The URL can be used to link to this page

01-26-2016 JANUARY FEBRUARY MEMBERS S M T W T F S S M T W T F S MCNEIL HUNKE .-. 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEWHOUSE TAIT 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 WARDEN WALLACE-JACKSON 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 KERSSEN ANDERSON 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 31 AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 26, 2016 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ----------------------------------------------------- ITEM: Approve and sign minutes of the November 24, 2015, regular meeting. � COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. PRELIMINARY & FINAL PLAT — 9 SEVENTH AVENUE SOUTH 16-01-SUBD Public Public hearing to consider preliminary and final plats for Hopkins Village Hearing Located at 9 Seventh Avenue South. COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. TIF DISTRICT 1-5 CONFORMANCE REVIEW 16-03 TIF Consideration of TIF District 1-5 and its conformance with the City's redevelopment plans. COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / ^ ADJOURNMENT �r t�'i�i'1�'��'Y rV�6-��L. ''' ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 24, 2015 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, November 24, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission Members Brian Hunke, Gary Newhouse, Scott Kerssen, Matt McNeil, James Warden and Mike Tait. Emily Wallace-Jackson was absent. Also present was staff inember Nancy Anderson. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Kerssen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Warden moved and Mr. McNeil seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2015, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. ITEM: CONCEPT REVIEW—OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE FACILITY � Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed operations and maintenance facility (OMF). Tats Tanaka, representing the Southwest Project Office, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Tanaka reviewed the project area, the site area, exterior materials and elevations. ADJOURN Mr. Newhouse moved and Mr. Tait seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. MEMBERS ATTEST: � Scott Kerssen, Chair � January 26, 201G Planning Report 16-01-SUBD PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT—9 Seventh Avenue South Proposed Action: Staff recommends the following motions: • Move to ado�t Resolution 2016-01. recommending the Cit�� Council a�rove the�reluninar� �lat for Ho�kins Village subject to the condirions. • Move to ado�t Resolution 2016-02,recommending the City Council a��rove tlie final�lat for Ho�kins Village subject to the conditions. Overview The applicant, Community Development Housing Corporation (CDHC),requests preliininary and final plat approvals to subdivide the existing Hopkins Village apartment site located at 9 Seventh Avenue South. This request will also require vacarion of an e�sting storm sewer easement,which will be addressed by the City Council during their review. According to the applicant, this request is necessary to facilitate refmancing and rehabilitation of the e�sting 161- unit apartment building and to set the stage for future development of the adjacent underutilized surface parking lot Should the City approve the subdivision request, the applicant plans to come back to the City later this year to seek development approvals for an additional apartment building on the newly created parcel. Staff finds the proposed preluniiiary and final plats in .-. conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations and subdivision standards and recommends that the Cit�� approve these requests. Primary Issues to Consider • Preliininary and Final Plat design • Land use and zoning standards • Street and access and standards • Park and open space standards • Engineering standards Su�porting Documents • Comments from residents • Prel.iminary/Final Plats • Resolutions 20160-01 and 2016-02 • Applicant's narrarive • Access and parking easement Jason Lindahl,AICP , City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: �' Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: 16-01- PP & FP Page 2 '� Background Public Comment. To date, staff has received two comments from neighboring residents regarding the proposed subdivision application (see attached). The first was from Roz Peterson with Cerron Properties, owner of the retail portion of the MaYketplace Lofts directly to the west. Her concerns are related to the parking for the residents and customers of Marketplace Lofts. The second comment was from Joe Hruska,president of the Si�cth Avenue South Block Association. His concern is the timely movement of cars in the area during snow removal and that any future development be required to have sufficient parking. Present Conditions. According to the attached narrative from the applicant, the Hopkins Village Apartments site was originally developed in 1971. The 1.9 acre site includes an 11-story apartment building and associated 151-stall surface parking lot. The building totals 161 units made up of a miYture of one and two-bedroom, affordable apartments for seniors. According to the applicant, the�� are in the process of refinancing the existing building with the purpose of improving the aesthetics and operarion of the building while maintaining the project as a desirable and affordable residence for seniors. Scheduled improvements to the e�sting building include common area and apartment renovations and mechanical and electrical systems updates. Outside the main entrance drive will be upgraded for accessibility while the building itself will be repainted and windows refurbished. Inside the common areas, the management office and resident resource area will all receive new finishes. Individual aparttnent unit work will include kitchen and bathroom renovarions, new finishes, accessibility upgrades and lighting. � Building improvements include new heating, electrical, fire alarm and an emergency backup generator. Future Development. According to the applicant, they have a preliminary vision for development of Lot 2 that includes a new, multi-story building contauung 120-180 apartment units with common area ameniues and underground parking for both the existing Hopkins Village Apartment building and proposed development. Future development would include unprovements to the areas between the existing building and the new development to bolster aesthetics, promote pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and create vibrant common areas, all in accordance with Hopkins' zoning code and downtown development regulations. The applicant anticipates the new development would include apartment units that are affordable and geared toward working individuals and families, filling a much needed gap in the housing affordability spectrum of the area. CHDC acknowledges that any future development of Lot 2 will require full development review and zoning approval from the City of Hopkins,including rezoning of Lot 2. CHDC also recognizes that Lot 2 occupies a prominent location on Mainstreet and plans to take the time to finalize a high quality, thoughtful development concept. As such, development applications for Lot 2 will be forthcoming. Legal Authority. Subdivision approvals are considered quasi-judicial actions. As such cases, the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regularions within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally,if the application meets these requirements it must be approved. The applicable standards for this application, '� along with staff's findings for each, are provided in the "Primary Issues to Consider" section below. 16-01- PP &FP Page 3 ^ Primary Issues to Consider Preliminary and Final Plat Design. Standards for reviewing subdivision requests are outlined in Section 500 of the City Code. This section of the Code details a two-step preliminary and final plat process for land subdivision. In this case the applicant requests the City review prel.iininary and final plats concurrently. 'I he proposed preliminary plat would subdivide the existing 1.97 acre parcel into two separate parcels. Lot 1 would be 0.9 acres (39,329 square feet) in size and contain the e�sting apartment building while Lot 2 would be 1.07 acres (46,792 square feet) in size and contain the existing surface parking lot The design of the final plat is consistent with that of the preliininary plat and must conform to all terms and condirions of the preliininary plat. The result of this subdivision is that Lot 2 would be eligible for future development, subject to specific City approvals for that site. Land Use and Zoning Standards. The land use and zoning designations are consistent with the existing multifamily use and proposed subdivision. The subject property is guided HDR, High Density Residenrial, b5� the Comprehensive Plan and zoned B-3, General Business. According to the Comprehensive Plan, High Density Residential includes multi-unit and mulu- building developments. The high density category accommodates more intense housing, such as apartments and condominium developments. The densit�� range for this category establishes a ininimum threshold of 17+ units per acre,ultimately resulting in mulu-storied structures. � By comparison, the B-3, General Business district allows residential uses as a conditional use subject to the density standaYds of the R-3 district. The subject property was approved by the City in 1971 through a conditional use permit and side yard setback variance. The site also received a conditional use permit to allow a daycare faciliry in 1993 and parking variance to allow construction of an outdoor patio over 5 paYking stalls in 2007. While the subject property does not meet all the current development standards of the B-3 district (most notably commercial on the first floor) it is considered legal non-conforming. According to Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 1 e., legal nonconformities generally have a statutory right to continue through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not through expansion. These rights run with the land and are not limited to a particular landowner. If the benefited properry is sold, the new owner will have the same rights as the previous owner. However, the burden is on the landowner to establish their property qualifies for nonconforining rights. It should be noted that the state statute does not define expansion. Therefore the Ciry may choose to define expansion in the city zoning ordinance, which could include either physical expansion or even intensif��ing the use. In this case, staff finds the proposed subdivision is not considered expansion because it will not create additional non-conforming characterisrics. Streets and Access Standards. Currendy, the subject properry has access through the main entrance dri�re along Seventh Avenue South, a public alley to the south and an access to its 151- stall surface parking lot along Sixth Avenue South. There are also public sidewalks that abut the ..