CR 92-123 Prelim Plat - Hopkins Commerce Center
f . ' ,L
May 27, 1992
o
'"
o P K \
council Report 92-123
PRELIMINARY PLAT - HOPKINS COMMERCE CENTER
ProDosed Action.
staff recommends the following motion: Move to
Resolution 92-46 recommendinq approval of preliminarv
the shoP'Ping center at the northwest corner of Blake
County Road 3.
approve
plat for
Road and
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.
Ov rview.
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.
primary
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Issues to Consider.
Why is the staff recommending the re-platting of the
site?
What is the zoning of the property?
What are the surrounding uses?
Do the lots meet the minimum requirements?
will easements be required for the new lots?
Will the access change?
Has Hennepin County reviewed the plat?
SUDDortinq Documents~
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plan
o Resolution 92-46
I'
~;
Planner
CR 92-123
Page 2
primary Issues to Consider.
o Why is the staff recommending 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-l 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 size
Lot width
Front yard
Side yard west
Side yard east
Rear yard
Lot size
Lot width
Front yard
Side yard west
Side yard east
Rear yard
Lot 1 Zoned I-1
Required
10,000 sq ft
100 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
20 feet
Proposed
appro 158,029 sq ft
344 feet
111 feet
59.8 feet
45.4 feet
61. 7 feet
Lot 2 Zoned B-3
Required
3000 sq ft
25 feet
20 feet
o
o
10 feet
Proposed
appr 73,273 sq ft
407.91 feet
25.7 feet
54.3 feet
5.6 feet
58 feet
....
CR 92-123
Page 3
Lot 3
Zoned B-3/I-1
Lot size
Lot width
Front yard
Side yard west
Side yard east
Rear yard
Required
3000/10,000 sq ft
25 feet
20 feet
20 feet
10 feet
20/10 feet
Proposed
appr 110,000 sq ft
appr 300 feet
appr 153 feet
19.8 feet
12.9 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 o.
o What are the surrounding uses?
The following are the surrounding uses:
.
East - retail and Wests ide Village Apartments
West - Edco and Boat sales
South - Blake Schools
North - Soo Line Railroad and retail
o wi,ll 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 change?
The access points on the site will ,remain the same.
o Ha.s 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
comment,s. Thus far the County has not responded. Staff is
recommending that approval of the plat is conditioned upon any
requirements imposed by the County
Al terna.ti ves .
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.
indicates that further information
should be continued.
If the city Council
is needed, the item
.........ll;lQ;9:.;.;.;.'.....'(.......lV'Z:5:......'..'... ............;U~~.... ...... .......;'/-J.~~.....'.. \
;.~!~'i:!
.'.' .....;.;...'..,..........e......>{:&~}..... '..,.... ..,.;.' . ir.... ..........t~y.1......l.....' \
,::; ;;~! ~ !~!;I: !~I; I~ I; ;;I~ I;! ;;;;~~!;! ;:~!~!;!.? ~ :I;!; ~:: ';!;; '..:~: :;:1; I;! 1;1;!i * !W;t:t~~~;~::'
87 >~;l:>~,!~;\if<!~i:f~:~:>: >:;::~L~: J:::I:~:::!:g.;.1-' 1
'i+~~{(f~!~;r:{(;)<~! ;:;::;:::>:.,. R
\<(rf~~JjWjMf :::::>:.. CLS 10 \
?{';:;::::I$(J: . . EX C [:. //24
. (II) \
r-... (5)
6 ~ (10)
~
t::J 33 (45) (44)32 ~
t
I
\
I
I
\
\ '
\
~L
,~
\'!Je
(41 )
I
<?JtO
(25)
(42)
2
I
I
88 I
.-' -- :;
- -.
--rl I
1 1 II I \2-
<3 1\01 1
I J
83
(13)
82
(12)
1----
81
(2)
\0
r-...
I
C)
\{)
'-
C)
~
'-
r-...
I
\{)
,
tf)
I
'-
(47)
(48)
A \/ENL
-
.
(14) (15) (16) (17) (18)
1 2 3 4 5
/30/. /3/1 /3/9 /325 /40/
(6)
/230
(4)
PRESTON
/3/0 /3/8 /326 /402 I
~ 22 21 20 19 18
C\J
(33) ( ;12.) (31) (30) (2.9)
(34) (35) I (36) (49) (50) (
~ 23 24 25 26 27. :
/3/3 /32/ /327 /405 I
(42) <\j
---~
BOYCE
. 30
30
(24)2.9 0
---
- 1
e- -
- 2.1
CJ-
3
~~ --
a~
ct tf)- _5.
~ 6
_ _ ~ (IL (I~ ~ -
3
4
5 (2)
. 6 25 C)
------
7(3) (11)24'-
_ 8_ _ _ 2;3 _ C)
9(4) (10)22 '-
10 21
~-=-I~5) (9}20 ~
12 (8) 19 (Q
13 18 '-
~ _14<61. ~)~7_ ~
15 16 '-
(2.~2~ ~
26
25
_ 12 (18) 19
---- ----
13 (2.0)18 ~
---- ---J:to
I<) 14(19) 17'- "- I.
tr)------ ,*,,--
- 15 16 - It
GOODRICH
L I 30 d 1:-
<J;()
,M
,. .-
r-- ~__\O
../ . .~~.. .:. I
I ..~ < =.:
...... C::.1.
:7.... ~~-
~...~
/1-------- ':. 1'lj.:
II ---~' .
I ~---
..I: ""'. -
I _..
-07,'l.o.vr
....,.~-
..
a
W
fJ)
o
a..
o
ct.
Q..
LuZ
Uo
fJf=
~-
~o
00
u<(
tr)~
~~.
0..2
ow
::ru
:lOW'1"1II !lQI8..L.$3M 'MSIINO
~3 (1 S
:a: 70W'''''lII iJQlfJ.LS3M ft/RHMO
\ .~
\ ~~
.."
..~
~r
I "'-.-_
'L_____
7/_
...,
"'..
..
.,
,
I
~
N
~a
el\!S~:i
f!IDR
~ ~h
!~~~1i
..il~i~
Uil~
~: ~,..
,,~ ~ii
i~ ;;
ZoI( :::E~
ihf;~
'!f~!::z
i1:t~i
i
~
!
j
H
II
H
'01
t.
ji
11
Ii
i'
Jf"
lj
I 31i
J fl
~ Ii
u II
~ .t
~ iJ~
~ h~
1
r
H
s i
r~
i.
i!
~i
",
i.
!~
]'
I~
l~
"I
'I
:i
~)i
~il
"J.
SIX
if j. h~i
~J"if t!l~
~o~i~ ~ I
,hit It!.i
...:!lIlt!1 .
ih" Jill
!~Hl ij!l!
!!!I! hili
h!ii ~i~~!
l~'... 'ltitt.s
F=!~ :;Hsl
2~!..; -".f
lili~ HI!
!jl~. "ni.
I ~=l JIHI
lij€;;, ...ilil
n !~.. Iii:' "
;ifilj ~! U ~
h;h !u~, i
!
1
L
u
il
"
~j
I,
"
~I
H
It
il
f,
f~
ij
If
I,
j'
_I
!
~
,
$
!
!
I
~
II
i
~il
~.
I I
I l~ it j
~ iIi! ,
1. ,p~ f
jl jH~I" ~
!' lftj~! i
:f 'Ih! i i
)i .lId I ~
~" H!13 i :
n ff.il I J
.. t!Hi !I" J
It ihh f i
I.. .ii;j. i
~! j!&ji E. (
Ii ~Pji il ,
! nl;! ~i J
.~! :Hu ft{ ..
e
Ii
~
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