Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-21-2025 Special JDA Agenda Packet Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project JDA MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 21, 2025, 5:30 p.m. at Arden Hills City Hall 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Public Input 5. Consent Agenda 6. Old Business 7. Public Hearings 8. New Business a. Approve Chair and Vice Chair b. Review Road Map c. Review JDA Budget d. Approve Sustainability Design Guidelines e. Outlot A Phase 1 Concept Review 9. Administrative Director’s Report 10. Development Director’s Report 11. Commissioner Updates 12. Adjournment Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 2 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Collins and Jagoe SUBJECT: Approval of Agenda The agenda for the January 21, 2025, JDA Meeting must be approved. Action Requested: Approve the agenda for January 21, 2025. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Collins and Jagoe SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes The meeting minutes from the December 2, 2024, JDA Meeting must be approved. Attachment: 12/2/24 JDA Minutes Action Requested: Approve the meeting minutes from December 2, 2024. Joint Development Authority Monday, December 2, 2024 Arden Hills City Council Chambers Minutes 5:30 pm Roll Call Joint Development Authority: Chair Jon Wicklund, Commissioner Nicole Frethem, Commissioner Victoria Reinhardt, Commissioner Tom Fabel, Commissioner Tena Monson Also present: Jessica Jagoe (Arden Hills); Ella Mitchell (Ramsey County), Jenny Boulton (Kennedy & Graven) Roll call taken. Approval of Agenda Motion by Commissioner Fabel seconded by Commissioner Frethem to approve the agenda as presented. Motion carried. Approval of Minutes Motion by Commissioner Fabel seconded by Commissioner Monson to approve the October 7, 2024 and the November 4, 2024 JDA meeting minutes, as presented. Motion carried. Public Input None. Consent Agenda None. Old Business None. Public Hearings None. New Business a. Communications Report Ms. Mitchell stated Goff Public worked with Ramsey County to develop the fall 2024 Rice Creek Commons newsletter that was distributed to 4,787 subscribers on Tuesday, October 9. Topics included progress toward the green energy vision for Rice Creek Commons, engineering work on the final design of the Spine Road, and development updates on the main parcel, Outlot A and approved Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR). The newsletter had a 2% click rate (about twice the industry average) and a 35% open rate, which are both in line with industry average. Goff Public also worked with county staff to update content on the infrastructure RFP webpage and developed general language highlighting 2024 progress for use on county and partner communications channels. Goff Public continues to discuss communications opportunities with county staff for future development updates. Commissioner Reinhardt stated she appreciated the communication plan that was in place. Commissioner Monson commented in general the plan was working well and she recommended continued outreach be made to the public through open houses or other formats. She asked if a legislative plan had been considered for 2025. Ms. Mitchell reported Ramsey County Government Relations was taking the lead on this with Goff Public. Commissioner Monson questioned when the JDA would be hearing about this plan. Ms. Mitchell stated she could provide the JDA with an update at the next meeting. Commissioner Reinhardt reported a virtual Ramsey County delegation meeting was held today and noted the top priority for Ramsey County was Rice Creek Commons. She explained the group discussed how it would be difficult to move this project without a bonding bill in 2025, but reported all legislators would be working in order to move this project along. Commissioner Fabel stated Senator Marty and Representative Moller attended a recent City Council meeting and shared strong support for a bonding bill. Chair Wicklund requested a Communication Update be placed on the February JDA agenda. b. Update on Developer Discussion Ms. Mitchell provided the JDA with an update on Outlot A. She explained Ryan Companies continues to advance negotiations with one potential end user for the site. She stated this end user only needs a portion of the site and so Ryan Companies has asked to amend the purchase and sale agreement to close on a smaller portion of the site first and extend the term of the agreement further to allow them to find additional users. She reported the County was feeling positive about this and would be speaking with Ryan Companies about this further next week. Commissioner Fabel reported the Costco bid came in $3 million higher than the Ryan Companies bid and Ryan Companies has not been able to close on this property. He discussed how the suburban office market was off. He asked if the County would be willing to reopen discussions with Costco for the thumb parcel. Ms. Mitchell indicated the County was allowing Ryan Companies to lead the discussions with the end users and the County was reacting to the plans that were brought forward. Commissioner Fabel stated Ryan Companies was asking to push this project back forward and noted the County did not have to allow for this delay. Commissioner Reinhardt believed it was important for the County to stick to the agreement that was in place with Ryan Companies. She indicated Ryan Companies had a plan and she would like to allow for this plan to move forward. Commissioner Frethem stated one of the reasons the County did not go with the Costco plan was because it went against the energy goals for this site. Ms. Mitchell provided an update on the California parcel. She discussed the terms of the preliminary agreement that was in place with Alatus. She reported a purchase and sale agreement with a new structure was recently sent to the County for review. She indicated the County Board would be holding a closed session meeting on Tuesday, December 3 to review this new agreement. Attorney Bolton further discussed the preliminary agreement that was in place with Alatus noting the goal was to reach a full agreement on the development by the end of June of 2025. She commented there were interim goals within this agreement, which included having substantial agreement on the terms of the development agreement by October 31, 2024. She explained there has not been much progress when it comes to the terms of the substantial agreement. She indicated the JDA could conclude that in good faith, that the parties have not reached a substantial agreement as to the terms and give notice to the other party that this goal has not been reached. Within 30 days of giving notice, there is a period to continue negotiations in the hopes of reaching substantial agreement on the terms. If at the end of the 30 day period that hasn’t been achieved, the preliminary agreement would terminate. Chair Wicklund stated the interim goal posts have been moving but they have not been met. He indicated it appears there has been potential delays in accomplishing goals and it sounds like in good faith, the JDA could start to put some things in motion about giving notice. He asked if the JDA had thoughts on this matter. Commissioner Reinhardt stated when considering where this project began to where things are now, the County was in active negotiations. She explained a close meeting would be held by the County tomorrow to consider the revised agreement. She indicated the County board would be meeting again on December 17. While she understood this was frustrating, she also knew how hard everyone was working. She sent a special thanks to Commissioner Frethem for her efforts on this project. She believed this project would continue to move forward and did not believe now was the time to give a 30 day notice. She stated she was hopeful this project would move forward. Commissioner Frethem explained the County had scheduled a closed session with Alatus for November 26 to discuss the purchase and sale agreement, however, this meeting was canceled. She indicated she reached out to staff at Alatus with a reminder the JDA had one more meeting in December and that the County board had only two more meetings. She commented a purchase and sale agreement would have to be reviewed on December 3, in order to be ratified on December 17. She indicated the Board would discuss the final draft that came to the County tomorrow and would determine the next steps forward. She explained based on the conversations she has had over the past few weeks she was less hopeful that the County would get there. She stated what becomes more concerning to her was that the JDA and the County board would have substantial change to their representation. She indicated it would be harder to execute a deal under these new conditions, which could cause additional delays. She thought the group was making progress, but the agreement terms have not gotten there. She stated the JDA could consider whether or not they want to continue to make time, or if the 30 day clock should be started. She stated in good faith all parties believed it was best to stick with the developer that has worked hard on this project, but this hasn’t resulted in a workable deal. She commented if action was not taken today, the JDA should consider calling a special meeting to take action prior to 2025. She reported the term substantial agreement was somewhat ambiguous. She asked if the JDA could state if an approved purchase and sale agreement was reached in the next 30 days the JDA would continue and if not, the group would dissolve. Attorney Bolton stated the language within the agreement is intended to be the party that is making the determination would determine what it believes in good faith was reaching substantial agreement as to the terms. She believed it would be good to have direction from the JDA to say what that means and direct staff to provide notice if this condition were not met. Chair Wicklund reported Ramsey County would have a County Board meeting on December 17 where the public may learn more about the outcome of the discussions with Alatus. He discussed how the makeup of the JDA could change in the new year. Commissioner Frethem anticipated at least three members would be new. Chair Wicklund appreciated the comment that depending what happens during the closed session meeting and County Board meeting on December 17, the JDA should respond, which would require a special meeting to deal with the new reality or facts facing this project. Commissioner Monson reported the JDA received an LOI on July 31 and the last time the County spoke with the developer regarding a purchase agreement was October 17. Ms. Mitchell stated she has emailed back and forth with Alatus and was told the developer did not have anything new after October 17. Commissioner Monson stated since that time the County has communicated via email with the developer and the developer has had no updates. She commented the developer has now provided the County with a new purchase and sale agreement that would be reviewed by the County Board on December 3. She questioned if the County could share any details on the new structure and financing for the mass grading. Ms. Mitchell stated at a high level, the new terms would have Alatus finding private financing for the mass grading. She indicated the County would transfer the land to Alatus and they would finance the mass grading on their own. Commissioner Monson reported there was a lot of discussion surrounding the mass grading financing and the JDA was told there was no way the project could be privately financed. She commented now a new proposal was before the County that states the mass grading could be financed privately. Ms. Mitchell stated she would be doing her due diligence to review the new concept to ensure the vision and goals of the development still happen under the new structure. Commissioner Monson questioned when the new developer began with Alatus. Ms. Mitchell stated Tony Kuechle was brought on board with Alatus this summer. Commissioner Monson commented on the amount of turnover that has occurred within Alatus. She understood the purchase agreement was a County issue, but she appreciated the fact the mass grading was proposed to be financed privately versus publicly. However, this was a change at the 11th hour. She recommended the JDA wait to see what happens after the County board meets. Commissioner Reinhardt noted she deferred to Commissioner Frethem on this matter and noted some of her hope has been dashed. She supported the JDA holding a special meeting sometime after December 17. Commissioner Fabel stated another timing issue to consider was that the City had a term sheet with the developer regarding the City parks, TIF, and the civic space. He indicated these issues would have to be revisited at some