-� site on the north along Mainstreet, the east along Sixth r,venue South and the west along Seventh Avenue South. Given the surrounding area is fully developed, no additional streets or sidewalks are required to be dedicated at this time. 16-01- PP & FP Page 4 The proposed subdivision will separate the existing apartment site from the associated surface parking lot and the accesses from the both the alley and S�th Avenue South. This parking and access design was required under the original development approvals and is essential to the functionality of the site. As a result, staff recommends a condirion of approval require the applicant to receive approval from the City and record a parking and access easement over both Lots 1 and 2 to preserve the existing parking and access condirions in perpetuity or until such time as the applicant receives approval from the City for a development on Lot 2 that includes sufficient parking for both Lots 1 and 2. The applicant has agreed to this condition and the easement is attached to this report. The Cit�� Attorney has reviewed this easement and found it acceptable. Park and Open Space Standards. Currendy, the Cit��'s subdivision regulations require subdivision applications to pay a park dedication fee for multifamily developments equal to $1,500 per unit. The current subdivision application proposes to create one additional lot for future development of an apartment building. At this time the applicant has not determined a final design ox number of units. Therefore, staff recommends that a condition of approval require the applicant to pay a park dedication fee equal to said fee at the time of issuance of a building permit. Engineering Standards. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliininary and final plats and offers the following comments: .-� 1. The storm sewer easement contains storm sewer pipe. The pipe has been disconnected at its upstream end, Sixth r'�venue, and no longer conveys public drainage. 2. Any future development of Lot 2 will be required to accommodate continued access to the public alley to the south. The grades at the south end of Lot 2 may impact this design. 3. The applicant shall pa5� all development fees applicable to the final design for any future development of Lot 2. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the preliminary/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/fmal plat, the Ciry 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 Coininission indicates that further informauon is needed, the item should be continued. � --� Hopkins Villaqe Site Location Map � !'�C,'-i-= �\ a'Z' �- �, -� � ' �.,,, _ � 1 = e�, � I!i - - - � . �� _"� '�'Sa� � � �. � • - `�P` �.� - ,i.�� -_ _- ' i� �, ,�_ ''' -�-t �, ►� "�.� � �I, ��' � ' �► ,�� I � � � (�'^�� . � �'a�'�1 �.F)• 'an. � 'i"S � �_> . � • ' ! !i � ;;'�t` -.f�'; � #, -p`' �'�' �3'i- _�.j ''?��T"`t � 1 �`"+ '� `"7' 1* ' , . �` - . ' j �— � _ = _ t C �� '�C., �� ti � �r . 4_._.!1 �w�•� •- � ,_• "j � r" � �� .� -- �� r,,,,�i , . , 'd;,7' `a �,�� ;� , ,��- � -�"` i �t _� il� � ��,� � ��; � ,k �� v��:-j �-� � - --� : ,.., , $f, �. -� �' ' . r! i K i lt•1►Z� '' r.• . � � � . .o .� _ �: � h.. . . • � �r•y. �j� �/ -�� - .. s tr �ro• . � ��.� �� .. , ` . 4 ' � � `7 . t, j.li �' •r, � - �` �� ,�-; ��_ � �...... � � ,r _ � r ; '�, � •\�'L; ��1�� - ��:'r�' r �..:�► t '�i�1 rf� . (�� , . i'�. �� •M.. _ 'ti ,r . � .� e�y".' _.. , �' . i r�.•� - �� ' �y '!• +� . _ �aw�,., . �� f _ �� /.';p� �+i1�� ,�i,�� 'i d. ♦ � .�1.2 �� - ♦�+�� f �'j"�,�•t� � �� - �'' ' �� , �y 2 fi ' � y _ � �' � r s ��,7� ' . �, �� - i' 1 , /� ��- �: i � � � �\�a � ��..r } ,. .� „w. . �' ��j��+.+�.�1 � rY .� ~ � � 1�. _ _ I !/�y."r� . '�` +�7��:+� �� •� �� ,. .. . �: . ••� -�' • R. ,� '' � �" � �.��...�.____, . . ' �r,,,•' � � .: �.'�N.� iy�La�� l. ��Y y�� . _ t, � .. . 1� ...�i�l� ., ' , . .. ♦.• � s�..ai t . ■1 ^��.��` v�;�� T;,LL ..J�' h jv�_ � K , • *r _��...;,�� ,� ~ '�� rr� i. , a R r i/o .t j+� ', . x"`�y � ��' �y''�� '�� .+_ �. l'' ,�/ •S:��(i�� !`� �w , r . i- . : ` �/r ' �1+ �1��'� 1 ��F��= ,� I ..Y�. . . � y�`• � .•,qK,�� f I tt� 1.,,� � x ' ' ��' -� n .` ,� . .t ��. y�.. '.�T' t.�_ �� `�" �� - -� l� �� ; � .�. ' - ! .,rca► - i�-� " �-;: � ��--'�.,�y�. n_._.t � - � �� •. _ -� _ ` ,�� ,F;�1 � � - �' _�-..� �=�.. �.�. i"� ,''� r'`� � rom: Roz Peterson <RozP@cerron.com> Sent: Wednesday,January 20, 2016 3:56 PM To: Jason Lindahl Subject: 9 Seventh Street DearJason Thank you for sending the letter regarding the Hopkins Village Apartments possible subdivision. I own the retail portion of Hopkins Marketplace Lofts next door. I have concerns about parking because already at our center, Hopkins Marketplace Lofts, customers and businesses complain about the lack of parking.The condo residents that have underground parking normally take at least half of the parking that is available leaving practically nowhere for employees let alone customers to park.That being said, residential units need lots of parking. While I agree that Hopkins is a nice walkable town,the bottom line it is still a suburb with cold weather. People drive here to get around including going to work. Dual income families require ample parking for at least two cars. We bought the center with the understanding that the adjacent lot where Little Blind Spot is located would have parking available to the public.That is not the case.They charge our tenants so the businesses' employees can park there.With all the multi housing that has gone up recently along with low parking lot requirements, pressure on available public parking is at a premium. I'm just thankful there is a public lot across from Chipotle, but that doesn't help Aji when the building next door puts more pressure on free public parking spots. ^Hopkins Village Apartments has LOTS of parking and I would hate to lose that nice luxury. Perhaps a parking agreement ,ttached to the property would accommodate their request. Hopefully I can make the hearing.Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely Roz Peterson,CCIM Cerron Commercial Properties 21476 Grenada Avenue, Lakeville, MN 55044 952-469-9444 * Cell: 612-708-5281*Fax: 952-469-2173 Email: rozp@cerron.com * www.cerron.com aGFRRON �� . � Creating Property Solutions, For You...With You! Subscribe to our Complementary Monthly Newsletter HERE �"� 1 i'�, � � --. rom: joe <joehruska@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday,January 20, 2016 5:19 PM To: Jason Lindahl Subject: Hopkins Village Subdivision Hi Jason, my name is Joe Hruska and I'm the president of our block association which is located on 6th Ave. south of Main Street. I don't know if I can make the planning & zoning, so I'm emailing you on this subject. In talking with some of the neighbors, the biggest issue would be parking. Right now, Hopkins Village seems to have enough parking in the lot they want to subdivide. However, when they move all the cars onto 6th Ave. for their snow removal, (we understand that), some of their tenants will take days before they will move them back to their parking spaces. If they develop the parking lot, I would hope parking will be considered, maybe underground parking?Also, depending what they may want to do, the design should be the same type as the new town houses & apartments that are there on Main Street. Thanks for you time Joe Hruska � � � CITY OF HOPKINS � Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 2016-01 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HOPKINS VILLAGE WHEREAS, an application for a preliminary plat has been submitted by Community Development Housing Corporation (CDHC); and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: l. That an application for preliminary plat was submitted by Community Development Housing Corporation (CDHC), on December 23, 2015; and 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 January 26, 2016: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and .-� 4. The legal description of the parcel is as follows: Lots 1 — 10, 40, 41, & 42, Block 2, West Minneapolis, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minneapolis, Minnesota Together with all that part of the vacated alley lying adjacent to said Lots 1 —6, inclusive; and together with the vacated alley lying adjacent to Lots 7, 8 , 41 and 42, which lies North of the North line of the South Twenty-One (21) feet of said Lots 8 & 41 and the same line as extended Easterly and Westerly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a preliminary plat for Hopkins Village is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the preliminary plat conforms to the requirements of the City's Comprehensive, zoning regulations and subdivision standards. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for preliminary plat for Hopkins Village is hereby recommended for approval based on the following conditions: 1. Conformance with all requirements of the City's Comprehensive Plan, zoning regulations, and subdivision standards. 2. Payrnent of all applicable development fees including, but not limited to, park dedication "'� prior to issuance of a building permit for Lot 2. 3. Record with Hennepin County a parking and access easement over both Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Hopkins Village in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. This easement shall ^ � h remain in place until such time as the applicant receives approval from the City for a development on Lot 2 that includes sufficient parking for both Lots 1 and 2. � 4. Development of Lot 2 shall require separate approvals from the City applicable to the proposed development. 5. Conformance with all requirements of the City Engineer. Adopted this 26th day of January 2016. Scott Kerssen, Chair n � ,''1 ✓'1 � CITY OF HOPKINS ` Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 2016-02 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A FINAL PLAT FOR HOPKINS VILLAGE WHEREAS, an application for a final plat has been submitted by Community Development Housing Corporation (CDHC); and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for final plat was submitted by Community Development Housing Corporation (CDHC), on December 23, 2015; and 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 January 26, 2016: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and ..-_. 4. The legal description of the parcel is as follows: Lots 1 — 10, 40, 41, &42, Block 2, West Minneapolis, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minneapolis, Minnesota Together with all that part of the vacated alley lying adjacent to said Lots 1 —6, inclusive; and together with the vacated alley lying adjacent to Lots 7, 8 , 41 and 42, which lies North of the North line of the South Twenty-One (21) feet of said Lots 8 & 41 and the same line as extended Easterly and Westerly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a final plat for Hopkins Village is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. The final plat is consistent with the design of the preliminary plat. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for final plat for Hopkins Village is hereby recommended for approval based on the following conditions: 1. Conformance with all terms and conditions of the preliminary plat. Adopted this 26th day of January 2016. --. Scott Kerssen, Chair .-, MEMORANDUM REGARDING SUBDIVISION APPLICATION December 23, 2015 To: City of Hopkins Kristin Elverum, Director of Economic Development and Planning Jason Lindahl, City Planner From: Community Housing Development Corporation Re: Hopkins Village, 9 7�'Avenue South, Hopkins Back�round Community Housing Development Corporation ("CHDC") is a nonprofit developer and owner and manager of more than 4,300 high quality, affordable housing units in Minnesota. CHDC is a partner in CHDC Hopkins Limited Partnership (the "Owner"), the owner of the Hopkins Village Apartments, an 11-story, 161 unit apartment complex (the "Existing Building") located on Main Street, between 6`�' Avenue South and 7`�' Avenue South, in Hopkins. Constructed in 1971, the Existing Building contains a mix of affordable one and two bedroom apartments for seniors. The Existing Building is located on a 1.977 acre parcel (the "Property"), with the building itself occupying the west half of the Property, closest to 7th Avenue, and a large, surface parking area ^� encompassing the east half of the Property, abutting 6`�' Avenue. The existing surface parking lot includes 151 parking spaces and is currently underutilized by the Existing Building. Refinance and Renovation of Existing Building CHDC is in the process of refinancing the Existing Building with the purpose of improving the aesthetics and operation of the building while maintaining the project as a desirable, affordable residence for seniors. CHDC is on track to close on new financing in the first quarter of 2016. Scheduled improvements to the Existing Building include common area and apartment unit renovations, and mechanical and electrical system updates. The main entrance drive will be upgraded for accessibility, while the building itself will be repainted and windows refurbished. Common areas will receive new finishes, a renovated leasing and management office, and a new resident resource area. Apartment unit work will include kitchen and bathroom renovations, new finishes, accessibility upgrades, and new lighting. The building's heating system will be upgraded with new high efficiency boilers and pumps while the building electrical system will get a complete electrical panel replacement, fire alarm panel, and a new emergency backup generator. Subdivision Request CHDC believes that the underutilized parking area represents an opportunity for future, high quality residential development. As a result, CHDC now requests approval to subdivide the Property into two new lots in accordance with the attached Preliminary and Final Plats of Hopkins Village. Lot 1 will include the Existing Building and surrounding area. Lot 2 will become a site for future development. In the immediate future, the existing parking on Lot 2 will --� remain and will be available to the Existing Building by easement. With the development of Lot r... 2, parking needs of the Existing Building and the new development will be accommodated in a shared underground parking structure. Approval of the preliminary and final plats for Hopkins Village will facilitate the refinance of the Existing Building and allow rehabilitation to get underway quickly. Future Development CHDC and its joint venture partner have a preliminary vision for the development of Lot 2 that includes a new, multi-story building containing 120-180 apartment units with common area amenities and underground parking to accommodate the new development and the Existing Building. Future development would include improvements to the areas between the Existing Building and the new development to bolster aesthetics, promote pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and create vibrant common areas, all in accordance with Hopkins' zoning code and downtown development regulations. CHDC anticipates that the new development would include apartment units that are affordable and geared toward working individuals and families, filling a much needed gap in the housing affordability spectrum of the area. CHDC acknowledges that any future development of Lot 2 will require full development review and zoning approval from the City of Hopkins, including rezoning of Lot 2. CHDC also recognizes that Lot 2 occupies a prominent location on Main Street and plans to take the time to finalize a high quality, thoughtful development concept. As such, development applications for Lot 2 will be forthcoming. _. Vacation of Storm Sewer Easement The attached City of Hopkins Ordinance No. 343 (Document No. 3883588) was adopted by the Hopkins City Council in April, 1971, to vacate a public alley, but maintain public storm sewer on the property. The attached Document No. 3878185 evidences another public storm sewer easement granted in 1971. We understand that there has been no public use of these easements and that the City's public works department has confirmed that they can be vacated. As such, CHDC requests that the easements contained in the attached documents be vacated concurrent with the approval of the preliminary and final plat of Hopkins Village. CHDC looks forward to playing an ongoing role in the development of Hopkins' already thriving downtown through the renovation and improvement of the Hopkins Village Apartments and the future development of the adjacent property. Thank you in advance for your consideration of our subdivision and vacations requests. >>3o�iss�z � DECLARATION OF PARKING AND ACCESS EASEMENTS THIS DECLARATION OF PARKING AND ACCESS EASEMENTS (this "Declaratiod') is made as of the day of , 2016 (the "Effective Date"), by CHDC Hopkins Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (`DeclaranY'). RECITALS: A. Declarant is the fee owner of two adjacent parcels of real property located in the City of Hopkins, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Hopkins Village ("Lot 1") and Lot 2, Block 1, Hopkins Village ("Lot 2"). B. There exists upon Lot 1 a 16l unit apartment complex (the "Existing Building") owned by the Declarant. C. A paved parking lot and improvements (the "Parking LoY') have been constructed on Lot 2. D. Declarant, as the fee owner of Lot 2 (the "Lot 2 Owner"), desires to create and declare for the benefit of itself, as the fee owner of Lot 1, its successors and assigns (the "Lot 1 Owner"), its tenants employees, agents, licensees, guests and invitees and its successors' and assigns' tenants, employees, agents, licensees, guests and invitees (collectively with the Lot 1 Owner, the "Lot 1 Parties"), a non-exclusive easement for the purposes of parking, access and maintenance across and upon Lot 2. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. Declaration of Parking and Access Easements. The Declarant, for the benefit of Lot 1 and the Lot 1 Parties, and subject to the terms of this Declaration, grants, conveys and establishes the following easements (collectively, the "Easements"), upon, over, across and through the following described portions of Lot 2 (the "Easement Areas"): (i) a perpetual, non- exclusive easement for reasonable vehicular parking by the Lot 1 Parties on and over those portions of Lot 2 designed and intended for use as parking areas, (ii) a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for reasonable pedestrian and vehicular access, ingress and egress to and from Lot 1 to and from the public streets and sidewalks abutting Lot 2, over and across those portions of Lot 2 designed and intended for use as walkways or driveways, and (iii) a perpetual, non-exclusive easement for repair, maintenance, plowing, repaving and restriping of the Easement Areas. The ^ Easement is subject to termination as provided elsewhere in this Agreement. --� 2. Use of Easements. The use of the Easement Areas shall be expressly limited to the purposes specified in this Declaration and no other use shall be permitted which impairs the use of such areas for their intended purposes. During the term of this Declaration, the Lot 1 Owner shall be responsible to cause the Easement Areas to contain parking for the Existing Building in compliance with all applicable laws, ordinance and regulations. 3. Maintenance of Parking Improvements. During the term of this Declaration, the Lot 1 Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of the Parking Lot in a good and workmanlike manner to a condition suitable for its intended use, as determined by Lot 1 Owner, and in accordance with all applicable laws, ordinances and regulations. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Lot 1 Owner shall be responsible, at its sole cost and expense, for plowing, repaving, restriping and repairing the Parking Lot at such time(s) as are commercially reasonable. 4. Default. If the Lot 1 Owner or the Lot 2 Owner shall default in compliance with this Agreement or shall fail to fulfill any of their respective obligations under this Agreement, the non-defaulting party shall provide written notice of such default to the defaulting party. If the defaulting party fails to cure such default within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, then the non-defaulting party may, but shall not be obligated to, perform the obligations of the defaulting party and seek damages accordingly, including recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs. ^ 5. No Fee for Use of Easement. Except for any charges expressly outlined herein, including, but not limited to the costs of maintenance of the Easement Areas, the Lot 2 Owner shall not charge the Lot 1 Owner a fee for the use of any or all of the Easement Areas. 6. Term. The term of this Declaration shall commence on the Effective Date and shall be perpetual. The Lot 1 Owner and the Lot 2 Owner, or their respective successors or assigns, may terminate this Declaration at any time by mutual agreement, so long as parking in an amount required by the City of Hopkins for Lot 1 is provided on Lot 2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge that a new structure may be constructed on Lot 2 necessitating the temporary relocation of parking for Lot 1, which shall not violate the terms of this Section 6, so long as any temporary parking arrangement is acceptable to the Lot 1 Owner, meets the requirements of the City of Hopkins, and permanent parking for Lot 1 is restored on Lot 2 not less than eighteen(18) months following the termination of this Declaration. 