The URL can be used to link to this page

08-28-2012 AUGUST SEPTEMBER MEMBERS S M T W T F S S M T W T F S (,fNAEF UZNIA -� 1 2 3 4 1 �FISHER �%�TTA 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 �ALLARD =F RTH 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ✓KERSSEN ,�DERSON 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 31 AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, August 28, 2012 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ----------------------------------------------------- � ITEM: Approve and sign minutes of the July 31, 2012, regular meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: Q' l "l f� ��I'D� / / / / CASE NO. CUP12-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - FENCE Public Public hearing to consider a special purpose fence at 501 Drillane Hearing COMMISSION ACTION: O�l� �,fl��'O� / / / / CASE NO. SUBD 12-3 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT — 20th AVENUE NORTH Public Public hearing to consider a pieliminary/final plat at 230-20th Avenue �-- Hearing North COMMISSION ACTION: �� L i r`l ��(' / / / / �� r� ^ AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 CASE NO. CUP12-4 DAY CARE - SHADY OAK ROAD Public Public heaiing to consider a day care at 4 Shady Oak Road Hearing COMMISSION ACTION: continue / / / / CASE NO. ZCR12-4 CONCEPT REVIEW— 525 BLAKE ROAD Consideration of a concept to redevelop the former BP gas station at 525 Blake Road ---. ITEM: REPRESENTATIVE TO UPDATE CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT � �� ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 31, 2012 A regular ineeting of the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Cotrunission was held on Tuesday, July 31, 2012, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Ha1L Present were Commission members Doug Datta, Andrea Naef, Jennifer Allard, Scott Kerssen, Aaron Kuznia and Andrew Fisher. Charles Firth was absent. Also present were staff inembers Nancy Anderson and Kersten Elverum. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kuznia called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chainbers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Datta moved and Ms. Naef seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the June 26, 2012, regular meeting. The inotion was approved unanimously. � CASE NO. SPR12-2 SITE PLAN REVIEW—PARHING LOT Ms. Anderson reviewed the additional parking lot. Steve Johnson, representing the applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated that the sidewalk from the existing parking lot has a slope and it became apparent that when winter caine the sidewalk would be an issue. The new parking area will also provide a drop-off for the front door. The public hearing was opened at 6:35 p.m. No one appeared at the public hearing. Mr. Kensen inoved and Mr. Datta seconded a inotion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 6:36 p.m. Mr. Kuznia inoved and Ms. Naef seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ12-7, recommending approval of a site plan to construct an additional parking area. The inotion was approved unanimously. CASE NO. SUBD 12-2 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT—KLODT DEVELOPMENT Ms. Anderson stated that the lots would be coinbined into one lot. John Bell, froin Klodt Developinent, appeared before the Commission. Dave Clark, the architect, also appeared before the Commission. ^ The public hearing was opened at 7:24 p.m. No one appeared at the public hearing. Ms. Naef moved and Mr. Kerrsen seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The inotion was approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 7:25 p.m. r MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING, July 31, 2012 Page 2 — Mr. Kerrsen moved and Mr. Datta seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ12-9, recommending a preliminary/final plat for the Klodt Development. The motion was approved unaniinously. CASE NO. SPR12-3 SITE PLAN REVIEW–KLODT DEVELOPMENT Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed development. John Bell, from Klodt Development, appeared before the Corntnission. Dave Clark, the architect, also appeared before the Conunission. Mr. Bell and Mr. Clark gave an overview of the proposed apartments. The public hearing was opened at 7:26 p.in. Luree Pearson of 750 Mainstreet appeared before the Coimnission. Ms. Pearson was concerned with the parking in the area. Lee Benson of 750 Mainstreet appeared before the Coininission. Mr. Benson was concerned with the parking in the area, the light rail transit not being finished until 2018, parking for snow einergencies, and the HVAC units. Vick Baldwin from the Elks appeared before the Commission. Mr. Baldwin was concerned about the parking because the Elks will not be able to use the former Park Nicollet parking lot. Mr. Kerrsen moved and Mr. Fisher seconded a inotion to close the public hearing. The motion was � approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. Most of the Commission's discussion focused on the parking in the area. Mr. Datta moved and Mr. Kerrsen seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ12-8, recommending site plan approval for the Klodt Development. The motion was approved on a 5-0 vote. Ms. Naef abstained. CASE NO. ZN12-3 REZONING–MIXED USE Ms. Anderson stated that this site would be rezoned to mixed use and after the rezoning the Coinprehensive Plan and zoning would be consistent. John Bell, froin Klodt Developinent, appeared before the Commission. Dave Clark, the architect, also appeared before the Commission. The public hearing was opened at 8:03 p.m. No one appeared at the public hearing. Mr. Datta moved and Mr. Kerrsen seconded a inotion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 8:04 p.m. Mr. Kuznia moved and Ms. Naef seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ12-10, recommending a rezoning for the HIodt Development. The inotion was approved unaniinously. � '� MiNUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETiNG, July 31, 2012 Page 3 CASE NO. ZN12-4 REZONING—PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PUD) Ms. Anderson stated that the PUD zoning would provide flexibility for this development. John Bell, from Klodt Development, appeared before the Commission. Dave Clark, the architect, also appeared before the Commission. The public hearing was opened at 8:05 p.m. No one appeared at the public hearing. Mr. Kerrsen moved and Ms. Allard seconded a inotion to close the public hearing. The inotion was approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 8:06 p.m. Mr. Kerrsen moved and Mr. Datta seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ12-11, recommending an overlay PUD zoning for the Klodt Development. The inotion was approved unanimously. ADJOURN Mr. Datta moved and Mr. Kuznia seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unaniinously. The ineeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.in. �--� MEMBERS ATTEST: Aaron Kuznia, Chair �� G�TY OF ` HOPKINS August 20, 2012 Planning Report CUP12-3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT— SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCE Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ12-12 recorrunending denial of a conditional use permit for a s�ecial purpose fence at 501 Drillane. Overview The applicants, Donna Daniels and David Mundie, the owners of 501 Drillane, want to construct a six-foot fence on the west side of their home between homes. The zoning ordinance does not allow a six foot fence to be constructed between homes: a four-foot fence is allowed. The applicants have constructed a new fence along Fifth Avenue. The proposed fence would be an alternating board fence and located where the existing chain link fence is located on the west side of the applicants' lot. The zoning ordinance allows six- foot fences in the rear yard and side yards after the rear of the home. Four-foot fences ^ are allowed in all yards of a home. All residential fences within Hopkins have to be 25 percent open: the proposed fence coinplies with this requirement. 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 state regarding a special purpose fence? • What are the reasons for the fence? Supportin�Documents • Analysis of Issues • Fence Plans • Resolution RZ12-12 � '� �, Nancy . Anderson, AICP City Pl er � Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: ^ CUP 12-3 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. • What does the ordinance state regarding a special purpose fence? SUecial purpose fences. Fences for special purposes and fences differing in construction, height or length may be pennitted in any district in the City by the issuance of a conditional use pennit by the Council upon proof and reasons subtnitted by the applicant and upon the signing by said bodies that such special purpose is necessary to protect, buffer or improve the preinises for which such fence is intended. The special fence permit, if issued, inay stipulate and provide for the height, location, construction and type of special fence thereby permitted. • What are the reasons for the fence? � The applicant has stated that they want the fence to inatch new fence on the east side. In this case there is no special reason for a six-foot fence between homes. The reason the applicant has stated would be no different froin any resident within the City. In the past special purpose fences have been granted for lots that abut such uses as a church because a home abuts a parking lot. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval to arnend the conditional use permit to allow the six-foot fence to be constructed between homes. By recommending approval of the conditional use pennit, the City Council will consider a recoinmendation of approval. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use pei7nit for the six-foot fence. By recommending denial of the conditional use permit, the City Council will consider a recorrunendation of denial. 3. Continue for further infonnation. If the Planning CoiTunission indicates that further infonnation is needed, the itein should be continued. �� CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-12 RESOLUTION MAKING FiND1NGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR A SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCE AT 501 DRILLANE WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Pennit CUP 12-3 has been made by Donna Daniels and David Mundie; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a conditional use permit was made by Donna Daniels and David Mundie; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to inailed and published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on July 25, 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: East '/2 of that part lying south of the north 15 feet of Lot 1 Block 1 Drillane NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit CUP12-3 is hereby recommended for denial based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed fence. 2. That the Planning Coininission detennined that no special condition exists for the proposed fence. Adopted this 28th day of August 2012 ATTEST: Aaron Kuznia, Chair �� :�. �: _ � � - ------- - - -- --� = �---- _ _ - - --- - - - _ _ _ ----- - ---------_—_ --- - — - - F�, �..� � _ F---� - �=- - - --- - - - �, _ - _ _ � _ p -._ _ _ _ _ � � � -�-= -- - -- -� - ----- - - -_ _ _ �;- � � _ -- - - --- = _ _ - - - _ � __ _-� -- - --_ --- ---_ _ - __. - - - - -- _ _ —�, = r o' =-. - - __ _ _ - - - ------- - _-------- ---- ------- - - _ -- �, � ,-�� -_ �- - _ _ _ _ - � - - - _ _ ---- - - - -- � -� � z -_-. -- - -_ - -- - - ---------- --------- -- ----� � ,�- - __ -- �� -- _ � �6' � - -- , - - - -- ----- --- -- . � � ! - -- -- - ----- - ------- - _ � � - - - -- __ ��-o� ___�,--�� - _—�. � � �– - - � -C------- - - --- -- - - - - _ --- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - t --i i �=, H ..n, - --z -c�-- - F- f-��IJ -.� - - - - - � _ _ - -- - -- _---- - __ c - �- - ----- - -- — — �n ` � � - - -- - - -- - - -- - _ _ ------- --- -� � �� _-- v---- -- -- - -- - - - - -_ - ---_-- - — — -- - - ,� . -. --- ------ --- � k n' - - --- - - - - Ri �-�- - �� -- --� ------ -, . ' � - � =: _ --��--�- - - -- - - � -- --- �- ------ ---— _-- ----- - --- --= -� � -- - -- - -- ---- - � — -- - - - -- �,-� � � ----� �- - -----�,- ---- J� - - -- _ _ _-� �- � - � - - _ _ ---� -- `� - - - � - - -- ---_ --- � ._ -- ---- -- -- - — ---- = -�-�-�--- --- ---- �-- � --- - -�-h-- - -- ------- - -- -- - ,- �- a � � - - � = _ - - -- - - i : �, ,� �- -�_ -- - -- - -- - - - --- - ------ ------- ---- -- - h _� � _ - - - -�. � � � �. �"� � � ---------- - - -� - - c�-, _- - -- -� - -- ---- -------- -- — _ ,- ` _ __--- - _- --�-� - _� -- - �- -�rt Z � � � � - ----_ ---- --- ---� � � - -- - --- - - -- ---- - --- -- -- - - � - �.�, - ------ -- � - _. ---- ----- -- �� .. _.� �.�: � b , �_.. �:-_:-: � . 1 � � r: � .._ ' ,�� .. ��t�fi�' i"� �.z �� :� 3� 4xtm - q � �� `. t4 . k � �, - # �.i �.af#,�'a � 3 � 't3 '�+ � � 'K*� . . �' r � `� Y 4' R' S� � t�� t.�a, �. . . g�'�. v� �� 4� � � ,�` - _ .... '«x�� k� .. � � � !� ' � ��,�' J . . / ` �.�5��). v'�'�. �� S. � S �` � '�T}j�� . '�/-�` � '�� C �;'�'+. � • ,. ,., :. '. '�•� [ ) } } Y� S ,: � t ��} � �� YE �� k ,�� e" '� *�� - �� y3��= �"�,`a.� . � &t; <�'. ..�, ti �� , x�� .,. � `\. ��, �y� �i_ F ��-.`� �� :, .� _ � � y �y �� y.;c� � . f`�..�� A _ _ � d:' ) y _ . � ,�'.. 'r.J. � i � �� . � �: . v' oaY" . z 4M1 {I - � '�-,, (� '�- v �} � .. � ,�� _;_�_� t = d.F 't�" t,' 'Z:� �. y +�K:- y � t� ��r .� �. -�� : �� t —T— � �, � °��F ' �` � � �. : � � �f, '��;:$1� � : tx� �' �..(� - . r�{' . �lt;}e�<?i}t��e� S '��`} � . �� . O..} � � ir �;4s � f''`! � ' : .. �: ` � i ��.. ►�� if�� 51 . 7 i �t`t .y� -' � . :': `. � , .. - }� ... ti�3�j � . t � S' �f� i- i � . . .� ��C . • [,�_ -". .' � . ' l .Y.� �� f F t} Z f'i �f a�._ . ' �l. . 1 JT I y[.' 7 t , �t�� - ' A, $Y. F f - �L:_ � I t'F 1 � i - ' ,. . S '_ �, �... � {z 3 s y � .,Yj � •..� �. t � � { ,� ...-�, i& 4 �car *r :.� ' � s �t( '1 .i g,_ . . ... _..� . ' x q �' � _ �f �� i x X I - _ � ��'� xf t� { � � j ; � f� r � �, '.,'� �. ' - � ] �� 7-. . s ' {.. 1 � 3 z y. a t �"'� � ._� � �i � �`G3 x t t t ,. .t �� - � ?:�7 �( �'1��y � j j � 1 i# 2 �,N < 2 £ , �y�4{t `:^'��1 � ! �3 E� v,. � ' .t ` �4;�3��x I� ., � 5v . � f., :F " �# ��4 _ - •�� y ��{ F T� i I Y 1 f ' � _; .4� _-. _ ziz� 's< . � " -. , , . : �,:: = �. ' � -,�� _ + ,{ t a �' .: ''� s , i�s � � I-- µ '''�u.v.� z +...�3 - #' �j ? - j _._ ; d F , - %„ ; F � 1 .' ii d; ��, i t� F ? , � ' - ;sa�`�� # ' �� - '�. � f� � . � s; ' i . _ # �{ 1, t 5� ��K' g.^ 3� F t �i t +�r� t' . ,t �E� 1i � � ? .�t k � _ - � �{��€E - f { � t t ,� ��.��TS . < � �. - . . ' .'.. . � 1 S � � �. F S'� vhf�� 'k � .i � 5 S� 3 32 t . t i_ s _ s �� ,,� - � -' �� 'I ' � . ; �:� � � �r ' s aq i i � �" � k t : '�. � i' � t F1 � -. . � ��. .V _ & �:��. � _ E� '. , �e, � .$�j, � � Y�� £-�.� , .w . �* _� ��: . �s�� ' , _ ` , � , � �� _ � :e - a �� a ..��i,�,s'� > .. . _ � � . . _ � -��• - �'� i � �� ^��: . i--� � r � ..` �, �� . - � � � ,:.= s �� ti� � .�� ' � `� � -�.�;r.�� '�. . .tA �.;,�cs . �Y�- � tF � �� '`� � N � _ . � � r��y �: +' � ..i�i �E� P i� T . ' - ��.�� - �`. `��N� �s� ' ��.� ��.. _ ��. , �� o�� - =7 Q��'� �� a-s-� � n�� .,,,�� s i,cn ��-�n`� ��.i� L/� : -v! �n J-=�`� �'�� `�� -�?-�_� 1�'�'� . �L,�-� �v� � �.,,:,�,y-� 1-, �.,��.;��a ---,,��, "''! ��g �j �n�S,y�-_��r��j L f'�s J r�� Ga�� -� 11 � r.� ��G 4�-I� �'-'^�l "'��G' LI�1�`�' l �-,^.�L� -,��rn �c rvv� c� s�-b r�� u� c�m� s �� , o �-� �,+�� -t-`,{1 ->-.�75 v! d� aS I � �( ��M .� ^G �'<�� v-� ��=��-� --y-^� � ! �12o:�n 1�-n�s, �nv � S 1-��-s-��;� �� t��rr'��'�► r- .��`� '� � l G �'�. 4. �� S-�'��'I�"-�y � c,� -�� %�Y�'�`�"S ��' � �v�a � � i� �..�n �� ti�w-�a�� 11�� t,� 'a�b C-o�S� n1W `�U'`�" � -TJ� �9br'�..:�, C��S � C.� �7�1J'fi��.G�a� r �t� t-t�n� �� t r1 a--f. I � � � CITY OF HOPHINS Hennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-12 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR A SPECIAL PURPOSE FENCE AT 501 DRILLANE WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit CUP 12-3 has been made by Donna Daniels and David Mundie; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: l. That an application for a conditional use pennit was inade by Donna Daniels and David Mundie; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Coininission, pursuant to mailed and �ublished notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on July 25, 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: � East '/z of that part lying south of the north 15 feet of Lot 1 Block 1 Drillane NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit CUP 12-3 is hereby recommended for denial based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. The Planning Cominission reviewed the proposed fence. 2. That the Planning Coirunission determined that no special condition exists for the proposed fence. Adopted this 28th day of August 2012 ATTEST: Aaron Kuznia, Chair � i� August 20, 2012 � Planning Report SUBD12-3 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT —230 - 20t�' AVENUE NORTH Proposed Action Staff recorrunends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ12-13, recommending ��roval of a preliminary/final plat at 230 - 20`h Avenue North. Overview Troy Mathwig, the applicant, owns 230 - 20�' Avenue North. The existing home was razed on the site. The lot consists of one lot and part of another lot. A new hoine is proposed to be constructed on this property. The fonner hoine straddled portions of 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 re-plat. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Coinprehensive 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 requireinents? • Will a park dedication fee be required? SuAUorting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Preliminary/Final Plat • Resolution RZ12-13 " 1 I b�YYCl./ l Nancy S. nderson, AICP City Pla er ^ Financial Iinpact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: � SUBD 12-3 Page 2 Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the property is R-1-A, Single and Two-Fainily High Density. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this site as Residential. The proposed use will coinply with both documents. • Do the lots meet the zoning requirements? A lot in the R-1-A zoning district is required to have a minimum size of 6,000 square feet and a minimum lot width of 50 feet. The proposed lot will be 59.90 feet in width and 7,966.7 square feet. The proposed lot meets the requireinents for the R-1-A zoning district. • What are the specifics 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, meets the subdivision requireinents. • Will a park dedication fee be required? A park dedication fee will not be required because no additional lots will be created. Alternatives l. Recoinmend approval of the preliminary plat/final plat. By recommending approval of the preliminary/final plat, the City Council will consider a recointnendation of approval. 2. Recoimnend denial of the preliininary/final plat. By recoinmending denial of the preliininary/final plat, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Coininission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further infonnation. If the Planning Corrunission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. ,�� CITY OF HOPHINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ12-13 �-- RESOLUTION MAKING F1NDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY/F1NAL PLAT FOR 230 - 20th AVENUE NORTH WHEREAS, an application for a preliininary/final plat SUBD12-3 has been subinitted by Troy Mathwig; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for preliminary/final plat was subinitted by Troy Mathwig on August 2, 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 August 28, 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: � Lot 8 and the south '/2 of Lot 7, Block 5, West Minneapolis 3ra Division NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a preliininary/final plat SUBD 12-3 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the Planning Commission reviewed the preliminary/final plat. 2. That the preliminary/final plat meets the subdivision requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for preliminary/final plat SUBD12-3 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 commitinent for title insurance, to the City Attorney. 2. That the applicant pay the Attorney's fee for title review. Adopted this 28th day of August 2012. ATTEST: � Aaron Kuznia, Chair s I I I I I I 1 I ( e m I 1 I I nM I LSI i «S I I I .. - "Ee , 9 S a i sss , B� in0 A I j I a iy gad33 Ef % F �_ 8 a eµ•1 I � °In LO S � IL g I ' (NOISIAIO CINIH1 `oN� fig $ I i I z I i � � 1 giglSa C � � IS -inn I --I n s-/ LJ r)-7 I N _J 7 1 V I I (,.,,i _—NOISdAIp 01i1NL S110duNNIW 1S3µ S N°°Ie 10 elg� 1b°3 (NOISIAIO (18IH1 SIlOdV3NNIN 1S3M 00'09) l M„Lti,9I.= 06'69 r-------F-----------------� I I I 1 I I � I I � I I I I I I i I I I 1 I I l I I I I I I 1 I ( 1 I I I I I I m I 1 I I nM I LSI i «S I I I \ E, B� in0 A I j I a S c .4i i _� I eµ•1 I � °In LO � IL 'SV3YC IG (NOISIAIO CINIH1 `oN� fig $ I i I z I i � � 1 giglSa C � � ppaa�9a 1 � I i > ------------- i SH3W 06'69 1 --1- -1 --1 r 3.L4,94.LON /\—j 1 I V (NOISIAIO 08IHI SIIUV3NNIW 1S3M 00'09) I .� G€ 5 $a k' I \ E, UN(C� �arU a .4i i _� °In lift � 'SV3YC (NOISIAIO CINIH1 `oN� fig $ SnOdVANIW 1S3M 00'£l£) _ YNr 7 3 m giglSa C � � ppaa�9a > �� bs 5 a spa j $a C' sN a NW 13 i G€ 5 $a k' I -J, u N 30N3AV RLOZ LON 06,89 O. T 7 ljot 1 0 C, 0 c of. ..... . . .. 7 ommvm vssriaw v xon ....... .. .. . .... fel aoa -__u0sl7puv we a e47 . ... . NOURRIV DIAIHJVW 1 041 Lq.,—d- .,L lP uosu NOIM— mw i-ia daeuiiuitaaa -J, u N 30N3AV RLOZ LON 06,89 O. T 7 ljot 1 0 C, 0 c of. ..... . . .. 7 Its -J, u N 30N3AV RLOZ LON 06,89 O. T 7 ljot 1 0 C, 0 c of. ..... . . .. 7 �--_ August 20, 2012 � Planning Report ZCR12-4 CONCEPT REVIEW—525 BLAKE ROAD Proposed Action This is a concept review that requires no action. Any comments regarding the development would be helpful to the applicant for future applications. Overview Solomon Real Estate Group is proposing to redevelop the fonner BP gas station site located at 525 Blake Road into a retail building. It is proposed that the existing building will be razed and two buildings will be constiucted. The new development will also include two lots to the north. One lot is owned by the apartinents to the east and the second owned by MNDOT. The development also has a small area in St. Louis Park. At this time no tenants have been identified. The buildings as proposed will have approximately 12,000 square feet of retail. Access to the new buildings will be from Cambridge Street and a new access will be from Division Street in ^ St. Louis Park. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What are the preliminary specifics of the redevelopment proposal? • What are the staff's concerns? • What is the applicant's timeline? • What will have to occur for this development to proceed? Suqportin�Documents • Analysis of issues • Preliininary site plan " 1 al�� , Nanc . Anderson, AICP City P anner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: ^ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: ^. --� i� . � . , ZCR12-4 Page 2 ^ Primary Issues to Consider. • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the former BP site is B-4, Neighborhood Business. The zoning of the apartments and MNDOT property is B-3, General Business. The Cotnprehensive Plan has designated site as commercial. The proposed developinent coinplies with both documents, but the B-3 areas will be rezoned to B-4. • What are the preliminary specifics of the redevelopment proposal? Buildings There will be two, one story buildings joined together with a inechanical room. The building will be pushed up to Blake Road, but the front of the buildings will be on the parking lot side. The preliminary site plan has identified two outdoor patios. Replatting The development involves the combining of three lots. The fonner BP site, a part of the apartment lot to the east and MNDOT property on the northerly part of the site. The apartment � site to the east has a "wedge" that is north of the BP site, which is needed for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the apartinent site. This wedge will be inoved to the east side of the new lot that will equal the square footage of the wedge. The third lot is the MNDOT property. MNDOT has approved the sale of the property. Parking The preliminary site plan indicates parking areas on the east and north sides of the buildings. The preliminary site plan indicates 78 parking spaces. The site is required to have 60 parking spaces for 12,000 square feet of retail. Trash The preliininary site plan indicates that the trash will be located on the east side of the parking area. Any trash containers will have to be screened. Access There is access to the site from Cainbridge Street and a new access froin Division Street though St. Louis Park. Surrounding Uses � The site is surrounded by residential to the east and south, Highway 7 to the north and Walgreens to the west. ZCR12-4 Page 3 � . What are the staff s concerns? The staff's biggest concern is the look along Blake Road because the front of the buildings will be on the east side, not the Blake Road side. The preliininary plans show inetal panels where, if this was the front of the building, there would be glass. • What is the applicant's timeline? The applicant will be able to get title to the fonner BP property at the end of September. Following securing title, the applicant will apply for zoning approvals and the Planning Coinmission will review the items at a special meeting on October 22. The City Council will review the iteins on October 23. The applicant is trying to start before the winter season. • What will have to occur for this development to proceed? The following are the actions that will have to occur for this developinent to proceed as proposed: • Site plan approval for the construction of the building • Replatting of the fonner BP lot and the apartinent building to the east • Rezoning the$-3 sites to B-4 � • Applicant acquiring the MNDOT property • St. Louis Park approving the plat • Hennepin County and MNDOT approving the proposed plat � 1-0 a;! y D a e „7japV ,(7!tm7.toddo piry ruopstl" awrt& H ------------------------- 133?AIS 30mey Ha No / IES J Ol J l i F r9p m i ('T'j is ►� CAMBRIDGE STREET till r ® . . U A ) sxi : \ �/ l \ ! , - ` o .. . 9pq �\ F-9 G. _= y /yr| - �§!,� , ! \ \ \ \ \