Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 07-17 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85001 Applicant: Ryan Construction Company Location: 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Site and Building Plan The applicant requests site and building plan approval to construct a 105,000 sq. ft. Target store and a 38,960 sq. ft. attached retail center on the six parcels of land east of Shingle Creek Parkway between John Martin Drive and Summit Drive. The property in question is zoned C2 and is bounded by vacant C2 zoned land and LaBelle Is on the southeast, by John Martin Drive on the southwest, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the northwest, and by Summit Drive on the north, northeast. Retail sales is a permitted use in the C2 zoning district. There is also a proposed auto center in the Target store that is a special use in the C2 district. A 4,250 sq. ft. restaurant is indicated on the plan, but no details are provided. This element is not , comprehended in any approval. Access to the site is proposed off John Martin Drive and two access points off Summit Drive. The easterly access on Summit Drive is primarily a truck access and meets the normal ordinance maximum of 30' in width. Because of the volume of traffic entering and leaving the site, the westerly access on Summit Drive is proposed to be 58' with a 4' median and the access on John Martin Drive is proposed to be 46' with a 4' wide median. Openings of wider than 30' have been allowed in other instances where a median is utilized. No access has been proposed off Shingle Creek Parkway and such an access would be out of kilter with the parking layout. However, it may be that a right-in/right-out access off Shingle Creek Parkway, with no median cut, would take some of the burden off the other accesses, particularly with respect to left turns into the access on John Martin Drive. Such an access off Shingle Creek Parkway should only be approved if there is a realignment of parking within the site. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis for the proposed site prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates. It projects peak hour traffic volume at the site to be 478 trips inbound and 444 outbound (p.5) . Figure 5 of the report shows important traffic movements associated with peak hour site trips. The busiest access is projected to be on John Martin Drive with 578 total movements in and out (309 of these are left turns) . The main Summit Drive access is projected to have 391 total movements during peak hour, 190 of which are left turns. The major traffic problems posed by the development will be at the John Martin Drive access and at the intersection of John Martin Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway. Signals are tentatively planned for the John Martin Drive/Shingle Creek Parkway intersection. This development will likely affect the type of signal and possibly the design of the intersection. The currently proposed development is likely to increase traffic volumes to the Summit Drive/Shingle Creek Parkway intersection to the point of warranting the installation of permanent traffic signals at this intersection. The additional traffic volumes generated by the proposed development will also add significantly to traffic problems in at least the following locations: -C.S.A.H. 10 and Shingle Creek Parkway -John Martin Drive at the service road/ramp Easterly of T.H. 100 -weaving problems along John Martin Drive and Summit Drive between Shingle Creek Parkway and the entrances to the development -1- Application No. 85001 continued In addition to the traffic generated by the proposed Target and retail center, the City must look at the potential traffic generated by future uses on other vacant land in this area. The City has requested an evaluation of the traffic analysis by Glenn Van Wormer with Short-Elliott-Hendrickson. Mr. Van Wormer feels that the overall peak hour traffic projection is realistic, but would like to have further information on projected traffic patterns at various times. He feels that the direction of approach to the site will be less from the Highway 100 south corridor than projected by the analysis and there will be more traffic from the north. Although the report projects a level of service in the "A" range (no problems) , Mr. Van Wormer feels the result will probably be a "B" or "C" level of service (problems, but acceptable). Mr. Van Wormer has commented that the layout of the site creates difficulties and that the proposed arrangment of accesses is poor with traffic ultimately becoming confused and clogged on site and possibly off. He also recommends consideration of a right-in/right-out access on Shingle Creek Parkway. It is noted that City staff met with representatives of Ryan Construction on 12/17/84 to review an earlier version of the site plan. At that meeting, staff requested the developer to amend the plan to reduce the severe traffic problems associated with the then-proposed driveway to Summit Drive directly opposite Earle Brown Drive. Our objection was not to the location of the driveway with respect to our roadway system - rather to the congested entrance area on-site which would result in expansion of that congestion into the intersection. The current plan shows two alternate locations for the driveway - both removed from the Earle Brown Drive alignment. It is our opinion that neither of these alternates provide any improvement because both still are poorly designed within the site. In fact, the original location may be better than either of these alternates because that would allow a future traffic signal system installed at the Summit Drive/Earle Brown Drive intersection to also serve the Target entrance. At the 12/17/84 meeting, staff also presented the developer with an outline of elements to be included in the requested traffic generation study. Analysis of the Barton-Aschman report indicates that many of these elements have not been addressed, while others have not been answered satisfactorily. One very important area which is not addressed by the Barton-Aschman study is