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-021 for an Amended PUD at 1310 West County Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. DRAFTPrior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Final Planned DRAFTPrior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Final Planned City Planner Mrosla DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla reviewe DRAFTreviewed the options available to DRAFTd the options available to 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions DRAFT1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted DRAFT2. Recommend Approval as Submitted opened the floor to C DRAFT opened the floor to Commission DRAFTommission DRAFTer comments.DRAFTer comments. as DRAFTasked if the proposed South elevation had reflective glass. DRAFTked if the proposed South elevation had reflective glass. Community Development Manager/DRAFTCommunity Development Manager/DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla DRAFTCity Planner Mrosla standard glass and not reflective glass. DRAFTstandard glass and not reflective glass. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 11 REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Scott provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the action the Council took on three Planning Cases. He reported the Council appointed Interim City Engineer/Public Works Director Blomstrom as the City’s Engineer. He explained the City Council also appointed Board and Commission positions. He commented on the Presidential Primary election and encouraged residents to vote on Tuesday, March 3rd. He indicated two of the City’s precincts had changed, Precinct 2 was now located at the Anderson Center and Precinct 3 would be hosted at North Heights Lutheran Church. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. C. Staff Comments None. ADJOURN Commissioner Lambeth moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to adjourn the February 5, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:46 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). DRAFTmoved, seconded by Commissioner DRAFTmoved, seconded by Commissioner DRAFT, Planning Commission Meeting at DRAFT, Planning Commission Meeting at DRAFT City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24th, 2020 Page 1 of 5 New Business – 10A MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2020 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #19-020 Applicant: Justin Brown Property Location: 3159 Shoreline Lane Request: Variance Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: N/A N/A N/A Council Should Consider the Following Council Should Consider Planning Case 19-020 authorizing a variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 5th, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission. Background/Summary On October 16, 2019, Curtin and Sons Construction LLC submitted a building permit for construction of a new deck in the rear yard of the Subject Property (“2019-01063”). Under 2019- 01063, the contractor indicated the replacement deck proposed was 13 feet, 6 inches wide and 34 feet, 3 inches long. The Applicant was notified that the proposed deck would require a variance because the proposed deck encroaches five feet, six inches (5’ 6”) into the 50 foot OHWL yard setback. The previous deck on the subject property was approved under a building permit in 2007 (“B07-9967”). The approved deck was eight (8) feet wide, which is the maximum size allowed per ordinance standards. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24th, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Plan Evaluation Attachment C to this report illustrate the applicants’ request. Previously approved and proposed deck plans are specified in Attachment D. A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission on February 5, 2020. The staff report to the Planning Commission on this case is provided in Attachment E. Public comments received as part of this application are provided in attachment F. Draft minutes from the February 5th, 2020 meeting are included in Attachment G. Additional Review Residential Building Inspector The Residential Building Inspector has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to any construction taking place. Public Works Director/City Engineer The Public Works Director/City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no permit will be required. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Municipalities are required to provide the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with a copy of the variance request for properties within designated shoreland areas at least 10 days before the public meeting. Staff notified the DNR about this application on December 24, 2019. No comments have been provided by the DNR at this time Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The City Council must make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations in regards to Planning Case 19-020. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The proposed variance request for 3159 Shoreline Lane would comply with the purpose and intent of the R-2 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24th, 2020 Page 3 of 5 a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. A detached home with a deck is a reasonable use of the Subject Property in the R-2 Zoning District. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. According to the Applicants’ application, they are requesting a larger deck that encroaches on the rear yard setback because 1) since the time of the home's construction, conditions have changed and the setback restrictions and shoreline including changing high watermark present a hardship 2) the current code will not allow for a reasonable size deck to be constructed, similar to comparable properties on the lake, so the proposed deck would not alter the character of the neighborhood and 3) the new proposed deck will not adversely affect either abutting properties, nor affect the lake view or water runoff of any surrounding properties in the immediate area. c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. According to the Applicants’ application, the existing neighborhood has homes with decks in the rear yard and a variety of different yard setbacks and proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new deck behind the single family dwelling at the Subject Property 3159 Shoreline Lane. 2. The Subject Property is located in the R-2 One and Two Family Residential District. 3. A deck on a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 district. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-2 districts standards for minimum lot width requirements. 5. The rear setback to the property is determined by the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) for Lake Josephine, which is 50 feet. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24th, 2020 Page 4 of 5 6. The principle structure is 52 feet from the OHWL. 7. Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six (6) feet into required setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six (6) feet from any lot line. 8. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. 9. The proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 10. A variance shall be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for practical difficulties. Recommendation The Planning Commission recommended approval by a 5-0 vote of Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission, as amended by the following conditions: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. Public Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the subject property. Public Comments Staff received one (1) phone call regarding the proposed variance request since the February 5, 2020 Planning Commission meeting. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on January 24, 2020. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by March 24, 2020 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the Applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Options and Motion Language The following are options and motion language for this case. The City Council should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. Should the Council move forward with this item, a draft resolution is included as Attachment H. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for February 24th, 2020 Page 5 of 5 • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane and adoption of resolution 2020-012, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19- 020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane and adoption of resolution 2020-012, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Budget Impact: NA Attachments A. Land Use Application B. Location Map C. Setback Variance Plans and Narrative D. Deck Building Permits E. Planning Commission Report, February 5, 2020 F. Public Comments G. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, February 5, 2020 H. Variance Resolution 2020-012 Disclaimer: This map is intended for reference purposes only and is not a legally recorded map or survey. The City of Arden Hills shall not be liable for any damages or claims that arise due to accuracy,availability, use or misuse of the information herein pursuant to MNStatute 466.03 Subd 21. Location Map Shoreline LaneCounty Road D West Lexington Avenue North±City of Roseville Subject Parcel PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 31 ate ane L h pQc ( eP aceme f 611 E 4' ''-` 77...pta m as..0 os U. building design K6L K, r.M..t.d by these plans.are protected under the Amhitectura/Wwke Copyright Protection Act D R co. of 1990. Section 102(a)(8)of federal copyright law REMOVE CONCRETE PATIO prot.ote both U.°'"'° U form of the building BACKYARD ONLY (MOT ON SIDES) design,W. Weil a, . e evneni of and composition of apacw and design elements. F.dtral copyright ti kfing—ent law provtdea civil and criminal penalties for the unuuthortsed reproduction or use of these pians or the design represented by the plans. If you are intmsttet in MAY REQUIRE HA obtaining a U.- or other p Ireton to— U.-plana or tM or design,please contactStairsshallhave8inchmaximumisTMD.°k Star.962-492-1888 and 9 inch minimum run with treed i Allowable FoundationWheredecksorflooropeningsaremorethan30'run and riser•height not to exce- I Pressureabovegradeorfloor:guard rail height shall be a the smallest by morethan 3/8 inc 500 Psfminimumof36e and have a spacing of less than 4'between intermediate rails or posts.Triangular Stairs having 4 or more risers sh Design Load ValueII openings between riser, tread and bottom of have approved handrails. N 5 lbs S.F. guardrail on open side shall be such that a P ® V v sphere 6` in diameter cannot pass through.p28 s Q VjSUBJECT TO PROVISIONS OF 100 O T P, C c c, 4'_ Permit No. GATE-"""""ATEB.O.Date 9 BUILDING DEPART] EN TIIIR LIGHTS ARDEN 24 IM-11INN, THIS SIGN MEETS 2 IRC REQUIREMENT Ci) 1 ILL BLOCKING 303.4 FOR STAIRWAY O -' i `(,\ \r 1 UPDECKSZIERPPARTTERN NOTEINATIONWEAREJKING Guard rail height shall be LICENSED TO PERFORM THIS CD minimum of 36" and have a LOCATE PROPERTY LINES FORK BY LOW VOLTAGE maximum spacing of 4".POWER TECHNICIAN LICENSE All structural members shall BEFORE CALLING FOR A FOOTING IN Includes 1 Footing 42" Deep by 16' Diameter o be of approved wood of SPECTION lbs a D tv., At no t Sow T b°• and ,60 lbs putkcret.. At elms will tM natural resistance to decay Deckstore or TM Deck 11 Door Company assume any responsibtlity for damage to underground or treated wood. utilities. Private lines, hums, landscaping, builidings, or driveways. We reserve DECKING TO BE 5/4 X 6 ARCHITECTURAL KNOTTY CEDAR APPLIED DIAGONALLY h right so ri—c ibl.. g any faaa bee nee W 3 8. r SAFETY GLASS RAILS haaerdous or inacceaaibte. ALL RAILS MEET IRC REQUIREMENTS FOR 2000 <4" O.C. PICKETS R315-316 1 tLf 1 O o JOISTS ARE 2X10 TREATED 16" O.C. .40 RET. SYP >13'-3" f' FROST FOOTING BEAMS ARE 2-2X10 S.Y. P. TREATED NAILED Oo LEDGER IS FLASHED AND LAG BOLTED AT HOUSE TWO (2) LAG BOLT 1/2" X 4" 16 O.C. R502.2.1 42" DEEP JOIST HANGERS ARE SIZED AND NAILED AS REQUIRED BASE AS REQUIRED POSTS ARE 6X6 TREATED ACQ .60 RET. 6X6 POST STAIRS MEET 2000 IRC REQUIREMENTS 7-3/4" MAX. RISE R314.2 16" DIAMETER FOOTING C) $ v\\ \'\C 5 6Q+ C"Q L- C C( C Q I Cis? 12" CONCRETE BASE pas]. C,C)y I o ',, 1w sphea_ is aVl S y 5 ho,re.i,'/,Je 4 A/J c. 15, r ve-WA w V 7 t4,c t .,p m_..tv*'e /,f f C toy City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-020 - 3159 Shoreline Lane - VA Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 5, 2020 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Joe Hartmann, Associate Planner Mike Mrosla, Community Development Manager/City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #19-020 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Justin Brown Property Location: 3159 Shoreline Lane Request: Variance Requested Action Justin Brown (“The Applicant”) has requested a variance for an ordinary high water (OHW) yard setback of five feet, six inches (5’ 6”) to construct a new deck behind a single-family dwelling located at 3159 Shoreline Lane (“Subject Property”). Background On October 16th, 2019 Curtin and Sons Construction LLC submitted a building permit for construction of a new deck in the rear yard of the Subject Property (“2019-01063”). Staff inspected the property and determined that the previous deck, which was approved under a building permit in 2007 (“B07-9967”), had been removed and the contractor was planning to build a larger deck, based on photos of the property from 2017 and the evidence that the posts for the new deck had been dug farther out than the posts for the previous deck. Under 2019-01063, the contractor indicated the replacement deck proposed was 13 feet, 6 inches wide and 34 feet, 3 inches long where the previous deck under B07-9967 was built to eight feet (8’) wide and 30 feet long. 1. Overview of Request The applicant is requesting a variance to the setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The required setback is 50 feet but the Zoning Ordinance allows a six foot (6’) encroachment into the required setback. The proposed deck exceeds the allowed setback and encroachment by five and a half feet (5.5’). Staff notes that building plans are not required as part of a submission for a Land Use Application, but because the nature of the request is regarding a pre-existing structure encroaching on the setbacks for the property, previous building permits have been included in the Land Use Application for comparison. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-020 - 3159 Shoreline Lane - VA Page 2 of 6 request for flexibility with the OHW setback requirement should be approved. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320.06 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Provisions (R-2 Single Family Residential District) – Section 1320.06 Lot Size and Dimensions The Subject Property is a legally non-conforming lot located in the R2 district due to its dimensions. The R2 district standards require a minimum lot width of 85 feet and a minimum lot area of 11,000. The Subject Property is between 42 feet and 45 feet in width and approximately 14,191 square feet in area. The lot width is narrower than the minimum width required by City Code for its district. Structure Setbacks - Flexibility Requested The principle structure was built in 1962, which pre-dates the city’s zoning code and setback requirements. The rear of the Subject Property faces Lake Josephine, which has a setback of 50 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). Minnesota Statutes 103G.005 Subd. 14 defines the OHWL as “…the elevation delineating the highest water level that has been maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the landscape, commonly the point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial….” The principle structure without the deck is, on average, fifty-two feet (52’) from the OHWL. The south end of the Subject Property is less than 52 feet from the OHWL and the north end of the Subject property is more than 52 feet from the OHWL. The Applicant submitted a survey for the property marking the OHWL for Lake Josephine showing that the shoreline on the rear of the property is not parallel to the front property line, but the structure is 52 feet from the rear property line at the midpoint of the property. City Code Section 1325.03 highlights the exceptions to the minimum requirements for setbacks and Subd. 2 of that code highlights the parts of the principle structure that are permitted to encroach on setbacks. Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six feet (6’) into required setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six feet (6’) from any lot line. The previous deck was built to a width of eight feet (8’), which is the total of the two feet (2’) from the rear of the principle structure to the rear setback of the property on Lake Josephine at the OHWL and the six feet (6’) that the Applicant is allowed by ordinance to encroach into the rear setback under City Code Section 1325.03. 2. Variance Review The role of the Planning Commission is to determine and consider how the facts presented to them compare with the City’s articulated standards. The Commission should base their decision on the facts presented and then apply those facts to the legal standards contained in city ordinances and City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-020 - 3159 Shoreline Lane - VA Page 3 of 6 relevant state law. Neighborhood opinion alone is not a valid basis for granting or denying a variance request. While the Planning Commission may feel their decision should reflect the overall will of the residents, the task in considering a variance request is limited to evaluating how the variance application meets the statutory practical difficulties factors. Residents can often provide important facts that may help in addressing these factors, however, unsubstantiated opinions and reactions to a request do not form a legitimate basis for a variance decision. The Planning Commission may impose conditions when granting variances as long as the conditions are directly related and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. For instance, if a variance is granted to exceed the rear setback limit, any conditions attached should presumably relate to mitigating the effect of the encroachment. 3. Variance Requirements – Section 1355.04, Subd. 4 The Applicant requests a variance to construct a new deck on the rear of the residential dwelling that would encroach into the rear yard setback by an additional five feet, six inches (5’ 6”), due to the nature of the shoreline of Lake Josephine which abuts the rear of the property. The Planning Commission will need to make a determination utilizing the following variance findings and criteria on whether there are practical difficulties with complying with the zoning regulations. If the applicant does not meet all the factors of the statutory test, then a variance should not be granted. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. Below are Staff’s findings. The Applicant’s suggested findings are provided in Attachment C. 1. Purpose and Intent. The variance request shall comply with the purpose and intent of the provisions of the City’s Zoning Regulations and with the policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The variance request for 3159 Shoreline Lane would comply with the purpose and intent of the R-2 Zoning District and with the policies within the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 2. Practical Difficulties. The Applicant for a variance shall establish that there are practical difficulties in complying with the provisions of the Arden Hills Zoning Regulations. The term “Practical Difficulties” as used in the granting of a variance means: a. Reasonable Use. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. A detached home with a deck is a reasonable use of the Subject Property in the R-2 Zoning District. b. Unique Circumstances. The plight of the property owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The existing house was built in 1962, prior to the existing shoreland setback requirements. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-020 - 3159 Shoreline Lane - VA Page 4 of 6 c. Character of Neighborhood. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The existing neighborhood has homes with decks in the rear yard and a variety of different yard setbacks and proposed variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. 3. Economic Consideration. Economic consideration alone does not constitute a practical difficulty. The proposed variance is not based on economic consideration. 4. Access to Sunlight. Inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems shall be considered a practical difficulty. A solar energy system is not proposed. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new deck behind the single family dwelling at the Subject Property 3159 Shoreline Lane. 2. The Subject Property is located in the R-2 One and Two Family Residential District. 3. A deck on a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 district. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-2 districts standards for minimum lot width requirements. 5. The rear setback to the property is determined by the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) for Lake Josephine, which is 50 feet. 6. The principle structure is 52 feet from the OHWL. 7. Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six feet (6’) into required setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six feet (6’) from any lot line. 8. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. 9. The proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 10. A variance may be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for practical difficulties. Additional Review Residential Building Inspector The Residential Building Inspector has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. A Building Permit will be required prior to construction. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-020 - 3159 Shoreline Lane - VA Page 5 of 6 Engineering Staff The Engineering Staff has reviewed the plans and has no additional comments at this time. Rice Creek Watershed District The Rice Creek Watershed District has reviewed the proposed project and determined that no permit will be required. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Municipalities are required to provide the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with a copy of the variance request for properties within designated shoreland areas at least 10 days before the public meeting. Staff notified the DNR about this application on December 24, 2019. No comments have been provided by the DNR at this time. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. • Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19- 020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice Although a variance does not require a public hearing, a public meeting notice was prepared by the City and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property. Minnesota statute does not clearly require a public hearing before a variance is granted or denied, however, after consulting with the City Attorney, staff agree that the best practice is to allow public forum on all variance requests. A public forum allows the city to establish a record and elicit facts to help determine if the application meets the practical difficulties factors. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for February 5th, 2020 P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2019\19-020 - 3159 Shoreline Lane - VA Page 6 of 6 Public Comments As of January 29, 2020 Staff has received three (3) inquiries about this proposal from residents over-the-phone and three (3) residents have submitted written comments in regards to this proposal. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on December 20, 2019. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by February 18, 2019 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60-day review period. With consent of the Applicant, the City may extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A.Land Use Application B.Location Map C.Setback Variance Plans and Narrative D.Public Comments E.Deck Building Permits KELSEY LAW OFFICE C AMBRIDGE • F OREST L AKE • S TILLWATER • M INNEAPOLIS SENIOR ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS Brian M. Glodosky John C. Lillie, III Sarah K. Long JoAnn D. Wolf Nicholas A. Anderson OWNER/MANAGING ATTORNEY Michelle L.A. Kelsey ASSOCIATE ATTORNEYS Julia N. Estrem Kellie E. Hanck Harold J. Hitchcock OFFICE MANAGER: Selena Fischer • LEGAL ASSISTANTS: Angela Lawrence•Jessica Sterbentz•Erin Lembke•Linda Kranz January 29, 2020 Please direct all mail to: Kelsey Law Office, P.A. • 100 Buchanan Street North, Suite 1 • Cambridge, Minnesota 55008 WWW.KELSEYLAWYER .COM • (763) 689-8931 Joe Hartmann Associate Planner City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Re: PC# 19-020: 3159 Shoreline Lane Variance Request Dear Mr. Hartman: I am writing on behalf of my clients, Catherine Robinson and Therace Risch, homeowners at 3167 Shoreline Lane. This letter will serve as their formal, written objection to the above-referenced variance request. Ms. Robinson and Ms. Risch’s home sits directly north of 3159 Shoreline Lane. The proposed variance that Justin Brown is requesting will have a significant negative impact on their views of the lake and the enjoyment of their home. My clients have approximately 77 feet of shoreline and when they built their home 8 years ago, they researched and were aware of all the restrictions when building or adding on to lakefront property. The architectural plans they commissioned for their home took into account the existing properties on both sides of their lot and was designed to maximize views of the lake from their home office. Both clients do an extensive amount of work from their home and as such designed a home office on the south side of the home with windows to maximize their view of the lake. In fact, they were aware that the deck on the property of 3159 Shoreline Lane was approved at its maximum size and depth in 2007, prior to them building their home. As you can see in the first two attached photographs taken from the home office at 3167 Shoreline Lane, any extension of Mr. Brown’s deck will greatly impair their view of the lake. The first photograph with the flags included shows the view from the office prior Mr. Brown tearing down his current deck. If he is allowed to extend that deck out another 5 feet 6 inches that view will be cut in half and become almost non-existent. The second photograph shows another view of that same office with all of the windows included on the south side of their home, again to maximize their view in accordance with the lake lot restrictions put in place by the city. When Ms. Robinson and Ms. Risch were designing and building their dream home, they would have loved to extend either their deck or home an additional 5 feet 6 inches. As you can see from the next three photographs, the deck on their home is minimal as they were subject to the same 50-foot ordinary high water setback as every other home on Lake Josephine. Further, you can see that Mr. Brown’s home has an expansive deck given the small size of his home and having only 44 feet of lakeshore. Mr. Brown purchased a home on a small lake lot and is required to abide by the same restrictions as all other homeowners. Minnesota Statute 394.27, subd. 7 governs the criteria for which the board has to abide by when considering to approve a variance request. A variance can be granted if the homeowner can establish “practical difficulties” in complying with lot restrictions or requirements. In order for Mr. Brown to establish “practical difficulties” he must show that he has a unique property which requires special circumstances (i.e. the need to extend his deck an additional 5 feet 6 inches), that were not created by the landowner, and the variance if granted would not alter the essential character of the locality. Granting Mr. Brown’s variance request would be in direct contradiction of the purpose of the high-water set back as there is nothing unique or special about his property. Also, it would alter the essential character of the locality as all homes on the lake are subject to the 50 foot setback and thus allow for each homeowner to maximize their views of the lake. Mr. Brown purchased a small lake home with only 44 feet of lakeshore. The home came with a beautiful deck which maximized that small home’s view of the lake. There are no existing “practical difficulties” associated with the property. Mr. Brown either willfully or negligently tore down his existing deck, and attempted to build a much larger deck in violation of the 50-foot high water setback. In no way does that qualify as a “practical difficulty” as defined under the statute. If he attempts to argue a financial hardship because he has already removed the existing deck, again that does not constitute a “practical difficulty” as defined b y statute as it was created by him. The statute directly addresses this type of argument stating that “economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties”. An example given of a practical difficulty