CR 94-141 Variance - Subdivision Moratorium
,
a."- "\ y 0
\
CJ ,.,.
I m
1- '"
July 27, 1994 o P K \ 'iI- Council Report 94-141
VARIANCE - SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 94-70 denying a
variance from the subdivision ordinance moratorium.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Hutchison moved and Mr. Day seconded a motion
to approve Resolution RZ94-8 recommending denial of a variance from the subdivision
ordinance moratorium. The motion was approved unanimously
Overview.
The applicants, Greg and Susan Hayes, are proposing to divide the lot at 7 Webster Place.
The applicant has applied for preliminary/final plat approval to divide 7 Webster Place.
However, during May the City Council meeting, the Council approved an ordinance which
established a moratorium on approving subdivisions. Because of the moratorium on
subdivisions, at the May Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission tabled the
I plat until the moratorium expires or the subdivision ordinance is changed. The moratorium
ordinance allows for the granting of a variance for a subdivision during the moratorium. The
applicant has requested a variance from the subdivision moratorium.
At the July 5, 1994, City Council meeting, the City Council referred the variance request from
the subdivision moratorium ordinance to the Planning Commission meeting of July 26, 1994.
The subdivision moratorium ordinance allows the Planning Commission to review the variance
request.
Staff reviewed the applicants request with the Commission. Susan Hayes, the applicant,
appeared before the Commission. Mrs. Hayes stated that they wanted to divide the lot. There
was little discussion on this matter at the meeting.
Primary Issues to Consider.
0 What special circumstances or conditions did the applicant state for granting a
variance?
0 Is the applicants requested subdivision compatible with the proposed
subdivision ordinance?
0 What is the staff recommendation?
SUDPortin2 Documents.
0 Analysis ofIssues
I 0 Proposed Ordinance
0 Resolution 94-70
0 Ordinance 94-739
f1i
Nancy . Anderson, AICP
Planner
"-
I CR94-141
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider.
0 What special circumstances or conditions did the applicant state for a variance?
The moratorium ordinance states the following: tithe application for a variance shall set forth
the special circumstances or conditions which the applicant alleges to exist, and shall
demonstrate that the proposed subdivision is compatible with the proposed subdivision
ordinance. "
The applicant has not stated any special circumstances or conditions that exist for a variance
nor did the applicant demonstrate that the proposed subdivision is compatible with the
proposed subdivision ordinance.
Attached is the supplemental data for variance as submitted by the applicant. The applicant
answered #3, by attaching the complaint. Attached is the complaint.
0 Is the applicants requested subdivision compatible with the proposed subdivision
ordinance?
I There are several sections of the proposed subdivision ordinance which has been prepared by
staff, that the applicants subdivision as proposed will not comply with. The following are the
sections in the proposed ordinance that the applicants subdivision as proposed does not
comply with:
500.27 Subd. 10. Private right-of-way. Private rights-of-way shall not be approved
nor shall public improvements be installed in any private right-of-way. The applicants plat
shows a private right-of-way through the existing lot to the new lot from Webster Place.
500.55 Subd. 9. Lot shape. Lots shall be substantially square, rectangle or triangular.
Lots shall have a minimum of 3 sides and a maximum of 6 sides. As shown on the attached
drawing, Lot I will have 7 sides and Lot 2 will have 10 sides.
560.05 Frontage. No residence shall hereafter be erected upon any lot unless lot
abuts upon a street for at least 20 feet and provides access to the lot from this street unless it
is located within an approved P.U.D. The proposed new lot does not have access from
Loring Road which is the street upon which the lot has frontage.
0 What is the staff recommendation?
Based on the fact that the applicants subdivision will not comply with the proposed
subdivision ordinance, and the applicant has not detailed the special circumstances or
conditions which exist to allow for the granting of the variance, the staff is recommending
denial of the variance request.
I Alternatives
1. Approve the variance from the subdivision ordinance. By recommending approval of the
variance, the applicant will be allowed to have an application for a subdivision considered
the moratorium on subdivisions. If the City Council chooses this alternative, findings of
fact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
..-..---- --
I CR94-141
Page 3
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to have an
application for a subdivision considered during the subdivision moratorium.
3. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
I
I
----- - - - .-.
I CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 94-70
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT
DENYING A VARIANCE FROM THE SUBDIVISION MORATORIUM ORDINANCE # 94-739
FOR 7 WEBSTER PLACE
WHEREAS, an application for a variance, VN94-2, has been made by
Gregory & Susan Hayes to allow them to subdivide the property at 7
Webster Place; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for a variance, VN94-2, was filed with
the City of Hopkins on May 27, 1994.
2. That the Hopkins Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed
notices, held a meeting on the application and reviewed such
application on July 26, 1994: all persons present were
given an opportunity to be heard.
I 3 . That the written comments and analysis of the city staff and
the Planning Commission were considered.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for variance
VN94-2 is hereby denied based on the fOllowing Findings of Fact:
1. That the applicants have owned the subject property for
approximately 6 years.
2. That when the applicants purchased the property, the
subject property was zoned R-1-E, which requires a
minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet.
3. That there has been no change in the condition of the
subject property and the applicant continues to be able
to use the subject property for its intended purpose.
4 . That the subdivision proposed by the applicants is not
compatible with the proposed amendments to the
subdivision ordinance now under review and
consideration by the city.
5. That there are no special circumstances or conditions
by which the variance can be granted.
I
. ----
RESOLUTION NO: 94-70
Page 2
I Adopted this 2nd day of August, 1994.
Charles D. Redpenning, Mayor
Attest:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
I
I
,
0
I P
---:.{I I'
\
1'""-
\~I
, I -J 11b.IO
v r
~f! //
~/
--0.'( /
I ~~
/
l/// (j
.,/
...... "-J ,
/\
~ ) \
~ t
\ '-'
- -<~ ..'
" . .
~O':s-
".!) '...
0.......
.1/
O~
_II "'211..-- '-'
..,
-
I CITY OF HOPKINS
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
FOR VARIANCE
Application No. VNQ4-;A
P.I~D. No. 13-//7-;);;2,)3 CCJ3::2
A. GENERAL DATA
NAME OF APPLICANT: C-RFcc/(y -./ S'td.5~A/ ,# AyE 5
The above named individual, firm or corporation hereby respectfully submits
the following supplemental data in support of the preliminary information
provided on the accompanying Zoning Application Summary Form dated ~)~~q~
for the purpose of securing a variance from existing land use ' zo iog
controls.
IIAh:::5 , G-p?, EGoR P 93& -7 7/ ~ '73:;: - c;. 99&
Contact Person Last Name, First Day Phone Evening Phone
B. PROJECT INFORMATION
* Specify the section of the ordinance from whi.ch variance is sought:
S:4BDIV/~/()N ,Al/ORAToKIU ti'\ "RO/IJIAN-LE
. Explain how you wish to vary from the applicable provisions of the
ordinance: N /A. - (A,..J E tA.J I S,.-L/ ;0 136: E)( EM PI"
FI?O/I/\ ~ ~.RArQJ?; (AM
.
3. Exp 1 ain why the s t ri c t enforecmen t 0 f the Ordinan c e would caus e an
undue hardship or deny reasonable use of the property. Hardship to the
applicant is the crucial test. -r'b'/~r- SeE AT7/lC/lcC)
4. Che ck all addi t ional s up po rt ing documents and da t a whi ch are be lng
submitted to help explain this project proposal: [ ] site plan1 [ ]
topographic map, ~J other (specify) CoUE:R LETTER
I hereby certify with my signature that all data ~~~~~
:;0 my application forIDS 1 plans and specifications .L!.!-/ -<- ~~
~re true and correct to the best of my knowledge: ;.n.~
Signature of Ap icant
ORDER GRANTING OR DENYING VARIANCE
I accordance with the findings stated on the reverse side of this
cument, the City of Hopkins hereby [ ] approved, [ ] denies the foregoing
Application for Variance. If approved, said approval is subject to the
General and Special Conditions following the Findings section on page 2.
Bv'
. .
Authorized Signature Title Date
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR FIND=NGS AND CONDITIONS
.
I CASE TYPE:
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTIf JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Gregory J. Hayes and Susan Hayes, File No.
Plaintiffs, COl\1PLAINT AND JURY
DEMAND
vs.
City of Hopkins, a municipal corporation,
Defendant.
