2003-09-30 Prelim Plat Review
NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS,. INC.
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837 planners@nacplanning.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Linda Goeb
Pete Carlson
Mike Couri
FROM:
Alan Brixius
DATE:
September 30, 2003
RE:
Albertville - Shoppes at Towne Lakes One - Preliminary Plat,
Site and Building Plan Review
FILE NO:
163.06 - 03.21
We received a development application for preliminary plat PUD and site plans for Shoppes at
Towne Lakes One. The site plans are for Lots 3, 4 and 6 and include a home accessory store
for lighting, flooring and carpeting, a future restaurant site and a proposed hotel. In review of
the preliminary plat and site plans, the following issues are raised that need to be addressed
prior to moving ahead to the Planning Commission as a means of insuring that the review
process will move smoothly and the City is achieving its goals as related to land use and site
design.
PRELIMINARY PLAT
The proposed preliminary plat includes six lots and one outlot. The lots are intended to be
accessed via a private street system that will run between the Outlets of Albertville and Lake
Town Drive and Langford Drive. To accomplish this preliminary plat and allow for the
establishment of private street, a Planned Unit Development is required with the base zoning
being a B-2A to a Commercial Zoning District. In review of the preliminary plat, we offer the
following comments:
1. The 28 foot street width is acceptable, provided there is no parking allowed on any of
the streets.
2. In examining the access points for the individual lots, we find a number of jogs that will
complicate access points and create areas of conflict. We should attempt to align site
access points to provide full intersections along the private drives.
3. Related to the streets, we raise some concerns which will be detailed later on regarding
site triangles at the access points to the individual lots and at the intersections of the
private streets.
4. There is illustrated an east-west sidewalk connection from Langford Driv~ extending
over to County Road 19. We believe that there is a need for additional attention
providing sidewalks along the north-south private drive and illustrating how the
individual buildings will be connected with this area-wide sidewalk system.
5. Lot configuration and outlots. In examining the individual lots, it appears that they meet
the minimum lot sizes for the B-2A zoning district. However, their configurations and
dimensions, in many cases, present problems related to setbacks and site design. In
recognition of the lot configurations, some alternatives in building configurations and
changes to overall design will be necessary.
6. The preliminary plat shows Outlot A. The questions arises as to what is the future use
of Outlot A. It exists as a 20,000 square foot outlot which falls below the B-2A lot
standards. The lot is shallow in depth and will be a difficult site to develop independent
of the adjoining properties. In addressing some of the concerns related to individual lot
size, we would suggest that Outlot A be combined with Lot 1 and Lot 3 as a means of
addressing site access and parking issues that will be later addressed in this
memorandum.
7. Setbacks. The B-2A district requires the minimum building setbacks:
· Front Yards - 35 feet
· Side Yards - 10 feet or 35 feet when abutting an R District or adjacent to a public
street
· Rear Yards - 20 feet or 35 feet when abutting an R District or adjacent public
street
The applicant is requesting flexibility from the required building setbacks. The proposed
site plan plans illustrate a 35 foot setback off of County Road 19 right-of-way and a 20
foot setback off of all other public streets. Side yards are 10 feet, side yards adjacent to
public streets are 20 feet, rear yards are not applicable. The reduced 20 foot setback
off of public streets may be acceptable in light of how the buildings are oriented and
access. Setbacks off of Lake Towne Drive or linden Drive or Langford Drive does offer
some potential for reduced setbacks in that the buildings are all oriented to the west
with no access points coming from those streets.
A greater concern is the proposed setbacks from the private street system. In many
cases, the setback is less than the 20 feet suggested for the public streets. As
2
"
illustrated on Lots 3, 4 and 5, building setbacks of 13 feet, 15 and 16 feet are illustrated.
These reduced setbacks present issue for staff related to aesthetic appearance of the
building in relation to the street and streetscape treatments, traffic visibility up and down
the private streets related to buildings located along curved streets. We believe a more
uniform setback should be applied. A greater setback should be required along all
private streets in addition to its application to public streets.
8. Impervious Surface. Impervious surface calculations submitted with the preliminary plat
reveals that all of the six lots are intended to have an impervious surface greater than
25% as established in the Shoreland Overlay District for School Lake. Section
4905.61 C allows for impervious surfaces to exceed 25% up to 80% subject to a
conditional use permit and meeting the following criteria:
a. The lots exceed the minimum lot size of the base district. This is compliant.
b. The building setback is at least 150 feet from the ordinary high water mark and
the building height does not exceed 25 feet. All buildings do comply with the
setback from the ordinary high water mark from School Lake, however, the
proposed hotel will be in access of 25 feet and a variance will be required if this
is to proceed.
c. As part of the CUP process, the site and building plan reviews for structures,
parking and other facilities shall be reviewed in an effort to reduce visibility from
the public waters of adjacent shorelands by vegetation, topography, color and
building color, assuming some are leaf on conditions. The building elevations do
not provide a clear depiction as to color and all building treatments for the
proposed buildings.
