CR 05-013 Conditional Use Permit - 2nd Ave S
;' CITY OF \
..~
-
~
-
January 12, 2005
I
HOPKINS:
Council Report 05-13
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - OFFICE BUILDING
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends . the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 05-8, approvmg a
conditional use permit for an office use in the B-1 zoning district.
Overview.
The applicant, Jim Parker, is proposing to construct ten office condominiums on property
that is south of the Hopkins Care Facility. This is a difficult site to develop because most of
the site is wetlands. The condos will be two stories and approximately 1700 square feet each.
A conditional use permit is required for an office use in the B-1 zoning district.
The applicant has applied for site plan approval for the construction of the building.
~ Primary Issues to Consider.
. What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
. What are the requirements for an office use in the B-1 zoning district?
Supportinf! Documents.
. Analysis of Issues
. Site Plans
. Resolution 05-8
Nanc S. Anderson, AICP
. Planner
Financial Impact: $_ N/ A_Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y/N
Source:
.-..
.-
CR05~ 13
Page 2
.
Primary Issues to Consider.
What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan
designated the subject site?
,
The subject property is zoned B-1, Limited Business. The Comprehensive Plan has
designated the site as commercial. The proposed use is a conditional use within the B-1
zoning district.
What are the requirements for an office use in the B-1 zoning district?
The following is the requirement for offices in the B-1 zoning district:
Offices provided:
1. That not more than 30 percent of the first floor space is devoted to storage, repair
fabricating or assembly of goods.
T~e use as proposed will comply with the above requirement.
Alternatives.
1. Approve the conditional use permit to allow the new building to be used as an office
use. By approving the conditional use permit to allow an office use, the building will
be used as an office.
2. Deny the conditional use permit to allow the new building to be used as an.office use.
By denying the office use, the applicant will not be able to use the new building as an
office use. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings will have to be
identified that support this alternative.
3. Continue for further information. This item can only be continued if Mr. Parker
agrees to waive the 60-day rule. .
~
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 05-8
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN OFFICE USE IN THE B-1 ZONING DISTRICT
WHEREAS, an application for Conditional Use Permit CUP04-11 has been made by Jim Parker;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a conditional use permit was made by Jim Parker on July
30, 2004;
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 August 31, 2004 and continued by the City Council on September
7, 2004: 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 on the east line of the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter at a
point 395.12 feet south from the northeast corner of the southeast quarter; thence
westerly at an angle of 87 degrees 29 minutes with said east line a distance of 400
feet to the point of beginning; thence continuing westerly on the extension of last
. described line 179.8 feet; thence south parallel with the east line of said northeast
quarter of the southeast quarter a distance of767 feet; thence east to a point on the
east line of said northeast quarter of the southeast quarter distant 1132.1 feet south
from the northeast corner of said northeast quarter of the southeast quarter; thence
north along said east line 357 feet; thence westerly at an angle to the left of 92
degrees 31 minutes a distance of 400 feet; thence north to the point of beginning,
except roads, Section 25, Township 117, Range 22, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Conditional Use Permit
CUP04-11 is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the proposed development meets the requirements for a conditional use
permit.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for a conditional use permit CUP04-11 is
hereby approved based on the following conditions:
1. That site plan approval to construct the building is granted.
Adopted this 18th day of January 2005.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
3
""""' E\];V'- "'......@ SO"'" """."""
~
MpSON'ltyvtNeeK
4
p,'}.
~i5~
_se~~ ------
~\\I'-A' J
allILO\t~G SECilO~ J SI"fE. U~E S'T\lO'f
~
2
;Z
~N
I-MeC"""'C"-
___.__._____.__ ~oCff ",l' "","
j- --=;-.----.-
, '
, '
\ ~
Cffr~eI .' _______0 tg. - e.:.5~~~ce
r~~ S!e:-rrt-INE __.__'___ __.__.___ ~'KO~
=.=:::::::::__c::,~.__.- --.-----,--.--.--. ___~_ c~ ,0
\~~ HW11~
::;
~
Ul
""
~
't~o..
-~- <~..-~ \.
A2
Et:E'1 ,.;no~S,
SECilO~ I
SI"fE. S1ll0'(
1
p,'}.
EAst ELE'1 II- ilO~
~
"",,
\ - ~
~ S
~ ~
.< ~ ~
; ~ ~
"~~1
~"'" #. on
~~~i
1. u ~ .
~:t.~
..J....~~
';l::: 0 :&
<~'&~
~.. -
~
'S
"
'U
!!!.
%
,..-I
...
~~
~~~
r:/l ~ 0
O~~
~S\
~~r
U~~
~ ~O
U ~%
~U
~~
O~
~
2
A1
(j) -.._.-.-'. .
C!) =-t.-.-
@
I
ffi-=-=-=~-:-t=:f
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
Scale: 3/32" = 1'-0"
TYPICAL UNIT LAYOUT
----r
1
,_,
Ii \
U ~I
~J 1
-----'~i L,,-_~;;_
I r~
I I
OFrla: j ~-T-
/.... 1....._-1
I=:=1 I
---- I ]
I __I
I ,
Officr /1 ~W
--'=i g~':" ~
1
1
J
I~
--'="1
I
1
1
~J
I
1-3
-\:=
"
I
1
I
@
i
i
i
i
i
oma:
CMa
WORJ<
,---
1....._-1
I
_!...
E==r=
1
1
,--
1-___
BI<l:AK
~
i
i
i
i
i
i
G8A STAUS
TYPICAL PARKING CALmA TIONS
FLRST FLOOR 220 5.f.
SECOND fLOOR 1,491 S.f.
TOTAll.711 5.f.
-----r
Of"Ma: t _ BREAK
rl \
D_-l
_____--':~ l~----
J I~L.ET
Office : t-
/..1 l_r-"
_____~==! '---I
I 1
I I
OFFICE I r I
~1 ~
I
-----...!=~ OPeN
I orAa:
WORJ< 1
~j
I
-----...!==f c==-
1 I
1 I
Or-Net I r---~
/..1 C==r=
------4=3 :
\J c...-_-~
oma: I
I
1
1 .
- - - - -1- --.
@
I
i
i
i
@
i
i
i
i
<V
,
i
i
i
@
I
i
i
i
i
i
~
i
i
I
i
CD
I
i
i
i
~
i
'$
~
i
I
i
i
-'-'-'-'-'-'
'-'---'-'-'-
I HEREBY CERilFYTHATTHlS
PlAN. SPEORCAllON, OR
REPORT WAS PREPARED BY
ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT
SUPERVISION ANO THAT I AM
A DOL Y UCENSED ARCHITECT
UNDERTHELAWSOFTl-lE
STATE. OfMINNESQTA
PAUL R. MEYER.
OATh LIe.#: 21618
I ", ~S,SU^E1~ISI~~S I
.......L _0. ..:.CO.. ;::;;y su......ITTAL
FLOOR PLANS
A1
1
A1
OO-==t4--=+U ___u ____h _____
I
29'-4'
-+--
ffi-=-=-1- _{ __hmw___n__mh\~__~
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
Scale: 3/32"" = 1'-0"
@
@
TYPICAL UNIT LA yom
I
I
1
I
CONfERENCE I
I
I
~J
I
r-__J==
: RECEP110N
I r-l
~_nJ :
28'-8'
GARAGe
----- -----
-----
------
\,
~
8
~
@
28'-a'
TYPICAL PARKING CALCULATIONS
2205.f.
@
i
CONfERENCE ~
I
)
/ l
._...!::.=
<=P1TO
r-,
___J ,
GARAGe
----- -----
-----
-----
28'-8"
~
;:;
"
'"
@
28' 8'
288',0"
o
~LV
--~
----
@
28'-8'
@
28'-a'
CD
- -=--.
(])
2.9'-4'
@
'I
U
~
~
~ "
E-i
0 Z
~ ~ <
00 ~ b
- ~ 00
00'"
~ ~~
Z ~~
o > 00
u ~~
~ ~~
U ~O
~ =
~U
~Z
0<
>
~ _J
- I
-
m
I - ~ ~
m ~
~ ~ "
...
~ ~ :,;
I ~ ~ ~
==f,j~~
~::::ij;~
~,,;dz
r-l~~L:
~~ ~ .
E-o :I: ~
~"'!:;:l
" ~ 0
~Q~1: _J
<~~~
~-<-a.
-
January 18, 2005
Mayor Gene Maxwell
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
Council Member Rick Brausen
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
Council Member Diane Johson
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
Council Member Bruce Rowan
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
Council Member Jay Thompson
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
Re: Parker Building Project: Nine Mile Marsh
Conditional Use Permit Application and Site Plan Review Application
Dear Mayor Maxwell and Hopkins City Council Members:
I am writing this letter on behalf of the Nine Mile Cove Homeowners Association and the
Hopkins Care Center. We have a number of concerns about the proposed project and ask that the
City address them prior to approving any project applications.
1. Flooding, Flood Plain Issues and Peat Moss. As the City Planner has indicated in
Council Report 05-12, most of the site is wetlands. We understand that much of the land
underlying this property and the surrounding area consists of peat moss. This fact, combined
with the fact that it lies in the middle of a designated flood plain, has already caused issues for
the City and residents in our neighborhood. When it rains heavily, much of the area floods,
including Second Avenue. Water covers a broad area and remains for several days. How will
this project affect those high water events? Will the amount of water standing in the street and
nearby parkland dissipate more slowly?
1728713v3
City Council Members
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
January 18, 2005
Page 2
Recently, FEMA established new flood plain boundaries in Hennepin County. Those
changes have impacted Nine Mile Cove homeowners. Has any impact on the proposed project
area been addressed?
We have observed that several curbside maintenance projects have occurred within the
last several years. We understand that those projects are related to sewer pipe failures.
Apparently, water and sewer pipes which are unsupported at their seams have broken down.
From our experience, what we know is that the area floods; the water does not go away quickly
in the Second Avenue area; and the water appears to not recede. Following these events, we
have observed lengthy construction projects on and near storm sewer access points.
Requested Action: We ask for assurance that all sewer and water lines will be
engineered appropriately to service our neighborhood, as well as the new project.
2. Traffic Safety. It is readily apparent that a relatively low traffic area will
experience increased traffic. We are unaware of a traffic study being conducted. We are
concerned about the (a) safety of walkers (in good weather, many Hopkins Care Center residents
walk on Second Avenue, and several ride in wheel chairs-pushed, hand-powered and motor
powered); (b) entry and exit by cars from a partially obscured driveway; and (c) increased traffic
into the Nine Mile Cove area, which is essentially a dead-end. While there was extensive
discussion of the traffic issues raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, there is
no clear traffic safety plan called for in the proposed resolutions.
Requested Action: We ask that a traffic study be conducted and that a plan for
pedestrian and vehicle safety be developed. Such a plan should address: speed, signage, and
visibility issues.
3. Driveway Construction Issues. In the latest plan submitted last week, the
driveway will not only take away wetland, perhaps adversely effecting water quality and
1728713v3
City Council Members
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
January 18, 2005
Page 3
quantity, but it will be subject to flood impacts. These issues are addressed separately in a
Liesch Associates letter to the City Council. Our concerns are about safety for driveway users
and the potential for frequent construction repair projects caused by design flaws.
Requested Action: A careful analysis of the issues related to the driveway's
construction and potential impacts on safety, maintenance, and environmental impact should be
carried out.
4. Visibility Issues. Currently, the property is marked by grass, cattails, shrubs, and
trees. Many of the trees block the visibility of Highway 169. We understand many, if not all,
trees will come down. The project's landscape plans call for 37 trees: 35 with a diameter of2.5
inches, and 2 with a diameter of 1.5 inches. Trees of this size clearly will provide little if any
cover for any project, let alone one of this magnitude. As noted in the City Planner's report,
existing trees along Second Avenue will count for the required landscaping. Ironically, these
trees were installed by the Association and have diameters exceeding 5 inches.
Requested Action: There should be significantly sized, full foliaged trees, at least 40
feet in height to obscure the parking lot and access driveway. The Hopkins Care Center provides
major foliage to obscure its visibility from the road.
5. Landscaping Maintenance. Currently, the Nine Mile Cove Association is
maintaining the curbside berm landscaping, having installed trees and shrubbery. The City
Planner's report notes that those existing trees will count for the required landscaping.
Apparently, at least two will be removed to construct the driveway. There is a sprinkler system
which has been installed and supported by the Association.
Requested Action: The landscaping maintenance along Second Avenue is an issue to be
addressed. Is Mr. Parker assuming responsibility for this maintenance? Will the Association be
compensated for the sprinkler system and loss of trees and shrubbery caused by construction of
1728713v3
City Council Members
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
January 18, 2005
Page 4
the new driveway? Would construction mean that watering the grass, shrubbery, and trees could
be interrupted for a lengthy time period?
6. Lighting. Any lighting for this project, especially for the parking lot could
certainly have a negative affect on neighbors. Any added lights will adversely effect the area-
what was generally dark and parkland-like could be unusually bright and intrusive.
Requested Action: All lighting should be unobtrusive and pointed down-not out from
the site.
7. Construction Issues.
(a) Financial Viability: Mr. Parker has already indicated that in connection
with the EA W petition he could not afford lawyers. Given the nature of this project, it
appears that several legally sensitive issues are inherent to its construction and "condo-
izing." How can we be assured that the project will be completed and in a quality,
workmanlike fashion? It is unclear that Mr. Parker has ever developed any similar
projects. We are concerned about the quality of materials and construction. We are
equally concerned that, once started, the project will be completed. Will there be any
requirements for posting a bond to ensure completion of the project?
(b) Noise. Dirt. TrafJic Obstruction. There's only one way to our property.
Second Avenue is narrow. Weare concerned about the impact of noise, dirt, traffic
safety, and interference. How can we be assured of clear, regular access? How will
issues of dirt, noise, and safety be addressed? Are there permitted times for construction?
Noise limits? Dirt movement controls? Traffic safety requirements?
8. Environmental Impacts. We continue to express our concerns and regrets over
the clearly negative impacts this project will have on nearby parkland and water resources. The
City has chosen to pass the consideration of this issue to the Nine Mile Creek Watershed District.
1728713v3
City Council Members
City of Hopkins, Minnesota
January 18, 2005
Page 5
Already, the Watershed District has permitted a wetlands abatement proposal where the wetlands
loss here will be abated through offset in McLeod County. Contrary to what the Council was
told in October, the abatement will neither occur on this property, nor indeed in Hopkins.
Conclusion. We ask that approval of these applications be continued until the items we
have raised are addressed.
Along with other Hopkins residents, I plan to address the City Council on Tuesday,
January 18. We could not secure the latest plans submitted by Mr. Parker last week, until Friday
afternoon. Unfortunately, this has not allowed any meaningful time to analyze them in much
detail, given the holiday weekend.
Thank you for reading of our concerns. I look forward to seeing you on Tuesday
evenmg.
Respectfully,
~~ ~ ~,iLJ...
David E. Rosedahl
DER/jjf
1728713v3