Loading...
CR 91-155 CUP - Townhomes\ t Y O G T July 30, 1991 P K�� Council Report: 91 -155 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - TOWNHOMES Proposed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 91 -7 apProving the conditional use permit to construct 12 townhomes on the corner of Hiawatha and Cambridge Approval 'of this motion will allow the applicant to construct 12 townhomes. ov rview. The applicant is proposing to construct 12 rental townhomes on the east side of Ramsgate along Hiawatha Avenue. These townhomes will be two story, three bedrooms with a 2 car tuck -under garage. Access will be from Cambridge. There is no car access from Hiawatha to the townhomes. A ponding area will be located on the north end of the site. The south end of the site will be a parking area for Ramsgate Apartments and the townhomes. ® This conditional use permit was referred back to the Planning Commission because of a change in the site plan. The site plan was changed to accommodate a larger holding pond which resulted in removing one unit. The Council referred this back to the Commission and asked the Commission only to review the site plan for land use and design issues. Other issues involving the past actions by the City will be reviewed the City Council. See the attached "Notes from the Zoning & Planning Meeting." An EAW was ordered to be prepared by the City Council for this project on April 2, 1991. Action on the C.U.P. and other applications were continued until the E.A.W. process had been completed. Primary issues to Consider. • Does the proposal meet the zoning requirements? • What is the impact of this project on the surrounding area? • Should Hiawatha be widened? • What are the changes detailed on the revised plan? Supporting Documents. n • Detailed Background • Analysis of Issues • Alternatives • Site Plans • Resolution No: 91 -7 • Memo from Jim Kerrigan regarding acquisition of property i 1l: N..i 111,IN.11 Xn y CR: 91 -155 Page 2 D tailed Background. Zoning and Comprehensive Plan. The zoning of the subject parcel is R -2, Low Density Multiple Family. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this parcel as high density residential. The applicant has requested an amendment to, the Comprehensive Plan from high density residential to medium density residential. Exterior materials. The exterior of the townhomes is masonite siding. The color will be earth tones'. Parking. The proposed plan has a two -stall garage for every unit, plus a driveway long enough for two more spaces. The Ordinance requires 2 parking spaces per unit. The proposed plan complies with this requirement. The parking area on the south side of the site can be used by both the townhomes and Ramsgate. If the Commission is concerned about enough ® parking for the townhomes, parking spaces can be designated for additional spaces for the townhomes. The applicant would be willing to designate spaces for the townhomes. Engineering Considerations. At the March 5, 1991 City Council meeting the City Council ordered a feasibility study for the Hiawatha sanitary sewer. This study was ordered as a result the City's consulting engineer reviewing the sewer system in Hiawatha with the new information regarding sewer problems. The City is prepared to correct the sewer problems in Hiawatha. The site plan has been revised to accommodate a larger ponding area on the north side of the property. The City's consulting engineer has approved the revised plan. The applicant will have to get permission from the Minnehaha Watershed District for this development. Any approval should be contingent on their approval and the City's consulting engineer. Landscaping. The Ordinance requires one tree per 2000 square feet of open space. The Ordinance requires 16 trees for this site. The landscape plan details 23 new plantings which meet or exceed the Ordinance requirements. There are also 106 other plantings of trees and shrubs that will be added to the site. 18 existing trees will also be, retained on the townhome site if possible. 0 Trash Handling. There will not be community trash area. Each unit will have their own trash container. CR: 91 -155 Page 3 Access. Access to the site will be from Cambridge. The townhomes and the apartments will share a 24 foot driveway easement. This easement will have a bituminous surface. 