CR 01-164 Rezoning - Cornerstone
G\TY OF
m
September 27, 2001
HOPKINS
Council Report 01-164
REZONING- CORNERSTONE
ProDosed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZO 1-68. approving
Ordinance 01-862. rezoning Cornerstone from 1-2. General Industrial. to Business Park for
first reading.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Rowan moved and Ms. Allen seconded a motion to
adopt Resolution RZO 1-17, recommending approval of Ordinance 01-862, rezoning
Cornerstone from 1-2, General Industrial, to Business Park. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Overview.
Cornerstone is currently zoned 1-2, General Industrial. The new Comprehensive Plan has
designated the site as Business Park. State Statute requires that the Comprehensive Plan and
the zoning be consistent. This is the third property being considered for rezoning following
the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. In the following months there will be a few
more zoning amendments. Overall within the City, most of the parcels have the same zoning
and Comprehensive Plan designation.
Primarv Issues to Consider.
. How has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site?
. What is the difference between the I-I and Business Park zonings?
. Should the site be rezoned to Business Park?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortin2 Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Comprehensive Plan
. Resolution 01-68
. Ordinance 01-862
~~~
Nancy . Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y!N
Source:
CROl-164
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
. How has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site?
The new Comprehensive Plan has designated the site as Business Park. With the proposed
zoning change, the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan designation will be consistent.
What is the difference between the 1-2 and Business Park zoning?
The biggest difference between the 1-2 district and the Business Park district is the uses. The
majority of uses allowed in the Business Park district are office-type uses. In the Business
Park district there is also a limit on the amount of warehousing. The Business Park zoning
also has standards for the type of building that can be constructed.
Should the site be rezoned to Business Park?
The state statute requires that the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance be
consistent. In the future, other properties within the City will be rezoned so the new
Comprehensive Plan designations and the zoning will be consistent.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the reason for the rezoning. Ms. Anderson also stated that this is the
third property that the Commission has reviewed for a rezoning. No one appeared at the
public hearing regarding this issue.
Alternatives.
1. Approval the rezoning. By approving the rezoning, the site will be rezoned to Business
Park.
2. Deny the rezoning. By denying the rezoning, the site will not be rezoned. If the City
Council considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this
alternative.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
";;:::rki
- . .
,C),., .'
_, ::. '""i
:',-i
~i? / /TH
'-,
d\
4/0'"
--
_.'
4/5
"-
'\.
-"
-'-~
~,.
~
r-
o
-I
-!
-
~ . I 150/ \
' I I
~ ~\~\~
. ' 'Ui
~ 'I m I U,
t g ~ ~ \~
10. OJ r
. 50
so.
~~~. ~
I
N I\) N N1
m ~ ~ w ~ - N ~ ~I
_-----1
. - .-- - --:: - -- - ---~
I
I
I ;:: N (jj i: Oi
I ., _ _ _ --
1-=--=-------
509\505 .501.
_. - N
Q) U) 0
- ~ ""
--n-.'
( ,',
':;i
. -
>-
-m
.....
30:0 '
303
"l
r- i
0,
..of
401
~
~'
-
-
~,
'0
/
\9
'"
00
-
402 /j 420
--
(JI_
g,'
\
~
I
\
@
I\)
-'
~
(:)
;;.
\
\
\\
\ \
\ I
\.
\
I
I
I
I
I, ,
I
\
(
(l)
500" 0
~
2000 " 3000
5000 , Feet
1000
4000
Scale: 1" =2000',
City of Xopkjns
Comprehe.nsive' CP{an
~Land Use Plan,
Land Use Categories,
l~:?/?:j Low Density Residential
_ M'edium Density Residential
_ High Density Residential '
,_ GomnJercial'
_ Business Park,. , .'
_ Industrial ',' '.
, _ Public/Institutional
_ Qpen SpacelTrail
, _ Park .
mlS
Gill.
, ,
HoisiIlgtOn Koegler GroUp, Inc. ' ,
123 N orih Third Street, Suite 100 '
1:fumeapolis, MN 55401
November 8, 1999 '.
..:r~ k,. I( ~
MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
A TTORNEYS AT LA W
JERRE A. MILLER
JEREMY S. STEINER *
WYNN CURTISS
400 WELLS FARGO BANK BUILDING
1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
*Real Property Law Specialist, certified
by the Minnesota State Bar Association
952-938-7635
FAX 952-938-7670
Writer's Direct Dial No. (952) 253-0070
MEMO
Date: August 17, 2001
To: Steve Mielke
City Manager
From: Jerre Miller
Re: Comprehensive Plan Amendments
At the last Council meeting, I was directed to look into notice requirements that may be imposed
upon the City in the preparation of or amendments to the municipal comprehensive plan. Notice
requirements was a concern expressed by a spokesman for the owners of property within the City
presently leasing to Knox Lumber Company.
The concern he expressed arises from an amendment to the comprehensive plan adopted in February
2001 changing the zoning classification from 1-2 to Industrial Park;
Minnesota Statute 462.354, Subd. 2 requires the planning commission to hold at least one public
hearing on a proposed amendment by publishing once in the official newspaper 10 days prior to the
public hearing date a notice of time, date and purpose of the public hearing. No other form of notice
is expressed in the statute and I am unaware of the existence of any of the City's ordinances that
would broaden the notice requirements in the adoption of or amendment to a comprehensive plan.
Adoption by the Council of the commission's recommendation may adopt such recommendation
"upon such notice and hearing as may be prescribed by ordinance." This language set forth in
Subdivision 3 of Minnesota Statute 462.355 requires us to determine whether the City has an
ordinance that broadens the nature of the notice.
