The URL can be used to link to this page

07-31-2012 . , �ULY AUGUST MEMBERS S M T W T F S S M T W T F S V�I� F �UZNIA �� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 �F�I HER ✓�ATTA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 �A�L ARD rQFIRTH 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 �I{ERSSEN �DERSON 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 31 AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION TuesdaST. JuIS� 31, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ----------------------------------------------------- � ITEM: Approve and sign minutes of the June 26, 2012, regular ineeting. COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. SPR12-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW— PARKING LOT Public Public Heariiig to consider adding additional parking to 541 Second Avenue Hearing South COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. SUBD 12-2 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT — KLODT DEVELOPMENT Public Public Hearing to consider the pieliminary/final plat for the property ^ Hearing between Eighth and Ninth Avenues abutting First Street South COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / i� /� �� ' � � ' ` AGENDA �' ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 CASE NO. SPR12-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW— KLODT DEVELOPMENT Public Public Hearing to considei construction of 1G3 apartments at 815 Fii:st Hearing Stieet and 31 Ninth Avenue South COl�ZMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. ZN12-3 REZONING — MIXED USE Public Public Hearing t.o considei the rezoning of 815 First Street South and 31 Hearing Ninth Avenue South ,.� COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. ZN12-4 REZONING - PUD Public Public Hearing to consider placing an overlay PUD zoning on 815 First Hearing Stieet South and 31 Ninth Avenue South COMMISSION�CTION: / / / / ITEM: REPRESENTATIVE TO UPDATE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT � ,'r\ �� ''� � � ! � � � � ZONING AND PLANNING COI�'IMISSION MINUTES June 26, 2012 A regular ineeting of the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Conunission was held on Tuesday. June 26, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall. Present ��ere Comrriission members Doug Datta, Andrea Naef; Jennifer Allard, Scott Kerssen, Charles Firth and Aaron Kuznia. Andrew Fisher was absent. Also present was staff inember Nancy Anderson. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kuznia called the n7eeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Firth inoved and Mr. Kerssen seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the May 29, 2012, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. � CASE NO. CUP 12-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DAYCARE Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed daycare. Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed day care. Ms. Anderson noted that residents of the neighborhood had contacted staff regarding the day care and the biggest concern was the traffic. Rachel Sampong, representing the applicants, appeared before the Coinmission. Ms. Sampong stated that the day care has two vans and most children will arrive to the site in the vans. She also stated that most of the families do not have cars and work non-traditional hours, which is the reason for the extended hours of the facility. She also stated that the children will use Blake School for their playground facility. Frances Davis, also representing the applicants, appeared before the Commission. Ms. Davis is a consultant for the applicants. Ms. Davis stated that marry of the children will come from the neighborhood to the north and could ��alk across the street. The public hearing was opened at 7:11 p.m. At the public hearing Pat Lauer of 42 Ashley appeared before the Coininission. Mr. Lauer was concerned with the following: • Traftic • Pedestrian traffic and buses • Setback not being met ^ • Noise next to residential —residents to the east will hear the noise • Hours of operation MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING, June 26, 2012 P age 2 � • Fire-where will the children go? • Trash • Where will people park for events? • Deliveries • Children walking across the street • Tornado shelter • Contract with Blake for play area • Hot meals after 6:00 p.m. Mr. Datta moved and Ms. Allard seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unaniinously. The public hearing was closed at 7:23 p.m. The Commission discussed traffic concerns, access to the site and pedestrian traffic. Mr. Kerssen moved and Ms. Allard seconded a motion to reopen the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. The motion was approved unanimously. Mina Herrigan appeared at the public hearing. Ms. Herrigan asked if the daycare owned the vans. Ms. Naef inoved and Mr. Kerssen moved to close the public hearing at 7:36 p.in. The motion was approved unanimously. �-' Mr. Kerssen indicated that he thought it «�as a good use. Mr. Firth was concerned with safety. Ms. Allard moved and Ms. Naef seconded a inotion to reopen the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. The motion was approved unaniinously. Marilyn Leadens, the owner of the property, appeared at the public hearing. Ms. Leadens asked if it could be mandatory that the day care use the vans. Pat Lauer of 42 Ashley appeared again and was concerned with the following: • Setbacks • Landscaping • Fencing Mr. Kerssen moved and Mr. Firth seconded a motion to close the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. The motion was approved unanimously. The Commission had a considerable discussion on the traffic and added a condition to the resolution that a traffic study be completed. Mr. Datta inoved and Mr. Kuznia seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ12-6, recommending �,r. approval of a conditional use permit for a daycare. The inotion was approved unanimously. � � ' _ �� MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETII�TG, June 26, 2012 Page 3 CASE NO. ZN12-2 ZONING AMENDn'IENTS —INTENT AND PURPOSE Ms. Anderson revie«�ed the proposed amendments. The public hearing was opened at 8:17 p.m. I�To one appeared at the public hear-ing. Ms. Naef moved and Mr. Kerssen seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 8:18 p.m. Ms. Naef rnoved and Mr. Firth seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ12-5, recommending approval of zoning amendments. The motion was approved unanimously. ADJOURN Ms. Allard moved and Mr. Kerssen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The inotion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjoui-ned at 8:20 p.m. � MEMBERS ATTEST: Aaron Kuznia, Chair s� �� ,�"\ 1 � � � �--� � July 23, 2012 Planning Report SPR12-2 SITE PLAN REVIEVV —NEZ�' PARKING LOT 541 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Adopt Resolution RZ12-7, recommendin� a�roval of a site plan to add additional parkin� at 541 Second A��enue South. Overview Orion South, LLC, has purchased the building at 541 Second Avenue South. The property is zoned Business Park. The use of the building is an office use. The existing parking area is located on the north side of their site, making it difficult for persons with disabilities to walk to the building. The existing parking area has 51 spaces. Based on the square footage of the building, the building would be required to have 58 spaces for an office use. They are proposing to add an additional 18 parking spaces south of the existing parking lot. In the new parking lot there will be two handicapped parking spaces. The new parking area has the ^ required size of 9' x 20' parking spaces and will have curb and gutter. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • Why is site plan approval required? • What are the specifics of the new parking area? • What is the schedule for construction? SupportinQ Documents • Analysis of issues • Resolution RZ12-7 • Site plans • Neigborhood meeting ininutes �� Nancy S derson, AICP City Pla er �� Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: � SPR12-2 Page 2 Primarv Issues to Consider. • What is the zoning of the properh�, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the property is Business Park. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this site as Business Park. The proposed use coinplies with both docuinents. • Why is site plan approval required? Section 526.01 subdivision 1 c) states Expand or change the use of a building or parcel of land or modify a building, accessory structure or land feature in any manner which results in a greater intensity of use, including the construction of additional parking. • What are the specifics of the new parking area? Parking Setbacks --� The parking setbacks are 50 feet for the west fi-ont yard, 20 feet for tlle east front yard, (the site has two front yards because it is considered a through-lot, having street frontage on two sides) 10 feet for the side and 10 for the rear setback. The new parking area exceeds the required setbacks. There is an option for an additional six spaces west of the existing parking area, these spaces do not meet the required setback, and at this tiine staff would not recominend the construction of these spaces. Variances would be required for these spaces to be constructed. Landscaping There are existing trees to the south of the existing parking area. The existing trees ��ill be protected. The Business Park ordinance requires a landscape benn at a miniinum of three feet in height. The proposed parking area is naturally lower than the sun�ounding land. Also the area to the west of the proposed parking area has many mature trees that will remain. Public Works The city engineer has reviewed the plans and found them acceptable. Surrounding Uses ^ The site is sun-ounded by Highway 169 to the east an office building to the north and south, and residential to the west. SPR 12-2 Page 3 � VVatershed District This development will have to be approved by the Watershed District. Any City approvals will be contingent on their approval. . What is the schedule for construction? The applicant would like to start construction as soon as possible. Alternatives. 1. Recommend approval of the site plan to add additional parking. By recommending approval of the site plan, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the site plan to add additional parking. By recominending denial of the site plan, 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 infornlation. If the Planning Coininission indicates that further � information is needed, the item should be continued. � � , ^ CITY OF HOPHINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-7 RESOLUTION MAKII�G FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN TO ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING AT 54] SECOND AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for Site Plan Review SPR12-2 has been made by Orion South LLC; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a Site Plan approval was inade by Orion South LLC, on June 29, 2012; 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 July 31, 2012: 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: Lot 2 Block 1 West Warrington Addition. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Site Plan Review SPR12- 2 is hereby reconunended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the Planning Cominission reviewed the proposed parking area. 2. That the proposed use meets the requirements for site plan review. 3. That the proposed use�neets the requirements for a parking area in the Business Park zoning. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Site Plan Review SPR12-2 is hereby recoininended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That the watershed district approves the proposed development. 2. That the City Engineer approves the final plans. 3. That the altei-nate parking area is removed. � Adopted this 31 st day of July 2012. ATTEST: Aaron Kuania, Chair Neighborhood Meeting Agenda �-' ��I 2°`' Avenue South Parking Lot Expansian Julti� 18t�, 2012 (n,� fi:3� P1�'[ *Notes fi-c»zl meeting ln t1•od uctions '` Toi�}� Vannelli & Steve ;rohT�son �3•o,n TDB, LLC * CheTyl Vennerstrom, CFO of Orion Cornpaa�ies (O��ncr Rep) '` Fl•ank & .1oy Petei-s �1 i E. Pa�-k ti'alIey I�r. * .iohn �. Joann Hutchison >2�� F. Park `�alley Dt�. Wh�r Are «'e Meeting Y DiscL�ssed the �ur�ose of the il7eetinb and Chervl Ve7�r�erstrom explaine�d the businesses need foi• the imprc�ve��le�1t, an�l tileirrl�usiness operation. � Cc�ntra�tor U��erview of Pr•oject ''` Ton}� �arinelli c� Steve Joh�7son fro�� TDB. LLC' explained t11e project dra«�it��s, the cat�sti-tiction, and the duratic�r� of consti-uctior3 activity of a�.�pr•oaimately �0 to �5 davs t��haf's Ne.�t PI�n_nin� & Zotling (cz� Ci�� Hal] "I�uesda}� Jl�l}� �1" (rz� 6:30 City CoLu�cil (ri� Citi� Hall Monday At�gust C�''' t�l` 7:30 - ,., (�t�estions & Comments * �I-1�e neialzl�ors fe11 ior the �nost �ai-t in-favor of t}�e pai�lcii7g im��rovtment. Jahn Hutchiso» had a concern abo��t losin� t«�o tre�s c�n the six space alternate. One tree is i-tlostly deac�, but the otl�er one is a nice iree an�l ��-ould like t� see �t replaced. � A D TRUNK HIGHWA Y 169 $ v F T O — m c (n 2 . iJl 2ND A VENUE SOUTH p=2o I n�v v22 01 nYKm m i I _ v C1 E o c: ,C) _IllllLa A D TRUNK HIGHWA Y 169 $ v F T O — m c (n 2 . iJl In 1. iry II 541 2ND AVE. S. IMPROVEMENTS aEvisoes " t7 HOPKINS MN SITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN anima h + O for: KRAMER LEAS DELEO"°^"' .(, .. ........,. p=2o a `%oma n�v v22 01 In 1. iry II 541 2ND AVE. S. IMPROVEMENTS aEvisoes " t7 HOPKINS MN SITE & LANDSCAPE PLAN anima h + O for: KRAMER LEAS DELEO"°^"' .(, .. ........,. ,'RCN IONS .; 541 2ND AVE. S. IMPROVEMENTS 0 ` HOPKINS MN GRADING PLAN for: O KRAMER LEAS DELEO, P.C. SROT,��g �--� July 23, 2012 � Planning Report SUBD12-2 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT— GALLERY FLATS APARTMENTS Proposed Action Staff recominends the following inotion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ12-9, recommending apUroval of a preliminary/final�lat for the Galler_y Flats apartinents. O��erview In 2010 the City had a purchase agreement for the fonner Park Nicollet site at 815 First Street South. The City closed on the property in 2011. Also in 2010 the City put out a request for proposals (RFP) to redevelop the site, and three companies responded. Klodt Development, LLC was the City Council's choice to redevelop the site. Klodt has also secured the fonner Lutheran Digest building property to add to the development. Klodt Development, LLC is proposing to construct two apartment buildings. The first building will be conshucted along Eighth Avenue and have 73 units. The second building will be constructed along First Street and Ninth Avenue and have 90 units. --� The existing site consists of 12 lots. The entire parcel will be coinbined into one parcel. The public alleys running north/south and east/west will remain. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Coinprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • Does the lot meet the zoning requirements? • What are the specifics of the�lat? • Does the proposed plat meet the subdivision requirements? • Will park dedication fees be required? SupAorting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Preliininary/Final Plat • Resolution RZ12-9 ,(� r f 4 � Nancy . Anderson, AICP City Planner Financial Iinpact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: �� Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: /'� �\ �� r • `� SUBD12-2 Page 2 Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how� has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the property is B-2; it will be rezoned to Mixed Use for the proposed apartments. The Coinprehensive Plan has designated this site as Mixed Use. When the property is rezoned, the zoning and the Coinprehensive Plan will be consistent. • Does the lot meet the zoning requirements? The Mixed Use ordinance does not have a minimum lot size. • What are the speci�cs of the plat? When the property is replatted there will be one lot. • Does the proposed plat meet the subdivision requirements? --� The plat, as proposed, ineets the subdivision requireinents. • Will park dedication fees be required? Park dedication fees will be required. $800.00 is required for each unit. Alternatives 1. Recoinmend approval of the preliininary plat/final plat. By recotrunending approval of the preliminary/final plat, the City Council will consider a recominendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the preliininary/final plat. By recominending denial of the preliminary/final plat, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this altei7lative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further infonnation. If the Planning Conunission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. /� CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota �' RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-9 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY/FiNAL PLAT FOR 815 FIRST STREET SOUTH AND 31 NINTH AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for a preliminary/final plat SUBD12-2 has been submitted by Klodt Developinent; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follo��s: 1. That an application for preliminaiy/final plat was submitted by Klodt Developinent, LLC on July 2, 2012; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Plamiing Coininission, pursuant to inailed and published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on July 31, 2012: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and � 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered. 4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows: Parcel 1: The South 36 feet of Lot 13, and all of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with the East half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the westerly extension of the North line of the South 36 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 14, and including that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 15 and the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 17, all in "West Minneapolis," except those portions einbraced within the following-described two tracts: Exception Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said � '"�� Lot 14" all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. Exception Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; tl�ence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes �4 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the rigllt a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said � Lot 14, all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; tlience Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Tract C: Non-exclusive easement for driveway and access purposes over, across and upon the North 14 feet of Lot 13, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Easement iii Gross) Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 4, West Mimleapolis, Hennepin � County, Minnesota, together with that part of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 and 22 accruing thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a preliminary/final plat � SUBD12-2 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed preliminaiy/final plat. 2. That the preliminary/final plat meets the subdivision requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for preliininary/final plat SUBD12-2 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following condition: 1. That the applicant must provide current evidence of title, in the fonn of a coininitment for title insurance, to the City Attorney. 2. That the applicant pay the Attorney's fee for title review. Adopted this 31 st day of July 2012. Aaron Kuznia, Chair � �i M, Z. 'uns= --O'i"ADAON 9 PIQI3'uD53 MCE-9" (m) :Xvi4 ,S'99V4p £.g -M-1. - . . ....... . Itw np•eay la naw awn neT�� is. M— z VNU-LVId WOA N01",luol NOG —.d —1-1 rx W931 03GOdOUd N— R,4* -'rut mc -,nm 7"., M Z V'=udip','-'V -m �g. 06Z 31N5-13�T'15 ILLSf'M 1[64 MU N01VOINn W U33NIS p —A �l HOA3ANns INvi. ;ui 31n03H09 ma.A sw311 AaAmns ;N011dlklOSRQ -IVOa-I .. . . ........ . '—w—I—c UMOIAluens f "wqmt EVESS NW'SNIMdOH I winos anNaAl, H.L6 4E S3INVdWOO IUOIM SIV IA AM311VO Hinds iaaus 1S 949 :59390CV)193dOMdl :NOLLV31311U3 —dll� t Itw np•eay la naw :r3.LON z -'rut mc -,nm 7"., M Z V'=udip','-'V -m �g. WM p ;ui 31n03H09 ma.A sw311 AaAmns ;N011dlklOSRQ -IVOa-I .. . . ........ . . . . . . . . ......... I L N022216T M mrs, 349.6 f(MEAS) — — — — �x SOOZ'�%*W —'U . ..... c vi > z 0 r 5024235 4 -n vu tri 0 m T E A P 0 L -n ILI I K� R v & �v ap eA- o �_ a$$ B 6a I i° Nim � N.4 B 00 EL ss I AL. I—L—j ^ � � IZ � Plannin Re ort SPR12-3 July�3, �0 g I� SITE PLAN RE�'IEVV—GALLERY FLATS APARTMENTS Proposed Action Staff reconunends the following motion: Adopt Resolution RZ12-8 recommending approval of a site plan to construct 163 apartments at 815 First Street and 31 Ninth Avenue South. Overview In 2010 the City had a purchase agreement for the fonner Park Nicollet site at 815 First Street South. The City closed on the property in 2011. Also in 2010 the City put out a request for proposals (RFP) to redevelop the site, and three coinpanies responded. Klodt Developinent, LLC was the City Council's choice to redevelop the site. Klodt has also secured the fonner Lutheran Digest building property to add to the developinent. Klodt Development, LLC is proposing to construct two apartment buildings. The first building will be constructed along Eighth Avenue and have 73 units. The second building will be constructed along First Street and Ninth Avenue and have 90 units. --� The development will have underground parking ��ith access to the underground parking from First Street. The underground parking will be one large parking area sparuiing both of the buildings. Primary Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Coinprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What are the specifics of the redevelopment? • What is the applicant's tiine line? • Wliat are the iteins that will have to occur for this developinent to proceed? Supportina Documents • Analysis of issues • Resolution RZ12-8 • Site plans Nancy S. Anderson, AICP City Plaruler � Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.}: Notes: * . �� SPR12-3 Page 2 Primarv Issues to Consider. • VVhat is the zoning of the propert,y, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the property is B-2, Central Business. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this site as Mixed Use. The site will be rezoned to Mixed Use with a PUD overla_y district. • VVhat are the specifics of the redevelopment? Building The development will consist of two phases. The building along Eighth Avenue will be constructed in the first phase and the building along 1 S` Street and Ninth Avenue will be the second phase. The building will be five stories on Eighth Avenue and four stories on Ninth Avenue. Both buildings will have flat roofs. The underground parking for the entire '� development will be constructed with the first phase. The building and parking areas will have security systems. Parking/Access The site will have underground parking spaces. Access to the underground parking will be frorn First Street with a single overhead door. Underground parking will be accessed by a proximity reader, and the underground parking area will be equipped with security cameras. There will be 165 underground parking spaces. 72 of the storage units will be located in the underground parking area. There will be surface parking on the north side of the Ninth Avenue building for visitor parking with the access to this area from Ninth Avenue and the alley. There will be 23 surface parking spaces. The surface parking will be used for both buildings. The surface parking stalls are 9' x 18', not the required 9' x 20'. The surface parking area will Ue lit with two light poles. The mixed use ordinance requires 1.5 parking spaces for each unit. The proposed parking ratio is 1.166 per dwelling unit. The required ratio can be reduced if a Travel Demand Managetnent Plan (TDM) is completed. The applicants have coinpleted a TDM and outlined actions that will support a lower parking ratio. Other recent developments in the downtown area also have supported a lower parking ratio. � Additional street parking is available. Snow will be stored on site until it is necessary to have it removed. Pedestrian Access The main pedestrian access to the buildings will be from the street corners. Secondary public . � , SPR12-3 Page 3 entrances are located on the west side of the east building and on the southwest corner of the � plaza for the west building. There will be additional resident only entrances to both buildings. Exterior The exterior of the building will be primarily brick and stucco with accents of architectural metals. Double-hung windows will be used. The balconies will have inetal decks and rails. Any roof-mounted equipment will be placed to the inside of the building so as not to be visible. The proposed exterior material meets the requirements of the ordinance. Landscaping There will be boulevard trees on Eighth and Ninth Avenues and First Street In addition to the boulevard trees, the development will have a courtyard between the two buildings. This courtyard will be the roof to the underground parking. There will be planters throughout the courtyard with plantings, but the inajority of the courtyard will be sod. The courtyard will also have an outdoor kitchen area. The ordinance requires one percent of the cost of construction for landscaping and public improvements; the applicant will exceed the one percent. Lighting Street lights will remain on all the public streets. The building fa�ade on Eighth Avenue will have the accent lighting on the coluinris from the second floor to the fifth. The other facades will � not be lit, other than entry lights. The courtyard will have pedestrian scaled light for the walking paths. DwelGng Units The following is the breakdown of units: 18 studios 100 one-bedrooin 16 two-bedrooms, one bath 29 two-bedrooms, two baths The square footage of the units will range froin 700 to 1200 square feet. Soine of the ainenities within each unit will be laundry, nine-foot high ceilings, cerainic bathroom floors and walls, pre- wired for internet, cable TV and phone. Each unit will be individually metered with natural gas, electric and water. Along Eighth Avenue there will be six live/work flex spaces for a total of approximately 4800 square feet. Access to these six units will be directly to Eighth Avenue. These units along Eight Avenue can be used for commercial spaces. The ceiling height for these units is 11 feet, the ordinance requires 11 feet for non-residential space. � At least 20 percent of the units on the fonner Park Nicollet site (east building) will be affordable SPR12-3 r� P age 4 at the 80 percent average median income level. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) The Floor Area Ratio is the nuinerica] value obtained through dividing the floor area of a building or buildings by the lot area on which such building or buildings are located. The inixed use ordinance requires a FAR a minimuin of 4 and a maxiinum of 5. The proposed developinent has an FAR of a little over 3. Building Amenities The first floor will consist of mostly common area amenities. Some of the amenities of the building are the following: • Underground parking • Bike storage • Exercise room • Coimnunity rooin • Landscaped courtyard with underground irrigation • Building security system � • Storage rooms • Individual storerooins • On-site management Engineering/Public Works The City Engineer noted that the water services should come off First Street. Fire Marshal The fire marshal has reviewed the preliminary plans and found thenl acceptable. Trash The trash enclosures will be inside the building, including an area for recycling. The trash enclosures will be placed outside on the day of pickup. Sidewalk There will continue to be a sidewalk on Eighth and Ninth Avenues and First Street. The widths of the sidewalks will vary from 12'-13' feet on Eighth Avenue, seven to 14' feet on First Street ^ and six feet on Ninth Avenue. The ordinance requires a ininimuin of five feet and maxiinum of 20 feet. . � , SPR12-3 Page 5 � Bike Racks Each unit will have a bike storage area, some which will be located in the underground parking area. There is also a bike storage rooin in the east building for approximately 30 bikes. The storage rooin is located on the first floor. The mixed use ordinance requires one per two units. In addition to the resident bike racks, there will be an additional five bike racks for guests throughout the site. The mixed use ordinance requires eight spaces for guests. The five bike racks will have space for 40 bikes. Signage It is proposed to have signage on the fascia above the two inain entrances, which will have the names of the buildings. The live/work flex spaces will also have a sign band. There will also Ue an opportunity for public art on the east building on the north and south sides. Setbacks The buildings setbacks vary. The east building wil] have a six to seven-foot setback on the east side, six feet on the south, and one foot on the north. The courtyard is the west side of the east building. The west building has a one to two foot setback on the south side, a 1.9 to 6.6 foot setback on the west side, the courtyard on the east side and the surface parking area to the north. � Watershed District This development will have to be approved by the Watershed District. Any City approvals will be contingent on their approval. Surrounding Uses The site is sunounded by multi-family housing to the east, Elks CIuU to the north, industrial building to the south and offices and downtown park to the west. • What is the applicant's time line? The applicant is planning to start construction in the spring of 2013. • VVhat are the items that will have to occur for this development to proceed? • PUD agreement �/ � * � �� SPR12-3 Page 6 Alternatives. 1. Recotnmend approva] of the site plan to construct an apartment complex. By recommending approval of the site plan, the City Council will consider a recoininendation of approval. 2. Recorrunend denial of the site plan to construct an apartment complex. By recommending denial of the site plan, the City Council will consider a recoinmendation of denial. If the Planning Coininission considers this alternative, findings «�ill have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further inforn�ation is needed, the item should be continued. � '� , � � CITY OF HOPHINS Hennepin County, Minnesota �-- RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-8 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT 163 APAR'I�MENTS AT 815 FIRST STREET SOUTH AND 31 N1NTH AVENUE SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for Site Plan Review SPR12-3 has been made by Klodt Development LLC; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a Site Plan approval was made by Klodt Development LLC, on July 2, 2012; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Coininission, pursuant to mailed and published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on July 31, 2012: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written coinments and analysis of City staff were considered; and, � 4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows: Parcel l: The South 36 feet of Lot 13, and all of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with the East half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the westerly extension of the North line of the South 36 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 14, and including that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said Lot I S and the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 17, all in "West Minneapolis," except those portions emUraced within the following-described two tracts: Exception Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of t11e vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14" all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Herulepin County, Minnesota. � �\ Exception Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 ininutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of tlle South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14, all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. � Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Tract C: Non-exclusive easement for driveway and access purposes over, across and upon the North 14 feet of Lot 13, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Easement in Gross) Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 4, West Miru�eapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 and 22 accruing thereto. �� NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Site Plan Review SPR12-3 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the Planning Commission revie��ved the proposed redevelopment. t � • \./ 2. That tt�e proposed use meets the requirements for site plan review. 3. That the proposed use is in compliance with the Coinprehensive Plan. 4. That the proposed use is the vision for the downtown station area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Site Plan Review SPR12-3 is hereby recommended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That the site be rezoned to Mixed Use. 2. That the City Engineer approves the final plans. 3. That the site have an overlay PUD zoning. 4. That the site be replatted. 5. That the watershed district approves the proposed developinent. Adopted this 31 st day of July 2012 ATTEST: Aaron Kuznia, Chair `.-� � r ac p6m a oo M� Sswas 11; gg$x AWS E ON 1HE ��a° gi ON aoo 000 6 pin put �aT � r X699" "Mo Iu r sun $ zfim��ax�'ao z ,� m rrr TTTrm � g� og� �; Al z6 SSN' a%z o° °'sg > m 1 �0 HOU im-10 m m G°oAo o� AM " wU J. GTURN a= - w��,e Sol El mos oono -o EJy 9 fa A°'W S U °m 90 US z cc 1O � •<a gpgg en° r(nn _ytl� AUR Nolull over, Zig m "1 Tg a mg MN n nip 11M ill 111 1jull 11GS 1I r "rz nin $�1 z 11111 110 !I❑ $mZ Ill d as Nn =qG mn 3� -° 111111 ��MINI � n� Na �� "p o of Si r� .5 00000DOOD 01,001,0110 0 0110 0001300011DO ■■■ ■r■ ■■ DODDEIDDE1130 r■ 000000000■■■■■■■ ■ ■■■ 2/ ,Eo }0 / @ )]!/ .! §; o , /�$§ ,»»{ \/ w gy$ m ,\ ,! saw , /y. 4°{5 I 4 R, M �`/ G) 7- >0 > 6) \ \}( m G) U) z ......... . . ........... . . IF SP IM .... . ........ -Iz, ?k j q� ------------ -4e -- ---- ------ =-- [ i Id 11 '-. I C I I ----- — - --- rr �a - ---- -------- RP ---------- ), .. ............ . ............... - -------------- - op . . ... . ..... . . . . . .. . . .............. . 0 U j as m IWO 6 'p; . . ... . ..... . . . . . .. . . .............. . 0 U j as m sit QVI Rout Now, ram I I it off cud y", Us, "" to jr WHOU MOM im t. to hv"" oil Is 1 oil N NIS p 1 was pq $1 CRU! is "I to I it 1 f "Na is Hsi gul U lot Jm . 11TH AVENUE 50 I m � s I �H �n r _ � ALI i 7.�._� I1"1TTI 13 1 v 1 v v v £ h1 i i 1 �a-lo t ,,,I L ...." I I 1 LJ 11110 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 A I� r rl ��iif?P11 iifitil 1 j. j - _ - jPUBLIC ALN Y Y HO �rn �... a�-6 I � "a �� g,a •� .. 5 r I • � I m 11 I L f t i r F S r M aim Rga _AVE UTH N 50 vi I� G _I� o. aw �Am us aril°$ i F Ria ` mni tv m o F � I IB A HIM — w1qHjpqqHhq all Ri 44 jug ir 1 W8 Doi its MIN VEN o F � I IB A HIM — w1qHjpqqHhq all Ri 44 jug ir 1 W8 Doi its MIN Vo i H l1 -7 - - - - - - Tiri- w1qHjpqqHhq all Ri 44 '• H 1 W8 Doi its MIN I M �g qji q MH HI ill Ill I?�, �F t ij y ER fl k owl..-' I is T � r I Man O to m I G" z .I x RA m 21, �� i I R k n r D / AA 3 1U 11 N , Ulm, � SI4 D -N-�p c�i 1 HID 1 N u 1 out p It-, p �I D o � N� `� � e�sn� uNwsnx�m aanower M �g qji q MH HI ill Ill I?�, �F t ij y ER HIS I is T � s g o sl z .I x RA m 21, k n r D / AA M �g m 1 � D- i qji q MH HI ill Ill I?�, �F t ij H iJ B 1 I is T � o 'Ni ns x RA m m k n r D / AA 3 N , Ulm, � SI4 D -N-�p c�i 1 HID 1 N u 1 out p It-, p �I D o � N� `� � e�sn� uNwsnx�m aanower � m 1 � D- i 1 - � �@ - _-I NEW �" pilji I?�, l' B � , Moll IBM 11 'Ni ns x RA m m k n r D / AA 3 q P rT h , �y yy �n rH r I �3 P ... .. .... NNE AllwcJ' f; ui U 01, 13 61,1 - I. ONchi .49, 491 �1 O� z i all am, . . . ....... ... .. .... NNE AllwcJ' f; ui U 01, 13 61,1 - I. ONchi .49, 491 �1 O� z i all am, r - q R I 7T T T ri r- -f m�111J'11, r -W r - q R / /}[�\ \` \ , co 5i —T— — o — F — 7 -F7-7-111- -il T� T ....... .. R VIM 'Aw 0 D 1111 .10IVA, .............. 01 ID d'! , I Z � 11 T .............. I","': .. .. ....... J,if I a EEj jh yq 141 R VIM 'Aw 0 D 1111 .10IVA, .............. 01 ID d'! 14UJ Z � 11 T .............. 01 s J,if I a 141 01 s I a JI i-�11,77- 7 F, --lej— M�� W;c z m 0 On to T 0 11 2; 11 f, r q;@ 0 > 0 lei m l m m z FD C. PI . . . ... . . mm- ....... . .. -------------- -------------- -------------BN ............... m x z Qi CD I I R I I - \ \ \� /\ m < \ \ �\ ( \ � ) / � I �� \\ W \ \«� LA \ \ I { \\ \ \ / 0 k� � ^ /j ' I R I I m r- M m < G) m -n > 0 r oo I W r- M m X ;-n$§ S- r- -U > 3 ' /ƒIn OoU) x Z \_ 15 A ul II . \ m\ � : � y \ 04 . 3 ƒ\ !o )/& iN ' ! H Z ,q 15 3 ƒ\ !o )/& iN ' ! H Z ,q U14 0 cn CA M92MERM > Co Z ch 9 cn 0 cn (n 0) 0 cc 0 z z --I (/) X 0 mim M Y) ou wcn C� > > Aw""I I KIM, aq y A "" J4//R% 01 p A OF RIP �jl "911 111/ cn 0 W --A c co to 0 cc 0 z z --4 U) w 0 m Fn co Im M -a > z * f0* 'Bayy 0 A, o CA 0 Z cc cn 0 W --A c co to 0 cc 0 z z --4 U) w 0 m Fn co Im M -a > z * f0* 'Bayy �� July 23, 2012 Planning Report ZI�TI?-3 REZONING—GALLERY FLATS APARTMENTS Proposed Action Staff recommends the following inotion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ12-10, recommendin� ��roval of Ordinance 12-1053, rezonin� the propertv at 815 First Street South and 31- 9`�' Avenue South from B-2, Central Business, to Mixed Use. Overvie�v In 2010 the City had a purchase agreement for the fonner Park Nicollet site at 815 First Street South. The City closed on the property in 2011. Also in 2010 the City put out a request for proposals (RFP) to redevelop the site, and three companies responded. Klodt Development, LLC was the City Council's choice to rede��elop the site. Klodt has also secured the fonner Lutheran Digest building property to add to the developinent. Klodt Developinent, LLC is proposing to construct two apartment buildings. The first building will be constructed along Eighth Avenue and have 73 units. The second building will be ^ constructed along First Street and Ninth Avenue and have 90 units. With this rezoning the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan will be consistent. 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 froin B-2 to Mixed Use? Supporting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Resolution RZ12-10 • Ordinance 12-1053 � Nanc . Anderson, AIC City P1 nner '� Financial Iinpact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: t� �� ' ,,- _, , �� ZN 12-3 Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider . What is the Comprehensive Plan designation? The Coinprehensi��e Plan has designated the site as Mixed Use. . What is the existing zoning of the subject site? The site is zoned B-2, Central Business. . What does the Mixed Use zoning allo«�? The Mixed Use zoning allowed inultiple fainily d«�ellings and cominercial space. The proposed use coinplies with the pennitted uses. • Should the site be rezoned from B-2 to Mixed Use? The B-2 zoning is downtown zoning. With the new comprehensive plan, the surrounding ---� areas of the three LRT stations have been guided inixed use. The rezoning of this site will rnake the comprehensive plan and zoning consistent. The rezoning is consistent with the vision the City has for the redevelopinent of Eighth Avenue. Alternatives 1. Recoinmend approval of the rezoning. By recommending approval of the rezoning, the City Council will consider a recoinmendation 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 Cominission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further infoi7nation. If the Plaruling Coinmission indicates that further infon�nation is needed, the itein should be continued. �� CITY OF HOPHINS Hennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-10 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE FORMER PARK NICOLLET AND LUTHERAN DIGEST SITES FROM B-2 TO MIXED USE WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Ainendment ZN12-3 has been made by Klodt Development LLC; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for zoning ainendment was made by Klodt Developinent, LLC; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Plamling Cominission published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on July 31, 2012: all persons present were given an op�ortunity to be heard; 3. That the written coininents and analysis of City staff were considered. � 4. The legal description of the property is as follows: Parcel 1: The South 36 feet of Lot 13, and all of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with the East half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the westerly extension of the North line of the South 36 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 14, and including that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 15 and the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 17, all in "West Minneapolis," except those portions embraced within the following-described two tracts: Exception Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of tl�e North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14" all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. Exception Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a `'� distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, �� deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14, all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and l6, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the rigt�t a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance � of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Tract C: Non-exclusive easement for driveway and access purposes over, across and upon the North 14 feet of Lot 13, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Easement in Gross) Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 4, West Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 and 22 accruing thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Amendment ZN12-3 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the Coinprehensive Plan has designated the site as mixed use. 2. That the proposed use complies with the pennitted use of the mixed use zoning. 3. That the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation will be consistent. �--� Ado�ted this 31th day of July 2012 Aaron Kuznia, Chair CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 12-1053 �' AN ORDINANCE REZONING 815 FIRST STREET AND 31 N1NTH AVENUE SOUTH FROM B-2 TO MIXED USE THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That the present zoning classification of B-2, Central Business, upon the follo��ing described preinises is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof, the said preinises are hereby zoned as Mixed Use. Parcel 1: The South 36 feet of Lot 13, and all of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with the East half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the westerly extension of the North line of the South 36 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 14, and including that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 15 and the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 17, all in "West Minneapolis", except those portions embraced within the following-described two tracts: Exception Tract A: � Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South ]ine of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14" all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. Exception Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14, all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. ' Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast coi7ler of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot `—� 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of �� 50.00 feet; thence Easter]_y, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Tract C: Non-exclusive easement for driveway and access purposes over, across and upon the North 14 feet of Lot 13, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Easement in Gross) Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 4, West Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 and 22 accruing thereto. First Reading: August 6, 2012 Second Reading: August 21, 2012 Date of Publication: August 30, 2012 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: August 30, 2012 � Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine A. Luedke, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Signature Date �� July 23, 2012 � Planning Report ZN 12-4 PUD OVERLAY REZONING— GALLERY FLATS APARTMENTS Proposed Action Staff recoirunends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZIZ-11, recommendin� �uroval of Ordiilance 12-1054 placin� an overlav zoning of Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Gallerv Flats apartinents. Overview In 2010 the City had a purchase agreement for the former Park Nicollet site at 815 First Street South. The City closed on the property in 2011. Also in 2010 the City put out a request for proposals (RFP) to redevelop the site, and three companies responded. Klodt Development, LLC was the City Council's choice to redevelop the site. Klodt has also secured the fonner Lutheran Digest building property to add to the developinent. Klodt Developinent, LLC is proposing to construct two apartment buildings. The first building will Ue constructed along Eighth Avenue and have 73 units. The second building will be constructed along First Street and Ninth Avenue ---� and have 90 units. The site will be rezoned with an overlay zoning of Planr►ed Unit Development (PUD). The PUD zoning allows flexibility with the underlying zoning of mixed use. Along with the overlay zoning to PUD, there will be an agreement with specific parameters on how the site will be developed. Primary Issues to Consider • What is the underlying zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • Why place an overlay zone of PUD on this property? • What are the areas that would be included in the overlay zone? Supporting Documents • Analysis of issues • Resolution RZ12-11 • Ordinance 12-1054 Nancy S. Anderson, AICP City Planner � Financial Ii��pact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: y"� �� i� � � �_ i� ZN 12-4 Page 2 Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the underlving zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The property «�ill be rezoned to inixed use. For this development to occur as proposed the property will have a PUD overlay; this would allow flexibility in site development. The Coinprehensive Plan has designated this site as mixed use. With the rezoning to mixed use the Comprehensive Plan designation «�ill be consistent. • «'h,y place an overla�� zone of PUD on this property? The Planned Unit Developrnent allows a site-specific development with the underlying zoning remaining. This type of development allows for a departure from the strict application of the zoning standards. The applicant and the City enter into an agreement defiiung the specific allowed uses and perfonnance standards for each PUD, and these are delineated in the agreement. In this case the underlying zoning of mixed use will remain. In the proposed development the FAR is less than the required, the setbacks are larger than allowed, stucco as a � primary exterior treatment and the parking spaces dimensions are smaller than required. • What are the areas that would be included in the overlay zone? The entire site will be included in the overlay zone. • What would staff recommend for the PUD agreement? The following is the staff s recommendations: • Art dedication fee • Future areas for public art either on the buildings or the site Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the overlay zoning of PUD. By recommending approval, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recominend denial of the overlay zoning of PUD. By recominending denial, the City Council will consider a recoininendation of denial. If the overlay zoning is not approved, � the existing zoning will reinain and any redevelopment of these sites will have to be consistent with the existing zoning. 3. Continue for further infonnation. If the Plaru�►ing Coimnission indicates that further information is needed, the itein should be continued. , � . CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota �` RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-11 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDiNGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN ORDiNANCE REZONING THE FORMER PARK NICOLLET AND LUTHERAN DIGEST SITES WITH AN OVERLAY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Ainendment ZN 12-4 has been made by Klodt Development LLC; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: L That an application for zoning amendinent was made by Klodt Developinent, LLC; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Cominission published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on July 31, 2012: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; �� 3. That the written coinments and analysis of City staff were considered. 4. The legal description of the property is as follows: Parcel 1: The South 36 feet of Lot 13, and all of Lots 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota, together ��vith the East half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the westerly extension of the North line of the South 36 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 14, and including that part of the vacated alley in said Block 4 lying between the westerly extension of the North line of said Lot 15 and the Westerly extension of the South line of said Lot 17, all in "West Miimeapolis," except those portions embraced within the following-described two tracts: Exception Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North ]8 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South ]ine of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14" all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hermepin County, Minnesota. � �� Exception Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot I5; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot l6 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 minutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of beginning. Parcel 2: � Tract A: Lot 13, except the North 14 feet thereof, and the North 18 feet of Lot 14, Block 4, together with the easterly half of the vacated alley in said Block 4, lying between the Westerly extension of the South line of the North 14 feet of said Lot 13, and the westerly extension of the South line of the North 18 feet of said Lot 14, all in "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, --� Minnesota. Tract B: That part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 15; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 16 a distance of 8.49 feet; thence Westerly, deflecting 89 degrees 42 ininutes 54 seconds to the right a distance of 127.44 feet; thence Northerly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 50.00 feet; thence Easterly, deflecting 90 degrees to the right a distance of 127.69 feet to the East line of said Lot 15; thence South along said East line to the point of Ueginning. Tract C: Non-exclusive easement for driveway and access puiposes over, across and upon the North 14 feet of Lot 13, Block 4, "WEST MINNEAPOLIS," Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Easement in Gross) Lots 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 4, West Minneapolis, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of the vacated alley adjoining Lots 21 and 22 accruing thereto. � �... ^ i �i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Ainendment ZN12-4 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: l. That the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed development. 2. That the proposed development use is consistent with mixed use zoning 3. That the overlay district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 4. That the underlying zoning of Mixed Use remains. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Zoning Amendinent ZN12-4 is hereby recoininended for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Applicant and the City enter into an agreeinent that satisfies all the conditions and requirements for this PUD development. 2. That the Applicant reiinburses the City for Attorney's fees associated with the PUD agreement. Adopted this 31th day of July 2012 � Aaron Kuznia, Chair � �� CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 12-1054 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY DISTRICT THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: All of the land descriUed in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein is hereby established and zoned as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Overlay District. The existing Mixed Use zoning classification for the land included in the PUD Overlay District shal] remain in effect as the underlying zoning classification with an overlay zoning classification of Planned Unit Development or PUD. The requirements governing or applicable within PUD Overlay District shall be as set forth in the PUD agreement. First Reading: August 6, 2012 �--. Second Reading: August 21, 2012 Date of Publication: August 30, 2012 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: August 30, 2012 Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Kristine Luedke, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Signature Date � i� �� ' ..,.