Planning and Zoning Commission

HOPKINS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, December 18, 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 August 28, 2018, Planning & Zoning Commission V. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2018-14-VA & SUB Engelbret Lot Split Variance 2. Planning Application 2018- 15-CUP 8090 Excelsior Blvd ( Dock 1 Bargains) VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. Harley Hopkins Family Center CUP Amendment Neighborhood Meeting – January 10th 2. Southwest LRT Approvals 3. 8th Avenue Reconstruction Award 4. City Hall Remodel IX. ADJOURN  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, August 28, 2018 – Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES August 28, 2018 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on August 28, 2018, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Hopkins City Hall. Present were Commission Members James Warden, Emily Wallace-Jackson, Kristin Hanneman, Samuel Stiele, Elizabeth Goeman and Gerard Balan. Commissioner Laura Daly was absent. Also present was Bolton & Menk Senior Urban Planner Haila Maze and City Planner Jason Lindahl. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Warden called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Balan moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adopt the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/ CONCERNS – None. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Wallace-Jackson moved, Commissioner Stiele seconded, to approve the minutes of the July 24, 2018, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2018-10-AMD Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that the draft plan is the culmination of over two years of planning, engagement, research and community conversation on a broad vision for the community. The Planning Commission was asked to review the draft plan for completeness and consistency with the previous discussions that have taken place, and to recommend the City Council release the draft plan for the six-month review period required by the Metropolitan Council. Haila Maze, Senior Urban Planner for Bolton & Menk (the City’s consultant on the project), presented to the Planning Commission a summary of the draft comprehensive plan. After Ms. Maze’s presentation, Chairman Warden opened the public hearing. Peg Keenan, Executive Director of ICA food shelf, came forward to address the Commission. Ms. Keenan questioned the intersection between affordability in Hopkins and keeping older buildings up to date. Renovated properties may increase in rent/ value therefore making them less affordable. The plan should acknowledge the challenge in balancing these priorities. Ms. Keenan also stated that 55% of the ICA food shelf’s clients come from Hopkins (ICA also serves multiple communities between Hopkins and Shorewood), which means around 17.8% of Hopkins residents at least occasionally use the food shelf – though not all are regulars. Ms. Keenan also highlighted the way renters are considered versus homeowners. Renting is sometimes viewed as temporary or a stepping-  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, August 28, 2018 – Page 2 stone but in Hopkins, many renters are here and continue to rent for many years because they are committed to this community. Also coming forward to address the Planning Commission was Larry Hiscock, a six-year resident of Hopkins who also participated in the advisory committee for the comprehensive plan. Mr. Hiscock stated that the region has entrenched racial and economic disparities, which reflect past actions by cities – who in turn have a responsibility to address them. Mr. Hiscock also stated that the comprehensive plan generally reflects the ideas, suggestions and values around equity and disparities that were discussed by the advisory committee, though the plan may need stronger language in terms of policies and more clarification as to roles and responsibilities. Policies should reflect that 66% of housing in Hopkins is currently rental, so rental-related policies benefit the majority of the community. Mr. Hiscock suggested the plan needs more clarification in terms of new public sources for preserving existing housing stock and policies for new housing such as inclusionary zoning and right of first refusal. With no one else coming forward to speak, Commissioner Wallace-Jackson moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded to close the public hearing. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairman Warden led the Planning Commission through each section of the comprehensive plan for discussion and comment. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission included: Table of Contents: add page numbers Land Use (page 28): include reference to the fact that the land use approach is different than in other communities, and add percentages of land use acreages ( note: this information is in the appendix and can be brought forward to the main document to make it more visable). Land Use (page 31): du/ ac should be spelled out as “ dwelling units per acre” Land Use (page 36): clarify policy on preserving and enhancing existing housing units to make it clear it is not intended to imply direct City subsidy Transportation (page 45): add transit policy language that supports the development of a bus circulator route between LRT stations and Downtown; also clarify the definition of demand responsive transit and include examples Housing (page 55): clarify that enforcing housing and yard maintenance is not intended to represent a change in practice that is more proactive than the current system; also clarify what it means to protect single family neighborhoods from “ encroachment” – ensure that new description references specifically development Quality of Life (page 69): do not specifically call out affordable housing for artists; artist housing is not consistent with racial equity goals due to typical tenant mix; if it is included, emphasize need for diverse residents; in general, focus should be on affordable housing for everyone; counterpoint: artists bring vibrancy and unique perspectives that add value to the community so should still encourage artists to live here Natural Environment (page 74): need to define how “ environmentally sensitive” areas are determined (note: some of this information is in appendix and can be brought forward to main document)  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, August 28, 2018 – Page 3 Economic Environment (page 94 and others): since the city does not directly benefit from adding jobs, need more emphasis in this section on tax base, including specific goals around creating sufficient value to sustain public infrastructure and system. In addition to growing the tax base, should also emphasize using limited resources and infrastructure more efficiently; also ensure this is reflected as possible benchmark value in the implementation element Downtown (page 100): move “ remaining unique” to the top of the list; this is very important and a key differentiator for Hopkins; central social district is also very important. Should indicate that the unique downtown is an important marketing tool for Hopkins – and it keeps getting nicer Implementation (page 106): move parking requirements study to short term; any zoning related items should be in the short term too Implementation (page 113): move affordable housing implementation steps into the short term timeframe, rather than medium term – these are high priorities. After the Planning Commission finished their discussion and provided comment, Commissioner Balan moved, Commissioner Wallace-Jackson seconded, to adopt Planning Resolution 2018-10, recommending the City Council accept the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins and authorize its release for the statutorily required six-month review period. The motion was approved unanimously. Mr. Lindahl stated that this item will be presented to the City Council at the Tuesday, September 4, 2018 meeting. OLD BUSINESS – None. NEW BUSINESS – None. ANNOUNCEMENTS During the announcements, City Planner Jason Lindahl updated the Planning & Zoning Commission on the following items: 1. Previous items before the Planning & Zoning Commission: Planning application 2018-07-RZ & SP 65 – 7th Avenue South site plan & first reading of the rezoning ordinance was approved by the City Council at their Tuesday, August 21, 2018 meeting. The second reading of the ordinance will go before the Council at their next meeting on Tuesday, September 4, 2018. Planning application 2018-08-CON R-1-C Minimum Lot Size went before the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, August 21, 2018. Similar to the suggestions by the Planning Commission, the City Council ultimately recommended the applicant complete a variance application, which the applicant has since submitted. The variance application will go before the Planning Commission at the September 25, 2018 meeting. Planning application 2018-11-VA Gambucci Setback Variance was denied by the City Council at their meeting on Tuesday, August 21, 2018 after taking into consideration the recommendation from the Planning Commission and comments from the public opposed to the variance request.  UNOFFICIAL Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, August 28, 2018 – Page 4 ADJOURN Commissioner Wallace-Jackson moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Pearsall December 18, 2018 Planning Application 2018-14-VA Engelbret Minimum Lot Size Variance for PID 20-117-21-33-0016 Proposed Action: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt the following motion: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2018-11, recommending the City Council approve the minimum lot size variance requests from David and Karen Engelbret for the property located at 137 Maple Hill Road (PID 20-117-21-33-0016) Overview The applicants, David and Karen Engelbret, request a minimum lot size variance to subdivide their existing single family lot located at 137 Maple Hill Road. This property is located in the Interlachen Park neighborhood south of Excelsior Boulevard, north of Hopkins’ border with Edina, west of the Meadowbrook Golf Course and east of Blake Road. The applicants request to subdivide their existing 160’ wide by 132’ deep 21,125 square feet single family lot in two. This design would produce two single family lots that meet the minimum 80’ lot width standards but would be approximately 1,440 square feet smaller than the 12,000 square feet minimum lot size required by the R-1-C zoning district. The applicants initially brought this proposal to the City as a concept plan last summer. Both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the City Council were generally supportive of the proposal and suggested the applicant apply for a minimum lot size variance so the City could formally evaluate their request. Based on the formal review of the applicant’s variance application as detailed below, staff finds the applicant has demonstrated a practical difficulty with meeting the City zoning requirements as required by Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. As a result, staff recommends the City approve the applicant’s request. Primary Issues to Consider Background Legal Authority Existing Conditions Variance Review Subdivision Proposal Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Proposed Lot Survey Resolution 2018-11 R-1-C Zoning District Analysis Map Site Location Map F.A. Savage Interlachen Park Plat Applicant’s Narrative Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted: Y/ N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2018- 14-VA Page 2 Background. The applicants purchased their home in 1985 and have remodeled over the years to meet their needs. Their home has three levels and the Engelbret’s have reached a point in their lives when they would prefer single level living. The ability to divide their property would provide funds to either remodel their existing home to include a master bedroom and bath on the main level or build a new single level home to meet their needs on the newly created lot. According to the Engelbrets their preference is to remain in Hopkins but feel if they are not permitted to divide their property they would most likely sell it and purchase a different home in an adjacent community. Existing Conditions. The applicant’s property was originally platted in 1911 as Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 6 of F.A. Savages Interlachen Park (see attached plat). This plat created a 16- block subdivision with each block having dimensions of 600 feet wide by 264 feet deep. With this design, each block contained 30 lots with dimensions of 40 feet wide by 132 deep (with some minor deviations). Subsequent to creation of the plat, the City established the R-1-C zoning district with minimum lot standards of 80 feet wide and 12,000 square feet in size. These standards do not fit with the dimensions for lots in the original plat because ( assuming to maintain the original 132 feet lot depth) each lot would need to be almost 91 feet wide (91’ x 132’ = 12,012 square feet). The R-1-C zoning district includes all of the Campbell, Park Ridge, and Interlachen neighborhoods and portions of the Avenues West and President’s North Neighborhood (see attached map). An analysis of the R-1-C district finds the average lot size is 12,733 square feet but the median (the midpoint of all lots on a list from largest to smallest) is 10,665 square feet. Therefore, the average lot is larger than the 12,000 square feet minimum requirement but 50 percent of the lots are smaller than 10,665 square feet. The applicant is proposing two 80’ wide by 132’ deep single family lots that would be 10,560 square feet in size. This is 1,440 square feet smaller than the 12,000 square feet minimum requirement but only 105 square feet smaller than the median lot size. The map appears to show most of the lots that are smaller than the average are located in the Campbell, Park Ridge and President’s North neighborhoods; however, there are also a substantial portion within Interlachen Park. Subdivision Proposal. The applicant propose to subdivide the existing 160’ wide by 132’ deep 21,125 square feet property in to two single family lots. Those lots would be 80’ wide by 132’ deep and approximately 10,560 square feet in size. The northern lot would retain the applicants’ existing single family home but require the relocation of their existing detached garage on the newly created lot. The new southern lot could contain a new single family home. While the newly created lots would meet the minimum lot width standard, they would fail to meet the minimum lot size requirements necessitating the applicant’s variance request. Should the City approve the minimum lot size variance, the applicant could then apply for an administrative subdivision to split the property. Legal Authority. City review of variance applications is a Quasi-Judicial action. Generally, if the application meets the review standards, the variance should be approved. The standards for reviewing variances are detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6. In Summary, variances may be granted when the applicant establishes there are " practical difficulties" in complying with the zoning regulations. A practical difficulty is defined by the five questions listed below. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In addition, under the statute the City may choose to add conditions of approval that are directly related to and bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. Planning Application 2018- 14-VA Page 3 Variance Review. Staff has reviewed the variance request against the standards detailed in Minnesota State Statute 462.357, Subdivision 6 and finds it demonstrates a practical difficulty. As a result, staff recommends the City approve the applicant’s request. The standards for reviewing a variance application and staff’s findings for each are provided below. 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: The requested variances is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R-1-C district. The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 530.05 – Standards for the R Districts. These standards allow for single family detached dwellings on lots that are a minimum of 80 feet wide. The requested variance would allow the applicants to meet the single family detached dwelling use and 80 feet minimum lot width requirements while maintaining the existing 132 feet deep lot dimension. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The requested variances is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan because it would meet the density standards and goals and policies of the LDR – Low Density Residential future land use category. The Future Land Use map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property as LDR – Low Density Residential. According to the narrative for this land use classification, it allows for single family detached residential dwelling at 1 to 7 units per acre. According to Hennepin County, the subject property is 21,125 square feet in size. The applicant’s minimum lot size variance request would produce two 10,560 square foot single family lots at a density of just over 4 units per acre (43,560/ 10,560 = 4.12). Development at this density is within the allowable range for the LDR - Low Density Residential category. Goals and policies from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that would align with the requested variance include: Protect residential neighborhoods. Retain and enhance detached single-family homes. Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing. Continue to strive for a mix of housing that accommodates a balance of all housing needs. While not formally approved, it is worth noting that the requested variance would also be consistent with the future land use category proposed for the subject property by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins. If approved, that plan would designate the future land use category for the subject property as Suburban Neighborhood with a density range of 2 – 4 units per acre. 3. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The proposed variance would allow creation of two 80 foot wide by 132 feet deep 10,560 square foot single family lots. Single family lots of this size are in harmony with the single family use and 80 foot wide zoning standards of the R-1-C district and consistent with the density and goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Planning Application 2018- 14-VA Page 4 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. The original plat created lots that were 40 feet wide and 132 feet deep. These dimensions would naturally create lots that were 5,280 square feet for a single lot or 10,560 square feet for two lots. Based on the design and dimensions of the original plat, a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size is impractical. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. This standard evaluates if the proposed variances would produce a development that is “ out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area.” The original plat created 16 block each containing 30 lots with dimensions of approximately 40 feet wide by 132 feet deep. While the historical development pattern has not strictly followed the original design, an analysis of the neighborhood found the median lot size to be 10,665 square feet. The applicant’s minimum lot size variance request would produce two 80 feet wide by 132 feet deep 10,560 square foot single family lots. Lots with this design are generally consistent with the both the original plat and predominant existing surrounding development pattern. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the variance application. By recommending approval of the application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the variance application. By recommending denial of the variance application, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. Should the Planning Zoning Commission consider this option, it must also identify specific findings that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning & Zoning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the items should be continued.  CITY OF HOPKINS HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- 11 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF MINIMUM LOT SIZE VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM DAVID AND KAREN ENGELBRET FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 137 MAPLE HILL ROAD WITH PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ( PID) 20-117- 21-33-0016 WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins ( the “ City”) is a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, David and Karen Engelbret ( the “ Applicant”) are the fee owners of 137 Maple Hill Road legally described below: Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 6 of F.A. Savages Interlachen Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota. the “ Property”); and WHEREAS, the Property is zoned R-1-C, Single- family Medium Density residential; and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a zoning ordinance and other official controls for reasons that include, but are not limited to, protecting the character of properties and areas within the community, promoting the proper use of land and structures, fixing reasonable standards to which buildings, structures and land must conform for the benefit of all, and prohibiting the use of buildings, structures and lands in a manner which is incompatible with the intended use or development of lands within the specified zones; and WHEREAS, Section 530.05, of the City Code requires that single- family dwellings in the R- 1-C district be at least 80-feet wide and at least 12,000 square feet in size; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforementioned code provisions, the Applicant has made a request to the City for a minimum lot size variance in order to subdivide their existing 160 feet by 132 feet 21,125 square foot property into two 80 feet by 132 feet 10,560 square feet properties; WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6(2), “[ v]ariances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. " Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.”; and 1  WHEREAS, on December 18, 2018, pursuant to the procedural requirements contained in Section 525.07 of the City Code, the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission ( the “ Commission”) held a public hearing on the Applicant’ s requested variances and all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard. The Commission also took into consideration the written comments and analysis of City staff; and WHEREAS, based on a review of the Applicant’ s request and their submissions, the written staff report, and after careful consideration of all other written and oral comments concerning the requested variances, the Commission makes the following findings of fact with respect to the aforementioned criteria provided in Minnesota Statutes, section 462.357, subd. 6(2): 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Finding: The requested variances is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the R-1-C district. The performance standards for this district are detailed in City Code Section 530.05 – Standards for the R Districts. These standards allow for single family detached dwellings on lots that are a minimum of 80 feet wide. The requested variance would allow the applicants to meet the single family detached dwelling use and 80 feet minimum lot width requirements while maintaining the existing 132 feet deep lot dimension. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Finding: The requested variances is consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan because it would meet the density standards and goals and policies of the LDR – Low Density Residential future land use category. The Future Land Use map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property as LDR – Low Density Residential. According to the narrative for this land use classification, it allows for single family detached residential dwelling at 1 to 7 units per acre. According to Hennepin County, the subject property is 21,125 square feet in size. The applicant’s minimum lot size variance request would produce two 10,560 square foot single family lots at a density of just over 4 units per acre ( 43,560/ 10,560 = 4.12). Development at this density is within the allowable range for the LDR - Low Density Residential category. Goals and policies from the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that would align with the requested variance include: Protect residential neighborhoods. Retain and enhance detached single-family homes. Encourage the development of owner-occupied housing. Continue to strive for a mix of housing that accommodates a balance of all housing needs. While not formally approved, it is worth noting that the requested variance would also be consistent with the future land use category proposed for the subject property by the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins. If approved, that plan would designate the future land use category for the subject property as Suburban Neighborhood with a density range of 2 – 4 units per acre. 3. Does the proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Finding: The proposal would put the subject property to use in a reasonable manner. The proposed variance would allow creation of two 80 foot wide by 132 feet deep 10,560 square foot single family lots. Single family lots of this size are in harmony with the single family use and 80 foot wide zoning standards of the R- 2  1-C district and consistent with the density and goals and policies of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? Finding: There are unique circumstances to the property that were not created by the landowner. The original plat created lots that were 40 feet wide and 132 feet deep. These dimensions would naturally create lots that were 5,280 square feet for a single lot or 10,560 square feet for two lots. Based on the design and dimensions of the original plat, a 12,000 square foot minimum lot size is impractical. 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the locality? Finding: Granting the requested variance would not alter the essential character of the surrounding area. This standard evaluates if the proposed variances would produce a development that is “ out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent with the surrounding area.” The original plat created 16 block each containing 30 lots with dimensions of approximately 40 feet wide by 132 feet deep. While the historical development pattern has not strictly followed the original design, an analysis of the neighborhood found the median lot size to be 10,665 square feet. The applicant’s minimum lot size variance request would produce two 80 feet wide by 132 feet deep 10,560 square foot single family lots. Lots with this design are generally consistent with the both the original plat and predominant existing surrounding development pattern. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins that the recitals set forth in this Resolution are incorporated into and made part of this Resolution, and more specifically, constitute the express findings of the Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins that based on the findings of fact contained herein, the Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Hopkins approve the Applicant’ s requested variance. Adopted this 18th day of December, 2018. James Warden, Chair 3 137 Maple Hill Road Site Location Map  Zoning Variance Request David and Karen Engelbret, property owners and applicants Address: 137 Maple Hill Road, Hopkins MN 55232 Legal Description: Lots 8, 9, 10, and 11, Block 6, "F.A. Savage' s Interlachen Park" Zone R-1-C Phone Home: 952-933-7904; Cell 952-393-5767 Statement of Request We request a variance to split our existing 160' wide by 132' deep single family Jot into two 80' wide by 132' deep single family lots. This would produce two single family lots that meet the minimum 80' width standards but would be approximately 1,440 sq. ft. smaller than the current 12,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size required by the R-1-C zoning district. The northern lot would retain our existing single family home with a relocated garage meeting city zoning standards. The new southern lot would likely have a new single family home. The ability to divide our property would provide funds to remodel our existing home for one-level living or to sell our current home and build on the newly created lot. Both the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission ( 7/24/18) and the City Council 8/21/18) were supportive of our concept review plan and pursuit of a variance to address our specific circumstances. Our variance proposal meets the "Practical Difficulty" legal standard based on the five criteria addressed below. 1. Is variance in harmony with purposes and intent of the ordinance? Yes. Based on current lot sizes in the R-1-C district, the two 10,560 sq. ft. Jots resulting from the split are in harmony with the R-1-C neighborhood Jots . The median R-1-C district lot size is 10,665 sq. ft., meaning 50% of the lots are smaller than the median. By our count, approximately 47% of the lots in our Interlachen Park neighborhood are under the 12,000 sq. ft. minimum size. 2. Is the variance consistent with the comprehensive plan? Yes. It is our understanding the 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows for single family detached residential dwellings at I to 7 units per acre. Our lots at I0,560 sq. ft. produce a development pattern at just over 4 units per acre. That is within the allowable range for the proposed category. It also preserves and protects the existing residential neighborhood. 3. Does proposal put property to use in a reasonable manner? Yes. The variance most likely would result in one new single family home and the modernization / enhancement of the existing single family home built in 1918. It would also enable us to continue Jiving in our neighborhood of 34 years and age in place. 4. Are there unique circumstances to the property not created by the landowner? One unique circumstance is the lot's size. To our knowledge our property in Interlachen Park is the only one in our neighborhood having both the square footage and building layout for a potential split. In City meetings, we learned only about five properties throughout the district may have similar circumstances. A second unique circumstance is the current 12,000 sq. ft. R-1-C district minimum lot size requirement. According to the City's research, which was discussed in the Concept Plan Review meetings with City representatives, the requirement is not reflective of the actual lot sizes in these neighborhoods. Approximately half the existing properties do not meet the current lot sizerequiremen.t 5. Will the variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? No. The resulting two properties would fit seamlessly into the neighborhood. Close neighbors have expressed their support and four neighbors have expressed interest in buying the property. Homes in the Interlachen Park neighborhood are continually being updated to meet the needs of residents who wish to remain living in the neighborhood. We too hope to continue living in Hopkins. 30: 01 AMLegend City Boundary Lakes and Rivers 0 0. 5MilesSource: City Limits County of Hop Hannan Lake GdWX MINNETONKA ManitobaRoad CrossroadMinnetonka Blvd GdWX d ST. LOUIS AveSL oringRoa PARK GÓWX a Cree ekMi n nehah k A@18thAveS13thAveSCambridge St akHopkins Highway 7 13thAveN7thAveN12thAveS9thAveSOxford St A@ 4th St N 3rd St N aukeSt2ndStN E Minnehaha C r e d15thAveN9thAveN 17thAveS5thAveS1st St N 20thAveN16thAveN6thAveS8thAveSHil St E x c e ls i or Blv GbWX S21stAveN10thAveNS8thAveN Mainstre et 1st St S Milw 7thAveS3rd St S GbWX TylerAveN1thAveNJacksonAveN6thAveN17thAveN5th St S 1 thAveS14thAveN6th St S EDINA GÇWX 7th St Sha dyOakLake d 8th St 12thAveNHighway169Oakridge Road2n Wod hill 18thAveN19thAveS19thAveNWestbrooke W Ct Ninemile Creek yAtwater C Zoning ( Single Family 10: kins, MnG eo StRampBlake Road arcserver1\ gis\HOPK\_ He Ninemile Cre nnep in Coun ty, NMap Document: \\ e MnDO T I Service Layer Basemap\ ESRI\ Credits: Hopkins ZoningHopkins, MN R- Maps\ 2018\ HOPK_ R-1-C_ ZoningMean_ 11x17L.mxd Date|Saved:5/ 11/2018 1- December 18, 2018 Planning Application 2018-15-CUP Conditional Use Permit for Jacob’s Trading, LLC (Dock 1 Bargains) Located at 8098 Excelsior Boulevard (PID 19-117-21-14-0006) Proposed Action: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2018-12, recommending the City Council approve a conditional use permit for Jacob’s Trading, LLC (Dock 1 Bargains) to operate a subordinate retail use in an Industrial zoning district at 8098 Excelsior Boulevard (PID 19-117-21-14-0006), subject to conditions. Overview The applicant, Jacob’s Trading, LLC, requests a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a subordinate retail use in the I-2, Industrial zoning district. Jacob’s Trading Company is a wholesale buyer/ distributor of excess, customer returns and/ or closeout goods directly to retailers. They now wish to diversify their business to include direct selling to the public at their warehouse location. According to the applicant, use of a portion of their warehouse as a supportive retail space is needed to keep their business viable in a rapidly changing competitive environment. The I-2, General Industrial district allows a limited amount of retail or service use provided it is secondary and directly related to the primary industrial use through a conditional use permit. Staff has reviewed this application against the conditional use permit standards and recommends approval of this request. Primary Issues to Consider Background Conditional Use Permit Standards Alternatives Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2018-12 Site Location Map Applicant’s Narrative Plans Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted: Y/ N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2018- 15-CUP Page 2 Background. According to the applicant, Dock 1 Bargains is a unique discount warehouse open to the public offering quality brand name merchandise well below standard retail pricing see attached narrative). Most of the merchandise in their warehouse is open box, excess inventory, and returned merchandise from big box retailers such as furniture, electronics, housewares, outdoor patio, sporting goods, toys and tools. The use of this space as a retail location is needed to keep their business viable in a rapidly changing competitive environment. Dock 1 Bargains offers these goods at significantly reduced prices. This business model is only possible by reducing storage and handling costs through selling directly from a warehouse facility. It should be noted that Dock 1 Bargains began operation without the necessary zoning approvals. Staff only became aware of their operation after hearing advertisements on the radio and noticing a temporary banner sign placed on a parked semi-trailer. Staff also received an exterior lighting complaint from the adjacent Interlachen Park neighborhood. Once staff was aware of these issues, we reached out to the property owner Alex Ugorets who facilitated a connection with the business. Both the property owner and business owner have been cooperative with correcting the exterior lighting and signage violations and applying for the necessary conditional use permit. Conditional Use Permit. Conditional use permit applications are considered quasi-judicial actions. In such cases, the City is acting as a judge to determine if the regulations within the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance are being followed. Generally, if the application meets these requirements they are approved. In evaluating this conditional use permit application, the City shall consider and require compliance with the specific conditions for retail or service uses subordinate to a principal industrial use in Section 530.09, Subdivision 1.b and the general conditional use standards detailed in Section 525.13, Subdivision 15. The City Council may impose conditions and require guarantees in the granting of conditional use permits. Any use permitted under the terms of any conditional use permit shall be established and conducted in conformity to the terms of such permit. Section 530.09, Subdivision 1.b. The specific standards for subordinate retail or service uses in industrial districts are detailed below. These uses must be at least 10 percent but not more than 25 percent of the principal industrial use. 1. That a traffic study is completed. Findings: Based on staff observation of the existing business and lack of any specific traffic complaints related to their operation, staff is agreeable to waiving the standard for a traffic study. The City reserves the ability to require a traffic study in the future based on observed traffic issues or complaints. 2. Such accessory use is completely enclosed within the principal structure. Findings: Based on information from the applicant and periodic site inspections, Dock 1 Bargains operates completely inside their warehouse. Section 525.13, Subdivision 15. General conditional use permit standards. Planning Application 2018- 15-CUP Page 3 a) Consistency with the elements and objectives of the City's development plan, including the comprehensive plan and any other relevant plans at the time of the request. Finding: The existing office warehouse use with associated retail is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The future land use map in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the subject property as BP – Business Park. This category allows for office and office-services uses such as office-showroom, research and development facilities or banks. b) Consistency with this ordinance. Finding: The proposed subordinate retail use is consistent with the existing I-2, General Industrial district. This district allows for retail or service uses subordinate to the principal use as a conditional use, provided such uses exceed 10 percent but not more than 25 percent. According to the applicant, Dock 1 Bargains occupies approximately 25,000 to 30,000 square feet of the 275,000 square foot Jacob’s Trading building. c) Creation of a harmonious relationship of buildings and open spaces with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. Finding: Staff finds the proposed subordinate retail use will not significantly alter the existing relationship of buildings and open space with natural site features or their visual relationship to the development. d) Creation of a functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1.) An internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. Finding: Staff finds the subordinate retail use will not impact the internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site. 2.) The amount and location of open space and landscaping. Finding: The proposed subordinate retail use does not require additional open space or landscaping. 3.) Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses. Finding: The proposed subordinate retail use will operate completely within the existing Jacob’s Trading building and does not require expansion of this facility. Therefore, staff finds this standard does not apply to this application. 4.) Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and Planning Application 2018- 15-CUP Page 4 vehicular traffic and arrangements and amount of parking. Finding: Staff finds the site may have adequate off-street parking. The City’s off-street parking standards require 1 stall per 200 square feet of retail, 1 stall per 250 square feet of office and 1 stall for every 6,000 square feet of warehouse. An inventory of the existing parking finds 56 existing stalls with considerable area for additional parking. Based on the finding that the site appears to operate with the existing amount of parking, staff is agreeable to this design subject to a condition of approval requiring the applicant submit a proof of parking plan demonstrating the site can provide the required amount of off-street parking or conduct a traffic and parking study demonstrating the site has adequate off-street parking. e.) Promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading. Finding: Given the proposed subordinate retail use will not alter the existing building or site, staff finds this condition does not apply to this application. f.) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. Finding: The proposed subordinate retail use will not impact many of these conditions surface water drainage, preservation of views) and the applicant has already worked with staff to address exterior lighting and signage issues. In addition, the use has been operating for some time without other violations or complaints. Staff will continue to monitor the site for these issues. g.) The use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor tend to or actually diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed subordinate retail use should not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity or diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood. h.) In Institutional zoning districts, the Conditional Use Permit application shall comply with the standards, conditions and requirements stated in Section 542.03 of this Ordinance. Finding: Section 542.03 provides for standards related to a conditional use that includes demolition or removal of dwelling units and does not apply to this application. i.) Traffic impacts such as increases in vehicular traffic, changes in traffic movements, traffic congestion, interference with other transportation systems or pedestrian traffic, and traffic hazards shall be considered by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council in evaluating an application for a Conditional Use Permit. Planning Application 2018- 15-CUP Page 5 Finding: See Item d.4 above and staff recommended condition of approval. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit amendment. By recommending approval of this conditional use permit, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit amendment. By recommending denial of this conditional use permit, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning & Zoning Commission considers this option, findings must be identified that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued.  CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 2018- 12 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR JACOB’ S TRADING, LLC (DOCK 1 BARGAINS) TO OPERATE A SUBORDINATE RETAIL USE IN AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 8098 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD PID 19-117-21-14-0006) WHEREAS, the applicant, Jacob’ s Trading, LLC, initiated a conditional use permit ( CUP) application to allow Dock 1 Bargains to operate a subordinate retail use in an Industrial zoning district at 8098 Excelsior Boulevard; WHEREAS, the property is legally described as follows: THAT PART OF E 635 FT OF LOT 75 LYING SLY OF NWLY 30 FT THOF ALSO E 635 FT OF LOT 76 EX ROAD, AUDITOR' S SUBDIVISION NO. 239 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application to amendment the existing conditional use permit was initiated by the applicant on November 23, 2018; and 2. That the Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to published and mailed notice, held a public hearing and reviewed such application on December 18, 2018 and all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins hereby recommends the City Council approve a conditional use permit allowing Jacob’ s Trading, LLC Dock 1 Bargains) to operate a subordinate retail use in an Industrial zoning district at 8098 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to the conditions listed below. 1. The applicant shall submit a proof of parking plan demonstrating the site can provide the required amount of off-street parking or they may conduct a traffic and parking study demonstrating the site has adequate off-street parking. 2. The applicant shall receive approval of all necessary building permits. 3. Conformance with the building and fire codes. 4. Conformance with all conditional use permit standards in Section 525.13, Subdivision 15, and the specific conditions for subordinate retail uses outlined in Section 530.09, Subdivision 1.b. 5. This conditional use permit expires one year after it has been issued unless the use for which the permit has been granted is in effect. 6. Once established, if a use granted by conditional use permit ceases to operate for six months, the conditional use granted for that property will expire. Adopted this 18th day of December, 2018. James Warden, Chair Site Location Map – Dock 1 Bargains 8098 Excelsior Boulevard Applicant’ s Narrative The applicant, Jacobs Trading LLC located at 8090 Excelsior Blvd, Hopkins, MN 55343 is seeking a conditional use permit to allow us to operate a small off-price retail location in the leased warehouse space that JTC occupies at the above address. JTC has set aside approximately 25,000 – 30,000 sq. ft. of space for the retail location, with approximately 1/ 3 of that space used for assembly, set-up, pricing and is off-limits to customers. The store, known as Dock 1 Bargains is in the south-west corner of the building and covers 10% - 15% of the total building total building. Jacobs Trading has 275,720 sq. ft. under lease from Ugorets Properties at this address. Dock 1 Bargains sells merchandise commonly found in department stores, including furniture, electronics and general merchandise. Exhibit A is an architect’ s drawing of the building with Dock 1 Bargain’ s space highlighted. In addition, attached are several photographs of the parking lot to show that there is ample parking, the entry and dock door 1. Response to item 3 written justification for request, including discussion of how any potential conflicts with existing nearby land uses will be minimized. The use of this space as a retail location is needed to keep our business viable in a rapidly changing competitive environment. The merchandise that Jacobs Trading buys and sells is commonly found in department stores and on-line sites. Certain types of merchandise such as in-door and out-door furniture is usually sold in brick and mortar establishments, which is the only viable sales offering for this merchandise due to costs of shipping. The merchandise that we buy, and sell is off-price merchandise, such as customer returns, end-of-season goods, off-shore merchandise and merchandise with small dents and blemishes. We offer these goods at significantly reduced prices. To keep the price reasonable for buyers, we need to operate on a very small budget, which we only can do by reducing handling and storage costs by selling from our warehouse. Buyers that are looking for great deals on items have always put up with a little inconvenience. We do not anticipate any conflicts with existing and nearby land uses as much of the area is already zoned for mixed application including retail. There are no changes to the building or its adjacent property. There is ample parking and entry and egress to the property and the building is sufficient. In the case of any conflicts that may arise Jacobs Trading LLC is committed to hearing out the conflict and resolving it to satisfaction. If there are any concerns or