CUP 92-01 CITY OF HOPKINS
�` ZONING APPLICATION
SLa..,ARY FORM ' �
Application Number ��a_'
. P.I .D.#:
Applicant 's Name (Last � First) Owner (if other than applicant )
Trakup Co./Minnetonka Nbtors
Mailing Address (Street , City, State , Zip Code)
14321 Nicollet Ct. #500, Burnsville, NIDI 55337/420 Mainstreet, Hopkins, NIIV 55343
Phone Number: (Day) j�QZ-�53�� (Ev�e�#ng) ��j,3-��8
Property Address _ �-lc�,� (Y1�1�1�S-�-f'�?�'
APPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST
[ ] R-1-A [ ] R-2 [ ] B-1 [ ] Concept RevieW
[ ] R-1-B [ ] R-3 [ ] B-2 [X.] Conditional IIse Permib �ndment
[ ] R-1 -C [ ] R-�I [X ] B-3 [ ] Variance
� �-1-D [ ] R-5 � l I-1 ( ] Zoniag District Change
� 1-E [ ] R-6 [ ] I-2 [ ] Subdivision Approval
� 7 Ordinance Amendment
[ ] Other
I hereby certify with my signature that all data
contained herein as Kell as all supporting data ,� ��
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge: f,J-/ -r'1z
A i �j Sig ture ate
/ -/�
/,�!'��
Own rs Signature Date
ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY
[ ] Proper addendum to application Application received: � - ! Z
( ] Detailed plans submitted
L ] Written pro�ect description submitted Fee Paid: ����_ (��
Referred to City
PLANNING "COMMISSION ACTION Engineer:
Approved: without modifications Referred to City
[�j with modifications Attorney
�enied Referred to Watershed
District
)ate: �...-a�-�jd Date of Public
Hearing Notice
^^,OUNCIL ACTION Date of Public
�p�. :d: without modifications Hearing a -a�j- Glo1
[x] with modifications .
)ettied � [ ] ,
)ate: �J -o�-� z . RESOLUTION N0: `� �," 2�
^ PAGE 2
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1 . This permit is not valid until it has been recorded at the Office of the
County Recorder . A true and correct copy of the full legal description of
the affected property must be attached to this document .
2 . This permit does not constitute a building permit , sewage system permit ,
grading permit , land alteration permit , well permit or the like . Separate
permits may have to be applied for and obtained in order to aceomplish all
the goals of the pro�ect authorized herein .
3 . The issuance of this permit does not negate the need to secure other permits
from other local units of government , state agencies or federal agencies who
may also have jurisdiction over portions of your project .
SPECIAL PROVISIONS
1. That a five foot fence is to be constructed along the property line for the south
sales lot in accordance with a plan acceptable to the City staff.
--�
That the display cars on the north side of the building are removed permanently.
3. That additional landscaping be provided in the front yard setback in accordance with a
plan acceptable to the City staff.
4. Al1 previous conditions required as a part of CUP 89-17 still in effect.
E%PIRATION.
A Conditional Use Permit expires one year after it has been issued unless the
use for which the permit has been granted is in effect . Extensions may be
granted provided the applicant submits a letter to the Zoning Administrator
requesting an extension 30 days before the expiration of said approval. The
letter shall state the facts of the request , showing a good-faith attempt to
ztilize the Permit , and it shall also state the additional time being requested
to begin the proposed construction. The City Council may grant extensions not
to exceed one year.
---�
CITY OF HOPKINS
�
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT •
Application No.
" P.I .D. No.
' A. GENERAL DATA
N A M E 0 F A P P L I C A N T: Trakup Co./Minnetonka Nbtors
The above named individual , firm or aorporation hereby respectfully submits the
following data in support of the preliminary inPormation
acaompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated 1/20/92 �arrt�eded on the
securing a Conditional Use Permit. purpose of
Bill Traiser PH: 892-5535 Mark Melb PH: 933-8888
Contaet Person Last Name , First Day Phone No. Evening Phone No.
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
1 . Specify the section of the ordinance whiah applied to this pro�ect:
2 . B r i e f n a r r a t i v e d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h i s r e q u e s t:_ F�cpand Minnetonka Motors Use of Propert�
interior 6 100 s uare feet Buildin area exterior 6 400 s uare feet of rkin rounds.
---�
3 • .•itten �ustification for request ineluding discussion oP hox any potential
conflicts with existing nearby land uses will be minimized:
Not a new use, an ex sion of an existin use.
4 . Check all additional supporting doeuments and data �rhich are being submitted
to help explain this pro�eet proposal: [X] sketeh plan , � ] topographie map ,
[ X] detailed narrative , [ ] operation plans , [ ] engineering plans , [ ] flood
plain hydraulic analysis , [ ] flood proofing plans and specifications , [ ]
o t h e r (s p e c i f y) I�al description
I hereby certify with my aignature that all data '
on my application forms , plans and specifications \ > �
are true and Qorreet to the best of my knowledge � / 2� /L,
of pplican ate
� � �� .:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
In accordanee with _ Sa I'� of �Jo�-�
, the
(Section of Ordinance) (Ordinance No . )
�ity of Hopkins hereby (X] approves , [ ] denies the foregoing Application for
�onditional Use Permit. If approved , said approval is sub�ect to the following
Jeneral and Special Provisions :
aY' � Plann�
duthor ed Signature) - 3 � a - � a
(Title) (Date)
• SEE REVERSE FOR GENERAL AND SPECIAL PROVISIONS '
.--,
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 92-23
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN APPLICATION TO AMEND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, an application to amend a conditional use permit
entitled CUP 92-1 made by Minnetonka Motors is
recommended for approval.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as
follows:
1. That an application to amend a conditional
use permit CUP 92-1 was filed with the City
of Hopkins on January 21, 1992 .
2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed
such application on February 25, 1992 .
3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission,
pursuant to published and mailed notice, held
a public hearing on February 25, 1992 : . a11
persons present at the hearing were given an
opportunity to be heard.
4 . That written comments and analysis of the
� City Staff and the Planning Commission were
considered.
The following is a legal description of the property:
Lot 26, Block 5, West Minneapolis, according to the
recorded plat thereof. The North and South boundaries
of said tract being marked by Judicial Landmarks placed
at the four corners thereof.
Tract B, except the North 19 feet of the East 50 feet
as measured along the North and East lines thereof, and
ALL of Tracts A, C, D, E and F, Registered Land Survey
No. 823 , Files of the Registrar of Titles, County of
Hennepin.
That part of the two following described parcels of
land: Lot 9, except that part thereof lying West of a
line drawn parallel to and distant 33 feet East at
right angles from said West line of said Lot 9,
Auditor's Subdivision Number 242, Hennepin County,
Minnesota; and That part of Lot 10, Auditor's
Subdivision Number 242, Hennepin County, Minnesota
lying West of a line extending across said Lot from
North to South and drawn parallel with and 34 feet
distant East from the West line of said Lot, which lies
- ^ Southerly of a line 122 feet South of, measured at
right angles to and parallel with the North line of the
two above described parcels of land, according to the
plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the _,
Register of Deeds in and for said County.
�
That part of Lot 26, Auditor's Subdivision Number 242,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as beginning at
the intersection of the Southerly extension of the East
line of the West 33 feet of Lot 9, in said Auditor's
Subdivision Number 242, with the Southwesterly line of
said Lot 9; thence Southeasterly along the
Northeasterly line of said Lot 26 a distance of 315.27
feet; thence Southerly, parallel with the Southerly
extension of the West line of said Lot 9 a distance of
32 feet, more or less, to a line drawn parallel with
and 26.5 feet Southwesterly from the Northeasterly line
of said Lot 26; thence Northwesterly along the last
described parallel line a distance of 315. 27 feet to
its intersection with the Southerly extension of the
East line of the West 33 feet of said Lot 9; thence
Northerly along the last described extension a distance
of 32 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning,
according to the recorded plat thereof.
Lot 11, Auditor's Subdivision Number 242, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat
thereof.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for CUP 92-1
is hereby approved based on the following Findings
^ of Fact:
1. That an auto sales lot is permitted with a
conditional use permit in the B-3 district.
2 . That the proposed expansion meets the
requirements for our auto sales lot.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for CUP 92-1 is
hereby approved based on the following Conditions:
1. That a five foot fence is to be constructed along
the property line for the south sales lot in
accordance with a plan acceptable to the City
Staff.
2 . That the display cars on the north side of the
building are removed permanently.
3 . That additional landscaping be provided in the
front yard setback in accordance with a plan
acceptable to the City Staff.
4 . All previous conditions required as a part of CUP
89-17 still in effect.
Adopted this 2nd day of March, 1992 .
�� Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
�
February 27, 1992 Council Report CR92-61
CONDITIONAL IISE PERMIT - MINNETONRA MOTORS
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution 92-23 approving the expansion of the auto sales
lot at 420 Mainstreet.
Mr. Hutchison moved and Mr. Winship seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ92-3 recommending approval to amend
their conditional use permit to operate an auto sales lot at
420 Mainstreet. The motion passed 6-0. Mr. Chapman
abstained.
overview.
Minnetonka Motors was granted a conditional use permit to
operate an auto sales lot at 420 Mainstreet in 1989. They
now are requesting to expand their operation.
� Minnetonka Motors existing operation utilizes the front of
the building at 420 Mainstreet and the parking area to the
east of the building. Sample Service was located at the
rear of the building. Sample Service is moving to another
location. Minnetonka Motors wants to expand their operation
and utilize part of the area used by Sample Service.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Has the applicant complied with. the conditions for
the conditional use permit for an auto sales lot?
o How will the applicants operation expand?
o What are the requirements for an auto sales lot in
the B-3 district?
supportinq Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution 92-23
Nancy S. Anderson
Planner
�'\
CR92-61
Page 2
--�
NOTES FROM ZONING AND PLANNING
Staff reviewed the applicants request with the Commission.
Mark Melby, the owner of Minnetonka Motors, and Bill
Traiser, the owner of the property, appeared before the
Commission. Mr. Traiser presented a landscape plan for the
west parking lot. Mr. Traiser also presented a plan for the
existing landscaping along Mainstreet. Mr. Traiser stated
they would be adding additional plantings to the landscape
area along Mainstreet.
Mr. Traiser asked if plantings could be used instead of the
5 foot fence. The ordinance requires a 5 foot fence. Mr.
Traiser asked why Rudy Luther did not have a fence between
his property and the City property. The staff will check on
this.
Mr. Pavelka opened the public hearing at 9: 25. Being there
was no one to speak regarding this issue, the public hearing
was closed at 9:26.
��
/�
CR92-61
Page 3
�—.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Has the applicant complied with the requirements for a
conditional use permit to operate an auto sales lot?
In checking the site there were two cars parked for display
in the front yard setback. These cars are a violation of
the conditional use permit and must be removed because they
are located in the front yard setback.
Because of the snow it was difficult to determine the extent
of the landscaping in the front yard. However, it appears
the there could be some additional plantings in this area.
Staff would recommend that the applicant undertake
additional plantings in the front yard.
The existing operation has changed slightly from the
original site plan submitted. The customer parking is now
next to the building instead of near the display cars.
o How will the applicants operations expand?
The applicant will be taking over the rear portion of the
building and the lot on the west side of the building. The
-1 new building space consists of 6100 square feet and will be
used as an additional showroom for cars. The parking area
on the west side of the building will be used for employee
parking and a sales lot.
There currently is a loading dock in the parking area on the
west side of the building. This loading dock will be closed
off and the parking lot re-blacktopped. This area will be
used as a sales lot.
There will be 5300 square feet of vacant building on the
site. The applicant does not have a tenant as of yet.
o What are the requirements for an auto sales lot in the
B-3 district?
1. the sales lot shall not be larger in square footage
than the. square footage of the building devoted to the
related business;
2 . the 20 feet require front yard shall be landscaped and
should the front yard be less than 20 feet due to non-
conforming use, a permanent barrier at least 18 inches
high shall separate the sales lot from the public walk;
3 . lighting of the sales lot shall be totally from
�� indirect lighting;
CR92-61
Page 4
�-►,
4. should the lot abut an R district, an acceptable design
of screening fence five feet in height shall be
constructed along the abutting lot line;
5. the auto sales lot shall not include vehicles over a
9, 000 lb. rated weight.
Since the applicants new sales lot will now abut a
residential district, the applicant will be required to
construct a five foot fence along this property line. The
applicant has stated that they would add landscaping on the
lot line between their lot and the residential district.
The applicants operation will meet the requirements for an
auto sales lot with the removal of the cars in the front
yard setback and the construction of a five foot fence.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the amendment of the conditional use permit.
By approval of the conditional use permit, the
applicant will be able to expand his operation.
2 . Deny the amendment to the conditional use permit. By
� denying the amendment to the conditional use permit,
the applicant will not be able to expand his operation.
3 . Continue� for further information. If the City Council
indicates that further information is needed the item
should be continued.
� '