Memo- Single Family House Demolition Moratorium
. ,
PLANNING &
. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Memorandum
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: -=IJ:. Jim Kerrigan, Planning & Economic Development Director
Date: March 1, 1999
Subject: Single Family House Demolition Moratorium
Staff has scheduled discussion of the attached draft study report prepared by
Hoisington Koegler for the work session of March 9, 1999. As you will note, there are
three different options detailed in this document. The City Council needs to decide
which option best addresses their issues and concerns. An ordinance will then be
prepared which will facilitate implementation. Fred Hoisington and Jerry Steiner will be
present at this meeting.
Attachment
.
.
,-~ .___. _.~_ C"
.
11I131 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
liD
F AX Cover Sheet
Date: March 2, 1999
Attention: Jim Kerrigan
FAX Number:
From: Fred Hoisington
e Re:
Comments:
This is the final planning study for review by the Council on March 9. 1999
Sending a total of 7 pages, including this cover page. If you do not
receive all pages or are experiencing other problems in transmission, please
call us and ask for assistance at: (612) 338.0800.
Thank You.
FAX (612) 338.6838
.
6~:m 66, G'0 dtlW mdG'S6 d3l930~ N019NISIOH 8m98~~-G'19
, _ no. H'__.'_~_ _,. ,_.C~ . "~ --." -~..
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 much 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 w~hin 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 demolrtion 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 e
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.
FindingslBasis
Ordinance No. 98-092 is an interim ordinance 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 pollcies:
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 overall 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 .
017:01 66. 2'0 dl:::lW cOd 2'% d3l930~ N019NISlOH 8m98~~-2'19
..,.. ,.. .---,_..'-_.
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing PreseIVation
. 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 single-
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 Cny Council believes that single-family residenftal 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 CitVs Ordinances, Regulations and Official Controls relating to the demolition or
e removal of single-family residential structures located within the City.
In addition to the above findings by the Council in adopting Ordinance No. 986092, 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 singleAfamily homes....
2. The "Housing and Residential Neighbomood 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?"
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 neighbomoods..."
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.
e
Page 2
017 : 01 66, 2:0 dtlW [0d 2:S6 d3l~30~ N01~NISIOH BE89B[[-c19
--'. .....~-----' - ______u_ .....,..
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
5. The "Neighborhood Preservation" 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 Uvable 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 tow percentage of single-
family housing stock as compared to the average for cities within Hennepin County. The Council has 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 removal 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 .
The potential effects of single-family housing loss on the remainder of the neighborhood
2.
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 toss 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
slngle-famHy dwellings, how can the City protect what ;s 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 A Creating an exclusive zoning district for institutional uses,
Option B Amending the existing conditional use permit ordinance to add requirements for uses
which remove single-family homes in R.1 Districts
Option C Combination of the two
In summary, Option A [s exclusively a rezoning approach with no CUP requirements or conditions. Option e
B is just a conditional use permit for MY use in R.1 Dlstricts which take one or more single-family houses.
Page 3
Tt':OT 66. cO dtlW !70d c:S5 d3l930~ N019NISIOH 8[898~~-C:T9
-____I .-..- ....._- ,-, -, _n_ _~~_..._..., .-"_.- "'--.---+-- ,.. .-------------.-
.
.
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 public 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 lawsu~s. 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
. Uses can expand/single-family homes lost . Existing R.1 sites need to be rezoned -
only If rezoned could entail down-zoning
. City controls (requires four-votes) . No established measurIng stick
. Legally permissible (decisions could appear arbitrary)
. Neighborhood integrity is maintained . City must decidelinterpret every issue
. Requires four-votes (difficult to get)
. Would not cover losses attributable to
abutting 8 or I parking
. Less flexible than Option B
. Option B . Conditional Use Permit Requirements
The CUP Option 8 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 sinale-familv 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 A-l Districts shall be subject to all of the following
requirements:
1) Setbac~s. Where a facility abuts a residential use and there is no intervening street, the sldeyard
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 7S0-vehicles per
day on any street that is intended primarily to serve residentIal areas (streets that are not classified as
collectors or arterials). A traffic study shall be required at the discretion of the City.
e 3) Standard/substandard dwelling removal (Le. 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
c17 : 0T 66. cO dtlW SOd CS6 d31930~ N019NISIOH 8[898[[-c19
_ _n
_0_- _~_ , -- . - .,-- ------- -~-~
.
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
uses and housing replacement. The Ctty may consider the issuance of a condttional 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 ~tandard
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 streetl 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 off-site or elsewhere within the city by units of equal or greater value and
the compatibillty requirements of this section are satisfied
4) Neiahborhood comoatibility. The removal ot 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 Jot across the street from established homes would not be
acceptable because neighborhood patterns would be significantly altered). .
Using Zion Lutheran Church as an example:
tToaco:q>l&ble CondlllOll
5) Landscaping 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 0
7) Comorehensive plan consistenc\,. The project shall be consistent with the City's comprehensive plan. e
Page 5
::v:m hb. cO dt1W SOd 2S6 ~3l930~ N019NISIOH 8[898~T -219
--- .- --- --.--
~-------- -- ~__,_ _ ".". "_. ~ __. coo. __,_._..___..._. L ,_. '... ,_. -.-. ._'" '--.-.-.---,.. , ~~C,_______ _._~------.-.-__...___,___
. .
~
Hopkins Planning Sludy
Single-Family Housing Preservation
. 8) Neighborhood involvement. The proponent shall initiate neighborhood meetings for residents within
350-feet of the subject property.
PROS I CONS
. Maintains flexibility . City must decide/interpret every issue
. Uses can expand if meet CUP requirements . Does not completely prevent single-
. City controls - can approve or deny based on family loss
compliance with requirements . Need to develop consensus on
. Creates method of 'lneasuring" compliance gacceptable conditions"
. Legally permissible . Uses permitted by CUP are by right if
. Neighborhood integrity maintained the proponent meets all of the conditions
. Would cover losses attributable to abutting 8 or . Three.votes required for approval if CUP
I parking criteria are met
. Relatively simple ordinance amendment
required
Option 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 B CUP requirements would be listed for R-1 Districts to cover literally any
possible single-family loss. A new public and institutional (P/I) district would be created permitting schools,
. churches, and perhaps, outdoor recreation area/parks by conditional use perm~. 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 A-1 District. Existing pubUc and institutional uses would be rezoned
P/I 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 1 CONS
. Maintains flexibility . City must decide/interpret every issue
. Uses can expand if they meet the CUP . Loss of single-family homes possible
requirements and property is rezoned . Need to develop consensus on
. City controls (requires four-votes) gacceptable" conditions
. Creates method of measuring compliance . Requires four-votes (difficult to get)
. Legally permissible . Could entail down-zoning
. Neighborhood integrity maintained . Extremely complicated and major
. Would cover all potential losses 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 B 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
e philosopher who shall remain unnamed).
Page 6
[17 : 01 66. c0 dtJW G0d CS6 d3l830~ N018NISIOH 8[898[[-cl9