COMES NOW Plaintiffs Gregory Hayes and Susan Hayes, as and for their Complaint
I against City of Hopkins, based on personal knowledge with respect to their own actions and
upon infonnation and belief with respect to the actions of all other parties, state and allege as
follows:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
L Plaintiffs Gregory Hayes and Susan Hayes (collectively the "Hayes") reside in the City
of Hopkins, which is located in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
2. Defendant City of Hopkins ("City") is a municipal corporation fonned under the laws of
the State of Minnesota and located within Hennepin County.
3. Jurisdiction and venue reside with this Court as the parties are located within Hennepin
I County, and all events and actions relevant to the instant matter have occurred within Hennepin
County.
I GENERAL ALLEGA nONS
4. For more than one year, the Hayes have sought to obtain approval from the City to
subdivide certain property owned by the Hayes and located at 7 Webster Place, in Hopkins,
Minnesota (the "Property").
5. In or about spring of 1993, the Hayes requested a variance from the City for approval
of the proposed subdivision. The City denied the variance indicating the proposed subdivision
did not provide for lots that met the minimum amount of useable square footage required by the
City's ordinances.
I 6. Subsequent to the City's refusal to grant their requested variance, the Hayes at the
instruction and advice of the City, submitted a concept plan of a subdivision that was in
compliance with the express written provisions of the City's ordinances and zoning requirements
in all respects.
7. In reviewing the concept plan for the SI ',division of the Property, the City has raised
certain concerns regarding the "configuration" of the property as it would exist following the
subdivision. However, because the Hayes' proposal complies with all aspects and requirements
of the City's ordinances, the City's attorney as well as other City staff members have
acknowledged the Hayes' proposed subdivision is lawful and must be approved by the City.
I 8. On or about March 21, 1994, after reviewing the Hayes' proposed subdivision, the City's
attorney I Jerre Miller, advised the City "there are no constraints upon the configuration of a
parcel within a particular plat on which the City could rely and deny in the proposed
-2-
I subdivision. There is no requirement within the Code or Zoning Ordinance that requires lots
to be designed substantially the same as one another in a particular plat nor could I End any case
law for guidance. For this reason, I am concerned that upon review of a Judge or jury, if the
matter were to reach that point, the configuration may be found to be of little consequence to
the overall addition absent any specific prohibition in the Code or Ordinance upon which the
City could rely in denying the proposal."
9. On or about March 22, 1994, the City's Planner, Nancy S. Anderson, advised the City
that, "[a]lthough the Staff is not pleased with the configuration of the two lots, there is nothing
in the subdivision or zoning ordinances or State Statute that prohibits the applicant from dividing
I the lot as proposed."
10. On or about April 29, 1994, the Hayes submitted a formal request for approval of the
subdivision in question.
11. On or about May 3, 1994, the City Council first considered a proposed moratorium on
all subdivisions in the City of Hopkins. At that time, the Hayes' application for a subdivision
was the only such fonnal request pending.
12. On or about May 17, 1994, the City formally adopted a moratorium prohibiting all
subdivisions in the City of Hopkins.
I
-3-
I 13. The moratorium adopted by the City is solely and exclusively aimed at depriving the
Hayes of approval for their application of the subdivision of their Property.
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
14. The Hayes reallege the allegations contained in all preceding Paragraphs.
15. The Hayes contend that, as a matter of law, the moratorium enacted by the City cannot
have any application or binding effect on their proposed subdivision.
I 16. Notwithstanding the Hayes' clear exemption from said moratorium, the City has
nonetheless attempted and continues to attempt to apply the moratorium to block, deny and
prohibit the Hayes' proposed subdivision.
17. Under these circumstances, a declaration of rights with respect to the limits on llle City's
jurisdiction and the scope of the moratorium in question would be a practical help in ending the
controversy pursuant to MiIUlesota Statute Section 555.02.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF TITLE 42 D.S.C. & 1983
18. The Hayes reallege the allegations contained in all preceding Paragraphs.
I 19. The City, individually and through its agents, acting under the color of state statutes and
city ordinances have subjected and continue to subject the Hayes to the deprivation of their
-4-
I rights, privileges and immunities secured by the constitution and state and federal laws by,
among other things, the imposition, enactment, and enforcement of a moratorium that does not
and cannot apply to the Hayes' application for approval of a subdivision of their Property.
20. The Hayes damages and loss as a direct and proximate cause of the City's violation of
the Title 42 D.S.C. ~ 1983 is a substantial sum, yet to be precisely calculated but believed to
be an amount in excess of $50,000.
21. The Hayes are further entitled to reasonable interest and damages described herein, plus
costs and disbursements incurred herein, as well as reasonable attorneys' fees incurred herein,
I pursuant to Title 42 U.S.c. ~ 1988.
COUNT III
ESTOPPEL
22. The Hayes reallege the allegations contained in all preceding paragraphs.
23. During the period relevant to this lawsuit, the City made representations acknowledging
the Hayes' right to subdivide the land in question.
24. In reasonable reliance on these representations by the City, the Hayes have delayed the
subdivision in question for more than one year and otherwise relied on the City's purported good
I faith and truthful representations regarding the requirements for a subdivision.
-5-
I 25. As a result of these representations by the City and corresponding reasonable reliance by
the Hayes, the City is estopped from taking any further action to harass, delay, block, prohibit
or in any other fashion interfere with the Hayes' right to subdivide their Property,
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Hayes pray judgment of thls Court for the following:
l. Declaratory judgment that their request to subdivide the property in question is exempted
from the moratorium adopted by the City with respect to all other subdivisions within the City
of Hopkins.
I 2. For declaratory judgment that the Hayes' proposed subdivision is in compliance with all
applicable city ordinances and zoning requirements, and therefore application for approval of
said subdivision shall be granted by the City.
3. TImt the City shall be held liable for all damages and special damages arising from and
relating to the City's unlawful actions which the Hayes believe to be a substantial sum in excess
of $50,000.
4. That the City shall be held liable for all of the Hayes' expenses incurred in this matter,
including costs, disbursements and reasonable attorneys' fees.
I 5. For such other and further relid as the Court may deem just and equitable.
-6-
I JURY DE1\.1AND
ll1e Hayes respectfully demand trial by jury of all claims and issues so triable as allowed
pursuant to applicable law.
Dated: June '3, 1993 WINTHROP & WEINS TINE, P.A.
By: _ -T~~
1110mas H. Boyd, 11200517
3200 Minnesota W orId Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
S1. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 290-8400
I Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Gregory J. Hayes and
Susan Hayes
STP:llSll4-1
I
-7-
- -~
I ACKi"'\{OWLEDGl\tIENT
The undersigned, hereby acknowledges that pursuant to Minn. Stat. S 549.21 (1). Subd. 2,
costs, disbursements and reasonable attorney and witness fees may be awarded to the opposing
party or parties in this litigation if the Court should find that the undersigned acted in bad faith,
asserted a claim or defense that is frivolous and that is costly to the other party, asserted an
unfounded position solely to delay the ordinary course of the proceedings or to harass; or
committed a fraud upon the Court.
Dated: June 11, 1993 WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.
- \~~
By:
I Thomas H. Boyd, #200517
3200 Minnesota World Trade Center
30 East Seventh Street
S1. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 290-8400
Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Gregory J. Hayes and
Susan Hayes
I
-8~
I CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 94-000
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCE
That the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance No. 500 be and the same is hereby amended by
amending the following sections:
Section 500
Subd. 6. tlCity plan" means the comprehensive development plan prepared and maintained by the
zoning and plan.J:i.ng commission and adopted by the COUI'lcil, indicating the general locations
recommended for the yarious functional classes of public '.vorks, places and structures, and f-or the
geflcral physical de',clopment of the city, and includes any unit or part of such plan separately
adopted and any amendment to such plan or parts thereof.
Subd. 6. "Comprehensive municipal plan" that compilation of materiaL statements. goals.
I standards and maps adopted by the commission and used by the commission in making
recommendations for guiding the orderly development of the private and public sectors of the
city.
Subd. 9. "Easement" means the grant or acquisition of certain limited rights in the use of land
for public or private purposes by means other than lease or other rental arrangements.
Subd. 9. I1Easement" is a grant by a property owner for the use of a strip of land. for the
purpose of constructing and maintaining. utilities. including but not limited to. wetlands. ponding
areas. sanitary sewers. water mains. electric lines. telephone lines. storm sewer or storm drainage
ways and gas lines.
Subd. 13. tlLottl (flag) means lots or parcels with less frontage on a public street than is
normally required. The panhandle is an access corridor to lots or parcels located behind lots or
parcels which normally required street frontage.
Subd. 13. tlLot (double frontage)" means any parcel of and, the opposite ends of '.vhich abut
upon streets other than alleys.
Subd. 14. "Lot (through)" a lot. not a corner lot. which has a pair of opposite lot lines which
abut upon streets other than alleys.
Subd. 15. "Outlot" a parcel of land. included in a plat. which is smaller than the minimum size
permitted for lots and which is thereby declared unbuildable until combined through platting with
I additional land: or a parcel of land which is included in a plat and which is at least double the
minimum size and which is thereby subiect to future platting prior to development: or a parcel of
land which is included in a plat and which is designated for public or private open space.
I right-of-way. utilities or other similar purposes. An outlot is unbuildable and no permits to
construct upon or improve an outlot may be issued.
Subd. 20. "Required public improvements" means those improvements in any proposed
subdivision, including streets, concrete curb and gutter, water and sewer systems and storm water
drainage systems, which are required in connection with the approval of any plat or other
subdivision.
Subd. 19. "Right of '.yay" means the area within the lirillts of a street.
Subd. 21. "Right-of-way" an area or strip of land, either public or private, on which an
irrevocable right-of-passage has been recorded for the use of vehicles or pedestrians or both.
500.03
Subd. 3.
d) location, widths and names of existing or previously platted streets or other public ways,
parks and other public lands, permanent buildings and structures, easements and section
and corporate lines within the preliminary plat and to a distance lOO 150 feet beyond the
boundary line;
I e) location and size of existing sewers, water mains, culverts or other underground facilities,
both public and private, within the preliminary plat area and to a distance of lOO 150 feet
beyond. Such data as grades, invert elevations, and location of catch basins, manholes,
and hydrants shall also be shown;
f) boundary lines of adjoining unsubdivided or subdivided land, within -l-GG---150 feet,
identifYing by name and ownership;
Subd. 4.
c) typical cross-sections of proposed improvement upon streets and alleys, together with an
indication as to the method of disposing of the proposed storm water runoff in accordance
with all applicable rules and regulations:
Subd. 7.
a) a statement and/or expert analysis of the proposed use of lots, type of business or industry
so as to reveal effect of the development on traffic, fire hazards or congestion of
population; The city staff has the discretion to determine if expert analysis is needed.
d) notation made as to present or projected installation of curb and gutter, sidewalks,
I boulevard improvements, and the location of street trees;
g) a statement regarding the proposed access to the lot and how it will affect the adjoining
property.
--.--- - - -- -- n
I 500.07.
a) refer two copies of the preliminary plat to the zoning and planning commission for its
examination and report and one copy to the city engineer for his examination and report.
Copies of the City Engineer's report of the engineer shall be given to the zoning and
planning commission at least 15 days prior to the hearing required by 500.07 b.
500.27
Subd. 1.
Classification Right-of-Way Roadway
Collector Streets "'J-{) H-feet 44-- 48-52 feet
Minor Streets 6G 66 feet ~ 36 feet
Marginal Access Streets .w 60
I Subd. 10. Private rights-of-way. Private rights-of-way shall not be approved nor shall public
improvements be installed in any private street right-of-way.
Subd. 11. Hardship to OV.'ner of adjoining property avoided. The right of '.vay arrangements shall
not be such as to cause hardship to owners of adjoining property in platting land and providing
convenient access to it.
500.33. Minimum standards: curb and gutter. Concrete curb and gutter may shall be included
as a part of the required street surface improvement and shall thus be designed for the installation
along both sides of all roadway in accordance with the standards of the city.
500.35. Minimum standards: boulevard sodding. Boulevard sodding may shall be included as a
part of the required street improvements.
500.37 Minimum standards; sidewalks. Subdivision 1. Width. Sidewalks may be required to be
included as part of the required street improvement and widths shall conform to the following
minimum standards. All sidewalks and curb openings shall conform to all applicable state and
federal standards.
Classification Width
I Single family zone -S Q feet
500.39. Minimum standards: pedestrian ways. In blocks of over 900 feet in length, pedestrian
crosswalks through the blocks, and at least ten feet wide, may be required by the city council in
-..
I locations deemed necessary to public health, convenience and welfare. Pedestrian ways shall be
suitably surfaced as determined by the city engineer.
500.43 Minimum standards: sewage disposal. Extensions of the public sanitary sewer system
shall be designed so as to provide sewer service to each lot. The design of said extensions shall be
in accordance with the standards of the city and all applicable state codes. Private or group
sewage systems shall be in accordance with state laws and this code and subject to approval by
the council.
500.45. Minimum standards: drainage. A complete and adequate design drainage system will
may-be required for the subdivision and which system or systems shall be designed in conformity
with all applicable standards of the city, and subject to the approval of the city engineer and their
. .
governmg agenCIes.
500.55
Subd. 9. Lot shape. Lots shall be substantially square, rectangle or triangular. Lots shall have a
minimum of 3 sides and a maximum of 6 sides to allow for utilities and drainage easements. The
shape of the lots shall generally conform to the lot shapes in the area.
I Subd. 10. Flag lots. Flag lots are not permitted in any subdivisions.
Waiver of Plat. Subdivision 1. In certain circumstances a waiver of plat maybe more
500.60
appropriate than a subdivision to divide a property if the subiect property has been platted. An
applicant may apply for a waiver of plat if the following circumstances exist:
a) the lot(s) involved in the proposed division are platted
b) the division requested is a substantially single line
c) that the division will not create more than one additional lot
d) that the division will not require the dedication of a public right of way or extension of
uti lites in a public right of way
e) that the new lots created conform to all standards
Subd. 2. Application. All applications for a wavier of plat must include a sUIvey of the
property to be divided and the new legal descriptions of the property after the division.
Subd. 3. Action by the commission. Application for a waiver of plat shall be referred by
I the planing department to the Zoning and Planning Commission which shall hear the applicant or
representative thereof. at its next regular meeting. provided all necessary data has been submitted.
The Commission shall recommend such conditions relating to the granting of the waiver as its
deems necessary to so as to carry out the intent and purpose of this code and the standards in
I Subd. 1 , or shall recommend denial of the request. The Commission's recommendation shall be
forwarded to the City Council .
Subd. 4. Filing. Applications for a waiver of plat shall be filed with the zoning
administrator with such filing fee as may be from time to time established by resolution of the
council.
That the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance No. 515-570 be and the same is hereby amended by
amending the following sections:
515.07
Subd. 71. Lot: a parcel of land abutting on a public or approvcd private strcet and of sufficient
size to provide the yards and area required by this code.
Subd. 71. 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.
I Subd. 81. Lot - through: a lot, not a corner lot, which has a pair of opposite lot lines abutting
t'.'/O substantially parallel streets which abut upon streets other than alleys.
Subd. 99. Outlot: a parcel of land, included in a plat, which is smaller than the minimum size
permitted for lots and which is thereby declared unbuildable until combined through platting with
additional land; or a parcel of land which is included in a plat and which is at least double the
minimum size and which is thereby subject to future platting prior to development; or a parcel of
and which is included in a plat and which is designated for public or private open space,
right-of-way, utilities or other similar purposes. An outlot is unbuildable and no permits to
construct upon or improve an outlot may be issued.
560.05. Frontage. No residence shall hereafter be erected upon any lot unless such lot abuts
upon an improved public right-of-way street for at least 20 feet and provides access to the lot
from this right-of-way unless it is located within an approved P.UD.
First Reading: September 00, 1994
Second Reading: September 00, 1994
I Date of Publication: September 00, 1994
Date Ordinance Takes Effect: October 00, 1994
I
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
James A. Genellie, City Clerk
I
I
I 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 amendments to 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.
I 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.
Variances from this Ordinance may be granted by the city council based upon a
determination that a proposed subdivision would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
Ordinance. The procedures to be followed in applying for a variance from this moratorium shall
be accordance with section 525.07 of the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance and shall include the
following:
1) The applicant shall file a completed application form, together with required exhibits to
the planning department.
2) The application for a variance shall set forth the special circumstances or conditions
which the applicant alleges to exist, and shall demonstrate that the proposed
subdivision is compatible with the proposed subdivision ordinance.
3) The variance application shall be submitted to the city council for their review and
comment. The city council may refer the application to the zoning and planning
commission for review and recommendation.
I 4) The city council may, in its discretion, set a public hearing prior to making a final
determination on the requested variance.
-. --- ----
. ..
I 5) The city council may impose such restrictions upon the proposed subdivision as may be
necessary to comply with the purpose and intent of this moratorium.
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:
I James A. Genellie, City Clerk
I
- - .--- ----