Loading...
CR 92-143 Final Plat - Hopkins Commerce Center " (. , 'I ., '~'J"~ , '1 y , \ I ,\ 0 I I:'! ..... July 1, 1992 o PK I~' ! Council Report 92-143 - FINAL PLAT - HOPKINS COMMERCE CENTER proDosed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move toaporove Resolution 92- 56 aoprovinq the final plat for the shopping center at the northwest corner of Blake Road and County Road 3. Mr. Winship moved and Mrs. Reuter seconded a motion to approve Resolution RZ92-16 recommending approval of the final plat for the Hopkins Commerce Center. The motion passed unanimously. , overview. The applicant owns . the shopping cehter 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. 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. . The preliminary plat lrlas approved by the City Council on June 2nd. Staff reviewed the final plat with the Planning commission. The only change from the preliminary plat is that pierce Avenue was removed from the final plat. Mr. Newman, the applicant, appeared before the commission. Mr. Newman stated that because pierce Avenue will not be vacated they may not construct their addition. There was little discussion on this item. Primary Issues to Consider. 0 Why is the staff recommending the re-platting of the site? 0 What is the zoning of the'property? 0 What are the surrounding uses? 0 Do the lots meet the minimum requirements? 0 will easements be required for the new lots? 0 Will the access change? 0 Has Hennepin County reviewed the plat? 0 Has the final plat changed? SUD~orting Documents. 0 Analysis of Issues 0 Final Plat 0 Resolution 92-56 . mm-~~ QrrclQI\fllif1 Nancy . Anderson Plann , ~. ? ~ CR 92-143 Page 2 . . primary Issues to Consider. 0 Why is the staff recommending there-platting of the site? The staff has recommended a re-platting of the property because the applicant's property currently consists of 19 lots. Many of the lot lines go through buildings . There-platting of this property will solve many of the zoning and setback problems on the site. 0 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 applicant has applied for a rezoning of this area. However, . because the area to be rezoned involves a difficult legal description it has been decided to rezone the property after the area has, been platted. The legal description after the platting will be a simple block and lot description. 0 Do the lots meet the minimum requirements? Lot 1 ' Zoned I-l Required Proposed Lot size 10,000 sq ft appr.158,029 sqft 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 . Side yard east 0 5.6 feet Rear yard 10 feet 58 feet ----------~----~ -~~-.~- - ., CR 92-143 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 is. rezoned to a B-3 zoning district. If this area was zoned B-3, the setback is O. The applicant has applied for a re- zoning of this area. 0 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 . 0 Will easements be required for the new lots? The applicant will provide for cross easements for parking, utilities and access for all the lots. 0 Will the access change? The access points on the site will remain the same. 0 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. TheCi ty did not receive any comments from the County regarding the plat. 0 Has the final plat changed from the preliminary plat? The only change with the final plat is that pierce Avenue has been . removed on the plat. The applicant has withdrawn their request to vacate pierce Avenue. The City may proceed with the vacation of pierce Avenue in the future. . . - ? , . CR 92-143 Page 4 . The final plat will ,also be changed by removing the 10 foot drainage and utility easement abutting Pierce. One condition of the preliminary plat was to have, the rezoning of the area take place at the time of the final plat. " Because of the difficult legal description involved the rezoning will be done at the July meeting. The applicant has applied for the rezoning. Alternatives. 1. Approve the final plat. By approving the plat, the applicant will be able to plat the subject property. 2. Deny the final plat. By denying the plat, the applicant will not be able to plat the subject property. . 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. . . . -- --- --_..._.~_._.~-_._-_...__._---~~-~-_._.~---~_._~._- ~_.._~~-- -----'~----- "'-== ---'--'--..- ____ __u. ____ .. > ,,- , '-, .,'\. CITY OF HOPKINS ~, Hennepin County, Minnesota - RESOLUTION NO: 92-56 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A FINAL PLAT WHEREAS, an application f.or a final plat entitled SUBD 92-2 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 92-2 was filed with the City of Hopkins on June 16, 1992. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on June 30, 1992. 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice, held a hearing on June 30, 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. 4ItNOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for SUBD 92-2 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 final plat meets the requirements for a final plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for SUBD 92~2 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 easements. Adopted this 7th day of July, 1992. . Nelson W. Berg, Mayor ATTEST: James A.. Genellie, City Clerk .