The URL can be used to link to this page

WVR 86-05 � CITY OF HOPKINS Date: c� - Jo - y� Application for: Amendment of Zoning Ordinance -1 Concept Review Case No:��/��k�l-J� Conditional Use Permit Subdivision Approval n� Variance Fee: `-'so = Waiver of Platting Requirements �_ Date Paid:1p-/�- �(. 1. Street Location of Property: ��%G' M s�'�'Pe� 2. Legal Descri ption of Property: � �^�i7�� '— �� t�� G� �� _ ddress 7�j�o�r�CrY�-�f� �Phone �'/;-j�>; 3. Owner: Name Jc/iusc�u Lc�f�+, t�s.�� ZY zaTa_� Jr1N. SS:�'%/ 4. Applicants Name: S a�� Address Phone 5. Description of Request: � � -?t s !C' -ys G.'� 7 Y .. `- . ✓ N c �. �-r� / 1`� -u-�y -s T��z7` lr a�s ��x�s tc-</ 9�,��:`r �Y",Z � b �.r�� u r�� ,�� Zoning District Use Proposed 7. Present Proposed 6. Present _ f/ � �G' C��/,�7 -2� Y -� __ �V G' �-64.��i �T �`' � � /'��/� S� � , 1 � ". f)yC`��i�7 � 8. Reason for Request T, e 7 � � `P ��'' ��' �' / �'� / ., �� l�« � / ��Zc��sr✓ / ! y�� C; E'r V� � /.�7: n%� �.��.�.�.�.. T FGe>' C � z�l.. E� ( � �c7"y c t' � �� 9. What error, if any, in the existing Ordinance would be corrected by the proposed amendment? (for Zoning Ordinance amendment only) � �, 10. If request is for a variance, what hardship would justify approval (see 427.04( 108) of the Zoning Ordinance). 11. Exhibits submitted: t4ap or plat showing the lands proposed to be changed / - r- C� � t? IC � S Cp�+ � �•s c f/r C°-rr,�i c y l�P� ��fy � �Y-sr r r Sy. Other J �( Y r1 C �Y+wd 77a-4 Cy/�GLS C=a1��.��•Lv`1�s s'f P2-/jJ :t-�va�. C�c/.��'t.s r j �! �.:� �r.�.., -ta c< rcd. f�-..�, � '. Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the p n- alties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Nopkins to take the action herein requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with the Ordinances of the City of Nopkins and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature of Applicant: , '" � � �� : � Signature of Owner: � � � RECORD OF ACTION TAKE�J BY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION Date: October 28, 1986 Application for W��ver�f Plat to Divide Lot CASE N0: WVR86-5 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS On the 28 day of October 19 86 , the action requested in the foregoing petition was approved (x) disapproved subject to the following conditions : Recommend approval based on Findings of Fact: 1. Lots confor i im ize for the B-3 District. 2. Existing parking lots are legal , non o w c ' 1 emain the same. Condition: 1. Applicant complies with the Building ir e _ Chairman: CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approved X Denied by the Council this 5 day of November 19 86 Approved with following amendment: Approved as recommended by Zoning & Planning Resolution 86-73 ^ Clerk:� ��c�� 1 �--�_� (•� L.�. Following to be filled in by City Action of City Officials Chronolo Date B - Rec'd by Bldg Dept. Published by Bldg Dept. - . On Pl . Comm. Agenda 10/28/86 JK � , _ .. .. Pl . Comm. Postponementi ( � i � I ( � � Pl . Corrm. Action � 10/28/86 I JK Recommend approval as stated above I � On Council Agenda 11 5 86 JK � Council Postponement � � I � � ! .,ouncil Action i 11/5/86 � JK Approved as stated in Resolution 86-73 NOTE: A Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless the use for which the permit has been granted is in effect, except that, upon written application of the owner of the effected land for which the permit was granted prior to the end of said year may request and the Council may grant an extension not Co exceed one year. � RESOLUTION N0 . 86-73 CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY � MINNESOTA RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF PLAT WVR86-5 NHEREAS, an application for a Waiver of Plat entitled WVR86-5 has been made by Johnson Enterprises , Ine . to divide the pro� �:rty at 2100 Mainstreet into tWo pareels . WHEREAS , the procedural history of the applieation is as folloNs : 1 . That an application for Waiver of Plat WVR86-5 was filed With the City of Hopkins on October 15, 1986 . 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission revieWed sueh application on October 28 , 1986 . 