12 feet is an existing bituminous surface. Lighting. The site will have individual lights on the front and rear of the buildings. The road to the garages and parking area will also be lit. The lights for the access road are pole lights, with a height of 12 feet. Fire Marshal Consideration. The Fire Marshal has reviewed the preliminary plans and found no problems at this time. He also noted that this area has been a problem with grass fires. screening. The parking area on the south end of site will be recessed. A retaining wall with a guard rail will be constructed on the east part of this site. The east part of the parking area abutting the ® residential area will remain as a buffer to the parking area. Primary Issues to Consider. o What are the changes detailed on the revised plan? The major change to the site plan was changing number of buildings to two from three and removing one unit on the north side the site. There is 10 feet separating the buildings to allow for drainage. The plat has changes slightly. The north lot line of Lot 2 has been moved approximately 27 feet to the south. o Do s the proposal meet the zoning requirements? The following are the zoning requirements for the R -2 district and the proposed development: R - 2 proposed townhomes front yard: 35 feet 110 feet rear yard: 35 feet 35 feet side yard east: 12 feet 25 feet (with new side yard west: 12 feet 29.5 feet ROW) height 35 feet 31 feet open space 1:1.5 r 1:1.88 This is a corner lot. The front yard is Cambridge. (Attached is a letter from Jerre Miller regarding the front yard for this project.) CR: 91 -155 Page 4 o What is the impact of this project on the surrounding area? Any development will have an impact on the surrounding area since the lot is vacant at this time. However, because of the way the access has been designed the impact should be quite minimized for the single family homes to the east and south. Much of the activity will be from the west side of the townhomes. The townhomes, with the proposed density, will provide a good transition from single family, to the higher density of the Ramsgate apartments. The apartments to the east should not have any, impact. The townhomes will abut parking and garages on the apartment site. The new parking area for the apartments should be an improvement to the apartments and the current parking situation. o Should Hiawatha be widened? Hiawatha has a 40 foot right -of -way with a 22 foot bituminous surface. If the road were to be reconstructed the` current roadway policy requires a minimum right -of -way of 50 -60 feet with a 26 foot roadway. The staff is recommending that 10 feet be taken from the applicant's property for right -of -way. The additional 10 feet will give Hiawatha a 50 foot right -of -way. Also, the applicant should be required to widen Hiawatha by 4 feet to the west. The extra right -of -way and the widening of the road will meet the minimum roadway requirements established in the roadway policy. The applicant has agreed to give the additional right -of -way and to widen Hiawatha by 4 feet. Alternatives 1. Approve the conditional use permit. By approving the conditional use permit the applicant will be able to construct 12 townhomes. 2. Deny the conditional use permit. By denying the conditional use permit, the applicant will not be able to construct 12 townhomes. The City Council will have to state findings of fact which support the denial of the conditional use permit. 3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. CR: 91 -1 Page 5 Notes from Zoning & Planning Meeting Staffing explained the change from 13 units to 12 units. Arlene Dixson representing the applicant appeared before the Commission and also explained the changes. Joey Carlson appeared before the Commission. Mr. Carlson expressed a concern about the preserving of the trees on the site. The Commission discussed corner lots and if the setback on Hiawatha should be greater. The City Attorney advised the Commission that if they added a condition requiring a greater setback on Hiawatha, they would be imposing a requirement that was not enforceable. Several other residents appeared before the Commission and spoke about the trees on the site. The Commission discussed adding the following conditions to the resolution. 13. Require that the front yard setback be from Hiawatha. 14. That no grading or removal of trees occur until approval by the Environmental Quality Board. Mr. Pavella moved to approve resolution RZ91 -1 with the two added conditions. The motion failed on a 1 -3 vote. After a considerable discussion on what to do, another motion was made. Mr. Maxwell moved to approve resolution RZ91 -1 with the two added conditions. The motion passed on a 3 -1 vote, Mrs. Reuter voting nay. The Hiawatha residents submitted a petition to the Environmental Quality Board requesting an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The current proposal does not meet the mandatory threshold for a EAW. The proposal may meet the minimum requirements for a discretionary EAW. Staff is studying this issue further and will provide additional information to the City Council during the meeting. If the proposal meets the minimum requirements for a discretionary EAW, the City Council will need to undertake a process of determining - whether it wishes to require a discretionary EAW. Also attached is the memo from Jerre Miller regarding the condition from the CUP when Ramsgate was approved regarding access to the Ramsgate Site. , F W K r N W V O K m 1 u APT. BLDG. KEY N 1-49 0 20 AO So ao loo EXIST. TREES (RETAIN If POSSIBLE) r) EXIST. TREE REMOVED x PROPOSED PLANTING (. 1 y � slo RAAfSCATE RAM SCATE TOWNHOUSES POPKINS, MINNESOTA S'E PLAN PLbTING PLAN wo, ,1 „n, P L A N T I N G S C H E D U L E i TREES (DEC) SHRUBS /EVE ='3 =EEN & DEC • - 5-9 CREDI ASN CAM" RED CNERRr 2 1/2 • 2 1/2 • e ! a e e e 11 - Y mfuR .IUNiP[R 2 �' Pat 2 - a UME LEAF LWD q r e ! • it N COLD M Pm2ER J.PI►pl 2 GLL. pm S - D SUNOURST LOCUST t eee e _ p e_e HMA[ LW SANG --K"T y„e�� 2 CAI. Pat _ =' SLx7,R 2 1/2 a ! e - - S R V18URMJK A _ CAL Por POi S a TREES, EVERGREEN HEDGE e - 0 a - R COLORADO SPRUCE COLORADO OLUC SPRUCE T.A' For e0 - S COLD AAYE SP--A 2 CAL par A- J BLACK HILO SPRUCE s• r see eee or-? O.C. 100 IF RE(m RAAfSCATE RAM SCATE TOWNHOUSES POPKINS, MINNESOTA S'E PLAN PLbTING PLAN wo, ,1 „n, I a\ v.L� W \Sl'L RAMSGATE RAMSGATE TOWNHOUSES HOPKINS, MINNE507A EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS CROSS SECTION rw - Q. ,w, W a t J T L R . t c S s - T,. ,J Y,, : I.. • -i.- �i-- I • • .............. ��_.__ , . �- -- ---------- r7 - 1 S3 Ramsgate Townhouses ­0 011,,,,Gc. C LI C I T Y O F H O P K I N S MEMO Date: February 15, 1991 ' To: Nancy Anderson From: Jerre Miller Re: Ramsgate Townhomes You have asked that I commit and furnish my interpretation of a condition pertaining to Ramsgate contained in Council minutes of March 18, 1969. The precise condition attached to the permit for Ramsgate is as follows: "5. That no access to the site shall be permitted from Hiawatha Avenue except to service the proposed townhouses on the east side of the site." At the time, the Council was considering the grant of a Conditional Use Permit for the Ramsgate site. The site also included property abutting Hiawatha Avenue which was to be used for the development of certain townhomes. The 'purpose of the condition 'is to make sure the Ramsgate site was not accessed through to Hiawatha Avenue and that Hiawatha Avenue access would be limited to the townhomes which at the time were purposed to be constructed. I don't know how it can be interpreted any other, way. I don't think it has anything to do with a sidewalk being considered as access because the ncern was vehicular traffic to and from Ram at to Hiawatha which the neighborhood opposed at the Xime. 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935 -8474 An Equal Opportunity Employer C I T Y O F H O P K I N S MEMO Date: April 2, 1991 To: Nancy Anderson From: Jerre Miller Re: Hiawatha Avenue Project You have asked me to review Ordinance 530.05 and Ordinance 560.03 because of an assertion by the homeowners as to the appropriate application of the front yard setback measurement with respect to the Hiawatha townhome project. Section 530.05 requires a minimum front yard setback of 35 feet in R -1 -D, R -1 -E, R -2, R -3 and R -6 zoning districts. Section 560 contains additional requirements and benefits. Section 560.03 provides for a variance in any R district. Wherever a subdivided area has dwellings on 50% or more of the parcels, front yard setback lines can be reduced below the minimum of 35 feet but in no case less than either the average front setback lines which are already established by existing dwellings or 15 feet whichever is greater. In applying the two Ordinances to the Hiawatha project, it is obvious to see that Section 560 is inapplicable because there are no existing dwellings on 50% or more of the land to be developed. The only ordinance applicable to the Hiawatha project to determine the front setback measurement is Section 530.05. I have already furnished interpretation of wher measurement. I trust this answers yo you a memorandum concerning the s determined for such a 1010 First Street South, Hopkins, Minnesota 55343 612/935 -8474 An Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 91 -7 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP:91 -1 WHEREAS, an application for a Conditional Use Permit entitled CUP91 -1 submitted by Mark Z. Jones to construct 12 townhomes at Cambridge & Hiawatha Avenues is hereby approved. WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for Conditional Use Permit CUP 91- 1 was filed with the City of Hopkins on December 31, 1990. 