Loading...
CR 94-51 Prelim Plat - 1300 2ND ST S i Y \ 0 . .. v '" ~ . 1- "" March 10, 1994 0 P K \ ~ Council Report CR 94-51 PRELIMINARYIFINAL PLAT - 1300 2ND STREET SOUTH Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 94-25 approving a preliminary/final plat to divide the lot at 1300 2nd Street South. Mr. Hutchison moved and Mr. Racek seconded a motion to approve Resolution RZ94-2 recommending approval of a preliminary/final plat to divide the lot at 1300 2nd Street South. Overview. The applicant, Ed Stie1e, is proposing to re-configure the lots at 1300 2nd Street South. There are currently two lots. The applicant is proposing to add part of Lot 2, where the existing building is located, to the vacant lot to the west. Lot 2 will be owned by the applicant and used for his auto repair facility, Hopkins Auto Body. Hopkins Auto Body is proposing to move from its present location at 6 18th Avenue North. An auto body repair shop is a permitted use in the I-I district and does not require a conditional use permit. Hopkins Auto Body will occupy approximately 16,000 square feet of . the existing building. The present occupant of this building, Venturian Corp., will occupy approximately 16,000 square feet of office use for the present time. Lot 1 will be an empty lot at the present time. This lot was previously used as a car storage lot. Hanus Bus Company, which is currently located in Minnetonka is presently considering using this lot for its operation. If Hanus Bus Company moves onto Lot 1, a conditional use permit will be required for this use. Primary Issues to Consider. 0 Do the proposed lots meet the zoning and subdivision requirements? 0 Is a Park Dedication fee required? 0 Are there additional easements the City Engineer is recommending? 0 What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? SUDDortin2 Documents. 0 Analysis ofI ssues 0 Plat 0 Resolution 94-25 0 Letter from Hennepin County 0 Letter from Benshoof & Associates . ~ J ~M(}Yl Nancy . Anderson, AICP Planner ~ CR 94-51 . Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. 0 Do the proposed lots meet the zoning and subdivision requirements? The property is currently zoned I-I, Industrial. The following are the minimum zoning requirements for an I -I district: lot size 10,000 square feet lot width 100 feet lot depth 100 feet The new lot lines on the south side of Lot 2 have more than the minimum setbacks for buildings in an I-I district. Both lots will meet the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements and the Subdivision Ordinance requirements. The existing access point is on Lot 2, which also provides access to Lot 1 and the lot to the west of Lot 1. Staff has recommended that there be only one access for Lot 1 and Lot 2. . Staff is making this recommendation because for safety reasons it is desirable to have limited access points on a arterial roadway. Attached is a letter from Jon Wertjes from Benshoof & Associates, the firm that is working on the County Road 3 study. Mr. Wertjes reviewed the proposed access and has recommended that there be only one access to both sites. He also stated that a second access may be needed depending on the use of the vacant lot, but this would have to be determined by a traffic study. Hennepin County reviewed the proposed plat as required by State Statute. Attached is the letter from the County regarding the Stiele Plat. The County is recommending that there is a joint access between Lot I and Lot 2 and that no other access to County Road 3 will be permitted. The applicant does not want to provide a cross-easement for a joint access at this time. The applicant has stated that a joint access, without knowing the user of Lot 1, will create a hardship to his business. However, he did state that depending on the use, he would consider a joint access in the future. 0 Is a Park Dedication fee required A cash contribution will required as part of this subdivision. The fee will be determined by the . actual fair market value of5% of the property. CR 94-51 . Page 3 0 Are there additional easements the City Engineer is recommending? Following are the two easements the City Engineer is requiring: 0 Easement for Nine Mile Creek along the east side of Lot 2. 0 Easement for an existing storm sewer in the rear of the property. 0 What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? The discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting focused on the access to the sites from County Road 3. Staff has recommended that there is a cross-easement between the two lots for access. The staff is making this recommendation on the advice of the County Road 3 study's traffic consultant, Jon Wertjes, who has recommended that one access is preferable to two. This does not preclude adding another access point in the future, depending on the use of Lot l. The platting request provides the opportunity to get cross-easements for the two lots. The applicant does not want cross-easements between Lot 1 and Lot 2, because it will be a hardship to his business without knowing the use of Lot 1. The Planning Commission recommended that there be only one access on County Road 3 for the two lots. 0 What arc the alternatives? . 1. Approve the preliminary/final plat with the conditions as outlined in the Resolution. By approving the preliminary/final plat, the lots at 1300 Second Street will be divided into two lots as proposed. This alternative provides for cross-easements for access to Lot 1 and Lot 2. 2. Approve the preliminary/final plat without the joint access condition as outlined in the Resolution. By approving the preliminary/final plat, the lots at 1300 Second Street will be divided into two lots without the condition that cross-easements are provided. This alternative will provide an access to the applicant's lot, but Lot 1 will not have access which could create a problem in the future. 3. Deny the preliminary/final plat. By denying the premininary/final plat, the lots at 1300 Second Street will not be divided into two lots as proposed. With this action the applicant could buy the existing lot on which the building is located and have access from the existing access. Because no platting would be required the County would not review the access. This could create a problem in the future because the vacant lot (part of Lot I) would not have access. 4. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that a traffic study should be completed to determine the access points on County Road 3, the item should be continued. . It CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 94-25 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROV~NG A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT TO DIVIDE THE LOT AT 1300 SECOND STREET SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for a subdivision, SUBD 94-1, has been made by Ed stiele to allow him to divide the lot at 1300 Second Street South. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1- That an application for a subdivision, SUBD 94-1, was filed with the city of Hopkins on January 21, 1994. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed and published notices, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on February 22, 1994: all persons present were given an e opportunity to be heard. 3 . That the written comments and analysis of the city staff and the Planning commission were considered. 4. Hennepin County Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposed plat and provided a letter dated March 7, 1994 detailing various comments. This letter states no other driveway access to CSAH 3 will be permitted as a result of this platting process. 5. The legal description of the property is as follows: Block 1 Lot 4 and Lot 2, stiele's Addition. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for subdivision SUBD 94-1 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1- That the subdivision meets the zoning requirements for the 1-1 district. 2. That the subdivision meets the subdivision requirements. . 