point in time before Alatus could conclude its deal with the County. He stated these were important issues to the City and he hoped Alatus would approach the City regarding these matters. Chair Wicklund asked if the JDA would be able to meet on December 23 or January 6. Commissioner Monson supported the JDA holding a special meeting on December 23 instead of January 6. The JDA members were not available to meet on December 23. Commissioner Reinhardt suggested the JDA meet on December 20 at 4:00 p.m. The JDA supported this meeting time. c. Review Road Map Ms. Mitchell reviewed the 2024 and 2025 road map in detail with the JDA. She explained the January JDA meeting has been canceled due to the timing of new members being appointed. She indicated the County and City would use the month of January to get new members onboarded. Administrative Director’s Report Ms. Mitchell stated Kimley Horn continues to work with the County on the spine road. She indicated a LEED for Communities kickoff event would be held on Friday, December 6. Development Director’s Report Director Jagoe provided the JDA noting the City Council has held two worksession meetings to discuss the civic and park sites within Rice Creek Commons. She indicated the Council discussed previous considered uses on the civic site. She noted these discussions would continue on Monday, December 16 at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Updates Commissioner Reinhardt stated it has been great serving on the JDA. It was her hope this development would continue moving forward and she thanked staff for all of their efforts. Commissioner Fabel commented he has had a positive experience serving on the JDA as well and he appreciated how an additional 500 units of housing had been added to this development. Commissioner Frethem indicated a project like this was extremely complicated and noted this project has a great deal of history in place. She discussed how this group has had to work through this history and she was proud of how this group has worked through these challenges. She appreciated the fact the JDA was willing to hold a special meeting later in December. Commissioner Monson thanked Commissioners Reinhardt, Fabel and Frethem for their service on the JDA. Adjournment Meeting adjourned at 6:20 pm. Approved _____________________________________ _______________________ Jon Wicklund, Chair Date Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Directors Collins and Jagoe SUBJECT: Public Input The public is invited to provide input. Comments will be limited to three minutes per person. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8a MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Elect Chair and Vice Chair Per the Bylaws of the JDA, the JDA Board shall have a Chair and a Vice Chair. The Chair presides over the meetings of the JDA Board, and in the absence of a Chair, the Vice Chair shall assume the Chair's duties. The Chair and Vice Chair must be elected annually by the JDA Board. The Chair shall be a non-elected official member appointed by the City; the Vice Chair shall be appointed by the Ramsey County Board from its members on the JDA Board. Arden Hill City Council appointed Jonathan Wicklund for a two-year term (2025-2026) as Chair at the December 9, 2024, council meeting. Ramsey County Board appointed Tara Jebens-Singh as Vice Chair for a one-year term (2025) at the January 7, 2025, County Board meeting. Attachment: None Action Requested: Elect Jonathan Wicklund as JDA Chair and Tara Jebens-Singh as Vice Chair of the TCAAP Joint Development Authority. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8b MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Review Road Map Staff will review scheduled JDA meetings and work sessions for 2025. Attachment: 2025 JDA Road Map Action Requested: Review Road Map and identify any additions or changes necessary. Month Date Meeting/Action or Deadline Topics or Notes JDA Commissioner Onboarding City/County onboarding of respective new commissioners 21 JDA Meeting Organizational Items, Sustainability Design Guidelines, Outlot A Concept Review 3 JDA Work Session 2024 JDA Annual Report, Legislative and Communications Update 15 Mar __JDA Meeting [New Date TBD] 7 JDA Work Session Potential Community Engagement New Commissioner Intros, Infrastructure, Sustainability 1 5 JDA Meeting Jun 2 JDA Work Session Jul 7 JDA Meeting Aug 4 JDA Work Session 1 Deadline: Coordinate JDA Budget with City and County budget processes 9 JDA Meeting Oct 6 JDA Work Session 3 JDA Meeting 15 Deadline: Report back on City/County approval of JDA budget Dec 1 JDA Meeting Adopt 2026 JDA budget Sept Apr Nov May Jan Rice Creek Commons 2025 Roadmap Feb Deadline: JDA Annual Report due to City and County Deadline: Draft 2026 JDA Budget Key JDA Meeting JDA Work Session Advisory Committee Meeting Deadline Other Meeting Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8c MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Review JDA Budget Review JDA Budget for 2025, approved at the 11/4/24 JDA meeting. Attachment: 2025 JDA Budget Action Requested: None. JDA Budget 2025 Estimated Revenues Grants JDA Application fees JDA Permit fees Contributions from Ramsey County 273,850.00$ Reserves Developer escrow/fees Miscellaneous revenues TOTAL 273,850.00$ Estimated Expenditures Personnel services Contract Services Legal 60,000.00$ Engineering Fiscal/Audit (including Fiscal Agent)60,000.00$ Planning Administrative 3,600.00$ Communications & Community Engagement 50,000.00$ Green Energy & Sustainability 92,750.00$ Services other than personnel or consultants Supplies and materials Office administration Capital outlay (office rent, computer equipment, etc.) Payment of invoices for services to the JDA provided by a Party Insurance 2,500.00$ Miscellaneous expenditures 5,000.00$ TOTAL 273,850.00$ Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 8d MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 21, 2025 Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners Director Jagoe and Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County Approve Sustainability Design Guidelines Recommendation: Staff recommends that the JDA approve the Sustainability Design Guidelines (SDG) for Rice Creek Commons. Background In late 2023, the JDA engaged Ever-Green Energy and LHB to analyze implementation strategies for the JDA’s Green Energy Vision. This analysis consisted of a comprehensive energy analysis to understand the energy demands of the planned development, a description of strategies to reduce that energy demand (primarily through high-performance building design), and analysis of renewable energy technologies to meet the remaining energy demand. As a part of this process, consultants and staff met with project developers to discuss sustainable development and clean energy strategies. Ever-Green Energy and LHB presented their initial findings at the October 2024 JDA work session and their final report, the Clean Energy Analysis Report, was accepted by the JDA at the November 2024 meeting. At the November meeting, the JDA approved a Clean Energy Policy: Rice Creek Commons seeks to be an all-electric, carbon-free community. Sustainability Design Guidelines Included in the Clean Energy Analysis Report was a draft of Sustainability Design Guidelines (SDG) (Appendix I), which describes feasible development standards that tangibly support the Green Energy Vision and Clean Energy Policy. These include standards for LEED certification, building energy efficiency, all-electric buildings, photovoltaic (PV) system installation, electric vehicle charging infrastructure, and reporting. At the November 2024 meeting, the JDA expressed a desire to understand the waiver process and implications of SDG standards for the development prior to approval. Staff subsequently worked with the consultants at LHB and the JDA attorneys to address these items, and the SDG have been updated to describe implementation and compliance (Section 3), including the waiver approval process. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project As described in Section 3 of the Sustainability Design Guidelines, the compliance process would run concurrently with other JDA review processes and be supported by the consultant team at LHB. LHB would help developers align with the SDG (identifying alternative technologies, strategies, and financing tools), manage the waiver process (including JDA review and approval), and provide a memo describing the development’s SDG compliance measures. The JDA staff would incorporate these measures into the development agreement for JDA approval. Recommendation By adopting the Sustainability Design Guidelines, the JDA would specify its standards for sustainable development on Rice Creek Commons. This would provide important clarity to developers interested in building at Rice Creek Commons. It would also demonstrate tangible steps the JDA is taking toward implementing the Green Energy Vision and Clean Energy Policy. Staff would then go back to the City and County, respectively, to further determine how to memorialize these guidelines. Attachment: Sustainability Design Guidelines Action Requested: Approve the Sustainability Design Guidelines Updated 1/17/2025 Rice Creek Commons Sustainability Design Guidelines Last Revised: January 17, 2025 1.Purpose. The purpose of the Sustainability Design Guidelines (SDG) is to advance the TCAAP Joint Development Authority’s (JDA’s) mission to advance sustainable development, reduce energy use and carbon dioxide emissions, and thereby mitigate the impacts of climate change from the Rice Creek Commons development. These guidelines establish the sustainability standards for development on the site and serve to implement the Green Energy Vision and Clean Energy Policy, which has the goal of an all-electric, carbon-free development. These guidelines also support the JDA’s pursuit of LEED for Communities (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design v4.1 for Communities: Plan + Design) certification. It is the goal of the JDA that each building and parcel in Rice Creek Commons shall comply with the SDG. The JDA will apply these guidelines within the Rice Creek Commons development through Development Agreements that are subject to JDA approval 2.Guidelines 2.1. Sustainability Certification. Each building and tenant improvement shall achieve LEED BD+C New Construction certification at the silver level or above using the newest version available at the time of registration. The LEED boundary for each improved parcel of land within the Development shall be the same as the boundary of that parcel. Other certification systems will be considered for one- to four-unit residential buildings, including the DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) program and Phius Passive House standards. 2.2. Building Decarbonization. 2.2.1. Energy Efficiency. All buildings and tenant improvements shall achieve: 50% better energy efficiency than the applicable Minnesota Energy Code, certification from the DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) program, or Phius CORE certification as a Passive House. 2.2.2. Electrification. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all buildings shall be all- electric and shall not use any fossil fuels. Any waivers of this provision will be restricted to systems or devices for which an equivalent all-electric system or design is unavailable, impractical, or is determined to present an equity gap, as reasonably determined by JDA. In the event of a waiver, buildings the JDA allows to use any fossil fuels must offset an equivalent amount of carbon emissions each year. 2.2.3. Renewable Energy. All buildings in the Development must install photovoltaic (PV) systems that either: 2.2.3.1. generate, on an annual basis, enough electricity to meet one hundred twenty percent (120%) of the building's anticipated energy use; or 2.2.3.2. include a rooftop array with a rated capacity of not less than 10.75 watts per gross square foot of roof area and a covered parking array for all parking lots containing twenty or more parking spaces -- including the top level of multi-level parking structures – with a rated capacity of not less than 7.5 watts per gross square foot of parking area. Updated 1/17/2025 All panels used in PV systems must be rated as Tier 1 panels and, if applicable, qualify under the Inflation Reduction Act for the Investment Tax Credit. Any renewable energy credits generated from PV systems in the Development shall be credited to the Development as a whole. Projects that are not able to generate enough energy, on an annual basis, to meet one hundred percent of their energy use, based on meeting this guideline, must purchase green power for the remainder. 2.3. District Energy. If a District Energy System is available, all buildings shall connect to the District Energy System for heating and cooling. 