Loading...
CR 99-099 Conditional Use Permit - Office Building 1 y 0 \ U <- June 10, 1999 ~ Council Report 99-99 + '" o P K \ " CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - OFFICE BUILDING . ProDosed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 99-43. approving an office building at Second Avenue South and Seventh Street South. At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Blair moved and Mr. Gross seconded a motion to approve Resolution RZ99-5, recommending approval of a conditional use permit to construct an office building. The motion carried on a 3-2 vote, Mr. Engel and Ms. Boen voting nay. Overview. The applicant, Peter Donnino, is proposing to construct a one-story office building on the comer of Second Avenues and Seventh Street South. The proposed user will be Frana and Sons, Inc. Frana and Sons is a construction company. Their offices are currently located in Eden Prairie. The site is a small vacant lot consisting of 36,340 square feet. The proposed building will be a one-story office building, with a parking area in the basement. The office area of the building will be 10,780 square feet, and the parking area will be 7920 square feet. The building is set on the east side of the site. This item was continued from the June I, 1999, City Council meeting so that the following could be completed: e . A neighborhood meeting (this was held June 9th) . A memo from the City Attorney as to the definition of a buildable lot . Additional traffic analysis Primary Issues to Consider. . What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? . What are the specifics of the office building? . What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? . What was the discussion at the neighborhood meeting? . What are the revisions to the site plan since the June 1 City Council meeting? SUDDortine Documents. . Analysis ofIssues . Site Plans . Resolution 99-43 . Memo from Jerre Miller . Memo from Benshoof and Associates . CR99-99 Page 2 . Primary Issues to Consider. . What is the zoning and of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The property is zoned B-1, Limited Business. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as commercial. The proposed use complies with both of these documents. . What are the specifics of the office building? Exterior The upper level will have a brick veneer and the roof will be a pre-finished standing seam aluminum roof The roof structure will hide the mechanical equipment on the roof The color of the roofwill probably be green. Stone accents will be used at the window sills and belt course. The lower level will have an exterior of precast concrete. Landscaping The site is required to have 15 trees. The landscape plan indicates 15 Skyline Honey Locust trees of the required size. These 15 trees are along the west, south and east sides of the site . perimeter. The landscape plan also indicates heavy landscaping with shrubs on the west and east sides of the building. With the reconstruction of the intersection there is an opportunity to add additional screening on the west side of the site with landscaping. The applicant has stated that they will add additional landscaping. Parking The site plan indicates 38 spaces on the site. The applicant's use requires 34 parking spaces. Ofthe 38 parking spaces, 18 will be underground. There is the ability to add five additional spaces on the site, if they are ever needed. Access The access to the site is from Second Avenue South on the north side of the site. Trash The trash area will be located in the parking garage. This will meet the requirement of having the trash area screened. . - -- CR99-99 Page 3 Building Inspections . The Building Inspections Division has reviewed the proposed development and made the following comments: . Handicapped van accessible parking spaces, access aisles or curb ramps will have to be added in the parking area and underground garage. . The exit on the east side of the office area is not handicap accessible, and there may be a dead-end corridor in the office area. These items should be reviewed when actual construction drawings are prepared. Public Works The site is not a level lot and has a low area. In order for this development to occur the site will be re-graded and some fill will be used. The area where the building will be located on will be raised. The level of fill for the building pad is approximately six feet on the north side to one foot on the south side. Public Works has reviewed the site plans and has the following comments: . City Code requires the developer to submit a storm water management plan. e . The grading and utility plan needs to be revised. No erosion control measures are shown, no information or detail concerning storm structures is shown, no public utilities or proposed hookups are shown. . Water and sanitary sewer are located within the subject property. These need to be located, shown on this plan, and the City will require a utility easement and a condition. . A watershed district permit is required. Fire Marshal The Fire Marshal has reviewed the proposed office building and found it acceptable. Setbacks The following are the