Memo Joint Meetings
- -- -- ---- -
,
C) PLANNING &;,
ECONOMKC DEVELOPMENT
I\~ eICIl11 0 IC2J,11 d ~JJJl1Ol
To: City Council/Zoning 8~ Planning Commission
From: Jim t{errigan, Planning 11t Economic Development Director
Date: July 5, 1999
Subject J@681lfr lliJ0@~i81lrn
A joint meeting of the Z 11~ P Commission ancl City Council has been scheduled for July
13, 1999, at 6:30 p.m. in the Raspberry Room at City Hall. This is a regular Council
worl~( session night
The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the single family preservation study recently
(~) prepared by Hoisington t<.oegler 8~ Associates in conjunction with the single family
housing demolition moratorium t11at is presently in effect. Property owners who have
institutional uses that could be impacted by implementation of one of the options
detailed in this study have been invited to this meeting, to provide input. This mailing
included institutional usen in both R-1 and R-2 tllrough R-6 clistricis, as there has been
discussion of expanding any ordinance changes to non-single-family residential
districts.
Attached to this memo are the following:
. Housing preservation study as amended
. Agenda for the July 13 meeting
. Memo from Jerry Steiner dated June 24, 1999
. LeUer to property owners dated June 24, 1999, and mailing list
Attachments
0
------------------------ -----
---- ---------- ----
.
0 ~o~Q)~d~s Ph~lntll~~l[}J S~tUH1JjW
Singh~~Family Housing Preservation
March 1, 1999
Revised - June 24, 1999
i:::"'''''m'_"'___~~" ,,' , .,,__~_,___,~~~, ,,~"" ..""'_~_,__,~"~._~,, _,_ ._,..." ",",~._:==J
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 Hopldns 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 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 eldsting ordinances, regulations and official controls or adopt a new
ordinance regulating the demolition and removal of single-family residential structures and buildings located
0 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 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 eldent the demolition or removal of single-family residences located within the city of Hopl<ins
should be regulated or restricted. The Hopldns 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 worl< to provide an overall mixture of residential land use in the City
0 The City will work to correct the disproportional amount of multi-family land uses within the City
Hop!tinG Planning mlldy
ninoic-r-nmi~y HO!!siilg Pnm(3Nation
._ ."_,, _ """-'- ,<'F"-."..,.....,~........,.=''''".,.."",='<.i.#.~"''.=,,~.u,,~ c",,"_=<,,-,;;--, """',"-" ,,", ,D. ,-'. . '" ,~,...<r' ~"'~~<'-"-"'-""~", ,,",' ,"f~",'''''', ",~"""'~';.r_'<"!-k"'~'n>!"""~_~""'_~""""'-''''''''''''''''''''''''''l","""",,=-.w~.:rn-_'''''-~, ""."..w.......::"".!"
2, Coyur,ifllnnt with 'Iho Flosidanlial NoifjhlomhomJl Poiir:im, sta.ted in the Gity's ComprehBri8ive Ph-ln, tho C)
City Coundl, as pail of tho 'lwo-yonr action p~an for the Motropolitan Livable Communities Aci,
ao1f>>piotl ,Il~no 4, 1 flf~G, has p~m:fjol pmlim~lnr impm'lance on preserving aU m(isUng ~inQJ~(Ffari1i~y
hmminrl w~thil1 'Ihe CiW,
3, r:IHi~ml', a8lmr~ of U1Jf} City 0'1 Hopidm, Blmtofjir, rll~f]l1l for [co nomic Development, Um City Cmijm;ii Of
'tho City hrm l'lfltablishBd n llifjll"priori'ly nnihr, mRiilt(~nance of owner-ocr.l.lpi~d housing.
~, T~jf: City 01 Hopkins WD2 Hmmil1{l l\nlJl~y~:i~ nopmi (ba~od on HJ90 Cermu[J Drlta), as adoptod
Gopiombar B, .~ fl92, indl!oInd Um Ioiiowin!~ Yinoling: "~lop~dns has a nmu:h iower pltm~~riiagc) oI !:>inrjl~"
fami~y I1mn~~ !l1aJl U10 nv~m.g{:) for Hmmopin County (300/0 in Hopkins compared 'to an fJlv~m!.lo of
m~% in Hmulopin CmmIy),"
f' Tll0 City Council 1Jr,~iovon iho cOi]oliiimm idm1miod in the City of Hopldrm 19!J2 Hmminu ^nn!Yl~i8
:J.
Fl0pOi i coniimm io [-mist. [!pf1Gific[1J~y, HIG City Coune:!! ho~ieves Umt singl~-family rer;idonUni ur;~
wiil1Jin 1ho City cDrm'lituifJ3 a. rrmch lowor p8Hxmta{Jf1 01 overa.1I residontia.1 use Umn IIlo lwonJ\~~n for all
of H€'mn8pil1 County,
G. Com:iGicni wiU] th8! po~icim: Lllld g031!~ 311110.01 in ih~J City'8 CmnpmhensivEJ Pian, Two-Year Ar,Uon
PiDlIl I1l1(1j Slratogk; P!m1 for E[;oiJomie Dm.l!~~Oplm:lniJ and in mdm to m;sisi in ar,himfin[J tho City'~: fJOil!
of pronmvinfj Sh1~jkHamiiy mnio1onlin! hm millQJ wit~lin t!'m City, The City GO!.ll1cii tJEJlim.l(m a in pmdmlt
to mvinw tl10 City'~ Ordinm1c88, nr,rju~alioIlG ami Official Contro~s relating to th!~ (juliloiiUon or C)
I'(JI110VD.~ of 2ingl0-famiiy mtiidontial Dtmr.L!!I'Ga iocalmi within the City.
In mldiiic)il to UK} DJoovO findings by 'il1G Council in adopting Ordinance No. 9B-092, Ul!~ CHy's
ComprdlollBiv0 F,Jlan identiHmJ tllo roUowiilO stalml1onln, issue~ and objectives:
t TIKJ 'ti1lllol Uso unci Devolopmr.ni Ir,suor;" soction 01 th~; Compml1E~llsive P~an ~ta.t0S: "P{~rh~pG the
fjrODi.tOGt amml of H(jpkim~ in ita mwr,ro.l fino noi!]llhmhoods of !-linglo..famiiy hOIY1Els..."
2, Tho ''Hmmino ami R~Bjdontial Noi{Jhbmhonrl Ismlor," section of the Compmhom:ive Plan idonlifiAs
[118 'roi~owing isr;um~: "In il10 intowily and nliincUvoll~ss of the residential m~ighbmhond f) b~,ing
udoqwxioly iTIainiairmd? IGiho ~)ingk;l-Iamiiy r,lml'n<;lor of these neighborhoods tmin{~ mlWr.imiUy
pmioGiori?"
3. Tim "lloaidonUal Noigl1bm'l1oool Polido~" soction oltl1o Compml1e!l!-iive P~an inchwlos Um f(j~i()wirl~]
oll]m:iivr.: "The CHy wm wm'l1: 'to protect Um intogrity mid long..lerm viability 01 its low donsity
mfiio1fJlliiai noi~jhborhDml~;,. ,"
tL Tim '!Communiiy 8trurctun::m Po~iGios" sm:Uclil of ilio Comprehensive Plan includes Ulr. fo~lflwinfl
objr,r,Uvo:
TI10 CilY wiii prok:Gi 11m 10110-'(01'11'1 viabiiity 0'1 iiro flroaif~t,i aSsf~t - iIs fesidl(}l'1lial rmif]hborhoool[, -
nWm!r~il zoning, I[mol UBO plmmiu~r~, mhahmlnlion [wf>is'lanr.e, tmJfk: 0n[]in~l~~ring, p8J~{S impmv(mumtn, 0
111101 Hlpincmmmt fJlno1 infming with r.ompali~J!o hom:in[j ~;iyie:s.
PanD ;!
-
----~------ ---- - ---- - --- ----
------- -----------
,
Hopllins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing PreselVation
......-nm.M.I"'\ffi5Q=~"'""'~""'"'''''''''.........,,~===-''''''-->.<u_=~..,...._~ .A~_L~"""~""""""=""""hd~
0 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 taslt"
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 stocll 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,
Coum:~nl Goals
At the February 9, 1999 City Council Worl< 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-
0 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.
Avail(31t1J~e 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--l Districts
Option C Combination of the two
C) In summary, Option A is exclusively a rezoning approach with no CUP requirements or conditions, Option
B is just a conditional use permit for flny' use in R-1 Districts which talm one or more single-family houses,
Page 3
-------- - -----
--- --- --
Hopkin[J rlmminf~ mudy
Ginfj~o-I:Gl'Hily Hour.infJ Pl"cmmValioll
.. ~;-;----J'~' I __?f"".~'_'~ -, -------,.,y.-, ,n<>7.,...".",,_.''- _' , , -- _ ."",""'r, ,," '''''n~, -..^,~.w."", ..."";"_,,,, ^,,,",,,,,, _"",,,",,,",,,,,,,","ow-.;<,~,,,,,,,,,,,~~'~"",, """~.""'~' ,"''''''''~''n'''''~''''''='''''mll\ "~
Oplion (; inc~ur1m; both tho rozoning 01 {'misting ruhlic and institutional uses (currenUy loned R-1) and an C_)
addod Inyor 01 G! IP mgulalioll for anylhinfJ ,[haI !G!mo ono or mom single-family housns.
~')~rl)~:~))rlll" A;...::- r,~m;~ ij,ij~~~~VC) 1~(lln iJrl~(\:1 rll)~[)';r~g~;
An m:c!!mivo zOllinfj di~lrict (lmmod pllh~iG and irmIituliorml district) would be created to acr.ommorlfllle
schnob, ciini'GII(J(l, [:\m! pm"lmp8, outdoor mr.nlOlUnn mo~[~ inGluding par!{s Hnd mUilidpal (:mvic~j atrur.lI,~rm>.
~l mighl nlso pmmit sinOlo..Iurni!y homm; io avoir! potonIin! invr,nm f:cmdemnation iawsuitG. EldnUn!~ ~m;mHm;
\i1JOI~!d IKl rm,:oilml. "fho new dinirir.i w(ju~(l npply 'to un puhliG and insUtutiona! UfJr.s whicll am GmmnHy
zollod rH. We mmumoiho dir.iricl wm!~r1 not apply io public and hlHtitutiona! uses which am GurronHy
IOGDltod in Gornmomio.l dir;lrictB,
~ '}~ ~((J);:~ GOi\~S
n UGon CD.n mqoailc1!sinulo-fo.mily IlOmen lont ('1 F:l{!r;Ung R-1 sitm:: n{]cd to be mlonmJ -
only if mloned Gould entail down-zoning
(:\ City Gontmls (mquil"os four-votor;) (l No fJstallliBhed momjW'in~j [lUck
0 LO(jnl!y rmmissirJlo (d~r:isions Gouid appr.m arhiirmy)
0 Nr,i!]llbmhoocl inlegrity is mainiainG[~ 0 City must d!;)[;ide/intorpmi ovmy isf,u()
0 Hequims fmn-voh:m (dim(;uit to ~jol)
n Would not cover IORson aitributabio to
abutting [3 or I parldnfl
n Lmm f1exiblo Umn Opiian B
D~i~ii1{Djil [:;\ " ~~<<~~:TI~~iftj<<Jl!uq! ~ ~!'~~') ~i)~~[U,~_~tt~n~)H uii'(:~UlliG~uU'D;~~ (~)
T~1C cur Option [l rr.quin:G '1110 c;,ia!)~iGhm()nt 0'1 n Strono Got 01 conditions which bm:omo tho mOQr.uring
Glidm IOI" pinj('lct ovnluoJioil. The following condiHoiln would apply to any use which mrnovcm 0110 or more
ninglo-family immos ill UIG R-1 l1ir.ll'iGl:
Ur:r.n w~lir.h ramovo sinnlr.-fmniiv 11Ornr.s in nil R-'~ m~triGi. Because of Hw poinnlial for neiflhbOl'llOod
impDdD andUlD llli'Omly nl1m! mlppiy oi singlo-'iamily dwollinus, a CUP shall not bo ismlad for any propm:od
uno that will result in HID !mm nf Oile or mol's Ginglo-fofnily 110mBs unleg~ tho City dntmminmi tllat tho now
line wm IlDlVC minimal 8\dvomr. impniGi on and wm rJr. compatibio with Hm neighbmllOod, U~;Ofj whir.h
propane io il}11l0VO r.ingle-Iumiiy dWHliinof, in Fl.'! Difitrk:tr. f,lm~i be nubjeclto nil 01' tile ro~I[l1j\jing
roqliir8inCnlG:
'j) Goihoc!m. WllmTJ G fGcility abulfi a. rrmidm1lio.I una and thClr~) is no inlf}lvenin~J Gtn~ct, tho nidf~ymd
snilmr,l( fohnll ba allmwl twicr.ll1ni i'8(juirooj fOI"lllo rcr,identinlusiG, Where lho !mo ~hamfj frmll81De with
shUfjlc-[mnily mnio!rmcm; on tho somo sidr, 01 H1G Stroot, tho fmnt-yard saUmG!( nhn!! bo H18 m.uno 01'
fjilJnlm Umn iho m:;iDlh~ifillOd I'Ofii(!onlin! m::ibm:!c.
