V.2. Planning Application 2019-05 AMD RZ & CUP 601 Oakridge Road (Wilshire Properties, LLC Group Home)
March 26, 2019 Planning Application 2019-05
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning & Conditional Use Permit for
601 Oakridge Road (PID 24-117-22-11-0049)
Proposed Action: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2019-06, recommending the
City Council deny the following applications to allow a Licensed Residential Facility Serving 7
To 16 Residents:
• Comprehensive Plan Amendment from LDR - Low Density Residential to MDR - Medium
Density Residential
• Rezoning from R-1-D, Single Family Low Density to R-2, Low Density Multiple Family
• Conditional Use Permit for a Licensed Residential Facility Serving 7 Through 16 Residents
Overview
The applicant, Bruce Lawrence of Wilshire Properties, LLC, requests a comprehensive plan
amendment, rezoning and conditional use permit to allow a Licensed Residential Facility Serving
7 to 16 Residents at the property located at 601 Oakridge Road. The subject property is located
in the northeastern quadrant of the Highway 7 and Oakridge Road intersection. It is guided by
the comprehensive plan and zoned for low density single family activity. Staff recommends
denial of these requests based on the findings made in this report.
Recent complaints from the surrounding neighborhood led city staff to conduct a series of site
inspections and contact the property own regarding these issues. This process found the subject
property housed a licensed residential facility with ten (10) residents. Under state law, this type
of facility is permitted in any single family residential district provided it has no more than six (6)
residents. As a result, staff initiated a code enforcement process to bring the site into
compliance. In response, the property owner filed for the above stated applications to allow a
Licensed Residential Facility Serving 7 to 16 residents.
Primary Issues to Consider
● Background
● Comprehensive Plan Amendment
● Rezoning
● Conditional Use Permit
● Alternatives
Supporting Documents
● Planning & Zoning Resolution 2019-06
● Public Comments
● Neighborhood Meeting Summary
● Site Location Map
● Zoning Violation Letter
● 2030 Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
● 2040 Comp Plan Future Land Use Map
● Residential Zoning Standards Table
● Zoning Map
● Applicant’s Narrative
_____________________
Jason Lindahl, City Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________
Notes:
Planning Application 2019-05 AMD, RZ, & CUP
Page 2
Background
According to the applicant’s narrative (attached), the subject property began operating as a
Licensed Residential Facility in 2011. City permit records confirm this timing. At that time the
facility was owned and operated by Grace Homes. Representatives of Grace Homes attended
the March 20, 2012 City Council meeting to announce the startup of their 8-bed facility. There
was also an article in the Hopkins Patch on April 6, 2012 highlighting the facility. In May of
2017, the applicant purchased the subject property (and the neighboring property at 414 Wilshire
Walk) from Grace Homes.
In the summer of 2018, code enforcement complaints from the surrounding neighborhood led
city staff to conduct a series of site inspections and contact the property owner regarding these
issues. In January 2019, a routine fire inspection and subsequent review of Minnesota
Department of Health records found ten (10) residents living at the subject property. This is a
violation of Hopkins City Code, section 530.06(b) which limits licensed residential facilities in
single family zoning districts to 6 or fewer residents. As a result, staff began the code
enforcement process and informed the property owner they must bring the site into compliance
with the City’s zoning standards on or before March 4, 2019. In response, on February 21, 2019
the property owner filed for the above stated applications to allow a Licensed Residential Facility
Serving 7 to 16 residents.
Neighborhood Meeting. Hopkins neighborhood meeting policy requires applicants for
conditional use permit or rezoning applications located adjacent to or within residential zoning
district to host an informational meeting for neighbors within 350 feet of the subject property.
The applicant held their neighborhood meeting at the Hopkins Pavilion on Tuesday, March 19
from 6:30 to 7:30 PM. The applicant mailed an invitation for this meeting to the Knollwood
neighborhood, Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council (see attached).
