The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-07-07-WS/PC Chair .. David Sand 1245 W. Highway 96 Commissioners ~Il.LS Arden Hills, MN 55112 Andrew Holewa 651.792.7800 Clayton Larson Arden Hills www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us Liz Modesette Janet Stodola Planning Commission Roberta Thompson Clayton Zimmerman November 7, 2007 City Vision A strong community Ihat values our unique environment, our fiscal soundness, and our tradition as a desirable city in which to live, work, and plav. Agenda Planning Commission Work Session Regarding the RV Ordinance at 5:30 PM Regular Planning Commission Convenes 6:30 PM Call to Order 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. MINUTES A. October 3, 2007 Meeting 3. PLANNING CASES A. Planning Case 07-018; Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development for Phase 1, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat; Arden Plaza LLC; 3527 Lexington Ave N - Public Hearing B. Planning Case 07-025; Zoning Code Text Amendment for RV Storage; City of Arden Hills; 1245 West Highway 96 - Public Hearing 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS A. Potential Residential Lot Development Proposal for 1355 Cummings Lane - Concept Plan 5. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests 6. ADJOURNMENT A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Planning Cases are available online at: http://www.ci.arden-hills.mn.us/planninqcases ~ ~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 7, 2007 PC Agenda Item 3.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: James Lehnhoff, CitYPlanne~ SUBJECT: Planning Case #07-018 - Continued Arden Plaza, LLC (Dennis Trooien) 3527 Lexington Avenue North Southwest corner of County Road E and Lexington Avenue Master Planned Unit Development, Final PUD for Phase 1, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat ATTACHMENTS: 3A-1 Updated Signage Plan and Drawing 3A-2 Traffic and Parking Safety Study 3A-3 Public Comments/Letters Requested Action The applicant is requesting approval of the Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development of Phase 1, Preliminary Plat, and Final Plat of the Arden Plaza redevelopment proposal. Review Timeline On August 1, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the proposed redevelopment of the Arden Plaza property, which is located at the southwest comer of County Road E and Lexington Avenue. The application was tabled at that meeting pending the submission of additional traffic data that was requested by Ramsey County and City Staff. At the September 5, 2007, meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed and provided comment on an updated version ofthe redevelopment proposal. The applicant presented revised plans that incorporated suggested changes from the August 1,2007, meeting. The application was tabled at the request of the applicant because the requested traffic study was not yet complete. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for November 7, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\110707 - PC Report -Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 1 of 12 The Planning Commission tabled the application at the October 3, 2007, Planning Commission meeting at the request of the applicant. Additional time was needed for the applicant to discuss the results of the traffic study with Ramsey County and with the City. A revised traffic study has since been submitted (Attachment 3A-I). Unless otherwise noted in this report, the redevelopment proposal is unchanged from the information contained in the October 3,2007, version of the planning case report. The new information in this report includes the updated traffic study, the updated drawing ofthe monument sign proposal, and additional public comments. Proiect Proposal and Process 1. Project Description The 12.55 acre Arden Plaza property includes two buildings: a retail strip mall with approximately 55,000 square feet and the "pod office building" with 45,944 square feet of gross floor area. The applicant proposes to demolish the pod office building, construct three new buildings, retain the strip mall, and subdivide the property into four lots: Lot Size Building Coverage (sf) % Building Coverage % Landscaping Lot 1 - Retail Strip 287,693 52,580 18.28% 27.40% Lot 2 - Walgreens 80,229 14,490 18.06% 28.50% Lot 3 69,520 16,230 23.35% 23.60% Lot 4 44,075 14,300 32.44% 18.20% Total 481,517 97,600 20.27% 26.19% Requirement 13,000 or more 40% or less 25% or more '"'Lot and building numbers are from Sheet A 1.1 in Attachment 3D-1. The coverage numbers of Lot 3 and 4 are subject to change during the site plan review process for those properties. The proposed tenant for Lot 2 is a Walgreen's store. The developer does not yet have tenants for lots three or four. 2. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Process: The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is typically at least a two step process. The first step is the Master PUD, and the second step is the Final PUD. In some instances, the Final PUD or a portion ofthe Final PUD is reviewed with the Master PUD. In other instances, the development is separated into phases over a period of time. This redevelopment proposal is a hybrid version ofthese two options, which is permissible. The PUD process is a tool that provides additional flexibility for developments that an underlying zoning district would not otherwise allow. For example, a PUD may change the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 \lMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-0lB Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\/ /0707 - PC Report -Arden Plaza -Master PUD.doc Page 2 of12 setbacks, lot coverage, lot sizes, parking requirements, signage, building height, building materials, landscaping requirements, etc. The process is meant to create a better development than the standard regulations may otherwise allow. The PUD process allows the City to negotiate certain aspects of the development; however, any conditions imposed on the PUD must have a rational basis related to the impacts of the development. While each PUD process is unique, it is a common processed used by many cities. Typically, the PUD process cannot be used to permit uses that would not otherwise be permitted in the underlying zone, If a property is subdivided into multiple properties during the PUD process, it is still often viewed as one continuous development, The development as a whole would be expected to meet the landscaping, stormwater, and other similar requirements, For example, one property in the PUD may have 40 percent building coverage; however, the development as a whole does not exceed 25 percent building coverage to maintain conformance with the underlying zone. In order to maintain shared amenities such as landscaping and stormwater ponds, the development is required to create a legal entity to manage and maintain the shared amenities, During the Master PUD stage, the City works with the applicant to set an overall design framework or standard for a proposed development, which generally includes the design standards, the size ofthe development, and what, if any, deviations from the underlying zoning district will be permitted. Once the Master PUD is approved, the applicant then creates a development that conforms to the design standards for the Final PUD stage, The level of detail is guided by the type and scale ofthe development as well as the guidance or flexibility within the Zoning Code. This proposal technically includes four requests: I. Master Planned Unit Development for Phases 1-3 of the Arden Plaza Redevelopment 2. Final Planned Unit Development for Phase 1 of the Arden Plaza Redevelopment 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Final Plat Lots 3 and 4 would return to the Planning Commission and City Council pnor to development for the Final PUD review for those properties. 3. Surrounding Area: North Commercial B-2: General Business District Hotel South Commercial B-2: General Business District Office East Commercial C2: General Commercial & OFC: Gas Station/Retail/Office Office West Commercial B~2: General Business District Interstate 35W City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (in Review)\110707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 3 of 12 4. Site Data: Commercial Retail strip mall and office building B-2: General Business District 12,55 Acres (546,717) The elevation of the lot is lower than Lexington Avenue. There is a stormwater pond in the southeast corner of the property. Plan Evaluation Except for the updated traffic study and monument sign drawing, the project information contained in this report is unchanged from the October 3,2007, report. The monument sign proposal has not changed since the October 3 report; however, the drawing of the updated monument sign drawing was inadvertently not included in the attachments to that report, All references to attachments with the "3C-X" designation refer to the attachments in the October 3, 2007, planning case report. The full October 3 report with attachments is available on the City's website (www.ci.arden-hills.rnn.us) or at City HalL All attachments with the "3A-X" designation are attached to this November 7, 2007, planning case report, I. Sign Plan A revised sign plan was included with the September 5, 2007, planning case report. The only new information included in this report is a revised color rendering ofthe property as viewed from the Lexington Avenue and County Road E intersection (Attachment 3A- 1). There have not been any other changes to the sign plan since the October 3, 2007, report. Because the property is adjacent to County Road E and Lexington Avenue, it is in sign district 4 and 5, The Sign Code does not indicate which sign district is the controlling district. Sign Code Sign District (Section 1240) 4 5 Area 60 sf 80 sf Wall Lighting ElliS ElliS Area 80 sf 100 sf Freestanding Height 22f 16f Lighting ElliS ElliS EIIIB:external,inlernal,orbacklit In a standard development, each lot would be permitted one freestanding sign and each City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhills\PlanningIPlanning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\/I0707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 4 of 12 business would be permitted a full allocation of wall signage (i,e. 60 or 80 square feet per business). In lots with two road frontages, which is the case in this application, a second half size freestanding sign (40 or 80 square feet) would be permitted. However, the PUD process permits flexibility in applying the Sign Code to allow for different types of developments, Wall Sign Plan (square feet) Exterior From October 3, 2007, Plan Set Wall Walgreen's Original Revised Building 2 Building 3 (Sept 5) East 67,53 63,85 46,9 80 North 67,53 63,85 69,6 80 West 36,83 27,62 69,6 0 South 36,83 0 0 0 Total 208,72 155,32 186,1 160 The applicant is proposing to replace the three existing freestanding signs with the following signs: Existing & Proposed Freestanding Signs Existing sf Proposed sf Lexington Avenue Entrance 80 100 Lexington Avenue/County Road E Corner 120 45 County Road E Entrance <4 100 The October 3, 2007, plan set included a proposal to reduce the size of the monument sign at the County Road E and Lexington Avenue intersection from a requested 115 square feet in the first version of the application to 45 square feet. The drawing for the reduced signage request was inadvertently not included in the October 3, 2007, report, but it is included in this report as Attachment 3A-1. The area of a freestanding or wall sign only includes the sign face, which is the text, graphic or other sign message. The sign area does not include the sign structure. The total freestanding sign area on the property would increase from approximately 200 square feet to 245 square feet with this modified proposal. Staff is recommending that the proposed monument sign at the Lexington Avenue and County Road E intersection for the Walgreen's store be removed from the redevelopment proposal. While the existing freestanding sign at the comer advertises for a number of the businesses on the property, the proposed replacement sign for the comer would only advertise the Walgreen's store, Since the proposed Walgreen's store includes wall signage that would be visible from County Road E, Lexington Avenue, and the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for November 7. 2007 \\Metro~inet.us\ardenhillslPlanning\Planning Cases12007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\1I0707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 5 of 12 intersection the need for a separate freestanding Walgreen's sign is diminished (Attachment 3A-I). The existing mature trees near the County Road E and Lexington Avenue comer provide a significant amount of screening for the pod office building from the street, which makes the existing freestanding sign at the intersection necessary to adequately advertise businesses on the property. However, if the trees near the comer are removed as proposed, the visibility for a building near that intersection is increased and the need for keeping the freestanding sign at the comer is decreased. The proposed Walgreen's store at the intersection includes wall signage that faces north, northeast, and east toward the public road, The freestanding signs at the two entrance points to Arden Plaza do appear to be needed for advertising and way-finding for the other businesses on the property. 2. Tree Preservation and Landscaping Plan At the request ofthe Planning Commission, the applicant submitted a site plan showing the existing trees that are proposed to be preserved or removed (drawing C I a in Attachment 3C-1), A revised landscaping and tree removal plan was also submitted (Attachment 3C-1). According to the applicants, it was determined that the proposed improvements at the Lexington Avenue entrance will require additional existing trees to be removed due to their proximity to the new curb and sidewalk. The applicant also stated that the road improvements at the Lexington Avenue entrance would be within one foot of the existing trees, which is not enough space to protect the trees before and after construction and ensure their long-term viability, The previous landscaping plan proposed removing 364 caliper inches of trees, preserving 662 caliper inches of trees, and planting 228 caliper inches of trees. A total of 890 caliper inches would be in place upon full implementation of the landscaping plan. The revised landscaping plan in the October 2007 report proposes to remove 412 caliper inches, preserve 592 caliper inches, and plant 224 caliper inches. Upon full implementation ofthe landscaping plan, there would be 816 caliper inches of trees. If the property were vacant and being developed for the first time, approximately 305 caliper inches oftrees would be required. 3. Parking Configuration At the September 5,2007, Planning Commission meeting, there was a concern about the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7,2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhills\PlanningIPlanning Cases\2007\07-0J8 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\110707 - PC Report ~ Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 6 of 12 parking in front ofthe strip mall and pedestrian safety. The revised plans include pedestrian walkways along with the parking stalls to provide safer entering and exiting the strip mall (Attachment 3C-2). The submitted traffic study addresses the safety concerns ofthis type of parking (attachment 3A-2). 4, Traffic and Parking Safety Study The applicant has submitted the requested traffic and parking study, which was prepared by Wenck Associates (Attachment 3A-2). The study and its methodology were reviewed by Ramsey County Public Works and by SRF Consulting on behalf of the City, The recommended conditions from SRF, which incorporates comments from Ramsey County, are included in Attachment 3A-2 and are included in Staffs conditions of approval. Since SRF and the County are in agreement with the results ofthe traffic study, a complete review of the report would be repetitious in this memo, Therefore, the full results and details of the traffic and parking analysis from Wenck Associates is included in Attachment 3A-2. The following conclusions were made in the traffic study submitted by Wenck Associates: . Overall traffic at the County Road E and Lexington Avenue intersection would increase by 2.4 percent; . Peak hour in the AM would generate approximately the same number of trips before and after redevelopment with a change from the current 21 0 trips to 204 trips; . Peak hour in the PM would generate an estimated 51 percent increase in trips from the current 465 trips to 705 trips; . The total daily trips in and out of the property would increase by approximately 55 percent from the current 4,900 trips to 7,600 trips; . The Lexington Avenue and County Road E intersection currently operates at level of service (LOS) D and will continue to operate at that level after redevelopment; . The eastbound left turn movement (eastbound County Road E to northbound Lexington) at the intersection currently operates at LOS F but could be improved to an LOS D by adjusting the timing of the signals; . Traffic exiting out ofthe property at the County Road E access point currently operates at LOS F and would continue to operate at LOS F with the proposed redevelopment. The delay time to make a left turn out ofthe property is expected to increase from the current 78 seconds (with full building occupancy) to 308 seconds (with mitigation measures). The other exiting and entering movements do not significantly change; . Traffic exiting out of the property at the Lexington Avenue access point currently operates at LOS F and would continue to operate at LOS F with the proposed redevelopment. The delay time to make a left turn out of the property on Lexington Avenue is expected to increase from the current 218 seconds (with full City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 \\Metro-inet.us\ardenhillsIPlanningIPlanning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\110707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 7 of 12 building occupancy) to 574 seconds (with mitigation measures). The other exiting and entering movements do not significantly change; and, . Traffic entering the property at the County Road E and Lexington Avenue intersections operates at LOS A or B after redevelopment. While exiting the property may become more difficult with the proposed redevelopment, the traffic study indicates that the level of service on the adjacent public roads would not be significantly impacted by this proposed redevelopment. Although the access points would continue to operate at LOS F, Wenck is proposing and SRF is recommending that the plans be modified to lengthen the turning lane at each access point to improve operation at those points, The study also suggests limiting the movements at the County Road E access point in the future if needed. Prohibiting left turns and prohibiting going straight out of the County Road E exit from the property may enhance the operation of the access point. Ramsey County would determine if limiting movement at the County Road E access point is necessary in the future. Both of the recommendations are included in the conditions of approval. A representative from SRF will be in attendance at the meeting to help answer traffic related questions. Resident Comments Notice was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin and mailed to properties within 500 feet of the property for the August I, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. A new notice is typically not sent when applications are tabled. Staff has received a number ofletters and emails related to this application, which are included in Attachment 3A-3. Only the letters received since the October 3, 2007, Planning Commission meeting are included with this report. The previous letters were into the record with the August, September, and October 2007 reports. The written public comments that were included with the previous reports are available upon request. Staff Analvsis Complicated development proposals rarely lend themselves to a clear answer on whether or not it should be approved, Traffic impacts, parking needs, building layouts, landscaping requirements, signage requests, the requested drive-through, and other impacts (positive and negative) are all part of the evaluation, While a number of residents have expressed concern over a national chain potentially building in Arden Hills, the City does not have the authority to deny the application based on who the actual company that may occupy a building. Additionally, the City does not have a legal basis to deny the application because it may add an additional pharmacy in the area. Pharmacies are a permitted use in that zone. The application must be reviewed based on the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhillsIPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\! 