CR 99-208 Ordinance Amendments
CITY OF
November 9, 1999
~
Council Report 99-208
HOPKINS
ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
ProDosed Action
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to approve Resolution 99-106. approving
Ordinance 99-833 for first reading making amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding
the removal of single family homes.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Engel moved and Mr. Szuba seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ99-14, recommending approval of Ordinance 99-833. The motion
carried unanimously.
Overview
In December of 1998, the City Council approved an interim moratorium restricting the
demolition and removal of single family residential structures within one-and two-family
zoned districts. This moratorium was implemented because of a concern that institutional
uses in residential districts have the ability under the present language of the zoning
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, a housing preservation study
was completed (see attached).
The proposed amendments are to Sections 530.09 and 525.13 of the Hopkins Zoning
Ordinance, which identify the standards and requirements for issuance of Conditional Use
Permits for conditional uses within residential 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.
Primary Issues to Consider
. What were the three options outlined in the study?
. What are the specifics of the changes being proposed by staff?
. What was the input from the affected properties?
. What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
SUDDortine: Documents
. Analysis ofIssues
. Single Family Housing Preservation Study
. Resolution 99-106
. Ordinance 99-833
. Memo from Jerry Steiner dated 8/31/99
. Letter from Zion Lutheran Church
Nanc S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
CR99-106
Page 2
Primary Issues to Consider
What were the three options outlined in the study?
The study identified the following three options to allow the City to have some
control over the removal of single-family homes:
. Create a new exclusive zoning district
. Require conditional use permits for institutional uses that wish to undertake new
construction or expand
. a combination of the above two approaches
It is staff's and the consultant's opinion that the revised conditional use process
should be able to meet the concerns as expressed by the Commission and Council if
properly drafted.
What are the specifics of the changes being proposed by staff?
The ordinance amendment as proposed would basically require non-residential
conditional uses presently allowed in residential zoning districts to meet specific
requirements prior to a new construction or expansion project. A number of these
requirements specifically relate to the taking of single family homes for a
construction project.
The memo from Jerry Steiner dated 8/31/99 details the specifics of the proposed
amendment. There have been some minor revisions to the amendment language,
which have been made recently, and are not identified in Mr. Steiner's memo. These
revisions will be presented at the hearing.
What was the input from the affected properties?
The affected properties of the proposed ordinance were notified that the Planning
Commission would be reviewing the proposed ordinance at their September meeting.
At the September Zoning and Planning meeting, representatives from Zion Lutheran
Church appeared before the Commission.
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed ordinance with the Commission. Mr. Kerrigan
reviewed the proposed site plan of Zion Lutheran Church with the Commission. Jerry
Steiner was also at the meeting to answer questions.
Ms. Boen opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Representatives from Zion
Lutheran Church appeared before the Commission. They stated that the new access is
CR99-106
Page 3
important to relieve traffic congestion. Zion also wants to construct a small parking
area in the access drive. As the ordinance is currently written, a parking area will not
be allowed in the access drive.
Alternatives
1. Approve the ordinance amendments.
2. Direct staff to consider one of the other options detailed in the housing study. These
other options are detailed in this report.
3. Deny the ordinance amendments. With this action, the City Council needs to provide
direction on whether they wish to make any changes to the zoning ordinance concerning
this matter.
4. Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is
needed, the item should be continued.
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 muchlower
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 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 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 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
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 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 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..."
2. 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?"
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 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 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 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
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 A
Option B
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 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 any 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 ZoninQ 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 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
It 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 (difficult to get)
· Would not cover losses attributable to
abutting B or I parking
· Less flexible than Option B
Option 8 - Conditional Use Permit Reauirements
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-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 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 serve 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 (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
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) Neiqhborhood 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:
o
o
80
o 0
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 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
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 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
. Maintains flexibility
.. Uses can expand if they 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 decide/interpret 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
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 99-106
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
APPROVING AN ORDINANCE REGULATING
THE REMOVAL OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
WHEREAS, an application for Zoning Amendments ZN99-3 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 October 26,
1999: 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 RESOL YED that the application for Zoning Amendments ZN99-3
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 16th of November, 1999.
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 99-833
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE
That the Hopkins City Code sections 530 and 525 be, and the same are hereby amended
by, amending, deleting and adding the following section, paragraphs and subdivisions:
530.09. Conditional uses within the R district. Subdivision 1. The following are conditional uses
in R zoning district and certain of the standards, restrictions and requirements applicable to such
conditional uses:
530.09 Subdivision. 1 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.
530.09 Subdivision 1 f) OfT-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 less 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; and
4. Such ofT-street parking shall otherwise be subiect to the standards and
requirements stated in Section 525.13 of these ordinances.
530.09 Subdivision 1 u) OfT-street parking lots. parking facilities. and driveways ancillary to or
to be used as an accessory use for any conditional use within an R-l district.
530.09 Subdivision 1 v) Any expansion. enlargement or modification of an existing use which is
the type of use designated as a conditional use in a residential zoning district. 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 Section 525.13 of the Hopkins Zoning
Ordinance.
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 Vehioolar traffio generated by a use shall be ehanneled and controlled in a manner
which will avoid eongestion or iRterfcrcaee '.vith other vehioolar transportation systems or
pedestrian traffic and Y\41ieh '/lill avoid creating traffic hazards or eKcessive traffic through
residential areas. The adequacy of any proposed traffic ciroolation system to accomplish these
objectives shall be determined by the City, v.<hieh may require sueh additional measures for
traffic oontrol as it may deem necessary, ineluding but Rot limited to the follo..ving: directional
signalization, ohannelization, standby turn lanes, sidC"Nalks, remo';al of aecess points, aad
moving of access points.
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
evaluation an applicant 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 incorporate 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.
525.13 Subd. 15. 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-l district unless the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the following standards.
conditions and requirements.
1) In R-l 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. ofthe Hopkins Zoning Ordinance:
bb) The setbacks applicable to such conditional use in zoning district(s) in
which such use is a permitted use:
cc) Two times the setback specified for the permitted uses in R-l zoning
districts.
2) 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
3) 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 adiacent 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 parking lots are
acceptable if an existing park or open space is adjacent to or across
the street form the proposed conditional 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 landscaping 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 conditional use with the requirements
of this paragraph.
4) 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
pUl:poses. 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.
i) 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.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Date of Publication:
Date Ordinance Takes Effect:
November 16, 1999
December 7, 1999
December 15, 1999
January 4, 2000
Charles D. Redepenning, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
City Attorney Signature
Date
MILLER, STEINER & CURTISS, P.A.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIA nON
A TTORNEYS AT LAW
JERRE A. MILLER
JEREMY S. STEINER *
WYNN CURTISS
400 NOR WEST BANK BUILDING
1011 FIRST STREET SOUTH
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA 55343
'!<Real Property Law Speclah~t. certified
by the Minnc.:ota Slate Bar ASSOcIation
612-938-7635
FAX 612-938-7670
MEMORANDUM
To:
Jim Kerrigan /
Nancy Anderson
Mark Koegler
1['~
Jeremy Steiner ( :::> j
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. Ihe--futlewi-ng-are~proposed"amendmend to Section 530.09 of the Hopkins Zoning
Ordinance, which identifies condi tional uses within residential zoning districts, and Section 525.13
of~hc Zoning Ordinance, which lists the standards and requirements for issuance of Conditional Use
Permits for conditional uses within R -1 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 -I districts.
AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 530.09 OF HOPKINS ZONING ORDINANCE
Zoning Ordinance Section 530.09 is the Zoning Ordinance section that specifies 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 ordinance; 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 amendments can be incorporated in Section 530.09, as follows.
c:\file\hopcivil\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 ~hould be revised to read:
The following arc conditional uses in R zoning districts and certain ofthe 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-l
zoning districts, the following paragr~ph should be added to the list of conditional uses in Section
530.09:
u) Offstreet parking 101s or parking facilities ancillary to or to be used
as an accessory use for any conditional use within an R-l 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 moditication of an existing use which is the type of
use designated as 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 cOl)ditional use
requiring a Conditional Use Permit. All conditional uses shall be allowed only upon
compliance with and fulfillment of all of the standards, conditions and requirements
stated in Section 525.13 of the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance.
c:\filc\hl'pcivil\kerrig~n 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 Permit application.
It appears this is the appropriate section to amend to include the new standards for issuance of
Conditional Use Permits within R-I zoning districts. In order to make it clear that applicants lor
Conditional Use Permits must comply with the standards in Subdivision 15 of Section 525.13, I
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 lmderlined 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 I-lousing 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 traftic, traffic
congestion, interference with other transportation systems or
pedestrian traffic, and traffic hazards shall be considered by the
Plamung 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 congcstion 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 requirements of this paragraph. As a condition
of the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit, the City may require the
applicant to incorporate in the applicant's proposal and construct such
traffic conLrol 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' lfil elhopciv i IIkerrigan.mcm
- 3 -
The new Conditional Use Permit standards to be specifically applied to conditional uscs within R-l
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, as 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-l 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 -1 districts would thcn be listed in paragraph i) of Subdi vision 15 0 f Section 525.13.
You requested that I draft proposed language for the building setback requiremcnts 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 0 f:
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.
