Replatting of Feltl PropertyJuly 19, 1982
Case No. 82 -25
Applicant: Rauenhorst Corporation
Locations:, 23 acres west of Westbrook Apartments
Subject: Rezoning from R -6 to I -1 and R -5
STAFF FINDINGS COMMENTS: Kerrigan Norris
1. The applicant is requesting the rezoning of 23 acres located in the southwest
corner of the City. This property is presently zoned R -6 Medium Density
Multiple Family.
2. The request is to change the zoning on the southeasterly portion of the
subject parcel to R -5, to facilitate the construction of 200,000 square
foot 150 200 dwelling unit nursing home with the northerly portion of the
parcel proposed to be changed to I -1 Industrial to facilitate the construction
of 75,000 square feet of office space.
3. Any consideration of a rezoning should involve a review of the overall R -6
property surrounding the subject parcel, and not only the property in question.
The following is a breakdown of ownership of the surrounding parcel (see
attached map)
(1) Feltl (Subject property under purchase agreement to Rauenhorst)
(2) Berglund- Johnson
(3) City of Hopkins
(4) City of Hopkins
(5) Westbrooke Patio Homes
4. At past meetings the Westbrook Homeowners Association has expressed a concern
over the development of any additional housing in South Hopkins. Their specific
concerns have been related to traffic generation and increased residential
density in this area.
5. The applicant is requesting the specific zoning changes in order to facilitate
his development. Office uses are allowed in B -1, B -2, B -3, I -1 and 1 -2
districts. Nursing homes are allowed in R -3, R -4, or R -5. In receiving the
request, it seems that a major problem that could result if the proposed
change was approved would be, if for any reason the applicant did not develop
the property in accordance with the plan which is proposed. In this case the
option would be available for any individual or group to develop the property
to any extent allowed in the R -5 or I -1 zoning with very limited review
power by the City, providing the plan met the requirements of the ordinance.
A specific concern would be as relates to industrial zoning which allows
many of your more intense uses, such as those related to manufacturing, repair,
storage and sales. Some of these uses as identified in 427.38 of the ordinance
would probably not be very conducive with surrounding existing residential
uses.
The question which seems appropriate is "What zoning would facilitate the
development as is proposed by the applicant (if the Commission determines
such development is acceptable for the area) and also prevent any possible
use of the property which would have detrimental effect on surrounding use In
considering this matter it seems that the most beneficial situation would be one
in which the Commission has maximum review power. The conditional use process
allows a certain degree of review. However, some uses are allowable without
receiving a CUP. Furthermore, if a use complies with all aspects of the zoning
ordinance, it is very difficult to prevent such a use from occuring, even through
the CUP process.
In reviewing the ordinance, it seems it might be more logical to consider a
rezoning of the subject parcel entirely to R -4 PUD. This district allows
any permitted use allowed in the R -4, R -5 and B -1 Districts. Thus, both the
residential and office uses which have been proposed by the applicant would be
allowable. Furthermore, 427.50 (4) states that any development in this district
is only permitted upon approval of a PUD plan by the City Council. This
procedure allows the city maximum review authority when considering a proposal.
In essence this becomes a safeguard in preventing any possible development with
a potential negative impact. Furthermore, 427.50 (4) states that per R PUD
zoning the Council may by resolution adopt additonal regulations and conditions
hereto upon recommendation of the Zoning Planning Commission or by agreement
with the applicant.
The R PUD zoning would probably also be an appropriate zoning for parcels #1
(as detailed on the enclosed map).
��2 #3, and 4 h p) Parcel #5 would probably
best be rezoned R -2 to conform to the zoning of the other land containing the
Westbrooke development.
6. Review by the Metropolitan Council concerning any action on the subject
or surrounding parcels is dependent upon the degree of change approved by
the Commission. Basically the Comprehensive Plan does not discuss this area
to any great extent other than identifying the protected areas. The only other
references are on various maps identifying it as vacant property available
for residential development.
■UI 111111 111111 11111
111111 1111111 111 :I1::
p., 1 1■
0
2
0
a
.1 r P," ;1 1 >4
4
c
1
I-1
R 6
3
n."
qt
er000 SO
1-2
--At 0
r
1
•/■•••••••••••■••■r.r.r1•■•■•••••••••
J
3 igy±-1-7717`..-
o
June 29, 1982
Mr. Bill Craig
City Manager,
City of Hopkins
City Hall
Hopkins, MN
Dear Bill:
PAUENHORST CORPORATION
DESIGNER; BUILDERS DEVELO=ERS; M!NNEAROLIS CHIC A.^ MILWAUKEE
Rauenhorst is pleased to submit the enclosed concept plan, rezo_-_in and
tlat proposal to the City for its review and approval.
The objective of the plan is to expand the northwest neichborhood of
Opus 2 onto the 63 acres immediately adjacent to the center in that
area of the development.
The 63 acres involved in the proposed expansion are currently owner by the
Feitl family who are long time residents of Minnetonka. If the plan is
approved as submitted, the Feltls will be granted a life estate on the
6 acres currently containing their homestead. However, all streets and
utilities needed to implement the concept plan will be installed as shown
not with standing this life estate reservation.
Of the 63 acres only 40 are located within Minnetonka. The balance of the
acreage, or 23 acres is located in Hopkins.
The proposal for the Minnetonka portion of the plan will be to combine
the 37 acres of the Opus 2 4th addition parcel with the 40 acre segment of
the Feltl land located in Minnetonka to create the following new land
use program.
No. of new parcels 14
Office 604,000 sq. ft.
Office /Industrial 135,000 sq. ft.
Multiple- residential 300 dwelling units
The 20 acres Hopkins portion of the plan proposes the following land
use procram:
No. of new parcels 2
Office 75,000 so. ft.
Nursing Home Care Center 200,000 so. ft.
Nursing home; 150 200
dwelling units
The cross effect of the entire planned expansion would be 680,000 sc. ft.
of office; 135,000 so. ft. of office /industrial; and 450 500 multi- family
dwellinc units that will be added to existinc uses programmed for Opus 2.
:7: NCJ�' �•t <t u. c rNarr�Al .,ENE- 79J'. Ai f-,", 40.4 c,
�•r;h� tn.l: 5 A/,NNES:✓1L .'i' iE •444
M_'. 1 11(1
t' a c7 e 2
.Tune 29, 1952
The rezor:inc that is needed to implement this plan is spelled out in the
attached rezoning; application. A plat which would be called Opus 2
Ninth Addition is being prepared by Schoell and Madsen, and will be
submitted subsequent to the filing of this plan.
We would recuest that the Planning Commissions of Hopkins and Minnetonka
hold a joint meeting similar to the one held in May of this year to jointly
deliberate and take action of this proposed planned expansion. Such a
joint meeting will expedite the plan review process for both communities
and in our opinion should insure a satisfactory result for all concerned.
Please advise me as to when such a meeting can be scheduled. We are
anxious to get the development of this expansion underway as soon as
possible. Therefore, your cooperation in scheduling these applications
for early August consideration would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
i
Robert A. Worthington,A.I.C.P.
Director Planning and Governmental Affairs
RW lo