Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-18-12-Special Fc air Clayton Larson mmissioners 1245 W. Highway 96 Angela HamesFPlanning N HILLS Arden Hills, MN 56112 Andrew Holewa 651.792.7800 Samuel Scottn Hills www.ci.arden-hills.mmus Roberta Thompson Clayton Zimmermanommission- Janet Stodola (Alternate) Special Meeting April 18, 2012 City Vision A strong community that values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradition as a desirable cit in which to live, work, and play. Agenda Regular Planning Commission Convenes 6:30 PM Call to Order—Role Call 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES 3. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 12-009—Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final PUD; TAT Properties; 1201 County Road E—Public Hearing 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 5. COMMENTS AND REPORTS A. Report from the City Council B. Planning Commission Comments C. Staff Comments 6. ADJOURNMENT A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Planning Cases are available online at: http://www.ci arden-hills mn.us/planninqcases i i I EN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 18, 2012 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case#12-009 - This application requires a PUBLIC HEARING Applicant: 1201 County Road E LLC (TAT Properties LLC) Property Location: 1201 West County Road E Request: Preliminary and Final Plat, Master and Final Planned Unit Development Requested Action The applicant has requested a Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) to subdivide the property at 1201 County Road E into two parcels and reuse the existing building as a 120-unit apartment building with a mix of efficiency and one-bedroom units. Background The property at 1201 County Road E is owned by TAT Properties, represented by Rob Davidson. In March 2008, the City approved a request from TAT Properties and Northwestern College granting an Interim Use Permit (IUP) at the former Holiday Inn property that would allow the College to operate a student housing facility in the B-2 District. TAT Properties had purchased the building and intended to lease it, in its entirety, to Northwestern College. The IUP expired on May 30, 2011. Prior to the expiration of the IUP, the City approved a request by TAT Properties to allow the student housing on a permanent basis provided that Northwestern College remained the sole tenant of the building, and continued to operate and manage it. Citing a drop in expected attendance and financing, Northwestern College withdrew their interest in the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanningWlanning Cases12012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.doex Page 1 of 16 property shortly after that approval. Northwestern College has since vacated the building. At the time of the IUP approval, the City was just beginning the process of developing the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, which was ultimately adopted in October 2008. The City's zoning regulations were consequently amended to incorporate the goals of the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District shortly after it was adopted, including design standards for new construction. In 2011, the City reviewed and approved a subsequent proposal from Select Senior Living to convert the building into assisted senior housing. Select Senior Living has since ended their negotiations with the property owner to purchase the property for this use. 1. Overview of Request TAT Properties is now requesting a Master and Final PUD to allow the reuse of the existing building at 1201 County Road E as 120 rental units. The existing building is 155 units, 70 of which would be converted into 35 one-bedroom units. There are 5 existing one-bedroom units in the property; therefore, the final mix would include 40 one-bedroom and 80 efficiency apartments, for a total of 120 units. The applicant would install a counter top, sink, under counter refrigerator, base cabinet drawers, and a cook top and oven in each unit. The applicant would bring the property up to building code requirements, and is proposing improvements to the main floor in terms of tenant amenities (Attachment A). The applicant is requesting a phasing plan for the building that would allow him to complete renovations on the first two floors only. It is unclear from the application how many one-bedroom units would be included in the first phase. The remainder of the units, located on the third and fourth floors, would be converted over time, as the market dictates. The third and fourth floors would remain vacant in the interim. At this time there is no plan for reuse of the McGuire's space, or the banquet facilities that are located on the main floor of the hotel. It is anticipated that these spaces would be reused at some point, though it is unclear what that might be. These spaces would remain vacant in the interim. In addition to the request for Master and Final PUD, TAT Properties is proposing to subdivide the property into two parcels, reserving the eastern two acres of the site for a future development option that has yet to be determined. The submitted plans include a conceptual drawing of what might be possible on Lot 2, but the applicant is not seeking approval for development on Lot 2 at this time. In order to accommodate the request for the subdivision, City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:I PlanningWlanning Casesl20l2U2-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)104-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 2 of 16 and bring the property into compliance with the City's zoning regulations, the storm water ponding and landscaped area would be shared by the two parcels. This proposed use is distinct from the previous use of the building as student housing. As a net lessee of the building, Northwestern College was able to exercise a great deal of control over the students that lived in the building, and could guarantee that only students would be allowed to live in it. This would not be the case with a privately owned landlord/tenant situation, as is proposed here. The applicant believes the target market to be students, young professionals and seniors. The applicant has submitted a letter outlining the reasons for the request and responses to previous staff comments (Attachment A); a traffic analysis (Attachment B); and a Preliminary Plat plan set(Attachment F). 2. Surrounding Area: tea North Industrial B-3 Service Business Industrial and Community Commercial Community Commercial, South Commercial B-2 General Business Neighborhood Commercial, and Office East Commercial C-1 Retail Service Neighborhood Commercial (City of Shoreview) West Commercial B-2 General Business Regional Commercial 3. Site Data: Commercial I7sev Regional Commercial nri B-2 General Business District 8.21 Acres(357,694 sf) The parcel is generally flat City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:WlanninglPlanning Cases120 U2-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 3 of 16 Plan Evaluation 1. Zoning Regulations Multiple-family dwellings are permitted in the B-2 District through a PUD process. This application is for the reuse of a former hotel into a multiple-family dwelling building. The application is unique because the request is regarding the use of a building and site that are already developed. The typical evaluation as to whether or not the proposed plan meets the minimum requirements of the Zoning Code is more difficult given that there are certain aspects of the site that cannot reasonably be altered, such as the setbacks of the building. That being said there are certain reasonable improvements that can be required for the property given the nature of the PUD process. Lot 2 has been presented as a conceptual site plan and is not being reviewed at this time. At the time Lot 2 is actually developed, an approved Master and Final PUD will be necessary to evaluate the details of the development plan. Section 1320.06—District Requirements Chart A. Lot Size, Building Coverage, and Landscaping -Meets requirements: Building %-Building Landscaping o Lot Size Coverage(so Coverage Coverage(so Landscaping Lot 1 -Holiday Inn Site 260,716 56,369 21.62% 74,467 28.56% Lot 2-Conceptual 82,827 20,000 24.15% 16,565 20.00% Total 343,543 76,369 22.23% 91,032 26.50% The maximum building coverage allowed in the B-2 District is 45%, while the minimum landscaped coverage is 20%. The proposed redevelopment meets or exceeds both of these requirements. B. Setbacks -Meets requirements: The Zoning Code requires a 20-foot front yard setback for at least 50% of the building fronting County Road E in the B-2 District. The minimum setbacks in the B2 District are 20 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet in the side yards. The existing building exceeds the side and rear setback requirements, and is set back 60 feet from the front property line. The conceptual building shown on Lot 2 meets the minimum setbacks. This City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanning0anning Cases120M2-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W4-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.doex Page 4 of 16 indicates that it is possible for the property to comply with setbacks when it is ultimately developed; however, the exact placement of the building on Lot 2 will be determined by a future Master PUD review. C. Density—Meets Requirements: The maximum density for housing in the B-2 District is 20 units per acre. With the proposed subdivision, Lot 1 would be 5.985 acres in size, which would allow up to 120 units. The proposal is for 120 units. Section 1325— General Regulations A. Landscaping and Tree Preservation- Section 1325.05 Subd. 1 and 1325.055 Caliper Inches Required—Exceeds requirements A Landscaping Plan submitted by the applicant is included in Attachment F. Based on the square footage of the proposed buildings the City Code requires 325 caliper inches of trees to be located on site; however, existing and preserved trees on the site are permitted to count towards this requirement. There are currently 490 caliper inches of trees on site. In addition,the applicant is proposing to plant an additional 47 caliper inches of trees on site. No trees are proposed to be removed at this time; however, it is likely that trees will need to be removed with the development of Lot 2. The specific tree replacement requirements will be calculated with the application for the development of Lot 2. Trees along Street Frontage—Exceeds requirements City Code requires that a minimum of one tree be planted along the right of way for every 40 feet of street frontage. Lot 1 has 580 feet of frontage, which would require 14 trees along the street. The plan proposes 14 street trees with an additional 13 to be planted elsewhere on site. Additional street trees will be required with the development of Lot 2. Perennials and Shrubberies— Cannot be determined by submitted plans City Code requires that at least ten percent of the total landscaped area shall be covered with perennials and/or shrubbery. For this particular project,the Code requires 7,860 square feet of perennials and shrubbery. On the applicant's submitted plans 8,571 square feet are proposed; however, it is not clear if these will be new plantings or if the applicant is suggesting that existing perennial planting beds meet this requirement. Staff has reviewed the existing planting beds and has found that many of the perennial areas City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:Wlanning0anning Cases12012U2-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E. PUD.docx Page 5 of 16 indicated on the submitted plans consist of grass or rocks. These areas would need to be converted to perennial plantings in order to meet the requirement of the Code. Planting Islands—Exceeds requirements City Code requires that at least ten percent of the parking area be occupied by planting islands that are at least 150 square feet in size, edged in concrete curb, and have at least one tree. Based on the proposed parking lot size, City Code would require 5,357 square feet of parking lot islands. The applicant is proposing 5,905 square feet. All of the proposed islands would meet the size and tree specifications of the Code. Tree Selection—Meets requirements The selection and size of trees that will be provided on site meet the requirements of the Code. B. Design Standards— Section 1325.05 Subd. 8 Because Lot 1 has already been developed, the majority of the design standards that pertain to the B-2 District are not applicable to this proposal. That being said, there are certain aspects of the design standards that do apply to this particular application in regards to Lot 1. Lot 2 will be evaluated at the time that a proposal for development is submitted. The purpose of the B-2 Design Standards is to promote a high level of architectural, landscaping, and site design in the District. The City seeks to create a unified, harmonious, and high-quality environment to foster a distinct,positive, and successful image of the City. Site Furnishings and Seating Areas- Cannot be determined by submitted plans An outdoor grilling area has been indicated on the plans; however, the applicant has not included details on the layout of the site furnishings or seating areas. The Zoning Code requires benches and decorative plantings near the primary entrances of the building, and that seating areas be included as part of the grilling area. Parking—Meets requirements Parking is currently located to the rear of the building, which complies with the design standards for the B-2 District. The Code also requires concrete curb and gutter around the periphery of all parking lots, access roads, and parking lot islands. This requirement is met by the proposed plans. Parking lot islands are included that meet the requirements City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)104-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.doex Page 6 of 16 of the Code as well. Lighting—Cannot be determined by submitted plans A lighting plan has not been submitted; however the applicant understands that one is required that conforms to the requirements of the Zoning Code, Building Code, and Ramsey County Sheriff recommendations prior to the issuance of building permits. The Ramsey County Sheriff has recommended that a minimum of three foot candles of illumination be maintained at the ground level across the parking lot surface. Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation—Meets requirements The applicant is proposing six-foot concrete sidewalks with a six-foot boulevard adjacent to County Road E and Lexington Avenue the length of both Lots 1 and 2, as is required by Code. Bike racks would be located on the interior of the building; however, additional permanently affixed bicycle parking should be provided outside of the main entrance of the building for visitors to the site. C. Parking—Section 1325.06 The applicant is proposing 259 parking stalls on Lot 1. The Zoning Code requires two stalls for every dwelling unit on site, which would require 240 parking stalls for this project; however, given the number of efficiency units, it is likely that parking demand will be less. At this time the restaurant and banquet facilities are not contemplated; however, when they are reused the existing parking will need to accommodate the new uses as well. Without a proposal for the development of the restaurant and banquet facilities, it is very difficult to determine what the total parking demand for Lot 1 will be. The lack of a plan for the redevelopment of such a significant portion of the building is a concern in terms of calculating adequate parking demand for this site. Lot 2 will be evaluated at the time of the development proposal based on that specific use. 2. Guiding Plan for the B-2 District The Guiding Plan for the B-2 District was accepted by the Council in October 2008. It represents the guiding principles for redevelopment in the District. One of the main challenges to the redevelopment of the B-2 District identified by the Guiding Plan is the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012U2-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)V-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 7 of 16 current configuration of traffic management on County Road E. In many instances, the existing access driveways do not align with one another which, coupled with a 21-foot wide shared center turn lane; create sporadic left turns along the corridor. In order to address this issue, the Guiding Plan called for the realignment of driveways where possible, and the creation of a new stop light in front of the former Holiday Inn property. The Guiding Plan re-envisioned the former Holiday Inn property as a tear-down redevelopment that would allow for the implementation of these long-range traffic management improvements. The current proposal is to reuse the existing building, which does not lend itself to the full implementation of the Guiding Plan, since the building itself impedes the installation of the new stop light. Furthermore, the existing driveways are not ideally located to address the broader traffic issues identified by the Guiding Plan. The existing building on Lot 1 is presently situated in a way that allows the building to front on County Road E, with the majority of parking behind, which is in keeping with the goals of the Guiding Plan; however, the primary entrance will be located in the rear of the building, which is contrary to the desire to bring front entrances to County Road E. The subdivision of the lot into two offers an opportunity to increase the intensity and mixture of uses on the site, which is a stated goal of the Guiding Plan, and decrease excess parking; however, access to Lot 2 is limited to shared driveway access located in front of the former Holiday Inn building on Lot 1. The County has reviewed the proposed plan and has indicated that a right in/right out access on Lexington Avenue has not been approved for the concept plan indicated in the application. The County's approval of a right in/right out is contingent on the development of two smaller buildings on the corner to be used as retail and a financial institution. The future development of Lot 2 maintains the opportunity for a gateway entry feature, additional outdoor seating, or gathering space, and an overall site plan that meets the requirements of the Zoning Code and forwards the vision of the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District. Multiple-family housing has been identified as an appropriate use in the B-2 District,through a PUD process; however, reuse of the former Holiday Inn building was not contemplated in the Guiding Plan. It is difficult to thoroughly analyze the site for conformance with the Guiding Plan given the unknown future uses of the former McGuire's, banquet facilities, and Lot 2. How these aspects of the project are developed over time will have a significant impact on parking, traffic generation, and the overall function of this site as part of the B-2 District. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:Oanning0anning Cases12012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)104-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 8 of 16 3. Signage The applicant has not submitted a signage plan for the property. 4. Traffic Traffic Study The City Engineer and Ramsey County Traffic Engineers reviewed the submitted traffic study and subsequent revision by RLK Engineering, and have included their comments (Attachment Q. According to the traffic report submitted by the applicant, the proposed use would generate approximately 75 percent of the trip generation as the former Holiday Inn when it was fully functional. The traffic report also includes anticipated traffic impacts from Lot 1 based on the future reuse of the existing McGuire's and banquet facilities as a daycare center and fitness center, along with the potential development of Lot 2. The applicant was asked to include assumptions about the build out of the site because the City must consider the overall traffic impacts of the site as a whole. The report indicates that the Holiday Inn generated approximately 1,338 trips per day when it was fully operational. The traffic report contemplates five different possible land uses for Lot 2. Depending on the land use for Lot 2, the total trip generation on both parcels ranges widely. For example, on Lot 2, a standalone bank would generate 371 trips per day, while a pharmacy would generate 1,411. This range is worrisome in that the City does not currently have a mechanism in place to control the number of trips once Lot 1 is developed. The traffic study assumes a 44 percent reduction in trips based on pass-by trips, and mode share, meaning an assumption that people are walking or biking to and from the site. Staff feels that 44 percent is not a realistic assumption, and without knowing the final uses for the McGuire's space and Lot 2 it would not be possible to estimate this amount. Staff concludes that the traffic study is insufficient to adequately calculate the traffic impacts over time, particularly at the PM Peak, which is the most congested time of the day in this location. Traffic can be addressed over time as development is proposed on a site specific basis; however, based on the information presented for this application it is difficult to predict what the true traffic impact will be until the future uses are known. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:WlanningWlanning CasesO12U2-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 9 of 16 Carroll's Furniture Access Staff has discussed options for providing a more adequate access to serve the three properties lying west of the Holiday Inn site. Since this proposal is moving forward before that issue can be thoroughly analyzed, Staff is suggesting that the Holiday Inn site provide an easement along the entire west property line easterly to the rear of the row of parking adjacent to the building. The easement would be used to accommodate a reconfiguration of the existing drive-aisle, access to the three businesses to the west of the Holiday Inn site, and possible shared parking. The owners of the Holiday Inn site have also been asked to participate in future discussions to address this issue. The applicant is not being asked to pay for any of these improvements, and reconstruction of the west portion of the Holiday Inn site could be suspended until a final solution is agreed upon by all parties. The City's intention would be to minimize any impacts to the Holiday Inn site as much as possible, and to vacate any portion of the easement that is not part of the long-term solution to this issue. 4. Safety and Security The Ramsey County Sheriff has reviewed the plans and submitted comments based on a conversation that he had with the applicant (Attachment E). The Sheriff has three primary concerns. The first is lighting of the parking lot. During the time when the building was used as student housing there was a marked increase in vehicle break-ins. The Sheriff has recommended that additional lighting be maintained at a minimum of 3-foot candles at ground level across the parking lot surface. The second area of concern is the vacant space that will remain after the first phase is complete. The Sheriff has asked for a camera and locking plan, subject to his approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit. He remains concerned over the ability to secure vacant spaces once the building is partially occupied. The third area of concern is regarding the controlled access and security personnel for the building. Most apartment buildings offer in-room intercom systems that allow residents to buzz in visitors. That will not be the case in this building. The applicant is proposing that visitors will call residents, who will then call down to a security person, who will let people in. Furthermore security will be responsible for monitoring cameras throughout the building, which are an integral aspect of security for the third and fourth floors, touring the building on occasion, and attending to issues that may arise on an as-needed basis. The Sheriff is concerned that the submitted plans do not indicate how these tasks will be handled, and that one person will not be able to safely and adequately perform all of these duties. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)104-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.doex Page 10 of 16 5. Park Dedication Park use dedications for recreation or conservation purposes would be required as part of an approval of this application, and would be determined by the City Council. According to the City's subdivision ordinance the property is subject to a park dedication requirement because of the platting of the parcel. Based on the Code, park dedication can be in the form of a percentage of land dedicated to the City, or as cash in lieu of a dedication. In the event of a cash dedication, the amount could be up to ten percent of the fair market value of the property. According to the Ramsey County Assessor, the property has an assessed value of $2.67 million. Based on the current assessed value of the property the park dedication could be up to $267,000. The final park dedication requirements will be determined by the City Council. According to State Statute, cash payments made to cities in lieu of park dedication can only be used towards the construction of new recreation facilities and cannot be used to maintain existing facilities. 6. Additional Review The Building Official and Fire Marshall reviewed the plan and have submitted their comments (Attachment Q. Ramsey County has reviewed the plans and is requesting additional easement over the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue to accommodate a designated right turn lane from southbound Lexington Avenue to westbound County Road E (Attachment D). The additional easement would also provide for sidewalk along County Road E and Lexington, as well as a signal post locations, and a gateway monument at the corner at a future date. Staff is asking for a 30-foot by 30-foot triangular easement to accommodate these items. Discussion This building would be the largest apartment building in Arden Hills. The approved, but as yet not built, Arden Village is 55-units. The Park Shore, Cottage Villas, and Hunters Park buildings have 173 units combined. Given its size and location this is a significant project for the City. With all apartment buildings the key to their success rests in their long-term management. The City has no authority to regulate who buys or operates the Holiday Inn building once it is approved. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanningWlanning Cases12012U2-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.doex Page 11 of 16 Staff has spent a considerable amount of time evaluating this proposal, and continues to have concerns regarding the proposed use of the site. While the applicant intends to market this building to students of Bethel University and Northwestern College, the applicant cannot limit residents to only this demographic, as was possible with the student housing facility. The efficiency units are approximately 300 square feet in size, some of which do not have windows to the outside, but rather look out over the fitness area. In addition, Staff has concerns over the phasing plan which would keep two floors, and the banquet and McGuire's spaces, vacant for a period of time. There is also traffic generation and parking demand unknowns associated with the aspects of this site that have yet to be developed, both within the existing building and on Lot 2. An ideal scenario would be to plan for the redevelop the site as a whole, rather than the City reviewing it in segments over time. The applicant submitted floor plan layouts for an earlier iteration of this proposal. Updated floor plans were not submitted with this revised application. Staff would like to see floor plan layouts prior to the City Council's review of this application. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, advances the goals, and principles within the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, and would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing building at 1201 County Road E into a 120-unit multiple-family building. 2. The proposed use is allowed through a Planned Unit Development process in the B-2 District. 3. The proposal would increase vehicle trips to and from the site compared to existing and past conditions. The amount of increase cannot be quantified based on the plans submitted. 4. Required parking demand cannot be determined based on the plans submitted. 5. The proposal is in compliance with the City's setback, lot size, lot coverage, and density requirements. 6. The proposal would meet or exceeds the City's general regulation requirements for the B- 2 District. 7. The proposal, if approved, would generate up to $267,000 in park dedication. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanningWlanning Cases1201M-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 12 of 16 Staff Recommendation Staff acknowledges that this site is an important gateway to the B-2 District, and yet remains vacant. Two other development applications have been reviewed by the City and approved in the past two years on this property, both of which did not come to fruition. Staff understands the frustration of both the City and developer to find a mutually beneficial and productive reuse of this property. In that vein, if the Planning Commission chooses to approve this application, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 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. Development agreements, drafted by the City Attorney, shall be signed by the property owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2 prior to the execution of the Final Plat. 3. The applicant shall provide for park dedication in an amount of$267,000. The park dedication shall be paid in full prior to the execution of the Final Plat, or the property owner shall enter into an agreement for a payment plan that is in accordance with Section 1130.08 Subd E of the City Code. 4. The applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements, in favor of the City, in accordance with 1130.05 of the City Code,prior to the execution of the final plat. 5. The applicant shall provide a 30-foot by 30-foot triangular permanent easement at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road E for roadway and utility purposes, as well as gateway monument. 6. The applicant shall file the Final Plat with Ramsey County within 180 days of City approval, or the approval for the Final Plat shall expire, unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration. Extension requests must be submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date. 7. The applicant shall dedicate to the City a twelve-foot wide pedestrian easement along the property lines adjacent to County Road E and Lexington Avenue, within which the six-foot wide sidewalk shall be constructed. This will likely need to be provided in a separate document from the plat. 8. The applicant shall provide limited access through the platting process for both the Lexington Avenue and County Road E frontage for all areas not being allowed to be used as driveways. This will likely need to be provided in a separate document from the plat. 9. The applicant shall provide a 64-foot wide easement along the western property line for the City to implement a shared drive-aisle and parking solution to accommodate the three businesses west of the property. The City's intention is to minimize impacts City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:I PlanninglPlanning CasesU012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 13 of 16 to the property and to vacate any portion of the easement not part of the long-term solution. The applicant shall not be required to improve any portion of property within this easement until a solution is implemented. 