7. Estoppel Certificates. If Lot 1 Owner and the Lot 2 Owner are not the same party, each shall, from time to time, within ten (10) days after written request from the other party, execute, acknowledge and deliver to the other, a certificate stating: (i) that the terms and provisions of this Declaration are unmodified and are in full force and effect or, if modified, identifying the modification agreements; (ii) whether there is known to be any existing default hereunder by the other party and, if so, specifying the nature and extent thereof; (iii) whether the party executing such certificate is performing work for which that party expects reimbursement under the provisions hereof; (iv) the nature and extent of any setoffs, claims or defenses then being asserted or otherwise known by such party related to the obligations under the Agreement; (v) the nature and extent of any notice given or demand which has not been satisfied; and (vi) �"' such other matters as may be reasonably requested. Each party shall deliver a written request for 2 ''\ ^ i"� . .--. such estoppel certificate to the other party at least ten (10) days prior to the closing of any sale or refinancing of the requesting party's parcel. 8. Indemnification. The Lot 1 Owner shall indemnify and hold the Lot 2 Owner and its successors and assigns harmless from and against all loss, costs, damage, actions, suits, judgments and expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or due to, the use of the Easement Areas by the Lot 1 Parties, except to the extent that such damage or loss is caused by, or the result of, the negligence or willful misconduct of the Lot 2 Parties. The Lot 2 Owner shall indemnify and hold the Lot 1 Owner and its successors and assigns harmless from and against all loss, costs, damage, actions, suits, judgments and expense, including reasonable attorneys' fees, arising out of or due to the negligence or willful misconduct of the Lot 2 Owner, its employees, agents or contractors. 9. No Right in General Public. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of any portion of Lot 1, Lot 2, or the Easement Areas to the general public, or for any public purposes whatsoever, it being the intention of Declarant that this Declaration shall be strictly limited to and for the purposes herein expressed. 10. Notices. To be effective, any notice, consent, or other communication required or permitted under this Declaration must be in writing. A notice or other communication shall be deemed to have been given to a party, and shall be effective, (i) if delivered by hand, when physically received by such party, (ii) if delivered by an overnight delivery service, on the _ second business day following the date such notice or other communication is timely delivered to the overnight service, (iii) if delivered by telecopier or electronic mail, on the first business day following the date such notice or communication is transmitted electronically or by facsimile, or (iv) if delivered by mail, on the third business day following the date such notice or other communication is deposited in the U.S. mail by certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the other party, whichever occurs earlier. Any notice to be given hereunder shall be addressed as follows: If to Declarant: CHDC Hopkins Limited Partnership c/o Community Housing Development Corporation 614 North First Street, Suite 100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 If to any other party: to an address for such party provided by notice pursuant to this Section 10. 11. No Waiver. No waiver of any of the covenants, agreements or representations contained in this Declaration or any breach thereof shall be taken to constitute a waiver of any other or subsequent breach of such covenants, agreements or representations or to justify or authorize the non-observance at any other time of the same or of any other covenants, agreement or representations. � 3 �"� � . i"1 —. 12. Covenants to Run with Land. The easements, restrictions and reservations set forth herein shall run with the property burdened and shall be binding on all parties having any right, title or interest in the same, their heirs, successors and assigns. 13. Severability. If any clause, provision or portion of this Declaration is deemed to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable under present or future laws, then the remainder of the Declaration shall remain unaffected but the illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision shall be modified in such a way that effectuates the intention of this Declaration but complies with all applicable laws. 14. Amendment or Modification. This Declaration and any of the rights, licenses and easements created hereby may not be modified or terminated except by a written instrument executed by the Lot 1 Owner and the Lot 2 Owner, or their respective successors and assigns. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Declaration may not be modified to reduce the number of parking spaces in the Easement Areas available to Lot 1 below the lesser of the number of parking spaces in the Easement Areas as of the Effective Date of this Declaration or the number of parking spaces required by the City of Hopkins. 15. Governing Law. This Declaration shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 16. Merger Not Intended. Common ownership of Lot 1 and Lot 2, or any portions � thereof, shall not cause this Declaration to be extinguished by operation of inerger. 17. Miscellaneous. The Declarant represents that it has the full authority necessary to enter into this Declaration and comply with the terms and conditions hereof. The terms of this Declaration shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs, successors, representatives and permitted assigns. The parties hereto hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal and state courts located in Hennepin County, Minnesota in connection with any matters arising out of this Declaration and hereby waive any objection to the propriety or convenience of venue in such courts. .-.. 4 --� IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has executed this Declaration of Parking and Access Easements effective as of the Effective Date set forth above. DECLARANT: CHDC HOPKINS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited partnership By: Community Housing Development Corporation Its: General Partner By: Elizabeth Flannery Its President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF ) _ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2016, by Elizabeth Flannery, the President of Community Housing Development Corporation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, the general partner of CHDC Hopkins Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, on behalf of the partnership. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: WINTHROP &WEINSTINE, P.A. Suite 3500 225 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 604-6400 11337366v2 � .�1 r1 .-� � January 26, 2016 Planning Report 16-03-TIF MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. I/TAX INCREMENT FINANCING(TIF) PLAN FOR TIF DISTRICT NO. 1-5 Proposed Action Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 2016-03, findinq that a modification to the redevelopment plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and a tax increment financinq plan for Tax Increment Financina District No 1-5 (The Moline) conform to the qeneral plans for the development and redevelopment of the Citv. With this motion, the resolution of support will be included in documentation of the establishment of TIF District 1-5. Overview The City of Hopkins has established a plan for making a strong connection between the proposed SW LRT Downtown Hopkins Station and Mainstreet via Eighth Avenue. Redevelopment of the properties, primarily on the west side of Eighth Avenue, is a key part of the vision to create pedestrian-level activity and interest, a strong visual connection to the LRT .-. station, and provide for housing opportunities in proximity to the station and downtown Hopkins. The redevelopment of the site at the intersection of Eighth Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard, formerly occupied by the Johnson Building, is a priority. A redevelopment proposal was brought forward by Doran Development to construct a 241-unit apartment development, The Moline. In order to make the project financially feasible, given the high cost of redevelopment, the developer has requested financial assistance in the form of Tax Increment Financing, or TIF. The Planning Commission is being asked to confirm that the redevelopment proposal conforms to the general plans for redevelopment within the City. Primarv Issues to Consider The Planning Commission is not being asked to approve the establishment of the TIF District, rather to determine if the redevelopment plans are in conformance with the general plans for redevelopment within the City. Supportinq Information • Resolution 2016-03 .-. Kersten Elverum Director of Planning & Development ... CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 2016-03 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THAT A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND A TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-5 (THE MOLINE) CONFORM TO THE GENERAL PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the Hopkins Housing and Redevelopment Authority (the "HRA") and the City of Hopkins (the "City") have proposed to adopt a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the "Redevelopment Plan Modification") and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-5 (The Moline) (the "TIF Plan") therefar (the Redevelopment Plan Modification and the TIF Plan are referred to collectively herein as the "Plans") and have submitted the Plans to the City Planning Commission (the "Commission") pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subd. 3, and .... WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the Plans to determine their conformity with the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as described in the Comprehensive Plan for the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that the Plans conform to the general plans for the development and redevelopment of the City as a whole. Dated: January 26, 2016 Scott Kerssen, Chair ^ ME - - - ------------- Ell "102 "2-E 28a2O 28a2O Hw 41 i, 4 , 3 39 2'q SV3W'50'W- g, 22a 6o U) CV I AfO3W50T 121.00 121 oo i5 F 7,1 a Not-, JI R P, Po ox Fq ;`q . . .... .... . Ell Hw i, 3 39 2'q g, i5 a Not-, R P, Elm 0 ,15-- g ip z