The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07-30-07 Item 7B, Planning Case 06-040 Final PUD for Traverse Business Ctr ~ ~HILLS Request for Council Action Prepared By: Oept.: Council Mtg. Date: Final Action Needed By: James Lehnhoff "_"~~.~!!!_~fl!~YJ?~,~ _RrrJ_~!1_! 7-30-07 . ""S::n}:07 -- .-......... ""'" " - - ---- Agenda Item: ...............".....""" ----Budgeted AmouriF." ...",." - - ----- --....--..........."" - - ------ Actual Amount: Funding Source: " "----.-......... ..."""""""_____ ..............""""__ __._.__.......". ""__... 7.B t~tQn~ilf~fjb~&iJ~em~ufl1liJ~Jilllp;wk~'1mlL"__________._................".______________...........m.".".".._"________._................".......______________...............__.....__________._._...................___________n_m_..........,......._______.__._....................._____________m.....'"""U-l !Motion to Approve Planning Case 06~040 for a Final PUD of Phase 1 and 2 of the Traverse Business Center based on a finding that thei !submitted plans are in substantial conformance with the Master PUD subject to the twenty~three conditions in the July 30, 2007, Planning! i Case report. . ~aff.~I~~~imnlj~m~~'*2r~W1~~~___________..................""."___________..................."."_______.......0."...".".__________._..........0."..""..__________.............."."---.------___._............"."".__________................"..."_"_________..._........."."."."_______..1 i Recommend Approval of Planning Case 06~040 for a Final PUD of Phase 1 and 2 of the Traverse Business Center based on a finding that thei isubmitted plans are in substantial conformance with the Master PUD subject to the twenty-three conditions in the July 30, 2007, Planning! I Case report. ' ~!fr;iqLl[Q~1~Q'~]j";en~lIir~~~]l~1:ri1! ..... ................. .................... ......................... ...................._ i X IMemo/Letter: ' July 30, 2007, Memo to the City Council .......'_...m.__n____mm"_m............"...n.n.n___ iResoJution No.: !Ordinance No.: L~ngjneering ~ecommendation: iAttorney Recommendation: i------r - -.-..... ."."."."---- ........."." "."------ ..... .".".. ---'7s':;E'OrafCPlanning Commls.s"ion-mTnutes.......".-------- ---............"""---- ..m........ --- - -....-........."."0 [ X IOther: 7B~2: Additional Signage Information . ........." .". - -- .n..... ......" _ _ ___ .............." "__._____. ..........i...T~::~_:__.~.~!.y.J1L~!!QZ.L~.!.~.~.~J~g__~.~~.~..8"~~_Qr:!_"Qz.:.Q.~..?J_QJb_~.__e!~.~.~J.~Jl_~_Q~..~.!~~1~1]-'.._ ......."."." __ _ _____ ----.........", , None. None. " ~ :;: ~ a~. ...... .",:<11 ~...~ .os]!. ~ .. f ~;; ~ ~h~ f ~hz ~Hd~HiHi "ijjt:~I,J-..slll~"" ..:...... ~ "\,'\'\'<-11I10 " .~ " 'C ~ " o ~ '8 s .s -P >-\0 "-0 Ego 0.'" ~ 1;P2 .- 0 ~~<. ::5o..s aU,l-i:5 ~e] l:l<2:l Q .sa e.g 1;j .....tij :=<2 e S'''O''d o ~ ~ ""- " " " ",.D't:) ';;'.9 t ~" ~ ",'g 0 .- O;jn~ ~Q<E ~~b o~o ~C<lN "Z ~ @ ~]'::. ]~~ .8.$"'0 -o'E-a .g ~O " e " ~",f:l .S 8 o~~ ~g8 ~~"O aog ",,- ~ a 8 il:J ~ "IE ~ 0 s "- 0 ~eu s.g f5 "d~'<=< ",,<-- "Egg 80LlN e 19-6 ~<Il~g '@c~ ~S on O;j 8 8 ]6tJ .....- 0Ll .~ 0 (,) "~" ." 0 ~ 1t'~ .:3 eO" "'.......!:: :2"E-< t-<8 n 6::rsb ~,Q~ ;>is. -"~ <" " d ~ 00 is '" ~ = .... 't:l - = == = ~ "E -< ~ ~ U ~. g u " . ~ '" Vi ~ o 00 ~ ~~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 30, 2007 CC Agenda Item 7.B TO: Mayor & City Council ;j r James Lehnhoff, CityPlanne1! Planning Case #06-040 CMK Arden Holdings - Diane Fredeen Northeast Corner of 1-694 and I35W Final Planned Unit Development for Phase 1 and 2 of the Traverse Business Center FROM: SUBJECT: Reauest Motion to Approve Planning Case 06-040 for a Final PUD of Phase I and 2 ofthe Traverse Business Center based on a finding that the submitted plans are in substantial conformance with the Master PUD subject to the twenty-three conditions in the July 30,2007, Planning Case report. Backeround On March 26, 2001, the Arden Hills City Council approved a Master Planned Unit Development (PUD) application from Chesapeake Companies (CMK Arden Holdings) to construct up to 500,000 square feet of building space at the property located in the northeast comer of the Interstate 35W & Interstate 694 intersection subject to thirteen conditions. One additional condition was added in 2004 during an extension request. Although potential building designs and layouts were shown during the Master PUD process, the approval did not include a specific design or layout. Instead, the Master PUD approved a set of design standards for developing the property, which is included in the attached report to the Planning Commission. This Final PUD process is largely meant to evaluate the proposal for conformance with those standards. Changes to the approved design standards can only be made with the applicant's consent. The applicant is now proposing a three phase construction process for a total of 495,000 square feet of building space. This application is requesting Final PUD approval for phases one and two of the Traverse Business Center. Phase one is a 203,400 square foot, six-story building and \lAhdocsl\ahIAHdataIPlanning\Planning Cases\2006\06-040 Chesapeake Final PUD (COMPLETE)\073007 - CC Report - Chesapeake Final PUD.doc Page 1 of7 phase two is a 261,600 square foot, eight-story building for a total of 465,000 square feet of building space. The third phase would include one additional building with up to 30,000 square feet of building space. Phase three is plarmed for a later date and will require separate approval from the Planning Commission and City Council. The attached report to the Plarming Commission includes, the project narrative, technical plans, building elevations, landscaping plan, and a sign plan for phases one and two (Attachment 7B-3). The project narrative provides a detailed description of the proposed development and its features. The applicant has also submitted additional signage information for the sign plan proposal (Attachment 7B-2). The below sections includes the primary discussion items from the Planning Commission meeting. A tenant( s) for the buildings has not yet been selected. Final pun Review Based upon the review at the Plarming Commission meeting, the Traverse Business Center is in substantial conformance with the design standards set in the March 2001 Master PUD approval. However, there were four open items that were discussed at the Plarming Commission meeting: . Resolving conformance with two unverified landscaping requirements; . Evaluating the proposed signage plan; . Submission of a lighting plan; . Determining if an updated EA W or traffic study is warranted; Landscaping Ofthe landscaping requirements set in the design standards, it was unclear if two of the requirements were being fully met: . At least ten percent (10%) of the total land area within the perimeter of private parking and driveways areas shall be landscaped (excluding natural land areas). All undeveloped existing natural land areas are to be included within the ten percent (10%) requirement. . At least one overstory tree shall be provided for every five hundred (500) square feet oflandscaped area on the entire site. With the proposed plan, the applicant is exceeding the minimum ten percent landscaping requirement for the surface parking areas. The applicant is proposing to have 14.9 percent of the surface parking lot area to be landscaped. Upon review of the second bullet point requirement, it is believed that the requirement may be a typo or was inadvertently overlooked during the Master PUD process. Requiring one overstory tree for every 500 square feet oflandscaped would make it virtually impossible to have any other types of smaller trees, bushes, or flowers. A fully grown over story trees can cover 500 or more square feet of area. The Planning Commission set a condition (#7) requiring at least 178 \\.AhdocsllahlAHdataIP/anning\Planning Cases\2006\06-040 Chesapeake Final PUD (COMPLETE)\073007 - CC Report - Chesapeake Final pun. doc Page 2 of? overstory trees for phases one and two, which was based on the current proposal from the applicant's landscape architect. The types of trees to be used are listed on the proposed landscaping plan. The City does not have any specific requirements for smaller plantings such as bushes or flowers or none was included in the design standards. All other requirements in the landscape design standards have been met. Sign Plan The Master PUD approval did not include design standards for signage. The applicant submitted a sign plan proposal, which is included with the report to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did include conditions limiting the maximum sign height for three of the monument signs and sign area for one of the monument signs (conditions 18-21). The applicant has submitted additional sign information and examples of other signage for the City Council's .review (Attachment 7B-2). The information provided by the applicant is meant to provide a comparison for the type and size of signage on other similarly sized buildings and high profile developments both in and outside of Arden Hills. The PUD process does permit flexibility from the normal sign regulations. Lighting Plan The design standards included lighting regulations. The Planning Commission included a condition requiring submission of a conforming lighting plan prior to the issuance of building permits and subject to Staff approval (#9). EA W/Traffic Study The applicant completed an environmental assessment worksheet (EA W) in 2001 with the Master PUD. The EA W process is not meant to determine if a project should or should not be implemented. The EA W process identifies environmental impacts and proposes mitigation measures should a proj ect be implemented. An EA W does not have an expiration date. Since the EA W was completed in 2001, the only major development in the GB Zone was the Holiday gas station. While the gas station has increased traffic at the intersection, that type of a use generally does not produce a significant peak traffic flow in the morning or evening like office development. The traffic from the gas station probably would not have significantly changed the outcome ofthe EA W. When the Master PUD approval was extended in 2004, the following condition number fourteen was added: 14. At the time of application for the Final PUD the City would reserve the right for an updated traffic study, EAW, or other supplementary documents as necessary. If there are additional development regulations that change significantly prior to the application for the Final Plan PUD, the City would reserve the right to have Chesapeake comply with those new development regulations. \\AhdocsJlahlAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases\2006\06-040 Chesapeake Final PUD (COMPLETE)\073007 - CC Report - Chesapeake Final PUD.doc Page 3 of? After discussions with Ramsey County Public Works, Staff did not request an updated EA W or traffic study. Although the background traffic has likely increased since 2001, Ramsey County has indicated that the existing traffic signal at Round Lake Road and Highway 96 should be able to adequately handle the additional traffic from the proposed business center (Attaclnnent 3F-12 of the report to the Planning Commission). The traffic portion of the 2001 EA W indicates that the proposed business center should not produce significant negative impacts, though it does recommend improvements to the Highway 96/Round Lake Road intersection. Most of the recommended improvements for the Highway96/Round Lake Road intersection have since been implemented. The EA W does not assign a level of service (LOS) rating to the Highway 96/Round Lake Road intersection or the Highway 96/I-35W intersection, which makes it difficult to determine what the impact on service would be at those intersections if the building is approved. Further traffic studies would be needed to determine LOS at the intersection. Should the City Council determine that an updated EA W or traffic study is needed, one can be ordered. However, in terms of traffic generated by the proposed project, a new EA W or traffic study is unlikely to provide significantly new information since the mix of uses and size of the business center is essentially the same as the 2001 project proposal. The business center project itself will not generate any more new traffic now than it would have in 2001. While a traffic study that calculated the current and post-development level of service at the Highway 96/Round Lake Road and Highway 96/I-35W intersections may be helpful, CMK Arden Holdings could probably not be held accountable for the full cost of traffic improvements at those intersections should that be deemed necessary. The traffic generated from this project should be included in the TCAAP traffic analyses. Developer's Al!reement If the City Council approves the Traverse Business Center, a developer's agreement will be prepared that incorporates all of the approved conditions into a contract form. The developer's agreement will require City Council approval, which will be drafted after the final conditions are set by the City Council should the proj ect be approved. Findinl!s of Fact The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal from CMK Arden Holdings for the proposed Traverse Business Center and determined that the phases one and two are in substantial conformance with the design standards from the March 26, 2001, proposal. \lAhdocsllahIAHdatalPlanning\Planning Cases\2006\06-040 Chesapeake Final PUD (COMPLETE)\073007 - CC Report - Chesapeake Final PUD.doc Page 4 of7 Recommendation The Planning Commission reviewed Planning Case 06-040 and recommends approval (6-0) of the Final POD for Phase I and 2 based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the following 23 conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City: Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of the Final POD approval for phase one or the approval shall expire unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within four years of the Final POD approval for phase two or the approval shall expire unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. Phase two shall not be exempt from changes in the City's regulations that are made one year after the Final PUD approval for phase one and two. Significant changes to the City's regulations that alter the design or layout of the development shall require Planning Commission and City Council approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for a Final POD of phase three within five years of the Final POD approval of phase one and two or the Master POD approval for phase three shall expire unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. 5. The applicant shall submit an update on the progress of phases one, two, and three to the City Council by the end of each calendar year starting in 2007. 6. The applicant shall submit a phasing plan for the landscaping to accommodate landscaping in phases one and two. The phasing plan shall be subject to City Planner approval. The landscaping plan for phase one shall be capable of creating a finished look for phase one in the event phase two is not pursued. 7. The applicant shall provide at least 178 overstory trees for phase 1 and 2. 8. The applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent ofthe cost of the landscaping improvement for each phase prior to the issuance of any building permits for each phase. 9. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that conforms to the Master POD design standards prior to the issuance of any building permits. The lighting plan shall be subj ect to City Planner approval. 10. The applicant shall modifY the submitted plans to include a pedestrian connection to the Gateway Boulevard cul-de-sac. The revised plans shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. II. The applicant shall re-plat the property prior to the issuance of any building permits. 12. The applicant shall submit a completed preliminary plat application within six months of the Final PUD approval date unless the deadline is extended by the City Council prior to the expiration date. 13. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee that is to be set by the City Council at the time the final plat is approved. \\AhdocsJlahlAHdata\Planning\P/anning Cases\2006\06-040 Chesapeake Final PUD (COMPLETE)\073007 - CC Report - Chesapeake Final PUD.doc Page 5 of7 14. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District and all other applicable permitting agencies prior to the issuance of any building permits. Copies of such permits shall be provided to the City. 15. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements from the June 18,2007, letter from the Lake Johanna Fire Department Fire Marshal: a. Fire lanes need to be a minimum of 20 feet wide and 13 foot clear in height. b. Turning radiuses need to accommodate fire apparatus. c. Verify hydrant locations. d. Fire department connections (F.D.C.) need to be in an accessible and visible location on the front side ofthe buildings. e. A fire hydrant need to be within 150 feet ofF.D.C.s 16. The applicant shall repair the damaged water main by August 1,2007, per City requirements and subj ect to City inspection unless the date is extended by the Building Official and Public Works Director. 17. Final grading, drainage, and utility plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. 18. The copy area of the monument sign facing the Interstate 694 and 35W intersection shall not exceed 70 square feet. 19. The proposed monument sign at the southeast comer of Round Lake Road and Highway shall not exceed fourteen feet in height at the top of the sign structure. 20. The proposed monument sign for the main entrance to the business center at Round Lake Road and Gateway Boulevard shall not exceed seventeen feet in height at the top ofthe sign structure. 21. The applicant shall be responsible for all maintenance related to the monument sign at the southeast comer of the Highway 96 and Round Lake Road intersection. 22. A developer's agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. 23. The applicant shall conform to all other City regulations. Options 1. Approve the proposal as submitted. 2. Approve the proposal with conditions. 3. Deny the application with reasons for denial. If the City denies the petitioners request, "...it must state in writing the reasons for the denial at the time it denies the request." 