2) TrnHir. im}l"(lrJflo. Thr. WXJ shan not causa 'lraHir.io inr,mm;eio 8l ~(~VO~ Uiat fmGm~dt; 7'[jO..vohidoG por
dGjf on any nirr,ci Uli11 in inioi](lod prhnarHy'to sOlve mr.idmil!a~ amu:') (simeir. that am i1n~ r.la.m.iiinol an
colloctors or W lorials), A traffic: Gludy DIm!! Lm mqllirod at the dif,cmlion 01 Ihf! City,
3) D~nnfi1nrrVnubr;il!I}!.Jg[oLd~[iilli[!flJI1mmm.~ (i.r" mcdudinn ordemd removal of [;uh~;lanrJDJ(j homon by Um 0
City which dorm not nXjHirc a r,UP). r-or any roqum,l which involves lht~ removal of ono or morn ::inO!c.l-
fami~y homo:,:, iho City Glln~~ cmmidol' tho m~m!K)I" Gild cmuiilion of units to rsmovod, adjacent !ml'!
Pn90 Ii
.."'....."""""''''', """""-,",-,=~',....,.,r....,,",~'~'_""
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
""~~~-'''''''''''''''''''''''''~~~--.--_-- ~~~~ .
0 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) ~hborhood compatibmt~, 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
parl( 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
0 acceptable because neighborhood patterns would be significantly altered),
(An example of neighborhood compatibility is found in the Appendix)
5) Landscal2!rlq and buffering. Wherever a parl<ing 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 550.0.' of this ordinance except that fences shall not be permitted
along street frontages,
6) Other impacts. The project shall have no exterior Iighting, 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.
8) Neighborhood involvement. The proponent shall initiate neighborhood meetings for residents within
350-feet of the subject property.
PROS I COi~S
0 Maintains flexibility 0 City must decide/interpret every issue
e> 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 0 Need to develop consensus on
l"> Creates method of "measuring" compliance "acceptable conditions"
0 <0 Legally permissible ~, Uses permitted by CUP are by right if
(J) Neighborhood integrity maintained the proponent meets all of the conditions
Page 5
Hopkins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
~-'=---..... "-T ~ ~ ~
0 Would cover losses attributable to abutting B or 0 Three-votes required for approval if CUP (!
I parl(ing criteria are met
0 Relatively simple ordinance amendment
required
Of)UOri C m CCml~]:Dl2~1(m r-JGz:oilin[~ tJ10 c~r
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 ft-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 arealparl{s 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
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 I CONS
(') Maintains fl8)(ibility 0 City must decide/interpret every issue
() Uses can e){pand if they meet the CUP 0 Loss of single-family homes possible
requirements and property is rezoned 0 Need to develop consensus on
" City controls (requires four-votes) "acceptable" conditions
0 Creates method of measuring compliance " Requires four-votes (difficult to get) C)
0 Legally permissible " Could entail down-zoning
" Neighborhood integrity maintained " E):tremely 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 groundworl\ to avoid any appearance of arbitrary rezoning actions. Of the three--
approaches, however, Option B is relatively easy to accomplisll while providing the CUy Council with the
ability to achieve its goals. Option C is IiIm requiring both belt and suspenders (according to a noted
philosopher who shall remain unnamed).
FoohlOh~
The information contained in this study addresses the R-1 zoning district in the City of Hopkins. During the
preliminary review of the study, the Hopldns City Council identified the possible application of the Housing
Preservation provisions to other residential zoning classifications in the City. The extension of this
approach to other zoning classifications will be considered as the City Council further examines this
approach.
