Loading...
CR 88-206 CUP - GP Bajr INC ~ , I , () . ~ '\- ., 0 " ,. K ' Ootober 26, 1988 Counoil Report: 88-206 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - a.p. BAJR, INC. County Road 13 & 11th Avenue So~th ProPosed Aotion. Staff recommends approval of the following motion: Tba.~ . toa Conditional UDe Permit to construct a gas station. oar lube aa.d rest,~rant 1s ap~roved with conditions. This aotion will allow construction of a gas station, oar lube and restaurant. rbe Commissiosn voted 4-2 to deny the proposal and adopt Resolution 110: 88-88B. OverYiew. R. 1. . Johnson has sold the property on the scutheast corner ot Count1 Road #3 and 11th Avenue Soutb. The proposal Bub.1tted tor a restaurant and strip mall have been wlthd1.'8wn. The new owner G.P. Bajr Inc. bas submitted a proposal to oonstruct a Perkins, a oar -'lube e and a Super bu~rica . This proposal will utilize the City owned property along County Road 13. Issues to Consider. 0 Are the uses allowed in a B-3 District? 0 What 1a the impact on the 8urroundina area? 0 Should the 11th Avanue access be allowed? Supporting Doouments. 0 Location Map 0 Site Plan 0 Resolution ) . Anderson Commu lty Development Analyst . -.-- , . . . Zoning & l1anning Overview. Gene Peterson, owner of the property, appeared before the Commision. Mr. Peterson reviewed tbe development with the Commission. Mr. Peterson stated that all the buildings will be briok. He also stated that if the County will allow an access on County Road 13 and if it wal!! in the right spot, the aocess on 11th Avenue is not needed. Nelson Berg appeared before the Commission. The Hopkins Business Council submitted a letter regarding the development of this site. Hr. Berg reviewed the letter with the Commission. Jim Justus appef.red bafora the Commission. Mr. Justus spoke on the access to his site. MI' . Justus wanted a resolution to the acoess problem. Richard Thompson, representing County Kitohen, appeared before tbe Commission. He stated the proposal will have a financial impaot to his business. He also stated that two family restaurants vill not drav more people into Hopkins. He would like to see the previous proposal. Diok Eastling, representing AIlOOO, appeared before the COIl.ission. . Mr. Eastling vas concerned with the access, traffic on 11 th A venue and attects on his business. The Co..ission had considerable discussion on the proposed develop.eut and it it vas the best possible use tor the property. Mr. Woodrich made a motion to approve tbe development and adopt Resolution 68-88. The motion died tor lack of a seoond. Hr. McG1ennen made a motion to continue fo !' 60 days. Mr. Peterson stated he would withdraw his proposal if it was continued. Mr. McGlennmen then made a motion to deny the development with the Finding of Fact that the de'lelopment is I'lot in the beat interest tor use oft be City owned property. Mr. Maxwell a~~onded the motion. The motion carried on a 4-2 vote. Mr. Andarson an~ Mr. Woodrich voted nay. . " . . . . .. ., '. ., , I . .'. ,. '. . ~ ~.. . ' . , " , . , ,. , . . , - . I .. . CR88-206 Page 2 DETAILED BACKGROUND. B-3 Requirements and Proposed. B-3 Proposed Front yar>d '0' 60' Sj.de yards S 01 40' N 01 24' Rear yard 15 ' 78' Height. 45' one story The following are additional requirements for a gas station: 1 . t.he site shall be construoted [or drainage according to a plan submitted and approve~ by the City Engineer and Fire Hart.lhal; I- 2. the entire site not covered with building or landscaping shall be hard surfaced; - 3. the lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no direct sou~oe visible from the public right-ot- way or adjacent land in the R districts; 4. DO driveway access is less than 40 feet from a street interseottoEt; 5. any other businesses operated on the site shall oonform to this oode; 6 ? the site shall be constructed for parking and traffio according to a plan submitted and approved; 1 . if the station is a self-service each pum~ island snall accommodate six vehicles in atorage lane in addition to those accommodated at island; 8. the front yard shall be landscaped and ten feet in depth, if station is non-conforming a curb shall be constructed to separate the drive from public walk. Site Layout. Toe staft ia recommending that the Perkins is turned to face County Road 13. We feel that the site should be oriented towards County Road 13. ltand3capin~. . The ordinance requires 24 plantings. The landscape plan exceeds these requirements. The plan shows heavy land5caping along the perimeter of tbe site. Sod and ['ock mulch will a:U~o be provided throughout the site. Sidewalk will also be added along 11th Avenue and County Road 13. - e CR88-206 Page 3 Parjl:ing. The site require" 91 parking spaces. The applicant shows 44 parking spaoes on his property. The tilte plan shows that the City property can provide 91 additional spaces. Without the use of the City property, the development as proposed could not be oonstruoted. Drainage. The Direotor of Engineering has reviewed the drai~age plan. It should be Doted that there is water-main ease1l1ent on the north side of the applioants property. Fire. The Fire Marshal bas not reviewed the plans as of the date ot this report. Any approval should be contingent on the Fire Marshals approval. Aooes8. Tbe site plan shows the following three access point.s: 11th Avenue South, County Road #3, and 8th Avenue South. The access froll County Road #3 is not a full aocess; it is a right in/right out only~ If' the 11t.h Avenue aocess is allowed staff ~ould recommend a 30 toot wide - entranoe/exit. Building Exterior. The Super A..rica vill have an exterior of brick. 'X'he tront ot the building which vill faoe County Road #3 will also have large vlndow&. The lube faoility vill have an exterior of split face concrete block. A .1;'5" .strip of' either aluminum or wood will surround the top ot the bu1ld1ng~ The lube will have ~wo drive througb service bays. The staff is recommending that the lube exterior match the Super Amerioa. The exterior of' the Perkins is not detailed on tbe plans, but tbe applioant has stated the exterior will be brick. The building will also have a solarium on the south side. Uae of' City Land. The development as proposed needs the City owned land along County Road #3 to meet the parking requ3.rements. At this point the City is willing to have the land used as an overall development. The staff is reoommending the applicant purohase the land ~est of the County Soad #3 access. It is also recommended that the applicant construct tha roadway to 8th Avenue and the additional parking along County Road #3. - Are the uses allowed In a B-3 district? All the uses proposed are allowed in a B-3 district. The gas station has B additional requirements, all which appear to have been met, - -..-- .-------. - . CR:88-206 Page 4 - What 15 the impact on the surrounding area? There will be no effect on the City property to the east. Aocess will remain the same. All buildings are the required 75 feet away from the water towor. The site plan ahow8 an aCC9SS to the 13 acre site to the south from 8th Avenue. 'i"he roe should be no e ffee t on the 13 aore site because the acce$S will remain. The property to the west will be affected by completion froll this development. Until a decision is made on the deeign or the intersection, access will remain the same for the businesses to the west of the subject site. This development will not cause a substantial impaot on the surrounding area. The site will be heavily landscaped to provide a nice appearance for this corner. The site plan has provided tor additional right-of-way when the corner is upgraded. Sidewalk Trill also be provided on 11th Avenue and County Road #3. . - Should the 11th Avenue access be allowed? The 11th Avenue access creates a problem because of t.he future develo~ment of the 13 acre site to the south. The following are two options with this access: 1 . If access is allowed on the east side of 11th Avenue there will b~ a full median on 11th Avenue. This would only allow the east and west properties a right in/right out. 2. If access is not allowed on the east side, the median oan have a break to allow full acceps to the businesses on the west side of 11th Avenue. The stafr is recommending that the 11th Avenue access is not allowed. We are basing this decision on the following: 1 . That if the 11th Avenue access is constructed, the City would have i:l difficult time removing the access in the future. 2. The City does not know what development will h&ppen with the 13 acre site to the south. 3 . With any development of the 13 acre site a median will be . constructed on 11th Avenue. i 4. The staff believes the site can survive without the access on 11th Avenue. The site will have two other access points, one off County Road 13 and the second on 8th Avenue. A car going north on 11th avenue or east on County Road #3 will be able to enter the site off County Road 13. "";- . . '_ r. . <'.' ,. .j. . . , "' . ,~ . .' ,:.'_,f! ,'.;- ';'<. . CR: 88.-206 Page 5 J.lteI'nativea. 1- Approve the Conditional Use Permit with oonditions. It the CommiBs1on approves tbe Conditional Use Permit the applioant will be able to oonstruct the de7elopment as proposed. 2. Deny the Conditional use Permit. The applioant w111 not be able to oonstruot the development 8S proposed. It the Commission ohooses this alternative they will have to identity Findings of Fact to support their den1al~ 3. Continue tor further information. It the Commis~ion teels that further information is needed~ the item should be continued. . .;'::-; . . . ,. " . . . . '. . , . . , .. . '. . ~ . .. . . " ~ . . . . Twin \\est * . CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Woodside Office Parle 10550 'M'lyzota Boulevard Minnetonko. Minnesota 55343 ( 612) 540..Q234 October 10, 1988 Mayo~ Donald Hilbert City Council Members City of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkinst MN 55343 Re: Hopkins Business Council Dear Mayor Milbert and City Council Members: In response to the City Council's request for input from the business community regarding the proposed development on County Road f3 and 11th Avenue, the Hopkins Business Council arranged an . open meeting on September 16. Thi.s lIleeting was attended by approximately. twenty local business persons. Steve Mielke reviewed the recent history of the development and presented a proposal by Mr. Eugene Pederson. Mr. Pederson also made COlUllents and answered questions. The discussion focused on the type of development preferred by the business community without looking at the details of any of the various possibilities. The Business Council alsQ met with Steve Kotvis to review aspects of the market study related to this development. The Business Council chose not to take 8. position ip favor or against any specific proposal, but rather to focus on broa.d policy issues which we believe the City should consider in making a decision. Based upon these discussions, we would encourage the City Council to consider the following concerns in your deliberations: 1- Private developers should be encouraged to develop property consistent with permissible zoning. It is recognized that individual business persons may have special interests regarding specific proposed uses and while these should be considered, a balanced viewpoint on behalf of the community IS required. . [;J "C:I;.lo.1'll:D ~~.~:~:.~ V!NG CRYSTAL. GOLDEN VALLEY, HOPKINS. MEDICINE lAKE. MINNETONKA. NEW HOPE, PLYMOUTH AND ST.lOUIS PARK --- -. - . . Mayor Donald Hilbert City Council Members City of Hopkins Page 2 of 2 October 10. 1988 2, When public land or funds are needed for a project, the City has a responsibility to ensure that it is in the best interest of t.he community. The future vitality of downtown Hopkins requires concentrated efforts to encourage development to occur in or very near the central core area of downtown, and to encourage uses that will attract new customers rather than competing for existing customers. The City must consider whether this project meets either of these goals. 3. The viability of successful, long-time businesses West of 11th Avenue should not be jeopardized by limiting access to their properties through redesign of 11th Avenue~ Therefore, access for any project on this site should be limited to County Road 3 and/or an expanded intersection at 8th Avenue. Use of the City owned 1 arid for this purpose would be appropriate. The intersection at 8th Avenue should also be designed to minimizt'l traffic problems when the . larger R.L. Johnson parcel is developed in the future. . 4. The experiences regarding this project over recent months supports tha need for clear development goals and plans regarding major developments. The business coamunity is available to work with the Council and staff in pursuit of a plan that will identify the goals and encourage developers to undertake projects in our community. BUSINESS COUNCIL NWB/lb . . . , , . I: , . . . . ' " . . ""f. r . 'r . " .: " > . .. ,. . .' . . ' ,.' . "': -', " . ", . . . CEN"rER DEVELOl?:bJ.J:ENT CORPOR.A.TJ:~ ~ Zvz:n..;TNESOTA. June 27, 1988 The Honorable Mayor Donald Hilbert City Council Members Zoning and Planning Commission Members Hopkins City Hall 1010 First-Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Re: Proposed R. L. Johnson Investments Development at. the Southeast Corner of County Road #3 and llt h Avenue South De~r Hayor Hilbert, Council Members and Commissioners: . On June 23rcS a group of business persons including the City' Center Development Corporation and the Hopkins Task Force considered the R. L. Johnson proposal. Presentations were made by representatives of the developer and Steven Mielke on behalf of the City. Written reports were also presented on behalf of Laventhol & Horwath regarding the impact on the market analysis and by Benshoof &. Asaociates, I nc. , regarding traffic consi.derations. The motion adopted by the group contained three points: 1- The group does not. object to t.he proposed development concept. COMMENTS: The proposal was generally considered to contribute to the critical m~ss described in the market analysis. Suggestions in the L. &. H. lelter dated June 20f 1988 to Itensure that the development is beneficial to downtown businesses" were rejected as unrealistic; however, the developer should be asked to propose and incorporate ideas on identifying the design and name with the downtown business area. 2 . The City should not negotiate, change zoning 0!" ITlake City owned pr'operty available for the proposal until the . development of the entire property under control of R. L. Johnson IS d~termined through a development agreement or PUD. VDLUN"T..A..:R:'Y PROGR.ES"S 'J:"C)"VV.A.FU.:>s ~:rrY" DE~ Page 2 of 2 June 27, 1988 COMMENTS: The City ::;hould follow a pla.n rather tha,n react to each step presented by the de vel ope r . The entire Bite is critical in establishing an employment base necessary for a strong retail/service business community. The C i t)-' should not be reluctant to place conditions on the sale of its strip or land to get the best project on bot.h this site and the adjacent t.hirteen acre site. On the other hand, the developer nas a right to develope the land which it fully controls if no City land or concessions are required. 3. Any action by the City must include a determination of the traffic needs and concerns for the entire area both West and Eas t 0 f 1 P h Avenue South. COMMENTS: The concerns of the overall City, the downtown business community" the existing businesses ~n the immediate areat and the proposed businesses m.ust all be ",eighed. The City should begin working with the existing businesses which will be affected by the upgrading of Iph Avenue and the i.ntersection. The business community appreciat.es this opportunity to participate in the development process. The cooperation and input of all parties can be beneficial to overall development goals and accomplishments. Nelson W. Berg CeDe Acting President Hopkins Task Force ChaiT NWB/lb . ~ ~ - . , . . CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 88-43 RESOL~rION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP88-B WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit CUP88-8 has been made by R. L. Johnson Investments to construct a strip mall wi tb a restaurant and six commercial/business spaces at the southea,st corner of County Road '3 and 11th Avenue South be approved with Conditions. l WHEREAS , the procedura.l history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for conditional Use Permit CUP88-8 was filed with the City of Hopkins on May 6, 1988. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on May 31, 1988. 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public hearing on Hay 31, 1988; all persons present at the hearing were I given an opportunity to be heard. . 4. That the written comments and analysis of the City statt and the Plarnling Commission were considered. that the Hopkins Ci~y NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to Conditional Use Permit COPS8-a: 1. That the proposed building meets the requirements tor a B-3 district. 2. That the proposed uses are permitted in a B-3 district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for Conditional Use Permit CUP88-a is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That temporary parking is allowed on the site for the ramp construction workers. 2. That the City and the applicant arrange for the transfer of property. 3. That the RAW is found acceptable. 4. That the landscaping is increased with a plan acceptable to the staff. 5. That an adequate roadway to 8th is constructed. 6. That the access on 11th Avenue will be determined when the design of the intersection is finalized. 7. That a development agreement is signed between R.L.Johnson and the city. Adopted this 5 day of July, 1988. Donald J. MIlbert, Mayor I i I I ---~