Loading...
Concept Review-Honeywell... rbRC.e z = satn' • • Nature of Request: PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT NO. CR86 -1 PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on a Concept Review to build an addition at 600 Second Street N.E. Name of Applicant: Address of Property: Present Zoning: Reason for Request: lam Nancy An erson, Analyst Commun`ft Development ment y p CONCEPT REVIEW FOR HONEYWELL 600 SECOND STREET N.E. CITY OF HOPKINS January 17, 1986 Review plans for building addition prior to application for Conditional Use Permit. Honeywell Inc. 600 Second Street N.E. I -2 Concept review for a building addition. The applicant is proposing to build an addition on the east side of the existing building. The present use of this site is a parking lot for 94 cars. The appli- cant is proposing a three story structure with underground parking for approxi- mately 20 cars. The cars currently parking at this site will be accomodated at the parking lot to the east of the subject site. The proposed addition appears to have the proper setbacks for an I -2 district, however, the present buildings do not appear to have the proper front and rear yard setbacks for an I -2 district. The maximum floor area ratio in an I -2 dis- trict is .60, the site with the addition will have a floor area ratio of approxi- mately 1.45. If the parking lots were included surrounding the site the F.A.R. would be reduced to approximately .70. The proposed building appears to be approxi- mately 40 feet in height. 427.38 limits the building height in an I -2 district to 35 feet. ANALYSIS: The applicant is proposing to build an addition on a non - conforming use. The floor area ratio exceeds the maximum percentage and the present building does not have the proper front and rear yard setbacks. Ordinance 427.06(9) prohibits expansion of a non - conforming use. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the applicant work with the staff to revise his plans for a building addition to conform with the Zoning Ordinance. REO OWL SUPER ID IS LEY PKINS HOOL PARK HONEYWELL P A R h 1262 spaces 1ST 72:7 • • JVA 7 • 0-- 311N3AV NOSNOVI" • • • CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING HOPKINS ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 427 PERTAINING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS BE IT ORDAINED, by the City Council of the City of Hopkins as follows: That the Section of the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance No. 427 pertaining to Conditional Use Permits is hereby amended by adding the following provisions: 427.26 (11) CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS: No Conditional Use Permit shall be recommended by the Zoning and Planning Commission unless such Commission shall find: ,,1&/ e,00/7 (a) The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and im- pair property values within the neighborhood. (b) The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of sur- rounding property for uses permitted in the District. (c) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress, egress, and parking so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. (d) The conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located. (e) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the con- ditional use will promote and enhance the general public wel- fare and will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or economic character of the area in which it is located. (f) The proposed use is or will be compatible with present and future land uses of the area. (g) The proposed use conforms with all performance standards contained herein. (h) The proposed use can be accommodated with public services within a reasonable manner and will not overburden the City's service capacity. (12) REVOCATION. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the City Council may direct the revocation of any Conditional Use Permit for cause upon determination that the authorized conditional use is not in conformance with the conditions of the permit or is in continued violation of this Ordinance, City Codes, and other ap- plicable regulations. The Planning Commission shall schedule a hearing in the manner set forth in this section and shall notify the responsible person to whom the permit was issued, that it is an opportunity for that person to show cause why the permit should not be revoked. The Planning Commission shall make a report to the City Council following the hearing including a recommendation and the reasons therefore. The City Council shall consider the report from the Planning Commission and shall, by Resolution, declare its findings as to whether the Conditional Use Permit shall be revoked, including the reasons therefore. The Zoning Administrator shall • • provide the responsible person to whom the permit was issued a copy of the proceedings and findings of the Planning Commission and City Council. (13) AMENDMENTS. Holders of the Conditional Use Permits may propose amendments to the permit at anytime, following the procedures for a new permit as set forth in this Section. No significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the permitted use shall be undertaken without approval of those amendments by the City. The Zoning Administrator shall determine what constitutes signifi- cant change. Changes include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, number of employees, expansion of structures and /or premises, different and /or additional signage, and operational modifications resulting in increased external activities and traffic, and the like. The Planning Commission may recommend, following the procedures for hearing and review set forth in this Section and the City Council may approve significant changes and modifications to Conditional Use Permits, including the applica- tion of additional or revised conditions. First read at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Hopkins held and finally read, approved, adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of said Council of said City held on the day of J. SCOTT RENNE City Clerk JERRE MILLER City Attorney ELLEN LAVIN Mayor • PROJECT DESCRIPTION: • Construct a 108,300 square foot addition to the northeast side of the Honeywell, Inc., Underseas Systems Division, plant located at 600 2nd Street N.E. Addition will consist of a 27,100 square foot footprint involving a basement and three stories aboveground. PROJECT PURPOSE: • To permit Honeywell to integrate a new anticipated production contract for the MK50 torpedo with the existing MK46 torpedo production facilities. Utilization of common equipment will save 42,000 square feet and $20 million dollars. HONEYWELL BUILDING ADDITION To consolidate personnel to be temporarily relocated in leased space and to expand individual work stations by 33 %. (The present level of occupancy is not expected to increase during the next 5 years). VARIANCE REQUESTS: • Exceed 35' building height limitation by 5'. • • Exceed .60 floor area ratio by .016. • Permit expansion of a currently non - conforming (front and rear yard setbacks) structure. JUSTIFICATION FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCES: BUILDING HEIGHT • The third floor is needed to consolidate personnel in the Hopkins plant that are presently located in temporary leased space in Minnetonka. Extra ceiling height clearance is needed to accommodate visual image projection requirements and ductwork for computer rooms with raised floors. • The size of the addition is only 9% of the size of the total building when completed. • Excluding Massey - Ferguson across St. Louis Street, the distance from the addition to our nearest neighbor to the north is 300', to the west is 640', and to the south is about 300'. • Because of our somewhat remote and isolated location, we believe the third floor to have a minimal visual impact on the community; certainly no more than the apartments to the northeast or the Red Owl offices to the southwest. • FLOOR AREA RATIO • F.A.R. for present building site, with addition Same as above but including parking lots west of Tyler " all parking . lots EXPANSION OF NON - CONFORMING STRUCTURE • We propose that the existing 1954 building conforms to the spirit of the ordinance because: a) It does meet the 50' front yard requirement for an I -2 district abutting an R -2 district since it is 300' from the north of the building to the nearest R -2 property line. It does meet the 20' rear yard requirement for an I -2 district abutting "I" or "B" districts due to the natural separation caused by St. Louis Street and the railroad tracks. • The addition does meet all yard requirements for an I -2 district. Vicin 00 Ciet EA0L1,0 q3q7 ww 134 Tit Gw 01zou 0 N-19 2--(ciog7 fio ,7/ 17 • .616 .388 _ .236 1/24/86 - PAL 2ti Lu�IQ. firad yakd 7 9 j r6 / 76,1,q 57K j 66 qa g, 0 c/ 30 22.i� �� 0 �/ - H PROPOSED EAST H ANNEX /13 o" / z z // • E.45T O lx i') L.7 ,;3 AN.