is a property having inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. An example such as that indicates that it was not the statute’s purpose to grant variances for a larger deck or patio which would infringe on a lake front set back requirement. In conclusion, nothing about this variance request qualifies to have Mr. Brown’s request granted under the requirements listed in MN Statute 394.27,subd. 7. Further, my clients and Jeff and Linda LaNasa, homeowners at 3153 Shoreline lane, have expressed concern about how such a variance will negatively impact the use and enjoyment of their respective properties. Therefore, I respectfully request that Mr. Brown’s variance request be denied in its entirety. Sincerely, KELSEY LAW OFFICE, P.A. John C. Lillie, III JCL/js T H Hoivik letter RE – PC19-020 Deck Variance Request.docx 1 February 2020 Dear Mr. Hartmann Unfortunately I will be out of town during the month of February and cannot attend the PC# 19-020: 3159 Shoreline Lane Deck Variance Request meetings on 5 and 24 February. Having lived on Lake Josephine since 1960, I have watched the beauty of this lake grow with beautiful homes that meet the city code and ordinances. However, occasionally over the years there have been a few lakefront property owners who have no regard for the City Code or consideration of their neighbors or neighborhood and violate the regulations and ordinances. This owner is one of them and I strongly oppose this variance for the following reasons: 1. The house is already closer to the shoreline than any other home on the lake. Not only would a larger deck on this small house be inappropriate for the neighborhood, it significantly impinges on the view and reduces the wonderful character of the lake and neighborhood. 2. Although the owners of the house claim that they will use this oversize deck for reasonable purposes, it turns out that three families have purchased this house for use as a vacation home which include large parties for their kids and friends which have too often disturbed the neighbors. A larger deck would exacerbate this issue for the surrounding neighbors. 3. To accommodate these large groups, the owners have paved over most of their property for a large parking lot that would provide space for numerous cars and vehicles for friends and visitors. This parking lot greatly exceeds and is in direct violation of the percent hardscape codes established by the city. In addition, this pavement was constructed so that the rain and snow runoff goes directly into the neighbor’s yards, which then causes erosion and sediment to drain down to the lake killing several of their trees. The creation of this large parking area is not in compliance with the code or best management practices of Arden Hills. 4. Additionally, the owners put up a dock which greatly exceeds the size and surface areas established in city codes and ordinances for their small size property. The width of the dock also impinges on the neighbors lawful water boundaries and makes it more difficult for them to maneuver their boats and watercraft. In conclusion, I strongly recommend that: a. The Variance is disapproved. b. The owners be required to reduce the size of the dock to comply with the city code and ordinance requirements. c. The owners be required to remove sections of the parking pavement to comply with the City hardscape percentage code and ordinances. If the city does not enforce their established codes and ordinances, more and more owners will feel empowered to ignore and violate them to the detriment of the other Lake Josephine property owners. Sincerely, Thomas H. Hoivik, Captain, USN (Ret) 3145 Shoreline Lane, Arden Hills thhskipper@gmail.com Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Nick Gehrig called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Nick Gehrig, Commissioners James Lambeth, Subbaya Subramanian, Paul Vijums, and Jonathan Wicklund. Absent: Commissioner Steven Jones and Clayton Zimmerman. Also present were: Community Development Manager/City Planner Mike Mrosla, Associate Planner Joe Hartmann, and Councilmember Steve Scott. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – FEBRUARY 5, 2020 Chair Gehrig stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 8, 2020 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to approve the January 8, 2020, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 19-018; Boston Scientific PUD Amendment and Site Plan Review – No Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated Lorne Rothbauer of Boston Scientific (“The Applicant”) is requesting Amended Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review for a proposed project on 4100 Hamline Avenue N (“Subject Property”) to renovate a 700 square foot addition to the south ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 2 side of Building 10 near Innovation Way for the delivery of research resources to the Research Therapies Center (“RTC”) facility. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan and a PUD Amendment is therefore being requested. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Boston Scientific campus at 4100 Hamline Avenue North operates under a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was originally approved in 2002 for the Guidant Corporation. 2. The last update to the PUD and Campus Master Plan took place in 2017 when the City approved a 5,330 square foot building addition on the northeast corner of Building 9 (Planning Case 17-013). 3. New building construction or site modification identified on the approved Campus Master Plan requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 4. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. 5. The proposed addition to Building 10 is not shown on the current Master Plan. 6. A public hearing for a PUD Amendment request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council; provided, however, that when such changes are deemed insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a hearing may be waived. 7. The changes to the site that the Applicants propose would impact less than 1% of the total area within the PUD, and given these circumstances, staff waived the requirements of a public hearing in this case. Associate Planner Hartmann recommended the Commission approve a Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission: 1. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the January 24th, 2020 Engineering Division memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 3. 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. 4. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 3 5. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 6. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 7. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $2,500 shall be submitted. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a materials board to be approved in writing by staff. 10. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. Other than wash or architectural lighting, attached security lighting shall be shoebox style, downward directed with flush lenses. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. Associate Planner Hartmann 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the applicant had provided staff with information regarding the proposed truck movements and number of trucks that would be moving through the site. He believed that the site was a little tight for the proposed truck movements. Matt Ritton, Boston Scientific, explained the volume of trucks per day would be between zero and five or six. He indicated this would be a very low volume dock compared to the other docks at Boston Scientific. He noted this building expansion would have two bays for truck deliveries. He stated he understood the turning radius was tight, but because the volume of trucks would be quite low, he did not anticipate this would be a problem. Commissioner Subramanian questioned why the applicant was proposing two more dock bays if the truck volume would be low. Mr. Ritton reported this dock was on the research facility and would be used for receiving. He stated safety would be improved by adding this dock versus having on-grade deliveries. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 4 Commissioner Vijums asked if the driveway width should be increased for turning radius purposes. Mr. Ritton commented the driveway width had been widened to make the turning safer. He indicated he would work with the delivery drivers to ensure they were heading south on Innovation Drive after deliveries. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the width of the driveway was somewhat limited given the location of a wetland on the property. Commissioner Lambeth questioned what the construction schedule was for this project. Mr. Ritton reported construction would begin in the spring of 2020 pending approval from the City. Chair Gehrig moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-018 for Site Plan Review of 4100 Hamline Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the ten (10) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5- 0). B. Planning Case 19-020; 3159 Shoreline Lane Variance Request – No Public Hearing Required Associate Planner Hartmann stated Justin Brown (“The Applicant”) has requested a variance for an ordinary high water (OHW) yard setback of five feet, six inches (5’ 6”) to construct a new deck behind a single-family dwelling located at 3159 Shoreline Lane (“Subject Property”). Associate Planner Hartmann reported on October 16th, 2019 Curtin and Sons Construction LLC submitted a building permit for construction of a new deck in the rear yard of the Subject Property (“2019-01063”). Staff inspected the property and determined that the previous deck, which was approved under a building permit in 2007 (“B07-9967”), had been removed and the contractor was planning to build a larger deck, based on photos of the property from 2017 and the evidence that the posts for the new deck had been dug farther out than the posts for the previous deck. Under 2019-01063, the contractor indicated the replacement deck proposed was 13 feet, 6 inches wide and 34 feet, 3 inches long where the previous deck under B07-9967 was built to eight feet (8’) wide and 30 feet long. Associate Planner Hartmann explained the Applicant is requesting a variance to the setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The required setback is 50 feet but the Zoning Ordinance allows a six foot (6’) encroachment into the required setback. The proposed deck exceeds the allowed setback and encroachment by five and a half feet (5.5’). Associate Planner Hartmann indicated staff notes that building plans are not required as part of a submission for a Land Use Application, but because the nature of the request is regarding a pre- existing structure encroaching on the setbacks for the property, previous building permits have been included in the Land Use Application for comparison. The Planning Commission is being asked to determine if a variance request for flexibility with the OHW setback requirement should ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 5 be approved. The evaluation of the proposal should be based on the District Provisions in Section 1320.06 and the Requirements for a Variance in Section 1355.04, Subd. 4. Associate Planner Hartmann reviewed the Plan Evaluation, Variance Criteria and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a request to build a new deck behind the single family dwelling at the Subject Property 3159 Shoreline Lane. 2. The Subject Property is located in the R-2 One and Two Family Residential District. 3. A deck on a single-family detached dwelling is a permitted use in the R-2 district. 4. The Subject Property is non-conforming with the R-2 districts standards for minimum lot width requirements. 5. The rear setback to the property is determined by the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) for Lake Josephine, which is 50 feet. 6. The principle structure is 52 feet from the OHWL. 7. Decks, uncovered porches, ramps, and steps generally may extend six feet (6’) into required setbacks but in no case shall these encroachments be less than six feet (6’) from any lot line. 8. The proposed deck on the Subject Property would otherwise conform to all other requirements and standards of the R-2 district and Shoreland Management Regulations. 9. The proposed development would not encroach on any flood plains, wetlands, or easements. 10. A variance may be granted if the Applicant meets all three factors of the statutory test for practical difficulties. Associate Planner Hartmann stated recommends approval of the Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions below: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. Associate Planner Hartmann 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Vijums asked if other deck variances on Lake Josephine have been approved. Associate Planner Hartmann stated staff found one other instance where a variance was approved on Lake Johanna in 1995. He commented further on the previous variance request. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 6 Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented the City’s Shoreline Ordinance was not approved until 2010. Chair Gehrig questioned if staff had visited the site and if so, were there any concerns about any extended deck interfering with sight lines. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff has visited the site numerous times. He explained views and sight lines were not to be take into consideration for variance requests but rather the zoning level only. Commissioner Lambeth asked what the width of this property was. Associate Planner Hartmann reported the lot was 45 feet at its narrowest point. He stated the lot was a legally non-conforming property. Commissioner Lambeth reviewed the comments the City had received from the neighbors noting there was concerns regarding views and sight lines. He stated five and half feet was not a great deal of space and he wondered how this small of a variance would inconvenience the neighbors. He anticipated the neighbor’s six foot solid fence blocked more views than the proposed deck would. He explained he supported the proposed deck and found it to be reasonable. Commissioner Subramanian questioned if the owners would consider redesigning the deck to maintain a length that did not require a variance. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla deferred this question to the applicant. Curt Kirklin, Kirklin & Sons Construction, stated he was representing the applicant. He reported the deck would not be functional if it were angled. He noted this was an awkward lot that was developed prior to all of the current City Code. He explained the proposed deck would have clear glass railings so as not to obstruct any views. Commissioner Lambeth asked how long the applicant has lived in the home. Justin Brown, 3159 Shoreline Lane, stated he has lived in the home since 2013. He explained the home was owned between six of his family members. He reported the deck was being proposed to provide more space for the family when recreating at the lake home. Commissioner Lambeth questioned if Mr. Brown was aware of the existing restrictions and setbacks when he purchased the home. Mr. Brown explained he looked at replacing the deck last year after the existing trusses began to give out. He stated the new deck would be made out of composite materials. Commissioner Lambeth inquired if Mr. Brown had spoken to the neighbors who objected to the new deck. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 7 Mr. Brown stated he had spoken to Catherine and Trace Robinson, the homeowners to the north, along with the neighbors to the south. He explained he has had a relationship with these neighbors since 2013. He noted the Robinson’s use their lake home as a vacation property noting they live in Houston, Texas. Commissioner Wicklund requested further information regarding the footings that were already in the ground. Mr. Kirklin reported these footings were for the existing deck. He noted these would be removed and only two would be put in place. Chair Gehrig stated the applicant was requesting a 13’ 5” deck. He questioned how this deck would be used by the applicant. Mr. Brown explained the deck would be used for outdoor dining space. John Lily, attorney representing Catherine Robinson and Trace Ritt, stated his client’s home was at 3167 Shoreline Lane. He noted he provided the City with a written submission. He respectfully disagreed with Commission Lambeth noting the proposed deck would impact the neighbors. He commented on the legal requirements for a practical difficulty and stated this request had not met the standards. He feared if the City were to approve this variance request a precedent would be set for future deck expansion requests. He anticipated there were many homes on the lake that wanted to extend their decks closer to the lake. He explained there was than enough usable space to install a deck. While he understood this lake lot was uniquely sized, he stated this was not enough of a reason to approve the variance. He commented further on how the proposed deck would adversely impact the view his clients have of the lake. He reiterated that financial difficulty did not meet the standard within Statute to approve a variance. Commissioner Wicklund stated after hearing comments from the neighbors representative he had several questions. He asked if staff recommended it was not advisable to make decisions based on views. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this was correct. He noted the City had reached out to the watershed district and the DNR and received no comments. He reported staff had also discussed the matter with the City Attorney and he was advised a determination on the variance should be made by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wicklund questioned who governed docks and dock sizes. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City had some regulations in place for dock widths at the shoreline. Commissioner Wicklund stated it may be helpful, from an educational standpoint, to let the residents that have raised concerns know about the City’s dock standards. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported staff would follow up with these residents. He commented further on the impervious surface questions that were raised by the neighbors. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 8 Chair Gehrig thanked staff for outlining the Commission’s purview for this request. He commented on the practical difficulties for this request. He suggested the fact that the home was built 52 feet from the high water mark was a difficulty given the fact it left no room for a deck. He stated these things happen and noted how City Code has changed over the years. He believed an eight foot deck was simply a balcony space and a 13’ 5” deck would be more useable. In addition, he did not believe the proposed deck would alter the character of the neighborhood. He stated he supported the variance as requested. Commissioner Vijums agreed stating this property was legally non-conforming. He supported the applicant being able to have a useful deck versus simply a walking space. Commissioner Vijums moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-020 for a Variance at 3159 Shoreline Lane based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the two (2) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 19-021; Brausen Family Automotive PUD Amendment – No Public Hearing Required Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated Brausen Automotive Repair (“The Applicant”) has submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The Applicant is requesting flexibility in the color scheme and materials proposed for the renovation and remodel of the existing automotive repair garage, service station and car wash. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained at its June 5, 2019 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved a Land Use Application for a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Site Plan Review at Brausen Automotive Repair. At that time, the Applicant proposed to demolish the exiting service station and carwash. The structures would be replaced with a new 7,978 square foot convenience store and a 1,600 square foot carwash. In addition, the Applicant proposed a 4,505 square feet garage and repair bay addition. During the PUD process the Applicant received approval for the general site design, building architecture and materials, parking, carwash access, stormwater ponding, landscaping and lighting. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported since receiving their approvals, the Applicant is requesting to modify the approved building architecture and materials. The intent of the modifications are to improve the aesthetics of the proposed buildings to better complement the existing repair garage. In order to incorporate the existing repair garage into the design the Applicant is requesting flexibility to utilize pre-cast panels on the proposed carwash and repair garage addition. Pre-cast concrete panels are a construction material produced by casting concrete in a mold and then is cured. After the product is cured, it is transported to the construction site and lifted/tilted into place (Figure 1). The Applicant is requesting to utilize pre- cast panels because the product can be formed to match the existing structure design. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated however, the City Code section below depicts pre-cast panels as an undesirable material. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 9 1325.05 Subd 7. (D)(3)Undesirable materials shall include simulated brick, vinyl or aluminum siding, sheet or corrugated metal siding, plain concrete blocks or panels, brightly colored metal roofing or canopies, pre-cast tilt-up walls, mirrored or reflective glass, and materials that represent corporate colors or logos not in conformance with approved building materials. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla commented due to the requested use of an undesirable material staff directed the Applicant to submit a Land Use Application requesting a Concept Plan Review. The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments and questions regarding the proposed development on the general public health, safety, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City of Arden Hills. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the City and Applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal action can be taken at a Work Session. If the applicant decides to proceed with the project, a formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla explained the City Council heard this request at their November 18, 2019 work session meeting. The Applicant and their contractor discussed with the City Council their request to use pre-cast panels on the carwash and repair garage addition. In addition, the Applicant stated they would propose minor changes to the north and west elevation to better complement the existing repair garage as well. During the meeting, Councilmembers asked questions about the pre-case panels and reviewed proposed elevation changes. Council requested the Applicant to break up the east elevation as the propose plans had no windows or breaks in the pre-cast. However, the Council was overall supportive of the proposed changes. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 1310 W County Road E is located in the B-2 General Business District. 2. The Applicant received Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review approvals on June 24, 2019. 3. The applicant has submitted an Amended Planned Unit Development application. 4. The Master PUD substantially conforms to the requirements of the City Code. 5. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 6. Flexibility through the Amended PUD process has been requested in the following areas: building materials. 7. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: lot size, building coverage, landscape coverage, setbacks, street trees, perennials and shrubs, planting islands, drainage wetlands and flood plain tree selection, lighting, screening. 8. The Master PUD is in conformance with the Arden Hills 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The property at 1310 W County Road E is guided for Community Mixed Use. Community ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 10 Mixed Use areas are intended to offer a broad range of retail, services, and office space to meet community needs. 9. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla recommended approval of the Amended PUD at 1310 W County Road E., based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Final Planned Unit Development and Site Plan Review (Planning Case 19-001) shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The Amended Planned Unit Development approval shall expire six months from the date of the City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 3. Prior to the issuance of the building permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Final Planned Unit Development Agreement. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla 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 Gehrig opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Lambeth asked if the proposed South elevation had reflective glass. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla stated this elevation would have standard glass and not reflective glass. Commissioner Vijums questioned if the tip up panels were being used for cost savings measures. Community Development Manager/City Planner Mrosla reported he was uncertain if this was a factor. He indicated the reason for changing the building materials was to make the existing and new portions of the building more closely align from a visual standpoint. Commissioner Vijums moved and Commissioner Lambeth seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 19-021 for an Amended PUD at 1310 West County Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the three (3) conditions in the February 5, 2020, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – February 5, 2020 11 REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Scott provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. He discussed the action the Council took on three Planning Cases. He reported the Council appointed Interim City Engineer/Public Works Director Blomstrom as the City’s Engineer. He explained the City Council also appointed Board and Commission positions. He commented on the Presidential Primary election and encouraged residents to vote on Tuesday, March 3rd. He indicated two of the City’s precincts had changed, Precinct 2 was now located at the Anderson Center and Precinct 3 would be hosted at North Heights Lutheran Church. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None. C. Staff Comments None. ADJOURN Commissioner Lambeth moved, seconded by Commissioner Wicklund, to adjourn the February 5, 2020, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:46 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). 1 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2020-012 RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 3159 SHORELINE LANE WHEREAS, City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to build a deck on the rear of a single family detached dwelling in the R-2 district at 3159 Shoreline Lane (“Subject Property”) with a thirty-nine foot, six inch (39’ 6”) setback from the ordinary high water level; WHEREAS, the Subject Property is a non-conforming vacant lot that does not meet the R-2 district standards for minimum lot width; WHEREAS, a variance may be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance if enforcement of a provision in the ordinance would cause the landowner practical difficulties; WHEREAS, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a Land Use Application Public Policy Notification to notify all property owners within 500 feet of Subject Property when a request for the Planning Commission is to occur related to a land use application that does not require a public hearing; WHEREAS, the City’s obligation has been met where the Arden Hills Planning Commission duly held a hearing on February 5, 2020. All persons present at said meeting were given an opportunity to be heard and present written statements; WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered the Findings of Fact provided by the City Staff that this request be approved and, as such voted 5-0 in favor of the request; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS: Hereby adopts Resolution 2020-012 approving Planning Case 19-020 for a variance request at the Subject Property 3159 Shoreline Lane to enable a thirty-nine foot, six inch (39’ 6”) setback from the ordinary high water level. 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council approves Planning Case 19-020 for a variance request at the Subject Property 3159 Shoreline Lane, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the February 5, 2020 Report to the Planning Commission, as amended by the following conditions: 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2020. ________________________________ Mayor Attest: ______________________________ City Clerk