Loading...
VII.1. First Reading Ordinance 2022-1180 Adopting the New Development Code of the City of Hopkins; Elverum June 20, 2022 City Council Report 2022-061 ZONING REGULATIONS UPDATE Proposed Action: Move to adopt Resolution 2022-043, authorizing a first reading of Ordinance 2022-1180 Adopting the New Development Code of the City of Hopkins Overview Updating the zoning code is a key first step in implementing the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins - and is required by state law. The current zoning ordinance was adopted in the late 1970s and has been amended numerous times, which sometimes results in inconsistency with the rest of the code. It also lacks more modern user-friendly language, graphics and review processes. Because of this, it was decided to undertake a complete rewriting of the zoning code. The team of James Duncan and Associates and Codametrics was hired in early 2020. The project was delayed due to Covid when it was not possible for the steering committee to meet in person, but after adjusting to virtual meetings, the work progressed. There has been substantial community engagement throughout the process, as well as significant staff involvement. The proposed code reflects the vision for Hopkins, as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan and through community conversations. It reflects a shift from the existing conventional zoning regulations to a modernized hybrid zoning code that introduces form-based planning principles that focus on the way new development fits into the existing context while providing more flexibility in the use of property. Primary Issues to Consider • Background • Summary of Changes from Existing Code • Community Engagement • Equity Analysis • Community Comments • Alternatives Supporting Documents • Resolution 2022-043 Authorizing a first reading of the Development Code Update • Ordinance 2022-1180 Adopting the New Development Code • Zoning Map • Community Comments Received • Draft Minutes of the May 31, 2022 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting ____________________________________________ Kersten Elverum, Director of Planning & Development Financial Impact: $0 Budgeted: Y/N _N___ Source: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Excess TIF City Council Report 2022-061 Page 2 Background The 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins served as the guiding document to update the City’s Planning and Zoning regulations. The vision of this plan is to cultivate the best elements of the Built, Natural, Social, and Economic Environments into a complete and sustainable community that is rooted in tradition, characterized by vibrant and unique places, physically and socially connected, and resilient to changing conditions. Based around principles of sustainability, resilience, equity, and complete and connected communities, it provides a framework for preparing for the future. The plan emphasizes retaining what is valued, while proactively addressing and welcoming change. Kirk Bishop, James Duncan and Associates and Leslie Oberholtzer, Codametrics, were hired as the consultant team to lead the zoning regulations update. The staff lead was City Planner Jason Lindahl. In May 2020, the Project Directions Memo Wednesday-December-9-2020---Zoning-Update-Directions- Report-PDF (hopkinsmn.com) provided the framework for the project. It described the general objectives, summarized the consultant team’s initial recommendations regarding the scope and direction to be pursued, serving as a road map for the creation of the updated zoning regulations. It was based on a comprehensive review of policy documents, initial discussion with the community and field work including a tour of Hopkins and its many neighborhoods. Rooted in the Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins – and informed by this initial review, the following themes were identified: • Promote sustainability and resiliency • Accommodate higher density in appropriate locations • Create new mixed-use zoning • Increase housing options and choice • Reclaim potential of R-1-A districts • Protect and grow Mainstreet • Address character and context • Promote increased bikeability/walkability • Promote environmental health goals • Support employment growth and entrepreneurship In addition to bringing zoning regulations into alignment with Cultivate Hopkins, the zoning regulations update also provided the opportunity to modernize the code and to address specific regulatory issues. These technical issues included: • Transition to form-based regulations • Improve organization and format • Collect and consolidate • Increase reliance on objective standards • Clarify nonconformity regulations • Update definitions • Right-size parking requirements • Focus on urban landscape practices • Rethink planned unit developments At their May 31, 2022 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing and considered the development code update. Three members of the public spoke during the public hearing. Each speaker City Council Report 2022-061 Page 3 generally expressed support for the updated ordinance. Speakers stated that the code should encourage efficient land uses within the city, particularly by supporting duplexes and accessory dwelling units. Summary of Changes from Existing Code Due to the extensive nature of the document, it is difficult to summarize the changes from the current code. To assist in the comparison, the residential and mixed-use zones articles show the current code text in green within brackets to illustrate how the new code is different from the current. Other significant changes are detailed below: Organization The proposed development code is organized around 16 articles, combining subdivision and zoning regulations into Chapter 102 of the municipal code. The table of contents and numbering is intended to provide a framework that is adaptable for the future, allowing the addition of new regulations within the numbering system. The uses allowed in various zones are presented in a table. The table includes uses permitted by right (●), uses permitted in the rear of the ground story or in upper floors (◓), uses allowed only with conditional use approval (○), uses allowed only when limited to no more than 25% of the ground floor footprint (◐). A dash (-) in the use table identifies uses that are prohibited in a particular zone. Residential Zones Neighborhood zones have been renamed but have not been significantly revised from the current code. The N3-B zone, formerly R-1-A, has been revised slightly to reflect the general physical form of existing neighborhoods. Other changes include allowing duplexes in N3-B, NX1 and NX-2 neighborhoods with the same form as single-unit homes. The proposed ordinance was revised to include the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to allow duplexes in the N3-A neighborhoods. The minimum lot size for a duplex home is now the same as for a single-unit home. Secondary suites or ADUs (accessory dwelling units) are allowed in backyard cottages or in the main house in all neighborhood zoning districts. The following conditions apply to all ADUs: • Allowed on N-zoned lots occupied solely by a detached house • No more than one secondary suite per lot • No additional parking required • Owner must live in the principal or secondary suite • Limited to 2-stories in height and 800 sf • The proposed ordinance contains the Planning Commission recommendation modifying the requirement for deed restrictions recorded against properties where ADUs are