HomeMy WebLinkAbout9.a. Request by John Green Partnership, LLC for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to Construct a Multi-Tenant Commercial Building with a Drive-Through Facility
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council Meeting: February 19, 2019
AGENDA ITEM: Request by John Green Partnership,
LLC. for a Site Plan Review and
Conditional Use Permit to Construct a
Multi-Tenant Commercial Building with a
Drive Through Facility.
AGENDA SECTION:
New Business
PREPARED BY: Anthony Nemcek, Planner AGENDA NO. 9.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Resolution; Excerpt of Minutes from
January 22, 2019, Planning Commission
Meeting; Site Location Map; Site Plan;
Landscape Plan; Building Elevations;
Engineer’s Memo dated January 22,
2019.
APPROVED BY: LJM
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt a Resolution Approving the Conditional
Use Permit and Site Plan, with Variance for south parking setback, for a Commercial
Building with Drive-Through Facility for John Green Partnership, LLC.
SUMMARY
John Green Partnership has submitted a request for a site plan review and conditional use permit for the
former site of Hong Kong Bistro. A site plan and conditional use permit were approved in 2017 to
construct a commercial building for three tenants and a drive-through facility. Because the conditional use
was not established within one year, the CUP is null and void and a new request must be made. The site
plan is similar to that which was previously approved, however there are some minor modifications.
Changes to the traffic circulation are perhaps the most obvious difference from the previous plan.
Additionally, the applicant is proposing two restaurant uses and one retail/service use while the previous
plan showed a single restaurant and two retail/service tenants. Site plan reviews are required for all
developments in the Commercial and Industrial zoning districts and drive-through facilities are conditional
uses in the C4-General Commercial zoning district. Since the Planning Commission reviewed this request,
the applicant updated their plans to reduce the width of the building. Therefore, the east and west
building setbacks have been increased.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 22, 2019, to review this request and receive
public comment. No public comments were received by the Commission, but a representative for the
applicant was present to answer questions. The Planning Commission asked about potential traffic
impacts upon the private drive serving the site. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend
approval of this request.
2
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Property Owner: John Green Partnership, LLC.
Property Location: 15065 Canada Avenue
Size of Property: 0.93 Acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation: CC Community Commercial
Zoning: C4-General Commercial
Current Neighboring Land Uses: North – Low Density Residential; East, South, and West –
Community Commercial
Planned Neighboring Land Uses: North – Low Density Residential; East, South, and West –
Community Commercial
Following the approval of a Site Plan and CUP in 2017 the site was cleared and prepared for
redevelopment. The developer is proposing construction of a 4,620 square foot structure on the vacant lot,
approximate 380 square feet smaller than the 2017 approval. The new building will contain three tenant
bays situated east to west with entrances along the south elevation. The outer bays may contain fast casual
restaurants while the middle bay will contain space for a retail service tenant. Currently the site has two
driveway accesses to the internal private roadway within the larger shopping center area. The previous plan
reduced that to a single access. With this request, the applicant is proposing that the current number of
access points be maintained.
SITE PLAN REVIEW
Setbacks
Frontage Required Setback Provided Setback
Building Parking Building Parking
North (CSAH 42) 30 feet 20 feet 40 feet 20 feet
East (McDonald’s) 10 feet 10 Feet 29 feet 10 feet
South (Private Dr) 10 feet 10 feet 178 feet 4 feet
West (Arby’s) 10 feet 10 feet 29 feet 10 feet
The proposed development meets the east and west setback requirements. The site is currently
nonconforming with regard to the northern parking setback, and City Code allows for nonconformities to
be continued through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement but not through
expansion. With that understanding, the site can maintain the existing setback from County Road 42
under the new project. The proposed parking lot is only four feet from the southern property line, which
is a change from the pre-existing condition and the previously approved project. Because there is an actual
setback of between sixteen and twenty-two feet from the private road along the south and this setback is
much greater than elsewhere within the shopping center, staff feels the site plan meets the intention of the
zoning ordinance. Visually, there will be a larger island than what is occurring in the main mall parking lot.
Additionally, the area functions more like a PUD where access is through a separate private drive rather
than public right of way, and internal property lines are to facilitate individual ownership, even though the
area functions as one retail center. With this understanding, that the reason for a setback is separation and
ability to landscape, and the site plan allows both to occur in a less conventional way, staff is supporting
the south parking setback variance that was approved by the Planning Commission.
