Planning and Zoning Commission

HOPKINS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA Tuesday, May 28, 2019 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 April 23, 2019 Planning & Zoning Commission V. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2019-07-AMD Accessory Building Standards Text Amendment 2. Planning Application 2019- 08-AMD Final 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins VI. OLD BUSINESS VII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Election of Planning & Zoning Commission Officers for 2019/2020 VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS 1. April Planning Commission Items IX. ADJOURN DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, April 23, 2019 – Page 1 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES April 23, 2019 A regular meeting of the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission was held on April 23, 2019, at 6:30 p.m. in the Training Room at Hopkins Fire Station. Present were Commission Members James Warden, Samuel Stiele, Elizabeth Goeman, Gerard Balan, Emily Wallace-Jackson, Kristin Hanneman and Laura Daly. Also present was City Planner Jason Lindahl. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Warden called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. ADOPT AGENDA Commissioner Wallace-Jackson moved, Commissioner Hanneman seconded, to adopt the agenda. The motion was approved unanimously. OPEN AGENDA – PUBLIC COMMENTS/ CONCERNS – None. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Goeman moved, Commissioner Balan seconded, to approve the minutes of the March 26, 2019, regular meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Planning Application 2019-06-AMD Wilshire Properties, LLC Zoning Code Text Amendment Mr. Lindahl gave an overview of this item stating that the applicant, Bruce Lawrence of Wilshire Properties, LLC, requests a zoning code text amendment to allow Licensed Residential Programs for 7 to 10 persons as a conditional use in the R-1-D and R-1-E districts. Mr. Lindahl continued that recent complaints from the surrounding neighborhood led city staff to conduct a series of site inspections and contact the property owners regarding these issues. This process found the property housed a licensed residential facility with 10 residents. Under state law, this type of facility is permitted in any single-family residential district provided it has no more than six residents. As a result, staff initiated a code enforcement process to bring the site into compliance. In response, the property owner filed for the stated application to change the zoning standards to allow a Licensed Residential Facility serving 7 to 10 residents as a condition use in the R-1-D and R-1-E districts. Staff recommends denial of this request. Chairperson Warden opened the public hearing. Coming forward to address the Commission was the applicant, Bruce Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence shared some background information on the history of the group home and the services they provide to their residents. Mr. Lawrence also detailed the requested changes to the zoning code for Conditional Uses within the R Districts to include Licensed Residential Programs Service 7 to 10 Persons. DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, April 23, 2019 – Page 2 Shannon Schlecht, elected official of the Knollwood Association and resident at 302 Cottage Downs, shared concerns on how allowing the proposed changes to the zoning code could potentially affect the future of the single-family neighborhood in a negative way and the precedent it could set for other group homes to also start allowing more residents. Commissioner Daly followed with a question on how the difference between six or nine residents specifically affects the neighborhood. Mr. Schlecht did not have an example available but replied that the increase in persons contributes to more activity, deliveries, garbage, etc. The Commission asked about the number of cars regularly coming and going from the group home and how that has negatively affected the neighborhood. Mr. Schlecht did not have an average number to provide to the Commission. Marshal Taniguchi, 122 Wilshire Walk, commented that he is very supportive of group homes and the services they provide, but is wondering what the proper number of residents for a group home is. Mr. Taniguchi also referenced a study that discusses how the quality of life starts to decrease starting at four residents living in a group home, and drops significantly after six. Arthur Horowitz, resident of the Knollwood neighborhood, is supportive of the group home within the confines of current state law and City ordinance but is concerned that increasing the number of residents opens the neighborhood up to the possibility of major changes. Ben Rubin, 115 Cottage Downs, is not supportive of the zoning amendment and believes the change, even with the conditions proposed by the applicant, creates the possibility of major changes to the neighborhood. Mr. Rubin is in favor of letting the residents that are currently there stay until they choose to move out or are otherwise no longer living there, after which the property will operate within the current standards. Chairperson Warden questioned whether the City would allow the property to continue to operate under the violation and gradually come into compliance with the standards. Mr. Lindahl replied that he would have to discuss that with the City attorney. Kim Burmeister, 810 Edgemoor Drive, addressed the Commission seeking clarification on who is the owner of the property and who runs the group home. Susan Reader, 417 Cottage Downs, shared concerns about the number of cars in the neighborhood around the group home. Jim Hicks, 815 Park Terrace, commented on the amount of income the group home brings in monthly with each resident. Sharon Steinfeldt, 240 Bridle Lane, is supportive of the group home but is not in favor of changing the current zoning and shares concerns that allowing more residents will alter the feel of the neighborhood. Jed Gurlin, 805 Park Terrace, shared a quote from Hubert Humphrey: “The measure of a society is how we take care of the most vulnerable among us.” DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, April 23, 2019 – Page 3 Bruce Lawrence was invited to address the Commission and answer the questions and concerns from the community: Related to parking and number of cars coming and going from the property, Mr. Lawrence explained that they operate a one to three staff to resident ratio. A maximum of three staff members come and go during shift changes throughout the day. Visitors of residents may also periodically park their cars in the driveway. There could be 9 or 10 cars parked at the property at any given time. In terms of how the traffic affects the Knollwood neighborhood; the applicant