Loading...
Carnco Site Plan Review - "Subway Restaurant"5755 COUI...W CLUB. OAD S. .C. ;-V. DCD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 (952) 4743236 FAX (952) 474-0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us ® cityhail@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: FILE NO.: Planning Cormnission, Mayor and City Council Brad Nielsen 2 July 2009 Cameo Properties - Site Plan Review (Subway) 405 (09.03) Mr. Brian Carney, representing Cameo Properties, LLC, has an interest in the property at 5660 Manitou Road (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). He proposes to divide the existing building on the property, using one half of it for a Subway restaurant and leaving the other half for future leasable area. Since the property is zoned C-1, General Commercial, the project is subject to site plan review by the Planning Commission and City Council. The property has 35,920 square feet in area and is occupied by a 3000 square foot building and paved parking in front of the building. Most recently the building has been used as a floor coverings store. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: East: County Road 19, then commercial in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial South: vacant gas station; zoned C-1, General Commercial West: American Legion; zoned C-I North: Gideon Glen preservation open space; zoned C-1 In order to accommodate the proposed uses, the applicant's site plan (Exhibit B) adds additional parking on the north and west sides of the building. The northwest corner of the property is devoted to handling site drainage. Exhibit C provides a very sketch floor plan, showing the Subway restaurant occupying the north half of the building with future k 4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER idum x~_e: Carnco Properties (Subway) - Site Plan Review 2 July 2009 leasable area occupying the south half of the building. Other than new entry doors on the east side of the building and a new window on the north side, the outside of the building remains mostly unchanged (see Exhibit D). A proposed landscape plan is shown on Exhibit E. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION It should be noted that the landscape plan was submitted only yesterday and that staff s time to review it has been minimal. Based on plans submitted to-date, following is how the applicant's request complies with the requirements of the Shorewood Zoning Code: A. Land Use. Restaurants (including convenience or fast food), without drive-up facilities are permitted uses in the C-I zoning district. While the use of the future leasable area is unknown at this time, it is expected to comply with the allowable uses in the C-1 District. It is worth mentioning that it will not be able to be used for additional restaurant space, due to lack of parking. B. Building Setbacks. The existing building complies with the requirements of the C-1 District. The Zoning Code requires a 30-foot front setback, a 30-foot rear setback and 15 feet on the sides. The existing building is 55 feet back from County Road 19, 17 feet from the south property line, 88 feet from the west line and 97 feet from the north property line. C. Building Height. The C-1 District allows buildings to be three stories or 40 feet in height. As shown on Exhibit D, the proposed building is one story, and less than 15 feet in height. D. Parking. The Zoning Code requires 51 parking spaces for the use that is proposed for the site. This is based on 44 spaces for the restaurant and seven for the future space, anticipating some sort of retail operation. The site plan on Exhibit B includes 54 spaces, but there are issues that must be resolved. First, the parking lot does not comply with the five-foot setback requirement on the south side of the site. Eliminating the threesouthermnost spaces would resolve the setback and provide a small back-out area for the end spaces. It would also help the plan comply with the requirement that there be five percent landscaped area in the parking lot. Parking must be paved, curbed and striped prior to occupancy of the building. The plans do not indicate how loading will be accomplished. Since the parking areas are dead-ends, it is expected that loading and trash removal will involve trucks backing in. The applicant should address this issue. -2- Memorandum Re: Carrico Properties (Subway) - Site Plan Review 2 July 2009 E. Building Construction. Although somewhat dated, the existing building is consistent with the standards set forth in Section 1201.03 Subd. 7.c. of the Zoning Code. F. Landscaping. Proposed landscaping is shown on Exhibit E. It must be realized that virtually all of the existing trees on the site will be removed to accommodate the parking and drainage improvements. The landscape plan proposes eight trees, presumably as replacements under the Shorewood Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. This is viewed as inadequate, however, based on Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.g. of the Zoning Code (Required Landscaping). Also, there is some inconsistency with the landscape plan and the survey. The plan is also inconsistent with the recommendations of the County Road 19 Corridor Study, which calls for decorative landscaping in front of business sites, with a backdrop of evergreens at the rear of the sites. It is recommended that the plan be revised to provide ample screening and buffering on the north side of the property, additional decorative landscaping in front of the building and several evergreen trees along the west side of the site. It is recognized that there is limited room in front of the building for landscaping. Correction of the parking area provides some additional space which should be devoted to landscaping, and the