CR 92-122 Vacation Of Street - Pierce Ave
\ \ y 0
u '"
May 27, 1992
P K \ ~
Council Report 92-122
VACATION OF STREET - PIERCE AVENUE
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve
Resolution 92-45 approving the first readinq of Ordinance
92-713 vacatinq Pierce Avenue.'
Mr. Hutchison moved and Mr. Winship seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ92-11 recommending approval of vacating
pierce Avenue. The motion carried unanimously.
Please note that vacations require a 4/5 vote to approve.
Overview.
The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the
southerly and westerly existing building in the shopping
center on the northwest corner of County Road 3 and Blake
Road. In order to construct the addition, the applicant is
requesting that pierce Avenue is vacated.
Along with the request for vacation the staff has
recommended that the applicant re-plat the property. The
applicant has applied for appeal of a preliminary plat of
this area, which will be considered at this meeting.
One of the property owners adjacent to pierce Avenue has
expressed concerns regarding the proposed vacationing
(Richard Holt). Please see the attached letter from Mr.
Holt and the notes from the Planning Commission meeting.
primary Issues to Consider.
o Is pierce Avenue needed for a public right-of-way?
o Will Edco have access to their property if Pierce
is vacated?
o What recommendations does the staff have?
SupDortinq Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Location Map
o Resolution 92-45
o Ordinance 92-713
o Letter from Richard Holt
CR92-122
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
o Is pierce Avenue needed for a public right-of-way?
pierce Avenue is only 195.62 feet in length, 60 feet in
width and is only used as an.access road for the abutting
properties. pierce has not been identified as a north/south
connector between Excelsior and 2nd street N.E. In the past
the City's traffic consultant has recommended that these
stub streets be vacated.
o will Edco have access to their property if pierce is
vacated?
When the street is vacated the applicant will retain
ownership of one half of the street, the property owner on
the west side of the street (Richard Holt) will retain the
other half.
Edco currently uses Pierce for access to their property.
The applicants will give access to Edco through their
property. The applicants have informed the staff that Edco
is agreeable to this.
o What recommendations does the staff have?
The staff recommends the following:
. '
o The utilities within the right-of-way are private
and will remain private.
o That there is a 30 foot wide signed fire lane on
the vacated Pierce.
o That an easement is prepared and recorded by the
applicant to grant non-exclusive use as a roadway
and access purposes to abutting owners and tenants
including their employees, invitees, and
customers.
o That any easement/agreements be provided prior to
the City council second reading of the vacation
ordinance.
Alternatives.
1.
Approve ordinance to vacate Pierce.
vacation of Pierce, the applicant will
construct an addition to his property.
By approving
be able to
CR92-122
Page 3
2. Deny ordinance to vacate Pierce. By denying vacation
of Pierce, the applicant will not be able to construct
an addition to his property.
3. continue for further information. If the City Council
indicates that further information is needed, the item
should be continued.
CR92-122
Page 4
STAFF NOTES
The staff reviewed the request with the Commission. Marian
Newman, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr.
Newman explained that he would like to construct a 30' x
100' addition on the west side of the building abutting
Pierce Avenue. Mr. Newman sta~ed they had been maintaining
Pierce Avenue for the past 20 years.
The Commission reviewed a letter submitted by Richard Holt,
the abutting land owner. Mr. Holt is objecting to the
vacation. The Commission asked the City Attorney if the
City could vacate with one party objecting to the vacation.
Mr. Miller stated that the City has the discretion to grant
vacations.
Mr. Holt appeared before the Commission. Mr. Holt spoke
against the vacation. Mr. Holt was under the impression
that Pierce Avenue would be closed with the vacation. Both
staff and the Commission told Mr. Holt that the road would
remain open.
The Commission recommended that the staff and all the
parties involved meet at the site to explain what the
vacation will do. The staff stated they will make every
effort to get the parties together before the city Council
meeting.
