Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-06-21-Planning CommissionAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 8, 2021 Planning Commission Regular Meeting 09 -08 -21.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 21 -021 –3300 New Brighton Road And 1893 Beckman Avenue – Minor Subdivision (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF Planning Case 21 -023 –City Of Arden Hills –3588 Ridgewood Road MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 21 -024 –City Of Arden Hills –Zoning Code Amendment To Sections 1320.06, District Requirements Chart And 1325.05, Design Standards For Revisions To The B -2, General Business District And B -3, Service Business District (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.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 October 6, 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 MINUTESSeptember 8, 2021 Planning Commission Regular Meeting09-08 -21.PDFPLANNING CASESPlanning Case 21 -021 –3300 New Brighton Road And 1893 Beckman Avenue –Minor Subdivision (Public Hearing Required)MEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFPlanning Case 21 -023 –City Of Arden Hills –3588 Ridgewood Road MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF Planning Case 21 -024 –City Of Arden Hills –Zoning Code Amendment To Sections 1320.06, District Requirements Chart And 1325.05, Design Standards For Revisions To The B -2, General Business District And B -3, Service Business District (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.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 October 6, 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: October 6, 2021 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Acting Chair Wicklund called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Acting Chair Jonathan Wicklund, Commissioners Marcie Jefferys, Subbaya Subramanian, Kurtis Weber, and Clayton Zimmerman. Absent: Chair Paul Vijums and Commissioner Steven Jones. Also present were: Senior Planner Jessica Jagoe and Councilmember Fran Holmes. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – SEPTEMBER 8, 2021 Acting Chair Wicklund requested the agenda be amended to remove Item 3C. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Weber, to approve the agenda as amended removing Item 3C. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 4, 2021 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Jefferys moved, seconded by Commissioner Weber, to approve the August 4, 2021, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 21-022; City of Arden Hills – Zoning Code Amendment to Section 1325 and Municipal Code Section 400 and 410 Regarding the Keeping of Chickens – Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 2 Senior Planner Jagoe stated starting in 2020, the City Council began discussions on ordinance language with regards to the keeping of chickens in Arden Hills. A survey was conducted in November 2020 to garner input from residents on the relaxation of standards for the keeping of chickens. Those survey results were presented to the City Council at a work session in January. Staff was provided guidance on general parameters for consideration of a proposed chickens ordinance. That draft language was reviewed by the City Council at two work sessions on July 12th and July 26th, 2021. Senior Planner Jagoe commented in preparing the draft ordinance language, the City deferred to the document that is used by a number of adjacent communities titled “Recommendations for Municipal Regulation of Urban Chickens”. This guide was the basis for development of ordinance standards and best practices for licensing requirements. Similar to the Cities of Stillwater and Falcon Heights, the proposed language includes a requirement that a resident who intends to keep chickens shall have read the document outlining best care practices. Senior Planner Jagoe explained at the July 26th special work session, Staff was directed to bring forward the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission in September for the first review and to hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the keeping of chickens. Following the public hearing, the draft ordinance language with recommendation of the Planning Commission would be brought back to the City Council at a future meeting for subsequent discussion and direction on next steps. Senior Planner Jagoe provided the Commission with an overview on the Ordinance amendment and offered the following Findings of Fact: 1. The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend ordinance language to allow for the keeping of chickens. 2. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 3. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. Senior Planner Jagoe stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 21-022 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to add ordinance language within Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals for requirements to allow chicken coops in residential districts including Municipal Code language as amended to Chapter 4 as presented in the September 8, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Jagoe reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Acting Chair Wicklund opened the floor to Commissioner comments. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 3 Commissioner Jefferys questioned how the City would enforce the Ordinance and asked if the Ramsey County Sheriff was aware of the chicken keeping requirements. She also inquired what would happen if a neighbor were to move and new neighbors were to move into a home that did not support the keeping of chickens. Senior Planner Jagoe stated an animal control officer with the Sheriff’s Department would be working with the City to enforce the Ordinance. In addition, code enforcement staff may have a role and assist with enforcement complaints. She reported if a neighbor were to move, no additional approval would be required. Commissioner Subramanian asked if breeding of chickens would be allowed. Senior Planner Jagoe explained breeding of chickens would not be allowed, but rather chickens would be allowed as pets or for the laying of eggs. Commissioner Subramanian stated it would be important for the City to be able to identify avian flu symptoms and what rules would be in place to manage this situation. Senior Planner Jagoe commented if there was a nuisance complaint regarding a health or odor concern the City would respond. She reported as drafted the ordinance language did not require proof of medical records. Further discussion ensued regarding how the City would inspect coops upon receiving a complaint. Commissioner Weber questioned if the chickens would be expected to remain within the coop or enclosed pen area. Senior Planner Jagoe stated this was the case. She explained chickens would be allowed in an exercise area only when supervised. Commissioner Weber inquired why the City was only allowing three chickens given the fact these were social animals. Senior Planner Jagoe commented this was a discussion held by the City Council and noted the Commission could recommend this number be increased. Commissioner Weber stated he supported this number being increased to five. He questioned how the chickens were to be disposed of. Senior Planner Jagoe indicated the property owners would have to ensure the chickens were disposed of properly and would not be allowed to slaughter the chickens on their property. Commissioner Weber explained he did not support this recommendation. He anticipated that once a chicken was euthanized at a vets office, it would no longer be edible. Commissioner Zimmerman reported his granddaughter had chickens in Mendota Heights and noted it was important that the coop be properly built in order to keep out foxes, coyotes and other predators. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 4 Acting Chair Wicklund summarized the comments that had been made by the Commission and stated he found it interesting that the neighbors had to approve a request for chicken keeping. He commented he would rather have residents follow the rules established by the City and not leave this up to the neighbors. He feared the proposed system would increase tension in neighborhoods. Acting Chair Wicklund opened the public hearing at 6:53 p.m. Acting Chair Wicklund invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Acting Chair Wicklund closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Commissioner Jefferys agreed that the neighbor approval was an interesting concept. Acting Chair Wicklund questioned if this language should be removed from the Ordinance. Commissioner Jefferys supported the language remaining as is. Commissioner Weber stated he supported neighbors having input on the keeping of chickens. He explained he would not personally keep chickens, but would want to know if his neighbors were keeping chickens and drawing predators onto their property. Acting Chair Wicklund thanked staff for all of their work on this Planning Case. Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Weber seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-022 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to add ordinance language within Location for Buildings Housing Farm Animals for requirements to allow chicken coops in residential districts including Municipal Code language as amended to Chapter 4 as presented in the September 8, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). B. Planning Case 21-019; 3737 Lexington Avenue – Launch Properties – Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, and Site Plan Review – Public Hearing Senior Planner Jagoe stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, and Site Plan Review, proposing to redevelop a 2.48-acre site located at 3737 Lexington Avenue N. The site is currently developed with a vacant industrial building and associated parking lot. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site with a new +/- 19,480 square foot ALDI grocery store and an additional pad site with an +/- 5,300 square foot building purposed for a national dental tenant (~ 2,800 square feet) and Bank of America (~2,500 square feet). The property would be subdivided into two lots. Senior Planner Jagoe reported the Property is currently owned by STORE Master Funding III, LLC. The site is currently developed as a vacant industrial building with an associated parking ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 5 lot. This area includes Red Fox and Grey Fox roads and is bounded by Lexington Avenue, Highway 51, Interstate 694, and the Canadian Pacific railway. This area is used by a number of small and large businesses for a variety of retail, manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, and office uses. This area was largely developed between the 1950s and 1970s, though the retail area along Lexington Avenue has had some new development and redevelopment in the last 15 years. This area is marked as an area of possible redevelopment in 2040. Senior Planner Jagoe reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 3737 Lexington Avenue is designated for Commercial uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. New building construction or site modification identified requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 3. For building construction or site modifications not included on the Master Plan, a PUD Amendment is required. 4. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a Developer. 5. The Applicant has proposed a Master Plan Planned Unit Development in order to develop the property with shared access, parking, and maintenance between the two parcels. 6. The Master Planned Unit Development generally conforms to the requirements of the City Zoning Code and design standards. 7. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the Applicant. 8. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested in the following areas: landscaping, setbacks, building positioning, building façade, building materials, pedestrian and bicycle circulation, and signage. 9. A public hearing for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, and Master Planned Unit Development request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. Senior Planner Jagoe stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 21-019 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, and Site Plan Review at 3737 Lexington Avenue , based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the September 8, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The Master 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. The City Council may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. 