The URL can be used to link to this page

08-30-2011 . AUGUST SEPTEMBER MEMBERS S M T W T F S S M T W T F S CUMMINGS KUZNIA � 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 NAEF DATTA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FISHER FIRTH 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ALLARD ANDERSON 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 30, 2011 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ----------------------------------------------------- � ITEM: Approve and sign minutes of the July 26, 2011, regular meeting. , COMMISSION ACTION: a � ��'��f l l l l CASE NO. ZN11-6 REZONING - 325 BLAKE ROAD FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE Public Public Hearing to consider rezoning 325 Blake Road from Industrial Hearing Mixed Use. COMMISSION ACTION: ��"�� 1 n� �- / / / / CASE NO. SUBD 11-1 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT- 132 INTERLACHEN ROAD Public Public Hearing for a preliminary/�nal plat at 132 Interlachen Road. ^ Hearing COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 �--• CASE NO. VN11-3 AREA VARIANCE - 132 INTERLACHEN Consideration of an area variance for 132 Interlachen. COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. VN11-2 SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE - 640 11TH AVENUE SOUTH Consideration of a sign setback variance at 640 l lth Avenue South. COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / ^ ITEM: REPRESENTATIVE TO UPDATE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT � � ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2011 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission Members Molly Cummings, Doug Datta, Jennifer Allard, Andrew Fisher, Andrea Naef, Charles Firth and Aaron Kuznia. Also present was staff inember Nancy Anderson. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kuznia called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Cummings moved and Ms. Naef seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the June 28, 2011, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. ITEM: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — ALLOWING OFF SALE LIQUOR IN B-4 ^ ZONING DISTRICT Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed amendment to add liquor stores to the B-4 zoning district. The Commission discussed possible locations for liquor stores on the east end. The public hearing was opened at 6:45 p.m. No one appeared at the public hearing. Ms. Naef moved and Mr. Fisher seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. The hearing was closed at 6:46 p.m. Mr. Datta moved and Ms. Naef seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ 11-10, recommending approval of an amendment to add off sale liquor to the B-4 zoning district. The motion was approved unanimously. ADJOURN Ms. Cummings moved and Ms. Allard seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. MEMBERS --� MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING, July, 26, 2011 Page 2 � ATTEST: Aaron Kuznia, Chair � �� GITY OF August 23, 2011 N�P K I N S Planning Report ZN 11-6 REZONING—325 BLAKE ROAD Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ11-11, recommendin� approval of Ordinance 11-1034, rezoning the property at 325 Blake Rd from I-2 General Industrial, to Mixed Use. Overview The newly approved Comprehensive Plan has designated the sites around the three LRT stations within the City differently than currently zoned. Areas around the proposed LRT stations have been guided Mixed Use. The Mixed Use ordinance was recently adopted by the City Council. The City will now go through a process to rezone these sites. One site is the Hopkins Cold Storage site located at 325 Blake Road. The existing use of a warehouse can remain. The impact will be that there can be no expansion of the existing use. This rezoning is a process to prepare various parcels within -� the City for future redevelopment. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the Comprehensive Plan designation? • What is the existing zoning of the subject site? • What does the Mixed Use zoning allow? • Should the site be rezoned from I-2 to Mixed Use? Supportin�Documents • Analysis of Issues • Mixed Use Ordinance • Resolution RZ 11-11 • Ordinance 11-1034 � � , Nanc S. Anderson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: � Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: �� /� �� t � , ZN 11-6 Page 2 � Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the Comprehensive Plan designation? The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Mixed Use. • What is the existing zoning of the subject site? The site is zoned I-2, General Industrial. • What does the Mixed Use zoning allow? The Mixed Use zoning district allows commercial and residential uses. • Should the site be rezoned from I-2 to Mixed Use? The I-2 zoning is an industrial zoning. The LRT station will be on the west side of Blake Road, and it seems logical that any redevelopment that will happen around this station be redeveloped for a higher use than an industrial use. Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Mixed Use. �--� Alternatives l. Recommend approval of the rezoning. By recommending approval of the rezoning, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the rezoning. By recommending denial of the rezoning, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. '� CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION NO: RZ11-11 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING 325 BLAKE ROAD FROM I-2 TO MIXED USE WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Amendment ZN11-6 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 August 30, 2011: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered. 4. The legal description of the property is as follows: � Lot 74 and commencing at a point in the east line of Blake Road distance 14.48 feet south from its intersection with the northwesterly line of Lot 97 thence north 14.48 feet to said northwesterly line thereof thence northeasterly 845 feet along said northwesterly line thence south 14.48 feet parallel with east line of Blake Road thence southwesterly 845 feet to beginning excluding road NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Amendment ZN11-6 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation will be consistent. Adopted this 30th day of August 2011 Aaron Kuznia, Chair � CITY OF HOPKINS --� Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 11-1034 AN ORDINANCE REZONING 525 BLAKE ROAD, FROM I-2, GENERAL INDUSTRIAL, TO MIXED USE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That the present zoning classification of I-2, General Industrial, upon the following described premises is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof, the said premises is hereby zoned as Mixed Use. Lot 74 and commencing at a point in the east line of Blake Road distance 14.48 feet south from its intersection with the northwesterly line of Lot 97 thence north 14.48 feet to said northwesterly line thereof thence northeasterly 845 feet along said northwesterly line thence south 14.48 feet parallel with east line of Blake Road thence southwesterly 845 feet to beginning excluding road First Reading: September 6, 2011 � Second Reading: September 20, 2011 Date of Publication: September 29, 2011 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: September 29, 2011 Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Deborah L. Sperling, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Signature Date '� L-t a8nd t��•�� a.�««a�la.��,«<<„�LIl�C�O�---- � _ ._ . �e[d as(1 P�'I-Z'b azn8cg � � pue�la/,� ��ed ssauisng ! pco��iea � es�i Paxiyy � �euognai3su��ogqnd � �ea�awwo� � � �I O � � L� � � � ( lie�l �enuepisaa�(�isue�U6iH �' ?�ed # �eiauapisea Rlisuad wnipeW � � eoedg uedp �eguapisea�S�isuea nno� � -- __.._ -- , as�no�110� s�eo�ed �I � ;� - - -- � �euasnpu� , f�epunog�li�� ,( � - ' �`\, � � , I l uogeJS 1a7 Pasodo�d ,=I '69L . . � '' t i i y_.. ' �' �...! 1 � '� ` �� - � f ,� � f , � E ; � : '. r'` ' _ ; ' � .. ; � � � i ; i ., � ! I � -- -----� �l:j - �` � ' \ 16�` 1 /f cy � �,.:_ �. � �I I �{ �' { F'��'� ;.._' . . _ . ..,. " �'" , . . ... ._.....e . . . ..`-.. . . . ,. .: ., ... . I � :. ... . �. ;f I..f� _ .��. ' _ ,! ,I .. . .., � _I, j��.�`` .'... . � � ..;.., i � . .� � � � . ,�� -_ � . ", # / i � � � � ,�� _ , __._� , �; } ; � � ; �� - . � :._ _ � �rlr.� � .m.. 4 - '- , V L �j ' i --------` - - . .-- -- � ' i t . . �j , �q�1 Pary� '69L' I�1 �- . . , � ,,UO 00[ S�9I9- _ ; _ i _ _�Sl iiS__t .\1l>y - '»�f 5 S[ ti:l Pn''P'.11 . ' -�'. �.,,r.. . _ _�_�_ '>Qb l� _}'�f� Promr� i—'��, . .. .fe► sr��s r�,y . _ •�,6►s �►tT- �,a�o.�n�� .,t_i �s sti »«-,�<; _ �. •:.o�f r�rd YRa i ,..,0.� _f�ll �noUiAUST�I ��R�� • �� - � � ;...[_: p0_ti �sI1P�i�j� _ ._'` I •�.:0;9 q_'}o[ 1'?o:"[°I I 1 -`t --�i I I �nd ss�crt;na � � ' � - `;Sf£ Z'!6 �cuummo.� � _ - — --- � _n 5 £5'6�1 �ru�..pcs�y.u�saa�]��H � , �-- "ot�') _f f9I �'Uaa�.�s�317c_�flnnu��s� I I l ;._,t��9� 1�*�S9 ��'Un��iaay.Ui.aa�.�ioj j t � ,�vd vaE a,ll pm'i � i i n.�a�u Pn`'7 I � Section 543 - Zonin�: Mixed Use 543.01 Mixed Use. The primary purposes of the Mixed Use Zone Districts are to: • Provide appropriate areas for and facilitate quality mixed use development in activity centers that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan's land use and transportation goals, objectives, policies and strategies; • Accommodate intensities and patterns of development that can support multiple modes of transportation, including public transit, biking and walking; • Group and link places used for living, working, shopping, schooling, and recreating, thereby reducing vehicle trips, relieving traffic congestion, improving air quality in the City and encouraging active living principles; • Provide a variety of residential housing types and densities to assure activity in the district and support a mix of uses, and enhance the housing choices of City residents; and • Integrate new mixed use development with its surroundings by encouraging connections for pedestrians and vehicles and by assuring sensitive, compatible use, scale, and --� operational transitions to neighboring uses. 543.02. Permitted and Conditional Uses: RESIDENTIAL UN DT CTC (Blake) (8�''Ave) (Shady Oak 1. Multi—unit dwellin s x x x 2. Townhomes x x COMMERCIAL 3. Bar/Tavern x x 4. Anti ues x x 5. Art Galler x 6. Artisan Sho x x 7. Bakery x x x 8. Bank and Financial x (a) x( a) x(a) Services 9. Beaut /Barber Sho x x x 10. Bike Sales x x ^ 11. Books—Office su lies x x 12. Bouti ues x x 13. Butcher x x x 14. Camera-Photo ra hic x x 15. Clothing Store x --- 16. Clubs (private- x x x non rofit) 17. Coffee Sho x x x 18. Collectibles (cards, coins, x x comics, stam s, etc.) 19. Costume and Formal x x Wear Rental 20. Currenc Exchan e x (b ) x (b) 21. Day Nurser x x x 22. Delicatessen x x x 23. Dr Clean and Laundry x x x 24. Educational Facilities x x (c) x • 25. Electronics x (d) x d) 26. Em lo ent A ency x x x 27. Essential Public Service & x x x Utility Structures 28. Fabric and Sewin Store x x 29. Florists x x x 30. Garden and Landsca e x(e) x (e) 31. Gifts and Novelties x x 32. Glassware, China, Potte x 33. Health Club x X �` 34. Hobby- Craft - Instruction x x 35. Hotel x 36. Karate, Dance- Studio x x 37. Ice Cream x x x 38. Indoor Sports & x x(� x Recreation Facilit 39. Interiors-Decoration