10. The applicant shall obtain all necessary permits, including, but not limited to, NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, and City Erosion Control Permits. Copies of all necessary permits shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of any development permits. 11. The applicant shall submit a lighting plan, subject to the approval of the Ramsey County Sheriff, which indicates a minimum of three foot candles maintained at ground level across the parking lot surface, prior to the issuance of any development permits. 12. The applicant shall submit a security plan, which includes details on staffing, cameras, and locks, subject to the approval of the Ramsey County Sheriff,prior to the issuance of any development permits. 13. The property and property management shall participate in the Crime Free Multi- Family Housing program. 14. The applicant shall submit a revised landscaping plan indicating compliance with the City's landscape requirements. 15. The applicant shall submit a financial surety in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation of the landscaping plan prior to the City issuing any development permits for Lot 1. The City shall retain the financial surety for at least two years after full implementation of the landscaping plan. The financial surety shall only be released upon successful inspection of the landscaping by the City Planner, which shall only occur during the growing season. 16. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for Lot 1 within one year of the approval date of the development agreement, or the Master and Final PUD approval shall expire, unless extended by the City Council prior to the approval's expiration date. Extension requests must be submitted in writing to the City at least 45 days prior to the expiration date. 17. All improvements illustrated on the approved plans, as amended by these conditions of approval, shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for Lot 1. 18. The applicant shall comply with the Building Official and Fire Marshall's comments dated February 22, 2012. 19. Building on Lot 1 shall comply with Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems, of the State Building Code, which requires the installation of a fire sprinkler protection system that complies with NFPA 13, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)104-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 14 of 16 20. Fire Hydrants shall be located within 150 feet of the Fire Department Connections (FDC)to each building on Lot 1 and Lot 2. 21. Building on Lot 1 shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding property maintenance, subject to the approval of the Building Official. 22. An 8" water main shall be extended from County Road E to the northerly plat line between the two proposed lots, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 23. Permanently affixed bicycle racks shall be provided near all primary entrances to the building on Lot 1, subject to the approval of the City. 24. The applicant shall remove all portions of the bituminous parking lot on Lot 2, with the exception of a 25-foot width to the east of the existing building, subject to the approval of the Fire Department. 25. All exposed soils, not considered improved hard surfaces or perennial planting areas, shall be seeded or sodded with an approved grass mixture. 26. The applicant shall consult with the County regarding sidewalk placement to ensure that the sidewalk placement will work with the County Road E and Lexington Avenue intersection's geometric changes planned for the future. 27. Traffic management shall be implemented at the eastern most driveway, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director, to effectively provide efficient and safe ingress and egress to Lot 2. Additional traffic management devices may be installed at the time of Lot 2 development, subject to the approval of the Public Works Director. 28. The applicant shall agree to waive their right to appeal future assessments related to the installation of landscaping, street lighting, benches, and other features associated with the County Road E streetscape improvements, in an amount not to exceed $350 per linear foot of County Road E street frontage. 29. The applicant shall provide to the City temporary construction easements for implementing the County Road E streetscape improvements, provided the City repair and replace any disturbances on applicant's property. 30. The applicant shall submit to the City joint maintenance agreements, and shared access agreements, between Lot 1 and Lot 2 prior to the issuance of building permits for Lot 2. 31. Prior to ten years elapsing, or upon any future PUD approval of the parcel, the City may incorporate a civic feature into the southeast corner of Lot 2. Notice Notice was published in the Arden Hills/Shoreview Bulletin and notice was prepared by the City City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanningWlanning Cases12012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)104-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 15 of 16 and mailed to residents within 1,000 feet of the subject property. Staff has received four phone calls from business owners in the area, all of whom expressed concerns about the development. Options & Proposed Motion Language 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 12-009 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the conditions in the April 18, 2012,planning case report. 2. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 12-009 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 12-009 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on April 4, 2012. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by June 3, 2012 (60 days), unless the city provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. Attachments A. Application and Supporting Materials B. February 13, 2012, Traffic Study and March 30, 2012, Response to Staff Comments C. Staff Comments D. Ramsey County Engineering Comments E. Ramsey County Sheriff Comments F. Plan Set City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Special Meeting for April 18, 2012 P:IPlanningW lanning Cases12012112-009-1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)W-18-12-PC Report-1201 County Road E PUD.docx Page 16 of 16 Attachment Application and Supporting Materials EN HILLS April 18, 2012, Special Planning Commission Meeting r 5 L I� 4 may+++ ,. Fr�S Tt jr N • d-t"�' '' 'T 7'�'c'��r "�� 1� � may/[+ Y Kitchen - Each apartment unit will be renovated to include counter top, sink, under counter refrigerator, under cabinet drawers and cooktop/oven. (See Attached) Additionally, room and common area surface finishes will be upgraded as necessary. It is our intention to market these apartments to students attending the local colleges and universities, young professionals and seniors looking for a place to call their own while still having the social contact the common area amenities will provide (we would not expect families based upon the size of the units). All residents will be thoroughly screened including back ground check, credit report, employment or other income verification and prior landlord check. The facility will be equipped with state of the art camera systems and 24 hour security staffing as well as a single point exit and entry utilizing a controlled access system. The developer will participate in the Crime Free Multi Housing Program. The site work/exterior improvements incorporated in this application are consistent with the site and exterior work approved on November 22, 2010— planning case#10-009 including the construction of a concrete sidewalk; street tree requirements; parking lot lighting; fire sprinkler system; etc. It should be noted the aforementioned case provided for bicycle racks along the exterior of the building while this new development provides for a bike storage area inside the building as well as an exterior barbeque area as depicted in the attached site plan. Planning case#10-009 required parking lot lighting additions subject to approval of the city planner and county sheriff which continue to be acceptable. RLK has provided an updated traffic study (see attached-3rd revision) and has concluded apartment use combined with other potential uses on Lot 2 and potential use in the westerly portion of the building "will operate the same, if not better than the previous use on the site (Holiday Inn Hotel)." Additionally, RLK report has addressed questions raised by staff. We believe this development lends itself well with the city's B2 District Plan by providing for updated interior building and site improvements. Additionally the apartments will provide additional residential density (consistent with the B2 goals and objectives) and provide residents/customers eager to utilize the local businesses around them via the sidewalks and roadways planned for the B2 District. Sustainability-Arden Hall Apartments as an occupied and vibrant multi-purpose building fully utilizes a property in which our natural resources have already been invested. As one of your staff shared with me... "the 'greenest' building is one that doesn't have to be built". We are requesting a lot split into two separate parcels: Lot 1 and Lot 2 (Lot 2 is proposed in concept form). We have secured a permit from Ramsey County to access Lot 2 from Lexington Avenue. Respectfully, Robin C. Davidson The Davidson Companies, Inc. cc: Stuart Nolan 0 � A §§ � LU ! | , ■ . 2 2§ UJ\ U D / 110 & | Q CL < k M � . - , 4 iu \ § �! es ! \\ \� 4 � � \ 4 f� ° - Fn;-T� i q 4 u � , 4 O ( k \ / i Ld o � i i § / | §t -■ -■ o o } W� �r Y _? F p p >` w w �! i$ Q Q Q CD0 Ll Q J Q i'T'Y-Tr i ,III I dP I �9 I � \ T / O W Q lol lol W F Y ® � J � J U U „ , , o � o e = Q a • r t o N Q �Y U • U a4 a0 • a0 O r - •+� l I •�f+ .�. i. M1 '+1 .�i A 1 J,• _ a_`J :• I F � � .