3. That the subdivision has been reviewed by Hennepin county. ~ RESOLUTION NO: 94-25 Page 2 . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for SUBD 94-1 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following conditions: 1. Payment of Park Dedication fee to be calculated by the city. 2. Provide easements as required by the city Engineer. 3. Execution of an agreement by the applicant and existing property owner in a form acceptable to city staff, which provides for cross access easements between Lot 1 and Lot 2, Stiele Addition. This agreement shall be entered into prior to execution of the plat by the city. Adopted this 15th day of March, 1994. . Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor ATTEST: James A. Genellie, City Clerk . -._---- ----- --- -- - --- @ Location . Map . (: COUNTY ROAD 3 /600 L~_-=-- G 12 0 1120 /200 F (\1) 9 (8) ([9) (6) lSiiY A I (7) " . I E (10) \~\6 '\:) 10") l\"i - . ~O. I (4) I ~~.S · I [Sit;> I ~-{ \"\ e . I~O :3 1/2 c~\cp..GO \~ ~o~ c ~uQ\ (5J <;:: (6) (7) (8) LOT 3 /515 /415 ~ ~ - - ~ - /520 /418-22 J I qG2 CJ --- 2'21 I -I- I ' 17 /202, 11/0 1106 1102 I....J r II r') (45) V) 2 23(), r 02 I , 16 11 2. (G) . '3 .... 1 I I (I) 1 6 --a:-~ 2+-, 0.3 15 11(4) 3 LQT 6 .. O~~\~ (53) .4 210; ~(5)'<(4 I : 14 I: 436 - ~- cQl LaJ I I J ki 2 <:(1 I Z 5 I I 13 1\ 5 t I ~ 19 II 26 I L 12 t I 6 2 'l: I~(/)I I ~ 7 : H I ~ 7 / ~ ,.. , (46) ,,.Q::I r 8 I I 10 1 /"-- It) w"1- I I' II') 5 16_1' 9 I [ 1 I 9 I "- II) ~' (f) I .L ___ (5~1 ~~ ~ :(32~ ~~ ~ I_~ . ~EXISTING BUlLDlliJG ,jER~ .. -"-" '\ . .-."-.. -f'-r -.. -.. - ,'- ..-..-..----."-:. -'" -'" -".-" roo- _u_ . '..-, 1 " ! \_ .'.,' j i '~~l ~ ! ~: ,"-l ! , . "-J '. . ; \........" : , ~K ING ',' .t, ,.l t;:")jstiOC( bu,ld"m3 6Yj :::~J Lot 2. , /~1\ , , ~ . , ._~ - I . . i " \ . .,. ' I I " .~ . ---+ .... -f - ". , , + '"\"- '''.., : . :. _') _ __ . " l i . --i -- --.- "', : ! (-'l'c. ___ .. ! I ! '1' . I _, ',' . I /'. \ ,,_ _. '- -- -.. I . , ~_' ; . ,; I' -- ! I I " __.' I I,.; : " ", l . !; 1 ;:; l I t . , . - __ - ! 'I;.".! t " :' I " .1 ~- i--- ._--l__.~..~--.. . ' ....._r ' i { ,! Ii. FFICE _ ... l " i \' i: . . , , [ I I ; ,; 'i I! ,-. J ' . ,;: ' . i ,. . I ._ ,II: ~,"I l I I I - -- i : I .~., .. . I l i '. .J . .\ . MAINT . ,----.. : i I! ! i ! !i '.l..-~ ; ~ i ~ I ;-+-i ~ ii I ; I ' i ! I , ; i i .1 ~, I l ~...' ., , ", 't' _._n ; ! i :' i ! . , II , , :: l' I I , ' Ii' ,.. .' 1'1 ._ i. I II , . t I ~ { It! j ; : ! . . '"\. I: I' ~ I 1 I .' . , . " I " I' I';;' I , , " I . i' Ii' I .. ", . ,. --+-t- i! 'HtHt. , -' j ~ l i......L; II ! ! 1 I I; IT! i Ii: " ! I I' I ,I i I j I , I : I II , ,I I" I I I' I .~;.l .. lINE OF EXISTING FENCE' " " , II' I . \ t " -r". 'j i ; , ; i i j 'I' I ' 1 1 : I :, , ' " 1 I I' .! I : I 't' " '," " . ')Ll:: 0( , -- -', .' I I PROPERTY LINE ';-~:: '" , ------ ---~ ' ~__----------------------- L l ' o:!} .'Vl( . J "II,!( -I ----------- L...::~~;..:f.:.:::7.... ,-;;.~~:...~- .~~i:7 ...4.;::,~+:~:;f::~t. j...,' ..~.;.~i::? ...., ~.' "V/P cV'-e-.--,6:;? <:'~ ~:fr oar ~C': .?5' ;-~_ R ,?",-W ......r-RE"V#6<7"// c""",,~ C45T ~ "wC#<Y"HEA"r"; .... ........ h'aPT,v V#E c;.:-?;:;/E" A'.#'4;ac-$E<:::-Z$; 7/1';:" R.z.<?" ........... r-~~ I -- -' -- - (/ "- "-/.7'".::-.zs-__ ..'-. I -".~"... ":":l~':~ .,:,...... ~ , I ~ I I I I I I ....,~........f.--.... -.. .-..-...._-.......~~- - ---------------------------------- ----- , --- -"'''-''''--1 q..:-... , 4- I - I I -' i.'q \ :J tV ll~ ~ (\) tJ '1:. / ~~ ~ I ;r ~.I ~ ~ ~ !~ ~~I C E \ ~. , X I w~. , E 1 I ~ , 1 ~>.; ~I , ~~. ~ N~' ~l ~~ ~). !I~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. ~~. , t\ ~i ~I ~t\, I W~ ~ ~!<l' ~ ~~ - r? I ~~ v' ~O ,v'tY ~ ~~ ~ ,pJil< ~~ X ../....~~ I I~: I ... 5&Jit?$- I I ...._....5"1' "..r.....: r <::),,:5,?7;Z:t7J1 / /' I ..---- tf//;s--;rE:1/V I' ~ ~ --- ..---- ---- J ~ "- /...:(~t..7.77/ ..---- I ---- --- "" .' ...---- ..0; 0;:, ------ ---- ...f.A,'".::.... ------- SCHOELL I a/();';;() I ----- --- ~ ENGINEERS. ! ---- ----- - - SOIL iESTINQ . E L----- ----- ~. , . HennePJU1PpQgoynty James M. Bourey, COllnty Administrator March 7, 1994 James D. K~rrigan, Planning City of Hopki ns 1010 1st Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 RE: Proposed Plat - Stiele Addition CSAH 3, south side approximately 835 feet east of 17th Avenue South Section 25, Township 117, Range 22 Hennepin County Plat No. 2121 Review and Recommendations Dear Mr. Kerrigan: Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and make the following comments: . . The proposed plat is within the construction limits of proposed Hennepin County project No. 9224. Project No. 9224 is tentatively scheduled for construction in 1996. The developer should contact Dave Schmidt, PE, at 930-2532 for project information. . The City and County should meet to discuss and finalize right of way requirements, road geometries, and design elements for Project No. 9224. . The current concept for reconstruction of CSAH 3 is as a four lane divided road. Based on this design, Hennepin County recommends one access, with a median opening on CSAH 3 for the plat. We recommend locating this access on the property line between Lots I & 2, approximately 350 feet west of the plats east property line. This access should function as a joint access for both Lot 1 and Lot 2. No other driveway access to CSAH 3 will be permitted. . The developer must have an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning any access construction or reconstruction. The developer can obtain permit forms and access information by contacting Dave Zetterstrom at 930-2548. . All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for utility permit . forms. Department of Public Warks 320 W:Jshingwn Avenue South l\l'c\'dcd PclP,-T Hopkins, MinllCSO[:J SS 34 ?-R468 (612)930-2500 FAX: (612)930-25 I 3 . . James D. Kerrigan March 7,1994 Page 2 . The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction. Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, ~.{J. Thomas D. ohnson, P. E. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJjDBM . . .W BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS 7301 OHMS LANE, SUITE 500/ EDI NA. MN 55439/ (612) 832-9858/ FAX (612) 832-9564 March 3, 1994 REFER TO FILE: Ms. Nancy Anderson City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 RE: Additional CSAH 3 Access for the Proposed Venturian and/or HaJlUS sites Dear Nancy: This letter responds to your request for a preliminary review of additional access to County Road 3 for the proposed Venturian and/or Hanus sites. Both of these sites are presently served by one driveway to County Road 3 which includes shared internal circulation between the sites. County Road 3 is an arterial roadway whose function forms the backbone of the urban roadway network and serves as a through facility. The design character of such an arterial roadway is to provide for through traffic mobility with limited turning e movements and direct land access. Based on the planned function and character of County Road 3, it is desired to maximize capacity and traffic flows and to minimize traffic conflicts. Therefore, it is recommended that access along County Road 3 be minimized or even reduced. Regarding the Venturian and Hanus sites, it is recommended at this time that additional access not be granted to/from County Road 3. We understand that site and transportation circumstances may require relocating the existing access to County Road 3. Regarding the Venturian and Hanus sites, it is our current understanding that the property owner would like additional access tolfrom County Road 3. If the property owner believes that a second access point is needed due to special extenuating circumstances, a traffic analysis would need to be performed to evaluate this issue and develop appropriate recommendations. To date, a traffic ::m~ly~i~ f'Jr s~~h 2.ddit~:Jr:al :lCCe~5 h4S not yet b~i:' coudu.:tto. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me. Sincerely, BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. ~p~ gon M. Wertjes, P.E. .