Summary minutes from the neighborhood meeting are attached for your reference. According
to these minutes, seven (7) members of the neighborhood attended the meeting and one (1)
other resident contacted the applicant by phone. While the attendees acknowledged the need
for these types of facility, they did not support the applicant’s proposal to intensify the use of
this facility in a single family neighborhood.
Standards for Licensed Residential Facilities. Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 7,
requires all local governments in Minnesota to allow licensed residential facilities in residential
zoning districts. This is not an option for local governments. The state administers the license
for these facilities so local governments have no direct oversight or control over the day to day
operation of these facilities.
Under state law licensed residential facilities serving 6 or fewer residents must be allowed as a
permitted use in any single family residential zoning district. Residential Facilities serving 7
through 16 residents must be allowed as permitted use in multiple family residential districts.
The state law provides cities with an option to require a conditional use permit for these uses in
multiple family districts.
To comply with these state requirements, the City of Hopkins adopted Ordinance 93-722 which
established zoning standards for Licensed Residential Facilities. Hopkins City Code Section
530.06(b) allows licensed residential programs with a capacity of 6 or fewer persons as a
permitted use in any single family district. Section 530.09(p) allows licensed residential program
Planning Application 2019-05 AMD, RZ, & CUP
Page 3
with a Capacity of 7 to 16 persons as a conditional use in the R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5 and R-6
districts.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The proposed development requires a comprehensive plan amendment to re-guide the future land
use classification for the subject property from LDR – Low Density Residential to MDR –
Medium Density Residential. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are considered legislative
actions, meaning that the City is formulating public policy. The City may amend the
Comprehensive Plan after a public hearing before the Planning Commission and a two-thirds
majority (4 out of 5 votes) by the City Council. These applications also require notification to the
surrounding communities and approval by the Metropolitan Council. Based on a review of both
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins, staff
recommends denial of the applicant’s comprehensive plan amendment.
2030 Comprehensive Plan. The 2030 Future Land Use Map guides the subject property as
LDR – Low Density Residential. According to the narrative for this land use classification, it
allows for single family detached residential dwelling at 1 to 7 units per acre. Reguiding the
subject property from LDR – Low Density Residential to MDR – Medium Density Residential
would be inconsistent with the surrounding single family development pattern and the City’s
policies to preserve and protect single family neighborhoods.
Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use and Development details the rationale
behind the City’s land use plan. This narrative supports the preservation and protection of the
City’s existing residential neighborhoods. The requested comprehensive plan amendment would
allow development inconsistent with the City’s land use plans.
The Land Use and Development chapter states the City regards the preservation and protection
of its existing residential neighborhoods as one of its most important priorities. The City will
work to protect land use patterns that continue to support single family homes. In order to
facilitate this residential land use patterns, Hopkins will:
• Work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of its low-density residential
neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of nearby commercial or
industrial land through zoning, site plan reviews, and code enforcement.
• Ensure that the infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing developed land
will be in accordance with uses specified in the Comprehensive Plan.
• Ensure that incompatible land uses will be improved or removed where possible and the
land reused in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods.
Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. The Draft 2040 Future Land Use
Map guides the subject property as Suburban Neighborhood. Neighborhoods in this category
are designed around a modified grid street network with good access to the surrounding
transportation network. Properties in this district are relatively large for Hopkins, with most
having ample private yards and attached garages. The Suburban Neighborhood category plans
for low density single family neighborhoods and accessory uses such as parks and neighborhood
scaled public and institutional uses. Neighborhood scale public and institutional uses would
acknowledge and allow for licensed residential facilities serving six (6) or fewer residents as
required by state law but not those facilities with more than six (6) residents.
Planning Application 2019-05 AMD, RZ, & CUP
Page 4
The Built Environment section contains goals and policies that support denial of this
application.
• Goal 4 - Support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and
appropriate infill.
• Policy - Preserve and enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock,
especially in the Estate Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood future land use
categories.
Rezoning
Zoning Code amendments, including rezoning properties, are legislative actions in that the City is
creating new standards to regulate the development of certain types of uses and/or structures.