d. Parking lot lighting will be downcast to pay special attention to eliminating glare
and minimizing the number and height of the poles. A lighting plan has not been
submitted todate illustrating location or types of lighting. This must be provided.
e. Collection and treatment of stormwater prior to discharge into public water shall
be designed and implemented consistent with the stormwater management
regulations set forth in the City Subdivision Ordinance. Information on grading
and drainage plans have been submitted. This is subject to City engineer
review.
f. If the site exceeds 50% lot coverage and the use is non-water oriented, then the
following requirements must be met:
· All buildings must be set back at least 300 feet or to reduce the effect of
lot coverage below 50% using LID practices. The applicant has provided
an illustration of rain gardens, depression, storage and filtration. The
setbacks from the ordinary high water of the lake should be illustrated and
3
information demonstrating that specifically for Lot 6 that the LIDs have
effectively reduced the stormwater lot coverage below 50%.
9. The overall parking layout requests a reduction of 71 stalls from the required
parking standards. This storage is reduced to 40 stalls with the provision of
parking on Outlot A.
10. The landscape plan submitted by CDPC is impressive related to boulevard and
tree plantings and proposed landscaping at the periphery parking lots. However,
in review of the individual site plans, we find that they are not consistent with the
overall landscape plan submitted by CDPC.
Lot 3 Issues
Lot 3 is intended to contain a lighting, flooring and tile retail center. The proposed building is
9,630 square feet in size. In review of the site plan that has been provided for this, the
following issues must be addressed:
1. The curb cut is only 70 feet from the intersection of the two private streets. This
provides only stacking for 3 cars before the curb cut is interrupted.
2. The building maintains a 35 foot setback from County Road 19, however, the northeast
corner of the building is setback only 13 feet, 3 inches from the private street. This is
located on a curve and raises issues as far as site lines and visibility up and down the
street. Additionally, fight at this end of that building is a curb cut which is intended to
provide access for delivery vehicles. The parking lot setbacks illustrate a 15 foot
setback from County Road 19 right-of-way and a 5 foot setback from the private street.
Additional setbacks will be preferred to accommodate additional landscaping and to
ensure that the park cars would not provide an obstructed view as automobiles exit the
site.
3. In review of the parking lot, the proposed parking lot contains 36 parking stalls. This is
less than what would be required by ordinance, which would require 43 parking stalls.
The City in examining this must consider future changes in occupancy which may
require a full retail parking component. As such, the site plan should illustrate proof of
parking in the event of a change of occupancy to the full 43 parking stall requirements.
This could be done with the addition of land from Outlot A. The parking lot complies
with minimum standards related to stall dimension and driveway dimension. These
minimum standards are 8 % feet in width and 20 deep stalls, 24 foot isles.
4. A concern arises on the south side of the building on Lot 3 related where the entrance
point might exist and whether a sidewalk will be provided. It appears that the parking lot
is set back only 5 feet from the building. This raises issue related to automobile
overhangs onto the sidewalk that would restrict pedestrian access to the front of the
building.
4
5. The site plan does not illustrate the intended surfacing of the parking lot or the necessity
of concrete curbing surrounding all driveways, parking areas, and loading areas.
6. A proposed delivery area is provided on the north side of Lot 3 building. This is only 24
feet wide and is not dimensioned to handle any type of truck turn around or
maneuvering. At 24 feet, it would be difficult to have a car turn in that area much less a
delivery van or large semi truck. The access point for the delivery area is jogged with
the shared access point for Lots 2 and 4 on the east side of the private street. Attempts
should be made to realign those accesses so that they provide a full 90 degree
intersection. The delivery portion of the building will require screening. This should be
addressed in greater detail in the landscape plan. The site plan does illustrate that all
refuse shall be stored inside the building, thus eliminating the need for an outdoor trash
enclosure.
7. Building Elevations. The elevation submitted for Lot 3 only include the front elevation.
Elevations for all sides of the building should be submitted. The proposed building will
have a steep 4-12 roof that will peak and have a cupola located at the top. The steep
roof raises some issue as far as overall aesthetics in that it overwhelms the front facade
of the building which will consist of stone veneer, cedar columns and a stucco exterior
finish. The building elevations do not illustrate any proposed signage for the building.
To determine its compliance City Code, the building elevations or site plan should also
provide illustrations as to any mechanical equipment related to location and
appearance.
8. General comments related to Lot 3. It appears that the proposed size and configuration
of the building on Lot 3 overwhelms the site. The parking is below what is required by
City standards and the 36 stalls are squeezed into the site using the minimum
standards for stall dimensions, setbacks and parking lot design. The single access into
the parking lot raises issue as far as deadend circulation, as well as the curb cut access
related to intersection to the two private streets. The loading area is nonfunctional in
that it does not provide adequate moving or maneuvering space for any type of delivery
vehicle. We believe that some change in both the lot configuration and the building
configurations will be necessary to provide improved site design that will function in
relationship to the adjoining properties.
Lots 5 and 6
Lots 5 and 6 are proposed to be developed in an integrated site design. As such, our review
comments will include or address both lots in subsequent paragraphs.
