The URL can be used to link to this page

SUBD 92-01 � j`7 C• ��c. CITY OF HOPKINS -� ZONING APPLICATION SIIMMARY FORM Application Number �U b� C�Z-� P .I .D .#: Applicant ' s Name ( Last , First) OKner (if other than applicant ) HOPKINS COMP4ERCE CE�ITER Mailing Address (Street , City, State , Zip Code) 9715 JAh1ES AVENUE S. , BLOOMIPdGTON, P�INNESOTA 55431 Phone Number: (Day) 888-3590 ( Evening) Property Address CORNER OF BLAKE ROAD AND EXCELSIOR AVENUE APPLICABLE CURRENT ZONING DISTRICT(S) TYPE OF ZONING REQUEST [ ] R-1-A [ ] R-2 [ J B-1 [ ] Concept Review [ ] R-1-B [ ] R-3 [ ] B-2 [ ] Conditional Use Permit [ ] ^ -1 -C [ 7 R-�! [�7 B-3 [ ] Variance [ � �. 1-D [ ] R-5 �] I-1 [ ] Zoning District Change [ , 1 -E [ ] R-6 [ ] I-2 [X] Subdivision Approval ( ] Ordinance Amendment [ ] Other L hereby certify with my signature that all data �ontained herein as Well as all supporting data ?re true and correct to the best of my knoWledge: HOPKIPdS COMMERCE CENTER Appl ' c ts Signature Date , �Y 4/23/92 OWners Signature Date ADMINISTRATIVE DATA SUMMARY _ ) Proper addendum to application Application received: ( �S� �� ] Detailed plans submitted . ] Written pro�ect description submitted Fee Paid : � �j(7_ � Referred to City PLANNING "COMMISSION ACTION � Engineer: �pproved: without modifications Referred to City [ ] with modifications Attorney �enied [ ] Referred to Watershed District rate : Date of Public _.. Hearing Notice OUNCIL ACTION Date of Public .ppro �ed: without modifications Hearing [ ] with modifications enied: [ ] ate: RESOLUTION NO• \ j Y p G .c, �� May 18, 1992 y o P K \ �, � Planning Report Subd 92-1 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOPRINS COMMERCE CENTER Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution RZ92-10 recommending approval of preliminary plat for the shopping center at the northwest corner of Blake Road and County Road 3 . overview. The applicant owns the shopping center on the northwest corner of County Road 3 and Blake Road and is proposing to construct an addition to the west side of the southerly most building abutting Pierce. In order for this building to be constructed Pierce will have to be vacated. Along with this vacation, the staff has recommended that the entire shopping center be re-platted to eliminate several problems with setbacks. The existing property has 19 lots and in several cases lot lines going through buildings. The re-platting of the property will create 3 lots and clean up much of the setback problems. ,--� Primary Issues to Consider. o Why is the staff recommending the re-platting of the site? o What is the zoning of the property? o What are the surrounding uses? o Do the lots meet the minimum requirements? o Will easements be required for the new lots? o Will the access change? o Has Hennepin County reviewed the plat? Supportinq Documents. o Analysis of Issues o Site Plan o Resolution RZ92-10 Nanc S. Anderson Planner -� Subd 92-1 ^ Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. o why is the staff recommendinq the re-plattinq of the site? The staff has recommended a re-platting of the property because the applicants property currently consists of 19 lots. Many of the lot lines go through buildings. The re- platting of this property will solve many of the zoning and setback problems on the site. o What is the zoninq of the property? Part of the property is zoned B-3 and part is zoned I-1. The Goodwill building is zoned I-1 and part of the easterly most retail building is partly