4. Table for additional information. Deadline for Al!:encv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on June 19,2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by August 19, 2007 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for and additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. \lAhdocsl\ahIAHdata\Planning\Planning Cases\2006\06-040 Chesapeake Final PUD (COMPLETE)\073007 - CC Report - Chesapeake Final PUD.doc Page 6 of7 Attachments 7B-l 7B-2 7B-3 Draft Planning Commission Minutes Additional Signage Information July 11, 2007, Report to the Planning Commission- httv:/ /www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us llAhdocsl\ah\AHdatalPlanning\Planning Cases\2006\06~040 Chesapeake Final PUD (COMPLETE)\073007 - CC Report N Chesapeake Final PUD.doc Page 7 on Attachment 7 B-1 Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes From July 11, 2007 July 30,2007, City Council Meeting ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11,2007 12 F. PLANNING CASE #06-040 - FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT; CHESAPEAKE COMPANIES; NORTHEAST CORNER OF 1-694 AND 1-35W Mr. Lehnhoff stated the applicant is requesting approval of the Final Planned Unit Development for phases one and two for the Traverse Business Center, which is located at the northeast comer ofI-694 and I-35W. Staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the plans submitted as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of the Final PUD approval for phase one or the approval shall expire unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. 3. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within four years of the Final PUD approval for phase two or the approval shall expire unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. Phase two shall not be exempt from changes in the City's regulations that are made one year after the Final PUD approval for phase one and two. Significant changes to the City's regulations that alter the design or layout ofthe development shall require Planning Commission and City Council approval. 4. The applicant shall apply for a Final PUD of phase three within five years ofthe Final PUD approval of phase one and two or the Master PUD approval for phase three shall expire unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. 5. The applicant shall submit an update on the progress of phases one, two, and three to the City Council by the end of each calendar year starting in 2007. 6. The applicant shall submit a phasing plan for the landscaping to accommodate landscaping in phases one and two. The phasing plan shall be subject to City Planner approval. The landscaping plan for phase one shall be capable of creating a finished look for phase one in the event phase two is not pursued. 7. The applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the cost of the landscaping improvement for each phase prior to the issuance of any building permits for each phase. 8. The proposed monument sign near the intersection of Round Lake Road and Highway 96 shall be reduced in height to eight feet at the top ofthe sign structure. 9. The proposed monument sign for the main entrance to the business center at Round Lake Road and Gateway Boulevard shall be reduced to twelve feet in height at the top of the sign structure. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11, 2007 13 10. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan that conforms to the Master PUD design standards prior to the issuance of any building permits. The lighting plan shall be subject to City Planner approval. 11. The applicant shall modify the submitted plans to include a pedestrian connection to the trail near the Gateway Boulevard cul-de-sac. The revised plans shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. 12. The applicant shall re-plat the property prior to the issuance of any building permits. 13. The applicant shall submit a completed preliminary plat application within six months of the Final PUD approval date unless the deadline is extended by the City Council prior to the expiration date. 14. The applicant shall pay a park dedication fee that is to be set by the City Council at the time the final plat is approved. 15. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District and all other applicable permitting agencies prior to the issuance of any building permits. Copies of such permits shall be provided to the City. 16. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements from the June 18, 2007, letter from the Lake Johanna Fire Department Fire Marshal: a. Fire lanes need to be a minimum of 20 feet wide and 13 foot clear in height. b. Turning radiuses need to accommodate fire apparatus. c. Verify hydrant locations. d. Fire department connections (F.D.C.) need to be in an accessible and visible location on the front side ofthe buildings. e. A fire hydrant need to be within 150 feet ofF.D.C.s 17. The applicant shall repair the damaged water main by August 1,2007, per City requirements and subj ect to City inspection unless the date is extended by the Building Official and Public Works Director. 18. Final grading, drainage, and utility plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. 19. The applicant shall conform to all other City regulations. 20. A developer's agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. Commissioner Zimmerman encouraged the applicant to state their address as the City of Arden Hills and not St. Paul. He noted the City could not require that content. Commissioner Holewa asked when the parking would be built. Mr. Lehnhoff responded they would need to provide sufficient parking for phase 1. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11, 2007 14 Commissioner Holewa asked for the rationale for the monument sign on Round Lake Boulevard and Highway 96. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the applicant would be better able to speak to that. Commissioner Stodola expressed concern about the traffic and the increase in traffic. She believed this needed to be looked at. Commissioner Zimmerman noted the only saving grace that he saw was that this would be addressed with TCAAP. He noted that would have to be resolved whether this got developed or not. Chair Sand thanked the developer for coming forward with an entire proposal. He noted this is a key comer for the City and they have always looked at that comer as a major gateway to the City. John McClure, Chesapeake Companies Landscape Designer, stated this has been an interesting process to get to this point. He summarized the history of the project. Commissioner Zimmerman stated he would like to see in Phase 3 some sort of major cultural center (i.e. Chanhassen, Ordway, etc.). Stan Muldey, Chesapeake Companies, stated it was their desire to make the site as attractive and appealing as possible. He noted one of the constraints on this site was the existing billboards and the easement between the two billboards which did not allow them to plant anything over six feet high between the two billboards. He noted the landscape plans was comprised of a number of features including over story trees. He noted they were attempting to take advantage of the water on the site. They would be restoring wetlands and putting in pond buffers. He stated they would also have some trailways, shrubs, over story trees, wild flowers, and prairie grasses. He stated they were proposing 178 over story trees, which was over the City's requirement. He stated of the 23.26 acres, wetlands and ponds incorporate over 4 acres with the buffer lands being 1.8 acres and green space being 3.9 acres with hard surface of 13 acres. He believed the site plan would provide an elegant and attractive office campus. He noted the wetlands, buffers and ponds were taken out ofthe landscape calculation. Commissioner Holewa asked what where the plans for rainwater drainage. Mr. Muldey responded they had the wetland and ponds areas to accommodate rainwater. He noted there would be onsite collection and infiltration, which would be released into both a drop culvert and a straight culvert. Mr. McClure noted they could not put a sign of any height that would be visible from 1- 694 due to the billboard height requirements. Commissioner Modesette asked if a 12 foot height was needed. Mr. McClure stated the sign was not tied down to tight specifications, but the idea was to tie it into the building and the project as a whole. He noted the sign was 40 square feet, which was less than the Holiday Station sign. He stated they wanted to sign to be visible and was not dwarfed by the Holiday Station sign. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11,2007 15 Chair Sand asked if the monument sign with the 35W frontage was large enough to be readable as people came down 694/35W. Mr. McClure responded it would primarily visible from the exit ramp. He stated they were trying to balance what they think they need with what the City's ordinance reads. He indicated they have not done a perspective study as to how visible it would be from the freeway. Chair Sand noted visitors should be able to see where they were going if they were visiting the site. He asked if they had flexibility to grant a variance for a larger sign along 694/35W. Mr. Lehnhoff responded that Master PUD did not set the design standards for the signs, and there was flexibility in terms of number, size, and height. Mr. McClure stated at that particular location, the site was sitting down quite a bit from the freeway. Commissioner Modesette suggested this go through as proposed and if necessary they could come back with a proposed amendment. Mr. Lehnhoff responded the PUD process did permit this flexibility. Chair Sand asked what was the limit on the 35W/694 sign. Mr. Lehnhoff stated right now there was no limit. Mr. Muldey stated they realized this exceeded the sign ordinance, but they figured this was the least it could be so they chose the minimum. He stated if they had their way, they would like to widen the sign out, but leave the height as it was. Commissioner Zimmerman suggested they not exceed 80 square feet. He stated they would stay with the 27 feet in height, but the sign proper would not exceed 80 square feet. Chair Sand stated he wanted flexibility with the 35W frontage sign. Mr. Muldey stated they had met with the Ramsey County engineer regarding the traffic study and they felt the traffic study that had been done in 2001 was sufficient and nothing had substantially changed from their standpoint. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Stodola to extend the meeting time past 10:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Chair Sand recessed the meeting at 9:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Mr. Muldey noted the trail system would be brought to the edge of the cul-de-sac and it would not connect to the existing trail. Mr. Lehnhoff recommended they strike condition 11 "to the cul-de-sac at Gateway Boulevard. Commissioner Zimmerman moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa to recommend approval of Planning Case 06-040 for a Final PUD of Phase 1 and 2 of the Traverse Building Center based on a finding that the submitted plans are in substantial conformance with the Master PUD subject to the twenty conditions in the July 11, 2007 Planning Case report adding the following conditions: Condition 21 to read: Copy area ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11, 2007 16 of 35W frontage sign shall not exceed 70 square feet. Condition 22 to read: Applicant shall be responsible for all maintenance related to the Highway 96 and Round Lake Road monument sign. Condition number 23 to read: Applicant shall provide at least 178 over story trees for phases 1 and 2. Condition 8 is to be modified to strike I-35W and 694 and replace with Highway 96 and Round Lake Road and strike 8 feet and replace with not to exceed 14 feet. Condition 9 is to be modified to strike 12 feet and replace with not to exceed 17 feet. Condition 11 is to be modified to read: The applicant shall modify the submitted plans to include a pedestrian connection to the Gateway Boulevard cul-de-sac. The revised plans shall be submitted prior to the issuance of building permits. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JULY 11,2007 17 UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. CLEAR CHANNEL ELECTRONIC BILLBOARD UPDATE Mr. Lehnhoff updated the Commission on the Clear Channel Electronic Billboard. He noted they would be going through the appeal process and this would come before the Commission on August I. B. RV OUTSIDE STORAGE REGULATIONS Postponed to the August Planning Commission meeting. REPORTS A. Planning Commissioners None. B. Staff None. C. Council Member Council Member Holden updated the Commission on recent City Council actions. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Thompson moved, seconded by Commissioner Holewa to adjourn the meeting at 10:15 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Attachment 7B-2 Additional Signage Information July 30,2007, City Council Meeting II""" ~ ~gii~ F;:d~~ z rr, " w ~~~!! ~ " I "'~ ~ <( rr, . M".t."~ ",U 0<( Z . i~f >~ X =,,- " <C~ i5 <u- in ~ "''' 0 ~" -< . [-.~ ~ <(m w ;0 ~ "'" .... j;;; m ~'" in J m ~ >- ~ I " I .... <( z " in " .... z i w " " z 0 " ;- <( 0 :J 0 I " Z ;= '" X w ~! z " in .... z w " " z o " '" w .... z w u '" '" w z in " m w '" '" w > <(m "'~ ....>- 0<( w): "'I 0" ~- OI "'.... ~<( lI~ill el Sl "<t' "'.... w . jf;~~ ~ffi ~ 51 I ~~ ~ o~ z rr, . !~ '" oo~ " ~~ ~ "'_ in ,......, ~" -< . <(00 w ;0 "' "'oo .... L, m ~'" in i! 0:0 Wo: ....<( z> Ww u~ WOO uO 0:00 w>- ~~ Ow u., ~" ~.... I<( ZZ W" !2ii5 <(.... Z "w z" ;=oo '"z ~~ i! Z " in .... Z W " oo Z o " 0: W .... Z W U '" '" W Z ~o 000: w;:: "'w o:~ Woo ~g ....'" iil): ,"w 0., 15" fE~ ~ ;;:; .. - - ~ :;> ii "Cl - 8 IQ '" '" "'\0 -2l1n ",<'1 ~'-' = . .g'~ ~ ~ .. . =ClO -2l ~ '" o e- o u ::l ~ .~ - < z ~ =- .:.d 1:1 .s .. 1:1 1:1 .~ ~ .: .. .... ii u~ -2l'" ~-.t ....... o~ ~in .. . 0..... u'" >< .. - I>J)'" "0' j:z-.t .... 1:1 .. '" '" .. .. U I .'" 1:1 .. ~ .~ CIJ z ~ ~ - - s:: ii "Cl.;:- '" III <0 I~ ci.:- "'0 Ooq- u>< I>J)- 1:1"1 "51lN ~ .:.d '" ~ ~ "Cl o o = z ~ ;;:; .. - "Cl .~ .. .... I '" .. .. 1::.;:- ~ III =", 0"", "Cl..... ~~ ... =:G .. >< ..... ~'" .. o e- O u '" .~ = o .. .... 1) ~ z ~ =- .:.d 1:1.-. ,S~ .. .~ 1:1-= .S t-- ~<'1 I ~ ..~ '" .~ s ~ 0<:, ~~ f~ o ~ ~e .. ~ o ~ uf;l;1 ~ 1:1 oa .~ ~CIJ !;<I:I '" 0 0- u" ~ '" ;:: ~ U z ~ ~ - - s:: 1:Ie-- "'QO 'E.... < ~ IQO ...'-' ~~ 1:1 ~ '" 5 u ~ ",CIJ '" 1:1 S I>J) 500 5 1:1 o 0 u- "''' - - s:: 1:1 '" "Cl ... < z ~ . '" - - .~ = 1:1 .. "Cl .. < I .. i ~Q CIJ '" l:lQO I>J)\O r.i.ib C;;,. ...... 5 ~ = - 1:1<'1 0.... ~ 1:1 o .~ .... ~ .... CIJ '" ~ " .... ~ "Cl .~ - o = ~ ;;:; ~ ~ 1:1 .. :g;2' o I>J) ",:a I . I>J)O 1:1<'1 :a ~ - .. .~ "Cl = .~ = ~ .. . ",<'1 c.... ...'-' o .. "Cl ~ 1:1 ~ - o U Attachment 7 B-3 Report to the Planning Commission From July 11, 2007. Available online at: htt;p:/ /www.cLarden-hills.mn.us July 30,2007, City Council Meeting