2.4. Embodied Carbon. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, all buildings shall conduct a whole building life-cycle assessment and achieve at least a 10% reduction in global warming potential, using the calculation methods established in LEED BD+C: New Construction. This Section does not apply to single family homes or tenant improvements within commercial buildings. 2.5. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure. The Development shall include infrastructure to support electric vehicles (EV) – as defined by the International Building Code – as follows: 2.5.1. For non-residential parcels where four or more vehicle parking spaces are provided, not less than 4% of the total number of parking spaces or not less than 8% of designated employee-only parking spaces shall be EV ready spaces or EVSE (Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment) spaces. Not less than 30% of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable spaces, EV ready spaces, or EVSE spaces. 2.5.2. For residential parcels, not less than 20% of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV ready spaces or EVSE spaces. Not less than 75% of the total number of parking spaces shall be EV capable spaces, EV ready spaces, or EVSE spaces. 2.6. Reporting. On an annual basis, all owners shall report monthly whole-building energy consumption, on-site energy generation, electrical demand, and water use to Energy Star Portfolio Manager and ensure this information is accessible to the JDA. Owners shall provide other building data upon the reasonable request of JDA. 3.Implementation and Compliance. Developers will comply with these guidelines by following the below approval and documentation processes concurrent with all other JDA review processes. 3.1. Approval Process. 3.1.1. Developer reviews Sustainability Design Guidelines and participates in kickoff meeting with sustainability consultant (LHB). Developer also participates in Energy Design Assistance (EDA) Program, a free energy consulting service, to understand energy efficiency options for their development and develop a whole building energy model (single-family homes exempted from EDA program). 3.1.2. Following the kickoff meeting and additional meetings as necessary, sustainability consultant provides summary memo of SDG compliance measures. 3.1.3. Upon agreement of the Developer and staff regarding compliance with the guidelines, or Updated 1/17/2025 upon agreement with the JDA regarding the terms of a waiver, Staff incorporates SDG compliance measures into Development Agreement between JDA and Developer. 3.2. Waivers. If the Developer determines they cannot adhere to all items in the SDG, Developer must complete the Waiver Request Process. The measures in these guidelines may be modified for individual developments for reasons of hardship. Alternative strategies that show demonstrable and quantifiable progress towards the Green Energy Vision may be considered as alternative compliance. Developers will go through the following process to request waivers to the SDG. 3.2.1. Developer completes waiver request form, including justification for requested waivers. 3.2.2. Sustainability consultant reviews waiver request form and prepares memo for staff who will make a recommendation to the JDA. This memo includes discussion of the impacts of requested waivers on JDA sustainability goals, such as greenhouse gas emissions and LEED for Communities certification, and the reasonableness of the waiver request. 3.2.3. JDA reviews waiver request memo and approves, disapproves, or otherwise provides direction to the Developer on waivers and/or alternative acceptable SDG compliance measures. Developer may present to JDA on sustainability plans and waiver request. 3.2.4. Sustainability consultant incorporates acceptable SDG compliance measures into summary memo, for staff to incorporate into Development Agreement. 3.3. Documentation. Developers will work with consultants and staff to submit documentation of SDG compliance. 3.3.1. Sustainability Certification 3.3.1.1. Proof of registration with LEED (or other accepted certification). 3.3.1.2. Checklist of the planned certification credits to be achieved. 3.3.1.3. Within one year of building occupancy, provide documentation reporting the certification level and credits achieved. 3.3.2. Energy Efficiency 3.3.2.1. All buildings and tenant improvements: energy model report showing achievement of 50% better efficiency than the applicable Minnesota Energy Code, certification from the DOE’s Zero Energy Ready Home (ZERH) program, or Phius CORE certification as a Passive House. 3.3.3. Electrification 3.3.3.1. Mechanical plans documenting that buildings are all-electric. 3.3.3.2. If granted a waiver to use gas service, documentation showing offset of an equivalent amount of carbon emissions from offsite sources. Updated 1/17/2025 3.3.4. Renewable Energy 3.3.4.1. PV system specifications showing that panels meet requirements of Section 2.2.3. 3.3.4.2. PV system sizing documentation indicating that system will generate enough electricity to meet requirements of Section 2.2.3. 3.3.5. District Energy 3.3.5.1. Mechanical plans documenting that buildings will be connected to a District Energy System for heating and cooling, if provided by Declarant, its affiliates, or other unrelated third parties. 3.3.6. Embodied Carbon 3.3.6.1. All buildings (except tenant improvements and detached single family residential) shall provide documentation for LEED MR Credit: Reduce Embodied Carbon indicating achievement of at least 2 points. 3.3.7. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure 3.3.7.1. For each parking area, provide a site plan indicating the total number of parking spaces and number achieving the EV infrastructure requirements of Section 2.5. 3.3.8. Reporting 3.3.8.1. Upon building occupancy, set up Energy Star Portfolio Manager to enable sharing with the Declarant. 3.3.8.2. Annually, report monthly whole-building energy consumption, on-site energy generation, electrical demand, and water use to Energy Star Portfolio Manager. Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM – 8e MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Development Director T.J. Hofer, Consultant Planner, Bolton & Menk SUBJECT: Concept Plan Review – Outlot A Ryan Companies US, Inc. – Office and Manufacturing Use Commissioners Should Consider The Joint Development Authority (JDA) should consider a request for a Concept Plan Review for a proposed office and manufacturing use development on the north side of the existing Outlot A located off of Old Highway 8. Ryan Companies US, Inc (Applicant), is seeking feedback from the JDA on the concept plan in advance of the full submittal which would include a land use application for items such as Subdivision Plan Review, Site Plan Review, Permitted Adjustment Requests, and Building Permit Review. The Concept Plan Review process is an opportunity for the JDA to provide comments and questions regarding proposed developments and permitted adjustment requests. A concept review is considered advisory and is nonbinding to the JDA and Applicant. No formal action can be taken regarding the application, aside from determining if the application meets the regular process or must be referred to the City TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) Amendment Request process. A formal application will be subject to the full review process, including a public hearing. Background Existing Conditions The proposed location for the development is the north side of Outlot A, off of Old Highway 8. The parcel is guided by the 2040 Arden Hills Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Plan) and zoned by the TCAAP Regulation Plan (TRC) as Campus Commercial (TRC CC). The below table summarizes surrounding future land use guidance, zoning, and existing land uses. Page 2 Direction 2040 Comp. Plan Land Use Zoning Existing Land Uses North PI - Public & Institutional CC - Civil Center District Office South CC - Campus Commercial TRC CC - Campus Commercial Vacant / Open Space East POS - Park & Open Space POS - Parks and Open Space District Vacant / Open Space West N/A – City of New Brighton N/A – City of New Brighton Highway, Manufactured Home Park Zoning Map The existing property is approximately 40.10 acres and is vacant. The property abuts Old Highway 8 which is considered to be a General Frontage road. Old Highway 8 is noted in the Comprehensive Plan Figure 9.1 Parks and Trails Map as the location for a proposed city pathway, so the street would utilize the Collector Road with Trail street section in Attachment 4 of the TRC. Proposed Conditions - Concept Plan The Applicant is proposing to develop the site for a combined office and manufacturing use. At this time, the user of the structure is confidential and has not been shared with either the City of Arden Hills or Ramsey County. The Applicant has stated that the use would be a “well- established, local advanced technology company specializing in technology manufacturing, research and development, and advanced technology testing.” The Applicant has also stated that Page 3 the use would provide “over 240 high-quality jobs, offers competitive wages and benefits, and anticipates more than 20% growth in the next five years.” The proposed structure would be an approximately 157,725 square foot building. The Applicant has also shown an area that is proposed as a 13,100 square foot potential expansion area on the west side of the building. Site Plan The proposal states a total of 300 parking stalls (298 shown), with eight accessible ADA stalls, 54 of which are shown as proof of parking. The site plan also states that 16 bicycle parking spaces (eight shown on plans), eight motorcycle stalls, and four electric vehicle stalls would be provided. 10 loading docks would be located along the south side of the structure and one drive- in door, which is not indicated on the plans. Screening is shown along the eastern side of the development for the public open space and along the west side of the development with a Street Screen. Renderings and elevations for the proposed building have been provided, but exterior materials have not been submitted. Page 4 North and East Elevation East and South Elevation Rendering of Building from Northwest Page 5 The Applicant has also submitted an exhibit showing an approximate floor plan for the proposed building. Information has not been submitted regarding the percentage of various uses within the building. Proposed Floor Plan The Applicant has submitted information regarding sustainability. There are seven aspects of the Rice Creek Commons Sustainable Design Guidelines which include LEED certification, performance above the Minnesota Energy Code, an all-electric approach, onsite renewable energy and district energy, 10% embodied carbon reduction, electric vehicle infrastructure, and annual energy and water data reporting. Within the application, the Applicant has outlined a basic approach that applies to all scenarios. This approach includes: 1. Xcel EDA Program 2. Above-Code Wall Insulation 3. Low-Flow Fixtures & LED Lighting 4. Dark-Sky Friendly Exterior Lighting 5. 