does not believe it should, based on the location of the driveway on Oak Ridge Road and not Wilshire Walk. In response to the comment on how the number of residents affects quality of life, additional staff is added to be sure there is adequate care for each resident. If the application is denied, a current resident in need of special care would need to be moved to another facility. In response to emergency evacuations, there are plans for safe evacuation of the residents in case of an emergency. Addressing the concern of how the text amendment could encourage other group homes in the area to expand in a similar way, the applicant reiterated the requested conditions of the text amendment would ensure other group homes would have to go through the same conditional use process in order to make any changes to how they operate. Regarding the ownership of the property, the applicant owns the care business that operates inside the property but does not own the property itself. In response to a comment about a large amount of cars at the property for a dying person, it does not happen often and is usually only for a short period of time. The applicant is willing to make alternations to help conceal the view of cars in the driveway. If the application is denied, the applicant requests some time to locate another facility for a resident in need of special care. The Commission questioned how much time is reasonable to move the resident; the applicant responded a minimum of 30 days. John and Deb Anderson, 203 Wilshire Walk, commented on how the property at 601 Wilshire Walk is the perfect location for the group home and lists the only concern as group homes taking over the rest of the neighborhood. With no one else wanting to speak, Commissioner Wallace-Jackson moved and Commissioner Balan seconded to close the public hearing at 8:06 p.m. The motion was approved unanimously. Commission discussion after the public hearing included: There are multi-family residential zones in Hopkins that are zoned to accommodate group home 7-16 residents. How was this group home previously introduced to the City Council as an 8-bed facility and not recognized as a violation of City Code? Mr. Lindahl responded that he was not a staff member at that time, but believes the prior operators made a good faith effort to introduce themselves to the City Council and because the Council did not have the standards of the City Code in front of them during the meeting, the violation was not immediately DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, April 23, 2019 – Page 4 recognized. However, this does not require the City to continue to allow the violation to continue. What are the next steps in the process if the City approves the applicant’s proposal for the text amendment? Mr. Lindahl responded that applicant would need to come back though the conditional use permit process and meet whatever the City ultimately sets. Concern over the precedent the zoning amendment could provide to other group homes and the risk of affecting single-family neighborhoods. Concern for the current residents required to vacate if the zoning amendment is denied. Commissioner Daly agreed with an earlier comment about 601 Oakridge as an ideal location for the group home. Confirmation that the applicant cannot split the lot under current zoning, which would not change with approval of the proposed text amendment. The City can set standards that would limit the number of group homes in a single-family neighborhood with seven or more residents; however, group homes with six or fewer residents cannot be restricted as it is state law. Support for protecting single-family neighborhoods, but concern about the impact on the vulnerable individuals being cared for by the group home. Discussion of the option to table the item in order to examine the broader picture against the Comprehensive Plan. With no further discussion by the Commission, Commissioner Daly moved and Commissioner Goeman seconded, recommending the City Council approve the zoning code text amendment request from Wilshire Properties, LLC to allow Licensed Residential Programs serving 7 to 10 Persons as a conditional use in the R-1-D and R-1-E zoning districts. The motion was approved 4-3 with Commissioners Balan, Warden, Daly and Goeman voting for, and Commissioners Wallace- Jackson, Hanneman and Stiele voting against. This application will be presented to the City Council at their May 7, 2019 regular meeting with the Planning Commission’ s recommendation for approval. OLD BUSINESS 1. Planning Application 2018-12-AMD 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Mr. Lindahl gave a brief overview of the item before introducing Haila Maze from Bolton & Menk who presented a summary of the comments received during the comment period for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission was instructed to review the comments and draft responses and determine if there should be any changes to how comments are addressed. When Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council reviews are complete (including a public hearing), the plan will be approved by resolution for submittal to the Metropolitan Council for formal review. Once the plan is submitted, the Met Council will have 15 business days to do a completeness review. If any issues are found, they will be brought to the attention of the city via a letter. The City then will have an opportunity to work with the Met Council to resolve any remaining items before final approval by both bodies. DRAFT Minutes of the Planning & Zoning Commission, April 23, 2019 – Page 5 The Commission requested receiving the draft a week in advance of the public hearing to allow more time for review. NEW BUSINESS – None. ANNOUNCEMENTS – None. ADJOURN Commissioner Goeman moved, Commissioner Balan seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 9:04 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Courtney Pearsall Administrative Assistant May 28, 2019 Planning Application 2019-07-AMD Zoning Code Text Amendment Related to Standards for Accessory Dwellings Proposed Action: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Resolution 2019-08, recommending the City Council approve a Zoning Code Text Amendment Related to Standards for Accessory Dwellings. Overview The applicant, Robb Stephens, requests a zoning code text amendment related to standards for accessory buildings. While the zoning code text amendment would apply throughout the City, the applicant is attempting to revise these standards to allow him to construct an additional detached accessory building (garage) on his property. That property is located near the intersection of Minnetonka Boulevard and Hopkins Crossroad in the Bellgrove neighborhood at 3321 Hopkins Crossroad. It is guided by the comprehensive plan and zoned for low density single family activity. The applicant requests increases to the number and size of accessory buildings in the R-1-E zoning district. Staff recommends approval of this request based on the findings made in this report, subject to revised front yard setback and design standards. Primary Issues to Consider Background Zoning Code Text Amendment Potential Non-Conformity Issues Alternatives Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Resolution 2019-08 Site Location Map Public Comments Applicant’s Narrative Zoning Map Jason Lindahl, City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted: Y/ N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2019- 07 AMD Page 2 Background The Background section includes information on accessory buildings and structures, the applicant’s request and public comments received to date. Accessory Buildings or Structures. Section 515.07, Subdivion 36 defines an accessory building as “ a building, the use of which is incidental or complimentary to the principal use on a lot; an accessory building is (i) detached if it is located more than six feet from the nearest wall of the principal building or (ii) attached if located six feet or less therefrom.” Common examples of accessory buildings in residential districts include sheds, gazeebos and detached garages. Applicant’ s Request. The applicant’s narrative (attached), requests an amendment to Section 520.07 - Accessory Buildings and Structures. These standards were last updated in 1987 and detailed in the table below. In all residential zoning districts, no individual property may have more than two (2) accessory buildings. By comparison, the size standards is based on the size of the particular property but is capped at 1,000 square feet. As a result, a 8,333 square foot lot in the core of Hopkins would be allowed the same number and size of accessory buildings as a 40,000 square foot lot in the Bellgrove neighborhood (8,333 x 12% = 1,000 or 40,000 x 6% = 2,400) because of the 1,000 square cap. Accessory Building Standards in Single Family Residential Zoning Districts District Accessory Building Minimum Lot Size Typical Accessory Standard ( 1,000 sq. ft. Cap) Building R-1-A 12% 6,000 square feet 720 square feet R-1-B 10% 8,000 square feet 800 square feet R-1-C 8% 12,000 square feet 960 square feet R-1-D 6% 20,000 square feet 1,200 square feet R-1-E 6% 40,000 square feet 2,400 square feet The applicant seeks revisions to the specific standards for the zoning district in which he lives R-1-E, Single Family Low Density). The specific standards for that district allow a total of two 2) detached accessory structures with a maximum total area of six (6) percent of the lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less. The applicant proposes to allow more than two (2) accessory structures and increase the maximum total area to 1,400 square feet, provided no individual building exceeds 1,000 square feet in size. Staff is supportive of these changes provided they also include: A front yard setback requirement that in no case shall an accessory building or structure be located closer to the front property line than the front line of the principal building. Accessory buildings or structures in any zoning district greater than 120 square feet in size shall be compatible in design and materials to the principal building. Minor text revisions to clarify and organize the zoning standards. All of the proposed changes are detailed in the attached marked up zoning text. Should the City approve the proposed changes, the next step for the applicant would be to file for a building permit for their accessory building project. Building permit applications are administratively reviewed by staff. If the application conforms to the applicable standards, staff would approve Planning Application 2019- 07 AMD Page 3 the building permit. Public Comments. The public hearing notification process for zoning text amendments requires the City to publish notice in the local paper at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting. In this case, the City took the extra step to mail notice directly to all residents in the R-1-E zoning district where specific changes are proposed. The R-1-E district is only located in the northern part of Hopkins and covers the entire Bellgrove neighborhood. As a result of the mailed and published notice of this item, the City received five comments prior to the public hearing. Only one commenter submitted something in writing while the other four came through phone calls and wanted to remain anonymous. Tom Lawson (16 ½ Loring Road) submitted comments by e-mail (attached) and is opposed to the proposed changes. Of the other four comments, one indicated support for the proposal while another expressed opposition. The remaining two only asked for more detailed information about the proposal and did not provide an opinion either in support or opposition. Zoning Code Text Amendment Zoning Code amendments are legislative actions in that the City is creating new standards to regulate the development of certain types of uses and/ or structures. Under the law, cities have wide flexibility to create standards that will ensure the type of development they desire. However, zoning regulations must be reasonable and supported by a rational basis relating to promoting the public health, safety and welfare. Based on the findings made below, staff recommends approval of this request. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning code text amendment is consistent with both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendment would allow an increase in the number and size of accessory buildings in the R-1-E Districts (see applicant’s request section above). With these changes staff is also recommending changes to the front yard setback and enhanced design standards for accessory buildings larger than 120 square feet in size. The 2030 Future Land Use Map guides the R-1-D district 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. Chapter 4 of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan – Land Use and Development details the rationale behind the City’s land use plan. This narrative supports the preservation and protection of the City’s existing residential neighborhoods. The Land Use and Development chapter goes on to state the City regards the preservation and protection of its existing residential neighborhoods as one of its most important priorities. The City will work to protect land use patterns that continue to support single family homes. In order to facilitate this residential land use patterns, Hopkins will: Work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of its low-density residential neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of nearby commercial or industrial land through zoning, site plan reviews, and code enforcement. Work to assure strong and well-maintained neighborhoods. Staff finds that a proportional increase in the number and size of accessory building targeted to the R-1-E district will protect this single family neighborhood by promoting investment in these Planning Application 2019- 07 AMD Page 4 properties and encouraging property owners to store their belongings within a building. Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan – Cultivate Hopkins. As the City moves toward adoption of the 2040 Land Use Plan, staff believes it is also important to weigh the goals and policies of this draft plan when considering land use applications. However, it is important to keep in mind the 2040 Plan has yet to be officially approved by the Metropolitan Council or adopted by the City. Still, this draft plan can offer valuable guidance when considering current land use applications. The Draft 2040 Future Land Use Map guide the applicant’s property and all those in the R-1-E district as Estate Neighborhood. As mentioned above, the Estate Neighborhood category is fully contained within the Bellgrove neighborhood along either side of Minnetonka Boulevard. It consists of relatively secluded large lot single family dwellings connected to city sewer and water services. Streets in this area follow a curved and looping design that rarely connects, creating organically shaped blocks to cul-de-sacs that limit pedestrian and bicycle mobility. Properties in this district tend to have larger footprints with attached garages and may include large accessory buildings or amenities. Large lot single family residential should remain the primary use in this category. Densities in this area typically range from 1-2 units per acre on average. The Draft 2040 Plan contains goals and policies that support approval of this application. Staff finds the proposed zoning text amendment will is consistent with the following goals and policies. Built Environment – Land Use & Design Goal 4 - Support and strengthen the city’s residential areas with reinvestment and appropriate infill. The supporting policy for this goal states the City should “ preserve and enhance the community’s detached single family housing stock, especially in the Estate Neighborhood and Suburban Neighborhood future land use categories.” Goal 5 - Reinforce Hopkins’ unique identity and sense of community through high quality urban design. This goal is supported by a policy to “ Reinforce the distinctive characteristics of Downtown and existing neighborhoods by encouraging developments that are compatible in design and supportive within their context.” Goal 6 - Create appropriate transitions between areas of the city where there are potential incompatibilities in land use or scale. This goal is supported by the policy to “Use urban design elements, building massing, land use strategies, and public realm improvements to provide appropriate transitions between developments – particularly those of different scale and intensity.” Compatibility with Present and Future Land Uses. Based on the analysis above, a zoning code text amendment allowing a proportional increase in the number and size of accessory building in the R-1-E district is compatible with both present and future uses. Properties in the R-1-E district are currently, and intended to remain, primarily large lot single family dwellings. The future land use plans in both the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan reinforce this land use pattern and would support a proportional increase in the number and size of accessory building in this zoning district. Conformance with New Standards. The applicant has yet to submit a building permit Planning Application 2019- 07 AMD Page 5 application detailing his future accessory building project. Generally, the applicant has indicated that he would like one additional accessory building (for a total of three on his site) and that additional building would be approximately 1,000 square feet in size. Given this scenario, a future building permit application for an additional accessory building on the applicant’s property should conform to the number and size standards for accessory buildings proposed in the zoning code text amendment. When considering how the proposed zoning changes could impact the community as a whole, it is important to remember that any zoning ordinance text amendment has the potential to create non-conformities (sites or buildings that do not meet the new proposed standard). Generally, the proposed changes would maintain the existing number and size standards for accessory building throughout the City with the exception of the R-1-E district where they would be increased. So it is reasonable to conclude these changes will not cause new non-conformities. Along with the number and size changes detailed above, staff recommends new front yard setback, design standards and minor technical changes. Staff believes the front yard setback and design standards may create minor non-conformities but these changes should still be approved because they are consistent with the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Potential Non-Conformity Issues According to Minnesota Statute 462.357, Subdivision 1e., legal nonconformities generally have a statutory right to continue through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but not through expansion. These rights run with the land and are not limited to a particular landowner. If the benefited property is sold, the new owner will have the same rights as the previous owner. So any non-conformities resulting from these changes would be allowed to continue in their present form as long as it does not expand or is discontinued for a period of more than one year. Alternatives 1. Recommend approval of the zoning code text amendment application. By recommending approval, the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval. 2. Recommend denial of the zoning code text amendment application. By recommending denial, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. Should the Planning & Zoning Commission consider this option, it must also identify specific options that support this alternative. 3. Continue for further information. If the Planning & Zoning Commission concludes that further information is needed, the items should be continued.  CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2019- 08 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES WHEREAS, Robb Stephens initiated an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance related to standards for accessory buildings or structures; and WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application to amend the Zoning Ordinance related to accessory buildings or structures was initiated by Robb Stephens on April 26, 2019; and 2. That the Hopkins Planning & Zoning Commission, pursuant to published notice, held a public hearing to review such application May 28, 2019 and all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 3. That written comments and analysis of City staff were considered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins hereby recommends the City Council of the City of Hopkins approve a zoning code text amendment related to standards for accessory buildings or structures based on the findings of fact detailed in the staff report dated May 28, 2019. Adopted this 28th day of May 2019. James Warden, Chair  Site Location Map Applicant’ s Property R-1-E Zoning District From: Tom Lawson To: Jason Lindahl Subject:[ EXTERNAL] R-1-E zoning district - bellgrove Date: Monday, May 20, 2019 7: 14: 20 AM Jason, My wife and I are opposed to any changes to the number and maximum square footage allowed for accessory buildings per the application from Robb Stephens. If you have further questions underpinning our objection, please let me know. Thanks. My best, Tom Tom Lawson, Ph.D., President LAWSON INTERNATIONAL LTD. 952. 938. 3032 tom@lawson- intl.com  Institutional MixedUse R- 1-B R- 1- IORBLVDLAKE MIN ETONKA LRT EÓGH 2ND ST 5TH N 3RD ST N ST NE EdGH S 6TH ST S ELS 20THAVEN19THAVEN16TH KE GOODRICH ST A@ y NHOPKINS XRD6THAVENMIN ETONKA BLVD LR T NSAINT AL ISST15THAVENBLAKE RD SINTERLACHEN RD7TH AVE AVE N17TH MAPLE AVE EtGH 5TH HILL ST 4TH ST N AVE N8TH Busines Park AVE N1ST ST S IN TLO U SPARK VALEY ILNORTHCEDARLAKETRAILM N R AVE SL SBLAKERDNPARKSIDEBLVD JACKSON S12THAVENHARISON AVE S20TH AVE R LA ASHLEY RD7TH ST RTT 2ND AVE SMINETONKAMILSRD SA N1TH AVE EbGH MAINSTRE T BOYCE RD 1ST ST N11TH AVE y9TH RAIL B-1 B- 2 JACKSONAVENLAKE ST NE IV E R AVE SMANITOBARD S13TH EÇGH AVE N6TH AVE S7TH ED A S TYLER AVE PR A YSAINTALBANSRDW AVE W ESTB R O O EbGH T HEALN 1 3 T H A V E S H I A W A T H A A V E RHERMAN TERA L O R I N GRD MILRDCAMPBEL D DR WPARKLNVANBURENAVENVALEYWAYL FF BL E ST NE X C O N LN RD14TH AVE N2ND U KE W BANS R D E D 18THAVEN8TH AVE NCAMBRIDGE ST B- TR A TRAIL C 3 R- A R- 1- R- 4 2 R-1- C I- 2 Landfill I-1 R- 3 Downtown Overlay District W e st Ma instreet OverlayDistrict East End PUDZoning Districts R-1- O verlay D isrictMap Document: \\metrosouth1\ gis\ A)Single and Two HOPK\ T191 4070\ ESRI\ Maps\Hopk_ZoningMap_22x34P. Fam ily High Density mxd Date Saved: 1/ 26/2018 3: R-1- B) Single 27:26 PMZoning Map Hopkins,M N Family High January 2018 Legend 0 800Feet Source: Density R- City of Hopkins,Hennepin County, & MnGeo 1-C) Single IMunicipal Boundary Regional Trail Wetlands 100 Year Family Medium Density R- Flo dplain Downtown Overlay District East End 1- Overlay Disrict West Mainstreet Overlay District D) R- 1- E R-6 R- 5 B-4 May 28, 2019 Planning Application 2019-08-AMD 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins Proposed Action: Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission adopt the following motion: Move to adopt Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2019-09, recommending the City Council direct the City Planner to distribute the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins to the Metropolitan Council pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 473.864 Overview The latest version of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins is now available on the City’s website for your review. This version reflects edits and revisions made based on feedback received during the required 6 month interjurisdictional review period. The plan is summarized in the attached memo from Haila Maze, Senior Planner with Bolton & Menk, Inc the city’s consultant for this project). Staff will present this information during the meeting and accept feedback from the both the public and Commission during the public hearing. The action before the Planning & Zoning Commission tonight is to conduct a public hearing on the plan and consider a recommendation to the City Council authorizing submittal of the plan to the Metropolitan Council for formal review. Primary Issues to Consider Alternatives Supporting Documents Planning & Zoning Commission Resolution 2019-09 Summary Memo from Haila Maze, Senior Planner with Bolton & Menk, Inc. Jason Lindahl, AICP City Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted: Y/ N ____Source: _____________ Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): _________________________________________ Notes: Planning Application 2019- 08-AMD Page 2 Alternatives 1. Recommend the City Council direct the City Planner to distribute the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins to the Metropolitan Council for review. By recommending approval, the City Council will consider a recommendation to direct the City Planner to distribute the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. 2. Recommend the City Council not direct the City Planner to distribute the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins to the Metropolitan Council for review. By recommending denial, the City Council will consider a recommendation to not direct the City Planner to distribute the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review. Should the Planning & Zoning Commission considers 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 2019-09 A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL DIRECT THE CITY PLANNER TO DISTRIBUTE THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE – CULTIVATE HOPKINS TO THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL PURUANT TO MINNESTOA STATUTES SECTION 473.864 WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.864 requires each local governmental unit to review and, if necessary, amend its entire comprehensive plan and its fiscal devices and official controls at least once every ten years to ensure its comprehensive plan conforms to metropolitan system plans and ensure its fiscal devices and official controls do not conflict with the comprehensive plan or permit activities that conflict with metropolitan system plans; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes sections 473.858 and 473.864 require local governmental units to complete their “ decennial” reviews by December 31, 2018; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2018, the City Council of the City of Hopkins approved Resolution 2018-038 requesting additional time within which to complete the Comprehensive Plan “ Decennial” Review Obligation; and WHEREAS, the City Council, Planning & Zoning Commission, and the City Staff have prepared a proposed Comprehensive Plan intended to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Land Planning Act and Metropolitan Council guidelines and procedures; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 473.858, the proposed Comprehensive Plan was submitted to adjacent governmental units and affected special districts and school districts for review and comment on September 12, 2018, and the statutory six-month review and comment period has elapsed; and