3. 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. 4. A Master PUD Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The Master PUD Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to the issuance of building permits. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 6 5. The applicant shall file the Final Plat with Ramsey County within 180 days of the approval from the City. 6. 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. For any landscaping that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the Developer 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. 7. 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, MnDOT, and Ramsey County prior to the start of any site activities. 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, all items identified in the September 1, 2021 Engineering Division memo shall be addressed. All comments shall be adopted herein by reference. 9. The final plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Building Official, and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. 10. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and City Planner prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 11. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as- built shall be provided to the City for review. 12. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 13. 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. 14. A right-of-way permit shall be required for work performed within the City right-of-way. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signs on the site. 18. The sign copy area for the freestanding monument signs shall be allowed up to 110 square feet as requested under the approved plans. All other signage shall comply with Sign District 5 regulations. 19. 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. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 7 20. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 21. 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. 22. The Applicant shall provide an agreement for shared management and maintenance of the site access, parking areas, landscaping, snow removal and common areas for the City Attorney to review and for the City Council’s approval prior to the approval of the Master PUD Development Agreement. 23. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 24. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Stormwater Management Report and verification of Rice Creek Watershed approval prior to the approval of the Development Agreement. 25. The property owner shall provide evidence of an updated ingress/egress easement for the proposed development or obtain an ingress/egress easement for use of the western access located on 3728 Dunlap Street prior to approval of the Development Agreement. Senior Planner Jagoe 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 Acting Chair Wicklund opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Jefferys reported there were a lot of requests for flexibility from the applicant and noted staff has recommended 25 conditions. She asked if the Commission would be approving all of the deviations from the City’s requirements if a motion for approval were made. Senior Planner Jagoe stated this would be the case with the conditions as drafted. Commissioner Subramanian thanked staff for the detailed report on this Planning Case. He discussed the location of the drive-thru and asked if the snow storage issue had been addressed. Senior Planner Jagoe deferred this question to the applicant. Dan Terwilliger, 2700 West 44th Street in Minneapolis, described where snow would be stored on the site. He noted there would not be any issues for the cars exiting the drive-thru. Commissioner Weber stated this was a complex request. He questioned if there were any façade deficiencies for the elevations facing Lexington Avenue. Senior Planner Jagoe explained the out parcel building facing Lexington Avenue and noted flexibility had been requested. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 8 Commissioner Weber commented on the Walgreens building and how it was oriented on the site. He questioned if the City was paying for the new sidewalk in the County right of way along Lexington Avenue. Senior Planner Jagoe stated she did not know the answer to this question. Acting Chair Wicklund requested further information on why businesses were orienting their buildings to the parking lot versus the main street of Lexington Avenue. Mr. Terwilliger reported tenants today want their storefront entrance as patrons walk in with parking up front. He stated this creates an easily walkable development. He explained if the front of the building were to face Lexington Avenue, patrons would have to walk around to another side of the building in order to access the front doors. Commissioner Weber stated this was reasonable, but noted the placement of the outlot building was also a concern to him. Commissioner Zimmerman discussed how it was sometimes difficult to place a building on a site in order to meet all of the City’s design standards. For this reason, flexibility can be offered in order to find middle ground where the City’s requirements and the developers standards mesh. He appreciated how the developer had tried to make this development as close to the City’s requirements as possible. Commissioner Subramanian questioned when construction would begin for this project. Mr. Terwilliger explained they would plan to begin demolition this fall with construction beginning next spring. Commissioner Jefferys stated she would like to have a better understanding why so many deviations from the City’s requirements was being requested. Ryan Anderson, ISG Civil Engineering, discussed the building placement in detail with the Commission. He explained the City required a 50 foot setback along Lexington Avenue, with the building required to be built at the 50 foot setback. He commented a 20 foot parking setback was also in place. He described how these requirements led him to the proposed building placement in order to create a destination for patrons. Acting Chair Wicklund requested further information regarding the landscaping flexibility. Senior Planner Jagoe reported the applicant was proposing to have 15% lot area coverage with landscaping when 25% was required by the City. She noted 14 trees were required within the development along the ROW and the applicant was proposing to plant four along the public street frontages. Mr. Anderson explained this was a tight site and was being retrofitted as it was now 100% impervious. He believed that he was bettering the situation by reducing this number to 85%. He understood he was short of meeting City Code, but noted 15% was in line with other communities for commercial developments. He was of the opinion 25% was a great deal of ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 9 greenspace for a commercial property. He commented further on the parking and screening that would be in place. Acting Chair Wicklund requested further information from the applicant regarding the flexibility that was requested for the free standing signs and pedestrian/bicycle circulation. Mr. Anderson stated sidewalks would be provided on both frontages (Lexington Avenue and Grey Fox Road). He noted the County was part of this project and would provide a new sidewalk along Lexington Avenue. He then discussed the free standing signs that would be installed on the property. He explained City Code allows 100 square feet of signs and he was requesting 110 square feet between the three tenants, which was how the architecture of the signs fell. Mr. Anderson commented that they would review the site plan to adjust the sidewalk width along Grey Fox Road and reduce the freestanding sign area to meet ordinance requirements. Acting Chair Wicklund requested further comment on the flexibility that was requested for the wall signs and drive-thru facilities. Mr. Anderson commented with double frontages it was ideal to have visibility from both sides of the building. For this reason, signs were requested for the building facades that faced Lexington Avenue and Grey Fox Road. He believed this helped with driver safety as well. He discussed the code requirements for drive-thrus in Arden Hills and noted the proposed drive-thru was not further than 1,320 feet from another drive-thru, which then required flexibility. He explained that the world was changing due to COVID and more businesses were in need of drive- thrus. Acting Chair Wicklund reported drive-thru flexibility has been offered by the City in the past for Dunn Brothers, the Goodwill, Jimmy John’s and Caribou. Commissioner Jefferys requested further information from the applicant regarding the building material flexibility. Mr. Anderson discussed the building materials that would be used for the Aldi building. He noted the upper story windows would provide natural light and transparency into the building. He reported the back of the building would be used for storage and coolers. He requested flexibility and that windows not be required along this elevation. He explained the building had been modified from the typical prototype to fit the site and the City’s requirements. Chad Haller, 10K Architecture representative, commented on the building materials that would be used on the out parcel building. He explained one elevation of the building would have store rooms and visible glass would create a long-term challenge. He discussed how the building materials were varied along this elevation to create interest. He indicated spandrel glass could be considered to assist him with meeting the City’s requirements. Councilmember Holmes commented on the spandrel glass that was used on the Goodwill. She encouraged the developer to consider using spandrel glass for the elevation facing Lexington Avenue. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 10 Acting Chair Wicklund explained the Commission has voiced concern as to what the elevation would look like along Lexington Avenue and encouraged the applicant to take this feedback into consideration prior to this request being considered by the City Council. Commissioner Jefferys requested further information regarding the off street parking setback flexibility. She questioned if the City had other parking lots with this same setback variance. Senior Planner Jagoe stated she did not have enough history with the City to know that information. Mr. Anderson reported this setback was requested to meet the City’s parking requirements. Commissioner Subramanian indicated the City requires 120 parking spaces and the applicant was proposing to have 143 total parking spaces. He questioned if the minimum landscape area could be met given the fact the applicant would be overparking the site. Mr. Anderson commented parking was a concern for the City Council and for this reason the site was over parked. He indicated he would consider adding more landscaping if this was the direction the City would like to move in. Commissioner Subramanian stated he would like to see this pursued further with the developer. Commissioner Weber discussed the large amount of greenspace that would be provided along Lexington Avenue. He indicated he was not concerned by the landscaping percentage. Acting Chair Wicklund opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Acting Chair Wicklund invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Acting Chair Wicklund closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Subramanian seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-019 for a Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Master Planned Unit Development, and Site Plan based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the September 8, 2021, report to the Planning Commission including conditions 24 and 25 as presented: 24. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Stormwater Management Report and verification of Rice Creek Watershed approval prior to the approval of Development Agreement. 25. The Property Owner shall provide evidence of or obtain an ingress/egress easement for use of the western access located on 3728 Dunlap Street. Commissioner Jefferys asked if this would be a time to note the applicants were willing to address several items and would be making changes. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 11 Acting Chair Wicklund indicated this would be included in the notes that were passed along to the City Council. Councilmember Holmes stated she would appreciate the Commission summarizing the comments from the applicant. Acting Chair Wicklund explained the concerns would be included in the minutes. Councilmember Holmes indicated she would like this information summarized within the motion. Commissioner Jefferys moved and Commissioner Weber seconded a motion to amend the original motion adding the following conditions: that the Applicant change the pedestrian and bicycle circulation to go from a five foot sidewalk to a six foot sidewalk, the Applicant should consider reconfiguring site layout for ratio of landscaping to number of parking spaces, the Applicant is to review the outparcel Lexington Avenue elevation to meet transparency requirements, and the free standing sign copy area should meet City Code as agreed upon by the Applicant. A roll call vote was taken. The amendment carried unanimously (5-0). A roll call vote was taken. The amended motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Planning Case 21-021; 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue – Minor Subdivision – Public Hearing This item was removed from the agenda. D. Planning Case 21-020; 2 Pine Tree Drive – Bethel University – PUD Amendment – Public Hearing Senior Planner Jagoe stated in 2013, Bethel University acquired the Country Financial facility at 2 Pine Tree Drive. The subject property is located within the B-2 General Business District, where higher educational uses are permitted by Conditional Use Permit (CUP). At its November 25, 2013 meeting, the City Council approved a CUP for Bethel University to use the existing facility as higher education. The campus is referenced as their “Anderson Center” location. The approx. 227,000 square foot multi-tenant building is a mixture of higher education and office/commercial uses. Senior Planner Jagoe explained the property was subdivided in 2020 and split into three lots and Outlot A to be used for utilities and access drive within the plat. Bethel University retained their parcel with existing development and Outlot A. A Planned Unit Development (PUD) was approved in January 2021 for New Perspective Senior Living to be developed on Lot 1. Lot 2 was sold to the Lake Johanna Fire Department and is currently undeveloped. Bethel University has an existing multitenant freestanding sign that is located along Pine Tree Drive on Lot 2. They are planning to move the multi-tenant freestanding sign to Outlot A which is owned by Bethel University. With this relocation, the Applicant is planning upgrades to the freestanding sign design and size. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 12 Senior Planner Jagoe reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The Applicant submitted an application for a Planned Unit Development 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 approximately 1.2 acres and is owned by the Applicant as part of the 2 Pine Tree North plat. 4. The Applicant is proposing an amendment to the approved PUD and CUP to allow a multitenant freestanding sign located on the subject property. 5. The Applicant and New Perspective Senior Living have an approved PUD and shared parking agreement. 6. The PUD Development Agreement for New Perspective Senior Living provides for shared access and specified utilization of the subject property. 7. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 8. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Development Plan for the City. Senior Planner Jagoe stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 21- 020 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 2 Pine Tree Drive and Outlot A, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the September 8, 2021, Report to the Planning Commission: 1. All conditions of the original Condition Use Permit and Planned Unit Development shall remain in full force and effect. 2. A separate sign permit shall be required and multi-tenant signage must meet all requirements of City Code Chapter 12. 3. Prior to issuance of a sign permit, the Applicant shall provide City Staff with a written statement from New Perspective Senior Living of their intent to forego a single-tenant monument sign and agreeing to the placement and utilization of the on-premise multitenant sign under the PUD. 4. All signage shall meet the requirements of Sign District 4. 5. The Applicant, the owner of Outlot A, shall be permitted one freestanding sign on the subject property. Senior Planner Jagoe 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 Acting Chair Wicklund opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Weber questioned if the existing sign would now be brighter. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 13 Senior Planner Jagoe deferred this question to the applicant. Rachel Gilbert, representative for Bethel University, clarified the sign was lit by floodlights and was not lit internally. Commissioner Weber questioned if a signed agreement with New Perspectives would be sufficient to legally prohibit them from installing a monument sign. Senior Planner Jagoe stated this could be confirmed with the City Attorney prior to the City Council meeting. Acting Chair Wicklund asked why the north side has been chosen for the monument sign. Ms. Gilbert discussed the property lines and noted the road was not centered within Outlot A and for this reason, the sign would only fit on the north side. She indicated the sign would not impede sight lines any further than the trees that were in this location. Acting Chair Wicklund opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Acting Chair Wicklund invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Acting Chair Wicklund closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Subramanian seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-020 for a Planned Unit Development Amendment at 2 Pine Tree Drive and Outlot A based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the September 8, 2021, report to the Planning Commission. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). E. Planning Case 21-023; City of Arden Hills – 3588 Ridgewood Road – Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Jagoe stated earlier this year, the City was contacted by two interested parties regarding purchasing the City owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road. City Staff had several internal discussions about how the City acquired the lot and development logistics in adherence to city code requirements. City Staff was unable to obtain title information from the Ramsey County Recorder’s Office document search for the subject parcel. Therefore, the City Attorney was directed to begin the process of a title search in order to obtain an Owners/Encumbrances Report. On August 6th, the City received the completed title report which confirmed that the property came from State through County as part of turnback of the old Snelling Avenue corridor ROW. There are no deed restrictions prohibiting the City from selling this parcel. Ramsey County records show the value of the parcel at $68,400. Senior Planner Jagoe reported the lot is considered a nonconforming lot. The R-1 District requires a 14,000 square foot lot with 95 ft. width and 130 ft. depth. This irregular shaped lot is about 13,500 square feet. The City Attorney has confirmed that a variance for the building of a ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 14 structure on the lot would be required. At the August 16th City Council Work Session, the Council discussed whether or not there was interest in selling the parcel and directed Staff to proceed with the process for potential listing. Additionally, the Council discussed the options for processing of a variance. The consensus of the Council was that any future listing of the property would disclose to a potential Buyer that they would need to have the variance applied for and approved prior to the closing of the property, as part of the purchase agreement. This way the City has an opportunity to approve the concept of buildability as long as all yard setbacks and design standards are met. The Council did not grant approval of the variance or review potential site layouts. Those items will be considered at a later date and would be up to the Future Buyer to provide documentation on site layout and code compliance. Senior Planner Jagoe stated based off of the direction given by the Council, Staff is presenting this item to the Planning Commission for review of consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has verified that the parcel is not dedicated for a public purpose that would prohibiting the sale (i.e. park land or public improvements). The parcel is not identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a site for future development to meet the needs of city infrastructure or operational activities. If the Commission recommends the disposal, Staff would begin the process of listing the property and allow a defined period of time for offers to be submitted. Senior Planner Jagoe reviewed the Site Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property at 3588 Ridgewood Road is located in the R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan has the property guided toward Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Plan. 3. The subject property is a nonconforming lot. 4. The development of the site for a single family residential dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 5. The adjacent properties are developed as single family residential and are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and are guided Low Density Residential uses in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 6. The sale of the city owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road is determined to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Senior Planner Jagoe stated staff recommends approval of Planning Case 21-023 recommending that a potential sale of City owned property at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as presented in the September 8, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission. Senior Planner Jagoe reviewed the options available to the Planning Commission on this matter: 1. Recommend Approval as Presented 2. Recommend Denial 3. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 15 Acting Chair Wicklund opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Subramanian questioned what the money would be used for when the properties are sold by the City. Councilmember Holmes explained anyone from the public could bid on the property and the funds would be placed in the General Fund. Councilmember Weber suggested the funds be placed in the Park Fund. He was of the opinion this was not a buildable lot and asked if the land could be sold to the adjacent neighbors. Senior Planner Jagoe stated the Planning Commission could recommend denial of the land sale. She indicated the adjacent property owners would have the same opportunity to purchase the land if listed for sale and then they would have to make application to subdivide the land between neighbors. Commissioner Zimmerman stated his only concern was that the lot would come back before the City with a request from a developer because this was a non-conforming lot. Senior Planner Jagoe commented any future buyer would have to apply for a variance and as part of that review demonstrate site layout and code compliance with any future request. Councilmember Holmes explained the Council understood this property was below the City’s required total lot area, which would require a variance. She noted the Council was concerned about additional variances being requested due to the lot size. Acting Chair Wicklund open the meeting for public comments. Jeff Magnuson, 3570 Ridgewood Road, stated he lived just south of this property. He explained it was unusual that this land could be sold given the fact it was an unbuildable lot. He was concerned with the fact the City was willing to sell this lot, which would lead to variances. He reported he placed his home on his lot with the understanding the adjacent lot was not buildable. Carla Taylor, 3583 Snelling Avenue North, indicated she made a huge investment when she relocated her driveway. She explained her driveway was changed for safety purposes. She stated at the time she changed her driveway she tried to purchase a portion of this property and was told this lot was unbuildable and was park land. She commented if this property was sold, the City was agreeing to make variances in order for a home to be built. She discussed how a home on this property would peer over her home and would require her to share her driveway. She indicated she was quite disturbed to have developers walking up her driveway with potential clients for this lot. She commented further on how the value of her home would be impacted if a home were located on this