03-29-2011 • MARCH APRIL MEMBERS
S M T W T F S S M T W T F S �� CUMMINGS � KUZNIA
� 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 t,�NAE F � DATTA
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ✓BEDDOR �-�JENNY
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 �,/HATLESTAD ✓ANDERSON
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
AGENDA
ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
-----------------------------------------------------
ITEM: Approve and sign ininutes of the February 22, 2011, iegular meeting.
�
COMMISSION ACTION:_s� � i�"} � �'�,��:r� / / / /
CASE NO.
SPR11-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW— 7900 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
Public Public Hearing to considei adding 3400 square feet to the second floor of
Hearing 7900 Excelsioi Boulevard.
COMMISSION ACTION: �l ', �l1 ���L' `' f � � � �
CASE NO.
ZN11-1 ZONING AMENDMENTS
Public Public Heaiing to consider various amendments to the zoning ordinance.
Hearing
COMMISSION ACTION: �,� l 1�+1 �-t'��;c`:1}r l l l l
^
ITEM: REPRESENTATIVE TO UPDATE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNMENT
r` ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
February 22, 2011
A regular meeting of the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday,
February 22, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall.
Present were Coininission Members Molly Cuinmings, Doug Datta, Andrea Naef, Pat Beddor
and Aaron Kuznia. Bob Hatlestad and Toin Jenny were absent.
Also present was staff ineinber Nancy Anderson.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Beddor called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Ms. Cuminings moved and Mr. Kuznia seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the
January 25, 2011, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously.
CASE NO: SPRl l-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW—240 BLAKE ROAD NORTH
�--
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed parking lot. Ms. Anderson stated that staff is
recommending a landscape island in the parking lot and that Pizza Luce was not in favor of
constiucting the island. JJ Haywood and Jim Lindborg, representing Pizza Luce, appeared
before the Cominission. Ms. Haywood stated that they would not be in favor of constructing the
island. The Commission discussed the landscape island. The Cominission indicated that they
would recommend that the landscape island be constructed in the parking lot.
Mr. Beddor opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.in. No one appeared at the public hearing. Mr.
Datta moved and Ms. Naef seconded at motion to close the public hearing. The inotion was
approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 6:46 p.m.
Ms. Naef moved and Mr. Datta seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ11-2, recoininending
approval of a site plan to construct a parking lot at 240 Blake Road North. The motion was
approved unanimously.
ADJOURN
Ms. Naef moved and Mr. Kuznia seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was
approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.in.
,-�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING, February 22, 2011
Page 2
�
MEMBERS
ATTEST:
Pat Beddor, Vice Chair
�
��
• G�TY �F
^ March 22, 2011 N� P K I N S Planning Report SPRl 1-3
SITE PLAN REVIEW—7900 EXCELSIOR BLVD
Proposed Action
Staff recoinmends the following inotion: Inove to ado�t Resolution RZ11-3, recoirunendin�
apUroval to construct a 3400 square foot addition at 7900 Excelsior Boulevard.
Overview
In 2009 the applicant, Alex Ugorets, was approved to construct a parking area abutting
Excelsior Boulevard. Now Mr. Ugorets is proposing to construct a 3400 square foot addition
on the second story. Along with the proposed addition, Mr. Ugorets is proposing to improve
the building exteriors.
There currently is an existing second floor that is not being used. Mr. Ugorets is proposing
to add the 3400 addition to the second floor and add an elevator. The new and existing areas
� will be used for office area.
The exterior will be remodeled with stone, and the new entry will consist of a majority of
glass.
Primarv Issues to Consider
• What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the suUject site?
• What are the specifics of the improvements?
Supportin�Documents
• Analysis of Issues
• Site Plans
• Resolution RZl1-3
Nancy S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
'� Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
i�
��
��
SPR11-3
�
Page 2
Primarv Issues to Consider
• What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
The subject property is zoned Business Park. The new Comprehensive Plan has designated
the site as Business Park. The use of office space is a pennitted use in the Business Park
zoning district.
