The URL can be used to link to this page

09-29-2015 SEPTE.MBER OCTOBER MEMBERS S M T W T F S S M T W T F S VNlCNEIL �HUNKE 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 !/NEWHOUSE ,/T'AIT ^ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 L6VARDEN �jALLACE-JACKSON 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 �tERSSEN ✓?,NDERSON 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, September 29, 2015 REGULAR MEETING 6:30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS ----------------------------------------------------- ITEM: Approve and sign minutes of the August 25, 2015, regular meeting. � COMMISSION ACTION: / / / � CASE NO. ' ZN15-9 COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Find that the disposal of Second Street is in compliance with Comprehensive Plan COMMISSION ACTION: / / / � CASE NO. VAC15-2 VACATION— SECOND STREET SOUTH Public Public hearing to consider vacation of Second Street South between Eighth Hearing and Ninth Avenues ^ COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / AGENDA ZONING & PLANNING COMMISSION PAGE 2 ---., CASE NO. SUBD15-2 PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT— 810 FIRST STREET SOUTFI Public Public hearing to consider a preliminary/final plat at 810 First Street Hearing South COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. ZCR15-1 CONCEPT REVIEW— 245-UNIT APARTMENTS Review of a 245-unit apartment building at 810 First Street South CASE NO. ZN15-10 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT — MIXED USE Public Public hearing to consider amendments to the Mixed Use Ordinance Hearing � COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. VN15-2 REAR YARD VARIANCE- 145 20TH AVENUE NORTH Consideration of a 23-foot rear yard setback variance to construct an addition at 145 20th Avenue North COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / CASE NO. VN15-3 SIDE YARD VARIANCE- 241 20TH AVENUE NORTH Consideration of a 1.3-foot side yard setback variance to construct a garage at 241 20th Avenue North COMMISSION ACTION: / / / / � ADJOURNMENT ��ItG�'�i�� '� ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 25, 2015 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission Members Brian Hunke, Gary Newhouse, Scott Kerssen, Mike Tait, Emily Wallace-Jackson, Matt McNeil and James Warden. 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. Hunke moved and Mr. McNeil seconded the motion to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2015, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. ITEM: REZONING— lOT'-'AVENUE SOUTH � Ms. Anderson reviewed the reasons for the rezoning. Ms. Andersons stated that all the calls received were positive. The public hearing was opened at 6:32 p.m. Carol Waldack appeared at the public meeting. Ms. Waldack spoke in favor of the rezoning. Mr. McNeil moved and Mr. Warden seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 6:34 p.m. Mr. McNeil moved and Mr. Newhouse seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ15-16, recommending approval of a rezoning on lOth Avenue South. The motion was approved unanimously. ITEM: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT— lOTH AVENUE SOUTH Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The public hearing was opened at 6:38 p.m. No one appeared at the public hearing. Mr. McNeil moved and Mr. Hunke seconded a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was approved unanimously. The public hearing was closed at 6:39 p.m. Mr. Tait moved and Mr. Newhouse seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ15-17, recommending a comprehensive plan amendment for lOth Avenue South. The motion was ^ approved unanimously. �i �`Y VFi` 39��`�ftP��1 L�.�..'�.: MINUTES OF THE ZONING AND PLANNING MEETING, August 25, 2015 Page 2 ADJOURN � Ms. Wallace-Jackson moved and Mr. McNeil seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. MEMBERS � ATTEST: Scott Kerssen, Chair �.- ! • /� September 22, 2015 Planning Report ZN15-9 COMPLIANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ15-18, findin� that Second Street South is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Overview The Minnesota State Statute requires that property that is disposed by the City is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The property in question is Second Street South, which is south of 810 First Street South. This street will be vacated and the north half will be acquired by the property owner on the north, which is the Doran development. The south half is City property and this property has to be found in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The vacated street is designated as Mixed Use and is in compliance with the � Comprehensive Plan. Primary Issues to Consider • How has the Comprehensive Plan designated the street? • What does the State Statue require? Supporting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Comprehensive Plan • Resolution RZ 15-18 Nancy Anderson, AICP City Pla er Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: � . ZN l 5-9 Page 2 ^ Primarv Issues to Consider. • How has the Comprehensive Plan designated the street? The Comprehensive Plan has designated the street as Mixed Use. • What does the State Statue require? The statute states the following: Compliance with plan. After a comprehensive municipal plan or section thereof has been recommended by the planning agency and a copy filed with the governing body, no publicly owned interest in real property with the municipality shall be acquired or disposed of until after the planning agency has reviewed the proposed acquisition, disposal and report in writing to the governing body its findings as to compliance of the proposed acquisition, disposal or improvement with the comprehensive municipal plan. Failure of the planning agency to report on the proposal within 45 days after such a reference, or such other period as may be designated by the governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body shall be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of this subdivision. The governing body may, by resolution adopted by two-thirds vote, dispense with the requirements of this subdivision when in its judgment it finds that the proposed acquisition of disposal of real property has no relationship to the comprehensive municipal plan. � Second Street South is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval that the Comprehensive Plan is in compliance. By recommending approval, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial that the Comprehensive Plan is not in compliance. By recommending denial, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. �� i� � ��' � �� . � �� - �� ■ � �, _ �� I � � � �� ' 11 � � � . � /� . �- . . �_ ._ ........ _ ..... �� _ � � � � �- I� _■ _ . _ . .�'. �'- �� - • • �s. i � � � ` � � _. _ � � � � • I � �� + �� / ' � - _ � , �■ - _ � • � .._ - . . -. . .. .. : ' • . • � _ � CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ15-18 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING THAT SECOND STREET SOUTH IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN WHEREAS, Second Street South between Eighth and Ninth Avenue will be vacated; WHEREAS, the south half of Second Street South will be sold; WHEREAS, the vacated Second Street South will be added to the plat for 8l0 Second Street South; WHEREAS, the vacated Second Street South is designated Mixed Use in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute 462.356 Subd 2. requires that any disposal of � property is in compliance with the comprehensive municipal plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the vacated Second Street South is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Adopted this 29th day of September 2015. ATTEST: Scott Kerssen, chair � �--� September 22, 2015 Planning Report VAC15-2 VACATE SECOND STREET SOUTH Prouosed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ15-19, recommending approval of Ordinance 15-1099, approvin� the vacation of Second Street South between Eight and Ninth Avenues. Overview Kelly Doran, the applicant, is proposing to construct a 245-unit apartment building at 810 First Street South. There is currently a warehouse on the site. The applicant will extend the new apartment building to the south, which will require Second Street South to be vacated between Eighth and Ninth Avenues. When a street is vacated the property owners on each half of the street receive the additional property. In this case the applicant will acquire the north side and the City will own the south side. The City will sell the south side to the applicant. There are currently 29 parking spaces on the north side of Second Street. Staff believes that most of the people parking at this location are post office employees. The City .� parking ramp is available for those employees. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • Is the street needed for a public purpose? • What is the staff recommendation for the vacation? • What were the responses from the utility companies regarding the vacation? Supporting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Resolution RZ 15-19 • Ordinance 15-1099 Nanc . Anderson, AICP City P anner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: � Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: VAC 15-2 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 I-1, Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan designation is Mixed Use. The property will be rezoned to Mixed Use. • Is the street needed for a public purpose? The public works department reviewed the proposed vacation and determined that Second Street South between Eighth and Ninth Avenues is not needed for a public purpose. • What is the staff recommendation for the vacation? Staff is recommending approval of the vacation. � What were the responses from the utility companies regarding the vacation? CenterPoint Energy has responded and has gas main in this area. The applicant will have to ^ move the line and pay for removal. As of the date of this report, Xcel Energy has not responded to the vacation request. The vacation will be conditioned on their approval and the removal of any of Xcel Energy utilities will be at the applicant's expense in the vacated area. There are city utilities in Second Street. The applicant knows this and has spoken to the City Engineer regarding removing and rerouting them. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the vacation of the street. By recommending approval of the vacation, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the vacation of the street. By recommending denial of the vacation, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. �"'� I6MP'l0�JI5661S000 � 00'66LS000?J 9l/61�Z _a�o S{'Y � uMo 1aa/ OS =_I :a�oa £ 'oN 'H't/'S�'H/o au��.fvM �o �y6i� y��ou ay� y}rM uowwoa 6u�aq 'yjnog jaa��s puZ�o au�� (oM �o �y6i� ,fj�ay�nos ay� �o aaou�w�a� o� '"'°""""'�'"'"°'"'"" a6uo o�d a o suoisua xa aw ro •anuan -� P l 4 � j l P. S b' amyw+�� oc�:<nun� w�u ��o..Y�•.�p3 uR«.��.o �. y;g �o aui� ,foM �o �y6u �soa ay� yarM uowwo� •"1QW4�,°�` °°""�i9'� "' 6uiaq £� �70�8 PIOS f0 aui� �saM ayj jo uoisuaFxa ��M .fj�ay�nos ay� puo 'anuan y y�g fo au��.(oM �o �y6u �saM ay� y��M uowuioo 6uiaq Sl70db'3NNllN 1S3M P!as f'l ��0/8 lo aury �soa a43 f� uoisua;xa .f��ay�nos ayj uaa,u�aq 6m,(j 'Q�osauu�py �77 �0�8 (/eJ�a :f�uno� wdauuaH Eoa�ay� �o�d pap�o�a� ay� O� 6UlPlOJ�O 'Sl70db'3NNliY 1S3M /o �o�d aya :�9 031s3n03a uo pa�o�ipap so y�nos �aai�s puZ�o ��od loyl �Noud�abs3a m�� i _ _ —i- - - — — —,�r,�� _ — — ,,��;:��'"� � I � 'nl�'� IVI 1 X�� -1 1��`� ��1�V � r,,,� ;��--- ��51�� Jn��1��111.� .��V - � �i '��iv�� ` I — ��noe � J� ` ��v f/oN "H'V'S'�'H/o aui�.la.x fo d y I � r, � �� C: �146u y»ou a4T 4J1,w uou�uioa 6ma4 41nos 4 - - - -,1 � 1' �aa��s puZ�o au��(a.x�o �y6u.(ay�nos -� - � N �N�S�� o � � ' '' � ° � � � — g . � £! �Ao/8 fo eull lsa.w ay� �, � � 6y•9 �o uoiswlxa.(Nay�rros-� I / �� I £{ ry�o/g�o aui�asoa ay� _ �' ` �� I {o uo/sua)xa.(pay�nos -__ . , � /�Q � / / .A C.r �n '` �� g0. ZOZ�S \� \\� �� „' � � , / v ; au!I i � � c,6 g9Z + �a�15 P U�ii�u��0u\� � , o t � �� >��S (D�M�N � M � � �� ^t �n ?�v �ni�.iiini \ � � \ � \ o \ _ .;I� ivC��v_�ivi�viv� a � O \ I � � � � 1 \ o � � � I �� \ � �� \ I i � \ c� o � � � \ � y� � i I � � � o � � \\ \\ � �%%// I I o \�' \ � � � \ � � �L'� �� I � � y,— b I � \� \� � l�� f! N��19/o auq �saM - � � F[ 8�o�g fo uq �soa - � /y�� r� 9[ 107 I � I � �� `� � � o� ,-',,, -/ i f------\'--�7- I1� I I � �� 6 l07` i j J/��70 � � I I � Ll 107 I I � � � � I I � -------------� I-.---- I c � lo, ; � -- --- m I � 8[ lo I � � I I � I � ---------_� i , � � � � � � � � I l 107 I I � i -- i ^��n I I i.�JlYI I i r ----- � 1 7 � I � � oz 107 I I I I � — — I � � H1nOS 133bIS 1Sl � --� i � I-- - - - _ _ � _ _ _ _ _ _ _ � � � � I �I- -- - H�1��/� NO/1 b�� f�/1 • ' �I oN�Slo !ai�dG M MStOZQ i — _—J � CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ15-19 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF SECOND STREET SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for vacation VAC15-2 has been made by Doran 810, LLC; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a vacation of Second Street South was made by Doran 810, LLC., on August 28, 2015; 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 September 29, 2015: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and � 4. Legal description of the street to be vacated is as follows: That part of 2nd Street South as dedicated on the plat of WEST MINNEAPOLIS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying between the southerly extension of the east line of Block 13, said WEST MINNEAPOLIS, being common with the west right of way line of 8th Avenue, and the southerly extension of the west line of said Block 13, being common with the east right of way line of 9th Avenue. Said line extensions to be prolonged to terminate at the southerly right of way line of 2nd Street South, being common with the north right of way line of H.C.S.A.H. No. 3. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for vacation VAC15-2 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the above-described street is not needed for a public purpose. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for vacation VAC15-2 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following conditions: 1. The the preliminary/final plat is approved. 2. That the site plan is approved for the 245-apartment building at 810 First Street � South. 3. That 810 First Street South is rezoned from Industrial to Mixed Use. 4. That the CenterPoint Energy gas line is moved at the applicant's expense. 5. That the City Engineer approves any utility work. 6. That if there are utilities in Second Street South owned by Xcel Energy, the � applicant will move them at the applicant's expense. Adopted this 29th day of September 2015. ATTEST: Scott Kerssen, Chair � `�..� CITY OF HOPKINS --� Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 15-1099 ORDINANCE VACATING A PUBLIC STREET THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That the following described area of the following public street in the City of Hopkins, namely: That part of 2nd Street South as dedicated on the plat of WEST MINNEAPOLIS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying between the southerly extension of the east line of Block 13, said WEST MINNEAPOLIS, being common with the west right of way line of 8th Avenue, and the southerly extension of the west line of said Block 13, being common with the east right of way line of 9th Avenue. Said line extensions to be prolonged to terminate at the southerly right of way line of 2nd Street South, being common with the north right of way line of H.C.S.A.H. No. 3 be vacated as a street.. First Reading: October 6, 2015 Second Reading: October 20 2015 Date of Publication: October 29, 2015 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: October 29, 2015 Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Signature Date --� � September 22, 2015 � Planning Report SUBD 15-2 � PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT—810 SECOND STREET SOUTH Proqosed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ15-20, recommending �proval of a prelimina /�r�plat to combine the four lots at 810 First Street South and add the vacated Second Street South into one lot. Overview Currently 810 First Street South is an office/warehouse, zoned I-1. The property at 810 First Street South is currently four lots. The plat will combine the four lots into one, plus add the vacated Second Street South to 810 First Street South. The office warehouse will be razed, and a 245-apartment complex will be constructed on the site. Primary Issues to Consider � • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • Does the lot meet the minimum lot requirements? • What are the specifics of the plat? • Does the proposed plat meet the subdivision requirements? • Will park dedication fees be required? • What were the comments from Hennepin County? Supporting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Preliminary/Final Plat • Resolution RZ15-20 Nancy Anderson, AICP City Pla er Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: � Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: SUBD 15-2 Page 2 ^ Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The current zoning of the property is I-1, Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this site as Mixed Use. The property will be rezoned next month, which will make the Comprehensive Plan and zoning consistent with the proposed use. • Does the lot meet the minimum lot requirements? There are no minimum lot requirements for the mixed use zone. • What are the specifics of the plat? When the property is replatted there will be one lot for the site. • Does the proposed plat meet the subdivision requirements? The plat, as proposed, meets the subdivision requirements. �-�. • Will park dedication fees be required? Park dedication fees will be required. • What were the comments from Hennepin County? Hennepin County is required to review the proposed plat because the property abuts a county road. Hennepin County reviewed the proposed plat. The comment regarding the plat was for a "reasonable portion" to remain in public ownership for the sight line on the corner of Ninth Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard. This sight line area can also be accomplished by an easement. The City Engineer has reviewed the sight lines and found the sight lines acceptable. 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/final plat, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. ^ 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ15-20 �-- RESOLUTION MAKING F1NDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR 810 FIRST STREET SOUTH WHEREAS, an application for a preliminary/final plat SUBD15-2 has been submitted by Doran 810, LLC; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for preliminary/final plat was submitted by Doran 810, LLC, on August 28, 2015; 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 September 29, 2015: 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: Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20, all in Block l3, West �- Minneapolis, Together with: Those parts of the adjoining north-south alley and of the adjoining easterly-westerly alley adjoining said Lots that accrued to said Lots by reason of the vacation thereof, and Together with: That part of 2nd Street South adjoining said Block 13, lying northerly of the center line thereof, and lying between the extensions across it of the west and east lines of said Block 13. Together with: Lots 1, 16, 17 and 18; Torrens Property Together with: That part of the adjoining vacated North-South alley lying West of the centerline thereof and between the extensions across it of the North line of said Lot 18 and the Southeasterly line of said Lot 16; Torrens Property Together with: That part of the adjoining vacated Easterly-Westerly alley lying Northerly of the center line thereof and between the extensions across it of the West line of said Lot 16 and the center line of the adjoining vacated North-South alley; Together with: That part of the adjoining vacated alley lying East of the center line thereof and between the extensions across it of the North and South lines of said Lot 1; Block 13, "West Minneapolis". Torrens Property Together with: That part of 2nd Street South adjoining Block 14, West Minneapolis, lying southerly of the center line thereof, and lying between the extensions across it of the west and east lines of said Block 13. Torrens Property NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a preliminary/final plat SUBD15-2 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: l. That the preliminary/final plat meets the subdivision requirements. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for preliminary/final plat SUBD15-2 is hereby `� recommended for approval based on the following conditions: 1. That the applicant must provide evidence of current title, in the form of a commitment for ^ title insurance, to the City Attorney. 2. That the applicant pay the attorney's fee for title review. 3. That the site plan is approved for the construction of a 245-unit apartment building at 810 First Street South. 4. That the property is rezoned. 5. That City Engineer approves the sight lines on Ninth Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard. 6. That the sight line area remain in public ownership or an easement is granted to the City by the applicant. Adopted this 29th day of September 2015. Scott Kerssen, Chair n �-. O 0 ci Jj - lN — — — — — — — — — — — — Jj lN sg i 21 A WAM — — — — -- — — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — sg :bh z IN � September 21, 2015 Planning Report ZCR15-1 CONCEPT REVIEW—810 FIRST STREET SOUTH 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 The applicant is proposing to construct a 245-unit market rate apartment building at 810 First Street South. There is currently an office/industrial building on the site. The existing building will be razed and the new building will be constructed. The proposed apartment building will have a below ground parking area, an at grade parking area and five stories of apartments above the parking areas. There will be a patio/pool area for the residents on the Second floor of the Ninth Avenue side of the building. Second Street South will be vacated, and the building footprint will extend over --- this area. 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 is the applicant's timeline? • What will have to occur for this development to proceed? SupAorting Documents • Analysis of issues • Preliminary site plans Nancy S. Anderson, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: �— Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: ZCR15-1 Page 2 � Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the existing property is I-1, Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as mixed use. The property will be rezoned to mixed use. • What are the preliminary specifics of the redevelopment proposal? Building The building, as proposed, will be a six-story building with parking on the first floor. An additional parking area will be below ground. The first floor parking area will be public, and the below ground parking area will be for resident parking. Along Ninth Avenue there will be an outdoor pool on the second floor. In addition, the building will have amenities such as a state-of art fitness center with a spa, fire pits, grilling kitchens, community entertainment rooms, business center and a pet spa. Some of the units will have walk-up entrances along Eighth Avenue. The building will be a secure building with security ^ cameras. Parking/Access Access to the parking areas will be from First Street South. The public and resident parking areas will have separate parking entrances. The lower resident parking will have 265 parking stalls, and the public parking will have 190 parking stalls. Interior The the apartments will have granite countertops, washers and dryers, large closets and balconies. There will be one, two-and three-bedroom apartments. As of the date of this report, the mix of those units is not known. Engineering/Public Works The applicant is aware of the improvements on Eighth Avenue and will work with the City to mesh the applicant's development with the Eighth Avenue improvements. Sidewalk In addition to the improvements on Eighth Avenue, the site will have sidewalk surrounding the entire building. .-► ZCR15-1 Page 3 Watershed District � The applicant will need watershed district approvals. Surrounding Uses The site is surrounded by Excelsior Blvd to the south, residential to the east and north, and the Post Office to the west. • What is the applicant's timeline? The applicant is proposing to raze the building in November and December and start construction in the spring. The applicant will be at the October Zoning and Planning meeting to seek approvals for site plan and rezoning. • What will have to occur for this development to proceed? The following are the actions that will have to occur for this development to proceed as proposed: • Site plan approval for the construction of the building • Replatting of the site to add Second Street South • Rezoning to Mixed Use • Vacation of Second Street South � � R, gee "3 c a. nj s UN - HIM HIM all 1"sc1F Fi { H H 4 i 8uIEa .. _-. ... .,.. .... .. 