75% Waste Diversion Goal 6. A4/A5 Construction Emissions Tracking 7. Comprehensive site assessment 8. Onsite storm runoff management (infiltration) 9. Native, diverse & pollinator-friendly plantings 10. Smart, water-conserving irrigation The Applicant has included within their narrative parameters for the JDA discussion on these topics. To aid in that discussion, LHB has provided a summary of comments for waiver request impacts: Installation of traditional geothermal for office areas would require additional financial resources (likely from Ramsey County). Natural gas would be used to heat the warehouse. This Page 6 would result in a small reduction in GHG from baseline and reduced points toward LEED for Communities certification. • Ryan Companies’ aggressive timeline makes it difficult to assess the feasibility of achieving the measures of the Sustainability Design Guidelines. In a typical design and development review process, there would be time for additional coordination, including the EDA program, to better understand opportunities for design changes. • Energy Design Assistance (EDA), a free program provided by companies such as Willdan, would provide critical data and design recommendations to achieve energy efficiency goals. LHB believes that the SDG Energy Efficiency goal (50% better than Minnesota Energy Code) may be achievable, and this process would analyze that. Ryan Companies has indicated the tenant is planning to undertake this process, but it has not yet begun. • Many of the financial tools available, such as Inflation Reduction Act tax incentives, are more complex to implement due to Ryan Companies’ model as a merchant builder. It is possible for Ryan Companies to take advantage of these financing options, but it would take additional time to do so. The JDA should discuss and provide comments on these topics relate to sustainability guidelines. TRC Analysis Applicability The TRC provides the following guide in using the code and evaluating a property. The process is described as: (a) Review Table 3-1 to evaluate the applicability of the TRC based on scope of the proposed development. (b) Locate the subject property on the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1). (c) Identify the Zoning District in which the property is located. (d) Review the Schedule of Uses by Zoning District as listed in Table 5-1 to determine allowed uses. (e) Examine the corresponding zone standards in the Building and Site Development Standards in Section 6 to determine the applicable development standards and any Frontage standards. (f) Refer to Section 7.0 for Building Design Standards Based on Table 3-1 the TRC is applicable to the development and as new construction, all sections of the TRC apply. In drafting this report, staff have attempted to follow this same process in organizing the document, but small deviations have occurred for the sake of clarity of conciseness. As the application is being reviewed as a concept plan, each individual standard has not been reviewed, but general standards and requirements of the TRC have been assessed. As additional information is submitted, the review is subject to change. Throughout the review, text copied directly from the TRC has been italicized and sections that are not applicable to the proposal have not been included. Page 7 5.0 Schedule of Permitted Use As noted previously, the parcel is zoned Campus Commercial (TRC CC). The purpose of this district is described in the TRC as the following: The Campus Commercial Zoning District facilitates a building format that allows multiple, single tenant buildings or campuses within the northern “Thumb” site of the Plan Area. The goal is to allow for an individual plan approach for each campus or building, based on user preferences within a range of requirements.” Table 5-1 establishes the allowed uses within the TRC zoning district. Within the TRC CC district “Office” uses are a permitted use and “Manufacturing & processing: Class I” is a permitted use, so long as the criteria in Table 5-2 are met. “Manufacturing & processing: Class II” is a prohibited use. “Manufacturing & processing: Class I” and “Manufacturing & processing: Class II” are uses defined by the Arden Hills City Code Chapter 13 – Zoning Code and have the following definitions: Manufacturing and processing. All uses which include the compounding, processing, packaging, treatment, or assembly of products and materials. Generally, these are industries dependent upon raw materials refined elsewhere. These uses include, but are not limited to: fabrication of wood, metal, and plastic products; assembly of electronic components, equipment, and appliances; processing of chemicals, plastics, food products, and nonalcoholic beverages; manufacturing of clothing and textile products; distribution centers, lumber yards, printing and binding shops, machine shops, sheet metal shops, sign shops, contractor's shops and storage yards. • Class I: Above uses without exterior storage. • Class II: Above uses with permitted exterior storage. The proposed use does not appear to have any exterior storage and therefore would be a permitted use if the conditions within Table 5-2 are met. Table 5-2 requires the following for “Manufacturing & processing: Class I:” For buildings where manufacturing and processing are a principal or accessory use, a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the gross building square footage must be in office use. The floor plan submitted by the Applicant does not indicate the amount of gross building square footage to be used for the Office use. Additionally, as the Applicant has shown a potential future expansion of the building, the potential future expansion should also be detailed to show that the 30% Office use would be maintained. Based on the description of the use, staff believe that the uses “Research and development facility” and “Warehousing” are also included in the proposed use. “Research and development facility” is a permitted use in the TRC CC district, but “Warehousing” is allowed only as an accessory use, provided the criteria in Table 5-2 are met. Table 5-2 requires that “Warehousing is only allowed as an accessory use to Manufacturing and Processing. For buildings where warehousing is an accessory use, a minimum of thirty percent (30%) of the gross building square footage must be in office use.” Page 8 Based on the mix of uses proposed, the use is considered a commercial use for the purposes of evaluation the proposal with the TRC. 6.0 Building and Site Development Standards 6.1 (a) Building Frontage Designation The Building Frontage designations are established on the Regulating Plan (Attachment 1) to specify certain building and site development standards along each street based on the priority placed on pedestrian-orientation. The General Frontages shall be building frontages not designated as either a Pedestrian Priority or Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage on the Regulating Plan. As the site abuts Old Highway 8, the project is considered to be a General Frontage. The Applicant has included a statement regarding the orientation of the building included in the Descriptions of Requests for Permitted Adjustments or Flexibility Attachment: Ryan has intentionally oriented and strategically situated the building on this site. By locating the minimal amount of loading doors on the southern building façade, this allows the future southern development to both 1) provide screening via the future building structure and 2) provide an opportunity for a future shared loading drive. 6.1 (c) Parking and Service Access Off-street parking is required for the proposed use per Table 6-1 at a rate of 1 space per 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area for the Office use and 1 space per 500 sq. ft. of the gross floor area for general manufacturing and 1 space per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for warehousing or storage. Use Parking Ratio Proposed Sq. Ft. Total Per TRC Proposed Stalls Office 1 space/250 sq. ft. of gross floor area Unknown Unknown 354 Industrial Uses 1 space/500 sq. ft. of gross floor area for general manufacturing/industrial; 1 space/1,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area for warehousing/storage Unknown Unknown Total 157,725 Unknown 300 The submitted plans are show 298 automobile parking stalls. Sufficient information is not available to determine the required number of parking stalls, however, the Applicant has stated that per the standards in 6.1, 354 parking stalls would be required. The Applicant is proposing an adjustment to the required parking for a total of 300 parking stalls, with proof of parking shown to meet the required 354 stalls as the TRC requires. Table 3-3: Permitted Adjustments Table allows for the following adjustments to the required parking spaces: Page 9 Based on an assumption of a required 300 parking stalls, a reduction of up to 30 stalls could be approved. A reduction of 54 parking stalls would require the request to proceed through the TRC Amendment Process, which includes a public hearing before the Arden Hills Planning Commission and consideration and decision by the Arden Hills City Council. The Applicant has not proposed shared parking on the site. Based on previous discussion regarding the site and concepts previously considered, it’s believed that there will be shared facilities through the development of Outlot A (such as stormwater maintenance), however, the Applicant appears to intend to meeting parking for the proposed use wholly within the constraints of the site. Access to the site is proposed to be from Old Highway 8, which is consistent with the standards within the TRC regarding driveways and service access. Driveways for all commercial shall be a maximum of 20 ft. in width unless the driveway is used for service access (trash, fire, deliveries, etc.). In this case, the driveway could be a maximum of 30 ft. As Old Highway 8 will remain a County Road, the access will be required to meet Ramsey County Standards as well. Wherever multiple standards exist, the stricter shall apply. Access to the site is shown on renderings included within the submittal to also serve future development to the south of the proposed project. Additional easements may be required if shared driveways or access agreements are proposed and established. 6.1 (d) Street Screen Required Any non-residential parking lot frontage along a public right-of-way with surface parking shall be defined by a Street Screen. This required Street Screen shall be located at the right-of-way edge. This is addressed in full later in the report. 6.1 (e) Loading Dock Standards i. Facilities that include a loading dock shall have a maximum clear height of twenty-four feet (24’) as measured from the surface of the ground floor to the lowest point on the ceiling. ii. No more than one loading dock shall be allowed per 10,000 square feet of building area. iii. Cross docks, where loading docks are situated along two (2) walls of the same building, shall not be permitted. iv. Loading docks shall be located in the side or rear yard and shall be screened from view of the public right-of-way. Page 10 The plans appear to show a clearance of 28 ft. based on the elevations. The Applicant is proposing 10 loading docks for an approximate ratio of 1 loading dock per 15,772 sq. ft. Cross docks are not proposed. The proposed loading docks would be located along the southern façade of the building, which would be the side yard. Details have not been submitted to show how the loading docks would be screened from view from the public right-of-way. While renderings submitted show the long-term development plans with additional buildings to the south of the proposed structure, when constructed the southern façade of the building would be directly visible to all northbound traffic on Old Highway 8. If the area develops as shown on the renderings, structures to the south of the proposal would provide screening, however, there is no known proposal for the building located directly to the south of the proposed structure. The JDA may wish to discuss requirements for a Street Screen for the south side of the building if development of the southern parcel does not begin by a certain time. Further requirements from 6.1 (j) may apply for phased developments. The Applicant has provided preliminary proposed building heights for the internal of the building as part of Item #2 in Attachment C: • Restrooms & storage = 8’-10’ typical • Office space = 12’-14’ typical • Engineering lab space = 14’-16’ typical • Manufacturing, machine shop & warehouse space = 28’ typical The Applicant has stated that where the loading docks are located will conform with the requirement of 24 ft. as measured from the surface of the ground floor to the lowest point on the ceiling. The above heights do conflict with a requirement in 6.2 (c), which is detailed below. 6.1 (h) Measuring Heights iii. Vents, tanks, solar energy systems, HVAC equipment, and other mechanical enclosures shall be exempted from the height limits so long as they do not extend more than fifteen feet (15’) above the roof upon which they are located. iv. Internal building height shall be measured from finished floor to bottom of the structural members of the ceiling. Information regarding roof mounted mechanical equipment has not been provided. Any proposed would be required to be the standards established within the TRC. 6.1 (j) Phased Developments Due to the long-term development vision within the TRC, certain building form and site development standards may be deferred for phased development projects meeting the following criteria: i. Submission of a site plan that illustrates how development and any related private improvements will be phased over time. Each phase of the site plan shall independently comply with all applicable standards of the TRC unless a Permitted Adjustment is granted. Page 11 ii. Required private landscaping and open space amenities may also be phased with the building. iii. If a full block is being phased in development, design and development standards may be measured at the full block level in order to accommodate the various phases of the development. If the Applicant wished to delay improvements to the site, additional information regarding phased development would be required. 6.1 (k) Required Public Improvements All site plans that require public improvements such as sidewalk and streetscape improvements may be deferred through the payment of a proportional fee-in-lieu when the entire length of that block is not within the site plan. As the Applicant is proposing a portion of Outlot A be developed, the JDA could elect to allow for the required public improvements to be delayed. If improvements are delayed, the fee-in-lieu should be established which would likely require a financial analysis by City or County staff and bids from the Applicant. 6.2 (b) Building Placement, (c) Building Height, and (d) Parking & Service Access 6.2 (b), (c), and (d) establish dimension standards for the TRC CC district. A 50 ft. setback from public open space and a 10 ft. setback from General Frontage streets are required for the structure and appear to be met. Buildings can be a maximum of 15 stories or 210 ft and a minimum height of a first floor of 10 ft. Elevations within the submittal appear to meet these standards, however, additional information provided by the Applicant indicates that there are areas described as “Restrooms & storage” with a typical ceiling height of 8 to 10 ft. These heights would need to be standardized to 10 ft. to meet the requirements of 6.2 (c) as 3.3 (f) states that the JDA shall not grant flexibility for clear height. Surface parking must be setback 50 ft. from public open space and screened. The submitted plans appear to meet the setback requirement and the plans state that screening is proposed. The standards in 6.2 (d) (i) also required that any loading or service oriented towards Public Open space or public trails be screened. The proposed loading docks are located on the south elevation and public trails are located to the east of the proposed structure. 7.0 Building Design Standards 7.2 Building Orientation and Entrances As the building is not located on a Pedestrian Priority Frontage or a Pedestrian-Friendly Frontage, the building may be oriented towards General Streets or Civic/Open Spaces. Primary entrances to the building must be located on the street along which the building is oriented and towards public sidewalks. The proposed main entrance appears to be located on the northwest corner of the structure, which would meet both of these requirements. 7.3 Façade Composition (a) Commercial Use, Mixed-Use and Large and Medium Multi-Family Buildings: Page 12 (i) Facades greater than sixty feet (60’) in length along all Pedestrian Priority Frontage, Pedestrian-Friendly Frontages and Civic/Open Spaces shall meet the following façade articulation standards: 1. Include facade modulation such that a portion of the facade steps back or extends forward with a depth of at least twenty-four inches (24”)(see Figure 7-3). 2. The distance from the inside edge of a building projection to the nearest inside edge of an adjacent projection shall not be less than twenty feet (20’) and not greater than sixty feet (60’) (see Figure 7-3). (ii) All other facades shall be articulated by at least one discernable architectural element every twenty feet (20’). Such architectural elements include, but are not limited to: 1. Changes in material, color, and/or texture either horizontally or vertically at intervals not less than twenty feet (20’) and not more than sixty feet (60’) (see Figure 7-3); or 2. The construction of building entrances, bay windows, display windows, storefronts, arcades, façade relief, panels, balconies, cornices, bases, pilasters, or columns (see Figures 7-4). The Applicant has submitted a statement regarding the Façade Composition as Item #4 in Attachment C, however, staff believes that the façade was designed with the wrong standards. 7.3 (a) (i) specifies that it applies to façades along “Pedestrian Priority Frontage, Pedestrian- Friendly Frontages and Civic/Open Spaces.” The proposed structure is along a General Frontage on the west side and therefore the entire structure façade should be subject to 7.3 (a) (ii). Figure 7-3 (with markups) The Applicant’s states in Item #4 in Attachment C): Per Figure 7-3 above, there is no minimum depth for the articulation, and our project falls within the General Street Frontage category. Ryan has designed the building to incorporate changes in color, reveals, and inset panels along each façade to break it up the elevations. If an inset panel was required every 20 feet, it would look overly Page 13 busy/incredibly choppy, and we don’t believe that is the intent of this requirement. Additionally, this industrial use does not fit in the categories listed in Section 7.3 above. Table 3-3: Permitted Adjustments Table allows for the following adjustments to the building frontage: Further, the adjustment must be to accommodate specific needs established in Table 3-3 including porte-cocheres for drop-off and pick-up; or existing buildings and site elements; or other required transit, bike and pedestrian related, storm water drainage, water quality, or low impact development (LID) elements on the site. The request from the Applicant does not appear to align with any of these conditions. If the Applicant wished to move forward with a proposal that included fewer architectural articulations on the façade, the TRC Amendment Process would be required to change the code. The application has not been reviewed for compliance with all aspects of the building design standards of the TRC due to this being reviewed at the concept stage. The Applicant is required to provide an analysis or statement of conformance with the future land use application submittal. A full review will be performed with the submittal of an application for a formal decision. 7.4 Non-Residential, Mixed-Use, and Large and Medium Multi-Family Residential Building Materials (b) On General Frontages, primary building structures shall have a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the following primary building materials: (i) Masonry (individual brick, stone, cast stone, etc. that is mortared in place) (c) Secondary materials shall only be used for up to forty percent (40%)of the primary building façade for Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian Friendly frontages. On General Frontages, secondary materials may be used for up to sixty percent (60%) of the primary building façade. (i) Secondary materials include: 1. Architectural metal with matte finish 2. Cementitious fiber Page 14 3. Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS), on all frontages shall not be used on the ground floor level. Use of EIFS is limited to ten percent (10%) per total façade area. 4. Stucco utilizing a 3-step process of application. 5. Engineered wood (e) For tilt-up wall construction, a veneer system of materials shall be used to come into conformance with the above listed materials. The application has not included details regarding exterior finish materials. Any future submittal for formal approval would be expected to identify these materials on an elevation of the building and provide calculations regarding the percentage makeup of all materials throughout the building. The Applicant has stated in Item #5 of Attachment C: Ryan has incorporated inset precast panels along the building façades which creates articulation on the longer elevations. The reveals provide a transition for color and create texture along the precast panels in both the horizontal and vertical directions across the entire building. Every few feet there is an intentional design element. Textured paint is also planned to be used on flat surfaces between design elements to maintain visual interest throughout. 7.5 Shading Requirement Shading of public and publicly accessible sidewalks, especially sidewalks located along Pedestrian Priority and Pedestrian-Friendly frontages shall be important to implementing the vision for walkable mixed-use in the Plan Area. Shading may be achieved through any combination of canopies, awnings, street trees and other similar devices. To this end, the following standards shall apply (see Figure 7-5): (a) Shaded sidewalks shall be provided alongside at least: (ii) Fifty percent (50%) of all building facades with frontage along an off-street surface parking lot (b) When adjacent to a surface parking lot, the shaded sidewalk shall be raised above the level of the parking lot by way of a defined edge, such as a curb. ADA ramps along the building must also be shaded. (c) A shaded sidewalk must meet the following requirements: (i) Along a street, a shaded sidewalk shall comply with the applicable sidewalk standards for its designated street type. If not otherwise required, the shaded sidewalk shall provide trees planted no more than fifty feet (50’) on center. (ii) Along any surface parking adjacent to the building (both off-street or on street), the shaded sidewalk shall consist of a minimum five foot (5’) clear zone and five foot (5’) planting zone, planted with trees no more than fifty feet (50’) on center, or a five foot (5’) clear zone with a minimum five foot (5’) wide over- head weather protection. The submitted plans do not appear to provide shading through canopies, awnings, street trees, and other similar devices for the publicly accessible sidewalks that abut the building facades with Page 15 frontage along an off-street surface parking lot. Plans shall be revised to show compliance with the standards in 7.5. The plans show tree plantings along Old Highway 8 outside of the right-of-way. These would not effectively shade the path/sidewalk to the west of the property. A full landscaping plan has not been submitted and would be required for a formal submittal. 7.7 Design of Automobile Related Building and Site Elements (e) All off-street loading, unloading, and trash pick-up areas shall be located along alleys or General Frontages only unless permitted in the specific building form and development standards in Section 6 of this Code. If a site has no General Frontage or Alley access, off-street loading, unloading, and trash pick-up areas may be permitted along a Pedestrian-Friendly or Spine Road Frontage. The proposed off-street loading docks and dumpster are proposed on the south side of the building, where the building does not abut a road. (f) All off-street loading, unloading, or trash pick-up areas shall be screened using a Street Screen that is at least as tall as the trash containers and/or service equipment. The Street Screen shall be made up of (i) a living screen or (ii) a combination living and primary building material screen. Plans show a dumpster located on the south side of the building near the loading docks. A Street Screen does not appear on the plans and would be required for the dumpster. A Street Screen is defined within the TRC as: A freestanding wall or living fence or combination fence built along the frontage line or in line with the building façade along the street. It may screen a parking lot or a loading/service area from view or provide privacy to a side yard and/or strengthen the spatial definition of the public realm. Image of a combination masonry and living street screen Page 16 The JDA should discuss if a Street Screen located along the western border of the property that screens the entire site meets the intent behind the TRC and the desire of the JDA for the aesthetics of the Rice Creek Commons area. Figure 10-2 Illustration showing required Street Screen along all frontages without a Building within the BTZ 8.0 Street Design Standards 8.3 Project Circulation Plan A Project Circulation Plan must be submitted with a site plan or subdivision application (whichever comes first) for an area of four (4) acres or larger that is subject to the requirements of this section. The Project Circulation Plan shall be developed and reviewed for its consistency with this section and the Regulating Plan, which illustrates proposed locations for new and improved streets within the Plan Area. Required streets on the Regulating Plan shall be mandatory and their alignments may be adjusted per Section 3.3 Permitted Adjustments. (c) Approvals: A Project Circulation Plan may only be approved by the JDA. 3. The JDA, with the recommendation of the Arden Hills Public Works and Community Development Departments, may waive the requirement for a Project Circulation Plan through the Permitted Adjustment process. This is permitted if the JDA finds that a plan is not necessary due to the nature of the proposed development on the site, the existence of surrounding incompatible development, or other factors unique to the property which make strict compliance unfeasible. 4. A subdivision or site plan may not be approved if the Project Circulation Plan is not approved. The Applicant has not submitted a Project Circulation Plan. The JDA may waive the requirements with the recommendation of the Arden Hills Public Works and Community Development Departments. The JDA must find that the plan is not necessary due to the nature of the proposed development on the site, the existence of surrounding incompatible development, or other factors unique to the property which make strict compliance unfeasible. The Applicant should identify if they intend to make this request. 