1999-03-09 Final Stages
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS
INC COMMUNITY PLANNING DESIGN - MARKET RESEARCH
MEMORANDUM
TO: Linda Goeb /Mike Couri
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 9 March 1999
RE: Albertville -JMJ Outlet Center Development: Final Stage
FILE NO: 163.06 - 98.13
BACKGROUND
• JMJ Properties Inc. is requesting final plat and PUD final stage approval for the JMJ
Minneapolis Outlet Center. Final construction drawings have been submitted and
reviewed against the City's conditions for approving the preliminary plat.
The preliminary plat was approved by the City Council on 5 November 1998. Exhibit A
represents the City Council findings and decision. On 18 November 1998, Liz Stockman
outlined information that was required to satisfy the City approval requirements (Exhibit B).
ISSUES
The balance of this report addresses the outstanding issues:
• A revised final plat must be submitted showing Lots 2, 3, and 4 as outlots as is
desired by the developer (reciprocal access easement agreement to be established
in the future over the shared entrance driveway to serve their lots).
This change has been made to the preliminary plat and site plan. Our office has not
yet received a final plat. The City Council may approve the final plat subject to the
changes being made. The City Attorney has addressed the reciprocal access
easement in the development agreement, requiring the easement to be established
• when the outlots are replatted in the future.
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, SUITE 555 ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 5541 6
PHONE 6 1 2-595-9636 FAX 6 1 2-595-9837 E-MAIL NAC@ WINTERNET.COM
• Site plan must show locations of all trash/recycling containers and the means by
which they will be screened.
The site plan shows 40 foot pads for the trash receptacle located around the back
of the shopping center within the parallel parking spaces. The developer believes
that the trash receptacles do not require screening because the units are totally self
contained and painted. City staff disagrees with the developer and has requested
landscape screening along the trash receptacle pads to screen this equipment from
adjoining properties and street rights-of--way.
To date, no revised landscape plans or screening detail have been provided
addressing -the issue. A revised landscape plan must be submitted.
Site plan must be revised to show a 20 foot easement along the entire frontage of
Lot 1, adjacent to the CSAH 19 right-of-way to accommodate a future 10 foot trail.
This will affect the parking layout of the future expansion area on Lot 1. The
parking arrangement for this future phase must be revised, although it may abut the
required 20 foot easement.
The City Engineer has stated that the trail width will be reduced to eight feet and the
ten foot easement show is sufficient. The easement language for these utility and
drainage easements must be written to also allow for a trail construction.
• The future expansion area on Lot 1 must also be revised to indicate better
circulation for trucks to rear loading areas. Trucks should not share the main
driveway into this position of the development as they likely could not make some
of the turns shown. It is suggested that the rear driveway of the future development
be connected to the rear loading driveway behind the adjacent building to be
constructed in phase one. A second outlet for trucks should be provided which
does not require use of the main driveway.,
This issue may be addressed as a condition for future stage approval. However,
the phase one construction should not be designed in a manner that would preclude
this driveway connection. The storm sewer location at the rear of the phase two
development must be reviewed in respect to this future driveway connection.
Detailed elevation drawings have not been submitted showing exact building
heights, designs and materials. The elevation drawings should also include
signage details as appropriate (see following paragraph).
An exterior elevation and section plan has been submitted that shows building
heights, designs, and materials.
•
2
Building Height: The building elevations illustrated that the proposed tower heights
of 38 feet and 44 feet respectively. The City de~nifion of building height in the
Albertville Zoning Ordinance measures height from the mean grade elevation to the
midway point between the eave and the roof ridge. Under this definition, the 44 foot
tall tower exceeds the B-3 District height standards.
In review of the overall building elevation, the building height variance fits within the
context of the overall center. The City Council could approve the variance to the
building height standard through the PUD application.
Building Materials: The building elevations reveal the following exterior building
treatments. Rear .walls will be raked concrete panels and painted. The rear wall
elevations should illustrate service doors and security lighting.
Front walls will consist of an EFTS exterior wall treatment and display windows that
are integrated with a combination of standing seam metal canopies and fabric
awnings. The towers will be capped with standing seam metal roofs.
