HomeMy WebLinkAbout8B, Planning Case 12-009 - 1201 County Road E Reuse Proposal�
EN HILLS
Request for Council Action
Prepared By: Meagan Beekman, City Planner Council Meeting Date: May 14, 2012
Planning Case 12-009 —1201 County Road E; Preliminary and Final Plat and Master and
Final PUD
Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source:
NA NA NA
Recommendation:
Motion to deny Planning Case 12-009, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans as presented in
the May 14, 2012, planning case report.
Supportin� Documents:
1. Memorandum from Meagan Beekman, dated May 14, 2012.
2. Application and supporting materials submitted since the April 18, 2012, Planning Commission
Meeting.
3. April 18, 2012, Planning Commission packet.
4. April 18, 2012, draft Planning Commission minutes.
5. Public Works Director comments.
6. 2008 Guiding Plan Trafiic Study excerpts.
7. Supporting materials submitted on May 10, 2012.
�
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 14, 2012
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Councilmembers
Patrick Klaers, City Administrator
FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
SUBJECT: Planning Case #12-009
Applicant: 1201 County Road E LLC and TAT Properties LLC
Property Location: 1201 West County Road E
Request: Preliminary and Final Plat, Master and Final Planned Unit Development
Back�round
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
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 accepted 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 accepted, 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. That application included a request to
City ofArden Hills
City Council Meeting for May 14, 2012
P: IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009 -1201 County Road E- PUD and Plat (PC Denied)105-14-12 - Holiday Inn - Memo.docx
Page 1 of 7
subdivide the property into two parcels, leaving the eastern two acres for a future development.
Select Senior Living has since ended their negotiations with the property owner to purchase the
property for this use. The approvals for this application have subsequently expired.
Overview of Request
TAT Properties is now requesting a Master and Final PUD to allow the reuse of the existing
hotel at 1201 County Road E as 120 rental apartment units. The original building had 155 hotel
rooms, which were used as student dormitories by Northwestern College. The current proposal
is to convert 70 of these rooms into 35 one-bedroom apartment 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 1201iving 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. 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 restaurant 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, 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
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for May 14, 2012
Pr IPZanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009 - l201 County Road E- PUD and Plat (PC Denied)105-14-12 - Holiday Inn - Memo.docx
Page 2 of 7
proposed here. The applicant believes the target market to be students, young professionals and
seniors.
The Planning Commission reviewed this application at a special meeting on April 18, 2012, and
voted (5-2) to recommend denial of the request. The Planning Commission packet and full
review of the zoning requirements is included (Attachment B).
Since the April 18 Planning Commission meeting the applicant has submitted additional
information for the Council to review. This information includes floor plan layouts for the four
floors of the apartments, a revised landscape and site plan, and an addendum to the traffic study
(Attachment A). In addition, the applicant submitted a packet of additional information on May
10 (Attachment F). Unfortunately, the Council report staff deadline is also May 10, so Staff has
not had an opportunity to review this new material.
Discussion
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 unlcnowns 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.
Traffic
The City Engineer and Ramsey County Traffic Engineers reviewed the submitted traffic study,
the subsequent revision by RLK Engineering, and the addendum to the RLK traffic study, which
was submitted by the applicant on May 2, 2012. Staff comments regarding the addendum are
attached (Attachment D). Previous Staff comments are included in the April 18, 2012, planning
case report (Attachment A). The May 2, 2012, addendum makes reference to the 2008 Guiding
Plan Traffic Study, which assumed a traffic light to be installed as part of a redevelopment of this
property. Pertinent excerpts of the 2008 traffic study have been included in this report
(Attachment E).
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for May 14, 2012
P: IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009 -1201 County Road E- PUD and Plat (PC Denied)105-14-12 - Holiday Inn - Memo.docx
Page 3 of 7
Land Use Component
One frustration with this application process has been the changing of identified land uses for the
various components of this development. Without a comprehensive land use plan it is not
possible to adequately analyze overall traffic impacts and parking demand. As a result, as future
phases of this project come forward it is difficult to compare them to the master plan in order to
analyze their impacts, which is the very purpose of a Master PUD process.
Landscape and Site Plan
Since the April 18, 2012, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has submitted a revised
landscape plan that would conform to the City's landscape requirements. The applicant has also
submitted a revised site plan that addresses the outdoor seating and site furnishing requirements
of the B-2 District design standards.
Subdivision
The subdivision of the property into two parcels creates a nonconforming Lot 2, which would not
have guaranteed access to County Road E or Lexington Avenue. The County has issued a permit
for a right in right out only on Lexington Avenue from Lot 2; however, the permit is contingent
on an approved land use plan for a 2,500 square foot bank. The current plans indicate a
conceptual development on Lot 2 that is for a 20,000 + square foot office use. The County has
not indicated their approval of a right in right out for this use.
Safety and Security
The Ramsey County Sheriff's Department has reviewed the plans and submitted comments
based on a conversation that Deputy Eastham had with the applicant (Attachment A). Deputy
Eastham 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 Deputy has recommended that additional lighting be maintained at a minimum of 3-foot
candles at ground level across the parking lot surface. The applicant has indicated that he is
agreeable to meeting the Ramsey County Sheriff Department's recommendation.
The second area of concern is the vacant space that will remain after the first phase is complete.
The Deputy 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.
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for May 14, 2012
P: IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009 -1201 County Road E- PUD and Plat (PC Denied)105-14-12 - Holiday Inn - Memo.docx
Page 4 of 7
The third area of concern is regarding the controlled access and security personnel for the
building. The Deputy remains concerned over the details of this plan.
Park Dedication
Park use dedications for recreation or conservation purposes would be required as part of an
approval of this application, and are 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. This equates
to $2,225 per unit. By comparison, Pulte paid $3,513 per unit, and the average per unit park
dedication amount for all residential development over the past five years in Arden Hills has
been $4,932. A survey of three other area communities regarding per unit park dedication fees
indicated that the average per unit fee is between $3,500 and $5,500 for multi-family housing.
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.
Findings of Fact
The Planning Commission offers the following findings for consideration:
1. The application lacks a comprehensive master land use plan.
2. The application lacks a detailed phasing and construction plan with timing for phasing
implementation.
3. The traffic and paxking cannot be fully analyzed because a comprehensive land use plan
has not been submitted.
4. Lot 2 is a non conforming lot, which does not have approved access to County Road E or
Lexington Avenue based on the submitted concept plan.
5. The application lacks a detailed lighting plan.
6. The application lacks a detailed security plan.
7. The application has too many variables that remain undefined.
City ofArden Hills
City Council Meeting for May 14, 2012
P: IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009 -1201 County Road E- PUD and Plat (PC Denied) IDS-14-12 - Holiday Inn - Memo.docx
Page 5 of 7
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommends denial of Planning Case 12-009, based on the findings of
fact and submitted plans as presented in the April 18, 2012, planning case report.
Staff Recommendation
Staff acknowledges that this site is an important gateway to the B-2 District, and has been vacant
for a year. 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 benefcial and productive reuse of
this property. Furthermore, additional information has been submitted since the Planning
Commission reviewed this application. If the Council chooses to not follow the Planning
Commission's recommendation, then Staff recommends tabling this item to review the new
inFormation, which may include bringing it back to the Planning Commission so that their
recommendation may be based on a full analysis of all the information.
Options & Proposed Motion Langua�e
l. 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
findings of fact, submitted plans, and the following additional reasons: findings to deny
should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be
mitigated.
2. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 12-009 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master
and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E to allow staff additional time to review new material,
this may include bringing it back to the Planning Commission for a full review.
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
City ofArden Hills
City Counci! Meeting for May 14, 2012
P.• IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-009 -1201 County Road E- PUD and Plat (PC Denied)105-14-12 - Holiday Inn - Memo.docx
Page 6 of 7
initial 120 days.
Attachments
A. Application and Supporting Materials submitted since the April 18, 2012, Planning
Commission Meeting
B. April 18, 2012, Planning Commission Packet
C. April 18, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Minutes
D. Public Works Director Comments
E. 2008 Guiding Plan Traffic Study Excerpts
F. Supporting Materials Submitted on May 10, 2012
City of Arden Hills
City Council Meeting for May 14, 2012
P: IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012V 2-009 -1201 County Road E- PUD and Plat (PC Denied)105-14-12 - Holiday Inn - Memo.docx
Page 7 of 7
Attachment
Application and Supporting Materials
submitted since the April 18, 2012,
Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission Voted 5-2 (Zimmerman; Hames
dissenting) to recommend denial of this planning case
�
-���.Ls
May 14, 2012, City Council Meeting
DAl11DSOH ADDITION p ����� E G�Ea��
PARNINGSTALLS �ECExu w a;o„a,
P
LOT 1- STALLS SHOWN = 25B e ExSiNG UttJtt PO�E JAN PltY9,m12
CONCEPT SITE, DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN � , L07 2- STALLS SHOWN � 80 Exsnx� wp�R ����
�
�� � :��' � E.s�� �,���. �
CIt� of Arden NiI1s, Minnesota � I.J . I' � __ IMPERVIOUS AREAS _ m E�=n�� _�M'�a�,aE �°
:g �
g � � :. � cxsnwc snurnnr Mnuxa
� . 6'-,_ •._�-+' F': �' 8 umxc ic�canane uumo�e �
. . . . :.._... ... .... . .
_ � � ' EX157[NG SIfE �5 ¢„snuc rxcc � � $
�� � - qRFA SF 743,543 uX
� GATHERING AREA w.�aM.H � L'<
_ _ IMPERVfOUS(SF) . z66t00 . _ . —W cxsnxc
]l 5%-.. n w ` �
��
-. -- . [xsnxc aVeNH[no E�ciwc
�� PERVl�t15 SF 71943 �� -- Exsnxc �no[ncnouNo [iEcix�c B'�'
WARNINGII � � zz.5� - - '� � w p
`_ - BUNIEO FlBER OPiIC CABIE ' ----o-- tnsnxc �xo[xcRouxo iuErxorv[ ,� °� u o 0
. ... FlFJA V£RIYY 40CAlI0N PMOP [qsnuc cns z K W a
I._ N
I � ., . -wgv excavnnaxs . PROPOSEU SIiE -- —' � rqRr �� w �
ew.... ..��, ensnxc �' '.. . .. ..�.. LOTI LOT3 OVERALL —>— cxxnxc x '�-?�' o
�T'� a � nar+no[ swn�c � ARFA (SF) 260,]16 82,827 393,593 —»— rvc 5roau s[w[R g� 3 y
, n
' - �' '� BBI2 coNCREIE ape k `_ � I86 299 66,262 252,511 � —�— Pncwos[o wnr[nuwry ry
I . �r q��P (�yp) . _. IMPERVIOUS (SF) . �l 4% BOA% ]3.5% .... B1P .... ksnxc�+ v* couiwus� o R
... . , ... .... � � � ]4,967 1fi,5fi5 91,032 P� ¢ �
, ,.. ...._.... ....
�
% .... �y . .,..: �� '"wi..; s' _ PERVIOUS �SF1 ...... . E o � * N
_ _ y_� .... _
I , � �'.. , � � ,�� .�.� i-•....... �_ �� ` . . m B
�
,,. �'. ,. � �a .... .. EDGE OF WA1ER
� ]B.fi% 20.0% 26.5% �
I : ,.. _ . _�� pUGlIST 2. 2b10 3� w s
,. %
I ,... ,oU � •. ,r �l{��\r���� � _ /1 � � . ._ . . � _
.
. � az / � •� .. 1 I ��
.� d
2s L' ��... ::.::: ' v
.9� I '� ` . � � r � w� ... I' _ __ ��wY
I —' m as �� �`� �w"' �,/s�^a eY �� �
'� ki -....,..... " � m8� �
" `\�' �i \ --.., '.`' 1 mEA cn A9N e : e9 qry .. I1 � _ �xE'�g
C � __
I � ��__` �����` . � •.� .,,_ � ?1> { W I EDGE OF WPIER '� . £ �py n
y ..
� �
� _ �� � � ... � . D10 e
i »
� -PR �\a � \ b... �= ,5�, �� � U g�g�
�
,' ;: —_ ' ,,, :. J5 :; q CUST 2 2
abserc_-- �_, ��.." ap . l—.__. e� -� � I £@= W
I a( ,
I �� .
I I _ �
� _ �.� t . E.u�,
� , � � ��
.�
� �a
I y� �: a � -
� �
I—M M-�—M--M�WM
�_ — �
cxmnxee ro ee w.osm �ex xa x
BINM NOU9 TO 9E pEPNCEO W/
vr�oscnnxc) .
— _ n j-
,\ ,;�. � � ,��.�
,-o,�� ,<
Wao
�f // �i���%��' ' � � �� �
/ / . /� ��� ��CF
/f 7201 WEST COUNTY ROAD E"� � G�.�.
/�////�Ra;$Tdg eRckeli�ol��l'1*' �T, �
j�PUl01NG HEIGHT NBDVE CRADE 18 FEET V�ST SIDE 42 fEET EAST SIDE
� 6ULDING-FOOTPRNT �REA �fi,]fi9 50. FT.� /
�, �� k/��� �:���/, ; � , � �
/�� J8.3/�� 29]/
12J.M1 �o
.. ... .... ... .....
�_ .., , I i` ��E�o �a�oo. � �na� ��.
. � --�-
_ �
� s„ _:
� —< o-... .
.,_yy � W� W_W W W Wa.�-W
� .....' F% HYORn �y -
i �
r . � — —
� _..
�Zy �.
, , ..........e�L..
�ti> , �WEST QUNTY ROAL�_.
— _f __ — — —
����I PEVInCFOW/eW109GRNN0)
� , � _ • ,.: �snmc nono ' � �o
.... , ,' .a:a iz � s .
� <
�
0
� ...._ . '.. � � ��a :-.e .
�,<.s ° x -� , �
``�e,� - � ....... . . - - .:-� � FB<R �J '�ft -,
� .., �o....,� .. .. .. .... � :,. -. s°�¢ �XIShNC P�ND 1 nicxi �oui ax�v � p
izrT-r���, rrT�,_�YT,_� ' �. � N ' ` e � �
\ � � � i � �-L i � � �TT� :�-� - -�<--�. � C � �5
�
' � � � � i 0 6� ' � � � ��
, �-----� �l ` e �
�. � � �j �—n_ j „ � � �
�r�r �......... � � (,.__-i iisi j ��I � i i i \ 'N � �s _ p� 8
� .\ �'�- ___ IJ�L� 1 I I I I v �� . � c wv vzae
,..,.. I _ �-��_�d.d J +.v ( �
is
. Y - - ] f
II I 140� - I � I' - Pmpare� far
� _
.IJ....L.. . ^ °°. .' I _- � �,„� _-�.��-___ F . ��COMP�WIE�S
. . . . _ "" '''fI� �� �� ��
s� I-- I . '..' I �II ' \`-§ � n�inenHlaMNsswzfu
�61.n �/ �_ _ �-.�... NCEPNAL BIIILDING 9ZE k I'I� •.