10707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 8 of 12 layout, conformance with City Codes and State Statutes, and potential impacts ofthe proposed redevelopment, Prior to making a motion, the Planning Commission needs to make a finding on whether the proposed development will impose a significant negative impact on the community. If there is a significant negative impact that cannot be mitigated, that impact should be noted for the record. If the impact can be mitigated, a condition mitigating that impact should be included if it already is not. There must be a rational and publicly stated basis for recommending either approval or denial. The recommended conditions focus on phase one, which includes the proposed Walgreen's building and the complete landscaping, signage, drainage, utility, and other plans for the entire site. When a site plan review for phase two and three are reviewed, additional conditions related to those buildings can be applied at that time. Should the Planning Commission recommend approval of this application to the City Council, Staff proposes the following twenty-one conditions be included with a motion. I. Conformance with Plans. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans 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. Permit Timeline. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within one year of the Pinal PUD approval for phase one or the 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. 3. Final PUD Timeline. The applicant shall apply for a Final PUD of phase two and three within three years of the Master PUD approval or the 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, 4. Tree Preservation. The applicant shall attempt to relocate as many of the existing mature trees to other portions of the property as feasible, 5. Landscapin!! Timeline. The landscaping plan shall be fully implemented with phase one. Portions of the landscaping plan may be delayed for construction of phase two and/or three subject to City Planner approval. 6. Landscapin!! Escrow. The applicant shall submit a financial surety in the amount of 125 percent of the cost ofthe landscaping improvement for all three phases prior to the issuance of any building permits for phase one, 7, Si!!na!!e. The proposed monument sign at the County Road E and Lexington Avenue intersection shall be removed, Each sign shall require a separate sign permit prior to installation. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for November 7, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\OJ-01B Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\110707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 9 of 12 8. Retainine: Wall. The wood retaining wall near the Lexington Avenue entrance shall be removed and re-graded or replaced with block, stone, or other similar materials that are compatible with the building materials used in the development. 9. Fencine:. The fence along Lexington Avenue shall be replaced with a fence that is compatible with the building materials used in the development. The materials shall be subject to City Planner approval prior to installation. 10. Sidewalk. The asphalt path along Lexington Avenue shall be replaced with a concrete sidewalk that is at least six feet in width. The sidewalk shall extend from the sidewalk at County Road E to the Lexington Avenue entrance, The applicant shall repair or replace the sidewalk along County Road E if any damage is done during construction. 11. Screenine:. The dumpsters and mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view with fencing and/or landscaping, 12. Fire Marshal Review. The plans shall be subject to fire marshal approval before building permits are issued, 13, Ene:ineer Review. Final grading, drainage, and utility plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits. 14. Stormwater. The applicant shall obtain approval from the Rice Creek Watershed District and all other applicable permitting agencies prior to the issuance of any building permits. Copies of such permits shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of any building permits. 15. Traffic Mitie:ation Measures. The following traffic mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the traffic impact of the development: a. The site accesses at County Road E and Lexington Avenue shall be modified to provide right-turn lanes that are approximately 200 feet in length. b. A north-south center median of sufficient length shall be installed at the County Road E access to prohibit vehicles from entering Lot 2 at the northwest entrance point near the proposed pharmacy. c, The County shall reserve the right to restrict access at the County Road E entrance to improve operation, safety, and access management. d. The pharmacy drive-through shall be modified to be one-way southbound, and the adjacent 90 degree parking stalls shall be angled to be compatible with the one-way movement. e. The applicant shall work with the County to adjust the timing ofthe Lexington Avenue and County Road E intersection to improve the eastbound left turn movement from the current LOS F to LOS D, f. Stop signs, lane assignment signs, and other traffic control signs shall be provided by the applicant at the County Road E and Lexington Avenue access and shall be subj ect to City Engineer approval prior to installation. The City shall reserve the right to require the installation of other directional signage as deemed necessary by the City Engineer. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 IlMetro-inet.us\ardenhillslPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\J 10707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 10 of 12 16. Parkine Mitieation Measures. a, Building C on Lot 4 shall not exceed a footprint 7,250 square feet and a floor area of 14,500 square feet. b. Building C shall not be more than 50 percent retail in order to ensure adequate parking on the south end of the property, 17. ADA Parkine. The applicant shall provide the required number of ADA parking spaces. The ADA parking space locations shall be subject to Building Official approval. 18. Bike Racks. The applicant shall provide at least two bike racks at the strip mall and at least one bike rack at each of the other buildings. 19. General Reeulation Conformance. The applicant shall conform to all other City regulations. 20. Common Space Manaeement. The applicant shall submit an agreement for shared management and maintenance of the parking areas, landscaping features, stormwater facilities, and common areas prior to executing the final plat. The agreement shall be subject to City Attorney approval prior to the issuance of any building permits, 21. Development Aereement. A developer's agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval. The agreement shall be executed prior to the issuance of any building or demolition permits. Proposed Motion Laneuaee I, Recommend Approval with Conditions: Motion to recommend avvroval of Planning Case 07-018 for a Planned Unit Development at 3527 Lexington Avenue based on the submitted plans and the twenty-one conditions in the October 3, 2007, planning case report. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted: Motion to recommend avvroval of Planning Case 07- 018 for a Planned Unit Development at 3527 Lexington based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans in the October 3, 2007, planning case report. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-018 for a Planned Unit Development at 3527 Lexington based on the following findings of fact... 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 07-018 for a Planned Unit Development at 3527 Lexington: a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table, Deadline for Aeencv Actions The City of Arden Hills received the completed application for this request on July 23,2007. Pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, the City must act on this request by November 19, 2007 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 IIMetro-inet.uslardenhillsIPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza PUD (In Review)\110707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 11 of 12 (120 days). The City extended the review period beyond the initial 60 day review period, which had expired on September 20, 2007, The City may, with the consent ofthe applicant, extend the review period beyond the initial120 days. The applicant has submitted a letter to the City extending the review period to December 1, 2007. 3A-1 Updated Signage Plan and Drawing 3A-2 Traffic and Parking Safety Study 3A-3 Public Comments/Letters Attachments City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 \\Metro-inet.uslardenhillslPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-018 Arden Plaza pun (In Review)\J 10707 - PC Report - Arden Plaza - Master PUD.doc Page 12 of 12 Attachment 3A -1 Updated Signage Plan and Drawing ~ ~HlLLS November 7,2007, Planning Commission Meeting I 6UILDING 'A' SIGNAGE El 16 3.4 BUILDING "A" NE ELEVATION o 16' 32' I..r"_ -' - l ~ 15 ~ .4 BUILDING "A" WEST ELEVATION o 16' 32' 64' IJ"_ ' i ~ 14 ~ 3.4 BUILDING "A" SOUTH ELEVATION o 16' 32' 64' 101"_ ' IT-;:-- r , 13 BUILDING "A" NORTH ELEVATION , 0 18' '" 0<' ! ,4 lJ"'_ , J - olJ 0 12 BUILDING "A" EAST ELEVATION A3.4 0 18' '" '" 1oT'_ , WALL MOUNTED SIGNS ~...,.. llIGNAASA.>>.!;Sf ~~~'"29e1') llIGHAREA.Tl,62l1F ~ ~H(~l(il ~'llUf (2X.232ll1'J ~ ~HA";MA(:yj ~'B1Sf /2X.38.2S1') "DTAlUIAlIl'K_~ EAllTUIII.U., HN>eF NORItIWAU., &3J$Sf llE6TUIII.U., 21b25f lIGVTIlUIII.U., ')//)6F WINDOW SIGNS r-"-1 to ...... SIGNAI<EA.'l/lJIlF (.jX.<<IASFJ TntAlIlNntllUSlGlaf'ROf"05Frl EAllTUIII.U., 2"261' NORItIlIW.L,211l26F GRAP~ICS r--"'-t ITt@~.~,~ TntAlI"~ARllr:~~ NORTIlEASTW/II.L, 3&JeF AUXILIARY SIGNS (~~'''D5F r""-t....... (I EXlf I eIGNAAeA.h~Sf TOTIILAUXILIARl'SIG<l5PROPOBFn ~lIW.L,6F;5f SOJTIlWALL, 611lS!' 6UILDING '6' SIGNAGE 11 ,4 BUILDING "B" SOUTH ELEVATION o 16' 32' 64' IJ"_ I 0<' , ~ 10 BUILDING "B" EAST ELEVATION .4 tr -2.6' 32' [!] I BUILDING "B" NORTH ELEVATION o 16' 32' 64' IJ"'_ ' 9 .4 rr~ I I~ BUILDING "B" WEST Et~'(A!.ION Of WALL MOUNTED SIGNS 0...........'" 1l::J (3)(. l<<l.1e/'J I ~I ~- , ,51GN~::1:) ..." Tal".Al1llAl1 ,;~_ ru:r.':!I"D EAllTWAU., <I6.~SF NORItIWAU., bUllF Il.l:STIU/IU, 6'UoSf OOI.ITlllllAt..L, "1'51' 6UILDING 'C' SIGNAGE r l BUILDING "C" WEST ELEVATION o 18' 32' 64' L.r_ . 7 ,4 0<' , 6 .4 lJ BUILDING "C" SOUTH ELEVATION o 18' 32' 84' IJ"_ ' IT05J 05JlJ 5 BUILDING "C. EAST ELEVATION 3.4 tr-2.8' 32' IT 05J 05J I BUILDING .C" NORTH ELEVATION o 16' 32' 64' LJ"_ ' ~ 4 , ~ A3.4 WALL MOUNTED SIGNS D ...~ I I SlclNA/lEAo""Sf I<lX.16A?SfJ TOTAlWAlI';~~ EA51Ulolil, NJ!JSf NORItIUWL, Bf)IJSF llE6TllIolL.L, t)1Jl!F 6OJl1.lltl4U., "De/' MONUMENT SIGNS .'''- ~ ARDEN PlAZA TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANrNAME TENANT NAME TENANT I'WVIE 9 Q J;j .=. " " ""- ..-~ )'-e' F'l<a'~TmHETAl ~TOMATCH .",,'" INIERNAl.l.Yll.W1WoTm S!GNC\t)I>llFJ eMOOTIlfACECASoT6TM TO MATCH WI..l:lID f~"1TOHATCH "'"'"' ~fACE01JTONATCll BUll..l:llNCi """""""'" [L=~=====C ~'''..,,~ i~ MONUMENT SIGN "C" (ALONG LEXIN~}O~ AVE.~ ",' , 8'.8' s " " :g 't " ~ ,'''- !,>'-a' 2'4' C=~==C --S-=.:'a<""'" Fl<EI'AElRICA.lEDl"ETAl ~TOMATCH .",,"' """"-"""""'-''''"' (2.llllFJ 6MOOTJ.lfACECASoTlITCtE TOHATCHBUIl.Ptt-. MERiAU-Y IWMINATED 8IGN(212llFJ f~'2TOMATCll "'"'"' I'lI:lCXFAC::<::01JTOHATCll "'"'"' MONUMENT SIGN "B" (AT THE INTERSECTION i~ OF COUNTY ROAD E AND LEXINGT~N~~V~NUE)~ .'''- , " ARDEN PlAZA !jl ijl ~ i- TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANT NAME TENANTfIW.1E "~-eo ..~' ,'-eo' fMFAeRlCATEDMOTAl FLASIlN:roTO HATCll ""'"' ~YILl.IJ1lNATl:D i;lGN(lNIllFJ 5HOOTJ.lfACECA5TlITct>E TOHATCIlBUILDJN:i F.IlCl:Mfcl('2TOMATCll ,,"'"' I'lI:lCXFAa;:CMJTOMATCIl "'"'"' ~~CNeL.OCK [L-L.,-----C--'J __--..1____._ __ iQ MONUMENT SIGN "A" (ALONG COUN~~, R9AD E~ POPEAsSOCIATESINC. IZSS ENERGV PARK DRIVE Sr.PAUI,MNsSIOIH'1I5 PH.(6sIl64z.9200 FAX(6SI}M2.1I01 ~k> ~~!~ ~-"_I:I= ARDEN PLAZA ARDEN HillS, MN CITY SUBMITTAL SIGNAGE 1.._ilItTlI.: CITY SUBMITTAL 07102/01 CITY SUBMITTAL 0lIJ20I01 CITY SUBMITTAL 0IlJ27107 CITY SUBMITTAL 09117107 I m-!ljctltil,1M1Uil,llII,sptcilicaliOl,ll' ::i:rl:[~~: ~ ~~i~lCl /;iIlihd_lMle~1 1I11~fMillllllll. .,.. Lic-I>. Ii'll llalllll/ll c.illi.,lIa. II_II ..., 16226-07012 ~~ ~ SHEET A3.4 -.J ) Attachment 3A - 2 Traffic and Parking Safety Study ~ ~HlLLS November 7, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting ~CONSULTING GROUP, INC. ENGINEERS I PLANNERS I DESIGNERS I .MINNEAP:O ,l.IS .FARCO. ... MADISON SRF No. 0076248 MEMORANDUM TO: Kristine Giga, P,E" Civil Engineer City of Arden Hills CC: Greg Hoag, Public Works Director City of Arden Hills James Lehnhoff, AICP, City Planner & Recycling Coordinator City of Arden Hills FROM: Craig Vaughn, P.E" Associate DATE: October 29,2007 SUBJECT: ARDEN PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY REVIEW As requested, we have completed a review of the proposed Arden Plaza redevelopment traffic study, updated October 29, 2007 by Wenck Associates, to ensure that the conunents and concerns discussed during the project review meeting October 15, 2007 were addressed satisfactorily, Our review indicates that all conunents and concerns have been addressed satisfactorily, We would like to offer the following conclusions and reconunendations for your consideration: . The applicant has indicated that they intend to modify the eXlstmg site accesses with extended right-turn lanes (approximately 200 feet each), The City should ensure that this is represented on the [mal site plan submission. . The applicant has indicated that a median will be constructed north-south along the site access with County Road E (CR E), The City should ensure that this is represented on the final site plan submission. . Based on conversations with City and County staff the existing full access onto CR E may be restricted into the future if it is deemed necessary in order to improve operations, safety, and access management along CR E near Lexington Avenue, The applicant is aware of this potential access restriction and as such the project approval shall be conditioned on future potential access restriction at the North Site Access and CR E (i,e., three-quarter access - right - inlright -out/left- in). www.srfconsu/ting.com One Carlson Parkway North, Suite 150 I Minneapolis, MN 55447-4443 I 763A75,0010 Fax: 763;475.2429 Au Equal Oppo.rtulIity Employer Kristine Giga, P,E, City of Arden Hills October 29, 2007 Page 2 . The applicant has demonstrated that the parking supply near the south end of the development will be adequate given the proposed building C is approximately 14,500 square feet, with half retail and half office, In the event this building is developed as 100 percent retail it is projected that a parking deficit will occur in this area. Therefore, the project approval shall be conditioned on this 50/50 redevelopment scenario, . The applicant has indicated that the pharmacy drive-through area will be one-way southbound and that angled parking will be utilized immediately adjacent to the drive- through in order to minimize vehicular conflicts. The City should ensure that this is represented on the fmal site plan submission, H:\Projects\6248\RepomDRAFT Arden Plaza Review_102607Jev1.doc - 4-< o - Q) OJ) '" p... <Ii E :;:0 ,!!! ..c - - CIl en c 0 ..c 'w - 'S: OJ Q) N ~ ~ Cii Q) ..Q C 0 0 1:5 E 0 "'0 "'0 >- CIl E CIl 0 0 "'0 c u C Q) en 0 ID :2 > t' CIl ID C ..c C- O Q) 0 "'0 ;:: C. Q) <fl :!:! "'0 'c C c E CIl ID 1:l ..Q >- @) :::J "'0 en :::J <fl - 'c en en c CIl Q) ID 1:l OJ ..c .~ - i:=- "- 0 () 0 U >- en .:.!. c u ..Q 0 c en :;:0 ID - CIl ;: C "'0 U5' @) Q) C ;:) '" E Q) Z 'S E E "" :2 :2 "" 0 E ;.: ::! U 0 UJ <( E ..c u en (f) r-- 2 - Q) en a 0 ';: ~ Q) :2 0; Q) u <( 0> 0 0:: r-- '" >- ..c ~ a "'0 - 0- c:i a E :::J ..c .!!! N - - U 0 >> en ';: @) u ..c ~ 1:l U - ~ a 0> ::! li= Q) ID ~ :E - c 0 ID (f) CIl U -" ::! U ~ C Q) (f) E <fl iE - Q) U c Cii ~ c c ID lj:: 0 ~ ~ '" > 0 .g C :::J CIl 0 0 .<:: t- t;::: U - Z C <fl '" c .!!! :s:: c .<:: @) N Q) 0 en 0 '" :>: ID '" ..c u en 0 '" ...J C a: - CIl ~ ..c 1:l .<:: C ..: i!! <fl 0> "'0 ,!:; ~ ID c ..c ID ::! E ::! ID Q) .!!! :::J "'0 CIl 0 .<:: '" '" 1" ~ 0 - ...J (f) t- ..., (; <( z. >- CIl 'S: ~ Q) Ul .., c .E ~ ~ CIl " Q) :::J OJ Q) E .., Q) ~ 0 0 E en en CIl "- e c 0 :c Q) Q) () -" en 0 l'lS Q) " ::l E > c Q) 0 .., 11. '" t- U '" CIl Q) CIl > c C:l CIl ..c ..c ..c CIl CIl - -.. f- f- I 0 ---.. - Wenck File #1931-01 Prepared for: DENNIS PROPERTIES Prepared by: WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center P,O. Box 249 Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249 (763) 479-4200 TRAFFIC AND PARKING STUDY FOR PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF ARDEN PLAZA October 2007 c_~Wenck Table of Contents 1.0 SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................1 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND.....................................................................................3 3.0 RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC QUESTIONS......................................................................6 Changes in trip generation due to proposed redevelopment and impacts on traffic opcrations at subject intersections (question a)................................................................6 Traffic safety on County Road E, Lexington A venue, and at County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection (question b)................................................................13 Adequacy of internal traffic and parking operations (question c)................................14 4.0 APPENDIX.........................................................................................................................18 FIGURES 1 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN ..............................................................................5 2 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES..............................................ll 3 WEEKDAY P.M. PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF SERVICE............................................12 4 RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO ACCESS DRIVEWAY ON COUNTY ROAD E ...........................................................................................................17 TABLES 1 WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION FOR PROPOSED NEW USES ............................7 2 WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION COMPARISON FOR ARDEN PLAZA...............7 3 PARKING DEMAND CALCULATIONS ......................................................................14 1.0 SUMMARY Wenck Associates, Inc, completed a traffic and parking study for the proposed redevelopment of Arden Plaza in the City of Arden Hills. This report represents an update and replaces our previous two memorandums. This update is to account for comments raised by City and County staff and at the Planning Commission meetings. The three principal traffic questions addressed in this study and the associated primary findings are summarized next: aj To what extent would the proposed redevelopment alfer the total vehicle trips generated by the site and to what extent would it alter the quality o.ftraffic operations at thefol/owing three intersections? i.Lexington Avenue/County Road E ii.Count}' Road E/site access iii.Lexington A venue/site access The proposed redevelopment will generate about the same number of trips as the existing uses with full occupancy during the a.m. peak hour. During the p,m, peak hour and on a daily basis, the proposed redevelopment will increase the trip generation for the site by about 50 percent. Based on the trip generation results and input from City and County staff, the impacts of the proposed redevelopment at the subject intersections was examined for the p.m. peak hour, which is the most critical time period. lmpacts of the proposed redevelopment at the subject intersections are summarized below: i. Lexington Avenue/County Road E. The proposed redevelopment will increase the total traffic volumcs at this intersection by only about 2.7 percent during the p.m. peak hour. The proposed redevelopment will not change the LOS for any of the movements at this intersection. This intersection as a whole operates at LOS D with and without the proposed development. The eastbound left turn movement experiences LOS F, regardless of the proposed redevelopment. To providc LOS D for the eastbound left turns and continue to provide LOS D for the intersection, County staff could consider signal timing changes that would result in slightly more green time for eastbound left turns and slightly less green time for westbound through movements. It is important to note that such timing changes would be beneficial regardless of the proposed redevelopment. ii. County Road E/site access. Movements exiting from the site at this intersection presently are experiencing LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. Those movements will continue to experience LOS F upon completion of the proposed redevelopment. To improve operations for those exiting movements, it is recommended that the existing right turn lane on the site access be lengthened to approximately 190 feet. If needs arise in the future to improve the overall traffic operations on County Road E in the future, City and County staff could consider a contingency measure that would restrict the site access on County Road E to % access, which will prohibit motorists exiting the Arden Plaza development from turning left or proceeding straight. iii. Lexington Avenue/site access. Movements exiting from the site at this intersection presently are experiencing LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. Those movements will continue to experience LOS F upon completion of the proposed redevelopment. To improve operations for those exiting movements, it is recommended that the existing right turn lane on the site access be lengthened to approximately 225 feet. b) Would the proposed redevelopment cause any negative impacts regarding traffic safety on Coun(v Road E and Lexington Avenue along the frontage of the subject site and at the intersection o.(those two roadways? In the last five years (2002 to 2006), there has only been one crash at the site access onto Lexington A venue and none on the site access onto Country Road E. A total of two crashes were reported on Lexington A venue between County Road E and the site access. Since the proposed development increases traffic volume on that segment by only 2.4%, no material increase in crashes is expected. No segment crashes were reported on County Road E between Lexington Avenue and the site access in the last five years, Of the 74 crashes at the Lexington Avenue/County Road E intersection in the last 5 years, there were no fatalities, seven known injuries, 2] possible injuries, and 46 property damage only crashes. Since the proposed development increases traffic volume at that intersection by only 2.7%, no material increase in crashes is expected. c) Would the current site plan provide satisfaetmy traffic and parking operations within the site? This question focused on examination o.(thejollowingjive principal points: i. Overall adequa(v o.fproposed parking supply ii. Relatively high parking demand at the south end of the site iii. Head-in parking along the east edge of the existing retail building iv. Drive-through queuing for the proposed pharmacy v. Spacing beflveen County Road E andjirst access serving pharmacy drive-through and parking The following are the principal Ilndings regarding each of the above items pertaining to internal traffic and parking operations: i. Overall adequacr of proposed parking supply, The overall parking supply proposed for the redevelopment is adequate. ii. Relative~v high parking demand at the south end o.(the site. Since the developer has indicated that the south building (building C) will be on two stories (same total square footage) with 50 percent retail and 50 percent office, the parking supply near thc south end ofthe site will be adequate. iii. Head-in parking along the east edge 0.( the existing retail building. Head-in parking will provide satisfactory and safe operations. IV. Drive-through queuing for the proposed pharmacy. The drive-through pharmacy queuing will adequately be accommodated. To minimize conflicts at the north end ofthe drive-through, it is recommended that the 90-degree parking just west of the drive-through be converted to angle parking with one-way circulation in the southbound direction. v. Spacing between County Road E andfirst access serving pharmacy drive-through and parking. A concern was raised that vehicles entering the County Road E driveway that are waiting to turn left into the first access for the pharmacy could block the entrance to the site and cause entering vehicles to backup onto County Road E. To resolve this concern, the developer has agrced to install a four-foot mcdian on the County Road E driveway, which will prcvent left turns into this first access for the pharmacy, 2 2.0 PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND The purpose of this rep0l1 is to present the results of our traffic study for the proposed redevelopment of Arden Plaza in the City of Arden Hills, This report represents an update and replaces our previous two memorandums. This update is to account for comments raised by City and County staff and at the Planning Commission meetings, This traffic study addressed the following principal traffic questions: a) To what exteut would the proposed redevelopment alter the total vehicle trips generated by the site and to what extent would it alter the quality of traffic operations at the following three intersections? i. Lexington Avenue/County Road E 11, County Road E/site access 111. Lexington Avenue/site access b) Would the proposed redevelopment cause any negative impacts regarding traffic safety on County Road E and Lexington A venue along the frontage of the subject site and at the intersection of those two roadways? c) Would the current site plan provide satisfactory traffic and parking operations within the site? This question focused on examiuation of the following five principal points: . Overall adequacy of proposed parking supply . Relatively high parking demand at the south end of the site . Head-in parking along the east edge ofthe existing retail building . Drive-through queuing for the proposed pharmacy . Spacing betwcen County Road E and first access serving pharmacy drive-through and parking The subject site is located in the southwest quadrant of the County Road E/Lexington A venue intersection. The site presently consists of the following uses: . Three interconnected office buildings with a total gross floor area of 45,944 SF (square feet) of which 29,429 SF presently is occupied and the remaining 16,515 SF is vacant. . Retail building with a total gross floor area of approximately 55,500 SF (approximately 52,580 SF of main floor area plus 2,920 SF of mezzanine space) of which 52,500 SF presently is occupied and the remaining 3,000 SF is vacant. 3 The proposed redevelopment is expected to be complete by 2008. The proposed redevelopment plan will retain the existing retail building and will replace the three office buildings with the following uses as shown in Figure I: . ] 4,490 SF pharmacy with drive-through . ] 6,230 SF supermarket . 14,300 SF retail or office' ] To be conservative in trip generation and traffic volume estimates, we assumed retail for traffic forecasting purposes. 4 COUNTY-ROAD E EXlGTINGlll.HlD1NG I , ~: . -I , ~I>AOPOSEa BUllOING 'C" ,,'. OfffCEiFlElNL " \(.:)O(ISJ' .',,,,,,,,,,,,,...<,,,,,>),,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,, f')(!!'!TlNG POND.." 1 ~J __.;- _.'-':"J:.::;ti:z: r I I w ::> ffi; '< z o l- (!) Z ~: -' !) .~~ , L_ ! N i t APPROXIMATE SCALE o 120' ",;,~Wenck TRAFFIC STUDY FOR PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF ARDEN PLAZA FIGURE 1 CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN 3.0 RESPONSES TO TRAFFIC QUESTIONS CHANGES IN TRIP GENERATION DUE TO PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AND IMPACTS ON TRAFFIC OPERATIONS AT SUBJECT INTERSECTIONS (QUESTION A) To determine how the proposed redevelopment would affect the total trip generation for the site during the a.m, peak hour, p,m, peak hour, and on a daily basis, the following approach was used: I) We completed traffic counts at the driveway intersections on County Road E and Lexington Avenue on a typical weekday during the p.m. peak period. Using those traffic counts, we determined the existing total p,m. peak hour trip generation for the site, 2) Since the proposed redevelopment involves removal of the existing office buildings, it is important to divide the total trip generation for the site between retail and office. To determine what portion of the existing trip generation is due to the office and what portion is due to retail, we developed trip generation estimates for the existing uses based on data presented in the Institute ofTransp011ation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation, Seventh Edition. Based on the relationship between the estimated office (ITE land use code 7 I 0) and retail (ITE land use code 820) trips, we divided the existing trip generation for the site between retail and office. 3) As described earlier, there presently is some vacant space both in the office and retail buildings. To determine the true change in trip generation for the site due to the proposed redevelopment, it is important to calculate the total trip generation for the site with existing uses fully occupied. Thus, the existing retail and office trips from step 2 were increased by a ratio of total square feet to occupied square feet. The resultant trip generation from this step is the total trip generation for the site with full occupancy of the existing uses. 4) Trip generation for the proposed new retail uses was estimated based on data presented in ITE Trip Genera/ion, Seventh Edition. 5) We removed trips due to the existing office buildings from the total trip generation for the site with full occupancy of existing uses. We then added trip generation for the new retail uses from step 4 to determine total trip generation for the site upon completion of the proposed redevelopment. 6) Trip generation for the a.m. peak hour and on a daily basis was estimated using the p.m, peak hour counts and based on the relationship between p.m. peak hour and a.m, peak hour and daily trip generation as per ITE data, 6 Table 1 shows trip generation for the three new uses, and Table 2 shows a comparison of the trip generation for existing uses with full occupancy and upon completion of the proposed redevelopment. As indicated in Table 2, the proposed redevelopment will generate about the same number of trips as the existing uses with full occupancy during the a,m. peak hour. During the p,m. peak hour and on a daily basis, the proposed redevelopment will increase the trip generation for the site by about 50 percent, Table 1 Weekday Trip Generation for Proposed New Uses ITE Land Size Unit A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Use Use Code In Out Total In Out Total Total New retail 820 14,400 SF 9 6 15 26 28 54 600 Pharmacv with drive-through 881 14,490 SF 22 16 38 61 63 124 1,300 Supermarket 850 16,230 SF 32 21 53 87 83 170 1,600 Total 63 43 106 174 174 348 3,500 Table 2 Weekday Trip Generation Comparison for Arden Plaza A.M. Peak Hour P.M. Peak Hour Daily Scenario In Out Total In Out Total Total Existing uses with full occupancy' 157 53 210 203 262 465 4,900 With proposed redevelopment' 122 82 204 358 347 705 7,600 Based on the trip generation results and input from City and County representatives, traffic forecasts and analyses were completed for the p.m. peak hour, which is the most critical time period for the subject intersections. To determine the extent to which the proposed redevelopment would alter the traffic operations at the two driveway intersections, we completed the following steps: I) Base traffic counts, As described earlier, we completed existing (2007) traffic counts at the two driveway intersections and at the Lexington A venue/County Road E intersection during the p,m. peak period on a typical weekday. Our traffic counts were adjusted to account for full occupancy of the existing uses as discussed previously. These adjusted 2007 counts form the basis for our traffic forecasts and analyses for the post- redevelopment condition. 2) Analysis year and background growth. Consistent with normal practice, we completed traffic forecasts and analyses for the year after expected full completion ofthe proposed redevelopment, which is 2009, Based on comments raised by County staff, a 1.5 percent 2 Based on traffic counts at the two driveway intersections on County Road E and Lexington Avenue. 3 Based on driveway traffic counts and lIE data. 7 per year background growth rate was applied to existing through volumes on County Road E and Lexington Avenue to establish 2009 no-build volumes. 3) 2009 post-redevelopment forecasts. Traffic volumes due to the existing office buildings were first removed from the 2009 no-build volumes at the subject intersections. Trip generation presented in Tables I and 2 for the proposed redevelopment represents gross trips. Due to the multi-use nature ofthe subject development, we expect that a portion of the trips generated by the various uses will occur internal to the site. To account for these internal trips, we reduced the gross trip generation for the proposed new retail uses by five percent to arrive at net trips, These net trips due to the proposed three new retail buildings were assigned to the two driveways based on expected directional distribution and location of each new building relative to the driveways. The following are our directional distribution percentages, which are based on the existing traffic patterns for Arden Plaza: . 30 percent to/from the north on Lexington A venue . 30 percent to/from the south on Lexington A venue . 25 percent to/from the west on County Road E . 15 percent to/from the east on County Road E Development volumes were then added to the 2009 no-build volumes to arrive at 2009 build volumes. Figure I shows traffic volumes for the two driveway intersections for the following scenarios: existing (2007), 2007 with full occupancy of existing uses, 2009 no- build, and 2009 build. 4) Traffic Analyses, Capacity analyses were completed at the subject intersections for all four of the above scenarios using the Synchro/SimTraffic 7 analysis software. Existing geometrics and traffic control were used in the analysis for all three scenarios, The driveway intersection on County Road E presently provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right turn lane on the east and west approaches. The north approach provides one lane for all movements. The south approach provides one shared through/left turn lane, and a short right turn lane, which provides an effective storage length of about 50 feet. The driveway intersection on Lexington Avenue is a T intersection that presently provides one through lane and one shared through/right turn lane on the north approach and one through lane and one left turn lane on the south approach. The west approach, which serves the Arden Plaza development, provides one left turn lane and a short right turn lane, which is about 50 feet long. The County Road E/Lexington A venue intersection is controlled by a traffic signal and provides one left turn lane, one through lane, and one shared through/right turn lane on all four approaches. Capacity analysis results are presented in terms of level of service (LOS), which ranges from A to F. LOS A represents the best intersection operation, with very little delay for each vehicle using the intersection, LOS F represents the worst intersection operation with excessive delay. LOS results for the subject intersections are presented in Figure 3 and are discussed in detail next. Synchro worksheets showing delay values and other key outputs are presented in the appendix, 8 . County Road E/Lexington Avenue. As presented in Figure 3, this intersection operates at LOS D for all four scenarios during the p,m. peak hour. In addition, all individual movements operate at LOS D or better for all scenarios, except for the eastbound left turn. Eastbound left turn movements operate at LOS F for all four scenarios, We identified a potential measure to mitigate the LOS F condition under all four scenarios for eastbound left turn movements. Specifically, we determined that LOS D could be provided for this movement, while maintaining LOS D for the intersection as a whole, by shifting about 13 seconds of green time for an average cycle during the p.m, peak period from westbound through movements to eastbound left turns. The actual adjustments to the traffic signal controller that are needed to achieve a longer green time for eastbound left turns should be determined based on actual field conditions at the time of such adjustments, To maintain signal coordination along Lexington Avenue, we recommend that this measure be implemented without changing the cycle length or any other signal coordination parameters, It is important to note that the need for this mitigation measure already exists, and the proposed development will not materially alter that need, . County Road E/site access, Motorists exiting the Arden Plaza development via the driveway on County Road E presently experience LOS F during the p.m. peak hour. Exiting movements will continue to experience LOS F at both driveways upon completion of the proposed redevelopment during the p.m. peak hour. Delay values for all movements under all scenarios are presented in the Synchro worksheets, which are included in the appendix, The capacity analyses revealed two principal reasons for the LOS F operation at this intersection: a) insufficient gaps on the mainline due to high through traffic volumes on County Road E and b) short storage for exiting right turns, No feasible mitigation measures are available for the driveway intersections that would improve the availability of gaps on the mainline for exiting motorists, However, the storage lengths for right turns can be lengthened, Based on the results of the capacity analyses, we recommend that the storage length for exiting right turns on the driveway on County Road E be extended to the south edge of the retail building A (pharmacy), which will provide a total storage length of about 190 feet. This change will reduce the average delay for exiting movements. To make it easy to understand for exiting motorists and thereby, provide efficient operations, we recommend that a stop sign and a lane assignment sign be provided on the driveway approach to County Road E. The signing should be installed per standards presented in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, No other mitigation measures are necessary at this intersection in conjunction with the proposed development. However, if needs arise in the future to improve the overall traffic operations on County Road E in this area, City and County staff could consider a contingency measure that would restrict the site access on County Road E to % access only. A % access at the County Road E/site access 9 intersection would allow all movements to occur, except for left turns and through movements on the north and the south approaches. . Lexington Avenue/site access. Motorists exiting the Arden Plaza development via the driveway on Lexington A venue presently experience LOS F during the p,m, peak hour. Exiting movements will continue to experience LOS F at both driveways upon completion of the proposed redevelopment during the p.m, peak hour. Delay values for all movements under all scenarios are presented in the Synchro worksheets, which are included in the appendix. The capacity analyses revealed two principal reasons for the LOS F operation at this intersection: a) insufficient gaps on the mainline due to high through traffic volumes on Lexington Avenue and b) short storage for exiting right turns. No feasible mitigation measures are available for the driveway intersections that would improve the availability of gaps on the mainline for exiting motorists. However, the storage lengths forright turns can be lengthened, Based on the results of the capacity analyses, we recommend that the storage length for exiting right turns on the driveway on Lexington Avenue be extended to the first circulation aisle within the site, which will provide a total storage length of about 225 feet, measured from the east property line. This change will reduce the average delay for exiting movements. To make it easy to understand for exiting motorists and, thereby, provide efficient operations, we recommend that a stop sign and a lane assignment sign be provided on the driveway approach to Lexington Avenue. The signing should be installed per standards presented in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 10 LU l.()(")(D 'i' "'0<0 ('t)co....... Z j;:;:;<o(O g "'....<0 !'2t:::!: '" ...."'- "'00> Z wn<o --- ~ r2t::::~ ~~~ "'O- J N"'<O "'....- COUNTY ROAD E J!L J!L COUNTY ROAD E 5/5/5/5 ---1 L 29/29/29/29 40314111423/442 ---1 L 134/134/138/138 ____ 6511651/672/672 ____ 276/277/285/294 977/977/1009/1009 ---4 r 28/31/31/58 494/497/5121522 ---4 r 1071109/1121125 51/56/66/91 ~ 150/150/1551155 ~ '< lir lir 5: "'-- oor- r--o ;:~S5 u.l -- > U:;2~ o<<>t: ii: ~.....t:: -<0", " ~ N :!:::!':er-.. LU t: ....<0- '" ~;bR l- v ;;; in ~;:: Ov -<0 v r- vo) 0- :!::;! ;1;i1! -'" 11l~ J! 44/52152158 ---1 72186/86/105 ~ SITE DRIVEWAY Ii r-'" LU 0)'" N 'i' -'" N_ "'''' Z -'" t 0 N", >e- I- ",'" (!) v- Z '" X ;;; LU 0; J NOT TO SCALE ~ EXISTING COUNTS (2007) ~ 2007 WITH FULL OCCUPANCY OF EXISTING USES rr= 2009 NO-BUILD I 2009 BUILD WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT XXlXXfXXJXX TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 2 Sc~~Wenck PROPOSED WEEKDAY REDEVELOPMENT P.M. PEAK HOUR OF ARDEN PLAZA TRAFFIC VOLUMES w ~ z ~ LLLLLL '" QQ~ z wwliJ ~ ee~ -w- cco \!lliJ\!l ~ OUU w w COUNTY ROAD E J!L J!L COUNTY ROAD E AlAlAlA-1 L AlAIAIA FIF!FIF -1 . L GIGIGIG AlAlAlA --i> ~ AlAlAlA 0101010 --i> ~ GIClGIG AlAIAIA ~ r BIBIBIB DIDIDID~ rGIGIGIG ~ 1rr 1rr ~ LLlJ..LL 000 U:U:U: uuu > --- --- ir LLLLLL QQ~ 0 li:::ii::ii:: 000 w r- 0; << ~~ << J! FIFIFIF -1 FIFIFIF~ SITE DRIVEWAY 1r w !D< N ~ << << z << t 0 r- '" z X w ~ NOT TO SGALE ~ EXISTING GOUNTS (2007) ~ 2007 WITH FULL OCCUPANCY OF EXISTING USES rr= 2009 NO-BUILD I 2009 BUILD WITH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT XXlXX1XXfXX TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 3 "'E~Wenck PROPOSED WEEKDAY REDEVELOPMENT P.M. PEAK HOUR OF ARDEN PLAZA LEVELS OF SERVICE TRAFFIC SAFETY ON COUNTY ROAD E, LEXINGTON A VENUE, AND AT COUNTY ROAD E/LEXINGTON A VENUE INTERSECTION (QUESTION B) To examine traffic safety, we obtained crash data from the Minnesota Department of Transportation for County Road E and Lexington Avenue along the frontage of the subject site and at the County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection for the past five years (2002 to 2006). Based on these crash data, there was only one reported crash (possible injury) at the site access on Lexington A venue. No crashes were reported at the site access on County Road E. A total of two "segment" crashes were reported on Lexington Avenue between County Road E and the site access. Since the proposed development will increase traffic volumes on that segment by only 2.4 percent (percent increase in two-way volumes from 2009 no-build to 2009 build condition), no significant changes are expected in crash frequency on that segment of Lexington A venue. There were a total of74 reported crashes in the Mn/DOT database at the County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection in the last five years. This represents a crash rate of 1.36 crashes per million vehicles entering the intersection. Due to the long separation (more than 400 feet) between the County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection and the site access points on those two roadways, it is highly unlikely that any of those 74 crashes are due to movements at the access points. The following is a listing of those 74 crashes by severity: . Fatalities = 0 . Incapacitating injury = I . Non-incapacitating injury = 6 . Possible injury = 21 . Property damage only = 46 The above listing indicates that about 90 percent of the crashes are either "possible injury" or "property damage only." Only one reported crash in the past five years involved a serious ('incapacitating") injury, and there were no fatalities. Since the proposed development will increase the traffic volume at the County Road E/Lexington Avenue intersection by only 2,7 percent (percent increase in total volume entering the intersection from 2009 no-build to 2009 build condition), the crash experience at this intersection is not expected to change significantly, One concern that was raised at the Planning Commission meeting on August I was regarding the safety impacts of "weaving" maneuvers due to motorists exiting at the access on County Road E to turn right on to County Road E and then change lanes to turn left on to Lexington Avenue, Based on our review, these maneuvers are not expected to cause any negative safety impacts on County Road E for the following reasons: . Those maneuvers are not truly weaving maneuvers because motorists exiting the site will turn only when there is a gap in eastbound through traffic. . The crash data shows no reported "segment" crashes in the past five years on County Road E between the site access and Lexington A venue, 13 ADEQUACY OF INTERNAL TRAFFIC AND P ARKlNG OPERA nONS (QUESTION C) We reviewed the adequacy of the current site plan with respect to the following five items: 1. Overall adequacy of proposed parking supply 11. Relatively high parking demand at the south end of the site lll. Head-in parking along the east edge ofthe existing retail building IV, Drive-through queuing for the proposed pharmacy v. For the County Road E driveway, the spacing between County Road E and the first access serving the pharmacy drive-through and parking. Results of our review regarding each of the above four items are presented next: i_ Overall adequacy of proposed parking supply, Our parking review was based on the City's Zoning Code requirements and data presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation, Third Edition, Results of our review are presented next. o The Zoning Code presents a parking requirement for "retail sales," which applies to all ofthe proposed and existing retail uses_ The Code requires one space for each 150 SF of gross retail sales floor space. From information provided to us, the total estimated retail sales floor area is 78,052 SF. For this area, the total number of spaces required on the site as per the zoning code is 521 (78,052 divided by ] 50). The Zoning Code states that "the number of spaces required for a specific use may be reduced ifthe owner or occupant provides documentation that a lesser number of spaces will actually be needed than normally required by this Code and the City Council authorizes such lesser number after recommendation by the Planning Commission." Parking demand calculations based on current industry standards are presented next. o The ITE Parking Generation, 2004 presents parking data collected at numerous developments throughout the United States. These data present separate peak period demand data for pharmacy, supermarket, and general retail uses. Table 3 shows parking demand calculations for the proposed redevelopment based on ITE data. Table 3 Parking Demand Calculations (based on ITE Parking Generation, Third Edition) Use Size Average Peak Period Parking Demand (Satnrday4) (ITE Land Use Code) (floor area) Rate Nnmber of Spaces Existing retail (820) 55,500 SF 2.97 spaces per 1,000 SF 165 Pharmacv (880) 14,490 SF 2,1 spaces per 1,000 SF 31 Supermarket (850) 16,230 SF 4,75 spaces per t ,000 SF 78 Retail (820) 14,300 SF 2_97 spaces per t ,000 SF 43 TOTAL 317 4 For all uses on the site upon completion ofthe proposed redevelopment, peak period parking demand on a Saturday is greater than peak demand on a typical weekday. 14 From Table 3, the total estimated peak period demand for the site as a whole is 317 parking spaces, The Eno Foundation's Parking document indicates that the actual supply of parking should be 10 percent greater than the estimated demand. Such additional supply will provide reserve capacity to allow for cruising vehicles in search of a space, for snow storage and for other factors that cause inefficiencies. With the 10 percent factor, the total parking supply needed is 349 spaces (317 multiplied by 1.1). Based on the parking review and the calculations presented in this report, the minimum number of parking spaces that should be provided on the site upon completion of the proposed redevelopment is 349 spaces. The current site plan shows a total of 408 parking spaces. Thus, the current site plan will provide adequate parking supply to meet the projected demand upon completion ofthe proposed redevelopment. ii, Relatively high parking demand near south end of site, We understand from comments raised at the Planning Commission meeting on August I that parking demand near the south end ofthe site is greater than elsewhere on the site, To determine whether the current site plan would provide adequate parking supply in this area, we reviewed the proposed supply and projected demand south ofthe driveway on Lexington A venue, As per the current site plan presented in Figure I, the total parking supply in that area is 86 spaces. For uses in the existing retail building that are south of the driveway on Lexington A venue and assuming 100 percent retail for the proposed building C, the total parking demand in this area is 147 spaces. Thus, for the area south of the driveway on Lexington Avenue, the parking demand would be 61 spaces greater than the proposed supply, This shortage in parking supply is addressed as follows: o The developer presently is revising the site plan to accommodate the 14,300 square feet for building C in a two-story building. This is different from the plan shown in Figure I, which shows a one-story building. This change will reduce the footprint for this building and, thereby, provide more space for parking. Specifically, this change will increase the parking supply in the south area by about 37 spaces, to 123 spaces. o As indicated earlier, we assumed 100 percent retail for building C to be conservative in our traffic and parking projections, Based on recent discussions with the Developer, we understand that only 50 percent of building C will be retail and the remaining 50 percent will be office space, The peak demand for retail uses typically occurs in the evenings and on weekends when the parking demand for office is virtually zero. With 50 percent office, the peak demand for the area south of the driveway on Lexington Avenue will only be 126 spaces. With greater parking supply due to reduced footprint for building C, the total number of spaces in the area south of the driveway on Lexington Avenue will be 123. With 50 percent of building C being retail, the total demand in that area will be 126 spaces. Thus, it is expected that the current site plan with the changes to building C will provide adequate parking supply near the south end of the site upon completion of the proposed development. 15 Ill. Head-in parking along east edge of existing retail building. As shown in Figure I, the current site plan includes head-in parking along the east edge of the existing retail building. Based on our review, we believe that the head-in parking will provide satisfactory and safe operations within the site for the following reasons: o Reduces number of pedestrians that have to cross the drive aisle in front of the building, o Safer for handicap motorists as they do not have to cross the drive aisle, o Better alignment ofthe drive aisle with the driveway on County Road E. o Head-in parking is not unconunon for similar neighborhood retail centers. IV, Drive-through queuingfor proposed pharmacy. The current site plan shows a stacking distance of approximately 80 feet for drive-through queuing, This stacking distance can accommodate a total of four vehicles in the drive-through queue, To determine if this space is sufficient to accommodate the expected drive-through queuing for the pharmacy, we obtained data collected at six other pharmacies (all Walgreens stores) in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area. All ofthose six pharmacies have two drive-through windows, whereas the proposed pharmacy will only have one drive-through window. At one of the six pharmacies, the maximwn drive-through queue was one vehicle, At two of the pharmacies, the maximum queue was two vehicles. At the remaining three phannacies, the maximum queue was three vehicles, Since the proposed pharmacy will provide space for four vehicles, we are confident that the drive-through queuing for the pharmacy will adequately be acconunodated. The current site plan provides 90-degree parking with two-way circulation just west of the pharmacy drive-through, This arrangement creates a northbound lane "sandwiched" between two southbound lanes ~ one for the phannacy drive-through and the other for the parking aisle. To mitigate this problem, we recommend that the 90-degree parking be converted to angle parking with one-way circulation in the southbound direction. v. Spacing between County Road E andfirst access serving pharmacy drive-through and parking. The current site plan includes an access for the pharmacy drive-through and parking on the County Road E driveway at approximately 60 feet (clear separation) south of County Road E. This distance can only accommodate two to three vehicles entering the site. At peak times, northbound queues due to motorists exiting the site are expected to extend past the access for the pharmacy, As a result, when the exiting queues block the pharmacy access, the entering motorists waiting to turn left onto the pharmacy access will stop and block other traffic from entering the site. This situation could result in vehicles backing up to County Road E, To prevent such queue backups onto County Road E, we reconunend that a median be constructed on the site driveway as shown in Figure 4, The reconunended changes shown in Figure 4 will restrict motorists entering from County Road E from turning left at the first access to the pharmacy drive-through and parking, 16 N , COUNTY ROAD E 11' 131, , I , , i I RADIUS = 15 FEET "'r'" "'1 r j (/J ill 81 <( ill I- (jj , ~ oN - , 10'-1' N t APPROXIMATE SCALE o 30' TRAFFIC STUDY FOR FIGURE 4 ,;"".Wenck PROPOSED RECOMMENDED CHANGES REDEVELOPMENT TO ACCESS DRIVEWAY OF ARDEN PLAZA ON COUNTY ROAD E 4.0 APPENDIX SYNCHRO WORKSHEETS 18 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR E & N. Dvwy 10/19/2007 ~ - ...... .f +- '- '\ t /" '-. + .,; Control Free Free Peak Hour Factor 0,90 0,90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0,90 0,90 68 10 0.90 3 Pedestrians 2 Volume Left 6 0 0 31 0 0 48 10 3 1700 607 1700 1700 189 122 0 4 8 F E 38.0 F E cSH Queue Lane LOS A Approach LOS Average Delay IntersectioQ Capacity UtiliZ.atiOn: .' Period (min) 3.4 . .::45..7%, "'",,q,,-, 15 '. . ICU LevelofSelvlce. . A Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931\01 \August 07 -UpdateISynchroIExisting-2007 .syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Ave .-J 10/19/2007 - " .f - '- '\ t ~ '-. l ..; 325 Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 Lanes 0 0 0 25 Satd, Flow 1770 3415 0 1770 3366 0 1770 3486 3380 0 Satd. Flow (perm) 484 3415 0 425 3366 0 181 3486 0 3380 0 ~ig~tTurnon Red . Yes Yes Satd. Flow 41 79 12 71 40 40 569 345 9.7 5.9 Flow 790 0 179 1194 0 pm+pt Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 6 5 2 Permitted Phases 2 Total Split (s) . 40.1 0.0 11,0 421 0.0 J{)tal~osfTjme(s) .. 5.2 4.0 4,0 5,2 4.0 Act Effct Green 41.4 28,3 30,6 21.5 50,0 41.1 53.2 42.7 0,39 0,51 0.41 vlc Ratio 1,20 0,75 0.52 0,61 0,59 0,58 0.54 0,84 21.6 34.6 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.6 34.6 LOS F D C C C Approach Delay . 32,9 Approach LOS E C C Queue l.ength 50th (11) . 39 61 365 Queue Length 95th (11) #428 262 79 158 #125 116 #543 !niern~i linli;l;lJSt (ft) . 265 Turn Bay Length (11) 200 100 180 150 B~J:aj;aQTty (Vph) 332 1417 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SpUlb:ac.1i Cap~eductn 0 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Re<I~c@d:v/c Ratio . 0,59 0,58 0,54 0.84 Offset: 0 Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and Maximum vie Ratio: 1,20 Service E Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931 101\August 07 .Update\Synchro\Existing-2007 .syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Ave 10/19/2007 - Volume exceeds infinite. # 95th volume exceeds 3: CR E & Lexin ton Ave ....".. of .4 6_ ....:+ .8 Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931 101\August 07 -Update\SynchroIExisting-2007 ,syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: S Dvwy & Lexington Ave 10/19/2007 .-J- '). '\ t + ..; Peak Hour Factor 0,90 0,90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0,90 Pedestrians 2 Volume 0 a Volume Left 49 53 0 0 0 Volume Rl9ht cSH 130 826 1700 1700 1700 Queue 172 5 0 0 0 Lane LOS F A Approach LOS F Period 15 Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931 \01\August 07 -Update\Synchro\Existing-2007,syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR E & N. Dvwy 10/19/2007 .J- - ~ ('" - '- '\ t ~ \. ! .; Peak Hour Factor ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 10 0.90 3 Pedestrians 2 pX, platoon vG;:ooriflictlng volume vCl. stage 1 conf vol YC2:'stage2conivol . vCu, unblocked vol 639 tG);;ngfe"(s) . 2 0.95 0.95 0.95 1363 1967 378 574 1278 1913 241 6,9 7.5 6.5 6,9 4.0 3.3 27 98 83 100 100 60 722 99 94 Period 15 Synchro 7. Report T:I 1931101 \August 07.UpdateISynchroIExisting.2007 _ w.full_occupancy.syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Ave ./ 10/19/2007 -+- ,. .f - "- .." t ~ '. + .; 327 Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 0 0 0 0 25 1770 3415 0 1770 3366 0 1770 3486 0 3380 0 490 3415 0 425 3366 0 183 3486 0 406 3380 0 Yes Satd. Flow (RTOR) 41 78 12 71 t:.in*'^Speed'(mph) , 40 Link Distance (ft) 475 504 569 345 Jri;vel:fime'is)',' , 5,9 ~~~;;g~P~low (vph) 457 719 119 799 0 179 1200 0 'pmtpl pmtpt Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 6 5 2 Perq,lIted PtlilSes, 2 Total Split (s) 0.0 11,0 42.1 0,0 TotaIJ<lstJime(s) 4.0 5.2 4.0 Act Elfct Green 53.0 42.5 0.40 1.21 0.75 0,53 0,60 0,59 0.59 0.55 0,85 22.2 35,2 0,0 0.0 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,0 35.2 F D C D 33,5 Approach LOS E C C C Oue1teJ;ljngth 50ttl(ft) -279 62 373 Queue Length 95th (ft) #439 262 80 158 #125 307 117 #548 Inter~~LIO~ t5i~l(ft) 265 Turn Bay Length (ft) 200 100 180 150 BaSaCap,.cjIY (vph)' 326 1410 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51'illbaCk:(';affReduCln 0 0 Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ReduCed .v/c'l~atiq " , 0.85 105 Offset 0 Start 01 Green Maximum vlc Ratio: 1,21 I(1J?riJ""tiijti~Sign~1 Delay: 45.4 " Intersection Capacity Utilization 87,0% )\ril.lymsPet;qp(rilJri) 15 Synchro 7. Report T:I 1931101\August 07.UpdateISynchroIExlsting.2007 _w.luILoccupancy.syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Ave 10/19/2007 Volume exceeds is infinite. # 95th volume exceeds 3: CR E & Lexington Ave ..",.. ;f 04 fr -'+ .8 Synchro 7 - Report T:119311011August 07 -UpdateISynchroIExisting-2007 _w-full_occupancy,syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: S Dvwy & Lexington Ave 10/19/2007 ./ "). '\ t + ./ Peak Hour Faclor 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 Pedestrians veu, unblocked vol tC, single (s) . 2 o 88 93 Volume Left 58 58 0 0 0 cSH 126 826 1700 1700 1700 Queue 6 0 0 0 Lane LOS F A Approacli Delay (s) Approach LOS F 15 Synchro 7 - Report T:I 1931 101\August 07 -Update\Synchro\Existing-2007 _w-full_ occupancy,syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR E & N. Dvwy 10/19/2007 .-f - " .f +- '- '\ t ~ \. ! ..; Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0 3 Pedestrians Walkin9 Speed (ftls) P!l1~ijfBJ9C~..._. - flare 2 Median unblocked 0,95 0,95 0,95 0,95 0.95 0.95 389 vol 652 1183 592 1313 1971 240 6.5 6.9 4.0 3:3 99 88 100 100 55 719 Volume Left 6 0 0 34 0 0 57 10 cSH 880 1700 1700 586 1700 1700 160 108 VQ!umeto:Capacity Queue 95th 0 0 0 5 0 0 148 10 Lane A B F E Amri>~c1f-i;lelay {s} 0,0. Approach LOS F E 6.5 Period 15 Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931 \01\Au9ust 07 -Update\Synchro\No-Build-2009,syn --" -".,..- '-,,\ t t' \. *./ . Lane Confrgurations ,tf> ,tf> ,tf> ,tf> Y6Iurn~tvpti)~::~~-=,~~~ 423 . ~512 .i'55'; .;1J2;S;~:2~85~'~d38-=:::1:10;-=-='8~;' ~~ ~ 75 ; :1:66 ~ 176 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 StO(ljije'i:el'l~tn(lt) . ~ ~': 200 Storage Lanes 1 ;rap~9t~[itj, '. 25 . Satd, Flow (prol) 1770 3415 FlfReiiliift!f(t:~ ..... .~ 0,258 Satd, Flow (perm) 481 3415 Bi9hf(limtirlR~d -= . Satd, Flow (RTOR) !jriR..Speett (mpilJ:, ~.-= Link Distance (ft) Trav~itll)ieisF . Lane Group Flow (vpti) T~iJj:rype':~.::: :' '. .' Protected Phases Pe'!!lJl!eql:'fi~eS: Total Split (s) TO.tatl:PStTiri)'ti is)" . Act EffctGreen (s) Aclliat!fil:W~Ra]!G' -= .' vlc Ratio ConjF:pt~ela~~-=I Queue Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Avenue o o o o 1770 3380 mo 3366 o 3486 o mo o 404 3366 o 41 ..40 475 8,1 741 78 186 3486 o 374 3380 12 71 40 345 5.9 1236 569 504 184 8 7 4 34,9 0.0 52.6 0.54 0,60 823 o 6 5 2 11.0 42.1 5.2 42.0 0.40 0.89 38,1 0,0 38.1 D 36.4 D 399 #576 265 9,0 40.1 0,0 48,8 40,1 0,61 0,61 0.0 0,0 0,0 C C C C C 81 #136 180 150 1395 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,0.59 0.89 100 o o o o o Cycle Length: 105 ~ctilale~gtde;~engfu: 105 Offset: 0 (0%). Relerenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green @\j!llrol;fype;:AC:t~e(ed-Coo(dinafea Maximum vlc Ralio: 1.24 Inie'~~C\kirilslgi\j!rDelay:48.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 89,1% Level 01 Service E l\nfilYSlS:PenOd(mlnl15 C 318 o 10/19/2007 337 1900 o o 25 o o Yes o 2 0.0 4,0 T:11931101\August 07 -UpdateISynctiroINo-Build-2009,syn Synchro 7 - Report Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Avenue - Volume exceeds is # 95th volume exceeds ~~i ,~,,~,- ~:: 9"il=ijijij; : I~' !~I~" 111.1 infinite. be iiti:: ~ ~: ~'" 4,~:=':~ 10/19/2007 T:11931\OllAugusl 07 -UpdaleISynchroINo-Build-2009,syn Synchro 7 - Report HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: S Dvwy & Lexington Ave 10/19/2007 "f .. '\ t + ..; 0,90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 Peak Hour Factor Pedestrians free % o 88 93 Volume Left 58 58 0 0 0 Volum~ Right. cSH 112 1700 1700 1700 Queue 264 6 0 0 Lane LOS F A Approach LOS F Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931\01 \August 07 -Update\Synchro\No-Build-2009,syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR E & N. Dvwy 10/19/2007 "f - .,. .f - "- '" t I' \. + .I Peak Hour Factor 0.90 0.90 0,90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0,90 Pedestrians 2 Median unblocked 0,95 0,95 0,95 671 2047 611 1389 2083 263 Volume Left 6 0 0 64 0 0 83 10 cSH 873 1700 1700 566 1700 1700 120 95th 0 0 0 10 0 0 367 13 Lane LOS A B F F Approach LOS F F 34.2 Period 15 Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931\01\Au9ust 07.Update\Synchro\Build-2009.syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Avenue .J- _~.('- "-,\ t t' \. +.; . ~~~;m~01~~~~~~~0"[,i",[[""[T~i;."."t~i,.,"~2~i[';ii~'.e;.i';[1~8,i";;!;'~!~i;ii'J~~'i,';,;'llii;~;~'~1~;[i:['i~;";';'355 Ideal Flow 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 '0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 25 1770 3419 0 1770 3369 0 1770 3483 0 1770 3376 0 Protected Phases vie Ratio 10/19/2007 460 3419 0 414 3369 Yes 41 73 40.. " 475 504 8.1. 