x x Studio 40. Jewelry x x 41. Leather Goods-Lu a e x x 42. Li uors-Off-sale x x x 43. Locksmith and Fixit Sho x x x 44. Medical Service x x x 45. Music Store x 46. Nei hborhood Market x x x 47. Offices x x x 48. Optical x x 49. Paint and Wall a er x 50. Parking Ram s & Lots x x x 51. Pawn Sho x x 52. Pet Grooming x x �- 53. Pet Store x x ^_ 54. Pharmacy—Dru Store x x ( ) 55. Photograph — Studio x 56. Picture Framin -Art Sho x 57. Pi e—Tobacco Sho x x x 58. Print Sho x x x 59. Restaurant - Traditional x x x 60. Restaurant—Carry-out& x x x deliver 61. Shoes—Boot Store x x 62. S ortin Goods x x 63. Statione —Card Sho x x x 64. Street Food Vendors x x x 65. Tailoring x x x 66. Travel A ent x x x 67. Variet Store x x 68. Vet Clinic x x x 69. Video/DVD -Sales, Rental x x x CIVIC 70. Transit Station x x x 71. Park & Ride Facilit x x x —� 72. Public O en S ace/Park x x x Conditional uses a. Bank and Financial Services, provided: 1. The applicant must show that the drive thru in an integral part of the building and the traffic and queuing will not interfere with the pedestrian experience. It shall be at the sole discretion of the City Council to allow a drive thru. b. Currency Exchange: 1. The use shall be located at least one thousand (1,000) feet from any other currency exchanges, secondhand goods stores, and pawnshops. 2. The use shall be located at least three hundred fifty (350) feet from an off-sale liquor establishment. 3. Back—lighted signs, back-lighted awnings, portable signs, temporary signs and freestanding signs are prohibited. c. Educational Facilities, provided: 1. use shall not be located on first floor —1 d. Electronics, provided: 1. less than 5000 square feet e. Garden and Landscape, provided: 1. outside display limited to area in front of store � f. Indoor Sports and Recreation Facility, provided: l. less than 5000 square feet g. Pharmacy- Drug Store, provided: l. less than 5000 square feet Development Standards for Mixed Use: 543.03. Parkin�. Parking within the mixed use district must be located in multi-level structures or in shared parking lots where feasible and with approval of the City. The following requirements will apply to all permitted uses located within the mixed use zoning district if a TDM or shared parking study has not been completed and approved by the City Council: a) A minimum of one and a maximum of 1.5 parking spaces per multi-family unit is permitted; one guest space per 15 units is permitted. b) All uses other than residential shall require a parking study to determine the necessary parking required. c) Where practicable, ingress and egress from parking must be from side streets or alleys. � 543.04. Travel Demand Mana�ement Plan (TDM)/Mass Transit Links. Off-street parking requirements may be reduced subject to approval by the City Council, where a TDM plan, parking and transportation study is submitted. The TDM plan, parking and transportation study is conducted in accordance with accepted methodology approved by the City staff, prepared by an independent traffic engineering professional under the supervision of the City, and paid for by the applicant. These plans must address the transportation impacts of the development and proposed TDM mitigating measures and show that parking demand will be decreased by access to nearby transit. Where a TDM plan is approved, a properly drawn legal instrument, executed by the parties concerned, must be filed on the property in the Recorder's or Register's Office of Hennepin County. Five acres commercial, office or retail development or 100 residential units require a TDM study. 543.05. Shared parking. The City Council may approve the use of shared parking where: a. The applicant demonstrates with a parking study that the hours, size, and mode of operation of the respective uses does not create a substantial conflict in the peak parking demands of the uses for which shared parking facilities is proposed, and there is adequate parking to meet the needs for each use. A shared parking plan must be submitted where shared parking is proposed that includes specific analysis on the peak characteristics of the various uses indicated. � "� b. Where a shared use of parking exists with the same site or across sites, a properly drawn legal instrument, executed by the parties concerned, must be filed as a deed restriction on all impacted properties in the Hennepin County Recorder's Office. A parking study is required to be conducted in accordance with accepted methodology approved by the City staff, prepared by an independent traffic engineering professional under the supervision of the City and paid for by the applicant, demonstrating that there is not a present need for the portion of parking for which the applicant is requesting shared parking flexibility. c. Shared parking shall be no more that 500 feet from the front doors of the buildings sharing the parking. 