• What are the specifics of the improvements?
Landscaping
Three additional plantings of the correct size are required. A landscape plan has been
submitted with plantings. A condition of approval will be that there be three new plantings
of the required size.
Parking
36 additional parking spaces with the new and reinodeled space. The site has a total of 216
^ spaces. The site requires 161 spaces with the new office area.
Access
Access will remain the same, from Powell Road.
Setbacks
No setbacks are affected because the addition is on the second story.
Surrounding uses
The site is surrounded by residential to the south, and industrial uses to the north, east and
west.
Alternatives
l. Recommend approval of the site plan to construct an addition. By recommending
approval of the site plan, the City Council will consider a recoininendation of approval.
2. Recommend denial of the site plan to constiuct an addition. By recoinmending denial of
the site plan, the City Council will consider a recoinmendation of denial. If the Planning
� Cominission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this
alternative.
SPR11-3
Page 3
3. Continue for further infonnation. If the Planning Corrunission indicates that further
�
infor7nation is needed, the item should be continued.
�
�/
CITY OF HOPKINS
�
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ11-3
RESOLUTION MAKING F1NDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN TO ADD A 3400 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AND TO MAKE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXTERIOR ABUTTING EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD AT 7900
EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, an application for Site Plan Review SPRll-2 has been made Uy Alex Ugorets;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
l. That an application for a Site Plan was made by Alex Ugorets, on March l, 2011;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Coininission, pursuant to inailed and
published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such
application on March 29, 2011: 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:
�
That part of the northwest '/ of the southwest '/ lying west of the east 917.3 feet
thereof and north of Excelsior Boulevard excluding road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Site Plan Review SPR11-3 is
hereby recoirunended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the proposed use meets the requirements for site plan review.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Site Plan Review SPR11-3 is hereby
recoimnended for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. That tluee trees of the con•ect size be added.
2. That the signage on the building be reinoved when the applicant receives a permit
for a monument sign.
Adopted this 29th day of March 2011.
ATTEST:
ob Hatlestad, Chair
_ 4
W ....�
I
.rawu.��,
i f
I (ISIV J l I I,�[�Xl
IiI
I
I
Ii
Ii
I
I
� i
(
i
9K
�
� I
I
I�
M
1x
I rIW
(Jr
i
f
Q 1 bl�a
p
.
✓ r
kik
MEN
(D --
-up
\
\
�
Iz
_---o
_--e
_
_---G
V
m
Y�
is G
y
,I
_---o
_--e
_
_---G
V
m
73
7z
777
7-
...............
--0-
m
---0-
I
mm --0-
- -a --0-
--a-
a
R
v(II iJANO KNLLOb Am
OONbd 'NO NNd CbON-iO cb ON -IO ON-iAa ONOp OOCc rmmAr N���b �Nyb Sr(OA-Ib 2r(On-ib roc-�ryC ',_
mAa�O v
No Wz 0 00 rAnz`'.� Az boH`irW, >
SyAA-
O D�y�IIN pomp tmii �m iy Nm N A� N OCm N -
3 Ay So
A yAy m ]yOyJ I, GJ
dm
O A Nd D O O O N
rtp�1 C C C C C
O O y�p O O O Q
y \ IG
I�
z
n
;uO
11
M��h�1
N IN
sZ
j
A
pOp
'I.
Y
z
m
�I
r
ppp %
m
d
Am
A
m
O
I
2
Ay
C
D
y O m
o-
^O
N
a
_
-
y
z
I
d
d
�
III A
I
p
CO
xNrz
5.