The overall building elevation present an attractive building appearance. The
applicant should provide information on proposed color schemes, to complete the
image for the proposed shopping center.
• A comprehensive signage plan is required. To date, we have only received pictures
and examples of signage regulations from other developments. We need both
written and graphic details regarding signage so that the building inspector can
easily review and approve sign requests when permits are requested. Anything that
can be incorporated on elevation drawings is beneficial. Otherwise, separate
drawings will be needed showing sign types, locations, sizes, materials, colors, and
mounting/construction techniques. The site plan must show the locations of any
freestanding pylon, pole or monument signs.
To date, the developer has not submitted a comprehensive signage plan. The
building elevations do not illustrate proposed signage. The applicant has provided
"required sign criteria" for the shopping center dated 12/19/97 (Exhibit G) and the
plans C-8 and C-9 illustrate proposed locations for freestanding signs 55 and 30
feet in height.
In review of the submitted information reveals that the applicant is likely needing
variance from two City sign standards for multiple occupancy buildings:
The applicant is proposing a maximum wall sign size 48 inches in height with
sign length being illustrated in the building elevation. The new building
elevations do not illustrate wall sign dimensions.
•
3
The City Sign Code limits individual tenant wall signs to 100 square feet. The
applicant may wish some flexibility in dealing with various size tenants. As
such, the 100 foot standard may be too confining. City staff would
recommend some flexibility in the wall sign application provided not more
than 15 percent of the facade of the store front is used for wall signage.
2. Freestanding Signs: The Albertville ordinance allows the shopping center
two freestanding area identification signs provided the signs meet the
following standards:
Sign Area: 200 square feet
Sign Height: 30 feet
Setback From Property Line: 20 feet
a. No information has been submitted on the size of the freestanding
sign. The City will limit the freestanding sign area use to 200 square
feet.
b. The applicant is requesting the freeway sign to be 55 feet in height.
This would require a variance to exceed 30 feet in height. The
applicant should explain the need for the additional sign height.
c. The freeway freestanding sign is located only 10 feet from the south
property line. The sign should be moved to meet the 20 foot required
setback.
Letters of approval from Wright County Soil and Water Conservation District,
Wright County Highway Department, and Joint Powers, etc.
We have not received letters of approval from any of the agencies listed above.
All issues identified by the City Engineer are resolved and shown on revised plans.
SEH will respond to the engineering concerns.
To date, we have not received a final landscape plan.
•
4
CONCLUSION
We have identified the need for additional information a number of times since JMJ's
preliminary plat approval in November 1999. We are now at the final stage of the PUD
and formulating the development contract. The following information is still required.
1. Our office has not received a copy of the final plat, however, the City Council may
approve the final plat contingent on creation of the appropriate outlot and the
reciprocal access easement.
2. .The proposed trash receptacles themselves are required to be screened from
adjoining properties and streets. The applicant must provide a detail for screening
the proposed trash enclosures.
3. As a condition of Lot 1, phase two improvements, the City should require truck
access to the phase two site from the phase one rear driveway.
4. The City must approve the building height variances for the center tower through
the PUD.
5. The applicant should provide the color schemes for the proposed building.
• 6. The building elevation should illustrate service doors and security lighting for the
rear of the building.
7. The City may consider the submitted information as the comprehensive sign
ordinance provided the following conditions are included. The required sign criteria
for phase one is incorporated into the PUD agreement.
a. Section 11.D. Size 1. is amended to delete reference to building elevation.
Add "no tenant wall sign area shall exceed 15 percent of the store front
facade".
b. Section V., Shopping Center Area Identification Signs:
(1) Freestanding area identification signs shall not exceed 200 square
feet in area.
(2) Freestanding area identification signs shall be set back 20 feet from
all property lines.
(3) The shopping center will have two freestanding area identification
signs -one 30 feet in height, one 55 feet in height.
•
5
c. The applicant should provide information demonstrating a hardship and
need for the 55 foot freestanding sign.
8. The City still requires receipt of the Wright County Soil and Water Conservation
District approvals.
9. Subject to the review and comments of the City Engineer.
10. The applicant must provide a final landscape plan.
pc: Pete Carlson
Steve Smallbone
•
•
6