��y* it J w� - i - - ,' •-J� F ; Vr =Emir%--F l mc wx n -r: Attachment February 13 , 2012, Traffic Study and March 30, 2012, Response to Staff Comments EN HILLS April 18, 2012, Special Planning Commission Meeting 5 r r "r' •� 4 IF kd + -' 1 J r NI .IPly * [ ' •7a'Y#£*a IF LL - F _ f generated by particular land uses based on a variety of variables (numbers of units, numbers of employees,per thousand square feet of floor area,etc.). A. Apartments The trip generation for the site while it was a 150-room hotel was 1,338 trips per day. That included 101 trips to and from the site in the A.M.Peak Hour(7-8 A.M.),and 105 trips to and from the site in the P.M. Peak Hour. The proposed reuse of the former hotel site is to convert the building into a market-rate apartment building. The building would comprise 150 efficiency apartment units. Table IA shows a comparison of the trip generation potential of the 150-unit apartment building with the 150-room hotel use. Table 1A. Trip Generation Comparison—Hotel vs.Mid-Rise Apartments Land Trips Generated: Land Use Type Use Size AM peak PM Peak Weekday Code Enter Exit Enter Exit ADT Apartment Residential 220 150 units 15 61 60 1 33 998 76 total 93 total Hotel Lodging 310 150 rooms 59 1 42 51 1 54 1,338 101 total 105 total This comparison shows that the apartment building will generate fewer trips than was evidenced by the previous hotel use. Table IA shows the estimated number of trips based on the number of apartment units based on data taken from apartment buildings and complexes throughout the country. In comparison, this development is intended to be market-based apartments consisting of efficiency units. Therefore,fewer occupants per unit are likely to be residing in the building than are typical for apartment complexes. Rather than using the number of units as the variable, a more appropriate variable may be to use the number of persons (tenants) as the variable. In this case, assuming a rate of 1.5 persons per unit, a maximum occupancy of 225 persons would be expected in the apartment building. Table 1B shows the number of trips this would generate. Table 1B. Trip Generation Comparison—Hotel vs.Mid-Rise Apartments Land Tri s Generated: Land Use Type Use Size AM peak PM Peak Weekday Code Enter Exit Enter Exit ADT Apartment Residential 220 225 persons 13 50 59 31 745 63 total 90 total RLK Incorporated Page 2 of 8 February 13,2012 Co.Rd.E&Lexington Traffic Study 2011-052-M 71 Tj " ;. ..Ob u }r(r l �W77:� �.�.,t��d j 7�r ..s�� - a COC3 13 1� - ' ' � Lim � — I• �04, 'r. — i I �r= `wV ' ' c ern ' FIB - 0-1 M�Vs . -3"),M- 1 MIL Air TI co 77 dT I rw,in. r i r- 1�1.21 I 17. ` 4 �M6 IL IL IL �k lip i - �I r -- - .• y1- r�r� � �'+.-� + 'y���, ' .� ice. .�.,� . . . may }„-. �i K 1��-1• �4�1.�51 �T1,i'4*� , •{, - -+ ';ir�r��'� ',-l�+%+r for a high-priority/high-volume suburban movement might be"C,"while LOS "F"on a low-priority/low- volume urban movement might be appropriate. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, a key measure of operational effectiveness is the side-street LOS. Long delays and poor LOS can sometimes result on the side street, even if the overall intersection is functioning well, making it a valuable design criterion. Again, depending on priority and traffic volume,acceptable side-street LOS can range from"D"to"F." A final fundamental component of operational analyses is a study of vehicular queuing, or the lineup of vehicles waiting to pass through an intersection. An intersection can operate with an acceptable level of service, but if queues from the intersection extend back to block entrances to turn lanes or accesses to adjacent land uses, unsafe operating conditions could result. The 95`"percentile queue, or the length of queue with a 5% chance of occurring during the peak hour, is considered the standard for design purposes. To assess the background traffic conditions,RLK used the Existing PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes that were recorded in the Traffic Impact Study developed as part of the Guiding Plan for the B2 District z Access Considerations Along County Road E, access to the development parcels has been limited to two driveways. The westerly site driveway is approximately 975 feet west of Lexington Avenue. The proposed driveway accessing the east side of the apartment building is approximately 425 feet west of Lexington. A central driveway approximately 775 feet west of Lexington previously used for pick-up/drop-off access to the front of the building will be closed. A right-in/right-out only driveway onto Lot 2 to/from Lexington Avenue has been approved by Ramsey County. This driveway will primarily serve the Lot 2 use,but will also provide a far less direct access to the apartment and future uses of the former restaurant and banquet room spaces. Nevertheless,the right- turn only operation at the access,plus the presence of a median along this portion of Lexington will limit the accessibility to southbound movements only. Others will need to use the County Road E driveways. Internal Circulation The internal roadways will allow two-way traffic flow. The westerly drive extends to a parking area at the rear of the apartment building, and then turns easterly to access the parking area for Lot 2. The parking area for Lot 2 also can be accessed via the right-in/right-out driveway from Lexington,as well as the easterly driveway onto County Road E. To model the distribution of the traffic generated by the market-rate apartments and various uses considered for the conceptual parcel, RLK looked at the trip distribution and the directional split of the traffic. For the apartment building,it was assumed that 50%would use the easterly driveway,50%would use the westerly driveway. For the conceptual parcel, RLK assumed 80% would use the easterly 2 Traffic Impact Study. Guiding Plan for the B2 District Arden Hills, MN, prepared by Spack Consulting, December 5,2008. RLK Incorporated Page 7 of 8 February 13,2012 Co.Rd.E&Lexington Traffic Study 2011-052-M driveway and 20%of the traffic would use the westerly driveway. For the banquet and restaurant reuses, it was assumed that 80% would use the western driveway and 20% would be split from the easterly driveways. By applying the site trip distribution to the Existing P.M.Peak Hour traffic,as found in the Spack report, RLK was able to model the Build condition in the P.M. Peak Hour scenario. Levels of service were no worse than LOS-C for any of the study intersections. Delay and stacking distance did not appear to be significant at any of the driveways during the PM Peak Hour. SimTraffic analyses showed a 95`s Percentile Queue length of 51 feet(approx.2 car lengths)at the easterly driveway, and the model showed the queue cleared rapidly as traffic entered County Road E. The westerly driveway and the right-in/right-out driveway onto Lexington had similarly minimal queue lengths. Parldng Lot 1 is projected to provide 259 parking stalls, while Lot 2 is projected to provide 80 parking stalls. Thus the total projected parking to be provided is 339 stalls. Using rates from ITE Parking Generation,3rd Edition,the 150 unit apartment building would require 180 stalls. The projected parking demand for a day-care would be 17 stalls, while the projected parking demand for a health/fitness club would be 40 stalls. The projected parking demand for a pharmacy would be 34 stalls. Therefore, the projected parking demand of the proposed apartment building and the possible ancillary uses would be 271 stalls. This layout meets the projected parking demand. Conclusion RLK has tested several scenarios of trip generation and traffic operation for the market-rate apartment site, westerly portion of the building and the conceptual parcel to the east. Because of the effects of transit and other modes (i.e.,bikes,etc.), as well as shared trips and internal capture,it is our conclusion that the trip generation and traffic operation associated with these potential uses will operate the same,if not better than the previous use on the site (Holiday Inn hotel). The access locations do not negatively impact the flow of traffic along County Road E, nor do the various proposed trip generators cause increased impacts to the overall street network. The addition of the right-intright-out driveway onto Lexington will provide access options to the driver. It is important to realize that this analysis encompasses the market-rate apartments, and also makes assumptions as to the potential uses for Lot 2 and the reuse of the former restaurant and banquet facilities. More accurate trip generation calculations can be made for the site once those uses have been determined. GADavidson Companies\2011-052-M\—Correspondence\Traffic Impact Study 03132012.doc RLK Incorporated Page 8 of 8 February 13,2012 Co.Rd.E&Lexington Traffic Study 2011-052-M •+"rytl,a N••+]+a-�.� '_.q\ +w'-r.T fir• 1 I'•'��+. i+ � +�/�r 1 l ;T� !I .5 �.t,�1:�1,�,. �`YY 3�Y•�.'«..1.�K{1�3�����1,:� rie���.L.`.}�=�i t�lArk� ;�� IF k, .I Fe IF zy i- 4�. IL MU IL Lp WOR L .��'�:�r'�:r '� ;�,•- — I—r�r��t�a'�-`+ice` f �lr�F. L • T To comply with City request,RLK modeled a series of land uses that might occupy these spaces. These examples illustrated that if the traffic could be handled in these conditions, the ultimate trip generators would still be served and traffic operations would not suffer. Table 3B of the report shows the net trip generation comparison after considering the impacts of alternative modes of transportation as well as internal trips. Assuming the addition of the ancillary uses, alternative modes and internal trips,only 36 additional trips would be generated in the A.M Peak and only 83 additional trips would be generated in the P.M. Peak. Again, these are not three times the traffic generated by the previous hotel use. The actual conclusions of the traffic study are found on Page 8 of the report. We state: "RLK has tested several scenarios of trip generation and traffic operation for the market- rate apartment site, westerly portion of the building and the conceptual parcel to the east. Because of the effects of transit and other modes(i.e., bikes, etc.), as well as shared trips and internal capture, it is our conclusion that the trip generation and traffic operation associated with these potential uses will operate the same, if not better than the previous use on the site (Holiday Inn hotel). The access locations do not negatively impact the flow of traffic along County Road E, nor do the various proposed trip generators cause increased impacts to the overall street network. The addition of the right-in/right-out driveway onto Lexington will provide access options to the driver. It is important to realize that this analysis encompasses the market-rate apartments, and also makes assumptions as to the potential uses for Lot 2 and the reuse of the former restaurant and banquet facilities. More accurate trip generation calculations can be made for the site once those uses have been determined." Additionally, the traffic study reported that based on the proposed apartment and speculated ancillary uses,the driveways would operate at LOS-C or better in the A.M. and P.M.Peak hours. The intersection of County Road E and Lexington will continue to operate at overall LOS-D or better during the peak hours. Finally, it must be reiterated that RLK Incorporated did not conclude that at full build-out the site would generate three times the number of P.M. Peak Hour trips generated by the former hotel use. RLK Incorporated did complete an exercise to"address the maximum capacity of the system for trips generated from the