Loading...
Memo CUP - RL Johnson - , . . MEMORANDUM DA'l'E: July 14, 1988 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: steven C. Mielke, Community Development Director SUBJECT: R. L. Johnson Conditional Use Permit Application .. At the JUly 5, 1988 regular meeting of the Council, action was taken to continue the R. L. Johnson Conditional Use Pemi t request until such time as further information was available regarding the future traffic implications of 11th Avenue South. Although staff is diligently working with our consultants on this issue, we will not be prepared for the July 19, 1988 meeting. It is anticipated that staff would be prepared to respond to this issue at the August 2 regular meetinq. In addition, the ataff has hired Bryan R. Johnson of e Dovalis, Johnson, and Ruqqieri~ Hr. Johnson will blit assistinq the staff in reviewing some of the architectural landsc&pinq and design concerns which have been expressed by the City Council and staff. Mr. Johnson is expected to meet with representatives of R. L. Johnson between now and August 2 and be prepared to recommend any changes to the site plan and arcbitectural daaiqn which he feels would be in the City's best interest. Staff is recommending that this i tent be continued to the August 2 , 1988 regular meeting. R. L. Johnson Companies have been notified of the staff's recommendation. SCM: srf . --.-... - -- --'- -- --- ;... .':"J" . " (j - . June 29, 1908 ... . '!> Council Report: 88-132 o " 0( \ .. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - R.L. JOHNSON 11th Avenue South & County Road #3 Proposed Action~ staff recommends the following motion: That the re~~est bv R.L.Johnson to Qonst~ct a reta~l strip cente~s approved by Resolution No: 88- 43. Approval of this motion will allow the applicant to construct the proposed retail strip center. Overview. R.L. Johnson is proposing to construct an 18,800 sq. ft. retail strip center on the southeast corner of County Road 13 and 11th Avenue South. This development 'will be for a restaurant with a seating'< capacity of 150 and small retail stores and/or professional offices. The restaurant will be applying for a liquor license. The site presently zoned B-3. The applicant wants to start construction July '1 and open in November. Dave Constable, representing R.L. Johnson, appeared hafore Commission. He stated that the project has remained the same. It noted that the co_ission had received reports from .Laventhol ... Horwath reqardinq the Harket Analysis and Hitch Wonson . of Benshoof' Associates regarding the traffic issues. ceDe also reviewed proj act and gave CODmlents on the proj ect. There was very little discussion on the project. staff is also recommendinq that the following condition be added: That a development agreement is siqned between R. L. Johnson and the city. Tbe Commission unanimo~sly approved Resolution 88-43 to allow construction of a 18,80~strip mall and restaurant. I~sues to Consider. o What is the im.pact on the surrounding area? o How does this proposal affect future transportation issues? . SUDportinq Documents. o Location Map C Planning Report 0 Laventhol & Horwath Rpt o Site Plan 0 Benshoof Memo 0 Resolution . Anderson - Commun ty Development Analyst - , J , . CR88-132 Page 2 site Proposal. The following is a list of the ordinance requirements and the proposed project: B-3 Proposed Front Yard l' Approx. 56' -,~ Rear Yard 15' 60' Side Yard N 10' N 110' S 0' S 33' Height 45' 1 story. Parking * 114 15 Q;:P * This requirement is based on the building being a restaurant with a seating capacity of 150 and the rest of the building being 100% office at a ratio of 1 space to 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area. SicmaCle. The applicant is proposing a sign at the corner of 11th Avenue South , .. County Road '3. In addition to this sign, each tenant will have a sign on the building. The siqnage will be similar to the Auto Mall siqnaqe. E~eriot' . The exterior will consist of brick and a painted metal exterior. The color of the metal is not decided as of yet. The brick is proposed to be gray. Land Exchanqes. This project will involve the exchange and sale of land. The intersection at 11th Avenue and County Road 3 will be widened in the near future. The land along 11th Avenue South is owned by the applicant, but needed for the widening of 11th Avenue. The land along County Road , 3 is owned by the City, but needed for parking in this project. The City is proposing to exchange the land along 11th Avenue for land along County Road #3 and then sell additional land to the applicant along County Road 113. The site plan reflects the new lot lines. Traffic Flow-L There will be two egress/ingress points, one from 11th Avenue and a second from County Road #3. The access from County Road *3 will be at the approximate area of 8th Avenue. The egress/ingress on 11th Avenue will be aligned with an egress/ingress an the west side of 11th ; ", , ' . ,., . .. , ., -""". " . ~ ~" f. , , . . . ,. . CR88-132 Page 3 Avenue. Access to the City water tower will be from County Road #3. The access point from 8th Avenue will have to be upgraded. We will be ~lOrking the applicant to design a road which will serve both the City's and the applicants needs. Landscapinq. The applicant has submitted a landscape plan. The site is required to have 33 trees; the plan shows 15 trees. The applicant has stated that they will try to add a few more trees within the parkinq lot" However, in order to meet the landscape requirements, parking spaces would have to be used. The applicant does have extra parking but the staff feels that the parking is needed rather than the landscaping. The plan shows additional landscaping that does not count for the ordinance requirements. Sidewalk will be constructed along 11th Avenue and County Road 3. Drainaae. The Director of Enqineerinq has reviewed the plans and found them . acceptable The applicant is doing a EAW. This EAW has been started. It should be noted there are several easements which are on the site. ~. The Fire Marshall has reviewed the plans and recommended that another fire hydrant be added to the east end of the site. Temporarv Parking. Part of the City owned land will be used as parking during the construction of the parking ramp. Approximately 30 spaces will be needed. This area will be on the east side of the site and Should not create a problemo ceDe. ceDe has the plans to the proposed development. As of the date of this report they had not reviewed them. , ANALYSJ;~. - How does this proposal affect future transporation? One of the. staff's concerns with this site is the impact on the intersection. There will be a traffic study done by Benshoof in the very near future and this should tell us the timing of when to begin improvements. We know improvements will have to be made at the . intersection we just do not know the timing. The Capital Improvements Program has budgeted money for the upgrading of the intersection. - ------~---~~~~~--~~.._--- . CRS8-132 Page 4 The access road to the development from 8th Avenue will have to be upgraded also. This access road to the development will be coordinated the Park and Ride. This access point in the future will also serve the development to the south, what ever that maybe. The staff will be working with the applicant to determine the best way to utilize this area both for the propo~ed development and the future development to the south. For this development the roadway will be 25 feet in width, but the development of the 13 acre site to to south will dictate the need for a improved road. One of the proposed routes for the LRT is on 9th Avenue. This route will be to the east of the proposed developement and should not have an impact on this project. - What is the impact on the surrounding area? The Bite plan provides access to the 13 acre site to the south. The exact design of the roadway into the site has not been determined as of yet, but we know th~t an improved road will be needed. . The Public Works has reviewed the plan and found it acceptable. There will be access to the water tower and the proposed building is the required 75 feet away from the water tower. The directional siqn on the corner of County Road 3 and 11th Avenue will remain until the improvements are made to the intersection. The staff finds the aestetics acceptable. Alternatives. 1. Approve the Conditional Use Permit to construct the strip center with conditions. If the Commission approves the Conditional Use Permit the applicant will be able to construct the proposed development. 2. Deny the Conditional Use Permit. The applicant will not be able to construct the strip center as proposed. If the Commission chooses this alternative they will have to identify Findings of Fact to support their denial. 3. continue for further information. If the Commission feels that further information is needed, the item should be continued. -~-- --~- MEMORANDUM DATE: June 20, 1988 TO: Zoning and Planning commission FROM: ~ancy s. Anderson SUBJECT: R. L. Johnson Development At the last Zoning and Planning meeting the Commission continued the R. L. Johnson proposal in order to receive more information on the following two issues:: - traffic concerns at County Road 13 & 11th Avenue South - information on the CaD Market Analysis . Since that meeting, staff has met with steve Kotvis of ..... Laventhol & Horwath regarding the Market Analysis and Mitch :.. Wonson of Benshoof & Associates reqarding the traffic issues~ MARKET ANALYSIS. Mr. Kotvis has reviewed the proposed development and prepared comments. The comments are enclosed for your review. There are both positive and negative impacts with this development, hut the positives outweigh the negative impacts. He stated that this development can benefit the City and should be supported by the City. He also stated that efforts should be made to lil1k the downtown to this new development so this development is beneficial to the downtown businesses. Some of this can be done by coordinating events, sales, etc. or by having the new development become members of the downtown business group. TRAFFIC ISSUES. Mitch Wonson of Benshoof & Associates did a preliminal::Y traffic study of the intersection at County Road '3 & 11th Avenue. Enclosed for your review is Mr. Wonson's report. He made traffic forecasts with the following assumptions: . - no development as of November 1988 - 18,800 sq. ft. building as of November 1988 - 8000 restaurants as of November 1988 ... .Ill - . R.L.Johnson memo June 20, 1988 Page 2 Mr. Wonson conel uded that t.he intersection will have to be improved irregardless of this development, but the timing of the improvements to the intersection speeds up with the development impacts on the intersection. Our immediate concern is the impact of the 18,800 square foot development since that is the proposal before the COllUl1ission. Mr. Wonson concluded with this development that the intersection does not have to be upgraded before the development opens, but should be done seon after. The design of the intersection presents a problem because of the 11th Avenue South access. Specifically the left turn into the R. L. John's on site has the potential to back-up into the intersection. After the final design is completed for the intersection, . there are four alternatives that could be recommended for the left turn. These four alternatives are: - a full median on 11th Avenue, right turn only for both sides - median with full access to the west side of 11th Avenue and right only for the east side - median with full access for both sides - no access from the R.L. Johnson site to 11th Avenue With the knowledge that one of the four alternatives may be constructed the Commission can do the following: - approve the project without the final design of the 11th Avenue access - do not approve the project until there is a final design for the up-grading of the intersectlon Staff concurs with the recommendation of Mr. Wonson that approval of the project be granted without the final design of the 11th Avenue access. Under this scenario the final design will b.a worked out along with construction of the project. If this were to occur the project could begin construc\:ion this summer. The applicant is also aware that the final design might recommend no access from 11th Avenue. ~ - ----. .,.1'. . R.L.Johnson Memo June 20r 1988 Page 3 If the Commission concurs with this recommendation, an additional condition should be added, that the access on 11th Avenue will be deterxnined when the design of the intersection is finalized. .......,. . . .",:. T ...'"~ ~..~...~ ....... ... -'_:.~- ~~'. ," .. .. .... "". t. . ... .~. ~~!, l 'f ~ . .;-~ , . ." ,.1 ~ lit? BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, H\JC. TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE CONSULTANTS 7901 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE, SUITE 1191 EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55J44 ((612) 944-7590 ~ ...... II" ,June 17. 1988 RefER TO FILE; 86-34-45 H E H 0 RAN 0 U H TO: Nancy Anderson. CIty of Hopkfns FROM~ Mitch Won son .:;;''-'p,c;v RE: TraFFfc Analysts of Impacts of R.L. Johnson ShoppIng Center on 11th Avenue South PURPOSE AND SUMMARY The purpose of this memorandum ts to present the fIndIngs of . our analysis concerning the tra~flc Impacts o~ the proposed R.L. ~ohnson ShoppIng Center located in the southeast quadrant of County Road 3 and 11th Ave. South"! Specifically, our analysis addressed two questIons: 1) How does the proposal aFFect the timing of previously identifIed improvements to the C.R. 3/11th Ave. South intersect!on1 2} What are the potential impacts of the development at the proposed site access on 11th Ave. South? The prfncepa1 conclusIons of the analysis are: . With the current proposal. the Intersectfon of 11th Ave. South and C.R. 3 will need to be upgraded by 1989. These ! mprovement s will be required at least by 1991 regardless of this proposal. The currently proposed Full movement access to 11th -. . Ave. South has the potentfal Tor Significant negative Impacts. The location and type of access (f'u 1 I movement versus right tn/right out only) should be evaluated within the context of the overall desIgn of the 1 !th Ave. improvements. It "~y be necessary to restrIct access For this proposal tOirlght fn/rfght out movements only. ,.. . . Ms. Nancy Anderson -2- June 17. 1988 BACKGROUND The current proposal contaIns L8,800 sq. ft. of development conSisting of a 6.000 sq. ft. r'estaurant wIth 1 ! quor and 12.600 sq. Ft. of retal I/servlce uses. Access is prOPosed via full movement access poInts both at 11th Ave. South and at the 8th Ave./e.R. 3 Intersectfon via a "Frontage road~. For purposes of comparison. an alternatIve development scenarIo was also analyzedo This scenarfo consisted of an 8.000 sq. ft. restaurant wfth access only to I J th Ave. South and wou 1 d enta I r development solely on the parcel currently owned by R.L. Johnson. TraFFfc Forecasts Several p.m. peak hour traffIc Forecasts for the Intersection of C.R. 3/11th Ave. South ~ere prepared IncludIng; . No build forecasts for 1988 through 1992 whIch >. adjusted trafFIc counts prepared In November~ 1987 by a Yearly growth factor and assumed no development on .' this site or any other sfgnlflcant development whIch would afFect traffic volumes. . 1988 ForecBsts wIth full occupancy of the current 18.800 sq. Ft. propOse 1 . The development Forecasts were prepared based UpOn trIp generation rates publIshed by the Instftute of Transportation Engineers. trIp dlstrfbutlon IdentIFied In our prevIous studIes. and the proposed access points. The Forecasts accounted for trips Intercepted from exfstfng traFffc by the retall/servfce component~ The ~rcpOsed GEveioPment 1s expected to generate approxImately 330 p.m. peak hour trIps (In and out). . 1988 For'ecasts with constructfon of an 8.000 sq. ft. restaurant. usIng Identical traFFIc forecastIng methodology. Thfs development Is expected to generate approxImately 160 p.m. peak hour trips ( f n and out). FIgure 1 presents the forecasts for the three alternatIve 1988 scenarIos. , . ~- ,~ --.---... ,- ~ . 0 If'l ~2<f) . _ ('oJ \0 Q) ....... ....... ::. Q)rT')....... ~ (Tl_lI'l _N'-D J::: ......." ~ (Or-\/) - ~~\D - J tL " C.R. 3 ~- 481 48/ 48 ~- 907/895/907 174/174/174 ~ ~ 201/239/238 519/512/519 ----)0 148/205/180 ~ ~ir :. ,.., Ul- ..., \0..., N NN , ,....... - (:) U") ,... ,.......,. N NN ...... ............. t- c> C't'l N\t)N N NN . Nov. 1988 no sIte development ~ Nov. 1988 with AN 18,800 sq. ft. shapplng center No Scale I Nov. 1988 with . xx/xx/xx 8.000 sq. ft. restaurant C lTr OF HOP!< I NS TRAFFIC STUDY figure 1 FOR , PH PEAK HOUR fORECASTS AT R.L. JOHNSON SHOPPING CENTER 11TH AVE. SO. AND C.R. 3 ENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES. INC. T"'ION ANO lAND USE CONSt./lT^NT5 _,_J, . . t1s. Nancy Anderson -3- June 17. 1988 ANALYSIS 1.l.iJ:L A ve . South-LC. R. 3 I ntersect Ion The traFFic operations at the intersection under the various scenarios were analyzed in terms of levels of service and delay usIng procedures published In the HIghway Capacity Hanual 1985. The key Fi~drngs of this analySfS Include: . Under the no build scenarIo, the Intersectfon would need to be upgraded by 1991 In order to avoid signiFicant delays, partfcularly on the south approach (northbound movements). These conceptual improvements shown on Figure 2 were previously developed by our Firm. It should be reIterated that this scenarto of improvements by 1991 assumes no signiFicant development afFecting traFfic volumes at the Intersection. For example. when the proposed R.L. Johnson oFFice development occurs south of the current sfte. the fdentif'ed improvements will be requIred .. fmmediately. . WIth constructIon of the current 18.800 Sq. ft. prOPOsa I . the IntersectIon upgradIng wIll be requIred upon Full OCcupancy of the development. Thes IndIcates that whIle ft Is not fmperatlve that the IntersectIon be fmproved prIor to constructfon of the proposa t . ft Is ImperatIve that the Cfty commence the deSign/constructIon process for the Improvements to ensure theIr avaflabflfty by the earlIest pOssible date In 1989. . With the volumes forecasted under the 8.000 sq. ft. restaurant scenario, the fntersectlon Improvements would not be required untIl approximately 1990. As such. the need to upgrade the IntersectIon by 1989 Is not as Imperative as wIth the current proposal. Further, the Impacts of a restaurant prOpOsal could be somewhat mftlgated dependent upon the size, type. and access opportunItIes assocIated wfth en actual restaurant proposal. Impacts at 11 th Ave. South Access . The forecasts prepared to determIne the improvements to the IntersectIon and to 11th Ave. South as shown on Ffgure 2 Included a development with much lower p.m. peak trIp '. generation on this site than fs currentlY prOpOsed. GIven the sIze and type of development currently proposed. the 11th Ave. South access has the pOtential ror sIgnIfIcant negative Impacts on trafFic flow on 11th Ave. South These Impacts result prIncIpally from the left turns into the sIte From southbound t I th Ave. As such, the locatfon and type of -:.': ' , ". ~ .. .~~ " . '. , '1.,110 '. .~- __JIL - - J . . . 0 IJ) . ~ > -<( .c. +J - - 4J ~ ~ C.R. 3 --<J-- ~ - ~ .. ~ --A ~ -- ---\> ---t> ~~ r ~~r~bn 1 A 0 N 50. Benshoof & Assocfates, Inc. L ...J December 1981 Appro....t. Scale e [TY OF HOPf< INS TRAFFIC STUDY Ff gure 2 FOR . R.l. JOHNSON CONCEPTUAL IMPROVEMENTS SHOPPiNG CENTER TO C.R. 3/11TH AVE. so. BENSHOOF & ASSOCIATES, INC. INTERSECTION 'I ~AT1OH AND LAND USE CONSUlTANTS. w-.~- . . Ms. Nancy Anderson -4.- June 17. 1988 the access (fu II movement versus right tn/right out) on 11th Ave. South needs to be reviewed w1thfn the context of the ultfmate desIgn and traFfic needs of 11th Ave. South This revIew. which can be done In conjunction with the desfgn of the roadway Improvements needs to analyze the followIng opportunitIes: . Are additIonal Improvements, such as e leFt turn lane at the currently proposed access, Fea5lble, thus ensurIng safe effective trafFfc Flow with the currently proposed access? . Are alternatIve locatIons Farther south on the sfte avaIlable to provIde both efFective traFfIc flow and Full movement access1 . In order to preserve eFfectIve traFFIc Flow on 11th Ave. South, wi 11 an uninterrupted medIan be required between the C.R. 3 Intersection and the railroad tracks thereby limItIng access For thIs site to r1ght In/right out only? . . WhIle an unlikely scenarIo, wIll all access to this site From 11th Ave. need to be elIminated In order to preserve eFfective traFffc Flow? Based upon the current analysis, It Is recommended that the location and type of access to 11th Ave. South, For the shopping center proposal not be approved at this time, but rather be determined In conjunction with the des_go of the t Ith Ave. South Improvements. The access For this proposal may need to be restricted to right In/right out only. .. ., . - " . " .. - I" Tl Laventhol & Honvath 100 Washington Square J.P.l. Minneapolis. Minn. 55401 . Certlf.oed Public Accoum.."I~ (612) 332-5500 June 20, 1988 Mr. Steven Mielke" Community Development Director city of Hopkins 1010 First Street South Hopkins, MN 55343 Dear Mr. Mielke: At your request we have pr epared this letter that outl ines our reactions to the proposed R. L. Johnson development at the southeast intersection of County Highway 3/Excels ior Ave nile and 12th Avenue in Hopkins. :,. SITUA'rION R. L. Johnson Company proposes to develop a retail center totaling 18,800 square feet. It would include an Applebee's restaurant approximately 6,200 square feet in size, as well as additional miscellaneous retail. The City is considering action on the pro- posed project for several reasons. One, it must approve a liquor license required for the Applebee's restaurant. Two, the City owns the parcel of land required fo r parking spaces at the site. The City is concerned about the impact of the proposed project on downtown Mainstreet merchants. At issue is, will the proposed development be an asset or a liability to Hopkins Mainstreet busi- nesses and the future vitality of the downtown area. Laventhol' Horwath has been asked by the City to review the proposed development and make comments in light of their knowledge of the downtown area, and the commercial market research study recently conducted by the firm. POTENTIAL IMPACT The {Xltential impacts of the proposed developmEnt are likely to be both posit ive and negat ive. Each of these impacts need to be weighed . against one another to determine the net impact of the proposed development. A member of Horwath & Horwath lncemational wid-. affiliated offices worldwide. I l L J """IJ ~ l<1r. Steven M.ielke . June /. 0 , 1988 Page Two Positiv~ Impacts. The pr oposed development 1S likely to have a Dumber- of positive impacts on the City as well as the do wn town area. First. the City's endorsing or supporting the development at this site will help the City build a more positive relationship with the business community regarding new development. For example, a numbe r of retailers in surrounding commercial areas indicated dur iog the ma rke t research study that the City was diff icult to deal with, and created a number of loopholes which kept them from locating in the downtown area. The City, by supporting this devel- opment, may work to bridge the ties between the public and private secto rs.. ~'.:~ New developments a:1 jacent to the dO'illn town area are likely to . help create the necessary critical mass and retail image the City of Hopkins currently lacks. The effect of this commercial development near the downtown area should benefit downtown businesses and the City of Hopkins at large. While the market study recommended that new development be centered around the four-block area of downtown Hopkins, these recommendations were not intend~ to discourage growth that occurs surrounding the "bull f S eye" of the target area. Much . development has and may continue to occur surrounding Hopkins. The closer this development oce urs to the downtown area, the qreater potential there is for downtown businesses to benefit. The restaurant at the proposed development is very consistent with the establishment types fo und to have high development p:>tential for the Bopkins trade area, and thus will be beneficial to the City of Hopki os and the trade area. It is important to note that if the development does not occur in the proposed area ad jacent to the downtown r it is likely to occur at anothe r sit.e in the Hopkins trade area that is not as close to downtown. The proposed development is likely to benefit the downtown area be- cause it will increase the number of options fOl' Shopping and att r act additional consumer dollars from outside of the immediate area.. This in effect will help to reduce the existing amount of leakage of customer dollars to areas outside the trade area and strengthen the draw of Hopkins for customers outside the immediate trade area.. The proposed development is not expected to draw a significant share of business from existing Mainstreet establish- ments. Importantly, new retailers in town can add to the membership of business associations both in te ems of n umbe rs and with regards to new ideas and fresh pe rspectives on effo rts to promote business. . Negative Impacts: A potential negative impact of the proposed devel- opment is that it will draw existing businesses operating on Main- st reet to the proposed develop.:nent. The impact of a net shifting or loss of establishments is undes ii:."ed fo r obvious reaso ns. Boweve r , the degree of movement from Mainstreet to the proposed development is expected. to be minimal. Rental rates in the new development are expected to be too high to be competitive for many of the Mainstreet establishments. . t.lr. Steven ~iielke June 20, 198R Page Three J)ev~lopm~nt outside of the core r-1ainstreet area may potentially dilute the image and cohesiveness of the downtown. 'i'he proposed developm~nt is located south oE Highway 3/Excels io r Avenue, which acts as a physical and psychological barrier to the south. 'fhe impacts, however, are considf::'red minimal because Highway 3 is largely a commuter thoroughfare carrying local traffic. To the ex- tent that Highway 3 is carrying out-of-town traffic to the estab- lishments at the new development, tile impacts of the new development will be positive in that it will be attracting or drawing additional customers from outside the trade area. Also, the auto-oriented behav io rs of Hopkins I shoppe rs minimize the effect of Highway 3 acting as a north/south barrier that VwUlJ.ld prohibit shoppers from making related trips downtown. RECO~lMENDATIONS --.--------- This evaluation indicates that the benefits of the proposed develop- ment outweigh the negative impacts for the City of Hopkins. The . development should be suppa rted by the City through issuance of a liquor license and sales agreement for the adjacent City-owned property~ The development will have a (X)sitive impac::t to the extent that it is identified with the Mainstreet are~ and downtown Bopkins* Efforts should be made to link. the new development to downtown and, therefore, expand or broaden the retail base and not create an independent and separate entity from the downtown area. The City may want to consider a number of contingencies in the contract wi th the developer to ensure that the development is b~neficial to downtown businesses. These contingencies may address issues related to organization, cooperation, coordination and de- sign. Several possibilities are suggested below. Organization The City may require that the management and/or tenants of the new development become members of downto\\'n business organization and that they be active participants in activities related to the management of Bopkins Mainstreet. ~oop-eration . The City may see.1t;: assurances from the developer that they will not -raidM downtown EJopkins for tellants. i-1 r. S t even M i elk e . June 20, 1988 Page Four Coordination -----.........-. -~---- - -,~_... ~ 'rhe City may require that th€ new development managelllent and/or tenants pa.rt ici pate in coo rdinated events including sales promo- t ions, ad ve rtis lng ~ st;)ec ial events, hOUl'S of operation and other activities related to linking the new development with the downtown to create a un ified and cohesive image. Design The City may requi re that the new developrnent be designed to rein- force the Ma~nstreet image. This may include architectu~al layout, signage, and naming the center in such a way that it identifies closely with Mainstreet. CONCLUSION . A situation tnat benefits both developer and City is possible , through cooperative efforts. T'he City should supp?rt the d~velo~ .... . ment of the new center and encourage a cooperat1.ve relat~onsh1.p between City and developer. Contingencies proposed by the City should be presented in a positive nature and in the context of supporting its existing business community. They should be made to link the proposed center to Hopkins Mainstreet's existing businesses and discouraqe the concept of the development creating its own self-sustaini ng and independent node of shopping activ ity. The City's cooperative and positive attitudes towards this development will help assure that the developer, management and tenants of the center will too be interested in coordinating the development to create a win-win situation for the new development and the community at large. We are willing to discuss this letter with you at your convenience. Kotvisr Associate Ad~isory Services SK/pjp ...- - -"" -~----- . CENTER DEVELOPl.\4ENT CORPORATION HOPH:rNS JM:INNESCYrA .. June 27\ 1988 The Honorable Mayor Donald Hilbert City Council Members Zoning and Planning Commission Members Hopkins City Hall 1010 First'Street South Hopkins, HN 55343 Re: Proposed R. L. Johnson Investments Development at. the Southeast Corner of County Road #3 and 11th Avenue South Dear Mayor Milbert. Council Members and Commissioners: . On June 23rd 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 or the City. Written reports were also presented on behalf of Laventhol & Horwath regardin~ the impact on the market analysis and by Benshoof &; Associates, ! nc. . regarding traffic considerations. The motion adopted by the group contained three points: 1 . The group does not object to the proposed development concept. COMMENTS: The proposal was genera11y considered to contribute to the critical mass described in the market analysis. Suggestions in the L. &:. H. letter dated June 20. 1988 . to "ensure that the development is beneficial to downtown businesses" were rejected as unrealistic; however, the developer should be t;; 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 or me.ke City owned property available for the proposal until the . development of the entire property under control of R. L. Johnson is determined through a development agreement or PUD. VO~ PR..OG:P~ "J:'OVV'.A...RI:::la ~ ~r - - i ... DIW__ _ ~ . Page 2 of 2 June 27, 1988 COMMENTS: The City should follow a plan rather than react to each step presented by the developer. The entire site is critical in establishing an employment base necessary for a strong retail/service business community. The City should not be reluctant to place conditions on the sale of its strip of land to get the best project on both this site and the adjacent thirteen acre site. On the other hand, the developer has a right to develope the land which it fully controis 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 East of 11th Avenue South. COMMENTS: The concerns of the overall City, the downtown business cOl1Ullunity, the ex.isting businesses in the immediate area, .' and the proposed businesses must all be weighed. The City . should begin working with the existing businesses which will be affected by the upgrading of 11th Avenue and the intersection. The business comm~nity appreciates this opportunity t~ participate in the development process. The cooperation and input of all parties can be beneficial to overall development goals and accomplishments. Sincerely, ~ ~?u/~~ Nelson W. Berg V CeDe Acting President Hopkins Task Force Chair NWB/lb , . -...... -~ 11 - ~ . CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO~ 88-43 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AliD APPROVING APPLICATION FOR CONDITTONAL USE PERMIT CUP88-a WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit CUP88-B has been made by R. L. Johnson Investments to construct a strip mall with a restaurant and six COllUllercial/business spaces at the southeast corner of County Road 13 and 11th Avenue South be approved with Conditions. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Conditional Use Permit CUPS8-8 Was filed with the City of Hopkins on Hay 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 May 31, 1988~ 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 1'1' RESOLVED, that the Hopkins City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to Conditional Use Permit COP8S-8: 1. That the proposed building meets the requirements for a B-3 district. 2. That the propos.ed uses are permitted in a B-3 district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for Conditional Use Permit CUP8S-S 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 EAW 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 he determined when the design of the intersection is finalized. 7. That a development agreement is signed between R.L.Johnson ~nd the City. Adopted this 5 day of July, 1988. Donald J. Hilbert, Mayor , .., "" . C I T y 0 F H 0 P K I N S MEMO Date: July 14, 1988 To: Nancy Anderson From: Jerre Miller Re: Red Owl Stores Pursuant to the request of the Council, I have examined the circumstances surrounding the 1977 vacation .of Adams Avenue. The purpose of my examination was to determine whether a reason existed for the City to have intentional~y withheld or omitted a six inch strip from the vac~tion proceeding. .0." . In addition to looking over the 1977 Minutes and Resolution ... pertaining to the vacation, I have scrutinized the map showing the ~ocation of the omission. I can find no municipal objective or purpose from my examination or expressly referred to in any of the documents that would explain the retention by the City of...fhis s:lx inch strip other than to conclude it was an error in the legal description. The strip does not prohibit access to anything but a railway right of way and that is not a complete prohibition. By that I mean, access can be obtained if desired inasmuch as the six inch strip only partially obstructs access. I might add ~ have no personal recollection of a reason for :...ntentionally insertj.ng a six inch strip on the part of the members of the City Council at that time. My recommendation therefe>Y')is to proceed with vacation of the omitted area. L/JiU- I I . [ 1010 First Street South. Hopkins. Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474 An Equal Opportunity Employer - - -,- ~ - ~ ~ - , .. , (J Ii} ~ .., . June 29, 1988 o h K \ ~ Council Report: 88-133 VACATION OF STREET - RED OWL STORES, INC. Adams Avenue North ProQgsed Acti~ Staff recommends the following motion: Move that the vacation of a six inch strip aionq the vacated Adams Avenue is approved by Resolution 88-58. Approval of this motion will allow the applicant to clean up a discrepancy in the legal description in the original vacation. Overview. The vacation of AdalUS Avenue was approved on July 19 I 1977. A recent survey of the Red OWl site showed that not all of the right-of-way was vacated. A six inch strip of property still designated as street right-of-way exists between the property line and the vacated street. This was probably an error in the legal description. Red owl is asking to vacate this strip to avoid any future problems. staff explained there was_ a 6 inch error in the legal. description when . '~, ~""tJ Av~~e._va~_oriqinally vacated. Red OWl is 'req\le~tin9' this -~-ncation" to a.void any problems in the future. No one appeared to . . . . . -.... speak on this .atter. ~_~ 'J.'he CoBaission voted unanimously to vacate the 6 inch strip of A4au :':::~';,..:: ... .Avenue by Resolution 88-58. ~.~:~ --: :'.- Issu~s to Consjder. .. o :Is there a benefit to the public to retain this six inch ." strip of land? .. Supoortinq Documents. o Location Hap o Resolution o~lannin.<J Report - Nancy S.. Anderson . Community Deve~op11lent Analyst . . . .. - ... p."'- - ---~---------~-------:-,....-,:~:",:",,; - -. . .",.... .... . ',. . ;c,. .. "'" . CR;88-133 Page 2 ~tailed Backqround. Red 0",,1 will have to get a Quit Claim Deed from the county to obtain title to the westerly 1/2 of the vacated 6 inch strip. Following the vacation it will be the responsibility of the interested parties to apply for title. Analysis. Is there a benefit to the public to retain this six inch strip? .' , - This essentially is a housekeeping task. There is no eft"ect to the city or public with this vacation. It appears that there was an error in the legal description when Adams was vacated which has gone unnoticed. blternatives. 1. Approve the vacation. By qranting this vacati.on Red OWl. will have title to the property. fa 2. Deny the vacation. By denying this vacation the City will have a six inch right-ot-way strip which serves no publ io purpose. 3. Continue for further information. If the cODmission feels that more information is needed, the item should be continued. . LJ , . - . CITY OF HOPKnlS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 88-58 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF ACT AND APPROVING VACATION OF SIX InCH STRIP OF ADAMS AVENUE WHEREAS, an application for vacation of a six inch strip of Adams Avenue right-af-way entitled VAC88-1 made by Red Owl storp,s, Inc. is approved. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Vacation VAc88-1 was filed with the city of HopkJns on June 13, 1988. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on June 28, 1988. 3. That the Hopkins Planning, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a public hearing on June 28, 1988; all persons present e 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 the Hopkins city council makes the fOl1owing Findings of FAct in respect to VAC88-1: 1. That the land requested for vacation is not needed for public use. 2. That the vacated land is presently not used by the public. . -