Traffic Circulation
3
The configuration of the site features a separate entrance and exit. The two accesses will remain, with the
western access shifted slightly east to align with the driveway to the south. The accesses will function as
both entrances and exits, and access to the site will continue to be reached via a private internal driveway
within the shopping center.
Parking
The City Code requires 51 parking spaces. Specifically, the Code requires one stall per 3 seats for
restaurants and 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet for retail sales and services. The retail bay is 1,922 square
feet, which means that space requires 12 parking stalls. The larger of the two restaurants is expected to
have 55 seats internally and 24 seats on the patio. This equates to a need of 27 parking stalls. The smaller
restaurant on the eastern side of the building is expected to have 35 seats and require 11 parking stalls.
The site plan meets the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Establishment Seats/Area Parking Ratio Requirement
Restaurant (west) 79 seats 1 stall per 3 seats 27 stalls
Retail Sales/Service 1,922 square feet 6 stalls per 1,000 sf 12 stalls
Restaurant (east) 35 seats 1 stall per 3 seats 12 stalls
Total 51 stalls
Parking Stalls Provided: 51 parking stalls
Exterior Building Materials and Massing
Plans provided by the applicant depict exterior surfaces of 60% brick and 30% decorative metal siding. No
stucco or EIFS is proposed. Metal banding will be used to separate the lower brick from the upper metal
and also as a cornice atop the walls. The brick portion of the elevation is capped by a corbel of bricks in a
basket weave patterns. Due to the relatively smaller size of the building, no additional articulation of the
exterior walls is required. The exterior treatment extends 360 degrees around the entire building. Non-
earth tone colors are shown as architectural aspects on the elevations provided by the applicant.
Trash Enclosure
A trash enclosure six feet in height will be constructed at the east side of the parking lot near the entrance
to the drive-through. The enclosure will be constructed of materials that match the façade, and it will
feature a wooden gate.
Landscaping
The proposed project is a redevelopment of an existing site. Most of the existing trees located along the
perimeter will be preserved. Two trees have been removed from the area between the existing access
points during site preparation, and the applicant is proposing removal of one additional tree in the
southeast corner of the site. Five trees will be planted in and around the new parking lot resulting in a net
gain of 2 trees.
Foundation plantings are required at a rate of one planting per ten (10) feet of the perimeter of the
building. It is not unusual to have the perimeter plantings placed on the edge of the developed areas to
have it more visible to patrons and the passing public. The McDonald’s next door to the site is an
example. The total perimeter of the building is 298 feet, which amounts to a requirement of 30 foundation
plantings. Thirty-nine shrubs and foundation plants are indicated on the landscape plan along the
northern property line, an additional six plants will be located along the western property line where the
drive-through window will be located, and three shrubs are shown next to the trash enclosure to offer
some screening from the property to the east. The landscape goals are twofold. One is to provide a
pleasing front to County Road 42 which has high traffic visibility and the second is to screen the drive aisle
associated with the drive through.
4
Lighting
Wall mounted lights are shown on the building elevations, but the applicant has not shown how the
parking lot lighting will be addressed. Staff has recommended that the applicant submit a lighting plan that
complies with the City Code and that all non-essential lighting is turned off after business hours.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Legal Authority
Conditional use permits (CUP) are considered quasi-judicial actions. In such cases, the City is acting as a
judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision
Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if the application meets these requirements it must be approved.
REVIEW AND ANALYSIS
Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, or general welfare of the
neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The Drive-Through will not change any traffic patterns exterior to the site. Screening
will be provided to minimize impacts to traffic on 42 from headlights.
Will be harmonious with the objectives of the comprehensive plan and city code provisions.
Finding: The use and location are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies. The applicant
is not seeking any variances or deviations from the City Code provisions to accommodate the
drive-through.
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so as to be compatible or similar in an
architectural and landscape appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area, nor substantially diminish or
impair prop erty values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The area is guided for Community Commercial uses. The site itself is surrounded by
restaurants, a number of which feature drive through facilities, and retail. The proposed
redevelopment is consistent with existing and planned uses.
Will be served adequately by existing (or those proposed in the project) essential public facilities
and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage, structures, refuse disposal,
water and sewer systems and schools.
Finding: The site will continue to be served by the existing services including storm water
removal. The project will not require any new public services or utilities.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, material equipment, and conditions of operation that
will be hazardous or detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare because of
excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors.
Finding: The proposed redevelopment will likely be less detrimental compared to the previous use
due to the fact that updated mechanical equipment will be installed with this project.
Will have vehicular ingress and egress to the property which does not create traffic congestion or
interfere with traffic on surrounding public streets.
Finding: Access to the site will remain in roughly the same location, except both of the access
points will allow ingress and egress where they were previously an entrance and an exit. Traffic
patterns should remain similar to what they are currently.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic, or historic feature of major
importance and will comply with all local, state, and federal environmental quality standards.
Finding: The proposed project is a redevelopment of an existing commercial use. The project will
5
have little to no environmental impact, nor will it result in the destruction, loss, or damage of any
natural, scenic, or historic feature of major importance.
These standards apply in addition to specific conditions as may be applied throughout this code.
Finding: According to Section 11-4-14: D, drive through facilities must meet the following
conditions:
1. The site and building(s) shall be designed to limit the effects of the drive-through on
adjacent properties and public rights of way. No use with a drive-through window shall
be located abutting any residential use or district.
Finding: The drive-through lanes turn cars west toward Arby’s/Chipotle when ordering and the
pickup window faces west and is not visible from any public right-of-way.
2. Drive -through facilities shall have a minimum six (6) stacking spaces per drive-through
window. Fast food uses operating more than one window per individual drive aisle shall
meet the stacking requirements for a single drive-through facility. Each space shall be a
minimum of nine feet (9') wide by eighteen feet (18') long.
Finding: The plans provided by the applicant indicate at least seven stacking spaces that are 20’
long and 14’ wide, which exceeds the dimensional requirements of the City Code.
3. The principal building shall be the primary source for screening the drive-through facility
and stacking and exiting areas from adjacent properties and/or rights of way.
Landscaping and berming shall be a secondary source for screening drive-through,
stacking or exiting areas. Should landscaping and berming be found ineffective by the
city, the city may approve screening walls and/or decorative fencing as an alternative.
Screening walls shall be constructed of the same materials as the principal building and
shall not extend more than twenty five feet (25') without a change in architecture to
reduce their mass and appearance. Stacking areas shall have a minimum ninety percent
(90%) opacity screen to a height of six feet (6') while exiting areas shall have a minimum
fifty percent (50%) opacity screen to a height of at least four feet (4').
Finding: The building itself screens the drive-through window from public right of ways.
Additional screening is provided by landscaping along the north and west property lines.
4. Stacking lanes, order board intercom, and service window shall be designed and located
to minimize noises, emissions, and headlight glare upon adjacent properties and public
rights of way.
Finding: The stacking lanes, order board intercom, and drive-through windows are configured to
limit their impact on adjacent properties and public rights-of-way.
5. Stacking lanes shall not interfere with circulation through any required parking, loading,
maneuvering or pedestrian area.
6
Finding: The stacking lanes of the drive through are located along the eastern side of the building.
Parking for the site is located south of the building, and therefore there is no interference
between drive through stacking and the parking area.
6. No public address system shall be audible from a noncommercial or nonindustrial use or
district.
Finding: Staff has prepared a condition stating that public address or ordering speakers shall not
be audible from the property lines.
7. In addition to the freestanding sign allowed by the sign ordinance, fast food uses may
display menu signs related to drive-through facilities, provided that:
a. Not more than one menu sign per defined drive-through aisle is allowed.
b. Individual menu signs shall be single sided with an area not to exceed thirty-two (32)
square feet including both menu information and sign cabinet.
c. The height of the menu sign(s) shall not exceed eight feet (8') including its base or pole
measured from grade to the top of the structure.
d. The menu sign(s) shall not encroach into any parking setback and shall be located
directly adjacent to the drive-through aisle and oriented in such a manner that the sign
provides information to the drive-through patrons only and does not provide
supplemental advertising to pass-by traffic and does not impair visibility or obstruct
circulation.
Finding: The actual design of the menu boards has not been provided. Staff has prepared a
condition that requires conformance with the above menu board standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Site Plan Review with conditions.
Additionally, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
Conditional Use Permit for the drive-through facility.
5.a. Request by John Green Partnership, LLC for a Site Plan Review and Conditional Use Permit to Construct a
Multi-Tenant Commercial Building with a Drive Through Facility. (19-3-CUP & 19-4-SP)
Planner Nemcek gave a brief summary of the staff report for the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kenninger inquired about the stacking area. Nemcek stated that there is not room for a car to move
around another car in the stacking area before going to the parking lot.
Commissioner Reed inquired if traffic studies have been completed in that area. Nemcek stated that the plans have been
reviewed by the City Engineer and the use is similar, being commercial, to what was previously on this property.
The public hearing opened at 7:04 pm.
Public Comments:
Dennis Plow, Cedar Coorporation, stated that he did the plan design and is available for any questions.
MOTION by Reed to close the public hearing.
Second by Freeman.
Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
The public hearing was closed at 7:05 pm.
Additional Comments: None.
MOTION by Reed to approve the Site Plan, with variance for south parking setback, for John Green
Partnership, LLC, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall install rooftop mechanical equipment so that the parapet wall shields the
equipment from public view consistent with ordinance standards.
2. The applicant shall provide site photometric prior to building permit issuance.
3. The applicant shall provide light fixture cut sheets to ensure they are a cut-off style of lighting prior to
issuance of a building permit.
4. Non-essential lighting shall be turned off after business hours.
5. Final approval of building elevations that are consistent with Section 11-4-14-G-1 of the zoning
ordinance relating to architectural appearance prior to issuance of a building permit.
6. Compliance with all conditions within the City Engineer’s Memo dated January 22, 2019 prior to
issuance of a building permit.
Second by VanderWiel.
Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
MOTION by Reed to recommend that the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for the drive-
through facility for John Green Partnership, LLC., subject to the following conditions:
1. Public address systems and ordering speakers shall not be audible at the property lines.
2. The text on the menu board shall not be so large as to be visible from the public right-of-way or to
serve as off-site advertising.
3. Size and design of menu boards shall conform to condition seven (7) of the drive-through facility
conditional use permit standards.
Second by VanderWiel.
Ayes: 4. Nays: 0. Motion Passes.
MEMORANDUM
To: Anthony Nemcek, Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
From: Stephanie Smith, Assistant City Engineer
Date: January 22, 2019
Subject: 15065 Canada Ave Site Plan - Engineering Review
SUBMITTAL:
The plans for 15065 Canada Ave Site Plan have been prepared by Cedar Corporation dated
December, 2018. Engineering review comments were generated from the following documents
included in the submittal:
▫ Existing Conditions
▫ Site Plan
▫ Erosion Control Plan
▫ Grading and Drainage Plan
▫ Utility Plan
▫ Stormwater Management Plan Sheets
▫ Auto-Turn Figures
▫ Notes, Details and Specifications
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. The applicant shall submit civil plans signed by a licensed engineer in the state of
Minnesota.
RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:
2. The survey shall be updated to include all easements on the property based on a recent
title commitment. If a trail easement has not been granted over the public trail on the
northeast corner of the property, the applicant shall grant an easement.
3. An approximately 62.5-foot long, three-foot high retaining wall is proposed on the north
of the property between the drive-thru and the CSAH 42 trail. This retaining wall shall
be moved outside the Drainage and Utility Easement.
GRADING AND DRAINAGE
4. The plans shall be revised to use the City’s standard detail plates for erosion control Best
Management Practices.
STREETS AND PARKING LOTS
The property currently has two accesses off a private driveway shared by the surrounding retail
properties to provide circulation. The western access will be shifted to align with the driveway to
the property on the south side of the private drive. A drive-thru circles the building to provide
service from the eastern restaurant.
5. As there is no escape lane from the drive-thru, signage or pavement markings is required
to clearly indicate that the back of the lot is a drive-thru lane.
6. The applicant shall submit a plan sheet confirming adequate stacking capacity.
UTILITIES
This project proposal does not include public infrastructure improvements. The privately-owned
watermain, sanitary sewer and storm sewer will tie into public systems.
7. All connections to public utilities shall be inspected by City staff and shall be performed
in accordance with the current edition of the Rosemount Standard Specifications and
Detail Plates.
WSB Engineering reviewed the stormwater submittal on behalf of the City. The full
memorandum, dated January 16, 2019, is included as an attachment. The recommendations are
summarized below:
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Comments:
Water quality and stormwater management was not reviewed for part of this submittal as the site
is less than 1 acre.
A. Sheet C3 indicates that the site area to be 40,608 square feet or 0.93 acres. The runoff
maps show only 0.87 acres, please revise or provide where the additional 0.05 acres is
draining to.