WHEREAS, Hopkins Planning and Zoning Commission, pursuant to published notice, held a public hearing on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins and reviewed such draft plan and all public comments on May 28, 2019: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes section 473.858 requires a local governmental unit to submit its proposed comprehensive plan to the Metropolitan Council following recommendation by the planning commission and after consideration but before final approval by the governing body of the local governmental unit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Hopkins hereby recommends the City Council direct the City Planner to distribute the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins to the Metropolitan Council Pursuant To Minnesota Statutes Section 473.864. Adopted this 28th day of May 2019. ________________________ James Warden, Chair  MEMO To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Planning & Zoning Commission From: Jason Lindahl, City Planner and Haila Maze, Senior Urban Planner Date: May 28, 2019 Subject: Cultivate Hopkins Comprehensive Plan Comments Overview The latest version of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update – Cultivate Hopkins is now available on the City’s website for your review by clicking here. This version reflects edits and revisions made based on feedback received during the required 6 month interjurisdictional review period. This memo provides an overview of the plan, summarizes the responses received during the comment period, addresses potential changes to the draft plan and describes next steps for plan review and approval. The action before the Planning & Zoning Commission today is to recommend to the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing submittal of the plan to the Metropolitan Council for formal review. Purpose of the Plan The purpose of this plan update is to provide long range guidance for growth, development, and investment in the City of Hopkins. It will replace the City’ s current comprehensive plan which was adopted in 2009. This comprehensive plan envisions the growth and change the community will see by 2040, and creates a framework for what the City needs to do to get there. To do this, the plan interweaves guidance from City-established goals, public comments and feedback, past plans and initiatives, and analysis of data and trends. As a community within the seven county Twin Cities metropolitan region, Hopkins is required by state statute to update its comprehensive plan every ten years, as part of an overall regional planning cycle managed through the Metropolitan Council. This plan will fulfill all requirements of this cycle. Over the next ten years, the City will make numerous decisions related to development, infrastructure, public services, budgeting, and many other topics that need to be aligned with its overall goals. This plan provides a framework for this decision- making process – to ensure consistency, and progress toward longer range goals. Cultivate Hopkins Vision The concept for Cultivate Hopkins came out of a desire to continue to cultivate and grow the City of Hopkins as a distinct and meaningful place. Based around principles of sustainability, resilience, equity, 1 and complete and connected communities, it provides a framework for preparing for the future. The plan emphasizes retaining what is valued, while proactively addressing and welcoming change. The vision statement for Cultivate Hopkins is: “ Hopkins will cultivate the best elements of the Built, Natural, Social, and Economic Environments into complete and sustainable community that is rooted in tradition, characterized by vibrant and unique places, physically and socially connected, and resilient to changing conditions.” The plan also reflects the 2018 Hopkins City Council Goals and Strategic Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2017. While these goals do not provide detailed guidance for every area covered by the plan, they focus attention on important elements for consideration and action. Sustainability Framework The vision for Hopkins is that of a sustainable community – defined as one that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It is also envisioned as a resilient community – defined as one that is able to respond to social, economic, and environmental changes and disruptions while maintaining its integrity and purpose. The City of Hopkins consulted several best practice materials to shape and inform the framework for the comprehensive plan update. The primary source was Sustaining Places: Best Practices for Comprehensive Plan (American Planning Association, 2015). This document details national best practices for creating a sustainable, resilient and complete community. Traditionally, comprehensive plans were developed from a top-down approach with separate stand-alone chapters focused primarily on land use and physical development. By comparison, Hopkins is using the Sustaining Places document to further enhances the City’ s existing work and ensure the new comprehensive plan fully embraces the topics of resilience, system thinking, community engagement, equity, adaptation and measurable implementation practices. To supplement this framework, the following resources have been used to provide more detailed information, implementation strategies, and best practices. STAR Community Rating System. The Sustainability Tools for Assessing and Rating Communities ( STAR) system, developed by STAR Communities, is used to rate community performance on a range of topics related to promoting local sustainability. GreenStep Cities. Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary program for cities that helps them achieve goals in sustainability and quality of life. Regional Indicators Initiative. Hopkins has participated in the Regional Indicators Initiative, which helps participating communities to benchmark their status on a range of metrics, to measure progress against itself and peer communities. Climate Resilience Workshop Series. In early 2017, Hopkins participated with six other cities in a workshop series designed to identify opportunities to build resilience related to local climate change. What’ s New? The vision for this plan contributed to the decision during the planning process to go over and above what is required by the Metropolitan Council for a comprehensive plan, to include some new elements not previously featured. These sections, detailed on the following page, include: 2  New element on quality of life in Hopkins, facilitated through cross-sector and cross- discipline collaboration, including safety and emergency preparedness, community facilities and infrastructure, and public health New element on sense of community, exploring equity, race, and social connectedness, and the role of the city in addressing disparities and encouraging engagement and connections. New details related to natural resources and environmental responsibility, including renewable energy, climate change and resilience, and sustainable building practices. Expanded focus on economic competitiveness, including community economic development, business development, education, and disparities. The table below summarizes the change in plan format: Existing Plan: Stand- Alone Chapters New Plan: Interconnected Elements Preface and Goals Introduction Community Demographics Community Profile ( appendix) Built Environment Land Use Land Use Transportation Transportation Housing Housing Social Environment Quality of Life Sense of Community Natural Environment Water and Solid Waste Sustainability and Natural Resources Parks and Trails Parks and Trails Economic Environment Economic Competitiveness Downtown Downtown Implementation Implementation The Four Environments Sustainability may be new to comprehensive planning but not to Hopkins. The City Council Goals and Strategic Plan and many of the City’s existing practices and planning documents incorporated various aspects of sustainability. The Cultivate Hopkins 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update seeks to fit together the City’ s existing vision, goals and policies with comprehensive planning best practices in a more relatable, interconnected and measurable comprehensive plan for the future of Hopkins. Rather than traditional individual chapters focused on land use and physical development, the Cultivate Hopkins plan looks at the community’ s through four environments detailed below. 3 Built Environment The built environment is defined as all human-made elements of a space where people live, work, and play. It includes sections on land use and development, multimodal transportation, and housing and neighborhoods. This is the most traditional element of city planning – and the land use map and supporting descriptions are at the hub of the planning framework. This includes Land Use, Transportation, and Housing elements. Social Environment The social environment is defined as human interaction and engagement in the community. It includes sections on public services and facilities, education, public health, community connections, equity, and arts and culture. Much of the content for this element is new to the Hopkins comprehensive plan this time around, motivated by the City’s focus on related issues as citywide priorities. This includes Quality of Life and Sense of Community elements. Natural Environment The natural environment relates to natural systems and resources, including land, water, air, habitat, and ecology. In addition to addressing policies around these specific systems and resources, it includes direction for practices that are specifically aimed at protecting or improving the natural environment, including guidance for parks and open space, renewable energy, and climate change resilience. Economic Environment The economic environment covers the economy, jobs, businesses, income and poverty, and affordability. This section includes economic development and competitiveness, and guidance for Downtown Hopkins ( as the city’s economic hub). Issues related to affordability and poverty are covered in overlapping sections in the built environment ( housing) and social environment ( equity). This includes Economic Competitiveness and Downtown elements. 4 A Plan for the Whole City As is traditionally the case for comprehensive plans, the task of developing the document is being led by the planning staff of the city. However, as this is a plan for the entire city, there are elements which apply to the work of all city leadership and staff. Ways this plan will be used across the entire city include: Provides support for any major new initiatives or investments Guides priorities for capital project budgeting Puts short term implementation in context of longer term goals Establishing a framework for making decisions This plan has been developed to reflect direction for all city operations, although some topics are covered in more detail than others. Review Process to Date In the fall of 2018, the City of Hopkins completed its draft comprehensive plan update and released it for the required six-month interjurisdictional review. The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing to review the draft plan during their regular meeting on August 28, 2018. There was also a public open house prior to the public hearing. The City Council reviewed and officially released the draft plan for public review and comment on September 4, 2018 On September 12, 2018, the City release the draft plan and began the required 6 month interjurisdicational review period. As required, the plan was circulated to adjacent jurisdictions for review and comment, from September 12, 2018 to March 12, 2019. The list of these jurisdictions is provided below. Those in bold provided comments back to the City by the March 12, 2019 deadline. City of Edina City of Minnetonka City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County Hopkins School District #270 Edina School District #273 St. Louis Park School District #283 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Nine Mile Creek Watershed District Three Rivers Park District Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ( MN DNR) Minnesota Department of Transportation ( MnDOT) For the purposes of the review, it is not required that comments be received from all jurisdictions. While the City did not receive written comments from adjacent cities or the county, Hopkins staff have met with staff from St. Louis Park and Minnetonka to discuss shared issues and areas for collaboration. 5 Ongoing coordination between cities and other stakeholders ensures that there is a regular opportunity to address and manage any concerns that arise. During the six-month review, the plan was also submitted to the Metropolitan Council for informal review. This optional step provides an opportunity for feedback regarding consistency with Metropolitan Council standards in advance of the formal review. After the Metropolitan Council staff provided comments, City of Hopkins staff sat down with them to talk through potential responses. During the six month review period the City took the extra step to put the draft plan online and solicit public comments through social media. By the conclusion of the comment period, the City had received comments from the following respondents. The additional stakeholders listed reflect the City of Hopkins’ commitment to higher standards in priority areas, particularly related to equity, the environment, and housing affordability. Peg Keen, Executive Direct at ICA Food Shelf Nathan Miller, Resident of the Moline Larry Hiscock, Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee member and housing advocate Anonymous online commenter Great Plains Institute Center for Economic Inclusion While this memo is focused on elements that need to be updated in the plan, the comments included recognition that the city has already made significant progress on these issues. Comments received and associated changes to the plan are detailed in the attached Comment Tracker table. Comments in the tracker are organized by the for plan elements ( Built, Natural, Social and Economic). Summary of Comments Received The comments received during the comment period and from the Metropolitan Council’ s informal review are included in the attached table. This also includes comments from the Planning Commission and public hearing in August 2018, in the interest of completeness, although some have already been addressed in the current draft. A summary of the comments by plan element is provided below. The table distinguishes between Incomplete Comments and Advisory Comments. Incomplete Comments are identified by the Metropolitan Council as incomplete or inconsistent with regional policy, and must be addressed for the plan to be approved. Additionally, there are advisory comments that may still be important, but are not necessary to meet regional policy standards. Introduction and Forecasts o Need more details as to intentional inclusivity of engagement process o Ensure table of contents is numbered o Update population and employment forecasts to reflect fact that growth has exceeded expectations in recent years Built Environment Land Use 6  o Add more detail to housing density guidance around transit station areas to reflect minimum density requirements of 50 units/ acre, per Metropolitan Council guidance o Various clarifications regarding wording and calculations related to density requirements Transportation o Add more information on roadway lanes o Identify local issues related to freight traffic o Update transit facility information with data on current facilities, existing bus service, and planned improvements Housing o Strengthen language and guidance for how affordable housing tools will be used in the community o Clarify approaches in housing implementation plan regarding specific tools o Consider additional housing strategies such as accessory dwelling units, inclusionary housing policy, and tenant protection policies o Ensure policies reflect high percentage of renters in Hopkins o Clarify language regarding encroachment into single family areas Social Environment Quality of Life o Address artist housing in context of broader affordability and equity needs Sense of Community o Disaggregate data by race where possible to show disparities, and identify needs and opportunities o Add more tools and approaches for addressing racial equity Natural Environment Sustainability and Natural Resources o Update solar access section with performance standards if possible o Add policies to support native plantings and landscaping o Add policies that take planning for wildlife into consideration with development and transportation projects o Include additional natural resource information in the plan o Add resilience policies related to electric vehicles, emergency response, and stormwater management; lessen focus on wind power as its not applicable in Hopkins o Consider targets for carbon reduction and other renewable energy targets Surface Water Management o Extensive comments from both watersheds related to compliance, documentation, and proper procedures – most of which can be fulfilled directly o Request for citywide stormwater modeling may be accomplished over time, but does not seem necessary at present Water Supply 7  o Review of water supply plan is occurring on a parallel path; revised version will be incorporated here, reflecting MN DNR and Metropolitan Council input Wastewater o Include documentation of existing system and its characteristics o Need copies of intercommunity service agreement o Additional detail as to approach to managing inflow and infiltration Parks and Trails o Minor comments related to 17th Avenue study status and length of existing trails Economic Environment Economic Competitiveness o Focus on encouraging business start-ups by people of color, as well as targeting education and other strategies to these populations to support equity o Include reference to growing tax base and using resources efficiently Downtown o Emphasize the uniqueness of downtown as a key differentiator, including central social district concept Implementation o Strengthen language in implementation steps around race equity, including tracking disparities and other tools o Strengthen policy language and toolkit for affordable housing and tenant rights o Zoning and parking related priorities should be short term Recommendation and Next Steps The action before the Planning & Zoning Commission today is to recommend to the City Council adopt a resolution to submit the plan to the Metropolitan Council for formal review. Once the plan is approved and submitted, the Metropolitan Council will have 15 business days to review the plan for completeness. If any issues are found, they will be brought to the attention of the city via a letter. The City then will have an opportunity to work with the Metropolitan Council to resolve any remaining items before final review and approval by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. 8  MEMO To: Planning Commission Chair and Members From: Jason Lindahl, AICP Date: May 28, 2018 Subject: Election of Planning & Zoning Commission Officers for 2019/ 2020 Proposed Action - Conduct nominations and election of officers for 2019/ 2020. Overview According to its Bylaws, the Planning & Zoning Commission must elect a new Chairperson and Vice- Chairperson annually. The process for nomination and election of officers is outlined below. The newly elected officers will take their positions at the July 23, 2019, Planning & Zoning Commission meeting. Process to elect officers The current Chairperson will begin by asking the Commission for nominations for the position of Chairperson. Nominations do not require a " second." After nominations are made, there should be a motion made to close the nominations. A second is necessary to close the nominations. The Commission needs to vote to close the nominations. Ayes/ Nays are needed. If only one nomination is made, the following motion could be used: Move to elect _____________ by unanimous consent to the position of Chairperson." A second to the motion is necessary. Ayes/ Nays are needed. If more than one nomination is made: The current Chairperson will request a show of hands for each nominee and record the votes. Based upon the show of hands, a motion should be made by the Chairperson: Move that ________________ is elected to the position of Chairperson. A second to the motion is necessary. Ayes/ Nays are needed. This process should be repeated for Vice-Chairperson.