Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/12/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - Planning Commission - Study SessionAGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION COUNCIL CHAMBERS 6:00 P.M. DECEMBER 16, 2015 1. 6:00 p.m. Excelsior/Monterey Development 2. 6:45 p.m. PLACE Redevelopment Concept 3. 7:15 p.m. Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project If you cannot attend the meeting, please call the Community Development Office, 952/924-2575. Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call 952/924-2575 at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Study Session Planning Commission Meeting Date: December 16, 2015 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required. This item is being presented to provide the Commissioners with an update on the proposed redevelopment, the outcomes of traffic study discussions and to respond to questions. SUMMARY: Bridgewater Bank has purchased property at 4424 and 4400 Excelsior Blvd, and is also pursuing the acquisition of 3743 Monterey Dr. from the Economic Development Authority. (A map is attached showing their locations.) Bridgewater has selected Dominium as the developer for this site. Dominium applied for a planned unit development (PUD) on July 10, 2015 and that application was considered incomplete. Dominium has recently reapplied for a preliminary PUD as well as a preliminary plat with subdivision variances on November 19, 2015. This application has also been considered incomplete and is still undergoing Staff review. A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment was approved by the Council June 1, 2015 reguiding the above mentioned properties from Commercial to Mixed Use. The Mixed Use guidance provides for a character complementary to Excelsior & Grand and appropriate for this corner. This guidance also provides more discretion to the City on design elements and uses when ultimately considering the appropriate zoning district compared to Commercial guidance and zoning. The submitted plans address many of the policies and principles the City regularly expresses regarding mixed-use development and pedestrian orientation. The building is six stories in height along Excelsior Boulevard and the southern portion of Monterey Drive, with the sixth story stepped back from the front building elevation along both streets. The building steps down to four and then three stories moving north along Monterey Drive. The proposal includes 168 units, with 20% of the units affordable at 50% of the area median income (AMI) and 17,000 square feet of retail on the first floor. A summary of the traffic studies and Council Study S essions is provided in the Discussion section of this report. At this time staff are recommending the installation of a right turn lane on east-bound Park Commons Drive to address the delays currently experienced, and anticipated, at this intersection. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Dominium plans to apply for tax increment financing. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Aerial, Links to Council Reports & Minutes regarding the traffic studies, Excerpt of Development Plans Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal DISCUSSION Development Summary: Bridgewater Bank and Dominium Development have applied for a preliminary plat with subdivision variances and preliminary PUD. Additional information has been requested of the applicant and the submitted plans are currently still undergoing Staff review for compliance with Code requirements. Once the application is considered complete and complies with City requirements then a public hearing can be scheduled. A neighborhood meeting will also be held prior to the public hearing. The redevelopment proposal includes a building that is very similar to the concept provided during the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment request. The building is six stories in height along Excelsior Boulevard and the southern portion of Monterey Drive. The building steps down to three stories moving north along Monterey Drive and the sixth story is stepped back from the front building façade along both street frontages. The first floor along Excelsior Boulevard contains three retail spaces and the bank. The bank has an entrance at the corner of Excelsior and Monterey and has frontage on Monterey Drive as well. The residential lobby is located on Monterey Drive. The second through sixth stories are all residential units with a large residential amenity space located on the second story. The site plan maintains a similar building setback along Excelsior Boulevard as that which exists today. Boulevard trees, planters and an arcade design along the retail entrances is proposed along Excelsior Boulevard. The most recent proposal indicates three retail spaces in addition to the bank, all with access from Excelsior Boulevard. The developer has provided a great improvement in setback along Monterey Drive compared to existing conditions. Currently there is an approximately five foot sidewalk between the street curb and existing building. The proposed building is setback 15 feet to 20 feet from the Monterey Drive curb providing a minimum six foot boulevard and six foot sidewalk, creating a significantly improved pedestrian environment. The interior of the site is approximately 20 feet below the grade at Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive. The building design addresses this grade differential with tiered retaining walls toward the north end of the site and two levels of structured parking which are exclusively for residential parking. The residential parking is accessed from Monterey Drive, north of Park Commons Drive. There is a level of surface parking for the commercial spaces that has access from Excelsior Boulevard, located approximately where the current driveway is today, and from Monterey Drive, across from Park Commons Drive. There is a fourth access to the lowest level of parking from 36 ½ Street via a shared driveway with the Park Shores Nursing Home. This access is currently proposed exclusively for service vehicles, such as refuse haulers, and move- ins. All parking requirements look to be met on-site. Landscaping is proposed along the boulevards and building street frontages as well as around the site perimeter, the amenity space and in the tiered retaining wall areas. Minimum landscaping requirements will likely not be met without the use of the City’s Alternative Landscaping provision, which is currently being evaluated. The applicant may need to provide cash-in-lieu of tree plantings to meet minimum tree replacement requirements. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA) requirements look as though they will be met through the residential amenity space and a dog exercise area. Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal Traffic: A traffic study was completed based on the development concept submitted with Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment earlier this year. That study contemplated a slightly larger development scenario at the corner of Excelsior Boulevard and Monterey Drive than the current application, and considered the Bally’s redevelopment proposal as well. With the site access configured as described above, there were no significant impacts to intersection delays or movements except to the Park Commons Drive intersection. This intersection currently experiences a delay for traffic turning from Park Commons Drive onto Monterey Drive. This delay is most significant during the p.m. peak period and impacts eastbound Park Commons drivers. This delay is projected to increase with the addition of the two development projects if no mitigation is provided. This current and projected delay is a concern of some residents, Commissioners and Councilmembers and therefore additional traffic studies were completed to evaluate potential ways to reduce the delay. SRF Consulting completed an audit of the 2001 Excelsior Boulevard Traffic Study as well as a more detailed study of the immediate area around the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection. The Excelsior Boulevard Audit found that the projected development and resulting traffic numbers in that audit were higher than the development that has actually occurred, even considering the Bally’s and Bridgewater redevelopments. Traffic has not increased to the level that was projected and built for at that time, and the capacity of this corridor and intersections is sufficient for the proposed redevelopments. SRF also completed a supplemental study of the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive area. This study considered eight alternatives for intersection changes at Park Commons Drive/Monterey Drive to address the delay for Park Commons Drive. Those alternatives were: 1. No-build. (No changes to the intersections, which is a standard consideration in alternatives analysis.) 2. Side-Street Stop with Full Access and the addition of an east-bound right turn lane on Park Commons Drive. 3. Side-Street Stop with a Three-Quarter Access. This would restrict left turns from Park Commons Drive and from the Bridgewater redevelopment. 4. An all-way stop. 5. A Roundabout 6. A traffic signal. 7. A right-in/right-out only from Park Commons and the Bridgewater redevelopment. 8. Completely close off access to Park Commons Drive from Monterey Drive. 9. An extension through Wolfe Park on right-of-way that the City currently owns was also looked at. Staff evaluated the alternatives based on the following criteria: • What are the impacts to adjacent intersections? Staff did not want to propose a mitigation option at Park Commons Drive/Monterey Drive to reduce delays there that then created negative impacts to another intersection. • To what degree are delay times reduced? • Does the alternative reduce queue lengths on east-bound Park Commons Drive to minimize the amount of time that the parking access to Trader Joe’s and the 4500 Excelsior Boulevard Building is blocked. Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal With consideration of the above criteria Staff recommended further analysis of options 1, 2, and 3 above. • Option 1 is the no-build scenario and has been ruled out. • Option 2 provides a dedicated right turn lane for eastbound Park Commons Drive. This option is projected to reduce the average p.m. peak delay to 25 seconds, even with the addition of the proposed developments compared to the average 32 second delay that occurs today. Queue lengths are projected to block the Trader Joe’s parking lot access less than five percent of the time. • Option 3 is a three-quarter access configuration which physically restricts left-turns from Park Commons Drive and the Bridgewater development. All other turn movements could be accomplished. This option is projected to reduce the average p.m. peak delay to 15 seconds, even with the addition of the proposed developments. Queue lengths are not expected to block the Trader Joe’s parking lot access, but there is a project increase in overall intersection delay at Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive due to the redistribution of traffic now that left-turns would be restricted from Park Commons Drive. Staff presented the above information to the Council at a Study Session on October 19, 2015. The Council was interested in the above three alternatives, and asked for further analysis related to costs; pedestrian movements and safety, particularly crossing Park Commons Drive; what other intersections in the city have comparable delays; can bike lanes be accommodated; what are the site lines like with the proposed development and what other roads in the city have comparable volumes to 36 ½ Street? The Council also asked for further analysis of the impacts of fully signalizing this intersection. Staff presented information related to the above direction at the November 9, 2015 Council Study Session. Staff do not recommend a traffic signal due to the potential impacts to the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection. The intersection spacing between Park Commons Drive and Excelsior