543.06. Bicycle Parkin� a) Bicycle parking facilities must be provided for all office and multi-family structures and freestanding commercial uses. b) The required number of bicycle parking spaces will be based on the following: Lon t� Short term Multi-family Residential 1 per 2 units 1 per 20 units ---� Retail .50 space per employee .50 space per 1,000 square feet of net building area Office .25 space per 1 per 40,000 1,000 square feet square feet of net of net building area building area Park and Ride Facilities 10 spaces an acre 10 percent of parking stalls c) Bicycle parking facilities must be located in a well-lighted area. d) All bicycle racks, lockers, or other facilities must be securely anchored to the ground or to a structure. e) All required bicycle parking must be located within 50 feet of central or well-used building entrances. —� fl Long-term bicycle parking facilities that provide parking for bike storage lasting eight or more hours shall be located inside buildings or a bike storage facility for added security. g) The required amount of short-term bicycle parking required for bike storage lasting less than two hours must be provided for at each building. _ h) In buildings that have several uses, shared short-term bicycle parking facilities are encouraged and should be centrally located between uses. 543.07. Shadow Studv. A shadow study is required for all buildings four stories or higher. The shadow study will indicate the shadows cast at the shortest and longest days of the year. Impacts of a shadow on the surrounding property may be a reason to lower and/or adjust the location or height of building(s). 543.08. Exterior. The primary exterior treatment of walls facing a public right-of—way or parking lot on a structure shall be brick, cast concrete, stone, marble or other material similar in appearance and durability. Regular or decorative concrete block, float finish stucco, EIFS-type stucco, cementitious fiber board, or wood clap board may be used on the front fa�ade as a secondary treatment or trim but shall not be a primary exterior treatment of a wall facing a public right-of-way. 543.09. Buildin� Orientation. Subdivision 1. Buildings within the Mixed Use district must be oriented toward the pedestrian by providing a direct link between each building and the pedestrian walking system, with emphasis on directing people to a transit station. Subd. 2. Fa�ade. The primary street side fa�ade of a building shall not consist of an unarticulated blank wall, flat front facades or an unbroken series of garage doors. The front of a building shall be broken up into individual bays of a minimum of 25 feet and maximum of 40 ` feet wide. Subd. 3. Blocks. Blocks must not exceed (600) feet in length and must provide pedestrian connectors. These pedestrian connectors can be pedestrian easements and pathways or through- building linkages at least every 300 feet. Subd. 4. Hei�ht. All nonresidential floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed use building must have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of 11 feet. 543.10. TransparencX. Subdivision 1. A minimum of 60 percent to a maximum of 75 percent of the front street-facing fa�ade between two feet and eight feet in height must comprise clear windows that allow views of indoor nonresidential space or product display area. Side facades abutting a public right-of-way shall have a minimum of 30 percent clear windows. Subd. 2. Hei�ht. The bottom edge of any window or product display window used to satisfy the transparency standard of paragraph (1) above may not be more than three feet above the adjacent sidewalk. Subd. 3. DisplaX. Product display windows used to satisfy these requirements must have a minimum height of four feet and be internally lighted. Subd. 4. Windows. Transparent windows allowing visual access into and out of nonresidential � buildings shall be required on the first floor frontage along the front yard. � Subd. 5. Fenestration. 30 percent fenestration for windows above the first floor for all sides that abut a public right-of-way. 543.11. Sidewalks. Subdivision 1. Sidewalks shall be constructed along the frontage of all public streets and within and along the frontage of all new development or redevelopment. Subd. 2. Width. Sidewalks may range in width from a minimum of five feet to a maximum of 20 feet, depending on expected pedestrian traffic. 543.12. Pedestrian/Streetscapes. Subdivision 1. Street trees in grates or planters are required along sidewalks for all new platted streets. Existing streets may not allow sufficient right-of-way for street trees. If the existing right-of-way does not allow for street trees, landscaping, trees, planters or street furniture will be added to the interior side of the sidewalk where the setback will allow. Subd. 2. Improvements. Pedestrian improvements of at least one percent of the project value shall be included in the development. These improvements shall create a high quality pedestrian experience through the provision of benches, planters, drinking fountains, waste containers, median landscaping, etc. Said improvements shall be on all public streets that lead directly to the station. ^ Subd. 3. Li�hting. Pedestrian-scale light fixtures that shine downward on the sidewalks and walkways shall be no greater than 12 feet in height and must be provided along all sidewalks and walkways to provide ample lighting during nighttime hours for employees, residents, and customers. Subd. 4. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the owner of the abutting building to maintain the streetscape. 543.13. Landscaping. Subdivision 1. All open areas of a lot that are not used or improved for required parking areas and drives shall be landscaped with a combination of over-story trees, under-story trees, shrubs, flowers and ground cover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculptures, fountains, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials. The following table is a minimum value for the landscaping: Project Value Minimum Below $1,000,000 2 percent $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 $20,000 + 1 percent of project value in ,--, excess of$1,000,000 $2,000,000 - $3,000,000 $30,000 + .'75 percent of project value in excess of$2,000,000 $3,000,000 - $4,000,000 $37,500+ .25 percent -- of project value in excess of$3,000,000 over$4,000,000 1 percent a. Documentation showing an estimated dollar amount of landscaping shall be provided to the City prior to any approval. b. All new over-story trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2.5 inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum caliper of 1.5 inches. c. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, patios or similar hard surface materials shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the City. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. d. An underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas except areas to be preserved in a natural state. The sprinkler system is required to have a sensor for an automatic shut- off to prevent the system from operating when it is raining. 543.14. Indoor/Outdoor Operations. All permitted uses in the mixed use district must be conducted within a completely enclosed building unless permitted by a conditional use permit. This requirement does not apply to off-street parking or loading areas, automated teller machines, or outdoor seating area, alone or in connection with restaurants. 543. 15. Wall si ris. Subdivision 1. Each tenant other than those in multi-tenant buildings may have one flat wall sign, not extending more than 18 inches from the face of the building, except that such signage may extend from the face of the roof over a covered walk. Such wall signs shall not exceed two times of the lineal frontage of the wall to which the business is located, to a maximum of 96 square feet. Signs shall not be internally illuminated. Subd. 2. Canopies and Awnings. The design of canopies shall be in keeping with the overall building design in terms of location, size, and color. No canopies with visible wall hangers shall be permitted. Signage on canopies maybe substituted for allowed building signage and shall be limited to 25 percent of the canopy area. Canopies shall not be internally illuminated. Subd. 3. Projectin� Projecting signs will have a maximum size of 12 square feet and a maximum width of three feet. Projecting signs cannot extend beyond the first floor of the building. No less than 10 feet of clearance shall be provided between the sidewalk surface and the lowest point of the projecting sign. Maximum distance between sign and building face is one foot. � Subd. 4. Monument si r�is. One monument sign shall be permitted for each multi-tenant building provided the surface area of the sign does not exceed two square feet per front foot of lot. No � sign shall be over 150 square feet, 20 feet in height and have a setback in no case less than 20 feet from the property lines. 543.16. Drive throu�h. A one-lane drive through may be permitted with a conditional use permit. The applicant must show that the drive through is an integral part of the building and the traffic and queuing will not interfere with the pedestrian experience. 543.17. Urban Nei borhood (LTN) Subdivision 1. This area is primarily located around the Blake Transit Station. The Urban Neighborhood District is intended primarily for mixed pedestrian-scaled, neighborhood-serving, nonresidential uses and high density residential uses in the same structure or in close proximity to one another. Nonresidential uses may include small-scale retail, service, and professional offices that provide goods and services to the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. Subd. 2. He_� Height 3-4 stories for residential structures Mixed Use 5-6 stories (retail on the first floor) 4-5 stories for office structures Subd. 3. Floor Area Ratio. ^ Residential minimum FAR - 2 Residential maximum FAR - 3 Mixed use building minimum FAR - 4 Mixed use building maximum FAR - 5 Office building minimum FAR - 3 Office building maximum FAR - 4 Subd. 4. Front yard setbacks alon�Blake Road and Excelsior Blvd Residential building 15'- 25' Office building 25'- 40' Subd. 5. Front vard setbacks along 2°d Street Residential building 5' — 15' Structured parking 5' — 15' Office building 5'-15' Side yard 10 feet Rear yard 10 feet � /� i� �� ,. � , G�TY OF � August 22, 2011 N� P K I N S Planning Report SUBD 11-1 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT— 132 INTERLACHEN RD Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ11-13, recommending �proval of a preliminar. /�plat at 132 Interlachen Road. Overview Albert Kempf, the applicant, has purchased 132 Interlachen Road and has razed the home. Mr. Kempf is proposing to construct a new home on this property. The existing parcel consists of two 40-foot lots. The former home straddled the two lots, as would the new home. The problem is that in the past homes were allowed to straddle lot lines. This was not a good practice and is not allowed today. To remedy the situation the owner will have to replat. Interlachen Park was platted as 40-foot lots; however, in this area each home is on two or three 40-foot lots. The new lot will be 80' x 132.47'. ^ Primary Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • Do the lots meet the zoning requirements? • What are the specifics of the plat? • Does the proposed plat meet the subdivision requirements? • Will a park dedication fee be required? Supportin�Documents • Analysis of Issues • Preliminary/Final Plat • Resolution RZ 11-13 ��'1L, , Nancy '. Anderson, AICP Planne Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: ^ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: C� �� f • • , SUBD11-1 Page 2 � Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the property is R-1-C, Single Family Medium Density. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this site as Residential. The proposed uses will comply with both documents. • Do the lots meet the zoning requirements? A lot in the R-1-C zoning district is required to have a minimum size of 12,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 80 feet. The proposed lot will be 80 feet in width. The proposed lot is 10,653 square feet; the applicant has applied for an area variance. • What are the specifics of the plat? The lot will be approximately 80' x 132.47. This lot is consistent with the other parcels in the area. � • Does the proposed plat meet the subdivision requirements? The plat, as proposed, meets the subdivision requirements. • Will a park dedication fee be required? A park dedication fee not will not be required because no additional lots will be created. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the preliminary plat/final plat. By recommending approval of the preliminary/final plat, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the preliminary/final plat. By recommending denial of the preliminary/final plat, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. � . � � � . .. . .... . . .. . . . . . .. . ... .. . .. . --_�.�._� �� o1v �x �� : ------, . ..�.,._.�....r.�.......� 1 1_"_" ��rrf p�Iri�Y rr��ii��µ~ � I� �; �O�wl�11�t I� 1 I OuA�7A�w�/�MW�Mf rye w� � I I I I i i KNOW ALL PFRSONS BY TFiESC RtF.gNTS:'IW A@en C.AemPS�ivglq fa awoa of Wc foYowiny deontr4 prape�ry noubd a me CounH of Fimv Mweoy b wa: Wot 51�of � I��p I.aY 21�nE l�Hlak�.ry'A S�vye i Idr6ahm P�k' Hmau.aGNs�mebbvrvmrM�nEpymLUKEh�FADOffIONodEohertbydma�eDAvdiwbbMepubliofvpubliewcf cqemommo(n6�iuge�vAuu4bpwpo.sr.hvxnw�h� P� iug In wmw xEeRof uiE AIbv1 C.%smp[yve 6uawb�a lin hpA p�._yy d kll l. ��J� AAatC.Kemp( �� S'fA'IE OF COUNfYOP the(o�s8om9 v�summ�wr ulmowldgd bef v 6i__dY of .30 _by Amen C.Kempf,�agk. Notrf'wbW� Cowb.Mv�md. My Comm�i Fip�s �� C�'� o�.md x w,t,.mnwh«.mrr mu mY v�w.�p.�e q m,or mac my a:m ww�.�:mn 1�•adr�.ea i..se s�..,ya;,a.sr.M�tim..w.;e.�m.ar:,oa�.a I �(� ruKt�a.�r.�r:m..um.ma..�ram.mi.wr.<ea..wymywaaa.�mwcn.�.o.a.�oe.c,wmmaa.�n..�.c..�.a�.wt��uy.aw�m�y�,w.�Y°°° . I `'� i �d.e.va..e iss..aer.d m Mmma.sw��n,saom,w�.o�.sona�...du.a.m orm�.awcm..�.now.�e i.sdm m me pW;.sa w.�.d p�n�w.y....iw�w sa i.s.iea�m: C � � ( CC °.°°'n: n.ror m�,. I I < I ,� I C� I lme�H.P�ks.Liomwd LuW Survqm � �' �i� I �.� I Mme�d�Ibae Nombr 9U5 � �_��'��'_��,��'�� 9TAiEOFM1@JNFSOfA ; ' �_�____�� CO[1N'1Y OF FffNt�pQJ ; ' ___�_�_��_��_��_��_1 1 � � I I �iowummt wr e�kmwkdged befae me ihi�_hy o( .30_M Lmu H Mm.�LiamwJ Lad Swvqm. � O�� I Npvy Pubin, �y " Q 1 �wr.Mava. � � � i L0• 22 vL � � i mr c�m..��. ,. ' � crrr oe xoeKws.Myvr�svrn ' _— �_�__�—_____._ 1� . � ----I I Th'spWofKFTfPFADDfiiONw��ppoved�OrosqeCMheC.YCwmiMHoptm�,MmeWe�wWlemcangWmo4hcWWs tl��_ � � w�elm�aammwY ad'somqped�Yoy o(p��yp��i 7 4hv9'Fn�nw,hrve ben mcerved b>'Ne Ci ihe procMed JO d�y pmio0 hr e—�YypinayY.q< I � ' f rvab oamm.e`ed neoua ��4m ud ihc Cauu H � LOT r y0'� � � I �^d.•ww�aw M nf�va.suw.s>r��os.oa.s�ea.z ry°` �w�a wn��;q 1 1 !� � I CITY CAIR:CLL OF'IHE CITY OP HOPKQIS,R�JNC90'fA � Q(' ; I . — L��T��'��J . �Y°f Cbk : - ---------'�------------� � r�t�r i � I _� I TAXPAYER 9FAVICFS DEPAAlT4EM.H^m^Po�o��Y..Mnmw I CJ ��1 I 16vebY�Y�lYxwpry�bMuN1_udR�Ym�hmbsmyN(aWdwwibeEmlhipLt�d�Wthu_E.Yof_�Zo_, I �(' I YJ I ly L.Alvmm.Cawry Aud'ew Hy: �wY 1� I �L I ��C '� I <� I 9URVEYOMSION,FImvepuCwoy.,�'�� ' ♦ I ;J I �WvtbMpN.STAT.3so.)13B.f65(1969a��yyYyyyro�.��_dyof 20 ; I ` W�Oim P.Bwn.Comry Sorv%"u Br: I f� I s= REGISIRM OF TfCIF.S.Nmnapio Caah,�omab � I I Ae^M ou�df'Nu ma ws6o VW dKF�.dE ADDRION w�fiYd v tlti.aB' LLi�__A.y af____.20_ _o•obok M. I NiohriN.Ctwi1[pee�o-vofTiile gy; J��ry ADVANCE SURVEYING&ENGINEERING CO. ...........................................................................: d� F3 Y s I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ir fi----------I------� I I it I i I m i l i I I I i t I� aomn� I I I r --------- —r----- I i l 1 i(' --------I--------' I —E - , , , I I l ; -- I___N __� � •psi 6 � y y� �I N � � I` \ , N �' � I � I I i 47r I bW I � I I � w � '�, �, I II �Q ` �—•• nys; I; �i ! � i �xi.nxo � o�.,o i I I I I IAS I �', , ��,11v ��` I � `•� � 'v� -� -�� II I 1 b I � I 4" y N W� •r m Y ` wk1® su y i�i W WTBtlFKUri '�'%� � I\\, , I� �v?t 1 h 8 - INTERLRCHEiJ ROAD � - - - - - -------------------- 4 b tiffig- wv: ayv yp L7 CN �� ro Z° -awn � � -•, c. � '3_ �' E. � �' ' 3 � a > o - a mob �Q"P�ozw� a a� a'ff _� m• as�oo e y 0 41 O A n a a f • CITY OF HOPKINS — Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ11-13 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR 132 INTERLACHEN ROAD WHEREAS, an application for a preliminary/final plat SUBD 11-1 has been submitted by Albert Kempf; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for preliminary/final plat was submitted by Albert Kempf on August 9, 2011; 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 August 30, 2011: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered. � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a preliminary/final plat SUBD] l-1 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the preliminary/final plat meets the subdivision requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for preliminary/final plat SUBD11-1 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following condition: 1. That the area variance is granted. Adopted this 30th day of August 2011. Aaron Kuznia, Chair �� GITY OF � HOPKINS August 22, 2011 Planning Report VN 11-3 AREA VARIANCE— 132 INTERLACHEN ROAD Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Adopt Resolution RZ11-14, recommending approval of an area variance for 132 Interlachen Road. Overview The applicant, Albert Kempf, has razed the existing home and will be constructing a new home at 132 Interlachen. 132 Interlachen consists of two 40-foot lots. The former home straddled the two lots, as would the new home. The problem is that in the past homes were allowed to straddle lot lines. This was not a good practice and is not allowed today. To remedy the situation the owner will have to replat. Interlachen Park was platted as 40-foot lots; however, in this area each home is on two or three 40-foot lots. The new lot will be 80' x 132'. The minimum lot size in the R-1-C zoning district is 12,000 square feet; the proposed lot has � 10, 653 square feet. Without the variance, the lot will be unbuildable. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What does the ordinance require? • What are the specifics of the applicant's request? • What practical difficulties does the property have? Suqqortin�Documents • Analysis of Issues • Survey • Resolution RZ 11-14 �� Nanc} . Anderson, AICP Planner ^ Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: VN11-3 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 R-1-C, Single Family Medium Density. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Low Density Residential. The proposed use complies with both documents. • What does the ordinance require? The R-1-C district requires a minimum lot size of 12, 000 square feet. • What are the specifics of the applicant's request? The applicant will be re-platting the lots to combine them into one lot of approximately 10,653 square feet. • What practical difficulties does the property have? ^ The new state statute requires three standards for the granting of a variance. The three requirements are: 1. That practical difficulties cited in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Without the granting of this variance the lot will be unbuildable. The lot being unbuildable is a practical difficulty, and granting a variance will provide the applicant a reasonable use of the property. Surrounding uses The site is surrounded by single family homes. Alternatives. 1. Recommend approval of the area variance. By recommending approval of the area ^ variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the area variance. By recommending denial of the area variance, VN11-3 Page 3 the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. �— 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. � � .. ............................................................................................................................. �...��;.�,._�. a�'drP�' .d1117I�?ON R T. �.�. iAoION�IM/AI�Yr YIM/��iMW _---_—� �—___—_ �M�/� b 1�M Yw�ss�s1�l�tl 1 I iur OLE ;� �i •O�Y�YwrM/�il I 1 Ou11�7A rwM�tildsr�hM put i1ao� I I i i KTbW�L PO150N5 9Y TIFS PNEgNR:7y�/Jysn C.I;cmPf,�uek.fu oMm of 0e 1a11oxinB devibsd�wvpsnr�im�lcd m We Counry ofHsnnryin,Swe otAlinvwoy b wic La.]I�nd];01ak J,•FA Svyei Iw Wlwi Prk• �� H�ve uu.N W��a b ba rvnrycO.nC pW W u KYA�f�pDl'1'ION mA do Fwaby donW md dadinb b Me publu fm publia u�e fomvc Ne wemm�far bain�pa�vd vuliq pwpo�u u�haxv m Iliu P� Iuwwn�whucof��idAlbe�C.Kemp[Wwhsminb�qlwlund�hi,_d�yA 2011. awr�nri e�s � AI4n C.A'.mpf �f!� STA'IEOF COUM Y OP The(on,ous u�wmwl wu�ebwwMA�sd pp(m�4u_dry oI .+JI_by Ahn C.I:mp(�'s�b, N^�Y a�, Cowy.Alma. A1Y Cmmu�im Ev4'vu �J �^�/ I J�mu N.P.rYerda ha.by o��Cy N��NL pL�wr Mp.ed bY mv a wda mY d�ew�upwYbn:Mr I.m�duy I.Iorn�sE L.nd Survqor u�Ae Siwe NMinn..ay W.i�A4 PI4 u.earco�nryv�m�iinn ,,�- af Ne baunJuy�urvvY:�WI�II o�Nm�IbJ dW uJ ISob wa amMlr�IyynyaA ao We p�S h�l�0 mmuasnY diDb�d ao WL pW hrva ben.n xill Ee ewrtnyY��wiihn meY•v.Wr WI w��cr � ±r � Py�nhh��nEw�16ob,uEefndinMinnxu�9iWb,5mtimfOf.0l,Yubdl,uolN�d�ieo(Jti�owYfioY��n�bownmdhhelWmWey�y;udJulJlpubWw�y�w�hox�mElWcicdonWi� I I �l` I �� DNsJWY 4yof 1011. I N` I I.L ( C I l�me�1{.PNc.Lieu�ed I.ud Sw%a Afeu�m Lcw�e Nuobv 9ll5 I 4� M7pMT I I ,' ��_��_�.��Al� _' � STATEOPF@.TffS(YfA � r_�____________ _� COUN'IYOFF¢NNEPpI ' ' ��_��7 : 1 1 ( I Thi.iueunm�wu�otaewkdKC be(wa m.W._E�Y of ZO_Ey Jws.H Pahu.�Lixn.cA lad Surv%«. I �� 1 ; I � ��t. 1 I Nwrr wb4e. c� I 0 �^b.Al�or.a. � � 1 �Or V ■ MYCamw�ilmFipiiv L� � �� I � I CITY OP HOPAIN9�tANt�90TA ��i ��,f ' S I � � TFJ.P W af1:F1.1PP nDDIT10N wu�ppovW�vd re�pW by Na Car Guna�W lbpkii�.Aluesoy N�nN��f m�C haW Wu yY� 301 .Ifyqliabk.Ne i1 � ( wnuw mun.op sd naummeeLJou uf Ws CammiuburolT�x.powpoe�nd W�Cauery Hie�wry F'a�iosn,6rvo bom Rwivd by LLe Ciry w�puenbuJ 10 d. � • ofwoh eommwu ud�mummmyyw..u purLkd by A4rouw Siun.,,S.qio.Saf.o3.yuld.2 Y IK+�hu eLpW wii6uu�m:.iq � LOT 27 �,�� \- i � � ��- I I crtvrnuncaoenrecnva+xorr,ws,nwatieYara 1 Q� j I L��__��___�_______�___�____��_J M�yw � . —— -----------'4'-t------------� I TAXPAYERSFAVICE4UEPMITRM.fiamq6Cawy.Alirwow iMr1f�L `,`J+ I `! I Ihc�cEY^�wYNuiue�p�YW�h301_udP�Yw�rvab.mpiJfwWWdaaibdmmiM�4d.WNu_dryof_J30_. �- I ` I li11L.A1vmm.CouoryAodqu gy: �Y I � I �� f <C i 9URV2YDMSION,H�wrylcCounry,Minomw ' Punuuii b h1INN.9TAT.Sre.]tJB.161(1969�Ni�pW Fu.bcm�ppuved N6_dey of 20_. I ` I '� I W Jli�m P.&oxn.CautY 9orvyw BY: I �J I == REOISIRNtOF1771Py�HawapuCwury.Mlmwy I �hveEyoo'ifrLLUN.w'shypl.tyY.p�@FApDR10NwrfJod'mmuo6we6'u_dryof :0_ _oblmk_.\I. I MieA.elHC1wJ[Regsy�rofTiW� BY: p�,. ADVANCE SURVEYING&ENGINEERINC CO. . ....................................................................................................................................... C \ \ CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ11-14 � RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR 132 INTERLACHEN ROAD WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN11-3 has been made by Albert Kempf; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN11-14 was made by Albert Kempf on August 16, 2011; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on August 30, 2011: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered; and 4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows: Lots 21 and 22, Block 4, F.A. Savages Interlachen Park, Hennepin County NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance � VN11-14 to reduce the area for a lot from 12,000 to 10,653 square feet is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That 132 Interlachen Road does have a circumstance peculiar and unique to the parcel. 