unbuildable lot. She requested the City allow her family and the Magnuson’s first right of refusal on this property. Kathy Nelson, 3475 Siems Court, stated she has been a resident of Arden Hills for the past 35 years. She discussed how her property would be impacted if a home were placed on the unbuildable lot. She expressed concern with the notification the City gave to the adjacent residents. She encouraged the City to take into consideration the fact that the neighbors were ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 16 told this was an unbuildable lot and had oriented their homes with this information in mind. She feared that there had been too many changes at the staff level and there had not been proper follow through for this property. She indicated she would like to see this lot remain as is. Acting Chair Wicklund closed the meeting for public comments. Acting Chair Wicklund explained the residents have stated the City of Arden Hills made the adjacent residents believe this lot was unbuildable and these residents made investment decisions for their homes and driveways based on this. He questioned what the Planning Commission should do with this information. He asked if there was a way to subdivide the lot and split it into two. Senior Planner Jagoe commented the lot could not be split into two new lots of record because the new lots would not meet the City’s standards. However, the neighbors could pursue a minor subdivision and then combine the lot area with the adjacent parcels. Commissioner Subramanian thanked the residents for coming forward and speaking to the Commission regarding their concerns. He noted things have changed and the City is considering selling this property. He asked if the property could be sold to the neighbors and it could be divided. Senior Planner Jagoe reported this may be possible by applying for a minor subdivision. Acting Chair Wicklund stated he would be willing to make this a condition for approval of the land sale. Senior Planner Jagoe explained the Commission was being asked if the land sale was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She reported a 60 day timeline was not in place for this Planning Case and noted the Commission could table action on this item. Councilmember Holmes indicated this was an unusual item that was only being reviewed by the Planning Commission and would not move forward to the City Council. Commissioner Weber commented this meant if the Planning Commission were to decline the request, the sale would not go forward. Senior Planner Jagoe reported this was the case noting the Commission would have to state reasons for the denial. Commissioner Weber stated he would like staff to investigate if the City designated this land park property with Ramsey County. Senior Planner Jagoe commented she had not contacted the County. However, she noted a title search was done and noted the land had no park land designation and there were no deed restrictions on the sale of the property. Commissioner Weber indicated this was a very unfortunate situation for the neighbors. He was of the opinion the land had to be sold with the understanding it was an unbuildable lot. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 17 Commissioner Subramanian questioned if the Planning Commission should wait to hear from the City Attorney as to how many variances would be required to build on this lot. Acting Chair Wicklund stated the Commission could move in this direction and noted the design of a building was quite complex. Commissioner Jefferys commented the question before the Commission was if the sale of this property was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. She understood it was unfortunate that the neighbors were told one thing, when in fact the sale of this land was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Acting Chair Wicklund suggested a condition be added for approval that reads: The sale should include an appraisal, a first right of approval to the neighbors north and south, prior to the land going to the public for sale. He then questioned what would happen if the Commission were to table action on this item in order to receive comment from the City Attorney regarding a structured sale of the property. He clarified again for the record, there was no rush to take action on this item. Senior Planner Jagoe reported this was the case. Acting Chair Wicklund supported the Commission tabling action on this Planning Case to seek legal opinion. Commissioner Subramanian agreed. Commissioner Zimmerman believed the adjacent residents should be brought in to discuss with the City how this land should be disbursed, especially given the fact they were told the land was unbuildable. Commissioner Weber moved and Commissioner Zimmerman seconded a motion to table action on this item pending a discussion with the City Attorney on the ability of directing conditions for the structure of the land sale. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes provided the Commission with an update from the City Council. She thanked the Planning Commission for their service to the community. She reported on October 2 an Arden Hills cleanup day would be held in Blaine at Green Recycling from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. She stated on October 5 a meeting would be held on the Lake Johanna Trail at Tony ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – September 8, 2021 18 Schmidt Park from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. She explained the State of the City would be held on October 7 at 7:30 p.m. at the Public Works Facility. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Jefferys requested the Commission discuss their role with the Comprehensive Plan at a future meeting. Commissioner Zimmerman encouraged the City Council to discuss the property sale taking into consideration the neighbors had been told this property was unbuildable. ADJOURN Commissioner Weber moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to adjourn the September 8, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting at 9:06 p.m. A roll call vote was taken. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). Page 1 of 5 PC Agenda Item – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: October 6, 2021 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #21-021 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: Jill and Greg Casmey Property Location: 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue Request: Minor Subdivision Requested Action Jill and Greg Casmey (“The Applicants”) are requesting the approval of a Minor Subdivision of their property located at 3300 New Brighton Road (“Subject Property A”) and their neighbor’s property located at 1893 Beckman Avenue (“Subject Property B”). Both subject properties are zoned R-2 – Single & Two Family Residential District and are guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Background 1. Overview of Request The Minor Subdivision has been requested to allow for the alteration of the property line between the subject properties. Currently, the two properties have joint access to a driveway that crosses the shared property line. The Applicants are requesting the Minor Subdivision to alter the property line to include all of the shared driveway. This would involve adding 796 square feet (excluding ROW) of property to Subject Property A, owned by the Applicants. Application Review 1. 1150.04 Division or Consolidation of Platted Lots of Record. In the case of an application to divide one or more lots platted into lots and blocks and designated in a subdivision plat on file and of record in the office of the recorder or registrar of titles for the county, into one or more separately described parcels, or an application for the consolidation of two or more such platted lots or parts thereof into one or more tracts, the City Page 2 of 5 Council, upon review and after report of the planning commission, may approve the subdivision or consolidation, upon compliance with the following conditions: Subd. 1 Survey. The owner(s) of the platted lot(s) to be so divided or consolidated shall file with the zoning administrator a survey or registered land survey of the lot(s) to be divided or consolidated. The survey or registered land survey shall be prepared and certified by a Licensed Surveyor. Criteria met. Subd. 2 Relation to Zoning Ordinance. The parcels or tracts resulting from the division or consolidation, as depicted in the survey or registered land survey, shall not have an area, dimensions or setbacks which are less than the minimum requirements specified for the zoning district in which the parcels or tracts are located in the zoning ordinance. Criteria met. Subd. 3 Public Welfare. It is determined that the proposed division or consolidation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. Criteria met. Subd. 4 Conformity. The proposed division or consolidation shall conform to such other requirements of this chapter, which the planning commission has specifically made such division or consolidation subject to at its first meeting at which the application for the division or consolidation is submitted. The City Council may add to or subtract from the requirements specified by the planning commission additional requirements of this chapter which it deems necessary for the protection of the health, safety, general welfare and convenience of the City and to secure the objectives of this chapter. Prior to the City Council's granting the owner(s) an exemption pursuant to this paragraph, the owner(s) shall comply with all the requirements of this chapter which the planning commission or City Council have specifically made the division or consolidation subject. Criteria met. Subd. 5 Such filing fee as has been established in a resolution adopted by the Council shall be paid the zoning administrator with every application for an exemption under this paragraph. Criteria met. 2. Zoning Code Review Lot Size and Dimensions The minimum lot area in the R-2 District is 11,000 square feet. The minimum lot width is 85 feet and the minimum depth is 120 feet. Subject Property A is 22,252 square feet (excluding ROW). Subject Property B is 22,500 square feet (excluding ROW). If the requested minor subdivision is approved, Subject Property A would be 23,048 square feet, and Subject Property B would be 21,704 square feet. Both parcels would comply with the minimum lot area, width, and depth in the R-2 District. Structure Setbacks with Adjusted Lot Lines No structural changes are proposed for the existing development on Property A or B. The minimum principal structure setbacks in the R-2 District are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in Page 3 of 5 the rear yard (Principal), a 5-foot minimum in the side yard with both side yards required to add up to a total of 15 feet (Principal), and 10 feet in the rear and side yard (Accessory). The existing accessory structure on Property B is a legal nonconforming structure because it encroaches into the 10-foot rear yard setback requirement. The proposed lot line adjustment does not impact setback requirements from the existing development or create a nonconformity on either parcel. Based on the survey provided, all applicable setbacks will be met as a result of the proposed lot line adjustment between Property A and B. Lot Coverage The maximum structure coverage permitted in the R-2 District is 25 percent of the lot area. The minimum landscape lot area is 65 percent. Both Subject Properties would meet the structure and landscape coverage requirements with the proposed subdivision. Driveway and Residential Access Each property in the subdivision is entitled to exactly one access to a public street. The permitted width of accesses to streets is subject to County or State regulations, depending on whether the connecting street is maintained by the city, county, or state. According to City Code Section 1325.06, Subd. 3 the minimum width of a driveway access into Shoreline Lane is ten (10) feet; the maximum width permitted is twenty-two (22) feet wide. A driveway access may be placed adjacent to property lines, but it cannot be placed closer than five (5) feet to an existing driveway on an abutting parcel, and no driveway access can be placed closer than five (5) feet to any other principal building. As noted above, the two properties have joint access to a driveway that crosses the shared property line along New Brighton Road. The Applicants are requesting the Minor Subdivision to alter the property line to include all of the driveway access along New Brighton Road as part of Property A. Property B will continue to utilize the existing driveway access off of Beckman Avenue to their residence and will discontinue use of the access off of New Brighton Road. The Applicants have identified that the Owner of Property B would be removing a section of the driveway to permanently discontinue use of the New Brighton Road access. The portion of driveway to be removed was not shown on the site survey submitted, but the Applicant has provided an illustration of where pavement will be removed. The proposed lot line adjustment will bring the properties into compliance with code requirements. 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: New Lot Line A B Page 4 of 5 1. The properties at 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue are located in the R-2 – Single and Two Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan designates the properties at 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue as Low Density Residential. 3. The Applicants have submitted an application for a Minor Subdivision to adjust the side yard lot line between the two existing properties. 4. The proposed Minor Subdivision is not creating a new lot of record. 5. The request proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner as a single-family dwelling. 6. The Owner of the platted lot has filed with the zoning administrator a registered land survey of the lot line adjustment. 7. The proposed division will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located. 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- 021 for a Minor Subdivision at 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the October 6, 2021, Report to the Planning Commission: 1) The Applicant shall record the Minor Subdivision with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City’s approval. 2) The Applicant shall record the drainage and utility easements as shown on the submitted survey with Ramsey County and a copy shall be provided to the City within sixty (60) days of the City’s approval. 3) Monument stakes shall be installed to demarcate the property lines adjusted between Property A and Property B. 2. Recommend Approval without Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 21-021 for a Minor Subdivision at 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue, based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the October 6, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 21-021 for a Minor Subdivision at 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue, based on the following findings of fact: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 21-021 for a Minor Subdivision at 3300 New Brighton Road and 1893 Beckman Avenue for the following reasons: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Page 5 of 5 Public Notice and Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on September 24, 2021. Notice 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. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on August 16, 2021. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by October 15, 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. The Applicants provided formal notice to the City on September 7, 2021 of their request to table review to the October meeting cycle and waived the 60-day review period. Attachments A. Location Map B. Land Use Application C. Certificate of Survey Location Map Tax Parcels _Query result Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 9/1/2021, 8:36:31 AM 0 0.03 0.050.01 mi 0 0.04 0.080.02 km 1:1,200 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Page 1 of 3 PC Agenda Item - 3B MEMORANDUM DATE: October 6, 2021 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #21-023 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Sale of City Owned Parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road Requested Action The Planning Commission shall review and provide a recommendation whether a potential sale of the City owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Background At the September 8th Planning Commission meeting, the Commission made a motion to table action on this agenda item in order to seek a legal opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not conditions could be included directing the process of the land sale. Following this action, City Staff contacted the City Attorney to verify the discretion allowed within this review. The City Attorney has confirmed that as established by State Statute the role of the Planning Commission is this instance is limited to determining whether or not the proposed sale is in compliance with the Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The Planning Commission does not have the authority to add conditions to direct the terms of the sale. Also from this meeting, the Commission noted that Ramsey County’s GIS had shown a map label of “Park” on the subject parcel. This label was populated within their mapping layers under Lot Text. City Staff contacted the Assessor’s Office to research prior documentation of park dedication. The County noted that it was possible they had this identifier prior to the City acquiring the land and that the map was never updated, but no formal dedication was found. The City Attorney has reviewed the information and questions raised by the Commission regarding this map label. Their office has confirmed that a statement of purpose for which a property is to be used is not sufficient to create a restrictive use covenant. Such a restriction would have required language within the deed. On August 6th, the City received the completed title report (Attachment C) which confirmed there are no deed restrictions prohibiting the City from selling this parcel. Page 2 of 3 General Procedures City Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 220.03 Subd.2.B for Planning Commission Powers and Duties states the following: B. The Planning Commission shall review the proposed acquisitions and disposal of real property and proposed public improvements to real property and shall advise the City Council in writing whether such acquisitions, disposals, or improvements are in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Failure of the Planning Commission to report on the proposal within forty-five (45) days after referral by the City Council or within such other reasonable period as may be designated by the City Council shall be deemed to have satisfied this review requirement. The City Council may, by resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of four (4) Council Members, dispense with this review requirement if in its judgment the City Council determines that such proposal has no relationship to the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The review of the Planning Commission is further instructed in State Statute 462.356, Subd. 2 Procedure to Effect Plan: Generally which requires that, before a City acquire or dispose of any interest in property that the Planning Commission review the proposed transaction for consistency with the comprehensive plan. Below is the language in its entirety from this subdivision: Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan. The City Attorney has advised that a public hearing is not required for the disposal of city property. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy and neighboring property owners were notified. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed disposal of real property is in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: Page 3 of 3 General Findings: 1. The property at 3588 Ridgewood Road is located in the R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan has the property guided toward Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Plan. 3. The subject property is a nonconforming lot. 4. The development of the site for a single family residential dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 5. The adjacent properties are developed as single family residential and are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and are guided Low Density Residential uses in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 6. The sale of the city owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road is determined to be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 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 21-023 recommending that a potential sale of City owned property at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as presented in the September 8 and October 6, 2021 Reports to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 21-023: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 21-023: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notices A public hearing is not required for this review. Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on September 24, 2021. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A. Location Map B. Location Map with Dimensions C. Title Search D. September Planning Commission Memo Location Map Tax Parcels _Query result Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 8/12/2021, 9:06:37 AM 0 0.03 0.050.01 mi 0 0.04 0.080.02 km 1:1,200 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN 3588 Ridgewood Road Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices Easements Misc Easements Ditch, County & Judicial Other Parking Pedestrian Private Access Private Driveway Public Right of Way Ponding Railroad Undetermined Drainage Drainage & Utility Utility Survey Lots Lot Other Outlot Park Tract Land Ties Subdivisions Subdivision Plat 9/28/2021, 1:53:27 PM 0 0.01 0.020mi 0 0.01 0.020.01 km 1:360 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Land Title, Inc. (Main Office)· 2200 County Road C West, Suite 2205 • Roseville, MN 55113 website landtitleinc.com • phone 651.638.1900 • fax 651.638.1994 August 6, 2021 Re: Customer: TBD Property Address: 3588 Ridgewood Road, Arden Hills, MN 55112 Your Reference No. LT File No.: 642966 Enclosed herewith please find the item(s) requested. Thank you for choosing Land Title, Inc., we appreciate your business. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Very truly yours, Land Title, Inc. 2200 County Road C West, Suite 2205 Email Not Assigned Phone Page 1 of 2 LT File Number: 642966 Report prepared on: August 6, 2021 Prepared for: Campbell Knutson 860 Blue Gentian Road Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 Attn: Jean Olson Client File No.: PROPERTY REPORT Applicant:City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota municipal corporation Property Address:3588 Ridgewood Road, Arden Hills, MN 55112 County:Ramsey State:Minnesota Property Type:Abstract Property LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THAT PART LYING SOUTHERLY OF KENNA ADDITION, NORTHERLY OF ARDEN HILLS PLAT, WESTERLY OF HIGHWAY 51 AND EASTERLY OF RIDGEWOOD ROAD IN THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 30, RANGE 23, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA. NOTE: This is a Ramsey County Tax Department Legal Description. APPARENT RECORD OWNER: City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota municipal corporation QUIT CLAIM DEED: County of Ramsey, a Minnesota political subdivision to City of Arden Hills, a Minnesota municipal corporation ; DOCUMENT NO.: 2056072; DATED: December 18, 1978; FILED: September 21, 1979. OPEN MORTGAGES AND LIENS: 1. CORRECTIVE QUIT CLAIM DEED (SHOWN FOR REFERENCE) Document No.: 1964787 Dated: May 30, 1974 Filed: May 11, 1977 2. PLAT OF ARDEN HILLS (SHOWN FOR REFERENCE) 3. PLAT OF KENNA ADDITION (SHOWN FOR REFERENCE) Page 2 of 2 TAX INFORMATION: Tax I.D. No.: 34-30-23-22-0033 Taxes for the year 2021: $0.00, Total, are 1st 1/2 Paid, 2nd 1/2 Paid Delinquent Tax: None Base Tax: $0 (Non-Homestead) Estimated Market Value: $68,400.00 Assessed in the name of: City of Arden Hills This Property Report is not a title examination, title opinion, title insurance commitment or title insurance policy. This report is furnished for the use and benefit of the requesting party. The liability of the reporting company caused by inaccuracies contained herein is limited to the amount paid for in said report. Land Title, Inc.  2200 West County Road C, Suite 2205, Roseville, MN 55113  phone (651) 638-1900  fax (651) 697-6185  landtitleinc.com POSTED EFFECTIVE DATE: 23rd day of July, 2021 By: An Authorized Signature Page 1 of 4 PC AGENDA ITEM – 3E MEMORANDUM DATE: September 8, 2021 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #21-023 – No Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Sale of City Owned Parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road Requested Action The Planning Commission shall review and provide a recommendation whether a potential sale of the City owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Background Earlier this year, the City was contacted by two interested parties regarding purchasing the City owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road (Attachments A & B). City Staff had several internal discussions about how the City acquired the lot and development logistics in adherence to city code requirements. City Staff was unable to obtain title information from the Ramsey County Recorder’s Office document search for the subject parcel. Therefore, the City Attorney was directed to begin the process of a title search in order to obtain an Owners/Encumbrances Report. On August 6th, the City received the completed title report (Attachment C) which confirmed that the property came from State through County as part of turnback of the old Snelling Avenue corridor ROW. There are no deed restrictions prohibiting the City from selling this parcel. Ramsey County records show the value of the parcel at $68,400. The lot is considered a nonconforming lot. The R-1 District requires a 14,000 square foot lot with 95 ft. width and 130 ft. depth. This irregular shaped lot is about 13,500 square feet. The City Attorney has confirmed that a variance for the building of a structure on the lot would be required. At the August 16th City Council Work Session, the Council discussed whether or not there was interest in selling the parcel and directed Staff to proceed with the process for potential listing. Additionally, the Council discussed the options for process ing of a variance. The consensus of the Council was that any future listing of the property would disclose to a potential Buyer that they would need to have the variance applied for and approved prior to the closing of the property, as part of the purchase agreement. This way the City has an opportunity to approve the concept of buildability as long as all yard setbacks and design standards are met. The Council did not grant approval of the variance or review potential site layouts. Those items will Page 2 of 4 be considered at a later date and would be up to the Future Buyer to provide documentation on site layout and code compliance. Based off of the direction given by the Council, Staff is presenting this item to the Planning Commission for review of consistency with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has verified that the parcel is not dedicated for a public purpose that would prohibiting the sale (i.e. park land or public improvements). The parcel is not identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a site for future development to meet the needs of city infrastructure or operational activities. If the Commission recommends the disposal, Staff would begin the process of listing the property and allow a defined period of time for offers to be submitted. Site Evaluation The property at 3588 Ridgewood Road is zoned R-1, Single Family Residential. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan has this property guided towards LDR, Low Density Residential. The parcel is currently undeveloped and is expected to be sold for the development of a single -family residential dwelling which is permitted in this zoning district. No additional information is available at this time with regards to future plans for construction. This is a nonconforming lot of record because the lot does not meet the minimum lot requirements in the R-1 zoning district. The parcel has an irregular shape with double road frontage along Ridgewood Road and Snelling Avenue North. Total Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Zoning Code R-1 District 14,000 square feet 95 feet 130 feet 3588 Ridgewood Drive 13,500 square feet Approx. 100 feet Approx. 99 feet to 115 feet As previously noted, the parcel would require a variance for development of the site. However, a Future Buyer would need to demonstrate that future construction of a dwelling meets all applicable city codes with regards to setbacks, FAR, lot coverage, etc. prior to closing of the property. General Procedures City Ordinance Chapter 2, Section 220.03 Subd.2.B for Planning Commission Powers and Duties states the following: B. The Planning Commission shall review the proposed acquisitions and disposal of real property and proposed public improvements to real property and shall advise the City Council in writing whether such acquisitions, disposals, or improvements are in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. Failure of the Planning Commission to report on the proposal within forty-five (45) days after referral by the City Council or within such other reasonable period as may be designated by the City Council shall be deemed to have satisfied this review requirement. The City Council may, by resolution adopted by an affirmative vote of four (4) Council Members, dispense with this review requirement if in its judgment the City Council determines that such proposal has no relationship to the City's Comprehensive Municipal Plan. The review of the Planning Commission is further instructed in State Statute 462.356, Subd. 2 Procedure to Effect Plan: Generally which requires that, before a City acquire or dispose of any Page 3 of 4 interest in property that the Planning Commission review the proposed transaction for consistency with the comprehensive plan. Below is the language in its entirety from this subdivision: Subd. 2. Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property within the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of, nor shall any capital improvement be authorized by the municipality or special district or agency thereof or any other political subdivision having jurisdiction within the municipality until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal, or capital improvement and reported in writing to the governing body or other special district or agency or political subdivision concerned, its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition or disposal of real property or capital improvement has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan. The City Attorney has advised that a public hearing is not required for the disposal of city property. Notification was prepared in accordance with City policy and neighboring property owners were notified. Additional Review David Swearingen, Interim Public Works Director, has indicated that water and sewer service stubs do not exist for the property. The extension of services to the property must be connected at the City mainline located within the street which is more costly as a result. This is additional information that would be beneficial to include in the listing and would be at the expense of the Future Buyer to install. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed disposal of real property is in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. The property at 3588 Ridgewood Road is located in the R-1, Single Family Residential Zoning District. 2. The Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan has the property guided toward Low Density Residential on the Future Land Use Plan. 3. The subject property is a nonconforming lot. 4. The development of the site for a single family residential dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 5. The adjacent properties are developed as single family residential and are zoned R-1 Single Family Residential and are guided Low Density Residential uses in the Arden Hills 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 6. The sale of the city owned parcel at 3588 Ridgewood Road is determined to be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Page 4 of 4 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 21-023 recommending that a potential sale of City owned property at 3588 Ridgewood Road would be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan as presented in the September 8, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission.  Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 21-023: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial.  Table: Motion to table Planning Case 21-023: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Public Notices A public hearing is not required for this review. Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on August 26, 2021. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A. Location Map B. Location Map with Dimensions C. Title Search Page 1 of 3 PC Agenda Item - 3C MEMORANDUM DATE: October 6, 2021 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #21-024 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Zoning Code Amendment – Chapter 13 – Sections 1320.06 and 1325.05 Requested Action The City of Arden Hills is proposing an ordinance amendment in the Zoning Ordinance that will amend and strike language in the B-2, General Business District and B-3, Service Business District regarding design standards for building façade and setback requirements relative to front yard and parking areas. Background Starting in 2018, the City Council began discussions on possible amendments with regards to the design standards and placement of buildings for the B-2 Zoning District. The B-2 District generally includes the properties along the County Road E corridor between Highway 51 and Lexington Avenue North. The district is a mix of new and older buildings and primarily retail, service, and office uses. For new development in this district, the Zoning Code identifies design standards that regulate placement of the building and parking areas. The City Council’s initial review involved discussions on the front yard setback in business districts and consideration for amending the language from 20 feet to 50 feet to be consistent with the B-3 District . In addition, the Council reviewed removal of two parking setback requirements that would allow a Developer more flexibility in the placement of buildings and parking areas in the B-2 District. From this initial work session, the City Council also identified additional concerns with building façade requirements. In 2019 and 2020, the City Council held two more work sessions whereby providing feedback and direction to staff on revisions for consideration in the B-2 District . The Council requested staff review the transparency requirements for commercial developments as well as the use of other types of coating on glass as a means of complying with ordinance requirements. At the work session meeting on December 21, 2020, the City Council discussed the Staff suggested amendments regarding front yard setback and removal of design standard language in order to allow more flexibility in placement of the buildings in B-2 District. The consensus was Page 2 of 3 to remove a sentence within Commercial Façade Transparency, Section 1325.05, Subd. 8, F.1 that allowed discretion for waiving the transparency requirements. The rational was that this flexibility already exists through the Planned Unit Development review and a Developer could suggest alternate considerations. For façade transparency, the City will continue to require 50% of all first level building facades that front a public street to be comprised of transparent windows or doors. The language to be removed was a second requirement of 20% for all facades that are reasonably visible from the right-of-way. With the language amendments to the building and parking setbacks it is anticipated that there will be fewer issues on design challenges with building orientation and the back side of a building facing the public street. The proposed changes still ensures that the appearance of blank walls would not face the street. Following the discussion, Staff was directed to bring forward the proposed ordinance amendments to the Planning Commission and to hold a public hearing. Overview of Ordinance Amendments Staff has prepared draft ordinance language with amended and striking of language as shown in red font for your review (Attachments A and B). The following are the sections and language amendments proposed: • Amending – 1320.06 District Requirements Chart: o Front Yard Setback requirement from 20 feet to 50 feet • Amending - 1325.05 Design Standards, Subd. 8, F.1.A: o Fifty percent (50%) of all first level building façades that front a public street shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors in order to allow views of interior uses and activities. Transparency requirement may be waived by the City where privacy concerns warrant. • Striking - 1325.05 Design Standards, Subd. 8, F.1. B: o Twenty percent (20%) of all other first level building facades that are reasonably visible from the public right of way shall be comprised of window or door openings. Simulated or opaque windows may be used on service areas. • Striking - 1325.05, Subd. 8, M. Parking (1) (2): o Placing parking between the street right-of-way and a building shall be discouraged. o No more than 50 percent of the parking on a site may be between buildings or in the side yards. The Planning Commission should note t hat the proposed ordinance language from Section 1325.05, Subd. 8 applies to New Development, Redevelopment, and Modifications to Existing Sites in the B-2 and B-3 District. The City Council has identified that a further review of the B-3 District standards may be forthcoming. However, priority has been given to removal of outdated language and modifying language with an emphasis pertinent to the B-2 District. Lastly, an ordinance amendment to the Zoning Code does require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Additional Review N/A Page 3 of 3 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 to amend ordinance language for the design standards in the B-2, General Business Zoning District and B-3, Service Business District . 