Planning and Zoning Commission

HOPKINS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, July 24, 2018 6:30 pm THIS AGENDA IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE UNTIL THE START OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING I. CALL TO ORDER II. ADOPT AGENDA III. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/CONCERNS IV. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Minutes of the May 22, 2018, Planning & Zoning Commission V. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2018-09-SP Hopkins Professional Building Façade Improvement 2. Planning Application 2018- 10-SP Center Drug & Carpet One Façade Improvement 3. Planning Application 2018- 07-RZ & SP 65 – 7th Avenue South Rezoning & Site Plan 4. Planning Application 2018- 08-CON R-1-C Minimum Lot Size 5. Planning Application 2018- 11-VA Gambucci Setback Variances VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Planning Application 2018-06-CUP for 2 – East Saint Albans Road 2. Planning Application 2018-05-AMD RZ SUB & PUD for Sanctuary at Oak Ridge IX. ADJOURN  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 22, 2018 – Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES May 22, 2018 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on May 22, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission Members Brian Hunke, Laura Daly, Kristin Hanneman, Matthew McNeil, Emily Wallace-Jackson and James Warden. Commissioner Elizabeth Goeman was absent. Also present was City Planner Jason Lindahl. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Hunke called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Hanneman moved, Commissioner Warden seconded, to adopt the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/ CONCERNS – None. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Warden moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2018, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2018-06-CUP for 2 East Saint Albans Road. City Planner Jason Lindahl presented the conditional use permit application for a special purpose fence from Justin and Jocelyn Miller. The subject property is located at 2 East Saint Albans in the Bell Grove neighborhood north of Minnetonka Boulevard and east of Hopkins Crossroad. Should the City approve the CUP, the applicant would be allowed to construct a 6-foot fence along their eastern property line that fronts along Atwater Street. The City’s fence regulations limit fences in yards abutting public rights-of-way to 4-feet. According to the applicant, they need a 6-foot high fence for screening from Atwater Street and the security of their children and pet and will comply with all other construction, openness and maintenance standards for residential fences. Staff recommends approval of this request. After general discussion from the Commission, Chairman Hunke opened the public hearing. With no one coming forward to speak, Commissioner Warden moved and Commissioner Hanneman seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner McNeil moved and Commissioner Daly seconded to adopt Planning Resolution 2018-03, recommending the City Council approve a conditional use permit allowing a 6-foot high Special Purpose Fence along the eastern property line of 2 East Saint Albans Road. Planner Lindahl noted this item would move on to the City Council with a recommendation for approval on June 5th.  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 22, 2018 – Page 2 2. Planning Application 2018-05-AMD RZ SUB & PUD for Sanctuary at Oak Ridge. City Planner Jason Lindahl presented this item to the Commission. The applicant, Anderson Engineering, requests various applications to allow development of a 4 lot single-family subdivision. The subject property is owned by Janet Griffing and located south of Oak Ridge Golf Course, north of Highway 7, west of the Oak Ridge condominium building and east of the Eisenhower Community Center. The site is currently guided and zoned for high density residential development similar to the adjacent Oak Ridge Place building and received approval for a 4- story 27 unit building in 2007. According to the applicant, development of the site under the 2007 approvals is complicated by its relatively small size, rectangular shape, topography, limited access and location abutting a wetland. In March of this year, the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council reviewed and generally supported a concept plan for this development subject to approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the applicant’s participation in a planned unit development agreement, and reaching an agreement with the neighboring Oak Ridge Place HOA on maintenance of shared amenities. Staff recommends approval of this request. Mr. Lindahl stated there had been substantial public interest in this project from the neighboring Oak Ridge Place condominium building and city staff had several meetings and phone calls with Marles Frankman who serves as President of the Oak Ridge Place Condominium Association. Mr. Lindahl called the Commission’s attention to a letter and petition from the Oak Ridge Place Condominium Association stating their concerns and opposition to the proposed development. Mr. Lindahl noted that the City requires the applicant to host a neighborhood meeting to explain the project, answer questions and take any comments. That meeting occurred in Room 209 of the Eisenhower Community Center on Monday, May 14th from 6:30 to 8:00 PM. Mr. Lindahl stated he attended the meeting as an observer and the developer’s notes from this meeting along with a comment letter from the Oak Ridge Place HOA were attached to the staff report. In general, the neighbors are concerned about the type of housing, construction process, access, parking, wetland, homeowners’ association documents, storm water management and the proposed pedestrian trail. The developer addressed many of these questions during the neighborhood meeting and agreed to continue to work with the neighbors to address their concerns. After some general discussion and questions to city staff, Chairman Hunke opened the public hearing. First to speak was Daniel Greenstein, Attorney for the Oak Ridge Place Condominium Homeowners Association. Mr. Greenstein reviewed the HOA’s concerns detailed in their letter and there petition opposing the development. Next, Marles Frankman President of the Oak Ridge Place HOA addressed the Commission and echoed the concerns detailed in their letter and petition. Several other residents of Oak Ridge Place addressed the Commission reiterating the concerns detailed in their letter and opposition to the development. Commission Warden moved and Commissioner Daly seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion to close the public hearing was approved.  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 22, 2018 – Page 3 The Planning & Zoning Commission briefly discussed tabling the item to allow more time for the applicant and the Oak Ridge Place HOA to work toward consensus on their concerns. Hearing no support for that motion, Commissioner Hunke asked for a motion to approve the recommendation from staff. Commissioner McNeil moved, Commissioner Daly seconded a motion to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2018-04, recommending the City Council approve the following applications, subject to conditions Comprehensive plan amendment from High Density Residential to Low Density Residential Rezoning from R-5, High Density Residential to R-1D, Single Family Low Density with a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subdivision approval of both preliminary and final plats Execution of a Planned Unit Development Agreement The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the City Council approve these requests. Commissioners Daly and Warden voted against the motion because they thought the application and Oak Ridge Place HOA needed more time to work through their concerns. OLD BUSINESS – None. NEW BUSINESS – None. ANNOUNCEMENTS During the announcements, Mr. Lindahl updated the Planning & Zoning Commission on the following items: The City Council approved the first reading of a moratorium ordinance on the Auto Repair & Auto Sales Uses item during their April 17 meeting and approval of the second reading is expected during the May 1 meeting. If approved, a moratorium of up to one year would be placed on auto repair and auto sales uses. May 24 - Boards & Commissions Recognition Dinner. May 22 – next scheduled Planning Commission Meeting and the Annual Meeting, which will include Election of Officers for the next year. June 2 – Artery Grand Opening and Comp Plan Open House. Cultivate Hopkins – 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. City Planner Jason Lindahl informed the Commission that the Cultivate Hopkins advisory committee continues its work on the Comprehensive Plan. The first Implementation meeting on April 11 focused on Built and Natural Environment and the second Implementation meeting on May 9 will focus on Social and Economic Environment. The Comp Plan Open House will take place on June 2 during the Artery Grand Opening. The full Comprehensive Plan will come before the Planning Commission during the June 26 meeting. The City Council is expected to review the draft of the Comprehensive Plan during the July 17 meeting after the recommendation of the Planning Commission. After review by the Council, a 6-month comment period from the surrounding community begins. Final submittal of the Comprehensive Plan will be first quarter of 2019.  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, May 22, 2018 – Page 4 ADJOURN Commissioner Goeman moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jason Lindahl July24,2018 Planning Application 2018-05-RZ & SP th Rezoning & SitePlanReview for65 –7Avenue Proposed Action: Staffrecommends thePlanning & Zoning Commission approvethe following motions: Move toadoptPlanning & Zoning Resolution 2018-07, recommending theCityCouncil approve rezoning theproperty at65 –7thAvenue South fromI- 1,Industrial toMixed Use, subject totheconditions. Movetoadopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2018-08, recommending theCityCouncil th approve thesiteplanfortheproperty at65 –7Avenue South, subject totheconditions. Overview Theapplicant, Brandon Ellis, requests rezoning andsiteplanapprovalsto rehabilitate the property at65 -7th Avenue South (formerly Pokorny Plumbing). Thesubject property islocated thnd atthenorthwest corner of7Avenue Southand2Street Southacross Excelsior Boulevard fromthefutureDowntown Hopkins lightrailstation. Theapplicant seekstorezonethe property fromI- 1,Industrial toMixed Usetoallow office, retailandresidential usesandsite planapproval toallowexterior materials changes tomore than50%ofthebuilding. Should the Cityapprove theserequests, theapplicant intents torehabilitate thestructure intoamixed use building withanesthetician (skincare) clinic, theexisting hottubebusiness, afuture retailspace nd andinternal parkingonthemainleveland3apartments onthe2level. Based onthefindings detailed below, staffrecommends approval oftheserequests. Primary Issues toConsider Background LegalAuthority Rezoning Review SitePlanReview Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2018-07Recommending theCityCouncil Approve theRezoning. Planning & ZoningCommission Resolution 2018-08Recommending theCityCouncil Approve theSitePlan. SiteLocation Map Future LandUseinPlanning District #8 PlansandBuilding Elevations JasonLindahl, AICP CityPlanner Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____ Source: _____________ Planning Application 2018-05-RZ & SP Page2 Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Background. Thesubject property wasoriginally constructed in1927bythePokorny family andserved asthehomeforthefamily plumbing business. Theapplicant purchased theproperty fromPaulPokorny inMarch ofthisyearwiththeintenttorehabilitate itintoamixed use building withanesthetician (skincare) clinic, theexisting hottubebusiness, afutureretailspace nd andinternal parkingonthemainleveland3apartments onthe2level. Mr.Pokorny firstapproached theCitywiththeideaofmarketing theproperty in2016. Earlyon itwasidentified thatproviding off-streetparking would bethemostsignificant challenge to rehabilitating thisproperty. Whenthesiteasoriginally constructed in1927, theCitydidnot havezoning standards requiring individual properties toprovide theirownoff-streetparking. Sinceitsconstruction, theCityestablished zoning standards thatincluded off-streetparking requirements. Asaresult, thisproperty becamelegal non-conforming andwasallowed to continue initsoriginalform. In1985, theCityapproved setback andparking variances toallow a2,000squarefootaddition thatwould become thehomeforthecurrent hottubbusiness. InNovember of2017, theCityapproved azoning textamendment related tooff-streetparking standards. Thattextamendment revisedtheCity’soff-streetparking regulations toallow on- streetparking directly abutting aproperty asacredittowardthesite’soff-streetparking requirement. Thischange allowed thesubject property touse12existing on-streetparking ndth spaces along2StreetSouthand2morealong7Avenue Southasacredittoward theoff-street parking requirement fortheanynewlyproposed use. Thiszoning change mademore efficient nd useoftheCityinvestment intheexisting on-streetparking along2Streetandsignificantly reduced theoff-streetparking requirement fortheproposed project. LegalAuthority. Thisproposal includes 2different typesoflanduseapplications. The rezoning application isconsider alegislative action. Whenconsidering legislative actions, the Cityisadvancing health, safety, andwelfare bymaking rulesthatapplythroughout theentire community. Whenactinglegislatively, theCityhasbroaddiscretion andwillbeafforded considerable deference byanyreviewing court. Bycomparison, siteplanapplicationsare considered quasi-judicial actions. Forthistypeofapplication, theCityisactingasajudgeto determine iftheregulations within theComprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance andSubdivision Ordinance arebeingfollowed. Generally, iftheapplications meettheserequirements they should beapproved. Theapplicable standards forbothtypesofapplications, alongwithstaff’s findings foreach, aredetailed below. Rezoning. There arefourkeycriteria fortheCitytoweigh when considering arezoning request. Thesecriteria andstaff's findingsforeachareoutlined below. Based onthesefindings, staffrecommends rezoning thesubject property fromI- 1,Industrial toMixedUse. Consistency withtheComprehensive Plan. Theproposed mixed usedevelopmentwill be consistent withthe2030Comprehensive Plan. First, theFuture LanduseMapguidethesubject property asMixed Use consistent withtheproposed Mixed Usezoning. According the2030 Comprehensive Plan, the Mixed LandUsecategory isintended tocapture anticipated redevelopment initiatives associated withtheproposed LRTstations. Eachstation areaislikely toredevelop inamixed-usetypefashion. Thedensity rangeforthiscategory establishes a minimum threshold of30+units peracre. Itisassumed themixedusecategory willdevelop at Planning Application 2018-05-RZ & SP Page3 60%residential and40%commercial. Inthiscase, theproperty isproposed tobedeveloped at adensity of12.5unitsperacreandbeamixof48%residential and52%commercial. Given this isanexisting property being rezoned toMixed Use, theCityfindstheproposed residential density andratioofresidential tocommercial useacceptableas thisproperty ismoving closerto compliance withthestandards ofthenewlyassigned zoningdistrict. Second, the2030 Comprehensive Planalsoinclude asetofoverall goalsthatsupport the proposed project, including: Maintain appropriate transitions between landuses. Hopkins isafully developed community andwilllikelyseenewdevelopment through redevelopment initiatives. TheCity willworktoensure appropriate transitional usesandbuffering between newandexisting landuses. Take advantage of redevelopment opportunities to capture future Light Rail Transit LRT) initiatives. The Southwest LRT line passes directly through Hopkins, creating redevelopment opportunities at and around three potential station locations. These redevelopment opportunities mayoccurpriortoanyLRT improvements. Therefore, the Citywillworktoensure thatnewredevelopment inandaround future station areasis appropriate andconsistent withfuturetransitimprovements. Compatibility withPresent andFuture LandUses. Theproposed mixed usedevelopment willbeconsistent withsurrounding present andfuture landuses. Theseusesaredetailed inthe tablebelow. Surrounding Existing andFuture LandUsesAnalysis Location ExistingFuture NorthSingle Family Residential Medium Density Residential South Park & RideFacility Downtown LRTStation East IndustrialMixed Use West HighDensity Residential Mixed Use Conformance withNewZoning Standards. Theproposed mixed usedevelopment willbe consistent withthezoning standards oftheMixedUseDistrict. Amoredetailed reviewofthe specific Mixed Usezoning standards thatapplytothisapplication isprovided below. SitePlanReview. Standards forreviewing asiteplanapplication aredetailed inSection 526of theCityCode. Thissection establishes siteplanreview procedures andprovides regulations pertaining totheenforcement ofsitedesign standards consistent withtherequirements ofthis section. Theseprocedures areestablished topromote highqualitydevelopment toensure the long-termstability ofresidential neighborhoods andenhance thebuiltandnatural environment within theCityasnewdevelopment andredevelopment activities occur. Inthiscase, siteplan review isrequired because Section 526.01(d)oftheCityCoderequires siteplanapproval for reconstruction, replacement, orremodeling ofmaterial on50percent ormoreofanypartofthe exterior ofanexisting building thatabutspublicright-of-way50feetormoreinwidth. Itshould benoted thatasiteplan approval expires one year afterithasbeen granted unlessthe use for which theapprovalhad been grantedis ineffect.Extensions maybe granted provided theapplicant submit alettertothePlanning Departmentrequesting anextension atleast30days Planning Application 2018-05-RZ & SP Page4 before theexpiration oftheapproval. ThePlanning Department maygranttheextension ifitis determined thatconstruction willcommence within theone-year extension period. Only one suchextension maybegranted. Asecond request foratimeextension shallbepresented tothe CityCouncil forconsideration. LandUseandZoning Standards. Thelanduseandzoning designations areconsistent with theproposed mixedusefacility (seedetails intherezoning section above). Exterior Building Materials. Thechanges proposed totheexterior ofthebuilding are consistent withtheexterior building materials standard fortheMixed UseDistrict. These standards aredetailed inSection 543.08andrequire theprimary exterior treatment (50percent ormore) ofwallsfacingapublicright-of–wayorparking lotonastructure shallbebrick, cast concrete, stone, marble orothermaterial similar inappearance anddurability. Regular or decorative concrete block, floatfinish stucco, EIFS-typestucco, cementitious fiberboard, or woodclapboardmaybeusedonthefrontfaçade asasecondary treatment ortrimbutshallnot beaprimaryexterior treatment ofawallfacingapublic right-of-way. Inthiscase, theapplicant plantoreplace atleast50%theexterior building materials alongboth ndthnd 2Street Southand7Avenue South. The2StreetSouthelevation willbe52.5 percent brick th and47.5 percent stucco. Along 7Avenue South, thebuilding willbe63.7percent brickand 46.7 percent stucco. Thisdesign meetstheminimum 50percent brick standard. Building Orientation. Thechanges proposed totheexterior ofthebuilding areconsistent withthebuilding orientation requirements fortheMixed UseDistrict. These standards are detailed inSection 543.09andaddress bothbuilding orientation andbuilding façade requirements. Thissection requires buildings within theMixed Usedistrict to be oriented toward thepedestrian byproviding adirect linkbetween eachbuilding andthe pedestrian walking system, withemphasis ondirecting people toatransit station. While thisproject will makenochanges totheorientation ofthebuilding, theexisting building currently meets this standard byproviding entrances thatconnect totheCity’ssidewalk andtrailssystem. This system thenconnects totherestofthecommunity including Downtown Hopkins, theexisting th parkandridebusfacility at8Avenue andExcelsior Boulevard (future Downtown LRTstation) th andtheLakeMinnetonka Regional Trailalong the8Avenue Artery. Thebuilding façade standards require theprimary streetsidefaçade ofabuilding shallnot consist ofanunarticulated blankwall, flatfrontfacades oranunbroken series ofgarage doors. Thefrontofa building shallbebroken upintoindividual baysofaminimum of25feetand maximum of40feetwide. Since thisbuilding islocate onacorner, ithas2primary street facing facades. Bothsidesofthebuilding willbebroken upbytheuseofdifferent building materials brickorstucco), windows, awnings andachange inroofline. Thisdesign isconsistent withthe building façade requirements oftheMixed UseDistrict. Vehicle Parking. Asdesigned, thisproject exceeds theoff-streetparking requirement for properties intheMixed UseDistrict. Theserequirements aredetailed inSection 543.03 (Mixed UseDistrict) and550 (Off-StreetParking). Therequired andproposed number ofoff-street parking stallsiscompared inthetablebelow. Anychange tothedescribed usesortheir associated square footage willrequire anewparking evaluation andmayrequire additional parking. Planning Application 2018-05-RZ & SP Page5 Off-Street Parking Requirements fortheMixed UseDistrict UseAreaRequirementProposedStatus Residential3 Units1/unit3 insideConforming Guest1/15 units2 insideExceeds Office (SkinCare) 1,630 sq. ft. 1/250 sq. ft. 7Conforming Office (Spa Repair) 1,983 sq. ft. 1/400 sq. ft. 5Conforming Retail635 ft.ft. 1/200 sq. ft. 4Conforming TotalN/A2021Exceeds Itshould benotedthatthisdevelopment iseligible tousetheon-streetparking credit standards approved bytheCityinNovember of2017 (seeBackground section above). Thisallows the nd subject property touse12existing on-streetparking spaces along2 StreetSouth and2more th along 7 Avenue South asacredittoward theoff-streetparking requirement forthenewly proposed uses. Thesespaces mayonlybeusedasacredittoward thetypical off-streetparking requirements andarenotspecifically assigned tothesubject property oranyspecific business. Theredesign ofthesiteincludes 8off-streetstalls, oneoutside and7insidethebuilding. At least5ofthesestallsshallbepermanently assigned tothe3residential apartmentsto meetthe tenantandguestoff-streetparking requirements. Bicycle Parking. Thebicycle parking standards fortheMixed UseDistrict aredetailed in Section 543.06andrequire bothlong termandshortterm parking. Thebicycle parking requirements formulti-family residential andofficeusesalongwiththestallsproposed bythe applicant arecompared inthetablebelow. Asdesigned, thesiteexceeds theshortterm requirement by1stallbutisatleast3stallsshortofthelongtermrequirement (depending on thenumberofemployee inthefutureretailspace). Bicycle Parking Standards fortheMixed UseDistrict TypeResidential Retail Office Proposed Overall RequiredRequiredRequired Status ShortTerm 1Space/20 0.50spaces/1k1/40Kofnet 4inrack Conforming units = 1 ofnetbuilding building area outside area = 1= 1building Long Term 1Space/2 0.50/employee 0.25 3inside Non- units = 2 = unknown at spaces/1kof parking conforming thistimenet building garage Installatleast area = 4 3more Signage. Building signage istypically approved through aseparate administrative permit. The signstandards fortheMixed UseDistrict aredetailed inSection 543.15andprovided asa reference fortheapplicant below. Generally, theconceptual signinformation illustrated inthe applicants planappearconsistent withthesignstandards fortheMixed UseDistrict. The applicant mustreceive separate approval ofanadministrative signpermit beforeinstalling any signage. WallSigns. Eachtenant otherthanthoseinmulti-tenantbuildings mayhaveoneflatwallsign, not extending morethan18inches fromthefaceofthebuilding, except thatsuchsignage may extend fromthefaceoftheroofoveracovered walk. Such wallsigns shallnotexceed twotimes ofthelinealfrontage ofthewalltowhichthebusiness islocated, toa maximum of96square Planning Application 2018-05-RZ & SP Page6 feet. Signsshallnotbeinternally illuminated. Canopies andAwnings. Thedesign ofcanopies shallbeinkeeping withtheoverall building designintermsoflocation, size, andcolor. Nocanopies withvisiblewallhangers shall be permitted. Signage oncanopies maybe substituted forallowed building signage andshallbe limited to25percent ofthecanopyarea. Canopies shallnotbeinternally illuminated. Projecting. Projecting signswillhaveamaximum sizeof12square feetandamaximum widthof threefeet. Projecting signscannot extend beyond thefirstfloorofthebuilding. Nolessthan10 feetofclearance shallbeprovided between thesidewalk surface and thelowest pointofthe projecting sign. Maximum distance between signandbuilding faceisonefoot. Monument signs. Onemonument signshallbepermitted foreachmulti-tenant building provided thesurface areaofthesigndoesnotexceed twosquare feetperfrontfootoflot. No signshallbeover150square feet, 20feetinheight andhaveasetback innocaselessthan20 feetfromtheproperty lines. Trash Enclosure. Theapplicant’splansillustrate several trashenclosures alongtheeastsideof thebuilding. Theproposed enclosures appear tomeettheCity’sminimum requirements except fortrashenclosures. Alternatives 1.Recommend approval oftherezoning andsiteplanapplications. Byrecommending approval oftheseapplications, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofapproval. 2.Recommend denialoftherezoning andsiteplanapplications. Byrecommending denialof theseapplications, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofdenial. Shouldthe Planning & Zoning Commission considers thisoption, itmustalsoidentify specific options thatsupport thisalternative. 3.Continue forfurther information. IfthePlanning Commission indicates thatfurther information isneeded, theitemsshould becontinued.  CITYOFHOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-07 ARESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVEAN ORDINANCE TH REZONING THEPROPERTY AT 65–7AVENUE SOUTH FROM I-1,INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE, SUBJECT TOTHE CONDITIONS WHEREAS, theapplicant,Brandon Ellis, initiated anapplicationrequestingto rezone the th property located at65 – 7Avenue South from I- 1,IndustrialtoMixed Useto allow amixed use office, retail andresidential facility, and WHEREAS,these properties are legally described asLots 26, 27, 28 & 29andBlock 002, West Minneapolis Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, theprocedural history ofthe application isasfollows: 1. That theabove stated application wereinitiatedby theapplicant onMarch 23, 2018; 2. That theHopkins Planning andZoning Commission, pursuant topublished andmailed notice, held apublic hearing ontheapplication andreviewed such application onJuly 24, 2018: allpersons present were given anopportunity tobeheard; and, 3. That thewritten comments andanalysis ofCity staff were considered; and, WHEREAS, staffrecommended approval oftheabove stated application based onthefindings outlined inthestaff report dated July 24, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVEDthat thePlanning & Zoning Commission ofthe City ofHopkins hereby recommends the City Council approve anordinance rezoning theproperty at65 th 7Avenue South from I-1,Industrial toMixed Use, subject totheconditions listed below. 1.Conformance with allapplicable standards oftheMixed Use zoning district. th Adopted this24dayofJuly2018. James Warden, Chair  CITYOFHOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-08 ARESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVETHE SITE PLAN TH FOR THE PROPERTY AT 65 –7AVENUE SOUTH, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS WHEREAS, theapplicant, Brandon Ellis, initiated anapplication forsite planapproval toallow th exterior materials changes tomore than 50%ofthebuildinglocated at65–7Avenue South; WHEREAS, these propertyare legally described asLots 26, 27, 28 & 29and Block 002, West Minneapolis Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, theprocedural history oftheapplication isasfollows: 1.That asiteplan application was initiated bytheapplicant onJune 22, 2018; 2.That theHopkins Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant topublished and mailed notice, held apublic hearing ontheapplication and reviewed such application onJuly 24, 2018: allpersons present were given anopportunity tobeheard; and, 3.That thewritten comments andanalysis ofCity staff were considered. AND, WHEREAS, staff recommended approval oftheproposed siteplan based onthefindings outlined inthestaff report dated July 24, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVEDthat thePlanning & Zoning Commission oftheCity of Hopkins hereby recommends theCity Council approve thesiteplan application fortheproperty at65 – th 7Avenue South, subject totheconditions listed below. 1.City approval ofrezoning the property from I- 1,Industrial toMixed Use. 2.Conformancewith allapplicable standards oftheMixed Use zoning district. 3.Issuance ofallrequired building and demolition permits. 4.Payment ofallapplicable development fees include Park Dedication for the3new residential units equal to $3,000per unit. 5.Redesign ofthe long term bicycle parking inside the building tomeet thestandards ofthe Mixed Use district. Ataminimum thisshallinclude 3additional long term parking spaces. More space may berequired based onthe number ofemployees that occupy the vacant retail space along th7Avenue South. th Adopted this 24day ofJuly 2018. James Warden, Chair  t h 7 65 Avenue South Site Location Map FutureLandUsesinPlanningDistrict #8 A1  NEW EXIT DAEPCMKT 1 STAIRSTUCO FINISH REF. D/ GRE N APMT 1 W RO F REF. D/ W RESIDENTIALCOMONSDECK APMT 2 REF. EGRES D/ W PATH APMT DAEPCMKT 3 3 1 SECOND 1/ 8" = 1'- FLO R- 0" RESIDENTIAL- APARTMENTS A2 1 1/ SOUTH = 8" 1'- ELEVATION 0" 2 WEST 1/ 8" = 1'- ELEVATION 0" A3  1/ 8" = NORTH 1'- 0" 12 ELEVATIONEAST ELEVATION 1/ 8" = 1'- 0" A4 1 PVERISEPECWTIVE PVERISEPECWTIVE 01NO SCALEPERSPECTIVE VIEW 2 02NO SCALE 34 03NO SCALEPERSPECTIVE VIEW 04NO SCALE A5 July24, 2018 Planning Application 2018-08-CON R-1-CMinimum LotSizeConcept PlanReview Proposed Action: Asaconcept review, thisapplication doesnotrequire formalaction.Rather, theapplicant requests feedback ontheproposals sotheycanworktoward preparing afuture, formal submittal. Anycomments shallbeforguidance onlyandshallnotbeconsidered binding upontheCityregarding anyfuture, formal application. Overview Theapplicant, DavidandKarenEngelbert, requests concept planreview oftheirproposal to splittheirexisting 160’ wideby132’ deepsinglefamilylotintotwo80’ wideby132’ deepsingle familylots. Thisdesign would produce twosinglefamilylotsthatmeet theminimum 80’ lot widthstandards butwouldbeapproximately 1,440square feetsmaller thanthe12,000square feetminimum lotsizerequired bytheR-1-C zoning district. Thesubject property islocated at137Maple HillRoadintheInterlachen Parkneighborhood southofExcelsior Boulevard, northofHopkins’ border withEdina, westoftheMeadowbrook GolfCourseandeastofBlakeRoad. Asaconcept review, thisapplication doesnotrequire formal action. Rather, theapplicant requests feedback ontheproposals sotheycanwork toward preparing afuture, formal submittal. Anycomments shallbeforguidance onlyandshall notbeconsidered binding upontheCityregarding anyfuture, formal application. Thisreport summarizes theconcept proposal, details various landuseand zoning standards toconsider, compares existing surrounding conditions andoutlines alikelyapproval process forthe application. Primary Issues toConsider Concept PlanSummary Background LandUseandZoning Standards Existing Conditions Approval Process Supporting Documents SiteLocation Map R-1-C Zoning District Analysis Map Applicant’sNarrative JasonLindahl, AICP CityPlanner Financial Impact: $ N/ABudgeted: Y/N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2018-08-CON Page2 Concept PlanSummary. Theconcept planistosubdivide theexisting 160’ wide by132’ deep 21,125square footproperty intotwosinglefamilylots. Thoselotswouldbe80’ wideby132’ deepandapproximately 10,560squarefeetinsize. Thenorthern lotwouldretaintheapplicants’ existing singlefamilyhomebutrequire therelocation oftheirexisting detached garage onthe newlycreated lot. Thenewsouthern lotwouldcontain anewsinglefamilyhome. Whilethe newlycreated lotswould meettheminimum lotwidthstandard, theywould failtomeetthe minimum lotsizerequirements (seelanduseandzoning standards below). Background. According totheapplicants, theypurchased theirhomein1985andhave remodel overtheyeartomeettheirneeds. Theirhome has3levelsandtheEngelbert’shave reachapointintheirliveswhentheywouldprefersinglelevelliving. Theabilitytodividetheir property wouldprovide fundstoeitherremodel theirexisting hometoinclude amaster bedroom andbathonthemainlevelorbuildanewsinglelevel hometomeet theirneedsonthe newlycreatelot. According totheEngleberts, theirpreference istoremain inHopkins, butfeel iftheyarenotpermitted todividetheirproperty theywould mostlikelysellitandpurchase a different homeinanadjacent community. Land UseandZoning Standards. Thesubject property isguideLDR – Low Density Residential bytheFuture LandUsemapinthe2030Comprehensive. According tothenarrative forthislanduseclassification, itallows forsinglefamily detached residential dwelling at1to7 unitsperacre. According toHennepin County, thesubject property is21,125square feetinsize. Theselotswouldbe10,560square feetinsizeandproduce adevelopment pattern atjustover4 unitsperacre (43,560/10,560 = 4.12). Development atthisdensity iswithinthe allowable range fortheLRD - LowDensity Residential category. Goals andpolicies fromthe2030 Comprehensive Planthatwouldalignwiththisconceptproposal include: Protect residential neighborhoods. Retain andenhance detached single-familyhomes. Encouragethedevelopmentofowner- occupiedhousing. Continue tostriveforamixofhousing thataccommodatesa balance ofallhousing needs Thesubject property isalsozonedR-1-C,Single Family Medium Density. Thisdistrict allows singlefamily residential useswithaminimum lotwidthof80’ andminimum lotsizeof12,000 square feet. Thetablebelow compares thezoning requirements andexisting conditions onthe subjectproperty withthenewlotsproposed bytheapplicant. Itfindsthenewlotswould conform tothesinglefamily useandlotwithrequirements butnotmeetthelotsizestandard. Zoning Comparison for137Maple HillRoad Standards R-1-C Existing Proposed Status Requirement Conditions Conditions Use Single FamilySingle FamilySingle FamilyConforming No.ofLots N/ A1 2 N/A LotWidth 160’ 160’ 80’ Conforming Lot DepthN/A132’ 132’ N/A LotSize 12,000sq.ft. 21,125sq.ft. 10,560sq.ft. Non-Conforming by1,440sq.ft. Density 3.63units/acre2 units/acre 4.12units/acreNon-Conforming Planning Application 2018-08-CON Page3 Existing Conditions. TheR-1-C zoning district includes alloftheCampball, ParkRidge, and Interlachen neighborhoods andaportion oftheAvenues WestandPresident’sNorth Neighborhood (seeattached map). Itallowssinglefamilyresidential usesandrequiresa minimum lotwidth of80’ andminimum lotsizeof12,000square feet. Ananalysis oftheR-1-C district findstheaverage lotsizeis12,733square feetbutthemedian (themidpoint ofalllotson alistfromsmallest tolargest) is10,665square feet. Sotheaverage lotislargerthanthe12,000 square feetrequirement but50percent ofthelotsaresmaller than10,665squarefeet. The applicant isproposing two80’ wideby132’ deepsinglefamilylotsthatwouldbe10,560square feetinsize. Thisis105square feetsmallerthanthemedianlotsize. Themapappears toshow mostofthelotsthataresmaller thantheaverage arelocated intheCampbell, ParkRidgeand President’sNorthneighborhoods; however, therearealsoasubstantial portion within Interlachen Park. Approval Process. Based ontheapplicant’sconcept plan, staffanticipates oneoftwoformal review options. Theapplicant couldapplyforaminimum lotsizevariance specific totheirlot. Theotheroption would betoconsider azoning codetextamendment thatwould change the minimum lotsizerequirement fortheoverall R-1-C district. 137 Site Maple Location Hill Road Map  HopkinsZoningR- 1-C Zoning (SingleFamilyMediumDensity) Hopkins, MNMay 2018 Hannan Lake HYXe KA e Minn HYXe ST.LOUIS oad R PARK HYXÔ BA @¬ BA @¬ 4th StN e HillSt HYXc Mainstreet HYXc 3rdSt 5th StS EDINA HYXÈ Shady Oak Lake 8thSt S Legend R-1-CZoning I R-1-CSplitable CityLimitsLakes and Rivers Parcels R-1-CAboveMean County Boundary Size (12,733Sq. Ft) 00. 5 R-1-C (SingleFamily Medium Density) Miles Source: CityofHopkins, MnGeo Hennepin County, MnDOT July24, 2018 Planning Application 18-09-SP SitePlanforHopkins Professional Clinic Proposed Action: Staffrecommends thePlanning & Zoning Commission approvethe following motion: MovetoadoptPlanning & Zoning Resolution 2018-05recommending the CityCouncil approve thesiteplanforfaçade improvements attheHopkins Professional th Building located at299Avenue North. Overview Theapplicant, Hopkins Professional Building, requests siteplanapproval forfaçade th improvements tothemainentrance ofthebuilding at299Avenue North. Thesubject thst property islocated ontheeastsideof9Avenue Northbetween Mainstreet and1Street North. TheHopkins Professional Building houses theHopkins EyeClinic, Mainstreet Dental, andapodiatry office. Theapplicant isarecipient ofagrantfromtheCityofHopkins’ Façade Improvement Grant Program, whichwasestablished toenhance thevitality andaesthetic character ofdowntown. Thegrantprovides funding assistance toproperty orbusiness ownerswithinDowntown ththstst Hopkins between 7Avenue and11Avenue andbetween 1Avenue North and1Avenue Southforfaçade improvements. Thegrantpaysforupto50percent ofthecostofthe improvements, upto $25,000. Staffrecommends approval ofthesiteplanapplication. Primary Issues toConsider Background LegalAuthority SitePlanReview Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2018-05Approving SitePlan Applicant’sNarrative PlansandBuilding Elevations JanYoungquist, AICP Community Development Coordinator Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 18-09-SP Page2 Primary Issues toConsider Background. Theapplicant isproposing toimprove thewestern façade oftheHopkins Professional Building. Theexistingcedarshakes willberemoved fromthemansard roofand cladwithadarkblue-grayfibercement siding, whichwillwrapthreefeetaround thenorth side ofthebuilding andwillincludeafivefootwideswaththatextendsdownthesouthwest corner ofthebuilding. Theexisting vestibule entry willremainandwillbecovered inasimilar siding withacontrasting amber-brown color. Theoriginal exposed brickwork willbecovered witha synthetic stuccoinacreamcolor. Thesamecolorwillbeusedtopaint thenorthsideofthe building. Theapplicant hasreceived abuilding permit foranAmericans withDisabilitiesAct (ADA) accessible rampandrailings thatwillrampupfromthenorth, parallel tothepublicsidewalk, toa landing bythevestibule doors. Stepswillprovide access tothelanding fromthesouth.The ADAaccessible rampwillbeconstructed alongwiththefaçade improvements. LegalAuthority. Review oftheapplicant’ssiteplanapplication isconsidered aquasi-judicial action. Insuchcases, theCityisactingasajudgetodetermine iftheregulations withinthe Comprehensive PlanandZoning Ordinance arebeingfollowed. Generally, iftheapplications meettheserequirements theyareapproved. Theapplicable standards forthisapplication, along withstaff’sfindings foreach, aredetailedinthe “Primary IssuestoConsider” section below. SitePlanReview. Standards forreviewing asiteplanapplication aredetailed inSection 526of theCityCode. Thissection establishes siteplanreview procedures andprovides regulations pertaining totheenforcement ofsitedesign standards. These procedures areestablished to promote highquality development toensure thelong-termstability ofresidential neighborhoods andenhance thebuiltandnatural environment within theCityasnewdevelopment and redevelopment activities occur. Section 526.01(d)oftheCityCoderequires siteplanapproval forreconstruction, replacement, orremodeling ofmaterial on50percentormore ofanypartof theexteriorofanexistingbuilding thatabutspublicright-of-way50feetormoreinwidth. Land UseandZoning Standards. Thesubject property isguided Commercialby the Comprehensive Plan andzoned B-2, Central Business. Theproperty alsolieswithin the Downtown Overlay District, which servestopreservethe small-town, uniquecharacter of Mainstreet Hopkins; complement theexisting historic architecture; enhance thepedestrian orientation ofDowntown Hopkins; encourage streetscape design thatisinviting andona human scale; andcommunicate thecommunity’svisionfortheMainstreet area. According totheComprehensive Plan, Commercial landuses offerawidevariety ofgoodsand services andCommercial useslocated downtown largely servelocalneedsandspecialty market niches. The B-2 Central Business zoning district includes clinics asapermitted use. Therefore, continued useoftheHopkins Professional Building asaneye, dental, andpodiatry clinicis consistent withlanduseandzoning standards. TheDowntown Overlay District hasadditional standards thatareevaluated inthefollowing sections. Exterior Building Materials. TheDowntown Overlay District requires building renovations tobeconstructed tobelonglasting andusematerials thatmaintain thedistinct character and harmony ofthedowntown. Theproposed design consists oftwomainbuilding materials: fibercement sidingandsynthetic Planning Application 18-09-SP Page3 stucco. Thematerials andimprovements willresultinclean linesonthefrontfaçade ofthe building, whichisconsistent withtheaesthetics oftheWilkus Architects building, located at15 th 9Avenue North, twoparcels southofthesubject property. Thisstylecomplements anddoes notdetract fromthehistoric character ofthebuildings alongMainstreet. Signage. Signage standards intheDowntown Overlay District requirethatsignsbecompatible withthestyle, composition, materials, colors anddetails ofthebuilding andwithsignsonother nearby buildings. Themaximum areaofasinglesignintheB-2 Central Business zoning district is60square feet. Theapplicant’splancalls fora40square footsigntobelocated ontheupper portion ofthevestibule. Thesign appears tobecompatible withthematerials usedonthe th façade. Signsonthenearby buildings along9Avenue Northarealsolocated above oratthe mainentrances. Itshould benoted thatthesign must beapproved through aseparate administrative signpermit. Exterior Lighting. Lighting standards intheDowntown Overlay District require thatlighting beindirect withthelightsource hidden fromdirectpedestrian andmotorist view. Thedistrict standards encourage shaded gooseneck lampsforsignillumination. Theapplicant’splans indicate thatrecessed lighting willextend underthesoffitoftheroofline andgooseneck lights onthevestibule willilluminate thesigns, whichisconsistent withthestandards. Windows andDoors. TheDowntown Overlay District requires thataminimum of30percent oftheground levelfaçadeandsideofbuildings adjacent topublicstreets shallconsist of transparent materials. Theapplicant’splansshowfourwindows onthefrontofthebuilding with largewindows andaglassdooronthefrontofthevestibule, whichcomprise approximately 42 percent ofthefrontofthebuilding excluding theparapetalongtheroofline. Therefore, the plansmeetthestandard. Alternatives 1.Recommend approval ofthesiteplan application. Byrecommending approval ofthis application, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofapproval. 2.Recommend denialofthesiteplanapplication. Byrecommending denialofthisapplication, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofdenial. IfthePlanning Commission considers thisoption, findings willhavetobeidentified thatsupport thisalternative. 3.Continue forfurther information. IfthePlanning Commission indicates thatfurther information isneeded, theitemsshould becontinued.  CITYOFHOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-05 ARESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVEASITE PLAN FOR FAÇADE IMPROVEMENTS ATTHE HOPKINS PROFESSIONAL BUILDING WHEREAS, theHopkins Professional Buildinginitiated anapplication forsiteplan review for th façade improvements fortheproperty currently known as29–9Avenue North; WHEREAS, these propertyare legally described asLot 19, Block 67inWest Minneapolis, Second Division, onfileandofrecord intheRegistrar ofTitles andCounty Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, theprocedural history oftheapplication isasfollows: 1. That asiteplan application was initiated bytheapplicant onJune 19, 2018; 2. That theHopkins Planning andZoning Commission, pursuant topublished and mailed notice, held apublic hearing ontheapplication andreviewed such application onJuly 24, 2018: allpersons present were given anopportunity tobeheard; and, 3. That thewritten comments andanalysis ofCity staff were considered. AND, WHEREAS, staff recommended approval oftheproposed siteplan based onthefindings outlined inthestaff report dated July 24, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVEDthat thePlanning & Zoning Commission oftheCity of Hopkins hereby recommends theCity Council approve thesiteplan application fortheHopkins Professional Building, subject totheconditions listed below. 1. Issuance ofabuilding permit. 2. Allexterior signage shall beapproved through aseparate signpermit. th Adopted this 24day ofJuly 2018. James Warden, Chair July24, 2018 Planning Application 18-10-SP SitePlanforCarpet OneandCenterDrug Proposed Action: Staffrecommends thePlanning & Zoning Commission approvethe following motion: MovetoadoptPlanning & Zoning Resolution 2018-06recommending the CityCouncil approve thesiteplanforfaçade improvements atCarpetOneand Center Drug located at907and913Hopkins Center. Overview Theapplicant, Tillman Properties, Inc.,requests siteplanapproval forfaçade improvementsto themainentrances ofCarpet OneandCenter Drugat907and913Hopkins Center. Thesubject properties arecontiguous andfrontontoaCity-owned parking lotwithadrivelanecalled Hopkins Center, whichislocatedbetween thth 9and10Avenues North. Hopkins Centerisnot anofficial street, although itfunctions aspublicrightofway. Thebuildings onthesubject properties include acontinuous storefront androofline thatextends acrosstheadjacent property at903Hopkins Center, occupied byHance Hardware. Theapplicant isarecipient ofagrantfromtheCityofHopkins’ Façade Improvement Grant Program, whichwasestablished toenhance thevitality andaesthetic character ofdowntown. Thegrantprovides funding assistance toproperty orbusiness ownerswithinDowntown ththstst Hopkins between 7Avenue and11Avenue andbetween 1Avenue North and1Avenue Southforfaçade improvements. Thegrantpaysforupto50percent ofthecostofthe improvements, upto $25,000. Staffrecommends approval ofthesiteplanapplication. Primary Issues toConsider Background LegalAuthority SitePlanReview Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2018-06Approving SitePlan Applicant’sNarrative PlansandBuilding Elevations JanYoungquist, AICP Community Development Coordinator Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted: Y/N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP,ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 18-09-SP Page2 Primary Issues toConsider Background. Theapplicant isproposing toimprove themainentrance façadesof Center Drug andCarpetOne, located onthesouthsideofthebuildings.Allexterior woodfinishesonthe walls, canopy andsoffitswillberemoved, andthestorefronts, signs, andexterior lightingwill alsoberemoved. Sections oftheexistingcanopy andparapet forbothbuildings willberemoved tomakethesefeatures moredistinctive. FortheCarpetOnebuilding, atumbled stoneveneer willbeaddedtothebuilding front, upto thecanopy. Thecanopyoverthemainentrance tothebuilding willbeachampagne colormetal withrecessed LEDlighting. Theawnings overthetwowindows flanking themainentrance will becanvas withanaluminum frame. Theupperthirdofthebuilding andtheparapet willbe covered withsynthetic stucco. Newsignage willbeaddedwithdownlights andthewindows will bereplaced. FortheCenter Drugbuilding, abrown tumbled brickveneer willbeadded tothebuilding front, uptothecanopy. TheheightoftheveneerfinishwillbethesameastheCarpet Onebuilding. Thecanopy willbeamedium bronze colored metal withrecessed LED lighting. Theupper third ofthebuilding andtheparapet willbecovered withsynthetic stucco. Theportion ofthe synthetic stucco thatisatthesameheightasthecanopy willinclude verticalgrooves. These finishes willwrapfourfeetaroundthewestsideofthebuilding. Theremainder ofthewestside andthenorthsideofthebuilding willbepainted. Newsignage willbeaddedwithdownlights andthewindows willbereplaced. LegalAuthority. Review oftheapplicant’ssiteplanapplication isconsidered aquasi-judicial action. Insuchcases, theCityisactingasajudgetodetermine iftheregulations withinthe Comprehensive PlanandZoning Ordinance arebeingfollowed. Generally, iftheapplications meettheserequirements theyareapproved. Theapplicable standards forthisapplication, along withstaff’sfindings foreach, aredetailed inthe “PrimaryIssues toConsider” section below. SitePlanReview. Standards forreviewing asiteplanapplication aredetailed inSection 526of theCityCode. Thissection establishes siteplanreview procedures andprovides regulations pertaining totheenforcement ofsitedesign standards. These procedures areestablished to promote highquality development toensure thelong-termstability ofresidential neighborhoods andenhance thebuiltandnatural environment within theCityasnewdevelopment and redevelopment activities occur. Section 526.01(d)oftheCityCoderequires siteplanapproval forreconstruction, replacement, orremodeling ofmaterial on50percentormore ofanypartof theexterior ofanexisting building thatabutspublicright-of-way50feetormoreinwidth. Land UseandZoning Standards. Thesubject property isguided Commercialby the Comprehensive Planand zonedB-2 Central Business. Theproperty alsolieswithin the Downtown Overlay District, which serves to preserve thesmall-town, uniquecharacter of Mainstreet Hopkins; complement theexisting historic architecture; enhance thepedestrian orientation ofDowntown Hopkins; encourage streetscape design thatisinviting andona human scale; andcommunicate thecommunity’svisionfortheMainstreet area. According totheComprehensive Plan, Commercial landuses offerawidevariety ofgoodsand services andCommercial useslocated downtown largely servelocalneedsandspecialty market niches. The B-2 CentralBusiness zoning district includes drugstores andcarpet andflooring Planning Application 18-09-SP Page3 covering businesses aspermitted uses. Therefore, continued useoftheproperties asCenter DrugandCarpetOneisconsistent withlanduseandzoning standards. TheDowntown Overlay District hasadditional standards thatareevaluated inthefollowing sections. Exterior Building Materials. TheDowntown Overlay District requires building renovations tobeconstructed tobelonglasting andusematerials thatmaintain thedistinct character and harmony ofthedowntown. Theproposed design forCarpet Oneconsists oftumbled stone veneer, synthetic stucco, andmetal. Theproposed materials forCenterDruginclude tumbled brickveneer, synthetic stucco, andmetal. Theuseofbrick isconsistent withthecharacter of buildings onMainstreet andthestone willcomplement theadjacent brick, while creating a distinction between thetwobuildings. Awnings. TheDowntown Overlay District requires awnings tobeconstructed ofdurable, protective andweather resistant materials andtoproject aminimum of36inches fromthe building. Awnings thatextend across multiple storefronts areprohibited. Theapplication proposes awnings attheCarpet Onebuilding only. Theawnings willbecanvaswithametal frameandwillproject 4feet2inches fromthebuilding; therefore, thisrequirement ismet. Signage. Signage standards intheDowntown Overlay District require thatsignsbecompatible withthestyle, composition, materials, colors anddetails ofthebuilding andwithsignsonother nearby buildings. Themaximum areaofasinglesignintheB-2 Central Business zoning district is60square feet. Theapplicant’splanidentifies anareaonbothparapets where business signs willbelocated, although specific signdetails arenotincluded. TheareafortheCarpet Onesign isapproximately 50square feetandtheareafortheCenter Drugsignisapproximately 55square feet. Itshould benotedthatadditional detailmustbeprovided andapproved through aseparate administrative signpermit process. Exterior Lighting. Lighting standards intheDowntown Overlay District require thatlighting beindirect withthelightsource hidden fromdirectpedestrian andmotorist view. Thedistrict standards encourage shaded gooseneck lampsforsignillumination. Theapplicant’splans indicate thatrecessed LEDlighting willextend under thesoffitoftheroofline andgooseneck lightswillilluminate thesigns, whichisconsistent withthestandards. Façades. TheDowntown Overlay District requires thatbuildings morethan45feetinwidth be designed withvisualbreaks. Thewidth oftheCarpet Onestorefront isalmost 59feetandthe width oftheCenter Drugstorefront is48 ½feet. Theapplicant’splansforCarpet Oneand Center Druginclude breaks inexterior materials, transitioning from atumbled stoneveneer toa brickveneer. Additionally, sections oftheexisting canopy andparapet frombothbuildings will beremoved toprovideanarticulation inthesefeatures, whichwillmakethetwostorefronts moredistinctive andvisually interesting. Windows andDoors. TheDowntown Overlay District requires thataminimum of30percent oftheground levelfaçadeandsideofbuildings adjacent topublicstreets shallconsist of transparent materials. Theapplicant’splansinclude largewindows alongthefacadesofboth buildings andglassdoors. Theelevations clearly demonstrate thattheplansexceed thisstandard. Alternatives 1.Recommend approval ofthesiteplan application. Byrecommending approval ofthis application, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofapproval. Planning Application 18-09-SP Page4 2.Recommend denialofthesiteplanapplication. Byrecommending denialofthisapplication, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofdenial. IfthePlanning Commission considers thisoption, findings willhavetobeidentified thatsupport thisalternative. 3.Continue forfurther information. IfthePlanning Commission indicates thatfurther information isneeded, theitemsshould becontinued.  CITYOFHOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-06 ARESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVEASITE PLAN FOR FAÇADE IMPROVEMENTS ATCARPET ONE AND CENTER DRUG WHEREAS, Tillman Properties, Inc.initiated anapplication forsite plan review for façade improvements forthe propertiescurrently known as907 and913 Hopkins Center; WHEREAS, these propertyare legally described asTracts C,D,E,F,G,H,I,andJ,Registered Land Survey No. 953, County ofHennepin, onfileandofrecord intheRegistrar ofTitles and County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, theprocedural history oftheapplication isasfollows: 1. That asiteplan application was initiated bytheapplicant onJune 20, 2018; 2. That theHopkins Planning andZoning Commission, pursuant topublished and mailed notice, held apublic hearing ontheapplication andreviewed such application onJuly 24, 2018: allpersons present were given anopportunity tobeheard; and, 3. That thewritten comments andanalysis ofCity staff were considered. AND, WHEREAS, staff recommended approval oftheproposed siteplan based onthefindings outlined inthestaff report dated July 24, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVEDthat thePlanning & Zoning Commission oftheCity of Hopkins hereby recommends theCityCouncil approve thesiteplan application forCenter Drug and Carpet One, subject totheconditions listed below. 1. Issuance ofabuilding permit. 2. Allexterior signage shall beapproved through aseparate signpermit. th Adopted this 24day ofJuly 2018. James Warden, Chair Hopkins CenterDrugandCarpetOne TillmanProperties isapplying forasiteplanreviewforafaçaderemodelfortheHopkins CenterDrug andCarpetOnebuildings, locatedat907and913HopkinsCenter. Allexteriorwoodfinishesonthe walls, canopyandsoffitswillberemoved, andthestorefronts, signs, andexteriorlightingwillalsobe removed. Sections oftheexistingcanopyandparapetforbothbuildings willberemoved tomakethese featuresmoredistinctive. FortheCarpetOnebuilding, atumbledstoneveneerwillbeaddedtothebuilding front,uptothe canopy. Thecanopyoverthemainentrancetothebuildingwillbeachampagne colormetalwith recessedLEDlighting. Theawningsoverthetwowindows flankingthemainentrance willbecanvaswith analuminumframe. TheupperthirdofthebuildingandtheparapetwillbecoveredwithEIFS. New signagewillbeaddedwithdownlights andthewindows willbereplaced. FortheCenterDrugbuilding, abrowntumbledbrickveneerwillbeaddedtothebuildingfront, upto thecanopy. Theheightoftheveneer finishwillbethesameastheCarpet Onebuilding. Thecanopywill beamediumbronzecoloredmetalwithrecessedLEDlighting. Theupperthirdofthebuilding andthe parapetwillbecoveredwithEIFS.TheportionoftheEIFSthatisatthesameheightasthecanopywill includeverticalgrooves. Thesefinisheswillwrapfourfeetaroundthewestsideofthebuilding. The remainder ofthewestsideandthenorthsideofthebuildingwillbepainted. Newsignagewillbeadded withdownlights andthewindows willbereplaced. July24, 2018 Planning Application 2018-11-VA Gambucci LotVariance forPID23-177-22-14-0053 Proposed Action: Staffrecommends thePlanning & Zoning Commission adoptthefollowing motion: Move toadoptPlanning & Zoning Resolution 2018-09, recommending theCityCouncil denythe variance requests fromTroyGambucci theunaddressed parcel on21stAvenue NorthwithProperty Identification Number (PID) 23-117-22-14-0053 Overview Theapplicant, TroyGambucci, requests lotwidthandsideyardsetback variance toallow st construction ofasinglefamilyhomeontheproperty locatedatthesoutheast corner of21 th Avenue North and4StreetNorth. Thesevariances include alotwidthvariance from35feetto 33.3 feetandasouthsideyardsetback variance from8feetto5feet. Based onthefindings detailed below, staffconcludes theapplicant hasnotdemonstrated apractical difficulty with meeting theCityzoning requirements asrequired byMinnesota StateStatute 462.357, Subdivision 6. Asaresult, staffrecommends theCitydenytheapplicant’srequest. Primary Issues toConsider Background LegalAuthority Variance Review Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2018-09 Applicant’sNarrative SiteLocation Map st Picture of34921Avenue North from1960 rd WestMinneapolis 3Division Plat PlansandBuilding Elevations JasonLindahl, AICP CityPlanner Financial Impact: $ N/ABudgeted: Y/N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2018-11-VA Page2 Background. Thesubjectproperty wasplatted asLot30, Block 4,WestMinneapolis 3rd Division in1888. In1951, Stalla Wynkoop purchased thesubjectproperty andthefour contagious lotstothesouth (Lots26, 27,28,29and30). ThatsameyearMs. Wynkoop builta st houseat34921Avenue North(Lots29 & 28)leaving Lot30tothenorth (thesubject property)andLots26 & 27tothesouthvacant. In1999StellaWynkoop conveyed all5 properties toKurtisWynkoop. Cityrecords seemtoindicatethatallfivelotswereincommon ownership bytheWynkoop familyandfunctioned asoneproperty from 1951until2002. In 2002KurtisWynkoop conveyedall 5properties toarealestatecompany owned bythe applicant’sfamily, OnceLandDevelopment Company. Thatsameyear, OneLandDevelopment Companyconveyed theoriginal houseat34921st Avenue Northandthesubject property totheapplicant’smother, Pamela Karaholios,andsold the2remaining vacant lotstothesouth (Lots26 & 27) toabuilder whoconstructed anew singlefamilyhomeonitin2012. In2013, Ms. Karaholios soldtheoriginal house34921st Avenue NorthtoPeterJAnderson Sr.Trustee whichcontinues tooperateasarentalproperty. In2014, Ms.Karaholios soldthesubjectproperty tothecurrent applicant(herson), Troy Gambucci. Basedonthistimeline, thesubject property hasbeenownedbytheapplicant’s familysince1999. LegalAuthority. Cityreview ofvariance applications isaQuasi-Judicial action. Generally, if theapplication meetsthereview standards, thevariance shouldbeapproved. Thestandards for reviewing variances aredetailed inMinnesota StateStatute 462.357, Subdivision 6. InSummary, variances maybegranted whentheapplicant establishes thereare "practical difficulties" in complying withthezoning regulations. Apractical difficulty isdefined bythefourquestions listedbelow. Economic considerations alonedonotconstitute apractical difficulty. Inaddition, underthestatute, theCitymaychoose toaddconditions ofapproval thataredirectly related to andbeararoughproportionality totheimpact created bythevariance. Variance Review. Staffhasreviewed thevariance requests against thestandards detailed in Minnesota StateStatute 462.357, Subdivision 6andfindstheydonotdemonstrate apractical difficulty. Asaresult, staffrecommends theCitydenytheapplicants request. Thestandards for reviewing avariance application andstaffsfindings foreachareprovided below. 1. Isvariance inharmony withpurposes andintentoftheordinance? Finding: Therequested variances arenot inharmony withthepurpose andintentoftheR-1-A district.Theperformance standards forthisdistrict aredetailed inCityCodeSection 530.05 – Standards fortheRDistricts. According tothistable, parcels intheR-1-A district mustbea minimum of50’ wideand6,000square feetinsize. Bycomparison, thesubject property is33.3’ wideand4,395square feetinsize.Thesedimensions areonly66%oftheminimum required widthand73%oftherequired size.Inaddition tothetypical minimum standards, Section 520.05provides specific exceptions forlotsintheR-1-A district thatarebetween 35’ and40’ wide. Sincethislotisonly33.3’ wide, theseexceptionsdo notapply. 2. Isthevariance consistent withthecomprehensive plan? Finding: Therequested variances areinconsistent withthecomprehensive plan. TheFuture LandUseMapguides thesubject property asLDR –LowDensity Residential. According tothe narrative forthislanduseclassification, itallows forsinglefamilydetached residential dwelling at Planning Application 2018-11-VA Page3 1to7unitsperacre. According toHennepin County, thesubject property is4,395square feet insize. Development onlotsatthissizewould produce adevelopment pattern at9.9 unitsper acre (43,560/4,395=9.9)andexceed theallowable density fortheLRD -LowDensity Residential category. Chapter 4ofthe2030Comprehensive Plan – LandUseandDevelopment details therationale behind theCity’slanduseplan. Thisnarrative supports thepreservation andprotection ofthe City’sexisting residential neighborhoods. Therequested variance wouldallowdevelopment inconsistent withtheCity’slanduseplans. TheLand UseandDevelopment chapter statestheCityregardsthepreservation andprotection ofitsexisting residential neighborhoods asoneofitsmostimportant priorities. TheCitywill work toprotect landusepatterns thatcontinue tosupport singlefamilyhomes. Abalanced supply ofhousing isimportant toHopkins’ efforts toservetheneedsofabroad rangeofresidents. Thelanduseplanidentifies landusepatterns thatwillsupportavarietyof residential usesincluding medium tohighdensity uses, suchascondos, townhomes and apartments. Inordertoaddress residential landusepatterns, Hopkins will: Worktoprotect theintegrity andlong-termviabilityofitslow-density residential neighborhoods andstrivetoreduce thepotential negative effects ofnearby commercial or industrial landthrough zoning, siteplanreviews, andcodeenforcement. Ensure thattheinfilling ofvacant parcels andtherehabilitation ofexisting developed land willbeinaccordance withusesspecified intheComprehensive Plan. Ensure thatincompatible landuseswillbeimproved orremoved wherepossibleandthe landreusedinconformancewiththe Comprehensive Plan. Worktoassure strongandwell-maintained neighborhoods. Worktoenhance avariety ofresidential landusesintheCity. Worktobalance thesupply ofmultiple familyresidential useswithintheCity. 3. Doesproposal putproperty touseinareasonable manner? Finding:Theproposal doesnotputtheproperty touseinareasonable manner. Asdetailed above, therequested variances areinconsistent withthecomprehensive planandnotinharmony withthepurpose andintentoftheR-1-A district. Furthermore, thesetback reduction is unreasonable considering thattheparceltothesouthhasafront doorandsubstantial windows thatfacenorth. Onepurpose ofsetbacks istoprotect neighboring parcels andprovide privacy andaccesstonatural lightandspace. Inthiscase, Mr.Gambucci isseeking toreduce asetback requirement thatisalreadyarelatively modest 8feet. Itwould reduce thesetback by approximately 33%anddecrease theamount ofspace, light, andvisibility provided tothe property tothesouth. Therefore, therequested variance canbecategorized asunreasonable in thisrespect. Planning Application 2018-11-VA Page4 4. Arethere uniquecircumstances totheproperty notcreated bythelandowner? Finding: Therearenotunique circumstances totheproperty thatwerenotcreated bythe landowner. Underthisstandard, theapplicant mustdemonstrate theissuesthatprevent him fromdeveloping thesubject property werecaused bycircumstances unique totheproperty that werenotcaused byhim. WhiletheR-1-Aminimum lotsizeandsetback standards preventMr. Gambucci frombuilding ahomewithout avariance, theserequirements wereinplace whenhe purchased theproperty in2014. Furthermore, thetitlehistory forthesubject property suggests ithasbeenownedbytheapplicant’sfamilysince1999. Therefore, itisreasonable toassumethe applicant should haveknown thelotwasunbuildable. Inaddition, thesubject property’sassessment history andpurchase priceindicate ithadlittle valueandlendfurther support totheconclusion itwasunbuildable. Theapplicant payed 15,000fortheproperty in2014. Andtheappraised taxvaluehasbeenaround $12,000for manyyears. Mr.Gambucci hasonlybeenpaying asmallamount intaxeseachyear (around 500/year). Ifthiswereabuildable lotinthecityofHopkins, itwouldbeworthfarmorethan 12,000 - 15,000andtaxeswouldbemuchhigher. Basedonallofthis, it’s clearthatthe applicant knew (oratleastshould haveknown) thattheselimitations existed. Accordingly, the situation thathefindshimself intodaywascaused byhisowndoing. 5. Willthevariance, ifgranted, altertheessential character ofthelocality? Finding. Granting therequested variance wouldaltertheessential character ofthesurrounding area. Thisstandard evaluates iftheproposed variances wouldproduce adevelopment thatis outofscale, outofplace, orotherwise inconsistent withthesurrounding area.” Thesubject property islocatedonablockthatincludes 12properties. Ananalysis ofthose 12properties findstheyhaveanaverage widthof101’ andanaverage lotsizeof15,172squarefeet. Lotsof thiswidthandsizeallowsforlargerhomes withwidefrontages thatincludes bothahouse and anattached garage andrelatively lowbuilding coverage. Granting therequested variances would allowthesubjectproperty todevelop withasmaller house, lessersetbacks anddenser lot coverage. Thisdesign wouldbeinconsistent withboththedevelopment patternoftheoverall R-1-A district aswellasthe contiguous blockandwouldalter theessential character ofthe surrounding area. Alternatives 1.Recommend approval ofthevariance application. Byrecommending approval ofthese applications, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofapproval.Should the Planning & Zoning Commission considers thisoption, itmustalsoidentify specific options thatsupport thisalternative. 2.Recommend denialofthevariance application. Byrecommending denialofthevariance application, theCityCouncil willconsider arecommendation ofdenial. 3.Continue forfurther information. IfthePlanning Commission indicates thatfurther information isneeded, theitemsshould becontinued.  CITY OFHOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018-09 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OFVARIANCE REQUESTS FROM TROY GAMBUCCI FOR THE UNADDRESSED PARCEL ON21 STAVENUE NORTH WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (PID) 23-117-22-14-0053 WHEREAS, theCityofHopkins existing under thelaws ofthe State ofMinnesota; and WHEREAS, Troy Gambucci avacant, unaddressed st parcel ofrealproperty located on21Avenue North andlegally described below: Lot30,Block 4,West Minneapolis Third Division, Hennepin County, Minnesota. and WHEREAS, theProperty iszoned R-1-A,single- and two-family highdensity residential; and WHEREAS, theApplicant purchased theProperty from hismother, Pamela Karahalios, in 2014 forapproximately $15,000and theProperty hasalways appraised atlessthan that amount for purposes ofrealestate taxes; and WHEREAS, until theProperty wasconveyed totheApplicant byhismother in2014, itwas predominantly held incommon ownership with theparcel tothesouth, which contains asingle-family residence; and WHEREAS, thesingle-family residence tothesouth faces north directly toward theProperty andutilized theProperty asafront yard anddriveway inthepast, though itsdriveway waseventually st reconfigured toprovide access from 21Avenue North; and WHEREAS, theCity hasadopted azoning ordinance andother official controls forreasons thatinclude, butare notlimited to,protecting thecharacter ofproperties and areas within the community, promoting theproper useofland andstructures, fixing reasonable standards towhich buildings, structures andland must conform forthebenefit ofall,andprohibiting theuseofbuildings, structures andlands inamanner which isincompatible with theintended useordevelopment oflands within thespecified zones; and WHEREAS, the width oftheProperty is33.36feetand, although Section 530.05oftheCity Code requires aminimum lot-width of50feetintheR-1-Adistrict, thegrandfather clause contained inSection 520.05, subd. 1oftheCity Coderelaxes thatrequirement to35feetforcertain lotssolong asallother ordinance requirements are met; and 1  WHEREAS, Section 530.03, subd. 2(c) oftheCity Code requires thatsingle-family dwellings intheR-1-Adistrict beatleast 20-feetwide andcontain side setbacks ofatleast eight feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant totheaforementioned code provisions, theApplicant hasmade a request totheCity foralot-width variance andasidesetback variance inorder toconstruct asingle- family dwelling on theProperty thatmeets therequirement thatasingle-family dwelling have a minimum width of20feet; and WHEREAS, pursuant toMinnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6(2), ariances shall only bepermitted when theyare inharmony with thegeneral purposes andintent oftheordinance andwhen thevariances areconsistent withthecomprehensive plan. Variances may begranted when theapplicant forthevariance establishes that there arepractical difficulties incomplying withthe zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," asused inconnection with thegranting ofavariance, means that theproperty owner proposes tousetheproperty inareasonable manner notpermitted bythe zoning ordinance; theplight ofthelandowner isduetocircumstances unique tothe property not created bythelandowner; andthevariance, ifgranted, willnotalter theessential character ofthe locality. Economic considerations alone donotconstit and WHEREAS, onJuly 24, 2018, pursuant totheprocedural requirements contained inSection 525.07oftheCity Code, theHopkins Planning andZoning Commission held a opportunity tobeheard. The Commission also took into consideration the written comments and analysis ofCity staff; and WHEREASrequest andhissubmissions, thewritten staff report, andafter careful consideration ofallother written andoral comments concerning the requested variances, theCommission makes thefollowing findings offact with respect tothe aforementioned criteria provided inMinnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6(2): 1. Isthevariance inharmony with thegeneral purposes and intent ofthe ordinance? Finding: Therequested variances arenotinharmony with thepurpose andintent ofthe from established minimum lotstandards. Additionally, the grandfather clause that the Applicant seeks tohave applied totheProperty expressly applies onlytolots that otherwise meet allzoning requirements, acondition that theProperty clearly fails to adhere to. 2. Isthevariance consistent withthe comprehensive plan? Finding: Therequested variances are inconsistent with thecomprehensive plan. The Property isguided long-term for lowdensity residential and, accordingly, toallow development onlotsof thisnominal sizewould produce adevelopment pattern that far exceeds theallowable density forthat category. Therequested variances would further failtoadhere tothe goal ofpreserving andprotecting theexisting residential neighborhoods. 2  3. Does theproposal puttheProperty touseinareasonable manner? Finding: Theproposal does not puttheProperty touseinareasonable manner. The Applicant isseeking toutilize analready relaxed lot-width requirement and further requests relief from amodest eight foot setback requirement. Theproposal would substantially reduce thesetback byapproximately 33% -and decrease the amount of space, light, andvisibility provided tothesurrounding properties, oneofwhich directly faces theProperty. 4. Are there unique circumstances totheProperty notcreated bytheApplicant? Finding: There arenounique circumstances totheProperty that werenot created bythe Applicant. The applicable R-1-Astandards were inplace when theApplicant purchased theProperty in2014. TheProperty hasalways been taxed atanominal rate that isfar lessthan thatofwhich would otherwise beowed onabuildable parcel intheCity. Those facts, along with numerous other factors outlined in thestaff report, indicate that the Applicant had ample reason toknow that asingle-family residence could notbe constructed ontheProperty. Additionally, theProperty and theadjacent parcel tothe south have been controlled bytheApplicant family formany years. Byremoving the Property from common ownership with theparcel tothesouth, theApplicant andhis family unilaterally created what isnow astandalone, unbuildable lot. 5. Will thevariances, ifgranted, alter theessential character ofthelocality? Finding: Granting therequested variance would alter theessential character ofthe surrounding area. would beinconsistent with both the development pattern oftheoverall R-1-A district aswell asthecontiguous blocks surrounding theProperty, thus resulting inadwelling that would beoutofscale, outof place, and entirely inconsistent with thesurrounding area. Moreover, itwould result in thesingle- proposed structure. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITRESOLVED bythePlanning andZoning Commission ofthe City ofHopkins that therecitals setforth inthisResolution areincorporated into andmade part of thisResolution, andmore specifically, constitute theexpress findings oftheCommission. NOW, THEREFORE, BEITFURTHER RESOLVED bythePlanning and Zoning Commission oftheCity ofHopkins thatbased onthefindings offactcontained herein andthefailure oftheApplicant tomeet anyofthefiverequired criteria, theCommission hereby recommends that theCityCouncil oftheCityofHopkins deny . th Adopted this24dayofJuly, 2018. James Warden, Chair 3