located in the I-1 district. There is a zoning line running through proposed Lot 3 . The westerly part of Lot 3 is zoned I-1 and the easterly part is zoned B-3 . This line runs approximately 100 feet into Lot 3 . This zoning line divides the existing retail building in two. The Zoning Ordinance allows that if a zoning line runs -� through a lot, either zone can be used for the lot. The only problem is that the use of either zone is only allowed for 50 feet on either side of the zoning line. In this case the zoning line is 100 feet in Lot 3 . The staff would recommend that at the time the final plat is considered the applicant also rezone this small area because for all practical purposes the use is retail and because of its location will always be retail. o Do the lots meet the minimum requirements? Lot 1 Zoned I-1 required proposed lot size 10, 000 sq ft appr. 158, 029 sq ft lot width 100 feet 344 feet front yard 20 feet 111 feet side yard west 20 feet 59.8 feet side yard east 20 feet 45.4 feet rear yard 20 feet 61.7 feet Lot 2 Zoned B-3 required proposed lot size 3000 sq ft appr 73 , 273 sq ft -� lot width 25 feet 407 .91 feet front yard 20 feet 25. 7 feet side yard west 0 54 . 3 feet Subd 92-1 ^ Page 3 side yard east 0 5.6 feet rear yard 10 feet 58 feet Lot 3 Zoned B-3/I-1 required proposed lot size 3000/10, 000 sq ft appr 110, 000 sq ft lot width 25 feet appr 300 feet front yard 20 feet appr 153 feet side yard west 20 feet 19.8 feet side yard east 10 feet 12 .9 feet rear yard 20/10 feet 9. 5 feet The new lots meet the minimum size for the district in which they are located. A few of the setbacks do not meet the minimum setbacks, in this case all but one are existing setbacks and the new lot lines do not affect the setbacks. The only new setback that does not meet the minimum setback is the west setback on the easterly retail building. This area is zoned I-1 which requires a 20 foot setback, the preliminary plat shows a 19.8 setback. However, staff is recommending that this area is rezoned to a B-3 zoning district. If this area was zoned B-3 , the setback is 0. � o What are the surroundinq uses? The following are the surrounding uses: East - retail and Westside Village Apartments West - Edco and Boat sales South - Blake Schools North - Soo Line Railroad and retail o Will easements be required for the new lots? The applicant will provide for cross easements for parking, utilities and access for all the lots. o Will the access chanqe? The access points on the site will remain the same. o Has Hennepin County reviewed the plat? As required by State Statute City staff has sent a copy of the plat to Hennepin County. The County has up to 30 days to provide comments. Thus far the County has not responded. Staff is recommend that approval of the plat us conditioned upon any requirements imposed by the County -1 Alternatives. Subd 92-1 � Page 4 1. Recommend approval of the plat. By recommending approval of the plat, the City Council will consider a recommendation to approve the preliminary plat for the Hopkins Commerce Center. 2 . Recommend denial of the preliminary plat. By recommending denial of the plat, the City Council will consider a recommendation to deny the preliminary plat for the Hopkins Commerce Center. 3 . Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. �"� �� . � �/ '1 ' ---------- - - - _l.� � n �� - - - - - - � � b (41) ^ C�61 � � i . gb .•.•'��•-'�'�'�'�'�'��:�'�:-' � r� (47) :�:-:�:�:�:�'�:�:�:�:�:�:-:�:�-:;:::;: i .•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•..,.,.,.,. � '�'�'+'�'�'�'�'�'�`•'�•��:�:�:-:�: � '�'��`•'•`'''��:�'�:�:�'?�: . (43) (42) � 9�' ':�`• 3 2 ti:�-.'•iii:> �:t�: 6 ::v:::i{�:�'- :r:-::::�".::�.�.�'�' � '-':'I': :•::•.:::F:.;.:.;.•.•:•: � :::::�:�:c;:�}: ::�::::::��:�:=:�:�:�:=:�:�: �;:;�;;;;: :��. ;.�:3i5J::�:�:�:�:� '�cs �:�3��.,:. I :�t:� :�t: :::j�:::::::� :�:�:L�f�:::�:�:�:��:::::-�:�� : ..fi� �25) �'�'�'�'�'�'�'��:. . ..•• ....,....,._ •'•'•�•:�:� �•:='•'�•.;.;.-� :'';C�4f�'��:�:�:�:�::�:t��•:�:�:�ETzS:=:�:�:�:�•�• ' ��lJ�jf::�: � ��i��:�:�:� (48) I :�:=:�:�R�:�:�:�:�:�::::::<�...::: a� :•:•:•:•:•. •...•.•. .:.:.:...:.:.::•:::•:•:•: :•:•:�:�:�::�:�:�•:.;. :•:•;7�.�. '�';:'��:�:�::::::(:3;4):�:�:;::�:�:;'':'�'.��'.f}:::: :;:::;:':;:('y�;;'�:�:;:;�.:::: :•:•:•:•::�:•: . � .•:.•.f85�:•• I � ::: ••.•.�•.•:•:••:•�•. •.•.•. :•.•. :�:�' ��" �'`r'::'''+r•:'•'•{;;:;::'' . I :;::::#:::::::I:::;:�:'':::::::�.•. ... . � >:;:::::�'�::�c:..::i��'•:: � r ea � 87 ••:••••� r:;:=:•.�:•'•'.�•••-:•.::.;.�.•••..�.•.��.�:��:�>:��. ... ��... �:.:x::::......:.:�:.:.....,..... I ,q � FN C �_�; �::::;�i:::::::l::a:�f�'�:=x:��f��:�:��:::::::::::::�:��:.�.... �� :�:�:I::�:;t:�:�:� � �::::::�:::::::'':�:: .. =r , � ..... ......#::::::�..�, il3o - 9 1��.��i12 �'�'::::�:::�::��}�t.��• �CLS�o� 4 I � ) (14) ' �2� (13) (I�) (18) 4 5 I �x G 1 (6) I � �. (I I) I 7 (9) ' � ,30, PREsroiv j401 � (5) (8) `�° � (10) �7j /3/O /3/B /326 /4 02 I � N 22 2� 20 19 18 83 � 34(46) — (33) (32) (31) (30) (29) (13) {42) N —— � (34i (35) I �36) (4 9) (50j � 82 (12) � � 33(45) (44)32 � 23 24 25 26 27: ; I � /3/3 /32/ /327 /405 / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � BOYCE � _ _ 30 I 30 I . I _ _ ��) �13)29_ O — —2(14) �24�9 � O � 2� 3 28 3 4 Q — — — — — — - _ (12) 27 _co O _ 4(15) (23)27 � O � 4 I 5(2) 26 � � 5 26 � 5 I —6 — — 25—O _ 6 _ 25 _ _ _6 7(3) (II) 24 � 7(16) 24 p 8 23 � --�— (22)23—� � 8 ' I 9(4) (10)22 � 9(I� 22 � g � 10 21 ' 10 �) 21_ � � IC . � I � _I I(5) (9) 20 � I I 20 � � I I ^ 12 (8) 19 co __ 12(18) 19 h 'I� 13 18 � 13 (20)�8 �r � I: I h _14(6) (7) 17 ,� 14(19) 17 � r. I� . g� " 15 16 � � 15 �g ' � �� (2) I GO ` � ODR/CH � dw -00- ...... ;V3NMO 00 – ----- 0 iMo LL L z Z—A FEE. :5. 1 db "f.z; az E z Hy2 1. 2H'o z -Id P ...... ;V3NMO 00 – ----- �\ baa % ° ,�,� s'J.°noo> js ° 4' r � /;-, LL Z—A �\ baa % ° ,�,� s'J.°noo> js ° 4' r � /;-, ---►� CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ92-10 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT WHEREAS, an application for a preliminary plat entitled SUBD 92-1 made by the Hopkins Commerce Center is recommended for approval. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a final plat SUBD 92-1 was filed with the City of Hopkins on April 28, 1992 . 2 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on May 26, 1992 . 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notice, held a public hearing on May 26, 1992 ; all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 4. That the written comments and analysis of the City � Staff and the Planning Commission were considered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for SUBD 92-1 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: l. That the new lots meet the minumum lot size for the zoning district. 2 . That the preliminary plat meets the requirements for a preliminary plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for SUBD 92-1 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following conditions: 1. That the applicant furnish the City with a copy of the parking, access, and utility easements. 