CR 09-081 Interim Ordinance - Single Family HomesSeptember 30, 2009 NOPKINS Council Report 09 -81
INTERIM ORDINANCE — SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
Proposed Action
Staff recommends the following action: Move to approve Resolution 09 -51, approving
Ordinance 09 -1007, an interim ordinance regarding the demolition of single family homes in the
R -1 zoning districts for first reading.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Jenny moved and Mr. Hatlestad seconded a motion to
approve Resolution RZ09 -3, recommending approval of Ordinance 09 -1007, an interim
ordinance regarding the demolition of single family homes in the R -1 zoning districts. The
motion was approved unanimously.
Overview
In 2000 the schools and churches within the R -1 zoning districts were rezoned to Institutional.
The Blake School was one of the sites rezoned to Institutional. The Blake School has purchased
four homes on Harrison Avenue, and is currently in the process of negotiating to purchase the
lots owned by Habitat for Humanity on Harrison Avenue. The homes on Harrison Avenue are
zoned R -1 -A. The school is purchasing the homes for an expansion of the campus; however,
specifics of the expansion are still unknown.
The purpose of the proposed interim ordinance gives the City time to review the existing
institutional ordinance for possible amendments before any homes are removed.
Primary Issues To Consider
• What is the history of the Institutional zoning ordinance?
• What are the specifics of the Institutional zoning district?
• Why is another interim ordinance required to prevent the removal of single family
homes?
What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Supportine Documents
• Single Family Housing Preservation Planning Study, dated March 1, 1999
• Institutional Ordinance
• Ordinance 09 -1007
• Resolution 09 -51
Nanc nderson, AICP
City Planner
CR09 -81
Page 2
Primary Issues To Consider
• What is the history of the Institutional zoning ordinance?
In December 1998 the City Council approved an interim moratorium ordinance prohibiting the
demolition or removal of single family residential structures within one - and two - family -zoned
districts. The moratorium was implemented because of a concern that institutional uses in
residential districts had the ability under the language of the ordinance at that time 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 undertaken by Hoisington Koegler.
The following goals were identified to be addressed by the study:
Minimize single family home loss
Provide City control - -when and under what circumstances might single - family loss be
acceptable?
Maintain flexibility
The Council, in moving forward with this study, stated that they felt the "outright prohibition of
single - family housing removal and no net loss of single - family homes" is not a viable approach
for Hopkins. Also, there seemed to be agreement that they did not want to be unnecessarily
restrictive as concerns future expansion and new construction of institutional uses in residential
districts.
The study identified the following three options available to the City to gain more control over
the removal of single family homes:
• Create a new, exclusive zoning district for institutional uses presently allowed as
conditional uses in residential districts
• Adopt more restrictive standards for conditional use permits granted to institutional uses
that wish to undertake new construction or expansion, including specific standards that
need to be met when single family homes are proposed to be removed
• A combination of the above two approaches
In September 1999 there was a joint Council /Zoning & Planning Commission meeting, at which
this issue was discussed. At that meeting a majority of Council members appeared to be in favor
of the conditional use permit process alone, while the Planning Commission seemed to prefer the
combination approach.
At the October 1999 Zoning & Planning Commission meeting, the Commission approved a
zoning ordinance amendment establishing a modified conditional use permit process regulating
the expansion of institutional uses within residential districts. The Council referred the item
back to the Commission. The reason for this action was so that staff could update the
Commission on the discussion the Council had after the September meeting whereby there
seemed to be a consensus that an approach combining the exclusive use district and the
conditional use permit process would provide the best protection to the City.
CR09 -81
Page 3
At a subsequent Council work session in October 1999, the Council received a copy of the
proposed CUP ordinance and again discussed this item. There were concerns expressed that
having just a conditional use permit process may not go far enough to prevent the removal of
single family homes. As a result, the consensus of the Council at that time was that a
combination approach may provide the best protection to the City in this matter.
The Planning Commission, at their February 2000 meeting, set a public hearing for the March
meeting to review an ordinance that would rezone the R -1 institutional uses to an Institutional
zoning district. The City Council approved the new ordinance in April 2000 and the new
Institutional zoning district was effective May 17, 2000.
• What are the specifics of the Institutional zoning district?