110 �_..._ t O L- •i E L4t�� W ;l m A Yh s a m 5 n a; As r 3 fq (' 2 � i'+s ;• x 1 i . `, Y k h ~" r A d �, ug s P4 tY X._i rv) 9H N DFs y ? e _"m U4"i 2 . M m Pm -22 *<'��a3 � � � D p e`ao' 1 � O = � 2 � �. 3IN t I i = —4 CA � E m m w N. z V, IM -Z> y m '' a ;1.70 m I CD 9 I I co N Z --� September 22, 2015 Planning Report ZN15-10 ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT—MIXED USE Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 15-21, recommending approval of Ordinance 15-2000, amendin� the zoning ordinance re ag rdin� landscapin� and pedestrian improvements in the Mixed Use zonin�district. Overview Several years ago the City adopted the mixed use zoning district ordinance. The ordinance was adopted with standards that the staff thought would be appropriate. Now that Gallery Flats has been constructed and there is another proposed apartment building on Eighth Avenue and Excelsior Boulevard, staff is proposing amending the ordinance regarding landscaping and pedestrian improvements. --,. Primary Issue to Consider • What are the proposed amendments? SupUortin�Documents • Analysis of Issues • Resolution RZ15-21 • Ordinance 15-2000 Nancy . Anderson, AICP City P anner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N_N_ Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: � ZN15-10 Page 2 ^ Primarv Issue to Consider • What are the proposed amendments? 543.12 Subd. 2. Improvements. Pedestrian improvements of at least �i�Y��;,��* ��*��r�� -,��25 percent of the landscaping bud�shall be included in the development. 543.13 Landscaping. Project Value Minimum Over$4,000,000 1 percent + .10 percent of project value in excess of$4.000,000 Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance. By recommending approval of the amendments to the zoning ordinance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. ^ 2. Recommend denial of the amendments to the zoning ordinance. By recommending denial of the amendments to the zoning ordinance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. � CITY OF HOPHINS Hennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION NO: RZ 15-21 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF ZONING AMENDMENTS TO THE MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Amendment ZN15-10 has been initiated by the City of Hopkins; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for zoning amendment was initiated by the City of Hopkins; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on September 29, 2015: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and, 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered. � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Amendment ZN15-10 is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the Zoning and Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance. 2. That it was determined that proposed amendments are appropriate. Adopted this 29th day of September 2015. ATTEST: Scott Kerssen, Chair � CITY OF HOPHINS � Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2015-2000 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: That the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance No. 543 is the same and is hereby amended by adding the following underlined language and deleting the following s�l� language, which reads as follows: 543.12 Subd. 2. Improvements. Pedestrian improvements of at least ^�� * ��*'�� * „��25 percent of the landscaping bud�et shall be included in the development. 543.13 Landscaping. Project Value Minimum Over$4,000,000 1 percent + .10 percent of project value in excess of$4,000,000 � First Reading: October 6, 2015 Second Reading: October 20, 2015 Date of Publication: October 29, 2015 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: October 29, 2015 Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor ATTEST: Amy Domeier, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY: City Attorney Signature Date � � September 22, 2015 Planning Report VN15-2 REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE — 145 20T" AVENUE NORTH Proposed Action Staff recommends the following motion: adont Resolution RZ15-22, recommendin�approval of a rear yard setback variance at 145 20`h Avenue North. Overview Due to the location of the home on the site that the home at 145 20th Avenue North staff believes was constructed as a garage. Sometime in the past it was converted to a home. The property file indicates that in the 60's it was a home, but there is no indication when it was converted to a home. The home is located on the rear of the site within the rear and side yard setback area. The applicant is proposing to construct an addition to the home by adding a second story. The addition will add a bathroom and