2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission reviewed such application on January 29, 1991. 3. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notices, held a hearing on January 29, 1991 and February 26, 1991, and March 26, 1991: all persons present at the hearing were given an opportunity to be heard. 4. That the application for CUP91 -1 was referred back to the Planning Commission on March 5, 1991. 4. That the written comments and analysis of the City Staff and the Planning Commission were considered. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that application for Conditional Use Permit CUP:91 -1 is hereby approved subject to the following Findings of Fact: 1. The townhomes are a permitted use within the R -2 district. 2. That the proposed development complies with the zoning requirements for the district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that application for,CUP:91 -1 is hereby approved subject to the following Conditions: 1. That the Watershed District approves the drainage plan for the site. 2. That the final plat reflects an additional 10 feet of right - of -way on the west side of Hiawatha. 3. That the applicant widens Hiawatha by four (4) feet to the west pursuant to City specifications. 4. That the Metropolitan Council approves the Comprehensive Plan change. 5. That the final plat is approved. 6. That Lot 2 is platted as an outlot. 7. That the parking area be allowed to be used by the townhomes for overflow parking. 8. That the developer is responsible for the maintenance of ponding area. 4 9. That approval is conditioned on final approval of the grading, and utility plans for the project. 10. That the applicant provide erosion control measures approved by the Staff. 11. That the townhomes are not occupied until the sanitary sewer problems are resolved and the applicant has granted an easement through his property for the rerouting of the sanitary sewer. 12. That the applicant provide copies of private easements for storm water,,driveway, water mains and sanitary sewer. Adopted this 6th day of August, 1991. Nelson W. Berg, Mayor • Attest: James A. Genellie, City Clerk • i CITY OF HOPKINS MEMORANDUM DATE: I July 30, 1991 TO: City Council FROM: Jim Kerrigan, Director of Planning & Economic Development SUBJECT: Ramsgate Townhouse Project - Acquisition of Property At the last Council meeting, representatives of Mark Jones were asked to discuss with Mr. Jones his interest in selling or trading the subject property. Attached is a letter which was received from his attorney. In summary, he states that Mr. Jones has no interest in trading the property but would be willing to sell the subject property, exclusive of the parking area, for $310,000.00. In conjunction with this letter, staff has reviewed the value of this property with the City assessor. The City assessor has determined the estimated market value of this property to be $90,000. This value is substantially less than the asking price. However, the owner is probably basing the , asking price not only on what he feels is the value based upon the developed value, but also costs, i.e., taxes, interest that have been incurred while the property has been held. At the present time, it appears that the Council has a variety of different alternatives available. These would include the following: o Purchase the property at the owner's asking price. o Attempt to negotiate a different purchase price which is acceptable to both parties. o Undertake condemnation proceedings. o Do not undertake any acquisition proceedings,. Based upon the alternatives detailed above, the Council needs to be aware of the following: o If the property is acquired, specific funding sources would need to be identified. o If the property is acquired by the City, it would become tax exempt. Presently the property pays $4,783 in property taxes. Following completion of development, it is estimated that the site would generate $32,300 in property taxes.