,~
(41 )
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
\
I
/0,/5
I
/025
W/
(43)
.3
~
(42)
2
F
(3D) ~ \
I
A ~
//2/ .... \
G
(35)
(25)
/009
(33)
o
B
1841
(40) 1 1
1851
I I -r..,. -I' I
I I ~ I I (32) 5 I 4 '3 I \
I~I\ I c I I
G :~I I eeL.s/OR I
. ,II EX c:.. tlZ4
(II)
E
(31)
I
I 87
88 I . . .
-- ...
- _, ~.- :.:.:.
--- r"" I ......
f . J .:.:.:
.I 11\\1\'2.:.:.:.
~o I I ::::::
83
(13)
82
(12)
[- - - -
.
81
(2)
10
f'-.
I
C)
I()
C)
~
f'-.
I
f'-.
0)
/230
(4)
(47)
(48)
(14)
I
(15)
2
(16)
3
(6)
f'-. (5)
6 ~ (10)
~
t ~ 33 145) (44) 32 ~
t
I
I
\
I
\
r
1
~L .
(42) C,\j
---~
A \/ENL
(17)
4
(18) ,
5
/30/'
/3/1 /3/9 /325 /40/'
PRESTON
/3/0 /3/8 /326 /402 I
io'l22 21 20 19 18
f.i
(33) (32) (31) (30) (29)
(34) (35) I (36) (49) (50) (
~ 23 24 25 26 27.
/3/3 /32/ /327' /405 /
BOYCE
, 30 30
_ _ ~ (Q.. (I~ ~ _ (24)29 ~
3 28 ':( _ _ _ _ _ _
4' (12) 27 <0 C) 4 (15) (23)2~ ~
5(2) - 26 -.... Q:: - -5 - 26
. 6 25 C) 6 25
------ --- ---
7 (3) (II) 24.... _ _ 7(1~ _ ~4_~
_ 8_ _ _ 2~ _ C) _ 8 _ (2~~ .:
9(4) (10}22 .... 9(17) 22
-....-
10 21 ~ 10 (2JL~I- ~
~ - 11(5) (9) 20 .... II 20-
......- --
12 (8) 19 10
13 18....
~ _14(61 ~)~7_ ~
15 16....
30 . I
12 (18) 19
--- ----
13 (lO}18 'q-
- - ....
!<) 14 (/9) 17'-
'0------
- 15 16
GOODRICH
l I 30 ~
- 2
~-
3
~~- -
C)~
Q: If)- _5
~ 6
0\ f
~-
- ~
I
"" I
"" --
- I
1;-
1;
i t
""-
~ tj E~,
~.....
~~
~'~"-'
-------l
- -"" \
o~
, I
H \
,,~
11~
,,~ \
... ----;--
.,. . - i....._,'-
I __ _-~_ROAO_NQ._2Q..___
I .. /./-----_..J~AKE ROAD)
I ii/(, r--L..,r--
\ : D'NH~R, WOTS/DB.. VlU.AG!: :zr:: .
1 : OWlteRI wtsTSnJ~ YlLL AGe
I I :
I
r
i
~ ~~ pH~ .~~
i r! .H,li ~~
i r !i'f I ~f.
i .! Iii'; ~J
~I Ii ~:$l, :i
~i Pi~l ..;
r 1 ('iil 'i
.. 1 il'ti h
~ I {ir1 il
~ , l_ii.!
i i ~ilf! il
· J fol f ,I
r i ~nH J!
i Hil ~
I t!il f
,
f ! i ~ aU a Ii
: ~f S l~n! pp~i PI in j ;
> !~ ~ f~p. !!~h! . i.. if' ~
~ ii 'Hil. '~l&it r'l" .1 i ,
!!l Jill! jSiJfi' IE ~t I
~ i! :jlji ill 1 "1 JII
r ~ e II iJlli l~;!i ~l I
~ ~ li l ,l~ ~'.~~ II 'I
ii f!!i illE ;Iif; if il
If ~!i 61'fO-1 il!f~ t~ ,.
, ,. or . It" -~" J I"
~ .;.1 In r :.H~i i~ d
- "ct Iii "'il - i'
. liB 'f=li 11~!i If Ii
f ~~1! ~l!ti :1 ~l
1 ,sli if 1m J, h>
i I~J 'f -I il I!
- .~,! . i, i ~
;I!;i ,
:!~b
gi..g"
~=ii
~2!:1
e
~n~~ ~
~!g~~ ~
c.. ....
Ni: >2
fZ ~~
t~ 5~
!:Sa) 5;~
0'
~~
1)
7J
o
1:)
o
~
rn.
o
..
nJ:
(TlO
Z\)
M@
~(J)
)>n
00
t)~
-~
j~
On
z~
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 92-45
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING
AN APPLICATION FOR A VACATION
WHEREAS, an application for a vacation entitled VAC 92-1 made by
Hopkins Commerce Center is approved.
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a vacation VAC 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 VAC 92-1 is hereby
approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That pierce Avenue is not needed for public right-of-way
purposes.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for VAC 92-1 is hereby
approved based on the following Conditions:
1. That the utilities in pierce are private and will remain
private.
2. That a 30 foot wide fire lane is provided and signed on the
vacated right-of-way which is mutually agreed upon by the
adjacent property owners.
3. That an easement is prepared and recorded by the applicant
to grant non-exclusive use as a roadway and access purposes
to abutting owners and tenants including their employees,
invitees, and customers. This easement or separate document
shall address maintenance responsibilities for this access.
4. That the easements/agreements be provided to the city prior
to the City Council's approval of the second reading of the
Vacation Ordinance.
Adopted this 2nd day of June, 1992.
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 92-713
ORDINANCE VACATION A PORTION OF PIERCE AVENUE LYING
NORTH OF COUNTY ROAD 3
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
That the following described thoroughfare in the
following designated area of the City of Hopkins:
That part of pierce Avenue lying southerly of the extension
westerly of the north line of said Block 8, ANDERSON'S 1ST
ADDITION to st. Louis Park, according to the recorded plat
thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar
of Titles, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
be and the same is hereby vacated as a pUblic thoroughfare.
First Reading: June 2, 1992
Second Reading: June 16, 1992
Date of Publication: June 24, 1992
Date Ordinance Takes Effect: July 14, 1992
Nelson W. Berg, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
BERG AND LEAF
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
904 MAINSTREET, SUITE #330
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343-7529
NELSON W. BERG*
JONATHAN W. LEAF*
CHARLES M. GOLDSTEIN
TELEPHONE (612) 935-3425
FAX (612) 935-7981
* CERTIFIED REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALIST
May 19, 1992
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City of Hopkins
1010 First St. S.
Hopkins, MN 55343
Re: Zoning and Planning Commission
Vacation of Pierce Avenue
Our Client: Richard F. Holt
Our File No.: A82-214 Misc.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
I have been asked by my client, Richard Holt, to communicate his
opposition to the proposed vacation of Pierce Avenue. Mr. Holt's
property at 929 Excelsior Avenue East abuts Pierce Avenue.
Mr. Holt's reasons for opposing the vacation are as follows:
1. If the street is vacated, the remaining private access can be
cut off by the City at any time, thereby terminating a
valuable property right which would affect the value of his
property.
2. The loss of public access would detrimentally affect future
redevelopment of his property.
3. The proposed new construction on the Shopping Center will
contribute to an already serious drainage problem.
Please communicate these concerns to the Zoning and Planning
Commission. It is our understanding that if the vacation is
approved, one-half of the right-of-way will be added to Mr. Holt's
property.
I obviously have a conflict of interest in this matter. I will not
represent Mr. Holt at future meetings of either the Zoning and
Page 2 of 2
Ms. Nancy Anderson
May 19, 1992
Planning Commission or City Council, and will abstain from voting
on this matter.
Sincerely,
BERG and LEAF
~tt~
Nelson W.
NWB/ml
cc: Richard Holt