Under the law, the City has wide flexibility to create standards that will ensure the type of
development it desires; however, zoning regulations must be reasonable and supported by a
rational basis relating to promoting the public health, safety and welfare. Based on the findings
made below, staff finds the proposed zoning changes is neither reasonable nor supported by a
rational basis and recommends denial of this request.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning the subject property from R-1-D, Single
Family Low Density to R-2, Low Density Multiple Family would be inconsistent with both the
2030 Comprehensive Plan and Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan (see analysis above).
Compatibility with Present and Future Land Uses. Rezoning the subject property from R-1-
D, Single Family Low Density to R-2, Low Density Multiple Family is inconsistent with both the
present and future land uses of surrounding properties. These uses are detailed in the table below.
The subject property is surrounded by single family residential uses to the north, south and east
and a multiple family apartment building across Oakridge Road to the west. The future land use
plans in either the 2030 Comprehensive Plan or the Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan reinforce
this land use pattern and would not support introducing multiple family zoning and its related
activities into the Knollwood neighborhood.
Surrounding Existing and Future Land Uses Analysis
Location Existing Future
North Single Family Residential Low Density Residential
South Single Family Residential (Hwy. 7) Low Density Residential
East Single Family Residential Low Density Residential
West High Density Residential High Density Residential
Conformance with New Zoning Standards. The use and development standards for both the
R-1-D and R-2 Districts are detailed in Section 530.05 (see attached table). The differences
between the standards for these districts are minimum lot area, rear yard setback, dwelling floor
area and open space ratio. The subject property could conform to these standards; however,
rezoning it to R-2 would establish additional development entitlements with the potential of up to
four (4) units and/or a 16 person residential facility that would be incompatible with the
surrounding single family residential development pattern.
Conditional Use Permit
Conditional use permit applications are considered quasi-judicial actions. In such cases, the City
is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if an application meets
Planning Application 2019-05 AMD, RZ, & CUP
Page 5
these requirements it should be approved. The City has the ability to add conditions of approval
that are directly related to the conditional use permit standards.
In evaluating the proposed conditional use permit application, the City must consider and
require compliance with the general conditional use permit standards in Section 525.13,
Subdivision 15. In addition, Licensed Residential Facilities Serving 7 to 16 residents are also
subject to the standards in Section 530.09(p). It should be noted that this application would only
be eligible for review under these criteria if the City approves the requested comprehensive plan
amendment and rezoning. These standards and staff’s findings for each are detailed below.
Section 525.13, Subdivision 15. General Standards for Conditional Use Permits.
a) The consistency with the elements and objectives of the City's development plan, including
the comprehensive plan and any other relevant plans at the time of the request.
Finding: The proposed use is inconsistent with both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the
Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. See analysis above.
b) Consistency with this ordinance;
Finding: The subject property could conform to the proposed R-2 zoning standards;
however, rezoning it to R-2 would establish additional development entitlements with the
potential of up to four (4) units and/or a 16 person residential facility that would be
incompatible with the surrounding single family residential development pattern.
c) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with natural site features
and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development;
Finding: Staff finds intensification of the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to serve up
to 16 resident could diminish the existing relationship of buildings and open space with
natural site features and their visual relationship to the development.
d) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special
attention to the following:
1.) An internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a
desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community;
Finding: As a single family dwelling within a low density residential area, intensification
of the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to serve up to 16 residents could lessen the
internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provide a undesirable
environment for occupants, visitors and the general community.
2.) The amount and location of open space and landscaping;
Finding: Intensification of the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to serve up to 16
residents has the potential to reduce the amount of open space and landscaping through,
at a minimum, the need for additional hard surface for parking.
Planning Application 2019-05 AMD, RZ, & CUP
Page 6
3.) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design
concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures
and uses.
Finding: The applicant proposes no changes to the exterior of the single family dwelling.
4.) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in
terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior
drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and
vehicular traffic and arrangements and amount of parking.
Finding: Intensification of the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to serve up to 16
residents has the potential to necessitate additional infrastructure for both pedestrian and
vehicles to access the site.
e.) Promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of
structures, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and
site grading;
Finding: The applicant’s plans to intensify the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to
serve up to 16 residents include no provisions to promote energy consideration.
f.) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface
water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those
aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial
effects on neighboring land uses, and;
Finding: The applicant’s plans to intensify the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to
serve up to 16 residents include no provisions to protect adjacent and neighboring
properties.
g.) The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate
vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor tend to or actually diminish and impair
property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: Based on feedback from the neighborhood, the applicant’s plans to intensify the
existing Licensed Residential Facilities to serve up to 16 residents have the potential be
injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or diminish
and impair property values within the neighborhood.
h.) In Institutional zoning districts, the Conditional Use Permit application shall comply with
the standards, conditions and requirements stated in Section 542.03 of this Ordinance.
Finding: Section 542.03 provides for standards related to a conditional use that includes
demolition or removal of dwelling units and does not apply to this application.
i.) Traffic impacts such as increases in vehicular traffic, changes in traffic movements, traffic
congestion, interference with other transportation systems or pedestrian traffic, and traffic
hazards shall be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council in
Planning Application 2019-05 AMD, RZ, & CUP
Page 7
evaluating an application for a Conditional Use Permit.
Finding: The applicant’s plan to intensify the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to serve
up to 16 residents would likely change or increase traffic patterns on the site. The City has
received complaints from the neighborhood regarding the number of vehicles present on the
site. Subsequent site inspections by City staff found more vehicles than could fit on the
existing driveway forcing some to park on the grass.
Section 530.09(p) - Licensed Residential Facilities Serving 7 to 16 Residents
1. Facilities shall comply with all applicable codes and regulations and shall have, current and in
effect, the appropriate State licenses.
Finding: The subject property has a history of code complaints related to number of
vehicles, parking on the grass, exterior lighting and long grass. The owner has been
responsive to correcting these issue when notified. However, staff is concerned that
intensification of the existing Licensed Residential Facility to serve up to 16 residents would
likely exceed the site’s development capacity and create more conflicts with the surrounding
residential neighborhood.
2. On-site services and treatment at residential facilities shall be for residents of the facility
only, and shall not be for nonresidents or persons outside the facility.
Finding: The City has no evidence that on-site services or treatments at this residential
facility are being offered to non-residents or persons outside the facility.
3. The conditional use permit is only valid as long as a valid State license is held by the operator
of the facility where such license is required.
Finding: According to the applicant, they have an existing and valid license from Hennepin
County and the Minnesota Department of Health.
4. Traffic generated by the facility not to exceed the design capacity of the local street system
or cause a decrease in service levels of intersection, as defined by the Institute of Traffic
Engineers. Adequate sight distance at access points shall be available.
Finding: While the site does not appear to generate traffic that exceeds the design of the
local street system or causes decreases in service levels at adjacent intersections, it does
produce more vehicles than the existing driveway area can accommodate which causes some
vehicles to park on the grass.
5. No on-street parking to be allowed. Adequate off-street parking shall be required by the
City based on the staff and resident needs of each specific facility.
Finding: There is no evidence of on-street parking. However, there is evidence of
inadequate off-street parking. See analysis above. Staff is concerned that intensification of
the existing Licensed Residential Facilities to serve up to 16 residents will further exasperate
this issue.
6. No external building improvements undertaken which alter the original character of the
Planning Application 2019-05 AMD, RZ, & CUP
Page 8
home unless approved by the City Council.
Finding: The City is not aware of any exterior improvements that have altered the original
character of the existing single family home.
7. Additional conditions may be required by the City in order to address the specific impacts of
a proposed facility.
Finding: Based on staff’s recommendation to deny these applications, the City has no
additional conditions for the subject property at this time. Should the City consider
approving this request, staff reserve the ability to recommend additional conditions.