9.0 Open Space Standards Page 17 9.4 Permeable Area Requirements (a) All development is required to maintain a permeable ground area per Table 9-1. In limited areas, the JDA may grant flexibility on these requirements in accordance with MPCA guidelines. (b) Permeable ground area shall be on-site within the parcel limits of the development. (c) Up to 100% of Private Common Open Space may count towards the permeable ground area requirements if the materials and ground cover for the Private Common Open Space meets the standards of permeability. (d) Street screening for parking lots that utilize vegetative screening may count towards the permeable ground area requirements. (e) Permeable materials include: i. Any natural vegetation or landscaping that allows direct water infiltration ii. Permeable paving materials designed and engineered to allow direct water infiltration. Any new material not listed in any best practice guides for permeable paving will be evaluated and considered by Community Development Staff and may be approved by the JDA. Permeable paving materials shall not count towards more than twenty percent (20%) of the total permeable area requirements. iii. Any material that requires a sheet flow and collection system for water infiltration shall not be considered permeable cover. (f) Design and placement: ii. In the Neighborhood, Flex Office or Campus Commercial Zones, any yard or buffer space on site shall be designed in context with the primary building(s) and shall not block views or ingress/egress access to the buildings. The Applicant has not submitted information regarding total permeable or impervious surfaces for the proposed development. The Applicant will be required to submit details regarding all permeable surfaces and calculations that show that the standards established in the TRC are being met. 9.5 Open Space Classification For the purposes of this Code, all open space shall fall into one of the following three major classes: (b) Private Common Open Space: A privately owned outdoor or unenclosed area, located on the ground or on a terrace, deck, porch, or roof, designed and accessible for outdoor gathering, recreation, and/or landscaping and intended for use by the residents, employees, and/or visitors to the development. This may or may not be accessible to the public, but shall be maintained privately. (c) Private Personal Open Space: A privately owned outdoor or unenclosed area, located on the ground or on a balcony, deck, porch, or terrace and intended solely for use by the individual residents of a condominium or multi-family dwelling unit. Page 18 The submitted plans that state an “Outdoor amenities/Green space/ landscaped” area will be located on the south side of the development. It is currently unclear if the area would be considered Private Common Open Space or Private Personal Open Space, but staff believes it will likely proposed as Private Common Open Space, based on the requirements of 9.6. 9.6 Open Space Requirements (a) All non-residential development shall provide four (4.0) sq.ft. of Private Common Open Space for every 100 sq. ft. of non-residential building space or fraction thereof. This standard shall only apply to site plans two (2) acres in size or larger. The Applicant is proposing a structure that would be approximately 157,725 sq. ft., which based on the ratio within the TRC, would require 6,309 sq. ft. of Private Common Open Space. The area where this is currently shown on the concept plans is also the location of the proof of parking included on the concept site plans. If the JDA approves a permitted adjustment for the required amount of parking stalls, this area could be considered for the open space. If the building were ever to expand or require more parking, however, the open space amount would need to be maintained or increased on the site to meet the standards of the TRC. 10.0 Streetscape and Landscape Standards 10.1 Sidewalks Publicly accessible sidewalks are required for all development under this Code and shall meet the standards of Table 10-1 and shall be based on the Street Classification per Attachment 4. The minimum sidewalk width requirement shall apply regardless of the available right-of-way. If necessary to meet the required sidewalk width, the sidewalk shall extend onto private property to fulfill the minimum requirement, with a permanent public access easement provided. Sidewalks shall consist of two zones: a planting zone located adjacent to the curb, and a clear zone (see Figures 10-1). A trail already exists within the right-of-way along Old Highway 8, no encroachment onto the parcel is anticipated but will be reviewed as part of a formal submittal by the City and County. 10.2 Street Trees and Streetscapes (a) Street trees shall be required per Attachment 4 within the Planting/Furnishings Zone. (b) Street trees shall be centered within the Planting Zone and be planted a minimum of three feet (3’) from the back of curb. (c) Spacing shall be an average of forty feet (40’) on center (measured per block face) along all Streets as required by Attachment 4. (d) Requirements for minimum caliper size and height are included in the Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual. Each tree shall be planted in a planting area no less than thirty- six (36) square feet. (e) Preferred street tree species are identified in the Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual. Arrangement of species shall be interspersed in order to prevent wholesale loss of street trees in the case of disease. (f) Area between the building facade and property line or edge of existing sidewalk along Pedestrian Priority Frontages shall be such that the sidewalk width shall be a minimum Page 19 of ten feet (10’) (with public access easement if necessary) with the remainder of the setback area paved flush with the public sidewalk. Sidewalk cafes, landscaping within tree-wells or planters may be incorporated within this area. (see Illustration in Section 6.1) (g) Placement of trees shall not impede the clear vision area as required in Section 1325.05, Subsection 1 of the AHC. The Applicant is showing the presence of street trees on the renderings included with the submittal, but details have not been provided. Street trees will be required based on County standards and plantings should be designed to meet the standards within the TRC and County specifications due to Old Highway 8 being a County Road. A Landscaping Plan is required with the formal submittal. 10.4 Screening Standards (a) Street Screen Required: Any surface parking lot with frontage along a public right of way shall be defined by a three-foot (3’) high Street Screen (see Figure 10-2). Furthermore, along all streets (except alleys), service areas and ground-mounted utility equipment shall be screened in such a manner that the service area shall not be visible to a person standing on the property line on the far side of the adjoining street (see Figure 10-3). Required Street Screens shall be of one of the following: • The same building material as the principal structure on the lot or • A vegetative screen composed of shrubs planted to be a minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) opaque at maturity, or • A combination of the two. i. Street Screens cannot block any required sight triangles along a cross street or driveway. ii. Street Screens may include breaks to provide pedestrian access from any surface parking or service area to the public sidewalk. (b) Screening of Roof Mounted Equipment: All roof mounted mechanical equipment (except solar panels) shall be screened from view of a person standing on the property line on the far side of the adjoining street (see Figure 10-3). The screening material used shall be the same as the primary exterior building material used. Details regarding screening have not been provided, but screening of various levels is expected to be required for surface parking lots, service areas, ground-mounted utility equipment, and any roof mounted equipment. Screening should be designed to meet the standards for the TRC. 10.5 Street Lighting Street lighting should be provided on Spine, Town, Collector and Collector with Trail roads. Refer to Arden Hills Public Works Design Manual for lighting palette. The following standards shall apply for pedestrian scale lighting: (a) Vehicular lighting shall be a maximum of thirty feet (30’) in height and pedestrian- oriented lighting a maximum of eighteen feet (18’) in height. Page 20 (b) Street lights shall be placed at an average of forty feet (40’) on center, approximately three (3) feet behind the back of curb, aligned with street trees, and where street trees are planted. (c) The light standard selected shall be compatible with the design of the street and buildings. (d) All other standards for street lighting shall direct light downward or properly shielded with three-quarter (¾) or fully shielded fixtures to prevent glare. (e) High efficiency lighting, such as LED lamps, is required. Details were not provided regarding street lighting in the submittal. Future submittals shall require details regarding required street lighting that meets the standards of the TRC and County. 10.6 Exterior Lighting All development in the TRC (including surface parking lots) with the exception of Single-Family Attached, Single-Family detached, Townhouse, and Two-Family Residential Uses shall comply with the Exterior Lighting regulations in AHC Section 1325. Details regarding exterior lighting were not submitted. Future submittals shall require a lighting plan with details to address all standards within AHC Section 1325. 10.8 Utilities (a) All utility lines shall be underground. (b) Locations on private property must be found for switchgear and transformer pads needed to serve that property. Such locations shall be either along General Frontages or at the side or rear of the property and screened from view of a person standing on the property line on the far side of any adjoining street (see Figure 10-3). The submitted plans show a proposed location for a transformer and generator pad. Future submittals shall require detailed utility plans. 10.9 Parking Lot Landscaping All surface parking shall meet the standards for parking lot landscaping in the AHC Section 1325. Renderings included within the submittal show landscaping within the parking lot, but details are not provided. Future submittals shall require detailed landscaping plans that show compliance with AHC Section 1325. 11.0 Sign Standards 11.1 Applicability Except for sign types, sign dimensional standards, and as specifically listed below, all other signage and sign standards shall comply with the AHC Chapter 12. Details regarding signage were not submitted, aside from a potential location for a sign on renderings. Future submittals shall require details regarding proposed signage and conformance with AHC Chapter 12. 11.3 Sign Types Permitted All development to which this Section is applicable shall comply with the Sign Regulations in Table 11-1 below. Excerpt from Table 11-1 The sign shown in rendering is a Building Identity Sign which is allowed within the TRC CC district. 11.6 Building Identity Sign Any proposed Building Identity Sign shall meet the requirements of 11.6. Summary The Applicant has submitted a concept plan for review and comment by the JDA. As presented, the Applicant would need to revise their proposed plans to comply with the TRC or seek a TRC amendment for associated provisions before proceeding with the formal review. The following Page 21 Page 22 list are the current deviations that exist for the proposal, as staff understands them with the current submittal: 1. Parking does not meet the standards of 6.1 (c) and exceeds the available threshold of a Permitted Adjustment. 2. “Restrooms & storage” is stated to have a typical ceiling height of 8 to 10 ft where 10 ft. is required by 6.2 (c). 3. The building façade does not meet the requirements of 7.3 (a)(ii). 4. No elements are proposed to meet the shading requirements in 7.5. The list may be subject to change based on additional information received by staff. This list does not include standards where insufficient information was submitted and a request for permitted adjustment was not requested. Attachments A. Application B. Project Narrative and Renderings C. Descriptions of Requests for Permitted Adjustments or Flexibility D. Concept Site Plan E. Concept Building Plan and Elevations F. 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. 