The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC80047 - 11/20/80 - 6840 Shingle Creek PkwyF_ DING COMMISSION FILE Cam. File Purge Date: FILE INFORMATION Project Number: 8oy1-l7 PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: PLAN REFERENCE Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were consolidated. • Site Plans • Building Plans • Other: FILE REFERENCE Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents. Document Type Date Range Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission Illaol96 City Vault Minutes: City Council i-I/e1Bo City Vault Document Type Number Location Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault Resolutions: City Council City Vault Ordinances: City Council City Vault COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FILES CHECKLIST a CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING APPLICATION Application No. 80047 Please Print or. Type Cl_carly Street Location of Property 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway Legal Description of Property Tract B, R.L.S. ANOP Owner Address Applicant Phone No. Metropolitan Salad & Produce (George Stubbs) Address 6800 Shingle Creek Parkway (mailing addres%one No. 560-1456 - Type of Request: Rezoning Variance . .X Special Use Permit Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Other: Description of Request: Limited sales of produce at wholesale prices to customers which is a special use in the I-1(Industrial Park District) Hours of operation 10-7 Tues. through Fri. and 10-5 Saturday. Fee $ 25.00 54586 Receipt No. ,. / Applicants Signature -.November. 7, 1980 Date PLANNING COMMISSION RECOnMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration:] �d Approved _4 Denied the following conditions: this day of 19, subject to CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied this _ day of ��-(. � 19 , with the following amendment. - C1.er�, • •Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 80047 Applicant: Metropolitan Salad and Produce/George Stubbs Location: 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests a special use permit to sell produce directly to customers on the site at which salads are prepared, the Spec IV Industrial Building at 6840 Shingle Creek Parkway. (We have understood the "produce" to be sold as processed food items rather than raw produce.) "Retail sale of products manufactured, processed, or wholesaled on the use site" is a special use activity in the I-1 zone. The site in question is bounded by 69th Avenue on the north, by the City Maintenance garage on the west, by Shingle Creek Parkway on the south, and by the Spec IV Industrial Building on the east. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) providing certain information requested by staff, but no arguments regarding the Standards for a Special Use Permit (also attached). However, the Commission may seek from the applicant whatever other information it deems necessary to evaluate the request for a permit. Briefly, the information provided includes: 1. Hours of operation: 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Tuesday -Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday 2. No additional employees. 3. 130 customers (65 cars) per day anticipated. 4. Signery to be placed on walls (no signery visible from 69th Avenue North is permitted, as stipulated in Council Resolutions No. 74-169 and 77-67). The primary concern of staff regarding this application is the perennial con- sideration: "what if everybody does it?" The site in question was designed primarily as an industrial facility, but with a substantial office component. There are 309 parking spaces provided on the site, 167 more than required by the industrial formula alone. The proposed retail activity would involve ap- proximately 2,600 sq. ft., the retail parking formula for which is 23 spaces as opposed to 3 spaces under the industrial formula. The 20 stall difference should not crowd the available parking. The proposed use also raises other questions such as exit and S.A.C. require- ments based on a change in occupancy load. The Building Official has inspected the premises and the Sanitarian is expected to do so this week. Significant modifications will have to be made to the tenant space for it to meet code requirements for a permanent operation. The proposed use seems fairly limited in its effects. However, it would also seem unwise to extend a right to one industrial tenant which cannot be extended to all others. It is, therefore, recommended that the Commission give special attention - if it is disposed to approve the application - to the hours and days of operation and to set a definite trial period to monitor the impacts from this use. During the next three weeks, the retail operation will be conducted under the issuance of an Administrative Land Use Permit which allows for promotions up to 20 days per year. Staff will use this time to assess the impact of retail sales on the site and report back to the Planning Commission if so desired. 11-20-80 -1- 'Application No. 80047 continued Approval of this application should be subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The hours of operation (applies to sales only) shall be: 2. The permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 3. The permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 4. The permit is subject to the approval of the City Sanitarian with respect to food storage and handling facilities. 5. The permit is subject to approval by the Building Official of all remodeling plans to make the space conform to commercial occupancy standards of the Uniform Building Code. 11-20-80 -2- N '. y_i,r CS_ .! __ _ / � f Cd_ :l(..1A � M M'•4 pC's• 1f 4t.' �Jf Ste_ •- 1 - � - - - ... __ !. '-� _. ti� --. is ti -_ .- c i+t - { - - ---_ - N ST•. i I i 9 -- Ate � 1 • 1 1 - - !.. ' _ At i 1 t the �� s•<;.t l Il i P., '. � .. �-. .i_ .... -' .. _. __.__ - - - --'-- '- - .J •`, i sv✓ . �� I /�;`�i^I a_11. -. (AOf•T� v., �•v�•, ,l • � r o -._. _- _-_-_' �. .._. _ 1•_. G 41r : � � T_ _.. 1 4 3 9- 3 4' 3 4' moww'' L4 cr 41 13 8' 14 2' 1 '7 0' SPEC- #'+ WAREHOUSE BUILCQINJG SHIN GRECrK PARKWA4 j BROOKLYW GEwrr- i a IJTR.i rc-� �&Fr `12C)?S .-..