Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7C, Planning Case 12-019 - Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E -AEN HILLS Request for Council Action 7C i .. Prepared By: Meagan Beekman,City Planner Council Meeting Date: December 17, 2012 Planning Case 12-019—Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: NA NA NA Recommendation: Motion to approve Resolution 2012-052, in Planning Case 12-019, for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development at 1201 County Road E, based on the submitted plans and Findings of Fact, as amended by the conditions in the December 17,2012,report to the City Council. Supporting Documents: 1. Memo from Meagan Beekman,dated December 17,2012 2. Resolution 2012-053 3. November 28, 2012,Draft Planning Commission Minutes 4. November 28, 2012,Traffic Study 5. Shared Access Layout 6. November 28, 2012,Planning Commission Packet RPEN HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: December 17, 2012 TO: Honorable Mayor& City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Meagan Beekman, City Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case#12-019 Applicant: 1201 County Road E LLC and TAT Properties LLC Property Location: 1201 West County Road E Request: Master and Final Planned Unit Development Requested Action Motion to approve Resolution 2012-052, in Planning Case 12-019, for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development at 1201 County Road E, based on the submitted plans and Findings of Fact, as amended by the conditions in the December 17, 2012, report to the City Council. Background The property at 1201 County Road E is owned by TAT Properties, represented by Rob Davidson. In March 2008, the City approved a request from TAT Properties and Northwestern College granting an Interim Use Permit (IUP) at the former Holiday Inn property that would allow the College to operate a student housing facility in the B-2 District. 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 City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final PlanI12-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 1 of 10 Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, which was ultimately adopted in October 2008. The City's zoning regulations were consequently amended to incorporate the goals of the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District shortly after it was adopted, including design standards for new construction. In 2011, the City reviewed and approved a subsequent proposal from Select Senior Living to convert the building into assisted senior housing and subdivide the property into two parcels. Select Senior Living has since ended their negotiations with the property owner to purchase the property for this use, and that approval expired. In April 2012, the property owner submitted plans to convert the former hotel into 120 units of multi-family housing. The request also included a proposal to subdivide the property into two parcels. The application was denied by the City Council on the grounds that there was not sufficient information provided in order to approve a Master PUD. Shortly after the denial the City passed a moratorium on new multi-family units while a zoning study was conducted. In September 2012, the City passed revised zoning regulations for multi- family housing units. The moratorium was lifted in October. Overview of Request TAT Properties is now requesting a Master and Final PUD to allow the reuse of the existing building at 1201 County Road E as 75 rental units. The applicant is not requesting a subdivision of the property at this time. The existing building has 155 hotel rooms. Once the conversion is complete, the building would consist of 21 efficiency units, 5 one-bedroom units, 18 two- bedroom units, and 31 three to four-bedroom units. The applicant would install full kitchens (counter top, sink, refrigerator, base cabinet drawers, and a range/oven) in each unit. The applicant would bring the property up to building code requirements. A number of amenities are proposed including a fitness center, wi-fi lounge, theater room, gaming room, indoor bicycle parking, and storage for tenants on each floor (Attachment E). All four floors of the building would be constructed at once. The former McGuire's restaurant and banquet facilities would be converted to approximately 20,000 square feet of retail at the same time as the apartment conversion. The applicant has a signed lease for the largest bay and plans to complete the renovations to that portion of the building by early spring. As part of the conversion, the exterior fagade of the west side of the building would be redone to accommodate the retail bays. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Plan112-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 2 of 10 The applicant is also proposing a number of site improvements. Included in the improvements is a complete reconstruction of the existing parking lot, inclusion of stormwater ponding, curb, gutter, and parking lot islands with landscaping, as well as additional landscaping throughout the site. The applicant is proposing additional parking stalls in front of the retail bays; however the bituminous drive aisle in front of the hotel portion of the building would be removed and landscaped. The center driveway access would be removed, and the two other access points would remain in their current locations. The applicant is also proposing to remove the front portico, which will increase the visibility from County Road E and update the look of the outside of the building. The applicant believes the target market for the apartments to be students; however, as a market rate apartment building, the landlord must rent to anyone that is approved through the rental application process. The applicant has submitted a letter outlining the reasons for the request and a plan set (Attachment E). Plan Evaluation A full evaluation of the proposal was presented to the Planning Commission at their November 28, 2012, Special Meeting. The report to the Planning Commission regarding this application is included as Attachment E. Discussion Ramsey County Easement Request In light of the County Road E Implementation planning process,the County has identified a need for a dual left turn from eastbound County Road E to northbound Lexington Avenue. Ramsey County has reviewed the proposed plans and has requested an easement along County Road E and at the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The easement would accommodate a future dual left turn lane on County Road E, as well as signaling and signage. The applicant has incorporated this request into the submitted plans. City Easement Requests Until the dual left turn lane is engineered, the exact location of a sidewalk along County Road E in front of the property cannot be determined. Staff has requested an additional 8-foot easement north of the County's easement request that will accommodate a future sidewalk, which will be City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanningWlanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Plan112-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 3 of 10 constructed at a later date. The applicant will pay for 125% of the cost of the sidewalk prior to the issuance of building permits for the project. The City will hold the money in escrow to cover the cost of the future sidewalk construction. In addition, the City has requested a 360 square foot easement on the corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue, outside of the County's easement area, for a gateway sign and associated landscaping and lighting. Language will be added to the easement document limiting the size of the sign to 75 square feet and six feet in height. Traffic The City contracted with SRF Consulting to conduct a traffic study (Attachment Q. The study assumed a 10% multi-use trip reduction to account for residents utilizing nearby businesses; however no trip reduction was assumed for pass-by or multi-modal trips, though it can be assumed that some will exist. The study also assumed approximately 200 residents living in the building. The study found that the previous hotel use generated 1,266 trips per day; and that the proposed apartment use, with retail, would generate 1,364 trips per day. The change in use would account for 98 additional trips generated to and from the site over a 24-hour period, with 15 fewer trips in the a.m. peak hour and 45 additional trips in the p.m. peak hour. The traffic engineer concluded that this was a nominal amount that would not have a negative impact on the mobility along County Road E or Lexington Avenue. It should be noted that the analysis of the former hotel use did not include additional trip estimates for the McGuire's restaurant. According to the traffic engineer hotel trip estimates assume some restaurant and banquet facility uses already. The traffic study also looked at access and internal circulation. The study found that the existing two access points will continue to operate adequately with the proposed new use; however, the traffic engineer raised concern over the proximity of the access points on the west side of the site and the adjacent properties. The study identified 23 potential vehicle conflicts among the three driveways between Carroll's Furniture and the former Holiday Inn, and recommends consolidating access points in this area if possible. The traffic study also looked at a possible future lot split of the property into two parcels and how this might impact circulation. The study makes recommendations about future improvements if the property were ever subdivided; however, a more detailed analysis would be required if a proposal to subdivide were made and a future user of the new lot was known. Unit Sizes The Zoning Code requires multi-family units to be a minimum of 600 s.f. in size, plus an City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Plan112-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 4 of 10 additional 100 s.f. for each bedroom. Unit Type #of Units % SF Range Min. SF # That Meet Required Requirements Efficiency 21 28% 356-483 600 0 1-Bedrooms 5 7% 568-914 700 2 2-Bedrooms 18 24% 730 800 0 3-Bedrooms 31 41% 1,100 900 31 42 of the 75 units would not meet the minimum size requirements. It should be noted that as a pre-existing hotel being converted into residential apartments, there are structural challenges that would not exist if the building were a new construction project. Furthermore, the proposal does include substantially more usable common and leisure area than the minimum zoning requirements, which may off-set the need for larger unit sizes. In addition, the target market for the units is likely to be younger people and students, who may not desire larger unit sizes. Efficiency Apartments The Zoning Code requires that the number of efficiency apartments in a multi-family building shall not exceed 15%. The proposed plan would have 28% of the units be efficiencies. The existing hotel building lends itself structurally to efficiency units, and the applicant is requesting flexibility on this item in order to allow at least 75 residential units to make the project financially feasible. Western Access Drive Staff has discussed options for providing a more adequate access to serve the three properties lying west of the Holiday Inn site. Staff has provided a concept layout of how the shared access would operate (Attachment D). The layout indicates that up to 20 feet of the western most side of the former Holiday Inn property may be required to accommodate the new drive aisle, and that this would eliminate up to 22 parking stalls from the west and north side of the proposed site plan. However, the applicant is requesting 28 stalls in the front of the building which encroach 6 feet in the front setback, and staff has been able to identify 7 additional stalls which might be possible with the concept layout, creating a net increase of 13 parking stalls on the site with the shared access layout. Staff has added condition language pertaining to the shared western access that would require the applicant to submit revised plans prior to the approval of the development agreement that would incorporate the shared access layout on the western side of the property. The applicant would then construct their portion of the shared access, including parking island and stall City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanningWIanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Plan112-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 5 of 10 configurations, leaving approximately 20 feet of property undeveloped until a future date when either the City completes the shared access as part of the County Road E improvements, or when Carroll's Furniture redevelops. In the interim the existing western access would remain in its current location and serve the apartment building and retail. When the shared access drive is completed the property owner would then complete the connection and close the existing westernmost driveway. The condition language also includes a requirement that the property owner grant shared access easements to neighboring properties provided that shared access easements are granted in return. Findings of Fact The Planning Commission offers the following findings for consideration: 1. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing building at 1201 County Road E into a 75-unit multiple-family building, with approximately 20,000 square feet of attached retail. 2. The proposed redevelopment is located in the B2—General Business District. 3. The proposed use is allowed through a Planned Unit Development process in the B-2 District. 4. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City's regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. 5. The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B2 District that outlines future development principals for the area. 6. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the requirements of the City's Zoning Code and design standards. 7. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the Guiding Plan for the B2 District. 8. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City's Zoning Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11. The proposal would increase vehicle trips to and from the site by 98 trips per day. The increase is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the mobility of surrounding streets. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012U2-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Plan112-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 6 of 10 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 12-019, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval in the December 17, 2012, report to the City Council (Attachment B). The Planning Commission further recommends that shared access between the subject property and the properties to the west be pursued; however, the Planning Commission expressed concern over requiring the owner of 1201 County Road E to vacate portions of their property with no compensation to the benefit of another private property owner. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of Planning Case 12-019, based on the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions of approval. Staff has met with the City's Attorney to discuss the shared access layout issue. Based on those discussions, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. Development agreements, drafted by the City Attorney, shall be signed by the property owners prior to the issuance of development permits. 2. 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. 3. Prior to the City's approval of a development agreement, the applicant shall submit revised plans incorporating the shared access layout (Attachment D). The applicant shall be responsible for construction of the portion of the shared access as shown on the revised plans, except those portions of the shared access to be located within shared easements. 4. At the City's request, in conjunction with the construction of the shared access by others, but within ten years, the property owner shall close the westernmost access and relocate to a shared access along the western side of its property and modify its parking lot and access lanes solely at its own costs as shown in the attached shared access layout. 5. At the City's request, in conjunction with the construction of the shared access, but within ten years, the property owner shall convey up to 20 feet of the western most edge of the property to a shared access easement allowing adjacent properties ingress and egress, as well as for the purposes of construction of the shared access improvements,provided that shared access is provided in return. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanningWIanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Planll2-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 7 of 10 6. The applicant shall provide a roadway and utility easement, as reflected on the development plans and subject to the approval of Ramsey County, in favor of Ramsey County,prior to the issuance of development permits 7. The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development plans and subject to the approval of the City Engineer, in favor of the City,prior to the issuance of development permits. 8. The applicant shall provide a gateway sign easement for the purpose of placing one gateway sign and related landscaping and lighting, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of the City, prior to the issuance of development permits. The gateway sign placed by the City shall not exceed 75 square feet on one face, and shall not exceed six feet in height. 9. 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. 10. The property owner and property management shall participate in the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program. 11. 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. 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. 12. The applicant shall submit a cash payment for 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation of the sidewalk along County Road E prior to the City issuing any development permits. 13. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the multi-family units 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. 14. 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 the multi-family units. 15. The security plan shall be implemented by the applicant, and inspected and approved by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 16. The applicant shall comply with the Building Official and Fire Marshal's comments dated November 20, 2012. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Plant/2-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 8 of 10 17. Building 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. 18. Fire Hydrants shall be located within 150 feet of the Fire Department Connections (FDC)to each building on Lot 1 and Lot 2. 19. Building shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding property maintenance, subject to the approval of the Building Official. 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall agree to waive their right to appeal future assessments related to the installation of landscaping, street lighting, benches, and other features associated with the County Road E streetscape improvements, in an amount not to exceed $200 per linear foot of County Road E street frontage provided that the property shall be assessed in the same manner as other similarly situated properties. 22. 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. If the City Council approves the application, Staff will prepare a development agreement incorporating the conditions of approval. The development agreement will go to the Council at a future meeting for approval. Requested Action Motion to approve Resolution 2012-052, in Planning Case 12-019, for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development at 1201 County Road E, based on the submitted plans and Findings of Fact, as amended by the conditions in the December 17, 2012, report to the City Council. Options 1. Approve: Motion to approve Resolution 2012-052, in Planning Case 12-019, for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development at 1201 County Road E, based on the submitted plans and Findings of Fact, as amended by the conditions in the December 17, 2012, report to the City Council. City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012U2-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Planll2-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 9 of 10 i 2. Deny: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E based the following reasons: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E for the following reasons... Deadline for Agency Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on November 19, 2012. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by January 18, 2013 (60 days), unless the City provides the petitioner with written reasons for an additional 60 day review period. The City may, with the consent of the applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial 120 days. I Attachments A. Resolution 2012-053 B. November 28, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Minutes C. November 28, 2012, Traffic Study D. Shared Access Layout E. November 28, 2012, Planning Commission Packet City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for December 17, 2012 P:IPlanninglPlanning Cases12012112-019-1201 County Road E-PUD MAster and Final Plan112-17-12-Holiday Inn-CC Memo.docx Page 10 of 10 Attachment Resolution 2012-053 EN HILLS December 17, 2012, Special City Council Meeting lt -- S LEN R) HILLS CITY OF ARDEN HILLS COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 2012-052 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE 12-019 FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AT 1201 COUNTY ROAD E WHEREAS, the Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development at 1201 County Road E is now before the City Council for review and approval addressing conversion of a former hotel into 75 units of multi-family housing and approximately 20,000 square feet of retail and associated site improvements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application, submitted documentation, staff's recommendation, and public comments regarding Planning Case 12-019, and unanimously recommended approval for the application; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the complete application, submitted documentation, and Planning Commission recommendation regarding Planning Case 12- 019; and WHEREAS, the City Staff have recommended approval of Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development at 1201 County Road E. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final Planned Unit Development at 1201 County Road E be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development agreements, drafted by the City Attorney, shall be signed by the property owners prior to the issuance of development permits. 2. 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. 3. Prior to the City's approval of a development agreement, the applicant shall submit revised plans incorporating the shared access layout (Attachment Q. The applicant shall be responsible for construction of the portion of the shared access as shown on the revised plans, except those portions of the shared access to be located within shared easements. 4. At the City's request, in conjunction with the construction of the shared access by others, but within ten years, the property owner shall close the westernmost access and relocate to a shared access along the western side of its property and modify its parking lot and access lanes solely at its own costs as shown in the attached shared access layout. 5. At the City's request, in conjunction with the construction of the shared access, but within ten years, the property owner shall convey up to 20 feet of the western most edge of the property to a shared access easement allowing adjacent properties ingress and egress, as well as for the purposes of construction of the shared access improvements, provided that shared access is provided in return. 6. The applicant shall provide a roadway and utility easement, as reflected on the development plans and subject to the approval of Ramsey County, in favor of Ramsey County,prior to the issuance of development permits 7. The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development plans and subject to the approval of the City Engineer, in favor of the City,prior to the issuance of development permits. 8. The applicant shall provide a gateway sign easement for the purpose of placing one gateway sign and related landscaping and lighting, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of the City, prior to the issuance of development permits. The gateway sign placed by the City shall not exceed 75 square feet on one face, and shall not exceed six feet in height. 9. 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. 10. The property owner and property management shall participate in the Crime Free Multi-Family Housing Program. 11. 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. 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. 12. The applicant shall submit a cash payment for 125 percent of the cost of materials and installation of the sidewalk along County Road E prior to the City issuing any development permits. 13. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the multi-family units 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. 14. 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 the multi-family units. 15. The security plan shall be implemented by the applicant, and inspected and approved by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 16. The applicant shall comply with the Building Official and Fire Marshal's comments dated November 20, 2012. 17. Building 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. 18. Fire Hydrants shall be located within 150 feet of the Fire Department Connections (FDC)to each building on Lot 1 and Lot 2. 19. Building shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding property maintenance, subject to the approval of the Building Official. 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall agree to waive their right to appeal future assessments related to the installation of landscaping, street lighting, benches, and other features associated with the County Road E streetscape improvements, in an amount not to exceed $200 per linear foot of County Road E street frontage provided that the property shall be assessed in the same manner as other similarly situated properties. 22. 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. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARDEN HILLS THIS 17th DAY OF DECEMBER,2012. ATTEST: David Grant, Mayor Patrick Klaers, City Administrator Attachment November 28, 2012, Draft Planning Commission Minutes EN HILLS December 17, 2012, Special City Council Meeting 'It EN HILLS Approved: CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION—SPECIAL MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2012 6:30 P.M. -ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Clayton Larson called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Clayton Larson, Commissioners Angela Homes, Andrew Holewa, Samuel Scott, Roberta Thompson, and Clayton Zimmerman Absent: Commissioner Janet Stodola(Alternate) Also present were: City Planner Meagan Beekman, Councilmember Fran Holmes, and Recording Secretary Debbie Wolfe. APPROVAL OF AGENDA—NOVEMBER 28, 2012 Chair Larson stated the agenda will stand as published. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 12-019 — Master and Final PUD; TAT Properties, Rob Davidson; 1201 County Road E—Public Hearing City Planner Meagan Beekman provided the background of the Planning Case, the project overview, and the project analysis. City Planner Meagan Beekman reviewed the Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application meets the requirements of the Zoning Code, advances the goals, and principles within the Guiding Plan for the B-2 District, and would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole. Staff offered the following findings for consideration: General Findings 1. The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing building at 1201 County Road E into a 75-unit multiple-family building, with approximately 20,000 square feet of attached retail. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 2 2. The proposed redevelopment is located in the B2—General Business District. 3. The proposed use is allowed through a Planned Unit Development process in the B-2 District. 4. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City's regulations through a negotiated process with a developer. 5. The City has adopted the Guiding Plan for the B2 District that outlines future development principals for the area. 6. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the requirements of the City's Zoning Code and design standards. 7. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the Guiding Plan for the B2 District. 8. The Master PUD and Final PUD are in substantial conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. 9. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City's Zoning Code, flexibility has been requested by the applicant and/or conditions have been placed on an approval that would mitigate the nonconformity. 10. The application is not anticipated to create a negative impact on the immediate area or the community as a whole. 11. The proposal would increase vehicle trips to and from the site by 98 trips per day. The increase is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the mobility of surrounding streets. Staff Recommendations City Planner Meagan Beekman stated 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. Further, the City denied a development application earlier in 2012, which requested 120-units of residential with unknown uses for the remainder of the building or a newly created Lot 2. The applicants has made significant changes to their previous proposal, including reducing the number of units, eliminating the subdivision request, and completing the entire building as part of a single phase of construction. Staff understands the frustration of both the City and the developer to find a mutually beneficial and productive reuse of this property. In that vein, if the Planning Commission chooses to approve this application, Staff recommends the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall address all engineering comments, listed in the November 16, 2012 staff comments memo to the applicant, to the satisfaction of the public works department before proceeding to the City Council. 2. 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. 3. Development agreements, drafted by the City Attorney, shall be signed by the property owners prior to the issuance of development permits. 4. The applicant shall provide a roadway and utility easement, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of Ramsey County, prior to the issuance of development permits. 5. The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of the City, prior to the issuance of development permits. 6. The applicant shall provide an 8-foot sidewalk easement, as reflected on the development plans, in favor of the City,prior to the issuance of development permits. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 3 7. The applicant shall meet and negotiate in good faith with the adjacent property owners to the west, and the City, to implement a shared access along the shared property line to the west of 1201 County Road E. 8. If a shared access along the west property line of 1201 County Road E can be negotiated, the applicant agrees to convey up to a 20-foot wide shared access easement along the west property line, and additional easement as may be necessary to accommodate truck turn around movements on the north side of the property. 9. 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. 10. The property owner and property management shall participate in the Crime Free Multi- Family Housing Program. 11. 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. The City shall retain the financial surety for at least two years after full implementation of the landscaping plan. The surety for at least two years after full implementation of the landscaping by the City Planner, which shall only occur during the growing season. 12. 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 sidewalk along County Road E. prior to the City issuing any development permits. 13. The applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy for the multi-family units 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 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. 14. 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. 15. The security plan shall be implemented by the applicant, and inspected and approved by the Ramsey County Sheriff's Department prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 16. The applicant shall comply with the Building Official and Fire Marshall's comments dated November 20, 2012. 17. Building 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 Marshall. 18. Fire Hydrants shall be located within 150 feet of the Fire Department Connections (FDC) to each building on Lot 1 and Lot 2. 19. Building shall comply with all provisions of Chapter 14 of the City Code regarding property maintenance, subject to the approval of the Building Official. 20. 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. 21. The applicant shall agree to waive their right to appeal future assessments related to the installation of landscaping, street lighting, benches, and other features associated with the 22. County Road E streetscape improvements, in an amount not to exceed $350 per linear foot of County Road E street frontage. i I ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 4 23. 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. Chair Larson asked about the size of the units not meeting the size criteria but staff is still recommending approval. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated there have been a number of discussions with the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding this and minimum standards were desired but there was a general understanding that this is an existing building and should be treated differently than a newly constructed building. The focus was more on the total units rather than the square footage of each unit. Since this is a PUD, flexibility can be granted in this area. Chair Larson stated there is no subdivision on this property. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that was correct. Chair Larson stated he does not see parking as being an issue. Commissioner Holewa asked about the two turn lanes and whether they would be done by the County. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that has not been thoroughly decided. It would be a County program and may be constructed as Phase I improvements on County Road E and the City may be constructing parts of this. Commissioner Holewa questioned where in the staff report was the recommendation for approval noted. Commissioner Holewa also asked about park dedication and confirmed that's only when a lot is split. Commissioner Holewa also confirmed that the applicant is planning a sidewalk. City Planner Beekman stated that the lack of a recommendation was an oversight in the memo, and that Staff was recommending approval for the Planning Case. She confirmed that the applicant will be constructing a sidewalk on Lexington Avenue and that the applicant would be paying for a sidewalk on County Road E, but that the City would construct the sidewalk when the County Road E streetscaping project moved forward. Commissioner Holewa asked about a watermain. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the City Public Works Engineer had suggested a watermain be constructed in a previous application. He felt the watermain would be more tied to a subdivision. Commissioner Holewa noted the traffic study showed an assumed 10% reduction in trips based on mode share and 0% reduction based on pass-by trips. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the Director of Public Works is satisfied with the traffic study. Commissioner Holewa stated the traffic study concluded that the proposed redevelopment would not have a significant impact on intersection operations in the area. Commissioner Thompson asked about the parking stall in the front (28 stalls) and if that was sufficient parking lots for the retail. She asked how it compared to Shannon Square. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the retail will require 114 parking stalls total and the 28 stalls located in the front would not meet all the parking demand for the retail. There will still be some shared parking on the side and in the rear of the building. There will be a rear building access with a cut-through that would allow visitors to access the retail areas through the back of the building. Commissioner Thompson stated she was surprised about the access from the back and it seems a narrow area to access the retail. Commissioner Zimmerman asked how many total parking spaces are required. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated 241 are required but 284 are provided in the plan. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if a parking ramp was considered. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated a parking ramp would make the project cost not feasible. The proposed plan would provide the ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 5 security aspects of a service parking lot rather than an enclosed parking ramp. Commissioner Zimmerman stated some properties charge more for parking in the ramp and the cost may be justified by doing that. Chair Larson stated since it is a pre-existing building there is not the luxury of having a below ground parking area. Commissioner Scott asked if the build out would be all at once. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated there would be a single build out and the construction would take one year. Commissioner Holewa referred to the retail space layout and asked if the apartment residents could access the retail area without going outside. It was noted they could not. Commissioner Holewa referred to the east access and City Planner Meagan Beekman noted some additional review would be needed. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the access may need some further discussion. Commissioner Zimmerman asked about the property be marketed to college students and if commuter buses would be utilized to transport the students to the colleges. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated that is not something that is part of the applicant's plan. Commissioner Zimmerman asked if there was a bus provided by the colleges would that have an impact on the access. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated a shuttle could easily enter and exit on the north side. Mr. Rob Davidson appeared before the Commission. He stated they worked hard to address the requests of the Commission and feels this plan is a win-win proposal. Chair Larson asked how the 4-door unit would work. Mr. Davidson stated the construction of a 3- or 4-bedroom unit would combine 3 or 4 hotel rooms with the living area in the center. They are suggesting a movable wall and are attempting to create flexibility depending on the market. Commissioner Hames commented this is also a family-friendly plan that would meet the needs of families. Commissioner Holewa asked about the shared access with the adjoining property. Mr. Davidson stated the idea of combining the three driveways is a good idea; however, they are being asked to create a turnaround on the property and fund a combined driveway with no monetary compensation coming to the owner. Mr. Davidson stated TAT Properties may be interested in selling the other business a portion of their property. The easement is an issue that the private landowners should discuss and resolve. Commissioner Holewa asked if there is a loading dock for their plan. Mr. Davidson stated there would not generally be semi-trucks accessing the property. Commissioner Hames asked if the turnaround is for emergency vehicles. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated the turnaround is for the other properties and would accommodate a semi-truck. City Planner Meagan Beekman noted currently there is a shared easement of which the current Holiday Inn property is not part of. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 6 Commissioner Haines asked if the other properties are contributing to the easement and City Planner Meagan Beekman answered in the affirmative and indicated from the City's perspective, it would be a shared easement among the property owners. Commissioner Scott stated he believes it should be a matter discussed between the property owners. Commissioner Haines agreed. It was noted the property owners would need to pay for the portion of the improvements they are benefitting from. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated it is important that it be discussed at this time. Commissioner Thompson asked if there have been any discussions among the property owners. Mr. Davidson stated no one has ever approached him about the access. Commissioner Haines asked Mr. Davidson's feeling about the sideway and gateway sign easement. Mr. Davidson stated the easement suggested is part of the PUD and they are attempting to accommodate the City's requirements. This would not affect the outcome of the project. Mr. Davidson stated they are not comfortable with #21 of the conditions regarding appeal of future assessments. Commissioner Thompson stated a retail owner of one the smaller retail sites may have some concern about where their customers would park. Mr. Davidson stated retail space #8 is a very deep space. A long-term lease has been signed with the local bike store. They would not have more than 4-5 customers in the shop at a time. All employees would be parking on the north side of the building. Commissioner Thompson asked how wide the hallway would be to access the other retail spaces from the back. Russ Rosa, architect, stated it would be a 12-foot wide corridor. Commissioner Haines asked what types of businesses might be in retail spaces #l, #2, #3. Mr. Davidson stated he hopes one tenant would occupy #1-3. Commissioner Haines asked if the apartment residents would have marked spaces or signage to assign parking spaces for the residents. Mr. Davidson stated they would not assign parking to begin with and with the number of spaces, parking should not be an issue. He noted that once parking is assigned, it becomes a management issue. Commissioner Holewa asked if the workout area would be open to non-residents. Mr. Davidson replied it would not and would be for the residents only. Chair Larson opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Von Holtum, 1409 Indian Oaks Trail, Arden Hills, a member of the Economic Development I Commission, stated he has known Mr. Davidson for a number of years and knows he does good projects. Mr. Von Holtum stated he is in favor of the project. I Mr. Steve Jurigen, Northwestern College employee and not a resident of Arden Hills, stated this is a good use of the building. He questioned if on-street parking has been considered along County Road E. He also asked what is happening with the space under the old McGuire's and if it could possibly be utilized for parking. He suggested a buzzer be installed to allow access. Chair Larson closed the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 7 Commissioner Thompson requested condition #8 be revised or struck to allow for private discussion. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated she views #7 and #8 as placeholders to be revised after further discussion. Commissioner Thompson stated she does want to see the consolidation of accesses go away. Commissioner Hames stated she agrees with striking #7 and #8 and would like to also strike #21 as a party should not be held to waive their right of appeal. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated#21 is standard language and included in some form or another in all projects. Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to recommend approval of Planning Case 12-019 for a Master and Final PUD at 1201 County Road E based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans as amended by the 22 conditions in the November 28, 2012, planning case report. Commissioner Hames moved, seconded by Commissioner Zimmerman, to amend the motion, to strike conditions #7 and #8 and direct staff to reword the conditions to direct the landowners to reach an agreement on the shared driveway. The motion to amend carried unanimously (6-0). Commissioner Scott stated he wants to see this project go forward but is hesitant on the square footage of the units. He asked whether there is a backup plan for the efficiency units if they aren't rented. Mr. Davidson stated as this project has evolved, they have looked at who the target market is and it was determined to be students. The units proposed are exactly the same square footage as new student housing construction. Mr. Davidson noted there is a possibility of combining two efficiency units into a one bedroom. Commissioner Thompson stated she appreciates the true Master Plan approach to this project with the detail provided. Commissioner Holewa concurred with Commissioner Thompson's comment. The motion for approval carried unanimously (6-0). REPORTS A. Report from the City Council Councilmember Holmes reported at the City Council's October 29, 2012 Regular Meeting the Council, on a 4-l(Holden dissenting) vote, lifted the City-wide moratorium on multi-family dwelling units. She also reported the City Council voted unanimously to approve Planning Case 12-015 for a Zoning Code Amendment and CUP Application at 1260 Red Fox Road to allow a microbrewery with taproom. Councilmember Holmes reported at their November 13, 2012 Work Session, the City Council discussed a proposal from Sand Companies, Inc. to amend their development agreement for the development of the Arden Village apartment Building at 1245 County Road F. Sand Companies is requesting to convert their proposed development from affordable workforce housing units to market rate units. Four units would remain affordable. As part of the proposal, Sand Companies is also proposing to increase the number of units in the building from 55 to 60. The building ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION—November 28, 2012 8 footprint would remain the same, as several 3-bedroom units would be converted to 1- and 2- bedroom units. The Council has requested to see revised plans. There will be a Truth Taxation Meeting on December 10, 2012, with a work session prior to discuss the B-2 District. On December 7, 2012, the new website will go live at 5 p.m. The City will partner with the County on a joint development agreement for the TCAAP property. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests None C. Staff Comments None ADJOURN Commissioner Holewa moved, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, to adiourn the November 28, 2012, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:00 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Attachment November 28, 2012, Traffic Study EN HILLS December 17, 2012, Special City Council Meeting W,�I Ed I fNGINt is P it NEnIts Coroulting Group,Inc SRF No.0127946 OPERATIONS SUMMARY TO: Meagan Beekman CITY OF ARDEN HILLS FROM: Matthew Pacyna,P.E.,Associate DATE: November 28,2012 SUBJECT: FORMER HOLIDAY INN SITE/ACCESS REVIEW OPERATIONS SUMMARY INTRODUCTION As requested, SRF has completed a review of the former Holiday Inn site located in the northwest quadrant of Lexington Avenue and County Road E in the City of Arden Hills. The main objectives of this review are to provide a trip generation comparison between the former hotel and proposed land uses as well as to review the proposed access locations. Furthermore, planning level concept layouts will be developed to identify potential access alternatives to improve circulation,parking, and access within the study area. The following conclusions and recommendations are offered for your consideration. TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON The proposed development will convert the former 155-room Holiday Inn into a 75-unit apartment complex with approximately 20,000 square feet of attached retail space. There are currently no definitive plans to subdivide the existing site. However,potential redevelopment options for the eastern portion of the site are discussed later in this document.For purposes of this summary, the west and east portions of the site are referred to as Lot 1 and Lot 2, respectively.To determine how the proposed land use in Lot 1 compares to the former hotel land use,trip generation estimates were developed.The following information summarizes the results of the trip generation comparison: • Results of the trip generation comparison shown in Table 1 indicates that the proposed land uses will generate 15 less a.m.peak hour trips,45 more p.m.peak hour trips,and 98 more daily trips than the former hotel land use. o This increase in site generated trips is not expected to have a significant impact to intersection operations within the study area. • As proposed,Lot 1 is expected to generate a total of 67 a.m.peak hour trips, 138 p.m.peak hour trips,and 1,364 daily trips. • Trip generation estimates were developed using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manuals,9th Edition. www.srfconsulting.com One Carlson Parkway North,Suite 150 1 Minneapolis,MN 55447-4443 1 763.475.0010 fax:763.475.2429 An Egoaf Opp-tunity Emph yrr Meagan Beekman,AICP November 28,2012 City of Arden Hills Page 2 Table 1 Trip Generation Comparison Land Use Type Weekday A.M. Weekday P.M. Daily (ITE Code) Size Peak Hour Trips Peak Hour Trips Trips In Out In Out Previous Land Use - Hotel(310) 155 Rooms 48 34 47 46 1,266 Proposed Land Use(Lot 1) Apartments(120) 200 Persons 12 44 52 28 662 Retail Space 820 20,000 SF 12 7 36 38 854 Subtotal 24 51 88 66 1,516 Multi-use Reduction(1001o) (3) (5) (9) (7) (152) Total Proposed Trips 21 46 79 59 1,364 Site Trip Difference +/- -27 +12 +32 +13 +98 Note:The multi-use reduction is based on methodology outlined in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook. • It should be noted that the apartment trip generation rate was based on the number of persons for the proposed land use. o The number of persons (assumed to be approximately 200) was selected since a significant amount of the proposed 75-units will have two or more bedrooms per unit. • A 10 percent multi-use trip reduction was applied to account for apartment residents using the proposed retail developments. o No other trip generation reductions (i.e.pass-by or multi-modal)were assumed. These reductions could potentially further reduce the trip generation estimates for the proposed land use shown in Table 1. ACCESS CONSIDERATIONS The proposed development currently has two full-access locations along County Road E. A third access is centrally located between the others,however bollards are currently restricting access. This central access is proposed to be permanently closed as part of the proposed development. From a traffic operations perspective, the remaining proposed development access locations (west and east)are expected to operate adequately.However,the closely spaced access locations (particularly at the west site access and the existing adjacent business access)create a potential safety issue due to the amount of potential conflict points along County Road E.Within this 250 foot segment of County Road E,there are three access points (two full-access; one exit-only) along the north side of the roadway,which have a total of 23 potential vehicular conflicts points. As redevelopment occurs,it provides an opportunity to review the existing access and determine if improvements could be incorporated to improve safety,mobility,and circulation for all users. Therefore, to better manage these access locations and improve circulation and mobility, an access consolidation concept was developed(see Figure 1). r r o Z s,. a truck wheel paths _t G " hewn represents 13-50 sized trucks "`- his area needs to e engineered cco to ruck turn grounds A(tt - ;_V. 'k Jr ayout requires 18 _ .4.R _ lltr�tttt/jp# - R •`- .�. A eet of western .,Fr �I U,. ost property of �(f 201 County Road lk urn �liM tttt ,` . ' for shared asement r �W^..,.,� .`« _.�_��ttttt �a-.... yL.i VIL me, e . z. ..R u ..- Y. t= 1 r IMP J r >a k I L / e:• rrn�.nvr.�w �S t 1 I 1 g@@ +1 on er remo in ... '�Ir s i here parking rea FT n, o prevent conflicts n C I c O . I I 7 a , a Ot Ilegra Sign and electrical at gain o 13 stalls 35 is WEST COUNTY ROAD C r 'Y ransfer boxes would need to falls added to front(28 hr relocated. Hydrant may reviously shown,7 ll relocated. ew),22 removed from y ide and rear. \ 1 N _ 2 ,jl y I , r' C . � a West Access - Consolidation Concept Former Holiday Inn Site/Access Review Operations Summary Figure 1 0127946 City of Arden Hills November 2012 Meagan Beekman, AICP November 28,2012 City of Arden Hills Page 4 The goal of this concept is to illustrate a potential access consolidation alternative that could be implemented as part of the proposed development to provide a benefit to the proposed development, adjacent businesses, and motorists along County Road E. The following information provides a summary of the concept. West Access Consolidation Concept(Figure 1) • Eliminates the existing three access locations on the north side of County Road E(west of the proposed development) and creates a single shared full-access driveway. o The consolidated access would be located centrally(i.e. approximately 150 foot spacing) between two existing access locations on the south side of County Road E, minimizing potential conflicts. • Reduces the existing 23 conflict points to a total of 11 conflict points (i.e. a 12 conflict point reduction). o Improves safety and mobility for vehicles along County Road E by reducing the amount of access locations/conflict points. • Maintains or improves access operations, including side-street delays. • Reduces driver confusion by more clearly defining the access. • Maintains or improves parking areas and circulation for each business. • The shared access will need to be designed to accommodate truck access (WB-50 or greater). o A truck turning template was included on Figure 1 to illustrate the impacted areas necessary to accommodate truck access to the adjacent business. COUNTY ROAD E EXPANSION IMPACTS Based on discussions with City staff, Ramsey County had indicated the desire to provide additional intersection capacity along County Road E. A preliminary concept of this expansion indicates that this would likely have an impact to the proposed development property, particularly near the eastern site access. Therefore, the east site access was reviewed to determine the feasibility of maintaining adequate turning maneuverability while accounting for the potential County Road E expansion. To make this determination, a passenger vehicle template was overlaid onto the proposed County Road E expansion layout(see Figure 2). As shown in Figure 2, the passenger vehicle wheel paths for a westbound vehicle along County Road E to access the proposed development via the east site access is considered marginal. Any vehicle larger than a passenger vehicle would likely encroach on vehicles in the opposite direction of travel along the driveway. This situation creates a potential safety issue at the east access. Although this access would likely operate adequately due to the low volume, it is recommended at a minimum that signage be installed to restrict truck and/or trailer access in this location. It should be noted that if the County Road E expansion does not move forward, the east access is expected to operate adequately under its current design. �o_: n-C z Tr- w a � —°"• C < , f0 W O 2) k . lL J1111111111111111- . 400 County Road E Expansion - East Access Review Consulting Group,Inc. Former Holiday Inn Site/Access Review Operations Summary Figure 2 0127946 City of Arden Hills November 2012 Meagan Beekman,AICP November 28,2012 City of Arden Hills Page 6 POTENTIAL EAST ACCESS CONCEPTS Although the east access could marginally function if County Road E was expanded,two access concepts were developed that could improve circulation and mobility with the area. These concepts are intended to provide potential alternatives and spur discussion regarding the planning for the County Road E expansion. These concepts provide a range of potential access and parking layouts and may be modified and/or combined based on further discussions with various stakeholders.It should be noted that potential building footprints were placed on the concepts to illustrate redevelopment opportunity. However,there are currently no redevelopment plans for this area at this time. The following information provides an overview of each concept and potential impacts. East Access Concept A(Figure 3) • Closes the existing full-access to County Road E and creates two right-in/right-out access locations(one to County Road E and one to Lexington Avenue). • The right-in/right-out access to County Road E is located approximately 150 feet east of the current full-access, but would require extension of the median along County Road E to limit access to a right-in/right-out. • The right-in/right-out access to Lexington Avenue is located across from the existing retail access in the northeast quadrant of County Road E and Lexington Avenue. ■ No median modification along Lexington Avenue is required. • Creates adequate space to accommodate up to a 5,625 square foot building footprint,which could be used as a high-turnover sit-down type restaurant or other retail/office complex. • Improves internal circulation and pedestrian connectivity while reducing the likelihood for queuing at site access locations. • Increases the likelihood of U-Turn maneuvers occurring to accommodate vehicles destined to the north along Lexington Avenue. o These U-Turns are expected along westbound County Road E at the existing full-access and/or southbound Lexington Avenue at County Road E. • There is sufficient roadway width to accommodate these U-Turn maneuvers. • Approximately 100 vehicles per day or less are expected to make U-Turn maneuvers at either of these locations based on Concept A. • Depending on the land-use type,the parking supply may need to be modified. • Although there is likely adequate parking supply located within Lot 1(west side),it is not ideally located for Lot 2. • The parking lot, driveway aisles, and/or access locations could be modified to create additional parking in Lot 2,if necessary. o s• ; SINVMMa� }ryr r I IT,Trr L7 I _ . j F. u= &I p\M East Access Concept A Figure 3 Former Holiday Inn Site/Access Review Operations Summary 0127946 City of Arden Hills November 2012 Meagan Beekman,AICP November 28,2012 City of Arden Hills Page 8 East Access Concept B(Figure 4) • Closes the existing full-access to County Road E and creates a right-in/right-out access to County Road E located approximately 175 feet east. o Require extension of the median along County Road E to restrict access. • Creates adequate space to accommodate up to a 9,000 square foot building footprint,which could be used as a strip-retail center or office complex. • Improves internal circulation and pedestrian connectivity while reducing the likelihood for queuing at site access locations. • Introduces the likelihood of U-Turn maneuvers occurring to accommodate vehicles destined to Lexington Avenue or to the east along County Road E. o These U-Turns are expected along westbound County Road E at the existing full-access. • There is sufficient roadway width to accommodate this U-Turn maneuver. • Approximately 500 vehicles per day are expected to make this U-Turn maneuver. • Depending on the land-use type,the parking supply may need to be modified. o Concept B provides slightly more parking than Concept A. It should be noted that both east concepts are expected to provide adequate operations, circulation,and parking.Further discussion with the developer,City,and County should occur to identify a preferred access concept to allow for future planning of Lot 2. POTENTIAL BUILDING TRIP GENERATION To determine if there are additional impacts associated with the potential development of Lot 2, trip generation estimates were developed based on the potential building footprints identified in Concepts A and B, respectively. Results of the trip generation estimates summarized in Table 2 indicate that the proposed restaurant land use is expected to generate more trips than the potential retail space. However, regardless of which access or building use is preferred, the additional trips for Lot 2 are not expected to create any significant capacity issues within the study area. It should be noted that if County Road E is expanded,development of Lot 2 would likely increase the need for larger type vehicles(delivery trucks)to use the existing east access, creating additional conflicts. Table 2 Potential Trip Generation-Lot 2 Land Use Type Weekday A.M. Weekday P.M. Daily Lan Code) Size Peak Hour Trips Peak Hour Trips Trips In Out In Out East Concept A Lot 2 - Restaurant(932) 5,625 SF 33 28 33 22 715 East Concept B(Lot 2) - Retail Space(820) 9,000 SF 6 3 17 16 384 Note:No multi-use,multi-modal,or pass-by reductions were assumed for these land uses. H:I Projects 179461 Report I7946_FormerHol idaylnnSite_OpsSummary_121128.doc v, rte" ys iko M". V�l jiA y ar -, - - :� 1 r - r Ky` A m - ` 0 a C ..� __ - C_ wj LL ,s s. rl�1_36__2 w- n, to DI IN East Access Concept B ( u,t.lm. Former Holiday Inn Site/Access Review Operations Summary Figure 4 0127946 City of Arden Hills November 2012 Attachment Shared Access Layout ,ARDEN HILLS December 17, 2012, Special City Council Meeting Rosa Architectural Group Inc. =4 Staft Sb wt \ St PaiA Ummota 55118 tat 651-739-7888 \ —— fax 651,739-3165 THE ARDEN \ \ REDEVELOPMENT 1-m,ca myRasa — Eb.Mw ARDEN HILLS,MN I \ LEE1 1► — �--� I Ld > A.. r I I — o o m ��- I I z a ; Ld .A.r r zx -------------------��` J WEST COUNTY ROAD °E" a han.ta Omaa vo ebq.ee.e b hoot 12e PROJECT NUMBER: 21206 ub ne.e M,elocebtl HytlnM meY b nvbuNy.Mwn,r AA°m w°I°`re°. errl.zz nmmaa,mm DATE: NOV.S,2012 DRAWN 0Y: KF n CHECKED BY: RR REVISIONS: n e [vj �•Y''a•rw zeae 11�Ti VJ 617E PLNJ DATA-AF.A $ITE PLMI DATA-PARCRL'W, tOfAL are dIE<.3HA9e ef. MArsRENT 1.9E`.£LOfte,r nPERnala aEd6 eraclercr.oN:em wrro.a wln,u erAUenfer.>.e—0 ta=ao DbQJ$IONAL SUE PLAN tslanere.eeys ef. tun,rtAw ern carte.n cam.z erauenwr.w era1D Ieev eoeuuxe•lDli N. IETaL ta.nrw�xlee.day ef. I erau f131 eo ef.tlrc.e eum AIlA.tWe ef.z ea.e1]erAUD IEa9 rm..L PEOlM1Q18R re•elNlau9 AIFA,fiSee a•. rrnra eroue ICan.ae.era.au.zzaa erAUD taco rmAx I�mxiarrezr nfsnaaue AW.A e.eua irnAx erAw PIV+D7ED.]es ereuD Al ' emer.ate ee•eevlaa Ales.aap or. exar.are rverxaa AIEAa.Tw 0 1-1111T 1-aasA A—T[CTw„—11 Attachment November 28, 2012, Planning Commission Packet -App HILLS December 17, 2012, Special City Council Meeting