25- Submittal Date Application Completed Date Accepted by Receipt Number Council Decision Council Decision Date 2025 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 Special Development 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 Special Development 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 Ryan Companies US, Inc. 533 South Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55415 612-492-4000 County of Ramsey 15 Kellogg Blvd W, Room 250, St. Paul, MN 55102-1614 Unassigned Outlot A, TCAAP, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota 093023320001 40.10 acresTRC CC-Campus Commercial X Industrial peter.fitzgerald@ryancompanies.com, chad.lockwood@ryancompanies.com 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 Community Development Director to discuss the application process, requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the Community Development Director 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 City Council action. Project will not be scheduled for any meeting until the application submittal is found to be complete by the Community Development Director. 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 Community Development Director 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 Watershed 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. Joint Development Authority (JDA) concept plan review for a 156,000+/- sf office/manufacturing use on the northern 10 acres of the existing 40 acre site 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 Community Development Director. 2025 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 8 February 10 December 1 (2024) February 5 March 10 January 2 March 5 April 14 February 3 April 9 April 28 March 3 May 7 May 26* April 1 June 4 June 23 May 1 July 9 July 28 June 2 August 6 August 25 July 1 September 3 September 22 August 1 October 8 October 27 September 1 November 5 November 24 October 1 December 3 January 12 (2026) November 3 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 Community Development Director 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 JANUARY 10, 2025 OUTLOT A ARDEN HILLS, MNJANUARY 10, 2025 January 10, 2025 City of Arden Hills 1245 Highway 96 W Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Jessica: Ryan Companies recognizes that the 40-acre development at Outlot A in Arden Hills presents an outstanding opportunity to attract strong employers to this important area of the Twin Cities. The following design package is intended to serve as a useful framework for a Concept Plan (“Sketch Plan”) Discussion with the JDA. We believe the confidential tenant we are engaged with (and wanting to call Outlot A home) is well aligned with Ryan’s & the JDA’s original vision for Outlot A. The brand of Rice Creek Commons will be influenced by the development of Outlot A and we take that seriously. As an experienced mixed-use developer, one of our fundamental goals is to attract tenants who will enhance the brand of Rice Creek Commons to create the momentum it deserves. We believe a successful project with this confidential tenant will importantly signal to the commercial market and community that Rice Creek Commons is OPEN FOR BUSINESS! We are excited about the opportunity to continue to build a relationship with you and other City staff. We appreciate the opportunity to prove ourselves and look forward to meeting with Ramsey County and City of Arden Hills. Sincerely, Peter Fitzgerald Dan Mueller Vice President, Real Estate Development Senior Vice President, Real Estate Development Ryan Companies US, Inc. Ryan Companies US, Inc. PROJECT NARRATIVE Ryan Companies is pleased to present the attached Sketch/Concept Plan to gather feedback and evaluate the JDA’s willingness to support this transformative project. With a targeted groundbreaking of April 1, 2025, time is critical for both Ryan Companies and the confidential tenant to gain clarity on the JDA’s support for moving forward. The proposed project is approximately 157,000 SF build-to-suit facility for a well-established, local advanced technology company specializing in technology manufacturing, research and development, and advanced technology testing. While a Non-Disclosure Agreement currently prevents us from disclosing the tenant’s name, we can confirm that the company provides over 240 high-quality jobs, offers competitive wages and benefits, and anticipates more than 20% growth in the next five years. Additionally, this project will generate hundreds of construction jobs during its execution. The TRC Zoning for Rice Creek Commons identifies seven zoning codes, with the “Thumb Parcel” (recently branded as “Outlot A”) designated as Campus Commercial. This project aligns seamlessly with the job-creation goals for Outlot A and reflects Ryan’s original vision for the site, which was unanimously approved by the JDA last year. By revisiting our selected proposal for Outlot A, you will find that this project integrates exceptionally well with the master plan and fulfills the intended purpose of the parcel. The TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) was designed to bring the vision of a walkable, mixed-use, resilient, and vibrant development to life. Such developments thrive by integrating spaces for living, working, and recreation. Outlot A serves as the primary job generator within the Rice Creek Commons development, and Ryan Companies is committed to delivering on this promise to create opportunities on the “Thumb Parcel.” Simply put, Rice Creek Commons cannot flourish without the jobs that this project will deliver. The TRC emphasizes its goals of fostering creativity and reducing overregulation while supporting a framework for impactful development. Specifically, it aspires to: Create jobs and stimulate economic growth within market realities Does this project align with current market demands? Develop a regulatory process that saves time for developers Is a two-step JDA process applicable here? Ensure predictability for developers Will this project signal to the market that Rice Creek Commons is “Open for Business”? Provide a natural resources corridor How will regional ponding, greenspaces, and walkable trail connectivity be incorporated? This project aligns with the TRC’s stated goals, fulfills the vision of Outlot A as a “job center,” and reinforces the shared ambition of creating a vibrant Rice Creek Commons. It also sends a clear message to the city, county, state, and region: Rice Creek Commons is now “Open for Business.” With the groundbreaking date fast approaching, we look forward to the JDA’s feedback and its commitment to supporting this significant endeavor. OUTLOT A VIDEO SITE PLANS CO N F I D E N T I A L T E N A N T OUTLOT A +/- 10 ACRES PROJECT INFORMATION 156,000 ± SF TOTAL BUILDING 300 AUTO STALLS 8 LOADING DOCKS 2 DRIVE-IN DOOR OUTLOT A +/- 10 ACRES RENDERING & BUILDING ELEVATION LEVEL 1100' -0" 1 DOCK LEVEL96' -0" 2345678910111213 SB CLEAR H/T128' -0" 36 ' - 6 " 40 ' - 0 " 24' - 0" LEVEL 1100' -0" A DOCK LEVEL96' -0" BCDEF SB CLEAR H/T128' -0" 54' - 0"48' - 0"56' - 0"48' - 0"54' - 0" 35 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 6 " 39 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 6 " 36 ' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 6 " LEVEL 1100' -0" 1 DOCK LEVEL96' -0" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SB CLEAR H/T128' -0" 24' - 0"578' - 0"11 1/2" 38 ' - 0 " LEVEL 1100' -0" A DOCK LEVEL96' -0" B C D E F SB CLEAR H/T128' -0" 40 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 32' - 0"64' - 0"7' - 0"64' - 0"7' - 0"65' - 6"24' - 0" 39 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 0 " 38 ' - 0 " 0 1" 3" 2" VE R I F Y S H E E T S C A L E H E R E RYAN A+E, INC. 533 South Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612-492-4000 tel 612-492-3000 fax REGISTRATION NO. NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM P R ELIMIN A R Y N O T F O R C O NSTR U CTIO N © 2024 RYAN A+E, INC. PROJ. NO. CONSULTANTS OWNER KEY PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION Name Number I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or reportwas prepared by me or under my direct supervisionand that I am a duly Registered Architect under thelaws of the State of Minnesota 1/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 5 1 0 : 0 9 : 3 5 A M A300 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL RICE CREEK COMMONS, BUILDING 1 1" = 20'-0"A3004 NORTH ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"A3003 EAST ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"A3002 SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"A3001 WEST ELEVATION ISSUE RECORD ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION SUSTAINABILITY © Ryan Companies US, Inc.© Ryan Companies US, Inc. RICE CREEK COMMONS –OUTLOT A BUILDING #1 SUSTAINABILITY VISION Submitted to the Joint Development Authority | January 10, 2025 © Ryan Companies US, Inc. AGENDA PROJECT LOCATION © Ryan Companies US, Inc. RICE CREEK COMMONS SUSTAINABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.LEED v4.1 Silver Certification 2.50% Better than MN Energy Code 3.All-Electric / No Fossil Fuels 4.Onsite Renewable Energy & District Energy 5.10% Embodied Carbon Reduction 6.EV Infrastructure 7.Annual Energy & Water Data Reporting ** DRAFT AS OF THIS SUBMISSION IN JAN.2025 ** © Ryan Companies US, Inc. RYAN COMPANIES OUTLOT A PARAMETERS •Annual utility costs equal to or less than code baseline building in market. •Reasonable payback on any upfront investments. MUST BE COST-EFFECTIVE FOR OUR TENANT’S OPERATIONS. •Building shell & site to be completed by 10/1/25 •Tenant construction complete by 12/30/25 & start operations by 5/30/26 MUST WORK WITHIN THE TENANT’S SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS. © Ryan Companies US, Inc. 1.Xcel EDA Program (tenant responsibility) ** 2.Above-Code Wall Insulation ** 3.Low-Flow Fixtures & LED Lighting (tenant responsibility) ** 4.Dark-Sky Friendly Exterior Lighting ** 5.75% Waste Diversion Goal ** 6.A4/A5 Construction Emissions Tracking 7.Comprehensive site assessment ** 8.Onsite storm runoff management (infiltration) ** 9.Native, diverse & pollinator-friendly plantings 10.Smart, water-conserving irrigation ** Basic Approach (All Scenarios) ** Supports LEED certification OUTLOT A BROCHURE Introducing Outlot A: The 40-acre Phase 1 of the future Rice Creek Commons community, a 427-acre master planned mixed-use development in Arden Hills, Minnesota. DRIVE INDUSTRYPositioned to 2 3 TRANSIT SERVICE & NEARBY PARK & RIDE LOCATION CONVENIENT FREEWAY ACCESS & VISIBILITY “MAIN & MAIN” OF THE NORTH CENTRAL TWIN CITIES SUBMARKET ADJACENCY OF RICE CREEK & WALK/RUN/CYCLE TRAILS PROXIMITY TO TWIN CITIES METRO POPULATION DENSITY FORTHCOMING RICE CREEK COMMONS COMMUNITY AMPLE VARIETY OF LOCAL AREA AMENITIES The 40-acre build-to-suit land at Outlot A is the opportunity for forward-thinking companies to establish a prominent presence on a sizeable site in a highly accessible location, offering a flexible, quality-driven headquarters destination that is attractive to professional brands across all industries. The Twin Cities thrives with 16 Fortune 500 companies and a highly educated workforce. With proximity to both Ramsey and Hennepin County cores, this site is well positioned to attract employees from the most densely populated areas of top talent. DRIVE TALENTPositioned to OUTLOT A SITE HIGHLIGHTS 4 5 • TCAAP Outlot A • For Lease • Build To Suit • 40.10 Acres • 400,000 - 600,000 + SF • Clear Height: TBD • Zoning: Campus Commercial • Permitted Uses: Industrial, Manufacturing & Processing, R&D, Medical, Retail SITE SPECIFICS CLICK TO WATCH VIDEO DRIVE VISIBILITY Positioned to 6 7 RICE CREEK M O U N D S V I E W B L V D TH U M B R D M O U N D S V I E W B L V D SI L V E R L A K E R D RICE CREEK RD N N 14MINUTESTO MPLSCBD 15MINUTESTO STPCBD COLUMBIA COLUMBIA HEIGHTSHEIGHTS MOUNDS MOUNDS VIEWVIEW NORTH NORTH OAKSOAKS LONG LAKE LONG LAKE REGIONAL REGIONAL PARKPARK MOUNDS VIEW MOUNDS VIEW SENIOR HSSENIOR HS BLAINEBLAINE NEW NEW BRIGHTONBRIGHTON ARDEN ARDEN HILLSHILLS FRIDLEYFRIDLEY SPRING SPRING LAKE PARKLAKE PARK IRONDALE IRONDALE SENIOR HSSENIOR HS SHOREVIEWSHOREVIEW RICE CREEK RICE CREEK REGIONAL PARKS REGIONAL PARKS AND TRAILAND TRAIL RICE CREEK RICE CREEK REGIONAL PARKS REGIONAL PARKS AND TRAILAND TRAIL NORTH RICE CREEK NORTH RICE CREEK REGIONAL PARKREGIONAL PARK DIRECT ACCESS TO 35W VIA FULL INTERCHANGE AT COUNTY ROAD H 6,521 VPD 3,883 VPD 19,900 VPD 23,100 VPD 83,692 VPD 60,249 VPD 128,000 VPD 137,799 VPD 144,000 VPD 6,367 VPD FULL 35W INTERCHANGE OFFERS ULTIMATE ACCESS AND USABILITY 8 9 OUTLOT A 14MIN 15MIN COLUMBIA COLUMBIA HEIGHTSHEIGHTS SPRING SPRING LAKE PARKLAKE PARK NEW NEW BRIGHTONBRIGHTON VADNAIS VADNAIS HEIGHTSHEIGHTS NORTH OAKSNORTH OAKSMOUNDS MOUNDS VIEWVIEW ARDEN HILLSARDEN HILLS ST ANTHONYST ANTHONY ARDEN ARDEN HILLSHILLS LITTLE LITTLE CANADACANADA NE MPLSNE MPLS ROSEVILLEROSEVILLE FALCON HEIGHTSFALCON HEIGHTS ST ANTHONY ST ANTHONY PARKPARK MSP INT’L MSP INT’L AIRPORTAIRPORT U OF MU OF M WEST WEST ST PAULST PAUL FRIDLEYFRIDLEY SHOREVIEWSHOREVIEW MPLS CBD STP CBD N T H E MIGH T Y M I S S I S SIPP I 10 11 26 0 60 0 26 5 49 2 60 0 25 2 50 15 0 31 0 70 0 31 0 70 0 21 0 60 0 50 15 0 PROPOSED BUILDING 134,560± SF FOOTPRINT 264 AUTO STALLS PROPOSED BUILDING 126,000± SF FOOTPRINT 140 AUTO STALLS 40 TRAILER STALLS PROPOSED BUILDING 129,130± SF FOOTPRINT 199 AUTO STALLS PROPOSED BUILDING 217,000± SF FOOTPRINT 170 AUTO STALLS PROPOSED BUILDING 154,750± SF FOOTPRINT 207 AUTO STALLS PROPOSED BUILDING 217,000± SF FOOTPRINT 170 AUTO STALLS TBD AMENITY/BOUTIQUE BUILDING 7,500± SF FOOTPRINT 30 AUTO STALLS TBD AMENITY/BOUTIQUE BUILDING 7,500± SF FOOTPRINT 30 AUTO STALLS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIRED SETBACK (LANDSCAPING/SCREENING) REQUIRED SETBACK (LANDSCAPING/SCREENING) OUTDOOR AMENITY AREA RIC E CREEK RIC E CREEK 40 ACRES BUILD TO SUIT 40 ACRES BUILD TO SUIT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY PLAN MANUFACTURING & DISTRIBUTION PLAN OUTLOT A OUTLOT A 12 13 Outlot A at Rice Creek Commons will deliver a quality-driven destination for work, leisure and exploration, boasting connection to employee-dense populations, freeway accessibily, on-site retail, modern and natural aesthetic touches, vibrant outdoor spaces, nature views, and adjacency to area recreatonal trails. VIBRANT AND INVITING OUTDOOR SPACES (FIRE PITS, PATIOS, WATER FEATURES) DRIVE QUALITYPositioned to 14 15 SOPHISTICATED EXTERIORS THAT ATTRACT HIGHER QUALITY TENANT PROFILE BUILD-TO-SUIT IN NEW DEVELOPMENT OFFERS FLEXIBILITY TO DESIGN FOR ANY INDUSTRY BREWERY/CAFE SPACE WITH ATTRACTIVE RICE CREEK NATURE VIEWS 16 17 TODD HANSON +1 952 820 8737 TODD.HANSON@CUSHWAKE.COM JASON SELL +1 952 837 8515 JASON.SELL@CUSHWAKE.COM JON RAUSCH +1 612 685 8288 JON.RAUSCH@CUSHWAKE.COM IT’S YOUR MOVE. CALL US TODAY. OUTLOT A 18 January 10, 2025 TCAAP REDEVELOPMENT CODE – DISCUSSION TOPICS ITEM #1 = Section 6.1 (b) (iii) – General Frontages ITEM #1 DISCUSSION TOPIC = Ryan has intentionally oriented and strategically situated the building on this site. By locating the minimal amount of loading doors on the southern building façade, this allows the future southern development to both 1) provide screening via the future building structure and 2) provide an opportunity for a future shared loading drive. ITEM #2 = Section 6.1 (e) (i) – Loading Dock Standards ITEM #2 DISCUSSION TOPIC = Ryan believes that we conform to these standards but in an e3ort to provide full transparency, below are the various typical clear heights throughout the building (final building design is still in process): · Restrooms & storage = 8’-10’ typical · O3ice space = 12’-14’ typical · Engineering lab space = 14’-16’ typical · Manufacturing, machine shop & warehouse space = 28’ typical Item (i) above states that the maximum clear heigh between ground floor and lowest point of the ceiling to be 24’. When accounting for all programming spaces listed above, we meet this requirement. Additionally, our project falls under the Campus Commercial Zoning District. Within Section 6.2 (c) (on page 45 of the TRC) it specifies a maximum building height of 15 stories of 210 feet which we do not exceed. January 10, 2025 ITEM #3 = Section 6.1 (c) – Parking and Service Access · 354 parking stalls are required per the TRC language in the table above · The user has asked for 300 parking stalls day 1 which is what our site plan shows ITEM #3 DISCUSSION TOPIC: Our proof of parking allows us to meet the 354 parking stall requirement. January 10, 2025 ITEM #4 = Section 7.3 – Façade Composition ITEM #4 DISCUSSION TOPIC: Per Figure 7-3 above, there is no minimum depth for the articulation, and our project falls within the General Street Frontage category. Ryan has designed the building to incorporate changes in color, reveals, and inset panels along each façade to break it up the elevations. If an inset panel was required every 20 feet, it would look overly busy/incredibly choppy, and we don’t believe that is the intent of this requirement. Additionally, this industrial use does not fit in the categories listed in Section 7.3 above. January 10, 2025 ITEM #5 = Section 7.4 – Building Materials ITEM #5 DISCUSSION TOPIC: Ryan has incorporated inset precast panels along the building façades which creates articulation on the longer elevations. The reveals provide a transition for color and create texture along the precast panels in both the horizontal and vertical directions across the entire building. Every few feet there is an intentional design element. Textured paint is also planned to be used on flat surfaces between design elements to maintain visual interest throughout. CO U N T Y S T A T E A I D H I G H W A Y N O . 1 3 ( O L D H W Y . 8 ) OWNER: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PID: 093023220003 T X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG TUG B I T U M I N O U S P A T H B E N C H (8 0 F T . W I D E P U B L I C S T R E E T ) 13 , 1 0 0 ± G S F P O T E N T I A L FU T U R E E X P A N S I O N BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BS B L BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL BSBL PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PS B L PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL PSBL DR I V E - I N D O O R DU M P S T E R PROPOSED BUILDING 157,725± GSF 300 AUTO STALLS 10 LOADING DOCK DOORS 1 DRIVE-IN DOOR MOTORCYCLE PARKING (8) EV EV EV EV 262' 602' RETAINING WALL POTENTIAL PATIO PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 50' SETBACK (SCREEN W/VEGETATION AND LANDSCAPING) GENERAL FRONTAGE 10' SETBACK (SCREEN PARKING) RETAINING WALL BIKE RACKS (8) GENERATOR PAD TRANSFORMER PAD 50' EV STALLS (4) MOTORCYCLE PARKING (8 STALLS) PROOF OF PARKING (TYP.) SCALE IN FEET 40 800 Rice Creek Commons/Outlot A • Concept Site Plan • 01.10.2025 SITE DATA CURRENT ZONING:TRC CC-CAMPUS COMMERCIAL SITE AREA: PROPOSED LOT 9.76± AC PROPOSED OUTLOT 30.34± AC TOTAL 40.10± AC BUILDING AREA: OFFICE 40,500± SF WAREHOUSE 115,500± SF TOTAL 156,000± SF REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 50 FT. MIN. (MUST BE SCREENED) GENERAL FRONTAGE 10 FT. MIN., NO MAX SIDE NO MIN., NO MAX REAR NO MIN., NO MAX REQUIRED SURFACE PARKING SETBACKS PUBLIC OPEN SPACE 50 FT. MIN. (MUST BE SCREENED) GENERAL FRONTAGE 10 FT. MIN. SIDE 0 FT. MIN. REAR 0 FT. MIN. PERMEABLE AREA: REQUIRED MINIMUM PERVIOUS LOT AREA 25% PROPOSED PERVIOUS LOT AREA 28% PRIVATE COMMON OPEN SPACE: MINIMUM REQUIRED (PER TRC SECTION 9.6) 4 SF PER 100 SF OF BUILDING SPACE = 6,240 SF OFF-STREET PARKING OFF-STREET VEHICULAR PARKING: MINIMUM REQUIRED (PER TRC TABLE 6-1 PARKING RATIOS): OFFICE 1 PER 250 SF GFA = 162 SPACES MANUFACTURING 1 PER 500 SF GFA = 231 SPACES SUBTOTAL = 393 SPACES 10% REDUCTION (PER TRC TABLE 3-3)= -39 SPACES TOTAL = 354 SPACES PROPOSED 300 SPACES (7 ADA) PROOF OF PARKING 54 SPACES (1 ADA) TOTAL 354 SPACES (8 ADA) BICYCLE PARKING: MINIMUM REQUIRED*15 SPACES PROPOSED 16 SPACES * 5% OF PROVIDED OFF-STREET AUTO SPACES PER TRC TABLE 6-1 PARKING RATIOS 1 A 1 A300 4 A300 3 A300 2 A300 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B C D E F 24' - 0"104' - 0"7' - 0"104' - 0"7' - 0"104' - 6"7' - 0"104' - 0"7' - 0"104' - 0" 23' - 6"122' - 6"64' - 0"120' - 0"112' - 0"161' - 0" 7' - 6 " 24 ' - 6 " 64 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 64 ' - 0 " 7' - 0 " 65 ' - 6 " 24 ' - 0 " 0" 1' - 0 " 26 0 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0"601' - 6"1' - 0" 40' - 2"24' - 0"16' - 0"16' - 0"16' - 0"16' - 0"12' - 0"12' - 0"38' - 0"12' - 0"36' - 0"14' - 0" 2' - 0" 32' - 0" 0 1" 3 " 2" VE R I F Y S H E E T S C A L E H E R E RYAN A+E, INC. 533 South Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612-492-4000 tel 612-492-3000 fax REGISTRATION NO. NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM P R E LI M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N © 2024 RYAN A+E, INC. PROJ. NO. CONSULTANTS OWNER KEY PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION Name Number I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 1/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 5 1 : 3 3 : 0 0 P M A100 LEVEL 1 OVERALL PLAN RICE CREEK COMMONS, BUILDING 1 1" = 20'-0"A100 1 LEVEL 1 OVERALL PLAN 0 20' 40' 60'10' ISSUE RECORD ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION LEVEL 1 100' -0" 1 DOCK LEVEL 96' -0" 2345678910111213 SB CLEAR H/T 128' -0" 36 ' - 6 " 40 ' - 0 " 24' - 0" LEVEL 1 100' -0" A DOCK LEVEL 96' -0" BCDEF SB CLEAR H/T 128' -0" 54' - 0"48' - 0"56' - 0"48' - 0"54' - 0" 35 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 6 " 39 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 6 " 36 ' - 6 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 6 " LEVEL 1 100' -0" 1 DOCK LEVEL 96' -0" 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 SB CLEAR H/T 128' -0" 24' - 0"578' - 0"11 1/2" 38 ' - 0 " LEVEL 1 100' -0" A DOCK LEVEL 96' -0" B C D E F SB CLEAR H/T 128' -0" 40 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 32' - 0"64' - 0"7' - 0"64' - 0"7' - 0"65' - 6"24' - 0" 39 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 0 " 38 ' - 0 " 0 1 " 3 " 2" VE R I F Y S H E E T S C A L E H E R E RYAN A+E, INC. 533 South Third Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612-492-4000 tel 612-492-3000 fax REGISTRATION NO. NO T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N WWW.RYANCOMPANIES.COM P R E LI M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C TI O N © 2024 RYAN A+E, INC. PROJ. NO. CONSULTANTS OWNER KEY PLAN PROJECT INFORMATION Name Number I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota 1/ 1 0 / 2 0 2 5 1 2 : 2 3 : 4 4 P M A300 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS - OVERALL RICE CREEK COMMONS, BUILDING 1 1" = 20'-0"A300 4 NORTH ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"A300 3 EAST ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"A300 2 SOUTH ELEVATION 1" = 20'-0"A300 1 WEST ELEVATION ISSUE RECORD ISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION RICE CREEK COMMONS, BUILDING 1 CONFIDENTIAL TENANT JANUARY 10, 2025 OUTLOT A ARDEN HILLS, MNJANUARY 10, 2025 CO N F I D E N T I A L T E N A N T OUTLOT A +/- 10 ACRES PROJECT INFORMATION 156,000 ± SF TOTAL BUILDING 300 AUTO STALLS 8 LOADING DOCKS 2 DRIVE-IN DOOR OUTLOT A +/- 10 ACRES © Ryan Companies US, Inc.© Ryan Companies US, Inc. RICE CREEK COMMONS –OUTLOT A BUILDING #1 SUSTAINABILITY VISION Presented to the Joint Development Authority | January 21, 2025 © Ryan Companies US, Inc. AGENDA PROJECT LOCATION © Ryan Companies US, Inc. RICE CREEK COMMONS SUSTAINABLE DESIGN GUIDELINES 1.LEED v4.1 Silver Certification 2.50% Better than MN Energy Code 3.All-Electric / No Fossil Fuels 4.Onsite Renewable Energy & District Energy 5.10% Embodied Carbon Reduction 6.EV Infrastructure 7.Annual Energy & Water Data Reporting ** DRAFT AS OF THIS SUBMISSION IN JAN.2025 ** © Ryan Companies US, Inc. RYAN COMPANIES OUTLOT A PARAMETERS •Annual utility costs equal to or less than code baseline building in market. •Reasonable payback on any upfront investments. MUST BE COST-EFFECTIVE FOR OUR TENANT’S OPERATIONS. •Building shell & site to be completed by 10/1/25 •Tenant construction complete by 12/30/25 & start operations by 5/30/26 MUST WORK WITHIN THE TENANT’S SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS. © Ryan Companies US, Inc. 1.Xcel EDA Program (tenant responsibility) ** 2.Above-Code Wall Insulation ** 3.Low-Flow Fixtures & LED Lighting (tenant responsibility) ** 4.Dark-Sky Friendly Exterior Lighting ** 5.75% Waste Diversion Goal ** 6.A4/A5 Construction Emissions Tracking 7.Comprehensive site assessment ** 8.Onsite storm runoff management (infiltration) ** 9.Native, diverse & pollinator-friendly plantings 10.Smart, water-conserving irrigation ** Ryan Best Practices ** Supports LEED certification © Ryan Companies US, Inc. Proposed Approach to Sustainable Design Guidelines 1. LEED v4.1 (Silver) Certification 2. 50% Better than MN Energy Code 3. All-(More) Electric / No (Less) Fossil Fuels Hybrid Geothermal HVAC (GSHP) – Traditional Supplies Peak Loads; Partial Gas or Elec Heat 4. Onsite Renewable Energy (Ready) & District Energy Solar-Ready Roof Look into PPA & Community Solar Options 5. 10% Embodied Carbon (Report) Reduction 6. EV Infrastructure 7. Annual Energy & Water Data Reporting Goals: -Address all categories -Prioritize biggest carbon impacts -Work within tenant limits * external financial assistance needed * © Ryan Companies US, Inc.© Ryan Companies US, Inc.© Ryan Companies US, Inc. Thank You! - discussion - Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 9 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Ella Mitchell, Ramsey County SUBJECT: Administrative Director’s Report A verbal update will be provided by staff. Attachments: None Action Requested: None Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project Joint Development Authority TCAAP Redevelopment Project AGENDA ITEM 10 MEMORANDUM DATE: January 21, 2025 TO: Joint Development Authority Board of Commissioners FROM: Director Jagoe SUBJECT: Development Director’s Report A verbal update will be provided by Director Jagoe. Attachments: None Action Requested: None