ZN 94-02 � t Y O
G '�
��
�� <���
April 19, 1994 ti o � y Planning Report ZN 94-2
p K �
INTERIM ORDINANCE- SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to a�prove Resolution RZ94-5 recommendin�
apnroval of Ordinance 94-739�lacin¢ a moratorium on the Subdivision Ordinance Section
500.
Overview.
At the April 5, 1994, City Council meeting the City Council directed staff to have the Zoning
and Planning Commission consider recommending placing a moratorium on subdivisions
within the City. The purpose of this moratorium is to provide sta� time to study the
subdivision ordinance for possible changes.
There have been no amendments to the subdivision ordinance since at least 1977. The City
^ Attorney has identified several sections in this ordinance that are unclear or outdated and
therefore should be revised. If the City Council approves the moratorium, the staff will
undertake a process of reviewing other subdivision ordinances and propose amendments to
the Hopkins subdivision ordinance.
Primarv Issues to Consider.
o What is the time period recommended for the moratorium?
o What are the staff concerns as relates to the subdivision ordinance?
o Why is the staff recommending a moratorium?
o What is the impact of the moratorium?
Supporting Documents.
o Analysis of Issues
o Resolution RZ94-5
o Ordinance 94-739
o Memo from Jerre Miller
� �
Nancy Anderson, AICP
�.� Planner
I °� �`§*.,,f_ ~^ , �� � • � :
f bt'� i e: r� c �� �t ,,�t� .
� �� i�'� , s� ' � t Y ,�, „ . #
A�� r��{ � �r't r g�� ��s^.i����,_ .
' . � .+ S� ,�^�i;� ''y� 'r � 'r�a1, �ii � rF?d^+;�.i.X\ S ,;�y. �`ti .
VY :� '.�+4 ..1� x� �'..k 4 ;s.Ys,i� `` .��.'p '�,'` y+�., '�S �y � .
I , � J T`� t 4 )�� S?��� .f � j4��q .
S� � .L .��i 1
I ...-�a. ... r _.. � ``'`$i '")[\� ��: �Y� 1 �l
. ;? �g�. �.:� -h�'�(�.�'`S: �1 ...�., - . B.
'�c�11k��q,�q . ��/+�' � . � �,,Y�`M q:�
)
. ' �� � � ��;� � .. _����
. . � . :_�'.� ._'�Y� . �` .. . _ , - - .:.M�:eCS���. . . '
. . " .. " . . . . -� �r� . . . . . ... •-.-• . ... . . � .. .. .. .
�
�
\
ZN94-2
Page 2
^
Primary Issues to Consider.
o What is the time period recommended for the moratorium?
Staff is recommending that a moratorium of a year or upon the enactment of an amendment to
the subdivision ordinance. Depending on the number of amendments to the ordinance, the
process can take several months. The moratorium can be extended an additional 18 months,
but the staff feels that it should take less than one year to revise the ordinance.
o What are the staflF concerns as relates to the subdivision ordinance?
The staff is concurs with the attached City Attorney's opinion on problems with the
subdivision ordinance. The subdivision ordinance has not been updated since as least 1977
and there are some sections that should be updated and clarified.
o Why is the staf�'recommending a moratorium?
The staff is recommending a moratorium to allow sufficient time to review and make
recommendations for possible changes to the subdivision ordinance.
o What is the impact of the moratorium?
^ During the time there is a moratorium on subdivisions, there can be no approvals of
subdivisions or wavier of plats.
Alternatives
1. Recommend approval of the moratorium on subdivisions. By recommending approval of
the moratorium on subdivisions, the City Council will consider a recommendation of
approval.
2. Recommend denial of the moratorium on subdivisions. By recommending denial of the
moratorium, the City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. However, the
staff could still undertake the process of revising the subdivision ordinance. There is the
possibility a subdivision could be submitted prior to the ordinance being revised, which if
it meets all the requirements of the subdivisions ordinance, would probably be approved.
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
�
RESOLUTION NO RZ94-5
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON SUBDIVISIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Hopkins, has adopted Ordinance No. 500 approving a subdivision
ordinance, and
WI�REAS, the City Council has concerns regarding the ability for the City's existing
code to adequately regulate subdivisions with the City of Hopkins and protect the public health,
safety and welfare;
WHEREAS, it has been determined necessary, to protect the public health, safety and
welfare, to establish a moratorium to allow the City of Hopkins to study issues pertaining to
subdivisions and possible amendments to the City Council to better regulate said subdivisions.
NOW THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED, that a moratorium on the Subdivision Ordinance
Section 500, within the City of Hopkins is approved. Said moratorium shall extend until June 7,
1995 or upon the enactment of a zoning amendment concerning this matter, whichever comes
first.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, City Council adopts a interim Ordinance 94-739 �'
conforming in all respect to the moratorium adopted by this resolution.
Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota at a regulaz meeting
held the 3rd day of May , 1994.
JAMES A. GENELLIE CHARLES D. REDEPENNING
City Clerk Mayor
JERRE MII,LER
City Attorney
\✓
_^
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE 94-739
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN THE
CITY OF HOPKINS
WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is necessary for the health, safety, and welfare
of the residents of the City of Hopkins to study and consider an amendments the Subdivision
Ordinance within the City
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statues 462.355 subd, 4 allows a city to adopt an interim
ordinance when undertaking a study to revise the subdivision ordinance by amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City of Hopkins, Minnesota,
Effective upon adoption of this ordinance, a moratorium shall be imposed upon the
approval of all subdivisions within the City.
This moratorium shall be for the purpose of allowing the City of Hopkins to study and
� consider amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance and shall expire June 7, 1995 or upon the
enactment of amendments concerning this matter, whichever comes first.
First Reading: May 3, 1994
Second Reading: May 17, 1994
Date of Publication: May 25, 1994
Date Ordinance Takes Effect June 14, 1994
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
.-�
,
�.i-�-V� \��
� �,�� ji
\���� ,
�,� �
C I T Y O F H O P K I N S
MEMO
Date: April 5, 1994
To: Nancy Anderson
From: Jerre Miller
Re: Revision of Subdivision Regulations
A recent review of Chapter V of the Planning & Land Use Regulations
in the Ordinance pertaining to subdivision regulations (Section
500) disclosed a number of ambiguities as well as old or obsolete
definitions and language utilized in the Ordinance that made its
interpretation susceptible to ambiguity if not outright confusion.
An example of the language to which I refer can be found in
500.27( 10) which attempts to define or refer to private rights-of-
' way. It states:
�
Subd. 10. Private Riqhts-Of-Way. Private rights-of-way
shall not be approved nor shall public improvements be
installed in any private street.
The very next paragraph (Subd. 11 ) states:
Subd. 11. Hardship To Owners Of Adioininq Property
Avoided. The right-of-way arrangements shall not be such
as to cause hardship to owners of adjoining property in
platting land and providing convenient access to it.
As you can see from comparing these two subdivisions, apparently
one seeks to prohibit private rights-of-way while the other
recognizes right-of-way arrangements as long as no hardship is
caused to its adjacent owners.
Another example of clumsy and confusing language is found in Code
500. 55( 2 ) . That states:
Subd. 2. Size. The lot dimensions and subdivisions
designed shall not be less than the minimum dimensions
required to secure the minimum lot area specified in the
zoning code.
Is this particular definition limited to square footage or is there
importance to be attached to the word "dimensions" which would �
c - \file\Zzoplcins\na-memo
1010 First Street South,Hopkins,Minnesota 55343 612/935-8474
An Equal Opportunity Employer
� suggest that minimum dimensions or boundaries of a lot are related
to square footage of the lot.
Another example is found in 515.07(81 ) of the Zoning Code wherein
an attempt to define a "through lot" refers to one that does not
abut two substantially parallel streets. In the Hayes' issue the
proposed parcel Mr. Hayes wished to create abutted Loring Road and
the Webster Way cul-de-sac. Although this was interpreted as a
through lot, a strict interpretation of the definition that the lot
abutted substantiallv parallel streets does not necessarily fit
easily within the definition.
Zoning Code 560.05 requires that lots must abut upon a street for
at least 20 feet. The purpose of this dimension is unable to be
determined.
The Hayes' proposal also raised an issue of first impression that
a lot or subdivisions of an existing lot could be drawn in such a
way to meet technical requirements of the Ordinance but which would
create a lot footprint that was substantially different in
dimension and design than other existing lots in a plat. For this
reason alone, it would be useful to examine and compare all
existing plats within the City and the existing lot dimensions of
them together with a determination of the opportunity for lot
subdivision in a technical sense in order to see whether a
restrictive definition requiring a new lot to substantially conform
_� in design to existing lots would be appropriate.
There are other definitions in which the language could be
clarified and made more understandable.
The remaining item I would recommend for review would be the
platting and subdivision procedures or sequences themselves to see
whether they can be streamlined and made more efficient for an
applicant or developer.
For these reasons, an interim ordinance declaring a moratorium on
plats and lot subdivisions should be recommended to the Council in
order to give you sufficient time to conduct this review and
recommend changes to these ordinances.
JAM
�
c _ \file\2zoplcins\na-m�mo