2 . That the part of Lot 3 that is zoned I-1 is rezoned to B-3 prior to or at the time of final plat approval. 3 . Approval is conditioned upon any requirements which may be imposed by Hennepin County as a part of their review of the plat. Adopted this 26th day of May, 1992 . ---� Richard Pavelka, Chairman � j Y O G �` ��\ � �y �i May 27, 19g2 � p K ` � Council Report 92-123 PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOPRINS COMMERCE CENTER Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 92-46 recommendina approval of preliminary plat for the shoppina center at the northwest corner of Blake Road and County Road 3 . Mr. Hutchison moved and Mr. Day seconded the motion to approve Resolution RZ92-10 recommending approval of the preliminary plat for the Hopkins Commerce Center. overview. The applicant owns the shopping center on the northwest corner of County Road 3 and Blake Road and is proposing to construct an addition to the west side of the southerly most building abutting Pierce. In order for this building to be constructed Pierce will have to be vacated. Along with this vacation, the staff has recommended that the entire shopping center be re-platted to eliminate several problems with setbacks. The existing property has 19 lots and in several cases lot lines going through buildings. The re-platting of the property will ^ create 3 lots and clean up much of the setback problems. Staff reviewed the preliminary plat. Staff stated that the plat was recommended by staff to the applicant to clear up several setback problems. Mr. Newman, the applicant, stated that he was in agreement with the staff, that the replatting would clean up the properties. Mr. Newman also stated that the property that the Goodwill store is on, maybe should be rezoned to B-3 . The staff stated they would review this change also. There was little discussion on this item. Primarv Issues to Consider. o Why is the staff recommending the re-platting of the site? o What is the zoning of the property? o What are the surrounding uses? o Do the lots meet the minimum requirements? o Will easements be required for the new lots? o Will the access change? o Has Hennepin County reviewed the plat? suoportinq Documents.' o Analysis of Issues o Site Plan o Resolution 92-46 � �� ?Qn,�ze�� Nanc . Anderson, Planner CR 92-123 ^ Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. o Why is the staff recommendinq the re-platting of the site? The staff has recommended a re-platting of the property because the applicants' property currently consists of 19 lots. Many of the lot lines go through buildings. The re-platting of this property will solve many of the zoning and setback problems on the site. o What is the zoning of the property? Part of the property is zoned B-3 and part is zoned I-1. The Goodwill building is zoned I-1 and part of the easterly most retail building is partly located in the I-1 district. There is a zoning line running through proposed Lot 3 . The westerly part of Lot 3 is zoned I-1 and the easterly part is zoned B-3 . This line runs approximately 100 feet into Lot 3 . This zoning line divides the existing retail building in two. The Zoning Ordinance allows that if a zoning line runs through a lot, either zone can be used for the lot. The only problem is that the use of either zone is only allowed for 50 feet on either side of the zoning line. In this case the zoning line is 100 � feet in Lot 3. The staff would recommend that at the time the final plat is considered the applicant also rezone this small area because for all practical purposes the use is retail and because of its location will always be retail. o Do the lots meet the minimum requirements? Lot 1 Zoned I-1 Required Proposed Lot size 10, 000 sq ft appr. 158, 029 sq ft Lot width 100 feet 344 feet Front yard 20 feet ill feet Side yard west 20 feet 59.8 feet Side yard east 20 feet 45.4 feet Rear yard 20 feet 61. 7 feet Lot 2 Zoned B-3 Required Proposed Lot size 3000 sq ft appr 73,273 sq ft Lot width 25 feet 407. 91 feet Front yard 20 feet 25.7 feet Side yard west 0 54. 3 feet � Side yard east 0 5. 6 feet Rear yard 10 feet 58 feet CR 92-123 � Page 3 Lot 3 Zoned B-3/I-1 Required Proposed Lot size 3000/10, 000 sq ft appr 110, 000 sq ft Lot width 25 feet appr 300 feet Front yard 20 feet appr 153 feet Side yard west 20 feet 19. 8 feet Side yard east 10 feet 12 .9 feet Rear yard 20/10 feet 9.5 feet The new lots meet the minimum size for the district in which they are located, a few of the setbacks do not meet the minimum setbacks. In this case, all but one are existing setbacks and the new lot lines do not affect the setbacks. The only new setback that does not meet the minimum setback is the west setback on the easterly retail building. This area is zoned I-1 which requires a 20 foot setback, the preliminary plat shows a 19.8 setback. However, staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to a B-3 zoning district. If this area was zoned B-3, the setback is 0. o What are the surroundinq uses? The following are the surrounding uses: � East - retail and Westside Village Apartments West - Edco and Boat sales South - Blake Schools North - Soo Line Railroad and retail o Will easements be required for the new lots? The applicant will provide for cross easements for parking, maintenance, utilities and access for all the lots. o Will the access chanqe? The access points on the site will .remain the same. o Has Hennepin County reviewed the plat? As required by State Statute City staff has sent a copy of the plat to Hennepin County. The County has up to 30 days to provide comments. Thus far the County has not responded. Staff is recommending that approval of the plat is conditioned upon any requirements imposed by the County Alternatives. ^ 1. Approve the plat. By approving the plat, the applicant will be able to apply for a final plat. CR 92-123 ---� Page 4 2. Deny the preliminary plat. By denying the plat, the City Council will have to specify reasons for denial of the preliminary plat. 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. i� /� • �� — '-------- - - - �� n �� — — — — — — — — — - --.. � c4�� 61 � o r� l'� � 96 ,.,.::::�'�:�:':':�:�:�:': � M (47) ::::......... � :�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:� � :�:;:�:::;:;:�:;:;:�:�:;:;:�:;:;:::;:; � '�:�:�:�'�:�'�:�:�:�:�:�:�'�:�'�:�:�'�:: . � ....................... (43) �42) a 9 .`':':j':':':':::'::�:::::::::?:::;:�: 3 2 ��: ::f;,;;i_ ;t�: � 6 �:;;::�:�r;: :�I�: �:F'�::;:;:;'� � � ��::'�:�i:: :��:::��`�:::::::::: �:::::::::::::::::::.... ::::::::::::::::::::::::: ��5)..:. ::�::::::�: ��'�� .��3�':� I '�:�:':�3:�:�:':�:�'��'�:�''•'��'�';:�: ;::::';.;:;:;':.:::::::: :::': ':::''':::':•'�:�:�;:'1' .. .........•:...... ............... ... .....:.p::::.:.� �:�:::�:�:[�i!��::::::::::::::::::�:::::::: ::::::::::::::�:�:�:�:::: ::::: ::::::�:::�:�:��•::::-� (25) ''�:'��:;l�OQ'��:�:�:�:�:�: I ,CP,2'S .11�{f • ff�f:;::::: I (48) ��'�:�D�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�:�{�...::: �::: v� .:.::t:•:••• ��'�::::�:��::��:(:3;4��::��:�:::�:::'��'��'��'�:::� ��::��::��:(,4{�j�::�:::�::�.:;:: . .}.. •.•.•.•.•.•.•:•.:.:.:•:F85�:�•' I , ''':':':'�".'.'.'ti.:.:.�..�.�. .'.'. �.'�'� .•.•• •"•:':'..".':�<r:::�:+r::.:.'•'•'•'•�•' i ;::::::�:::::::�:::::::............•.: •.•.;. ;::::.:.�...�.>:�:�::�'��:�'��..�.{...—t�:�:�� r 88 � 87 ::::::�:::��.�:::::::�:�:�:::��;::::x::::::::::::.�:::::::::�::�:�::>:�:: :�� L FN C ,_ — ::::j::.:.:.1.;.�.:. �::�:x::#:�:�.�:�::::::::.:.:.�:�� I - _�. :;:..... ..�.f�:....,....#:::::::.••:.:...� -� :$:�:1::��:1:�:::::.....�::::::....:.:. •• - ;=r , � ...... ....#::::::�..2,. ... iz3o ..�::,;•..�¢�. O� (I 4) ' (15) (I 6) (17) (18) � 9 i 1��.»i 12 ��'�'`'�'''':::�(�!�' �/�j��' 1124 I (6) �4) I 2 3 4 5 � E�� (I 1) I 7 (9) ' �F /30/ /3// /3/9 /325 1401 i � �5� ��, � PRESTON I � (10) �7j /3/O /3/8 /326 /4 02 1 -----N 22 21 20 19 18 83 O 34(46) �33) (32) (31) (30) (29) (13) � _ (42) N ,� � (34i (35) I (36) (49) (50I ( `C � 33(45) (44)32 � 23 24 25 26 27: . 82 (12) I � /3/3 /32/ /327 /405 / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � BOYCE I . 30 I 30 I — — 0 � 2i I _ _ �(�) (13)29 2(14) (24�9 _ O � 3 28 Q - - - - - 3 4 (12) 27 cp Q 4(15) (23)27 ct O � 4 I 5�2) 26 —� � — —5— 26 � � 5 ee-— � 6 25 p 6 25 , 6 I7(3) (II) 24 � _— 7{16) _ 24_p� _ , I —8— — — 23—� --�-- (22)23 � � 8 9(4) (10) 22 � 9(I� 22 9 • 10 21 � ' 10 �) 21_ � � IC I � _I I(5) (9) 2� � - - I I 20 � � I I �` 12 (8) 19 co 12(18) 19 � �I; 13 18 � 13 (20)�8 �v � I: I h 14(6) (7) 17 14(19) 17 ' ►. I� . � - - - - - - -1� �- - - - - - . �H - - I 15 16 � � 15 16 � I! • 81 cz� � GOODR/CH _ r-- ,--s --------------- f 34 � �kal 1 U.1 ---- Ni ---------- L-2fl 3tlN3AV 9 z R.o 69 a 2 ,--s --------------- 34 � �kal 1 U.1 ---- Ni ---------- L-2fl 3tlN3AV 9 ,--s --------------- 34 � �kal 1 U.1 ---- Ni ---------- ---------- 3tlN3AV 9 � CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 92-46 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT WHEREAS, an application for a preliminary plat entitled SUBD 92-1 made by the Hopkins Commerce Center is approved. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a final plat SUBD 92-1 was ' filed with the City of Hopkins on April 28, 1992 . 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on May 26, 1992. 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notice, held a public hearing on May 26, 1992 ; all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. • 4 . That the written comments and analysis of the City Staff and the Planning Commission were considered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for SUBD 92-1 is hereby � approved based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the new lots meet the minumum lot size for the zoning district. 2 . That the preliminary plat meets the requirements for a preliminary plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for SUBD 92-1 is hereby approved based on the following conditions: 1. That the applicant furnish the City with a copy of the parking, access, maintenance and utility easement agreements prior to final plat approval. 2 . That the part of Lot 3 that is zoned I-1 is rezoned to B-3 prior to or at the time of final plat approval. 3 . Approval is conditioned upon any requirements which may be imposed by Hennepin County as a part of their review of the plat. Adopted this 2nd day of June, 1992 . Nelson W. Berg, Mayor ATTEST: --. James A. Genellie, City Clerk