two bedrooms. The addition would be located in the ^ rear yard setback area. Staff discussed constructing the addition on the west side of the property. The applicant did check on this option, and the expense is prohibitive. Primarv Issues to Consider � What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What does the ordinance require? • What are the specifics of the applicant's request? • What practical difficulties does the property have? Supporting Documents • Analysis of Issues • Site plans • Resolution RZ15-22 Nancy . Anderson, AICP City Pl nner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: � Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: VN 15-2 Page 2 Primary 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-A, Single and Two-Family High Density. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Low Density Residential. • What does the ordinance require? The ordinance requires a 25-foot rear yard setback. The existing building has a two-foot setback. • What are the specifics of the applicant's request? The applicant is requesting a 23-foot rear yard setback. This addition will add a bathroom and two bedrooms. • What practical difficulties does the property have? � The new state statute requires three standards for the granting of a variance. The three requirements are: 1. Practical difficulties cited in connection with the ganting of a variance, i.e., property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner; and 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant meets the requirements to grant a variance. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the rear yard setback variance. By recommending approval of the rear yard setback variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the rear yard setback variance. By recommending denial of the rear yard setback variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. --� 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota � RESOLUTION NO: RZ 15-22 � RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A REAR YARD VARIANCE WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN15-2 has been made by Christopher Polston, and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN15-2 was made by Christopher Polston on August 27, 2015; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on September 29, 2015: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered. � NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN 15-2 for a 23-foot rear yard setback at 145 20`h Avenue North is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. There exists a practical difficulty because of the location of the existing home. � 2. That the variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. 3. That the landowner did not create this circumstance. BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the rear yard setback would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the subject property, that granting of the requested variance to the extent necessary to compensate for such practical difficulties is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, and that the rear yard setback variance of 23 feet is reasonable. Adopted this 29th day of September 2015. Scott Kerssen, Chair � ZOTH AVJ�,IJUr,- QO0 2-rH 44-41' 0 44.g1' T77 O I m PAZ PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR BIDDING AND REVIEW PURPOSE ONLY DO NOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION rnsrzois z � September 22, 2015 Planning Report VN15-3 SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE—241 20T" AVENUE NORTH Proaosed Action Staff recommends the following motion: adopt Resolution RZ15-23, recommendin�approval of a side yard setback variance at 241 20`h Avenue North. Overview The applicant, Kevin Eiden, had his garage burn down this year. The existing slab has a 1.7 feet side yard setback. The ordinance requires a three-foot setback. The problem with moving the proposed garage to the east or north is the location of the existing house and the topography of the property. The house is situated on the lot lengthwise. If the garage is moved to the north, the applicant will not be able to get a car in the garage. The garage will be 14' x 22', and the garage door has been moved to the south as far as possible. The other option was to move the garage to the east. The lot has a retaining wall behind the garage .