site" as requested by City staff. To that end, RLK found that the traffic operation of the hotel and likely ancillary uses will remain satisfactory and will not unduly impact the City or County roadway traffic operation. On March 28, 2012, you forwarded to me a memo from City Planner Meagan Beekman that outlined specific comments regarding your development. You informed me that your development will no longer consist of 150 units,but will now consist of 120 units. The City also forwarded comments specifically addressing "Traffic and Public Works" issues. I have reviewed these comments and have the following responses: RLK Incorporated Page 2 of 5 March 30,2012 Response to Staff Comments-1201 County Road E,Arden Hills 2011-052-M 1. Provide turn radii for a large passenger vehicle from west bound County Road E turning right into the eastern most driveway access. • Response—Turning radius tested for passenger design vehicle. Path tested was a right turn from westbound Co.Rd.E, and then immediate right turn eastbound. This movement has existed throughout history of Holiday Inn site without complications. • Larger vehicles and delivery trucks have successfully negotiated the current access on County Road E for decades. Therefore it would be recommended that either the median as proposed by the City not be constructed, or alternatively larger vehicle or delivery trucks be directed to access the site from Lexington Avenue or by accessing the site by approaching in an easterly direction on County Road E. 2. Revise traffic study to indicate how the proposed development impacts the surrounding roadway system. • Response—See response to item 7 below. 3. Would Bethel and NWC be open to providing any shuttle service to and from their campuses? • Response—The developer says not at this time. Metro Transit bus service is available at stops adjacent to the site. 4. An 8"water main should be extended from County Road E to the northerly plat line between the two proposed lots.This water main will provide for the future looping of water between this site and the Cub/strip mall area north of the railroad tracks.Both of these areas are currently served by dead end water lines which put firefighting ability,domestic service reliability and quality of water at risk.Eventually getting both of these areas looped will help with all these issues. • Response—Not applicable to traffic engineering. 5. As staff we have discussed options for providing more parking and/or a City owned street to serve the three properties lying west of the Holiday Inn site.Since this proposal is moving forward before that issue can be thoroughly analyzed I would suggest that the Holiday Inn site provide an easement along the entire west property line easterly to the rear of the row of parking adjacent to the building.This would encompass the green space,westerly row of parking and the drive isle.The owners of the Holiday Inn site should also participate in discussions to address this issue.Any easement that is granted through this application that is not part of the long term solution to this issue could be vacated at a later date. • Response -Not applicable to traffic engineering, but developer has indicated he is agreeable to such an easement. 6. Limited access should be provided through the platting process for both the Lexington Ave and County Road E frontage for all areas not being allowed to be used as driveways.This will likely need to be provided in a separate document from the plat. • Response—Not applicable to traffic engineering. The intent of this requirement is unclear. The developer is not intending to install driveways at areas other than those that are being allowed to be used as driveways. If the intent is to limit any future curb cuts for driveway purposes, the developer is agreeable at this time. 7. Please see Ramsey County Traffic Engineer's comments dated March 22,2012 • Response—See responses to Ramsey County Traffic Engineer's comments below. RLK Incorporated Page 3 of 5 March 30,2012 Response to Staff Comments-1201 County Road E,Arden Hills 2011-052-M City Planner Meagan Beekman forwarded comments from Ramsey County Traffic Engineer Erin Laberee. Please find below our responses to these comments: 1. Proposed site plan improvement drawings should be provided. The only drawings received were architectural drawings for improvements to the building. • Response—Not applicable to traffic engineering. 2. The application letter from the developer and the traffic study both reference Ramsey County's approval of the right in/right out access onto Lexington Avenue. The access approval was for a bank,4,000 square foot in size on a subdivided lot. The letter to permit the access states, "Ramsey County has no obligation to perpetuate the permitted access for any other uses and retains the right to review access for any change in use of the site after the original businesses are established,as specified in Minnesota Rules 8810.5200." The letter is attached. The development of Lot 2 has not been identified nor has the lot been subdivided;therefore the County's permit for access on Lexington is not valid. The County will review a request for access onto Lexington Avenue when a new use is proposed and when an updated traffic study is provided. • Response—The developer is confused by this comment.He currently has a County- authorized access permit in hand for the right-in/right-out onto Lexington. 3. The traffic study done by RLK,dated February 13,2012 provides trip generation information. Clarification is needed as to how the numbers were derived in Table 3B. The traffic study should include trip generation for redevelopment of the site to include a restaurant. • Response—The figures in Table 3B are calculated by applying the steps below using the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation informational report,Eighth Edition. Step 1: Calculate trip generation. For example,Mid Rise Apartment with 225 persons generates 50 trips in the AM Peak(10 inbound,40 outbound)and 72 trips in the PM Peak Hour(47 inbound 25 outbound). (NOTE. As stated previously, the City specified the use of`persons"versus "units"as the variable to calculate numbers of trips.) Step 2: Combined with the other uses, the total gross number of trips generated in the AM Peak is 170 trips/hr(75 inbound 95 outbound), and 318 trips in the PM Peak Hour(169 inbound, 149 outbound). Step 3: Calculate Shared(Unconstrained Internal Capture)Trips using procedure in Trip Generation Handbook 2nd Edition. These rates are based on trips calculated to be between destinations within a multi-use development. Since these trips are generated and stay within the development, they do not impact the intersections along County Road E nor Lexington. Step 4: Calculate Pass-by Trips using procedure in Trip Generation Handbook. 2°d Edition. Procedure accounts for trips that are made as an intermediate stop along the way to another destination. In this case,an average of 49%of Pharmacy trips is considered to be Pass-By trips. Therefore,an adjustment is made in trips based on Pass-By traffic. Step 5. Calculate a Subtotal of Trips assuming these previous adjustments. RLK Incorporated Page 4 of 5 March 30,2012 Response to Staff Comments-1201 County Road E,Arden Hills 2011-052-M Step 6: Calculate Modal Shift Reduction on Number of Trips assuming a factor to account for transit routes, carpooling, bicycle routes and pedestrian activity. In this case a 20%reduction was used to account for modal shift. The numbers in Table 3B represent these final adjusted figures. • Response—Restaurant use is not anticipated for the development, and therefore is not a realistic land use to be tested. 4. The traffic study should include a LOS analysis of how the redevelopment will affect the County Road E at the access locations and for each turning movement at the County Road E and Lexington intersection. Future improvements to County Road E should be taken into consideration when determining the proposed access locations. • Response—RLK utilized Synchro and SimTraffic operational models to analyze levels of service(LOS)at each of the access intersections and at the major intersection noted. Each of the intersections tested operate currently at LOS-D or better in the AM and PM Peak Hours. (Note: LOS-D is the regionally-accepted benchmark of level of service for intersections to operate at or better before mitigation should be considered.) • Under,existing conditions, it was noted that the eastbound left turn lane at Co.Rd E and Lexington operates at LOS-F in the PM Peak Hour. It should be noted, however, that stacking in the left turn lane does not extend at or beyond the easterly intersection into the site. The intersection operation does not worsen with the addition of the development traffic. • As with previous development scenarios for the former hotel site, no new access points will be introduced along County Road E. In fact, the intermediate access serving the front drop-off entrance will be removed. The remaining access points were in keeping with the access management considerations for County Road E promoted in the Guiding Plan for the B2 District. G:\Davidson Companies]2011-052-M\-Cosexponde=\Respoose to Staff Comments 032912.dmx RLK Incorporated Page 5 of 5 March 30,2012 Response to Staff Comments-1201 County Road E,Arden Hills 2011-052-M Attachment Staff Comments ,AVEN HILLS April 18, 2012, Special Planning Commission Meeting ,-A I��ENr�HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 12, 2012 TO: Meagan Beekman, City Planner FROM: Terry Maurer,Public Works Director SUBJECT: Traffic Study Comments PC 12-009 As requested, I have reviewed the Traffic Study prepared by RLK, Inc., dated February 13, 2012. I have also reviewed the Response to Staff Comments prepared by RLK, Inc., and dated March 30, 2012. I reviewed these two documents and also met with Joe Lux, Planning Specialist, and Erin Laberee, Traffic Engineer from Ramsey County. My conclusion, after the review of documents and meeting with Ramsey County, is that traffic, especially the PM peak trips, could pose a significant problem. Furthermore, I believe the Traffic Study is incomplete and does not provide any technical documentation for some of its conclusions. To support these conclusions I would cite the following: 1. The Traffic Study goes through AM and PM peak traffic generation for a 120-unit apartment and a possible daycare and health/fitness club in the old Holiday Inn building. It also looks at several possible uses for the new lot and generates AM and PM peak trips. In Table 3A the study totals these trips for selected possible uses and shows a total of 336 PM peak hour trips. But in Table 313, where the study compares this total to the old Holiday Inn PM peak hour trips,the future number is reduced to 188 PM peak hour trips; a 44%reduction. Although some reduction in trips to account for combinations is reasonable, I do not see any justification for such a large amount as 44% (Ramsey County staff also concurred with this conclusion). No reduction for a shuttle service should be allowed unless it can be documented that such a service will exist and be maintained. Until an actual use is established for each parcel, it is difficult to predict an appropriate trip generation number or reduction percentage. I believe your previous statement that this site at full buildout will generate three times the PM peak hour trips as the old Holiday Inn site (105 PM peak hour trips) is clearly more accurate than the Traffic Study number of 188 PM peak hour trips at full buildout. City Council Meeting PAPlanning\Planning Cases\2012\12-009- 1201 County Road E-PUD and.Plat(Pending)\Comments\4-12-12 Traffic Comments.doc Page 1 of 2 2. In RLK's Response to Staff Comments they say that"The developer is confused by this comment. He currently has a County authorized access permit in hand for the right-in/right-out onto Lexington." I have confirmed with Ramsey County staff that this is true but is not the entire story. Although the developer has the access permit he has no authority to proceed to construct until he has a building permit for a bank building from the City of Arden Hills. But the Traffic Study assumes a possible pharmacy w/drive thru on this site with the right-in/right-out. The traffic Study needs to reflect accurately the requirements of the County access permit; either a bank on that site or no access to Lexington Avenue. 3. In response to the County's comment that the traffic study should analyze a restaurant,the statement is made that"Restaurant use is not anticipated for the development and,therefore, is not a realistic use to be tested." Is this true of the newly created lot also? If so, a condition should be put on Lot 2 to not allow restaurants. It seems ironic that in Table 2B, Potential Trip Generation Comparison- Lot 2,that the trips generated by a fast food restaurant w/drive-thru and a community bank w/drive-thru are exactly the same as the pharmacy w/drive-thru. 4. Regarding Ramsey County's comment about Level of Service (LOS) analysis (Item 4 on page 5 of Response to Staff Comments), the response is not adequate. The County wants to see all of the calculations that were performed to determine if this development will adversely affect the intersection's LOS. In conclusion, I believe that traffic and especially PM peak traffic generated by this redevelopment is a major concern and the Traffic Study submitted raises more questions than it answers. There is a realistic potential that this proposal will generate 2 to 3 times the PM peak hour trips than the old Holiday Inn site. I believe that the potential uses need to be quantified including items like a shuttle service and then have the Traffic Study redone to show the actual effect it will have on the transportation system. City Council Meeting C:\Users\sonja.klingberg\Desktop\4-12-12 PC12-01OTraffic.doc Page 2 of 2 ,`,REN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: April 12,2012 TO: Meagan Beekman, City Planner FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director SUBJECT: Holiday Inn Site PC 12-009 As requested, I have reviewed the revised submittal from the Davidson Companies, Inc., regarding the proposed conversion of the old Holiday Inn site to market rate apartments. Based upon this review I would offer the following comments: 1. An 8"water main must be extended from County Road E to the northerly plat line between the two proposed lots. This water main will provide for the future looping of water between this site and the Cub/strip mall area north of the railroad tracks. Both of these areas are currently served by dead end water lines which put fire fighting ability, domestic service reliability and quality of water at risk. Eventually getting both of these areas looped will help with all these issues. 2. As staff, we have discussed options for providing more parking and/or a City owned street to serve the three properties lying west of the Holiday Inn site. Since this proposal is moving forward before that issue can be thoroughly analyzed, I would suggest that the Holiday Inn site provide an easement along the entire west property line easterly to the rear of the row of parking adjacent to the building. This would encompass the green space, westerly row of parking and the drive aisle. The owners of the Holiday Inn site should also be required to participate in discussions to address this issue. Any easement that is granted through this application, that is not part of the long-term solution to this issue, could be vacated at a later date. 3. Limited access should be provided through the platting process for both the Lexington Avenue and County Road E frontage for all areas not being allowed to be used as driveways. This will likely need to be provided in a separate document from the plat. City Council Meeting P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2012\12-009- 1201 County Road E-PUD and Plat(Pending)\Comments\04-12-12-Public Works Comments.doc Page 1 of 2 4. The County has indicated that they can make all planned geometric improvements to the intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road E within the existing right-of-way with exception of the very corner of the property. However, when the intersection is expanded to include additional turn lanes there will be very little right of way left for sidewalk and other boulevard amenities. I would suggest that the developer be required to provide a separate recordable document providing an easement for sidewalk and other boulevard amenities over the required plat's 12 foot drainage and utility easement area on both the Lexington Avenue and County Road E frontage. 5. The developer should be required to build a six foot wide concrete sidewalk along both the Lexington Avenue and County Road E frontage. At the intersection, the County will need to be consulted to ensure that the sidewalk placement will work with the intersection's geometric changes planned for the future. 6. At the intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road E a 30 foot by 30 foot triangular permanent easement for roadway and utility purposes needs to be provided. This area will be needed by Ramsey County when the intersection is expanded to accommodate the curb radius, sidewalk/pedestrian curb ramp, traffic signal pole and other items. The rear of this triangular easement could likely be used, with additional area, for the community marker required at this location. If you have any questions regarding these comments,please let me know. City Council Meeting C:\Users\so-nja.klingberg\Desktop\4-12-12PC12-010.doc Page 2 of 2 ,,-A EN HILLS February 22, 2012 Planning Case 12-009—Building Official and Fire Marshal Comments Re: 1201 County Rd. E This letter is a review of a request for a change of use at the currently vacant Holiday Inn located at 1201 County Road E. This review is done in conjunction with both the City Building department and the Lake Johanna Fire department. The previous use of the building was classified as a hotel with an R-1 occupancy classification. The proposed new use is for apartments. This will result in a new occupancy classification to an R-2. Since the City has adopted chapter 1306 (Special Fire protection Systems) of the State Building Code, any changes in occupancy requires a Fire Suppression system to be installed per NFPA. City staff, along with the Lake Johanna Fire Department,have reviewed this project and have the following items to be completed for this project to move forward. 1. All current life safety measures, both active and passive to be fully operational as originally installed. This includes but not limited to, all penetrations and or alterations to existing fire ratings of walls, corridors, and floor systems. They are to be inspected and repaired to the buildings original condition. 2. All corridor doors to have a minimum of a 20 minute fire rating, and are self closing as originally installed. All doors to be inspected and repaired as needed. (submit letter certifying testing and compliance) 3. Installation of a fully compliant Fire Suppression system according to NFPA 13 throughout the entire building. 4. All fire dampers to be inspected and tested to assure they are in good working condition. (submit letter certifying testing and compliance) 5. All mechanical equipment to be inspected and tested by a licensed qualified company (approved by City prior to inspection and testing)to assure the equipment is in a good, safe operating condition. (submit letter certifying testing and compliance) 6. Any laundry facilities that are to remain or implemented in the building are to be inspected and approved by the City prior to their use. 7. Any kitchen equipment to remain is to be inspected and approved by the appropriate government agency prior to its use. (City, Fire , or Ramsey County Health Department) 8. The installation of a fully addressable fire detection and alarm system according to NFPA 72 throughout the building. (Fire Dept. to approved plans prior to installation.) City of Arden Hills•1245 West Highway 96 •Arden Hills Minnesota 55112 Phone 651.792.7800•Fax 651.634.5137•www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us ,,-A EN HILLS 9. All sleeping units are to be equipped with a smoke detection device. Individual unit smoke detectors,upon alarm,to send an addressable notification to a constantly monitored, (24-7) in house location, such as the current front desk. 10. Security to immediately inspect/respond and alert fire/police as necessary. 11. Building security to have emergency procedures reviewed by Lake Johanna Fire department. 12. All existing shafts (laundry,plumbing,rubbish chutes) are to either be sealed with a two hour rated system or a listed and tested opening device. 13. Pull stations are to be installed at all main exit doors and the doors entering stair enclosures at each floor. (remain or change according to NFPA 72) 14. Elevator to be inspected and tested per current state regulations. (submit letter certifying testing and compliance) 15. Installation of a card-controlled building access system. 16. 24 hour security personnel. 17. All mechanical equipment and life safety devices/equipment,to be inspected at a minimum, annually. (submit letter certifying testing and compliance) 18. The building shall comply with the state code for accessibility, in particular Section 1113 for Alterations and Section 1114 regarding Change in use. Section 1113.9 requires that at least 20% of the entire project cost goes to accessibility upgrades. 19. All sump pumps in building need to be brought into compliance with City Code. 20. All overflow roof drains that were removed need to be reinstalled per code. 21. A fire department lock box will be installed near main entrance. Lock box on end of building will remain installed. Both lock boxes will be provided with keys determined by the Lake Johanna Fire Department. 22. The building will need to comply with the Minnesota Statute 299F.50 - Carbon Monoxide Alarms for multi-family dwellings. 23. Currently there is no way to evacuate smoke from the second or fourth floor of structure, provide a means to evacuate smoke from these two floors. Means will be approved by fire department. (To remain in the end units) 24. Both the City and Fire Department to inspect and approve the above items before issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Sincerely, Dave Scherbel, Building Official Tim Boehlke, Lake Johanna Fire Chief Rick Current, Lake Johanna Fire Marshal City of Arden Hills•1245 West Highway 96•Arden Hills Minnesota 55112 Phone 651.792.7800•Fax 651.634.5137•www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us r Attachment Ramsey County Engineering Comments EN HILLS April 18, 2012, Special Planning Commission Meeting Meagan Beekman From: Meagan Beekman Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 3:56 PM To: Meagan Beekman Subject: FW: Revised Application - Electronic Version Attachments: CR F and Lex.pdf From: Laberee, Erin Lmailto•Erin.Laberee CO.RAMSEY.MN.USI Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 1:50 PM To: Meagan Beekman Cc: Lux, Joseph; Terry Maurer Subject: RE: Revised Application - Electronic Version Meagan, Attached is a conceptual layout for a right turn lane on Lexington at County Road E.The existing ROW will accommodate a right turn lane, but new sidewalk or trail would require additional easements,which the City may want to condition as part of plat approval.The existing right of way on County Road E would also support a new right turn lane which has been drawn.Additional right of way will be needed to construct a dual left for eastbound traffic.We would need an additional 15 feet for that turn lane.As I mentioned in our meeting,the County's cost participation policy will likely be changing to a 50/50 split with the Cities for roadway right of way needs and 100%City for new trail/sidewalk right of way needs. Please give me a call if you would like to discuss. Thanks, Erin 1 � . � time Elml .. ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 0% ■� i ■ Z ■■ � 1 MI % % ■ ■ so ENNol 1116 ■ r ■ % ■ i ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ WE ON h on % ' oil ■. r . .. NE ■ �. % , ON ■ .� NJISM 1 . ■E •■ •} ON _ - 1 �. g 0 r m Attachment Ramsey County Sheriff Comments -AVEN HILLS April 18, 2012, Special Planning Commission Meeting Matt Bostrom RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF 425 Grove St. �� St. Paul, MN 55101-2418 Telephone: (651) 266-9300 Telefacsimile: (651) 266-9301 February 21, 2012 Meagan Beekman, City Planner City of Arden Hills 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Meagan, Today, at the development review committee meeting,we discussed several safety concerns that surround the proposed development of 1201 County Road E West. As requested, I am sending you a summary of the concerns: • VACANT SPACE—The current plan would leave large areas of the building unoccupied. Experience shows us that these areas,even when secured, wind up being a magnet for criminal activity. • EXTERIOR LIGHTING—The current blueprint does not include a lighting plan. Since proper lighting plays such an important role in crime prevention this is a major concern. • BUILDING ACCESS—The current plan does not include any"controlled visitor access" mechanisms. Buildings without these mechanisms have increased calls for service due to the volume of transient traffic. Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, John John Eastham, Deputy Sheriff Crime Prevention/CFMH/CPTED Ramsey County Sheriff's Department 1411 Paul Kirkwold Dr. Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-266-7339 651-266-7337 fax iohn.eastham@co.ramsey.mn.us ADULT DETENTION DIVISION(651)266-9350 CIVIL PROCESS(651)266-9330 PATROL DIVISION(651)266-7300 WARRANTS(651)266-9320 Meagan Beekman From: Eastham,John <John.Eastham@CO.RAMSEY.MN.US> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 4:45 PM To: Meagan Beekman Cc: Altendorfer, George;St.Germain,John; Salter, Mike Subject: RE:former Holiday Inn proposal Meagan, have looked over the documents that you provided. It is true that Mr. Davidson did contact me to ask questions about the letter that I sent to you. It is also true that we spoke, at length, about these specific issues. However, there are a couple of points that Mr. Davidson makes in his responses that need clarification. Those points are: LIGHTING PLAN: - Mr. Davidson's response did not include a completion date for the lighting plan. However, I am assuming that it will be completed before the project is approved. - I also noticed that his response did not state that the IES recommended minimum illumination for an outdoor parking lot, with pedestrian traffic, is 3 foot candle (maintained minimum) at ground level. I only mention this because Mr. Davidson stated, in our conversation, that he was led to believe that the IES recommended lighting for an open parking lot was 0.5 foot candle. Because of this initial confusion, and the vast difference between these numbers, think that it would be prudent to actually state what the lighting levels will be before any agreement is reached. VISITORS, SECURITY, AND CAMERAS: - As stated, I did speak with Mr. Davidson concerning the topics of visitors, security personnel, and cameras. However, at no time did I lead Mr. Davidson to believe that I "indicated satisfaction"with his plan. In fact, I explained to Mr. Davidson that I could not make any determination about his security plans until he was able to provide documentation which showed exactly what his plans involved. Since Mr. Davidson has not yet provided any documentation, I am still unable to make any determinations. If you need any further explanation, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, John John Eastham, Deputy Sheriff Crime Prevention/CFMH/CPTED Ramsey County Sheriff's Department 1411 Paul Kirkwold Drive Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-266-7339 651-266-7337 fax john.easthamCaD-co.ramsey.mn.us From: Meagan Beekman [mailto:meagan.beekman(abci.arden-hills.mn.us] Sent: Tue 4/10/2012 3:26 PM To: Eastham, John Subject: former Holiday Inn proposal John, 1 Attached is the revised holiday inn proposal. I would be interested in your comments. I would need them within the next few days. An email would be sufficient. Please note in particular the bottom of page 17 under Safety and Security. Mr. Davidson states that he spoke within someone in your office regarding the application. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Meg Meagan Beekman, A1CP City Planner,Recycli.n.g Coordinator City of Arden H.iIIs 1.245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills,MN 55112 Direct: (651)792-7828 Fax: (651)634-5137 meagan.beekman@ci.aden-hills.mn.us http://www.ci.arden-hiRs.mn.us 2 Attachment Plan Set EN HILLS April 18, 2012, Special Planning Commission Meeting Co EXISTING BUILDING T �r CDo� :.................... : j CD rM 3 ................... .� a a � 3 m G .. Ca .............. . ...... min Ian l{ � M COD O Q .N 110.4 a ,.............:............. - / xn ......... I z FRO .......r-IM I I w 1.5 zzc_I c c 10.0 _\ o p H / m O 1 �.m A rrrr�� n Z j ...........3....ZhB'""...Col / /G D�•A: i tUO'': 0 / CM O C _ i D > zn ygo o� 1 Q gAA ^ TJJ : m f � n . / t x z<-z m�N�mN�l • A O PIP IP y Vl IP 1'... CCA CM n 62.0 . .. -::—.�/ ,) r of 1 I `:I ::: A zm p v p I-I_I_ _I_I_'l. - i sir;:' S rn y S m mn SR 1 --J I N mpg f°i S'' LL : � coxo zp t-• o O O ^J II I —-'., _ / y �, N D O Oi OIlObi N � N V V O� W •`�ITi II I 11---`' --I / 4r�+ o oIII-'N au -I m in in Z a m II I _ _ I O'er o t�Jr a N V N o o tAa -lit (n � my /O G 1 / ON+ WIN W O CM o W 4 Ti6 :•'tml; II �� z ^J Aw r .SR z mz MM. oyN "d oi— - + i m j II cr s +j Zy0 ZµyC + o J1I in O- � �6 II � + yid Izz N z I �.. 1 I II �o.=s m I� 2 l". ;r LL ` ■,.., In wo o n :.........� ......... JJ .....��� r / sea....................... �n� c ...::sae. . .... :......:...:.r... � .....'.::' _ uT maw� lEl 1 I�0 I I O ® ' fx ny S a g 8 8 S S S S S S S 8 S 8 8 8 S Duo 4z mmn' � �4�5 - o o i m c c a > n a o x c O pm mi l��. / n i s - m m A y i m y c 3;CI m .zo. y�p m izn i Gf rtF1 z. z z o o z z Z-M m�Zp WIN 0tE9 � m1 Opp y�SRi ;tL�$ 241 m1Z muWil IGGI Ov t) n vzc 0 d v I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me o 0 _ x DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION y x o o o m _ m $(]ma or under my direct supervision and that I am a m r3 0 z 5 W W W m x o D°1 DAVIDSON ADDITION duty Ucensod Professional Engineer under the 2-20-2012 ADJ.FOR RICE CREEK S -ii v o a laws of the Sfate of Mi fa 3-t4-20,2 WIDEN S.E.DRIVEWAY TO 30.FT 8 ADD MEDIAN g OMEL $' ; gm�• D a m m = Z Arden alas,IMBRIU le Tl �b ", Oi�z. Wb' �'�'O m A D rmi. w# CONCEPT SITE,DRAINAGE& ADAM GIN L tg N o G1 z CD UTILITY PLAN DATE: IXi.14.2012 LIC.NO. 43963 r"' CD EXISTING BUILDING T v 3 - - - a yCD C 3 I III 177 \ \ y\ \\ \\ \\\\\\ \\ \\\ \ z Y N 110.4 i \ I N ° \ O \ \\\\ \\ \\ \\\\\\ v k I: Z O N " \\\ \ / = E \\\\ \\ \\ \\\\ o A \\\\ \\ \\ / 6.46.1 / A, z-<<7 6.1 l / o �a.P. � cnm \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ \ O M m a m o y \ \\ \ / fey o o Z f y 0� z s s F o $Z Z Z \\\\\\\ \\ <>y v v > m m a 1 y� = f o r, / F II II II II I I Q LJ Y Noo N �^ D 24.0 l E �`32.0 �// !-1 III /�� / in / •'I ''I m wczi Ig / // / // l 11 / > C / // PI \` a P/'„' rn I I III �\ a lair' � iii� / l --- / e � oI / • v v � _ z s z z PPI I I I I I I-I CTI I N _ a > Dm II II II II II II _J 0 co 01 4 Q p = ---- -- ---- 1[[ __ o / 'mono = „>. 02 rr=-----_- -z1� - �" : N "o NF oil rn Z p oA �`I$ r97 I1 _J m IO -4 / �y C � /. y m> 3 C9 II jl cM l.— _ m O II oy 3 ,A ao c>>nv° 5 0 o 'a Q m o m OD r �3m- s 21.ao��z o o wo v R7i �/ 3 " 3 w - m m C �1r� - , / i l 30 oEn a ° z w z mom() SON \� o _ _ �— �. c v m M Frico rM zJd LEXINGTON A NUE w + y 1 II A o 3 u + m m m m o R y rn 0) .I o rrl M� $� — o coo zz� ooQi i { < N V SZ i g m@0 DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION z i z a 'z o m 2-20.2012 ADJ.FOR RICE CREEK Y ° m = m �_°3 Da DAYIDSON ADDITION G, i Q 'o �', g o n &142012 WIDEN S.E.DRIVEWAY TO 30.FT&ADD MEDIAN O 02 mu cInn zi a Ns - g 5�n _ _ F.-z Arden NINs Ml�esots r ' S" i LANDSCAPE PLAN o z N q