proposed and the zoning requirements for the B-1 district: Required Proposed Front yard 20 feet 20 feet West side yard 10 feet 20 feet e East side yard 10 feet 20 feet Rear yard 10 feet 26 feet Building height 25 feet 24.67 feet CR99-99 Page 4 . Surrounding uses The site is surrounded by an office use to the north, residential to the west, Highway 169 to the east, and a medical clinic to the south. The residential area to the west is buffered from the site with a berm and large evergreen trees. . What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed development with the Commission. Ms. Anderson noted that the development approved for this site in 1984 was a two-story building with another level below grade and that the proposed development is a one-story with a parking area below grade. Ms. Anderson also stated that the height of the proposed building meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Craig Hinrichs of621 Park Valley Drive appeared before the Commission. Mr. Hinrichs was concerned with the height of the building and the access to the site. Mr. Hinrichs stated that there was a public safety issue with the location of the curb cut. Paul Madson, the architect for the project, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Madson discussed the height of the building and the location of the curb cut. Mr. Madson stated that the building was a one-story building and the curb cut had been moved as far north as . possible. Pete Donnino, the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Donnino stated that they have oriented the building to the east to be farther away from the residential area. The Commission discussed the height of the building and the access to the site. The Commission discussed whether there was any way of additionally buffering the sight lines of the windows on the west side of the building from the residential area. One suggestion was to add additional trees to the berm on the west side of Second Avenue, subject to review from the Public Works department. The applicant was agreeable to this. At the public hearing, Robert Buys of 605 East Park Valley Drive appeared before the Commission. Mr. Buys thought that new and/or additional trees to the berm on the west side of Second Avenue would help, . What was the discussion at the neighborhood meeting? There were 12 residents that attended the neighborhood meeting held on June 9th in the Raspberry Room. The neighborhood president was not in attendance. Steve Stadler reviewed the traffic analysis for the 2nd Avenue and 7th Street South intersection. The discussion focused around the stop sign on 7th Street. There was no . resolution to this stop sign issue. CR99-99 Page 5 The discussion moved on to the following other issues: . . The height of the building . The amount of fill being used for the site . The height of the first floor . The need for the underground parking . Lowering the building . The height of the road . Using the abutting lot for parking The applicants have placed a marker on a tree on the site to indicate the first floor elevation. There was a discussion on lowering the height ofthe building by two feet. Sid Blair. a member of the Zoning and Planning Commission, spoke and said it was a good project. There also was a discussion on this building and how there could be something else constructed on the site that would be more intrusive to the neighborhood. . What are the revisions to the site plan since the June 1 City Council meeting? . Because the intersection will be reconstructed, the development will be able to landscape this area. A condition of approval should be that a new landscape plan is submitted and that it be approved by staff The type of landscaping will depend on if there is a stop sign on 71h Street. Staff is recommending that the building be lowered by two feet. By lowering the building two feet. the frrst floor elevation will be 896.5. Staff is recommending this as a condition of approval. The architect is also revising the west elevation by adding a berm along the building. This berm will show less of the west side elevation. The architect is working on revising the plans and will have them at the City Council meeting. Alternatives. 1. Approve the conditional use permit with the conditions as outlined in Resolution 99-43. By approving the conditional use permit. the applicant will be able to construct the building as detailed in the resolution. 2. Deny the conditional use permit. By denying the conditional use permit. the applicant will not be able to construct the building as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative. findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that the item should be continued. the applicant must consent to the continuance. State Statute requires that a project be approved within 60 days. The 60-day period expires on June 23. If the item is . continued without the applicant's permission, the conditional use permit is automatically approved. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota . RESOLUTION NO: 99-43 : RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT AN OFFICE BUILDING WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit CUP99-2 has been made by Frana and Sons; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a conditional use permit was made by Frana and Sons on April 23, 1999; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed and published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on May 25, 1999: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and . 4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows: Lot Thirty (30) of Block one (1) in Park Valley second Addition, Hennepin County, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, Except that part taken for road. Lot Thirty-one (31) of Block one (1) in Park Valley Second Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County Minnesota; Except that part taken for road as per Document Number 1094574. The West eight feet of the East 350 feet of the South 230.28 feet of the North 2607 feet of the East one-fourth of Section 25, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota; Except that part taken for road as per Document Number 1094574. That part of the Southeast Quarter ofthe Northeast Quarter, Section 25, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 25, thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 45 minutes 46 seconds West along the South line of said Northeast quarter a distance of 328.65 feet; thence North 0 degrees 32 minutes 12 seconds East a distance of73.00 feet to the actual point of . beginning; thence South 29 degrees 45 minutes 46 seconds East a distance of 30.00 feet; thence Easterly and Northeasterly a distance of 50.03 feet along a tangential curve to the left having a radium of 36.00 feet and a central angle of 79 degrees 37 minutes 42 seconds; thence North 10 degrees, 36 minutes 32 seconds East, tangent to said curve, a distance of 156,98 feet to a line drawn Westerly, perpendicular to the East line of said Northeast Quarter, from a point on said East - ,- line 2376.72 feet South from the Northeast corner of said Northeast Quarter, thence Westerly along said perpendicular line a distance of 115.27 feet to a point . 342.00 feet Westerly along said perpendicular line from the East line of said Northeast Quarter~ thence Southerly, along a line which intersects the South line of said Northeast Quarter~ thence Southerly, along a line which intersects the South line of said Northeast Quarter at a point 342.00 feet Westerly from the Southeast corner of said Northeast quarter, to a line bearing North 89 degrees 45 minutes 46 seconds West from the actual point of beginning; thence South 89 degrees 45 minutes 46 seconds East a distance 15.98 feet to the actual point of beginning. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit CUP99-2 is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the proposed building meets the requirements for a conditional use permit. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Conditional Use Permit CUP99-2 is hereby approved based on the following conditions: 1. That the developer submits a storm water management plan and the plan is approved by staff. 2, The grading and utility plan needs to be revised and approved by staff showing the erosion control measures, information detailing the storm structures, public utilities, and proposed hookups. 3. Water and sanitary sewer are located within the subject property. These need to . be located, shown on this plan, and the City will require a utility easement from the developer for the water and sanitary sewer. 4, A watershed district permit is obtained. 5. Handicapped van accessible parking spaces access aisles or curb ramps will have to be added in the parking area and underground garage, and that staff approves the handicapped spaces. 6. The exit on the east side of the office area is not handicap accessible and there may be a dead-end corridor in the office area. These items should be reviewed and approved by staff when actual construction drawings are prepared. 7. That the trash pick-up and deliveries are limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. 8, That additional trees are added to the berm on the west side of Second Avenue, subject to Public Works approval, 9. That the elevation of the first floor is 896.5. 10. That a revised landscape plan is submitted adding additional trees to the site in the area of the reconstructed intersection and that staff approves the plan. Adopted this 15th day of June, 1999. Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor ATTEST: . Terry Obermaier, City Clerk \ Project Data: B-1 zoning . site area: 36,340 s.f. building coverage: 9,920 s,f. (27.3%) bituminous drive/parking area: 9,820 s.f. (27,0%) concrete sidewalks: 620 s.f. (1.7%) L total impervious area: 20,360 s,f. (56%) landscaped area: 12,780 s,f. (35%) ponding area: 3,200 s.f, (8.8%) -'",-, on~ s~ory office building over parking /-;:::::~-::-:..~>" '\. ~- butldmg: Type V non-rated //,'- ~/ "".'. "" , parking: Type I (2 hour separation) .. ./ ~ - ",.,.:,~~, - - -'- - - - -.-- I (( ~~- ------- gross office area: 1O,780s.f. d?, '~~~' '-<~'\ parking/storage area 7.920 s,f. ...r:l I ' total gross building 18,700 sL 'E I covered p~rking 18 spaces ~ \ open parkmg20 spaces Q) . proof of parking 5 spaces :::1 total parking: 43 spaces l:l Q) > --< "'0 l:l o u Q) rr; , ,;: , F1J I 1 10 20 50 CD North ~ -, . 