���� I.00RTION �� I �� �s rv[ v 5x�s on �8511f
�-_ • - ' F��I851)4B1A2a9�.
/ _ (200002 SF) _ � �
./ I___
�� r����� I (W/ L07 2 CONSTRI1Cl10N} _ � ?�� . �tni I
� '- � FIINRE ROOF ORAINFGE TO B I ' �
I LJ
I ' 1
%/i/9� s� /� �... - _ _- �� UIPECIEO TO STORM WATFA L I� I ���
� �'� j ��/ I - I � TFEATMENT BASIN ��� � 8 C7`� ���.�-.,,
� i ;ea,s �� p + �
„ d
� � fNix ' PIIUPOSEo 6 IT
-- _�.i.' . 4- �'� �. ,. � INOECCNCNEIE BttEP
- . � , _.„�.. -- �\ . �� _; �„�� a w.`�^a�
�� � �� a, „ � q =pE PLOWE
- , � `�K a� ��� ,�, °
E� -�� �` �
a
. .. ,.— � . . , .. , -" . .... .... . .. EX61NE[flING,INC.
�.,. — "�J� �.. � e'ieo�am�
�a'-Im \\ ,rP �� .���cpNo/oxuty�u�x�osC,wNo. E �leatlaetai0t310
�
"'�^� - F NORTH
�� V. 82B B �.. e .
�,
........ \ :
v `. /,
,. ...._ . .. _ „`� aAlxEAxCnPE.1
— \ (oENPI W/ LPNUSCFPWC) I� _�
9FANCEs <cONOEa.N U . . \ . . . . . . .. . �
'ED 6 Ff N10E fINE NYURANi LOCAlEO lN1HIN 1 .
�E 91DEWAIx (ils) SU fEEi df MaR f Rf '
OEPMTAENT WNHECTONS
• LAYOUT OF LOT 2 IS CONCEPT ONLY - ��
�� u�o ACTUAL LAYOUT TO BE OGTERMINEO BY
a� (m) � OTHERS FOR REqUIRED PERMITTING
DAVIDSON ADDITION
LANDSCAPE PLAN
CitY of Arqen Nills, Minnesota
I
I
I
I
I
�
�—
LOT 1- PARIfING ISLAND RE(�UIREMENTS LOT 1- PERENNIAL 8 SNRUB REQUIREMEMITS LOi 1- TREE BEQUIREMEWi�
PARKING STALL AREA = � yiuT^"/]
. �.��.�u1�J LANOSCAPE AREA = lq,qg) Sq. Fi. O1 REQUIF[0 CALIPER INCHES (PEN CWE):
= 52,909 S.F. 104.000 SU. Fi. _ J20 CAIIPER INCH6
aso
REOUIREO ISLAIJ� APEA = 10R OF PARKING LOT AREA REOUIftED PERENNIAL 9iRt1B AREA: = 10R OF LAN�SCAPE PREA �
= 102 % 52,90B S.F. = 10R X]4,46] S0. FT. ' O2 PROVI�EO CALIPEF INCHES:
� � = 5.291 S.F. _],44] 50. FT. ' E%IS11NG OECIOUOUS 1IiEES = 4B� CAIIPEft INCXES
PRONDEO ISLAND AREA = G,]5B S.f. _ pqoPosEo NEW mEfs = 41 CAUPEa iNCHEs
PROVI�EO PEFENNIAL SHRUe AREq:- = 8,5]1 50. FT. ,
TOTAL CALIPEN INCNES PRONo[� = SJ] CALIPER INCHES
= PEflENNIAI/SWiUB ApEAS
� LOT 1- iREE PLANi1NGS
�
_ NUN9ER �
TPE
PHOPOSFD ��
\_
_ &IMm FlBEP OPllcCo�e�t � � OIIFflSiOBViAEFB 6 "M
1➢ NKIfY LOCAliON PPIOR e� �oun� amE itl �" �
FlEY61LlY IXCAVnToxs AneNuwet, sy Voamera weire
� _ a . Inarmla "Shy�'ola"
�
� _-
,` � ""� _ �� `_ � 09NIIMEMAITflFFB ifi �up�
�' '". � � � �—�__ \ � � �
,� 'I , �' � ' �
/ � � . ' � _ o Re9e�t'
t��� - . �`` �\ �E�CE OF WATER vnMvi[ sv[m¢ smNx. vain sn[aFs xeWixeMwrs �rvo nvuuewtt
_�� AUGIIST 2, 2(lta �
� �� a \_� ,
/ /
%/i / � `��� / I �� .
ii�� � lI �
�� �� I I �
i i%i�.
i�i
/�/
/�/
%�i ��
/%i�
i�i
/ ri �
.�� �
_ �
�c (
R mi
LC � ' -�� �+wc �ne l, � � _
i i� ,w��{,. �_
�� � � � "i �r ' r�' � �
�i 4 \ �� I I �
/ �i/i/� �� �I� ' _ �� f / ! I �EDGF. OF WA'IER _�
/.i/.i/i. �ii/,i/.�_ � \ `�� AUWST 2, 2010
Gi i�i
/i�/�/ / /
i�i� / i /i
i�i�� Y'/
G/'/ii�iA
` G p.G. m
o�c.w.P �. P io-� ex
LwuhqV 0, �12
�
��
�s
� ���
�p�§
- z�
a�Sw
���a
I/I�� -- ` ;�= \ � ` . = ���EXISIINCPONO . � _ � .
� II I _ _ � x, �- / 1 -� I .
�` 1\ `� � � _,� , ` =�� 2 '
,- ' � �, ,;\ �` � / .
I`,_ - `, ,,--, � � ' � � �- �'��x ,M� g
I 1 II I �z TY��T�.� �sq�^oie'SnNc p�,p ,..,rc � 5 c�
� \ --------- / /' 1 � I I ` I i ; ;�ri ?,sr�P�� k _ s � g U
� ' � � � � �7, � � �a � a�5
i , � � i � � �
/ / // 1201 WCST COUNTY ROAD "[" �
�///,%/z �a's16ar eaa< ouisofuc// ��
�/� � �LDING HEIGHT AOOVE CPAOE 18 FEET WEST�SDE 4) FEET ENSi SIDE
BUI�DING-FOOiPRINT AREA Sfi,369 50 Fi.�
/� m � �� /���� � ' / �
� ;�,.
,
SE / V8.3 n 2I/
�21 :'.:.'.- .,= 12�.4
1 3 � �
�m�
/�e:oiricnPc . .. . .. .. ...... _........
i r wEo ��. ,,—«�
�
�� -
- . � 7 .-
= m a- w w w- w w � w w w—w=
WEST COUNTY ROAD
�^ ------_-�=---- —
" „ 1
��� � ___=_za �� e � ��
� ; � � �,,� � � � = s = w
..o, ox�, �° —�— � i�l �� � ��� �� � I I Z a'0 3'�
_._-r— � �L'L.L1 '� i i i -� I ._ e a
. --i-- T �--__-��1-i- - _� � �� I `
n . ___I�� 1 -� �y __ ---�_ —_ I ' Q I � . vrevoa�v�osoei.
� ii i i // i// '__ I.i =_.. �"�I : CO 8
N Mw
�'s/4� i i�� i-- ... ___ I I� . h I + I . . M�51
/ _I_-
jj %. / _ I .� i ..Z I e..(6st14eie�
I �
� �� --�_-' I I � � _ � �
/ -- �
I
i�
//� ii II� i I
// / ii "_ I II �I �� I I �`� !..
�i _- __ � i . . �� I � wc z ..�y
1
' ' ' / � - aFHc -
_......_ ...,.. 6_e�> _. � tl � _ . i�
� I . _ _. J ! .�
� tl �J €rw,nx�
� — — _ � - _ -�P- �E�E�� �-� --, - � PLEOWE
��:
_- _- . . : _- . - , . . , .. . : , . .-,.- -: _
-.-.�,.... ENGIN , .�
— — — — — � � �. , � �
_h—< < < < — �- —� . ` R^ nn �ou E�v cc E
,,,� °ua°ur"�cmu ,xu,oE.on� ��xow«a,m�b�,<
--w .. w—w w w u�.. _. m w,(srecuiuuosenaixo. vxowE�,ro�nx,ex�o
w u�Pion nrsn r��cm,rm,.e,u,
—. .._
NORTH
„E„ e
�_. —__ — .— ___ — ._— —_ __— — o� cnmexwcancn ,
— ..--- — --- ` (en+ai w/ w+oscnaixc�
` �
+ LAYOUT OF LOT 2 IS CONCEPT ONLY - ��
. ACIUAL LAYOUT TO BE DETERMWtII dY
OTHERS FOR REOUI2E� PI:RMIT(ING
DAVIDSON ADDITI�H
LANDSCAPE PLAN
CitY of Arden Hilis, Minnesota
-�� ��
I
L0T 1- SNURB 8 PEREHNIAL PLANTINGS "
__
_ ��- _ '-__
ta _ ` � -� 7 i . _
n
0
�
���li.
_ �- _` '. �_ \_
_ ` \
_ _ � _ ` \
,—E; �
29 ` \�
jj i
///
i
j'� .�jjjj//L
/,, /%
/iii�, i��
jj �/% /� j
j � /j �
� � . __ //�
�
�i�
�� �-- -
32
RETAINING
� �2
_ �
25 _
-- �' ,
�5
n
I I
SVMBM NEY Qtt B ON NMIE
WOUS 9HflUB3
� 91 RNFIANCHIER AINIFONIIR '11ECFNT p5 POi
� PRW IG S�II% WPP�R[ IFAF �RCPC 1NLLOW p5 POT
� I1C IG RIBES ALPINYM A WHPENi �5 POi
QO 'FNNRB¢lE' � HT➢flANCEA p5 POT
CRE* �RYS 11 iRl(113 X 4FOIA 'TAUNIONI' BS POT
� �J 10 JIMIPFA615 SABINR 65 POT
Q nncnotn' ps ror
PF.NENNYMS �
KFO CN..1MA6qO5T5 M FWTMRN 1GILL ro[ns1E � 11 POT
o xeumacnws �rwn oE oxa� d� am
ia sranaeaws xrrtno ris e� P
m P� eucrcE oveo sus �n rm
Ks�i koeowEunmis � p roi
C91 d9 HOSTA '6Po➢ SiANOM 'U RNOAPo HoSiA � al PO1
o P.G. P.Gx�
���:w:�: P;o-;z�
�wJPNUARY 9, 2013
�
��
��
��
����
��w¢
� $ °'a
o�g-�
jcu�mrv- a�cuca an�m�. vcn�r� xc�iw ncwmcmuria rv�v nvnii..o�iii�. A,�
-V I i -L �_ _-�
' � ��� � � 3as' � �
_ —_—
] /� ,.��
A-
� Ic== -_-,�� ��
� � ----- � ',
I� �I �� � � � \ �"� ���
0 \\\` -\� \�_ `` ` `_\ \I� 11
0 0 � � �� I �. �� 1
�� � — � i i
����\�—�------� �� 1
\ �'_ ' _—___� /
„/��,
;�,,,
//��
�F�000 ucul
/
�
;�
,
�
�� � — xe. �g m
r�-� i� � F S a�
i i i�; ��� ��r�� ������������ �. � �m
��''��; ; 1 � ��
�� � q �
C
� , � yom�
.--_"�29 6� ��SI I I�� I 1 Preoaiokr.
____.�---- �e �L.I�� � � -I I sam°�n'�.n,a,zs
--i-- - -i r___ -���_,;�1
— — _I�—OT =- � — — g�;x�„��s;��e ��,�
_ , � � a,��
_ i _ ._ — — i i� _-- _ _
H_ �___ _��, I�/
— — �--
- � -- -
— --�---
----- ' 1 PLOWE
--- �,�
— — — . _ _ _ I I� � EN6IXEERIXG, INC.
— — _ � I� �E
— I ��.E„o
�_ I
I �xo�s.Mx�„
a' _ _.. I I� o �:�<s,��n�az,o
\=m__d --� I I� f,"�:iob,��,e,o�
� �I NdRTH
� ��y _ � � �-E�E��— '
-.�-s� �r �s .� : .'� � ..
—�,..�� `�,' T� = L �_-��
--- - �� T -- C3
OUMPSTEft �
\ l_--.+—..--_—
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
roea ste�� suee�
St. Pe�, Minrresota 55fl9
t91: 651-739-7988
tex: 651-739�165
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55192
�
�
�
�
�������0� ���000����0��
J
N
� EXI�STING 2ND LEVEL m
• �m m
2ND LEVEL WJIi COUNT FOR CONVERSION
24) STUDIO UMiS
. 17j� ONE BEDROOM UNI7S MUMBERED 1 THRU 7?a
L>J
PRWECT NUMBFR: 212�6
DhTE: 4/2�/12
DRAWN BY: KF
CHECKED BY: _ RR
RNISIONS:
EXISTMIG FLOOR PLANS
A1,1
N
i EXI�5TING MAIN_LE_v_EL_ /�
lrt j
M(AW LEVEL I�HT COIMT FOR CONVERSION -
(e)�ON �BEroDR00M UWi3 (NUMBERED.1 THRU 8) � � -
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
7084 SterNig Sheet
SL Paul, Mmeso[a 55719
tet 651-739-7988
� faz: 851-738-3185
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
PROJECT NUMBER: 21206
OATE'. __ M1/2]/12
�RNWN BY: KF
CI�IEf;KE� BY: RR
REVISIONS:
EXISTMG FLOOR PLANS
A1,2
N
� E �I�SiING 3RP LEVEL �. . .. . . � . � . . . . .
3FD LEVEL UMT COUNi FOR CONVERSION � .