southeast corner of the site, outside of the County Road 19 easement affords additional room for decorative landscaping. Finally, the northwest corner of the site has slopes steeper than 3:1. The landscape architect should address what kind of ground cover will be used in that area. G. Grading and Drainage. The City Engineer addresses this under separate cover. As mentioned above, the landscape plan must show how the slopes and open areas will be treated. H. Signage. The applicant has not provided any plans for signage. The property is allowed three signs, one of which may be a freestanding pylon sign. Presumably the allowable area of signage will be spread somewhat equally between the three signs. Signs are subject to a separate permit. In light of concerns raised by the City Engineer and those raised in this report, staff is reluctant to suggest anything more than a "concept" approval. The issues raised by staff should be addressed in revised plans before being forwarded to the City Council. Cc: Brian Heck James Landini Larry Brown Brian Carney -3- l J I 00 91 a~ Y c ~~U r 0 L O U) a p L to 1 ~ U- ° t N W p au gn10 z a~ C) U o CI) o 73 Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Site Plan Review - Subway ~ o ~ ~Qaa vi 0~ z ~ o z U U p b cd F, Wu Cd ~A. 0 0 . ^ m 0 to cn y U U U N a LL 0 0 in. ;3 Ln U O O Cy C 0 0 lL ° CX) p Q, p~ U m ~ i v,O mCd F bb O U w w_`® O + cC O ~7R7JQ H o w u a 1~ ct Z u ~ ctl (d ~ ~ ~ ra ~ Z Pi U®(n U CA Z ® o R~ G~ t~ a ~cq ®0 OHQ II I 10 s • . ; xlv 4HUDNOD araAt~r~aa s jNlssrx-<a. \ (3I N Y! u ~ rn J la 'JCUA'o • &OQ34djSodq~d,. E w 0 dd2IVIf]NdH~ HdIle1 O N 90L <,61© 9 e6no snONI --19,00z-- m ..ti0.6z.oo S ONIlSIX3 © 0~ d SIl6&~ 78 o V F w~ Exhibit B SITE PLAN/SURVEY Proposed site eslgn O O aF~ a O'W au~ xF~ E' C E c c e ; Exhibit C FLOOR PLAN SKETCH Subway restaurant 3 } I I k a f d~ a s s 1 Exhibit D BUILDING ELEVATION SKETCHES - SF fir: e 7 vin- 12'. Elm m- a, C{ 5S Sg-mSO WIT41 15 f 1 8 n E r OR.trSK`N ¢Ai,IZStoL B4*~1k,ej" I e s M A P LE, FA 4TY+ l (5t-Ep T'YPE'. ,4u, iR.tRWSE M,x~ f : _ 3 pL•1 Ma RE Irv Fcpz.wtr~^F,c^nl. r7 1~ ~ p~ ¢ ,fit"~~,,,J; Y+~ 4~1 ~il~ IllN~rz I H I ~WvSOD~ „ f . . CIA :.K 1-IILL SPRUC Mdple ~;TYr v'up TJdB 5 M ple I a f I ( 0 24" Cottonwood - lump 4 ee XldlnLS CONC.- CURB 12°: Asfi : ~I J~J- A Boxeldei -7 LfA7'AT Y•<T-u -.~..IO J~..,~,...12.4 5/ J RIS, kr3uo Lp w I 14 Cottonwood 74" Cottonwood r-Itil"KF PUSH 1 Edge of brush ('ERLr~1r~rALS : I 9 L'ATl16Y, ST. SLIV. 5 I RASH uATRIS ke0a c <,uaL18s I I A A.W. RpIW.FA S JJ I I s 1 I I 10' 0" El EIzI 0 (D a ° a ° c 0) O 3 LEGEND: TREE PRESERVATION/ REMOVAL {071 EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN te l . /r EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED NO N OI Z) (n U cn O Z z F- rm~~~ G h ,L I 07 ~AG~ / C9 z . J I- W r Soo ? l PROPOSED PLANTINGS! PLA NT SCHEDULE Common Name! - 9111 Ouanhly Botanical Name Rod , DECIOIJOUS'I'REES Crabapple, Spring Snow 2 5-do I Malus'Spnng Snov B&B Maple, Fa11ReM,I 3 Ura 3 yr1~ ~ Acer saccharem'Bailsla B&B Y' YH- CUNIE-ROUS TREES ~ Black Hill's Spruce 6'Ill 4 Plcea glauca de lsata 8E8 DECIDUOUS SHRUBS Dwarf Bush Honeysuckle a 95 6 De -llalomcera cool ANhony Waterer Spvea 4 5 5 Spaaea x W-10a 'A N! cool f~1L•'~~J PEL'ENNIALS Dayhly, Stella Supreme p 1 H--albs S S' cool Grass FL Ifc K1ed p 1 a Calamagrosl anutdlora N F r;onl Lia f6 Nohaltl It 1 I! l,alrrs sP-M xutww cum I2" C.ottonwnCA Id. C:nt,lonwoaJ ~ 12" l;atton+~c~~ad s ~E1m 1 d e Q JV h ' Sri ~1 5 t}U,sk ili LL's :APR ~ C 211.38 , N 81°31'28 E u. I I 5 0~ I P, I 1 c 1 a 1 01 u . 0, .>,C7 e,o~ H W 1~ 4 CKABAFPLE., 5Prisr-i f,rlow R7Tt 1 1.,5°04& W W Cry, H u W x LLI N N N N O Z Il 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 33 33 d 0 BITUMINOUS AND CURBING TO BE REMOVED.: 1L I~ i r MD Exhibit E PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN R,_ 5755 COUN`T'..Y CLUL Rl;;'',~ ~ v.:OF;'-'NOCD, L- -rJESO TA 55331-8927o (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 s www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityhall @ ci.shorewood. mn. LIS MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council Brian Heck, City Administrator Brad Nielsen, Planning Director FROM: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer - DATE: June 25, 2009 RE: Grading, Drainage Carrico Properties Site Plan I have reviewed plans for the Carnco Properties, prepared by Advance Surveying & Engineering, Inc. not dated. I offer the following comments. Down stream from the site is an apartment building which has concerns about the surface water elevation adjacent to their building after storms. The water rises close to their finished first floor apartments and inundates garages. Adding additional impervious surfaces upstream from the apartments will add storm water runoff to a flooding issue. The site plan was reviewed for the stormwater rate control requirement and volume control. The current plan does not meet the rate control requirement and does not meet volume control. The current plans list existing discharge rates of 1.09 and 1.6 efs for existing conditions and 2.18 and 3.14 efs for proposed conditions. Proposed rates must be equal to or less than existing conditions. The pipe invert in the infiltration area is set too low to provide the necessary storage to manage the additional volume of runoff. For the Proposed site plan I offer the following conditions for approval: ■ The 12inch PVC Overflow pipe invert in the infiltration area should be reevaluated to provide the necessary management volume and to provide the required rate control. Provide energy dissipation and soil stabilization at the pond outlet. Recommendation Staff recommends conditional approval of the site plan. The conditions are listed above. #Is a®~~ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER