Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC85002 - 1/17/85 - Shingle Creek Pkwy & John Martin DriveNING COMMISSION FILE Cam..... File Purge Date: FILE INFORMATION Project Number: e-5-10 ''l PROPERTY INFORMATION Zoning: C z 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 Ranae Location Agendas: Planning Commission Office Minutes: Planning Commission Minutes: City Council Document Type Resolutions: Planning Commission Resolutions: City Council Ordinances: City Council Number City Vault City Vault Location City Vault City Vault City Vault COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY FILES CHECKLIST �.l 1 1 VI UI\IJV F.L 114 l.L11 1 LK PLANNING C6i;,'1I'.J`., I ON APPLICATION • Application No. 85002 Please Print Clearer or Type PS coo3 Street Location of Property shingle Creek Parkway and John Martin Dive Legal Description of Property (see attached) Owner swan. Construction CpMu y of Minnesota, Inc . Address eva d #500 Edina,-M 55435- Phone No. 835-7990 Applicant Target Address 33 South Sixth Street Piimeapolis, MN 55440-1392 Phone No. Type of Request: Rezoning Subdivision Approval 370-5804 Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit . Other: Description of Request: ,>ffr,L> L�j/ 5t(CS ?T-c=flCRZ, ( C li s cL5Cl L -17IzC5 1-MM-_R-i E-- S A r� G55C 2ic5 `5cki i CL Al2L& . /i)r 5 i:5 /C C7-A) i A&7C il.L P)ife f C I 'L.; r; C tc- 1-1c Bcoy c ua� ' �`rz Nt cyL LUKI L, PL-A(LC 'Zil ti L Zi CAr_ The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state- ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application. Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred prior to withdrawal. Fee $ 50 App icant s Signature Receipt No. KS'0%o Date: Lo Z PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: (�—�5� Approved Denied this day of ` �`� ` -�'Lt. 19 P �, subject to the following conditions: Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied this amendment: CITY COUNCIL ACTION day of 19 , with the following P/I Form No. 18 (over please) Clerk ' Target Stores P.O. Box 1392 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440-1392 Telex No. 431 -0113 10 February 15, 1985 Mr. Ron Warren Director of Planning CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 RE: BROOKLYN CENTER - TARGET SITE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ON TBA USE Dear Mr. Warren: Target has definitely decided to exclude the TBA operation at our proposed store as proposed and in the variance request. Please withdraw our request and thank you for your patience while we re-evaluated the operation in our new prototype design process. Sincerely, 7r%0La {� 'f mas A. 4nnZA�"-"-"-A- TARGET STORES CC: Burton Shacter Darrell Creamer Jeff Rice - Ryan Construction Company Deane Wenger - Barton Aschman Assoc. A Division of the Dayton Hudson Corporation L Target Stores 33 South Sixth Street P.O. Box 1392 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55440-1392 Telex No. 6879103 370-5803 January 9, 1985 Mr. Ron Warren City Hall 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55330 Ron, h� 3 9 ti A N : J > !F`ECEIVE o -- t�li�(Y� O VIA NORTHERN MESSENGER RE: Proposed Shopping Center SEC Shingle Creek and Summit Brooklyn Center, MN As part of the submittal package for site plan approval of the above proposed shopping center development, we are requesting a Special Use Permit to accomodate and permit a TBA (Tires, batteries and accessories) in the Target store. As you know, the TBA is an integral part of most Target stores and is included in all of our Twin Cities stores. Paragraph 2 of Section 35-220 suggests a written response to items a through e before the Planning Commission and City Council can consider our request. Please consider the following our response: (a) The establishment, maintenance and operation of the TBA will promote and enhance the general welfare and will not be detrimental to or 'endanger the public.health, safety, morals or comfort. It will promote the general welfare by providing a full service Target store, the most desired and most shopped retail store in the Twin Cities. It will not endanger the public health etc. as evidenced by the fact that we have TBA's in all 15 existing stores in the Twin Cities and has never been a problem. (b) The special use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor will it diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. All other properties in the neighborhood are zoned industrial, retail or public use. In fact, this immediate area is more intensely zoned than most of our other Twin Cities stores, and there is no close by residential property. (c) The establishment of a TBA in the Target store will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. The only immediate unimproved property is contiguous to and east of the proposed Target store. The owners of that property have expressed complete support for our proposed development. A Division of the Dayton Hudson Corporation Mr. Ron Warren January 9, 1985 Page Two Brooklyn Center, MN (d) Adequate measures have been taken to provide ingress, egress and parking. We have discussed'the site plan in great detail with you and the planning staff, and I believe responded to most of your concerns. (e) We believe the special use will, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which. it is located. We are requesting no other variances for this development. Ron, we hope the above adequately responds to your concerns regarding the TBA. It is a usual and normal part of all Twin Cities Target stores, and to my knowledge we have not had any significant complaints. We will, of course, be available to respond to any questions on January 17, 1985. Darrell L. Creamer Regional Real Estate Manager /Jp cc: Jim Ryan Walt Fitzgerald Tom Bonneville Dick Grones 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 421) 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. /_. 7. <:. -1- Application No. 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-