Alternatives
1. Recommend approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning and conditional
use permit applications. By recommending approval of these applications, the City
Council will consider a recommendation of approval. Should the Planning & Zoning
Commission consider this option, it must also identify specific options that support this
alternative.
2. Recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning and conditional
use permit applications. By recommending denial of these applications, 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 items should be continued.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2019-06
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DENY THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS FROM WILSHIRE
PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 601 OAKRIDGE ROAD
(PID 19-117-21-14-0006)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Wilshire Properties, LLC, initiated comprehensive plan amendment,
rezoning and conditional use permit applications to allow a licensed residential facility serving 7 to 16
residents at 601 Oakridge Road (PID 19-117-21-14-0006); and
WHEREAS, the property is legally described as Lot 008, Block 001, Knollwood Addition,
Hennepin County, Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That comprehensive plan, rezoning and conditional use permit applications were initiated by
the applicant on February 21, 2019.
2. That the applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the Hopkins Pavilion on March 19, 2019 in
conformance with the City of Hopkins Neighborhood Meeting Policy.
3. That the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notice,
held a public hearing and reviewed such application on March 26, 2019 and all persons present
were given an opportunity to be heard.
4. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City
of Hopkins hereby recommends the City Council deny the comprehensive plan, rezoning and conditional
use permit applications from Wilshire Properties, LLC that would allow a licensed residential facility
serving 7 to 16 residents at 601 Oakridge Road (PID 19-117-21-14-0006) based on the findings made in
the Planning & Zoning Commission staff report dated March 26, 2019; and
Adopted this 26th day of March, 2019.
_______________________
James Warden, Chair
From:Anne Steinfeldt
To:Jason Lindahl
Cc:Randy L. Engel; Siddhartha Chadda
Subject:[EXTERNAL] Zoning 601 Oak Ridge Road
Date:Thursday, March 21, 2019 8:29:50 AM
Good morning Jason,
I regret that I will be unable to attend the public hearing on Tuesday March 26th but I wanted
to share my input with you as Hopkins considers rezoning this property to be a Licensed
Residential Program for 7 to 16 persons.
Grace Homes has been a good neighbor but I am not in favor of changing the current zoning.
I am concerned about increased traffic and safety at a very busy intersection.
I am concerned about increased traffic/parking when it flows onto Wilshire Walk.
This past winter, the amount of snow made Wilshire Walk just passable for a single car
where drivers would need to take turns in order to safely pass each outer.
I am also concerned about the amount of debris that can overflow onto Oak Ridge Road.
Not often, but there have been times when personal property was discarded onto Oak
Ridge Road — not in trash bins but on the street. I probably should have reached out to
the City when those occurrences happened but I did not. I was just disappointed that a
business didn’t dispose of oversize items in a business-required fashion. It felt
disrespectful to the integrity of the neighborhood and their consideration of neighbors.
Thank you and the Commission for consideration of my concerns. Copied on this email are
my husband, Siddhartha Chadda, and Randy Engel, President of the Knollwood Association.
Warmest regards,
Anne Steinfeldt
710 Edgemoor Drive
March 19, 2019
Neighborhood Meeting Minutes
Agenda:
6:30: Gather and Sign-In
6:40: Welcome and Introductions
6:50: Project Description and Background
7:00: Q & A
Attendance:
7 people from the neighborhood representing 6 properties as follows:
122, 203, and 216 Wilshire Walk
302 and 417 Cottage Downs
810 Edgemoor Drive
2 people with ties to Hopkins Community Arts one of which is a business partner of the Grace
Homes owners.
1 person contacted me by phone earlier in the week as they were not able to attend the
meeting.
The meeting opened with an introductions and an overview of Matrix Home Health Care
Specialists, including when the company was founded, when and why it expanded into home
care and when and why residential care came was added. The licensing requirements for care
homes was provided including state and county requirements.
