Loading...
CR 88-132 CUP - RL Johnson 11th Ave S .. -- . .. " u v ... e June 29, 1988 ~ Council Report: 88-132 o " K \ .. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R.L. JOHNSON 11th Avenue South & County Road #3 ProDosed Action. Staff repol1llllends the fOllowing !RoUon: ~ the r!''lU'lllt by R. r,., .:r9hns~ to construct a retail ~J:;t center is approved bv Resolution No: 8 _ 43... Approval of this motion will allow the applicant to construct the prOposed retail strip center. Overview. R.L. Johnson is proposing to construct an 18,800'sq.ft. retail strip center on the southeast corner of County Road #3 and 11th Avenue South. This development will be for a restaurant with a seating capacity of 150 and small retail stores and/or professional offices. The restaurant will be applying for a liquor license. The site presently zoned B-3. The applicant wants to start COflstruction July 1 and open in November. Dave Constable, representing R.L. JOhnson, appeared before the Commission. He stated that the project has remained the same. It .was noted that the Commission had received reports from Laventhol & . Horwath regarding the Market Analysis and Mitch Wonson of Benshoor & Associates reqarding the tra:ffic issues. CCDe also reviewed the" project and qave comments on the project. There was very little discussion on the project. Staff is also recommending that the following condition be added: That a development agreement is signed between R.L.Johnson and the City. The Commission unanimously approV'ed- Resolution 88-43 to allow construction of a 18,800 strip Eall and restaurant. Issues to Consider. o What is the impact on the surrounding area? o How does this proposal affect future transportation '? . l.ssUes. ~orting Documents. o Location Map 0 Planning Report 0 Laventhol & Horwath Rpt o Site Plan 0 Benshoof Memo 0 Resolution ~~ Chdof"-'lCY\ Nancy . Anderson Commun'ty Development Analyst " CR88-132 Page 2 lite P~QPQsa 1 . The following is a list of the ordinance requirements and the proposed project: B~3 Proposeg Front Yard l' Approx. 56' R-ear Yard 15' 60' Sid.e Yard. N la' N 110' S 0' S 33' Height 45' 1 stO:i.7 Parking .. 114 150' * This requirement is based on the building being a restaurant with a seating capacity of 150 and the rest of the buildinq being 100% office at a ratio of 1 space to 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area. Sicmacre. The applicant is proposing a sign at the corner of 11th Avenue South , County Road t3. In addition to this sign, each tenant will have a sign on the building. The siqnage will be similar to the Auto Hall . signaqe. Exterior~ The exterior will consist of brick and a painted metal exterior. Tbe color of the metal is not decided as of yet. The brick is proposed to be gray. Land Exchanqes. This project will invol ve the exchange and sale of land. The intersection at 11th Avenue and County Road 3 will be widened in the near future. The land along 11th Ave~me South is owned by the app~icant, but needed for the widening of 11th Avenue. The land along County Road #3 is owned by the City, but needed for parking in this project. The city is proposing to exchange the land along 11th Avenue for land along County Road #3 and then sell additional land to the applicant along County Road #3. The site plan reflects the new lot lines. Traffic Flow. There will be two egress/ingress points, one from 11th Avenue and a second from County Road f3. The access from County Road #3 will be at the approximate area of 8th Avenue. The egress/ingress on 11th Avenue will be aligned with an egress/ingress on the west side of 11th . - . . .. . CR88-132 Page 3 Avenue. Access to the City water tower will be from county Road '3. The access point from 8th Avenue will have to be upgraded. W. will be working the appl icant to design a road which will st!rve both t.."le City's and the applicants needs. Landsca?inq. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The site is required to have 33 trees; the plan shows 15 trees. The applicant has stated th&t they will try to add a few more trees within the parking lot. However, in order to meet the landscape requirements, parking spaces would have to be used~ The applicant does have extra parking but the staff feels that the parking is needed rather than the landscaping. The plan shows addi tional landscaping that does not count for the ordinance requirements. Sidewalk will be constructed along 11th Avenue and County Road 3. Drainage. The Director of Engineering has reviewed the plans and found them acceptable The applicant is doing a EAW~ This EAW has been started. It should be noted there are several easements which are on the site. . fiJ;:e. The-Fire Marshall has reviewed the plans and recommended that another fire hydrant be added to the east end of the site. Temoorary Parking. Part of the City owned land. will be used as parking during the construction of the parking ramp.. Approximately 30 spaces will be needed. This area will be on the east side of the site and should not create a problem. ceDe. CCDC has the pI ans to the proposed development. As of the date of this report they had not reviewed them. ANALYSIS. - How does this proposal affect future transporation? One of the staff's concerns with this site is the impact on the intersection. There will be a traffic study done by Ben~hoof in the very near future and this should tell us the timing of when to begin improvements. We know improvements will have to be made at the intersection we just do not know the timing. The Capital . Improvements Program has budgeted money for the upgrading of the intersection. " .. ~' : ..: " . :". J ..-, ~ . i I I .. ... I . CRS8-132 Page 4 The access road to thu development from 8th Avenue will have to be upqraded also. This access road to the developnent will be coordinated the Park and Ride. This access point in the future will also serve the development to the south, what ever that maybe. The staff will be working with the applicant to determine the best way to utilize this area both for the proposed development and the future development to the south. For this development the roadway will be 25 feet in width, but the development of the 13 acre site to to south will dictate the need for a improved road. '" One of the proposed routes for the LRT is on 9th Avenue. This route will be to the east of the proposed developement and should not haye an impact on this project. - What is the impact on the surro\lnding area? The site plan provides access to the 13 acre site to the south. The exact design of the roadway into the site has not been determined as of yet, but we know that an improved road will be needed. The Public Works has reviewed the plan and found it acceptable. .. There will be access to the water tower and the proposed buildinq is the required 75 feet away from the water tower. The directional sign on the corner of County Road 3 and 11th Avenue will remain until the improvements are made to the intersection. The staff finds the aestetics acceptable. Alternatives. 1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit to construct the strip center with conditions. If the Commission approves the Conditional Use Permit the applicant will be able to construct the proposed development. 2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant will not be able to construct the strip center as proposed. If the Commission chooses this alternative they will have to identify Findings of Fact to support their denial. 3. Continue for further information. If the Commission feels that further information is needed, the item should be continued. . -------.... .. " - .w BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE. SUITE 119/ EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344/ (612) 944-7500 ,- June i 7. 1988 Ri:fEA TO FilE: 86-34-45 HEN 0 RAN 0 U H TO: Nancy Anderson. City of Hopkins FROM: ~Pt/ Hitch Wonson ;- RE: TraFFic AnalysIs of Impacts oT R.L. Johnson Shoppfng Center on 11th Avenue South PURPOSE AND SUHHARY The purpose of this memorandum is to present the FIndings of our analysIs concerning the traffIc Impacts of the proposed . R.L. Johnson Shopping Center located in the southeast quadrant of County Road 3 and 11th Ave. South. SpecifIcally, our analysis addressed two questfons: 1} How does the prOpOsal aFFect the tlmfng oFprevlousJy identIfIed Improvements to the C.R. 3/11th Ave. South Intersection? 2) What are the potential impacts of the development at the proposed site access on 11th Ave. South? The principal conclusions of the analysIs are: . WIth the current proposal, the intersection of 11th Ave. South and C.R. .3 will need to be upgraded by 1989. These fmprovements will be required at least by 1991 regardless of thfs proposal. 0 The currently proposed Full movement access to 11th Ave. South has the potential For signiFicant negatIve impacts. The locatfon and type of access (fut J movement versus right fn/right out only) should be evaluated within the context of the overall design of the 1 I th Ave. improvementso It may be necessary to restrIct access For thfs proposal tOirfght In/right out movements only. . - ... . . Ms. Nancy Anderson -2- ..June 17 t 1988 BACKGROUND The current proposal contafns 18.800 sq. ft. of development consisting of a 6,000 Sq. ft. restaurant with 1 f quor and 12,600 sq. ft. of retai l/service uses. Access is proposed v t a fu 1 1 movement access points both at 1 J th Ave. South and at the 8th Ave./e.R. 3 Intersectfon vfs a "frontage road". For purposes of comparison. an alternatIve developm~nt scenario was also analyzed. Thfs scenario consIsted of an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant with access only to 11th Ave. South and would entail development sOlely on the parcel currently owned by R.L. Johnson. TraFffc Forecasts Several p.rr.. peak hour tr'aff f c forecasts for the fntersectfo~ of C.R. 3/llth Ave. South were prepared including: . No buIld forecasts Tor 1988 through 1992 whIch adjusted traffIc counts prepared In November, 1987 by . a yearly growth factor and assumed no development on this site or any other sfgniflcant development which would affect traffIc volumes. . 1988 forecasts with full occupancy of the cur~ent 16.800 sq. Ft. proposal. The development forecasts were prepared based upon trIp generatIon rates published by the Institute of Transportation EngIneers, trIp dlstrfbutlon IdentIfied In our prevIous studIes. and the proposed access points. The Forecasts accounted Tor trIps intercepted From existing traffic by the retaIl/service component. The proposed development Is expected to generate approximately 330 p.m. peak hour trips ( (n and out). . 1988 forecasts with construction of an 8,000 sq. ft. restaurant, using Identical traffIc Forecasting methodology. ThIs development Is expected to generate approxImately 160 p.m. peak hour trips ( I n and out). Figure 1 presents the forecasts for the three alternatfve 1988 scenarios. . '-.- ' ',.'~ .. '.. c \ ~. . . 0 If) cnCOLt) . :!~IJ) III ......" > ;g~\O <r:: -N\O .l:: ;O~, 4-t - tTlC1'o\O .~. __\0 J !L . -. :1 C.R. 3 l'L- 48/ 481 48 ~ 907/895/907 174/174/174 ~ c- 201/239/238 519/512/519 ---;). . J48/20S/18V ~ ~1'r "l Lt)- ~ 'V \0 V N NN , .............. - 0 III 1- r- 'V N NN ....... ......., r- 0 tr) N \0 N NNN Nov. 1988 no site development ~ Nov. 1988 wIth 18.800 sq. ft. shopping center N No Scale ,----- Nov. 19a5 wfth xx/xx/xx 8.000 sq. ft. r~staurant C!TY OF HOPK J NS TRAFFIC STUDY figure 1 FOR , R.l. JOHNSON -. PH PEAI< HOUR FORECASTS AT SHOPPING CENTER 11TH AVE. SO. AND C.R. 3 HOOF & ASSOCIATES. INC. mllTlON AND LAND USE CONSIJLTMHS ~ . . , . Ms. Nancy Anderson -.3- .June 17, 1988 ANALYSIS 11th Ave. South/C.R. 3 Intersection.. The traffic operations at the Intersection under the various scenarios were analyzed In terms of levels of servIce and delay using procedures publtshed In the HIghway Capacity Hanual 1985. The key findings of this analysts Include: . Under the no buIld scenario. the IntersectIon would need to be upgraded by 1991 tn order to avoid signiFIcant delays, particularly on the south approach (northbound movements). These conceptual Improvements shown on FIgure 2 were prevIously developed by our, Firm. It should be reiterated that this scenario of improvements by 1991 assumes no sfgnlFicant development aFFecting traffic volumes at the intersection. For example. when the proposed R~L. Johnson ofFice development occurs south of the current site. the IdentIfied Improvements wf11 be required ImmedIately. . . WIth constructIon of the current 18,,800 Sq. ft. propose 1" the Intersection upgradIng wfll be required upon Full occupancy or the development. This fndfcates that while It Is not Imperative that the Intersection be improved prIor to construction of the proposal. It Is fmperatlve that the CIty commence the deslgn/construct~on process for the Improvements to . .,.:? ensure their availabilIty by the earlIest pOssIble ,;.:, date In 1989. . With the volumes Forecasted under the 8,000 sq. Ft. restaurant scenarIo, the intersection Improvements would not be requIred untIl approx hnatel y 1990. As such, the need to upgrade the Intersection by 1989 Is not as imperative as with the current proposal. Further, the impacts of a restaurant proposal could be somewhat mItIgated dependent upon the sIze, type. and access opportunftfes associated with an actual restaurant proposal. Impacts at 11 th Ave. South Access The forecasts prepared to determine the improvements to the Intersection and to J Ith Ave. South as shown on Figure 2 fncluded a development with much lower p.m. peak trIp generation on this site than Is currently proposed. GIven . the size and type of deve I opment current 1 y pr'opOsed, the Ii th Ave. South access has the potential for sIgnificant negative impacts on traFFIc flow on i Ith Ave. South These impacts result prfnclpal Iy From the leFt turns 'nto the site from southbound 11th Ave. As such, the location and type of . ... / . "'~ . Itt > <: -C .jJ .... - C.R. 3 ~ - ~ ~ ::-' ~ ~ -N tS:-- -i> IC..- : - --t> ~1 r f:':~ Jng ~ Access Prepared by, I j 0 N 50# Benshoof & Associates, Inc. L j December 1987 ApproxINt. SeA'. CITY OF HOPKINS TRAFFIC STUDY FE gure 2 fOR - R.l. JOHNSON CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS SHOPPING CENTER TO C.R. 3/11TH AVE. SO. BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES. INC. INTERSECTION TRANSPORT"TlON AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS' .. . . Ho. Nancy Anderson -4- June 17. 1988 the access (full movement versus right tn/rfght out) on 11th Ave. South needs to be revtewed wlthfn the context of the ultimate desIgn and traffic needs of 11th Ave. South ThIs revIew. whfch can be done In conjunction wIth the desIgn of the roadway Improvements needs to analyze the followIng opportunftfes: . Are addItIonal improvements. such a5 a leFt turn lane at the currently proposed access. feasIble. thus ensuring safe effectIve traFfIc flow with the cu~rently proposed access? . Are alternative locatIons Farther south on the site available to provIde both eFfective traffic flow and FuJ I movement access? . In Grder to preserve effectIve traFFic flow on 11th Ave. South. will an unInterrupted median be required between the C.R. 3 Intersectfon and the raIlroad tracks thereby lImIting access For this site to rfght tn/right out only? . Whf Ie an unlikely scenarfo. wIll all access to thIs . site from 11th Ave. need to be eliminated In order to preserve effectIve traFFIc flow? Based upon the current analysis. It Is recommended that the location and type of access to lIth Ave. South, For the shopping center proposal not be approved at this time. but rather be deterrnfned in conjunction wIth the desIgn of the 11 th Ave. South Improvements. The access for thIs proposal may need to be restrIcted to right in/rIght out only. . ...:} . . '[iMl~~~,~,~~th 100 Washington Square . Minnea~olis. Minn. 55401 (612) 332.5500 June 20, 1988 Mr. Steven Mielke Community Development Director City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Mielke: At your request we nave prepared this letter that outlines our reactions to the proposed R. L. Johnson development at the southeast intersection of County Highway 3/Excels ior Avenue and 12th Avenue in Hopkins. S I TUA'.r I ON . R. L. Johnson Company proposes to develQP a retail center total ing 18,800 square feet. It would include an Applebee.s restaurant approximately 6,200 square feet in size, as well as additional miscellaneous retail. The City is considering action on the pro- posed project for several reasons. One, it must approve a liquo r license required for the Applebee's restaurant. Two, the City owns the parcel of land required for parking spaces at t.he site. The City is concerned about the impact of the proposed pro ject on downtown Mainstreet me rchants. At issue is, will the proposed development be an asset or a liability to Hopkins Mainstreet busi- nesses and the f ut ur e vitality of the downtown area. Laventhol & Horwath has been asked by the City to review the proposed development and make comments in light of their knowledge of the downtown area, and the commercial market research study recently conducted by the firm. POTENTIAL IMPACT The p:>tent ial impacts of the proposed development are likely to be both positive and negative. Each of these impacts need to be weighed against one another to detennine the net impact of the proposed . development. A member of Horwath & Horwath International wilh affiliated offices wo-rldwide. , , '. . ' . ." _ .. . '. ~ '. " . . . . . .' . M r. Steve n Mielke June 20, 1988 Page Two positive Impacts; The proposed development is likely to have a number of positive impacts on the City as well as the downtown area. First, the City's endorsing or supporting the development at this site will help the City build a more positive relationship with the business community regarding new development. For example, a number of retailers in surrounding commercial areas indicated due ing the market research study that the City was difficult to deal with, and created a number of loopholes which kept them from locating in the downtown area. The City, by supporting this devel- opment, may work to bridge the ties between the public and private secto rs. New developments cdjacent to the downtown area are likely to 'help create the necessary cr itical mass and retail image the City of Hopkins currently lacks. The effect of this commercial development near the downtown area should benefit downtown businesses and the City of Hopkins at large. While the market study recommended that new development be centered around the four-block area of downtown Hopkins, these recanmendations we re not intended to discourage growth that occurs surrounding the ~bull's eye~ of the target area~ Much development has and may continue to occur surrounding Hopkins. The closer this development occurs to the downtown area, the greater ~ potential there is for downtown businesses to benefit. The restaurant at the proposed development is very consistent with the establishment types found to have high development potential for the Hopkins trade area, and thus will be beneficial to the City of Hopkins and the trade area. It is important to note that if the development does not occur in the proposed area adjacent to the downtown, it is likely to occur at another site in the Hopkins trade area that is not as close to downtown. The proposed development is likely to benefit the downtown area be- cause it will increase the nurr.ber of options for Shopping and attract additional consumer dollars from outside of the immediate area. This in effect will help to reduce the existing amount of leakage of customer dollars to areas outside the trade area and strengthen the draw of Hopkins for customers outside the immediate trade area. The proposed development is not expected to draw a s ignif icant share of business from existing Mainstreet establish~ ments. Impo rtantly, new retailers in town can add to the membership of business associations both in terms of numbers ;>.nd with regards to new ideas and fresh perspectives on efforts to promote business. Negative Impacts: A potential negative impact of the proposed devel- . opment is that it will draw existing businesses operating on Main- street to the proposed development. The impact of a net ~hifting or loss of establishments is undesired for obvious reasons. However, the degree of movement from Mainstreet to the proposed development is expected to be minimal. Rental fates in the new development are expected to be too high to be competitive for many of the Mainstreet est ab li srune nts. . . C ,~. .sF'. \ ~'~,' ': . :.".. . Ii.. . 6 .}. I"..,. . 0- . . . .. _ .. .' . . . Mr. Steven Mielke . June 20, 1988 Page Three Development outside of the core Mainstreet area may potentially dilut~ the image and cohesiv~ness of the downt()wn. 'l'he proposed development is located so L1 t h of Highway 3/Ex.celsior Avenue, wh ich acts as a' physical and ps ycho log ical barrier to the south. The impacts, however, are considered roi n imal because Highway 3 is largely a commuter thoroughfare carrying local traffic. To the ex- tent that Hignway 3 is carrying out-of-town traffic to the est ab- lishlrents at the new development, the impacts of the new development wilL be positive in that it will be attracting or drawing additional customers from outside the trade area. Also, the auto-oriented behav io rs of Hopkins' shoppe rs minimize the effect of Highway 3 act i ng as a north/south barrier that ~uld prohibit shoppers from maki ng related trips downtown. RECO~lMENDAT IONS --- This evaluation indicates that the benefits of the proposed develop- ment outweigh the negative impact s for the City of Hopkins. The development should be suppa rted by the City through issuance of a . liquor license and sales agreement for the adjacent City-oWned property. The development will have a p:>sitive impact to the extent that it is identified with the Mainstreet area and downtown Hopkins. Efforts should be made to link the new development to downtown and, therefore, expand or broaden the retail base and not create an independent and separate entity from the downtown area. . The City may want to consider a number of contingencies in the contract with the developer to ens ur e that the development is beneficial to downtown businesses. These contingencies may address issues rel ated to organization, cooperation, coordination and de- sign. Several possibilities are suggested below. Or-ganization The City may r eq ui re that the manag ement and/or tenants of the new development become members of downtown business () rgani zat ion and that they be active participants in act. J.V i ties related to the management of Hopkins Mainstreet. Cooperation . The City may seek assur ances from the developer that they will not "raid" downtown Hopkins fo r tenants. I I I I I I I J I I - . . i-i r. Steven Mielke .June 20, 1988 . Page Four Coordination -------- 'I'he City may requi re that the new development management and/or tenants participate in coordinated events including sales promo- tions, advertising, special events, hours of operation and other activities related to linking the new development with the downtown to create a l1I1 if ied and cohesive .L..nage. Design The City may require that the new development be des ig ned to rein- force the Mainstreet image. This may include architectural layout, signage, and naming the center in such a way that it identif ies closely with Mainstreet. CONCLUSION .. -~- I . A situation that benefits both developer and City is possible through cooperative efforts. The City should s uppo rt the develop- ment of the new center and encourage a cooperative relationship bet ">ee n City and developer. Contingencies proposed by the City should be presented in a positive nature and in the context of supporting its existing business community. They should be made to link the proposed center to Hopkins 1>\ainstreet' s existing businesses and discourage the concept of the development creatil~9 its own self-sustaining and independent node of shopping activity. The City's cooperative and positive attitudes towards this development will help assure that the developer, manag ement and tenants of the center will too be interested in coordinating the development to create a win-win situation for the new development and the community at large. We are willing to discuss this letter with you at your convenience. SiocerelYJ ~/ . . ~ Step n Kotvis, Associate Management Advisory Services SK/pjp .