'L - ' " ' -- " ",..,,-::.,,-.:--, \ .".;/ --/ --........ '- \. '...... .--- ----/ " " " ..... " ':::'.:.' ------- ", ~- ------ ...... ~----.--- -.-------.. .;l >or---'-- ~ ~d__ '~dd' 0 CrJ g I I \ \ a) I I .... I \ <( \-J ~:-. ''''d ~ 0 Q a) CrJ "" ~ - F1d I 1 10 20 50 - CD North " ~ g 0 ~ (U ::I Q (U >- -< 't) Q o. U .iU lZ> ~ ::~ - Fbr f s 1 10 20 - 50 CDN~ ~ " j V-" .i- .,~~_ I- :.... '. -~..-~:..._- . '- . .' li:9lf.Z ~-~--f;' ~\ 8 ~. ---~-'-----------~~-~,. J~'C~~[3:z::;~ :s.?~~~'=-~=~_,_,_, '---'-' ~. - ~~. !~ ~-i-'-...J 0 N '" > , 0 tT' ",<.,,~ 0'>00, 0 Ii ,I J: ..( .L .-....'.-... -",- N 17 0 .:J -', lilZ".t.l4..J '-"","<.::,-- -:~'~I - ,- ~ ~.-,; .: 2/' .~ I """: "- 1 ,,' ,~,~ .. ' I ,;r-t. N ~ .~.~ ~. . f " ".,' . . .. ......- J J ~ ;< . - / " /~ .; ~ . a. .. . . ~ ~ ~. t ~ ; .. ~ ;;' :; .J' ~ .- -- .. ! ~ -- '>< ,::;, ~' ! .t::) -- --... I <:' I, ", ( " . " [I \ I ~ V)~ ... " . '" i ~ ] ~ ~~ I~ r ~ .:~ fd ~ \ ~ :;: o~, .. i '-0< ~ ~ 1 I ~: ~ ~ \~ ~ i ~ ,~ . I ~ . I ';" ", :; "!, ~ u lit ; _1 . ""L:, ,~~'"' i',. '. ': 1 ~. :}~ ~ " , .... _ __._, __ ------.;;! !...2,-!_''!,.!:..!:!..OSfi ;'<3 JO ""'i: .,......, ,.. --, ::>--._~.n"'_.-::-:- ~ ~~-; .~--.~, .: ~,...:z <::> \Ii (:,-,tf) ; ~ ". :; -: Ul < <<.N) ~ "~'" ..-Q '\ ti ~. iut'-J . ...-.. . ; ~ ~ -I - .., '\ .. - ~ - - --;:--- ~ 'r ~. 'll ~ ~ ~ I :i r' : ~ ~ \ ' . /--- .. ,~ . Ql 't G) , cD Q I " ., ,'"'I- '1-" ~ ~ \ . 1 ;;; ~:J i I V) ~ ~ I' t-. ~ l ~ !. C =.: '" ; 't-!; ~ ~ 'J." '" ,J, I ;:: "';.f ; I. Jt--' C, 1:'i\ '. . ./ '/ _ ti ~ . ~ / ,,/ /t ~ ~ . .\"i- ~ ./ // ~ - "'~,. ~ ~ ~ './ ,~ '" ;J ~ ::r:: '-<< / ,,~/ ~ .., :;; '. . I (.. ,. '- ~:i i "" , ~ ,. 'l'" ___ -T-----"'>- - ,/ , \ ",_k:a:i; ~ ~"" -.-,---~ ' I- .~ }~-~-: ~" ~ -- . --- -, ,::; .- \' \' -. ,,---- . ~: "~ s ,I:.; ~---' ,,,- ~ f \ _,n, ;,__-068---~ _ ~'.// ~ \ \'\.;.;1' 'E. / "'./ s.u.' i " ,,: .~ _/~~~..\;:\., J \ LS"'.., - _ ---, --- ,- -- ~ ~f,'~~ ;:..,c uAle/l .Ii'I6M ,- . ---::~ ,-J)~'N7ffJl' '_~ U'(i1.9 , : --:d>' , L5~--~ - -- ;'L~ ~8~'J'fJ " . e. l.- -~, '.'ir.doL' ttU.--u,...J. . ". . Oi Lll~l! ,'1:lj.:J" II t ~ ','r- LnO.doL ':; ",'L.. I ;1; I ' . 0 :; I""JP'H I"'" : i"~i- ' . .' 3 n N 3/1 va. N z I .' L ,,_.L~_ . '. ~ ~~:::_____I!:~ __~ ___."'_ 7Fs..-o;-- /' ',: ~---- -,- ..2'-.. OODOS------ ~ -" ~~~~) - ,----. . ,---=.-- . . - -. -- ~:-_- ~_., ' Z --~--~ " :" ~\ - 2 A .... ' '.." ~ ~ .41\90 ~ -",,,. -- --, ;:;! , ' ..., 10 I ,-, -- ~ i , -r-=-~., "'I6<"-d' r lL...... , .- J II I I I :l ~ I I ~; lt1 'r ~. _-1 { l'- , I I ~ , I , I I . Key: /" ~ I ^,~. '- ---::-;t - B: _buJe , ~:=y , F. <>levator Ic~ ' . I F, milot . . (I, WOldt..,.,. H, oIevator room \ I- a'xlli'==: ], e.xil <h>r """ pilip I- i K~ 1. 'jJIlI,.8J""'8"(ll_J e- r '1= , I ~~ - ..--..~ r;, I I I i 1 l J , " , '. ~ ,.. ,.- ...- ~&.st J3Jeyation, I~ A I ... ~* ,. . . H r I ~ , ! ~- , - ..,4' : -.---.-- -"-'''' .. n _. '--- " .' '-~ I . t-. '. .,... '" .';l'"'f-'1' ....NOrtb'Blevation:. . :.'~ . . -' . '. - '"-. . .- '. - " -. .. ;..~...;. :'._-.... -- .,;' q i j'- ---- - ---- <'~~, : c- /'~ BF[\jSl-lOOr & ASSOCIr'-\TES, INC. \ .k, II \ - (< TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS \\/ 10417 E-'<.CELSIOR BOULEVARD, SUITE T'NO / HOPKINS, MN 55343 / (612) 238-1667/ FAX (612) 238-1671 Q \ " ,'" June 9, 1999 REFER TO FILE: 99 - 59 MEMORANDUIVI To: Jim Kerrigan, City of Hopkins Steve Stadler, City of Hopkins From: James A Benshoof~<\ \$ RE: Traffic Review for 2nd Avenue S. PURPOSE Several traffic questions regarding 2nd Avenue S. recently have arisen in conjunction with completion of roadway improvements for the SuperValu project and in conjunction with a proposed new office building in the northeast corner of 2nd Avenue S. and 7tJ1 Street S. 0 Specifically, you have asked us to address the following two points: At the intersection of 2nd Avenue S. and 5th Street S" what is the preferred I a) layout for the southwest corner of the intersection and what is the preferred form of traffic control? b) At the intersection of 2nd Avenue S. and ih Street S., what is the preferred solution regarding the free right turn movement from the east to the north in relation to the proposed driveway for the office building proposed by Frana and Sons? After a careful review of both questions, we have developed a series of findings and recommendations, which are presented in this memorandum. The items addressed in this memorandum are organized as follows: 0 Historical context of 2nd Avenue S. 0 Current expected function and volumes for 2nd Avenue 0 Review of 2nd Avenue S./sth Street S. intersection 0 Review of 2nd Avenue snth Street S. intersection and access for proposed office building 0 Conclusions 0 - - ------- - ----~ - -- - -- ---- Messrs. Kerrigan and Stadler 2 June 9, 1999 0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF 2ND A VENUE S. In order to effectively resolve the current questions pertaining to 2nd Avenue S., it is important to understand the current intended function of 2nd Avenue S. in relation to its historical context. From an historical standpoint, numerous decisions have been made and changes implemented in the last 30 years that have had major effects on 2nd Avenue and the Park Valley neighborhood to the west. John Strojan, a former City Engineer, was helpful in recalling principal historical events that affected 2nd Avenue S. Though we I have not yet been able to verifY specific dates and actions, we have gained a basic understanding of the historical context. This basic understanding is presented next. It is important for the reader to interpret these points in a general respect, recognizing that , specific dates and actions may not be completely correct. , 0 Prior to 1970, TH 169 was County Highway 18 and consisted of a simple at- grade highway. County Highway 18 had intersections with 3rd Street, 5th Street, and 7th Street. 2nd Avenue S. did not exist between 5th and ih Streets. 5th Street did not extend west of 6th Avenue. 5th Avenue S. did not extend south of Excelsior Boulevard. {) In 1971, 5th Street S. was extended west from 6th Avenue to 11th Avenue S. Also, 5th Avenue was extended south from Excelsior Boulevard to 3rd Street S. n In 1973, residents of the Park Valley neighborhood objected to the use of 7th '---.J !l Street for access to County Highway 18 and requested closure of that access. We understand that such closure did occur at about that time. 0 In the early 1980' s, County Highway 18 was reconstructed through Hopkins from a simple, at-grade highway to a freeway. In conjunction with this construction, the following changes occurred: - An interchange was constructed at ih Street S, - A cul-de-sac was constructed on 7th Street S. in the Park Valley neighborhood - 2nd Avenue S. was constructed between sth Street S. and ih Street S. - The prior at-grade access points on County Highway 18 at 3rd Street and 5th Street S. were eliminated. \:) In 1989, the jurisdiction of County Highway 18 changed from the County to Mn/DOT, and the highway was renumbered as TH 169, 0 In 1989, the City restricted trucks from using sth Street S. east of 6th Avenue and from using 2nd Avenue S. from 5th Street to ih Street S. 0 --------. --- ---- --------~---~--- ----------------~-------- ---- - -~- --- - ---- Messrs, Kerrigan and Stadler 3 June 9, 1999 0 CURRENT EXPECTED FUNCTION AND VOLUMES FOR 2ND A VENUE S. As indicated in the preceding section, the subject segment of2od Avenue S. has only exi~ted for about 17 years. When it was constructed, it was intended to serve as a major collector, linking south Hopkins with County H~ghway 18 (now TH 169). The road was constructed with a 52 foot width and large turning radii because it was expected to carry all types of vehicles (trucks and automobiles) and had to accommodate trips that formerly used the access points on County Highway 18 at 3rd Street S. and 5th Street S. Since it was constructed, changes have occurred to reduce the traffic function of2od Avenue S. Though it still is designated as a collector roadway, the function of2od Avenue has been reduced since the City's action in 1989 to prohibit truck traffic. Prior to construction of the SuperValu project, 20d Avenue carried 4,450 vehicles per day. This included significant traffic to and from the Hennepin County Public Works facility, In a memorandum dated March 23, 1998, we indicated that the projected year 2000 volume for 20d Avenue S. north of 7th Street S. would be 3,100 vehicles per day, This projection accounted for the Nine Mile Cove development and for a first phase SuperValu development of 470,000 sq.ft. Though we have not made detailed, revised forecasts, we now would expect the year 2000 volume on 20d Avenue to be about 3,500 to 3,800 vehicles per day, The two reasons for the increase from our March 1998 projections are: a) The current size of the SuperValu project is about 600,000 sq.ft., which is 0 greater than the 470,000 sq.ft. we assumed in March 1998. b) The proposed office building by Frana and Sons would add about 100 vehicles per day to 20d Avenue S, north of the project's driveway. Even with the above volume adjustments, it is important to note the current projected year 2000 volume on 2nd Avenue S. of 3,500 to 3,800 vehicles per day is less than the 4,450 vehicles per day that occurred prior to the SuperValu project. The two principal reasons for the decrease are the elimination of trips to and from the County facility and the orientation of Super V alu traffic primarily to the north. REVIEW OF 2ND A VENUE S.lSTH STREET S. INTERSECTION The current design for this intersection is a T configuration. 5th Street to the west is aligned with 20d Avenue to the east, and 20d Avenue extends to the south. This basic layout is the same as we presented in a memorandum dated June 12, 1998. A difference that has occurred from June 1998 to the present is the placement of the bicycle/pedestrian trail through the intersection. In June 1998 we understood that the trail would be on the south side of the east leg of the intersection, This would match the trail location on the south side of 5th Street west of the intersection, and the trail would cross the south leg of the intersection. The trail has subsequently been designed and constructed on the north 0 side of the east leg of the intersection, and the trail crossing now occurs across 5th Street on the west leg of the intersection. -- ~------- --- --------- ----------- -- ----- Messrs. Kerrigan and Stadler 4 June 9, 1999 0 In our memorandum dated June 12, 1998, we recommended that the intersection be controlled with a stop sign on the south leg (for northbound traffic on 2nd Avenue S.) and no stop signs for eastbound or westbound traffic. Two other layout and control options that recently have been raised are: a) Construct a right turn island, with yield control, for right turns from the west on 5th Street S. to the south on 2nd Avenue S. The idea of this option is to enhance the ease of movements from the west to the south. b) Install all-way stop sign control. A principal benefit of this option is to enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety for the trail crossing on the west leg of the intersection. After reviewing the above options relative to our recommendations in June 1998, we would continue to advocate the outcome we recommended in June 1998, namely to create a T intersection with stop sign control only on the' south leg. We do not support the right turn island concept for two reasons: 1) it is not necessary to accommodate the right turns from the west to the south at the higher speed and capacity that an island would provide and 2) the "free flow" right turns would cause greater accident risk for pedestrians and bicyclists using the trail crossing on the west leg of the intersection. We do not support the all-way stop sign concept because it would cause significant 0 increases in delay for eastbound and westbound traffic. We are confident that adequate safety will be provided for the trail crossing without stopping all eastbound and westbound motorists. It is important to note that the two additional stop signs could be installed at any time in the future if such needs arise. We would encourage periodic monitoring of vehicular volumes and pedestrian/bicycle movements through the intersection to ensure adequate ongoing operations. REVIE'\t" OF 2ND A VENUE s.nTH STREET S. INTERSECTION AND ACCESS FOR PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING As we understand, Frana and Sons have proposed to develop an office building in the northeast comer of the 2nd Avenue S./7th Street S. intersection. The development would have 10,780 sq.ft. of office space and a driveway on 2nd Avenue S. The south edge of the driveway would be about 145 feet north of the north edge of 7th Street. A question has arisen regarding whether adequate safety would be provided at this driveway given the close spacing to ih Street and, particularly, given potential conflicts with the free right turn movements from the east on ih Street to the north on 2nd Avenue. Through examination of the design for the right turn movements from the east to the north, we have determined that the design speed for these movements is 25.5 miles per hour. We expect that most motorists are traveling at this speed or even a little higher 0 because the movement from the east to the north is downhill, and the turn includes superelevation - "banking" of the roadway. The speeds of right turn movements at this ---~-_.- ---------- ------ Messrs. Kerrigan and Stadler 5 June 9, 1999 0 intersection are much higher than at another right turn island that was brought to our attention in the northwest corner of the Blake Road/2nd Street N. intersection. The radius in this corner is much shorter, and no superelevation is provided. Gi~en the speed of right turn movements from tbe east on 7th Street to the north on 2nd A venue and the limited ability of motorists exiting from the new office development to see these vehicles, we have determined that the current design would not provide adequate safety for the office building driveway, Our proposed solution to resolve this difficulty is shown in Figure 1. Major features of the plan shown in this figure are: 0 Eliminating the existing free right turn movement from the east to the north and requiring these vehicles to operate through the 2nd Avenue S.l7tl1 Street S. intersection. 0 Replacing the existing 125 foot free right turn radius with a 50 foot intersection corner radius, This 50 foot radius will allow an easy right turn movement, but at a much lower speed. 0 Installing signing and striping to designate one westbound lane for left turns and one lane for right turns. 0 Modifying the driveway for the office building from that shown in the site 0 plan to provide a 30 foot width and 15 foot corner radii. These refinements will allow smoother entering and exiting movements and will reduce the likelihood of rear end accidents on northbound 2nd Avenue. As shown in Figure 1, the intersection would continue to function with the existing all- way stop sign control. If the City would desire to expedite the westbound right turn movements, in a manner similar to the existing free right turn arrangement, consideration could be given to eliminating the stop sign for westbound movements. Under this arrangement, westbound left and right turns would have the right-of-way. This is a common and fully acceptable form of traffic control for T intersections. If the City were to implement this change, we would advise installing a panel beneath the stop sign on the south approach saying that traffic from the right does not stop and installing a panel beneath the stop sign on the north approach saying that traffic from the left does not stop. 0 _.,--_._-_...._-~~.._-----_._----------------- c\ en w , 15' RADIUS ::> v.. [. Z DRIVEWAY FOR PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING I IJJ t I ?( 30' 0 ~ Z N (\15' RADIUS I I I I \ I I ! j I " 1T .".. -. ~ r I 7TH STREET S. 0 i c-= -~~:=..:=-=.==:~_. -_.-._._---~ I I I \ I 11:.. 1 7~'8 I I~ I K'J 1 \ 1 ~ \ \ \ NOTE: ALTERNATIVE TRAFFIC CONTROL WOULD INVOLVE APPROXIMATE SCALE ELIMINATING STOP SIGN CONTROL FOR WESTBOUND 7TH ST. S. El=F---"~-1 0 50' ~.._........-...-.........~-"""--------------~""''''<-''--~~~- --~._....'- ~ " -- ..... _ ___ ._. "__,,~'.~_~"""_'_~'_ ~,~ ,~~ ~~_n_. "~._ ~.~- -' '~'--'-'" -- ,..~~- _.~"~ .~~"""'-'--'-'=_'~~~__~~_ .__~o_~~........ ".-..~~~_.~~~~...........a~~~~ ~~..____.~~.~~~_ ~~GU~[E 1 CITY OF HOPKINS TRAFFIC REVIEW 0 lLAV011Jir AN[o) YRAflF;C ~-- -' FOR 2ND AVENUE S. COf\~7rRHOl. ~~~ rr=OIRl W BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2ND M V~d S.JIT~ ST. S. . TRAI1SPORTATI0I1 ENGlllEERSAllD PLAIlI1ERS ~N!rLE!PJSIECiJ~O~ - ,-,_.,---_._..~-_._--.;;;,.~.- ---~--""'-,-------_._-'- ~- ---- . Messrs. Kerrigan and Stadler 7 June 9, 1999 n CONCLUSIONS \~,-,.-' Based on the items addressed in this memorandum, we have established the foHowing three principal conclusions regarding 2nd Avenue S, between 5th and ih Streets S.: a) Though 2nd Avenue S, continues to function as a collector route, the overall traffic use of this roadway has diminished from that anticipated when 2nd Avenue S. was constmcted in the early 1980's, Since 1989, tmcks have not been allowed to use this roadway. The current projected year 2000 volume for this segment of 2nd Avenue S. is 15 to 21 percent lower than the volume. experienced in 1997 before the County Public Works facility was closed. b) Our recommended outcome for the 2nd Avenue S.l5th Street S. intersection is the design as recently constmcted, together with stop sign control only on the south leg of the intersection (for northbound traffic). c) Our recommended outcome for the 2nd Avenue s.nth Street S. intersection and the office building driveway consists of: - Eliminating the free right turn for westbound to northbound movements at the 2nd Avenue S.lih Street S. intersection. 0 - Revising the driveway for the office building to provide a 30 foot width and 15 foot corner radii, If the recommendations in this report are implemented, we are confident that 2nd Avenue S. will effectively fulfill its intended function, without causing adverse impacts for users of the roadway or for nearby residents. 0 ------- ------- ---------~------ --- ---------- -- - ----------- ---- - --- - - - - --~-- -- ~~ ,r~+> E;:l..;{f~/g:fij;;': ?iN 5j343-i;ij";7ir,;;;;61T93i:S47;: ~"" 612-935~i34 , I '-, ,-- MEMORANDUM Date: June 10, 1999 To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Jerre Miller Subject: Conditional Use Permit for Frana & Sons, Inc. FACTS This memorandum addresses the application by Frana & Sons, Inc. for a Conditional Use Permit in connection with the construction of an office building at Second A venue and Seventh Street South. The lot consists of 36,340 feet. Highway 169 adjoins the easterly boundary, Seventh Street the southerly boundary, Second Street the westerly boundary and the Sunguard Building the northerly boundary. CL The property is zoned "Industrial" and the office building proposed meets all applicable zoning standards. A Conditional Use Permit, however, is required. The site contains a depression or hole which the applicant intends to fill in order to present a suitable finished grade plan for the building which would be located on the easterly portion of the site. The proposed resolution outlines eight conditions imposed on the applicant which are not in controversy. ISSUES Three issues have arisen for Council consideration in the imposition of additional conditions: 1. Access to the site is to be located in the northwesterly corner. Concern has arisen over the traveling distance from the free right turn from Seventh Street to Second A venue giving rise to a vehicular safety hazard. 2. In preparation for final grade, an amount of fill will be required giving rise to a concern that the structure may be artificially heightened which could skew the formula for determining maximum height of buildings pursuant to the code. 3. Adjacent home owners expressed a concern that their backyards may be visible to the "-- occupants on the westerly side of the building in spite of the landscaped berms separating the dwellings from the proposed building. c :\file\hopkin s \coun c i I 1 )In 'Equa[ Opportunity 'Emp[oyer . .. . ( . ANALYSTR Conditional uses imposed on an applicant me in1\md~ to address problems which may arise where certain uses, although compatible with the 7OIIi118 rJlluification C1\iAte special problems at the proposed location. Although MiDn. S1at. 462.357 ift\p1icit1y recoeni~ 1he use by municipalities of Special Use Permits, they must be reasonable, have a rational basis to the proposed use and relate to the exercise of the City's responsibility to the public health, safety, genaal welfare of the 81'eIl affected or the comml1nity U a whole. In the event ofa dMiAI, a reviewiDg Court would assess the legal sufficiency oftbe ,teniA) and mrmnine, the factual basis of the reasons supportiDg it In 1his regmU, Deigb.bcntIood opposition alone &Us to meet a legally sufficient reason in 1hat there must be something more COIlCl'ete. Grasping the discretion exercisable by a city to impose conditions or deny an appHcation may be easier to ~&tdnd with the following examples of some :recent Court cases: Rcott C'.mmtY T .l1mher' V. Ci~ nfRhA~ 417 N.W.2d 721 An appHcation for a CUP to u~ate a gravel pit The pltmni~ and 7OIIi118 commi!llSion imposed 12 . . estabHshed lJhmdArds in the City's ~inllllrt! and recommend~ 20 additional conditions. The City staff &ppioved the application but it wu deoied by the commi-sion. The City Council also deoied the application after receiving testimony from experts, appraisers, landowners and obtllini"IJ an environmtlfttal worbltm., The ~eniAI was mostly based on neighborhood opposition. The Court found the City's deniAl of the CUP WIS Bl'bitrary because it was not supported by legally sufficient reasons CODSistiDg principally ofUD8UppOl1ed c1l1imlll oftratlic, dust and lowered JWJUlY values. Hann v. CiW of f'.nnn R.p.dlllL 313 N. W .2d 409 In this case, the City denied an application to rc>-zone property ftom single family residential to multiple resi,tentiaJ. The lower Court gcautW the 1'e-7OIli~ request and on appeal, it wu ft!lllAlld~ for trial. The law of the case t{,itmaled the test for J'e-7'01Iing u for conditioD8l uses by stating that the mmdAl'Ci ofreview is whelhcrtbe deniAl can be supported by a rational basis re1..reA to promoting public health, safety, morals or general welfare. 1ilb v. City ofCUllltAl-167N.W.2d45 An owner applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a gu service station which wu an allowable use in the ZODiDg district. After modifying the plat plan, the city mgjneer approved it Following a hearing on 1he application, 1he plAnning commhulion denied it. The City Council also deni(llt "upon a consideration of the neieJlborhood we1fire and the OIderly development of the City". - The Court found the ,teniAI to be arbitrary in that the requested use was compatible with the basic use al1thorized in the zoning district and did not ~dll"Fl' public heal1h, safety or welfiIre of the 8I'e& or community. I c:\flle\hoptllll 2 i : I .. . . . . - of ; . . R1lPU' Anpil'..A v. ~ity ofT ..ittle ~III'IAdS\ 539 N.W.2d 264 In this case, an app1ication for a CUP was to constrLJct a filliJ1f! station and convenience store at a busy intersection. The City denied the application principally on testimony from surrounding bn!lli~ 0WDm'S who submitted concrete evid(m("~ of heavy 1raftic and congestion at the site. The Court in this case upheld the City's (lP.n1Al relying not only on the concrete evid(!l1c~ of a severe 1raftic problem but upon the City's OrdinA11("~ tbat a CUP would only be g.tantW if the use did not c...c.ale more 1ban a minimum of ccmflict with traOic mowm(!l1t. With respect to these specific issues ol1tlinP.d above, I have the following observations. 1. If the SW~ is fouod to be hazardous within the general principal ofa City's concern for the public's safety and ("..Annnt be addressed or otherwise alleviated by the imposition of a condition reasonable in substance upon the applicant, I believe a dmjAl would be upheld. This must be supported by expert opinion and a finding DO other effective altemative is available. 2. The grading plan of the applicant appears to raise the finiRh(ld grade to a highe.r level than the elevations presently existing on the parcel in its D8tural condition. This in turn may affect the formula CODCeI'DiDg bn11di"l height restrictions, all of which relates to a neighbOIhood concern that the wiDdows on the westerly side of the building may be used to .~ view the Park Valley hom{'!!ll across the street. If the westerly boundary mswreh{'!!ll the Second Avenue elevation 8Dd grading is ~ accordiDgly by JIlAlri"l it a condition, it would be a reasonable and raticmal approach to the issue of height. 3. AdjoiDing neighborhood opposition to the location of the windows on the west wall of the building talls short of the reasooable and raticmal test ontlin(ld above and upon which reviewing Comts rely in determining whether public health, safety and general welfare powers have been imposeclaabit....ay. fllJMMARY Cities have the discretion and authority to issue cond.itiODS upon properties ~ compatible with zoning. However, the imposition of the conditiODS must be: a) reasonable under 1he circumstwnraa; b) have a rational basis; c) be legally sufficient in exereiAine: the City's respoDSl'bility for public health, safety and general wel:fi1re of the community and d) have a factual basis upon which the legal sufliciency relies. ttu ! - c:\tIIe\IIopIdaI\ 3 , . . - .