Thc following paragraphs wcre submitted by Mark Koegler, as standards to be included in the new
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 with 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 lfilclhopcLvillkcrrig3n.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 Commission meeting. You should, of course, call me if you
have any questions or wish to discllss the items outlined in this Memo.
JSS
drs
c:\filc\hopciv i I\kerrig3n .ITICITI
- 5 -
.
Karl E. Galik
Administrative Pastor
Howie A. Krienke
Associate Pastor,
Shepherding Ministries
Donna J. Hackler
Parish Musician
Vicki Peterson
Director of Education
Jim Grimm
Outreach Minister
of Youth and Families
Bonnie Shelton
Ministry Assistant
Jane Lehman
.blications Coordinator
Wnd Music Assistant
Roy Karner
Pastor Emeritus,
Visitation
HE Sieving
Pastor Emeritus,
Visitation
241 5th Ave. N.
Hopkins, MN
55343-7376
612-938-7661
Fax: 612-938-7662
A congregation of
The Lutheran Church-
Missouri Synod
llO' N LUTHERAN
. CHURCH
Fan into Flame the gift of God within you. 2 Timothy 7:6
October 15, 1999
City of Hopkins
Planning and Zoning Commission
C/O Nancy Anderson
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, MN 55343-7573
RE: Single Family Housing Preservation
Dear Commission Members:
It is our understanding that the ordinance for the preservation of single family housing
in the City of Hopkins as it now stands will allow Zion to remove the parsonage and
add a drive up to 24' wide but does not allow us to add parking as shown on the
attached plan.
We at Zion Lutheran Church request that you modify the proposed ordinance to allow,
with proper setbacks and screening, some parking adjacent to the drive. This is
especially important to us, since our current building addition plans include removing
some parking to allow for a more generous drop off, waiting, and "plaza" area. In this
case we are eliminating some of the parking that faces the houses to the north of our
parking lot. We would hope that this would be taken positively by the City as well as
the neighbors in exchange for parking adjacent to the proposed new drive.
Your help on this matter is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or
comments regarding our plans, please contact me, or Brian Lehman, our
congregational president, or Loren Hoseck, Chair, Advance Planning.
We look forward to attending your next meeting on Tuesday, October 26, 1999.
~f~
Karl E. Galik
Administrative Pastor
...
5
:t
.,.
<
m
Z
c
m
o
~
:t
-',
-------~_.-
//~'"
.,/" -;
,.-.//-'" -':-'~.
///1'"
/ '
/ :,
/ "
,// ,/ ~'.
/ '
r/ -l.,
/'/ ("
. '/""",',:,
/"' .. ~
" /',
'/:3/ ,,"
//," .
,/ ,',"
~~ ' u
,//..~:
(."
/~J,
fef>2
"~ "",
'""~ ;'
''I,...,
...."
"-.(
,"~'
~~~~~'-'~'"
.... "
, "~ '
'~'''....,i-~'''-_
~."....~ ,''''"
.....~"~!""''-~
" t, '
"''''l '.........,
~~, I "-'" .
...." ~....,....,
'~'i...,'"
~,i~
~'" )
~1-'
.-rtF'
~~ ;-~
'.'!j' .
" i '/:1
1 "
"if;'
.' );J
: 'J
' I
1 i
I i
'\1 :
I -I I
. :r1:
~'J"'ll
" :!~JI
""",1'1'11
~::;:'~! '
~
4111\'"""",
"01\'""
'.... 41/({
8 "O~
I
I
~~-,
",,,.~
\....' 'Ci\\' "",
~ ~ i-.../
'.... 'I ' , '
"'I " ,
''-.''''''~ ,/
'".... I ,/
" 'I
",,::-1' /
:~l/
, '....,,~>' "
".... I
,-
~.J:
~"
,J ,
"4 /
'...., / "
"''''''1' ,'/ ,
"...., , /
'...
"
"
(e" C':,,',,_'
" 1/
'-.;"'l';' ,f .,'
'~" .,f' ,
, , ,
..."...~ I',
, I' , '
:' 1/:;
y'
t'
I .~,/
. i...'
J
_'1,-'
".~t /
I"'V' ':/
(>~ '~<'"
"~~.I
I
1/
I
J'
[, -
:
t
r '
r~ /~
~//'
i'/
i/
I
,
.//'
/'
I
1/
;
r
-I //
1/ .-
....- .,/"
~//
,
(
"
r/
~,.
I '
r
l ,.
V
,I
6~ ~
'00 -<
~z ~
!A'- r;;
~~ z
:I:
m
:II
:l>
Z
n
:I:
c
:II
(")
:I:
I
I
r /
, ,/
1.-'
~/~
:1/
,':~
- ~-@l
'~~
:JJ
-t
j
*
.
~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
~; ~; ~~ ~~
~ ~.';: f>i