HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-19-22-WSAGENDA ITEMS
1174 Edgewater Avenue –Subdivision Concept Review
Mike Mezzenga
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
Lake Johanna Blvd Roadway And Trail Design Study Discussion
Scott Mareck, Ramsey County and Greg Brown, Kimley Horn
David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive -Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office Fencing Plan Review
Wold Architects
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
MPCA Local Stormwater Plan
Bridget Osborn, P.E., Project Manager, HR Green
David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Tree Preservation Ordinance Discussion
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Council Tracker
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:
David Grant
Councilmembers:
Brenda Holden
Fran Holmes
Steve Scott
David Radziej
City Council Work Session
Agenda
September 19, 2022
5:00 p.m.
City Hall
Address:
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills MN 55112
Phone:
651 -792 -7800
Website :
www.cityofardenhills.org
City Vision
Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential
neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our
long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play.
This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website.
CALL TO ORDER
1.
1.A.
Documents:
1.B.
Documents:
1.C.
Documents:
1.D.
Documents:
1.E.
Documents:
1.F.
Documents:
2.
AGENDA ITEMS1174 Edgewater Avenue –Subdivision Concept ReviewMike MezzengaMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDFATTACHMENT B.PDFATTACHMENT C.PDFATTACHMENT D.PDFLake Johanna Blvd Roadway And Trail Design Study DiscussionScott Mareck, Ramsey County and Greg Brown, Kimley HornDavid Swearingen, Public Works Director/City EngineerMEMO.PDFATTACHMENT A.PDF1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive -Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office Fencing Plan Review
Wold Architects
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
ATTACHMENT B.PDF
ATTACHMENT C.PDF
ATTACHMENT D.PDF
MPCA Local Stormwater Plan
Bridget Osborn, P.E., Project Manager, HR Green
David Swearingen, Public Works Director/City Engineer
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Tree Preservation Ordinance Discussion
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
ATTACHMENT A.PDF
Council Tracker
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
MEMO.PDF
COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
ADJOURN
Mayor:David GrantCouncilmembers:Brenda HoldenFran HolmesSteve ScottDavid Radziej City Council Work Session Agenda September 19, 2022 5:00 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 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.CALL TO ORDER1.1.A.Documents:1.B.Documents:1.C.
Documents:
1.D.
Documents:
1.E.
Documents:
1.F.
Documents:
2.
Page 1 of 5
AGENDA ITEM – 1A
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 22-016 – Concept Plan Review
Minor Subdivision – 1174 Edgewater Avenue
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should consider a request for a Concept Plan Review for a proposed minor subdivision
and variance at 1174 Edgewater Avenue (“Subject Property”) to split the property into two lots
for future redevelopment as single-family residential. Mike Mezzenga (“the Applicant”) is
seeking feedback from the City Council on the concept plan in advance of the full submission.
The variance portion of the concept plan review is due to one of the lots having less than the
minimum lot width as required by city code.
The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments
and questions regarding proposed developments. A concept review is considered advisory and is
nonbinding to the City and Applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal
action can be taken at a Work Session. A formal land use application for the minor subdivision
and variance will be subject to the full review process, including a recommendation from the
Planning Commission prior to a final decision by the City Council.
Background
The Subject Property is the site of the, now closed, St. Paul Lodge #2 – I.O.O.F, also known as
the Oddfellow’s Lodge. The Applicant has been issued a building permit to demolish the existing
structures which is anticipated to be completed this month. The Applicant is proposing to split
the Subject Property into two lots, one of which would require a lot width variance. The
Applicant has indicated the two parcels would comply with all other applicable city code
requirements which includes the Subdivision ordinance, zoning requirements for the R-2 Zoning
District, and Shoreland regulations.
Page 2 of 5
The Subject Property was originally approved the use of the property as a lodge under a
Conditional Use Permit (then called a Special Use Permit) in Planning Case #70-36. Since then,
an amendment and a minor subdivision has been approved by the City Council. The following
planning cases have been reviewed since the original CUP was adopted:
Planning Case Application Request CC Action
05-03 Special Use Permit
Amendment
Reduce the size of the originally
approved parking lot Approved
006-004 Minor Subdivision
Consolidate three previously
subdivided parcels into one
conforming residential parcel
Approved
Discussion
Existing Conditions
The Subject Property from the survey provided is a 1.31-acre (56,806 SF) parcel located on the
northeast side of Lake Josephine, west of Lexington Avenue. The property is zoned R-2, Single
& Two Family Residential District and is guided as Low Density Residential (LDR) in the 2040
Land Use Plan. The Subject Property abuts residential uses on all sides.
Aerial Map of Subject Property
Concept Plan Proposal
The Applicant is proposing a minor subdivision to split the property located at 1174 Edgewater
Avenue into two separate parcels. One of the proposed parcels would require a lot width
variance to allow for a 40 foot lot width at the street, whereas city code requires 85 feet. The
Applicant has indicated both lots would meet all other zoning requirements including minimum
lot area per dwelling unit, minimum lot depth, and maximum dwelling unit density. From the
preliminary analysis, planning staff did identify that Parcel A would also require a variance to
allow a lot depth of 111 feet rather than 120 feet as required by city code. Additionally, the
Page 3 of 5
Applicant has stated the proposed parcels would be able to accommodate a building pad that met
setbacks, minimum lot coverage, and minimum landscaped area requirements for the R-2 District
and the Shoreland Overlay District.
The Applicant is proposing to construct a single-family dwelling on each parcel. For the concept
review, the Applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey identifying the proposed lot
configuration of Parcel A and Parcel B. At this stage, the Applicant is seeking City Council
feedback on the variance portion of the minor subdivision in advance of developing civil plans,
house floor plans, and renderings.
Proposed Minor Subdivision
The table below provides the minimum district requirements for the R-2 District and Shoreland
regulations along with a preliminary analysis for the proposed development:
R-2 District
Standards
Shoreland Overlay
District Parcel A
Parcel B
Minimum Lot Area 11,000 square feet 14,000 square feet 32,453 square feet 24,353 square feet
Minimum Lot Width
85 feet measured at
public roadway
75 feet measured at
OHW setback
165 feet – street,
111 feet - OHW
40 feet – street*,
95 feet - OHW
Minimum Lot Depth 120 feet N/A 111 feet** +/- 122 feet
Minimum Front Yard
Setback 40 feet
40 feet
Intends to Comply
– North
Intends to Comply –
North (partial
abutting Edgewater
Avenue)
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback 30 feet
N/A
Intends to Comply
– South
Intends to Comply -
South
Minimum Side Yard
Setback
5 feet (min)/15 feet
(total)
50 feet from OHW
Intends to Comply
– East and West
Intends to Comply –
North (partial not
abutting road), East
and West
*Variance requested by Applicant for Parcel B.
**Variance identified by Staff for Parcel A.
Subdivision Ordinance
City Code Chapter 11, Subdivisions, Section 1150.03 – Minor Subdivisions of Unplatted
Property states the requirements for the minor subdivision that is being proposed.
Page 4 of 5
Subd. 1 General. In the case of a proposed subdivision of an unplatted tract of land, which
subdivision is small in size and of minor importance and which tract is located in an area where
conditions are well defined, the City Council, upon review and after report of the planning
commission, may exempt the subdivider from compliance with some of the provisions of this
chapter. The provisions from which the subdivision may be exempted shall be specified by the
planning commission at its first meeting at which the subdivider's application under this
paragraph is presented.
Subd. 2 Special. Such subdivision may even be exempted from the platting requirements of this
chapter and may be allowed to be accomplished by means of a survey or registered land survey
provided that the following requirements have been met:
A. The resultant parcels abut on and have access to an existing public street, road,
thoroughfare or highway;
B. The subdivision will not involve the opening, widening or extension of any public or
private street, road, thoroughfare or highway and will not involve the dedication,
reservation or construction of any type of public utility;
C. The subdivision will not obstruct future streets which have been planned by the City;
D. The subdivision will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to adjacent
tracts in the area in which the subdivision tract is located;
E. The registered land survey conforms in all respects to the provisions of M.S. § 508.47
(4), as amended, the terms of which are incorporated herein by reference, or the survey
contains at least the following items:
1. Graphic scale;
2. North point;
3. Date of preparation;
4. Names and addresses of the owner, and registered land surveyor who
prepared the survey;
5. Legal descriptions of the tract as a whole and the resultant parcels;
6. Location, width and names of all existing or previously platted streets, roads,
thoroughfares or highways adjacent to the subdivision tract;
7. Location of all monument, stakes, benchmarks or triangulation stations in or
adjacent to the subdivision tract;
8. Location and size of existing sewers, water mains, culverts or other
underground facilities within the subdivision tract and to a distance of one
hundred (100) feet beyond the outer limits of the tract;
9. Boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided tracts within one
hundred (100) feet of the subdivision tract, identifying the same by name and
ownership;
10. Existing zoning classification of the district within which the subdivision
tract is located;
11. Total approximate acreage of the subdivision tract and acreage or square
footage of the resultant parcels;
12. Topographic data, including contours at vertical intervals in not more than
two (2) feet and depiction of significant features on or within the subdivision
tract such as watercourses, marshes, wooded areas, rock outcrops and powers
transmission poles and lines;
13. Certification by the registered land surveyor who prepared the survey.
F. Monuments or stakes shall be placed and installed at all corners and angle points of
the resultant parcels;
G. The resultant parcels will not have setbacks and dimensions less than those required
in the zoning ordinance, as amended;
H. Drainage and utility easements along lot lines and any other easements required by
this chapter.
Page 5 of 5
I. A grading plan with drainage calculations shall be submitted if required by the city
engineer.
J. The subdivider has complied with the requirements of this chapter which the planning
commission or City Council have made the subdivision by registered land survey or
survey specifically subject to.
Subd. 3 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.
City Code Chapter 11, Subdivisions, Section 1150.01 – Granting Variances states:
Subd. 1 The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the
Subdivisions Chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the
following conditions exist:
A. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience;
B. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally
applicable to other property;
C. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and
is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
comprehensive plan.
Subd. 2 In making these findings, the Council shall consider the nature of the proposed use of
land and the existing use of land in the vicinity, the number of persons to reside or work in the
proposed subdivision and the probable effect of the proposed subdivision upon traffic conditions
in the vicinity. In granting a variance as provided in this section, the Council shall prescribe only
such conditions that it deems desirable or necessary to the public interest.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachments
A. Land Use Application
B. Concept Review Narrative
C. Certificate of Survey
D. Presentation
Planning Case #22-016
Applicant: Mike Mezzenga
Property Location: 1174 Edgewater Avenue
Request: Concept Review –Minor Subdivision and
Variance
Zoning: R-2, Single and Two Family Residential
Land Use: Low Density Residential
1
Action to Consider
A Concept Plan Review for a proposed minor subdivision and
variance at 1174 Edgewater Avenue to split the property into two
lots for future redevelopment as single family residential. The
variance portion of the concept plan review is due to one of the
lots having less than the minimum lot width as required by city
code.
2
Aerial Map
3
Proposed Minor
Subdivision
R-2 District
Standards
Shoreland Overlay
District Parcel A Parcel B
Minimum Lot Area 11,000 square feet 14,000 square feet 32,453 square feet 24,353 square feet
Minimum Lot Width
85 feet measured
at public roadway
75 feet measured
at OHW setback
165 feet –street,
111 feet -OHW
40 feet –street,
95 feet –OHW
Minimum Lot Depth 120 feet N/A 111 feet +/-122 feet
Minimum Front Yard
Setback 40 feet 40 feet
Intends to Comply
–North
Intends to Comply
–North (partial
abutting Edgewater
Avenue)
Minimum Rear Yard
Setback 30 feet N/A
Intends to Comply
–South
Intends to Comply -
South
Minimum Side Yard
Setback
5 feet (min)/15
feet (total)50 feet from OHW
Intends to Comply
–East and West
Intends to Comply
–North (partial not
abutting road), East
and West
Photos of Property
5
Facing southwest from Edgewater AvenueFacing south from Edgewater Avenue
Photos of Roadway
6Facing west from Lake Lane and Edgewater Avenue Facing east on Edgewater Avenue
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM – 1B
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Scott Mareck – Ramsey County, Greg Brown – Kimley Horn
David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer
SUBJECT: Lake Johanna Blvd Roadway and Trail Design Study Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
$N/A $N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should consider discussing the Lake Johanna Blvd Roadway and Trail Design Study
with Ramsey County and Engineering Consultant, Kimley Horn.
Background/Discussion
The project team will be providing a presentation and will follow with questions and discussion
after.
The final report has been posted to Ramsey County’s website project page:
https://www.ramseycounty.us/residents/roads-transportation/future-road-projects/future-road-
construction-projects/lake-johanna-boulevard-trail-design
The City will be posting it to the City’s website in the near future as well.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachments
Attachment A – Presentation Slides
Lake Johanna Boulevard Roadway and Trail Design Study
2
Project Overview
•The Lake Johanna Boulevard Corridor
has significant bicycle and pedestrian
traffic, but currently there is no sidewalk
or separated trail facility along the
corridor.
•The purpose of this study is to identify
design concepts that can safely and
adequately accommodate pedestrians
and bicyclists today and into the future.
3
Stowe Ave to County Road E
4
Stowe Ave to County Road E
5
Criteria West/North East/South
User Experience Consistent boulevard, Tony Schmidt
natural area passage
Proximity to lake, narrower
boulevards/confined feeling in areas
Connectivity Direct neighborhood access Direct beach access
Scope of Roadway Modifications
Improvements
Minimal roadway modifications along
Tony Schmidt Park frontage Roadway modifications entire length
Crossings/Conflicts 23 Driveways, 5 local streets 37 driveways, 4 local streets
Grading/Retaining Wall Scope Anticipated between Lake Lane and
County Road E
Anticipated between Lake Lane and
County Road E
ROW/Easement Needs Minimal needs Minimal needs
Surface Utility Conflicts Intermittent power poles Significant stretches with power poles,
mailboxes, hydrants
Cost (in 2022 dollars)$$$$$
6
Schedule
Page 1 of 5
AGENDA ITEM – 1C
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Planning Case 22-013 – Concept Plan Review
Conditional Use Permit Amendment & Site Plan Review – 1411 Paul Kirkwold
Drive
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
Council should consider a request for a Concept Plan Review for a proposed security fence and
parking lot expansion at the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office (“Applicant”) at 1411 Paul
Kirkwold Drive (“Subject Property”). The Applicant is seeking feedback from the City Council
on the concept plan in advance of the full submission; a Conditional Use Permit is required for
the security (barbed wire/spikes) fence and a Site Plan Review is required for the parking lot
improvements.
The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the City Council to provide comments
and questions regarding proposed developments. A concept review is considered advisory and is
nonbinding to the City and Applicant (Section 1320.14, Subd 4 of the Zoning Code). No formal
action can be taken at a Work Session. A formal application will be subject to the full review
process, including a public hearing with Planning Commission and City Council review.
Updated Discussion
At the July 18th City Council Work Session, the Council discussed a concept proposal from the
Ramsey County Sheriff’s Department to install security perimeter fencing, vehicle gates, and two
parking lot additions at the property located at 1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive. The proposed fencing
included a 6-foot tall decorative metal fencing with two decorative metal gates along Paul
Kirkwold Drive and a 6-foot tall chain link fence with three strand barbed wire along Highway
96 W. The Applicant is also proposing two parking lot additions with a total of 23 stalls.
During the meeting, the Applicant agreed to provide additional information on the cost of
installation and maintenance between the decorative fencing and chain link fencing as well as
Page 2 of 5
stake the proposed fencing locations for a future visit of the City Council and Staff to evaluate
visual impacts along Highway 96 and existing screening. The Applicant agreed following the
site visit, the concept review on the proposed security fencing would be brought back to the City
Council at a future work session for continued discussion. The Ramsey County Sheriff’s
Department hosted a site tour on August 15th for review of the proposed decorative and chain
link fencing locations. Planning staff scheduled the continuance of the concept review
discussion for the September work session meeting.
Aerial Map of Subject Property
Concept Plan Proposal
For the September 19th City Council Work Session discussion, the Applicant has confirmed they
are seeking feedback on installation of security perimeter fencing, vehicle gates, and two parking
lot additions. Their preferred proposal includes:
• 6-foot tall decorative metal fencing with spikes along Paul Kirkwold Drive around the
pond (approx. 800 lf)
• 6-foot tall chain link fence with three strand barbed wire along the entire Highway 96
West frontage (approx. 1,110 lf)
Recommended Base Project Proposal
Page 3 of 5
As an alternate WS consideration for the City Council, the Applicant has submitted a modified
version with 1/3 of the Highway 96 West frontage converted to decorative metal fencing. The
alternate proposal includes:
• 6-foot tall decorative metal fencing with spikes along Paul Kirkwold Drive around the
pond and visible areas from Highway 96 West (approx. 1,170 lf)
• 6-foot tall chain link fence with three strand barbed wire along non-visible areas from
Highway 96 West frontage (approx. 740 lf)
Base + East 1/3 Hwy 96 Frontage
Decorative Metal Fence with Spikes Chain Link Fence with Barbed Wire
The Applicant is also proposing two parking lot additions which would increase the impervious
surface area by approximately 0.6%. The southern five-stall parking lot addition with concrete
sidewalk to the building will be open to the public. The northern 18-stall parking lot addition will
be behind the proposed security gates and will be for facility employee use only. To construct the
parking lots, the Applicant will be removing two trees. Tree mitigation is not required because
the Applicant is removing less than 10% of the trees located on the property.
Page 4 of 5
Ramsey County has provided updated site plans for the two scenarios and supplemental
information on the proposal. Based on an initial review, staff believes the proposal would
require the following land use requests:
• Conditional Use Permit for a barbed wire and/or spike fence
• Site Plan Review for the two parking lot additions
Arden Hills City Code Section 1325.05 – Design Standards, Subd. 4, D states “no above grade
fence shall have barbs or spikes or be of metal construction, which is charged or connected with
electrical current within any district of the City. These fencing types shall only be permitted
through a Conditional Use Permit.”
Additionally City Code Section 1320.11 - Special Requirements for Civic Center District,
Design Standards, Subd. 4, D states “If fences are used for landscape screening, they must
conform to the following: a) No higher than six (6) feet in rear yards only; b) No barbed wire,
razor wire, or spikes allowed; c) Fences must blend into the landscape and minimize corrosion.
Wood, brick, stone or wrought iron is encouraged. If chain link is allowed by the City Council, it
must have black or dark green vinyl coating.”
The table below provides the performance standards for the CC District and the preliminary
analysis for the proposed development:
CC District Standards Ramsey County Proposal
Minimum Lot Area 20,000 square feet 1,524,600 square feet
Maximum Structure Coverage 40% of lot area 19%
Minimum Landscape Lot Area 20% of lot area 27.2%
Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 feet Complies
Minimum Rear Yard Setback 20 feet Complies
Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet (min)/20 feet (total) Complies
Off-Street Parking As determined by City Council Adding 23 parking stalls
Budget Impact
Page 5 of 5
N/A
Attachments
A. Land Use Application
B. Project Narrative
C. Supplemental Handout
D. Applicant Presentation
Page 1 of 3
1245 West Highway 96
Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112
Telephone (651) 792-7800
Fax (651) 634-5137
www.cityofardenhills.org
For Office Use Only
Planning Case No. 22-
Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Accepted by
Receipt Number
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
2022 LAND USE APPLICATION
Applicant Information
Applicant:
Address:
Telephone No.: Other:
Fax No.:
Email Address:
Property Information
Property Owner:
Owner Address:
Owner Telephone No. Other:
Address of Property Involved:
Legal Description:
Property ID No.:
Type of Use:
Zone: Property Acreage:
Type of Request
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Fee: $550 +
Escrow: $2,500)
Conditional Use or Interim Use Permit/CUP or IUP
Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)
Preliminary Plat (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $2,500)
Final Plat (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,000)
Concept Plan Review (Fee: $300 + Escrow: $750)Master Planned Unit Development or Master SpecialDevelopment Plan (Fee: $600 + Escrow: $2,500)
Final Planned Unit Development or Final Special
Development Plan (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $2,000)
Planned Unit Development Amendment or SpecialDevelopment Plan Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow:$1,500)
Site Plan Review (Fee: $450 + Escrow: $1,500)
Rezoning or TCAAP Regulating Plan Amendment (Fee: $500 + Escrow: $1,500)
Zoning Code or TCAAP Redevelopment Code Amendment (Fee: $400 + Escrow: $1,500)
City Code Amendment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500)
Lot Split/Minor Subdivision (R-1 and R-2 Districts
Only) (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,500) Variance or Permitted Adjustment (Fee: $350 + Escrow: $1,000)
Vacation of Easement or Right-of-Way (Fee: $150 +
Escrow: $1,000)
Appeal of Administrative Decision (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000)
Land Use Requests – Not Already Specified (Fee: $150 + Escrow: $1,000
651-266-2260
121 7th Place East, Ste 2200, Saint Paul, MN 55101
1411 Paul Kirkwold Dr, Arden Hills, MN 55112
SECTION 15 TOWN 30 RANGE 23 E 626 FT OF S 615 FT & W 946.47 FT OF E ...TO HWY) IN SEC 15 TN 30 RN 23
Exempt property owned by county
153023340001
CC - Civic Center District 35
Ramsey County
Mehrshad Parsakalleh
121 7th Place East, Ste 2200, Saint Paul, MN 55101
651-266-2260
mehrshad.parsakalleh@co.ramsey.mn.us
Page 2 of 3
Brief Description of Request (please also include a typed, detailed letter explaining the project):
Filing & Information Requirements
The City requests that you make a pre-application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application
process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified
survey of the property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional application requirements can be
found at www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications.
Complete/Incomplete Applications
Under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 15.99, cities have 15 business days to review all plans and application
materials to ensure they satisfy City requirements. During the 15 day review period, planning staff will provide
written comments on the application and may request plan revisions. If the application is determined to be
complete, Minnesota State Statute then requires the City to approve or deny the application within 60 days, up
to 120 days. If not complete, the City may require plan revisions and/or additional information before the
application is scheduled for Planning Commission review and/or C ity Council action. Project will not be
scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner.
Payment of Fees and Escrows
The undersigned acknowledges that she/he understands that before a land use application can be deemed
complete, all required fees and escrows must be paid to the City. The applicant is responsible for all costs
incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. Each separate land use request shall be
charged a separate administrative fee and escrow even if submitted on the same application. Costs expended in
reviewing and processing an application will be charged against the cash escrow and credited to the City.
Charges to the escrow may include planning and engineering staff time, City Attorney and consulting fees, and
mailing costs. If, at any time, a required cash escrow is depleted to less than 20 percent of its original amount,
the applicant shall deposit additional funds in the cash escrow account as determined by the City. The City may
withhold final action on a land use application, withhold building permits, and/or rescind prior action until all fees
have been paid. Unused portions of an escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of
an approved plan. The escrow may be reduced or increased by the City Planner on a project by project basis.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a
designated representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the
next available agenda.
*IMPORTANT*
Certain applications are subject to review and approval by the Rice Creek Waters hed
District. Contact RCWD directly at 763-398-3070 for additional information.
The land use application fees do not cover building, sign, or other permit fees that
may be required upon approval of a land use application.
All applications will be subject to additional fees for reimbursement of consultant costs
associated with filing, reviewing, and processing of application in the form of an
escrow to the City.
Adding perimeter security fencing, parking lots, and vehicle gates to the Ramsey County Sheriff Patrol
Page 3 of 3
Meeting Schedule
Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the first Wednesday after the first Monday of each month at
6:30 PM, though please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. City Council meetings are held
typically the last Monday of the same month at 7:00 PM. Meetings are held in the Council Chambers at the City
of Arden Hills, 1245 West Highway 96, Arden Hills, Minnesota 55112, unless otherwise stated. The schedules
below are for reference purposes only. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application
submittal is found to be complete by the City Planner.
2022 Planning Commission and City Council Schedule (*subject to change)
TENTATIVE
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING DATE*
(Generally held on the
first Wednesday after the first
Monday at 6:30 p.m.)
TENTATIVE
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING
DATE*
(Generally held on the
fourth Monday at 7:00 p.m.)
DEADLINE FOR
LAND USE
APPLICATION
SUBMISSION
(1st day of the
preceding month)
January 5 January 24 December 1 (2021)
February 9 February 28 January 3
March 9 March 28 February 1
April 6 April 25 March 1
May 4 May 23 April 1
June 8 June 27 May 2
July 6 July 25 June 1
August 3 August 22 July 1
September 7 September 26 August 1
October 5 October 24 September 1
November 9 November 28 October 3
December 7 January 9 (2023) November 1
January 4 (2023) January 23 (2023) December 1
Acknowledgement and Signature
I hereby apply for the above consideration and declare that the information and materials submitted with this
application are complete and accurate per city code and ordinance requirements . I fully understand that I am
responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application.
__________________________________________________ ________________
Property Owner Signature (Required) Date
________________________________________________ ________________
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at 651-792-7800
if you have any questions regarding this application.
Additional copies of this application form are available on the City’s website: www.cityofardenhills.org/landuseapplications
Written Statement
Project name: Ramsey County Security Fencing: Sheriff’s Office
Project location:
• 1411 Paul Kirkwood Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112
• SECTION 15 TOWN 30 RANGE 23 E 626 FT OF S 615 FT & W 946.47 FT OF E ...TO HWY) IN SEC 15
TN 30 RN 23
Owner name: Mehrshad Parsakalleh
Owner address: 121 7th Place East, Ste 2200, Saint Paul, MN 55101
Intended use of the property & addressing the criteria in Section 1355.04 Subd 3 Paragraph B of the
City’s Zoning Code:
To decrease the likelihood of future rioters harming the office or officers, the Sheriff’s Office wants to
install security perimeter fencing and vehicle gates. Decorative metal fencing would be visible from
Hamline Ave and Hwy 96 W. The proposed fencing system would connect to parts of the existing fence
system towards the west and north end of the property.
In addition to upgraded security around the facility, we are proposing 2 separate parking lot additions
which increases the properties impervious area by approximately 0.6%. The southern, 5 stall parking lot
addition with concrete sidewalk to the building will be open to the public. The northern, 18 stall parking
lot addition will be behind secure gates and will be for facility employee use only.
Ramsey County Public Works & Partners Campus Fence Project
City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session
September 19, 2022
Recommended: Base Project Proposal
(Chainlink and Decorative)
Base + East 1/3 of Highway 96 Frontage
Converted to Decorative
-
$200,000 Decorative fencing along Paul Kirkwold
Drive around the pond (800 lf)
$080,000 Chain link/barbed wire fencing along entire
Hwy 96 frontage (1,110 lf)
$280,000 Included in current budget
-
-
$290,000 Decorative fencing along Paul Kirkwold
Drive around the pond and visible areas
from Hwy 96 (1,170 lf)
$052,000
Chain link/barbed wire fencing along non-
visible Hwy 96 frontage (740 lf)
$342,000 Add $62,000 to budget
Yellow highlight indicates change to 1/3 decorative fencing along Paul Kirkwold Drive
in visible areas from Highway 96
Ramsey County Public Works & Partners Campus Fence Project
City of Arden Hills City Council Work Session
September 19, 2022
Campus Background
• Campus houses several critical services for Arden Hills,
Mounds View Public Schools, and Ramsey County.
• “Wide open” and drivable, not secure.
• Only partial security fencing solution present.
• Government and employee vehicles and equipment left
unsecured/open parking areas.
Project Justification
• Vital infrastructure: 24-hour emergency services (public
safety, emergency communications, public works, and
emergency management).
• Stores equipment, vehicles, evidence, and property.
• No ability to secure the entire campus.
• No completely secure areas.
Security Fencing Considerations
• No comprehensive permanent security fence.
• To protect assets, temporary measures currently include:
o Deputies on overtime.
o Interim barriers/fencing.
• Temporary measures are very costly.
• Continuity of government is ensured with security fencing.
• Quotes completed with Ramsey County Property
Management and vendors.
• Design and appearance must be friendly; not military or
fortress like.
• When possible, lowest cost option are selected.
• Additional parking is planned for residents/employees.
• Chain link and barbed wire fencing is commonplace in area
in and around the campus and along Hwy 96 (Minnesota
National Guard /Army Reserve properties).
Civil Unrest
• Protests and riots (civil unrest) have taken place across the United States and in the Twin Cities.
• It is estimated throughout Minnesota over $500 million in property damage occurred during the riots, with the
majority in Minneapolis and Saint Paul.
• Government buildings have become a target and site for demonstrations.
• Given the critical and vital services provided at government buildings, there is a need to enhanced security.
• Should there be a breach of security, several emergency services would be compromised.
•Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
•City of Arden Hills
•City Council Work Session
•September 19, 2022
Agenda
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
1.Input Gathered:
1.City Council Work Session 1 –July 18, 2022
2.Fence Mock -Up and City Council Site Visit –August 15, 2022
3.City Council Work Session 2 –September 19, 2022
2.Updated Project Information:
3.Feedback? Questions ?
“The Why”
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Owner: Ramsey County
Properties: 1411, 1425 Paul Kirkwold Drive, Arden Hills, MN 55112
Statement of Need: Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office
•The campus houses several critical functions, including patrol, emergency communications, and public
works.The campus is “wide open” and drivable with only a partial security fencing solution present, leaving
county and personal assets left unsecured.
•The campus is a vital infrastructure: 24-hour emergency services (public safety, emergency communications,
and public works).The campus stores equipment, vehicles, evidence, and property.There is no ability to
secure the campus and no secure areas.
•Over the last year, protests and riots (civil unrest) took place across the United States and in the Twin Cities.
It is estimated throughout Minnesota over $500 million in property damage occurred during the riots, with
the majority in Minneapolis and Saint Paul. Government buildings have become a target and site for
demonstrations. Given the critical and vital services provided at government buildings, there is a need for
enhanced security. Should there be a breach of security, several emergency services would be compromised.
“The Details”
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Project Description
•Decorative metal fencing would be visible from Hamline Ave and Hwy 96 W.
•The proposed fencing system would connect to parts of the existing fence
system towards the west and north end of the property.
•In addition to upgraded security around the facility, we are proposing 2
separate parking lot additions which increases the properties impervious area
by approximately 0.6%.
•The southern, 5 stall parking lot addition with concrete sidewalk to the
building will be open to the public.
•The northern, 18 stall parking lot addition will be behind secure gates and will
be for facility employee use only.
Plan Diagram
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Recommended: Base Project Proposal (Chain-link and Decorative)
HWY 96 W
EXISTING FENCE
VEHICLE GATE
$200,000 Decorative fencing along Paul Kirkwold
Drive around the pond (800 lf)
$080,000 Chain link/barbed wire fencing along entire
Hwy 96 frontage (1,110 lf)
$280,000 (Included in current budget)
Plan Diagram
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Base + East 1/3 of Highway 96 Frontage Converted to Decorative
HWY 96 W
EXISTING FENCE
VEHICLE GATE
$290,000 Decorative fencing along Paul Kirkwold Dr.
around the pond and visible areas from Hwy
96 (1,170 lf)
$052,000
Chain link/barbed wire fencing along non-
visible Hwy 96 frontage (740 lf)
$342,000 (Add $62,000 to budget)
Section changed to 1/3 decorative fencing along
Paul Kirkwold Dr.in visible areas from Hwy 96
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Overview
#1
#2#4#3#5
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #1
“The Details”
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #1
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #2
“The Details”
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #2
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #3
“The Details”
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #3
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #4
“The Details”
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #4
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #5
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Perspective #5
Partners
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Ramsey County Public Works & Partners –Stakeholders on Site
City of Arden Hills Public Works -David Swearingen, Jeff Frid
Mounds View Public Schools –Chris Paquette
Ramsey County Public Works -John Profraizer
Ramsey County Fleet Services –Patrick McCoy, Robert True
Ramsey County Emergency Management -Kimberly Wilker
Ramsey County Emergency Communications –Dan Palmer
Ramsey County Property Services –Todd Stahl
Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office –Jeff Ramacher, Kyle Mestad
Questions
Ramsey County Public Works &
Partners Campus Fence Project
Feedback
and
Questions?
Page 1 of 2
AGENDA ITEM – 1D
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 19, 2022
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
FROM: Bridget Osborn, P.E. Project Manager – Water Resources – HR Green
David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer
SUBJECT: MPCA Local Stormwater Plan
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
$10,000 $1,742 - $4,202.80 (City funds) Surface Water Mgmt. Fund,
MPCA Resiliency Grant
Council Should Consider
Council should consider providing direction on moving forward with applying for the MPCA
Resiliency Grant program.
Background
Staff would like to develop a Local Stormwater Plan identifying drainage patterns within the
City, locations with current drainage issues, and suggested design alternatives and cost estimates
to address those issues. A major goal of this plan is to identify and prioritize improvements to
stormwater infrastructure while considering areas of need for environmental justice and future
storm events with greater intensity and frequency. This plan will allow the City to budget and
plan for upcoming projects while increasing their resiliency to the predicted changing weather.
This plan will also open future funding opportunities with local agencies such as Rice Creek
Watershed District and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). In order to develop
this plan, Staff would recommend engaging with HR Green to assist in in applying for a grant
application with MPCA to complete the study. Cost implications are below, but it would initially
cost the City $1,742 to apply for the grant, and if we are successful the grant would be used to
complete the study. If we are unsuccessful, Staff will bring back to Council for further
discussion.
Page 2 of 2
Discussion
A portion of this contract includes completing the grant application for the MPCA Resiliency
Grant. The grant would provide funding for the remaining portion of the contract with a
minimum 10% match from the City. Should the grant be awarded, the remaining portion of the
contract would be completed.
Budget Impact
The fee for services will be based on a time and material basis and include the following tasks
(only task 1 is completed initially, the rest of the tasks would depend upon a successful grant
application):
1. MPCA Grant Application ($1,742.00)
2. Project Management and Stakeholder Engagement ($3,656.00)
3. Data Collection ($7,548.00)
4. 2023 Local Stormwater Plan ($13,404.00)
Anticipated City Costs: (Grant Application + 10% Match) = $4,202.80
Deliverables will include a MPCA Resiliency Grant Application with a Local Stormwater Plan if
the grant is funded.
Attachments
Attachment A - Brief Local Stormwater Plan Presentation
Arden Hills Local Stormwater Plan
September 19, 2022 –Council Presentation
Presented by: Bridget Osborn, PE, CFM –HR Green Project Manager
Arden Hills is looking to update their
Local Stormwater Plan that identifies
the following:
Drainage patterns within the city
Locations with current drainage
issues
Suggested design alternatives and
cost estimates to address these
issues
Background
9/15/2022
2
Goals
•Use this plan to open future funding opportunities with local agencies
(RCWD & MPCA).
•Prioritize improvements while considering areas of environmental justice
and resiliency.
•Create a list of projects and costs.
►MPCA Grant Application
►Complete the grant application form and submit it to the MPCA.
If we get funded…
►Project Management and Stakeholder Engagement
►Define a strategy for public engagement for the City website.
Scope of Work
►Data Collection and Review
►Meet with City operations and maintenance staff to identify:
►flooding locations
►areas of recurring resident complaints
►areas with greatest needs for cleaning and maintenance
►Watersheds with significant erosion
►Site Reconnaissance
►Field visit to confirm and investigate reported problem areas
Scope of Work
►Potential Improvements
HR Green will develop potential opportunities that could mitigate the identified problems and make
the system more resilient.
The following types of improvements will be considered:
Maintenance
Detention or Green Infrastructure
Conveyance Improvements
►Cost Estimates
►Prioritization
Scope of Work
9/15/2022
7
Thank you!
Q&A
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM – 1E
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 19, 2022 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Dave Perrault, City Administrator SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Ordinance Discussion
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
For Council Consideration
The City Council should consider providing direction on potential changes to the City’s tree
preservation ordinance.
Background
At previous meetings, the City Council has requested Staff to investigate changing the City’s
ordinance as it relates to tree preservation. Currently, the ordinance is narrowly focused on tree
preservation, Council requested Staff look into whether or not the scope can be broadened to
include items, such as, landscaping or other green spaces. Modifications to the existing ordinance
were drafted and attached as Attachment A. The City Attorney has preliminary reviewed the draft
changes and believes it would accomplish the flexibility being sought. If Council believes we are
moving in the right direction with this language, Staff will finalize with the attorney and bring
forward for approval at a future meeting.
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachment
Attachment A: Tree Preservation Ordinance Proposed Revisions
1325.055 Tree Preservation.
(adopted 4/28/08)
Subd. 1 Findings, Purpose and City Authority.
A. Findings and Purpose. The purpose of this section is to identify trees that are to be
saved when development or land disturbing activity is occurring. It is the City's intent to
protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of Arden Hills and to encourage a
resourceful and prudent approach to development. The city council finds it is in the best
interest of the city to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural environment of the
community and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to development and
property alteration. In the interest of achieving these objectives, the city has established
the comprehensive tree preservation regulations herein to promote the furtherance of the
following:
1. Protect and preserve the environment and natural beauty of the City;
2. Minimize tree and habitat loss during development and construction;
3. Establish minimum standards for tree preservation, landscaping, and the
mitigation of environmental impacts resulting from landscape tree removal;
4. Enforce tree preservation and landscaping standards to promote and protect the
public health, safety and welfare of the community.
5. Increase and maintain property values;
6. Enhance energy conservation through natural insulation and shading;
7. Prevent or reduce soil erosion, sedimentation and stormwater runoff;
8. Protect privacy by maintaining buffers between land uses; and
9. Preserve the variety and extent of trees which exist in the City and which are an
integral part of this City's identity.
B. City Authority. To preserve protected trees, the City may:
1. Require and enforce a tree preservation plan as described below;
2. Specify trees or groups of trees for preservation;
3. Specify grading limits;
4. Require the clustering of buildings or the relocation of roads, drives, buildings,
utilities or storm water facilities when this would preserve protected trees;
5. Specify time periods in which tree cutting, trimming or injury may not occur in
order to prevent the spread of disease; and
6. Require easements to ensure that groups of significant trees are not destroyed
after the development has been approved.
Subd. 2 Tree Preservation Plan.
A. Scope. A Tree Preservation Plan is required as part of an application for:
1. New building construction in any zoning district;
2. An expansion of an existing building or hard surface by ten percent or greater,
where an approved tree preservation plan is not on file with the city;
3. Any project for which a city grading permit or erosion control permit is required
4. A plat or minor subdivision.
B. Tree Preservation Plan Submission Requirements. A Tree Preservation Plan must
include a tree survey certified by a registered land surveyor, landscape architect, or
forester. See Appendix A for details on the requirements of a Tree Preservation Plan.
Projects on residential sites of fewer than two lots are not required to have tree surveys
certified. Applicants are encouraged to consult with city staff concerning preservation of
protected trees before developing a Tree Preservation Plan.
C. Review Process. The tree preservation plan shall be reviewed by the city to assess the
best possible layout to preserve significant trees and to enhance the efforts to minimize
damage to significant trees. The applicant shall meet with city staff prior to submission of
the development application or prior to application for the grading permit, whichever is
sooner, to determine the most feasible and practical placement of buildings, parking,
driveways, streets, storage and other physical features, in order that the fewest significant
trees are destroyed or damaged.
Subd. 3 Performance Guarantee.
A. Any applicant required to submit a tree preservation plan shall provide the required
performance guarantee following preliminary approval of the tree preservation plan and
prior to any construction and/or grading to insure completion and maintenance of all
landscaping and trees in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan required
hereunder.
B. The amount of a bond or other approved financial surety shall be 125% of the cost of
materials and installation.
C. The bond or other financial surety shall be provided prior to the issuance of any
building or grading permits and shall be valid for two full years, from the date of
installation.
D. For any tree that is not in accordance with the approved tree preservation plan at
the end of two growing seasons, the applicant shall replace the material to the satisfaction
of the city before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the city, at its sole
discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance.
Subd. 4 Compliance with Plan. The applicant shall implement the tree preservation plan
prior to and during any construction. The tree protection measures shall remain in place
until all grading and construction activity is terminated.
A. Tree Removal Prior to Approval. No significant trees shall be removed until a tree
preservation plan is approved by the city and except in accordance with the approved tree
preservation plan.
B. Inspection. The city shall have the right to inspect the development and/or building
site in order to determine compliance with the approved tree preservation plan. The city
shall determine whether compliance with the tree preservation plan has been met.
C. Unapproved Tree Loss. If a tree that was required to be preserved is removed or
damaged so that it is in a state of decline within two growing seasons from date of project
closure, it must be mitigated at a rate of 2:1, or two caliper inches of trees replaced for
every caliper inch of tree removed. This provision also applies to an easement area that is
disturbed during or after development. The City may use the performance guarantee to
accomplish this.
Subd. 5 Tree Removal and Preservation.
A. Tree Removal Allowance. Mitigation shall not be required for removing, cutting, or
killing trees when:
1. Fewer than ten (10) percent of the caliper inches of the significant trees on the
property are cut, removed, or killed
2. There is an existing principal use on the property and no construction, grading, or
development is to occur in the location of the removed tree(s) within two years thereafter.
3. The trees to be removed, cut, or killed are identified as diseased or nuisance trees.
B. Reduced Requirements. Mitigation requirements can be reduced as determined by
the City Council when there is a greater public good such as;
1. Allowing for LEED Certified architectural practices;
2. Providing affordable housing;
3. Allowing for a public road or trail; or
4. Providing for a public utility service.
C. Planned Unit Developments. A PUD plan for a new subdivision will be approved only
if it demonstrates that the new subdivision has a reasonable number of lots or units and
has lot lines and building pads that minimize tree loss. Mitigation must be provided for any
removal of significant trees.
D. Diseased and Nuisance Trees. Prior to grading, all diseased and nuisance trees on the
subject property shall be removed from the property at the time of grading and prior to the
commencement of building construction. Diseased and nuisance trees shall not count
toward calculation of significant tree inventory.
E. Removal of Trees Prior to Application Submittal. A tree that was removed or
otherwise destroyed by unnatural causes within two years before a development
application will be regarded as if it were present at the time of construction or a
development application.
Subd. 6 Approved Tree Mitigation.
A. Mitigation Standards. Mitigation for tree removal of significant trees must meet the
following specific standards;
1. Mitigation Rate. Significant live trees lost or reasonably anticipated to be lost as a
result of building, construction, or grading immediately or in the future, shall be replaced
by the property owner by planting that number of caliper inches of trees ("replacement
trees") determined at a rate of 1:2 or one inch replaced for every two inches lost. The trees
required to be replaced pursuant to this Section shall be in addition to any other trees
required to be planted pursuant to any other provision of the Code.
2. Mitigation Species. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees
which are lost or removed and shall include those species pre-approved in writing by the
City. The City maintains a list of trees provided for guidance in selection of trees and
shrubs.
3. General Mitigation Standards.
a) All replacement trees shall meet the American Standards for Nursery Stock
relating to quality of stock and appropriate sizing of the root ball for balled and burlapped
and spade-moved trees.
b) Trees planted in accordance with mitigation requirements shall not be comprised
of more than 25 percent of the same species or size unless approved by the city.
c) Replacement trees shall be planted on the same property from which the trees
were removed. If the City determines, at its sole discretion, that the number of replacement
trees to be planted exceeds the number of trees that can be accommodated practically on-
site, off-site planting may occur at locations to be determined by the City, or a green space
fee in lieu of off-site planting may be required as provided in paragraph d below.
d) Where tree replacement on-site in satisfaction of Subd. 6.A above is not practical
and a suitable off-site location cannot be determined by the City, a green space fee in lieu
thereof may be assessed for the replacement required. The green space fee amount shall be
the cost of materials and installation of tree(s)tree, plus ten (10) percent, and shall be
provided by the applicant and approved by the City. All green space funds collected shall be
expended exclusively towards landscaping, as defined by the ordinance, for
implementation of the goals listed in Subd. 1 of this section and Section 1325.05, Subd. 1.A.
e) Development that is subject to the landscape requirements in Section 1325.05 of
the Zoning Code may count preserved trees towards the required landscaping plan. The
planting of trees for mitigation shall be in addition to the landscape requirements of
Section 1325.05 and shall be replaced in accordance with paragraph c and/or d above.
f) The required mitigation trees shall be replaced by the property owner or original
developer if they have died or have severely declined after the second full growing season
following installation. A tree shall be considered to be severely declined if more than 25
percent of the crown has died.
Subd. 7 General Tree Protection Standards.
A. Prior to Construction. Before construction, grading or land clearing begins; trees or
tree areas that are to be preserved shall be visibly marked and the city-approved tree
protection fencing or other method shall be installed and maintained at the critical root
zones of the trees to be protected. The location of the fencing shall be in conformance with
the approved tree preservation plan. This fencing shall be inspected by city staff before site
work begins.
B. During Construction. The following activities shall be prohibited within the critical
root zone areas of trees to be protected.
1. Trenching;
2. Temporary storage of any construction materials or chemicals; and
3. The routing or parking of heavy equipment, including cars, trucks, bulldozers and
construction trailers.
4. Sediment and erosion control. All sediment and erosion-control silt fencing or
straw bales shall be placed at the limits of grading or where needed to minimize the
deposition of sediment within the drip line of the protected tree(s).
5. Attaching protective devices, signs, etc., to trees is prohibited. No protective
devices, signs, utility poles or lines, or other objects shall be nailed or attached to any trees
that are to be preserved.
6. Other actions prohibited. Any other action within the drip line of the protected
tree(s) that may result in the severing of roots or compaction of soil, or that may impede
the free access of air and water to tree roots, shall be prohibited.
C. Ponding. Water retention ponding may not be located where there are significant
trees, unless approved by the city. The water retention ponding must be created in a
manner that prevents erosion into any nearby water resource.
D. Amendments to Plan. An amendment to the tree preservation plan shall be required
prior to the removal of trees that were designated for preservation on the original tree
preservation plan. The amendment shall be subject to City approval prior to
implementation.
1325.05 Design Standards.
The standards established in this section are designed to encourage a high standard of
development by providing assurances that neighboring land uses and neighboring
properties will be compatible. The standards shall also apply to all future development and
shall apply to existing development where so stated. Before any applications for
development or construction under the City Code are approved, it shall be determined that
the proposal will be in conformance with these standards unless a deviation has been
granted. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate such conformance.
(revised 4/28/08)
Subd. 1 Landscaping.
A. Purpose and Findings. The City declares that it is desirable and essential to the
health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the City to protect certain existing plants and trees,
to require new and additional plants and trees, to prohibit the planting of certain species,
to require the maintenance of plants and trees as set forth in this subdivision, and that
appropriate and unified landscaping is essential to meet the community objectives
established in the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Scope. The provisions of this subdivision shall apply only to privately owned
property. Property within public rights-of-way shall be maintained in accordance with
Chapter 7 of the City Code.
C. General Landscaping Requirements
1. Minimum Requirements. In all districts, all developed uses shall provide and
maintain a landscaped area according to the minimum requirements in Section 1320.06,
the district requirements chart.
2. All land area not occupied by marshes, ponds, wetlands, buildings, parking,
driveways, sidewalks, or other hard surface shall be sodded, seeded, mulched or
landscaped with appropriate perennials, shrubbery and/or trees.
3. Landscaped Area Along Streets. In all districts all developed uses shall provide and
maintain a landscaped area along streets. This area shall be kept clear of all structures,
storage, and off-street parking. Except for driveways, the area shall extend along the entire
frontage of the lot and along both streets in the case of a corner lot.
4. Maintenance of Green Space. The property owner shall be responsible for the
maintenance of all green space and landscaped areas in accordance with Section 600.02 of
the City Code.
5. Green Roofs. Green roofs may be counted towards the minimum landscaping
requirements of a parcel, as determined by Staff, based on the absorption rate and quality
of the green roof.
6. Screening. All developments shall be in conformance with Section 1325.05 Subd. 4.
7. Tree Preservation. Clear cutting of an entire stand of trees is prohibited on all
parcels. All developments shall be in conformance with Section 1325.055. and subject to an
approved Tree Mitigation Plan as outlined in Section 1325.055, Subd. 6.
D. Landscaping Plan.
A1. Scope. In cases where a landscaping plan is required by this Code or by an
approval granted by the City, the applicant for the building or grading permit shall submit a
landscape plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of Appendix A of the Zoning
Code. A landscape plan shall be approved by the City and implemented by the property
owner:
1a) For any new development or new building construction in any business,
industrial, Institutional, R-3, R-4, or I-FLEX zoning district, and planned unit developments,
except as otherwise provided by specific development agreements.
2b) For any existing commercial, industrial, or institutional building or parking lot
to be expanded by at least ten (10) percent, or at least 5,000 square feet, where an
approved landscape plan is not on file with the city. In the case where a plan is required
under this subparagraph, the property owner may submit a plan implementation schedule
that would allow the plan to be implemented over a period of three years.
3c) No building permit for any construction described in items (a) and (b) of this
subparagraph shall be issued unless a landscape plan required hereunder is approved by
the city.
B. Landscaping Plan Standards.
1. If the City determines, at its sole discretion, that landscaping to be planted in
satisfaction of the ordinance exceeds that which can be accommodated practically on-site, a
green space fee may be collected at the sole discretion of the City in lieu of on-site planting.
The green space fee amount shall be the cost of materials and installation of landscaping,
plus ten (10) percent, and shall be provided by the applicant and approved by the City. All
funds shall be expended exclusively towards landscaping, as defined by the ordinance, for
implementation of the goals listed in Subd. 1.A of this section and Section 1325.055, Subd.
1.
E. Performance Guarantee.
1. A landscape performance bond or other acceptable financial surety is required for
all screening or landscaping required in this Code to insure completion and maintenance of
all landscaping in accordance with the approved landscape plan required hereunder.
2. The amount of the bond or surety shall be 125% of the cost of materials and
installation.
3. The bond or surety shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building or
grading permits and shall be valid for, two full years, from the date of installation, or three
years in the case of an extended timeline.
4. For any landscaping or screening that is not in accordance with the approved
landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the applicant shall replace the material
to the satisfaction of the city before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the
city, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to
accomplish performance.
F. Minimum Landscape Requirements.
1. Caliper Inches. The minimum caliper inches required per building site shall relate
to the gross square footage of all floors of a building and the building height. A single story
building in excess of thirty (30) feet in height shall be considered a two-story building for
the purposes of determining gross square footage. Minimum total caliper inches =
Gross Square Footage of all Floors of Building
320
2. Tree Ratio. The minimum total caliper inches shall contain the following minimum
percentages of trees in various size ranges:
Building Height In Stories
Percentage of Trees of Various Caliper Inches
2.0" - 3.0"
3.5" - 4.0"
4.5" - 6.0"
1-2
50 %
30 %
20 %
3-4
50 %
30 %
20 %
5 and over
30 %
50 %
20 %
3. Coniferous Tree Measurement. Coniferous trees may be considered equivalent to
the sizes shown by dividing the height of the coniferous tree in feet by 2.4.
4. Minimum size at time of planting.
a) Two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches for deciduous trees.
b) Six (6) feet in height for coniferous trees.
5. Trees Along Street Frontage. A minimum of one tree shall be provided along the
right of way for every fifty (50) feet of public street frontage.
6. Perennials and Shrubberies. At least ten (10) percent of the total landscaped area
shall be covered with perennials and/or shrubbery and be planted within the perimeter of
private parking, building, and driveway areas.
7. Planting Islands. Planting islands shall be required to visually break up expanses of
hard-surface parking areas, to provide safe and efficient traffic movement, and to define
rows of parking. Planting islands shall occupy at least ten (10) percent of the parking area.
Planting islands shall be edged with concrete curbs. Parking lot planting islands shall be a
minimum of 150 square feet in area, be of appropriate width and length, and include at
least one tree meeting the requirements of this ordinance.
G. Landscape Design Specifications. All landscape plans and landscaping under this
subdivision shall follow and be in compliance with the following requirements, together
with all other Code regulations:
1. Diverse Selection. The landscape plan shall include a full complement of over story,
ornamental and evergreen trees, shrubbery, and ground covers that are hardy and
appropriate for the locations in which they are planted, and which provide year-round
color and interest.
2. Existing Plant Credit. Plant materials existing on a site at the time of development,
may be used as a credit against the requirements of these landscape regulations; the City
Council shall determine the extent of credit allowed, based on the evaluation of species,
size, location, quality of existing plant materials and the consistency with the intent of these
regulations.
3. Plant Selection. The City maintains a list of trees that may not be used to satisfy the
landscaping requirement of this section.
4. Method of Installation. All deciduous and coniferous trees shall be planted in
accordance with American Standards for Nursery Stock relating to quality of stock and
appropriate sizing of the root ball for balled and burlapped and spade-moved trees.
5. Slopes and Berms. Final slopes greater than the ratio of 3:1 will not be permitted
without special approval or treatment, such as special seed mixtures or reforestation,
terracing, or retaining walls. Berming used to provide required screening of parking lots
and other open areas shall not have slopes in excess of 3:1.
6. Landscape Plan Maintenance. Quantity and character of landscaping, as originally
approved, shall be maintained in perpetuity by the property owner unless the City
approves a change to the landscaping plan. Maintenance shall include removal of litter,
dead plant materials, unhealthy or diseased trees, and necessary pruning. Natural
watercourses within a buffer shall be maintained as free flowing and free of debris.
7. Erosion Control. All areas of any site shall be restored and maintained in
accordance with provisions of the city erosion control standards, and other requirements
of the Code.
8. Placement of Trees and Shrubs. No trees or shrubs shall be planted within any
drainage/utility easements, road right-of-way, or where it would now or in the future
materially impede the clear vision area or other driveway between a height of two and one-
half (2-1/2) and ten (10) feet in the clear vision area. (revised 3/18/09)
9. Completion Deadline. All plants required for screening purposes shall be planted to
completion within six months from date of issuance of a building permit unless otherwise
approved by the city due to the time of the year or if an alternative schedule is set in a
development agreement. In no case shall the period exceed six months from issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM – 1F
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
September 19, 2022
Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
Dave Perrault, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Council Tracker Update
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
N/A N/A N/A
Council Should Consider
The Council should provide further direction on items presented on the Council Request Tracker.
Background
City Council will receive a verbal update on items the Council has previously directed staff to
research and/or bring forward.
Discussion
N/A
Budget Impact
N/A
Attachments
N/A