B. Provide detail plates for connection to existing storm sewer, watermain, and sanitary.
C. A note about street sweeping must be included on the erosion control plan.
D. Inlet protection icons need to be adjusted for the southern two CBs on the erosion
control plan. Include legend or labels for SWPPP BMPs on erosion control plan.
Stormwater Management Plan:
The runoff map indicates total flow from the site using the rational method. Calculations show
matching the rates between the existing and proposed conditions; however, change in
impervious was not reflected in pre/post runoff coefficient. No SCS method calculations were
provided to show pervious, impervious, and time in concentration changes between existing and
proposed conditions. Given the small increase in impervious, additional hydraulic analysis has
not been requested for this project.
E. Two inlets are labeled as #4. Please revise.
F. The plan calls for 12-inch PVC storm sewer. Per engineering guidelines minimum pipe
size is 15-inch. All storm within public ROW shall be RCP.
G. Indicate method of connection into existing structures. Any connections to existing
manholes or catch basins shall be core drilled or the opening cut out with a concrete
saw. No jack hammering or breaking the structure with a sledge hammer or mallet is
permitted.
H. No storm sewer sizing calculations were provided. Only annotative capacities were
shown on the runoff plans. Our preliminary analysis shows that 15-inch storm sewer will
meet the design capacity requirements.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me
at 651-322-2015.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. WSB Memorandum
K:\011547-000\Admin\Docs\15065 Canada Ave\MEMO - Plan Review Comment.docx 701 XENIA AVENUE S | SUITE 300 | MINNEAPOLIS, MN | 55416 | 763.541.4800 | WSBENG.COM Memorandum
To: Stephanie Smith, City of Rosemount
From: Bill Alms, PE
Laura Cummings
Date: January 16, 2019
Re: Proposed Restaurant and Retail Development Construction Plan Review
WSB Project No. 011547-000
I have reviewed the documents provided by Cedar Corporation, on December 19, 2018 for
Proposed Restaurant and Retail Development. Documents reviewed include:
• Proposed Restaurant and Retail Development Construction Plans (12/19/2018)
• Pre-Development Runoff Map (12/19/2018)
• Post Development Runoff Map (12/19/2018)
Based on my review of the plan I offer the following comments for your consideration.
Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Comments:
1. General
a. Water quality and stormwater management was not reviewed for part of this
submittal as the site is less than 1 acre.
b. Sheet C3 indicates that the site area to be 40,608 square feet or 0.93 acres. The
runoff maps show only 0.87 acres, please revise or provide where the additional
0.05 acres is draining to.
c. Provide detail plates for connection to existing storm sewer, watermain, and
sanitary.
d. Submit signed plans.
2. Ponds and Wetlands
a. N/A
3. Emergency Overflow Routes:
a. N/A
4. Retaining Walls:
a. N/A
5. Erosion Control:
a. A note about street sweeping must be included on the erosion control plan.
b. Inlet protection icons need to be adjusted for the southern two CBs on the
erosion control plan. Include legend or labels for SWPPP BMPs on erosion
control plan.
Stephanie Smith
01/16/2019
Page 2
K:\011547-000\Admin\Docs\15065 Canada Ave\MEMO - Plan Review Comment.docx
Stormwater Management Plan:
1. General Storm Sewer Design
a. Two inlets are labeled as #4. Please revise.
b. The plan calls for 12-inch PVC storm sewer. Per engineering guidelines minimum
pipe size is 15-inch. All storm within public ROW shall be RCP.
c. Indicate method of connection into existing structures. Any connections to
existing manholes or catch basins shall be core drilled or the opening cut out with
a concrete saw. No jack hammering or breaking the structure with a sledge
hammer or mallet is permitted.
d. No storm sewer sizing calculations were provided. Only annotative capacities
were shown on the runoff plans. Our preliminary analysis shows that 15-inch
storm sewer will meet the design capacity requirements.
2. Water Quantity
a. N/A
3. Rate/Volume Control
a. The runoff map indicates total flow from the site using the rational method.
Calculations show matching the rates between the existing and proposed
conditions; however, change in impervious was not reflected in pre/post runoff
coefficient.
b. No SCS method calculations were provided to show pervious, impervious, and
time in concentration changes between existing and proposed conditions. Given
the small increase in impervious, additional hydraulic analysis has not been
requested for this project.
4. Freeboard
a. N/A
5. Water Quality
a. N/A
6. Easements
a. N/A