C_)
Page 6
Hopl~ins Planning Study
Single-Family Housing Preservation
...."",...,"'"-.r=nl_"""....."....~.,."'=""""""'''''''''''-,,-="'',-~.'=....~...,''''''''''''-'''"''~=.'''''''_....'''-'~'~~<\!'''---~~'
0 APPENDm
Neig"borhood Compatibility Eimmple:
EKisting Condition "\
I House II House 1\ House II House II House III House I
.....>.---0--' _~.___' ~-'----'....,~-- --",- -,~.".'~ -~~" "_,,,,:~_l
I House II House II House I L~ I House \
Building
-
L-J
Parking
..........'''''........''''..--.......---.''''..".
Unacceptable Condition ::~~l~~tL'e
I House 11 House II House II HOUS~ I I
0
L~u",':', ," "",-"," ~ "'-" , ~ ,_ ~~-:J
.L _'. .__." "~~~, <--~. -. ,. '" ,,,-,,___. . _ ,.~J ,'. .,
I House I C=:king-l- i::~' I House I
~,---~
~-
Building
Expan~~~~=_
Acceptable Condition 1
I House I i House II House II House II House I I House I
c_.:."....,_,,,, ' ".,~ _ ..... "" _ , J
.e~~'~' --_....'"'--'---~'"- ............-~-- --------. ~~-~,~- _._---_..'-- I--
I House I ~~ Existing II House I
-----l" Building
Parking ___.____
~. _-=::-"l
0
"
Page 7
----------------
0
AGENDA
01l0lJJ5~NG MORJhTO~~\Lfliill DISC\1JS~~ON
July 13, 1999
6:30 p.m.
I. BACKGROUND
II. HOUSING PRESERVATION STUDY OPTIONS
III. PUBLIC INPUT
IV. CITY COUNCil, ZONING 8: PLANNING DISCUSSION
0 V. FUTURE ACTION
0
0 VESEL Y, lVlHIlLLIER &, STEINER, P .A.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
JERRE A. MILLER 400 NORWEST BANK BUILDING JOSEPH C, VESEL Y (1905-1989)
JEREMY S. STEINER* 1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
WYNN CURTISS HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
*Real Property Law Specialist, certified 612-938-7635
by the Minnesota State Bar Association FAX 612-938-7670
MEMORANDUM
To: Jim Kerrigan
Nancy Anderson 1/ ~
15
From: Jeremy Steiner
Date: June 28, 1999
0 Re: Single Family Housing Preservation Study
You have requested that I provide this Memorandum for the purpose of addressing issues that
may arise if the proposed exclusive use zoning district for institutional uses is expanded to include
institutions that are located in higher density residential zoning districts, and not just R-l districts.
I believe that the following issues should be considered by staff and the City Council in determining
whether the proposed exclusive use district should be expanded to include institutional uses outside
ofR-l zoning districts.
1. When it adopted the Interim Ordinance placing a moratorium on the demolition or
removal of singl,e family residences in R-l zoning districts, the City Council made a number of
findings as the basis for the moratorium. These fmdings were almost exclusively based on the need
to preserve single family housing within the City of Hopkins. The findings make specific reference
to the City's Comprehensive Plan and a housing analysis report prepared for the City, both of which
concluded that the City has a disproportionately high ratio of multi-family housing to single family
housing. It is not clear that expansion of the exclusive use zoning district for institutional uses to
higher density zoning districts would serve the Council's stated purpose of preserving single family
housing or prevent this imbalance from worsening. In fact, an expansion of an institutional use
within an R -2 or higher density zoning district that resulted in the removal of multi -family housing,
but did not remove single family housing, would be consistent with the purpose of the Interim
0 Ordinance because it would decrease the ratio of multi-family housing as a percentage of the total
housing stock in the City of Hopkins. In other words, expansion of the proposed exclusive use
~~~~_~~"__.~"~._o
. .
- 2 - eJ
district to higher density resid.ential zoning districts would tend to preserve multi-family and other
higher in~ensity uses, but would not, necessarily, serve the Council's objective of preserving single
family housing or correcting the imbalance bC::lween multi-family and single family housing. A
more effective method for protecting the single family housing that does exist within higher density
zoning districts would be the proposed amendment to the conditional use pClmit ordinance thOl:[
would require that impacts on single famHy housing be considered and mitigated before a
conditional use peRmit can be issued for the consi.mction or expansion of an institutional use, This
is the Option B approach, as outlined in the Single Fmmily Housing Preservation Study, dated March
1, 1999.
2. As initiaUy proposed, the exclusive use zoning district would be limited to
institutional llses located within R-l disiricts. Kt is my understanding that establishment of such an
exclusive llse zoning district would have the effect of limiting the permitted uses within R-l districts
to single family dweHings and two-family dwcUings, AU other uses would be placed within [he
exclusive use zoning district for institu:lional uses. This dearly serves the Council's stated purpose
of preserving single family housing stock. On the otl"l.cr hand, if the exclusive use zoning district is
exp<mcleollo higher density residential di.stricts or other zoning districi.s, tllere win sliH be penniUed
or conditional uses within those districts that would not come within the definition of an
"institutional" use and will, therefore, not be required to obtain rezoning 'approval if such a use
proposes to expand or construct new facilities that win remove single family housing. The result ()
could appear 10 be discriminatory toward "institutional" users, such as churches and schools,
because those users would be required to obtain a rezoning and/or conditional use permit 10 expand
or build new facilities when other non-residential users within the same zoning district an: not
subject to those requirements, even when they propose a project that win result in the removal of
single family housing. For that reason, expansion ofthc proposed exclusive use zoning district to
higher density residential districts or other zoning disuricts would not appear to be the most effective
means of accomplishing the Council's stated objective of preserving single family housing.
In summ3XY, it is my opinion that expansion ofihe proposed exclusi.ve use district to higher
density residential districts and/or non-residential zoning districts is not an effective method for
achieving the City Council's stated purpose of preserving single family housing and preventing the
dispropmtionatdy high ra:lio ofmulti-familiy housing to single family housing from worsening. If
there is a potentiali threat to the single family housing that does exist within higher density residential
zoning districts or non-residential zoning districts within the City, a more effective method to deal
with this threat would be adoption of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit Ordinance:
requiring an conditional use permits to take into account impacts on single family housing and
mitigate those impacts to the greatest degree possible.
JSS
drs 0
Ene.
c: \fi lc\l1opciv i l\kerriso2. mem
..
. .
:
-
.
CBMJD
. ~ ,ItClUll.iB Dm'a1CI'
.
, .
~: * =........ri... .'4. ",.., ''*1::
-.JB III.............
--'- ....~BIIr
_M ~'1" --," ........--
~- - ,...- .. ,- ... - - .. , 1_ -
I I _,II IN'l'1/N'r .
'....... ;.. """, . ........ 0.-.... ~""""" "-I1W.
..,.., .-" ....,... .... III ,.....:.:.-..., ,.",,..,.
...... "'06. ..""", III ",.,. __........,.."....,
,~: , . ,
~ ~ ......"."".","".....maM!..... __....,..,
"'........ ...."". ,""""".. ".. ,.,......",.. to"...,. fl.
....".-."...... ........,...,.,.. .
*.i ... #I'*JI,1Id I.. ....../MBIe. .., """"'J'IwM 1ft
........t::'" ..,.. , ,
. tQ r. ",.,.".... .....",,.....,,,. It .....".
""~"" ,
~ r. M _'/fJf'd,,..,;,~~,../WII*I'"
,."........,.. CIor'l IfIIII....~",... """,../Or __II
::!-. .
" "'" Ii."" ,. '" ,.... "',..,.,." ",,,,,., tit c""",....
... ,..,.,.,.
" ,
1_.~.ll:ZDIMilI;~MID_
.,,,,...,,, --.. "",.",...",...... ""'*4 ~
",..,.... ..",.".,. . ,rlll6/11d11t1a iut"'MI1. _.,.. ",..,.".."".
.....,.
W ~:M"", ..."..".../tI*IWI.""",.....
...",.,..,. .... .11I. ,.n1,-., ......,.". -/lM""""",-
dO''' '
-i a.g""............. -.'~,...JW"'~
"*,,,.,~-,......
, ,M _...,."~""..,.,..,,,.,
--;: ~",." ......
......"",.,,,..,..,., ,..,.". .......,,.,,,
"'r~ . .
:
I ,
, I ; I,
I . ,
. : , . ,
. .
I , I .
-
"
.
I
"'~e;a~~~I'IL" -
II . ____~,~ ._. -I:. -._.....~~~Cll......
- _ -- . _ ----. -.- - ~--.- - - --....- -;.. - .. -.- ----- - . --.-
_.. 'L___..... __ ..._.._ ___ __.._.___ .'.__ ___ _ .. ._
- - i" ,",. - . -- ...
,
- . -
. --,It un .." , .
r.<<I · J"
.. ,a.~h"""'~ _ _ ~~'! ~-No,.,-Jbr",,/IfII1IOIetf
",.,"" . ..."... 0/11* 2M"" CM"'...... ",.,." or _ ,,,,,,,. I'tflJtDId
fIr..""""."-",, tJ/,1tlI101... 1'tIfIIh4/tJr .. ot1w"""" II1WIIn .._.
(CW 2' ,...,~, .fir. '" t4). - '. . -. ---- - . -- -- .C
~~ .IIII!!M~ ~..... -..........;......., ~ lit....... ,,,,,,,
11III "'tilt ItIMl oJ"" "" "
rDJ aNtI I. *"11""" "*'.. d"".......
..,.... 0,;.... "'",,.,.,, ttf"""".., MUd III....... _~"t.
.
I _-It ....."
'~I' J..... - - . -.--. ---- - --. -------;'"
... - ~~. ' ,I,.
B) ...... '''''''''' ,,."" ""'.. iO-NirltiIAi ".", of. ......."..
btlh. tJI_",.., whI... , ,~ ..,... .... .,."jIw. waf". tal; "...
bllllhftirl or DIpIl",."." IIOt __,,,,. (J) t- lit""" or __ MtlprovltW/ilrtlttr,
""NN;, ,,,,,,..,, ,,,,,,,.,,..*" 110I-+10 "."",,,,, "",,,,, 0/11"'" wall or earnlc:tt .
/Or .......",.,,,..,.. """, ""'". wi.... . ,.".."",.",...".,... ...,.,.
"..,. (J)....~ (CW fI-U. ,... s.JO.fI).
l"CJ In~""" .,,~LIII. - ."... tilt ,."",."."...... .
O/buI'.., tIItII.."..,.... " '01 '" CI .".., """.,. will ...... ""'.... ,,,.,, IWfllI1 aD)
P' Cfttf.of,,,,.. o/ltlCh let, ,lie Boord of"M"" .fII'..... ......,., Jl'l"llltI, """.,.,.
,"'''taN O/WtII.'fP!I'!'1""'" 1ft "'"".10"" .....",,,, co. IIS/.OI
~~~ ~I~'~~ ~ ~~!I~!~~W III""'"",. (OM S4-43. P1II6Ifl4.zp.
I . .. __ _.______..._.._
.
,
I I I
I '
I I ·
'.
.
,
.. :
,
:
, -'io~~- _u__~_--_ - --- ----------
~/. .._____ __ I' r
(I) "It"""" .. _1M JW: . ,'j : ~-:-"1IIiiiii .... ill'.- ...
..,. -J,.
(2) ! "..",.. ..".,.....,......."",.. oJ.,..,....
I....,
po :;)=~. ~~~;;~J~;':~;t .~.".",.,., ...,,,, OII,he
1MtIMtIp Ow Jqf"-CII1of_"""" __Or:IoIIITJ,l'7Z.
(2): 10_1J~ .. ,,,,.,/IWtt .".,.".,,....,,.,,,.
.,... - . . .. . --- . ',-' - ;-- ~-'-----:--'I"
" '
(Q II,...... barI--"'~J*e."'''''''---'- --..- ';- ..._'~--
(D) ~~.""frI."/M~"""'''''.' ~- - -,-,-- -P-...--..-..
.,. , ... ..' -..-.
. .
.....~=ar~~==
,..,.....;..., - ..._...~-~",."..""'*
. -/tJ;tII III .,/WItIwIIII t
, '. - .- I I I .. - y .-.
.., I -. - - ....rr - n .Mh.._ tAlI
. -.. . .- - ,
~~ -wi f'!- ..A....
~ - - I -- ,--,. ,,-
-..., .. ,..,..1JIdI bMllfI ....j".".,
.. III A1Jl ",. ""
.- ..." . . ." -.
.. " "
u ",. . - .-. - - -
. . I'
. -- - , I - . w ,
.. " "
. I - - . - - I
. " . ,.
_' I -- - -
~ ,.,.,..... ",,.,.,,.. ,."""',.. HI"" II<< 1M
. """"'''''1/1. -- --:- ._~- , I .. ~,.'''', ~,""7':-"'- -', :,-_.~ "::"~~~_
. -~... -- -' =..::...- - - - - - - . 1- Ai.:.. ...
... ' ~.i,~-I.I~ 4,1/ } jll I II 'i I I ll.itl" -
---. --- ' .. - -.--- _..:..- - .---'. . - -- ..--- -.. - .-_.. ....-... ---
'" , , .
-- ----- ---..
.
,
.
.
I , I
, ,
I ,I : a I . . ...IND... , '
------- -----
i
('!
_.1
June 24, 1999
Congregation Bet Shalom
201 Ninth Avenue North
Hopkins, WiN 55343
Dear Sir or Madam:
In December of last year the Hopkins City Council approved a one-year moratorium
ordinance prohibiting the demolition and removal of single family homes within one-
alnd two-family-zoned districts. The removal I of these homes is a concern because
Hopl<:ins has a very small percentage of detached, single-family housing compared to
other cities within the metropolitaln areal. The moratorium was implemented because
nonresidential institutional uses (i.e., churches, schools, etc.), which are allowable uses
within residential districts, have the ability under present ordinance requirements, to
undertake a new construction or expansion project involving the removal of one or
0 more single family homes with little or no review by the City.
As part of the moratorium approval, the City Council authorized completion of a study to
examine alternatives available to the City to prevent or reduce loss of single family
housing, Enclosed is a copy of the Single-family Housing Preservation Study prepared
by a local planning consulting firm for the City to address the above issue. This
document identifies the following three options available to the City to both control the
loss of single family homes alnd to mitigate impacts in cases where homes are
removed:
. Establish em exclusive zoning district for institutional uses presently located in
residential districts. Under this option these non-residential uses would be removed
as permitted uses from within the existing residential districts and placed in the new
zoning district. Any expansion project beyond the new zoning district boundaries
would require City Council approval of a rezoning.
. Establish a conditional use permit process for institutional uses that wish to
undeli:ake new construction and/or expansion projects that would involve the
removal of single family homes as part of the project.
. A combination of the above two approaches.
()
letter from Jim !{errigan, June 2~, 1999 - Page 2 (--'\
\~~
On July 13 the City Council has scheduled a joint meeting with tile Hop!<ins Zoning and
Planning Commission to discuss Ulis matter. This meeting will be elt 6:30 p.m. in the
Raspberry Room of Hop!<int1 City Hall (lower level). AD your properiy could potentially
be impc;cted b~' one of the above options, you ere invited to this meeting to provide
input end as!t questions. TIlers will be no formal action talten by the Council at this
meeting. I.. you do 11ElVe ~:Jn~' questions prior to the meeting, feel free to contact either
i\~ancy Anderson at 939-1350 or me at 939-1356.
Sincerely,
Jim !{errig@n
Planning/Economic Development Director
Enclosure
C)
-/
(~)
'LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS TO WHOM JUNE 24 LETTER WAS SENT
Congregation Bet Shalom Hop~ins United Methodist Church St. John the Evangelist Catholic
201 - 9th Avenue Nori:h 717 Highway 7 Church [!, School
Hop/tins, MN 55343 Hop~tins, MN 55343 6 Imerlachen Road
Hop!tins, MN 55343
,....\
, I
~a~i:or Karl Galilt Michael L. Kremer, Ph.D. Pai Stoddlaus
Zion Lutheran Churcll Hop~ins Sellool Districi 270 Blake Sellool
241 Fifth Avenue Nor~h 1001 Highway 7 110 Blake Road South
Hop~tins, \Vii\! 553J}.3 Hop/tins, RIll\! 55305-4723 Hop!tins, MN 55343
Gethsemane Lutheran Church Fr. Jac~{ Long Mizpah United Church of Christ
715 Minneion!ta Mills Road 51:. Josepll's Church 412 Fifth Av. N.
!-Iopltins, MN 55343 1310 Mainsi:reet Hop!dns, MN 55343
Hop!dns, MN 55343
Steve Fris!te
Chapel View Care Center
615 Minneiol1!m Mills Road
Hop!"{ins, RIll\! 55343
;,"-'"
( i
\.j'
C=)
-- -- ------ ---,