Boulevard is approximately 200 feet. The signal of course improves the overall operations of the Park Commons Drive/Monterey Drive intersection, but has the potential to cause northbound Monterey Drive traffic to back up into Excelsior Boulevard which is the primary, or higher priority roadway. A signalized intersection would also more regularly cause traffic queues on Park Commons Drive to block the Trader Joe’s parking lot access. A traffic signal does provide for a safe pedestrian crossing at Park Commons Drive, but is a very expensive proposition with an existing controlled intersection at Excelsior Boulevard. Engineering standards would not support signalizing this intersection. Staff are working with the applicant on design alternatives to try and deter pedestrian crossings at Park Commons Drive and to direct pedestrians to the Excelsior Boulevard intersection. Staff recommend Option 2, the addition of a dedicated right turn lane on Park Commons Drive, to reduce the average delay for eastbound traffic on Park Commons Drive. In addition to the right turn lane, Staff have recommended removing two Ash trees on the northwest corner of the intersection to improve site lines, and installing a flashing yellow left-turn arrow at Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive to improve operations at that intersection. Option 2 is projected to reduce delays, maintain full access at the intersection, and have minimal cost to implement. This option also does not preclude other options from being implemented in the future if operations warrant further evaluation and mitigation. Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal Council Reports and Minutes: City Council Reports can be found at this web link: http://www.stlouispark.org/archived-documents/city- council-agenda-archives.html City Council Minutes can be found at this web link: http://www.stlouispark.org/archived-documents/city- council-minutes-archives.html The dates of relevant Council discussions and the minutes of those discussions are as follows: • August 10, 2015 Study Session (Item #3, begins on pdf page 80) o Minutes (page 3) • October 19, 2015 Special Study Session (Item #1, begins on pdf page 5) o Minutes (page 1) • November 9, 2015 Study Session (Item #3, begins on pdf page 35) o Minutes (attached below) Aerial Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA NOVEMBER 9, 2015 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Finance Manager (Mr. Swanson), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Public Works Superintendent (Mr. Hanson); Operations Manager (Mr. Stevens); Financial Supervisor (Mr. Heintz); Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth). Guest: None Excerpt of Unofficial Minutes: 3. Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study – Continued Ms. Heiser presented the staff report and went over the additional analysis completed for Alternative 6 (traffic signal with full access). Staff does not recommend this alternative because it would result in significant Monterey Drive queuing and block the Excelsior Boulevard/Monterey Drive intersection, conditions that do not exist today. She used a slide to display the subject site and described traffic circulation and conditions, noting the Trader Joe’s driveway would be blocked, even with a signal, due to wait times and lack of stacking distance. Ms. Heiser answered questions of Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger relating to stacking distance, frequency of cars blocking the Trader Joe’s driveway, and that combining the traffic light and turn lane from Park Commons Drive to southbound Monterey Drive would reduce the blocking of the Trader Joe’s driveway, but would backup traffic on Monterey into the Excelsior intersection. Ms. Heiser reviewed a list of intersections that experienced comparable delays for left turning movements and associated level of service (how well the intersection is operating) for each. She presented estimated costs for Alternative 1, no build, costing nothing; Alternative 2, side street stop with full access and eastbound right turn lane, at $50,000 to $75,000 if the City has the needed right-of-way; Alternative 3, side street stop with three-quarter access, at $25,000 to $50,000; and, Alternative 6, traffic signal with full access, at $250,000 to $300,000. Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal Councilmember Hallfin brought up the need to address the sight distance issues that the ash trees created. The Council agreed with Councilmember Hallfin on the need to address the sight lines. The Council discussed the proposed 165-unit development and expressed concerns with assuring adequate points of access so it does not create the same single-access problems as the Trader Joe’s site. With regard to whether a developer can be required to contribute towards infrastructure cost if that project adds to traffic woes, Mr. Walther stated that is an option if the City can show in a traffic study that the project will contribute to the problem. In this case, the only leg of the intersection negatively impacted (reduced level of service) is Park Commons Drive. Ms. Heiser stated staff looked at the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and addressed the particulars to this corridor including level of traffic. Due to high traffic levels, it is not recommended to install a marked pedestrian crossing of Monterey Drive at Park Commons Drive unless it includes enhancements. She reviewed the traffic warrants to install a pedestrian activated crossing and a traffic signal, noting the level of pedestrians is not met in current conditions and that it is 200 feet from a controlled intersection. Because of those factors staff recommended directing pedestrians to cross at that location. Councilmember Mavity asked about the estimated level of pedestrians after development. Ms. Heiser explained why it is difficult to estimate pedestrian counts. Councilmember Sanger noted if people are afraid to walk in this busy area, pedestrian counts will be low. She suggested asking how to enhance and make