Lot 5 is 1.25 acres, Lot 6 is 2.01 acres, both exceeding the B-2A lot area standards. Lot 5 has
a front yard dimension of 129 feet. This is deficient when compared to the B-2A lot width
standard of 150 feet. Flexibility through the PUD would be required to accommodate this lot
configuration.
5
..~
In examining the overall site design, the following issues arise:
1. The setback for the proposed restaurant on Lot 5 illustrates a 16 foot setback from the
private street. This is of particular concern in that it is located on a curve of a private
drive and its intended to have a fairly significant streetscape treatment for the building.
Site lines in this area are going to be critical for a safe flow of traffic. Increased setback
at this location is strongly recommended.
2. The hotel provides a setback of approximately 28 feet from Langford Drive. With the
pool house having a 20 foot setback. These setbacks are less than what is required in
the B-2A and flexibility may be appropriate, however, we need to see what the proposed
elevation of the pool house will look like. Concern does exist in that the hotel will be a
very tall building and its impression along that right-of-way will have to be considered in
granting flexibility from the setback requirements.
3. Parking. On Lot 5, the parking is setback only 5 feet from the private street at its
southwest entrance. With stalls immediately available at the entrance point, concern is
raised over traffic visibility entering and exiting the site. This may be further complicated
by the building location on the curb of the street. A joint parking lot is proposed for Lots
5 and 6. Total required parking for these two uses would be 211 stalls. One hundred
ninety stalls are being provided which a deficiency of 21 stalls or 10%. In evaluating the
use, we believe a 10% reduction may be appropriate based on a shared use and the
peak times of occupancy between these uses. However, we do raise the following
concerns related to the parking lot design:
· Minimum setbacks from the private streets raise issue as far as sight lines.
· To accomplish 190 stalls, the minimum parking dimensions are being proposed 8
% x 20 foot stalls.
· The access points where parking stalls are backing directly into the main
entrances of the sites offer opportunities for traffic conflicts.
· Within the B-2A Zoning District, there is a requirement that for every 15 stalls, a
parking lot landscape island be provided. This has not been complied with.
4. Loading. The site plan should illustrate the areas for receiving products for both the
restaurant and the hotel. Drop off areas for deliveries should be illustrated. Turning
radius for large trucks near the restaurant site should be illustrated. We have concern
with the location of the trash enclosure located at the hotel site. This is intended to be
accessed off of Langford Drive, totally separate from the building. We believe that the
trash enclosure should be integrated with the site design and accessed off the parking
lot rather than intruding upon the public street in that area. Related to the parking and
loading area, is the need to illustrate and demonstrate areas for snow storage related to
the overall parking design.
5. Landscape Plan. The landscape Plan for Lots 5 and 6 is not consistent with the CPDC
Plan. Boulevard trees and streetscape. As part of the B-2A, the applicant must
6
demonstrate that at least 2% of the project value is provided in landscaping. In review
of the proposed landscape plan, we do not believe that this has been achieved. The
parking lot landscape islands should be provided equal to one landscape island per 15
parking spaces.
6. Building Elevations. The restaurant building elevation is not scaled to allow for accurate
dimensions. Only the front elevation is illustrated. No exterior materials have been
identified for the restaurant. The building elevation for the restaurant suggests that the
building configuration will be different than what is illustrated on the site plan.
The hotel building elevations only provide a single front elevation. We have no
elevations of the side or rear of the building and no elevations for the pool house.
Materials are illustrated. This should be reviewed to be consistent with the Towne Lake
architectural standards that are being proposed.
The building height is in excess of what is allowed within the Shoreland Overlay District
and a variance will be required. We do not have any details related to the building
materials for the trash enclosure associated with either the restaurant or the hotel. The
site plan for the hotel illustrates what appears to be a canopy near the front entrance.
This is not illustrated on the front elevation of the building, rather the elevation
illustrates a front porch. Consistency between the site plan and the elevation should be
demonstrated.
CONCLUSION
Based on the original concept for the commercial area of Towne Lakes, it appears that the
character and type of land uses have significantly changed to more larger, box regional
destinations than the originally suggested neighborhood commercial center. With this change
came larger building footprints and a greater demand for parking.
The individual sites that are proposed, raise issue related to parking, setbacks and overall
visual appearance. We have moved away from the town center look to a suburban shopping
center type design. The issues that presents itself is the commercial area and lots that are
being proposed do not appear to have sufficient dimension or area to support the larger
buildings in many cases. Rather than revise the building footprints or building sizes, the
applicant is asking for flexibility on setbacks related to building and parking lot areas.
They are asking for flexibility in the number of parking stalls and to meet the parking stalls that
are being proposed, they are illustrating only the minimum standards within the Code. Overall
site design raises issue as far as traffic circulation and aesthetic appearance of these larger
parking lot areas. We believe some adjustment in the overall design will be required and this
should be resolved prior to moving to the Planning Commission with the preliminary plat PUD
and development stage plans.
7