--, with a 6' drop to the backyard. Primarv Issues to Consider • What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? • What does the ordinance require? • What are the specifics of the applicant's request? • What practical difficulties does the property have? Supportin�Documents • Analysis of Issues • Site plans • Resolution RZ15-23 � Nancy . Anderson, AICP City P anner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source: ^ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: VN 15-3 Page 2 Primary 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-A, Single and Two-Family High Density. The Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Low Density Residential. • What does the ordinance require? The ordinance requires a three-foot side yard setback. The existing slab has a 1.7-foot side yard setback. The garage meets the other setback requirements. • What are the specifics of the applicant's request? The applicant is requesting a 1.3-foot side yard setback. • What practical difficulties does the property have? The new state statute requires three standards for the granting of a variance. The three ^ requirements are: 1. Practical difficulties cited in connection with the granting of a variance, i.e., property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by an official control; 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner; and 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant meets the requirements to grant a variance. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the side yard setback variance. By recommending approval of the side yard setback variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the side yard setback variance. By recommending denial of the side yard setback variance, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning Commission considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. ^ 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: RZ15-23 � RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A SIDE YARD VARIANCE WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN15-3 has been made by Kevin Eiden, and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Variance VN 15-3 was made by Kevin Eiden on August 31, 2015; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such application on September 29, 2015: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING AND PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, that application for Variance VN15-3 for a 1.3-foot side yard setback variance at 241 20�' Avenue North is hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. There exists a practical difficulty because of the location of the existing home. � 2. That the proposed garage cannot be moved to the east because of the topography of the rear of the site. 3. That the variance will not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. 4. That the landowner did not create this circumstance. BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the Zoning and Planning Commission of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement of the side yard setback would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the subject property, that granting of the requested variance to the extent necessary to compensate for such practical difficulties is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, and that the side yard setback variance of 1.3 feet is reasonable. Adopted this 29th day of September 2015. Scott Kerssen, Chair � � ( � : - � . ,--=-�'\`\ i� � - ��--��\ �� . / � _ _ � ____� � __ � --.__-_---�__.__ �-----_ ---------_�-_ --- — --- ---_�-- — . —._ _ -- � -_---�---__— — —�--�� =-__-- __�_ `��_`=�_ - -___---�_---. � �� '` ` '_` ----_—�"_ �� _ ---��-� �__.��_ � ---- ______ �� -� �''' �' \�� / !i ��3D View 3 �3D View 4 = //_ �// �� /��•\ � . —�— � ^� --_ _r�— �� - �—_� � -___�_---- �� -'-- � --- _—_--- _ ❑❑ � --�--__-_�---_"� -- � _'--`J -- -.i_= �� __ � _ ",-i�- � '� , — � /��/'�/ i�/j/ �� i , �� 3D View 1 _ A_ ��i � 3D View 2 _ �� , � i 2� - A " `�. Twin Cities Contracting Eiden �— °��"°"°" -- _ °�° Elevations � Projsct number Project Number__� '�i 612-483-4593 241 20th ST - o"�,� A�°°� 1 A6 � Checked by Chxkx Scale � N � , J „ u rtd: a 'Nil g ar 1 a z prN PP , ^� ga5� "9 '�" r �'f rr•V,€cc a' ��.e��'.��`":�i �i,�r� " y * �y;�s ts* .�'�.a .ri' V 44xM ¢wia Ix b s r,i3 yr{{.�'rs'7cs y8`r�, � a,4`��*.. a'�' $"�� ,r',� '7 wool !s &+ r^a� z k ,' ",k ,N "w� ➢�},- :h -0..".',r..n,�.* f i c,„ ^r "s• e + `S;""",�"6x S, k"i ra`rs§' sy Jy y '�aifl' '{'� , ,.f � �t xx +n: ,��r e:� ��-.�i � c t� � S,4 a`'F x}''z�`>i:i y� s '°i rdi � �i '� `�� y `a , y �,S !«�'✓C.� xt a$ d v Fa k y 1 k r �s j � pt +. ��' rr '�,� �t�� +«V• �+ .� ': Cl � �� r x`� rw i r r a'r � y p �. s rt iY y aii r ,dt,„d c ck" °v dr�ip,, w'4 � ✓< � �x AF { x a E c en xr i k do c ti'y °" u'fN,rtpw'+ t Eby ; ` .„ '� r � r a: �' ++'max rr+'" •s �* Ry � t� .0 � Cp'i, 'T rte S'"� €Cg r• y 1 �..xl tfd S tr "%"' tu"y,°"" +., d'+y-'r �y' ukgi.m k"a §�.q'.' ruY3 k A. �''�+• 4" r"a '.� ! rix.19fi�- .�, T 41 in �SAW 1 Z46to WE :,�, c.. ti.7 ati� � .�~e' r a 4<r ° �� "��.{� ' �`rr�.� t�*x `��: � �x ��2 .y� r i t!t" �� "'tx✓ ; � ��,�'�a: 4t S �j �F, :., "~„ • i 6 Y ` Fo e na a ,r ro a< "r X y 4 �a d �f* 'v3" . �" z . x 9e :-f '+�`. •' awry' "� �, r "�°rt° ti h "'�w ��j�"" '� �' �, s`�' S"r da �:�t""T a�,r 10,20 `r ,� �r, "T ff' 14Eri rsw..A ky a by e Y FYz ,"" `1x5 Y a : a��FC d i ' Y u�tr ✓;. `Y R^"C`M t yf k �6�° *� i,'a � �. 3� ey�C t g r � t c PIT a , r I`Y �' m � 2 a `' a Sw�tCs 4r;' rW tsr F'r''Y ��`��' � ° ��" "� w�'•a a >ffix��, 't�'Sw4 , �. '. °i's .y��' .,£gti. rY�r i ;zg °� rP'Sy a`y�'. � tx-•n •y �' .� H � .J � ,a 13 a6L SIR �s� } 5 tom, Q,