Churches and schools were previously conditional uses within all residential districts. The
Institutional district removed churches and schools in R -I districts as conditional uses in the R -1
zoning districts and prohibited them in R -1 districts.
The Institutional zoning requires that a conditional use permit be applied for if an institutional
use wants to expand and remove a single - family home(s). In addition, approval of a rezoning is
required if the proposed expansion involves property outside of the Institutional zoning district.
• Why is another interim ordinance required to prevent the removal of single family
homes?
In reviewing the institutional ordinance, one issue that has come up is that there is not a
provision to prevent an institutional use from purchasing property, removing homes and then
allowing the lots to be vacant forever. The ordinance addresses only the case when an
institutional use wants to expand, rezone and construct a building. When the ordinance was
proposed it was not anticipated that an institutional use would land bank abutting property.
• What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
Ms. Anderson reviewed the reasons for the interim ordinance. No one appeared at the public
hearing regarding this item.
Alternatives
1. Approve the interim ordinance to prohibit the demolition of single family homes within the R -1
zoning districts. By approving the interim ordinance, single family homes within the R -I district
will not be able to be demolished for a year.
2. Deny the interim ordinance to prohibit the demolition of single family homes. By denying the
interim ordinance, single family homes will be able to be demolished. If the City Council
considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative.
3. 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 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 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
11, will be to draft specific ordinance language that best reflects the option to be chosen by the City Council.
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
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
ORDINANCE NO. 09-1007
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE
PLANNING PROCESS AND THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF
CITY RESIDENTS; AND REGULATING AND RESTRICTING THE
DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN CERTAIN ZONING DISRICTS
WITHING THE CITY OF HOPKINS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Background and Findings
1.01 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 multiple family
land uses within the City.
As part of the "Residential Neighborhoods" section of the current Draft of the
Comprehensive Plan, the following is highlighted:
[O]ne of Hopkins' greatest assets is its neighborhoods
of single - family homes, which ... give Hopkins its character and
cohesiveness.... [R]edevelopment may threaten existing
single - family homes. The City needs to consider means to
restrict the loss of single - family housing.
1.02 The City of Hopkins, 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, and the current drafts of the
soon- to -be- adopted 2009 version of the Comprehensive Plan, has placed particular
importance on preserving all existing single family housing within the City.
/Hopkins .Civil /moratoria/residential demo /r -1 demo interim ord.doc
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:
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.
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
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.
MEP
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 is exclusively a rezoning approach with no CUP requirements or conditions. Option
B is just a conditional use permit for a_y use in R -1 Districts which take one or more single - family houses.
Page 3
Hopkins Planning Study
Single- Family Housing Preservation
Option C includes both the rezoning of existing public and institutional uses (currently zoned R -1) and an
added layer of CUP regulation for anything that takes one or more single- family houses.
Option A - Exclusive Zoning District
An exclusive zoning district (termed 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
® 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 D o Conditional Use Permit Requirements
The CUP Option B requires the establishment of a strong set of conditions which become the measuring
sticks for project evaluation. The following conditions would apply to any use which removes one or more
single - family homes in the R -1 District:
Uses which remove single-family homes in an R -1 District Because of the potential for neighborhood
impacts and the already short supply of single- family dwellings, a CUP shall not be issued for any proposed
use that will result in the loss of one or more single- family homes unless the City determines that the new
use will have minimal adverse impact on and will be compatible with the neighborhood. Uses which
propose to remove single- family dwellings in R -1 Districts shall be subject to all of the following
requirements:
1) Setbacks Where a facility abuts a residential use and there is no intervening street, the sideyard
setback shall be at least twice that required for the residential use. Where the use shares frontage with
single - family residences on the same side of the street, the front -yard setback shall be the same or
greater than the established residential setback.
2) Traffic increase The use shall not cause traffic to increase to a level that exceeds 750 - 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 dwelling removal (i.e. excluding ordered removal of substandard homes by the
City which does not require a CUP). For any request which involves the removal of one or more single -
family homes, the City shall consider the number and condition of units to be removed, adjacent land
Page 4
Hopkins Planning Study
Single - Family Housing Preservation
uses and housing replacement. The City may consider the issuance of a conditional use permit (CUP)
for a use which removes units that are in substandard condition (definition required), provided all of the
requirements of this section are satisfied. The City may also consider uses which remove standard
housing if the number of units is small (_ or less) and:
a) The units to be removed are adjacent to or are separated from non - single - family dwellings by a
public street, or
b) The units to be removed are adjacent to or are separated from single - family homes by a public
street and the compatibility requirements of this section are satisfied, or
c) The units are replaced on -site or elsewhere within the city by units of equal or greater value and
the compatibility requirements of this section are satisfied
4) Neighborhood 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:
Uuw-ceptable Condition
'tL'
3rd
1 MEp
Ch
$
S Parking
AcceptablcCondlfion
3rdUrR
CamcL
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) Neighborhood involvement The proponent shall initiate neighborhood meetings for residents with.
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 B or
I parking
• Relatively simple ordinance amendment
required
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 /1) 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 b(
added to the P/I District as well as the R -1 District. Existing public and institutional uses would be rezones,
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 ICONS
® Maintains flexibility
® Uses can expand if they meet the CUP
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
City must decide /interpret every issue
® 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
Any one 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 th -
ability to achieve its goals. Option C is like requiring both belt and suspenders (according to a no
philosopher who shall remain unnamed).
Page 6
Hopkins City Code (Zoning)
Section 542 - Zoning: Institutional District
542.01
542.01. One- family detached dwellings and two - family detached dwellings are permitted uses in the
Institutional district, but subject to all provisions of Section 530 applicable thereto, which provisions are
incorporated in this section.
542.02. Conditional uses within the Institutional districts.
Subdivision 1. The following are conditional uses in Institutional zoning districts and certain of the
standards, restrictions and requirements applicable to such conditional uses:
Schools and all structures, facilities and physical improvements incident or accessory
thereto.
Religious Institutions and all structures, facilities and physical improvements incident or
accessory thereto.
542.03 Any expansion, enlargement or modification of an Institutional use that will result in the
demolition or removal of a dwelling unit shall be a conditional use requiring a Conditional Use Permit.
All conditional uses shall be allowed only upon compliance with and fulfillment of all the standards,
conditions and requirements stated in Sections 525.13 and 542 of the Hopkins Zoning Ordinance.
542.04 Area and Yard Limitations
Conditional Uses permitted in any Institutional district are subject to the following minimum floor and lot
area, minimum lot width, yard and setback, requirements, and maximum building heights.
Front yard 35 feet
Side yard 35 feet
Rear yard 35 feet
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet
Lot width 100 feet
% Building Coverage 35% of lot area
Maximum building height 35 feet
542.05 Subdivision. 1. In addition to the standards, conditions and requirements stated elsewhere in
Section 525.13 and this Section 542, no Conditional Use Permit shall be granted for a conditional use
within an Institutional district unless the applicant has demonstrated compliance with the following
standards, conditions and requirements.
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 to the street, and is compatible in size, scale, orientation
Section 542 Page 1
Hopkins City Code (Zoning)
542.05 Subd. 1
architectural character with adjacent 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
Any structure, building or other improvement constituting part of an institutional
use that lies directly across the street from a dwelling or dwellings shall be
architecturally compatible, in scale with and oriented consistent with existing
dwelling units. If the existing dwelling units adjacent to or in the vicinity of the
institutional use face the street, any structures, buildings or improvements related to
the institutional use must also orient to the street. Green space, yards or landscaped
parking lots are acceptable if an existing park or open space is adjacent to or across
the street from the institutional use. New or expanded existing parking lots across
the street from existing dwellings are not acceptable because they are inconsistent
with the existing character of the neighborhood, except that a parking access drive
not exceeding 24 feet in width may be permitted across the street from existing
dwellings provided the 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 institutional use with
the requirements of this paragraph.
If a new or expanded existing parking lot or access drive is permitted under the
provisions of the preceding paragraph, and such new or expanded parking lot or
access drive abuts or is across the street from an existing dwelling or dwellings,
there shall be a landscaped buffer area within the required setback of at least 15 feet
in width. Buffer areas shall be planted with a mixture of not less than 50%
coniferous plantings to facilitate year -round screening, and berming may also be
required for screening purposes. Additionally, screening and buffering shall be
required in accordance with Section 550.01 of this ordinance except that fence shall
be permitted along street frontages.
Subdivision 2. The proposed use shall also comply with all federal, state and municipal laws, statutes,
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.
Section 542 Page 2
CITY OF HOPKINS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 09 -51
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND PROHIBITING
THE ISSUANCE OF ANY LICENSE OR PERMIT
FOR THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY BUILDING
OR STRUCTURE WITHIN AN R -1 ZONING DISTRICT
WITHIN THE CITY OF HOPKINS
WHEREAS, on October 6, 2009, the City Council of the City of Hopkins approved the first
reading of Ordinance No. 09 -1007, which is an Interim Ordinance placing a moratorium on the
demolition or removal of any single family building or structure located within any of the following
zoning districts as established by the Hopkins Official Zoning Map as in effect on the effective date
of this Interim Ordinance, namely: R -1 -A, R -1 -B, R -1 -C, R -1 -D and R -1 -E, (collectively, the "R -1
Districts ") and prohibiting the issuance of a license or permit for the demolition or removal of any
single family residential building or structure located within those districts;
WHEREAS, the "Background and Findings" contained in Section 1 of Ordinance No. 09-
1007 are hereby approved and incorporated in this Resolution in their entirety.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 09 -1007 will not be effective until the City Council has approved
the Ordinance for second reading and publication.
WHEREAS, there is a need to immediately suspend and freeze the demolition or removal of
any single family building or structure located within R -1 Districts and to prohibit the issuance of a
license or permit for the demolition or removal of any single family residential building or structure
located within R -I Districts until the effective date of Ordinance No. 09 -1007 for the purpose of
protecting the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of
Hopkins while the study provided for in Ordinance No. 09 -1007 is being conducted.
Hopkins.Civil/moratoria /Residential demo /resolution r -1- demo interim ord.doc
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby adopts the
following Resolutions:
RESOLVED, that commencing on the date of adoption of this Resolution and continuing
until the effective date of Ordinance No. 09 -1007, no license or permit for the demolition or removal
of any single family residential building or structure located within R -1 Districts shall be issued.
Adopted this 6th day of October, 2009, by the City Council of the City of Hopkins,
Minnesota.
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
2
Hopkins.Civil/moratoria /Residential demo /resolution r -1- demo interim ord.doc
1.03 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.
1.04 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 percent in Hopkins
compared to an average of 55 percent in Hennepin County)."
1.05 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.
1.06 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.
1.07 There is a need for a study reviewing the Hopkins Planning Study: Single - Family Housing
Preservation (dated March 1, 1999) (the "1999 Study ") to be conducted so that the City
Council can determine (1) the effectiveness of the measures recommended the 1999 Study;
(2) whether similar conditions as identified in the 1999 Study still exist today; and (3)
whether it is necessary to amend the City's existing Ordinances, Regulations and Official
Controls or adopt new Ordinances relating to and regulating the demolition or removal of
single family residential structures and buildings located within the R -1 -A, R -1 -B, R -1 -C, R-
1 -D, and R -1 -E zoning districts of the City of Hopkins (the "R -1 Districts ").
1.08 Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.355, Subd. 4, allows the City of Hopkins to adopt this
Interim Ordinance to protect the planning process. The City Council finds that adoption of
this Interim Ordinance will protect the planning process and the health, safety and welfare of
its citizens while the study provided for in this Ordinance is being conducted.
Section 2. Study: Review of the 1999 Study
2.01 The following study shall be conducted by City staff. City Staff shall review the 1999 Study
to determine (1) the effectiveness of the measures recommended the 1999 Study; (2) whether
similar conditions as identified in the 1999 Study still exist today; and (3) whether it is
necessary to amend the City's existing Ordinances, Regulations and Official Controls or
adopt new Ordinances relating to and regulating the demolition or removal of single family
residential structures and buildings located within R -1 Districts. The scope of the study
should include, but should not be limited to, the following matters:
/Hopkins .Civil /moratoria/residential demo /r -1 demo interim ord.doc
2
A. Whether the manner in which such demolition or removal has been restricted or
regulated following the 1999 Study has served or accomplished the policies and goals
stated in the City's Comprehensive Plan, Two -Year Action Plan and Strategic Plan
for Economic Development.
B. Whether the manner in which such demolition or removal has been restricted or
regulated following the 1999 Study has achieved the City's goal of preserving
existing single family residential housing stock and increasing single family
residential use as a percentage of overall residential use within the City.
C. The need, if any, for modifications to the City's Ordinances, Regulations and Official
Controls in order to assist in achieving the City's policies and goals relative to the
preservation of single family housing within the City.
2.02 Upon completion of the study, the review shall be submitted by staff to the City Council for
its review and consideration of any modifications to the existing Ordinances, Regulations and
Official Controls of the City.
Section 3. Moratorium
3.01 Except as expressly permitted by Subparagraphs A, B and C of this Paragraph 3.01, a
moratorium on the demolition or removal of any single family building or structure located
within any of the following zoning districts as established by the Hopkins Official Zoning
Map as in effect on the effective date of this Interim Ordinance, namely: R -1 -A, R -1 -B,
R -1 -C, R -1 -D and R -1 -E, is hereby adopted for the purpose of protecting the planning
process pending completion of the study authorized by this Ordinance and the adoption of
any modifications to the City's Ordinances, Regulations and Official Controls. No license or
permit shall be issued for the demolition or removal of any single family residential building
or structure located within Zoning Districts R -1 -A, R -1 -B, R -1 -C, R -1 -D and R -1 -E during
the term of this Interim Ordinance, except as expressly permitted by Subparagraphs A, B and
C of this Paragraph 3.01. This Interim Ordinance and the moratorium imposed by this
Interim Ordinance shall remain in effect until the date that is one year after the effective date
of this Interim Ordinance, or such earlier date as may hereafter be established by an
Ordinance duly adopted by the City Council. The term of this Interim Ordinance and the
moratorium imposed hereby may be extended for a reasonable period of time by Ordinance
as may be necessary to complete the study authorized hereby and to adopt any necessary
modifications to the City's Ordinances, Regulations and Official Controls. The moratorium
established by this Interim Ordinance shall not apply to the following, which shall continue
to be permitted during the term of this Interim Ordinance, but subject to all other Ordinances,
Statutes, Regulations and Official Controls presently or hereafter in effect:
A. The demolition or removal of a single family residential structure or building for the
sole purpose of replacing the demolished or removed structure or building with
/Hopkins.Civil/moratoria /residential demo /r -1 demo interim ord.doc
3
another single family residential structure or building. Each applicant for a permit
qualifying under this exception shall certify, in writing, to the City's building
officials, at the time of permit issuance, that the building or structure to be
demolished or removed is to be replaced with another single family residential
building or structure within 180 days of the issuance of the permit. Failure to replace
the building or structure with another single family residential building or structure
within 180 days is a violation of this Ordinance.
B. The demolition or removal of single family residential structures or buildings as
required in connection with demolition activities undertaken pursuant to an
agreement to which the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of
Hopkins is a party, which demolition activities are to be conducted within a
Redevelopment Project established under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001
through 469.047.
C. The demolition or removal of any single family residential building or structure that
is determined to be a "hazardous building ", as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section
463.15, Subd. 3, or as part of a nuisance abatement under Section 615 ofthe Hopkins
Ordinances, pursuant to an order issued by a building official of the City or a Court
of competent jurisdiction.
Section 4. Enforcement
The City may enforce the provisions of this Interim Ordinance or enjoin any violation thereof by
mandamus, prohibitive or mandatory injunction or any other appropriate legal or equitable remedy,
including, but not limited to, remedies and enforcement procedures provided in the statutes of the
State of Minnesota or Ordinances of the City of Hopkins, in any Court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 5. Severabilitv
Every section, provision or part of this Interim Ordinance is declared severable from every other
section, provision or part, and if any portion of this Interim Ordinance is held invalid or
unenforceable by a Court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not invalidate any other section,
provision or part of this Interim Ordinance.
Section 6. Effective Date
This Interim Ordinance shall be effective on publication.
First reading:
Second reading:
October 6, 2009
October 20, 2009
/Hopkins.Civil/moratoria /residential demo /r -1 demo interim ord.doc
4
Date of Publication: October 29, 2009
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
ATTEST:
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
/Hopkins .Civil /moratoria/residential demo /r -1 demo interim ord.doc