-f
�N"S
_
z
y
'QC
O
vC❑6
SON
mem
V
pAO
Nk�
1
O
°a
I I
o
D
m
_
O
PIN
00
�
mro�
`_'Sdm
m
Nx'c
m
N
O
b
v(II iJANO KNLLOb Am
OONbd 'NO NNd CbON-iO cb ON -IO ON-iAa ONOp OOCc rmmAr N���b �Nyb Sr(OA-Ib 2r(On-ib roc-�ryC ',_
mAa�O v
No Wz 0 00 rAnz`'.� Az boH`irW, >
SyAA-
O D�y�IIN pomp tmii �m iy Nm N A� N OCm N -
3 Ay So
A yAy m ]yOyJ I, GJ
dm
O A Nd D O O O N
rtp�1 C C C C C
O O y�p O O O Q
I
5
D
y \ IG
I�
z
11
M��h�1
N IN
sZ
.X1
A
O
z
�I
G
ppp %
I
5
D
I�
z
I
5
D
I�
I�
, G�TY pF
~ March 22, 2011 N� P K I N S Planning Report ZN11-1
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
Proposed Action
Staff recoininends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ11-4 recoininendin�
a roval of Ordinance 11-1026 amendin site lan a roval landsca e and business ark
sections of the zonin�ordinance. .��r :j=-;f-�N r'��t -ti ti�-�
Overview
At various times the staff asseinbles sections of the zoning ordinance that need to be updated.
These amendments are to correct inconsistencies or problems the staff has identified or just to
update the ordinance.
Four of the proposed ainendinents relate to site plan review and the third to business park
signage. The site plan review amendinent will require a site plan review when a building's
exterior is altered 50 percent or inore when abutting a road. Currently the ordinance requires a
site plan review when the entire building is altered 50 percent or more. The business park
� signage amendment will allow more signage for parcels zoned business park. The current
business park signage requirements are not adequate. The other ainendinents to the site plan
review ordinance are housekeeping-type amendments.
Primarv Issues to Consider
. What are the proposed amendments?
. What is the staff recoimnendation?
Supportin�Documents
• Analysis of Issues
• Resolution RZll-4
• Ordinance 11-1026
Nancy S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
� Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
ZN11-1
�
Page 2
Primarv Issues to Consider
• What are the proposed amendments?
555.19 Subd. 2. '� a�+�"""' " �. Site Plan Review. In addition to the above landscaping
requirements all applications for a ' site plan review shall include the
following ininimum requirements:
Housekeeping amendment, need to add site plan review to landscaping section and remove
conditional use permit.
570.42. Permitted signs: business park district.
Subd. 4. Multi-tenant monument signs. One monuinent sign shall be permitted for each multi-
tenant building provided the surface area of the sign does not exceed two �uare feet per front
foot of lot. No sign shall be over 150 square feet, � , 20 feet in height,
and be setback in no case less than 20 feet froin the property lines. T'� ''� �"�����
+ F i cn � � " �;�o �,-.i 7 -* � ,-7n .,
Y r
^ Business Park sign requirements don't work. All the business park developinents have been on
large parcels and signage has been negotiated in the development agreements. For example
without negotiated sign requirements, the Cargill development would have been limited to 150
square feet for the whole site.
526.01. Site Plan Review. Subd. 2. d) any project that is limited to reconstruction, replacement,
or remodeling of materials on less than 50 percent of any part of the exterior of an existing
building that abuts a public right-of-way 50 feet or inore in width.
Site plan review will now be required for buildings with an exterior remodel 50 percent or more
of the sides that abut a public right-of-way.
565.04. Coordination with subdivision and C� site�lan review regulations. If a subdivision
or ' site�lan review is needed, the review under these regulations shall be
carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans required under this Section
shall be submitted in a fonn that will satisfy the requirements of the subdivision ordinance for
the preliminary and final plans and the C�g site plan review requireinents.
Housekeeping amendment, need to add site plan review to landscaping section and remove
conditional use pennit.
565.08 Subd. 4. Final Plan. Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant shall
make application for submission of the final plan C�g site plan review and preliininary/final
^ � plat (if needed). The application shall proceed and be acted upon in accordance with Section
525.09 for zoning district changes, Section 500 for subdivision regulation and Section �5-1�
ZN11-1
Page 3
526 for site�lan review (if needed). If appropriate because of the
limited scale of the proposal, the concept stage and final plan stage inay proceed �
simultaneously.
Housekeeping amendment, need to add site plan review to landscaping section and remove
conditional use pennit.
What is the staff recommendation?
Staff is recoinmending approval of the proposed ordinance.
Alternatives.
1. Recominend approval of the amendments to the zoning ordinance. By recominending
approval of the ainendinents to the zoning ordinance, the City Council will consider a
recommendation of approval.
2. Recoininend denial of the amendinents to the zoning ordinance. By recoinmending denial
of the amendments to the zoning ordinance, the City Council will consider a
recominendation of denial. If the Planning Coininission considers this alternative, findings
will have to be identified that support this alternative.
3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Cominission indicates that further
infonnation is needed, the itein should be continued.
�
�
� CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ11-4
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENTS
WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Ainendinent ZN08-2 has been initiated by the City of
Hopkins;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for zoning amendment was initiated by the City of Hopkins;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission published notice, held a
public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on March 29,
2011: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
� 3. That the written coinments and analysis of City staff were considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Ainendment ZN11-1
is hereby recoimnended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the Zoning and Planning Coinmission reviewed the proposed
ordinance.
2. That several of the proposed amendments are to clarify sections site plan
review section of the zoning ordinance.
3. That the amendment to the sign ordinance will provide adequate sign for
the business park zoning district.
Adopted this 29th day of March 2011.
�--.
Bob Hatlestad, Chair
CITY OF HOPHINS
Hennepin County,Minnesota
�
ORDINANCE NO. 2011-1026
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
That the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance No. 515-570 be, and the saine and is hereby
amended by adding amending and adding the following sections:
555.19 Subd. 2. �'��a�*��„�' ����. Site Plan Review. In addition to the above landscaping
requirements all applications for a ��„a�+����' ���� „���* site plan review shall include
the following miniinum requirements:
570.42. Pennitted signs: business park district. ,
Subd. 4. Multi-tenant monuinent signs. One monuinent sign shall be pei7nitted for each
multi-tenant building provid d the surface area of the sign does not exceed two square
feet�er front foot of lot. �Fe�sign shall be over 150 square feet, � ,
� 20 feet in height, and be setback in no case less than 20 feet from the property lines.
rrt, ,t�o : „a �� „ „�'i c n � o �o� � �;+o �,-�t�,ral�,�....,���
,. �n
526.01. Site Plan Review. Subd. 2. d) any project that is liinited to reconstruction, �""
replacement, or remodeling of materials on less than 50 percent of any part of the exterior
of an existing building that abuts a public right-of-wav 50 feet or more in width.
565.04. Coordination with subdivision and C�J-g site �lan review regulations. If a
subdivision or ^^^a�*�^^^' ���� ^�ri��* site plan review is needed, the review under these
regulations shall be carried out simultaneously with the review of the PUD. The plans
required under this Section shall be subinitted in a fonn that will satisfy the requiretnents
of the subdivision ordinance for the preliininary and final plans and the �--site plan
review requireinents.
565.08 Subd. 4. Final Plan. Following general concept approval, if given, the applicant
shall inake application for submission of the final plan C� site plan review and
preliminary/final plat (if needed). The application shall proceed and be acted upon in
accordance with Section 525.09 for zoning district changes, Section 500 for subdivision
regulation and Section �''�.'� �~ ^^~a�+�^^^' ���� ~�^„�+c 526 for site plan review (if
needed). If appropriate because of the liinited scale of the proposal, the concept stage
and final plan stage may proceed simultaneously.
�
�"�
First Reading: April 5, 2011
Second Reading: April 19, 2011
Date of Publication: April 28, 2011
Date Ordinance Takes Effect: April 28, 2011
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Deborah L. Sperling, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
� City Attorney Signature Date
^
���
��
��
, �
7