� ED SHORT-ELLIOTT-HENDRICKSON, INC. El E:�►�.., CONSULTING ENGINEERS ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA CHIPPEWA FALLS, WISCONSIN July 2, 1980 RE: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY AT COUNTY ROAD 10 TRAFFIC IMPACT +• OUR FILE NO. 80047 Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway' Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Dear Sy: As you requested, we have reviewed the potential traffic impact -of the develop- ment of 172 acres of property directly adjacent to Shingle Creek Parkway, north of Brookdale Ford. We have evaluated the potential traffic generation from the site, evaluated accessand locations of median openings on Shingle Creek Parkway, reviewed the potential future need for a traffic signal from the site, and evaluated the optimum distance from the median openings to County_Road 10 and to John Martin Boulevard. You have indicated that BRW prepared a special study for a specific development plan for the same site -previously. The report indicated the site. would generate approximately 5,000 vehicles per day. The site plan was significantly -.different. from the plan presently being presented. As part of the Earle Brown Farm traffic study also prepared by BRW, they made an estimate of traffic to be generated from a number of parcels along Shingle Creek Parkway. They assumed that the parcel now.proposed for development would generate approximately 500 trips per day per acre, for a total of approximately 8,750 trips,per day. This is based on some very general commercial development. We have reviewed in more detail the proposed development and calculated traffic to be generated by 52,300 square feet of general retail space, 35,825 square feet of toy store, a 10,000 square foot restaurant, and a 2,045 seat theatre. We have estimated that the traffic generation of this development will be approxi- mately 7,000 trips per day. We feel this figure is reasonable compared to similar sites and compared to the previous studies by BRW. We have further reviewed the impact of the site onto p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. We have taken into account the different types of development and the different hourly variations they will generate. It is anticipated that this site will generate approximately 320 vehicles from this site and approximately 260 vehicles into the site during the p.m. peak hour. The turning movement volumes are shown on enclosed schematic layout. Of the 320 exiting vehicles, 200 will be making right turns and should not encounter any significant delays. The 120 left turning vehicles exiting from the site will encounter some delays 200 HILLSBOROUGH OFFICE BLDG • 2353 RICE STREET ST. PAU�, MINNESOTA 55113.9 PHONE (612) 484-0272 �'•'.s: Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works July 2, 1980 Page 2 during this peak hour period but the delays will probably not be significantly greater than if a signal were installed. Based on the hourly volumes anticipated to exit from the site and the percentage of right turns, it is not anticipated that a traffic signal will be needed to control traffic at the intersection in the future.* The signals to the north at John Martin Drive and to the south at County Road 10 should provide a number bf gaps in traffic. The intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10 will carry a sig- nifcan•tly high volume of traffic during the p.m. peak period. It is anticipated that there will be approximately 300 southbound left turns from Shingle Creek Parkway onto County Road 10 in the p.m. peak hour. This will ultimately require an extension of the existing left turn lane on Shingle Creek Parkway. The developer proposes to have a median opening on -Shingle Creek Parkway approxi- mately 600 feet north of County Road 10. This opening will be sufficiently far north so that it will not interfere with the extended southbound left turn lane at County Road 10. A northbound left turn lane at the developer's proposed median opening is not necessary because Shingle Creek Parkway is adjacent to Shingle Creek at this location. We bave considered the possible coordination of signals along Shingle Creek Parkway. The intersection of Shingle Creek Parkway and County Road 10 will be operating with a very high volume of turning movements and therefore will have to operate .independently from any system. The signals to the north, at John Martin Drive and Summit Drive, will probably be coordinated with the signals at the Interstate 94 ramps and Freeway Boulevard. If the proposed development were to generate enough traffic to justify installation of a traffic signal, which is doubtful, it would become the southern most signal on the end of the Shingle Creek Parkway system. It will be approximately 1700 feet from John Martin Drive. With the longer cycle lengths possible due to the heavy volumes and speeds of approxi- mately 35 miles per hour, this distance is probably adequate for coordinated signa'lization. Because we feel the possibility of a traffic signal at this location is remote we did,not prepare a coordination diagram to evaluate the potential inclusion of the intersection in the signal system. We have assumed that there would be access from Brookdale Ford through this development onto Shingle Creek Parkway. However, the layout of Brookdale Ford and the remoteness of the opening on Shingle Creek Parkway indicates that most traffic will utilize the existing Brookdale Ford entrance onto County Road 10. Therefore, Brookdale Ford will have little impact in terms of traffic volumes on the Shingle Creek Parkway access to the proposed development. SpitL'4r�.T,1::3i::.dulG•�'1iO3kC:lA:.::itti.'.1.iTl.:eaiG�'�.:'r..x3�.;J*at..'_'.:�ai:,+.n... t..i�.#`ti.i5i:.1El;.i$�,}5i:....;!'d;+.. •:F` 5."—. �'-��`ss.Yl Mr. Sy Knapp, Director of Public Works July Z, 198.0 Page 3 We have also not considered the possibility of a second access to the shopping center utilizing a right turn -in, right turn -out only provision. If this access is possible, the p.m. peak period traffic volumes at the median opening will be decreased since a large percentage of the right turning vehicles will utilize the more northerly entrance onto Shingle Creek Parkway. We feel the location of the median opening approximately 600 feet north of County Road 10 will not create any significant problems. It could be located further to the north, also having little impact on traffic operations. The volume of traffic generated by the site is not great enough to justify installa- tion of a traffic signal. Some conflicts and some delays will take place in the p.m. peak hour at the median opening onto Shingle Creek Parkway. These conflicts and delays should not create significant congestion or operational problems. Sincerely, Glen Van Wormer j cj