The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About08-04-21 Planning CommissionAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 9, 2021 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 06 -09 -21 PC MINUTES.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 21 -016 –3900 Bethel Drive –Bolton & Menk On Behalf Of Bethel University –Site Plan Review Of Scoreboard MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF ATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF Planning Case 21 -017 –Mounds View Public Schools -Amendment To The Approved Planned Unit Development (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 21 -018 –Zoning Code Amendment To Section 1355 (Shoreland) Regarding Classification Of Lakes (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Paul Vijums Commissioners: Steven Jones Subbaya Subramanian Jonathan Wicklund Clayton Zimmerman Marcie Jefferys Kurt Weber Council Liaison: Fran Holmes Planning Commission August 4, 2021 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. 2.A. Documents: 3. 3.A. Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF MINUTESJune 9, 2021 Planning Commission Regular Meeting06-09 -21 PC MINUTES.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 21 -016 –3900 Bethel Drive –Bolton & Menk On Behalf Of Bethel University –Site Plan Review Of Scoreboard MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFATTACHMENT E.PDFATTACHMENT F.PDF ATTACHMENT G.PDF Planning Case 21 -017 –Mounds View Public Schools -Amendment To The Approved Planned Unit Development (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 21 -018 –Zoning Code Amendment To Section 1355 (Shoreland) Regarding Classification Of Lakes (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Paul Vijums Commissioners:Steven JonesSubbaya SubramanianJonathan WicklundClayton ZimmermanMarcie JefferysKurt WeberCouncil Liaison:Fran Holmes Planning Commission August 4, 2021 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.2.A.Documents:3.3.A.Documents: 3.B. Documents: 3.C. Documents: 4. 5. 5.A. 5.B. 6. Approved: August 4, 2021 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 2021 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Paul Vijums called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic this meeting was held virtually. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Paul Vijums, Commissioners Steven Jones (joined the meeting at 7:25 p.m.), Subbaya Subramanian, Kurtis Weber, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Commissioners Marcie Jefferys, and Jonathan Wicklund. Also present were: City Administrator Dave Perrault, Planning Consultant Jane Kansier, Planning Consultant Corrin Bemis, and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JUNE 9, 2021 Chair Vijums stated the agenda will stand as published. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 5, 2021 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Weber, to approve the May 5, 2021, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (4-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 21-010; Amendment to Chapter 6 of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as it Relates to PUD’s – Public Hearing Planning Consultant Kansier stated Arden Hills RE, LLC, has submitted an application for an amendment to Chapter 6 of the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment grants the City the ability to increase density above the permitted 20 units per acre ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 2 via the utilization of a Planned Unit Development in areas guided for Community Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan. Planning Consultant Kansier explained at its February 17, 2021, meeting, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, Site Plan, and Zoning Code Amendment for New Perspective Senior Living at 2 Pine Tree Drive. The original approval included a 4-story senior housing facility with 146 units, including 113 assisted living units and 33 memory care units. Planning Consultant Kansier reported as part of this approval, the City Council adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance which allowed 1 memory care unit to be counted as .5 dwelling units. As a result of this amendment, the number of units used to calculate density on the site is 129. The proposed development site is approximately 6.4 acres and has a net density of 20 units per acre. Since the City Council approved this development, the applicant has reviewed the plans and determined there is a need for additional units due to strong demand and operational efficiencies. The applicant has filed an application to amend the approved PUD, which will be considered under Item 3.C. The amended PUD included a 120 assisted living units and 29 memory care units, for a total of 149 units. The net density is 22 units per acre, which exceeds the maximum density of 20 units per acre permitted in the Community Mixed Use designation. Planning Consultant Kansier reviewed the Plan Review and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. Minnesota state law requires that all communities within the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area update their Comprehensive Plans every ten years. 2. The purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to establish the policies that guide the future physical and community development of Arden Hills. 3. The Metropolitan Council has previously approved similar amendments adding language supporting increasing the densities above the maximum permitted in a specific land use district. 4. The proposed amendment only affects the Community Mixed Use designation located east of Snelling Avenue and south of County Road E. 5. The proposed amended language has been discussed with the Metropolitan Council. Planning Consultant Kansier recommended approval of Planning Case 21-010 for a 2040 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, based on the findings of fact and the report submitted to the Planning Commission on June 9, 2021. Planning Consultant Kansier reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval as Submitted 2. Recommend Approval with Changes 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 3 Commissioner Subramanian requested further information regarding the 15% increase in units per acre. Planning Consultant Kansier explained as the language is written now, a 15% increase would be allowed in the units per acre which would allow for 23 units per acre. Commissioner Weber asked if the area north of County Road E was excluded from this change. Planning Consultant Kansier stated this was the case. Commissioner Weber questioned if the proposed development could be achieved through a variance. Planning Consultant Kansier explained this could not done because variances could not be granted to the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Weber expressed concern with the amount of latitude that was being granted through the proposed language change. He indicated this amendment required Planning Commission consideration and Council approval. He stated he was concerned that a public hearing was not held for this matter. Commissioner Zimmerman stated it appears amenities have been taken away from independent living units in order to increase the density for tenants that need additional services and would no longer have access to a movie theater or restaurant. Planning Consultant Kansier reported this would be covered more clearly in the next Planning Case. She indicated this may not be the case, as amenities were just rearranged. Chair Vijums commented he read the next Planning Case and noted there was more room for a chapel and theater if they were combined. He stated this was a more efficient use of the space and the amenities were not going away. He agreed this Planning Case was worthy of a public hearing and understood this would be done at the City Council meeting. Councilmember Holmes explained the City Council would be holding a public hearing. She requested clarification on the area where the amendment would apply. Planning Consultant Kansier reviewed a map noting the parcels that would be included in the proposed code amendment. Chair Vijums questioned who designated the areas within the amendment. Planning Consultant Kansier stated this would have been done within the Comprehensive Plan update which was adopted a little over a year ago. Chair Vijums commented there may be more concern about the language itself than the area that is being covered. He discussed how this area of Arden Hills would be impacted if all of the areas in pink were high density residential and noted this was a concern to him. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 4 Commissioner Zimmerman and Commissioner Weber concurred with this statement. Chair Vijums suggested the area in pink be further reviewed by the City Council. He stated he supported the senior housing being approved for high density tonight. Commissioner Weber supported the density proposed for the senior living development. He commented given the breadth of the land uses within this district and the number of buildings, he was not entirely sure all of this area should be zoned high density residential. He proposed the Planning Commission changing the language prior to this matter going to the City Council. Chair Vijums suggested the Planning Commission approve the density for the senior living parcel only and recommended an amendment be made to have the City Council reconsider all other areas in pink. Commissioner Weber stated the biggest hang up for him was the fact a public hearing was not planned for this matter planning case. Further discussion ensued regarding the fact this item was not properly noticed with Zoom links for the public hearing. Councilmember Holmes explained the Planning Commission can open and close the public hearing prior to making a decision this evening. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Chair Vijums stated based on Commissioner Weber’s comments, the Planning Commission could hold a separate meeting that readdresses this matter that gives the opportunity for a public hearing or comments could be taken at the City Council meeting. He questioned how the Commission wanted to proceed. Commissioner Weber indicated he would be open to attending another meeting. Commissioner Zimmerman concurred. Chair Vijums asked if a special planning commission meeting could be held next week. City Administrator Perrault reported staff would need three days to properly notice the meeting. He explained each of the items on the agenda tonight would require a public hearing and he asked if the Commission would be deferring each item. Commissioner Weber stated he did not see a need to defer the other items on the agenda, but rather this was a unique item. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 5 Chair Vijums proposed the Planning Commission table action on this item tonight. Councilmember Holmes commented this item was similar to another item that was not properly noticed by staff and noted the Planning Commission could table action on this item to July versus trying to hold a special meeting. City Administrator Perrault recommended the applicant speak to this as they may have a deadline in July. Florent Ilazi, representative for the applicant, reported he does have a very specific deadline with the Minnesota Department of Health to have a completed permit application submitted to the building department with the City of Arden Hills before July 31, 2021 in order to meet building code requirements. He discussed how the building code would change on August 1, 2021 which would require new drawings for this project. He requested the Planning Commission hold a special meeting versus tabling action to July. Alex Brewer, representative for the applicant, explained there was a sense of urgency in order to get a building permit submitted by the July 31st deadline. He stated it was critical for his organization to understand if they should be making a significant investment in Arden Hills in this uncertain environment. He discussed how the conservative lending situation has impacted this project, along with the rising cost of building materials. Commissioner Weber asked if there was any way to take action on just this property tonight. Planning Consultant Kansier stated the Planning Commission did have the ability to make that recommendation and discussed how the language could be amended to address this parcel. Commissioner Zimmerman indicated he could support the Planning Commission moving forward in this manner. Chair Vijums commented this was his original thought, to approve the density for the senior housing parcel and anything outside this would have to be further reviewed by the City Council. Commissioner Jones joined the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Chair Vijums moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-010 for a 2040 Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment, based on the findings of fact and the report submitted to the Planning Commission on June 9, 2021, amending the stated language to read any other development inside the circle on the map will be subject to the current code except for the 2 Pine Tree Drive property. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 21-012; 2 Pine Tree Drive – New Perspective Senior Living – Amendment to the Approved Planned Unit Development – Public Hearing Planning Consultant Kansier stated at its January 25, 2021 meeting, the City Council approved a Conditional Use Permit for the property at 2 Pine Tree Drive. On February 8, 2021, the Council subsequently approved a Planned Unit Development and a Site Plan for this development. The ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 6 Council’s approval allowed the applicant to construct a 192,390 square foot, four (4) story multi- family senior living facility on site. The proposed senior living facility will feature 146 units, with 113 units of independent or assisted living and thirty-three (33) units devoted to memory care. The overall density of the approved project is 20 units per acre. The project also includes such amenities as a pool, library, movie theater, dog run, playground for young visitors, lawn bowling, salon and spa, bistro/bar and onsite physical therapy and wellness services. This facility will staff 80 employees and the anticipated max shift size is 34. Staff will be onsite 24 hours a day. The property is zoned B-2 (General Business District) and is guided as Community Mixed Use (CMU) in the Land Use Plan. The CMU designation allows a maximum density of 20 units per acre. Planning Consultant Kansier reviewed the Proposal and Use, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, Site Plan and Zoning Amendment. 2. The Subject Property is located within the B-2 General Business District and is guided as CMU, Community Mixed Use on the Land Use Plan. 3. The Subject Property is located on approximately 6.40 acres and currently features open space with a wooded area around the wetlands with a segment of the existing Anderson Center trail system running through the site. 4. The Applicant received approval of a PUD, CUP and Site Plan to construct a 192,390 square foot, 4 story multi-family senior living facility on site. 5. The approved senior living facility features 146 units, with 113 units devoted to independent or assisted living and 33 units devoted to memory care. 6. The applicant is now proposing an amendment to the approved PUD and CUP to increase the number of units to 149, including 120 units devoted to independent or assisted living and 29 units devoted to memory care. 7. The change in units is accommodated within the existing building footprint. No changes are proposed to the site plan or building elevations. 8. Flexibility through the PUD process was granted in the following areas: parking stall count requirements, building height, permitted number of efficiency units and tree mitigation. 9. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: building setbacks, landscape coverage, parking setbacks, planting islands, tree selection, floor area ratio, drainage wetlands and flood plain tree selection, lighting, screening and aesthetics. 10. 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. 11. A traffic study was required and was completed by SRF. The proposed development should not generate much additional traffic and is not expected to impact overall traffic operations within the study area. The use does not add enough traffic to require any geometric or traffic control changes. 12. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 13. Existing public facilities will be able to absorb the additional demand for public services needed for the proposed use. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 7 14. The maximum dwelling unit density per net area that is allowed within the B-2 District is 20 units per acre. The applicant has requested an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to allow a 15% increase in density through the PUD process. Planning Consultant Kansier recommended approval of Planning Case 21-012 for an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the Master PUD and Preliminary Plat approval shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. The Conditional Use Permit and Planned Unit Development approvals shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. The City Council may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. 4. A violation of any condition set forth in the permit shall be a violation of this Code, and shall be cause for revocation of the permit. 5. A Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to release of a building permit. 6. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be those in effect at the time of Final Plat approval and shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 7. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the December 21, 2020 Engineering Division memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security of $50,000.00 dollars shall be submitted. Landscape financial security is held for two full growing seasons. 9. For any landscaping or screening that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the applicant shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the city before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the city, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. 10. The Applicant shall submit cash contribution in lieu of land dedication. The cash payment shall be determined based on the fair market of 20 percent of the land that would otherwise be dedicated to the City. The park dedication fee shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. 11. Prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion permit, planning staff shall approve in writing the final landscaping plan. 12. Prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit the Applicant shall work with the City to locate the additional caliper inches of replacement trees on the site or on ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 8 the adjacent properties. If the replacement trees cannot be reasonably accommodated on the site, the applicant shall provide a fee in lieu of plantings in the amount of $50,000. 13. 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. If complaints are received the lighting adjacent to residential uses shall utilize house shields as directed by the City. In addition, any lighting under canopies (building entries) shall be recessed and use a flush lens. 14. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 15. Prior to issuance of a sign grading and erosion control permit, the applicant shall provide City staff with written approval from Bethel University, the owner of Outlot A, permitting the placement of landscaping on their property. 16. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant shall provide City staff with written approval from Bethel University, the owner of Outlot A, permitting the construction of the proposed monument sign on their property and offsite signs are not permitted. 17. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the applicant shall provide City staff with written approval from Lake Johanna Fire Department, the owner of Lot 2, Block 1, on permitting the placement of landscaping on their property. 18. No exterior storage shall be permitted. 19. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 20. All fencing and retaining wall materials shall be complementary to the building materials and shall be approved in writing by the Planning Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Retaining walls greater than four (4) feet in height shall be engineered and detailed calculations shall be submitted to the City. 21. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the City’s Engineering Department prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Developer shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County and MNDOT prior to the start of any site activities. 22. A grading as-built and utility as-built plan shall be provided to the City upon completion of grading and utility work. 23. 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. Temporary stormwater facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 24. The Applicant shall provide an executed copy of the City’s standard stormwater maintenance and easement agreement prior to approval of the Development Agreement. 25. The bond or surety shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits and shall be valid for two full years from the date of installation, or three years in the case of an extended timeline. The total surety shall be addressed in the Development Agreement. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 9 26. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. 27. The maximum number of units permitted onsite is 149 units. 28. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 29. Prior to the issuance of a land disturbance permit, the Applicant shall submit an operation and maintenance plan for the long-term care of all on-site and off-site stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water main to the City for review and approval. The Applicant will be responsible to carry out these operation and maintenance activities and to submit the appropriate documentation to the City as specified. 30. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 31. This approval does not include signs. A separate sign permit is required for all proposed signage. All signage shall meet the requirements of Sign District 4. 32. The Applicant shall provide a cross parking agreement with Bethel University for the City Attorney to review and for the City Council’s approval prior to the approval of the Developer Agreement. 33. In the event where noise from the loading and delivery area is audible from an adjacent residential district, the activity shall terminate between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 34. The applicant shall construct the trail as shown on the site plan, shall allow unrestricted public use and shall plow, maintain and upkeep the trail. Planning Consultant Kansier 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 Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant would be installing an elevator that goes from the garage to the new chapel on the third level. Florent Ilazi, representative for the applicant, reported there would be an elevator that goes from the garage to the chapel area, and all floors in between. He reported the amenities that were previously proposed have not been removed, but rather have been relocated within the footprint of the building. Commissioner Weber stated he had concerns with the density originally and he was pleased to learn there were other developments with significantly higher densities in other communities. He thanked the applicant for clarifying that the amenities had not been lost. Commissioner Jones commented his concern was with the lack of parking on the site. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 10 Mr. Ilazi explained the underground parking would be reserved for residents and the surface lots would be utilized by tenants, visitors and employees. He discussed the parking need he has found in his other senior living communities. He reported he has been working with Bethel University in order to have 25 additional stalls for overflow parking. Commissioner Subramanian questioned if 210 or 108 parking stalls was required. Mr. Ilazi stated the tabled that was shown by staff described the City’s parking requirements. He commented based on his need and the 20+ communities that he has built in the Midwest, he shows a need for 108 parking stalls. He explained he was providing 95 parking stalls onsite and had arranged with Bethel University to have an additional 25 parking stalls. Planning Consultant Kansier commented on the parking need differences for multi-family housing units versus senior living developments. Commissioner Subramanian asked if a parking deficiency of 50% would be sufficient for this property. Alex Brewer, representative for the applicant, discussed how his team calculated the parking need and stated he was leaning on his partner New Perspective. He stated New Perspective had over 20 years of experience in this market with over 20 senior living developments in the Midwest. He indicated parking was one of the first things that was discussed for new developments, along with the amount of land that was required. Commissioner Subramanian encouraged the applicant to consider the future needs of these residents and not just the past needs. Mr. Brewer stated he was basing the parking needs on the past and current needs of senior residents. Commissioner Weber requested further information regarding the 25 parking stalls with Bethel University. He asked if there was a specific set of 25 stalls being set aside for the senior living development or would this be a random set of parking spaces. Mr. Brewer reported he was working to identify 25 parking spaces that were available for the cross access agreement. He commented major holidays were the main times parking was a concern. Commissioner Jones supported the proposed shared parking with Bethel University. He anticipated the Bethel parking lot would be close to empty on major holidays. He thanked Mr. Brewer for clarifying this matter and noted he would withdraw all of the concerns he had regarding parking. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 11 There being no comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Commissioner Jones moved and Commissioner Weber seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-012 for an amendment to the approved Planned Unit Development and Conditional Use Permit at 2 Pine Tree Drive, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the thirty-four (34) conditions in the June 9, 2021, report to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 21-013; 1275 Red Fox Road – Conditional Use Permit to Allow a Place of Worship in the I-Flex District – Public Hearing Planning Consultant Kansier stated Grove Church has submitted an application for Conditional Use Permit to convert an existing office and industrial building into a church, with an auditorium, offices, classrooms, a coffee bar and a bookstore. The property is located at 1275 Red Fox Road, is zoned I-Flex, and is designated for Mixed Business uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The proposed development site is approximately 5 acres in size, and is the location of a vacant 2- story office and industrial building, approximately 39,436 square feet in size. At their March 22, 2021, meeting, the City Council reviewed a concept plan for this development. On May 24, 2021, the City Council approved an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow places of worship as a conditional use permit in the I-Flex district. Planning Consultant Kansier reviewed the surrounding area, site data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 1275 Red Fox Road is designated for Mixed Business uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. The applicant has requested a Conditional Use Permit in order to remodel the existing vacant building on the site for use as a place of worship. 3. Places of worship area allowed as a conditional use in the I-Flex District. 4. The CUP substantially conforms with the requirements of the City Code. 5. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, conditions of approval have been placed on an approval requiring the plans be adjusted to meet City Code. 6. The adjacent properties to the east and west are zoned I-Flex and are guided for Mixed Business uses in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 7. The property to the south is zoned I-Flex and is guided for Industrial uses in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 8. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Planning Consultant Kansier recommended approval of Planning Case 21-013 for a Conditional Use Permit at 1275 Red Fox Road, based on the findings of fact based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 12 2. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 3. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. 4. The hours of operation for the coffee bar shall be one hour prior to the church service until one hour after the church service. 5. Use of the premises for a day care shall be subject to approval of a separate permit. 6. All signs must conform to the signage requirements for Sign District 7. 7. The use of the lease space is subject to all zoning ordinance requirements. Individual uses are subject to separate permits. 8. Prior to occupancy of the site, the applicant must receive building permits for all additions and modifications to the building. 9. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all and any fees applicable to the change in use, including but not limited to, building permit fees and water and sanitary charges. Planning Consultant Kansier 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 Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jones questioned how the applicant was coming up with 2,400 square feet of new paved area. Planning Consultant Kansier explained the area on the south side of the building at the south entrance would be paved. Commissioner Jones asked if the Council would consider a payment in lieu of taxes for a non- profit moving onto this property. Chair Vijums anticipated this would be a discussion held by the City Council. Commissioners Jones inquired if the lease spaces would be to other non-profits. He explained he was paying high taxes in the City and expressed concern with turning this property over to a non-profit. Commissioner Subramanian stated he appreciated the comments made by Commissioners Jones and he wondered how much tax income the City would be losing by allowing a non-profit to move into this property. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 13 Chair Vijums reported the Planning Commission was a zoning commission and not a tax obligation group. Councilmember Holmes explained Planning Consultant Kansier made the City Council aware of the fact there was a federal law that protects houses of worship and one thing that cannot be considered is taxes. She commented further on the matters that could be considered, which involved traffic and noise. She stated houses of worship have special provisions and the City has to give differential consideration under this law. Commissioner Weber asked if the applicant was attending the meeting. Tom Goodrum, representative for the applicant, introduced himself to the Commission and stated he was available for questions. Commissioner Weber questioned if the sign would require a variance. Mr. Goodrum reported he would not require a variance for the sign as it would be adjusted to meet City Code requirements. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Chair Vijums stated he appreciated how churches were seeking vacant buildings within the community in order to meet their communities’ needs. He believed this was a great use of the space. Commissioner Weber agreed. Commissioner Jones commented he did not object to this use moving into the property but noted the City has a large amount of government and religious facilities in the community. He stated at this time, he would not be able to support the proposed development. Councilmember Holmes discussed the federal law pertaining to houses of worship and explained the City does not have a whole lot of latitude regarding this request. Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Subramanian seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-013 for a Conditional Use Permit at 1275 Red Fox Road, based on the findings of fact based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the nine (9) conditions in the June 9, 2021, report to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Jones opposed). D. Planning Case 21-014; 1150 County Road E – Master Planned Unit Development to Develop and Financial Planning Service Office – Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 14 Planning Consultant Bemis stated the proposed development site is approximately 0.64 acres in size and is currently vacant. The property owner is Arden Plaza, LLC, managed by Wellington Management. The Applicant is proposing to construct a new corporate headquarters for Financial Wealth Advisors at Arden Plaza. The Applicant is proposing to utilize the existing access road off of County Road E. An access point to the parking lot will be located on the South side of the property. At their May 17, 2021 meeting the City Council reviewed a concept plan for this development. A Master Plan PUD for Arden Plaza was approved in 2009. The original plan included 4 new buildings. Subsequent amendments reduced the number of new buildings to 3: Walgreens, the Tavern Grill, and a future building on Lot 2. In 2016, the City Council approved an amendment to the PUD to allow a neighborhood medical clinic on Lot 2, but the clinic chose not to build on the site. Planning Consultant Bemis reviewed the surrounding area, site data, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 1150 Country Road E is zoned B-2 – General Business District and is located within the Master Plan PUD for Arden Plaza. 2. The property located at 1150 Country Road E is guided as Community Mixed Use in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Chapter. 3. The applicant has requested a Master PUD to construct a single-story 5,600 square foot financial service office on the existing vacant lot. 4. The B-2 District permits financial institutions & services as well as offices. 5. The PUD substantially conforms with the requirements of the City Code. 6. 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. 7. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested in the following areas: parking requirements, front setback line, building elevations, and planting islands. 8. The proposed development plan meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the City Code in the following areas: district provisions, minimum caliper inches, drainage, lighting, screening, trash pickup, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and signage. 9. All new developments or redevelopments in the B-2 district require a planned unit development. 10. The adjacent properties on all sides are zoned B-2 and are guided as Community Mixed Use in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 11. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. Planning Consultant Bemis recommended approval of Planning Case 21-014 for a Master Planned Unit Development at 1150 County Road E, based on the findings of fact based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the following conditions: 1. All conditions of the original Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to the plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 15 3. The Planned Unit Development approval shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall enter into a Development Agreement. 5. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. 6. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. 7. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 8. 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. 9. Any future trash enclosures shall utilize wooden gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 10. 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. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security equal to 125% of the cost of the landscaping to be installed on the site shall be submitted. The Applicant must submit a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping so staff can determine the final amount. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. 12. This approval does not include signs. A separate sign permit is required for all proposed signage. All signage shall meet the requirements of Sign District 4. 13. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 14. Prior to the issuance Grading and Erosion permit, the Engineering Department shall review and approve final grading and utility plans in writing. 15. The property owners shall complete snow removal, maintenance and replacement of all proposed sidewalks and trails unless a written agreement between the City and owner establishes a different requirement. Planning Consultant Bemis 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 Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he was pleased to see a new tenant would be moving into this space. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 16 Commissioner Subramanian welcomed the new tenant. Commissioner Jones agreed stating he was really happy to see this new tenant moving into the City. He inquired if the City Council would approve of the exterior building materials noting he supported the project as presented. Chair Vijums asked how much flexibility was being requested. Planning Consultant Bemis explained the proposed building was set back 45 feet from the property line on County Road E. She noted the applicant has a 100 foot setback from the southern property line. She commented further on what City Code would require for the building in order to meet City setbacks. Jill Bills, U+B Architecture and Design, discussed the building width and noted half should be at the front setback line, which would be 33 feet of the building façade should be at the front setback. She reported the development had a large monument sign and drainage at the front setback which led to the proposed building placement. Chair Vijums questioned if this property met fire code requirements. Planning Consultant Kansier reported this would be addressed during the building permit phase. She did not anticipate this would be a problem based on the size of the building. Chair Vijums inquired if the golf simulator would be open to the public. Ms. Bills reported this may be possible. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 8:50 p.m. Commissioner Jones moved and Chair Vijums seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-014 for a Master Planned Unit Development at 1150 County Road E, based on the findings of fact based on the findings of fact and submitted plans, subject to the fifteen (15) conditions in the June 9, 2021, report to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021 17 Councilmember Holmes provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She thanked everyone for their patience while working through Zoom meetings. She reported She explained the City would be migrating back to in person meetings in the coming months. She indicated the City Council approved the Chick-Fil-A request at its last meeting and addressed the noise and light concerns. She stated the Council tabled action on the Shoreland Structure Ordinance for further discussion on the City’s lake classifications. She thanked Planning Consultant Jane Kansier for all of her assistance and noted the City had recently hired a new Senior Planner. Jessica Jagoe newly hired Senior Planner, introduced herself to the Planning Commission and stated she was looking forward to working with the Commission in July. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Jones welcomed Jessica Jagoe to the City of Arden Hills. He thanked Commissioner Lambeth for his service to the community and welcomed Commissioner Weber to the Planning Commission. ADJOURN Commissioner Jones moved, seconded by Chair Vijums, to adjourn the June 9, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:12 p.m. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Page 1 of 7 PC AGENDA ITEM – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2021 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #21-016 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: Bolton & Menk Property Location: 3900 Bethel Drive Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action Bolton & Menk (“The Applicant”), on behalf of Bethel University, is requesting a Site Plan Review for a proposed project at 3900 Bethel Drive (“Subject Property”) to update the scoreboard and sound system adjacent to the stadium field and track located in the southern quadrant of the Bethel University Campus. Specific improvements include replacing the electronic scoreboard to an LED/Video capable scoreboard with sound system upgrade. Background 1. Overview of Request Bethel University was approved a Conditional Use Permit Amendment on May 3, 2021 for stadium field upgrades which included the addition of a new track around it and practice fields to be converted into multi-purpose fields in the southern quadrant of their main campus at 3900 Bethel Drive. The CUP Amendment application noted that Bethel University was proposing changes to the scoreboard. Conditions of the CUP Amendment approval were that a separate permit shall be required for the scoreboard and that prior to replacement of sound system, Bethel University would be required to submit new sound system plans to the City Council for approval. The Applicant is proposing to convert the existing electronic scoreboard to a LED/Video capable scoreboard with a sound system fully contained within the accessory structure. Page 2 of 7 2. Site Data Future Land Use Plan: Public and Institutional Existing Land Use: Public and Institutional Zoning: INST – Institutional District Size: 191.32 Acres (Including main campus, athletic complex, and part of Lake Valentine) Topography: Varied topography across campus Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Regulations Review 1. District Requirements Chart (INST Institutional District) – Section 1320.06 Under the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the Bethel University campus is guided as Public & Institutional on the land use plan. The main Bethel University campus is located in the Institutional Zoning District. Higher education campus uses, including but not limited to classrooms and laboratories, are allowed conditional uses in this district. The proposed changes to the accessory structure that the Applicant proposes to add are complementary to the use of the Subject Property as an educational institution. 2. General Requirements - Sections 1325.01 and 1325.05 A. Permanent Accessory Structures – Meets Requirements The Applicant is proposing to replace the existing electronic scoreboard with an LED/Video capable scoreboard as an accessory structure which is allowed in the INST District. Permanent accessory structures in any district, except residential, shall be subject to Council approval. The exterior finish of accessory structures shall be compatible in appearance and material used with the principal structure served by the accessory structure. In this case, the Applicant is proposing enhanced aesthetic features which include the steel beams being brick encased with three columns for the base of the structure and a one (1) foot wide stucco/kasota stone perimeter around the sides and top of the scoreboard to match the brick appearance of the existing university buildings. These same materials will be visible in view of the backside of the scoreboard. B. Height – Meets Requirements Accessory structures in all other Zoning Districts, except residential, shall not exceed the height of the principal structure to which it is accessory. The current accessory structure has 308 square feet of scoreboard area (14’ x 22’) and is 26 feet tall. The Applicant is proposing to replace with a larger accessory structure that will be 560 square feet of scoreboard area (approx. 17’ x 31’) and a maximum of 35 feet tall. The maximum height requirement in the INST District is 35 feet. The Applicant notes the height of the pressbox adjacent to the stadium field is approximately 40 feet. The proposed accessory structure for Bethel University will stay in compliance with district height requirements. Page 3 of 7 C. Setbacks – Meets Requirements Setbacks in the INST District are 50 feet in the front yard, 20 feet in the rear yard, and 10 feet in the side yard. Structures must be located a minimum of 100 feet from abutting residential property. There are currently no structures within 100 feet of abutting residential properties. The proposed scoreboard will be moved southwest of the existing scoreboard location and remains approximately 135 feet from the south property line. The Applicant is not proposing any structures within the 100 feet setback. D. Lighting – Meets Requirements As part of the CUP Amendment, the Applicant was approved stadium lighting around the football field and track subject to providing photometric calculations for lighting at the property lines of all adjacent residential properties indicating the plan meets ordinance requirements. The Applicant is not proposing any new lighting as part of this application. Section 1325.05 Subd. 3 requires lighting in all districts to direct light away from adjoining lots and public streets. Direct or sky-reflected glare, from floodlights or high temperature processes such as combustion or welding, shall not be directed at any adjoining lots or public streets. In addition, Section 1325.05 Subd. 3 also requires the source of illumination to be hooded, concealed or controlled in a manner so as to direct the lighting pattern only on the site to which the lighting is intended. The proposed scoreboard will be a full color approximately 17’ tall by 31’ wide LED video display. The Applicant has stated that the LED/Video scoreboard display is not anticipated to output additional lighting beyond the intensity of the approved lighting fixtures for the stadium. The proposed location of the LED/Video capable scoreboard in the SW corner of the stadium is positioned in a manner to direct the light pattern towards the stadium. The Applicant did not provide as part of this application a photometric plan with illumination levels including the LED/Video display. E. Building and Landscaping Coverage – Meets Requirements The Zoning Code requirements for the INST District allow a maximum building footprint of 35% and a minimum landscape area of 25%. Landscaping is defined as all plantings, including trees, grass, and shrubs. The proposed scoreboard would not result in much of any additional structure coverage on the Subject Property since the replacing an existing structure. The Applicant is not proposing any changes to landscape. The approved CUP for the campus limits the total lot coverage of impervious surfaces to 25% and requires a minimum landscape lot area of 75%. As proposed, the replacement accessory structure would not exceed the lot coverage requirements for the campus. F. Noise – Meets Requirements As a condition of the CUP Amendment, the Applicant is required to submit new sound system plans to the City Council for approval. The proposed sound system model will be SP-1000 Stadium Pro Sound from Nevco. The Applicant is proposing a fully embedded sound cabinet within the scoreboard accessory structure. The sound cabinet is approximately 4’ tall by 6’ wide located atop of the LED screen. The sound cabinet is completely surrounded by a 1” thick acoustic foam. The purpose of the foam is to reduce sound wave vibrations to the mechanical structure of the scoreboard display products, but also dampens the sound waves leaving the rear of the display. There are no other sound system amplification or speakers proposed as part of the stadium Page 4 of 7 upgrades. Previous review and discussion included speakers attached to lighting, but that has been eliminated. The sound cabinet will feature two speakers and one subwoofer. The Applicant has indicated that the existing scoreboard current PA system is max upper 70 dB’s at the property line and as you move closer to the pressbox will climb to the mid 80’s. Levels standing on the bleachers in front of the speakers did reach 90 dB, but never reached 100 dB. It is anticipated the SP-1000 enclosure will be in the lower frequency levels of 70-80 dB’s. The SP- 1000 speakers are directional speakers. The Applicant intends to aim the speakers at the home bleachers, so that sound travels away from the adjacent residences. The new scoreboard location in the SW corner of the stadium field is positioned to further direct sound towards the home bleachers. Included with the submission is an example of sound modeling to illustrate scoreboard sound system dB levels with the projected levels at distances within the field. 3. Signage Requirements – Section 1250 A. Section 1250.05 - Meets Requirements In Section 1250.05, Permanent Scoreboard Signs for Athletic Fields at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College it states that athletic fields may be permitted signage that is clearly secondary to the overall appearance of the scoreboard. Such signage shall face the field of play so that the impact of the signage is directed only to those utilizing the field or watching the sporting event, and not surrounding property owners. The content of scoreboard signage shall comply with the sponsorship sign regulations as established by Bethel University. The Applicant Decibel levels of common noise sources from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Page 5 of 7 has indicated the video capable scoreboard will be used for game-related activities and will not be used for advertising or sponsorship. B. Section 1250.06 – Meets Requirements In Section 1250.06, Permanent Signs for Athletic at Mounds View High School, Bethel University, and Northwestern College is permitted as an entrance gate style sign, affixed to a pressbox/grandstand, or signage included on the scoreboard. Such signage shall not be lit by a direct lighting source and constructed of durable materials (finished metal, finished wood, plastic). Under Subd. 1, Sign Area, the scoreboard field naming signage shall not exceed 40% of the total scoreboard area. The Applicant is not proposing signage that will be visible from a public roadway or from outside Bethel University. The scoreboard will feature a 4’ x 31’ field naming placard constructed of finished metal that is not illuminated. The “Bethel University” signage calculates to be approximately 22% of the total scoreboard area. 1355.04 Procedural Requirements for Specific Applications Section 1355.04, Subd. 5 of the Arden Hills Zoning Code states that a public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review, but neighboring property owners shall be notified. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy. 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. The Bethel University main campus at 3900 Bethel Drive is located in the Institutional Zoning District. 2. A Higher Education, College Campus is a Conditional Use in the Institutional District. 3. Bethel University operates under a Conditional Use Permit Master Plan. 4. Athletic fields and accessory equipment are permitted under the CUP Master and Amended Plan for Bethel University. 5. Bethel University has requested Site Plan Review approval for installation of a new scoreboard and sound system in the stadium fields and track area. 6. The accessory structure and lighting would be in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Code. 7. A public hearing is not required for Site Plan Review. 8. The proposed application meets all setback requirements. Site Plan Review Evaluation Findings: 9. The proposed plan is not anticipated to have any impact on traffic or parking conditions because the additions do not include an increase in football field seating. 10. The proposed plan includes the addition of LED lights and will within a reasonable level increase illumination around the stadium fields. Page 6 of 7 11. The proposed project is reasonable because scoreboards considered an accessory structures are addressed in the Code as reasonable uses within educational athletic facilities. 12. The proposed plan will not produce any permanent noise, odors, vibration, smoke, dust, air pollution, heat, liquid, or solid waste, and other nuisance characteristics. 13. The proposed plan will impact drainage on the site. 14. The proposed plan will not impact school population density. 15. The proposed plan is not expected to have a visual impact on surrounding properties or on land use compatibility with uses and structures on surrounding land or adjoining land values because of distance and existing foliage the new accessory structure will not be easily visible from outside the Bethel University campus. 16. Park dedication requirements are not applicable. 17. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Proposed Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21- 016 for Site Plan Review at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the August 4, 2021, Report to the Planning Commission: a) All conditions of the original Condition Use Permit and Amendments shall remain in full force and effect. b) That the project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the Senior Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. c) The proposed structure shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. d) A building permit shall be obtained for the proposed scoreboard. e) That all building and setback requirements shall be met. f) The scoreboard height shall not exceed 35 feet. g) That the sound system being installed within the scoreboard shall meet all applicable standards set by the EPA and MPCA. h) A separate sign permit shall be required and scoreboard signage must meet all requirements of City Code Section 1250. i) That the scoreboard shall not be used as a dynamic sign to display sponsorship advertising, messages or videos. j) A Bethel employee shall control the lighting and sound system at the football field. k) The use of the sound system and lights at the football field be capped at 10:00 PM, except on nights that have a Bethel University sponsored events. l) That an automatic dimmer module shall be installed to reduce the nighttime light output of the LED lighting of the scoreboard based on ambient light levels. m) That the applicant shall cooperate with all reasonable requests from the City to modify direction and intensity of light and sound emitted from the scoreboard to mitigate its impact. Page 7 of 7 n) The Applicant shall be required to provide photometric calculations for the stadium lighting including the LED lighting of the scoreboard at the property lines of all adjacent residential properties indicating the plan meets ordinance requirements. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21- 016 for a Site Plan Review at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the August 4, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 21-016 Site Plan Review at 3900 Bethel Drive, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 21-016 for Site Plan Review at 3900 Bethel Drive: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Staff published a notice in the Pioneer Press as per City procedure. Public notices were mailed out on July 22, 2021. The mailing was sent to neighbors within 500 feet of the subject parcel. Staff has received two inquiries for information regarding this application as of July 27, 2021. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on July 20, 2021. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by September 18, 2021 (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. Narrative D. Site Plans E. Existing Scoreboard F. Proposed Scoreboard G. Sound System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ttachment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x 0=?,49,;;74.,?4:9>,=0>@-50.??:=0A40B,9/,;;=:A,7-D?30$4.0=006),?0=>30/ 4>?=4.?:9?,.?$)/4=0.?7D,? 1:=,//4?4:9,7491:=8,?4:9 x &307,9/@>0,;;74.,?4:9100>/:9:?.:A0=-@47/492>429:=:?30=;0=84?100>?3,? 8,D-0=0<@4=0/@;:9,;;=:A,7:1,7,9/@>0,;;74.,?4:9 x 77,;;74.,?4:9>B477-0>@-50.??:,//4?4:9,7100>1:==048-@=>0809?:1.:9>@7?,9?.:>?> ,>>:.4,?0/ B4?3 147492 =0A40B492 ,9/ ;=:.0>>492 :1 ,;;74.,?4:949?301:=8:1,9 0>.=:B?:?304?D sound, materials, and location * $+" #7,99492:884>>4:9800?492>,=0?D;4.,77D307/:9?3014=>?)0/90>/,D,1?0=?3014=>? :9/,D:10,.38:9?3,? # ?3:@23;70,>0.:9?,.?4?D,77?:A0=41D?30800?492/,?0,9/?4804?D:@9.47800?492>,=0307/ ?D;4.,77D?307,>? :9/,D:1?30>,808:9?3,? # 00?492>,=0307/49?30:@9.473,8-0=>,??304?D :1=/09477>)0>?423B,D=/09477> 4990>:?,@970>>:?30=B4>0>?,?0/&30>.30/@70> -07:B ,=0 1:= =010=09.0 ;@=;:>0> :97D #=:50.?B477 9:? -0 >.30/@70/ 1:= ,9D800?492 @9?47 ?30 ,;;74.,?4:9 >@-84??,74>1:@9/?:-0.:8;70?0-D?304?D#7,990= "$$ $%## )) %$$ *-%+$ "+" 090=,77D307/:9?30 14=>?)0/90>/,D,1?0=?3014=>? :9/,D,? ;8 090=,77D307/:9?30 1:@=?3 :9/,D,? ;8 ,9@,=D ,9@,=D 0-=@,=D 0-=@,=D ,=.3 ,=.3 ;=47 ;=47 ,D ,D @90 @90 @7D @7D @2@>?@2@>? %0;?08-0= %0;?08-0= ".?:-0=".?:-0= !:A08-0= !:A08-0= 0.08-0= ,9@,=D ,9@,=D ,9@,=D !$%,"#$*$ $*+( 30=0-D,;;7D1:=?30,-:A0.:9>4/0=,?4:9,9//0.7,=0?3,??30491:=8,?4:9,9/8,?0=4,7>>@-84??0/B4?3?34> ,;;74.,?4:9,=0.:8;70?0,9/,..@=,?0;0=.4?D.:/0,9/:=/49,9.0=0<@4=0809?>1@77D@9/0=>?,9/?3,?,8 =0>;:9>4-701:=,77.:>?>49.@==0/-D?304?D=07,?0/?:?30;=:.0>>492:1?34>,;;74.,?4:9 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ #=:;0=?D"B90=%429,?@=0$0<@4=0/ ,?0 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++++++++++++++ ;;74.,9?%429,?@=01/4110=09??3,9?30;=:;0=?D:B90= ,?0 #70,>0.:9?,.??304?D#7,990=,? 41D:@3,A0,9D<@0>?4:9>=02,=/492?34>,;;74.,?4:9 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 4.,9?%429,?@=0 1 /4110=09??3,9 ?30 ;=:;0=?D :B9 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ #=:;0=?D "B90= %429,9,99,9,9,999,9,9,9,99,?@=0 $0 6/29/21 Location Map Legend Municipal Boundary City Mask March 31, 2021 Map Powered By DataLink 1 in = 752 ft ± $WWDFKPHQW% Facilities Management 3900 Bethel Drive St. Paul, Minnesota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ttachment C :ƵůǇϭϲ͕ϮϬϮϭ DƐ͘:ĞƐƐŝĐĂ:ĂŐŽĞ͕^ƌ͘WůĂŶŶĞƌ ŝƚǇŽĨƌĚĞŶ,ŝůůƐ ϭϮϰϱtĞƐƚ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇϵϲ ƌĚĞŶ,ŝůůƐ͕DEϱϱϭϭϮ ZĞ͗ ĞƚŚĞůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇƚŚůĞƚŝĐ/ŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐͲ^ĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ ĞĂƌ:ĞƐƐŝĐĂ͕ ZĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ>ĂŶĚhƐĞƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǁĞĂƌĞƉůĞĂƐĞĚƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ ŝƚǇ͛Ɛ͞WĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚ^ĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ^ŝŐŶ͟ŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞƐ͕ĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘ƐĂŶŽƚĞ͕ƚŚĞŚĞŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ ŐƌĂŶĚƐƚĂŶĚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐƐďŽǆ͕ĨƌŽŵƉĂǀĞŵĞŶƚƚŽƚŽƉŽĨƉƌĞƐƐďŽǆ͕ŝƐϰϬ͛Ͳϲ͕͟ŚŝŐŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͘ KƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞϭϮϱϬ͘Ϭϱ͗ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĂƚĞƚŚĞůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇΖƐƐƚĂĚŝƵŵŵĞĞƚƐŽƌƐĂƚŝƐĨŝĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨŝƚǇKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞϭϮϱϬ͘ϬϱŐĞŶĞƌĂůůǇĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗ ͲdŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚǁŝůůďĞƵƚŝůŝǌĞĚĨŽƌŐĂŵĞͲƌĞůĂƚĞĚĂĐƚŝǀŝƚŝĞƐĂŶĚŶŽƚĂĚǀĞƌƚŝƐŝŶŐŽƌƐƉŽŶƐŽƌƐŚŝƉ ;ƐĞĞůĞƚƚĞƌĨƌŽŵĞƚŚĞůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚŝƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůͿ͘ ͲdŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚǁŝůůĨĂĐĞƚŚĞĨŝĞůĚŽĨƉůĂǇ͕ĂǁĂǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵƚŚͬǁĞƐƚ͕ĂŶĚŶŽƚ ǀŝƐŝďůĞĨƌŽŵĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉƵďůŝĐƌŽĂĚǁĂǇƐ͘ ͲdŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚŝƐƐŝŵŝůĂƌƚŽƚŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚƐĂƚEŽƌƚŚǁĞƐƚĞƌŶhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇĂŶĚ͕ŵŽƌĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐĂůůǇ͕ ƚŚĞĚŝŐŝƚĂůĚŝƐƉůĂǇƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĂƚDŽƵŶĚƐsŝĞǁ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůƐƚĂĚŝƵŵ͘ KƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞϭϮϱϬ͘Ϭϲ͗ dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĂƚĞƚŚĞůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇΖƐƐƚĂĚŝƵŵŵĞĞƚƐŽƌƐĂƚŝƐĨŝĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐ ŽĨŝƚǇKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞϭϮϱϬ͘ϬϲŐĞŶĞƌĂůůǇĂƐĨŽůůŽǁƐ͗ ͲdŚĞƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĨŝĞůĚŶĂŵŝŶŐƉůĂĐĂƌĚĂƚƚŚĞƚŽƉŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚǁŝůůďĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚĞĚ ŽĨĨŝŶŝƐŚĞĚŵĞƚĂůĂŶĚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƚŚĞǁŽƌĚƐΗĞƚŚĞůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇΗ͘dŚĞŶĂŵŝŶŐƉůĂĐĂƌĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚ ĞǆĐĞĞĚϰϬйŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĂƌĞĂ͗ dŽƚĂůƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚƐŝǌĞ͗ ϭϳΖϵΗǆϯϭΖͲϲΗсϱϱϵ͘ϭϮϱƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŶĂŵŝŶŐƉůĂĐĂƌĚƐŝǌĞ͗ ϰΖǆϯϭΖͲϲΗсϭϮϲƐƋƵĂƌĞĨĞĞƚ;ŽƌϮϮ͘ϱйŽĨƚŽƚĂůĂƌĞĂͿ ͲdŚĞƉĞƌŵĂŶĞŶƚƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚŶĂŵŝŶŐƉůĂĐĂƌĚŚĂƐŶŽĂƐƐŽĐŝĂƚĞĚŝŶƚĞƌŶĂůŽƌĞǆƚĞƌŶĂůůŝŐŚƚŝŶŐ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕ ŽůƚŽŶΘDĞŶŬ͕/ŶĐ͘ :ĂǇWŽŵĞƌŽǇ͕W> WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů>ĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ ĂƌƌŝĞĂŶĚ'ůĞŶŶʹ /ŶƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƚƚĂůĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞƚŚĞůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͕/ŚĂǀĞĂĨĞǁĨŽůůŽǁͲƵƉ ŝƚĞŵƐƚŚĂƚ/͛ŵŚŽƉŝŶŐǇŽƵĐĂŶĂƐƐŝƐƚǁŝƚŚ͗ &ƌŽŵƚŚĞŝŶŝƚŝĂůĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕ƚŚĞŝƚǇƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞĚĞĐŝďĞůůĞǀĞůƐĂƚƚŚĞ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĂŶĚƚŚĞŶǁŚĂƚƚŚĞǇǁŝůůďĞǁŝƚŚŶĞǁƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͘,ĂƐƚŚŝƐ ďĞĞŶǀĞƌŝĨŝĞĚ͍WůĞĂƐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŚĂƚĚĂƚĂ͘EĞǁ^ĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚŶŐŝŶĞĞƌZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ;EsKͿ͗͞dŚĞ ĂƌĞĂŝŶĚŝĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĚƌĂǁŝŶŐŝƐďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚǁŝůůďĞĨĂĐŝŶŐ͘ ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵWƌŽƐŽƵŶĚƐǇƐƚĞŵƐĂƌĞĐŽŵŵŽŶůǇŝŶƐƚĂůůĞĚŝŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĂƌĞĂƐ͕ƐŽƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐ ĂŶĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůǇƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚƐƚŚĞƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐǁŝƚŚĂϭ͟ƚŚŝĐŬĂĐŽƵƐƚŝĐĨŽĂŵ͘dŚĞ ƉƵƌƉŽƐĞŽĨƚŚŝƐĨŽĂŵŝƐƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƐŽƵŶĚǁĂǀĞǀŝďƌĂƚŝŽŶƐƚŽƚŚĞŵĞĐŚĂŶŝĐĂůƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞ ƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĚŝƐƉůĂǇƉƌŽĚƵĐƚƐ͕ďƵƚĂůƐŽƚŽĚĂŵƉĞŶƚŚĞƐŽƵŶĚǁĂǀĞƐůĞĂǀŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĂƌŽĨƚŚĞ ĚŝƐƉůĂǇ;ǁŚĞƌĞǁĞĚŽŶ͛ƚǁĂŶƚƚŚĞŵͿ͘/ƚ͛ƐĚŝĨĨŝĐƵůƚƚŽƉƌĞĚŝĐƚƚŚĞĞǆĂĐƚĚĞĐŝďĞůůĞǀĞůƚŚĂƚǁŝůů ƉĞŶĞƚƌĂƚĞƚŚĞĚƌŝǀĞƌĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ͕ƚŚĞ^WͲϭϬϬϬĞŶĐůŽƐƵƌĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞĂĐŽƵƐƚŝĐĨŽĂŵ͕ďƵƚŝƚǁŝůůďĞ ƉƌŝŵĂƌŝůǇŝƐŽůĂƚĞĚƚŽůŽǁĞƌĨƌĞƋƵĞŶĐǇůĞǀĞůƐĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƐƵďǁŽŽĨĞƌ͘DǇďĞƐƚĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞ ǁŽƵůĚďĞϳϬͲϴϬĚďĂƚŵŽƐƚ͘͟ ĞƚŚĞůZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ^ĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͗͞ĞĐŝďĞůƌĞĂĚŝŶŐƐǁĞƚŽŽŬƚŽĚĂǇʹŽŶƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚWƐǇƐƚĞŵʹŵĂǆŽƵƚĂƚƵƉƉĞƌϳϬΖƐĂƚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚǇůŝŶĞ͕ĂŶĚƚŚĞŶĂƐǇŽƵŐĞƚĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽ ƚŚĞĂƵĚŝŽƐŽƵƌĐĞ;ƉƌĞƐƐďŽǆͿŝƚĐůŝŵďƐŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŵŝĚͲƚŽƵƉƉĞƌͲϴϬΖƐ͘/ĚŝĚŶΖƚƐĞĞϵϬΖƐƵŶƚŝů/ǁĂƐ ƐƚĂŶĚŝŶŐŽŶƚŚĞďůĞĂĐŚĞƌƐĂůŵŽƐƚƌŝŐŚƚŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐͬƉƌĞƐƐďŽǆ͕ĂŶĚůĞǀĞůƐŶĞǀĞƌ ƌĞĂĐŚĞĚϭϬϬĚ͘ŐĂŝŶ͕/ΖŵĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚƚŚĞŶĞǁƐǇƐƚĞŵ;ǁŚŝĐŚǁŝůůďĞĂŝŵĞĚŶŽƌƚŚĞĂƐƚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ ƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐƚŚĞŚŽŵĞďůĞĂĐŚĞƌƐͿǁŝůůŚĂǀĞůĞƐƐŽĨĂŶŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŚĂŶŽƵƌ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐǇƐƚĞŵ;ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂŝŵĞĚƌŝŐŚƚĂƚƚŚĞƌĚĞŶKĂŬƐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐͿ͘͟ •dŚĞƌĞǁĂƐŵĞŶƚŝŽŶĞĚŽĨĂƌĞǀŝƐĞĚƌĞŶĚĞƌŝŶŐŵŽƌĞƌĞĨůĞĐƚŝǀĞŽĨƐŝƚĞĨŽůŝĂŐĞƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞƚƌĞĞ ĐŽǀĞƌĂŐĞŝƐŶŽƚĂƐƚŚŝĐŬĂƐƐŚŽǁŶŝŶƚŚĞŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞŶĚĞƌŝŶŐĂƐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞ ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĨĞǁƉŝĐƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚĞƐǀŝĞǁĨƌŽŵĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉĂƌĐĞůƐƚŽƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĂŶĚ ƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚůŽŽŬŝŶŐƚŽǁĂƌĚƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƉĂƌĐĞůƐ͘ŽůƚŽŶΘDĞŶŬZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗tĞŚĂǀĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚĂŶ ŝůůƵƐƚƌĂƚŝǀĞŐƌĂƉŚŝĐ;^ĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚsŝĞǁƐͿƐŚŽǁŝŶŐǀŝĞǁƐĨƌŽŵĞƚŚĞůŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŝŶŐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͘ĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ͕ŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌƐƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƚƌĞĞ ĐŽǀĞƌƚŽƐĐƌĞĞŶƚŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛ƐǀŝĞǁ͘hůƚŝŵĂƚĞůǇ͕ĞƚŚĞůǁĂŶƚƐƚŽďĞŐŽŽĚ ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂƌĞǁŝůůŝŶŐƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚǇͬŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘ •tŝůůƚŚĞƌĞďĞŶĞǁůŝŐŚƚƉŽůĞƐǁŝƚŚƐŽƵŶĚĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚ͍/ĨƐŽ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌůŝŐŚƚƉŽůĞƐĂŶĚƵƉĚĂƚĞƐŝƚĞƉůĂŶƚŽƐŚŽǁůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨůŝŐŚƚƉŽůĞƐǁŝƚŚƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐ͘/ ŚĂĚǁƌŝƚƚĞŶŝŶŵǇĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶŶŽƚĞƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞǁĂƐĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŚĂǀŝŶŐĨŽƵƌ;ϰͿĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚ ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐŚŽŵĞŐƌĂŶĚƐƚĂŶĚĂŶĚƚǁŽ;ϮͿŽŶƚŚĞǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐŝĚĞ͘ŽůƚŽŶΘDĞŶŬZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗EŽ ƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐĂƌĞƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁůŝŐŚƚƉŽůĞƐ͘ •dŚĞƐƉĞĂŬĞƌĚŝƐƉĞƌƐŝŽŶƐŚĞĞƚƐŚŽǁƐƚŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚůŽĐĂƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĐĞŶƚĞƌŽĨƚŚĞĨŝĞůĚ͕ĚŽǇŽƵ ŚĂǀĞĂŶƵƉĚĂƚĞĚĚŝƐƉĞƌƐĂůƉůĂŶǁŝƚŚƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶƐŚŝĨƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞ^tĐŽƌŶĞƌĂƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͍ ŽůƚŽŶΘDĞŶŬZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗dŚĞƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚŝƐŝŶĂƐŝŵŝůĂƌƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƐŽƵŶĚĚŝƐƉĞƌƐĂů ŐƌĂƉŚŝĐEsKŚĂƐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚ͘EsKŝƐŶŽƚĂďůĞƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶƵƉĚĂƚĞĚŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĂƐƚŚŝƐŝƐĂ ƐƚŽĐŬŐƌĂƉŚŝĐ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƚĞĂŵŝƐĐŽŶĨŝĚĞŶƚƚŚĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŚĞĂƚŵĂƉŐƌĂƉŚŝĐĐŽŶǀĞǇƐ ƚŚĞƐŽƵŶĚĚŝƐƉĞƌƐĂůŝŶĂǁĂǇƚŚĂƚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƚŝǀĞŽĨƚŚĞƐŝŵŝůĂƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘ Bolton & Menk response to Land Use Application Comments Email from Jessica Jagoe (7/6) •tŝůůƚŚĞƌĞďĞďƌŝĐŬŽƌĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐƵƐĞĚĂƐĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚ;ŝ͘Ğ͘ ƉŽůĞƐĂŶĚͬŽƌƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĨƌĂŵĞͿ͍ŽůƚŽŶΘDĞŶŬZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗dŚĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĐŽůƵŵŶƐŽĨƚŚĞ ďůĞĂĐŚĞƌĂƌĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŽďĞƐƚĞĞů/ͲĞĂŵƐĞŶĐĂƐĞĚŝŶďƌŝĐŬ͘tĞŚĂǀĞĂƚƚĂĐŚĞĚĂŶĞǆŚŝďŝƚ ƐŚŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƌƚŝƐƚŝĐƚƌĞĂƚŵĞŶƚĨŽƌƚŚĞďƌŝĐŬƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĐŽůƵŵŶƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐ͕ ƚŚĞƌĞǁŝůůďĞƚŚƌĞĞďƌŝĐŬĐŽůƵŵŶƐŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨƚŚĞƚǁŽƐŚŽǁŶŽŶƚŚĞĂƌƚŝƐƚŝĐŐƌĂƉŚŝĐƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚďǇ ŽƚŚĞƌƐ͘ •ŽǇŽƵŚĂǀĞŵĂŶƵĨĂĐƚƵƌĞƌŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƚŚĂƚĞǆƉůĂŝŶƐƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ^WͲϭϬϬϬ^ƚĂĚŝƵŵWƌŽ^ŽƵŶĚ ƐǇƐƚĞŵ͍ŽůƚŽŶΘDĞŶŬZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗tĞĂƌĞĂƚƚĂĐŚŝŶŐĂĐƵƚƐŚĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ^WϭϬϬϬƐƉĞĂŬĞƌ ŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘ /ďĞůŝĞǀĞĨƌŽŵŽƵƌĞĂƌůŝĞƌĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐǁĞƌĞĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂů͘/ƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŚĞůƉĨƵůĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨ ƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĨŽƌĞƚŚĞůhŶŝǀĞƌƐŝƚǇƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶĂƌƌĂƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĂŶǇŽƚŚĞƌƐƵƉƉŽƌƚŝǀĞĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĂƚŝŽŶ ƚŚĂƚĞǆƉůĂŝŶƐƌĂƚŝŽŶĂůĨŽƌŶĞǁƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚŽĨƐĐŽƌĞďŽĂƌĚĂŶĚƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶŝŶŐŽĨƐƉĞĂŬĞƌ;ƐͿĂƐƚŽƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽƌƌĞĚƵĐĞĚŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚŽŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂƐĂƌĞƐƵůƚŽĨƚŚĞŶĞǁƐǇƐƚĞŵ͘ŽůƚŽŶΘDĞŶŬZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗ dŚĞ^WϭϬϬϬƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐĂƌĞĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶĂůƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐ͘dŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƚŝƐƚŽĂŝŵƚŚĞƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐĂƚƚŚĞŚŽŵĞ ďůĞĂĐŚĞƌƐ͕ƐŽƚŚĂƚƐŽƵŶĚƚƌĂǀĞůƐĂǁĂǇĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐ͘ĞƚŚĞůĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƚĞĂŵ ĞǆƉĞĐƚƚŚŝƐƚŽďĞĂŶŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐƐƉĞĂŬĞƌƐǁŚŝĐŚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůǇĚŝƌĞĐƚƐƐŽƵŶĚƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ ƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶĐĞƐ͘ /ǁŽƵůĚĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞƚŚĞĂďŽǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶďĞŝŶŐƐƵďŵŝƚƚĞĚďǇϰ͗ϯϬŽŶdŚƵƌƐĚĂǇ͕:ƵůǇϴƚŚĨŽƌŽƵƌ ĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞĚĞǀĂůƵĂƚŝŽŶŽĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞŶĞƐƐ͘/ĨǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶǇĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͕ƉůĞĂƐĞůĞƚŵĞ ŬŶŽǁ͘ ^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůǇ͕ JJessica Jagoe ^ĞŶŝŽƌWůĂŶŶĞƌ ŝƚǇŽĨƌĚĞŶ,ŝůůƐ ϭϮϰϱtĞƐƚ,ŝŐŚǁĂǇϵϲ ƌĚĞŶ,ŝůůƐ͕DEϱϱϭϭϮ KĨĨŝĐĞWŚŽŶĞ͗;ϲϱϭͿϳϵϮͲϳϴϭϬ ŵĂŝů͗ũũĂŐŽĞΛĐŝƚǇŽĨĂƌĚĞŶŚŝůůƐ͘ŽƌŐ EXHIBIT B - SCOREBOARD (AND SPEAKERS) LOCATION Attachment D A’A’B’C’D’B’C’D’SCOREBOARDBETHEL UNIVERSITY - SCOREBOARD VIEWSAPPROXIMATESCOREBOARDLOCATION THIS ILLUSTRATION IS FORREFERENCE. IT DOESN'TACCURATELY DEPICT THEVEGETATION, DOESN'TSHOW THE NEIGHBORSHOMES, ROAD, RAILROADTRACKS, ETC.EXHIBIT G - PROPOSED SCOREBOARD-ARTISTIC CONCEPT EXHIBIT E - EXISTING SCOREBOARD DIMENSIONS $WWDFKPHQW( 35' MAX. HEIGHT3'1'1' WIDE STUCCO/KASOTA STONE PERIMETER BETHEL BRICK COLUMNS AND FOOTING BASE10'SPEAKER SUB- WOOFERSPEAKER SCOREBOARD SOUND CABINET EMBEDED IN TOP 4' OF SCOREBOARD (SEE PHOTO) Attachment F EXHIBIT A1 - SCOREBOARD - BACKSIDE EXHIBIT D - SCOREBOARD DISPLAY WITH DIMENSIONS Stadium Pro 1000 Ease ModelingEXHIBIT H - SCOREBOARD SOUND SYSTEM (SPEAKERS) $WWDFKPHQW* INTEGRATED DISPLAY AND SCORING SOLUTIONSStadium Pro™ 1000 Features BUILD YOUR OWN DISPLAY AND SCORING SYSTEM ONLINE AT: WWW.NEVCO.COM U.S. & CANADA: 800-851-4040 INTERNATIONAL: 618-664-0360 FAX: 618-664-0398 E-MAIL: INFO@NEVCO.COM • Custom designed for easy installation. • No additional power required at scoreboard results in faster installation, lower installation costs. • Speakers fully aimable to provide complete stadium coverage. • Subwoofer reinforces low frequency resulting in a “fuller sound”. • Best in market 5-year warranty on loudspeakers and custom designed speaker cabinet. • Control Room Package equipment included: • Power Amplifiers........................................2 • Power Sequencers.......................................1 • Equipment Rack.........................................1-14 Space • 12 Channel Mixer.......................................1 • Announcer Mic (+Stand) -Wired.................1 • All Required Cabling/Connectors.................Yes STADIUM PRO™ 1000 SPECIFICATIONS FREQUENCY RESPONSE (-10DB@1M) 35Hz to 22Khz LOW FREQUENCY POWER HANDLING RMS 2 x 600W FREQUENCY RESPONSE (+/-3DB@1M) 48Hz to 18Khz LOW FREQUENCY POWER HANDLING PROGRAM 2 x 1500W MAX SPL @ 1M 137dB MID FREQUENCY POWER HANDLING RMS 2 x 1500W MAX. SYSTEM COVERAGE-HORIZONTAL 100°H MID FREQUENCY POWER HANDLING PROGRAM 2 x 3000WMAX. SYSTEM COVERAGE-VERTICAL 40°V LOW FREQUENCY SPEAKER CONFIGURATION 2 x 15” Subwoofers HIGH FREQUENCY POWER HANDLING RMS 2 x 200W MID FREQUENCY CONFIGURATION 4 x 12” + 4 x 2” Mid Comp. Drivers HIGH FREQUENCY POWER HANDLING PROGRAM 2 x 400W HIGH FREQUENCY CONFIGURATION 2 x 1” HF Comp. Drivers LF AMPLIFIER OUTPUT 3200W @ 4 Ohms LOUDSPEAKER & CUSTOM DESIGNED SPEAKER CABINET WARRANTY 5 Year MF AMPLIFIER OUTPUT 2100W @ 4 Ohms HF AMPLIFIER OUTPUT 2100W @ 4 Ohms CUSTOM DESIGNED SPEAKER CABINET SPEAKERS (2) SUBWOOFER (1) GUARANTEE: TO VIEW OR RECEIVE THE MOST RECENT COPY OF OUR GUARANTEE, PLEASE VISIT: NEVCO.COM/WARRANTY-LIMITATION U.S. SERVICE: 1-800-851-4040 INTERNATIONAL SERVICE: 1-618-664-0360 CANADA SERVICE: 1-800-461-8550 *10 Gauge speaker wire maximum length: 650ft EXHIBIT I - SCOREBOARD SOUND SYSTEM DATA Page 1 of 4 PC AGENDA ITEM – 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2021 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #21-017 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: ISD #621: Mounds View Public Schools Property Location: 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road Request: PUD Amendment Requested Action Mounds View Public Schools (“The Applicant”) the applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment for an extension for the timing of construction of road and safety improvements as it relates to the alignment of Lake Valentine Road at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road. Background 1. Planned Unit Development At their May 22, 2019 and subsequently amended on April 27, 2020, the City Council approved Planning Case 18-014 for a Planned Unit Development with Mounds View Public Schools for Mounds View High School. The amendment added 14 additional conditions to the existing Planned Unit Development to address existing traffic and pedestrian safety issues based on the findings contained within the study report, an evaluation of existing site conditions, and the Planned Unit Development Agreement. The terms of the PUD approval requires the School District to implement safety improvements on Lake Valentine Road to address traffic and increased pedestrian crossings between the school building and the north parking lot, including installation of turn lanes and other access improvements, trail and sidewalk improvements, pedestrian signal, signage and striping modifications, and drainage and utility improvements. The Applicant originally proposed two separate phases of traffic and pedestrian safety improvements for Lake Valentine Road. Phase 1 safety improvements, installed in 2020, which included installation of a pedestrian traffic signal system, crosswalk markings, temporary painted center median, curb ramps and sidewalk pedestrian routes to the front of the school. Page 2 of 4 The Phase 2 traffic and pedestrian safety improvements were scheduled for construction in 2021 in order to allow the School District to acquire additional property from the State of Minnesota. This additional property would allow the relocation of the west entrance to the north parking lot to align with the drop-off/pick-up lot on the south side of Lake Valentine Road. Additional improvements include construction of a center median at the crosswalk, modifications to the south boundary of the north parking lot, and the construction of dedicated right turn lanes for westbound traffic accessing the east parking lot entrance and for the eastbound traffic accessing the drop- off/pick-up lot. 2. Overview of Request The Applicant has been working with the State of Minnesota for nearly two years on purchasing property, but has been unsuccessful in obtaining an easement or acquisition of land. The State has indicated they are at least another year out in considering the sale of this land. The Applicant believes this option is no longer feasible and is preparing an alternate design. The City Council reviewed this issue at their May 17, 2021, workshop. The Council noted the use of the State property is preferred; however, they understand there is no guarantee the school district will be able to purchase that land. Safety is the most important factor. The applicant will submit an application for the revised improvements to the City later this year. The current schedule in the approved PUD does not allow the School District sufficient time for completion in 2021 due to design changes for realignment on school district land. The Applicant is requesting the Planning Commission consider an extension of the deadline to 2022. The Applicant has provided the following as a proposed extended schedule: • October 2021 – City Submittal • January 2022 – Issue Construction Documents • June 2022 – Begin Construction • Mid-August 2022 – Substantial Completion This extension will allow further review and examination of vehicle counts and flows to develop a more-refined plan for the safety improvements. In addition, the School District plans to take into account the feedback of the City Council with regards to the Mounds View High School pick-up and drop-off operations before and after school. Application Review 1. 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 Page 3 of 4 when such changes are deemed to be insignificant by the Zoning Administrator, the requirements of a public hearing may be waived. 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: 1. The properties located at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road are located in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. 2. The proposed conditions when implemented will create a safer environment for pedestrian movement across Lake Valentine Road. 3. The proposed roadway improvements will improve traffic flow through the road section adjacent to the school. 4. With the applied conditions, the application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 5. The traffic and pedestrian study was reviewed as part of the April 2020 Amended PUD application by City and School District staff. 6. The City and School District staff concur on the proposed conditions and recommended improvements. Proposed Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21- 017 for an Amended PUD at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road, based on the findings of fact, as amended by the conditions in the August 4, 2021, Report to the Planning Commission: a) Extension on timeline for construction and realignment of the west parking lot entrance to align with the west school site entrance on the south side of Lake Valentine Road (Pick-up / Drop-off Access) to be completed prior to the start of the 2022-2023 school year. The School District shall submit a revised design and layout for the road and safety improvements on existing school property Site Plan Review and approval no later than December 31, 2021. b) All other conditions of the original Planned Unit Development and Amended Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. Recommend Approval without Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-017 for an Amended PUD at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road, based on the findings of fact and recommendations based on the recommendations contained within the traffic study. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 21-017 for an Amended PUD at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Page 4 of 4 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 21-017 for an Amended PUD at 1900 and 1901 Lake Valentine Road for the following reasons: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notice and Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on July 22, 2021. Notice and website was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on July 13, 2021. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by September 11, 2021 (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. Narrative D. Minutes 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. Interstate 694 Lake Valentine R o a d Venus Avenu e Gramsie Road Glenview AvenueFairview Avenue NorthCrystal Avenue Janet Court NB I35W To EB I694 Dellview AvenueValentine Crest Road WB I694 To NB I35 W Rolling Hills RoadInterstate 694 Fairview Avenue NorthSubject Parcel Park and Open Space Location Map §¨¦35W §¨¦694 £¤10Lexington Ave. N± ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 17, 2021 5 Mayor Grant would also like to see the concrete sidewalk. Mayor Grant recapped that they were good with parking, setback line, probably OK with windows, concerns about building materials, and they’d like to see a concrete sidewalk. Councilmember Scott added that he’d be thrilled to see a business relocate from downtown. Further discussion ensued regarding parking spaces. B. MVHS PUD Update/Crossing Light Planning Consultant Kansier stated that Mounds View High School is asking for input on a potential amendment to the Lake Valentine Road layout and to the timing of construction. A PUD was approved in 2019, in order to develop property on the north side of Lake Valentine Road in conjunction with the high school remodeling. Most of the parking was moved to the north parking lot. There was a lot of discussion about traffic and pedestrian issues and the improvements that needed to be made. The pedestrian signals were installed last year. The final piece is changes to the road configuration. Originally the access road was to be moved to the west to provide a better alignment. The School District has been working with the State on the property purchase, the State has indicated they are at another year out in considering the sale of this land. In light of that, the School District would like to discuss a revised layout for the Lake Valentine Road improvements. The current timing, for either the approved or revised alignment, does not allow the School District to complete this construction in 2021. The applicant is also requesting the Council consider extending this deadline to 2022. Councilmember Holmes wondered if they were trying to move the parent drop off farther east to line up with the parking lot exit. Wold Architects Partner Aplikowski said the primary revision is the access to the turnaround on the south side of the road to be relocated about 70 feet to the east to line up with the driveway on the north. He noted that the process of buying the land from the State is going so slow that they are fearful that if they wait another year they still won’t get answers. Mr. Aplikowski explained that the only real changes from the last plan that was approved was that the driveway on the parking lot side was going to move west, and the existing driveway would stay where it was. The new version brings both of those driveways to the east. Alignment across the street was always a concern and they hope to facilitate that within the property the school district owns. The driveway on the school district property will be a little steeper, but manageable and stacking headed west will get shortened slightly. Councilmember Holmes wondered if they realized there was still a crosswalk painted on the road and people are crossing there. She felt people were crossing there and not crossing at the light. Mounds View School District Director of Facilities Paquette said he has no problem working with contractors to get the crosswalk blacked out. Mounds View School District Representative Schwartz said they currently have two dismissal times, and the majority of kids leave the building at 2:45, and cross at the light. He reviewed the ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 17, 2021 6 numbers of people he counted crossing at the light during different time periods and felt most students cross at the light. Councilmember Scott agreed the old crosswalk markings should be removed. Councilmember Holden suggested they make removal of the old crosswalk a part of the approval. Mr. Paquette said he could have it removed right away. Mayor Grant asked how they could stop students parking on the west side from crossing where they want. Mr. Schwartz replied that it takes time and training but the kids will do what they tell them. Unfortunately, it’s more adults that cross there than students. He can get more firm with them. Mr. Paquette added that at the last meeting they had with the State they thought it would be another nine to 12 months before they would review it, and couldn’t guarantee there would be a sale. The school district would like to get the rest of the project done within their own property, along with reroofing and residing the former bus garage and the parking lot cleaned up. Councilmember Holden asked for an explanation of how much safer completing the project this way would be versus with the State property. Bolton and Menk Traffic Engineer Bongard said the average queue westbound into the site during site observations was one or two vehicles and the maximum was five. From what they see it is functioning well and the patrol officer on site is optimistic about how traffic is moving. Relocating the access further to the west on the State site was the preferred option, but with the current locations with the driveways offset makes for a little uncomfortableness for people trying to turn left from the west to east because of the overlap. Eastbound into the site will be cleaner with dedicated right and left turn lanes. After revisiting options after receiving the news on the State site they feel the current proposal is the best option. Councilmember Holden wondered if it was worth making this change now or wait until they acquire the State property and do it right for the long term. Mayor Grant said if they could educate the kids to use the appropriate crossing, then why would they not wait to buy the property from the State. Mr. Paquette responded that there is no guarantee that they get the property, so they would be back at square one. They would like to get the turn lane changes done, so if the City accepts the plan they are putting forth they could stop pursuing the State land. Mayor Grant asked if they would be losing parking stalls in the general area. Bolton & Menk Traffic Engineer Bongard said he didn’t have an exact answer but he will quantify the parking counts when they come back with a full plan. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – MAY 17, 2021 7 Councilmember Holden would like to stipulate that if they get the State property they have no left hand turns out of the parking lot as they exist now. Mr. Paquette clarified that if the Council approves the solution being presented they won’t pursue the State property. Councilmember McClung said his preference would be to get the State land, but he would begrudgingly agree that this is probably the best alternative, although not as safe. Councilmember Holmes asked if traffic was held and stopped for all the buses to leave, and asked for clarification. Mr. Schwartz said in the morning the buses drop and go, and in the afternoon they depart at approximately 3:14, are out in 90 seconds. If buses are queued in the morning they will stop traffic to let them in. They don’t have room to back up so they all have to leave at the same time in the afternoon. Mayor Grant summarized that some want to evaluate this further when it comes forward but have concerns. Several would have liked to see the State property be used. Pedestrian safety is still the goal, along with traffic flow. Mr. Schwartz said the timeline is a problem, they want to get it completed by the end of next summer, and go one more year as is. C. Speed Limit on City Streets HR Green Regional Transportation Director Morast explained that the Minnesota Legislature changed the local road speed limit rules in August, 2019. In the new process, Cities now can lower speed limits only on City streets. Cities must develop procedures to set limits based on safey, engineering and traffic analysis. Surrounding cities have made some changes, the biggest being St. Anthony Village. They changed to 25 mph right away, Public Works made and installed the signs. Falcon Heights is looking at changing or reducing speed limits. Other cities are waiting for a variety of reasons. The City of Minneapolis decided in March, 2020, reduced speed limits in November and launched a Slower is Safer campaign. St. Paul essentially did the same, passing their ordinance in October 2019. The Minnesota Local Road Research Board (LRRB) has two studies underway. They are studying guidelines for determining speed limits on municipal roadways, and the impact of speed limit changes on urban streets. Arden Hills can choose to do nothing and make no changes, reduce City speed limits to 25 mph, wait for the LRRB study results, wait for other cities to act, do safety, engineering and traffic analysis or develop procedures to reduce speed limits. Councilmember Holden wondered why the City would need a safety, engineering and traffic study. Mr. Morast replied that the analysis was required in the Statute. Not all streets would need to be lowered, the analysis would help with determining that. Councilmember Holmes asked when the studies will be completed. Page 1 of 4 PC AGENDA ITEM – 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: August 4, 2021 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #21-018 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Zoning Code Amendment – Chapter 13 – Section 1330.02 Subd. 1 Requested Action The City of Arden Hills is proposing an amendment to the language Section 1330.02 Subd. 1 of the Arden Hills City Code to amend the lake classification for Little Johanna from a Recreational Development Lake to a General Development Lake. The lake reclassification will amend ordinance language to be consistent with Resolution 85-22 passed by the City Council. The ordinance amendment is an administrative action in accordance with previous approval by the City Council that will clean up lake classification designation. Lake Classification Lake classification is used to determine lot size, setbacks and, to a certain degree, land uses on adjacent land. The classification does not pertain to surface water use of boats or motors, hunting or fishing or fish management. Those are governed by other regulations. Minnesota Rule 6120.3000 Subp. 1a. identifies the types of public water classes with a general description of each class. Staff has provided below the descriptions for waterbody classifications specific to the reclassification discussion as defined by State Statute: A. Natural environment lakes are generally small, often shallow lakes with limited capacities for assimilating the impacts of development and recreational use. They often have adjacent lands with substantial constraints for development such as high water tables, exposed bedrock, and unsuitable soils. These lakes, particularly in rural areas, usually do not have much existing development or recreational use. B. Recreational development lakes are generally medium-sized lakes of varying depths and shapes with a variety of landform, soil, and groundwater situations on Page 2 of 4 the lands around them. They often are characterized by moderate levels of recreational use and existing development. Development consists mainly of seasonal and year-round residences and recreationally-oriented commercial uses. Many of these lakes have capacities for accommodating additional development and use. C. General development lakes are generally large, deep lakes or lakes of varying sizes and depths with high levels and mixes of existing development. These lakes often are extensively used for recreation and, except for the very large lakes, are heavily developed around the shore. Second and third tiers of development are fairly common. The larger examples in this class can accommodate additional development and use. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) provides information on their website on the data points used in determination of lake classifications as noted below: Natural Environment Lakes – Natural Environment Lakes usually have less than 150 total acres, less than 60 acres per mile of shoreline, and less than three dwellings per mile of shoreline. They may have some winter kill of fish; may have shallow, swampy shoreline; and are less than 15 feet deep. Recreational Development Lakes – Recreational Development Lakes usually have between 60 and 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline, between 3 and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and are more than 15 feet deep. General Development Lakes – General Development Lakes usually have more than 225 acres of water per mile of shoreline and 25 dwellings per mile of shoreline, and are more than 15 feet deep. In addition to lake size, shoreline, and depth, the DNR also considers existing development, crowing potential, ecological classification, soil, slope, and vegetation as part of their aggregate assessment. Ordinance Background In 1969, the State of Minnesota passed the Shoreland Management Act which directed the DNR to develop rules and oversee programs for shoreland management for Cities and Counties. The DNR adopted Shoreland rules for Cities in 1976. In response to the adoption of State rules, the City in 1984 studied the differences between our existing zoning controls and the State Shoreland Management Standards. On December 26, 1984, the City submitted a preliminary request to the DNR for comment prior to submittal of the formal request (Attachment B). This letter included a summary of City comments for seeking the lake reclassification of several lakes, and relaxation of lot area and lot coverage requirements. The City received a response from the DNR of a willingness to accept all of the requested changes. Based on that direction, the City Council passed Resolution 85-22, Lake Reclassification and Zoning Provision Modifications on May 13, 1985 to request official approval from the DNR (Attachment C). It was recently discovered that between 1985 and 2021, this resolution was either never sent or lost on the part of the DNR. Page 3 of 4 The City’s first ordinance adoption for shoreland requirements was in September 1985, Ordinance No. 237, which was previously referred to as “Arden Hills Shoreland Management Ordinance”. This ordinance incorporated the language and lake classifications as recommended in the May 1985 resolution. The most substantive update of the shoreland ordinance occurred in February 2010. This ordinance review was intended to address a number of holes that still remained unaddressed after an earlier update in 2002. During this process the City conducted an extensive review of development regulations including, but not exclusive to, exceptions to OHW setbacks, wetland setbacks, accessory structure allowances, additional definitions, removal of vegetation and grading and filling standards in order to gain a greater consistency with the DNR guidelines. This research did not involve discussion of lake classifications. However, incorporated into this ordinance amendment Little Johanna was shifted to a Recreational Development Lake. It is suspected that the inconsistency in lake classification was caught as part of that review and amended to reflect DNR categorization. Again, the inconsistency between the City and DNR was due to the failure to finalize processing of Resolution 85-22. This past month City staff contacted Dan Scollan, East Metro Area Hydrologist with the DNR, regarding next steps and available options for proceeding with Resolution 85-22. Mr. Scollan had indicated that the DNR had reviewed the 1984/85 documentation and would proceed with approval of Resolution 85-22 as submitted. Their decision in support of the reclassifications is the result of the lake classification factors having not appreciably changed since 1985. Looking at all of the classification criteria holistically, the DNR still agreed with the City’s reasoning presented in 1985 and concurred that the area development is still consistent with the 1985 Council request as outlined. At the June 7, 2021, City Council Special Work Session, staff was given direction to submit Resolution 85-22 to the DNR as approved on May 13, 1985. This action necessitated an ordinance amendment to Section 1330.02 Subd. 1, Classification of Lakes to classify Little Johanna as General Development. The City received approval of Resolution 85-22 by the DNR on June 23, 2021 (Attachment D). Additional Review Minnesota Department of Natural Resources approved Shoreland Classifications as stated in Resolution 85-22 on June 23, 2021. Preliminary request for comment of shoreland ordinance amendment was sent to the DNR on July 26, 2021. 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. The City of Arden Hills is proposing amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 2. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to classify Little Johanna as a General Development Lake. Page 4 of 4 3. Amendments to the Shoreland Regulations require approval from the Minnesota DNR. 4. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. • Recommend Approval: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-018 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to reclassify Little Johanna as a General Development Lake as presented in the August 4, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 21-018 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to reclassify Little Johanna as a General Development Lake: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 21-018 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to reclassify Little Johanna as a General Development Lake: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notices A Zoning Code Amendment requires a public hearing. Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on July 22, 2021. Notice and website was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A. Draft Ordinance Amendment 2021-XXX B. City Preliminary Request Letter C. Resolution 85-22 D. DNR Shoreland Reclassification Letter E. Minutes Page 1 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2021-XXX CITY OF ARDEN HILLS RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13, ZONING CODE, SECTION 1330, SUBSECTION 1330.02, SUBD. 1 OF THE ARDEN HILLS CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Chapter 13, Zoning Code, Section 1330.02, Shoreland Management Districts and Uses, Subd. 1, is hereby amended by deleting strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows: 1330.02 Shoreland Management Districts and Uses. Subd. 1. Classification of Lakes. (revised 8/23/21) DNR I.D. No. General Development Lakes: Josephine 62-57 Johanna 62-78 Karth 62-72 Little Johanna 62-58 Recreational Development Lakes: Little Johanna 62-58 Round Lake 62-70 Natural Environmental Lakes: Sunfish 62-65 Valentine 62-71 SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall become effective the day following its publication. Page 2 of 2 PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of _______________, 2021, by the City Council of the City of Arden Hills, Minnesota. CITY OF ARDEN HILLS By _______________________________ David Grant, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________ Julie Hanson, City Clerk Published in the ____________________ on _______________, 2021. • • December 26, 1984 WEHRMAN b. keith wehrman roy a. anderson john o. bergly Mr. Dave Leuthe Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, Minnesota 55106 Re: Shoreland Management Classifications City of Arden Hills Dave: CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATED INC. I am herewith submitting a preliminary request for shoreland reclassification and modification of certain lot area and lot coverage provisions for your initial review and comment. The first four pages of the enclosed documentation summarize the requested reclassifications and/or provision modifications for each lake. The justification for each request is included. Pages 5 through 11 represent the City's analysis of the existing development in each shoreland district, and also provide a comparison between existing zoning provisions within the shoreland district and the DNR requirements. Pages 12 through 15 are maps which identify the shoreland management districts in accordance with preliminary DNR classifications, the amount and location of undeveloped land within shoreland areas, the land which is considered to be adversely affected by the DNR requirements, and the major topographic divides which may alter shoreland boundaries (based upon community-wide drainage analysis by City Engineer). The final map, Page 16, presents the shoreland classifications and shoreland management district boundaries as proposed by the City. Please review this information and respond at your convenience. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call. Following your preliminary review, I will modify this documentation as necessary and accompany it with a formal request in the form of a City Council resolution. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, WEHRMAN CONSULTANTS ASSOCIATED, INC. ��;,� OWM/clm Enclosures cc: Charlotte McNiesh Dorothy Zehm RECEI\TED 'JAN 301985 Division of Waters engineering -landscape architecture planning -urban research phone 612-546-4303 -1415 north lilac drive. minneaoolis. mn 55422 Page 1 June 23, 2021 Jessica Jagoe City of Arden Hills Senior Planner 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 RE: Shoreland Classification Status of Johanna, Little Johanna, and Karth Lakes Dear Ms. Jagoe, The City of Arden Hills and the DNR have been in periodic communication concerning the classifications of lakes Johanna (Lake ID Number 62007800), Little Johanna (62005800), and Karth (62007200) since 1984. At that time, the City requested that the shoreland classification for Lake Johanna, as well as Little Johanna Lake (62005800) and Karth Lake (62007200), be changed from their original Recreational Development (RD) classifications to General Development (GD). The City presented evidence and justification in support of the reclassifications to GD. DNR agreed with the City’s reasoning, and responded with a letter to the City informing them that the request would be approved when DNR received notice of a resolution from the City requesting the reclassification, as required by Minnesota Rule Part 6120.3000 Subpart 3. DNR still concurs with the reasoning supporting the requested reclassifications of these three lakes made in 1984 and is ready to officially adopt the new classifications. The DNR considers the recent City Council actions, as well as the provision of the original resolution passed in 1985 (Resolution 85-22), to be sufficient official acknowledgement of the City’s request. Therefore, the DNR now considers these lakes to be officially reclassified: Lake Name Lake ID Number Old DNR Classification New DNR Classification Johanna 62007800 Recreational Development General Development Little Johanna 62005800 Recreational Development General Development Karth 62007200 Recreational Development General Development A shoreland ordinance is an important land use regulation that helps to protect surface water quality, near shore habitat, and shoreland aesthetics of Minnesota's public waters. We appreciate your efforts to protect these resources for all present and future Minnesotans. Area Hydrologist Dan Scollan is available to assist with shoreland ordinance technical guidance and to consult you on other land and water-related projects. Page 2 Sincerely, Dan Lais Regional Manager, Ecological & Water Resources Division Attachments: Resolution No. 85-22, 05/13/1985 Wehrman Counsultants Associated Inc. to DNR, 12/26/1984 c: Dan Scollan, DNR East Metro Area Hydrologist John (Jack) Gleason, DNR Hydrologist Supervisor Kathy Metzker, DNR Land Use Program Hydrologist Dan Petrik, DNR Land Use Program Specialist Approved: June 28, 2021 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JUNE 7, 2021 5:45 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Mayor Grant called to order the City Council Work Session at 5:45 p.m. Note: On March 20th, 2020 the Mayor signed a determination allowing Councilmembers to participate in City Council meetings via telephone pursuant to State Statute 13D.021 Present: Mayor David Grant; Councilmembers Brenda Holden, Fran Holmes, and Steve Scott Absent: Councilmember Dave McClung Also present: City Administrator Dave Perrault and Senior Planner Jessica Jagoe 1. AGENDA ITEMS A. Shoreland Ordinance and Lake Classification Discussion Senior Planner Jagoe stated at its May 24, 2021 Regular Meeting, the City Council reviewed the Zoning Code Amendment for Planning Case 21-008 to permit accessory storage sheds within the required structure setback from the ordinary high water level of up to 100 square feet in size and 8 feet in height. At that meeting, the City Council tabled the amendment to allow for further discussion and review of lake classifications. Staff provided detailed historical information for the Council for the City’s shoreland ordinance, the lakes classifications, and commented on the proposed Ordinance revisions. Senior Planner Jagoe explained in 1969, the State of Minnesota passed the Shoreland Management Act due to concerns over rapid development, crowding, and declining water quality and recreational value of the State’s lakes and rivers. From 1967–1982, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) noted a shoreland development increase by about 74% with conversion of seasonal cabins to permanent dwellings and development of new permanent homes. This act directed the DNR to develop rules and oversee programs for shoreland management for Cities and Counties. In 1976, the DNR adopted Shoreland rules for Cities. These Shoreland rules are MN Rules Chapter 6120, Shoreland and Floodplain Management. In response ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – JUNE 7, 2021 2 to the adoption of State rules, the City in 1984 studied the differences between our existing zoning controls and the State Shoreland Management Standards. This research and review was completed by a Shoreland subcommittee. Their recommendations for reclassification of several lakes, and relaxation of lot area and lot coverage requirements were presented to and supported by both the Planning Commission and City Council. On December 26, 1984, the City submitted a preliminary request to the DNR for comment prior to submittal of the formal request. This letter included a summary of City comments for seeking the lake reclassification which were due to existing development and present zoning being relatively compatible with the requirements of General Development, the lot area requirements of Recreational Development classification exceed existing development (95%+ developed) and present zoning, and General Development classification more compatible with development around the lake. The City received a response from the DNR of a willingness to accept all of the requested changes with the exception of riparian lot dimensions for Valentine Lake. Based on that direction, the City Council passed Resolution 85-22, Lake Reclassification and Zoning Provision Modifications on May 13, 1985 to request official approval from the DNR. Senior Planner Jagoe commented in 2019, the City contacted the DNR upon discovery of the discrepancy between the shoreland classification for Lake Johanna. The DNR replied to the City acknowledging receipt of a 1984 request for shoreland reclassification of Lake Johanna, Little Johanna Lake, and Karth Lake from Recreational Development to General Development, but noted that there was no record of ever receiving the resolution, and therefore the DNR did not finalize the classification changes. It was stated that the DNR still concurs with the reasoning supporting the requested reclassifications of these three lakes made in 1984 and is ready to officially adopt the new classifications upon receipt of a resolution. City staff is unsure if Resolution 85-22 was submitted to the DNR and/or if it was misplaced in processing on their end. However, no formal action has been taken to date by the DNR for formal approval. Senior Planner Jagoe reported this past month City staff contacted Dan Scollan, East Metro Area Hydrologist with the DNR, regarding next steps and available options for proceeding with Resolution 85-22. Mr. Scollan has indicated that the DNR has reviewed the 1984/85 documentation and would proceed with approval of Resolution 85-22 as submitted. Their decision in support of the reclassifications is the result of the lake classification factors having not appreciably changed since 1985. Looking at all of the classification criteria holistically, the DNR still agrees with the City’s reasoning presented in 1985 and concurs that the area development is still consistent with the 1985 Council request as outlined. As an alternate, the DNR would also process reclassification of just one of the lakes in Resolution 85-22, but would need submittal of a new resolution that requests only the reclassification(s) the City is currently seeking. It should be noted that a change on the City’s part in lake classification other than what is noted under current ordinance may result in existing development/structures around that particular lake becoming legal nonconforming due to newly applicable lot dimensional standards (i.e. lot area, lot width, and setbacks). Councilmember Holden asked if lake classification was based solely on the size of the lake. Senior Planner Jagoe explained the DNR has several data points that are used when determining a lake classification. ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL WORK SESSION – JUNE 7, 2021 3 Mayor Grant questioned if staff knew the total number of homes on Lake Little Johanna. Senior Planner Jagoe stated in the 1984 analysis there were six existing water front lots. She commented she could not confirm the current number of homes. Councilmember Holden reported in her opinion nothing has really changed when it comes to the extensive use for Lake Johanna. She noted this lake has a regional park which meant there was no less pressure on this lake than in 1985. She supported the City submitting to the 1985 Resolution classifying each of the lakes in Arden Hills general development. Councilmember Scott asked if the City’s classifications matched the DNR for Sunfish Lake and Round Lake. Senior Planner Jagoe reported this was the case. Councilmember Scott commented he was not interested in changing the classification for Sunfish Lake or Round Lake, but agreed with Councilmember Holden that the 1985 Resolution should be resubmitted to reclassify Lake Johanna from recreational development to general development. Councilmember Holmes supported this recommendation given the amount of development and use on Lake Johanna. Councilmember Holden commented further on the intensity of use for Lake Johanna. Mayor Grant stated he favored sending forward Resolution 85-22. He indicated he was not interested in reclassifying these lakes, but rather wanted to see them remain general development. He asked if this was something staff could handle administratively or would the Council have to take action on this item at a future meeting. City Administrator Perrault explained staff would be submitting the Resolution administratively and the Council would consider the City’s Shoreland Ordinance Amendment for reclassification of Little Johanna at a future meeting. B. COVID-19 Operations City Administrator Perrault stated the City is currently operating under a modified COVID-19 operations plan. As mitigation measures continue to be rolled back at the State and Federal level, the City Council may want to consider making modifications to current operations. Those operations include: - City Hall re-opening to the public: City Hall is slated to tentatively open to the public on July 1st, however, that was before the mask mandate repeal. City Staff is expected to return to City Hall in-full on June 14th; given the mask mandate and capacity limits have been repealed, staff questioned if the Council wanted to consider opening City Hall to the public on June 14th.