The background on how we got to this point was presented highlighting the fact that residential
care homes were fairly new to the city when Grace Homes opened in 2011 leading to the
oversight in zoning restrictions that lasted for the better part of 7 years. We talked about R-1
zoning and 6 residents being protected by the state and that there is a provision to allow more
than 6 residents that requires multiple family zoning and a conditional use permit. R-1-A zoning
which supports multiple family housing was discussed although it wasn’t a good fit for this
situation. The possibility of a text change was also discussed as an option but again not a good
fit for this situation.
6900 Shady Oak Road Suite 216
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone: 952/525-0505 / Fax: 952/525-0506
www.MatrixHomeHealthMN.com
www.GraceHomesMN.com
The meeting was fairly free flowing with questions and discussion all throughout. In general the
attendees agreed that there weren’t issues with Grace Homes and acknowledged that the
pushback is primarily due to the new home going in on Wilshire Walk. Many acknowledged the
need for this type of housing and were supportive of Grace Homes.
The operations at Grace Homes was discussed including the number of bedrooms, how they
are allocated, what the staffing ratios by time of day are, and who else works at the house. A
question was asked about the number of cars that come and go on a daily basis, not so much
as an issue with Grace Homes but a potential issue with the new care home. The Elderly (EW)
and CADI waivers were discussed as well as how shared rooms are sometimes necessary for
EW residents due to the relatively low reimbursement rate. Also discussed was the ability of
Grace Homes to accommodate more EW residents if the total number of residents was more
than 6.
The person that called in asked why a conditional use permit couldn’t be issued rather than
rezoning the property. The answer being that the conditional use permit didn’t pertain to R-1
properties. Thus the property needed to be rezoned in order to apply the conditional use permit.
There were several concerns expressed which were shared by all of the neighborhood
attendees. They were:
1. Any zoning change is permanent and while they were receptive of what Grace Homes
was doing, the property could be used differently in the future which may negatively
impact the neighborhood.
2. A precedent gets set if an exception is made for one property that might lead to others
wanting to do similar things. “You did it for them, why won’t you do it for me”.
3. There was concern about the ability to have up to 16 residents if rezoned to R-2. This
was addressed by limitations placed on the number of residents by the county as well as
the practicality of having too many residents in a limited space as shared rooms are
generally more difficult to rent than private rooms.
4. Parking and traffic flow was a concern although a stipulation of the conditional use
permit in the R-2 district is that all parking must be off-street. The traffic flow was trivial
compared to that generated on Hwy 7 and by the neighboring apartment building. Again
the real concern was not with Grace Homes but with the new care home on Wilshire
Walk.
5. A concern was expressed the opinion that property values were being affected by the
presence of the care homes citing 3 properties on Wilshire Walk that sold for less than
property value. Not all shared this concern as it’s not clear what the true connection
between property value and the care homes is.
Summary
The meeting was generally positive and had good discussion. The attendees came to better
understand the situation, how it came to be, what the limitations are, and were generally
supportive of the business recognizing the need for this type of housing. The attendees were
not supportive of a zoning change however due to precedent and future development issues.
The meeting concluded at 7:30pm as scheduled.
The following handout was provided:
March 19, 2019
Neighborhood Meeting Agenda
6:30: Gather and Sign-In
6:40: Welcome and Introductions
6:50: Project Description and Background
7:00: Q & A
Background:
The property at 601 Oak Ridge Road is owned by Wilshire Properties, LLC; Mr. Charles Scott
President. The property was operated as a Residential Living facility by Mr. Scott and his
spouse Bethany Buchanan, RN beginning in July of 2011. Grace Homes was announced to the
Hopkins City Council as an 8-bed senior care home at the March 20, 2012 meeting. Sometime
later a 9th resident was added with permission from Christopher Kearney, the Lead Inspector
for the City of Hopkins.
In May of 2017 Matrix Advocare Network, Inc. d/b/a Matrix Home Health Care Specialists
(Matrix) purchased the business operations of Grace Homes with the intent of continuing to
operate the care home. This includes the properties at 601 Oak Ridge Road and the adjacent
property at 414 Wilshire Walk. The physical properties are still owned by Wilshire Properties,
LLC and Matrix has continued to operate the homes under the name Grace Homes.
In January of 2019, after a routine fire marshal inspection the City of Hopkins cited Matrix for
operating the facility with more than 6 residents due to the way the property was zoned. There
haven’t been any neighborhood issues to the knowledge of the former or present owners of
Grace Homes.
6900 Shady Oak Road Suite 216
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone: 952/525-0505 / Fax: 952/525-0506
www.MatrixHomeHealthMN.com
www.GraceHomesMN.com
Project Description:
This project is a request to change the zoning of the property from R-1-D to R-2 and approve a
conditional use permit for up to 10 residents. The property in its current form meets all the
requirements for R-2 zoning. The project does not call for any physical changes to the property
or building nor does it change the way the property has been used since it opened in 2011. The
project is merely a request to allow the facility to continue to operate as it has been and meet
current zoning and use requirements.
Below is a copy of the zoning map showing the subject and surrounding properties.
601 Oak Ridge Road
Hwy 7.
Hwy 7. Oak Ridge Road 5th Avenue
Attendance Sign-In Sheet
Site Location Map – 601 Oakridge Road
Subject Property
2030 Future Land Use Map
Subject Property
Draft 2040 Future Land Use Map
Subject Property
Section 530 Page 2
530.05
(Revised 4-6-99)
530.05. Standards in R Districts. The table below lists permitted uses and minimum standards in R Districts.
PERMITTED USES: R-1-A R-1-B R-1-C R-1-D R-1-E R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6
1 Family Detached Dwelling P P P P P
2 Family Dwelling P P
2-4 Family Dwelling P P
Townhouse P P P
Multiple Dwelling P P P P
Hopkins Owned Park & Rec P P P P P P P P P P
THE FOLLOWING ARE MINIMUMS REQUIRED:
Lot Area (Sq. Ft.) 6,000 8,000 12,000 20,000 40,000 12,000 16,000 20,000 24,000 16,000
Non Residential Use 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 40,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000
Lot Area 1 Family (Sq. Ft.) 3,500 8,000 12,000 20,000 40,000 3,500 2,600 1,600 1,000 2,600
Lot Width (Ft.) 50 60 80 100 100 100 150 150 150 150
Front Yard ( Ft.) 25 30 30 35 35 35 35 30 30 35
Side Yard (Ft.) see footnote (2)
1 Story 8 8 10 10 10 10 15' or 1/2 the height, 15' or 1/2 the height
2 Story 8 8 12 12 12 12 whichever is greater whichever is greater
3 Story 10 10 14 14 14 14
MAXIMUM ALLOWED:
Percentage of Building Coverage 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 30 35
(2) The side yard for additions to any existing dwelling shall be the same or greater
than the existing structure, except that no side yard shall be less than five feet.
Rear Yard 25 30 35 40 40 35 25' or 1/2 the height, 25' or 1/2 the height,
whichever is greater whichever is greater
Dwelling Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)
1 Family 700 800 1,000 1,200 1,200
2 Family 700 800
More than 2
Efficiency 520 520 520 520 520
1 Bedroom 600 600 600 600 600
2 Bedroom 720 720 720 720 720
Over 2 bedroom (700 + 120 for each Bedroom)
Building Height 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 45 4 story 4 story
Open Space Ratio 1:1.5 1:2.5 1:1 1:1:75 1:1.25
(3) The side yard to an existing dwelling on a corner lot abutting a right-of-way has a minimum setback of five feet in all R-1 zoning districts. (Added Ord. 99-823)
(4) The side yard to the attached garage side of the home shall be a minimum of five feet. The attached garage cannot be converted to livable space. (Added Ord. 99-823)
(5) In all R-1 districts, front porches are allowed to be constructed in the front yard setback with a minimum setback of 20 feet. (Added Ord. 99-823)
Zoning Map
Subject Property