CR 98-55 Conditional Use Permit- Chapel ViewApril 1, 1998
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT -- CHAPEL VIEW
Council Report 98 -55
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 98 -20, approving an
addition to Chapel View.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Engel moved and Ms. Boen seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ98 -3, recommending approval of a conditional use permit to construct
an addition to Chapel View. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview.
The applicant, Chapel View, is proposing to construct an addition to the existing building.
The addition will be located on the south side of the existing building and used for a chapel.
The lower level of the addition will be used for physical therapy area.
The addition will close off the courtyard area and create an enclosed courtyard.
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
o What are the specifics of the development?
o What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Site Plans
o Resolution 98 -20
Nancy I Anderson, AICP
Planner
Primary Issues to Consider.
CR98 -55
Page 2
o What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
The subject site is zoned R -4, Medium High Density Multiple Family. The Comprehensive
Plan has designated the site as High Density Residential. A nursing home is permitted in the
residential districts.
o What are the specifics of the development?
Landscaping
The landscape plan indicated landscaping on the entrance area of the chapel. The site is
required to have seven additional plantings. The landscaping plan indicates four trees of the
required size will be planted. The applicant will have to add an additional three trees. There
are additional plantings around the south entry of the chapel.
Public Works
The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans. They are recommending that the
owner undertake a storm runoff analysis of the enclosed courtyard created by the building
addition.
Fire Marshal
The Fire Marshal has reviewed the preliminary plans and found them acceptable.
Parking
The parking areas will remain the same.
Sidewalk
The site plan shows a new sidewalk from Minnetonka Mills Road to the new addition.
Access
Vehicle access to the site will remain the same.
Exterior
The exterior is proposed to be brick. There are accent brick lines above the windows. The
roof will be a standing seam metal roof.
Zoning Requirements
The only setback that is affected is the sideyard setback. The R -4 zoning district requires a
minimum of a 15 -foot side yard setback. The new addition will have more than the minimum
15 -foot side yard setback. Building height is approximately 37 feet. The maximum height
allowed in the R -4 zoning district is 45 feet.
Surrounding uses
CR98 -55
Page 3
The site is surrounded by Alice Smith school to the west, residential to the south, apartments
and church to the north and residential to the east.
o What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Staff reviewed the proposed addition with the Commission. Phil,Baron, representing the
applicant, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Baron reviewed the site plan with the
Commission. Steve Friske of Chapel View appeared before the Commission. Mr. Friske
stated that the chapel is for the needs of the residents and they expect 60 -65 residents for
worship. No one spoke at the public hearing regarding this item. The Commission was
concerned with the affect of the addition on the storm water in the area, since that was a
problem last summer. The Commission added a to the resolution that the applicant provides
runoff rate change calculations to the staff and that the rate change is acceptable to staff.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing building. By
approving conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing building, the
applicant will be able to construct the addition as approved.
2. Deny the conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing building. By
denying the conditional use permit to construct an addition to the existing building, the
applicant will not be able to construct the addition. 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.
Si1X 9 :1.31::2
\
•
ti,
.�. Ey e • :4 !
itt
G
••••, •••"' 48; lit \
fi 11 • +„8
+$y}; }j:: };:j'Si }wt. t ? ; } % ";: •2$j'.
X
X X
�Jd
X X X {i. :•
•� X
x ( 7 + , �`�
x x X x
x k�j x
�i�► x
K� j +.
t�,,a..
. j a+
tititi }
I I I
is _
as I I !1Y
0, Ise 11 1 �a
b9
x
i r itnf akij t �h
yt:
0
it
X 11
0
4 /4 /
; / t
X
9 0Z61a N
hL'W 31 Cite
1 +:x.
Y
010 ill
rn
N Ml f
• n ,
rn s o? ;lip
i _._.._.. _ - *Z6 �'
� w
! 95 as J
...� ....•..r•T gl OZ6 =`(NI Wa01s HW
g Q
S'6L6 ���� .�
J6'9Z6
H�lYJ �G� . . ....... 014'LZ~'�....����
7 C r'F ( t
i t f • -- - ^ 'J19 !� �J ' ���.� , y��• • �� Z j ; ' • ~ `� � �•`.
Il ./ \— ��'r'�� N n 9826 S'9Z6 M 2 mq a 9, I� c �l
. ; ni;::: Y N •q ' I � ar rY3:i � } °:Kl''
j • " N .,� • rn Y t_ 0l
� r i n n '
Y .p 3Y 18f In 4:v0:." )
!' O• ^ N ''+:••1''i ip N U NN ,j�:•
4.4 o o! 'k� / j A 1,...r. ? ?�>.r `• {t .rn I c � � 1 1 Y-'
6 ' '� ' �:.+••,•Y''''� l \\ ' `� 11 W
a�� al•: j�i.�. S�•� v \ t , •�/ L1 N
E N 1C M 1 1
{iy - •`f hJt. I : : :Ili ' • l l N ` W`•. a � p1 N j
C' < o tY I;r, ;K �!
Zi x
/
t a
rYIYI
6Ij ° 1'
0
W
1f: X
M' 1
t. j l�•11•• A ' '10,4,0;010.1'% • •.
. N
•= sY,4
::•'t'f 1 • • I$;ii.,.�, +t +.I'f•• ' •' ii d:� •• ri n •
932 ` � u Y YI. l:;.:i:2 t1Y a4,.:. '•', n -, f
I ?� '.T:1 ::I f a x q ;
tl N �•
1
I' h
Ifi
di •• ! 3
a
.,..?.c � ti ~, 1 y . '
k* c-'t
If
Ii }t , 1 .. dfi
\ 9 I;q «� ?tA
ttYk:;$i2•'.N ,,1 9 TZ }'f• III
'1 : ' f
$ i r n .Ir•Yi ?k "t I• •Iva
.
10 4'i4: u e1�•.
tit lr./I;t�:: "212. 'f 3� . .2 � ,�
l • c N
i \1
N a
m
u<l
fu 0
•
g 1+
v tv ! :I
. tcgl 1 .
t 8 i
1 § igt b
0000000
5
0000000
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 98 -20
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION TO CHAPEL VIEW CARE CENTER
WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit CUP98 -2 has been made by Armstrong,
Troseth, Skold, and Rydeen Inc.;
ATTEST:
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a conditional use permit was made by Armstrong, Troseth, Skold
and Rydeen Inc. on February 26, 1998;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed and published
notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on March
31, 1998: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and
4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the northerly line of Minnetonka Mills Road and center
line of Gethsemane Road thence northerly along said center line to the north line of
southwest 1/4 of northeast 1/4 thence east to a point 164 feet west from the northeast
corner thereof thence south 179.78 feet thence west 84 feet thence south to northerly line
of Minnetonka Mills Road thence northwesterly to beginning except road.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit
CUP98 -2 is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the proposed addition meets the requirements for a conditional use permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Conditional Use Permit CUP98 -2 is hereby
approved based on the following conditions:
1. That a storm water analysis is completed for the enclosed courtyard.
2. That Minnehaha Watershed District approves the development.
3. That the applicant provides the City with runoff rate change calculations for the site and
the calculations are acceptable to staff.
Adopted this 7th day of April, 1998.
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor