CR 2000-61 Ordinance Amendment
I CITY Or: \
March 29,2000
-
Council Report 2000-61
.
NaPKINS
ORDffiANCEAMENDMffiNT
ProDosed Action
Staff recommends the following action: Move to approve Resolution 2000-26. approving of
Ordinance 00-833. rezoning the institutional uses in the R-l zoning districts to an institutional
zoning district.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Gross moved and Mr. Szuba seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZOO~I, recommending approval of Ordinance 00-833, rezoning the
institutional uses in the R-l zoning district to an institutional zoning district. The motion was
approved on a 4-1 vote. Mr. Engel voted nay.
Overview
In' December 1998 the City Council approved an interim moratorium ordinance prohibiting the
demolition or removal of single family residential structures within one- and two-family-zoned
districts. The moratorium was implemented because of a concern that institutional uses in
residential districts have the ability under the present language of the ordinance to remove single
family homes as part of an expansion or new construction project with little or no review by the
City. As part of the moratorium, the housing preservation study was completed.
At the October Zoning & Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved a zoning
ordinance amendment establishing a modified conditional use permit process regulating the
expansion of institutional uses within residential districts. The Council referred the item back to
the Commission. The reason for this action was so that staff could update the Commission on
the discussion the Council had recently, whereby there seemed to be a consensus that a
combination approach combining the exclusive use district and the conditional use permit
process would provide the best protection to the City.
The Planning Commission, at their February meeting, set a public hearing for the March meeting
to review an ordinance that would rezone the R~ 1 institutional uses to an institutional zoning
district.
Primary Issues To Consider
What is the best approach to address this matter?
What are the specifics of the Institutional Use zoning district?
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortim! Documents
· Single Family Housing Preservation Planning Study, dated March 1, 1999
Memo from Jerry Steiner, dated August 31, 1999
Sites to be rezoned
Ordinance 2000-833
Resolution 2000-26
.
Financial Impact: $ N/A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
Y/N
Source:
Planning Report CROO-61
Page 2
Backf!round
As part of the moratorium, a housing preservation study was undertaken by Hoisington Koegler.
The following goals were identified to be addressed by the study:
Minimize single family home loss
Provide City control--when and under what circumstances might single-family loss be
acceptable?
Maintain flexibility
The Council, in moving forward with this study, stated that they felt the "outright prohibition of
single~family housing removal and no net loss of single-family homes" is not a viable approach
for Hopkins. Also, there seemed to be agreement that they did not want to be unnecessarily
restrictive as concerns future expansion and new construction of institutional uses in residential
districts.
The study identified the following three options available to the City to gain more control over
the removal of single family homes:
.
Create a new, exclusive zoning district for institutional uses presently allowed as
conditional uses in residential districts
Adopt more restrictive standards for conditional use permits granted to institutional uses
that wish to undertake new construction or expansion, including specific standards that
need to be met when single family homes are proposed to be removed
A combination of the above two approaches
In September there was a joint CounciVZoning & Planning Commission meeting, at which time
this issue was discussed. At that meeting a majority of Council members appeared to be in favor
of the conditional use permit process alone, while the Commission seemed to prefer the
combination approach.
At a subsequent Council work session in October, however, the Council received a copy of the
proposed CUP ordinance and again discussed this item. There were concerns expressed that
having just a conditional use permit process may not go far enough to prevent the removal of
single family homes. As a result, the consensus of the Council at that time was that a
combination approach may provide the best protection to the City in this matter.
Prima" Issues To Consider
What are the specifics of the Institutional Use zoning district?
Currently churches and schools are a conditional use within all residential districts. Under an
exclusive zoning district ordinance, churches and schools in R-l districts will be removed as
conditional uses in the R-l zoning districts and will become prohibited uses in such districts.
After the property is rezoned, a conditional use permit would have to be applied for if an
institutional use would want to expand and remove a single-family home(s) in addition to
approval of a rezoning if the proposed expansion involves property outside of the exclusive
zoning district. The conditional use permit ordinance that the Commission forwarded to the City
Council specifies the conditions that would have to be met.
.
.
.
Planning Report CR00-61
Page 3
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed ordinance amendments with the Commission. Pastor Karl
<Jalik, representing Zion Lutheran, appeared before the Commission. Pastor Galik stated that the
rezoning would be too restrictive. Mr. Engel asked Pastor Galik if they had long tenn plans for
the church. Pastor Galik stated that they have some, although they are not final. Pastor Galik
stated that the rezoning and the CUP process is a complicated process and he stated that Zion
wants to maintain character while having some flexibility. Pastor Galik was the only individual
that appeared at the public hearing.
Jerry Steiner, the City Attorney, reviewed the changes in Section 530.09 with the Commission.
Mr. Steiner did state that the City has more control with the combined approach.
Alternatives
The Commission has the following alternatives regarding this action:
1. Affirm the recommendation of modifying and expanding CUP requirements for the
expansion of institutional uses in the R-l Districts.
2. Recommend approval of the ordinance rezoning institutional uses within R-l districts and
require a CUP for any expansion in the institutional zoning district.
3. Continue the item for additional information.
Hopkins Planning Study
Single~Family Housing Preservation
March 1, 1999
----~.;..
Introduction
On December 15, 1998, the Hopkins City Council adopted Ordinance No. 98-092 regulating and restricting
the demolition or removal of single-family residential buildings and structures within single-family-zoned
districts in the City. This moratorium was put in place because of a concern that Hopkins has a mucn' lower
percentage of single-family housing as compared to multi-family housing than the average for Hennepin
County .
As discussed below, the City's Comprehensive Plan, the Livable Communities Act's two-year action plan,
and the Strategic Plan for Economic Development have all detailed goals and objectives for maintaining
and preserving single-family housing within the City.
.
During the year the moratorium is in place, staff has been specifically directed to study whether it is
necessary to amend the City's existing ordinances, regulations and official controls or adopt a new
ordinance regulating the demolition and removal of single-family residential structures and buildings located
within the City. .
This represents the completion of the planning study which is intended to provide the City Council with
guidance and a direction on how to deal with potential single-family housing losses in R-1 Districts. The
suggested ordinance revisions are primarily provided to illustrate how conditions might be drafted to satisfy
the Council's goals. It is not intended to be the specific wording for the ordinance. The next step, or Phase
II, will be to draft specific ordinance language that best reflects the option to be chosen by the City Council.
Findings/Basis
Ordinance No. 98-092 is an interim ordini;lnce placing a moratorium on demolition or removal of single-
family housing within R-1 Districts in the City of Hopkins and ordering a planning study to determine how
and to what extent the demolition or removal of single-family residences located within the city of Hopkins
should be regulated or restricted. The Hopkins City Council made the following findings, among others, as
the basis for adopting Ordinance No. 98-092:
1. As part of the "Residential Neighborhood Policies" included in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of
Hopkins, the City and the City Council have adopted and approved the following policies:
The City will work to assure strong- and well-maintained neighborhoods in order to foster an overall
positive economic development climate in Hopkins
.
The City will work to provide an overal.1 mixture of residential land use in the City
The City will work to correct the disproportional amount of multi-family land uses within the City
.
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
2. Consistent with the Residential Neighborhood Policies stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the
City Council, as part of the two-year action plan for the Metropolitan Livable Communities Act,
adopted June 4, 1996, has placed particular importance on preserving all existing single-family
housing within the City. .
3. Further, as part of the City of Hopkins Strategic Plan for Economic Development, the City Council of
the City has established a high-priority on the maintenance of owner-occupied housing.
4. The City of Hopkins 1992 Housing Analysis Report (based on 1990 Census Data), as adopted
September 9, 1992, included the following finding: "Hopkins has a much lower percentage of ~ingle-
family homes than the average for Hennepin County (30% in Hopkins compared to an average of
55% in Hennepin County}."
5. The City Council believes the conditions identified'in the City of Hopkins 1992 Housing Analysis
Report continue to exist. Specifically, the City Council believes that single-family residential use
within the City constitutes a much lower percentage of overall residential use than the average for all
of Hennepin County.
6. Consistent with the policies and goals stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Two-Year Action
Plan and Strategic Plan for Economic Development, and in order to assist in achieving the City's goal
of preserving single-family residential housing within the City, The City Council believes it is prudent
to review the City's Ordinances, Regulations and Official Controls relating to the demolition or
removal of single-family residential structures located within the City.
In addition to the above findings by the Council in adopting Ordinance No. 98-092, the City's
Comprehensive Plan identifies the following statements, issues and objectives:
1.
The "Land Use and Development Issues" section of the Comprehensive Plan states: "Perhaps the
greatest asset of Hopkins is its several fine neighborhoods of single-family homes..."
The "Housing and Residential Neighborhood Issues" section of the Comprehensive Plan identifies
the following issues: "Is the integrity and attractiveness of the residential neighborhood s being
adequately maintained? Is the single-family character of these neighborhoods being sufficiently
protected?"
2.
3.
The "Residential Neighborhood Policies" section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following
objective: ."The City will work to protect the integrity and long-term viability of its low density
residential neighborhoods..."
4.
The "Community Structures Policies" section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following
objective:
The City will protect the long-term viability of its greatest asset - its residential neighborhoods -
through zoning, land use planning, rehabilitation assistance, traffic engineering, parks improvements,
and replacement and infilling with compatible housing styles.
Page 2
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Pre~ervation
5. The "Neighborhood PreselVation" section of the Comprehensive Plan includes the following
objective: "The City regards the preserVation and protection of its existing residential neighborhoods
as its most important task."
In considering adoption of Ordinance 98-092, and in its meetings and discussions relating to the ordinance
and the planning study, the Council has determined that the issues and objectives identified in the
Comprehensive Plan, Two-Year Action Plan for the Metropolitan livable Communities Act and the 1992
Housing Analysis Report continue to be matters of great importance for the City of Hopkins. In particular,
the Council has determined that the City continues to have a disproportionately low percentage of single-
family housing stock as compared to the average for cities within Hennepin County. The Council h~s also
determined that there are few or no opportunities for replacement of single-family housing that could,
potentially, be lost to expansion of institutional uses or other development occurring within residential
zoning districts in the City. In order to address these issues, the City Council has determined that the City's
Zoning Ordinances should be modified as discussed in this report to enable the City to further regulate or
restrict the removell of single-family residences.
Council Goals
At the February 9, 1999 City Council Work Session, the Council expressed three very strong concerns
regarding the loss of single-family homes in R-1 Districts:
.
1. The effects of housing loss on the City's current housing mix which is already deficient in single-
family homes
2. The potential effects of single-family housing loss on the remainder of the neighborhood
3. The need for control where loss may occur
The Council was not supportive of single-family housing losses. On the other hand, the Council concluded
that doing nothing, outright prohibitions against single-family removal and the no net loss of single-family
homes are not viable approaches for Hopkins. The Council suggested an approach that will provide the
City with the ability to minimize losses and control when and under what circumstances single-family loss
might be acceptable while continuing to maintain a degree of flexibility. And, if there is to be a loss of
single-family dwellings, how can the City protect what is left around it? This is what the planning report
intends to address.
Available Options
Three different options have been explored to achieve the Council's goals as follows:
.
Option C
Creating an exclusive zoning district for institutional uses,
Amending the existing conditional use permit ordinance to add requirements for uses
which remove single-family homes in R-1 Districts
Combination of the two
Option A
Option 8
In summary, Option A is exclusively a rezoning approach with no CUP requirements or conditions. Option
8 is just a conditional use permit for anv use in R-1 Districts which take one or more single-family houses.
Page 3
.
,.
.
---
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
Option C includes both the rezoning of existing public and institutional uses (currently zoned R-1) and an
added layer of CUP regulation for anything that takes one or more single-family houses.
Option A ~ Exclusive Zoning District
An exclusive zoning district (termed puelic and institutional district) would be created to accommodate
schools, churches, and perhaps, outdoor recreation areas including parks and municipal service structures.
It might also permit single-family homes to avoid potential inverse condemnation lawsuits. Existing facilities
would be rezoned. The new district would apply to all public and institutional uses which are currently
zoned R-1. We assume the district would not apply to public and institutional uses which are currently
located in commercial districts.
PROS
CONS
(I Uses can expand/single-family homes lost .
only if rezoned
· City controls (requires four-votes)
· Legally permissible
· Neighborhood integrity is maintained
Existing R-1 sites need to be rezoned -
could entail down-zoning
· No established measuring stick
(decisions could appear arbitrary)
. City must decide/interpret every issue
. Requires four-votes (difficultto get)
. Would not cover losses attributable to
abutting B or I parking
. Less flexible than Option B
Option 8 ~ Conditional Use Permit Requirements
The CUP Option B requires the establishment of a strong set of conditions which become the measuring
sticks for project evaluation. The following conditions would apply to any use which removes one or more
single-family homes in the R-1 District:
Uses which remove sinQle-family homes in an R-1 District. Because of the potential for neighborhood
impacts and the already short supply of single-family dwellings, a CUP shall not be issued for any proposed
use that will result in the loss of one or more single-family homes unless the City determines that the new
use will have minimal adverse impact on and will be compatible with the neighborhood. Uses which
propose to remove single-family dwellings in R-1 Districts shall be subject to all of the following
requirements:
1 ) Setbacks. Where a facility abuts a residential use and there is no intervening street, the sideyard
setback shall be at least twice that required for the residential use. Where the use shares frontage with
single-family residences on the same side of the street, the front-yard setback shall be the same or
greater than the established residential setback.
2) Traffic increase. The use shall not cause traffic to increase to a level that exceeds 75D-vehicles per
day on any street that is intended primarily to selVe residential areas (streets that are not classified as
collectors or arterials). A traffic study shall be required at the discretion of the City.
3) Standard/substandard dwellinQ removal (i.e. excluding ordered removal of substandard homes by the
City which does not require a CUP). For any request which involves the removal of one or more single-
family homes, the City shall consider the number and condition of units to be removed, adjacent land
Page 4
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
.
uses and housing replacement. The City may consider the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP)
for a use which removes units that are in substandard condition (definition required), provided all of the
requirements of this section are satisfied. The City may also consider uses which remove standard
housing if the number of units is small (_ or less) and:
a) The units to be removed are adjacent to or are separated from non-single-family dwellings by a
. public street, or
b) The units to be removed are adjacent to or are separated from single-family homes by a public
street and the compatibility requirements of this section are satisfied, or
c) The units are replaced on-site or elsewhere within the city by units of equal or greater value and
the compatibility requirements of this section are satisfied
4) Neiohborhood compatibility. The removal of single-family homes shall not change the character of the
neighborhood. Wherever housing is removed it shall be replaced by a use that is compatible in size,
scale, orientation (e.g. orientation to the street), and architectural character with immediately adjacent
properties. Properties which are directly across the street from housing shall be replaced by a building
or buildings that are architecturally compatible, in scale with and oriented consistent with extant
housing units (if the housing faces the street, the replacement use must also orient to the street). If a
park or open space is adjacent or across the street, green space, yards and even landscaped parking
lots may be acceptable (a parking lot across the street from established homes would not be
. acceptable because neighborhood patterns would be significantly altered).
Using Zion Lutheran Church as an example:
~~~
~.~
D~~
o ~
o 0
o
D
8~
D 0
5) Landscapino and buffering. Wherever a parking lot abuts or is across the street from a residential
area, there shall be a landscaped buffer yard at least 15-feet in width. Screening and buffering shall be
required in accordance with Section 550.01 of this ordinance except that fences shall not be permitted
along street frontages.
6) Other impacts. The project shall have no exterior lighting, noise or drainage impacts on adjoining
properties which are significantly greater than the pre-existing use.
7) Comprehensive plan consistency. The project shall be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan.
Page 5
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
8) NeiQhborhood involvement. The proponent shall initiate neighborhood meetings for residents within
350-feet of the subject property.
PROS
~
· Maintains flexibility
· Uses can expand if meet CUP requirements
· City controls - can approve or deny based on
compliance with requirements
· Creates method of "measuring" compliance
· Legally permissible
. Neighborhood integrity maintained
· Would cover losses attributable to abutting 8 or ·
I.parking
· Relatively simple ordinance amendment
required
I CONS
· City must decide/interpret every issue
· Does not completely prevent single-
family loss
· Need to develop consensus on
"acceptable conditions"
· Uses permitted by CUP are by right if
the proponent meets all of the conditions
Three-votes required for approval if CUP
criteria are met
ODtion C ~ Combination Rezoning and CUP
Option C would combine both rezoning and CUP requirements which is more complicated than it may
seem. Essentially, the Option 8 CUP requirements would be listed for R-1 Districts to cover literally any
possible single-family loss. A new public and institutional (PII) district would be created permitting schools,
churches, and perhaps, outdoor recreation area/parks by conditional use permit. These uses would then
be removed by ordinance amendment, from the R-1 District and the above CUP requirements would be
added to the P/I District as well as the R-1 District. Existing public and institutional uses would be rezoned
PII and future expansions of churches, schools, etc. would require both a rezoning and a CUP. The
following are the pros and cons of this combined option:
.
PROS
· Maintains flexibility
· Uses can expand if the.y meet the
requirements and property is rezoned
· City controls (requires four-votes)
.' Creates method of measuring compliance
· Legally permissible
· Neighborhood integrity maintained
· Would cover all potential losses
I CONS
· City must decidelinterpret every issue
CUP · Loss of single-family homes possible
· Need to develop consensus on
"acceptable" conditions
· Requires four-votes (difficult to get)
· Could entail down-zoning
· Extremely complicated and major
ordinance amendments required
Conclusion
Anyone of the above approaches could be acceptable provided the comprehensive plan and ordinance
intent statements lay firm groundwork to avoid any appearance of arbitrary rezoning actions. Of the three-
approaches, however, Option 8 is relatively easy to accomplish while providing the City Council with the
ability to achieve its goals. Option C is like requiring both belt and suspenders (according to a noted
philosopher who shall remain unnamed).
.
Page 6
.
.
.
MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P .A.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIA nON
ATTORNEYS A T LA W
JERRE A. MILLER
JEREMY S. STEINER *
WYNN CURTISS
400 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING .
1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
*Rcal Property law Speclahst. certlfi~d
612-938-7635
FAX 612-938-7670
,
by the Minne::ota State Bar A~sociatlon
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jim Kerrigan /
Nancy Anderson
Mark Koegler
Jeremy Steiner f 5 S
August 31, 1999
From:
Date:
Re:
Single Family Housing Preservation Study
This Memorandum replaces my previous Memorandum of August 24, and incorporates revisions
to that Memorandum that I discussed with Nancy and Mark when we met at my office, on
August 27. ' The-fe.l-Iewing-are-,pfoposed.amendmend to Section 530.09 of the Hopkins Zoning
Ordinance, which identifies conditional uses within residential zoning districts, and Section 525.13
of the Zoning Ordinance, which lists the standards and requirements for issuance of Conditional Use
Permits for conditional uses within R-l zoning districts and other zoning districts. The intent of
these ordinance amendments is to preserve single family housing or reduce adverse impacts on
single family housing resulting from the expansion of conditional uses within R-l districts.
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 530.09 OF HOPKINS ZONING ORDINANCE
Zoning Ordinance Section 530.09 is the Zoning Ordinance section that specifics which uses are
conditional uses within residential zoning districts. We have discussed four proposed amendments
to this section of the ordinance for the 'purpose of: i) clarifying the intent of Section 530.09; ii)
eliminating a possible ambiguity in Paragraph a) of the ordinal)ce; iii) adding a specific statement
that construction of parking incident to a conditional use also requires a Conditional Use Permit; and
iv) adding an explicit provision that both expansions of existing conditional uses and all new
conditional uses will be allowed only if they comply with the requirements of the CUP ordinance.
These anlendments can be incorporated in Section 530.09, as follows.
c: \fil e \hopc iv i I\kerrigan .mem
.
.
.
..
In order to make it clear that Section 530.09 is intended not only to define which uses are conditional
uses within R districts, but also includes some of the standards and requirements applicable to'
conditional uses, the first sentence of Subdivision 1 of Section 530.09 should be revised to read:
The following are conditional uses in R zoning districts and ce11ain of the standards,
restrictions and requirements applicable to such conditional uses:
The definition of "churches," in Paragraph a) of Subdivision 1 of Section 530.09, is somewhat
ambiguous. That ambiguity can be corrected by amending Paragraph a) to read as follows:
a) Any church or place of religious worship and all structures, facilities and
physical improvements incident or accessory thereto. The front yard setback
for such a conditional use shall be the same front yard setback stated in
Section 530.05 of this ordinance for permitted uses in the zoning district in
which the conditional use is located. The side and rear yard setbacks for any
such conditional use shall be no less than 35 feet from its side and rear
property lines.
In order to regulate and restrict the expansion of parking facilities for conditional uses within R-I
zoning districts, the following paragr~ph should be added to the list of conditional uses in Section
530.09:
u) Offstreet parking lots or parking facilities ancillary to or to be used
as an accessory use for any conditional use within an R-I zoning
district.
Finally, in order to explicitly state that all new conditional uses and expansions of existing
conditional uses will be allowed only upon compliance with the requirements of the Conditional Use
Permit Ordinance, the following sentences should be added at the end of Section 530.09:
Any expansion, enlargement or modification of an existing use which is the type of
use designated 9S a conditional use in a residential zoning district, including, but not
limited to, any expansion, enlargement or modification that will result in the
demolition or removal of a single family residence, shall be a coo.ditional use
requiring a Conditional Use Permit. All conditional uses shall be allowed only upon
compliance with and flllfillmentof all ofthe standards, conditions and requirements
stated in Section 525.13 of the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance.
c' \fi1 c\hopci vi l\kerrigall. mem
- 2 -
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 525.13 OF ZONING ORDINANCE
Subdivision 15 of Section 525.13, of the Zoning Ordinance is the subdivision of the CUP ordinance
that specifies the "Standards" to be considered in evaluating a Conditional Use Pennit application.
It appears this is the appropriate section to amend to include the new standards for issuance of
Conditional Use Pennits within R-l zoning districts. In order to make it clear that applicants for
Conditional Use Pennits must comply with the standards in Subdivision 15 of Section 525.13, 1
recommend the first sentence of Subdivision 15 be revised to read as follows:
In evaluating a Conditional Use Permit application and granting a Conditional Use
Permit, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider and require its-
compliance with the following standards. conditions and requirements:
We have tmderlined and interlined the above sentence to show the additions to and deletions from
the current language in the first sentence of Subdivision 15 of the CUP ordinance.
One of the proposed new requirements in the Housing Preservation Study for Conditional Use
Permits within R-l zoning districts is a requirement that traffic increases or traffic impacts be
considered in evaluating a CUP application. A similar requirement is presently contained in
paragraph d) of Subdivision 15 of Ordinance Section 525.13. To reconcile this recommendation of
the Housing Preservation Study with the existing language of the CUP ordinance, I recommend that
the last two sentences of paragraph d) of Subdivision 15 be deleted and replaced by a new paragraph
of Subdivision 15. The suggested language for this new paragraph is as follows:
.
.
h)
Traffic impacts such as increases in vehicular traffic, traffic
congestion, interference with other transportation systems or
pedestrian traffic, and traffic hazards shall be considered by the
Planning Commission and City Council in evaluating an application
for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant shall demonstrate that
the proposed conditional use shall not cause unacceptable increases
in vehicular traffic, traffic congestion or interference with other
transportation systems or pedestrian traffic, and will not create traffic
hazards or excessive traffic through residential areas: The City may
require the applicant to submit a traffic study prepared by a traffic
consultant approved by the City to demonstrate the applicant's
compliance with the reqt~irements of this paragraph. As a condition
of the issuance of a Conditional Use Pennit, the City may require the
applicant to incorporate in the applicant's proposal and constntct such
traffic control measures and improvements as the City may deem
necessary. including, but not limited to, directional signalization,
channelization, stand-by turn lanes, sidewalks, removal of access
points to public streets and moving of access points to public streets.
c: \fi I e\ho pc i vi l\kerri gan. mem
- 3 -
.
.
.
The new Conditional Use Permit standards to be specifically applied to conditional uses within R-I
districts may then be incorporated in a new paragraph to be added to Subdivision 15 of Section,
525.13 of the Zoning Ordinance. I would suggest that this new paragraph begin, ~s follows:
i) In addition to the standards, conditions and requirements stated
elsewhere in this Section 525.13, no Conditional Use Permit shall be
granted for a conditional use within an R-I zoning district unless the
applicant has demonstrated compliance with the following standards,
conditions and requirements:
The new standards and criteria that are applicable specifically to approval of Conditional Use
Permits within R-I districts would then be listed in paragraph i) of Subdivision 15 of Section 525.13.
You requested that I draft proposed language for the building setback requirements to be included
in this new paragraph. The proposed setback requirements would read as follows:
1) In R -1 zoning districts, the side and rear yard setbacks for any structures,
buildings or improvements constituting a part of or accessory to a conditional
use shall be the greater of:
aa) The side and rear yard setbacks specified in Section
530.09, subd. 1, a, of the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance;
bb)
The setbacks applicable to such a conditional use in
zoning district(s) in which such use is a permitted use;
or
cc) Two times the setbacks specified for permitted uses in
R-l zoning districts.
The following paragraphs were submitted by Mark Koeg.ler, as standards to be included in thenew
paragraph i) of Subdivision 15 listing the additional standards specifically applicable to conditional
uses within R -1 zoning districts:
2)
The removal of a dwelling, whether attached or detached, shall not change the
character of the neighborhood. Wherever such a dwelling is removed it shall be
replaced by a use that is compatible in size, scale, orientation to the street, and
architectural character ~ith adjacent properties and dwellings. Any structure,
building or other improvement constituting part of or accessory to a conditional use
that lies directly across the street from a dwelling or dwellings shall be
architecturally compatible, in scale with and oriented consistent with existing
dwelling units. If the existing dwelling units adjacent to or in the vicinity of the
conditional use face the street, any structures, buildings or improvements related to
the conditional use must also orient to the street. Green space, yards or landscaped
c: \fi Ic\hopc i v i I\kerri gan .mem
- 4 -
.
.
.
parking lots are acceptable if an existing park or open space is adjacent to or across
the street from the proposed conditional use. Parking lots across the street from
existing dwellings are not acceptable because they are inconsistent with the existing
character of the neighborhood. In order to evaluate the application for a Conditional
Use Permit and its compliance with this paragraph, the City may retain an architect
or city planner, at the applicant's expense, to evaluate the proposed conditional use
and submit a study or report to the City stating the architect or planner's opinions and
recommendations relating to the compliance of the proposed conditional use with the
requirements of this paragraph.
3)
Wherever a parking lot abuts or is across the street from an existing dwelling or
dwellings, there shall be a landscaped buffer area within the required setback of at
least 15 feet in width. Buffer areas shall be planted with a mixture of not less than
50% coniferous plantings to facilitate year-round screening. Additionally, screening
and buffering shall be required in accordance with Section 550.01 of this ordinance
except that fences shall not be permitted along street frontages.
At page 5 of the Housing Preservation Study, there are three additional recommended requirements
to be added to the Conditional Use Permit Ordinance for the purpose of preserving single family
housing which relate generally to compliance with governmental requirements. As we discussed
when we met on July 28, these four requirements could be incorporated in a single paragraph to be
added to Subdivision 15 of Section 525.13 of the Zoning Ordinance. The following is the suggested
language for that new paragraph:
j) The proposed use shall also comply with all federal, state and
municipal laws, statutes, codes and ordinances and the standards and
policies of the City in effect at the time of submission of the
application for a Conditional Use Permit. The City may require the
applicant, at the applicant's expense, to submit studies, plans and
reports from consultants approved by the City to demonstrate
compliance of the proposed conditional use with all such laws,
statutes, codes, ordinances, standards, and policies.
I believe the above ordinance amendments cover those items that we discussed at our July 28 and
August 27 meetings and should serve as a basis for discussion of the proposed ordinance
amendments at the August 31 Planning Co~nission meeting. You should, of course, call me if you
have any questions or wish to discuss tl1e items outlined in this Memo.
JSS
drs
c: \fi le\ho pciv il\kerri gan. mem
- 5 -
~
1"'1 i
EISENHOWER ELEMIWTARY SCHOOL AND
COMMUNITY CENTER
.
(4)
I
,
I
,
.l
HIGHWAY'
(31)
~
i
'C)
!~
tc)
let
!~
i~
~
:;t
~......
1~
\!)
I
I
I
,
i
I
I
I
I
I
-I- --
~
b
(10)
I
!
I
I
I
I
~
c:)
<
(88) 3
~,;- ;,- :'t
c)
<
~
....
1?414
~~
14~
141)
:JO)
I I ! ~/' ~
HARLEY HOPKINS FAMILY CENTER
/
I /'
I //'
--1 . /'/
--- .- , / /'
___ --- .....:::::. -I"
. ,/
(EXCELSIOR:'
2/5
~/~/
~
,
,
I
I
:
,
I
,
I
I
I
--I
~
,
,
I
,
I
I
I
1
I
!
I
,
I
--'
- -I
I
I
=-tr 1
\
A
(27)
~
i" IZ. .jllt)
I-
II. ; II -
- - ---
- - (@
t6.q 1 .'
10 ~ 8 t
lr;Ol 6
-::;..
~
,,-
~~
;(
;1
rl'
All
8 ,,,
,"
,I:
'"
'I'
'I'
1,1
II:
IJ.!
\
@
(2)
-
-
(7)
(8)
------
.
v
} '.
ALICE SMITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
.1
I
I
I
I
(31)
r-
(4)
(6)
7/5
~
~
C)
Q::
.~
~
~
~
~
~
5 031:
4(130)
302~
2(128)
---
I
I
I
I
I
-+-
(10)
c)
~
~
~
S
""
1001
HIGHWAY
16(140)
~
~
, _IS
--~"'"
1
.,
~~4026J
!l)____
Z3~
~-2i25)
~~ 21024):
~ I 2002~1
i,;) -'I
ki i~ lS(i22~!
:::s ,~ 18020
~ ~ ...!7(20)
~ --1Qlli~.
"" 0 '''"
.....
()
".
'~l/ I~I
CONGREGATION BET SHALOM
I I ~
I I s;{ (6)
I I ~
I I ~
I '~
-+- t-: 7/5
l1.,J
\!)
----
(4)
16(132;
15 (130 (liB) 2
14(1~) (119) 3
1302~ (I20) 4
i2(12B> (121) 5
II (21) {I 22) 6
10 (t26) (t23) 7
9 (J25) (l24i 8
NO.
(I ':>.(:'i<::
I .. ~.... . oJ
24152 1(31l1 ~~
~ 23(51) ! f32) 2 ~ ~
t.::- ltJ
22(50 ~33} 3 ~l ~
21(49)- ie.H) 4 ~r'J.:
I ()I
(35) 5 ~i
~~- ~ .
17(45) ..,....
- ~.~
16(44, (38) 9 (\;; :......
".u
() 15(43) 1(39) 10 ~
t:..- - - ~I
l~ 14(42 I.. _ il I
1"-1 '. ';4Gt - -
! l-14:w1,," I? I
:p'2 f ..:l, 11 "':"607 ;
~ f\!Q
., .
)
@
4..
f
Ie)
0) 2 (
'It- ~-- -
!:! (26) 3
'It-
"-
~ <Z7)4
~ 1(66:
IY)
"- 2(67,
~
"
I~ 3 (68l
1\(1 A I~,.,'
13-1.310002
- 1~~
- 1
~
~(j -
(2) ~ CJ ....
9:~
~~
6
,~
( (40:
I
4?L,
'-...-/
(\Il
METHODIST CHURCH
701
I
I
I
I
I
HOPKINS UNITED
(31)
1001
:0--
HIGHWAY
~
~
~
l()
~
~
'It-
(9)
(I)
(2)
(3)
(1!U
B
(7)
r-
I
I
(8)
(4)
(6)
---I
(101)2 a 7 13' ~/L-------'"
(102)3 <: 16(132; ~,<:-~ ~
7/5
..-
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
-+-
(\0)
8(50)
C)
~
~ i'
ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST CATHOLIC CHURCH
. I
I
I
I f\. (5)
6 ::: (10)
~
Q::
I~
t
I
I
I 30
- _ ~ (!.l (;~ ~ _ ~ _ .= 2(14) (24)29 ~
: 28 ~ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ _ _ _ {!~ 27 _(0 '-J 4(15) (23)27 ~
~ 5 (2) 26.... Cl::: - -5 - 26 '""
~ 6 25 () 6 25
~ --7(3) (/U24-.... -:-7(16) -24 ~
-------'"
I 8 _ 2p _0 B (22)23-
9 (4) (10) 22.... ::- 9(17) - 22 -
I - - 10 - - 22- ~ -.'0 - Wil21 <<Xl
_ i .!J5l.... (9) 20 .... /I 20- ~
/_ 12 (8) /9 (0 _-.!..2 !!8) 19
_'~ _ 18.... 13 (20)18- ~
_/4 (61.. i!)....!7 _ C\I If) /4 (/9) - 17 -!
I /5 /s ~ ~- ~ - -16-
!
I
I
\...... I
(42)
2
1.01
, . ~I
,
~I
1/12/
. 3
( 46 J
\
.
.
/50/ i505 /5/3
A VENUE
/230 (19) (20) (21)
(4) (14) (/5) (16) (rn ' (18) 7 ) 8
(6) I 2 3 4 5 6
~I
~
'l!-
.....
"-
0)
30
J 30
-- - - --
2 (9/) (102)29
3 - 2a-
---
4 (92) 27
~ 5 (93) ClO!) 26
-- --
6 25
)....
.lu
_ "7 (OA\ (,nn'''A
,
/3/1 /3/9 /325 /40/
PRES TOlv
/3/0 /3/8 /326 /402 /410 1418
21 20 19 /8 17
(33) (32) (31) (3.0) (29) (28)
(34) (35) (36)" (49) (5(1 la9)
23 24 25 I 26. 27. 28
/3/3 /32/ /327 /4tJ5 /409
BOYCE
(48)
/30/
22
GOODRICH
30
------
2 (n} (90)29
0) ~ 28
-- ----
4(78) (89127
--
5 26
- -6 (79) (88)25
/5/5 '
---
0) 8(28) (3e)23 co
~-- --...Qj
- 9' 22-
/0 2/ ~
-/1(29) (34)20 --
10 /2 (30) (33)19 CO
- -/3 -18--
" /4 (31) (32l17 ""
.,,--- ---II:)
- /5 /6-
(22) (23) (24) I
9 /0 II
I
I
i
I
I
- I 30 I
~ ~ 2(39) (5;) 2~ ~
~ ci; 3 28 C)
CJ ~ 4(.40) _2",- -0 6
5 (50)26:::: Q:
"6 (41) - - - I
rn _ 7 (4~) j49)24 ~
- a 23-
_ -.! (43) (48)2~ ~
:0 21-
f) /1 20 c
, -/2(44) (4nJ9 --
/8
--- ---
/4(45)(46)/7 .
- - - - -~
/5 16
425 /50/ /509 /5/7
/417 /
/409 LANE
28 :::::::::::::::::::~::::::;::::::::::::)::::::::::::::::::
/4 :::::::::.:::::::::t::::::.::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::
111l;l~i1l~lll;~;;1;lli11i;;;1F.;ll;l~~llt:::
......~........~................~...........
/6 /5 ~::l~i!~:!:!l!l!:!:!!!!~!!I}!l:;~!!}!I!I!I!I!i!l!
(27) (26) ::.:::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:_:.:_:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
,::::::::::::::::Jjjj;j1jjjjj;jjjj;j;j1jjj1j;111mjjjljlj;11;lj;;;;lj1j1j;j1;;
(40) ':':'~ii~':': ':':':':':':':':':::::::'::::::J.ij:'::::::::::::::':':':.:.:.:
~91i11i_
5 T. ... .......... ....
.ST.
I 32
------
2 (52) (6.3:61
~----
~30
4 (6~S
------
_ E. (53) 28
6 (6/) ~7
I 30
-- ---
2 (64) (76)29 C\I
3 28
- -- ----
4 (65) (75)27
r-... 5 reG) (74)26
C\I -6 - 25 I\j C)
" -.
I . i 8.-7' . .~., ,. . <<4 ~ j '. \. . '\ .' . . / I
89 I ...... ~
_t~~,T~EBL~KE\~~HOOL310R '-,
, 1~4)1 I 0 I \\ I \'2. I' \OO\-.~ eX eEl- /124 I
) 19191\ I I ~. b
1, I I (II) I
I I. J.
~ , ,..", (5)
6 ::: (10)
~
r::J 33 (45)(44)32. ::'
t
I
I
(24)
83
(13)
82.
t,2)
81
(2)
"
I
I
!
I
98 ('3
(II )
30-1 i7-21 @
C\
.1 30
_ _ ~ {!l. (;~ ~ _
3 28
4 (Izl 21
- 5 (2) - 26 -..... I
I 6 25 ~
~ -- 7(3) (11)24-.....
_ 8_ _ 2p _ <:)
9 (4) (10) 22 .....
Ie 21
i / (5) (9) 20 ~
- --
12 (8) 19 ~
.1' 13 18.....
_14.(61- !!U7_ ~
I /5 16.....
~ J'" 30
1 - 2(On OO~O
ttl 3 28
I
I
I
I
I
I
'\
(6)
/230
(4)
c;
(10) \l
('\
30-1
_ "ffI.-.J ,'" ~ ......
~
--
CJ
~
C)
ct
~ (6)
~
llJ
~
J~ 7/5
ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH) I (2) (3)
(I) 2 3
I
"l / 4 2
( (40) 3 (38)
\ (39)
I 308 21
42/
(57)
(7) ~~ (58)
~-....
~ 1C) 2 (25)
01
"t
6
------ (29)
~ ~ (26) 3
(8) ~ "t
5 (32)
c:) "- I
------ ~ (Z7)4 (28)
(9) 0:
~ 1(56) (74) I (54) 1
1'1)
"- 2(67) ~Q::~
,~ (75) 2 2 (63) (55) 2
r- Ii;) 3(68) -----
(4) /I) (76) 3 ~~~ 3 (84)
I ~ 4 (69) -...:'" (56) 1
I II) ~Q::...
~ (77) 4 4 (85)
...... 5 (70) Q:)~
(5) (78) 5 0 Ie)
6 (71) ~ ~ 5(86)
~
7 (72) (79) 6
"t
;;; 1 01
I'...i;;
~ kJ~ If)
1'1) ...
1'1)
~~"-
l')V)~
6(87)
7 (88)
8(89)
3046)
~ 24(74)
~
~~~
~ ~ I~
~ ~J ..,
~I~,
~I't ~
01 0)
20(48 (35) 5 tJi ~ --
"(41 <l ~ ]
I C\/ ...
18(46; . 'II- ~ C\/
13~ - ~ ' ." t\j
17(45) _ ~.;l:: _17 J (16) e ~;:r:
16(44 (38} 9 ~; ~ C\i ~23)! ;!:7~ 9 ~i t--...: ~
15(43) 1(39) 10 ~...u.~ -15(22) 10;, 10 ~ lC) ~.
Or; I:- - - .l.l.11 10 ~
!~ 14(42 I... it Ii 14,.,.\ (19; I! 0
1- -:i .4G)- - -I - ~ IJ- !!)
! '-'4IlJ " I? 0 13 (20) C5
~p'2l .0\ .1 -b07'j ~ i2 ~ t\j
--/Vo. -.
- ,I
24 i~O, (9) I
~_3!29) (10) 2
(I)
9 (13) (4) 10
30,
i
~
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 2000~833
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Hopkins as follows:
Section 1
That the Hopkins City Code Section 515.07, Subd. 83 be, and the same is hereby
amended, as follows:
Subd. 83. Lot: means a parcel ofland delineated upon and thereafter described by reference to a
plat, registered land surveyor auditor's subdivision, or other similar recorded dedicatory
document. "Lot" also means and refers to any single parcel of land that is assigned an individual
property identification number for real estate taxation purposes. (amended Ord. No. 94-742)
Section 2
Sections 520.21, Subd. 1, and 520.23 of the Hopkins City Code are hereby amended, as follows:
520.21. Districts. Subdivision 1. Established. The city is divided into the following zoning use
districts: (Amended Ord. No: 87-601)
R - Residential Districts
R-I-A Single and two family high density
R~I~B Single family high density
R-I-C Single family medium density
R-I-D Single family low density
R-I-E Single family low density (Added)
R-2 Low density multiple family residential
R-3 Medium density multiple family residential
R-4 Medium high density multiple family residential
R-4 Planned unit development
R-5 High density multiple family residential
R-6 Medium density multiple family residential
B - Business Districts
B~ 1 Limited business
B-2 Central business
B-3 General business
I - Industrial Districts
1-1 Industrial
1-2 General industrial
FP - Flood Plain District
INS - Institutional Districts
.
520.23. Official zoning map. The boundaries of the districts described in this code are
delineated on that certain map entitled "Hopkins Official Zoning Map" which map includes
therewith or therein drawings of the flood plains areas and other pertinent information as
overlays or adjuncts thereof. Three copies of the official zoning map, including all of the
overlays and materials above mentioned and including all of the notations, references and other
information shown thereon are on file for public inspection in the office of the city clerk. The
official zoning map as the same may be amended from time to time by ordinance is made a part
of this code by reference with the same force and effect as if such map, diagrams, materials and
information were fully set forth in this code and published verbatim.
Section 3
The Hopkins Official Zoning Map is hereby modified and amended to establish the
zoning use district boundaries delineated in the Official Zoning Map attached to this Ordinance
and incorporated herein.
Section 4
That the Hopkins City Code section 520.13 be, and the same is hereby amended by,
amending, deleting or adding the following sections, paragraphs provisions or subdivisions:
520.13 Subd. 10. Institutional district fences. In an Institutional district no boundary line fence
shall be erected or maintained more than four feet in height except that:
a) Fences along any property line that abuts a parking lot may exceed four feet but shall not
exceed six feet in height:
Section 5
That the Hopkins City Code section 525.13 be, and the same is hereby amended by,
amending, deleting or adding the following sections, paragraphs, provisions or subdivisions:
525.13 Subdivision. 15 Standards, In evaluating a Conditional Use Permit application and
granting a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission and City Council shall consider
and require its compliance with the following standards. conditions and requirements:
525. 13 d 4 Vehieular traffic generatecl hy a use shall be channeled and oontrolled in a manner
'.vhich '.vill avoid oongestion or interferenoe with other vehicular transportation. systems or
peclestrian traffic and whieh v/ill avoicl oreating traffie hazards or t*cessive traffic through.
residential areas. The adequaoy of any proposed traffio circulation system to acoomplish these
objectives shall be determined by the City, .....h.ich may require such additional measures for
traffic control as it may cleem neeessary, including hut not limited to the follo'.ving: directional
signalization, channelization, standby turn lanes, side'.valks, removal of acoess points, and
. f .
mO'.'1Rg 0 access pomts.
.
525.13 Subd. 15 g) In Institutional Zoning Districts. the Conditional Use Permit application
shall comply with the standar<Js. conditions and requirements stated in Section 542.03 of this
Ordinance.
525.13 Subd. 15. h) 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 Commission and City Council in
evaluating an application for a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant shall demonstrate the
proposed conditional use shall not cause unacceptable increases in vehicular traffic. traffic
congestion or interference with other transportation systems or pedestrian traffic. and will not
create traffic hazards or excessive traffic through residential areas or otherwise cause adverse
effects on residential areas or dwellings. The City may require the applicant to submit a traffic
study prepared by a traffic consultant approved by the City to demonstrate the applicant's
compliance with the requirements of this paragraph. As a condition of the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit. the City may require the applicant to inco1:porate in the applicant's
proposal and construct such traffic control measures and improvements as the City may deem
necessary. including~ but not limited to directional signalization. channelization. stand-by turn
lanes. sidewalks. removal of access points to public streets and moving of access points to public
streets.
.
Section 6
.'f"- -
That the Hopkins City Code section 530.09 be, and the same is hereby amended by, amending,
deleting or adding the following sections, paragraphs, provisions or subdivisions:
530.09 Conditional Uses within R Districts. Subdivision 1. The following are conditional uses
in R zoning districts and certain of the standards. restrictions and requirements applicable to such
conditional uses:
530.09 SubdivisioR 1 a) Churches aay house of w-orship or ohurch structure v.41ich pro'/ides
spaee for ~ore thaR 20 persons at V'.'Qrship shall be loeated not less than 35 feet from any of its
side &Rd rear lot lines. 530.09 Subdivision. 1 a) Within the R-2 - R-6 districts only any church
or place of religious worship and all structures~ facilities and physical improvements incident or
accessory thereto. The front yard setback for such a conditional use shall be the same front yard
setback stated in Section 530.05 of this ordinance for permitted uses in the zoning district in
which the conditional use is located. The side and rear yard setbacks for any such conditional
use shall be no less than 35 feet from its side and rear property lines.
530.09 SubdiyisioR 1 d) Public or equivaleat private schools provided no buildings are located
less than 50 feet from aay lot line and that a feRce is erected along the boundary line 'lIhich is
common with &butting private property. 530.09 Subdivision 1 d) Within the R~2 - R-6 districts
public or equivalent private schools provided no buildings are located less than 50 feet from any
lot line and that a fence is erected along the boundary line which is common with abutting
private property.
530.09 Subdivision 1 t) Off-street parking for abutting B or I uses provided:
1. Such parking may be extended the width of three contiguous lots or 150 feet
whichever is more onto land which is zoned for residential use;
2. The land is under the same ownership or control as the abutting B or I uses land
which is to be served;
3. Said parking is not located between two existing abutting dwelling units subject to
conformance with parking lot standards in the code;
4. Such off street parking shall not be allowed on any lot on which a dwelling is
located at the time of application for the Conditional Use Permit or on which a
dwelling was located but has been removed by or on behalf of the applicant at any
time prior to the date of the application for the Conditional Use Permit: and
5. Such off-street parking shall otherwise be subiect to the standards and
requirements stated in Section 525.13 of these ordinances
Section 7
The Hopkins City code is hereby amended by the adoption of the following new Section 542:
.
542.01. One-family detached dwellings and two family detached dwellings are permitted uses in
the Institutional district. but subiect to all provisions of section 530 applicable thereto. which
provisions are incoll>orated in this section.
542.02. Conditional uses within the Institutional districts. Subdivision 1. The following are
conditional uses in Institutional zoning districts and certain of the standards. restrictions and
requirements applicable to such conditional uses:
. Schools and all structures. facilities and physical improvements incident or
accessory thereto.
. Religious Institutions and all structures. facilities and physical improvements
incident or accessory thereto.
542.03 Any expansion. enlargement or modification of an Institutional use that will result in the
demolition or removal of a dwelling unit shall be a conditional use requiring a Conditional Use
Permit. All conditional uses shall be allowed only upon compliance with and fulfillment of all
the standards. conditions and requirements stated in Sections 525.13 and 542 of the Hopkins
Zoning Ordinance.
542.04 Area and Yard Limitations
Conditional Uses permitted in any Institutional district are subiect to the following minimum
floor and lot area. minimum lot width~ yard and setback. requirements. and maximum building
heights.
Front yard
Side yard
Rear yard
35 feet
35 feet
35 feet
Minimum Lot Size
Lot width
% Building Coverage
20.000 square feet
100 feet
35% oflot area
Maximum building height
35 feet
542.05 Subdivision. 1. in addition to the standards. conditions and requirements stated elsewhere
in Section 525.13 and this Section 542. no Conditional Use Permit shall be granted for a
conditional use within an Institutional district unless the applicant has demonstrated compliance
with the following standards. conditions and requirements.
1. The removal of a dwelling unit. whether attached or detached. shall not change
the character of the neighborhood. Wherever such a dwelling is removed it
.
shall be replaced by a use that is compatible in size. scale. orientation to the
street. and architectural character with adiacent properties and dwellings. The
Planning Commission and City Council shall apply the requirements of this
ordinance to any lot or parcel of land from which a dwelling is to be removed
or has been removed by or on behalf of the applicant at any time prior to the
date of the application for the Conditional Use Permit
.
2. Any structure. building or other improvement constituting part of an
institutional use that lies directly across the street from a dwelling or dwellings
shall be architecturally compatible. in scale with and oriented consistent with
existing dwelling units. If the existing dwelling units adjacent to or in the
vicinity of the institutional use face the street. any structures. buildings or
improvements related to the institutional use must also orient to the street.
Green space. yards or landscaped parking lots are acceptable if an existing park
or open space is adiacent to or across the street from the institutional use. New
or expanded existing parking lots across the street from existing dwellings are
not acceptable because they are inconsistent with the existing character of the
neighborhood. except that a parking access drive not exceeding 24 feet in
width may be permitted across the street from existing dwellings provided the
landscaj>ing and screening requirements of this ordinance are met. In order to
evaluate the application for a Conditional Use Permit and its compliance with
this paragraph. the City may retain an architect or city planner. at the
applicant's expense. to evaluate the proposed conditional use and submit a
study or report to the City stating the architect or planner's opinions and
recommendations relating to the compliance of the proposed institutional use
with the requirements of this paragraph.
3. If a new or expanded existing parking lot or access drive is permitted under the
provisions of the preceding paragraph. and such new or expanded parking lot or
access drive abuts or is across the street from an existing dwelling or dwellings.
there Shall be a landscaped buffer area within the required setback of at least 15
feet in width. Buffer areas shall be planted with a mixture of not less than 50%
coniferous plantings to facilitate year-round screening. and berming may also be
required for screening purposes. Additionally. screening and buffering shall be
required in accordance with Section 550.01 of this ordinance except that fence
shall be permitted along street frontages.
Subdivision 2. the proposed use shall also comply with all federal. state and municipal laws.
statues. codes and ordinances and the standards and policies of the City in effect at the time of
submission of the applicant for a Conditional Use Permit. The City may require the applicant at
the applicant's expense. to submit studies. plans and reports. from consultants approved by the
City to demonstrate compliance of the proposed conditional use with all such laws. statutes.
codes. ordinances. standards. and policies.
'-.
.
That the Hopkins City Code section 570.40 be, and the same is hereby amended by,
amending, deleting or adding the following section, paragraphs and subdivisions:
570.40 Permitted signs: Institutional Districts.
The signage for institutional districts shall conform to section 570.46.
First Reading:
April 4, 2000
Second Reading:
April 18, 2000
Date of Publication:
April 26, 2000
Date Ordinance Takes Effect:
May 17, 2000
Eugene 1. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature
Date
-"
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 2000-26
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN ORDINANCE REGULATING
THE REMOVAL OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Amendments ZNOO-3 has been made by the City of
Hopkins;
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for zoning amendments was made by the City of Hopkins;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission published notice, held a
public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on March 28,
2000: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Zoning Amendments ZNOO-3
is hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the proposed amendments protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
community.
Adopted this 4th day of April 2000.
Dorothy BoeD, Chair
.