491 752 0 139 o 192 3483 o 356 3376 o 73 569 345 o 122 830 o 184 1286 o 3 4 5 2 6 8 7 41.9 0.0 13.0 4.9 4:0 29.7 31.4 0.60 0,0 43.0 20.0 34,9 1.27 Queue 0,0 0,0 0,0 0.0 C C #126 322 . .489',' 180 0 0 0 0 o Cycle Len9th: 105 !\ctu~e!l'.GyCle:.I;Miltb;10[ii .... . Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green cOii!i&'[9i>eiS]\l;tifiliiJJ:CaQrdinated . Maximum v/c Ratio: 1.27 IrteFs~Ct[QIi,Sigv~['Oel8Y'51:6' Intersection Capacity Utilization 91,8% i\rialySiS~e~oll(q,ln)1.5'. 0,0 0,0 F C D 89 170 #156 100 150 o o o o o o o . 'InliliSeillionLOS; D, ICU Level of Service F Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931\01\August 07 -Update\Synchro\Build-2009,syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Avenue 10/19/2007 - Volume exceeds is infinite. # 95tl1 volume exceeds be f~ E" J .f ~~, ..!.i'.8-iliiiWiJ:; ;;,.; ''';'~;I:i!i;j)~ Synchro 7 - Report T:11931101\August 07 -UpdateISynchroIBuild-2009,syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: S Dvwy & Lexington Ave 10/19/2007 ..) " ..... t + .; Peak Hour Factor 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0.90 0.90 Pedestrians 2 pX, platoon unblocked vC,conftiCting.\loll.lme' ve1, stage 1 conf vol VG2,.slilge: 2cbnfv61 . unblocked vol 2287." '.{;<I9..' :;:11))1\. . o 368 84 87 cSH 87 813 1700 1700 1700 400 o o o Lane F B Approach LOS F Period 15 Synchro 7. Report T:\ 1931\01 \August 07.Update\Synchro\Build.2009,syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 6: CR E & N. Dvwy 10/19/2007 ./' - "'). .( +- -\.. '" t I'" ',. + ./ Peak Hour Factor ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 0,94 0.94 0,94 0.94 1 conf vol 1612 2038 Volume Left 6 0 0 64 0 0 83 10 cSH 881 1700 1700 566 1700 1700 134 85 o o o 10 o o 335 13 Lane LOS A B F F Approach LOS F F 15 Synchro 7 - Report T:11931101\August 07 -UpdateISynchroIBuild-2009_Mitigation,syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & Lexington Avenue 10/19/2007 ..J- - " .- - '- '" t /" \. + .I 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 0 0 0 0 Satd. Flow 3419 0 1770 3369 0 1770 3483 0 1770 3376 0 Satd, Flow 3419 0 682 3369 0 205 3483 0 328 3376 0 Satd, Flow 41 63 13 73 '40 475 504 569 345 1f1 '. Lane 752 0 139 480 0 0 Protected Phases 3 8 7 4 6 5 2 4.. 41.9 0,0 13,0 21.9 0,0 9,0 40,1 0.0 4,0 35,3 25.8 16.6 43,3 36.3 45,8 37.5 vlc Ratio 0,93 0,64 0.55 0.82 0.71 0,68 0.77 1,03 .30.3 Queue 0,0 0,0 0.0 LOS D D C D E .34.4 :::~~~~~~Otii{ftf; D C 2~1 ' Queue Length 95th (It) 87 #218 #129 322 #177 #625 tritemarCinkEI5ii((liY':l..' , ~ , 489' ^ ", T um Bay Length (It) 100 180 150 !:lase capaclt!{yp5F:; E Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 l3pillback Cap R~ihI.ctit-,,' Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 RiidUced vie R;rtlq [EE':, '; s'E Offset: 0 (0%), Referenced to phase 2:SBTL and 6:NBTL, Start of Green CpntroJ'Type:1\ctji'a!e9-COOi:<!lp"lted ." Maximum vie Ratio: 1,03 fntil"seClioIl'SigiTa1~el,ly;i46:7';:: . ,', ' Intersection Capacity Utilization 91,8'% ICU Level of Service F ~ij~~~':R~1io~aQiiJ)Ii~~~~r;:' w, ,H '" '" Synchro 7, Report T:11931\01\August 07,Update\SynchroIBuild,2009_Mitigation.syn Lanes, Volumes, Timings 3: CR E & LexinQton Avenue 10/19/2007 ~:E"'''~''"^''. ~" ~"~ '.~~0 ~\t.6 '~iI "ii~~~i' ~~u.~:\ ~:~~' 1':,~J~~~'i"H.0"~~' ~::,:': Synchro 7 - Report n 1931\01\August 07 -Update\Synchro\Build-2009_MiIi9ation.syn HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis 9: S Dvwy & Lexington Ave 10/19/2007 y -,. "\ t + ..; Control Free Free Peak Hour Factor 0,90 0,90 0,90 0,90 0.90 0.90 Pedestrians 9 0.69 0,69 cSH 90 801 1700 1700 1700 Queue 394 12 0 0 0 Lane LOS F B Approach LOS F Synchro 7 - Report T:\ 1931\01\August 07 -Update\Synchro\Build-2009_Mitigation.syn Attachment 3A - 3 Public Comments/Letters ~ ~HILLS November 7, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting Page I of I James Lehnhoff Sent: To: From: William & Marlee Brice [billmarbrice@gmail.com] Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:48 AM James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcas,net Subject: Arden Plaza Shopping Area We are opposed to building a large pharmacy on this comer. The increase in traffic is a concern and a Walgreens or CVS is not needed. There are several very close by this area. We are neighbors and have supported the local business in the shopping plaza, especially the hardware store and the pharmacy. They are both great assets to this community and I am very concerned that this is ending a long established and well respected business in this community, Arden Plaza Pharmacy. The post office in the establishment is another great asset. It is difficult to understand how a community can have a planning commission that would force the closing of this wonderful business so a conglomerate pharmacy can be built. Everywhere you look there is a Walgreens or a CVS and we do not want another one so close to us, Bill and Marlee Brice 986 Ingerson Road Shoreview, MN 55126 651-483-4194 11l1l2007 Page I of 1 James Lehnhoff Sent: To: From: stpattio@juno.com Wednesday, September 26, 20072:57 PM James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcastnet; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; franh 116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcastnet Subject: Proposed Walgreens at Arden Plaza We are voicing our concern regarding the proposed Walgreens in Arden Plaza. This is absolutely an absurd idea. There is enough traffic difficulties as is for getting in and out of the shopping center. Also, there are way too many Walgreens around now. We don't need one on every comer!!! There is a Cub and Target pharmacy about a block away. The Arden Pharmacy is a great pharmacy, place to shop, etc., and to get them out ofthere would be a total catastrophe! We shall see you at the hearing! Thank you! Patti Larson, Shoreview Don and Helen Luther, Shoreview Rita Stout, Arden Hills Bill Anderson, Shoreview Mona Swaggert, Shoreview 1l/l/2007 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Subject: Evelyn Lawyer [Iynlaw@comcastnet] Friday, September 28, 2007 8:38 AM Fran Holmes; Brenda Holden; Dave McClung; James Lehnhoff; David_Grant; Stan Harpstead No Walgreens Dear Mayor Harpstead and councilf I read with dismay that there is thought to putting a Walgreens in at Arden Plaza. Please there are 3 Walgreens easily accessible from Arden Hills. We don't need another. There are also pharmacies at CUB, Target, and Health Partners right up Lexington and also in the Shoreview Mall. When the post office in New Brighton moves the sub station at the Arden Hills pharmacy will be our closest post office and even now it is easier to use than the one in New Brighton. What would really be nice at that corner would be a bakery. Case in point: I was a frequent shopper at the Shoreview Farmer's market this summer. There were two bakeries represented there. They were both very busy, and if you didn't go early enough, often the bread you wanted would be sold out. This indicates to me that folks around here would patronize a good bakery. A bakery would give us not only good bread but other treats that are not stuffed into plastic boxes, forcing you to buy 4 or 6 when you only want one, etc. Besides think of the lovely aroma that would come from a good bakery at that corner. (Yes I know there are bakeries at CUB and Target but they don't do what those bakeries at the Farmers Market did) . Please reconsider putting a Walgreens that we don't need at that corner and think about what fun it would be to have a good bakery in the neighborhood. Sincerely, Evelyn Lawyer (4539 Keithson Drive, Arden Hills) 1 Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: jean chastain Oean_chastain@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 28,200710:58 AM To: sjharpstead@comcast.net; James Lehnhoff; David_Grant; davemcclung@comcast.net; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com Subject: Arden Plaza Development Planning Mayor and Council Members, Please consider the impact to local business and traffic if a large drug store is allowed to move into the Arden Plaza area. The existing pharmacy has been in that location for the 28 years we have been local residents. It is special to have their personal touch and medical "memory" available when our family needs them. Additionally, our family uses the US Post Office - Branch Office on a regular basis, I would not like to have a neighborhood resource which is locally-owned pushed out. Currently we live a few blocks into Shoreview but much or our business is in the Arden Plaza stores. A new business would be welcome but the scale and infrastructure ofthat area is not suited to any huge stores. The area does not need another pharmacy. There are currently pharmacies in Target, Cub, as well as, Arden Plaza. There would be no net gain of services if we got another version of a pharmacy at the suggested location. We would almost certainly loose the Arden Pharmacy, which is smaller and would loose business such a large competitor. Services that are distant from our neighborhood would be convenient if added at this location. My preference of a new service would be a food related establishment, such as a family restaurant, bagel shop or ice cream parlor. Walgreen's has approached Shoreview about locating a store at 96 & Hodgson Rd. That location is about 4 miles from Arden Plaza and has less pharmacy service nearby, Walgreen's may find the Shoreview location would meet their volume needs better than the Arden Plaza location. From both the infrastructure and service competition perspective, the Shoreview location is a better fit. Please consider the local service needs when bringing in another business to Arden Plaza. We need our Post Office service. We do not need additional pharmacy services. Thank you, Jean Chastain Shoreview, MN siharpstead@comcast.net James.lehnhoff@ci.arden-hills.mn.us David,grant@ci.arden-hills.mn.us davemcclung@comcast.net holdenbi24@aol.com franhI16@aol.com Explore the seven wonders of the world Learn more! II/I/2007 Page I of I James Lehnhoff Sent: To: From: Becky Sather [becky,sather@comcast.net] Saturday, September 29, 2007 6:23 PM James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; dvaidmcclung@comcast.net Subject: Opposition to Walgreens Mr. Lehnhoff, Mayor Harpstead and Council members, I know you have received many letters from residents (and non-residents) about the possibility of a Walgreens being built on the comer of Lexington Avenue and County Road E. I read all 38 of them (only four were in favor!) that were attached to the handouts for the Planning Commission's meeting of September 5. I am not in favor of these big corporations - Walgreens, CVS - coming in and chasing the local, smaller businesses out. To my knowledge, Arden Pharmacy has been in that location for over 25 years. Arden Pharmacy is a wonderful, helpful, friendly store and I know many others agree, I'm sure it won't take long after Walgreens would be there for Arden Pharmacy to have to close their doors! I have previously emailed the Mayor and learned that if Wellington abides by the city's general development guidelines (e.g, setbacks, green space, parking, signage, maximum lot coverage, etc.) you would have no justification to stop the development or deny the property owner the ability to implement their plans, Because of this I am hopeful that the traffic impact report will prove that a business like Walgreens will only exacerbate the already high level of traffic at that intersection. If that is shown then I hope you would deny Wellington's request as I cannot imagine why the Council would want to make this area more dangerous by added traffic! Many people walk to Arden Plaza and added traffic would make walking across Lexington from local businesses more dangerous. Increased traffic will bring more congestion, not to mention higher levels of exhaust! And what about landscaping? There are big, well-developed trees on the north and east sides of the PODS. Are all those trees, that must be 15-20 years old, going to be removed to put in a Walgreens? I would suspect that they will be torn out and that they will NOT be replaced. Why would the city want to agree to that? Trees are an important benefit to our environment! It is extremely unfortunate that this parcel of land, zoned as B-2 (General Business), has no special requirements for this area, Several years ago Walgreens tried to come to the northwest comer of this intersection, With all the CVS and Walgreens that have popped up in the last several years, it's somewhat surprising that the Council didn't take action to put some restrictions on the zoning of the land at all comers of the intersection of County E and Lexington. As the Walgreens development was denied for the northwest comer of Lexington and County E, what about this proposal qualifies it for the southwest comer? In my opinion, there is little justification. I did listen to the Planning Commission meeting of September 5 and was disturbed by the developer's comment about the Post Office in Arden Pharmacy. A question was asked about what would happen to the mailboxes that are on the sidewalk outside of Arden Pharmacy. The developer thought the question was in reference to the Post Office inside Arden Pharmacy and said it would probably be removed or have to go. Why is he having anything to say about what is inside of Arden Pharmacy and what will happen to it? Is that not the business of the owner of the pharmacy or perhaps the Post Office? This developer does not care about the smaller businesses, He only cares about what goes into his wallet! Please do whatever you can to stop this development from proceeding. Thank you, Becky Sather Arden Hills Resident for 29 years II/I/2007 29 September, 2007 3570 Ridgewood Road Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-631-2347 .. Mr. Stan Harpstead, Mayor Arden Hills City Hall 1245 West Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Mayor Harpstead, You are currently involved in the disposition of certain property in Arden Plaza. As a long time Arden Hills resident, I also have a direct interest. I agree with you that a property owner has the freedom of disposition of his property as long as such disposition is consistent with the existing zoning, 82, There is an even more basic matter involved, A property owner has an inherent and basic right to the free disposition of his property provided that the exercise of this freedom does not unduly limit the rights of his neighbors. That is, his neighbors must not suffer restrictions as a consequence of his usage which are more onerous than those placed on him. Hence, the need for wise use of zoning and other controls. Many of us are "neighbors" of Arden Plaza. We live in Arden Hills because of the neighborly, small community ambience. This is a significant factor taken into account in the planning of the disposition of the TCAAP property. This ambience is quickly destroyed by the incursion of businesses which have the "big box" characteristics of a Wallgreens. The nature of the other businesses contemplated for the subject property has not been disclosed. The demise of the Arden Pharmacy would be a direct loss to me, as would be the presence of other businesses which could have a similarly degrading effect, There is already a Walgreens just three miles south on Lexington, and a pharmacy at the "big box" Target a third of a mile north on Lexington. There is no need for yet another pharmacy in Arden Hills. There is a clear need to retain the high quality, personal service provided by the Arden Pharmacy, which service is so abundantly lacking at Walgreens. I recognize this is not an easy matter. It is my hope that you, and the others involved, will be able to adjudicate this issue such that it will not be more onerous on the property owner than it will be on those of us who have a vested interest in the quality of Arden Hills as a Community. Thomas S. Steele James Lehnhoff Subject: blgras@comcast.net Sunday, September 30, 2007 7:46 PM James Lehnhoff; ejharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116 @aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Development at Lexington and Co. Rd, E From: Sent: To: Please use your common sense and do not approve the Walgreens store proposed for Co. Rd. E. and Lexington. That corner already has terrible access to the shopping center, and the traffic pattern in that intersection is very congested many hours of the day. It is very necessary that south Shoreview and Arden Hills continue to have access to the postal substation in Arden Plaza. Due to the addition of the 24 hr. fitness center, parking is most difficult for the shopping retailers as it exists. Pharmaceuticals are already available at discounted rates at both the Cub and Target stores only a short distance away. The addition of Walgreens is over-kill. Thank you. Gene and Lynda Ras 1212 Ravenswood CT. Shoreview, MN. 55126 Long time residents of 1092 Carlton Dr., Shoreview, MN. Hope you're having a great day. 1 Page I of 1 James Lehnhoff From: patlancaster [patlancaster@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:20 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: Walgreens Hi James, I hope that our wonderful pharmacy, gift shop & drug store in Arden Hills with not be replaced, Noone I know has any problem finding a Walgreens, Snyders or CVS on some of our nearby main roads, I love going to such a pleasant & unique neighborhood shop for greeting cards etc., & the post office is hugely convenient. I hope you will say "no" to Walgreens, I don't need or want them in AH, Thanks! Pat Lancaster 1535 Royal Hills Drive IVI/2007 Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: Gilbert Ward [wardx043@umn,edu] Sent: Monday, October 01, 20074:48 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: Walgreens Sir: My wife and I are opposed to a new Walgreens going into Arden Hills Plaza. Thanks. Gilbert E. Ward 1040 Carlton Drive Shoreview, MN 55126 651-483-1416 11l1l2007 4725 Norma Avenue Arden Hills, MN 55112 October I, 2007 Arden Hills Planning Commission Arden Hills City Hall 1245 W. Highway 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 Dear Commission Members: I am writing this letter to state my opposition to the proposal to build a Walgreen Drug Store near the intersection of Lexington A venue North and West County Road E. It is my feeling that this proposal to build a "big box" drug store will increase the amount of traffic at this junction to the point where it will be too congested to allow for normal traffic flow. The current businesses at Arden Plaza will experience a negative impact should such construction be permitted. In addition, we already have a neighborhood pharmacy/gift shop serving the community quite adequately. If this proposal is allowed to become reality it will, in my opinion, be another example of the "big box" corporation taking over and driving out the small local business. Arden Plaza Phannacy/Gift Store already has enough competition from the Target Store located only a half mile away. Please vote "no" to the proposal and support our local business community! Sincerely, 1'~ M-1 v<<itkrttk~ Robert Hennen Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: Dinndorf, Kathy [Kathy_Dinndorf@McKesson.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 4:30 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: Arden Plaza Redevelopment Hello James, I understand based on Mayor Harpstead's column in the last Arden Hills Notes that the city has the philosophy of letting the competitive marketplace drive development decisions. However, I still feel the need to voice my opposition to potentially having a Walgreens constructed in Arden Plaza_ That would make 4 pharmacies within about Y. mile of each other: Arden Plaza Pharmacy, Target, Cub, and now Walgreens, There is no need for that, and the casualty will most certainly be the smallest one, Arden Plaza Pharmacy_ It seems to be almost a blatant attempt to put them out of business_ I for one have always preferred the small family owned pharmacy over the larger chain varieties, and have appreciate that we have such a pharmacy (as well as the other family-owned businesses) in Arden Hills_ My hope is that the city might reconsider its stance in this matter if possible. Thanks for listening @, Kathy Dinndotf Technical Implementation Engineer McKesson Provider Technologies Office: 651.697.5963 Fax: 651.697,5905 Cell: 651.253.0386 E-mail: kathv.dinndorf@mckesson.com 111112007 Page I of I James Lehnhoff Sent: To: From: D Ettel [dgetteI1@comcast.net] Tuesday, October 02. 2007 7:00 PM James Lehnhoff sjharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.nel Subject: Proposed Arden Plaza Development Cc: Dear Mr. Lehnhoff: We, Roger & Diana Ettel, are concerned about the effects of increased traffic from the proposed development at Arden Plaza. We live on Tiller Lane, and existing traffic already makes it extremely difficult to leave our neighborhood, particularly during rush hour. If the proposed development at Arden Plaza is approved, we believe you should begin making plans for a traffic light at Ingerson Road & Lexington Avenue. We also urge you and the Planning Commission to consider the likely loss of the postal sub-station in Arden Hills if the development is approved. Please make plans to continue providing a postal substation in Arden Hills. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please forward these comments to members of the city's Planning Commission. Sincerely, Roger and Diana Ettel I I/1I2007 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Subject: Eric Stechmann [estechmann@comcastnet] Tuesday, October 02, 2007 11 :00 PM James Lehnhoff RE: the proposed Walgreens Mr. Lehnhoff I'm writing you to express my dismay at hearing of the proposed changes to the Arden Shopping Center at the intersection of Lexington and County Road E. I have to admit that the prospect of losing Arden Pharmacy is the most disturbing to me. You see, my family and I have used that pharmacy since the time it opened. We know the pharmacists and they know us and that is all too rare these days. Believe met if we wished to use a different pharmacy, we could certainly go to Target or Cub. The mention of Cub and Target brings up another issue that deserves some discussion. This has to do with the serious congestion we already experience in the area. We live in Shoreview just east of Lexington Avenue and south of County Road E. There are already times when it's difficult to turn onto Lexington. I have no doubt that the proposed changes will exacerbate an already bad situation. I thought of something else I believe is worth mentioning. I donlt know if you've tried to mail anything at the Roseville Post Office. It's inconvenient and not a pleasant experience. The postal substation at the Arden Pharmacy is just the opposite - we use it probably several times a week. It is a real asset to the entire area and would be sorely missed. Please take these comments into consideration as you discuss the possibility of putting a Walgreens in place of an already excellent pharmacy. Thank you. SincerelYr Eric Stechmann 3460 Harriet Ct Shoreview MN 55126 651-483-3907 1 Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: JOHN SHIELDS Uohnkris156@msn,com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 20076:43 AM To: James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcast.net; davemcclung@comcast.net Subject: Arden Plaza and Holiday Inn Development Dear Arden Hills Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council: I have been reading about the redevelopment of Arden Plaza and the Holiday Inn site. I appreciate the work that you do to find the right businesses that compliment our local businesses and that will bring customers to the area. For this reason, I wish to state my opinion that Walgreen's and the possibility of an Aldi store moving in to the area would detract from what could be a vibrant Arden Hills. Developers should be allowed to make money but not at the expense of our community. While I am opposed to these businesses, I do think the redevelopment of the mall itself would be positive for the current businesses at Arden Plaza. The hardware store, the Arden Pharmacy and the Hair Expressions salon (to name just a few) need an updated mall with businesses that are also known to draw in customers and that have a good reputation. I believe that a Trader Joe's and Chipolte would be examples of businesses that could meet this criteria. For example in today's Pioneer Press, there is an article on the front page of the North Suburbs section entitled "City is trading up with Trader Joe's". I found it interesting how they quoted a Woodbury resident as stating other people have said, "You are so lucky" when they find out Woodbury is getting a Trader Joe's. I doubt the proposed Walgreen's or Aldi would draw such a reaction in Arden Hills! In fact, the article calls Trader Joe's "a jewel in Woodbury's retail crown". I saw pictures of the availability of parking in the afternoons at Arden Plaza. I believe this store would help fill the parking lot and "benefit neighboring sores by boosting mall traffic". By attracting the right businesses to Arden Hills, other top notch businesses will want to sign on and compliment the local businesses we are already lucky to have. Please deliberate this decision carefully. Our community and its future is in your hands. Sincerely, Kristine Shields 1144 Karth Lake Drive Arden Hills, MN 111l/2007 James Lehnhoff Arden Hills City Hall 1245 WHwy. 96 Arden Hills, MN 55112 I am writing in opposition to having a Walgreen built in Arden Plaza. Dear Mr. Lehnhoff: There are Walgreen stores close for people who wish to shop there. The traffic in and out of the Plaza is already a problem. There is a Cub store and Target very close I use the Postal sub-station and the drug store at the Pharmacy often and would hate to loose them. Trips to the Pharmacy take me to the hardware store and other businesses there. Please use your influence to oppose the building of a Walgreen in Arden Plaza. Sincerely yours, U~ ((.:fry Edna R. Fox 4655 Victoria St. N. Shoreview, MN 55126 10-6-07 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: cfp47@comcast.net Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:09 PM James Lehnhoff sjharpslead@comcast.net Walgreens in Arden Plaza #1. Safety A few weeks ago, just after traffic was stopped for a train, vehicles lined up from the YMCA heading south and from Arden Plaza heading north, an ambulance with lights and siren was making its way the best it could south through the the jam. The intersection of County Road E and Lexington is often affected by the train and is crossed frequently by the Allina ambulances. I know because I live on the west side of Lexington just south of Co. Rd. E and hear them on a regular basis. The YMCA is expanding. More members, more cars as well as more kids on bikes. The 35W bridge collapse has resulted in new traffic patterns and more cars are now using Lexington and Snelling. Target and CUB draw many customers requiring traffic lights to regulate the flow of cars turning in and out. From my point of viewt if safety and traffic are issues related to the building of Walgreenst I don't see how having one is going to improve things. #2. Community. What will a Walgreens offer us that we don't have already? Arden Hills has a residential community feel to it and I think most people who live here would agree and probably like it that way. Need prescriptions filled?. ..Arden Pharmacy, CUB, Target. .need do-dads?. ..Target, need food?...CUB or Target. How would a Walgreens enhance our lives or the feel of our community? In my view it would just give Arden Hills a hanky-tonk appearance and detract greatly from the neighborly feel it has now. I am hoping you will deny this development. Once we give up our green space and residential appearance we will never regain it. #3. Stake holders. Who stands to gain from this investment? investors or families trying to start a business? I doubt it. investors and family businesses will be in jeopardy because of you allow this, will you allow a Wal-Mart next? A group of community Insteadl community a huge national chain. If #4. Urgency. What is the rush? If the long range implications of this proposal are not clearly in the best interests of many in our community, postpone it. Wait until it is clear that this business is actually needed before you make a hasty, irreversible decision. You are elected to be responsible stewards of the common good. Please make sure you know what that is. Respectfully, Christine pistotnik Arden Hills resident 1 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Brenda McGuire [brendamcguire@mac_com] Sunday, October 14, 20074:29 PM sjharpstead@comcast.net James Lehnhoff Arden Plaza Walgreens Dear Mayor Harpstead: I am writing because I am concerned with the proposal for a large Walgreens proposed for Arden Plaza. My specific objection is the introduction of another large and informal business establishment, joining Cub and Target on Lexington Blvd. Arden HIlls suffers from not having a real downtown area, and an additional Walgreens would in no way improve the feeling and does not fill a need. For pharmacies, we have Arden Pharmacy, Cub's and Target's pharmacies within a stone's throw, and two additional Walgreens within a three mile radius. Traffic on the intersection is already a problem during the rush hours, and this would only make it worse. I do not oppose developmentr but the addition of another big box type store, and four pharmacies within a mile seems not the way to go. Thank you for hearing me. Sincerely, Brenda McGuire 1 Page 1 of I James Lehnhoff From: Susan Osburn [susanj049@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 20,20072:14 PM To: James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcastnet; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Subject: proposal to build a Walgreens in Arden Plaza To Arden Hills City Council Members: I am writing to express my concern about the proposal to build a Walgreens in Arden Plaza. With a Walgreens in Roseville only a few miles away (on Snelling and County Road C), I hardly see the need for another Walgreens in the vicinity. Also, another Walgreens would bring increased traffic at the intersection of County Road E and Lexington, which is already quite busy especially during traffic times. I ask your consideration of the possible negative impact that this building could bring. Thank you for your service to Arden Hills and for your careful consideration on this topic.. Susan Osburn 11ll/2007 Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: jan Uan.moser@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, October 22,20076:16 PM To: James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Subject: Arden Hills development I am writing to oppose the proposal to open a Walgreens in Arden Plaza, As a resident of Shoreview who works in Arden Hills at COUNTRY Insurance, I travel across the intersection of County Road E and Lexington every day, The Cub added a significant amount to the traffic of this intersection. Then another office building went up next to Schoonover's, All are increasing our volume of traffic, It is already designated as a level "E" intersection and that is with minimal traffic flow from McGuire's which will be closing. This corner is estimated to be at a level "F" within one year and that is without taking into consideration who will buy and renovate McGuires. To add a Walgreens will just intensify the traffic that much more. We do not have a road system to support the traffic flow that could be generated in a few years with Walgreens and new ownership for McGuires. Second, we have a new Walgreens going up on the corner of 96 and Hodgsen Road - why do we need another one within a 3 mile radius. There is resident support for Arden Pharmacy which is a locally owned and operated pharmacy and Mail station, Residents do not want to see the loss of that store due to competition from one more national chain, Third, how will we accommodate parking demands, That parking lot is quite busy during the day with the traffic supporting the current mix of tenants. Thank you for listening to resident concerns. Sincerely, Jan Moser 4330 Lakepoint Court Shoreview, MN II/I/2007 Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: Lorraine Picard Uiggs-Ip@usfamily.net] Sent: Monday, October 22, 20077:00 PM To: James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; holdenbj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Subject: Walgreen proposal As a Shoreview neighbor who shops regularly at the stores in Arden Plaza, I would not welcome a Walgreens, I absolutely love Arden Pharmacy for the postal service, and good selection of cards and gifts, It would be another loss to the corporate world and would take away from the hometown feeling of the Plaza with Kim's tailors, Ace Hardware and the other stores. I have found Walgreen ads to be misleading and I absolutely refuse to shop at Walgreens. Please consider this proposal with great thought for the ramifications to this area. Lorraine Picard 5650 Donegal Dr. Shoreview, MN 55126 --- USFamilv.Net - $8.25/mo! -- Highspeed - $19.99/mo! --- 111112007 Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: stpattio@juno.com Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 6:07 PM To: James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcast.net; David_Grant; holdenbhj24@aol.com; franh116@aol.com; fran116@aol.som; davemcclung@comcast.net Subject: Fw: Proposed Walgreens at Arden Plaza ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- We are voicing our concern regarding the proposed Walgreens in Arden Plaza. This is absolutely an absurd idea. There is enough traffic difficulties as is for getting in and out of the shopping center. Also, there are way too many Walgreens around now. We don't need one on every comer!!! There is a Cub and Target pharmacy about a block away. The Arden Pharmacy is a great pharmacy, place to shop, etc., and to get them out of there would be a total catastrophe! We shall see you at the hearing! Thank you! Patti Larson, Shoreview Don and Helen Luther, Shoreview Rita Stout, Arden Hills Bill Anderson, Shoreview Mona Swaggert, Shoreview 1l/l/2007 Page I of I James Lehnhoff From: gojocain@juno,com Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 8:25 PM To: James Lehnhoff Subject: Arden Plaza Development Dear Mr. Lehnhoff, We spoke on the phone recently about Arden Plaza Development and Walgreen's proposal of a new store. My question is: What will happen to the beautiful trees that have grown for years in the space where the new store will be? I plan to be at the November meeting. Thank you. Cordially, Ginny Cain, 4 Pine Tree Drive #1l0, Arden Hills MN 55112-3777 One more thing; My Condo is listed under my son's name, Michael J Cain, of Rogers MN, but please send mailings to my above address. His name is used for legal purposes only. TX. Click for free Quote on refinancinQ: vour mortgage. 11Il!2007 James Lehnhoff Subject: Scott Steinberg [scott@ras-lIc,com] Sunday. October 28,200710:00 AM James Lehnhoff; sjharpstead@comcast.net; holdenbj24@aol.com; David_Grant; franh116 @aol.com; davemcclung@comcast.net Proposed Walgreens From: Sent: To: Dear City of Arden Hills leaders, I wanted to voice my concern over the proposal to build a Walgreens in Arden Hills. I oppose this project and would like to note that by approving this project it would probably force the Arden Pharmacy out of business as well our neighborhood would be losing a postal sub-station. My family uses the Arden Pharmacy on a weekly basis as well as most of my neighbors do also. There are already enough large stores with pharmacies in the immediate neighborhood including Target, Cub Foods, as well as a nearby Walgreens less than 3 miles away in Roseville already. Arden Hills is a small community and that is why I moved here. It is not a suburb of 35,000+ residents like Roseville which can support that many similar businesses. Please take into consideration these factors when making a decision for our community. with the TCAAP land in the process of being planned it would seem like it would be a more obvious choice to have a Walgreens in that location than the proposed location in my neighborhood. Thank you for consideration. Sincerely, Scott Steinberg 1130 Tiller Lane Arden Hills, MN 55112 651-636-0208 1 James Lehnhoff From: Sent: To: Subject: sjharpstead@comcast.net Thursday, November 01, 2007 8:53 AM Michelle Wolfe; James Lehnhoff FW: Walgreen's @ Arden Plaza Michelle and James FYI Stan H -------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- From: Kathleen Conard <kconard@ties2.net> To: sjharpstead@comcast.net Subject: Walgreen's @ Arden Plaza Date, Mon, 13 Aug 2007 15,05,57 +0000 > Dear Mayor- > > Please do not allow a Walgreen's to build in Arden Plaza. My > opposition is based on the fact that we have a unique non-chain > drugstore with Arden Pharmacy that serves its customers with sound > support for getting the best medicines and is comparable with price. > My second reason for the opposing the proposal is that area is > already congested with trafficr and thirdly there are three > pharmacies along Lexington from Arden Pharmacy @ County Road E, Cub > pharmacy, and Target Pharmacy near 694. > > Kathleen Conard > 1474 Arden View Drive > Arden Hills, MN 55112 1 ~ ~IDLLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 07, 2007 PC Agenda Item 3.B TO: Planning Commission Meagan Beekman, Planner I~ FROM: SUBJECT: Planning Case #: 07-025 Recreational Vehicle Zoning Code Amendment City of Arden Hills ATTACHMENT: 3B-I ProposedRV Code-November 7, 2007 Requested Action Based on the outcome of the RV work session, the Planning Commission may choose to approve, deny or table the proposed RV ordinance. Backe:round In May 2007, Staff was directed by the Planning Commission and the City Council to examine the current zoning code regarding recreation vehicles. Staff was asked to clarify the defini1ions used for "recreational vehicle" as well as the methodology for measuring "length" and "height" of RVs. The primary goal of this amendment is to clarify the definitions and build consistency within the RV code. A draft of a revised RV code was proposed in May; however, the project was delayed for additional research. In response 10 the Council and Planning Commission's request, Staff analyzed the current code and reviewed codes from fifteen other communities in the metropolitan area. Comments and discussion were elicited from other City Staff, including the code enforcement officer and the building official. A proposed RV ordinance was drafted and presented to the Planning Commission at the October 3, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting, the Planning Commission voted City a/Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting/or November 7, 2007 llAhdocsllAH\AHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (PENDING)\] 10707 - PC Report - Rv Regulations.doc Page 1 of2 unanimously to table the RV ordinance so staff could do additional research and clarify certain aspects of the proposed code. A work session was held prior to the November 7, 2007, meeting to further discuss specific regulations and concems raised by the Commissioners at the October 3, 2007, meeting. No official action or decisions can be made at a work session meeting. At this time, the Planning Commission may choose to approve the proposed RV ordinance with the changes discussed at the work session, deny the ordinance, or table it for additional research and review. Options and Motion Lane:uae:e 1. Recommend Approval (with Commission Chanzes): Motion to recommend aVDroval of Planning Case 07-025 to amend the Recrea1ional Vehicle Ordinance Section, 1325.10 of the Zoning Code, as presented in the November 7, 2007, planning case report (with changes) 2. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 07-025 to amend the Recreational Vehicle Ordinance as proposed in the November 7,2007, planning case report (recommending denial should include specific reasons). 3. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 07-025 to amend the Recreational Vehicle Ordinance as proposed in the November 7, 2007, planning case report for the following reasons... A change to the Zoning Code requires a public hearing before the Planning Commission and approval from 4/5 of the City Council. The Zoning Code change would go into effect upon publication in the official City newspaper. Notice Notice was published in the Shoreview-Arden Hills Bulletin. Staff has not received any letters, e-mails, or telephone calls from property owners or occupants in regard to this planning case, other than those received at the October 3, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Deadline for Ae:encv Actions There are no deadlines for action on this request. Attachment Proposed RV Code - November 7, 2007 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meetingfor November 7, 2007 \\AhdocsllAH1AHdatalPlanning\Planning Cases\2007\07-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (PENDING) \110707 - PC Report - Rv Regulations.doc Page 2 of2 Attachment 3.B-l Proposed RV Code - November 7, 2007 ~ ~HILLS November 7, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting Proposed RV Code November 7, 2007 Definitions: Subd. 136 Recreational vehicles (RV's). Vehicles for recreational or utilitarian uses that can be driven, towed, or hauled. These vehicles may be designed to be temporary living spaces for camping/travel use. RVs shall include: Any watercraft, snowmobile, pull camper, all terrain vehicle (A TV), motor home, travel trailer, tent trailer, special purpose trailer, utility trailer used for hauling, or other similar vehicle. A recreational vehicle uponiltrailer shall constitute one recreational vehicle. Water-Oriented Recreational Vehicles and Equipment, Motorized boats, watercraft, and their trailers including, but not limited to, power boats, cruisers, jet skies, fishin untin boats/pontoon boats, sail boa1s RV Height. The height of an RV shall be measured frorrith~,ground to the highest point of the structure not including antennas and utility/mechanical systems",provided they are accessory to the RV and take up no more than ten (10) petcentofthe roofsuifaq~"rea. RV Length. The length of an RV shall be measutedfrolllel1d to end including any hitch or motor. For the purposes length, a recreational vehicle on a trailer will be measured as one vehicle. Ft........"'...............rI ..' .'," ".....,.",..,.".....,_.,'.,., ..... ...... . , . .. I I 1325.10 Recreationat:~ehicles (RV's). The unregulated outside parking and outside storage of all motor vehicles and.tbcreational vehicles and equipment within a residential use district or accessory to a residential use is found to create a nuisance, hazard and detrimental influence upon the public health, safety and general welfare of the community by obstructing the view on streets and on private property, bringing noise and odors into residential areas, creating cluttered and otherwise unsightly areas, preventing the full use of residential streets for residential parking, reducing the useable open space of streets and private property and otherwise adversely affecting residential property values and neighborhood maintenance and improvement. Subd. 1 General Regulations for RV's in All Districts. A. Storage in an Enclosed Structure. RVs of any height or length may be kept within an enclosed structure provided the structure conforms to the underlying zoning requirements of the district. B. Attachment to Ground Not Permitted. RVs shall not be permanently affixed to the ground in a manner that would prevent removal. RVs not permitted to be operated on public streets shall be placed on or in a trailer or motor vehicle. C. Use of RVs. No RV shall be used for temporary or.pefmanent living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes in the City. RVs shall notj)eco]jnected to sewer, water, or other utility for any period of time. D. Condition While Stored. All RVs shall be stored or parked in a secure, safe, orderly, and well-maintained condition that does not inhibit emergency vehicle.access to any property. All RVs shall be currently licensed and operable at all times while being stored. E. Ownership. Permitted storage shall only be allowed for RV's owned by the owner or occupant of the property on whibh'the R V is stored. F. No RV shall be permitted on a>vacantlQt without a pnmary structure unless ill conformance with Section 13 25.1 ] Subd. 2 Permitted RV Storage. Storing recreational vehicles outside of an enclosed building or structure is permitted in all residential districts provided that all of the following provi~i(}ns are met: ANo more than RV's may be stored outside on a residential lot. No more than one (I) of the RV's may be a self-propelled motor home, travel trailer, camper, or other similar type ofRV. B. RVs shall not be placed within the principle structure side yard setback and shall be at least ten (l0) feet from any rear property lines. If both side and rear yards are available for parking or storage, then the location with the least visibility from streets and neighboring property, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall be used for such storage. C. On any lot, RVs shall not be stored closer to the front property line than the principle structure or attached garage. Additionally, in the case of comer lots the RV shall not be stored closer to the property line than the principle structure or attached garage in the side yard adjacent to the street. D. Any RV that is stored outdoors shall not be placed closer to the principle building of an adjoining lot than to the principle building on the lot where it is stored. 2 E. RVs stored outside shall not be more than twenty-eight (28) feet III leng1h and feet in height. F. RVs stored in the side yard and visible from the public right-of-way shall be screened with a privacy fence or landscaping of similar opacity as determined by the Zoning Administra10r, unless they are kept on an improved hard surface. Subd. 3 Short-Term RYl'arking in Residential Districts A. Short-Term Parking without Permit.. Licensed and operable RVs of any leng1h or height may be parked in driveways for the sole expressed purpose of loading, unloading, and cleaningforapepoA rot to exceed seventy-two (72) hours, provided that they are not within fifteen (15)>feet of the curb, and are not within five (5) feet of a side property line. B. Short-Term Parking with Permit. Administrative Permits for a period of up to seven (7) days, renewable once during a twelve (12) month period, may be obtained from City Hall that would permit a licensed and operable RV to park in the driveway provided that they are not within fifteen (15) feet of the curb, and are not within five (5) feet ofa side property line. 3 Graphic Storage Location Summary. No part of the RV shall be outside of the permit1ed RV storage area described in the above section and displayed in the below graphics. . Principle Structure Side Yard Setback 40' Side Yard R-1 10 feel R-2 5 feel R~3 5 feet 40' 40' Property line Curb~ Street Subd. 4 Shoreline Residential Lots. I A. In addition to the provisions regulated in Section 1325.10, the owner or occupant of anyshoreU:ne lot is permitted 10 store three (3) additional water-oriented recreational vehicles arid ",,!uipmentoutside of an enclosed structure. B. RVs shall not beip~rrnitted within fifty (50) feet of the Ordinary High Water (OHW) Mark on any property, with the exception of water-oriented recreational vehicles and equiPlllent, which shall meet a ten (10) foot minimum setback from the OHW mark when stOred on shore. 4 Graphic Storage Location Summary. No par1 of the RV shall be outside of the permitted RV storage area described in the above section and displayed in the below graphics. * Principle Structure Side Yard Setback R-1 10 feet R-2 5 feet R-3 5 feet 40' Curb ..-----" Property Line Street Permitted RV Parking Permitted Water-Oriented RV Parking 5 ~ ~~ HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 07, 2007 Work Session TO: Planning Commission Meagan Beekman, Planner ~~ James Lehnhoff, City Planny Planning Case #: 07-025 - Recreational Vehicle Work Session FROM: SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed RV Ordinance from the October 3 Planning Commission Meeting 2. RV Codes from Surrounding Communities Requested Action This memo contains items of concem brought up at the October 3cd Planning Commission meeting, as well as possible solutions. Please review the items and provide feedback to staff. The Commission can not take formal action at a work session. Backe:round In May 2007, Staff was directed by the Planning Commission and the City Council to examine the current zoning code regarding recreation vehicles. Staff was asked to clarify the definitions used for "recreational vehicle" as well as the methodology for measuring "length" and "height" of RVs. The primary goal of this amendment is to clarify the definitions and build consistency within the RV code. A draft of a revised RV code was proposed in May; however, the project was delayed for additional research. In response to the Council and Planning Commission's reques1, Staff analyzed the current code and reviewed codes from fifteen other communities in 1he metropolitan area. Comments and discussion were elicited from other City Staff, including the code enforcement officer and the building official. Based on these discussions and comparisons of the Arden Hills code to those of other communities, it became clear that there were additional opportnnities 10 strengthen the RV code beyond simply clarifying the definitions. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 7, 2007 llAhdocsl\AHIAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007107-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (PENDING)II! 0703 - PC Work Session - RV Ordinance. doc Page I of? there were additional opportunities to strengthen 1he RV code beyond simply clarifying the definitions. At the October 3'd Planning Commission meeting, an RV ordinance was presented for comments and questions. The Planning Commission provided feedback, questions, and concerns 10 be addressed by staff. Staff conducted additional research in order to respond to these concems, which are presented in this report. This information is designed to direct conversation about RV s10rage and attempt to develop a consensus around certain open issues. Decisions made can be implemented into the proposed ordinance immediately and voted on at the regular November Planning Commission Mee1ing, or if additional clarification or research is needed, the ordinance can be tabled to the December meeting. Open Issues and Options The issues that were raised at the October 3, 2007 Planning Commission meeting are addressed in this section The numbers indicate each separate concem and options for resolving the issue. Total Number of RVs 1. One of the issues that were raised at the October 3'd Planning Commission meeting was the concem over the number of RVs currently permitted on a lot. The existing code permits up to three RVs on each property, not more than one of which may be either a self-propelled motor home or a travel trailer. In rewriting this ordinance, the City has an opportunity to adjust 1his number if deemed necessary. With the broadened definition of RVs and the inclusion of trailers, It IS not unreasonable to assume that reducing the number of permitted RVs on a property would require that some residents of the City would need to relocate, or otherwise make accommodation for, vehicles that are currently permitted under the present code. It would be ex1remely difficult to grandfather existing RVs into 1he new ordinance because there is not a clear record ofRVs parked in the City. In addition, of the four communities surrounding Arden Hills, only Shoreview limits the number ofRVs that can be kept on a residential property at two. While the other communities may not limit the number of RVs, they do regulate where on a property they can be located through setbacks or permitted amount of hard surface. 2. Another possible solution would be to limit the total number of vehicles, both recreational and otherwise, that may be stored outside on a single property. Currently City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 7, 2007 \lAhdocsl\AHIAHdatalPlanninglPlanoing Cases\2007\07-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (pENDING)\110703 - PC Work Session - RV Ordinance. doc Page 2 of? properties are permitted to have up to four cars parked outdoors, in addition to three recreational vehicles. It is possible to adopt an RV ordinance 1hat would cap the number of vehicles of any kind that would be permitted to be parked on a property. If this is done, the ordinance that addresses the number of permitted cars in a driveway would also need to be revised. In addition, if someone currently does not store any cars in their driveway they could then have more RVs than are currently permitted, storing them in the side or rear yard. Staff Recommendation Staff does not have a recommendation as to the number ofRVs that are reasonable on a residential property. There is not a clear trend amongst other cities. However, there does need to be a consensus on the number. Height/Length 3. The RV code currently does not limit the height of RVs; however, RVs less than seven feet in height can be stored closer to the property line than RV s that are greater than seven feet. The seven foot height maximum was written into 1he proposed ordinance after a misinterpretation of the current code. Therefore, staff recommends 1hat the height limit either be removed entirely or altered to reflect more standard heights ofRVs. After discussing this regulation with code enforcemen1 and researching standard motor home and travel trailer sizes with two RV area dealers, it was reported that travel trailers and motor homes are typically between II feet and 13 feet six inches in height. There are pop-up travel trailers that would meet the seven fo01 height maximum, but most modem ones would not, and all motor homes are a minimum of eleven feet high. It was also reported that a standard 28 foot motor home is 12 feet in height. Limiting RVs to a height of seven feet would effectively prohibit the storage of most RVs in the City, which would be a significant departure from current policy. Staff Recommendation Based on this information, staff recommends 1hat if there is a height maximum for RVs that it be set somewhere between 12 feet and 13 feet six inches. Anything less would effectively prohibit travel trailers and motor homes. Screening 4. The issue of screening was brought up at the last meeting. The proposed code does not require any screening if the RV is parked in the rear yard, which is the case with the current code. The proposed regulation regarding screening and storage on City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 7, 2007 \\Ahdocsl IAHlAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (PENDING)\l10703 - PC Work Session - RV Ordinance. doc Page 3 of7 improved surfaces in the side yard has been revised for clarification. In addition, if someone chooses to park their RV on an improved hard surface, this would be calculated into the total impervious coverage on their lot. The revised ordinance now reads: F. Screening. RVs stored in the side vard and visible from the public right- of-wav shall be screened with a privacv fence or landscaping of similar opacitv as determined bv the Citv Planner. unless thev are kept on an improved hard surface. 5. Another question from the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting was whether or not the ordinance should require RVs to be covered when stored outdoors. According to the Ci1y Attomey, it could be reasonable to require that RVs stored outdoors be covered, if it is for the purpose of minimizing their impact on property values. However, regulating such a requirement raises other legal issues, such as the material of the covering, the color of the covering, and the condition in which the covering must be maintained. According to the City Attorney, because other vehicles parked outdoors, such as cars in driveways, are not required to be covered, and the City does not regulate the color of a person's home or garage, it could be argued that this ordinance would be a violation of a person's equal protection under the law. In addition, it would be difficult to require larger RVs such as motor homes to be covered; however, it would be possible to include screening requiremen1s such as coverings as conditions for variance approval. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends not regulating the color or covering requirements for RVs, but rather dealing wi1h the impacts of RVs on neighboring properties through other regulations in this ordinance, such as setbacks and parking on improved surfaces, and requiring coverings for the purpose of screening on a case by case basis with the vanance process. Lake Properties 6. One of the issues that came up at the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting was the concern over shoreline properties and the storage of additional water oriented RVs. In practice, it is not uncommon for owners of lake properties to own a fishing boat, a speed boat, a canoe, kayak, a wave runner and/or other such craft. Some of these vehicles may also have trailers. During the summer months most individuals keep larger boats in the water all the time. The types of water craft that would be stored on shore would most likely be smaller craft such as canoes and kayaks or motorized fishing boats tha1 can more City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 7,2007 \\AhdocsllAH\AHdatalPlanoinglPlanning Cases\2007\07-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (PENDING)\II0703 - PC Work Session - RV Ordinance. doc Page 4 of7 easily be brought in and out of the water. In addition, storing small, non-motorized craft may have less of a visual impact on the lake than larger boats, fishing boats, and even boatlifts. In order to better control the number of permitted RVs, one solution would be to exclude one or two person non-motorized water craft from this ordinance, but then include boat lifts as water-oriented RVs. The setbacks and other storage issues for these small non-motorized craft, as well as docks, can be dealt with in the shoreland ordinance. In this way, the RV ordinance deals only with 1hose vehicles and boats that impose the most visual impact, and are the most difficult to store. Thus, the total number of RVs that can be stored outdoors on shoreline properties could be the same or slightly more than is permitted on other properties, while also acknowledging that owners of shoreland properties are more likely to have RVs, and more of them, then owners of other types of properties. The definition of Water Orien1ed Recreational Vehicles could read: Water-Oriented Recreational Vehicles and Equipment. Motorized boats, watercraft, and 1heir trailers including, but not limi1ed to, power boats, cruisers, jet skies, fishing/hunting boats/pontoon boats, boatlifts, as well as sail boats and other non-motorized craft with greater than two person capacitv. This definition excludes non-motorized one and two person crafts such as canoes. kavaks. and paddle boats. Staff Recommendation Staff does not have a recommendation for or against this change in the definition of wa1er-oriented RVs, just a request that the Planning Commission discusses it and provides feedback. 7. A question regarding setbacks from the ordinary high water mark was discussed at the October 3rd Planning Commission meeting. Current code prohibits RVs from being stored within fifty feet from the ordinary high water mark (OHM), with the exception of water-oriented RVs which may be stored as near as ten feet from the OHM. Staff believes that a ten foot setback is reasonable for properties along the lake shore, that having a setback greater than ten feet could create an undue hardship for many of the lake shore property owners. Some of these properties have somewhat extreme grade changes and other challenges, such as trees, that would prohibit the storage of boats in the back yard entirely if they had to be pulled up greater than ten feet. In addition, increasing the setback from ten feet would constitute a significant change from what current regulation allows. Again, most people s10re their larger City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 7, 2007 llAhdocsllAHlAHdata\Planning\Planning Cases\2007107-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (PENDING)lll0703 - PC Work Session - RV Ordinance. doc Page 5 of? boats, such as pontoons, in the water all summer, and regulating how these are stored will be dealt with in the Shoreland Management Ordinance; however, once these watercraft are brought on land they will fall under the purview of this ordinance, and must be stored at least ten feet from the ordinary high water mark. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends maintaining the current code prohibiting RV storage within fifty feet from the lake, and permitting water-oriented RVs to be stored as near as ten feet from the ordinary high water mark, as is written in the proposed code. DNR Regulations 8. Staff spoke with Ramsey County's water hydrologist with the DNR, and the DNR does not have any specific regulations or preferences as to where boats, boatlifts, or other such devises are stored when on shore. They do regulate the location of water oriented structures (i.e. boathouses), but not vehicles. The DNR hydrologist did not have a concern over water quality being impacted by the proximity of these vehicles to the lake. Variance Criteria At the October 3Td Planning Commission Meeting, the Commission came 10 a consensus 1hat the conditional use permit process should be removed from the proposed ordinance. However, as with others parts of the Zoning Code, property owners could still apply for a variance in nnique situations. 9. Currently, the variance process requires applicants to show that an undue hardship, not created by the property owner, is present in order to gran1 the variance. This criterion is set by State Statute. Based on the S1ate Statutes, it seems unlikely that a variance for any RV, regardless of situation, would be possible because the property owner is the one who purchased the RV, thus creating the need for the variance. However, s1aff acknowledges that in creating this new RV ordinance, there will be properties on which, because of the setback requirements and other regulations, the storage of an RV is impossible. With this knowledge, i1 is possible to create a specific set of criteria for gran1ing an RV variance that would permi1 alternative locations for s10rage if issues such as lot configuration or topographic features prohibited normal location regulations to be met. 10. Regardless of the criteria that are decided upon, the variance process can be administered one of two ways; the process can be an administrative one, issued by City S1aff based on the determined set of criteria, or be a variance process similar to other variances that required review from the Planning Commission and City Council. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 7, 2007 \\Ahdocsl\AH\AHdatalPlanoinglPlanning Cases\2007\07-025 RV Regalalions Zoning Amendment (PENDING)\II0703 - PC Work Session - RV Ordinance. doc Page 6 of7 In the case of the administrative variance, it would require less staff time as well as less time spent by the Planning Commission and City Council on RV storage; however, with the administrative variance option the Planning Commission and City Council would not review these variances. When a property owner disagrees with Staff s application of the administrative variance, it could still be appealed to the Planning Commission and City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends creating criteria that allows alternative locations for RV storage in the event that topographic conditions or lot configuration do not otherwise permit normal location regulations. This process can then be an administrative variance that staff would handle; applying the criteria set forth by the Council. The regulation addressing the variance process would read: G. Alternative locations for storing an RV on a property can be permitted bv the Zoning Administrator with an administrative variance for UP to one (1) RV. when topographic conditions or lot configuration do not allow for the normal location regulations to be met and all of the following criteria are met: 1. The RV is at least five feet from the side or rear propertv line: 2. If stored forward of the principle structure the RV must be parked on an improved surface. 3. The R V is not parked closer to the principle structure of adioining lot than to the principle structure on the lot where it is stored. 4. The propertv owner shall obtain written permission from the adiacent propertv owners which shall be kept on file at 1he Citv. The adiacent propertv owners shall reserve the right 10 rescind approval at anv time. Page 7 of7 City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Work Session for November 7, 2007 \\Ahdocsl\AHIAHdatalPlanninglPlanning Cases\2007\07-025 RV Regulations Zoning Amendment (PENDING)\II0703 - PC Work Session - RV Ordinance. doc Attachment 1 Proposed RV Orinance from the October 3 Planning Commission Meeting ~ ~HILLS November 7, 2007, Planning Commission Work Session Proposed RV Ordinance From the October 3 Planning Commission Meeting Definitions: Subd. 136 Recreational vehicles (RV's). Vehicles for recreatioHal Hse that eaH Be dri'/eH, towea or hauled. These vehiclcs may Be aesigfwd to Be temJlorary living space for camp ing/tra..el use. RV's shall iHchuie: travcl trailers camping trailers truek eampers self propelled motor homes Boats and water-e-raft up to 1 sHov:HlOBiles on a trailcr all tcrrain ..ehides V\TV's) Buses, motorcoaches, passeHger lmses, sehool Buses shall Hot Be included in this dcfinition unlcss converted f-or reereatioHal use. Vehicles for recreational or utilitarian uses that can be driven. towed. or hauled. These vehicles mav be designed to be temporary living spaces for camping/travel use. RVs shall include: Anv watercraft. snowmobile. pull camper, all terrain vehicle (A TV). motor home. travel trailer,tent trailer. special purpose trailer. utility trailer used for hauling. or other similar vehicle. A recreational vehicle upon a trailer shall constitute one recreational vehicle. Water-Oriented Recreational Vehicles. Boats and watercraft including, but not limited to, power boats, cruisers, canoes, jetskies, fishing/hun1ing boats/pontoon boats, and sail boats. RV Heie:ht. The heigh1 of an RVshall be measured from the ground to the highest point of the structure not including antennas andiutility/mechanical svstems provided they are accessory to the R V and take UP no more than ten (10)percen1 of the roof surface area. RV Lenl!th. The length of an RVshall be measured from end to end including any hitch or motor. For the purposes ofmeasurilll'dength. a recreational vehicle on a trailer will be measured as one vehicle. ........~I I ~. I 1325.10 Recreational Vehicles (RY's). The restrietioHs set out in this section on the outdoor parking aHd storage of r-eereatioHal vehicles is necessary for the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizeHs of /\r-deH Hills. Yet it is recognized that there are so maHY kiHds Elf recreational vehieles am] so maHY shllj3es aHa sizes sflots aHa land parcels '.vi thin the City, that no matter what restrietisHs are placed upon their outdoor parking aHd storage, haraships '",ill result to some owners of recreational vehieles and HuisaHees will result to some HOB owners. Therefore in an attempt to avoia sueh haraships ana HuisaHees, a system for regula1ing the storage ofRV's is herwy established. The unregulated outside parking and outside storage of all motor vehicles and recreational vehicles and equipment within a residential use district or accessory to a residential use is found to create a nuisance, hazard and detrimental influence upon the public health. safetv and general welfare of the communitv bv obstructing the view on streets and on private property, bringing noise and odors into residential areas, creating cluttered and otherwise unsightly areas, preventing the full use of residential streets for residential parking. reducing the useable open space of streets and private property and otherwise adverselv affecting residential property values and neighborhood maintenance and improvement. Subd. 1 General Regulations for RV's in All Districts; A. Storage in an Enclosed Structure. RV'sp~any height or leng1h may be kept within an enclosed structure which othenvise provided the structure conforms to the underlying zoning requirements of the district. B. Attachment to Ground Not Permitted. RV's shall be mobile and shall not be permanently affixed to the groundjn,a manner that would prevent removal. RVs not permitted to be operated on public streets shall be plaeed on or in a trailer or motor vehicle. C. Use of RV~. NocRv<shall be used for temporary or permanent living, sleeping or housekeeping, purposes in the City. Nor mav thev be connected to sewer, water, or other utilitVforanv period of time. D. R\l Condition While Stored. cNosupllcquipment shall be stored or parked unless it is in,esnditiQ'llfor safe and effccti\'cperformance and is EurreHtly lieeHsea. All RVs shall be stored Or parked in a secure, safe, orderlv, and well-maintained condition that does not inhibitemergencyvehicle access to anv propertv. All RVs shall be current]v licensed and operable at all times while being stored. E. Ownership. Permitted storage shall only be allowed for RV's owned by the owner or occupant of the property on which the RV is stored. F. No RV shall be permitted on a vacant lot without a primary structure. Subd.2 General Regulations f"r the Exterior Storage ofRV's in ResiaeHtial Districts. Permitted RV Storae:e. Storine: recreational vehicles outside of an enclosed buildine: or structure is permitted in all residential districts provided that all of the followine: provisions are met: 2 A. No more than three (3) RV's may be stored outside on a residential lot. No more than one ill of the three ill R V's may be eithef a self-propelled motor home era travel trailer, camper, or other similar type ofRV. B. Ex1erior storage ofRV's less 1han seven (7) feet in height shall be pennit1ed in the rear or side yarn, with a minimum of five (5) feet from any property linc, except when such yard is adjacent to a street where no RV storage is allowed. RVs shall not be placed within the principle structure side vard setback and shall be at least ten (10) feet from anv rear property lines. Ifboth side and rear yards are available for parking or storage, then the location with the least visibility from streets aiJ.d neighboring property, as determined by the Zoning Administrator, shall be used fof such storage. C. RV's less than ty,enty eight (28) feet in length maybe stored outside anywhere in the area '.vhere RV's less than seven (7) fcet in height are allowed as in thc above Section 1325.1 0 SuM 2.1\.2. On anv lot. RVs shalLriot be stored closer to the front propertv line than the principle structure or attached garage. Additionally, in the case of comer lots the R V shall not be stored closer to thejJroperty line than the principle structure or attached garage in the side vard adiacent to the street. D. RV's less than thirty folli' (3 ~)J<Jet in length may be allowed by eonditional use permit in a rear or side yard, with arf,tfflimum side and rearyanl sctbaek of ten (10) feet, except when such a yard abuts ast!cct,J....hpre no parlclngisallowed. This conditional use pennit proccdurc will alloy; the lliliqUQis-.q-pumstanccs of each lot to be considcrcd and the most llflpropriate storage loestionEfe1.giihi~d,.Anv RV that is stored outdoors shall not be placedclo.ser to the prinCiple buildinj!, of an adioining lot than to the principle building on<thelot where it is stored. .. E. RV's ever sevene'!) feeti>> hcight may betit{jred any-;;here in the buildable portion of a residential lot. RVsarenoll1orethan twentv-eight (28) feet in length. F. RVs storedillithe side yard and visible from the public righ1 of way shall be screened with a privacy fence or landscaping of similar opacitv. unless they are kept on an improved hard surface. Subd.3 Short-Term RV Parkine: in Residential Districts A. Short-TermParkine: without Permit. !.II RV's Licensed and operable RVs of anv length or height may be parked in driveways for the sole expressed purpose ofloading and unloading for a period not to. exceed seven1y-two (72) hours, provided that thev are not within fifteen (15) feet of the curb. and are not within five (5) feet of a side propertv line. B. Short-Term Parkine: with Permit. Administrative Permits for a period of up to seven (7) days, renewable once during a 1welve (12) month period, may be obtained from City Hall that would permit a licensed and operable RV to park in the drivewav 3 provided that thev are not within fifteen (15) feet of the curb. and are not within five (5) feet of a side propertv line. Graphie SBmmary ofRV Storage Regulations. A. RV's of aBY leBgth or height may be stored in enclosed struetures, providiBg the stme ture conforms to Zoning Ordinance reqBiremeBts. B. /. maximum of three (3) RV's may be stored outside OB !l ulsideRtiallot. One of the three (3) RV's may be either a self pf-Opellcd motor home or a travel trailer. C. RV's less than twenty eight (28) feet iB leHgth may be stored oBtside iB the loeations described bclov,'. /. conditional use pelmit may be granted to allow storage of RV's Ufl to a maximum leBgth of thirty HlBr (31) feet. This conditional use pelmit procedure ",vill allow the BBiqBe cireBmstaBees of eaeh lot to be eOBsidered aRd the most appropriate stor@pl,Qcation to be determined. .. STREET RIGHT-oF-WAY UNE D. RV's under seveR (7) feet iR heigh(mayoe stored outside llnY'irlfC:1!;<). iB shaded ar!)!i" E. R V's o','er scven (7) fedtih hcight maYbe stored oBtside atl)".vhere in shaded arca (the buildable portiOflof a lot). REAR VAFI) :;:[;10' LAKE W'R-1 5 R.2 FRONT YARD FRONT YARD T 40 smEET RIGHT ..()f.WAY LIE F. Winter Storage of Watcrcraft OR Lakeshore bOOr. STREET RIGHT -Of.WAY LINE 4 Watereraft shall include, lmt shall not be limited to power boats, cruisers, canoes, jet skis, fishing/Imming boats, pontoon boats llfld sail boats. G. Up to three (3) boats aro pormitted to be stored on a shoreline lot in a residential district, in addition to other permitted R V storage. H. Watcrcraft less than seven (7) f-eet in height may be storcd outsidc an)",vhere in the shaded area. The requircd setbaek from the shor-eline shall be fifty (50)f-eet. Howc'/cr, lesser set baeres are permitted when restricted by lot configuration, topogFaphy or size and bulk of the ..vater craft. 1. Waterenlft over seven (7) feet in height may be~tored an)".vhcre inthe shaded area. Graphic Storage Location Summary, No part>oftpe RV shllll be outside ofthe permitted RV storage area described in the above section and'displayed in the below graphics, R-2 40' 5 feet Side Yard ~ Principle Structure Side Yard Setback R-1 10 feet R-3 5 feet Front Yard 40' Property Line Curb~ Street t^l{^i~Hi},:f';,\1 Permitted RV Parking Ii Subd.4 Shoreline Residential Lots. J. The owner or occupant of any shoreline lot is pmmitted to store up to three (3) boats or watercraft, in addition to other permitted RV's, providcd that sHell boats or watercraft: I. Do not oxceed the size limitations for other RV's as rcgulatcd abovc. 5 2. f.nJ storea in locations peilHittea fer otHer RV's as regulated above, exeept that j:oQuHittca boats or watercraft may also be stored in the nJquired lakesHore setback area but not witHin fifty (50) feet of tHe water's eage. Lesser lakeGHore setbacks are permitted when topographic conditions, lot configuration and/or tHe size and bulk of tHe watercraft do not allow the normal fifty (50) foot setback to be met. For purposes of this provision, tHis permitted lakesHore setback encroach moot shall be treatea as part of the buildable pgrtion of the lot. A. In addition to the provisions regulated in Section 1325,10. the owner or occupant of anv shoreline lot is permitted to store three (3) additional water-oriented recreational vehicles outside of an enclosed structure. C. RVs shall not be permitted within fiftv (50)feet (jfthe OrdinarvHigh Water (OHW) Mark on anv propertv. with the exception of water-oriented recreational vehicles. which shall meet a ten (10) foot minimllmsetback from the OHW mark when stored on shore. Graphic Storae:e Location Summary. .No part of the RVshall be outside of the permitted RV storage area described in the above section. and. displaved in thehelow graphics. * Principle Structure Side Yard Setback R-1 R-2 10 feet 5 feet R-3 5 feet Side Yard * ... Front Yard 40' Property Line Curb~ Street Permitted RV Parking Permitted Water-Oriented RV Parking 6 Attachment 2 RV Codes from Surrounding Commumities ~ ~HILLS November 7, 2007, Planning Commission Work Session RV Codes from Surrounding Communities City Shoreview New Brighton Roseville Mounds View Ordinance (B) Parking or Storage of Recreation Vehicles, Boats, ATV's, Snowmobiles, etc. (1) Recreational vehicles, boats, A TV's, snowmobiles, special purpose trailers or other vehicles designed or used for off-road purposes may be parked or stored in a garage or lawfully erected building, or may be parked or stored outdoors as follows: (a) No more than two such vehicles, not more than one of which is a recreational vehicle, shall be parked or stored outdoors on each lot. For the purposes hereof, a vehicle on a trailer shall be considered one vehicle. (b) Any such vehicle parked or stored outdoors shall be owned or leased by the occupant of the premises where parked or stored (c) Any such vehicle shall not be parked or stored within five feet of a side yard lot line, or within ten feet of a rear yard property line. Vehicles may be parked within the required front setback provided vehicles are parked on an approved asphalt, concrete or similar approved hard surface e. Outside storage of boats, campers, trailers, and other recreational vehicles shall be prohibited. [Multi-Family housing] Recreational vehicles must be parked on a paved surface and setback at least 5 feet from the property line. The amount of impervious surface devoted to Recreational Vehicles cannot exceed 300 feet. B. No person may place, park, store, or allow the placement or storage of Ice fish houses, skateboard ramps, play houses, or other similar nonpermanent structures outside continuously for longer than twenty four (24) hours in the front-yard area of residentially- zoned property. Storing of boats, trailers and inoperative motor vehicles in front yards is prohibited. (407.02M1) D. No person shall cause, undertake, permit or allow the outside parking and storage of vehicles in residentially zoned property for more than fourteen (14) thirty (30) days unless it complies with the following requirements. (407.02M3) 1. Vehicles which are parked or stored outside shall be on an improved surface as defined in this Code. 2. All vehicles, watercraft and other articles stored outside on residential property must be owned or leased by a person who is a legal resident of that property. 3. No person, owning, driving or in charge of any vehicle with a manufacturers rated capacity of more than one ton, as specified in Minnesota Statutes, may cause or permit that vehicle to be parked outside or stand continuous for more than two (2) hours on property or public street within a residential zone in the City. Q. Storing of Boats, Trailers and Inoperative Motor Vehicles In Front Yards [is considered a public nuisance]: 1. The storing of the following things for a period longer than 72 hours in the front yard of any residential zoned area [is prohibited]: a. Trailers of any kind, unless supporting a boat of 20 feet or less. b. Boats or watercraft of any kind in excess of 20 feet. c. Inoperative motor vehicles of any type. d. Campers and camper buses. 2. For the purpose of this Section, "front yard" means any area between any public street and a line parallel to the public street at the building line. (Ord. 522, 1-9-1967; 1995 Code) Subd. 4. Recreational Vehicles and Equipment: No person shall allow any recreational vehicle or equipment to be parked off-street closer than fifteen feet (15') to the paved surfaces of a public roadway. Recreational Vehicles shall be parked on a hard surface. ~ ,,^~HILLS MEMORANDUM DATE: November 07,2007 PC Agenda Item 4.A TO: Planning Commission FROM: Meagan Beekman, Planner If..;--- James Lehnhoff, City Planner SUBJECT: Residential Subdivision Concept Plan City of Arden Hills ATTACHMENTS: 4A-I Proposed Concept Plan and Aerial Map Requested Action The applicant is requesting the Planning Commission review a concept plan to subdivide 1355 Cummings Lane into three lots, and provide initial reaction and feedback to the interested party. The Planning Commission is n01 being asked and cann01 take any final action on this concept plan. Backe:round The applicant has submitted a concept plan to subdivide 1355 Cummings Lane into three lots. The property currently accesses Cummings Lane from a long driveway that runs adjacent to Snelling Avenue. Based on the potential lot configuration, the applicant proposes to create a private street to access the new three lots. City Code 1130.03 Subd. 14, states that private streets shall not be approved unless through a Planned Unit Development (PUD) process. The applicant is offering a concept plan for a PUD that would permit the shared driveway and a more flexible lot configuration. Concept Plan Review The concept plan review is an informational discussion process that allows the applicant to present preliminary ideas about a contemplated development project to the City and, in turn, the City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for November 7, 2007 \\AhdocslIAHlAHdataIPlanning\Planning CommissionWew-Old Business\2007\1355 Cummings Lane PUD\Il0707 - PC Report - 1355 Cummings PUD.doc Page 1 of2 City may offer suggestions and concerns regarding the development concept. No suggestions made by the Planning Commission or Council on a concep1 plan are binding for future stages of review. Additionally, the Planning Commission and Council cannot indicate or offer any official approvals at this time. Plan Evaluation The property is zoned R-I and is 2.45 acres. The subdivided lots would meet all other requirements of the City Code wi1h the exception of the shared driveway access onto Cummings Lane. POD subdivisions are permitted in the R-I zoning district, and can be a valuable tool for the City because there is more flexibility and control than through a traditional subdivision. The POD process is intended to result in a better project than would otherwise occur. All other City requirements would apply to this project. In typical subdivision applications, it is difficult for the City to deny the request if the application meets the all of the requirements of the subdivision code. However, the City has significantly more discretion for approving, denying, or requesting changes to a subdivision that is reviewed through the residential POD process, particularly when the applicant is requesting flexibility from the regular subdivision standards. Staff Recommendation S1aff does not have a recommendation at this time. Notice As no final action can be taken on this concept plan. Public notices are not required for a concept plan review. Deadline for Ae:encv Actions There are no deadlines for action on this request. City of Arden Hills Planning Commission Meeting for November 7, 2007 \\Ahdocsl\AHlAHdatalPlanning\Pianning CommissionWew-Old Business\2007\1355 Cummings Lane PUD\! /0707 ~PC Report -1355 Cummings PUD.doc Page 2 on Attachment 4A-l Proposed Concept Plan and Aerial Map ~ ""~ HILLS November 7, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting . o .5 .. .~ ~ '0 u " <Ei ." :g ~ 0 o '" 'g >.~ eco< <8~.5 .5~ ~~ -E~] 00.0 e8~ ~o. c e 1:: !':loE"'C .,8 e m 0"- :a<8.:S 8"0 ~ 8 ~ E o. S .'" 0 '~B ::: S.~.s .~]S "'00 .... .'" ~ ~ l:l a~E ~:;o ]~e ::lJ:!.g ..8~~ .e.:: :s .,,'" u .g~1:: i38 :s ~ ~ -caB " 0 .~ ",21 "OtOd ~~] r;-"l:I ~ d E;; ~ 0 o u 0 slE8 " 0 _ ~e.s El.gs "O~o .g"l;lN 88: e~2 ~'iii~ ~r;;9 .0 _00 000 t u~o :€.q~ ~ ~ iJ .~ 2: ~ &<'~j 8> . ",.st:: ~] ~~s ~,g~ ....~.-< j"OlJ U .g '" - Q 0 ~ u ~ P1 :;; ?i g '" f:i~ ~-i5~ ~~i~:gF ~~~ ~EVl~a:<l>_~ ~.fi5'z s~g$~~~"'1i.e~~ll ~.~~'g S~2~g~2.:"ti Ji E ,:;;,1,:: C\,::;." "Co... ;../'1 .~ .;; . ~ " o .B ] 8 . ~ ,S .-;:: -~ ;5-a<e E~~ ~~~ . e-.~ ~ 6.5 oo~ 1: ~.~ og.... .~~] ~.s] ~1I8 ~~~ ~~ g 'g.~.a ~~S ;E:<i?:l ~fll S..@B ",,",,0 <<l ~o 13~:i ~.s~ ~~"8 -ij ~ "E a l':: "if R~o .0 ^ .ii s " :~11 :d].:: SEe ~-go:: > ~ ~lJS ~S8 !2o.... ;']09 E13g 1l~N 'E~ 8a: ~-MlS ~!ii.fl ~i-9 .230 ,08 s ".0 ].fg .~ 8 ~ g."fiij E;>ou ]:;tS ,"B~ .,eg >z<..8N :E~_ :;;:.gt d Q ~ 0 i5 0 fI:l /.. ---~-'J '. "', .., \ () .S e e :::I '" 0() 0() ... .... s o U o ~ '" i2 u '" 5 '"