it more pedestrian-friendly to increase pedestrian traffic, noting she thinks it will require a signalized intersection. Councilmember Brausen stated if there is a signalized crossing 200 feet away, there is adequate opportunity to walk that area in a safe manner. Councilmember Sanger stated even though there is a pedestrian crossing within 200 feet, she still sees people dart across the street. Councilmember Mavity stated if a crosswalk is not installed for Monterey Drive, she would suggest considering creative streetscape design to visually and physically block pedestrians from thinking they can cross there. In addition, the developer would have to design the building to focus towards Excelsior Boulevard. Ms. Heiser stated the next question relates to the proposed development not creating a sightline issue and indicated there is adequate sight distance for cars exiting the development to see pedestrians and bicyclists on Monterey Drive. She stated once the new development application is received, staff will review to ensure that goal is met. Since staff recommends an on-street five-foot bike lane, additional right-of-way was requested as part of the platting. Ms. Heiser reviewed a list of other City streets with comparable volumes to 36½ Street, a two- lane divided urban road with the capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 vehicles. Ms. Heiser stated if the Council would like to move ahead with improvements at the Monterey Drive/Park Commons Drive intersection, staff would recommend implementing Alternative 2 at some point in the future. She stated it will reduce the delay for vehicles on the Park Commons Drive leg of the intersection; reduce queues that block Trader Joe’s driveway; and does not create delay or queuing at the other intersections studied. Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 8 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal Councilmember Mavity stated her first choice is a stop light, the pedestrian friendly choice that creates a pedestrian friendly environment and prioritizes their safety. If Alternative 2 is supported, it would reserve the ability for a more hands-on option in the future. She stated before moving forward, she would want to see lane design, landscaping options, and cost estimates to create visual and physical barriers to direct pedestrians to appropriate safe crossings. Councilmember Brausen supported staff’s recommendation for Alternative 2, noting they are the professionals in making appropriate traffic decisions and it addresses the immediate concern. He stated if the Council wants to consider traffic signals based on low level of service, there are more intersections in Ward 4. With regard to crosswalks, he felt it was difficult to control pedestrian movements and even with a physical barrier, people will still dash across the street. Ms. Heiser explained every intersection is a crosswalk and vehicles need to yield right of way to pedestrians. However, study guidance shows that marked crosswalks have higher incidence of accidents than unmarked crosswalks because pedestrians feel that is where they are encouraged to cross and may not be not as careful, especially with a four-lane crossing that has no enhancements. Councilmember Mavity stated because pedestrians are legally able to cross, she supports adding a visual or physical barrier. Councilmember Spano stated he liked the idea of visual barriers, whether decorative fencing or planters. He supported Alternative 2 as it addresses the current concern without binding the Council’s ‘hands’ in the future, is cost effective, and answers the original question the Council asked staff to address. Councilmember Sanger stated Alternative 2 is a good step in the right direction so she will support it, but thinks it is not sufficient and will not preclude installing a traffic light. She stated, to be clear, a right lane on Park Commons Drive to turn southbound does nothing to address traffic from the future development on the east side of the road so it ‘kicks the can down the road.’ Councilmember Hallfin stated he also thinks Alternative 2 is a reasonable approach if the sight line is addressed. He encouraged the Council and staff to push the developer to find other avenues in and out of that site. Councilmember Hallfin stated he does not support restricting the left turn at this point. With regard to pedestrians, he agreed with Councilmember Brausen that the marked crosswalk is clearly defined and only 200 feet away. Councilmember Mavity stated when the Council asked for this, it was also to address the proposed development so it does not impact traffic flow on other streets. She supported asking the developer for other points of access, noting if directed to 36½ Street, it has to be restudied and another conversation held. Councilmember Hallfin agreed the developer needs access onto Excelsior Boulevard or Kipling Avenue. Mayor Pro Tem Lindgren agreed with the importance of addressing how traffic is managed as the development proposal may impact the northern traffic. He supported Alternative 2 at this point as it solves the current problem and he relies on staff’s professional recommendation. Councilmember Spano stated for traffic heading south and east, up the hill towards this intersection, whatever is done for pedestrians has to be more than a marked crosswalk because drivers cannot view the pavement markings from that direction. Study Session Meeting of December 16, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 9 Title: Excelsior/Monterey Development Proposal Ms. Deno stated staff will move forward with further analysis on Alternative 2, sight lines, pedestrian movements, future consideration with signalization, and the proposed development. The meeting adjourned at 9:03 p.m. www.bkvgroup.comEXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVE10/20/2015 www.bkvgroup.comEXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVE10/20/2015 www.bkvgroup.comEXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVE10/20/2015 www.bkvgroup.comEXCELSIOR AND MONTEREY DRIVE10/20/2015