2. That the lot is unbuildable without the variance. 3. That the applicant will not have reasonable use of the property without the granting of a variance. BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the 12,000 square-foot minimum lot size in the R-1-C zoning district would cause an undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the subject property, that the granting of the requested variance to the extent necessary to compensate for such hardship is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, and that the variance of 1,347 square feet is reasonable. Adopted this 30th day of August 2011. Aaron Kuznia, Chair � C,ITY OF ^ August 23, 2011 N� P K I N S Planning Report VN11-2 SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE—640-11TH AVENUE SOUTH Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Adopt Resolution RZ11-12, recommendin� approval of a si�n setback variance at 640-1 lth Ave S. Overview The applicant has purchased 640-11`h Avenue South and is doing improvements to the property. One of the improvements is to add signage to the property. Because the building was constructed many years ago, the setback along 1 lth Ave S. is not the required 20 feet, but approximately 11 feet. The setback for a sign is 10 feet, and if the building was set back the required 20 feet there would not be a problem. The sign will be eight feet in height and four feet wide. The proposed sign will display the tenants in the building. There are parking areas for the building on the north and south sides of the building, but if the sign is located in one of these areas, the building would block the signage either from the � north or south. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What does the ordinance require? • What are the specifics of the applicant's request? • What practical difficulties does the property have? Supporting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Site Plan • Resolution RZ 11-12 J � �C�! Nanc} . Anderson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): ^ Notes: VN 11-2 � 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 I-2, General Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Industrial. The existing use complies with both documents. • What does the ordinance require? The sign ordinance requires a minimum setback of 10 feet. • What are the specifiics of the applicant's request? The applicant is requesting a zero setback. • What practical difficulties does the property have? The new state statute requires three standards for the granting of a variance. The three requirements are: � 1. That practical difficulties cited in connection with the granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and 3. The variance, if granted, wil] not alter the essential character of the locality. Signage is an important part of a business owner's leasability of a property. Because this property was constructed many years ago with a different setback, the sign cannot be placed were the sign setback would allow. Placing the signage in the parking areas on the north or south side of the property would limit one direction of traffic from seeing the sign. The signage could be put on the east side of the building, but in driving by on 11`h Avenue this signage would not be visible. Surrounding uses The site is surrounded by commercial to the south, open space to the east, industrial to the north and west. Alternatives. � 1. Recommend approval of the sign setback variance. By recommending approval of the sign setback variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. VN 11-2 Page 3 2. Recommend denial of the sign setback variance. By recommending denial of the sign setback variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the � Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. � �� CITY OF HOPKINS ^ Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ11-12 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE AT 640 11TH AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN11-2 has been made by Douglas Petty. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN11-1 was made by Douglas Petty on July 19, 2011; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on August 30, 2011: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered; and 4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows: Lots 9 to 12, Block 57 West Minneapolis �`' NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN 11-2 to reduce the rear sign setback from 10' to zero is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: l. That the building at 640-llth Avenue South is constructed in the required building setback. 2. That the building would block the signage if located in the parking areas. BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the 10-foot sign setback would cause a practical difficulty because of circumstances unique to the subject property, that the approval of the requested variance to the extent necessary to compensate for such practical difficulty is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, and that the variance of 10' feet is reasonable. Adopted this 30th day of August 2011. � Aaron Kuznia, Chair is --------------- ---- ED 7A Ilk m 'S 133818 HiL 3 OD SA Iilr 14 @ cn I x 1z, :I dig 9 N ED 7A Ilk m 'S 133818 HiL @ cn