built if that zone also allows duplexes. Lastly, the proposed ordinance includes the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation to reduce the rear setback for detached garages with rear-facing doors from 20 feet minimum to 10 feet. Mixed-Use Zones Mixed-Use zones apply to four areas within the City. Zone names that include the –TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) suffix generally apply within a ¼ mile of the new light rail stations. Zone names that include the –D (Downtown) suffix occur within the downtown area or what is now generally classified in the current downtown overlay. Zone names that include the –N (Neighborhood) suffix are smaller in scale than the – TOD or –D locations and located closer to existing neighborhoods. Zone names with an –S (Suburban) City Council Report 2022-061 Page 4 suffix apply along larger roads and have a more auto-oriented focus, allowing uses such as gas stations and drive-through facilities. Building and Site Design The proposed code identifies allowed building types by zone and uses illustrative examples and clear diagrams to help the user interpret the regulations. The building design Article 7 includes a series of design standards that apply to all mixed-use building types. These regulations use objective, measurable, standards that are easily administered and include such items as balconies, defined principal entrances, building façade variety and mechanical equipment location. The building design regulations are intended to address the Comprehensive Plan’s urban design goals and the physical quality of buildings and their long-term value and durability. The regulations are also intended to help maintain and enhance the pedestrian experience and preserve the City’s traditional form and scale. The landscape and site design regulation of Article 8 include a series of design standards, fence and tree requirements for parking lots along streets, parking lot islands and trees, and buffer landscaping between different zones. The new landscape regulations are more specific and include tree preservation and replacement standards that are not in the code today. Parking Minimum off-street motor vehicle parking requirements have been reduced for many use types. The regulations have also been made more flexible by giving off-street parking credit for nearby public parking spaces and for project that provide indoor bike parking facilities for employees. Shared parking for uses with different time of peak parking demand is also allowed and encourages. Bicycle parking is required for most new uses under the proposed code. New provisions are added requiring electric vehicle charging equipment in larger parking lots. Most other existing regulations governing parking, driveways and access were retained in the new ordinance. Approval Process The new code presents all of the development-related approval procedures in a single Article 13. Many of these procedures are set by state law but several changes were realized including to the City’s approval and notification process to allow for more community input into development projects. Requirements for mailed notice of public hearings and neighborhood meetings are broadened from 350 feet to 500 feet. The new code requires notification of both property owners and occupants. There are also new requirements for posting notice signs for several procedures including rezonings. Diagrams and tables make clear what the process will be for different actions. New streamlined (staff-approval) site plan procedures have been added for small projects with a floor area of 25,000 sf or less. Community Engagement The City Council established that public participation in the zoning regulations update process is vital to creating new zoning standards that reflect the vision, goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan and the community at large. To this end, the City Council appointed a group of citizen and business owners from a wide variety of backgrounds to help guide the code development process and built in a series of on-going public engagement events to gather feedback from the general public. In addition to their formal role to help guide the code development process, members of this group were encouraged to be “Community Ambassadors” and serve as another informal channel to both provide information to the public and gather feedback. City Council Report 2022-061 Page 5 The Zoning Regulations Update Project webpage served as the information hub for the zoning update process and included all information reviewed by the advisory group, opportunities for the public to provide feedback and up-coming opportunities for the public to participate in the process. Information was also provided in the City’s email newsletters and on social media accounts (Facebook & Twitter). Listening Sessions were held early in the process to gather public input used for updating the City’s zoning regulations. Participants who represented employers, property owners, financial institutions, educators and other government regulators, were asked a series of questions designed to identify important issues for the City to consider when updating the zoning regulations. Feedback gathered during the listening sessions was shared with the members of the Zoning Regulations Update Working Group. Throughout the process, a series of open houses were held. A virtual open house was held on February 10, 2021 via Zoom and Facebook Live. In person open houses were held on October 28, 2021 and April 26, 2022. The zoning code update was also shared at various community events including the Fire Department Open House and Hopkins Farmer’s Market last fall. Equity Analysis Community feedback during the zoning code update process requested that the City conduct an equity audit of the draft zoning regulations. The City formed a Zoning Equity Subcommittee, which included several members of the Zoning Regulations Update Working Group as well as some community members at large. The Zoning Equity Subcommittee met over the course of four months to discuss how the zoning code update could advance racially equitable outcomes. Goals related to equity from the Cultivate Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan were sorted into topic areas. The Zoning Equity Subcommittee reviewed best practices for how communities across the country are approaching the work to reduce disparities in the context of zoning standards. The Zoning Equity Subcommittee offered recommendations for the proposed zoning standards as well as future policy areas for more exploration. Additional information can be found on the Zoning Equity Working Group summary. Where appropriate, staff integrated the recommendations into the draft zoning code. The following provisions of the zoning code were influenced by these recommendations: • The introduction of form-based code design to develop a hybrid code which focuses on creating a mix of commercial and residential uses in areas that are planned for redevelopment and managing sustainable growth. • New bicycle parking requirements in commercial, manufacturing and industry, civic and institutional, and residential (5+ units) developments. • Increasing the required distance and recipients for notifications of development projects. • Allowing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in all Neighborhood zones. • Requirements for Electric Vehicle charging stations for off-street parking areas with 15 or more parking spaces. • Parking credits/reductions for affordable housing, as well as for car-share and bike-share parking. Additionally, the Zoning Equity Subcommittee made recommendations for policy areas that are not typically included in a zoning code that the City could explore in the future, which include: • Consider the creation of sustainable development policy to be applied when a development seeks City financial assistance. • Consider the creation of a policy which requires a sustainability or healthy building certificate such as LEED or another certification for buildings when a development receives City financial assistance. City Council Report 2022-061 Page 6 • Consider the development of a tool such as an Equity Impact Analysis, Displacement Analysis, or other tool which staff and developers can use to understand the effects a project may have on the community. • Explore the risks and benefits of having an Inclusionary Housing Policy that is tailored to the City of Hopkins. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s also recommended that the City Council pursue a process to review and possibly implement equity policies. Community Comments Under State law, adoption of a zoning code requires a public hearing and notification. The City of Hopkins published notice of the code adoption and public hearing in the Sun Sailor on May 19, 2022. The City has also taken comments through the City’s website. Prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting comments from five individuals were received and are included as an attachment to this report. The comments were given to the consultants and they, along with City staff, prepared responses in a document which is also attached. As previously noted, the draft minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting are included as an attachment. Alternatives 1) Voting to Approve. By voting to approve the first reading of Ordinance 2021-1180, this item will move forward for a second reading scheduled for the July 19, 2022 City Council meeting. 2) Voting to Deny. By voting to deny the first reading of Ordinance 2021-1180, this item will not move forward for a second reading scheduled for a July 19, 2022 City Council meeting. Should the City Council consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. 3) Continue for further information. If the City Council concludes that further information is needed, the items should be continued. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 2022-043 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2022-1180 AMENDING THE PLANNING AND ZONING SECTIONS OF CITY CODE BY REPEALING AND REPLACING IN ITS ENTIRETY PART III – LAND DEVELOPMENT, CHAPTER 100 – SUBDIVISIONS AND CHAPTER 102 – PLANNING AND ZONING WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins initiated an application to amend Part III of the City Code related to land development regulations by repealing and replacing in its entirety; and WHEREAS, State Statute requires the City’s zoning and subdivision regulations be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the goal of the land development regulations update is to create a new, modernized and user-friendly zoning code that will implement the vision, goals and policies of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins; and WHEREAS, the vision statement of Cultivate Hopkins is “Hopkins will cultivate the best elements of the Built, Natural, Social and Economic Environments into a complete and sustainable community that is rooted in tradition, characterized by vibrant and unique place, physically and socially connected and resilient to changing conditions”; and WHEREAS, the zoning regulations are intended to establish the development standards to implement the community vision; and WHEREAS, the draft zoning regulations were informed by community input and expertise of City staff and consultants; and WHEREAS, the regulations further goals around equity, sustainability and increasing opportunities; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That the amendment to Part III the City Code related land development regulations was initiated by the City of Hopkins; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such proposal on May 31, 2022: 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 City Council of the City of Hopkins hereby approves the first reading of Ordinance 2022-1180 amending the Planning and Zoning sections City Code by repealing and replacing in its entirety Adopted this 20th day of June 2022. _______________________ Patrick Hanlon, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk 1 HP145-9-804239.v1 CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. 2022-1180 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE NEW DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS: ARTICLE I. Authority. Minnesota Statutes, sections 415.02, 415.021, and 599.13 (collectively the “Act”) and the Hopkins City Charter, section 3.03 authorize the City of Hopkins (the “City”) to adopt and codify ordinances. The Act also provides that any ordinance included in a new city code, but not previously published, is sufficiently published if a substantial quantity of the code is printed for general distribution to the public. ARTICLE II. Background. At the direction of the Hopkins City Council, City staff and consultants undertook an extensive process to review and update Part III of the Hopkins City Code, which generally regulates planning, subdivision, land use, and development in the City, with the understanding that once all amendments were finalized, they would be adopted and incorporated into the City’s code book. The general purpose of the update is to implement the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, remove outdated and unnecessary text, reformat the chapter, and modernize the chapter to a more user-friendly document that conforms to current City policy, practices and state law, as necessary. The updated chapter has been prepared and it is the intent of this Ordinance to adopt said chapter, which is entitled The Development Code of the City of Hopkins (the “Development Code”). On May 31, 2022, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins (the “Planning Commission”) and, following said hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Development Code. A complete copy of the Development Code, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was presented to the City Council and the public together with this Ordinance and is further on file with the City Clerk and available on the City’s website. ARTICLE III. Adoption. Pursuant to the City’s authority contained in Minnesota State Law, including but not necessarily limited to, the Act, and in the Hopkins City Charter, the Development Code, as attached hereto as Exhibit A, is hereby adopted. ARTICLE IV. Copies. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to prepare sufficient copies of the Development Code for use by the City Council and City staff and for general distribution to the public in accordance with City policies regarding the distribution and availability of City documents. The City Clerk shall also keep an official copy of the Development Code in the office of the City Clerk and ensure that a copy is available through the City’s website. ARTICLE V. Effect. The Development Code shall be controlling and shall supersede and replace previously adopted provisions contained in Hopkins City Code, Part III, which are hereby repealed as of the effective date of this Ordinance. Such repeal shall not affect: (i) any offense committed or penalty incurred under the previous code language; (ii) any rights vested prior to the effective date of 2 HP145-9-804239.v1 this Ordinance; or (iii) the provisions of ordinances levying taxes, appropriating money, annexing or detaching territory, establishing franchises, granting special rights to certain persons, authorizing public improvements, authorizing the issuance of bonds or borrowing of money, authorizing the purchase or sale of real or personal property, granting or accepting easements, plat or dedication of land to public use; or vacating or setting the boundaries of streets or other public places. Furthermore, nothing in this Ordinance or the Development Code is to be construed to modify, abrogate or abridge: (i) the rights, duties, liabilities, privileges or immunities of the City; (ii) the qualifications or terms of office of City officers as they existed prior to adoption; or (iii) any special ordinance or franchise not embodied in the City Code. The Development Code is declared to be prima facie evidence of the law of the City and shall be received in evidence as provided by Minnesota Statutes by the courts of the State of Minnesota. ARTICLE VI. General Penalty. Unless another penalty is expressly provided in the Development Code, every person convicted of a violation of any provision of the Development Code or any ordinance, rule or regulation adopted or issued in pursuance thereof shall be punished by a fine up to the maximum permitted or required by law. Each act of violation and each day upon which any such violation shall continue or occur shall constitute a separate offense. The penalty provided herein, unless another penalty is expressly provided elsewhere, shall apply to the amendment of any Development Code section, whether or not such penalty is reenacted in the amendatory ordinance. In addition to the penalty prescribed above, the City Council may pursue other remedies, including without limitation, abatement of nuisances, injunctive relief and revocation of licenses or permits. ARTICLE VII. Amendments. Duly adopted additions or amendments to the Development Code when passed in such form as to indicate the intention of the City Council to make the same part of the Development Code shall be deemed to be incorporated in the Development Code so that reference to the Development Code includes such additions and amendments. ARTICLE VIII. Corrections. Given the size of this project and numerous amendments made as part of the updated Development Code, the City Council recognizes the Code may contain certain errors, such as cross-references to changed subsections, typographical errors, and other non- substantive matters that may be discovered once the Development Code is placed in use. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Clerk to work with the City Attorney, as necessary, to make any non-substantive corrections to the Development Code as may be needed upon discovery. Such corrected provisions shall be incorporated in and made part of the Development Code without further action by the City Council. ARTICLE IX. Summary Publication. In accordance with Hopkins City Charter, section 3.03 and Minnesota Statutes, section 412.191, the City Council determines that publication of the title and a summary of this Ordinance would clearly inform the public of its intent and effect, and so City staff shall have the following summary printed in the official City newspaper in lieu of the complete ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 2022-____ AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE NEW 3 HP145-9-804239.v1 DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS On ______________, 2022, the Hopkins City Council adopted Ordinance 2022-_____ which adopted a full rewrite of Part III of the Hopkins City Code regulating all planning, land use, subdivisions, and development within the City. City staff and consultants undertook an extensive process to review and update said regulations in order to (i) implement the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan, (ii) remove outdated and unnecessary text, (iii) reformat the chapter, and (iv) modernize the chapter to a more user-friendly document that conforms to current City policy, practices and state law, as necessary. Numerous substantive changes to the City’s prior land use regulations are contained within the updated text. Prior to adoption, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins, and a complete copy of the new chapter, entitled the “Development Code of the City of Hopkins,” was presented to the City Council and the public and was further on file with the City Clerk and made available for viewing on the City’s website. Printed copies of the new Development Code of the City of Hopkins, as adopted by Ordinance 2022-1180, are available for inspection and general distribution to the public during regular business hours at Hopkins City Hall. It can also be viewed online through the City’s website, www.hopkinsmn.com. ARTICLE X. Effective Date. This Ordinance and the Development Code, as presented to the City Council and the public and made available for inspection in accordance with law, shall be effective upon publication of the above summary (the “Effective Date”). Ordinances adopted after the Effective Date that amend or refer to the Development Code shall be construed as if they amend or refer to like provisions of said Development Code. First Reading: June 20, 2022 Second Reading: July 19, 2022 Date of Publication: July 28, 2022 Date Ordinance Takes Effect: July 28, 2022 BY THE CITY COUNCIL Patrick Hanlon, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Amy Domeier, City Clerk A-1 HP145-9-804239.v1 EXHIBIT A [to be attached] Available on the City Website: https://www.hopkinsmn.com/DocumentCenter/View/3836/Public-Review-Draft---Zoning- Regulations-PDF HIGHWAY 7 HIGHWAY 1691ST ST N EXCELSIOR BLVD 11TH AVE SMAINSTREET 7TH ST S SMETANA RD 3RD ST N 2ND ST NE2ND ST N 5TH AVE NCAMBRIDGE ST SHADY OAK RDLAKE ST NE MINNETONKA BLVD 17TH AVE N12TH AVE N6TH ST S15TH AVE N14TH AVE N2ND AVE S11TH AVE N9TH AVE NBOYCE ST10TH AVE N8TH AVE N19TH AVE NBLAKE RD N7TH AVE N5TH ST S18TH AVE N6TH AVE NBLAKE RD S1ST ST S GOODRICH STOAKRIDGE RD16TH AVE N20TH AVE NANN LN N O L A N D R MANITOBA RD ASHLEY RDBIRCH PLHOLLY RD3RD ST S POWELL RDTYLER AVE NATWATER STLORING RD 13TH AVE NMONROE AVE SPRESTON LN DIVISION ST HARRISON AVE S21ST AVE NW E S T B R O O K E W A Y HOMEDALE RDHAWTHORNE RDLINCOLN DRSPRUCE RD H I G H W A Y 7 F R O N T A G E R D ALTHEA LN8TH AVE SVAN BUREN AVE SSANDRA LN MAPLE HILL RD17TH AVE S2ND ST S ADAMS AVEHIAWATHA AVE 12TH AVE S13TH AVE SOXFORD ST PARK LNJACKSON AVE NK -T E L D R19TH AVE S7TH AVE S18TH AVE S9TH AVE SWASHINGTON AVE SMERILANE 8TH ST SMILL RDM IL W A U K E E S T C O T T A G E L N FELTL CTVALLEY WAYHILL ST OAKWOOD RD6TH AVE SEDGEMOOR DRSAINT ALBANS RD E FAIRWAY DRW A Y S I D E R D W 5TH AVE SANNAWAY DROAK RIDGE TR CAMPBELL DRW ASHINGTON AVE NO A K VA LE R D S BRIDLE LN O A K VA LE R D N 3 7 T H S T W MINNETONKA MILLS RD VAN BUREN AVE N5TH ST N 4T H ST N MONROE AVE NC O T T A G E D O W N S INTERLACHEN RDTEXAS AVEHAZEL LNHERMAN TERHOPKINS CROSSROADSOAKGLEN DR47TH ST W L A K E S T W 20TH AVE SS A IN T L O U IS S T 10TH AVE S7TH ST W JOHN STOAKTON DR16TH AVE S15TH AVE SROYZELLE LN MEADOWBROOK RDWILSHIRE WALK SWEET BRIAR LNBURNES DRFLETCHER PL ELMO RDTEXAS AVE SMADISON AVE NO AK D R LN GRIFFIT STS A I N T J O H N S R D W A Y S I D E R D E FARM LN OAKTON RDGJACKSON AVE SDEER RIDGE LN CREEK LN ROBI NWOOD L NROBINWOOD TERCEDAR POINTE DR SFARMDALE RD EOAK RIDGE RDWOODLAND DRCEDAR POINTE DR NEAST PARK VALLEY DRGETHSEMANE RDWEST PARK VALLEY DRCEDAR CROSSINGBROOKVI EW DRHEDBERG DRR ID G E W O O D D R MADISON AVE SWEST PARK RDDRILLANE RD WEBSTER PL HONEYWOOD LNPO MPANO DR AQUILA AVE S JEFFERSON AVE SFAIRWAY LN34TH ST W LANDMARK TRAIL N 34TH CIRCLE WPARKSIDE BLVDLANDMARK TR S GROVE PLOLD SETTLERS TRAIL DEARBORN CTARTHUR STREGENCY LN E POLK AVETRAILWOOD SMALONEY AVE E D G E B R O O K D R OAK PARK LN 14TH AVE SHOPKINS CENTER HARRISON AVE NH E R M A N C TALTHEA LN2ND ST N HIGHWAY 1692 N D S T N 10TH AVE SH I G H W A Y 7 5TH AVE S12TH AVE S4TH ST N 2 N D S T S MEADOWBROOK RDHIGHWAY 7 FRONTAGE RD 7TH ST S5TH AVE S6TH ST S 1ST ST S ROBINWOOD LN TYLER AVE N6TH ST S 2ND ST S 5TH ST S 2ND AVE S6TH AVE SHOPKINS CROSSROADS13TH AVE S9TH AVE S15TH AVE S11TH AVE SH I G H W A Y 7 F R O N T A G E R D 3RD ST N 2ND ST N 7TH AVE S16TH AVE N3RD ST S21ST AVE N8TH AVE SMINNETONKA MILLS RD12TH AVE NVAN BUREN AVE N0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 3,000300 Feet Date: 6/16/2022 DRAFT City of Hopkins Proposed ZONING MAP LEGEND Front Street PUD, Planned Unit Development Overlay Neighborhood Zones N1: Estates N2-A: Suburban Neighborhood, Large Lot N2-B: Suburban Neighborhood, Mid Lot N3-A: Traditional Neighborhood, Mid Lot N3-B: Traditional Neighborhood, Small Lot NX1: N'hood Res Mix NX2: Gen Urban Res Mix Mixed-Use Zones RX-TOD: Res-Ofc Mix, TOD Ctr RX-D: Res-Ofc Mix, Downtown Ctr RX-N: Res-Ofc Mix, N'hood Ctr MX-TOD: Mixed-Use, TOD Ctr MX-D: Mixed-Use, Downtown Ctr MX-N: Mixed-Use, N'hood Ctr MX-S: Mixed-Use, Suburban Ctr IX-TOD: Employment Mix, TOD Ctr I-TOD (UI): Industrial Mix, TOD Ctr IX-S (CE): Employment Mix, Suburban Ctr Special Zones I1 (BP): Light Industrial CLR: Closed Landfill Restricted P1: Parks and Open Space P2: Public-Institutional City of Hopkins Public Comments and Responses on Public Review Draft Development Code Josh Montgomery 202 9th Street 1. Comment/Question: EV vehicle parking requirements should require EV spaces to be priority spaces (after ADA Parking space). For example, the closest parking spot to the door is ADA, to be followed by EV parking spots, then general public. Response: The proposed ordinance mandates the provision of EV supply equipment in large parking lots and requires that such spaces be located “in desirable and convenient parking locations that will serve as an incentive for the use of electric vehicles.” This is thought to be a reasonable approach that balances the needs of property owners, EV owners, and the general public. It also allows for flexibility in locating EV spaces. 2. Comment/Question: Figure 2.60-B Traditional House Parking Keynote #4 is incorrectly labeled as front setback. It should read #13. Regarding #13 - the note about 20 ft. min setback off any façade with garage door should not be a requirement if the garage door faces the alley. It should remain 3' min facing the alley. Perhaps adding a new line and separating "Side Setback" and "Rear Setback". I can't think of a good reason to leave it 20'. It is essentially REQUIRING two more parking spaces for a use that does not require more parking spaces. And adds 400 SF min of impervious material to the lot. Response: Thank you for your keen eye on the diagram numbers – they have been corrected. The minimum 20-foot setback requirement for alley-facing garage doors is an existing regulation that has been carried forward from the current code. Based on discussions with staff, this regulation reflects the fact that alleys throughout the Avenues are typically only 10 feet in width, whereas a “standard” alley is usually 18-20 feet in width. The constrained width of existing alleys makes ingress and egress from alley-facing garages very difficult. The 20-foot setback also accommodates vehicle parking on the driveway leading the garage, without any part of the vehicle blocking the alley. It is important to note that the 20-foot setback applies only to alley-facing garage doors. In practice, most alley-accessed garages are side-entry and are only required to be setback 3 feet from rear lot lines. 3. Comment/Question: 102-610.(b).(4).a - says "accessory buildings... may not exceed 2 stories in height ...102.620.i says backyard cottage (ADU's) limited to 1.5 stories. I thought the reality of ADU's would mostly be above garages. Therefore should 102.620.i be 2 stories? Response: The maximum (1.5-story) height limit for backyard cottages and other accessory buildings is intended to ensure that such structures are subordinate to the principal building on the lot, with a scale that does not create adverse visual or privacy impacts for neighbors. The proposed height limit would still allow ADUs above garages, as long as the second level is within the roof. 4. Comment/Question: The existing Zone R1A allowed 2 family dwellings (duplex) as a permitted use. The proposed zoning code has changed this to N3-B but does NOT allow a duplex. It only allows "Secondary Suites" also known as an "Attached ADU". Not a two family home, also known as duplex. A. EXISTING - you can have a duplex, not required as an owner occupant, no size restriction on the units, and no deed restrictions required. B. PROPOSED Secondary Suite - requires an owner occupant, limits the size of the internal second unit, and requires a deed restriction. Where did the good old fashioned duplex go? Please get rid of the restrictions (size, owner occupancy, and deed restriction) of the "secondary suite" in N3-B zones or add language allowing duplexes as currently, without these newly added restrictions Response: This comment is based on a misinterpretation of the draft code. The N3-B zone does, in fact, allow duplexes (two-unit houses) that comply with the traditional house building regulations of Sec. 102-260. Moreover, the new code will allow two-unit houses on more lots than the existing code because the minimum lot area requirement is being reduced from 6,000 square feet to 5,000 square feet. 5. Comment/Question: ADU or backyard cottages. Two things - 1. exterior material, trim, and roof pitch that matches the main house should not be a requirement of an ADU. A. IMHO, the design of a backyard cottage should not be limited to the form, style, or cladding, or the existing house as proposed. There is a real opportunity to embrace high quality design and another character of these unique buildings. I propose striking 102-620.i.1 / 2 / and 3. They are not required for Outbuildings, 102-630, which could be the same physical structure as a backyard cottage. Only difference is the cladding and roof pitch? B. What delineates a backyard cottage from an outbuilding besides the exterior cladding and roof pitch. Does a backyard cottage has a kitchen? May want to look at what the difference really is? having a sink, range, and fridge? I think one could argue that having a hand sink and beer fridge does not make my garage a backyard cottage that needs a deed restriction. C. Please get rid of the deed restriction. The City is trying to encourage a mix of housing but then punishes the property owner with a deed restriction. Have the owner provide a notarized Declaration that gets filed with the zoning administrator. That is how I was approved for an ADU on the west coast. I can provide an example of the Declaration if requested. Additionally, deed restrictions increased racial inequality in our state. Lets not unknowingly make the same mistake. What happens if the use changes? What happens if the new owners don't want or use the ADU in a manner that required the deed restriction. It would unfairly burden property owners down the line. How do you get it removed from the deed if the ADU is no longer an ADU? Get rid of the deed restriction. Response: The proposed regulations for backyard cottages and secondary suites (accessory dwelling units) were the subject of much discussion by the project work group and are generally consistent with practices observed in other jurisdictions. Our research suggests that deed restrictions, binding on current and future owners, are a near universal requirement of ADU regulations. Such recorded instruments (sometimes referred to as “declarations of restrictions of occupancy”) are not thought to represent a significant impediment to ADUs. It is also important to note that these sorts of deed restrictions have no relationship to race-based or racial deed restrictions. Matthew Miller 2025th Avenue North 6. Comment/Question: The city must support mixed-income housing. I am disappointed that the city did take advantage of this opportunity to include more regulations to help meet the affordable housing needs of our city. The inclusion of outbuildings and cottage dwellings will not provide the level of housing needed. There simply will not be enough new housing through this ordinance to meet the need. The 50% reduction in street parking has more potential to increase housing stock for working families. I would encourage the city to consider more incentives of this nature, including increased height of buildings, and building materials. Response: The development code identifies where various types of development can occur and prescribes the form of the buildings within the different zones. The proposed code allows for more multifamily housing, at greater densities (and heights) in many areas of the city. In addition, it allows ADUs in all residential zones and expands opportunities for duplexes in several neighborhoods. Overall, the code allows for the creation of 1000’s of new housing units. Following the laws of supply and demand, the cost of housing should moderate with the production of new housing. The code does not directly control the value of buildings constructed or the rents/sales prices that can be charged. Incentive and regulatory policies controlling affordability must be considered as policies separate from zoning. While it is acknowledged that building material requirements have some effect on building cost and affordability, the intention of this code is to ensure sustainable construction through long-lasting materials, while also complementing the existing quality and design of existing development. Nathaniel Merrill 125 12th Avenue South 7. Comment/Question: I absolutely support this update to the zoning code. I'd like to confirm that the single family houses on the 100 block of 12th Avenue South would be treated as N3-A/B, is that true? Currently these single family homes are zoned R-6. Is the N3-A/B the front setback from the centerline of the road or the curb? (I fully support the reduction in space dedicated to front lawns) Response: The 100 block of 12th Avenue South between 1st St South and Excelsior Blvd is zoned RX-D, consistent with the R-6 zoning currently in place. The building types allowed are the General and Row buildings in sections 102-380 and 102-390 of the new code (Article 3 – Mixed-Use Zones). All front setbacks and build-to zones are measured from the front lot line, which typically lies near the back (building side) of the public sidewalk. Aaron Osowski 2062 Mainstreet 8. Comment/Question: I would first like to say that I am strongly in favor of the inclusion of ADUs in all residential zones. I think this is a great first step towards building gentle density in the city and expanding housing options. I think the code should expand which zones allow duplexes and triplexes - these housing types should be allowed in N-2A and N-2B zones. While walking in the Avenues neighbor- hood, you have to really take a second glance at duplexes to notice they are there. They do not clash with the character of the neighborhood at all, and I don't believe they would in the N-2A and N-2B zones. I am also in favor of the Zoning Equity Subcommittee's recommendation that native and low- water plantings should be required, as part of an effort to reduce water usage. Regarding the allowing of home-based businesses, I would encourage the city to consider what measures it could take to allow corner stores in residential areas. Because these types of stores usually just serve local nearby residents, they don't greatly increase traffic, and they allow those nearby residents to use their vehicles less frequently, as they can accomplish some of their errands close by. Lastly, I am in favor of abolishing mandatory minimum parking standards citywide. I believe with the combination of light rail coming to Hopkins, the fact that the city parking garage is usually underutilized, and given the city's walkability and climate goals, this would be a prudent measure. I am happy to see parking standards reduced and maximums being put in place. Response: The proposed development code does allow duplexes in N-2A and N-2B zones. Duplexes or two-unit houses must comply with the traditional house building type regulations, a requirement that is intended to ensure that new two-unit houses blend seamlessly into the physical fabric of existing neighborhoods. The draft code and new zoning map follow the city’s newest comprehensive plan, defining zones and locations for zones based upon the plan. A neighborhood-scaled mixed-use zone (MX-N) is included in the new code specifically for the western end of Mainstreet. In the future, this zone could be applied within areas, through the standard rezoning process. Larry Hiscock 302 7th St S _____________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Comment/Question: I am writing today to again raise concerns regarding the City of Hopkins development processes and Zoning Code Draft. The development process and draft zoning code favors property owners and places unnecessary burden and risks on our neighbors that rent their homes or lease their business spaces. Concerns and suggested reforms provided over the past 4 years regarding the implicit bias in the development process and zoning code have been consistently dismissed and excluded from meaningful consideration in the zoning code update. The consistent dismissing of basic process improvements resulted in the unnecessary chaos and hardship experienced by local businesses impacted by the Trilogy redevelopment. The hardship and public backlash could have been avoided by conducting a simple equity impact assessment or by addressing concerns submitted in the Environment Assessment Worksheet the year prior. Since then, only superficial changes have been made regarding posting a sign and extending public notification. Both changes are largely performative, continuing to place the burden on groups of people historically not reflected in the City priorities. Thankfully business owners and neighbors worked together to soften the blow and mitigate the burden experienced by small business and BIPOC owned businesses. None of the concessions were offered prior to the community coming together. Sadly, the zoning consultant, Duncan Associates was not charged with identifying zoning code improvements that would put in place structures that would respect the humanity and well-being of our neighbors that do not own their property. It is critical that the City Council take the following actions: 1. Direct City staff make changes to the draft zoning code to take into consideration the well- being of neighbors that rent and lease. 2. Make it clear to Hopkins Park Plaza management and ownership that the City Council expects to see a respectful plan for tenants and that there should be no interference with resident efforts to convene and work with technical support organizations. This has not been a problem but is common. The following are examples of what could have been included in the $100,000 contract with Duncan Associates and City Staff with your direction can incorporate: 1. Follow Arlington County’s example of having a zoning code section dedicated to affordable housing: Arlington County has an entire section in their Form Based Code dedicated to affordable housing creation and preservation. This includes using form-based code as an incentive, requirement, processes, etc. I am attaching the PDF of the section for reference as an example of what is possible when the well-being of renters is prioritized. We of course would have measured tailored to our area. For $100,000 and 2 years, we should have received something comparable. 2. Amend the draft zoning code to include the requirement of a tenant relocation plan: Arlington County also requires a Relocation Plan be drafted and submitted to the County. This would remove the ambiguity and lessen the burden on tenants. We currently have time to work with residents of Hopkins Park Plaza, however the next time there might not be anytime. This is a simple measure that could be acted upon now. 3. Include an Equity Impact Assessment requirement similar to the Environmental Impact Assessment in the Zoning Code: There are a variety of tools that can be used and added at a later date. A basic Equity Impact Assessment would provide a framework to have a structured and constructive public conversation on the impacts of a development. Similar to an Environmental Impact Assessment, it would not by itself necessarily block a development. However, it would identify who is burdened and potential mitigation measures. I have attached a sample document from the City of Madison as a reference. The City of Hopkins would still need to continue its planned equity work. In the meantime, a future perfect equity framework that might be completed in 2-5 years should not be used as an argument to block present day quality improvement. In fact, a basic Equity Impact Assessment process would contribute to a quality final product. Change in the City of Hopkins is inevitable. Our current and draft zoning code invites chaos, hardship and added burden on our neighbors experiencing the greatest level of vulnerabilities. We can make change humane if we choose to. We can have a zoning code and development processes that in many cases advance equity and mitigate harm if we choose to. Response: There are many points made in these comments that staff does not agree with, including that the code invites chaos and is fundamentally inhumane. There are, however, two main recommendations that can be responded to: Tenant relocation plan. Historically, relocation benefits have been regulated by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act (1970) ("URA") was passed by the U.S. federal government in 1970. It was intended to ensure fair compensation and assistance for those whose property was compulsorily acquired for public use under eminent domain law. Aside from instances where displacement occurs directly from government action, tenant leases and established property rights law is the determining recourse. Where there is no legal standing for relocation benefits, a city has limited authority to require relocation assistance as part of a land use approval. The City of Hopkins did adopt a tenant protection ordinance that gives some very limited protection of rent increases when an affordable apartment development is sold and purchased by a new owner. The City will continue to explore tenant protections as this area of work evolves on a regional and state level and may bring recommendations forward for separate tenant protection policies, not embedded in the zoning code. Where financial assistance is offered to a developer, the City has the ability to require more of a developer in the area of tenant relocation but the actual use of city funds has to meet standards of community benefit over individual gain. Each development has its own set of conditions and legally-binding agreements that need to be considered. Equity Impact Analysis. The comment compares a requirement of an equity impact analysis to the requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The comparison needs to take into account that the requirement of Environmental Impact Assessments began in the 1960s, as part of increasing environmental awareness, and was formalized with the enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969. An EIA is prepared to estimate the effects of a proposed development or construction project based on technical evaluations that are intended to contribute to more objective decision making. Comparatively, equity impact analysis tools are relatively new and are not mandated or guided by Federal or State government. The use of an equity tool to review or regulate development is an evolving area of work with very limited use by city or state organizations at this time. Zoning codes do need to have specific and legally-defensible requirements that are not subjective in nature. The use of an equity assessment has not evolved to the point there are such measurements. Hopkins is a relatively small city with limited resources to undertake the development of new tenant protection and/or equity regulations that would likely be tested through legal challenges. That does not mean that there cannot be policies around the use of equity tools as part of development review as the City continues to learn from best practices from around the region and nationally, and applies them to Hopkins unique set of development objectives. It is staff’s opinion that conversation will take time and it is not in the city’s best interest to delay the adoption of the zoning regulations until the issues can be fully explored and the legal parameters and administrative procedures adopted into policy. HOPKINS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS MAY 31, 2022 CALL TO ORDER Pursuant to due call and notice thereof a special meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1010 1st Street South. Chairperson Stiele called the meeting to order with Commission Members White, Dyrland, Terrill, Wright and Sedoff attending. Also present was Youth Member Searles and Director of Planning and Economic Development Kersten Elverum. ADOPT AGENDA Motion by Sedoff. Second by Wright. Motion to Adopt the Agenda as presented. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried. COMMUNITY COMMENT None. CONSENT AGENDA Motion by White. Second by Dyrland. Motion to Approve the Consent Agenda 1. Minutes of the March 22, 2022 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. 2022-07 Zoning Regulations Update Director of Planning and Economic Development Kersten Elverum presented an overview history of the zoning regulations update to date and introduced the consultants for the zoning update, Kirk Bishop and Leslie Oberholtzer, who provided a comprehensive summary of the final draft code. The consultants walked through some of the notable changes in the code including future land use plan, land use classes and the different zones, principal uses, accessory uses and structures, home occupations, parking and mobility, procedures, and next steps in the approval process. Commissioner White commented that the recently acquired parcel located at 11524 Excelsior Blvd which had been part of a land swap with the City of Minnetonka was not added to the new proposed zoning map. The consultants responded that they would work with staff to include it in the final map. HOPKINS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS MAY 31, 2022 Commissioner Sedoff commented on the code allowing group living in neighborhoods instead of by a conditional use permit process. Ms. Elverum responded that state statute prohibits putting restrictions on those facilities. Ms. Sedoff questioned the difference between small and large facilities. The consultants stated small being six or fewer and large being seven to sixteen. Commissioner Terrill provided additional information on the licensing process for group living facilities. Director Elverum followed up on duplexes and asked the consultants to further clarify the changes made in the new draft code. Chairperson Stiele opened the public hearing. Aaron Osowski, resident at 2062 Mainstreet, encouraged the Commission and Council to look into expanding the zones that allow duplexes and expressed support for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Luke Slindee, resident at 130 8th Ave N, supports updating the zoning code more frequently as the city changes. Mr. Slindee also asked that the area around the Shady Oak Transit Station be reconsidered to maximize residential and commercial opportunities, and to consider rezoning the Oak Ridge golf course to a traditional neighborhood zone to allow for potential future redevelopment and added density. Josh Montgomery, resident at 202 9th Avenue North, commented on changing the current 20 foot setback requirement for alley facing garages to 3 feet, further clarification on what is considered an accessory dwelling unit, and removing deed restrictions on properties with secondary suites/backyard cottages. Regarding some of the comments received, Mr. Bishop responded that the garage setback requirement is driven by the existing 10 foot alley constraint and to accommodate turning movements of vehicles. There is an opening for discussion on not requiring deed restrictions in zones that already allow duplexes or two principal dwelling units. Motion by Sedoff. Second by Terill. Motion to close the Public Hearing. Ayes: All. Nays: None. Motion carried. Commissioner Terrill commented on the deed restrictions hindering opportunities for people to build wealth as property owners. Commissioner White agreed with not requiring deed restrictions in zones that already allow duplexes or multi-family dwellings. Commissioner Sedoff questioned if a maintenance facility was still planned for the Shady Oak Transit Station. Director Elverum responded that currently there is a HOPKINS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS MAY 31, 2022 rail support facility proposed for the station area which is smaller building than the previously proposed maintenance facility. Staff has been working with the project office on a redesign of the parking area at the station that would reduce the surface parking to 500 stalls which will provide for more development opportunities. Mr. Slindee questioned what the 500 parking stalls would be serving. Director Elverum responded that the parking is primarily for commuters. Mr. Slindee asked who would be paying for the road connections from 17th Avenue. Director Elverum responded that it was included in the project and is not coming out of city funds. The project intends to deem a large portion of the area as excess and sell for private development. Commissioner Sedoff shared additional comments in favor of the previously discussed changes to the deed restriction requirements, garage setbacks, and increased notification standards. Commissioner Wright requested duplexes be allowed in the N3-A zone and that the new code is used as an opportunity to both preserve the character of the neighborhoods and increase access and remove barriers to those neighborhoods. Commissioner White commented against allowing duplexes in all neighborhoods and requested clarification on the motion to be made. Commissioner Wright provided additional comments regarding duplexes and types of housing. Responding to a question from Commissioner Terrill regarding duplexes decreasing property values, Ms. Oberholtzer stated that design can have an impact on the character of a neighborhood. The N3-A zone does not have a maximum width on houses and if duplexes were expanded into that zone additional requirements would likely need to be considered. Additional discussion included recommending further discussion on equity policies not typically included in a zoning code. Motion by White. Second by Sedoff. Motion to Adopt Resolution 2022-03, recommending the Hopkins City Council approve an ordinance amending the Planning and Zoning Section of the City Code by repealing and replacing in its entirety Part III – Land Development, Chapter 100 – Subdivisions and Chapter 102 – Planning and Zoning, Article 6, 102-620(o) Deed Restrictions to include the language “not applicable to N3-B, NX-1, and NX-2 zones”. Ayes: Sedoff, White, Stiele Nays: Dyrland, Terrill, Wright. Motion failed. Motion by Wright. Second by None. Motion to Adopt Resolution 2022-03, recommending the Hopkins City Council approve an ordinance amending the Planning and Zoning Section of the City Code by repealing and replacing in its entirety Part III – Land Development, HOPKINS PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING PROCEEDINGS MAY 31, 2022 Chapter 100 – Subdivisions and Chapter 102 – Planning and Zoning, including language adopting two unit homes in the N3-A zone. After further discussion between the Commissioners regarding the motion, Director Elverum suggested a motion be made that includes all of the discussion points made during the meeting that received general support from the Commission. Motion failed due to lack of a Second. Motion by Sedoff. Second by Terrill. Motion to Adopt Resolution 2022-03, recommending the Hopkins City Council approve an ordinance amending the Planning and Zoning Section of the City Code by repealing and replacing in its entirety Part III – Land Development, Chapter 100 – Subdivisions and Chapter 102 – Planning and Zoning with modifications to expand duplexes in the N3-A zone, reduce rear setback requirements for alley facing garages and removing the requirement for deed restrictions in zones where two unit dwellings are allowed. Ayes: Sedoff, Terrill Nays: Wright, White, Dyrland, Stiele. Motion failed. Motion by Wright. Second by Terrill. Motion to Adopt Resolution 2022-03, recommending the Hopkins City Council approve an ordinance amending the Planning and Zoning Section of the City Code by repealing and replacing in its entirety Part III – Land Development, Chapter 100 – Subdivisions and Chapter 102 – Planning and Zoning with further modifications to expand two unit homes in the N3-A district with additional requirements, reduction of rear setback in alley facing garages to 10 feet with input from Public Works, removing deed restriction requirement against properties where two unit dwellings are allowed, and recommend pursuing a process to explore the adoption of equity subcommittee recommendations as standalone policies or future zoning amendments. Ayes: Terrill, Sedoff, Stiele, Wright Nays: White, Dyrland. Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS Director Elverum introduced Ryan Krzos as the new City Planner for Hopkins.