2. The City of Arden Hills is proposing a front yard setback of 50 feet in the B-2, General Business Zoning District. 3. The proposed ordinance will include amendments to the language of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code of the City Code. 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 21-024 as presented (or as modified by Planning Commission) for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to amend and strike ordinance language in the B-2, General Business District for the front yard setback as well as requirements to building façade and parking setback standards that includes the B-3, Service Business District as presented in the October 6, 2021 Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 21-024 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to amend and strike ordinance language in the B-2, General Business District for the front yard setback as well as requirements to building façade and parking setback standards that includes the B-3, Service Business District: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial. • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 21-024 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13 of the Arden Hills City Code to amend and strike ordinance language in the B-2, General Business District for the front yard setback as well as requirements to building façade and parking setback standards that includes the B-3, Service Business District: 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 September 24, 2021. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A. Draft District Provisions Table B. Draft Ordinance Language City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Section 1320 – District Provisions Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 3 of 5 *See Sections 1320.07 – 1320.14 for further requirements. ** But in no case less than 1/2 Building Height. *** See Section 1330.03. R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 NB B-1 B-2 *B-3 *B-4 CC *G-B I-1 I-2 I-FLEX CD POS INST 1. Minimum Lot Area (SF per Dwelling Unit) Single Family 14,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 == == == == == == == == == == ====== Two Family 14,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 == == == == == == == == == == ====== Multiple Family PUD == ==5,450 3,630 == ==2,178 == == == == == == == ====== 2. Minimum Lot Area (SF) Non-Residential Uses 14,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 ==20,000 5 AC 30,000 24,000 24,000 ====13,000 Mixed Use Project or == Multiple Occupancy Center == == == ====13,000 ==5 AC ==20 AC == == == Single Use Project or Free Standing Building == == == ====13,000 ==2 AC ==10 AC == == == ====== 3. Minimum Lot Size (ft) Width/Depth Non-residential == == == ==100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/100 100/130 100/130 100/130 100/130 ====100/130 Single Family 95/130 85/120 85/120 85/120 == == == == == == == == == == ====== Two Family 95/130 85/120 85/120 85/120 == == == == == == == == == == ====== 4. Height (ft.)35 35 35 35 35 35 50 35 35 35 35 35 45 45 35 35 35 5. Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.)0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.8 ==0.6 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.7 6. Lot Covered by Structure 25% 25% 25% 25% 35% 35% 45%40%25%40%==30% 40% 40% 25% 25% 35% 7. Min. Landscape Lot Area 65% 65% 65% 65% 35% 25%20%25% 25%20%35% 35% 25% 25% 65% 65% 25% 8. Minimum Building Setbacks (ft) Front yard 40 40 40 40 20 50 20 50 50 20 50 55 50 50 40 40 50 Rear Yard (Principle)30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 30 30 20 Rear Yard (Accessory)10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Side Yard Interior - Principal (Min/total both yards on lot)10/25 5/15 5/15 5/15 5/15 20/40 10-20 20/40 20/40 10-20 20/40 ** 20/40 20/40 20/40 10/20 10/20 20/40 Side Yard Interior - Accessory 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Side Yard Corner 40 40 40 40 20 50 20 50 50 20 50 50 50 50 40 40 50 Other Setbacks Lakeshore - High Water Mark*** Abutting Residential Zoning District == == == ==30 100 ==100 100 60 100 100 100 100 100 = = = = 100 20 12 ========== 9. PUD & SUP Maximum Dwelling Unit Density Per Net Acre 3 5.5 8 12 ==== ==== 20 ==== == == 50 City of Arden Hills Chapter 13 Zoning Code Section 1320 – District Provisions Adopted: November 13, 2006 Page 4 of 5 **** Total housing units and building square footage will be determined based on the capacity of the adjacent roadways and interse ctions as determined by the required traffic study and may be reduced. 1325.05 Design Standards. Subd. 8 Additional Design Standards for New Development, Redevelopment, and Modifications to Existing Sites in the B2 and B3 Districts. (revised 04/27/15) Unless preempted by the standards in this section, all other zoning provisions shall apply: A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of these additional design standards is to promote a high level of architectural, landscaping, and site design in the business districts of Arden Hills. The City seeks to create a unified, harmonious, and high -quality environment to foster a distinct, positive, and successful image for the City. The criteria by which new development, redevelopment, and site modifications in the Districts shall be judged are as follows: 1. Consistency with provisions of the comprehensive plan and other guiding plans as amended from time to time; provisions of the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance; and all other applicable regulations. 2. Use of appropriate materials, lighting, textures, colors, and architectural and landscape forms to create a unified, high -quality design concept for each site that is compatible with adjacent and neighboring structures and functions. 3. Creation of unified site designs, each with a sense of internal order, that provide desirable environments for site users and visitors and the community as a whole and that consider all site elements. 4. Provision of safe and adequate access from public streets to sites giving ample consideration to the location and number of access points, the safety and convenience of merging and turning movements, and traffic management and mitigation. 5. Provision of on-site vehicular, bicycling, and pedestrian circulation by way of interior drives, parking areas, pathways, and walkways adequate to handle anticipated needs and to safety buffer pedestrians and cyclists from motor vehicles. Ample consideration shall be given to the width of interior drives, internal traffic movement and flow, separation of pedestrian, cycling, automobile; and delivery traffic, and the safe, convenient, and practical arrangement of parking spaces. B. Application. The standards in this Section should apply only to the building or site elements being d eveloped or altered (i.e. a proposal for changes to a building would be required to meet only those standards that pertain to buildings while changes to a parking area would be required to meet the standards for parking areas but not for buildings). The design standards shall be applied proportionately to the degree of change proposed. Upon recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council may waive specific design standards based on the scale of the project. The City Council shall make the f inal determination on the compatibility and consistency with the design standards. C. Architectural Style and Building Character. Evaluation of a project shall be based on the quality of its design and on its relationship to its surroundings. Site characteristics to be evaluated for this purpose include, but are not limited to, building and landscaping materials, colors, textures, shapes, massing, building components, height, roof -line, and setback. Monotony of design, both within projects and be tween projects and its surrounding, is prohibited. Variation in detail, form, and arrangement shall provide visual interest. (revised 11/25/13) D. Buildings shall be constructed of materials that are enduring, timeless, and well - detailed. Other new materials of equal or better quality to those listed may be approved by the Community Development Department. (revised 11/25/13) 1. At least seventy-five percent (75%) of the exterior building materials shall be of brick masonry, tile masonr y, natural stone (or synthetic equivalent), decorative concrete plank, transparent glass or any combination thereof. (revised 11/25/13) 2. Trim and other accent or decorative features may be metal, wood, split faced block, EIFS, or stucco. Metals shall have a matte finish and have visible corner moldings and trim when used on exterior walls. EIFS shall be located at least twelve (12) feet above the ground line. (revised 11/25/13) 3. Undesirable materials shall include simulated brick , vinyl or aluminum siding, sheet or corrugated metal siding, plain concrete blocks or panels, brightly colored metal roofing or canopies, pre -cast tilt-up walls, mirrored or reflective glass, and materials that represent corporate colors or logos not in conformance with approved building materials. (revised 11/25/13) E. Building Design. The arrangement, massing, materials and colors shall work to create a high quality development that is responsive to existing buildings, site features, and site design on adjoining sites in the district. (revised 11/25/13) 1. At least fifty percent (50%) of the largest building on each site shall be constructed at the front setback line. 2. Façade treatment shall be carried around all sides. Architectural elements such as, but not limited to, windows, shutters, awnings, doors, masonry exterior veneers, cornice detailing, window casings, and other architectural details should demonstrate consistency on all sides of the structure that are reason ably visible to the general public. Plain flat walls shall not be permitted when viewable from the public right -of-way or public areas. 3. To avoid long unbroken expanses and to increase visual interest from the street, buildings of more than 4 0 feet in width shall be divided into smaller increments (between 20 and 40 feet) through articulation of the facades to convey the impression of individually-constructed small storefronts or, in the case of housing, housing units. This can be achieved through the combination of the following techniques: a) The use of windows and doors; b) Façade modulation -stepping backward or forward or extending a portion of the façade; c) Vertical divisions into storefronts with separate display windows and entrances; d) Recesses and projections such as porches, dormers and bays that create shadows and add visual interest; e) Variation in the rooflines by using multiple roof and ridge lines perpendicu lar to one another, offsetting single roof lines, stepped roofs; f) Providing a lighting fixture, trellis, tree, or other landscape feature with each interval. 4. Awnings or overhangs shall be provided at the primary entryway and a t all entrances fronting a public street to provide protection for pedestrians. Awnings shall be opaque so as not to create a glowing effect with lights under the awnings. Awnings shall be constructed of durable and protective material, and shall be prop erly maintained. Plastic or fiberglass awnings shall not be permitted. (revised 11/25/13) 5. Any multi-level building shall distinguish the ground floor level from the upper floors by use of any or a combination of these techniques: an intermediate cornice line, difference in building materials or details, awnings trellis or arcade, special window details, or brick corbels or quoins. A strong base and top for multi-story buildings shall be established; middle layers shall be simpler. Detail shall be an integral part of the architecture rather than a series of applied elements. 6. Standardized corporate or franchise architecture identified with a particular chain shall be discouraged unless it is compatible with surrounding architect ure and conforms to these design standards. (revised 11/25/13) 7. Entrances shall have convenient access to the street frontage and to parking serving the use. For those properties along County Road E, access to the street frontage shall be given priority where feasible. F. Window and Door Openings (revised 11/25/13) 1. Commercial Façade Transparency. a) Fifty percent (50%) of all first level building façades that front a public street shall be comprised of transparent windows or doors in order to allow views of interior uses and activities. Transparency requirement may be waived by the City where privacy concerns warrant. (revised 11/30/15) b) Twenty percent (20%) of all other first level buildi ng facades that are reasonably visible from the public right of way shall be comprised of window or door openings. Simulated or opaque windows may be used on service areas. (revised 11/30/15) bc) If the building is a one story design and the first floor elevation exceeds twelve (12) feet, then only the first twelve (12) feet shall be included in calculating the façade area. (revised 11/30/15) cd) The City may consider a proportional reduction in the transparent window and door requirement on the public street façade if additional transparent glass is used on the remaining sides. (revised 11/30/15) 2. Residential Façade Transparency. Twenty percent (20%) of all residential building façades that front a public street sh all be comprised of transparent windows or doors in order to allow views of interior uses and activities. Transparency requirement may be waived by the City where privacy concerns warrant. (revised 11/30/15) 3. Configurations. The shape, size, and placement of windows and doors shall emphasize the intended organization and articulation of the façade. Windows and doors shall be recessed at least one inch rather than being flush with the building façade. (revised 11/25/13) 4. Materials. Acceptable materials for window trim include anodized aluminum, steel, wood, and clad wood. Door trim shall be made of steel, wood, or clad wood. (revised 11/25/13) 5. For buildings with a use or function that does not readily allow window s (e.g. cooler or freezer areas, mechanical rooms, security areas, storage areas) the transparent window standards may be reduced at the discretion of the City Council. However, aesthetic interest must be provided by the use of upper level windows or arch itectural detailing that provides arches, patterning, recesses, and shadowing. Architectural detailing may include such things as change in materials, change in color and other significant visual relief provided in a manner or at intervals in keeping with the size, mass, and scale of the wall. (revised 11/25/13) G. Building Color. Building colors shall be muted. Recommended colors include browns, grays, tans, beiges, and dark or muted green, blues, and reds. Bright or brilliant colors and sharply contrasting colors may be used for only accent purposes occupying a maximum of five percent (5%) of building façades. (revised 11/25/13) H. Fences. Fences shall blend into the landscape, be compatible with other materials used on site, and be ma de of a material that minimizes corrosion. Finished and treated wood, brick, stone or wrought iron is encouraged. I. Signs. 1. Business signs shall be architecturally compatible with the style, materials, colors and details of the building. Signs shall be incorporated into the façades of the buildings rather than extending past the roof line and should not project more than twelve (12) inches beyond the plane of the façades. Retail business wall signs shall be located in a position a bove the front window that is located consistently among stores. (revised 11/25/13) 2. All other provisions in Chapter 12, Sign Code, shall apply. J. Site Furnishings and Seating Areas. 1. Site furnishings shall be provided b ased on the scale of the project. The site furnishings may be spread out on the site or clustered to provide a more formal area. Placing site furnishings near landscaped areas is encouraged. These areas may be shared by multiple tenants on a property or adjacent properties and may include tables, chairs, benches, plantings, and other outdoor amenities such as a plaza. These areas shall be maintained for year round use. Creativity is highly encouraged. These spaces shall be connected to the sidewalk sy stem. 2. Benches and decorative plantings shall be provided near the primary entrance of all buildings on a site. 3. Restaurants shall include a functional outdoor seating area with tables, chairs, plantings, and access to the restau rant. a) No outdoor seating shall be permitted in any portion of the public sidewalks where normal pedestrian traffic flow is obstructed. b) The outdoor seating area shall not be used for exterior storage when the area is not in use. (revised 11/25/13) c) These areas shall be distinguished with decorative fencing and/or plantings. d) If alcoholic beverages are served, the establishment shall take reasonable steps to insure that alcoholic beverages a re consumed only by patrons of the establishment who are of age. All other provisions related to the license to serve alcohol shall apply. K. Screening. 1. Trash and recycling equipment, materials, and containers shall be fully enclosed and integrated into the architecture of the buildings. 2. All mechanical equipment, whether roof -mounted or ground-mounted should be integrated into the architecture of the building. It shall be completely screened from the ground-level view of adjacent properties and public streets. Wood screening shall not be permitted. 3. Truck docks and delivery areas shall face away from the public street and shall be integrated into the architecture of the building. L. Landscaping. A minimum of one tree shall be placed along the right -of-way every forty (40) feet. The tree shall not interfere with the roadway and shall be on private property. (revised 11/25/13) M. Parking. 1. Placing parking between the street right-of-way and a building shall be discouraged. 2. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the parking on a site may be between buildings or in the side yards. 13. Sufficient parking shall be provided to accommodate the reasonable hour ly peak on a given site. Shared parking is encouraged to reduce land devoted to parking. Hourly variations among different types of land use may be considered when estimated parking demands. 24. Plantings shall be used to soften and shade park ing lots and parking structures. Parking adjacent to streets should be screened from view with landscaping, including but not limited to trees, hedges, flowers and other bushes and/or decorative masonry walls. Berms shall be discouraged. (revised 11/25/1 3) 35. Parking lot islands shall be used to distribute large parking lots into separate areas. Parking lot islands shall be planted with trees or include infiltration basins and plantings. Entry drives shall be defined by trees and shrubs. (re vised 11/25/13) 46. A concrete curb shall be provided around the periphery of all parking lots and access roads, except where the City Engineer determines that a curb would impede drainage. 57. Parking structures that are visible fro m off the site shall display an integration of building materials, form, and colors with the principal building. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades. (revised 11/25/13) 68. Parking structures that are visible from off the site shall display an integration of building materials building form, textures, architectural motif, and building colors with the principal building. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facade s. N. Traffic Study. A traffic study shall be required for all new developments, redevelopments, and significant modifications to existing sites unless waived by the City Council. O. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be provided for the safety and convenience of occupants and visitors. 1. A lighting plan shall be submitted that shows location, type of illumination and design. A photometric analysis of site and building shall be submitted for City approval with all new construction or redevelopment projects. 2. Exterior lighting shall be consistent in type, design, scale, and color to create unity in the Districts. High-pressure sodium lighting and other similar types of lighting color may be required by the City to promote a unified lighting color throughout the Districts. Other lighting colors may be considered during the City review process. 3. Exterior lighting for parking lots and buildings shall not be excessive and shall be directed at their intende d purposes. 4. Lighting under a gasoline station canopy shall not be directly visible from the street but shall be recessed into the canopy or otherwise shielded. 5. Light washing of buildings and accent lighting may be permitted thr ough the City review process provided that it does not negatively impact residential areas or traffic safety and is complementary to the district as a whole. P. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation. Pedestrian and bicycle improvements shall be installed in accordance with the City of Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan and the local guiding plan and shall be in conformance with the following: 1. Site design shall facilitate pedestrian connections and mobility within and between buildings, sites, and uses by providing clear visual indicators through door placement, signage, striping, raised pathways, and integrating landscaping components. (revised 11/25/13) 2. An internal sidewalk system shall link the primary entrance of each bui lding on site with the public sidewalk or trail network. In the event a building is subdivided into multiple separated tenant spaces, a sidewalk must link the primary entrance of each separated tenant space with the public sidewalk network. (revised 11/25 /13) 3. Where there is new building construction or renovation where the renovation value is thirty percent (30%) or more of the pre -renovation value of the structure, a minimum six foot concrete sidewalk adjacent to or in all rights -of-way shall be provided. The location of the sidewalk shall be prescribed by the Public Works Director. The new sidewalks shall connect to sidewalks on adjacent properties if they exist. At the discretion of the City Council, the property owner may, in lieu of co nstructing the sidewalk, pay the City an amount equal to the cost of constructing the sidewalk to satisfy the obligations of this section. Said payment shall be used by the City to further maintain and construct the pathway system within the City. (revise d 11/25/13) Q. Bicycle Parking. (adopted 11/25/13) 1. General Requirements. a) Bicycle parking may be provided using the following approaches: bicycle racks, bicycle lockers, or bicycle parking stations. b) Bicycle racks must support a bicycle frame at two locations and enable the frame and one or both wheels to be secured. The City requires that bicycle racks meet inverted "U", ring-and-post, or comparable design standards. c) Bicycle racks or lockers must be securely anchored to a level, concrete or pavement surface. 2. Location Criteria. Bicycle parking shall be located in a safe, designated area and should be within fifty (50) feet of the primary building entrance. Bicycle racks shall be visible either from within the building or the public right -of-way. 3. Dimension Criteria. a) At least two (2) feet of clearance shall be provided from the centerline of each adjacent bicycle rack. b) An access aisle of at least five (5) feet shall be provided in each bicycle parking facility. c) Bicycle racks shall be at least twenty -four (24) inches from a wall to which they are parallel and thirty (30) inches from a wall which they are perpendicular. 4. Number of Required Bicycle Parking Spaces. For commercial uses, one bicycle parking space shall be provided for every twenty (20) automobile parking spaces. A minimum of two (2) parking spaces is required. R. Drainage/Water Management Plan. Stormwater manage ment plans shall comply with Rule C: Stormwater Management Plans of the Rice Creek Watershed District Rules. S. Environmental Conservation and Sustainability. The City encourages the use of green materials and environmentally friendly construction an d site design such as the use of pervious surfaces, green rooftops, energy efficient materials, LEED standards, and other green building techniques.