Loading...
VN 87-05 � a ''�..y,!.'- � /�� l h 't. a-n�� � /,;•- - �a,�LQ •��j i 2 ����t� "i ��.' � - CITY OF HOPKINS �--- Application for: Amendment of Zoning Ordinance Date: ,�— �— ;�1� , Concept Review Conditional Use Permit Case No: �1/`�! �7-'� Subdivision Approval �,�.. Variance x Fee: A_`�C�- -- Waiver of Platting Requirements Date Paid: �_S— / —� �j 1. Street Location Of Property: Northwest Corner, Intersection First Street South and Eleventh Avenue South 2. Legal Descri pti on of Property: �ots ii, i2, is, i4, i5, i6> v, is, i9, 20, 2i, 22, and South half Of Lots 10 and 23, Block 7, West Minneapolis 3. Owner: Name c;ty of Hopkins Address Phone 331 Second Avenue North 4. Appl icants Ndme: . Baton Corporation Address Minneapolis, MN 55401 Phone (612) 341-2886 5. Description of Request: See Attached Zoning District Use �— 6. Present Proposed 7. Present Proposed R-5 R-5 Single Family Multiple Family 8. Reason for Request construction of one of the following alternatives: Alternate A: 48 Townhomes with tuck under garages; Alternate B: 32 Townhomes with tuck under garages and 26 condo flats with central garage. 9. What error, if any, in the existing Ordinance would be corrected by the proposed amendment? (for Zoning Ordinance amendment only) N/A 10. If request is for a variance, what hardship would justify approval (see 427.04(108) of the Zoning Ordinance). See Attached 11. Exhibits submitted: ��ap or plat showing the lands proposed to be changed Other � '2. Acknowledgement and Signature: The undersigned hereby represents upon all of the pen- alties of law, for the purpose of inducing the City of Hopkins to take the action herein � requested, that all statements herein are true and that all work herein mentioned will be done in accordance with e Ordinances of the City of Hopkins and the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature of Applicant: � • Signature of Owner: . RECORD OF ACTION TAKE�J BY PLANNING & ZONING COP�MISSION � Date: 5/26/87 Application for Variances CASE N0: VN87-5 PLANNING COMMISSION REC0�1MENDATIONS On the 26 day of MaY 19 87 , the action requested in the foregoing petitior was approved ( � disapproved subject to the following conditions: Recommend approval of variances with the Conditions : 1. That alle 7 re vacated, 2. That the Condiitonal Use Permit is granted. Chairman: CITY COUNCIL ACTION Approved X Denied by the Council this 2 day of June 19 87 Approved with following amendment: Approved as recommended by Zoning & Planning Resolution No. 87-52 C 1 e r k: � ��'� '1�-�.'�-�,� --� Following to be filled in by City Action of City Officials Chronolo Date B � Rec'd by Bldg Dept. _ Published by Bldg Dept. On Pl . Comm. Agenda 5/26/87 JK Pl . Comm. Postponement � P1 . Comm. Action � 5/26/87 JK Recommend approval of variances with Conditions stated above. i 1 �On Council Agenda 6 2 87 JK � � i ` ;Council Postponement ; � � i i �� Council Action � 6/2/87 i JK Approved as recommended by Zoning & Plannin�� NOTE: A Conditional Use Permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless the use for which the permit has been granted is in effect, except that, upon written application of the owner of the effected land for which the permit was granted prior to the end of said year may request and the Council may grant an P RESOLUTION N0: 87-52 ` CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA �- RESOLUTION MARING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES VN87-5 WHEREAS, an application for Variances entitled VN87-5 had been made by Baton Corporation, to construct a � condo/townhouse pro�ect on a portion of Block 7, West Minneapolis. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as folloxs: 1 . That an application for Yariances YN87-5 uas filed xith the City of Hopkins on May 1 , 198T• 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such applioation on May 26, 1987• 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a publio hearing on May 26 , 1987; all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 4. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff and the Planning Commission were considered. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Hopkins City Council makes the following Findings of Fact in respect to VN87-5: 1 . That a unique circumstanee exists due to the extensive amount of frontage on public streets. 2. The Ordinance does not adequately address present trends of residential development in the Central Business District and that the variances xill be �, approved on the basis that the pro�ect is being proposed rrithin a transitional period of the City eonsidering an ordinance xhich vould eliminate the necessity for the sub�ect variances. 3. The HRA in their request for proposal stated that they wanted, from an architectural standpoint, ttth Avenue should be treated as the front yard even though this is not the front yard by ordinanee. 4. Arohitect, parking and design constraints, requested by the City Council make variances from the ordinance required. 5• That the price paid for the site would necessarily decrease with a lower unit count; if the site price remains the same the price of the units would rise and, therefore, put the pro,ject potentially on a slor+er development traek; the tax base return to the City vould be adversely aPfected with a loxer unit count. 6. By significantly reducing the density, the vitality oP the pro,�ect design would be diminished; if more conventional spacings and setbacks were to be incorporated, the overall arohitectural statement would lose some of its unique appeal within the buy marketplace for 'edge of downtown" toWnhomes. �� 7. That the granting of the variances would ❑ot adversely affeot the surrounding area. �- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for � Variances YN87-5 are hereby approved sub�ect to the following Conditions: 1 . That the Conditional Use Permit is granted. 2. That the alleys in Block 7 are vacated. Adopted this 2nd day of June, 1987• Ellen Lavin, Mayor �i � � Citv Counci [ Report May 27 , 1987 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT � YARIANCES Baton Corporation PURPOSE: To revieW and recommend action on an application for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances . BACKGROUND: See staff report to the Zoning and Planning Commission . Randy Ze�dlik and Dick Gilyard appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed plan. Mr . Gilyard stated that they are proposing oWner oecupied townhomes with starting price of approximately $75 ,000 . The owner Will have the option oP designing the interior of the toWnhomes . Mr. Gilyard stated the varianees are needed to provide more parking and also from a design perspective . � Mr. Gilyard also presented the alternative plan With 26 condos and 32 toWnhomes . This alternative plan will provide the site some flexibility in design to respond to market changes . Tom Grossman of Suburban Chevrolet Was coneerned With the trees on the north side of the property Whioh abuts his property. They have experieneed problems With sap falling from the trees and ruining the paint on the cars . The staff would recommend that a condition be added to amend the landscaping plan . The proposed development Will be in four phases , starting at the southeast aorner of the block and move in a cloekWise direction . The Commission recommended to the Counail that the ordinanee be looked at and possibly ehanged to provide some flexibility in setbacks Por development suoh as I this one in the downtoWn area. The PUD provisions of the zoning ordinance may be able to be amended to allox this flexibility. The Commission approved unanimously the Conditional Use Permit with the folloKing Findings of Fact and Conditions : � -- � N o. 8�-�24 Council Report 87-124 Page 2 � 1 . That the development meets the requirements for a P. U.D. 2 . That the development meets the requirements of a Conditional IIse Permit . Conditions: 1 . That the requested varianaes are approved . 2 . That the applicant seoures oWnership oP the property 3 • That both plans are aceepted � . That the applicant provide an aceess plan for the first two phases . 5 . Landscape plan be amended to provide proper screening but not infringe on the property to the north. The Commission unanimously approved the requested variances With the folloWing Findings of Fact and Conditions: 1 . That a unique circumstanee exists due to the extensive amount of frontage on public streets . 2 . The HRA in their request for proposal stated �-- that they Wanted , from an arehitectural standpoint , 11th Avenue should be treated as the front yard even though this is not the front yard by ordinance . 3 . Architect , parking and design constraints , requested by the City Couneil make varianees from the ordinance required . 4 . That the price paid for the site xould necessarily decrease with a loWer unit count; if the site price remains the same the priee of the units Would rise and , therefore , put the pro�ect potentially on a sloWer development track ; the tax base return to the City Would be adversely affected With a loKer unit eount . 5 . By significantly reducing the density , the vitality of the pro�ect design would be diminished ; if more eonventional spaaings and setbaeks Were to be ineorporated , the overall arehitectural statement would lose some of its unique appeal within the buyer marketplace for ' edge of doWntoWn' toWnhomes. �� Council Report 87-124 Page 3 � 6 . That the granting of the varianaes Would not adversely affeat the surrounding area. 7 . That the ordinanoe does not adequately Paoilitate a high density residential development in the CBD of this type. Conditions: 1 . That the Conditional Use Permit is granted . 2 . That the alleys in Block 7 are vacated . Respeetfully submitted � �� Nanoy . Anderson Community Development Analyst �� �� �- �P[annin� Cornmission Report� VARIANCE REQUEST - BATON CORPORATION Block 7 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT N0: VN87-5 MAY 19 , 1987 PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on variances for setbaeks and building coverage for residential Planned Unit Development . BACKGROUND • Name of Applicant: Baton Corporation Address of Property: Block 7 Present Zoning: R-5 Nature of Request : 20 foot front yard variance , 5 foot side yard setback varianee , 19 foot rear yard setback varianee , 26 foot variance for distance between buildings and a 2� or 15 $ variance for building coverage . � Reason for Request : Construetion of 48 townhomes or 32 townhomes and 26 eondos . The applicant is requestin� five varianees in conjunetion with the construction of either 48 townhomes or 32 townhomes and 26 condos . The applicant has also applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct these units . The five varianees requested are: 20 ' variance of required 30 ' front yard setback 5 ' varianee of required 15 ' side yard setback 19 ' varianee of required 25 ' rear yard setback 26 ' variance of required 36 ' distanee between buildings 2� variance of maximum building coverage of 30% for Alternate ' A' ( townhomes) 15� varianee of maximum building coverage of 30� for Alternate ' B' (townhomes/condos) The front yard is along First Street South , the rear yard abutts Suburban Chevrolet and 11th and 12th _ Avenues are the side lot lines . � No. VN87-5 Page 2 � The applicant has tried to vary the depth of the townhomes to achieve an overall feeling of open space and riehness of pattern. The units could be placed in a straight line to achieve the separation requirements of the ordinanee but with a straight configuration there would be a "row house" type look . This development could meet all the ordinance requirements , but the results would be somewhat unappealing . The units would be pushed further into the site , there would be less parking and open space in the interior. The applicant is orienting the front of the development towards 11th Avenue as request by the RFP , but by ordinance , the front yard is First Street South. There is a greater setbaek along 11th Avenue than First Street south . The great amount of fronta�e the site has makes it more difficult to design a development because of the exposure to the streets . The applicant has provided that all parking will be within the interior of the site to provide a clean outward appearance . The HRA Board has stated that they would like to see the project provide parking over and above ordinance requirements . By strietly meeting the required 1 .2 � ratio , the building could be pulled more into the center of the site and would probably meet setback requirements . Finally, by eliminating a couple of units , the applicant could meet building coverage requirements . However , this would reduce the amount of tax increment returned to the Authority to pay the publie costs . ALTERNATIVES• 1 . Approve all the requested variances 2 . Deny all requested variances 3 . Partially approve the variances and deny others 4 . Continue for further information RECOMMENDATION: I recommend Alternative �1 . The following are suggested Findings oF Fact and Conditions should the Commission recommend approval : 1 . That a unique cireumstanee exiats due to the amount of frontage on the bloek . �� VN�7-5 Page 3 � 2 . The HRA in their request for proposal stated that they wanted , from an architeetural standpoint , 11th Avenue should be treated as the front yard even though this is not the front yard by ordinance 3 . Architect and design constraints , requested by the staff, make variances from the ordinanee required . Conditions : 1 . That the Conditional Use Permit is granted . Respectfully submitted , " Il Nancy . Anderson Commu ity Development Analyst �� �