(18) 3TUDI0 UrNTS
(10) ONE BEDROOM 11NRS (NUMBERED i THRU 10) . . � � � �
N
z EX�I�STINCs 4TH LEVEL �
4TH LEVEL UMT COIAdT FOR CONVERSION
(18j 3TUDI0 UNIiS
(10) OFE BFAROOM UNfT3 (NUMBFAED 1 THRU 10)
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
7084 Stering SMeat
St. Pau� Minnesota 55119
tel: B51-739-7988
fax: 651-738-3185
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
. � REMODEL MAM LEVEL �
IJNIT MIX
A 11NIi - I
B IJNIT - 4
G I1NIT - I
D LINIT - 5
� E IJNIT� - I
F �NIT - I
G UNIi - I
HUNIT -'I
I IINIT - O
J I1NIi - O
K UNIi - O
� uNiT - o
nuNrc -�
TOTAL LAlITS . 38
UNI7 MIX
a uwt - o
6 UNIi - o
GIWIT -O
p IINIT - 12
E NJIT - O
F I1NIT - I
G UNIT - O
uuwT -m
I lPJli - I
J UNIT - l
K IJNIT - 3
L UNIi - 4
M UNIT - 8
TOTAL UNITS = 36
PROJECT NUMBER: 21206
DATE� 4(2� 12
DRAWN BY: KF
CHECKE� 13Y: RR
REviSioNs:
REMODEL FLOOR PLANS
A3,1
N
� REMODEL 2ND LEVEL �
HAM ENTRY
0
�
�► �r.���...� �..�N...��...���..,��
.�. .�.
\�� �
!;�'�� ■ ' m
� K�::-�y ���■
I.�I n
� �II
--- II
�
m
� i i t. �.
� 1 _ I� I� - ���
� I� I� ca � I� ■ -�
- 1 I m
_ � �_ �- �- - •',e.� a I
- i-
�
■Ir�i�� � m �I
� � � i•�. i� �
!Tk �� �, ��� .�� �
I! � , � � _
1�
IC� � �) -
� .- •
m �
"' � �� � , `�- �
I �� • I ����� � �
i� �r� m
�
�����
--�e��l�� �' � -
� �� I� 1� i�� ..
_�.J � � �; �-;
- � � ��I �. ,,,�
�;. �� 1111 It� =
!! III = .��,n�j
ri la m � ",'L :i�.y� ��I ' � ��ill�
, , ���' _ m
� i •' - - -
m� i° � m r r I��', �
i• � - ' I�
e
i I I - � �i-I°- ��
m ■ ����� � i '�, n �
� ■ iil �u , i , � �� � -:
� � � � � � �
o�� o�� o�� o �� o�� o �� o
N �
�ENLARGED REMODEL MAIN LEVEL � � — ��r�
N..r.m. � �
`1
�
�
7 xls* �cH
LJ
s,�
�EG�.� ST�E
LJ LJ
� o -; �
`°��
0
0
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
1084 S�e�g Sfreet
9t. PeJ, Afinesota 55118
teL• 651-739-7986
faz: 85f739-3185
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
PRQIECT NUM6ER: 212�6
onTe: a/2�/iz
�RAWN BY: KF
CHECKE� BY: RR
REVISIONS:
EM.ARCfD REMODEL FLOOR
PLAN
A3,2
m �oo.w.�.�, =o,� wos..w���,E�,�A.� �Ao�P
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
,084 SterNng SNee�
St PaW, Mmrreso�a 55119
tek 851-739-7988
fa�c . 851-739�165
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
PROJECT NUMBER: 21206
OATE: 4/2)/12
ORAWN BY: - KF
CHECKE� �Y: RR
REVISIONS:
ENLARGED REMODEL FLOOR
PLAN
A3,3
N
%1 ENLARCiED REMODEL MAIN LEVEL �
�� k'•i'�
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
� � � ' •� ■ , 3������7I'{�h�i'EiE�_
� -
�� '��
�
M184 g�arkp gNee�
Sf. Paul, A�rnesota 55118
tet 857-739-7988
fax 651-738-3165
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
PRQIECT NUMBER: 21206
DATE: 4/2]I12
DRNWN BY: HF
CHECKEO BY: RR
REVISIONS:
Fxa�o r�oo�. aao
LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
A3,4
� �oP�w���.:o,: Aas..w���,E�,�A.� �wo�P
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
1064 Sferig Sheet
SG PaW, MmesOte 55718
tet� 851-739-7988
tax: &57-739-3165
ARDEN HALI
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
_ y .. ��n'�.c. ,;�i�:'
..;i %v �r.� �
PROJECT NlIM6ER: 21206
� DATE: 4/2�/12
DRAWN BY: KF
CHECKE� BY�. RR
REVISIONS:
ENLAA�m REMODE� 2M
� LEVEL Fl.00R PU1N�
A3,5
� �oP.a���, zon �..w����E���a�� �ao��
N
�\.\ ENLARGEP REMOPEL2NP LEVEL � .
`"�� k'•i�.o�
�� � �
1��°_a ,��
I� hl � 0 � �
. �1 iYPICAL STUDIO UN�T TYPE 'D'
. . �J . �° . - .
7
�
� � �/
• •
�� ��
�� �
• •
�� ��
�0
�o � -- �� �
� T7PICAL STUplO UNIT TYPE 'C �� . -- - � - �i� iYPICAL STUDIO UNIT TYPE 'B'
lJ " �� '�'��' °' -
�.
�
�
Rosa
Architectural
Group
lnc.
1084 3terfmg Street
St. PaW, Mimesota 55119
tek &51-739-7988
� fax: 651-739-3165
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
120D1 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
['ROJECT NUTABER: )1206
DATE�. 4/2�/12
DRAWN BY' KF
CHECKF.p BY: RR
REVISIONS:
TYPICAL UNfi PLANS
A3,6
� TYPICAL STlJDlO-UNIi TYPE 'A'
Um•.�.e�
.� TYPIGAL STUDIO UNIT TYPE 'J'
y.I'.m•
�e1��/ TYPICAL STUplO UNIT 1YPE 'H'
�% k"p °•
�b TYPICAL STLIDIO LINIT TYPE 'G'
y..� a.
6 TYPICAL STLI_DIO I1NIT TYPE_'F'_
q'•I m
]�,1
0� �
O �
� _
i �
0 i
II II I 1 I �I
� TYPICAL ONE BEDROOM LINIT TYPE 'K"
� ti..�._m.
Rosa
Architectural
Group
Inc.
ioaa s���a sr�eae
SL PaW, AMnnesota 55119
tet 851-739-7988
fax: 85t739-3165
ARDEN HALL
APARTMENTS
12001 WEST C.R. E
ARDEN HILLS, MN 55112
� �
—_—' O
�� o - �
_ _ � ❑
�. ����
� TYPICAL ONE BEDROOM IJNIT TYPE 'M"
�J y.r.a,
PROJECT NUMBER�. 21206
onrE: a/z�/iz
UNAWN BY: KF
CHECKED BV: RR
REVISIONS:
TYPICAL UNIi PLANS
A3,7
vs TYPICAL ONE BEDROOM IJNIi iYPE 'E" /il TYPIGAL ONE BEDROOM UNIT TYPE 'P
y.,,_m. —.._— y..r.m.
%1 ?YPICAL SiUDlO UNIi TYPE 'L'
w•.r-�
Attachment
April 18, 2012, Planning Commission
P acket
If not included in the packet please find at:
www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/plannin cg ases
"
�EN HILLS
May 14, 2012, City Council Meeting
Attachment
April 18, 2012, Draft Planning
Commission Minutes
�
-fl�xII.Ls
May 14, 2012, City Council Meeting
April 18, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Minutes
Planning Case 12-009; Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and Final PUD; TAT
Properties; 1201 County Road E— Public Hearing
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated 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.
City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the property is located at 1201 County Road E
and owned by TAT Properties, represented by Rob Davidson. The applicant is seeking to
convert the Holiday Inn, which has been vacant since August 2007, and previously used
by Northwestern College for housing for three years, to an apartment building.
According to the applicant, the building would be developed in multiple phases with the
first phase consisting of the first and second floors as well as the common areas,
including the pool conversion. A future phase would complete floors three and four.
McGuire's and the banquet facilities would be developed thereafter but at this time usage
is unknown. Additionally, the parking area would be reconstructed.
City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed according to the applicant, green space
requirements would be met. The site layout proposal indicates the central access drive
will close while the other two will remain open. The primary entrance would be
relocated to the rear of the structure and the front would remain locked. There will be 259
parking stalls. The proposed room layout consists of 80 studios and 40 one-bedrooms.
Updated floor plans were not submitted and would be needed prior to review by City
Council. Applicant submitted a traffic study with assumed various future uses.
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated Staff is requesting an easement along the property
line between Carrol's Furniture and the two properties behind it, which currently access
County Road E via an alley. The easement would be used to create a proper access for
these four properties, and relocate Carrol's parking lot to allow for the City to install a
sidewalk along County Road E.
City Planner Meagan Beekman offered the following findings of fact regarding this
planning case:
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.
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 based on the general findings and submitted plans, as
presented in the April 18, 2012, report to the Planning Commission, 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 the 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 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, the 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's and Fire Marshal'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.
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 rights 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 the 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 yeaxs elapsing, or upon any future PUD approval of the parcel, the
City may incorporate a civic feature into the southeast corner of Lot 2.
City Planner Meagan Beekman asked Deputy John Eastham, Crime Prevention Deputy
for the County, to comment on safety and security for the proposal. Chair Larson asked
Deputy Eastham to explain the crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
to which Mr. �astham replied it is creating an environment that alters human behavior
and creates buildings that are less likely to attract crime.
Deputy Eastham stated that for three years the building was being used as dormitories for
Northwestern College. Based on his experience of the student housing use he shared the
following points of concern:
Lighting. There was insufficient lighting, specifically in the parking lot and during
college use there was a huge uptick in theft from autos. He requested a lighting plan that
would deal with IES minimum requirements for exterior parking, which would maintain
the minimum three-foot candles across the board at ground level, noting that .5-foot
candles are not enough. The property has foot traffic as well as vehicle traffic during all
hours of the day and night so criminal activity could go up, especially theft from autos.
Visitors and security. All buildings need to have controlled access; some barrier and
locking system. He stated that Mr. Davidson explained there would be a doorman in
charge of letting visitors in the building after being notified by the resident. A concern is
the empty space, if a large section of the building is empty while half of the building is
not, preventive measures need to be taken — areas locked off, cameras, et al. When asked
the positions of the cameras, if they are videotaping or monitored, he was told they would
be monitored, so not, reactive. He expressed concern over the ability for one staff person
to act as doorman, effectively monitor cameras, tour the building, and respond to issues
as they arise.
Security staff. He was told there would be 24-hour staff.
Number of security personnel. When the question was asked if the person manning the
front door and cameras and the person doing building tours would be the same person he
did not receive an answer. He noted this would be physically impossible for one person
to do.
Chair Larson asked for clarification that when letting people in by security personnel,
security would be called by residents. So if a person is coming to visit they would call
the resident and the resident would then call the security desk. Deputy Eastham replied
that is correct and that he did not know how a resident would know a guest is coming.
Chair Larson opened the floor to Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked what the requirements would be if the building were to
become a certified crime prevention building. Deputy Eastham replied that the manager
and any accessory staff would need to go through the program. Also, a survey of the
property would be done involving having to have jam doors, deadbolts, peepholes with a
180-degree view, lighting throughout the exterior and interior, and any site line issues
caused by trees, bushes et al resolved. After passing, there needs to be two meetings a
year, one business and one social. The survey is renewed annually.
Commissioner Hames asked if the property is not ready for the survey does the building
receive approval only when completed or off of the plans. Deputy Eastham replied it has
to be eyes on; however, the lighting plan, if available, could state if it meets the minimum
requirements. Commissioner Hames asked for a description of ground level lighting, if it
meant shining down or on the ground. Deputy Eastham replied at ground level, which
has to be certified by those who do the lighting plan. Commissioner Hames clarified
lighting is measured down below but illuminated by other sources, to which Deputy
Eastham replied yes.
Chair Larson asked about lighting brightness for any neighbors. Deputy Eastham
referenced Walmart, noting that they have three-foot candles and lighting drops off closer
to the road and to their property line. Chair Larson commented that without any riearby
properties the lighting would not be obtrusive, it is pretty much all commercial. Deputy
Eastham replied that there are no citizens nearby. He added that the property has buffer
zones built in and that the parking lot can be sufficiently lit. The building is four stories
high so anybody not going into the lot will not be hindered by the lot due to distance and
physical barriers already in place.
Commissioner Hames asked what are the standards of operation for certifying buildings
with multiple entrances and exits. Deputy Eastham replied that usually buildings. have
one main entrance and the side entrances are keyed for residents. If there is more than
one main entrance they would call into a phone; a controlled access point for visitors
would have to be in place for both. If there is a single main entrance all other access
points would need to be blocked off with key access only. Commissioner Hames asked
about a monitoring system for the doors, for example, if a door is propped open. Deputy
Eastham replied that he did not know. He added that legitimate move outs take place
during the day so with constant movement the door does not usually stay open too long to
cause concern. However, this would be problematic if friends are let in at night; but, if a
door is open and gets noticed it should get shut.
Commissioner Scott asked if the Deputy knows of any other apartment buildings of this
size with an open access entrance to the person attending the desk. Deputy Eastham
replied that he knew of none with this system and there is one that has a non-lock access,
which is a nightmare.
Commissioner Thompson asked if there is a higher risk of criminal activity with people
parking, entering, and exiting a building if there is no availability to observe those
coming and going. Deputy Eastham replied that this was less of a concern provided there
was sufficient lighting. He stated that it has been proven that the most effective deterrent
for criminal activity is lighting, especially with apartment buildings.
Commissioner Holewa asked if the City is charged for additional police and fire calls.
Deputy Eastham replied that his understanding is that all calls are included, except false
alarms. He noted that if a property ends up on his desk because of the number of police
calls, then there is something going sideways with the property and a better solution is
needed. He added that this particular property ended up on his desk when it was being
used by the college.
Commissioner Hames asked the size of other properties in the Crime Free Multi-Family
Housing Program, if there were any apartment buildings with 105+ units and if so, the
largest. Deputy Eastham replied there are, for example, Montreal has nine buildings and
over 3,000 residents. Commissioner Hames asked what are the most similar properties to
the proposed. Deputy Eastham replied nothing due to the proposed size of the apartments
themselves. Commissioner Hames asked if there is more traffic calls to apartment
buildings with larger or smaller size units. Deputy Eastham replied that it is difficult to
say because there are no apartment buildings that only have one size apartments, every
complex have one and two bedrooms. Commissioner Hames asked if most received calls
are crimes against property and theft auto or crimes against people such as domestic.
Deputy Eastham replied that it varies, multi-housing creates more people in a
concentrated area. The Program works through a cooperative arrangement with
management and the Sheriff's Department in order to identify problems and figure out
how to remove problem tenants. He added most multi-housing tenants are good people,
1-2% cause 80 -90 % of the problems.
Chair Larson asked for an explanation of the last item on the board, which states "unclear
whether units would have land-line telephone access." Deputy Eastham replied every
multi-housing unit has jacks so if a resident chooses to have a landline they can. He
added that a landline is preferred due to the enhanced 911 system.
City Planner Meagan Beekman stated there are a number of concerns related to this
application and conditions of approval have been prepared that address many of these
concerns. She added if there is a recommendation the application will be reviewed at the
May 14, 2012 City Council meeting.
City Planner Meagan Beekman noted that Staff has received three phone calls from
businesses stating concerns. A letter from a neighbor to the property was also received.
The applicant is here to present and answer any questions.
Commissioner Scott noted that there are 259 proposed parking spots for currently 120
units and asked if the minimum is 240. He also asked when McGuire's is developed how
that would play into it. City Planner Beekman replied the minimum required parking is
240 stalls for the apartment building, and that staff is concerned about adequate parking
as the site builds out. Parking would need to be reevaluated when McGuire's and the
banquet facility has a proposed use. This may create a shared parking situation where
portions of the lot are assigned to residents and others are shared, depending upon the
reuse of that site, but a restaurant use would create a concern, given the amount of
parking that would be needed. There is also an opportunity for shared parking on Lot 2,
but it has not been contemplated at this time. Commissioner Scott asked if the 259 spots
include the easement. City Planner Beekman replied the easement does have the
potential to impact some of those stalls but staff is committed to minimizing this impact.
Commissioner Hames asked if the minimum requirements are being met based on the
entire building being built out or if the numbers reflect only Phase 1. City Planner
Beekman replied it is based on all 120 units, two stalls per unit.
Chair Larson stated the easement impacts access to this project while it solves access to
two buildings in the back. Carrol's Furniture has very little parking, especially after a
six-foot sidewalk is installed. Public Works Director Maurer replied the easement is
broad-based and covers a large area because a plan for the shared access has not yet been
formulated. The City would like to take the easement with the understanding that it is
there for discussion purposes as the project moves through and to come up with a
reasonable solution for all four buildings, with cross access. A possible solution would
be a main access point to the apartments but also to the buildings in back, and maybe shut
the most westerly one in front of Carrol's. If it is not taken at this point the opportunity
might be lost in the future. Chair Larson asked to assess how it fits in with County Road
E for all properties. Public Works Director Maurer replied this is part of the consultants
work scope, for opportunities to better align, within the next several months.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked about licenses for apartment buildings. City Planner
Beekman replied that the current program is limited to four or fewer units. When the
rental program was reviewed in 2009 the focus was on single-family rental properties;
however, there likely is an opportunity to re-evaluate the rental program. Commissioner
Zimmerman asked if there is County licensing requirements in lieu of no City
requirements. City Planner Beekman replied that she is not aware of any.
Chair Larson referenced Condition 27 and asked for a definition of traffic management
and what it entails. City Planner Beekman replied when the senior living proposal was
reviewed it was a similar scenario to this, closing the central access drive and creating a
one-way drop off point, with concerns about access to Lot 2. At that time they looked at
putting a median in that would prevent traffic entering from the north and creating a
conflict point for those leaving Lot 2; however, the exact location of the median has not
been finalized and they want to leave an opportunity for the Public Works Director to
review and make adjustments if necessary. Chair Larson asked if Lexington Avenue is
an eastern right in right out will that be the same for the western access point. City
Planner Beekman replied they are and would continue to be full access points so they
would need to stay in their current location.
Commissioner Stodola asked if the exit on Lexington Avenue is both directions. City
Planner Beekman replied it is right in right out only.
Commissioner Holewa asked who did the traffic study, if it was RLK Engineering, a
consultant of the developer. City Planner Beekman replied staff prefers to have the City
contract for traffic studies; however, RLK had done the traffic study for the Select Senior
Living proposal, where traffic concerns were minimal. It seemed sensible to have them
update the traffic study, and was the most cost effective for the developer.
Chair Larson asked if the County traffic engineer was present. City Planner Beekman
replied they were not but had reviewed the study and submitted comments. Chair Larson
then asked if RLK Engineering was present and, if so, requested they discuss the traffic
study.
Mr. Steve Manhart, representing RLK Engineering, Transportation Engineer, stated they
were present a year ago and discussed this traffic study. Chair Larson asked for a quick
synopsis of the conditions that were evaluated in terms of current and future development
of the site and scenaxios that may arise that could be impactful, positive or negative. Mr.
Manhart replied they were selected to do a traffic study for the previous use and used that
to build on for this use. They were asked by the City to analyze different uses and make
assumptions to what could go in the former McGuire's and banquet sites, although
difficult to come up with what could go in the site. He showed a manual "Trip
Generation" that was used to try and make a determination. They looked at a variety of
uses for Lot 2 and then distributed throughout the system for results, although difficult to
make a true assessment of what level of development the City wanted to assign.
Chair Larson asked as it sits today with no development on the corner, compared to the
previous use as a hotel, the increase or decrease impact. Mr. Manhart replied the hotel,
with ancillary uses, would generate more than an apartment building. Chair Larson asked
what the most intense use on that corner would be in the realm of development. Mr.
Manhart replied a pharmacy was a more intense use, but it might not make sense because
there is a similar use nearby.
Chair Larson asked if the approval of Lexington Avenue access is conditional based on a
bank on the corner. Mr. Manhart replied he believes that is correct. Chair Larson asked
if a bank is low intensity use. Mr. Manhart replied that it depends on the size, that it has
peaks, for example Friday payday. In terms of comparison, a typical drive thru has fewer
trips than a pharmacy.
Chair Larson asked if the use of a pharmacy is not a good use due to there being one
across the street. He asked the impact of a combined bank use on the corner with
apartment use compared to a hotel and ancillaries. Mr. Manhart replied he is not sure the
figures are calculated at this time. Discussion on traffic ensued.
Commissioner Scott asked if there was still another variable with the future development
of the McGuire's site. Mr. Manhart replied he would have to check and see if that was
included.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked about a discussion with the County engineer regarding
expansion of the Lexington Bridge over 694 and what impact that would have regarding
access to the property. Mr. Manhart replied they have not had a conversation with the
County engineer. Commissioner Zimmerman stated this is a discussion that needs to
occur, how it's going to impact that or any other property. Mr. Manhart replied that he
agreed, that the B-2 plan is the basis for analysis.
Commissioner Hames noted in the original B-2 planning for the site, the City and
engineers laid out a plan of business and apartment mix use and the traffic study worst
case scenario still doesn't meet the anticipated traffic for the site in the B-2 plan. Mr.
Manhart agreed.
Commissioner Scott asked if the trips per PM peak hour were 237 previously and with a
bank and 120 units they came up with 200. 1VIr. Manhart replied 237 previously and with
a bank and 120 units the number is 221, which includes the health club and daycare. City
Planner Beekman added that on Page 5 of the traffic study, it shows a full list of the build
out — daycare, health club, apartment and pharmacy, for 336 PM peak trips.
Commissioner Hames asked if that accounted for 900 trips a day. City Planner Beekman
replied that is correct.
Chair Larson noted that there is confusion on the traffic report based on an unknown
future.
Commissioner Stodola noted the farthest west entrance onto County Road E is 425 feet
from the intersection and asked if the entrance on Lexington and County Road E is closer
than that. Mr. Manhart replied this was an access that was looked at as a right turn only;
if too congested to turn right there is two other access points out. It can be considered
close proximity but in terms of 24 hours a day it may be congested one hour of the day.
Commissioner Stodola asked if there was a concern with the access being that close to
the intersection. Mr. Manhart replied there will be a median separating the north and
south bounds, which would not cause a left turn problem and a right turn would probably
be of minor concern.
Commissioner Holewa stated with aging population in the City a lot more traffic is
happening in the middle of the day so a mid-day, not just a peak AM and a peak PM
study should be done. She asked if these study numbers will change if Shoreview
decides to build east of Lexington Avenue on County Road E. Mr. Manhart replied the
numbers are based on a guiding plan of other consulting companies so if based on those
impacts, yes, and if not, no.
Commissioner Holewa asked about the controversy of peak hour trips at a 44% reduction.
Mr. Manhart replied the 44% is a standard reduction, not a number RLK came up with.
The Trip Generation Handbook indicates there could be reductions associated with a mix-
use development, they can be combined trips and use a% for trip generation; therefore,
certain trip generation totals can be reduced by a% based on mix-uses sharing those trips.
With increases in bicycle and other transit use certain reductions can be made in trips and
parking per site to handle those other types of trips that aren't single occupant based.
Commissioner Holewa questioned comparing urban to suburban. Mr. Manhart agreed
but stated different populations are coming into the suburbs so they can apply sorne of
those figures. Commissioner Holewa asked the variables that went into the 44% number.
Mr. Manhart replied mode share, pedestrian and bicycle use, and transit use.
Commissioner Holewa referenced mix-use and asked if there was something somewhere
that a reasonable person could confirm that 44% was correct. Mr. Manhart replied yes,
the number could be replicated. Commissioner Holewa asked if another firm would
come up with a similar number. Mr. Manhart replied yes, although it seems high it could
be replicated.
Commissioner Hames, referencing Lot 2, asked if there are any uses prohibited by City
Code or traffic, for example a gas station. And, if a bank is put there would another
access be needed, could they use a right in off of Lexington Avenue and flow through the
apartment building onto County Road E. City Planner Beekman replied her
understanding was that a gas station is not a permitted use in the B-2 District. Also, there
are regulations on drive thru windows with a bank or a fast food restaurant. Code does
have limits for distance between drive thru windows.
Chair Larson invited Mr. Davidson to make a presentation. Mr. Davidson, representing
TAT Properties, appeared before the Commission and introduced his Staff. Mr.
Davidson stated that with the Stuart Companies partnership they had a successful tenancy
with Northwestern College. He added Northwestern College moved out a little over a
year ago. Proposals have been modified to be compliant with B-2 and should attract a
large student base.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the property will be marketed as an apartment and if
leases would be attached to the renting process and, if so, the length. Mr. Davidson
replied yes on both with a term of one year. Commissioner Zimmerman questioned that a
college student would have to sign a year lease, although living there only 8-9 months.
Mr. Davidson replied many landlords' answer is that tenants are required to sign a year
lease whether they use it or not. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if a security deposit
will be required. Mr. Davidson replied yes. Commissioner Zimmertnan reiterated
concerns by Ramsey County regarding security, noting it seems the more secure the
facility the easier to market. Mr. Davidson replied they share the same security concerns,
if residents don't feel safe they are not going to rent. He added that it is their desire to
comply with requirements — IES illumination requirements, security at the front door, a
single point of access and 24/7 staff. All rooms are currently wired for a landline and it's
up to the tenants whether they hook up to them.
Commissioner Holewa asked if the landline would go through them or a phone company.
Mr. Davidson replied the infrastructure is there and tenants would choose a phone
company.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if floors three and four could be locked off so that it is
impossible for those on floors one and two to access. Mr. Davidson replied the floors
will be locked and secure, but nothing was impossible. Commissioner Zimmerman asked
if the elevator could be programmed to go to floors one and two only. Also, could the
stairwell be secured so it cannot be accessed. Mr. Davidson replied yes to both.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the intent was to mange the property as an apartment
building or if they were hiring a company who specializes in this area. Mr. Davidson
replied their partner is the owner and operator and will be responsible.
Commissioner Holewa asked for a definition of partner. Mr. Davidson replied an equal
interest in the property.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there was a need for more than one person on duty.
Mr. Davidson deferred the question to his partner whom he stated was more familiar with
operations. Mr. Stuart Nolan stated this was his 42"a year in business, that he manages in
excess of 5,000 apartments — smaller and bigger than this, and that he is more concerned
about security than the City, that residents are their responsibility. He added they provide
clean, safe, secure housing. All complexes in the municipality have crime free housing
and a good relationship with the police. They intend to have a person there in the
evening, have onsite monitoring 24/7 and digital cameras outside, which is just part of
business these days. Potential tenants go through a very thorough screening process —
background, credit, criminal and work history, and they deny people all the time.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if other complexes that have apartments of similar size
are more effective than those with no two bedrooms, if it changes demographics in
marketing. Mr. Nolan replied no, it makes it easier because studios equal less occupancy.
Although parking Code has the same requirements, two per unit, studios will not have the
same number of cars so the problem is less with fewer occupants.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there will be occupancy limits on studios versus one
bedroom. Mr. Nolan replied sure, one tenant in every apartment is preferred. However,
the federal government has family discrimination rules so in a one bedroom they have to
take two occupants if they both apply and meet the requirements. He added he is not sure
if they have to take two occupants in a studio but if they have to they will.
Commissioner Thompson asked if they manage any buildings with amenities on the first
floor such as those proposed. Mr. Nolan replied yes, others have Wi-Fi cafes, fitness
centers, theaters and game rooms.
Commissioner Thompson asked the process that will be in place, noting that one gap is
that the Commission has not seen all of the plan details. She asked how they will manage
the first floor and access within, noting that even with security it would be easy for non-
residents to enter. Mr. Nolan replied they do this for every project they have. They have
hours, and amenities are not open 24/7, for example the fitness center would be closed up
by 10 pm. The person on duty would lock these facilities and empty out any one using
them. He added they have close to 400 employees and do this all the time and there are
no problems with the police department. If a person doesn't do their job they will be
replaced.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there will be an onsite manager. Mr. Nolan replied
yes, during business hours then others during non-business hours.
Commissioner Holewa asked if they were going for the certification the officer outlined.
Mr. Nolan replied yes, that it is in the conditions.
Commissioner Hames referenced Condition 13 wording "shall participate" and requested
it read "become certified" to ensure intent. Mr. Nolan replied they would accept.
Commissioner Hames noted the proposed security system and asked if it involves a push
button code and if not how it works. Mr. Nolan replied they need to have a security
company come and look at the building and provide what is the best measure. Some
buildings have keys or key cards. He added he is not sure the building will have an
intercom system, that they may have a callboard in the secure area. As a lot of people
don't have landlines they would need to call in via cell phone. If they have a buzzer
system guests can be buzzed in otherwise residents will have to come down.
Commissioner Hames stated this is a two-pronged situation — a security person and some
type of security system. So if the program requires key entry or some other type of
technology would they agree to it. Mr. Nolan replied yes.
Commissioner Holewa stated he is concerned about residents calling down to the security
desk to let someone in, if they are on a cell phone how would the security person know if
the call was coming from a resident in the building? Mr. Nolan replied they have two
different security companies that will work with the property management company to
determine what the best security measures are.
Commissioner Thompson referenced the floor plans noting the layout and asked if the
doors between hotel rooms will continue to exist. Mr. Davidson replied the layout is not
accurate, that Code requires the door be removed between studios, that it cannot have a
common door. However, for a one bedroom the door will remain open. Commissioner
Hames asked if a one bedroom with the extra door that goes out to the hallway will then
be removed. Mr. Davidson replied no, it will be functional.
Commissioner Hames asked for confirmation that a one-bedroom unit will have two
doors out to the hallway. Mr. Davidson replied that is correct. Commissioner Hames
noted the plans were dated Apri12"d and not shown to Code as required.
Commissioner Stodola referenced the layout "typical unit G" and noted confusion asking
if there is a huge closet or storage. City Planner Beekman replied it is a stairwell and not
internal to the unit. Commissioner Stodola noted that most drawings will say square
footage and asked if footage was known. Mr. Davidson replied the efficiencies are 300
square feet and a one-bedroom is approximately 600 square feet. He added that some end
units on each floor are larger as well as six units on the second floor.
Commissioner Stodola asked if they have reviewed any area regarding vacancies noting
that 300 square feet would be very small for today's standards. Mr. Davidson replied
they did a survey of about 1,300 units in the area and found that availability for
efficiencies showed no vacancies and of a one bedroom within the 1,300 showed 1.2%
vacant. He stated he feels a market niche for smaller units is there, noting these units are
smaller because that's what the infrastructure provides. He added they will invest a lot of
thought and money into the first floor common area so residents can access more space.
Commissioner Stodola referenced units near the U of M on Washington Avenue, noting
the units are all two and three bedrooms units and that vacancies were always in the
smaller units. Commissioner Thompson stated she would be interested in seeing the
survey information.
Commissioner Hames asked if the lease rent will be a flat rate per unit or per person. For
example, will there be a set rate for the unit but if there is a second person the rent will
increase by x dollars. Mr. Davidson replied they would anticipate a single occupant
would have an x rate and if there was a second person the rate would increase.
Commissioner Hames asked the range. Chair Larson cautioned Commission members
regarding financials noting they are not part of the duties of this Committee.
Commissioner Hames replied she understood and that the question was in relationship to
square footage. She added that since there was no color concept drawings it is hard to
imagine the first floor and asked for more detail. Mr. Davidson replied the Holiday Inn
had a pool and hot tub, which will both be filled in and outfitted with treadmills, exercise
bikes and weight resistance equipment. The former reception area on the south side of
the building would be renovated into a sitting, TV, Wi-Fi area and adjacent to that would
be a movie theater in a separate room, a game room in a separate area and a bike storage
area. He concluded the area will be an interactive environment and he believes it will
draw young people in.
Commissioner Zimmerman asked when the plans will be completed and when they will
start marketing. Mr. Davidson replied when they receive approval and was hopeful for
this fall.
Commissioner Hames asked what is envisioned for the exterior. Mr. Davidson replied
from a physical perspective the parking lot, lighting and trees will all be redone. The
building, as it sits, has a solid exterior, which will be cleaned and some areas refreshed.
The entry point on the north side will be highlighted and more attractive. Hopefully, the
corner can be developed as well in the second phase. Commissioner Hames asked about
signage to which Mr. Davidson replied they were hopeful they would have some.
Commissioner Holewa stated he understood they were marketing to Northwestern
College and Bethel University but do not currently have any agreements with them. Mr.
Davidson replied that is correct. Commissioner Holewa stated he heard that some
colleges require students to be on campus for their first year and maybe second and asked
if they were marketing to the upper class. Mr. Davidson replied yes.
Chair Larson asked if Mr. Davidson would speak to the conditions of approval,
specifically the request for an easement on the west side of the property. Mr. Davidson
replied the easement is the taking of property and that they would strongly resist the
easement. He added if the City wants to purchase a part of their land they could discuss
it, noting he felt it was an inappropriate requesi.
Chair Larson asked if there were any other conditions to which Mr. Davidson would like
to speak. Mr. Davidson replied Condition 3 is an excessive fee being proposed. He added
he doesn't feel it reflects the impact and that it will provide a negative on marketing that
corner. The developer across the street did not pay a dedication fee and he would hope to
negotiate this fee to a more reasonable amount. Mr. Davidson also noted Condition 22,
which they were being asked to pay for a water main, stating that while it benefits their
property it also benefits others so they should share in the cost. He concluded that there
were several other smaller items but that he hoped they would be negotiated successfully.
Commissioner Stodola noted some studios do not have exterior windows and asked if this
meets Fire Code. Mr. Davidson replied each apartment meets Code, that some don't
have windows as they overlook the pool area. He also noted that they will have alarms
and sprinklers.
Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m.
Chair Larson invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make
comment.
Mr. Leon Kline stated he owns a building on the east side of Lexington Avenue and he is
concerned about traffic. He asked if the easement is granted how many parking spots
would be taken out of the 259, suggesting it looked like one-third. He also requested the
Commission review the site concept again. He noted that health clubs added a lot of
traffic and should be rethought.
There being no additional comment Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 8:35 p.m.
Commissioner Hames clarified that the health club is for residents only. Mr. Davidson
replied that is correct.
Commissioner Scott asked if it is possible for the Sheriff to certify a 120-unit building
with an unlocked front door. Chair Larson stated he is not sure security has been settled
at this point. Commissioner Scott stated this should have been submitted. Chair Larson
stated he believes the front door will be locked but opened by security on staff. Mr.
Davidson replied there is one point of access on the north side of the building, which will
be monitored by staff.
Commissioner Thompson asked if the other entrances will be exit only. Mr. Davidson
replied yes, they will be fire exits. Commissioner Thompson asked how that will be
managed. Mr. Nolan replied there is no security system that can't be penetrated and they
can't prevent every possibility; however, they will work with residents of the building
and if residents see these kinds of things, such as a rock propping open a door, their job is
prevention. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if the doors will have an alarm bar. Mr.
Davidson replied yes, it is an option.
Commissioner Holewa stated he is concerned with traffic in the area and especially with
the third and fourth floor builds and Lot 2. The owners will likely take care of a security
system but we don't have it yet so they should come back with a plan in the future.
Commissioner Stodola asked the timeframe for working on floors three and four noting
the longer they are vacant the more potential for problems. Mr. Davidson replied they
would love to do all at once, and if leasing success is strong they would proceed to do all
floors, but with 120 units they would anticipate the timeline within a year after floors one
and two are completed.
Commissioner Hames stated that overall she likes the plan but feels Commissioners and
residents would benefit from a review of a more detailed concept drawing. She asked if
this is a temporary solution for an economic situation or if it is long-term. Mr. Davidson
replied the investment being made is such that it is absolutely a long-term commitment.
He added he feels they have a unique and wonderful market niche with young people in
the area. Northwestern College proved that and although they controlled it, it functioned
well and students got jobs in the community. Hopefully, young students brought in will
move into housing in the area. He added if they were to bring back pictures of the
common areas this will delay the project.
Commissioner Thompson stated there are still several security concerns. The college was
successful but they had control of it and that is what made it successful. Demographics
have not been shown and are not in alignment with their success equaling this success.
Aspects of security are of concern considering there are no detailed plans. Another
concern is personal safety, not just for students but for others. There is concern about the
common areas with security, how can one person lock up facilities yet watch the front
door. Lighting can be addressed based on the Deputy's note. Another concern is traffic,
there is no overall proposal, yet there is a huge empty area — McGuire's. A more
comprehensive plan to ensure the right amount of parking is needed. There is also
concern about some of the landscaping and not meeting perennial requirements. Overall,
a full comprehensive plan of Lots 1 and 2 to ensure we have the right conditions in place,
is needed; there are just too many undefined variables.
Commissioner Zimmerman stated he understands the concern of paying taxes on an
empty building. He believes there are conditions that address many of the concerns that
were brought up. Regarding Lot 2, the hope is the success of this building will dictate
what will end up on that corner, depending upon demographics of rental population. The
units are relatively small but we have single homeowners that rent rooms out, so they
don't get much more space. He concluded Mr. Davidson and Mr. Nolan have several
years of experience.
Commissioner Holewa stated a concern is that when the property housed Northwestern
College students they were required to take the bus because there is not enough parking
on campus for students. Now with no bus all students will have to park on campus. He
asked if the Public Works Director would like to add anything. Public Works Director
Maurer replied he is not sure anything else is relevant, he gave his opinion on the traffic
report, noting they made assumptions and took some liberties equaling a lesser amount of
traffic than anticipated for PM peak traffic.
Chair Larson stated he finds it disconcerting that there are so many questions regarding
the application, which is lacking in details. He added many of these questions may be
answered to the Council, such as a lack of a comprehensive floor plan, ligk�ting plan and
security plan, which gives too many unknowns. The traffic study is also confusing; the
variables are many and based on other traffic studies although the assumptions are
unknown. With that being said the Chair would entertain a motion at this time.
Mr. Davidson stated he would like to address several of the comments made. As a
condition of this approval they will submit to the security requirements of the Sheriff, but
to come up with a detailed engineered plan now is premature. The Inn worked well for
30 years in terms of traffic and the apartment is anticipated to generate less traffic.
Parking is way in excess of what is needed. He added that for each phase they will come
before the Planning Commission to show how it all fits into the whole.
Chair Larson cautioned to keep in mind this is an advisory board only and these questions
may be sufficiently answered to the Council.
Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a motion to
recommend approval of Plannin� Case 12-009 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, and
Master and Final PUD at 1201 Countv Road E based on the findin�s of fact and the
submitted plans as amended bv the conditions in the April 18, 2012, plannin� case
report, amending Condition 13 wordin� "participate" to "obtain certification".
Commissioner Hames suggested the wording "become certified and maintain
certification" instead of "obtain certification." Chair Larson asked if Commissioner
Zimmerman would accept this wording in the motion. Deputy Eastham stated that there
is a"maintain" in order to be fully certified. Commissioner Zimmerman changed the
motion wording to read "obtain and maintain certification" and Commissioner Hames
agreed.
Commissioner Zimmerman moved and Commissioner Hames seconded a substitute
motion to recommend approval of Plannin� Case 12-009 for a Preliminary and
Final Plat, and Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E based on the findin�s
of fact and the submitted plans as amended bv the conditions in the AAril 18, 2012,
plannin� case report, amending Condition 13 wording "narticinate" to "obtain and
maintain certification".
The motion failed (2-5). Commissioner Holewa, Commissioner Scott, Commissioner
Stodola, Commissioner Thompson and Chair Larson opposed.
Commissioner Hames moved to table approval of Plannin� 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 bv the conditions
in the April 18, 2012, ulannin� case reqort for a more comprehensive plan and for
some of the conditions to be a part of the plan.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Chair Larson moved and Commissioner Holewa seconded a motion to deny
approval of Planning Case 12-009 for a Preliminary and Final Plat, and Master and
Final PUD at 1201 Countv Road E based on the findin�s of fact and the submitted
plans as amended bv the conditions in the April 18, 2012, plannin� case report,
keeping in mind the Planning Commission is an advisory board and based on the
following findings includin� lack of details with comprehensive floor plans, li�htin�
plans, securitv plans, no clear idea of traffc flow in this area, too manv variable,
lack of a comprehensive plan for the site, and future securitv concerns.
Commissioner Stodola commented that if this planning case were to come back to the
Commission she would like to see suggestions from Bethel University and Northwestern
College, if this is something they would support.
The motion carried (5-2). Commissioner Hames and Commissioner Zimmerman
opposed.
Attachment
Public Works Director Comments
�
���HILLS
May 14, 2012, City Council Meeting
�
EN HILLS
MEMORANDUM
DATEo May 9, 2012
TO: Meagan Beekman, City Planner
FROM: Terry Maurer, Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Arden Hall Development
Traffic Impact Analysis-Clarification Addendum
As requested, I have reviewed the May 2, 2012, memo from Vernon E. Swing, P.E., of
RLK, Inc. to Rob Davidson titled Traffic Impact Analysis-Clarification Addendum
(Arden Hall Development). This memo I believe, although it does not state this, is
intended as an addendum to the February 13, 2012, Traffic Study prepared by RLK, Inc.
for the same project and presented to the Planning Commission. The Addendum
generates an entirely new p.m. peak hour vehicle trips for the full development of the site
based on new assumptions as to how the site will develop. The following table compares
the February 13, 2012, Traffic Study p.m. peak hour trips to the May 2, 2012, Addendum
p.m. peak hour trips.
Comparison of PM Peak Hour Trips-Traffic Study vs. Addendum
Traffic Stud Addendum
Apartments (150 units vs. 120 units 90 74
Specialty Retail (13,000 sq. ft.)
Day Care/Fitness Club 80 35
Bike Shop/Insurance Office
Lot 2
Pharmacy with drive thru 166 36
24,000 sq. ft. office
Total PM Peak Hour Trips 336 145
The reduction for the apartments is appropriate as the Traffic Study assumed 150 units
and the Addendum assumes the proposed 120 units. The reduction in traffic for the
specialty retail portion of the old Holiday Inn/McGuire's site and the newly created Lot 2
are more questionable since nothing is proposed at this time for either site. The Traffic
1 of 3
Study had p.m. peak hour traffic for the specialty retail of 80 trips based on a day care
facility and a fitness club. The Addendum changes those uses to a bike shop and an
insurance office and reduces the p.m. peak hour trips from 80 to 35, a 56% reduction.
Similarly, the Traffic Study predicted p.m. peak hour trip generation from Lot 2 at 166
based on a pharmacy w/drive-thru and the Addendum reduces that number of p.m. peak
hour trips to 36 based on a 24,000 square foot office. This is a 78% reduction from the
Traffic Study.
The Addendum goes on to compare the reduced p.m. peak hour trips from the proposed
redevelopment of the site to the 2008 Spack Consulting Traffic Impact Study that was
prepared as part of the Guiding Plan for the B2 District. The Spack Traffic Impact Study
estimated a total of 1,960 daily trips and 239 p.m. peak hour trips based on
redevelopment of the Holiday Inn/McGuire's site into 95 apartment units and 120,000
square feet of office. The Addendum suggests that based on their development scenario
for the site it will only generate 1,818 total daily trips with 145 p.m. peak hour trips.
The Addendum states, "the current development plan results in less daily and p.m.
peak hour trip generation than anticipated in the Guiding Plan for the B2 District."
This is true if the site develops exactly as is indicated in the Addendum. I believe that
there is an equally good chance that at full build-out it will generate as much or more
p.m. peak hour trips as the Spack Traffic Impact Study estimated from the site. Because
the Addendum is totally silent on other findings of the Spack Traffic Impact Study it
tends to imply that as long as the development generates less traffic than anticipated in
the Spack Study everything will be fine. This really is not the whole story.
The Spack Study looked at the redevelopment of the Holiday Inn/McGuire's site
assuming the existing building would be razed and the redevelopment would start with an
empty lot. This would allow driveways to be positioned in the places where they would
function best given the anticipated traffic. Even with this assumption the Executive
SLul�mary of the Spack Study says the following:
The driveways on County Road E for the Holiday Inn site and the Arden
Plaza site will experience significant delay and queuing in the p.m. peak
hour. This is acceptable as an interim situation because it is not expected
to pose a safety problem, little queuing is anticipated on County Road E.
Long term, the queuing will impact the vitality of the redevelopments and
could lead to safety problems. These driveways should be realigned
midway between Pine Tree Drive and Lexington Avenue to provide a
four legged intersection that could be controlled with a traffic signal.
Left turn lanes and shared through/right lanes should be provided on the
north and south legs to provide adequate egress.
2 of 3
Looking deeper into the Spack Study Traffic Analysis for the Holiday Inn/McGuire's
site, it states the following:
5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis
a. 2030 Level of Service Analysis
The Holiday Inn site driveway and the Arden Plaza driveway intersections on
County Road E will operate acceptably with little delay and vehicle stacking
on County Road E; however, vehicles will experience significant delay trying
to turn onto County Road E during the evening peak period after the sites axe
redeveloped. The LOS calculations predict it will take approximately 3
minutes per vehicle on average to turn from Arden Plaza onto County Road E
and approximately 3%2 minutes per vehicle on average to turn from the
Holiday Inn site onto County Road E. Because motorists are queuing in
parking lots instead of on high speed public roadways, this type of delay can be
tolerated in an interim situation but improvement should be planned to reduce
these delays.
b. Long Range Improvements
Even though the roadways and intersections will operate within traffic
engineering standards, it will be difficult for vehicles to leave the Holiday Inn
and Arden Plaza sites during the evening rush hours. To assist the
redevelopment efforts, it is recommended the Arden Plaza and Holiday Inn
driveways be realigned midway between Pine Tree Drive and Lexington
Avenue. Left turn lanes and shared right/through lanes should be built on the
new north and south legs of the intersection to provide adequate egress and the
intersection should be controlled with a traffic signal.
In conclusion, based on these findings of the Spack Study, the Addendum to the RLK
Traffic Study does very little to alleviate traffic concerns about the redevelopment of the
Holiday Inn/McGuire's site and may, in fact, reinforce that the amount of traffic
generated is a very real concern.
3 of 3
Attachment
2008 Guiding Plan Traffic Study Excerpts
�
-�,�.Ls
May 14, 2012, City Council Meeting
_� ,
_ � � ,. _
T�HE TRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY
� � n ��� � � ( .. � i ��'' �� 'i, "'S� �a�'�'�+�.
� � � ���o �'.��r����
��*. " ' `�� �"'`y�='��- - � �r
� �� �''� ., �
" �, �� r� ��t ` } y;�t �—, ,�7,4,.� y,,,.� ��� 1 �'�� J $���""��'� � ��, F=
- �r � � I � � �.,�i� a � �.� , . ti �
�. { 4 *�' ,�
�Q r, ��+ M : � � � tA� � �'ts .� ��p � r ,e +��%f�+
i � �.4 ''F; � a pa���r 'wr1 w �.., . � .+,s � �► a.a�' "� . . . _ ,. �
��*'•`� �,s �,' � ,�.�`; ,,.��i°._ n—� _..����;� f;,�:� �� � �;��
�� .�� a� �.r` t�'" �� : �-� � .��—��� � � ��"'� � �.� �;�
I �"' k
i _.
*
�� fia�. ! : '
i�4K+ y�
�J�x���. ��#:
�� fi��� ��-
r �
�� �
� "��'���'�,
.�.
Traffic Im�act Stud
Guiding Plan for the B2 District
Arden Hills, MN
I hereby certify that this report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly
Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the
State of Minnesota.
� ��' - . J
133 �f' � 'L� i .�,.'��'��_
� ' f �"�,
�l3i€'I���f P. ti���ii''�;. �. �
�_ictntic "�;is. -�l`t9's+;
Date: December 5. 2008
--:�rts�+
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Summary ........................................................1
2. Proposed Development ............................................................. 3
3. Analysis of Existing Conditions ............................................... 6
4. Projected Traffic .......................................................................12
5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis .......................................... 21
6. Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................... 25
7. Appendix ...................................................................................25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure2.1 - Location Map ..................................................................................4
Figure2.2 - Concept Plan ..................................................................................5
Figure 3.1 - Existing Conditions .......................................................................9
Figure 3.2 - Existing P.M. Peak Hour Traffic ..................................................10
Figure 3.3 - Existing Daily Traffic ....................................................................11
Figure 4.1 - Trip Distribution ...........................................................................14
Figure 4.2 - P.M. Peak Hour Volumes Due to Development ..........................15
Figure 4.3 - Daily Volumes Due to Development ...........................................16
Figure 4.4 - 2030 No-Build P.M. Peak Hour Volumes ....................................17
Figure 4.5 - 2030 No-Build Daily Volumes ......................................................18
Figure 4.6 - 2030 Build P.M. Peak Hour Volumes ..........................................19
Figure 4.7 - 2030 Build Daily Volumes ............................................................20
Figure 5.1 - Recommended Long Range Improvements ..............................24
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 - Average Annual Daily Traffic Volumes ..........................................7
Table 3.2 - Existing Level of Service (LOS) ......................................................8
Table 4.1 - Development Trip Generation ...................................:..................13
Table 5.1 - 2030 P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS) ...............................21
Guiding Plan for the B2 District i Arden Hills, MN
Tra�c Impact Study December 2008
1. Introduction and Summary
a. Purpose of Report and Study Objectives
The City of Arden Hills is developing a Guiding Plan for the B2
District. The purpose of this report is to determine if existing
transportation infrastructure can accommodate the redevelopment
contemplated in the Guiding Plan and to recommend changes to the
transportation infrastructure to enhance the redevelopment.
The study objectives are:
i. Determine how the existing County Road E/Hamline Avenue
West Ramp, County Road E/Connelly Avenue, County Road
E/Pine Tree Drive, County Road E/Holiday Inn Site Driveway,
County Road E/Arden Plaza Driveway, County Road
E/Lexington Avenue, and Lexington Avenue/Harriet Avenue
intersections currently operate.
ii. Determine if the above intersections will operate acceptably
after the redevelopment is fully occupied in 2030.
iii. Recommend improvements if needed.
b. Executive Summary
The City of Arden Hills is planning for redevelopment along the
County Road E corridor. The redevelopment is planned to occur on
three different sites along the corridor: (1) the Pot `O Gold bingo hall
site will be replaced with 15,000 square feet of offices, (2) the Holiday
Inn hotel will be replaced with 95 apartment units and 120,000
square feet of office, and (3) the 46,000 square feet of offices on the
Arden Plaza site will be replaced with a 14,400 square foot pharmacy
and 5,000 square foot shopping center.
To determine if there will be significant traffic impacts to the County
Road E corridor, the following intersections are analyzed in this
study:
• County Road E& Hamline Avenue West Ramp
• County Road E& Hamline Avenue East Ramp/Connelly
Avenue
• County Road E& Pine Tree Drive
• County Road E& Holiday Inn Site Driveway
• County Road E& Arden Plaza Driveway
• County Road E& Lexington Avenue
• Lexington Avenue & Harriet Avenue
Guiding Plan for the B2 District 1 Arden Hills, MN
Traffic Impact Study December 2008
The principal findings of this study are:
i. The roadways and study intersections within the study area
currently operate acceptably at Level of Service (LOS) D or
better and will continue to operate at LOS D or better
through the 2030 Build scenario when the redevelopment
is anticipated to be fully occupied.
ii. The driveways on County Road E for the Holiday Inn site
and the Arden Plaza site will experience significant delay
and queuing in the p.m. peak hour. This is acceptable as
an interim situation because little queuing is anticipated on
County Road E to pose a safety problem. Long term, the
queuing will impact the vitality of the redevelopments and
could lead to safety problems. These driveways should be
realigned midway between Pine Tree Drive and Lexington
Avenue to provide a four legged intersection that could be
controlled with a traffic signal. Left turn lanes and shared
through/right lanes should be provided on the north and
south legs to provide adequate egress.
iii. No improvements are needed to facilitate the Pot `O Gold
site redevelopment.
iv. The County Road E corridor has a wide center two way left
turn lane down the middle as well as many driveway
intersections. This leads to a vehicle dominated corridor
that is unfriendly to pedestrians and bicycles. It is
envisioned County Road E will operate as a vibrant, multi-
modal corridor that will attract pedestrians and bicycles.
To provide a safe multi-modal corridor, it is recommended
County Road E should ultimately be reconstructed from
Hamline Avenue to Lexington Avenue to provide a
landscaped median, bike lanes, boulevards, and
sidewalks.
Guiding Plan for the B2 District 2 Arden Hills, MN
Tra�c Impact Study December 2008
5. Traffic and Improvement Analysis
a. 2030 Level of Service Analysis
The LOS results for the 2030 study hours are shown in Table 5.1.
These are based on the existing traffic control and lane
configurations as shown in Figure 3.1. The forecast turning
movement volumes from Figures 4.4 and 4.6 were used in the LOS
calculations. The LOS calculations were done using SYNCHROT""
software. Ramsey County's existing timing plans were used in the
analyses. The complete LOS calculations are included in the
Appendix.
All of the intersections will operate acceptably at LOS D or better
during the 2030 weekday p.m. peak hour in both the No-Build and
Build scenarios. The Holiday Inn Site driveway and the Arden Plaza
driveway intersections on County Road E will operate acceptably with
little delay and vehicle stacking on County Road E, however vehicles
will experience significant delay trying to turn onto County Road E
during the evening peak period after the sites are redeveloped. The
LOS calculations predict it will take approximately 3 minutes per
vehicle on average to turn from Arden Plaza onto County Road E and
approximatety 3'/2 minutes per vehicle on average to turn from the
Holiday Inn site onto County Road E. Because motorists are queuing
in parking lots instead of on high speed public roadways, this type of
delay can be tolerated in an interim situation but improvements
should be planned to reduce these delays.
Based on calculations from the Transportation Research Board's
Highway Capacity Manual, roadway segments operate at LOS D if
they carry the following daily volumes:
• 9,000 vehicles per day - Two Lane Roadways (Harriet
Avenue)
Guiding Plan for the B2 District 21 Arden Hills, MN
Tra�c Impact Study December 2008
Table 5.1 — 2030 P.M. Peak Hour Level of Service (LOS)
• 14,000 vehicles per day - Two Lane Roadways with Turn
Lanes (Pine Tree Drive, Lexington Avenue at Harriet
Avenue, and County Road E west of Hamline Avenue)
• 27,000 vehicles per day - Four Lane Roadways with Turn
Lanes (Lexington Avenue at County Road E and County
Road E east of Hamline Avenue)
• 45,000 vehicles per day - Four Lane Expressways (Hamline
Avenue)
Figures 4.5 and 4.7 show the 2030 daily volumes anticipated on the
area roadways. The daily traffic volumes within the study area will
operate at or better than LOS D in both the 2030 No-Build and 2030
Build scenarios.
b. Long Range Improvements
Even though the roadways and intersections will operate within traffic
engineering standards, it will be difficult for vehicles to leave the
Holiday Inn and Arden Plaza sites during the evening rush hour. To
assist the redevelopment efforts, it is recommended the Arden Plaza
and Holiday Inn driveways be realigned midway between Pine Tree
Drive and Lexington Avenue. Left turn lanes and shared
right/through lanes should be built on the new north and south legs of
the intersection to provide adequate egress and the intersection
should be controlled with a traffic signal. The signal should be
installed when the traffic volumes at the intersection meet the criteria
for installing a traffic signal per the Minnesota Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices. These improvements are shown
schematically on Figure 5.1.
When the traffic signal is installed at the new intersection it will
operate at LOS B in the 2030 Build p.m. peak hour. This leaves
capacity to accommodate significantly more redevelopment as long
as the traffic from the redevelopment is focused at the signalized
intersection.
Based on the Guiding Planning efforts, it is envisioned the County
Road E corridor should provide safe mobility for pedestrians and
bicycles as well as vehicles. Several improvements are
recommended to accomplish this goal (see Figure 5.1):
• Construct a landscaped median on County Road E from
Hamline Avenue to Lexington Avenue to convert the private
driveways along County Road E into right-in/right-out
accesses.
• Driveways should be consolidated whenever feasible to limit
the conflict points along the corridor.
• Provide left turn lanes at public street intersections.
Cruiding Plan for the B2 District 22 Arden Hills, MN
Tra�c Impact Study December 2008
• Provide on street bicycle lanes.
• Provide sidewalks.
• Improve the landscaping to provide a human scale to the
corridor.
• Provide eleven foot wide travel lanes which will reinforce the
35 mph speed limit.
• Minimize traffic signs within the corridor whenever feasible.
• Extend the bicycle and pedestrian facilities through the
County Road E/Hamline Avenue interchange when it is
reconstructed.
The cross section in Figure 5.1 was developed with MFRA to utilize
the existing pavement width and curbs. Using the existing curb and
gutter system will minimize the cost of reconstructing the corridor. It
will also shorten the construction period, lessening the impact on
local businesses.
County Road E is under the jurisdiction of Ramsey County. The City
will need to work collaboratively with the County to gain approval for
these recommended improvements.
Guiding Pdan for the B2 District 23 Arden Hills, MN
Tra�c Impact Study December 2008
�C
TNE TRAFFIC STUDY COMPANY Fiqure 5��
Recommended Long Range Improvements
Guiding Plan for the B2 District
Arden Hills, MN
�
I
SI4EWALK 60ULEVARO �IKE DRIVE DRIVE �C�7— TURN LANE DFiIVE DRNE BIKE gpU�EVARD SIDENIALK
I..-6��8'�2�5 �71`�...���1i'—�I�-11'—�I�iNE 3��2�8'._—�.I�—g'—+-!
�� 44' �� '4' a
I� — — 88' ROW — ��I
�
Reconstruct County Road E from Hamline Avenue to Lexington Avenue to
provide a landscaped median, bike lanes, boulevards, and sidewalks.
` ��„
�`�� ,
��_ +p "��
• _ , i� '�'�
Ik� 'f � j� F�T"
'; ��q �
�� _� � �, .
�����-�:�
�� G � 5 � ' I'' ' � .
� a �
� �"'�'*�"�..�,,, ,-�Fa
� � .} "`'*�. • �
�� °� �
dr' �—.'-' ��r ��
� *, # ,.� CI `s �'�.. `�'�.3 .. —F�+ �
, , � � )i 1. 1 ! s � '�i'�_
� �' 2 ��.�-' �. � - - �
'�� � � �� s.�r � � �� �
j�-+�,. �a� �..� w . ,. , �,, � �, .�,,�,�
� h . .up' M�• �t��~+���� r� �� -*Y
r �"�4��0 ' � � � k � �'
� � � ,�
������ ,� N , � �4� .:� .�
�',� .,�� i r .
.1
r y'�� � �..�.
J ��
..i�,� � us.. . E� �:
� �.�� .. ; ' � 3�� . f
��P J ,� � " �
� ��� '„�p,�, r
��� � ��
I „ �r
[y },.
f�{I
�
":� �
k�
� �,
4
,7 .
� •"�'
����.
��;�f�
- Align Holiday Inn Site driveway and Arden Plaza driveway midway
between Pine Tree Drive and Lexington Avenue.
- Control newly formed intersection with a traffic signal.
- Provide left turn lanes on the north and south approaches to the
intersection.
- Promote connecticity throughout parcels to utilize the signalized
intersection.
r � � w ' 4 � y
Attachment
Supporting Materials Submitted on May
10, 2012
�
�EN HII,LS
�
May 14, 2012, City Council Meeting
�
� _�
May 8, 2012
Meagan Beekman
City of Arden Hills
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Meagan,
Enclosed please find the following:
�'H�,
��������
� l � JL �A Y JL���
�LA � '�..
- Response to Recommendation for denial Planning Cas� 12-009 letter dated 5-3-2012.
- Traffic Impact Analysis - Clarification Addendum dated 5-2-2012.
- Security System Protocol.
- Cross Easement Drawing between Lot 1 and Lot 2.
- Applicant Response to Staff Recommendation high�ighted in Red.
- Drawing of Ramsey County Easement Request.
- Letter of Recommendation - Northwestern College.
- Specialty Retail Lease Commitment - NOW Bikes & Fitness.
It is our request to have the above information included in the City Council information packets.
Respectfully,
a
�
Robin C. Davidson
TAT Properties LLC
cc: Stuart Nolan
3IU0 Northwoods Drive, Suite 125, Arden Hills, 1�1N 55112 Phone: 651 481-629U Fax: (651) 481 6289 �rnail: rob@daviusoncos.com
�i. EN I-�ILLS
May 3, 2012
Davidson Camganies
Attn: Rob Davids�n
3900 I�Torthwoods Drive, Suite 125
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Re: Pl�tnning Case �12-OQ9
D�a�r Mr. Davidson:
The Planni�n�g Co�ission review�d xour request fox a Master and Final Planned Unit Developmeat
(PUD), and Preliminary and Finat Plat for �our property located at 12Q1 Caunty Road E, at their April
1$, 2012, special meeting. Please be advised that the Planning Cflmmission vot,ed 5-2 to recommend
denial of your requesi. 1'he reasons far the recommendation were stated as follvws:
1. Lack af adequate detail related to proposed land uses
2. Lack of a lighting plan
3. Coniusing tra.ffic plan due to lack of detail xelated to o�verall proposal
4. Lack of detailed security plans
S. Concerns over internal traf%c circulation betvveen lots ar�d access to Lot 2
6. General concern over lack o£ a eom�rehensive plan for the overall site
,
The City Council vv�ll revier� this applica�ion at their May 14, 2012, regular mee�ting. Y4u �nay svbmit
additianal inforrnation prior to the City Council meeting; however, staff may not have tirne to
adequately revi�ew any nevv information in time tQ include in the Council's packet. You ox a
representative should bc present at the xneetin.g tu address any questions that the Council may have.
Please note tlaat if the application is not approved by the City Couneil, the same application cannot be
submitted for six months. If you have any�que�tions, please contact me at ($51) 792-7828 or by email
at �ieagan.heekxnan Ca7�ei.axd.�a�i.-�i11R,�n�us:-
T'hank you for yvur t,ime and considera#ion.
Sincerely,
�
M an Beekm.axx
City Planner . . . • . _ - • - . .
Copy: FC# 1�-�09 : -
Ciiy of Arden Bills ��z45 West Highway 96 � Arden gill.�, MN ♦ 55112-5743
Phone 651.792.7801} � Fas 651.634.513'1 ♦ wtvw.ci.arden-hilLs.mn.us
'I"�I�+;
.��v���C��
���I'�l'�I��,
� I�C.
May 8, 2012
Meagan Beekman
City of Arden Hills
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
Dear Ms. Beekman,
In response to your letter dated May 3, 2012 please note the following responses to the six (6)
areas of concern you note:
#1) "Lack of detail related to proposed land use."
Response: The project consists of
A -120 Market Rate Apartments
B-13,000 Square Feet of Specialty Retail
C- Two (2) Acres Sub-Division - Concept 24,000 SF Office
When the uses for B and C are identified we will present those uses to the City for approval. It
is unrealistic and unfair to prohibit the development of the apartments until precise uses are
identified for B& C. Traffic impact of A, B& C have been outlined in the attached traffic
summary.
Conclusion: Traffic generated by use A, B 8� C result in less daily PM Peak Hour
trip generation than anticipated by the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District.
#2) "Lack of a lighting plan."
Response: Staff has indicated to the developer that submission of a lighting plan
at this time was not required subject to agreement on lighting levels. Developer
agrees to comply in the recommendation of Ramsey County Sheriff.
#3) "Confusing traffic plan due to lack of detail related to overall proposal."
Response: Developer met with staff on Monday, April 30th, 2012 and agreed to
address questions related to traffic. On May 2, 2012 an addendum to the traffic
study was submitted to staff. (See Attached) The summary demonstrates that
uses A, B, C generate less traffic than anticipated in the Guiding Plan for the B-2
District. Developer has received no questions or comments from staff regarding
the memo.
3900 Noxth�voods Dxive, Suite 125, Arden Hills, MN 55112 Phone: 651-481-6290 1'ax (651) 481-6289 FinaiL iob@davidsoncus.curri
#4) "Lack of detailed security plan."
Response: Developer submitted a description of security plan to staff on April 27,
2012. (See Attached) Developer has received no questions from staff regarding
this submittal.
#5) "Concerns over internal traffic circulation between lots and access to Lot 2."
Response: Lot 2 will have limited access over Lot 1 to access County Road E;
(see attached) the noted access will be governed by a private easement between
the owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Access from Lot 2 to Lexington Ave has been
assured by Ramsey County subject to the user of Lot 2 generating traffic
consistent with that which has been described in Amended Traffic Study as
attached.
#6) "General concerns over lack of a comprehensive plan for overall site."
Response: Same question as #1 - See response to question #1.
The developer has worked diligently in addressing concerns expressed by the City by
decreasing the overall apartment density as well as the inclusion of kitchens in each unit; to that
end the market rate apartments are now fully compliant with City code. The developer is
requesting no variances.
We have identified a 9,000 SF Specialty Retailer (see NOW Bikes letter) as additional uses are
identified for Lot 2 and the balance of the Specialty Retail area those uses will be presented to
the city so they can be evaluated and compared against the standards we have submitted.
The developer has received extremely positive feedback from potential tenants for the Specialty
Retail as well as potential residents of the apartment complex. The developer looks forward to
creating another successful development in Arden Hills, MN.
Sincerely,
`
��
Robin C. Davidson
TAT Properties LLC
cc: Stuart Nolan
Engineering . Landscape Architecture • Planning • Surveying • Traffic
INCORPORATED
Creating extraortlinary
Communities
MEMORANDUM
TO: Rob Davidson
FROM: Vernon E. Swing, P.E.
DATE: May 2, 2012
RE: Traffic Impact Analysis — Clarification Addendum
(Arden Hall Development)
RLK Project No. 2011-052-M
rob@davidsoncos. com
vswing@rlkinc. com
Per your request, this addendum addresses whether the reserve capacity accounted for in the City's
Traffic Impact Study prep�red by Spack Consulting for the Guiding Plan %r the B2 District is adequate to
accommodate the propased uses. We have simplified the earlier traific impact analysis to focus solely on
the only two relevant areas: 1) The planned uses per the Guiding Plan for the B2 District; and 2) The
proposed uses for the site as discussed below.
• 120 Unit Apartmsnt Building (reuse of the Holiday Inn)
• 13,000 Squaxe Foot Specialty Retail
• 24,000 Square Foot Office
These uses were chosen for the analysis as they represent the best known information at this time. The
apartment count has been reduced from the amount listed in the original traffic study (from 150 units to
120 units), and the retail users within the McGuire's space have not been fully identified at this time;
however, they may include a combinatic�n of independent uses such as a bike shop and an in�urance store.
Also, while not part of the current site approval process, the Guiding_Plan for the B2 District considered
the site as a whole and included land use for Lot 2. The proposed use for Lot 2 reflects the demand
Davidson Campanies is fielding at this time for this property.
To simplify the discussion, we present the trip generation volumes listed in the Guidin� Plan for the B2
District compared with the proposed land uses discussed above. The source of the estimated trip
generation potential is the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE}, Trip Generation, 8�' Edition.
2008 S�ack Stucl�- Holiday Inn Site Projected Trip Generation
- 95 Apartment Units 638 Trips per Day; 59 Trips in PM Peak Hour
- 120,000 sq. ft. Office 1,322 Trips per Day; 178 Trips in PM Peak Hour
TOTAL Trips 1,960 Trips per Day; 239 Trips in PM Peak Hour
Offic�s: auluth • Hc►rr� lake � Hik�bing • Minn�tonka • CJakdale
(952j 933-0972 • b110 Blu� Circl� Driv� • Suit� 10(l • Minn�t�nkca, MN 55343 • F�X (952j 933-1 153
f'q�aal C?���ort�ariil�� �;rnpl�yer
The information in the Guidin� Plan for the B2 District concludes the Holiday Inn site can redevelop with
a traffic intensity of at least 1,960 trips per day and 239 trips during the PM Peak hour without adversely
impacting the conditions of County Road E or Le�ngton Avenue. In other words there is reserved
capacity on the surrounding roadways to accommodate development of 95 Aparhnent Units and 120,000
square foot office on the Holiday Inn site.
To determine if the proposed use for the Holiday Inn site under consideration now (as summarized above)
will result in traffic capacity issues not already addressed in the City's study, the trip generation potential
for the proposed uses must be tested against the Guiding Plan for the B2 District reserve capacity for the
site. The following summarizes the ITE trip generation estimates for the proposed uses:
2012 Pro�osal —Arden Hall Projected 7'ri� Generation
- 120 Apartment Units 978 Trips per Day; 74 Trips in PM Peak Hour
- 13,000 sq. ft. Specialty Retail 576 Trips per Day; 35 Trips in PM Peak Hour
- 24,000 sq. ft. Office 264 Trips per Day; 36 Trips in PM Peak Hour
TOTAL Trips 1,818 Trips per Day; 145 Trips in PM Peak Hour
The current development plan results in less daily and PM Peak Hoar trip generation than
anticipated in the Gnidin� Plan for the B2 Dtstrict. Therefore, there is sufiicient reserve capacity
available on the surrounding street to address the traffic generated by the proposed uses for the site. Since
the Guiding_ Plan for the B2 District traff'ic study assumed mare trafiic for'the Holiday Inn site and
concluded there were no traffic operational issues associated with the redevelopment, it is concluded the
present proposed site uses with less traffic will not result in tr�c operational problems.
G:�Davidson Companies�20ll-052-Ivn_Correspondence�Davidson Memo 05012112.doc
RLK Incorporated Page 2 of 2 May 2, 2012
Arden HaIl7rip Generation Addendum 2011-052-M
Security Protocol
• Front Door entry system with keypad and LCD Screen.
o Entry system is expandable for multiple doors
o Entry system has search capabilities to find residents from the LCD screen by
name.
• Allows residents and staff to buzz guests into the building from either a land line phone or cell
phone.
o Entry system is connected to a dedicated phone line for calling out to residents.
o Long distance and PBX dialing.
• The unit is prograinmable from staff computer using SPSWin software.
o The unit is connected to the staff computer via Communicatian port. Any changes
made on the computer are pushed to the system instantly.
o When a resident moves out or updates their phone number staff can instantiy make
these changes in the system.
o The entry system database can be backed up and restored to a new computer due to
fa�lure. � � �
o Can be setup for automatic unlock schedules if necessary.
• The entry system has a battery backup system so if power goes out guest and residents will still
have access to the building.
Travis Guza
IT Systems Mana�er
P: 95Z-948-9527
F: 952-346-7027
tguzaC�stuartco,cprn
www.stuartca.com
1000 West 80th Street
M+nneapolis, MN 55420
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - ��%����v.a�*.c�ttl
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4985 - Release Date: 05/08/12
z
LOi1-PAlId116�1ANs1{E�IR__�EM?S IOTt-PE9FlINIALRSNR9SBE@OIBEMIEMTS L9T1-iBEEREINIBF11E1RS --�'
DA11tDSON ADDITION ��µ� , 4_ __; .��� �� ,..e� _ ,. � � _ ��� ar°
oe u. uwc .nu
LAN�$CAPE PLIIM �� �a»� ,�, : � � P,�,�o. ,�, ��,aEo �N. �R� .� ,..,, �. R .. o � -
m��
�� ,Y,� �. ,.,,, ,,. �,� �a.,� .�,� ,�� a,,, ,o. R. ,o,—. � P�.� _ s �,..., ��,
CIIY ef IlrAea pBs. Mlnnts�l8 �- YY �' Rm.wwr ..��
�1 �' ��M� �.
� :� ,� ���
'� � �.—_ �li � b
� �'�" w� ._ � � �
I I L*` ��I�'�y�� ::�� e a�h-
I � � ; �'i1r44�raM�'�
� i� '��11 � r � � � t ���_ ,�,o _�_�„�,,,�,.,,�,�.�e....,...�.
I �� �,� �,L..i f������7fi�
I i ��.� � � y`J ���� f��L I I�
:�,i i � .a i F�-i .c .
� ,:.� � ..i i � .i � [�,� `�i , . � j; � `r5e zipli��
I � i � i i�:� i i 1-� � i�, k3i {Y��,� ���"�� i � ' �����h.�1�� f r�carw,ow ��
I � I ' i .�1 L �{! yy�
i � � ...� i i � i {��� a 1 d �
! . i ' � . �. � i � '� i � i i .. � i ' ..',, ' � � _ r, � � 6 rnsiwr G ' � �Y'IC-� i
`
� „
� I � ` � _; i � ..:I` � I � ! � i .li �i i 1.. ; i r� tr�+ ` �`� rn",„�„„� e , � 1
� i �
� -- ,-.- �_ , � � � I �
I f'��,� ; ; , � I , � f , � , � , � �� , ," �. /
� �� � w
�, r� r�i ic� � _�.. -- - � �;'� �`' 'I� �
I ' � - �� = .fi�.._�_ � � ,. �,._� �� � '� � -��_ � � �� � �
� . .. � .
� �i I :i i . � I � :� �� _ � � ��_..�._...-- {
� � L� �� i� � �w,nr�,�
� � jQ � LOT 1 y 4��� ,-�' i �LOT � s,� �+ a ..�:,,r
I.. [ : i i y � ' F� , F�{. � 'I I�II I �;��e��ve%
I � � � Y u .�:.,�� '�,��� .:.' ��. �� P r3i'� 4 � .
� � �:�; � , �"� m...�������„� o.�m �, BLOCK � : � � 1 s ��� �
,�
� �� � ; : ,, �--� � —6--,0. ,�--�—�-- � � _� ...�___ .
:
<. , �
-F— � -� , ,� � __ _ '� ��
.
--�— _,_ __— _ ._� ,
,
, .. I I
�
I ` - _ _.. - -
, � �- ---
I (7 �, �+�,." , a -�-�-;, re. _ _ , _ - �� ��
�
� ,.; °+' 1 �
. � �__.. _ _._ .. _ ... . 1 �y,
- , ' C ' , , � WE
I plp'
f _ . �_ ... - � .�w �:� �y�
.— y,
� � � � _w= -.w — _ __ 1 �,��:;� _�,H,�,
. _._—._ __ --I
� ''j''"'
n�.— �— �— _• -'_ .w- W_-' w -sfs � l '{ yNORTN
.__ w --w -. J �.j . ___ �_ �-.-: ���-� _ I �
_„—. _ _ _ — . I ,1
_l �_ - — — — -- — —1 — — -� !, .
� ____ _.__.__. __._ w�,�.
� _ _ ----- - ,.�.,,.�„«..a„
� - -_
«• a A e
-----� .. _ _ _ ,
_ r'�t!
Cross Easement • ""°°T ` `°T "� CONL°� °NLY - /��
ncnin� �nrar m oe oc'rcnuiweo ar
� O1MEP5 FOR flEW�� PtliNITlinG ] ,/
il
I
�, �
Staff Recommendation
Staff acknowledges that his 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:
l. The project shall be completed in accardance 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 $ 6�'� ���"" � f��?`�.
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 accordanee
with Section 1130.08 Subd E of the City Code. ���t �, I���c��c ��i���r_��� ��°���cpt��l b, ������.��ed
;� �133_.3�0 w� tael��u�; t��ais amc,da��t_x��c�r� ��c���°��c>ij a�;��til��� t��:� �r�,fl��aEy+ �}�� �i�c: ����ri�
4. The applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements, in favor of the City, in
accardance 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 ' r,A�• ��°�� <.i� ��k h:, � �. �;,� ' �._��� ��� ��������..�a-�Rf ��`
�
�� ., ;,.
�;� .k�, -�$ ; F�R.�;F. �'(� �; F���. _��Y:B� �e'�� C d.�13�su ��� °;I�y.,r.i�fws:a w�:: �„ tf � #.� ��f;"%
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. �9��,rt„_36 � c��� �76� �sst��� o,�
�� t�.�t''^ �' �� '; ei�*= s'*:'t��i :.'.13i i:i eit� ji§'�V1E911"��� c`i�7)?l'C9�'4,„� ���� C'6 t cs,ia}��t�;i`Il�iw
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 ��h��. � �: .,� Xf,;;�. a�it, 4�:^���+�,$� �}����:��'� �,' ,��. 9= ,.ti�;,
i'wl �d <RE��;e .Da'i ¢. � �+� ..6w� 3 ':'_ i ���.dx{ r.... r�b� :3.}��,Sr#,pb�;�t .. � ::!d)liS�
T! �zA �a § Q :��4..�r..R� �6�t `2 nY' �kl . . n°,� .%�Z F"}ii ... .
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_ ��'�_:.
�a`,j# f�3"; wra , t 3`ta '%" :e`�ilck r'�R: w:�"�P � ltlt�tt�'
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 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. ���v�� ��������iµ�� � r��.,��1���r.s�� ���at c;��t� �;�~
���rsi,��,_r;l����aP�����r�� �;� �f�;: �e_"`;�€ ��:g���_c��»s it have a plan to do so. Ifthe City wishes to
��s� � �. �� � �-�° . °r����� .� 6,�x,� , ��¢� � K�� ; r ������> : ?�c�uld make us an offer- it is our belieFthat
°�uch an eas�rnent wauld amounf to a"takin o�; f the proper ,ty". As an alternative the
°<��plicant will.ca,nsicier th;e_ctt�'s easerr►ent re�uest as described in.this_,�+t�ra�raph_subi�ect
_ �'� ���.�laita�.s�i�� � ° �� � �°,..��lc�,� $ ,•�,
10. The applicant shall abtain all necessary permits, including, but not limited to,
NPDES, Rice Creek Watershed District, Ramsey County, and City Erosion Control
Pertnits. 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.
. ,� . -.
, ,
� �g, '°'�� � g�1tk ��sp >�r��l �%i� � �'� na,,� �,r; wt,s�;��s�' � s; F;�,"�;� .��r t. ��1°1tV"�1 i. i':�:�_.
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
issuanceofanydevelopmentpermits. m,�c�c.;�;���d ,=�aa��?��'��Ea ��.�.�.u,,� .����
4`-d ,e'i��7i.�7" � a;:i�� 4 a,.,{`.•" iQf �!i'�f�i.`� iae......a�"ri , i`Yiia� sr z..%�.,�I`= `r �,.� a. .�ar'.t411�....
13. The property and property management shall participate in the Crime Free Multi-
Family Housing program.
14. The applicant has submitted a revised landscaping plan indicating compliance with
the City's landscape requirements.
15. The applicant shall submit a iinancial 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 fmancial
surety for at least two years after full implementation of the landscaping plan. The
�nancial 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 cartiiicate 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 l.
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%re sprinkler protection
system that complies with NFPA 13, subject to the approval of the Fire Marshal.
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 properiy 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.
.. rr .,�e;. �i�t,t•� � ,1 ae: ia i'. . �.'F � �°.)1,� � ��� pt, . � I ..�_,__
23. Permanently affixed bicycle racks shall be prdvided 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
approvaloftheFireDeparhnent_ �',��i� �� ���:�P .. :z�=la ���'r;,� ;��°�=:�a �3i � , ° �� �
��ia t. ��' ,3. t".— ,`i! <.l rS� ;ia.`i�l,
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 forthe future._`�i 1�;t!, ���� ���� ,���^l�a��� c���
.
, , �, , . . . .-
, ,
��'mag����-.' �<,�,„ �.� 'a�€ iii�)7��t,� .g��;��f ,, �Ii�E 1 �`���:� i"�" t�s; 9 ° 7 � � .; ��;�.,,�
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 oithe Public Works Director.
28. The applicant shall agee 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 $350 per linear
foot of County Road E street frontage.,' :��� , 3t,��� 1�� ������._d ��� a�_a�! r�a ��.�f�� ���. �,���° l��,r�:��;
£'�is19��'�� i#.� �'tp�1�[ j�3rbq�,.'i� � (1"a�✓�� t ., . _ �
29. The applicant shall provide to the City temporary construction easements for
implementing the County Road E streetscape improvements, provided the City repair and
replace any disturbances on applicant's property.
30. The applicant shall submit to the City joint maintenance agreements, and shared
access agreements, between Lot 1 and Lot 2 prior to the issuance of building permits for
Lot 2.
31. Prior to ten years elapsing, or upon future PUD approval of the parcel, the City may
incorporate a civic feature into the southeast corner of Lot 2.
� - � _��- "�� . � � � � � -� _
. _ 4
�. , �` �.�. , , ^ . . ' _y,� .
;.�b ...
. ! �` � . . ' . . _ . .�i
!� " - �
� '
�s}. ' ��t . � - �� ��' � �-"�`d '��
.
��•
_ ��
. , _ � . � �� �
.
.�'� -� ,� � i � ��a� ' q . �A � - � �'� :. .� � .�
..� �,/_ \ y , ., =�r ;, , �;�
._��t�I'� . � Wy � v t: i: { ':,i� , ^ # ts� � i � �' � ,
` 1\ -e� �` 'e�' •��•,.i*' i:.��i�:JEiXa i� 4. A F (
� �
: �; �;, I� . � -. � J N���j �.3 €��1C3� �. �
� . ,a � f �,e on� x r �... �.R t� . . .. . �
- ..� , a ;� � . . � N ' ��----- ±� F � - . I ��- . � . • E
�� �£ � �� _, l+— My g� � n i�, �
,. r o s
. _��._ .. _. . � f , .
��. �' g�.wF . � ..�,,. -- — �1F�
t • _ � ! . ` ' __„�.. t' �' ' " _— • _dw.. ` .
:.. .,..-, ' . . :
.. '.. �' -Y._ . . �. -,; 5 � . . i --.: -- - -= ��.'�
� — . r � �: �, — -- '�, t. — . _ �. . ._ '
'�r: - - � � � .. ,.�,; ..�+ � �p . --� . _ f. � _ '
' �:i� e�
9 � 4 � _ . �
+r 5
1
. . .. � , . � s _
�� • ' �, .y,:,,`,P P}�t ,Y.- � �c .�.� '': . _� ?� _� ... ,
,�+ t �, -� f �""' _� �-- '*t _,� � '"$ � � �{� pi'
I ��� _ i E � .�w. - y_ , � � �t�, -.�� ` "" �
� kl—.it _ � �„��«�, t� afi.�
� , _� �' '���• � � ,. � , �._�.� ..� �:*a� -a�■s��.�z ,
, � � F __ ..� �.....,.,
+„�,�- -_ .�, .� -, . �
� � ' a' 9��, , ';., .� � � =— �
. � 5� � � � t. � �,� � �t
��Y� _ . �. � � . �t ,�� '�` . y ��i �-..
� '� � i � � ..
.i�.' , I "`�4 � i "' k,
I ,,�,Y � 4 s � � '�
� " ' � � I +, ' .� �`t � y$ ��"
7 � 5.,� .„�, ���-'> �
_ + t� � i� `;; • _ �� .
, � � �ei; .. � � . . . .- .
-..A. . itn�" . '
.- '�se . � :_ r� ��
�"`.al�' �F . ' - :. _ • �� �`� �� : � �` � � � �, .r.+ � �, �
w
_ �. ;
, _... . ... - P .. �.'+�. '
,
. �'.�1� r�'��.�'." �u . .t� � i, � i
,
. r ,;„;�.y. w i
�i. � _ � ' � �.,.. ,. '_�,�"''"'� � � � � + * � r� ...
s. �
e..v� ._ . _, _ _ _ n �I � 9 . _ " "..�.,_._ � a, „ R , � 1 �' � - s� .dt.�.. �r . ,�..r°.-' _ , ... ..
NORTHWESTERN COLLEGE
May 2, 2012
Mayor David Grant
Cauncil Member Brenda Holden
Councif Member Fran Holmes
Council Member Nichofas Tamble
Council Member Ed Wemer
City of Arden Mills
1245 W Highway 96
Arden Hills, MN 55112
R�: Land Use Application Arden Hall
Dear Mayar and Council Members:
As you aware, Northwesiern College had a very positive experienc� for several years in the
recent past with the City of Arden Hilfs and TAT Properties related fo the use of the facility
cammon{y referred ta as Arden Ha{l. It is my understanding the Rob Davidson and TAT
Properties are currently working with the City to bring about a creative new use for this property;
a use that wi11 benefit a broad cross-section of stakeholders including the awners, local
businesses, potential renters, and the City by way of the redevelopment and creative adaptive
re-use of an aged, existing structure.
eonverfing Arden Hall into market rate apartments will continue fhe previous success enjoyed
by alf when Northwestem College was leasing the facility - residents paying rent, residents
buying goods and services in the cammunity, local employment oppartunities for residents and
businesses thus providing the building awners the opportunity ta upgrade and maintain a key
piece of real esta#e in the community.
It would seem apparent that the community would benefit from residential alternatives that will
satisfy the housing needs of our and Bethel's students who desire to live off campus as welf as
other young professianafs who are beginning their careers. A newly reconfigured Arden Hall will
satisfy that demand.
Based upon my first hand experience with the owners of Arden Hall, I would not hesitate to
recommend the residential faciliiy they have pianned.ta our off-campus, commuter sfudents.
Therefore, l encourage you to support, by your positive vote, TAT Properties application to
convert #he former Holiday !nn into a 120 unit apartment building as well as subdivide fhe
property into two parcels.
Si cerefy,
� _ ��`�--
Dou s R. Schroeder
VP r Business/Chief Financial OfFcer
Northwestem Colteg�
CC: Mr. Rob Davidson, TAT Properties
3003 SNEI.LINC AVENUE NORTH � ST. PAUI, MN 551 7 3-1 598 � 800-692-4d2D � 65i-631-5700 � NWGEDU � ��
d �=� ���-� F�.�
���
��S & �t���
May 8, 2012
Mayor David Grant
City of Arden Hilis
1245 Vil Highway J�
Arden Hills, MN 55112
RE: Arden Hall Redevelopment
Dear Mayar Grant:
My company, Now Bikes and Fitness, has operated in Arden Hills for the past 15
years. Currently my business is located in Shannon Square, tucked in the comer of the
development with very limited visibitity. Now Bikes must relocate to a much more visible
location.
I have entered into an agreement with The Davidson Companies to lease
approximately 9,000 square feet of space in the praposed redevelopment of the former
Holiday lnn (former banquet areaj.
Now Bikes would benefit tremendausfy by the increased visibility as well as being
part of the proposed mixed use development.
I would appreciate your vote in favor of Mr. Davidson's pr.oposed markef rate
apartment/mixed use development/lof split.
Now Bikes is extremely excited about the Arden Hall redevelopment projecf and
fooks forward to being a part af this project as well as remaining in the Arden Hills
community.
Now Bikes & Fitness
3673 Lexington Ave No, Arden Hills, MN 55 I 26 Phone: (651) 49Q-7709 Fax: �b51 J 490-7580
Email: pah t 9@aol.com
President
Now Bikes and Fitness