When it comes to amending a zoning ordinance that is to be amended for conformance for the land
use plan, a public hearing is required either by the commission or the Council as provided in
Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subd. 3 following notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing
published in the official newspaper at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.
Hopkins\sm-memo
1
The subdivision language goes on to say that when an amendment involves changes in district
boundaries affecting an area of five acres or less, a similar notice must be mailed at least 10 days
before the hearing date to each owner of affected property and property located wholly or partly
within 300 feet of the property affected by the proposed amendment. This notice is done by mail.
The question of whether a use which becomes nonconforming because of a zoning change can apply
to any other use previously allowed is addressed in an Attorney's General Opinion 477-B-34 dated
July 8, 1955. The Opinion stated that non-conforming uses of particular land are limited to type and
manner of uses that were in effect at the time the zoning ordinance became effective. I believe this
means that the only non-conforming use that can be extended after the Knox Lumber Company
ceases its operations is another business conducted in the same or substantially similar manner. I
construe this opinion to mean if the owners of the Knox Lumber property find another tenant whose
intended use of the property is dissimilar to Knox Lumber but permissible under the previous zoning
classification such as manufacturing or vehicle warehousing for example would be inpermissible.
Hopkins presently has an ordinance on the books that once the non-conforming use is discontinued
for a period of six months or more, it cannot be reinstated. I have enclosed for your information an
amendment to Minnesota Statute 462.357 passed by the legislator this year which extends the
discontinuance period to "more than one year". This amendment was approved on May 24, 2001.
The statute does not set forth an effective date so I presume it becomes effective on the date of
approval.
Let me know if you wish to discuss these matters in detail.
JAM
Hopkins\sm-memo
2
82nd LEGISLATURE
f the d~ad human body,
'. contamer information
~th, and a copy of the
;lOn, alTangements for
:sion does not, apply. to
~olesale distributors of
lmended to read:
cation from the COlmty
18 of violations of this
auditor shall make an
is ch~pter is occurring
! audltQr shall conduct
auditor considers. the
~y of any finding of
~d to send all books
stody of funds to th~
rship, association, or
urse the state auditor
tel' the state auditor
) shall accrue on the
"s office, submits .its
'~.tutes, secti~n
Minnesota Statutes
,
md 149A.97, may. be
reneed consumer to
~rvices, enforcement
isions of Minnesota
ed to, be licensed,
ussioner of health"
; 149A04; 149A.05'
)divisions 1, 2, 3, 6:
JIREMENTS
..
W01.]
2001 REGULAR SESSION
Ch. 174, ~ 1
CRIME PREVENTION-CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES-
FEDERAL SCHI~DULI~S
CHAPTER 173
, H.F. No. 707
AN ACT relating to crime prevention; classifying Carisoprodol as a controlled substance upon the
effective date of a final rule adding Carisoprodol to the federal schedules of controlled
substances; amending Laws 1997, chapter 239, article 4, section 15, as amended.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. . Laws 1997, chapter 239, article 4, section 15, as amended by Laws 1998, chapter
367, article 4, seetion7, Laws 1999, chapter 9, section 1, and Laws 2000, chapter 262, .section
1, is amended to re,ad:
See. 15. EFFECTIVE DATE.
, The provision" of section 4 relating to the listing of Butorphanol in schedule IV is effective
August 1, 1998, and applies to acts. committed on or after that date. The provision of .~ection
4 relating, to the listing of Carisoprodol in schedule IV is effective AUgR8t 1, 2001,on the
. effective date. of a final rule adding Carisoprodol to the federal 'schedules of controlled
substances under United States Code, title 21, section 811, and applies to acts committed on
or after that date. Sections 1 to 3 and 5 tel 13 are effective August 1; 1997,. and apply -to acts
committed on o.r after that. date. Section 14 is effective' the day following final enactment.
Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.
Section 1 is effective August 1, 200l.
Presented to the governor May 23,2001.
Approved May 25, 2001.
MUNICIPAL PLANNING-ZONING-CLARIFYING TREATl\~ENT
OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING USES
CHAPTER 174
H.F. No. 1507
AN ACT relating to municipal planning;. zoning; clarifying the treatment of legal nonconforming
uses; amending Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, by adding a subdivision.
BE IT EN4CTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2000, section 462.357, is amended by adding a subdivision to
read:
Subd. Ie. NON CONFORMITIES. Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or
occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an. additional control
under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair or maintenance, but if the
nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year, or any
nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent
of its market value, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a
conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may by ordinance impose upon nonconformities
reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health,
welfare, or safety. This. subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an
ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only
businesses, as defined by ordinance.
,Additions are indicated by underline;. deletions by 8mkeout 405
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 01-862
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CORNERSTONE
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
That the present zoning classification of 1-2, General Industrial, upon the following
described premises is hereby repealed, and in lieu thereof the said premises is hereby zoned as
Business Park.
Block 1 Lot 1, Cornerstone Addition and Outlot A, Cornerstone Addition
First Reading:
October 2, 2001
Second Reading:
October ..16, 2001
Date of Publication:
October 24, 2001
Date Ordinance Takes Effect:
November 13, 2001
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature
Date
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 01-68
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN ORDINANCE REZONING CORNERSTONE
WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Amendment ZNO 1-8 has been made by the City of
Hopkins;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for zoning amendment was made by the City of Hopkins;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission published notice, held a
public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on September 25,
2001: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staffwere considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Amendment ZNO 1-8
is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted this 2nd day of October 2001.
Eugene 1. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk