Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-20-15-WSAGENDA ITEMS Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) Community Development Staff MEMO.PDF, ATTACHMENTS.PDF Canadian Pacific Railroad Councilmember Woodburn MEMO.PDF COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS ADJOURN Mayor: David Grant Councilmembers: Brenda Holden Fran Holmes Dave McClung Robert Woodburn City Council Work Session Agenda April 20, 2015 5:00 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. CALL TO ORDER 1. 1.A. Documents: 1.B. Documents: 2. Page 1 of 3 DATE: April 20, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Jill Hutmacher, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Rice Creek Commons (TCAAP) Summary At the January 20, 2015, City Council work session, as the City was nearing the completion of work on the TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC), Ramsey County asked that the City delay final approval of the TRC until a “Fit Test” could be completed. The Fit Test included two possible development scenarios: 1. Option 1 in which development patterns and densities adhered strictly to the draft TRC; and 2. Option 2 which replicated how a developer might lay out the site to meet market demand for product types. Option 2 was presented at the April 13, 2015, special Work Session. City Councilmembers expressed concerns and directed staff to schedule Rice Creek Commons as the topic for the April 20, 2015, work session meeting for further discussion. Meeting Objectives 1. Determine the Council’s vision regarding maximum number of residential units and direct staff to work with the City Attorney to draft appropriate documents. 2. Provide consensus direction to staff on changes, if any, to the draft TRC considering the results of the Fit Test. 3. Establish an approval schedule. Discussion The purpose of the Kimley-Horn study was to test the parameters and requirements of the TRC to see if they would be understandable to developers and if they appropriately defined development patterns consistent with the City Council’s vision. Option 1 showed that while the base requirements of the TRC (setbacks, parking, green space, etc.) functioned well, maximum densities allowed by the zoning were not achievable. Option 2 of the Fit Test provided an MEMORANDUM Page 2 of 3 example of how a developer might want to lay out residential products types among the different neighborhoods. Option 2 represents only one way in which the site could be developed, and hundreds of other layouts are possible. Each developer will want to insert their own creativity and market knowledge into the process. The Fit Test revealed that while it is possible to develop the site with strict adherence to the draft TRC, the result is a lower overall unit count than allowed under maximum density, and limited flexibility for developers to respond to market trends. The City Council should decide to what degree, if any, the draft TRC should be revised to allow additional developer flexibility. Market Feedback Ramsey County, Kimley-Horn, and Ehlers consulted with Mary Bujold, Maxfield Research, regarding residential market trends. A memo from Ms. Bujold with her feedback is attached. Her comments are summarized below:  Twin homes have been very popular with empty nesters and independent seniors. Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP is expected to be popular with this demographic.  Homes are staying the same size, but the sizes of lots are decreasing. The most popular lot width for national builders is 65 to 75 feet. Ms. Bujold recommends that most single- family lots be within this range.  Ms. Bujold recommends approximately 25 larger single family lots in the Creek Neighborhood, which she defines as having widths of 85 to 90 feet. As a comparison, under Fit Test Option 1, the Creek Neighborhood had 51 lots with widths of approximately 110 feet. Also by way of comparison, the Valentine Bluff subdivision being built by Hansen Builders includes 7 lots with widths of 85 feet. Lessons Learned City staff approached the Fit Test as an opportunity to learn how the TRC would function in a “real-world” situation. Through the input of Kimley-Horn, Maxfield Research, and Ehlers, City staff has concluded the following:  The draft TRC is fundamentally a solid planning and zoning document. The City Council should be proud of having assembled the document.  When a density range is established, it is not practically possible to achieve the highest density in the range due to irregularly shaped parcels and the needs of roads, parks, and storm water infrastructure.  Multi-family housing should be focused along the Spine Road and pedestrian corridor.  The green space along the pedestrian corridor should be expanded to allow for clear views from the Spine Road to the park areas on the east side of the site, and to allow for more regularly shaped development parcels.  The retail areas in the Town Center should be enlarged slightly to allow enough parking to accommodate two-story commercial mixed-use buildings.  Larger block sizes should be allowed to minimize road infrastructure, but better language requiring mid-block pedestrian connections should be inserted to maintain walkability in all neighborhoods.  The density ranges in the NT-1 (6-9 units/acre) and NT-2 (9-12 units/acre) subdistricts are problematic because they are so narrow, and few products are being built that fit into the density range proscribed in the NT-2 subdistrict. Page 3 of 3 Draft Approval Schedule In order for private development to begin in 2017, the Spine Road, the County Road H interchange, and trunk utilities need to be constructed in 2016. In order for that to happen, final design work needs to begin by early summer. The City should not proceed to final design of utilities without some sort of assessment agreement with Ramsey County, and Ramsey County is not able to enter into an assessment agreement without an estimate of revenue from land sales and fees. Much of the work that remains to be done rests on the completion of the TRC. At the February 24, 2015, Work Session, the City Council reviewed a schedule of documents, agreements, and approvals (attached). Although the timeline for TRC approval has been delayed a bit, the future deadlines still apply. The following draft approval schedule allows infrastructure design and construction to continue as planned. Council provides direction on changes to TRC Work Sessions, April 20 & May 11 Preliminary Approval of TRC Regular Meeting, May 26 Discussion of Comp Plan Amendment Work Sessions, June 8 & 15 Public Hearings Planning Commission, July 8 Approval contingent on Met Council Regular Meeting, July 13 Final approval Regular Meeting, Nov 30 Notes on draft approval schedule: 1. Due to the EDA meeting scheduled for April 27 and the JDA and Special City Council meeting on May 4, additional work session discussion on those dates will be difficult. 2. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment (CPA) cannot be completed until the TRC has been at least preliminarily approved. Any changes to land uses or densities after the preliminary TRC approval will require duplicative work on the CPA. 3. Any changes to the draft CPA should be made prior to public hearing notices being posted which would occur approximately June 24 according to the draft schedule above. Conclusion The City Council’s vision for Rice Creek Commons/TCAAP includes walkable neighborhoods, a variety of housing products, a vibrant town center, and single-family districts that have similarities with neighborhoods in the developed parts of Arden Hills. This memo has described market feedback to the TRC, and lessons learned by staff as a result of the Fit Test. The Council is requested to share their reflections on the Fit Test and to consider the appropriate balance between the Council’s vision, development flexibility, and market responsiveness. Attachments  Memo – Mary Bujold (Maxfield Research); March 31, 2015  Documents, Agreements, and Approvals Schedule; February 24, 2015 (612) 338-0012 fax (612) 904-7979 1221 Nicollet Avenue South, Suite 218, Minneapolis, MN 55403 www.maxfieldresearch.com March 31, 2015 MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Mark Ruff Ehlers and Associates Inc. FROM: Ms. Mary C. Bujold Maxfield Research Inc. Re: Preliminary Site Plan Layout and Density Calculations for the TCAAP Site in Arden Hills As requested, Maxfield Research Inc. has reviewed the preliminary site layout from Kimley Horne that identifies the various housing densities and commercial space that could be developed in each of three areas of the TCAAP Site according to current zoning ordinances. We understand that the Design & Development study is a massing exercise at this time. The following bullet points reflect our comments regarding the densities as they are laid out in the Design study regarding potential market demand for various housing products and commercial space. Consideration is given to the overall plan, combination of suggested products, densities and market demand for various housing products. The products shown on the Design & Development Study include: Traditional Multifamily elevator-style building with a potential at some locations to incorporate ground floor commercial space; these buildings feature below-grade enclosed parking. Detached Townhome – this product does not share any common walls; this product includes an attached garage. Attached Rowhomes – each unit has shared side walls; this product includes an attached garage. Mr. Mark Ruff March 31, 2015 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Page 2 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Town Center Area The Town Center Area is the densest of the three and includes a mix of medium to high -density residential units and neighborhood commercial space. Some areas of open/green space have been preserved within the Town Center such as pocket parks. A larger park is situated to the east of the Town Center. As drawn for the massing study, this layout is relatively dense with an average overall density of 21.6 units per acre or 1,151 units. The majority of the units are traditional multifamily in eight buildings, an average of 103 units for each building, which is about the average. The attached rowhomes are in segments of approximately six units to a building although some buildings have as few as two units (twinhome) or up to six units in the largest configuration. Most of the buildings have six units each of back-to-back twinhomes. The fewest number of units are the detached villas, although these would be the most expensive to construct. For the Town Center area, we recommend that you consider showing a few more units as twinhome-style as this product has been very popular with empty-nesters and independent seniors. These two market segments are likely to find the TCAAP sit e highly desirable, especially if units are within walking distance of entertainment, recreation and limited neighborhood services. Hill Area The Hill Area is shown with a mix of product types including:  Large lot single-family  Medium size lot single-family  Detached Villas  Rowhomes In total, this area is identified to have a density of 4.3 units per acre or 268 units. We recommend that in the Hill section, you consider twinhomes for the small area that is at the southwest corner adjacent to the Park and increase the number of medium size single-family lots in the middle portion of the Hill section. Lot sizes are getting smaller, but in general homes are remaining the same size. Builders are placing the same size home on a smaller lot. These homes and lot sizes have been very popular with buyers in Chanhassen, Eden Prairie, Maple Grove, Victoria, Chaska and some areas of Plymouth. Mr. Mark Ruff March 31, 2015 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Page 3 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Creek This section of the TCAAP site is furthest from the major roadways. This segment of the Site would be appropriate to consider larger lot single-family, especially backing up to the Creek. Here again, we may encourage the City to consider smaller lot sizes within the central portion of the Creek segment while keeping the larger lot sizes to the outside as a border on the east and south. The Creek segment is currently shown to have approximately 50 units of large lot single-family. We would recommend approximately 25 units of large lot single -family, shifting over about 25 units to a medium density of N -2 with between two and four units per acre, although we recommend that the density be toward the low to middle of that range and not exceed three units per acre. This should provide for lot widths of between 65’ to 75’ at the N -2 density whereas the N-1 density would be likely to have lot widths of between 85’ and 90’. Absorption of Traditional Multifamily Units The Option 1 plan identifies a total of 680 traditional multifamily units at a density of 40 du/acre. Average building sizes for elevator-style buildings in suburban locations typically range from about 100 to 150 units each. At an average monthly absorption of 10 to 15 units per month, these building sizes are estimated to absorb in roughly 7 to 10 months of each other. As the number of units on the site increases, absorption may slow modestly. This will have to be assessed as development increases. Also, if senior housing is developed as one component, that will have a separate absorption projection on its own. Density and Transit My recommendation would be to reconfigure the single-family lot sizes to what most of the national builders are platting, which is generally lot widths of 65’ to 75’ wide. The key is not necessarily to simply create more density, but to consider why people would want to live and work at the TCAAP location. Transit-oriented development goes both ways. People may live along the line or drive to the line and work at TCAAP. Equally, they may also live here and then work somewhere else. Consideration should be given to both living and working on the Site . Increasing density in neighborhoods may help to create better economies of scale for transit investments. However, I am not convinced that the market overwhelmingly prefers to live in mid-rise to high-rise apartments. In planning for transit-oriented investments, we must find a way to maximize the use of transit oriented investments that will spread out across a larger area with better connections. People that are living in suburban locations want to have better transit options available and want to be able to walk to at least some neighborhood goods and services. Do they want to trade those conveniences by being asked to live in an apartment? Some do, but many do not. Mr. Mark Ruff March 31, 2015 Ehlers and Associates, Inc. Page 4 MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. If you have questions regarding this information or our suggestions, please let me know. Sincerely, MAXFIELD RESEARCH INC. Mary C. Bujold President TCAAP Documents, Agreements, and Approvals February 24, 2015 Category Task Notes Deadline Planning & Zoning TCAAP Redevelopment Code Fit Study Comprehensive Plan Amendment  120 day adjacent jurisdiction/Met Council review process following approval of TRC and contingent approval of CPA 4/30/2015 Engineering Design Tentative Funding Agreement Feasibility Study/Preliminary Design Report Mounds View Sewer Agreement  TRC must be completed prior to funding agreement  Funding agreement must be tentatively approved for Feasibility Study/Preliminary Design Report  These items must be completed prior to final design 6/30/2015 Financial Analysis & Modeling SAC/WAC Availability Charge Analysis Stormwater Availability Charge Analysis  Funding agreement must be completed prior to analyses 7/30/2015 Policies & Ordinances Trunk Utilities Financial Model Sewer and Water Ordinance Update Stormwater Ordinance Update Commercial Recycling Ordinance Update Park Dedication Ordinance Update Public Works Design Manual  Informed by financial modeling & analysis 9/1/2015 Financial Agreement City-County Funding Agreement  Final approval 9/1/2015 Page 1 of 1 DATE: April 20, 2015 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Patrick Klaers, City Administrator FROM: Amy Dietl, City Clerk SUBJECT: Canadian Pacific Railroad Councilmember Woodburn requested that the topic of the Canadian Pacific Railroad be added to the April 20, 2015, work session for discussion. AGENDA ITEM – 1B MEMORANDUM