the question of additional trips which will occur between this development and Brookdale - by "comparison shoppers" etc. The proposed plan provides parking for 890 cars. This is to provide parking for 143,960 sq. ft. of retail space (the combination of Target and the attached retail center) and for an approximate 100 seat restaurant. (Note: The 100 seat restaurant would have to be reduced in seats by the number of employees on the maximum shift. Staff are also concerned over the size of 4,250 sq. ft. relative to the number of seats in the restaurant which indicates some excess capacity. However, this element of the plan is not subject to approval at this time and further consideration maybe deferred.) It should be noted that the site plan maximizes the utilization of this 13.4 acre parcel of land. This results in all available areas being covered by either building or parking. Minimum green areas are provided. Furthermore, the parking lot is out of kilter with the major traffic generator, Target. The parking is mostly located in front of the strip shopping center. The result may be that some tenants in the center will suffer because their customers will be crowded out by Target traffic. It should be noted that the flow of traffic on the site is likely to be confused and -2- Application No. 85001 continued clogged by the way the accesses at both Summit Drive and John Martin Drive lead into the parking lot. At the Summit entrance there is a poorly defined open area in front of the access that leads at various angles to parking stalls and the main driveway in front of the building. The access at John Martin Drive would seem to handle outbound traffic well, but inbound traffic will either dead end into the south end of the shopping center or fork left in front of the building. The main flow of inbound vehicles should be toward the driveway in front of the building. There is also a poorly defined traffic area immediately outside the proposed auto center at the north corner of the Target building. This area is very poorly defined compared to the K-Mart auto center on Earle Brown Drive. Staff recommend a total rethinking of the auto center location. In summary, it is the opinion of City staff that the site plan is very poorly designed and will result in significant traffic congestion problems on the site and at the entrance areas. We recommend that the developer be requested to develop alternate site plans for consideration, starting with a committment to properly designed access points, then designing the site accordingly. The landscape plan calls for 52 shade trees including Summit Ash, Norway Maple, Greenspire Linden, American Linden and Skyline Locust. Most of these shade trees are in the perimeter greenstrip areas though there are 12 Skyline Locust and 4 Greenspire Linden proposed in the pavement area in front of Target and the retail center. The plan also calls for 8 Radiant Crab, five clustered along John Martin Drive and three along Shingle Creek Parkway. In addition, 26 Black Hills Spruce are proposed in greenstrip areas adjacent to public streets, 12 in the area opposite the proposed Auto and Garden centers. Finally, there are over 150 shrubs proposed, including Seagreen Juniper, Compact Spreading Yew, Compact Euonymus and Compact Viburnum. These shrubs are located in planting beds around a freestanding sign at the corner of Summit Drive and Shingle Creek Parkway, in front of the proposed Target store, and in front of the attached retail center. Staff would note in passing that the landscape plan uses tree stamps that are out of all proportion with the size of the plantings to be installed on the site. The tree stamp for decorative and coniferous trees scales about 25' in diameter. The stamp for shade trees is almost 40' in diameter. If these trees ever reach this size, the building will probably either have been razed or be a historic site. Therefore, in spite of the appearance of generous landscaping, staff feel that more trees could be proposed, especially along the property lines adjacent to LaBelle's and a proposed neighboring shopping center. Also, no trees or landscaping have been proposed in parking lot areas. Some visual breakup of the lot is needed. The grading plan provides fairly generous berms in a couple larger green areas and minimal one foot high berms along most of the greenstrip areas. These berms should be maximized to a slope of 3:1 which normally allows for a 2.5 ft. high berm in a 15' greenstrip. Drainage on the site is to be collected in four series of catch basins connected by private storm sewer to the City storm sewer in either Summit Drive or John Martin Drive. One catch basin that seems questionable is the one immediately inside the John Martin Drive access. While this is not a major drainage basin, its location in a high traffic area will be a nuisance. It must be pointed out that the drainage that would be produced on the site with this development may exceed the storm sewer capacity presently available in the City system. The present system cannot be analyzed because design criteria have not been submitted. With respect to curbing, the plan shows curb and gutter around the perimeter of the parking lot, but none is indicated around parking lot islands as required and the plan notes do not indicate curb and gutter. -3- N7 - 95 Application No. 85001 As to water and sewer service, an 8" water line will loop from Summit Drive to John Martin Drive. Sanitary sewer service splits with the Target line going to Summit and the shopping center line to John Martin. One hydrant, served by an isolated line off Shingle Creek Parkway, is proposed in front of the retail center. Another hydrant is proposed behind the center. The City Engineer recommends installing a further hydrant along Shingle Creek Parkway. The proposed building exterior for the complex is not uniform. The proposed exterior of the Target is an exposed aggregate panel with a painted accent band about the middle of the wall and a narrower band near the top. The proposed exterior of the retail center is to be a Saxon brick. The Commission should evaluate the consistency of