3 . That the Hopkins Planning Commission , pursuant to mailed notices , held a public hearing on October 28 , 1986 ; 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 ZT RESOLVED , that the Hopkins City Council makes the Pollowing Findings of Faet in respeet to WVR86-5: 1 . The lots conform to the minimum lot size for " the B-3 District . 2. The existing parking lots are legal � non- conforming , whieh will remain the same . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that application for Waiver of Plat WVR86-5 is hereby approved sub�ect to the folloxing conditions: 1 . The applicant complies with the Building Code Requrements. Adopted this 5th day of November � 1986 . Ellen Lavin ^ Mayor � Citv Counci [ Report October 29 , 1986 WAIVER OF PLAT - 2100 MAINSTREET PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to reviet+ and recommend action oa a Kaiver of the Plat at 2100 Mainstreet . BACRGROUND: See staff report to Zoning and Planning. Earl Dahlberg representing Johnson Enterprises appeared before the Commission . Mr . Dahlberg clarified a point on the staPf report in conneetion with the property to the south of the sub�ect site . The report states that aecess to the southWest corner of the site is across private property, hoWever, Mr. Johnson is the oWner of that parcel . Mr. Dahlberg stated that there is no expected ehange in use or operation of the sub�ect '� site . Mr. Dahlberg stated that the oWners desired that the Building Code Requirements be met With easements and recorded on the deed . RECOMMENDATION: The Commission recommended unanimously to approve the Waiver of Plat With the folloWing Findings of Faet and Condition: 1 . The lots conform to the minimum lot size for tha B-3 District . 2. T.he existing parking lots are legal � non- eonforming , Which will remain the same . Condition: 1 . The applicant complies with the Building Code Requirements . Respectfully submitted , Nancy S. Anderson � Community Development Analyst ---� .----- N o. � Plannin� Commission Report WAIVER OF PLAT - 2100 Mainstreet PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT N0: WVR: 86-5 Oetober 16 , 1986 PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to review and recommend action on a Waiver of Platting Requirements at 2100 Mainstreet . BACKGROUND • Name of Applicant : Johnson Enterprises , Inc . Address of Property: 2100 Mainstreet Present Zoning: B-3 Nature of Request : To divide the lot into two pareels . Reason for Request : To enable Johnson Enterprises , Inc .d to receive a tax statement for Parcel � B ' . ^ The applicant is requesting to divide the sub�ect lot at 2100 Mainstreet , the present site of the Hopkins Schwinn and the retail center to the south . In 1973 , the applicant was denied a waiver of plat , however the minutes do not state findings of faet as to why the waiver was denied . The applicant oWns Parcel B and Kenneth Duneman owns Pareel A. The owners would like � to receive separate tax statements . The existing buildings will remain the same . The survey supplied by the applicant does not correctly state the location of Shady Oak Road . Shady Oak Road was constructed west of the right-of-way and is on the applicants ' property. Unless a neW survey is done , the square footage of each Parcel is not knoWn . One of the main coneerns in this waiver is the parking . Both parcels have easements for parking . The parking area that abutts Shady Oak Road has approximately 84 parking spaces. The parking area behind the sehwinn building has no marked parking and is not easily accessible to the public for parking .The strip mall on Parcel B requires 90 spaces . The Schwinn building requires approximately 35 spaces . The parking area on Pareel B has served as the parking area for both the '� strip mall and the Schwinn building . The parking easement behind the strip mall is only aecessible from the south by crossing private property. No. �� The setbacks affected by the division are , the sideyard setbaeks for both parcels . Pareel A 's rear yard setback and Parcel B' s front yard setback . These setbaeks will be within the minimum zoning requirements . Enelosed is the report from the Building Inspector concerning the division. Because of the new lot lines , either many of the walls will have to be fire rated or the lot lines moved . Any granting of the Waiver should be contingent on the applicant meeting the Building Code . Another solution to meeting the building code requirements _ may be possible be having permanent easements along the required building code setback areas . The City Attorney and the applicants attorney are attempting to see if this solution is a viable one . If permanent easements can be recorded to meet the building code requirements , they should be sub�ect to approval by the City. Also if any future ehanges occur on the sub�ect parcels the changes should also be ^ sub�ect to review and approval . ANALYSIS: The physical characteristics at this site will remain the same . The only change will be that there will be two recorded pareels and each owner will receive a tax statement . The applicant will have to comply with the Building Code requirements as specified by the Building Inspector . The parking is not in conformance with the ordinance , however, because of the easements the parking will continue to remain the same as before . RECOMMENDATION: I recommend approval of the Waiver of Platting Requirements . The following are recommended Findings of Fact should the Commission recommend approval: 1 . The lots conform to the minimum lot size for the B-3 Distriet . 2. The existing parking lots are legal , non- conforming , which will remain the same . Conditions: 1 . The applicant complies with the Building — Code requirements . Respectfully submitted, Nancy S. Anderson, Communi Development Analyst , �� - -- _-- _ -- - ..._, , .. •..ar 7I'�,•�..J„ i •!�+�r uro+��»i�� r• .�... ..,•.� ' ` �� 71C�� ...>, .o�,. - .:,s i..•, � � 'l 1• ��A7�j�T�9l�l9� � •� PTTaDQJ � i � - '' • 9N/0.7/ {;.. =oo�PT � 7,71T�T7��1 � ,{. . - t� � •► �' :'• 11�1: , . , � � . "' - .,� , _I ' f' . � � ;: ;� ; '� r ' I' . . � ; � .." - '� : .� I � ' i�:.. • . . ; I � . . � . ' . , _ . � . � _. � ' � � . I f , .� : . . .-- .. . . � , �� - � - � �f_ �� _. � � ; . . : � � � ��: i 1•` • ''' •L.,l' . � ' 1 ;! ' I ,• , , . ;1 _ I „ , • , , . � ; ;[. r _ ._.: :� , ,. '�- ''" � - -�y��...'•_'� . :1 . � i . , I a f � r � r f I . ; ; � 5 , � �: . �- > .d� ' 'x�' ' � I �`� . � ; 3 ��p, � � , .�`� .� �T • � � y ��,tu�� .'1' Y' „'. 'C�� .. . s� ��• / { '�� J.. �� ''�irr�i�i� v: „> �. _ S � � , . � � . � *�� ,'� . . , �::.. : � ,�.�r- .� y° �-�_:�._ : � � � :;.�� a� �� a ,. .. � �;�==�� . �• s� . * � ' ' �' '^ r . � , � � ' I � 3 � � r . � � � . j. I ' � F pl � i � i . . � y , =� k I ' � � ` �""" ;� `I � � I . � 4 � ��_ _ , � . ; , e r -..��. ' ---- ' ' -:—:—�-` t�.± �:' ! �c . . .i I � ��_ Q,r ..._��........- ..- �_ -�w�.ras-......:.w s • :� . i I ; � ._ .. �_—_ i. "'�rrr+.w . � � . Y . . . '�J �ss�.p I�H 1 . r � �'� "s^�ae"r.'riri � �.> A — I9N/o7/n9 ,, ' lJ �V i ,° ; � � -� � r N � � i ,ol._� . I � 9 � � � yd� . -� y � . � , , . � � � - _ \ .` . ' ' 1 � � : „_ ) -------.. ----... .--�--� . _ . __.:__.. . - - :��,_...__.... ..� _ 1 -C�= -, _ __�-- �::_._._ _, --_ ---.... . --.--.._ ....:-:-=--� � ' - 1 1 �rv.o�.n� ' I� � — 1 _._._ . ',.:,.,1 _.,_._.�^ c . . . _- ci� ' r � � �� MEMORANDUM October 23 , 1986 T0: Nancy Anderson FROM: Tom Anderson �� SUBJECT : Subdivision Request - Johnson Enterprises I have reviewed the subdivision plan for Johnson Enterprises and have concerns with the location of the property lines . The State Building Code requires buildings to be maintained set distanees from property lines , based on their hazard , to prevent fire spread from one building to another . In the '— case of the Johnson request , the two buildings on the property are classified B-2 occupancies (retail sales) . The Code requires a one hour rated wall if the building is less than 20 feet to a property line and no openings are permitted in these walls, unless they are fire rated at less than 10 feet . These buildings appear to have concrete masonry shells whieh would meet a one hour wall elassification but the Windows and doors are not rated . The Code therefore will require , as a minimum, a 10 foot separation from the buildings to any newly established lot lines . If you have any questions, please call me . Tom ��