Memo Possible Zoning Ordinance Revisions .
r , ; .. �.�,..,..;.. �.w�..��..
��:� • c.
:,;ti:`•'<��\;ti'�•'.+.�.:;"',..4':�;.C"•,�•��.w.`'•;yyi:::.:ti .
.. \;:'• . �'h:.. 1.�.,�.;•}...., 1. •h,f.,.
{j} \ � v • ; h �.+ •r, � v � .
5'�: },'��; �: `'�_ .\.i }:t::i
• �4\���ii� � � �': .
�.+;:?(:YV'::':,4�.'S";:��L�?;t�,`{x,..l.,'�'li`�{,`�.,-�.'u'��',•�k-`.a��.ti. . .
�...:..... •�`.•
. •.::..::�::...::...:.,::�:.>.:. :.?.:.::...•
To: Jim Kerrigan and Kersten Elverum
From: Nancy Anderson
Date: Wednesday, June 8, 1994
Subject: Possible Zoning Ordinance Revisions
I. Purpose:
The purpose of this item is to update the City Council regarding the possibility of
amending the Zoning Ordinance to facilitate improvements and reinvestment of single
family properties. Last fall the staff discussed this issue with the City Council. The
direction that was given to the staff at that time was to evaluate how the current zoning
setbacks affect potential improvement to homes in north Hopkins.
� 1n following through on this request, staff found that there is no way to determine what
are the existing setbacks. The City does not have current surveys of the homes in the
City to determine the setbacks of structure in this area. The staff tried to superimpose
the half-section maps on the topographical maps, to determine the existing {ot lines,
but this process did not work.
��. OV@1"Vi@W:
The following details the Hopkins zoning requirements for setbacks and variances and
how these compare to other communities
a. Setbacks
The following are the current setbacks for the single family homes in Hopkins in an
R-1-A zoning district. This is the zoning for most of north Hopkins.
a. setbacks front side rear
R-1-A 25 feet 1 story 8 feet 25 feet
2 story 8 feet
3 story 10 feet
� Minimum Lot Size 6,000 square feet
_ .
.
I EXAMPLES OF OTHER CITIES SETBACKS FOR SINGLE FAMILY H�MES �
� ��;
MINNETONKA - singie family R-1 and R-2 low density
� Front yard 35 feet .
� Side yard - the sum of the side yard setbacks shall not be less than 30 feet, with a
' minimum setback of 10 feet
Side yard - minimum of 15 feet plus 2 feet for every foot the structure exceeds 25 feet
in height
Rear yard - minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the depth of the lot, whichever is less
PLYMOUTH - R-1A, R-1 B, R-2
Front yard 35 feet
Side yard 10-15 feet
Rear yard 15-25 �eet
HASTlNGS R-1
Front yard 35 feet
Interior side yard 15 feet
Rear yard 35 feet
RICHFIELD
�
Front yard 30 feet
Side yard streetside 15 feet
Interior side yard 5 feet
Rear yard 25 feet
i
It should be noted the Hopkins setback requirements are compatible with other
communities. The main purpose of having setbacks is to allow light, air, access,
greenspace, privacy, between homes. The space also provides a safety area so a fire
i
has less chance of spreading between homes.
I
� �ne issue to consider in reducing setbacks are building code requirements. Buildings
i that are close to property lines have difFerent construction/design requirements as
� opposed to those with a greater separation. For an example, detached buildings are
required to construct a fire wall if they are closer than 3 feet to a property line. This
requirement is necessary to prevent fire spread between adjacent properties.
i
�
I � �!I
I
;
�
I
-
-
, _: , � � _
x� ,
� b. Variances
Variances are the method by which a person can secure approval to deviate from the
standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of a variance will allow construction of
additions, garages, etc. that would not otherwise been able to be constructed because
of setback problems, fot coverage, etc.
Variances are granted on the basis of undue hardship. The Zoning Ordinance defines
undue hardship as the following: as used in connection with the granting of a variance
means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under
conditions allowed by official controls, the plight of the landowner is due to
circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner, and the variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Variances allow a
relaxation of the Ordinance if there is something unique to the property.
If a city considers a number of variances for in an area such as setbacks, the city need
to examine the standards they are using to determine if they are appropriate. For an
example, if the city routinely grants variances to allow a fiive foot side yard setback,
without clear and unique reasons, it would be logical for the city to amend the zoning
ordinance to require only a five foot side yard setback.
Overall there is really a very limited number of requests for variances to allow additions
i to residential homes. As a result it would seem that most individuals feel the
ordinance requirements are reasonable and they are able to build within the
requirements.
III. Conclusions:
Because of the difficulty of obtaining accurate information regarding the existing
setbacks in #k�e City staff is unable #o determine how many homes do or do not meet the
current setback requirements. However based on the information obtained from other
surrounding cities regarding their setbacks, Hopkins currently has lesser setbacks than
other cities: The Zoning Ordinance also allows a lessor setback for a building addition
that follows the same building line in the sideyard if the existing building has a setback
of 5 feet or more. This clause in the Ordinance seems to work and allows a majority of
homes in Hopkins to construct additions to homes that otherwise could not construct an
addition. Staff would not recommend a sideyard setback closer than 5 feet.
Although the setbacks standards may prevent some people from constructing an
addition to their home, there has to be some setback standards within the City. Without
any standards some residents would cover their lots with buildings. A good example is
garages. Some residents if they had their choice would have their garage cover their
� entire back yard. Setback requirements allow green space and separation befinreen
homes.
� � �.Y
1
As to the problem that may or may not occur in reconstructing homes after a natural
disaster. Staff talked with several individuals and reviewed several other cities �
�
ordinances and found no language for this type of situation. Also, none ofi the of the
consultants the staff discussed this situation with has ever seen this type of language.
Staff will be discussing this matter with the Zoning and Planning Commission at an
upcoming meeting to determine how they wish to proceed.
_ ',
��'�
;
� '
�,
,
;
I
�
�
i
I
i
�
� �
i
�
�
i E i � __ _ _ _ _