these treatments and the quality of materials in lieu of past policy of consistent quality of exterior treatments. The plan notes that rooftop mechanical equipment will be screened as required by the City. A trash compactor is to be located behind the building and will be screened by a masonry wall. No trash enclosures are shown for the retail center. The plan proposes a fenced in garden center and an auto center with five overhead doors on the Summit Drive side of the Target building. The garden center is to be screened by a vinyl coated chain link fence and the auto center by the Spruce trees in the Summit greenstrip. Staff consider this to be totally inadequate screening and recommend that the auto and garden centers either be relocated entirely to the rear of the building and/or that much better screening be provided. The proposed plan provides for three loading berths at the southeast corner of the Target building. However, the City's traffic consultant feels it will be very difficult to maneuver more than one trailer into this dock area. It should also be pointed out that other Target stores in the metropolitan area utilize numerous trailers for outside storage of inventory. Such outside storage is not permitted under Section 35-412 of the Zoning Ordinance. It is recommended that the applicant work with neighboring property owners to possibly arrange a joint access for trailer trucks behind both buildings and a consolidated loading dock space for better maneuver ability. Staff have met with the applicant and representatives of Target to discuss the foregoing concerns regarding the plan. No revised drawings were available when this report was typed. At present we can only recommend that the application be tabled with direction to the applicant to submit a revised plan addressing the concerns outlined above no later than two weeks prior to the Commission's February business meeting. -4- W 4h dew Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 85002 Applicant: Target Location: 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to construct and operate an auto center at the proposed Target store at 6100 Shingle Creek Parkway. This application is subsidiary to Application No. 85001. The auto center is proposed for the northerly corner of the Target store, set back about 42' from Summit Drive. A letter from Darrel Creamer of Target has been submitted (attached) in which it is explained that the service area is a "TBA" (Tires, Batteries and Accessories) and is primarily for installation and service of these items in addition to routine services such as oil change, lube, and tune-up. Regarding the Standards for Special Use Permit, Mr. Creamer states that the public welfare will be benefitted by a full service Target store. He states that Target has TBA's in all 15 existing stores in the Twin Cities and they have never been a problem. He points out that adjacent property should not be adversely affected since it is zoned intensely. Mr. Creamer states that the proposed TBA will not impede normal and orderly development of surrounding property and notes that the owner of the adjacent property to the east is entirely in favor of the development. Regarding parking and traffic, the letter states that the plan has been discussed in great detail with staff and that those concerns have been responded to. Finally, Mr. Creamer points out that no variances are being sought with this application. Staff would point out that the special use permit is for the auto center only and the benefits and detriments of Target as a whole are not really under consideration with this application. As to impact on surrounding property, it is true that the auto center is to be located in a highly zoned area. However, it is also an area of potentially and existing high quality commercial development. An auto service use does not impress staff as a beneficial use to abut high rise office development and the Earle Brown Farm, particularly if it faces these uses across Summit Drive. Staff have requested that the auto center be relocated to another, less obvious area in the building. We have been told that such a relocation is not possible because the footprint and floor plan of the building are fixed. We question whether such an alteration of the plan would be impossible if the interest of the applicant were at stake. Although we cannot quantify the benefit, staff feel it would be in the public interest to minimize the exposure of the auto center to Summit Drive and instead present a more attractive building face to neighboring properties and those traveling along Summit Drive. Regarding the normal and orderly development of surrounding property, the applicant cites the approval of the owners of neighboring adjacent property to the east. We would point out, however, that the proposed auto center does not face the neighboring property to the east, but faces Summit Drive. The vacant properties across Summit Drive are owned by Ryan Construction which also owns the proposed Target site. Staff's concern is that the auto center being so close to Summit Drive (set back only 42')may make office development somewhat less likely on the north side of Summit Drive. Office development in this area is called for by the Comprehensive Plan, though the zoning is I-1 . -1- Application yo. 85002 Finally, regarding traffic, staff have indeed expressed a number of concerns regarding this entire site to the applicant. The response, thus far, has not met our concerns. Further efforts, however, are likely. If the auto center stays on the north side of the building, we would definitely recommend that a proposed driveway connection leading right into the main entrance off Summit Drive be closed as it seems quite unnecessary and dangerous. In summary, we do not recommend approval of the special use permit at this time. We recommend that this application be tabled, along with the site plan application, and that the applicant be urged, if not directed, to consider an alternate location for the auto center and/or much more effective screening of the auto center from Summit Drive and neighboring properties. -2-