Loading...
060491 Planning AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 4, 1991 CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.1 Case 91-07 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval and Variances for Green Area and Two Buildings on One Lot, Don Harvey Second Addition, Quebec and Winnetka Avenues, Winnetka Properties/Don Harvey, Petitioner 3.2 Case 91-09 Request for Preliminary Plat Approval, 7300 36th Avenue North, Creamette Company, Petitioner 3.3 Case 91-10 Floodplain Ordinance, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.4 Case 91-11 Compost Ordinance, City of New Hope, Petitioner 3.5 Case 91-12 Request for Variance to Exceed Maximum Fence Height Requirement, 2700 Boone Avenue North, Theresa/Tony Lebahn, Petitioners 3.6 Case 91-13 Request for Amendment to CUP and Site/Building Plan Review Approval, 4021 Winnetka Avenue North, Gethsemane Cemetery, Petitioner 3.7 Case 91-14 Request for Variance to Exceed Maximum Fence Height Requirement, 3700 Jordan Avenue North, Larry Erickson, Petitioner 4. COMMITTEE REPORTS 4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee 4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee 5. OLD BUSINESS 6. NEW BUSINESS 6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of May 7, 1991 6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of April 22, 1991 and May 13, 1991 7. ANNOUNCEMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING CASES JUNE 1991 .~ :~ .... PC 91-13 Winnetka --- · PC 91-07 -- & Winnetka PC 91-14 ___ --.- 3700 ,-..~ PC 91-09 36th Av N PC 91-12 'Z700 Boone CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-07 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat and Variances for Green Area and Two Buildings on One Lot for Don Harvey 2nd Addition Location: Quebec and Winnetka Avenues North PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Winnetka Properties/Don Harvey Report Date: May 31, 1991 Meeting Date: June 4, 1991 UPDATE An outline of the action on this case is as follows: March Planning Commission -Preliminary Plat submitted and staff recommended tabling request until petitioner submitted site plan and drainage plans. March - Staff met with petitioner · to discuss issues and petitioner agreed to provide plans to address staff concerns. April Planning Commission - Cancellation of meeting. April -Petitioner submitted revised Preliminary Plat and a concept site/drainage plan. The site plan indicated that two variances are needed and the petitioner submitted additional fees. The concept drainage plan was reviewed and preliminarily approved by the City Engineer. Drainage improvements required construction and easements extending north beyond plat. May Planning Commission - Petitioner requested a tabling of case to allow time to meet with the adjacent property owner to secure the necessary drainage easements so final plan could be submitted along with the plat. May -Petitioner met with Dura Process about easements, but issue not resolved. Staff is recommending that this request for preliminary plat and variance approvals be tabled again, as the plat should not be approved before the necessary drainage easements are acquired so that the drainage plan can be implemented. The petitioner will either have to secure the necessary easements from Dura Process, provide for the ponding on his own site, or utilize a different route to drain the property north to the pond. The City may coordinate a meeting between the petitioner and Dura Process to assist in resolving this matter. Attachments: Revised Preliminary Plat Concept: Site/Drainage Plan Past Planning Case Reports CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-07 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat and Variances for Green Area and Two Buildings on One Lot for Don Harvey 2nd Addition Location: Quebec and Winnetka Avenues North PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Winnetka Properties/Don Harvey Report Date: May 3, 1991 Meeting Date: May 7, 1991 UPDATE This request for preliminary plat approval for Don Harvey 2nd Addition was considered at the March Planning Commission meeting and staff recommended tabling the request until the petitioner submitted a site plan and drainage plan to address the concerns outlined in the staff report. The site plan is ne.~led to show how existing non-conformities will be corrected and to show specific percentages for lot coverage and green area. The drainage plan is required because Old Dutch Pond is a designated DNR protected wetland and both a treatment basin and storm sewer improvements are required. In March the staff and City Engineer met with the petitioner on these issues and they were agreeable to providing plans to address staff concerns. However, plans were not submitted in time for the April meeting and staff recommended tabling the case. No official action was taken in April due to the cancellation of the Planning Commission meeting. During April the petitioner submitted a revised preliminary plat and a concept site/drainage plan. The site plan indicated that two variances would be required in conjunction with the plan approval: a variance from the green area requirements and a variance for two buildings on one lot. The petitioner submitted the appropriate additional fees for the variances. The concept drainage plan was reviewed and received preliminary approval from the City Engineer. Because the drainage improvements require construction and easements which extend beyond the plat to the north, the next step is for the petitioner to meet with the adjacent property owner to secure the necessary drainage easements so that a final plan can be submitted along with the plat. This step is in process now. Staff has contacted the petitioner and he is requesting that this case be tabled for an additional month so details on the drainage plan and easements can be finalized. Staff recommends that this case be tabled for one month. Staff would recommend that the site plan be reviewed by Design & Review in May and that the entire request be considered by the Commission in June. Attachments: Revised Preliminary PI'at Concept: Site/Drainage Plan Concept: Site/Drainage Plan (enlarged) April Planning Case Report March Planning Case Report REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION The #est line of OEJARLAIS ADDITION has an assu~d bearing of South 0 degrees 15 minutes 47 seconds East. 0 o - 0enotes l/g-inch x ,,-inch set iron pipe marked by License No. I 11006. ' a ~,r.. cI ;¢. '.-- '~:..1 ~ ~ '~ C3 . b~ ~ -~ hne DC ~he ~'/4 o~ )he '.2 '> ~o o~ Sec ~T, T ilo N ~ R ~t ~ corne~ o~' ~e ~ ~4 '~ '~ °o 23. "' , ..... ~ - ~o I . .,.~,..~ ~'. IE' ~,;'~ 0 "~1 ~ .J . o~i-: o~, ~, . ' I~°'/~s~, /~'o, ~°'~ :.: ..':-":' j , o -~ / ' ~" %' ~ . ~" ,.'-~' ' x ¢'-*:'/,-~,~ z ~ o .., - C': 3~ ~---.. ,-_Z 1e !4Z-i': - _ :' 4 ~ fi08 ~0 - t~ ~ ,.. "QUEBEC AVE. N. ~"~ ~* I I c- N 48 rods ot' the N~ V4 or the °l S~ ~/4 oF Sec t7 J ~l ~ ~'~_[_A~c. ol ~1 ~N~''''''~''~' *r~'~ o ~oo z~ aoo ~ .[,~ I SCALE IN FEET ;' '.- -~ I .... ~ JLe N 4~ r~gs o[ t" NIU I/4 ,,f th,, ~1,~ ~'4 'f ~;~" ,'r, m CONCEPT: SITE/DRAINAGE pB~AN - CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-07 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat for Don Harvey 2nd Addition Location: Quebec and Winnetka Avenues North PID NO.: 17-118-21 32 0001 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Winnetka Properties/Don harvey Report Date: March 1, 1991 Meeting Date: March 5, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting subdivision and Preliminary Plat approval of Don Harvey 2nd Addition located adjacent to and northwest of the newly constructed Quebec Avenue extension. The request is made pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The property is zoned I-1 (Limited Industrial) and is propose4 to be sub4ivi4ed into two lots: the undeveloped property would be platted into one lot abutting the west side of Winnetka Avenue, while the easterly portion of-the property with the two existing warehouse/ manufacturing buildings would be platted into another lot. 3. The original proposal for the subdivision of this property called for subdividing all of the Harvey property into two blocks with five lots. The petitioner revised the plan to plat only the property east of Quebec Avenue into one lot (final plat now under consideration). This proposal is for the remaining portion of the property, where 3 lots and an were originally proposed. 4. The 7.5 acre parcel was first developed in 1976 with two identica~ warehouses located in the middle of the site sharing a back-to-back loading zone. 5. The minimum lot area requirement for properties in the I-1 Zoning District is one (1) acre and the minimum lot width requirement is 150 feet. Lot area sizes and widths of the proposed plat are as follows: Area Width 'Lot 1, Block 1 111,580 sq. ft./2.56 acres 314 ft.(On Winnetka) Lot 2, Block I 180,525 sq.ft./4.14 acres 341 ft.(On Quebec) Quebec Avenue Dedication 22,837 sq.ft./.52 acres Winnetka Avenue 14,080 sq.ft./.32 acres Dedication TOTAL 329.022 sq.ft./7.5 acres The two proposed lots mee: the area and width requirements. Planning Case Report 91-07 March 5, 1991 Page -2- 6. The Preliminary Plat has been sent to the appropriate City Departmenz ... Heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review and comments. 7. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSI~ 1. The two-lot proposal for the property is an improvement over the original three-lot/outlet proposal, however, there are still a number of issues that need to be resolved. 2. Staff requests that the petitioner submit a site plan to show how the existing non-conformities on Lot 2, Bloc~ I will be corrected. Staff met with the petitioner last fall and discussed a concept plan to increase green area and landscaping. A site plan should be submitted in conjunction with the Preliminary Plat that addresses: A. Specific percentages for the lot coverage and green area for the developed parcel to determine if the 40%/35% standards are met or if a variance will be necessary. B. Elimination of bituminous in front of the two buildings and the incorporation of landscaping in this area. C. Revised parking plan to eliminate parking in front of the buildings in conjunction with increased green area. D. Driveway improvements: curb-cut and new access at northeast corner of Lot 2 on Quebec Avenue; resolve existing curb-cut issue at northwest corner of Lot 1 on Winnetka Avenue. E. The off-site references to Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1, Don Harvey Addition, eas~', of the proposed plat need to be deleted and corrected - this property has been platted as one lot. 3. The proposed plat contains two building on one lot and a variance will be required. 4. If the bituminous in front is replaced with green area, Fire Department connections on the front of both buildings will need to be relocated and truck directional signs should be installed (see staff sketch). 5. Drainage and utility easements need to be shown on the plat. The Pre- liminary Plat states "Easements to be dedicated on final plat as required by City". 6. Aside from the site plan, a second major issue that needs to be addressed is drainage. Existing drainage is conveyed overland across private property to the north to Old Dutch Pond. The City Engineer is recommending that a storm sewer system be installed. Shingle Creek Watershed and the DNR will also require a storm water treatment basin to Planning Case Report 91-07 ~'~ March 5, 1991 Page -3- collect water before it enters Old Dutch Pond, a designated DNR protected wetland (see City Engineer correspondence). Both the storm sewer improvements will require construction and easements which extend beyond the plat and will need approval from the appropriate agencies. Staff requests the petitioner to submit a drainage plan that addresses these concerns. 7. The City Attorney has examined the plat and has found the legal descrip- tion to be inaccurate and this needs to be corrected. 8. Minnegasco responded when the original plat was sent out that they have an easement near the north line of the plat and this should be shown on the plat. 9. Hennepin County responded with the following requests: A. Seven additional feet of right-of-way, should be dedicated cn Winnetka Avenue for a uniform width - this is shown on plat. B. All access from the plat to CSAH 156 should be limited to proposed Quebec Avenue. The existing driveway located approximately 220 feet north of proposed Quebec Avenue must be removed and the area within County right of way restored. The other items outlined in the County letter regarding utility permits and restoration are routine. RECOMMENDATION Due to the large number of items that need to be addressed on the Preliminary Plat, staff recommends that the plat be tabled. Staff requests that the petitioner submit a site plan and a drainage plan to address the concerns raise in the staff report. The site plan would then be reviewed by Design & Review and brought back to the Commission. Staff has notified the applicant of this recommendation. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Engineer Correspondence & Sketch (2-22/2-27-91/9-20-90) Attorney Correspondence (2-22-91) Hennepin County Correspondence (2-20-91) Minnegasco Correspondence (9-19-90) Staff Sketches & Correspondence (2-14-91) Previous Staff Report Case 90-27 (9-28-90) City ¢~f New Hupe 4401 Xyk)n Avenue North New I lt~p¢, MN 5~428 Attcntiun: K. irk Mc~nald Re: D(~n H~ey ~d ~ition Our File Ne. D~tr Kirk: W~ have re~cwed the d~ina~ requirements for the ~ve p~t. Pre~ntly the existin~ dr~in~Se i~ conveyed ~er~ad ~cr~s private pro~rty (~ Wi~ot~ Avenue) te the tc~ Old Dutch Pond. ~ere~ore, the mu~[ ufficienl s~e~ ~wer ~tem to ~e the ar~ one w~ich c[~liec~ runoff ~om ~n Ha~ Z~d Addifi(~n ~d the prn~ u~ the north (~ Winn~[ka Avenue). ~ ~difiu~ Shingle Creel Wate~hed will require ~ha~ water trc~ttme~t ~ prodded for a Z" rainfall avcnt for the d~J~e ~e~ tributa~ t() the ~m~ ~cwor. The Dep~ment oFNat~d R~ur~ (DNR) ~]] ~o encour~ s[urm wa~r ~reatment be~e Old Dutch Pond b d~ibmated DNR Protected Woti~d. Attachod ~ctch which ide~fi~es a ~le sto~ ~wcr syMam which will r~uire c[~n~tructkm ea~ment~ outside tho ~m ~a~ 2nd Addkk~n. in summaq, ~e Dca H~ 2~ ~ditiun w~ require ~torm ~er impr~wement~ t(~ Oki Dutch Pund (DN~ P~o~ Wetland) whi~ will extend ~nd tho plat. Th~ impnwcmea~ ~ ~e m ~ ~iowed ~d ~ima~ append ~ the Shingle Cr~k W~ter~h~d, DN~ ~ the Ct~ of N~ t.lo~. if y(~u h~tve any qu~dons ple~ co~tact thi~ otTic~. Youm ve~ MH:I~ Attachment 231S ~/est Hlgl~vay 16 · St. Paul, Mlrmesota S8113 · 612-6164600 February 21, 1991 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Attn: Kirk McDonald Re: Don Harvey 2nd Addition - Preliminary Plat Our File No. 34-Gen. Dear Kirk: It's recommended the preliminary plat for Don Harvey 2nd Addition not be approved until the following items are addressed and properly shown on the preliminary plat: - The site improvements required for Lot 2 Block 1 including green space, parking, driveway and landscape in accordance with the City. , The proposed site plan for Lot 1 Block 2 including driveway locations, parking, landscape and green space requirements. - The overall drainage improvements for Lot 1 and 2 including storm sewer and ponding requirements in accordance with the City of New Hope and Shingle Creek Watershed. If you have any questions Please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONF:~TROD, ,ROSENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. MarkkA. Hanson MAH:dh 34GEN. 233S ~/est Hlgl~way 36 · St. Plul, Minnesota SSI13 · 612-636-4600 February 22, 1991 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Don Harvey 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat Our File No. 99.15030 Dear Kirk: ! have examined the pre2iminary plat of Don Harvey 2nd Addition. The only comment ! have is that the legal deecription on the covers the proposed second addition as well as the land involved in the Don Harvey 1st Addition. The legal description needs to modified to reflect only the land actually contained in proposed plat of Don Harvey 2nd Addition. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincere]y, Hartin P. Nalecha cc: Daniel J. Donahue Steven A. Sondrall, Esq. CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-09 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval Location: 7300 36th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Creamette Company Report Date: May 31, 1991 Meeting Date: June 4, 1991 UPDATE The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Creamette Addition, which includes all of the Creamette property north of 37th Avenue and south of 38th Avenue, just east of the Soo Line Railroad right-of-way. The request is made pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. The plat application was submitted in conjunction with the pending construction application, and at the request of the City as one of the conditions of approval for Planning Case 90-40, Creamette's building expansion, to resolve easement issues. This request was before the Planning Commission on May 7, 1991, but was tabled due to the absence of the petitioner. An attorney retained to represent the neighbors near Creamettes spoke at the meeting and indicated that he would be reviewing past actions of the City in regards to approval of the Creamette's expansion. He indicated that he may seek an injunction on behalf of the neighbors to stop the construction and would like to become involved in a discussion with City Officials and Creamettes on the issue. Since the last meeting the attorneys representing the neighbors have met with the City and Creamettes and all parties discussed their positions. It is the City's position that the approval of the preliminary plat is not related to the expansion issue, as platting was merely a condition of the approval to clarify easements. Staff has not changed the recommendation made at the May meeting and is recommending approval of the prelimlnary plat subject to the conditions listed in the May 7th staff report (attached). The City Attorney may be present at the meeting. In speaking with Creamettes about their absence at the last meeting, they were unaware that the neighbors had retained an attorney to represent them. They misunderstood that they needed to appear at the meeting because staff had indicated that non-controversial plats usually are routinely approved. Creamettes will be present at the June 4th meeting. Attachments: News Article Planning Report, May 7 Residents retain attorneY-to fight Creamette plans By Sue Webber Maryland Ave. N., said he and his neighbors hired an attorney A group of New Hope resi- to deal wi'th their concerns over dents who object to the expan- loss of property values and sion of the Creamette Co. west "the continued nuisances of air of their neighborhood have and noisepollution. hired an attorney to continue "We're optimistic. It's like the fight. David against Goliath. We Robert Foster, an attorney hope and pray our residential with Rauenhorst Carlson & neighborhood won't be invad- Knaak, last week represented ed," Scheller said. families on the 3700 block of Attorney Robert Foster said Maryland Ave. N. at a meeting that if issues cannot be resolv- of the New Hope Planning ed in discussions with the city Commission, council and New Hope city However, the preliminary staff, "We will file a motion for plat approval requested by the an injunction against construc- Creamette Co. was tabled by tion." the planning commission be- Earlier this year, the cause the petitioner failed to Creamette Co. agreed to install appear at the meeting, a new 10-foot high decorative City staff had recommended woodscreen fence on the east approval of the request. The property line between 3709 and issue will be considered again 3725 Maryland Ave. N. The 225 at the commission's June 4 foot long fence would replace meeting, an existing four-foot high chain "I think tl~e residents picked link fence. the wrong forum. What they're objecting to has nothing to do with the plat," said New Hope City Manager Dan Donahue. In January, the Creamette Co. received approval from the city council for a 41 percent expansion of its plant at 7300 36th Ave. N. The company plans to construct a 73,895 square foot building on the north side of the existing facili- ty, and modify 18,525 square feet of the existing building on the east side. Company officials say the additions will eliminate all truck loading/shipping and, movement adjoining the Maryland Ave. residential property on the east side. However, Jim Scheller, a resident, who lives at 3733 CITY OF NEW HOPE · ~- PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-09 Request: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval Location: 7300 36th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Creamette Company Report Date: May 3, 1991 Meeting Date: May 7,1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting Preliminary Plat approval of Creamette Addition, which includes all of the Creamette's property north of 36th Avenue and south of 38th Avenue, just east of the Soo Line Railroad right-of-way. The request is made pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances. 2. The plat application is being submitted in conjunction with the pending construction application and is being submitted at the request of the City. One of the conditions of approval for Planning Case 90-40, Creamette's building expansion, was that the property be platted to resolve easement issues. 3. The site is zoned I-1 Light Industrial and the existing land use is warehouse/manufacturing. Surrounding properties are zoned residential on the north and east, light industrial on the south across 36th Avenue and multi-family residential to the west (in Crystal). 4. The minimum lot area requirement for properties in the I-1 Zoning District is one (1) acre and the minimum lot width requirement is 150 feet. Creamettes is proposing to plat all the property into one lot. The property contains 698,040 square feet or 16.02 acres and the minimum width of the property is 375 feet on 36th Avenue, thus there is no problem in meeting the lot area/width requirements. 5. In January of 1991, Planning Case 90-40 was approved for construction of 73,895 square feet of additional building on the north side of the existing building and the modification of 18,525 square feet of the existing building on the east side. The additions eliminate all truck: loading/shipping and movement on the east side adjoining residential property. 6. Section 13.032 of the City Code states that "copies of the final plat shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations, unless this requirement is waived by the Planning Commission during their review of the preliminary plat". 7. The Preliminary Plat has been sent to the appropriate City department heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review and comment. 8. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. Planning Case Report 91-09 May 7, 1991 ~-'~ Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The preliminary plat addresses the concerns about sanitary sewer and storm sewer easements. A 30-foot storm sewer easement is shown extending north/south through the property and this easement continues on the Rainbow property. A 7.5 foot sanitary sewer easement is also shown extending north/south the entire length of the property. These easements address the "building separation" concerns that were outlined in Planning Report 90-40, as any expansion on the Rainbow property would not be allowed within 30 feet of the west property line. 2. The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plat and recommends the following changes: A. That 10-foot wide drainage and utility easements be shown along all lot lines, B. That 7 feet of additional right-of-way be dedicated along 36th Avenue (for a total 40-foot dedication - only 33 feet is shown on current proposed plat), C. That the railroad right-of-way shall be shown as the Soo Line Railroad (currently identified on plat as the Minneapolis, Northfield and Southern Railroad), D. That the lot be identified as Lot 1, Block 1. 3. The City Attorney has reviewed the preliminary plat and had the following concerns: A. The legal description does not include the dedication of the streets. B. The title insurance policy needs to be updated to correctly reflect ownership of the property. C. The ownership of the property needs to be clarified (Creamette Company or Borden, Inc.) and listed correctly on the dedication page of the plat. The attorney is in the process of resolving these issues with the surveyor and Creamettes. 4. The Hennepin County Department of Transportation responded that they have no comment ont he plat, as no County roads are involved in the plat. 5. No comments were received from utility companies. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat of Creamette Addition with the following conditions: 1. That the Final Plat be brought back to the Planning Commission for review/approval with the following changes: A. 10 foot wide drainage/utility easements be shown along all lot lines, B. 7 foot additional right-of-way be dedicated along 36th Avenue North, C. Railroad right-of-way be shown as Soo Line Railroad, D. Lot be identified as Lot 1, Block 1, E. Legal description to include street dedications, F. Title insurance and property ownership updated/clarified. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Preliminary Plat Engineer's Comments Attorney's Comments Site Plan NATIVITY LUTHERAN CHURCH R--O BETHEL LIONS CEMETERY ' PARK  38 TH [ ' C~RCL ~R~WO01 mmmmm~ 36TH mmmmmmmm AVE N B-4 R-4 , I ~4 CREAMETTE ADDITION ...... r"' , ..T. Doc..o. ;.,~:.': d..~;='. .......... ~/~a~' Bonestroo o~o G t3onestroo. PE. Ke~rn ^ Gordon. PE Kenneth P Anderson. PE M~e~3 Jer~e~ ~: ~o~ ~ Rosene. PE Ric~a~ ~ ~s~er. PE. Mark ~ ~o~. PE L Ph~hO Gra,,e~ ~ ~: Jo~pn C. Anden,k. PE. ~na~ C Burga~. PE. R~e~ C. Russek. AI.A Rede C ~'uma~. A A Rosene Ma~,n L. ~ala. PE. Jetta BouMon. PE Thomas E. Angus. PE. ~nesM R~cna~ E. Turner. PE Mar~ A Han~n. PE. H~ar~ A ~nfoM. PE. Jer~ D Pe~sc~ ~E ~ Glenn ~ Cook. PE. Ted K Field. PE. Daniel J. E~geRon. ~E.Cec~lio Ohv,er PE RoDe~ G. ~umc~t. PE. RoDe~ R Pre.de. PE. Ph~tlp J Casual. PE Ga~ ~ Mor~en. PE Associates s... M. E~r,,.. C.~A ~,d O. ~s,ota. PE. ,smae, Mamne,. PE Cha,es A Ericsson Engln~rs & Archit~ts ~,s ~. M,,~,~. ~.~ ~ ~,~.~.~. ~. 25, 1~1 City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Attn: Kirk McDonald Re: Creamette Addition (Preliminary Plat) Our File No. 34-Gen. Dear Kirk: We have reviewed the above plat and recommend the following: 10' wide drainage and utility easements be shown along all lot lines. 7' of additional right-of-way be dedicated along 36th Avenue (Total 40'). The railroad right-of-way shah be shown as Soo Line Railroad. The lot shah be identified as Lot I Block 1. If you have any questions please contact this office. Yours very truly, BONESTROO, R~)SENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mar Hanson 34.Gen 2335 ~/est Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 · 612-636-4600 CORRICK & SONDRALL 38! 1 WEST 8ROADWAY ROBBE~SDALE. ME~INF..SOTA 55422 TELEPHONE (~ I 2) B33-~'24 ! CORRICK LAW OFFICES, P.A. FAX (B 12) 533-2243 LEGAL A~I~ilETANTS WILLIAM J, CORRICK LAVONNE E. KESKE 5T/VEN A. SONORALL, P.A. SHARON D. DERBY STEVEN A. 5ONORALL MICHAEL R, LAFLEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT April 19, 1991 Mr. Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City o~ New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Creamette Addition Our File No. 99.15031 Dear Kirk: I reviewed the preliminary plat ~or Creamette Addition. I have some questions regarding the legal description and the survey illustration o~ that legal. I am in the process o~ discussing this with the surveyor. I will contact you when the outstanding issues have been resolved, hopefully within the next week or so. Please contact me i~ you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Malecha s3f cc: Daniel J. Oonahue Steven A. Sondral1, Esq. MAY-- 2--91 THU 10 : 2? ¢ORR I CK & $ON~RALL P . 02 Hay 2, 1991 Mr. Kirk. McDonald H&nagement Assr. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, HN 55428 RE= Creamette Addition Our File No: 99.15031 Dear Kirk: Z have reviewed the preliminary Dla~ and a supplemental plat filed by James Kyro, the Surveyor. The legal descriptions contained in the dedication clause are appropriate, with the exception of some problems involving dedication of the streets. Zt appears that the streets are no~ ln=luded in the legal descriptions for the property, though Surveyor Kyso Indic&tea the County wt31 l~kely require that. ! will con,thUS to t&lk wtth ~he Surveyor and possibly the County to resolve these issues. ! wtll contac~ you when furthe~ tnform&tton ia available, Please contac~ me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Martin P. Hal&ch& s3t cc: Daniel J. Donahue Steven A. $ondrall, Esq. May 2, 1991 The Creamette Company 7300 36th Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 ATTN: Hr. Don L~t[erer RE: Creamette Addition Our Flle No: 99.15031 Dear Hr. Litterer: I reviewed the copy of the T~t]e Insurance Policy you forwarded to me recently regarding certatn proper[y, including the property that w~ll become Creamette Addition. Based upon my review, [ have two concerns. F~rs[, the [~tle t.nsurance policy ts da~ed November 13, 1980. ~e w~ll neeQ the ~roperty records updated [o [he current t~me, or, ~n the alternative, a statement from your legal counsel t~a~ the tt~]e poltcy s~11 ¢op~ec~ly reflects ownership of the ~roper~y, ~nc~ud~ng the ~act [hat no person op en[tty has any legal tn[opes[ tn [he p~oper[y other than as set forth in the t~[le policy. Secondly, the title poltcy ~lacee'ownershtp of the property tn the C~eame[[e Company~ a Htnnesota Corporation. However, %he dedication page of [he preliminary pl&~ lts[e Borden, Inc,, & New Jersey Corporation, aa the owner of [he property. If ownership of the proper~y ham been tr&nsferred from the Creamette Company to Borden, Inc., we wi]] need appropriate evidence of that ownership change. MAY-- 2--9 I THU 18 : 29 CORR I CK ~ $ON~RALL P . 04 The C~eame~e Company .~-~ Hay 2~ ~991 Pag~ 2 Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~¥ ~ARTIN p. aALECHA Mar~tn P. Maleaha s3~2 cc: Dante3 J. Bonahue, City Hanager ~ ' .... ~ , $~even A, $ondra33, ¢it¥ Attorney., CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 90-40 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval to Modify Existing Building and Construct Building Addition, Variance to Side Yard Setback, Variance to Expand a Non-Conforming Building, and Conditional Use Permit to Allow Loading Berth in Front Yard Location: 7300 36th Avenue North PID No.: 17-118-21 34 0003 Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial) Petitioner: Creamette Company Report Date: December 28, 1990 Meeting Date: January 2, 1991 UPDATE 1. On December 19th Creamettes presented revised plans to the City and met with City staff. The plans were submitted after the scheduled Design & Review meeting (December 13th), but before the revised plan deadline (December 24th). The revised plans were forwarded to the Planning Consultant and City Engineer for review. 2. The changes that Creamettes noted in the revised plans and which they will explain in greater detail at the meeting, include the following: A. A new decorative woodscreen fence 10 feet in height is being proposed for the east property line behind the properties located between 3709 and 3725 Maryland Avenue North. A separate variance application has been made for this request. Creamettes has stated that the request is being made on behalf of the abutting property owners. B. A new catch basin has been added to the southeast corner of the property showing that the drain tile around the building and the roof drains connect into the catch basin, which is linked to the existing storm sewer system in the street. The drain tile and roof drains on the north half of the building drain into the catch basin on the north near the new garage addition. The intent of these revisions is to better illustrate the drainage system. C. The rooftop units have been moved back from the edge to the westerly side of the new addition. The revised plans shcw metal panel screen walls surrounding the units. Planning Case Report 90-40 January 2, 1991 Page -2- D. Handicapped parking stalls are shown on the plan. E. The dimensions of the parking stalls have been corrected. F. The site plan data has been revised to show a correct green area ration of 40.3%. G. A more detailed grading and utility plan has been submitted. H. The materials and height of the screening walls around the rooftop units are shown. I. The sizes and number of trees has been clarified on the landscape plan. The plan shows: 15 new Colorado Spruce (4'-6') 23 new Evergreens (4'-6') The majority of the new plantings would be on the east property line. Creamettes estimates a cost of $30,000-$40,000 for landscaping. J. The front dock on the southeast corner has been screened by a wall. K. Downlights have been added for security. L. Exist doors have been illustrated on the floor plan. M. Recycling area is illustrated. The revised plans address a number of issues that were raised at last meeting, however staff still has some concerns as outlined below. 3. The Building Official prepared the enclosed graphic which illustrates the types of complaints the City has received over the years about the Creamettes operation, as per your request. 4. Staff has also prepared the attached chronology of approvals Creamettes has received from the City. Note that only one variance was approved (1975). 5. All concerns of the Fire Department have been resolved. 6. The revised plans were submitted to the City Engineer for review and the following recommendations made: A. The previously recommended storm sewer has been incorporated along the east side of the building and driveway, however a small detention area for collection of storm water still needs to be provided. Planning Case Report 90-40 January 2, 1991 Page -3- B. It is recommended .the Creamette's expansion be reviewed by Bassett Creek Watershed for conformance with their requirements. 7. The revised plans were submitted to the Planning Consultant for review, who recommends approval of the CUP and variance based on the revised site plan subject to the following conditions: A. Parking lot resurfaced to meet City performance standards, B. Applicant to provide information to City regarding acoustical and aesthetic adequacy of proposed metal panel walls for rooftop screening or relocate vent fans west of masonry wall, C. Loading berth at southwest corner be removed or limited to use by trucks less than 50 feet in length due to maneuvering conflicts, D. Utility easements be changed to meet City requirements. E. Revision of Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 8. Creamettes has submitted an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. It is attached to this report and staff has circled areas of concern. The EAW must be revised and resubmitted with more detailed information. 9. Potential pollution concerns raised by residents at the last meeting are not addressed. Anticipated noise and dust levels, both during construction and operation, must be indentified and steps for miti- gation should be described. 10. Traffic is still a concern to the staff. Traffic implications have not been addressed and a traffaic engineer has not been involved with analysis of the project. A 41% building expansion will have traffic implications and these need to be addressed by the petitioner. G Platting is the last major concern of the staff. Creamettes was informed by the City Manager that they must plat the property ~o resolve the easement issues. No plat application has been received. Any approval should be subject to the platting. RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the Creamettes expansion plan and feels that the revised plans address a number of issues. However, there are sill several majou issues to address: -Platting -Environmental Worksheet -Noise/Dust/Odor -Traffic -Engineer/Planner Comments Planning Case Report 90-40 January 2, 1991 Page -4- Any approval should be subject to addressing the concerns outlined in this report. Because the concerns are major issues, perhaps it would be more appropriate to table this case for one more month so that the petitioner can address the remaining concerns. Attachments: Revised Plans: Site Plan Grading/Utility Plan Landscape Plan Elevations Floor Plan Light Fixture Details & Footcandle Pattern Consultant's Report: EAW Comments Comments-Revised Plan Environmental Assessment Worksheet City Engineer's Comments-Revised Plan Graph re: Complaints Chronology of City Approvals Original Report & Attachments CITY OF NEW HOPE RESOLUTION NO. 91-18 RESOLUTION APPROVING PLANNING CASE NO. 90-40 REQUESTING SITE/BUILDING PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL, VARIANCE TO SIDE YARD SETBACK, VARIANCE TO EXPAND NON-CONFORMING BUILDING, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW LOADING BERTH IN FRONT YARD AT 7300 36TH AVENUE NORTH PID $17-118-21 34 0003 WHEREAS, the applicant, Creamette Company, has submitted a request for site/building plan approval, variance to side yard setback, variance to expand non-conforming building, and conditional use permit to allow loading berth in front yard, pursuant to Sections 4.039A, 4.034(4A), 4.032(2,10) 4.037(2d) of the New Hope Code; and WHEREAS, The City of New Hope has adopted regulations governing construction standards and building signage; and WHEREAS, the City is empowered to approve variances to provisions of the City Zoning Code where strict application thereof would result in unnecessary hardship and would deprive the owner of reasonable use of the property involved; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Planning Case No. 90-40 on January 2, 1991, and recommended approval of the requests, subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council on January 14, 1991, considered the report of the city staff findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission, and the comments of persons attending the City Council meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of New Hope that the site/building plan, variance to sideyard setback, variance to expand non-conforming building, and conditional use permit to allow loading berth in front yard, as submitted in Planning Case No. 90-40, is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Plan be reviewed by Bassett Creek Watershed Commission for conformance with their requirements. 2. Parking lot be resurfaced to meet City standards. 3. A small detention area for collection of storm water needs to be provided on east side of building/~riveway, as per City Engineer. 4. Loading berth at southeast corner be limited to use by trucks less than 50 feet in length. 5. Utility easements meet City requirements. 6. Environmental Assessment Worksheet be prepared for City. 7. Dust levels be kept at a minimum during construction. Property must be platted to resolve easement and other issues. 9. Final plans to be approved by Building Official. 10. Landscaping on east side of fence. 11. Fence to be 8-1/2 feet in height. Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota on this 14th day of January, 1991. City Clerk ' CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-10 Request: Floodplain Ordinance location: City of New Hope PID No: Zoning: Floodplain District Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: May 31, 1991 Meeting Date: June 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope to amend the New Hope Zoning Code by repealing the existing floodplain regulations, Appendix D, and adopting new floodplain regulations to maintain the City's eligibility in the National 'Flood Insurance Program. 2. Although the floodplain regulations are found at the end of the City Code under Appendix D, the Floodplain District is identified under Section 4.17of the Zoning Code. Any amendment to the Zoning Code requires a public hearing. Proper notice has been published to conduct the public hearing at the June 4th Planning Commission meeting. 3. The Department of Natural Resources has sent the City a new model floodplain ordinance which reflects changes in federal regulations. Every community in the National Flood Insurance Program is being required to amend their floodplain zoning ordinances. Federal law allows only 90 days from the time of the "official"DNR/Community contact for the ordinance to be amended. The letter the City has received does not constitute the "official" contact, however the DNR is requesting a copy of our draft ordinance by September 1st. 4. The City Manager/Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission, who in turn referred the ordinance changes to the Codes & Standards Committee. Codes & Standards met twice to review the ordinance. 5. The model ordinance was submitted to the City Attorney, City Engineer, Planning Consultant and Building Official for review and comment. 6. At the fu'st meeting of Codes & Standards the original sample Floodplain Ordinance that had been forwarded to the City from the DNR was reviewed. This was a two-map format ordinance that created two types of districts: a floodway and a flood fringe district. The flood fringe district was more lenient in permitting uses. Uses in the floodway district were highly regulated and uses in the flood fringe district were permitted if they met specific requirements concerning elevation. The other alternative to the two-map format ordinance is the general floodplain management ordinance restricting future development. There is no designation for a flood fringe district in this ordinance. It is more restrictive than the two-map format that permits a flood fringe district. It was determined that a decision had to be made as to which ordinance would best suit the City of New Hope...thetwo-map format ordinance or the more restrictive ordinance with a designation for just one floodplain district. Planning Case Report 91-10 June 4, 1991 Page -2- 7. The Planning Consultant's report on this subject stated that the existing New Hope Ordinance provides only regulations for a singular floodplain district. The floodway boundary maps also do not currently provide any delineation of the City's floodway and flood fringe areas. This, coupled with the fact that essentially all areas which border the City's floodplain are fully developed, may negate any applicability of a floodplain division. 8. In regard to whether it would be in the best interest to pursue separate regulation of the City's floodway and flood fringe areas, the North I-Iennepin County Hydrologist indicated that regulation via a single "General Floodplain District" such as currently in place in the City would probably be most appropriate because there are few significant floodway channels, and regulation through a single district simplifies the review process. The Planner's report concluded that it recommended that the City pursue its existing regulation via a single "General Floodplain District". ANALYSIS 1. Staff obtained the model Single District General Floodplain Ordinance from the DNR. The ordinance was forwarded to the City Attorney who, in turn, has drafted the enclosed Ordinance 91-04," AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D OF THE NEW HOPE CODE BY REPEALING EXISTING FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING NEW FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS". 2. The new ordinance was forwarded to the Planning Consultant for review and comment. The consultant made recommendations for three minor revisions regarding permitted uses, on-site sewage treatment and travel trailers (see attached report). These changes were incorporated into the attached revised ordinance. 3. Codes & Standards met on May 29th to review the revised ordinance. The only change discussed at that meeting was a suggestion that a security be required prior to the issuance of a permit for a structure or land alteration within the floodplain. The Planner has submitted suggested language which could be incorporated into the ordinance to provide for said security, as follows: Administration Securit_v Rect_uired (a) Upon approval of a use permit, the City may require a letter of credit or other financial security to be approved by the City Attorney prior to the issuing of building permits or initiation of work on the proposed improvements or development. Said security shall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditions of the use permit and the regulations and laws of the City. (b) The security shall be in the amount of the City Engineer's and/or City Building Official's estimated costs of labor and materials for the proposed improvements or development. Planning Case Report 91-10 lune 4, 1991 Page -3- (c) The City shall hold the security until completion of the proposed improvements or development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the use permit and the regulations and laws of the City has been issued by the City Building Official. (d) Failure to comply with the conditions of the use permit and/or the regulations and laws of the City shall result in forfeiture of the security. 4. The Planning Consultant and the Codes & Standards Committee recommended approval of the ordinance subject to the changes regarding security. 5. The proposed Single District Floodplain Ordinance will comply with State requirements and be compatible with the existing New Hope singular floodplain district and floodway boundary maps. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Ordinance 91-04 with the addition of the security language, subject to the approval of the City Attorney. Attachments: Public Hearing Notice Revised Floodplain Ordinance Planner's Memo - Revisions Planner's Memo - Security DNR Correspondence Attorney's Memo - Two-Map vs Single District Ordinance Planner's Memo -Two-Map vs Single District Ordinance Current Floodplain Ordinance CORRICK & SONDRALL A PARTNERSHIF' OF F'ROFESSlONAL CORPORATIONS 3811 WEST BROADWAY ROBB~SDALE. MINNESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE (612) 533-2241 CORRICK LAW OFFICES, P.A. FAX (612) 533-2243 LEGAL ASSISTANTS WILLIAM J. CORRICK LAVONNE E. KESKE STEVEN A. SONDRALL, P.A. STEVEN A. SONDRALL SHARON D. DERBY MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT April 26, 1991 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Notice of Public Hearing/Flood Plain Ordinance Our File No. 99.49104 Dear Kirk: Enclosed is the proposed Notice of Public Hearing before the Planning Commission to consider the Flood Plain Ordinance. Please have Val transmit the Notice to the paper. Also, because we are possibly changing the district boundaries for the flood plain district, all property owners within 350 feet of the flood plain should be mailed notice of the hearing. Call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slf Enclosure cc: Valerie Leone (w/eric) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE AMENDING NEW HOPE ZONING CODE BY ESTABLISHING NEW FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS City of New Hope, Minnesota Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of New Hope, Minnesota, will meet on the 4th day of June, 1991, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. in the Board Room at the Zndependent School District ~281 Administration Building, 4148 Winnetka Avenue North, in said City for the purpose of holding a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance amending the New Hope Zoning Code. Said ordinance will have the affect of repealing the existing flood plain regulations and establishing new flood plain regulations to maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. All persons interested are invited to appear at said hearing for the purpose of being heard with respect to the zoning code amendment. Dated the 25th day of April, 1991. s/ Valerie J. Leone Valerie J. Leone City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post on the 22nd day of May, 1991.) CORRICK & $ONDRALL A pARTNER~IIHIP OF PIqOFESJlONAL CORPORATIONa 3811 WEST BROADWAY ROBB~SDALE, MINNESOTA 55422 TELEPHONE (S 12) 533-224 I CORRICK LAW OFFICES, P.A. FAX (612) 533-2243 LEGAL A~ISISTANTS WILLIAM J. CORRICK LA¥ONNE E. KESKE STEVEN A. SONDRALL, P.A. SHARON D* DERBY STEVEN A. SONDRALL MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR MARTIN P, MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT May 24, 1991 Kirk McDonald Management Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance Our File No. 99.49104 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a revised Flood Plain Ordinance incorporating the recommendations made by %he City Planner in their May 8th, 1991 memo. I agree with the recommendations made in their memo. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slf Enclosure cc: Daniel J. Donahue (w/eric Alan Brixius (w/eric) ORDINANCE NO. 91-04 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX D OF THE NEW HOPE CODE BY REPEALING EXISTING FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING NEW FLOOD PLAIN REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Sections 4.171 through 4.179C of Appendix D of the New Hope City Code are hereby repealed in their entirety. Section 2. New Sections 4.171 through 4.179C of Appendix D of the New Hope City Code are hereby adopted to read as follows: 4.171 Statutory Authorization, Findings of Fact and Purpose. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and 462 delegated the authority to local governmental units to adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses. Minnesota Statute, Chapter 103F further stipulates that communities subject to recurrent flooding must participate and maintain eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. Therefore, the City of New Hope, Minnesota does order as follows: (1) Statement of Purpose. The purpose of §§4.171 through 4.179C is to maintain the City's eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program and to minimize potential losses due to periodic flooding including loss of life, loss of property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. (2) Warning of Disclaimer of Liability. This Code does not imply that areas outside of the flood plain district or land uses permitted within such districts will be free from flooding and flood damages. This Code shall not create liability on the part of the City of New Hope or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Code or any administrative decisions lawfully made thereunder. 4.172 General Provisions. (1) Adoption of Flood Insurance Rate Map. The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of New Hope, dated January 2, 1981, developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency is hereby adopted by reference as the Official Flood Plain Zoning District Map and made a part of this ordinance. This map was previously entitled the Flood Hazard Boundary map. (2) Lands to Which Ordinance Applies." This ordinance shall apply to all lands designated as flood plain within the jurisdiction of the City of New Hope. (3) Interpretation. The boundaries of the flood plain district shall be determined by scaling distances on the Official Flood Plain Zoning District Map. Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of the flood plain district, the City Manager or his designated representative shall make the necessary interpretation based on elevations on the regional (lO0-year) flood profile, if available. If 100- year flood elevations are not available, the community shall: (a) Require a flood plain evaluation consistent with §4.174(3) of this Code to determine a lO0-year flood elevation for the site; or (b) Base its decision on available hydraulic/ hydrologic or site elevation survey data which demonstrates the likelihood the site is within or outside of the flood plain. 4.173 Conflict with Pre-Existing Zoning Regulations and General Compliance. (1) The Flood Plain District as Overlay Zoning ~j_~E~c~t. The flood plain zoning district shall be considered an overlay zoning district to all existing land use regulations of the community. The uses permitted in §§4.174 and 4.175 of 2 this Code shall be permitted only if not prohibited by any established, underlying zoning district. The requirements of §§4.i7i through 4.179C shall apply in addition to other legally established regulations of the City and where these Sections impose greater restrictions, the provisions of §§4.171 through 4.179C shall apply. (2) Compliance. No new structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, extended, converted, or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this Code and other applicable regulations which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this Code. Within the Floodway and Flood Fringe, all uses not listed as permitted uses in §4.174 shall be prohibited. In addition, a caution is provided here that: (a) New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are subject to the general provisions of this Code and specifically §§4.174 and 4.179C. (b) Modifications, additions, structural alterations or repair after damage to existing nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses of structures or land are regulated by the general provisions of this Code and specifically §4.179. (c) As-built elevations for elevated structures must be certified by ground surveys as stated in §4.177 of this Code. 4.174 Permitted Uses, Standards, and Flood Plain Evaluation Criteria. (1) Permitted Uses in the Flood Plain. The following uses of land are permitted uses in the flood plain district: (a) Any use of land which does not involve a structure, an addition to the outside dimensions to an existing structure or an obstruction to flood flows such as fill, excavation, or storage of materials or equipment. (b) Any use of land involving the construction of new structures, the placement or replacement of manufactured homes, the addition to the outside dimensions of an existing structure or obstructions such as fill or storage of materials or equipment, provided these activities are located in the flood fringe portion of the flood plain. These uses shall be subject to the development standards in §4.174(2) of this Code and the flood plain evaluation criteria in §4.174(3) of this Code for determining floodway and flood fringe boundaries. (c) Travel trailers and travel vehicles are regulated by §4.179C of this Code. (2) Standards for Flood Plain Permitted Uses. (a) Fill shall be properly compacted and the slopes shall be properly protected by the use of riprap, vegetative cover or other acceptable method. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the lO0-year flood elevation - FEMA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. (b) Storage of materials and equipment: (i) The storage or processing of materials that are, in time of flooding, flammable, explosive, or potentially injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited. (ii) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if readily removable from the area within the time available after a flood warning or if placed on fill to 4 the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. (c) No use shall be permitted which will adversely affect the capacity of the channels or floodways of any tributary to the main stream, or of any drainage ditch, or any other drainage facility or system. (d) All structures, including accessory structures, additions to existing structures and manufactured homes, shall be constructed on fill so that the basement floor, or first floor if there is no basement, is at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation must be no lower than one foot below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and shall extend at such elevation at least 15' beyond the limits of the structure constructed thereon. (e) All Uses. Uses that do not have vehicular access at or above an elevation not more than two feet below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation to lands outside of the flood plain shall not be permitted unless granted a variance by the City Council. Zn granting a variance, the Council shall specify limitations on the period of use or occupancy of the use and only after determining that adequate flood warning time and local emergency response and recovery procedures exist. (f) Commercial and Manufacturing Uses. Accessory land uses, such as yards, railroad tracks, and parking lots may be at elevations lower than the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. However, a permit for such facilities to be used by the employees or the general public shall not be granted in the absence of a flood warning system that provides adequate time for evacuation if the area would be inundated to a depth greater than two feet or be subject to flood velocities greater than four feet per second upon occurrence of the regional flood. 5 (9) All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system that resists flotation, collapse and lateral movement. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not to be limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties to ground anchors. This requirement is in addition to applicable state or local anchoring requirements for resisting wind forces. (3) Flood Plain Evaluation. (a) Upon receipt of an application for a permit, manufactured home park development or subdivision approval within the flood plain district, the City Manager or his designative representative shall require the applicant to furnish sufficient site development plans and a hydrologic/hydraulic analysis by a qualified engineer or hydrologist specifying the nature of the development and whether the proposed use is located in the floodway or flood fringe and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the site. Procedures consistent with Minnesota Rules 1983 Parts 6120.5600 (Technical Standards and Requirements For Floodplain Evaluation) and 6120.5700 (Minimum Floodplain Management Standards for Local Ordinances) shall be followed during the technical evaluation and review of the development proposal, (b) The City shall submit one copy of all information required by Section 4.174(3)(a) of this Code to the respective Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist for review and comment at least 20 days prior to the granting of a permit or manufactured home park development/subdivision approval by the community. The City shall notify the respective Department of Natural Resources Area Hydrologist within lO-days after a permit or manufactured home park development/ subdivision approval is granted. 4.175 Utilities, Railroads, Roads and Bridges in the Flood Plain District. All utilities and transportation facilities, including railroad tracks, roads and bridges, shall be constructed in accordance with state flood plain management standards contained in Minnesota Rules 1983 Parts 6120.5000-6120.6200. 4.176 Subdivisions. (1) No land shall be subdivided and no manufactured home park shall be developed or expanded where the site is determined to be unsuitable by the City Council for reason of flooding inadequate drainage, water supply or sewage treatment facilities. The City Council shall review the subdivision/ development proposal to insure that each lot or parcel contains sufficient area outside of the floodway for fill placement for elevating structures, sewage systems and related activities. (2) In the Flood Plain District, applicants for subdivision approval or development of a manufactured home park or manufactured home park expansion shall provide the information required in Section 4.174(3)(a) of this Code. The City Manager or a designated representative shall evaluate the proposed subdivision or mobile home park development in accordance with the standards established in Sections 4.174(2) and (3) and 4.175 of this Code. (3) For all subdivisions in the flood plain, the Floodway and Flood Fringe boundaries, the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the required elevation of all access roads shall be clearly labelled on all required subdivision drawings and platting documents. (4) Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area Designation: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has established criteria for removing the special flood hazard area designation for certain structures properly elevated on fill above the lO0-year flood elevation. FEHA's requirements incorporate specific fill compaction and side slope protection standards for multi-structure or multi-lot developments. These standards should be investigated prior to the initiation of site preparation if a change of special flood hazard area designation will be requested. 4.177 Administration. (1) Permit Required. A Permit issued by the City shall be secured prior to the construction, addition, or alteration of any building or structure; prior to the use or change of use of a building, structure or land; prior to the change or extension of a nonconforming use; and prior to excavation or the placement of an obstruction within the flood plain. (2) State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit or processing an application for a Variance, the City Manager or a designated representative shall determine that the applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal permits. (3) Certification of Lowest Floor Elevations. The applicant shall be required to submit certification by a registered professional engineer, registered architect, or registered land surveyor that the finished fill and building elevations were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this Code. The City shall maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) for all new structures and alterations or additions to existing structures in the flood plain district. 4.178 Variances. (1) A variance means a modification of a specific permitted development standard required in an official control including this Code to allow an alternative development standard not stated as acceptable in the official control, but only applied to a particular property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship, practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and elaborated upon in the City's respective planning and zoning enabling legislation. (2) The City Council may authorize upon appeal in specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of this Code as will not be contrary to the public interest and only for those circumstances such as hardship, practical difficulties or circumstances unique to the property under consideration, as provided for in the respective enabling legislation for planning and zoning for cities or counties as appropriate. In the granting of such variance, the City Council shall clearly identify in writing the specific conditions that existed consistent with the criteria specified in the respective enabling legislation which justified the granting of the variance. (3) Variances from the provisions 'of this Code may be authorized where the City Council has determined the variance will not be contrary to the public interest and the spirit and intent of this Code. No variance shall allow in any district a use prohibited in that district or permit a lower degree of flood protection then the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. Variances may be used to modify permissible methods of flood protection. (4) The City shall submit by mail 'to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the application for proposed Variance sufficiently in advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days notice of the hearing. A copy of all decisions granting a Variance shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources within ten (10) days of such action. (5) Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the City Council may be made, and as specified in the City's Official Controls and also Minnesota Statutes. (6) Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Building Official shall notify the applicant for a variance that: a) The issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the base flood level will result in increased premium rates for flood insurance up to amounts as high as $25 for $100 of insurance coverage and b) Such construction below the lO0-year or regional flood level increases risks to life and property. Such notification shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions. The City shall maintain a record of all variance actions, including justification for their issuance, and report such variances issued in its annual or biennial report submitted to the Administrator of the National Flood Insurance Program. 9 4.179 Nonconformities. A structure or the use of a, structure or premises which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this Code but which is not in conformity .. with the provisions of this Code may be continued subject to the following conditions: (1) No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity. (2) An alteration within the inside dimensions of a nonconforming use or structure is permissible provide it will not result in increasing the flood damage potential of that use or structure. (3) The cost of all structural alterations or additions both inside and outside of a structure to any nonconforming structure over the life of the structure shall not exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure unless the conditions of this Code are satisfied. The cost of all structural ;~lterations and additions constructed since the adoption of the City's initial flood plain contr,als must be calculated into today's current cost which will include all costs such as construction materi, als and a reasonable cost placed on all manpower or labor. If the current cost of all previous and proposed alterations and additions exceeds 50 percent of the current market value of the standards of §4.174 of this Code for new structures. (4) If any nonconforming use of a structure or land or nonconforming structure is destroyed by any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its market value at the time of destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this Code. The City may issue a Permit for reconstruction if the use is located outside the floodway and, upon reconstruction, is adequately elevated on fill in conformity with the provisions of this Code. 4,179A Penalties for Violation. A violation of the provisions of this Code or failure to comply with any of its requirements (including violations of conditions and safeguards established in connection with grants of Variance) shall constitute a misdemeanor. 10 (1) In responding to a suspected code violation, the City may utilize the full array of enforcement actions available to it including but not limited to prosecution and fines, injunctions, after-the- fact permits, orders for corrective measures or a request to the National Flood Insurance Program for denial of flood insurance availability to the guilty party. The City must act in good faith to enforce these official controls and to correct code violations to the extent possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program. (2) When a code violation is either discovered by or brought to the attention of the City, it shall immediately investigate the situation and document the nature and extent of the violation of the official control. As soon as is reasonably possible, this information wi]] be submitted to the appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the City's plan of action to correct the violation to the degree possible. (3) The City shall notify the suspected party of the requirements of this Code and all other Official Controls and the nature and extent of the suspected violation of these controls. If the structure and/or use is under construction or development, the City may order the construction or development immediately halted until a proper permit or approval is granted by the City. If the construction or development is already completed, then the City may either (a) issue an order identifying the corrective actions that must be made within a specified time period to bring the use or structure into compliance with the official controls, or (b) notify the responsible party to apply for an after-the-fact permit/development approval within a specified period of time not to exceed 30-days. (4) If the responsible party does not appropriately respond to the City within the specified period of time, each additional day that lapses shall constitute an additional violation of this Code and shall be prosecuted accordingly. The City shall 11 also upon the lapse of the specified response period notify the landowner to restore the land to the condition which existed prior to the violation of this Code. 4.179B Amendments. All amendments to this Code, including revisions to the Official Flood Plain Zoning District Map, shall be submitted to and approved by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption. The flood plain desi~gnation on the Official Flood Plain Zoning District M~p shall not be removed unless an area is filled to an ~levation at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and is contiguous to lands outside of the flood plain. Changes in the Official Zoning Map must meet the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Technical Conditions "and Criteria and must receive prior FEMA approval before adoption. The Commissioner of N~ttural Resources must be given lO-days written notice of all hearings to consider an amendment to this Code and s;~id notice shall include a draft of the Code amendment or technical study under consideration. Section 3. Section 4.022(9) "Basement" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (9) Basement. A portio,~ of ~ buildin~ loc~tcd p~rti~lly area of a structuEe,.including crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of excavation below 9round level. Section 4. Section 4.022(58) "Flood Plain" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: ( ) Flood P1 i dj ' ' - ........ ~ flc~d. The channel or beds proper and the areas adjoininm a. wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter may be covered by the regional flood. Flood plain areas within New Hope shall encompass all areas de~j_anated as Zone A on tb~ Flood Insurance Rate Map. 12 Section 5. Section 4.022(61) "Floodway" of the New .Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (61) Floodway ~- -~ .... ~ -~ ~'-'- t flccd. The bed of a wetland or lake and the channel of a watercourse and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are reasonably required to carry or store the regional flood discharge. Section 6. Section 4.022(101) "Obstruction (Flood Plain)" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (101) Obstruction ~ ~--'- ^ .... ~ ...... ~ --*~-ic~, ~- '"~ ~- ~ .... ~ ~'~ ..... ~ pl~i Any dam wall wharf, embankment, levee, dike, pile, abutment, projection, dredged spoil, channel modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile, refuse, fill, structure, stockpile of sand or gravel or other material, or matter in, along, across, or projecting into any channel, watercourse, lake bed, or regulatory flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the direction of flow, either in itself or by catching or collectin~ debris carried by floodwater. Section 7. Section 4.022(118) "Regional Flood" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amonded to read as follows: (118) Regional Flood. A flood which is representative of large floods known to have occurred generally in Hinnesota and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in.he magnitude of the 100 year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance °~"~ ........ ~ ~' .... ~ .......... ~ by Rate Hap ..... ¢ f~, th~ C4~¢, .......... .~ .,~. .... th F d ~ I ~ .... ~ ~ ~ ~ 13 Section 8. Section 4,022(119) "Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (119) Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. A ~ ...... ~ .... ~ fcct ab,;v~ th~ ~l .... t~-- cf ~- ~--~ ~,~ an}' , ............ fl~d h~~-~'-,~ ..... 'tt ......... clc'/atcd or fl~9~i)~eh~=d~. The Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall be an elevation no lower than one foot above the elevation of the regional flood plus any increases in flood elevation caused by encroachments oD_~b~__flQQd__plain that result from designation of a floodway. Section 9. Section 4.022(128) "Structure" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (128) Structu A-"~n~ '-'~-~ re. ,,~ v,,, .,, ,~,, and/or ....... Anythin~ constructed or erected on the ground or attached to the ground or on-site utilities, including, but not limited to, buildings, factories, sheds, detached GaraGes, cabins, manufactured homes, travel trailers/ vehicles not meeting the exemption criteria specified in §4.1790(1) of this Code and other similar items. Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1991. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post the day of , 1991.) Northwes ssoCiated Consul a ts, Inc. U R S A N*' P L A N O · D E S I G N · M A R K E E S E A R CH MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 8 May 1991 RE: New Hope - Floodplain Ordinance FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.02 Per your request, we have conducted a review of the proposed He~ Hope Floodplain Ordinance as drafted by Mr. Steve Sondral[, ~h= New Hope City Attorney. The said ordinance is based on th~ single district model floodplain ordinance prepared by the [~H!~ which provides uniform regulation for all areas wLthin the floodplain. In review of the draft ordinance, we offer ~he following comments: Section 4.174 - Permitted Uses~ Section 4.174 (1) (b) cross references the incorrect ordinance sections. The two ordinance references should be SS 4.174 (2) and SS 4.174 (3). Section 4.174 (2) (g) - On-site Sewage Treatment~ New Hope City Code Section 5.053 Private Sewer Systems prohibits the construction, maintenance, repair or reconstruction of private sanitary sewer facilities if public sanitary sewer i~ available. With its prohibition in place, we do not feel Section 4.174 (2) (g) is necessary. Section 4.179C - Travel Trailers and Travel Vehicles~ Review of the Firm Maps and the existing land uses adjacent tc the floodplain area does not present opportunities for the placement of travel trailers or travel vehicles in New Hope. We would raise question as for the need of Section 4.179C regulating these uses. 4601 Excelsior Blvd..Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420.Fax 925-2721 Conclusions'. Based on our review, we find that the proposed Floodplain Ordinance is generally acceptable. We would suggest she aforementioned modifications to further tailor the ordinance to the character of New Hope. cc: Dan Donahue SteVe Sondrall MAY--~O--9 I THU 1 5 : I 2 P - 02 Northwest Associated Consult, ants, .... Inc. C U R B A N P L A N N I N G , D E S I G N , Id A R K E T R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Kyle Brown/Alan Brixius DATE: 29 May 1991 RS: New HOpe - Floodplain Ordinance FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.02 Based on review of the proposed Floodplain Ordinance by the Code and Standards Committee, At was suggested ~hat a security be required prior to issuance of a permit for structure or land alterations within the floodplain. The following language may be incorporated into the proposed Ordinance to provide for such a security. Please review the change and contact us if you have any questions or co~unents. 4.177 Administration 2) Security. Required. a) Upon approval of a use permit, the City may require a le~Cer o~ credit or other financial security tO be approved by ~he City Attorney prior to the issuingof building permits or initiation of work on the proposed improvements or development. Said security shall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditions of the use permit and the regulations and laws of the City. b) The security shall be in the amount of th- City Engineer's and/or City Building Official's estimated costs of labor and materials for the proposed improvements or development. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410- Minneapolis, MN 55416. (612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 MAY--~O--9 i THU I 5 .' I ~ P . 0~ C) The City shall hold the security until completion of the proposed improvements or development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the use permit and the regulations and laws of the City has been issued by the City Building Official, d) Failure to comply with the conditions of th~ use permit and/or the regulations and laws of the City shall result in forfeiture of the security. cc: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue Steve Sondrall STATE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DNR INFORMATION 500 LAFAYETTE ROAD · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA · 55155-40 " (612) 296-6157 January 4, 1991 Kirk McDonald Community Development Coordinator City of New Hope 4401 Xylon Avenue No. Minneapolis, MN 55428 Dear Mr. McDonald: Enclosed is a new model floodplain ordinance which most closely meets your community's needs. As you are probably already aware, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Minnesota DNR have negotiated this model ordinance to reflect the changes in federal regulations which were actually effective in 1986. Because of these changes every community in the National Flood Insurance Program is · being required to amend their floodplain zoning ordinances. The purpose of this letter is to give your community a chance to review the model which best relates to your current ordinance, and to get a head start in the adoption process. Please note that the new model is also available (at no charge) on floppy disk for a personal computer. Available formats are Microsoft Word and ASCII. A draft form of the revised ordinance should be submitted to your Area Hydrologist for preliminary review so that any omissions or inconsistencies can be found prior to final adoPtion. It is a good idea to amend the zoning..ordinance as early as possible to avoid any potential federal sanctions. (Federal law allows only 90 days from the time of the DNR/Community contact for an ordinance to be amended.) Although this letter does not constitute your official contact, we would like to have a copy of your draft ordinance no later than September 1, 1991. Please feel free to contact your Area Hydrologist (listed below) or myself (612-296-9224) if you have any questions. Sincerely, dy~~Boudrea~ FEMA-CAP Hydrologist cc: Mayor Edward Erickson Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist (772-7914) John Stine, Regional Hydrologist AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER MEMO TO: STEVE SONDRALL FROM: MICHAEL LaFLEUR RE: 1991 AMENDMENT TO THE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF NEW HOPE DATE: MARCH 4, 1991 You have requested a review of the new model flood plain ordinance. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Minnesota DNR have negotiated this model ordinance to reflect the changes in federal regulations which actually took effect in 1985. Every community in the National Flood Insurance Program is being required to amend their flood plain zoning ordinances to be in compliance with the negotiation. I have taken the opportunity to review the new ordinance and discuss the significant changes with Judy Boudreau. Ms. Boudreau is a DNR Hydrologist. You will find in the file two sample ordinances. The adoption of either one will put us in compliance. It is beyond the scope of this memorandum to detail each and every change, but suffice it to say that the flood plain management ordinance two-map format creates two types of districts. It creates a floodway district and a flood fringe district. The flood fringe district is slightly more lenient in permitting uses. In the two-map format ordinance, uses in the floodway district are highly regulated and uses in the flood fringe district are permitted so long as they meet specific requirements concerning elevation. In the sample flood plain management ordinance restricting future development, there is no designation for a flood fringe district. In effect, this ordinance is more restrictive than the ordinance permitting a flood fringe district. You also find in the file an ordinance outlining the changes which were made. This easily outlines the changes which were made in the two-map format. Our Council must adopt one of the two ordinances no later than September 1, 1991, but should do so as soon as possible. Essentially, our policymakers must decide between the two-map format ordinance or the more restrictive ordinance concerning just a designation of one flood plain district. Nort we ssociated Consultants, Inc. U R B A P L NG . DES I G N M A R K E T R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 6 February 1991 RE: New Hope - Floodplain Ordinance FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.02 BACKGROUND Per your request, our office has conducted a review of the Model FloOdplain Ordinance prepared by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in regard to its consistency with the existing New Hope Floodplain Ordinance. In addition, a brief analysis/history of community flooding characteristics is provided to aid in a determination of appropriateness of many of the regulations held within the State Model Ordinance. This memorandum should be considered a first step toward the tailored adoption of the State floodplain document. Attached for reference: Exhibit A - FloQdplain Locations ~ , Exhibit B - Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Exhibit C - Floodway Schematic ISSUES ANALYSIS ORDINANCE REVIEW: The following discussion will provide a comparative analysis between the existing new Hope Floodplain Ordinance and the Model Ordinance recently prepared by the Department of Natural Resources. The discussion is intended to note discrepanc£es and/or inconsistencies between the two documents and make suggestions on the cited differences. 4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416-(612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 Section 4.171 Purpose ~'~ The statement of purpose contained within the New Hope Ordinance is considerably more detailed than that offered within the State Model Ordinance. It should be noted that the purpose statement contained within the New Hope Ordinance includes a discussion of statutory authorization. Within the State Model Ordinance, the mention of authorization has been drafted as an independent subsection of the model. Whether a separate statement of authorization is considered necessary is a relatively subjective issue. Section 4.172 Warninq and Disclaimer of Liability This section of the New Hope Ordinance makes note that the section does not imply that areas outside the Floodplain District boundaries will be free from flooding or damages. This information is reiterated within the State Ordinance and should be retained. Section 4.173 District Application This section of the New Hope Ordinance stipulates that the Floodplain District is to be superimposed upon existing zoning districts. While this point is not specifically offered within the State Ordinance, its containment is considered worthy and should be retained within the New Hope Ordinance. Section 4.174 District Subdivision The City Ordinance basically notes the fact that the Floodplain District is subdivided into a floodway and flood fringe. This information, as contained within the State Ordinance, is provided within a definition section format. Generally, it is believed that all terms subject to definition should be provided within the initial definition section of the Ordinance. While the information contained within Section 4.174 is somewhat repetitious of that provided within the ordinance's definition section, it does offer an understanding of Floodplain District application. As such, the City should consider its inclusion within a revised floodplain ordinance. Section 4.175 Delineation of Floodplain District This section of the New Hope Ordinance notes the fact that the Floodplain District includes those areas which lie within the 100 year flood boundary as identified by the Federal Flood Insurance Administration. This material is similarly offered in the State Ordinance and should remain as stated. Section 4.176 Rule for Interpretation of District Boundaries Section 4.176 of the New Hope Ordinance relates to exact determination of district boundaries and provides the City Engineer with interpretation power. This section is taken nearly verbatim from the State Model Ordinance and appears acceptable as it exists. Section 4.177 Use Permit This section of the New Hope Ordinance basically outlines procedural requirements necessary to obtain a use permit within the Floodplain District. Generally the State Model Ordinance contains a greater amount of detail regarding this issue. Specific material which should be considered for inclusion within an adopted City..Ordinance should include the following: 1. The necessity to obtain alI necessary state and federal permits. 2. The issuance of a zoning compliance certificate by the Zoning Administrator. 3. An applicant should be required to submit certification by applicable professionals (architect, engineer, etc.) that finished fill and building elevations are in compliance with ordinance requirements. 4. The Zoning Administrator should maintain a record of the elevation of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures and alterations or additions to exist£ng structures in the floodplain. Section 4.178 Variances and Amendments This section of the New Hope Ordinance stipulates that the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must be ~ given notification of all variance requests. This section of' the ordinance is nearly identical to that offered within the State Model Ordinance. As such, no changes are deemed necessary. Section 4.179 Permitted Uses Section 4.179 of the New Hope Ordinance identifies permitted uses, permitted accessory uses and conditional uses within the FP, Floodplain District. While Floodplain District regulations are generally similar to those found in the State Model Ordinance, one major discrepancy between the documents is present. The State Model Ordinance establishes an individual listing of permitted uses, conditional uses and standards for a "Floodway" District, a "Flood Fringe" District and a general Floodplain District. The existing New Hope Ordinance, on the other hand, provides only regulations for a singular Floodplain District. By providing floodway and flood fringe district standards, varied degrees of regulations are offered within the floodplain district. The City should make comment on whether such a regulatory division of the Floodplain District would be advantageous to New Hope. Such a determination should include an examination of existing uses within the City's floodway and flood fringe areas. New Hope's floodway boundary maps do not currently provide any delineation of the City's floodway and flood fringe areas. This, coupled with the fact that essentially all areas which border the City's floodplain are fully developed, may negate any applicability of a floodplain division. This issue should, however, be subject to further City discussion and specific recon%mendation by the City Engineer. OTHER ISSUES Subdivisions. The State Model Ordinance contains specific language relating to an applicant's responsibility to subm£t varied information necessary to determine the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and whether a proposed use is within the Floodway or Flood Fringe District. Information to be submitted would include: (a) A typical valley cross-section showing the channel of the stream, elevation of land areas adjoining each side of the channel, cross-sectional areas to be occupied by, the proposed development, and high water information. (b) P.lan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of the ground; pertinent structure, fill, or storage elevations; size, location, and spatial arrangement of all proposed and existing structures on the site; location and elevations of streets; photographs showing existing land uses and vegetation upstream and downstream; and soil type. (c) Profile showing the slope of the bottom of the channel or flow line of the stream for at least 500 feet in either direction from the proposed development. 4 Because areas bounding the City's designated flooding areas are generally fully developed, the City may consider the inclusion of the aforementioned material unnecessary. This issue, however, should be subject to City discussion and specific comment by the City Engineer. Administration. The State Model Ordinance provides a specific set of factors from which decisions regarding conditional use permit applications within the floodplain may be based. These factors, as listed below, should be considered for inclusion within the New Hope Ordinance as they provide a sound base from which to make decisions regarding development acceptability. (a) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities caused by encroachments. (b) The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream to the injury of others or they may block bridges, culverts, or other hydraulic structures. (c) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions. (d) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. (e) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. (f) The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (g) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (h) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. (i) The relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan and floodplain management program for the area. (j) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. (k) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the flood waters expected at the site. (1) Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Ordinance. 5 COMMUNITY FLOODING ISSUES Flooding Sources. In determining appropriate appllcations of the State Model Ordinance, it is vital to examine the flooding characteristics of the City. According to a Flood Insurance Study conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there are three primary flooding sources within the City: i. Long Lake Outfall, located in north-central New Hope from Long Meadow Lake to the corporate limit. 2. Long Meadow Lake, in north-central New Hope. 3. Local Pond~ in southwestern New Hope for its entire reach within the City. The location of these flooding sources is illustrated upon Exhibit A. Floodplain Land Usage. Per the Emergency Management Agency, development has occurred adjacent to the City's designated 100 year floodplains. In the past, some basement walk-outs have been threatened during periods of high water. In addition, localized intersection flooding has occurred in summer months due to thunderstorms. In general, however, development has been restricted to areas outside the floodplain. Virtually all of the 100 year floodplains are currently in parks or open space usage. Flooding Problems. The Emergency Management Agency has indicated that past flooding in New Hope has occurred from both summer rain storms and spring snow melt runoff. Due to the natural storage provided in the Bass Creek Watershed upstream from New Hope, and the lack of development adjacent to the creek, there are no historical indications of past flood events in the City. As noted in earlier discussion, the issue of specific floodway and flood fringe regulation is of significant importance in the adoption of the State Ordinance. Floodways/Flood Frinqes. Encroachment on floodplains, such as artificial fill, reduces the flood-carrying capacity, increases the flood heights of streams, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program, the concept of a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 100 year flood is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe, the floodway is the channel of a stream plus any adjacent floodplain areas that must be kept free of encroachment 6 in order that the 100 year flood may be carried without substantial increases in flood heights (see Exhibit C). The area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100 year flood is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe thus encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the 100 year flood more than 0.5 foot at any point. As shown upon the Emergency Management Agency's floodway boundary map (Exhibit D), specific floodways within New Hope have not been illustrated. In discussing this issue with North Hennepin County Hydrologist, Tom Hovey, it was indicated that if floodways do exist within the City's 100 year floodplain, they are likely not illustrated for one of two reasons. First, they may have been so slight that they simply were not illustrated. Secondly, they simply may not have been subject to investigation. In regard to whether it would be in the best interest of the City to pursue separate regulation of the City's floodway and flood fringe areas, Mr. Hovey indicated that regulation via a single "General Floodplain District" such as currently in place in the City would likely be most appropriate. Mr. Hovey's recommendation was based on the fact that New Hope has few if any significant floodway channels and regulation via a single district application would significantly simplify any reviewal process. CONCLUSION Based on the preceding analysis, it is evident that the State Model Ordinance for floodplain management holds greater detail and regulation than the existing New Hope Ordinance. A notable discrepancy between two documents is the individualized regulation of the floodway and flood fringe areas present within the State Ordinance. Based on a discussion with a DNR Hydrologist and an examination of the City's floodway areas, it is recommended that the City pursue its existing regulation.via a single "General Floodplain District" Specific sections within the State Model Ordinance which do hold particular relevance to New Hope and should be considered for inclusion within an amended City document include stipulations relating to both use permits and administration. cc: Dan Donahue Doug Sandstad 7 EXHIBIT A - FLODPLAIN LOCATIONS ZONE :, c,.c~( < ZONE C : ZONE C '~ '~ KEY TO MAP ~ ~ ,~ , 500-Year Flood Boundar~ : IO0-Year FLood Boundary FLOQDWAY FEINGE FLOOO~AY ~ lOO-Year Flood ~ound~rg : 500-Year FIooO ~oundtrg ~vt~u~ ' ; Approximate lO0-Year -- ~ Flood Boundar~ ~ Elevation Reference Mark RM7x __ / River Mile · M1.5 RM2 av(~u( . '- ZONE C '~ ':__ EXHIBIT B1 - FLOOD BOUNDARY AND FLOODWAY MAP N o NORTH Z ('3 W'O~.--, _ o¢~ ~'. ,. ~,{ ..... .., ~ ~ L .... ~ ................. ....... __ _ _::7- ) -.~ ,~ ,' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., .. :::: } ~ -EXHIBIT B2 - FLOOD BOUNDARY AND FLOODWAY MAP Ii-; 100 -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN ... FLOOOWAY ~ ~ FLOOOWAY ~ ~F L ~ FRINGE FRINGE STREAM CHANNEL FLOOD ELEVATION WHEN CONFINED WITHIN LOODWAY ENCROACHMENT ~ '~'-X~'~XOF FLOOD ~ couLD~ -- / 8E USED FOR OEVELOPMENTSY ~ FLOO0 ELEVATION EXHIBIT C - FLOODWAY SCHEMATIC 4.17, 4.171, 4.172, 4.173, 4.174, 4.175 APPENDIX D The flood plain (FP) and Wetland Systems District (W) of the Zoning Code are included in this Appendix D for administrative convenience. 4.17 Flood Plain District 4.171 Purpose. The Legislature of the State of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statute Chapters 104 and 462, delegated the responsibility to local governmental units for adoption of regulations designed to minimize flood losses. The purpose of the FF District is to provide for the protection and preservation of water channels and those portions of the adjoining flood plains which are reasonably required to carry and discharge a regional flood and are subject to inundation by regional floods. It is the intent of the City that this district be applied to those areas which if left unrestricted, loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce, utilities and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood plain protection and relief and result in impairment of the tax base could result, all of which adversely affect the public health, safety and general welfare. This district is and shall be applied in compliance with requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 104 and 462 as amended. In addition, Minnesota Regulations N. R. 85, as amended, shall be consulted in administering this district. It is intended tha~ the regulations applying to the FP District be interpreted in such a manner as to result in compliance by the City of New Hope with the standards of Section 60.3(d) under Section 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended. 4.172 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability. This section does not imply that areas outside the Flood Plain District boundaries or land uses allowed within this district will be free from flooding or flood damages. This section shall not create liability on the part of the City of New Hope Or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages which result from reliance on this Code or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 4.173 District Application. The Flood Plain District shall be applied to and superimposed upon Residential, Business and Industrial Districts as existing or amended by the text and map of this appendix. The regulations and requirements imposed by the Flood Plain District shall be in addition to those established by the Residential, Business and Industrial Districts of this Code. 4.174 District Subdivision. The area within a flood plain district is further divided into floodway and flood fringe. A floodway includes the channel of a river or stream and those portions of the adjoining flood plain which are required to carry and discharge the regional flood; a flood fringe includes the area outside of the floodway but subject to inundation by the regional flood. 4.175 Delineation of Flood Plain District. The Flood Insurance Study for the City of New Hope prepared by the Federal Insurance Administration and dated July, 1980, and Flood Insurance Rate Maps contained therein are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this appendix. The Flood Plain District for the City of New Hope shall include those areas which lie within the 100 year Flood Boundary on the Flood Insurance Map. (Ord. 80-9) D-1 4.176, 4.177 (l) - (5)(b) : 4.176 Rule for Interpretation of District Boundaries. The boundaries of she Flood ~la~a D~strict shall be determined ay scaling distances on the Official Zoning Map. Where interpretatmon is needed to define more exactly the location of the boundaries of the district as shown on the Official Zoning Map, as for example where there appears to be a conflict between a mapped boundary and actual field conditions, the City Engineer shall make the necessary interpretation based on elevations on the reg&onal (100 year) flood profile contained in the Flood Insurance Study and other available technical data. Any person contesting the location of the FP District boundary shall be given a hearing =o present his case to the City Council and to submit his own technical evidence if he so desires, no more than 30 days following an adverse ruling by the Cxty Eng~fleer. (Ord. 80-9) 4.177 Use Permit. (1) Permit Required. A use permit shall be required in the Flood Pta~n District prior to the erection, addition, or alteration of any building structure, use or land; and prior to the change, modification, or extension of a non-conform%ng building, structure or use. (2) Application and Fee. A use permit shall be applied for from the City. Said application shall be accompanied by a detailed written statement and/or plans describing the proposed change, modification, or alteration. An application fee of ten dollars shall be charged for each use permit and shall not ~e refunded. (3) Determination. Within ten days after the application for use permit, ~he C~ty Engineer shall determine whether the change, modification, or alteration conforms to the requirements of all applicable C~ty, State and Federal regulations and laws, and ~hat applicable state and federal permits have been acquired. This time limit for determination of acceptability shall be automatically extended should a referal to another governmental jurisdiction be required. The applicant shall be advised ~n writing of the City Engineer's determination and findings, and if acceptable, a use permit shall be granted. (Ord. 80-9) (4) Certificate of Occupancy. Ail cases requiring a use permit shall also require a certificate of occupancy and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 4.12. (5) Performance Bond. (a) UpOn approval of a use permit the City shall be provided with a surety bond prior ~o the issuing of building permits or initiation of work on the propOsed improvements or development. Said bond shall guarantee conformance and compliance with the conditions of the use permit and the regulations and laws of the City. (b) The surety bond shall be in the amount of the City Engineer's and/or City Building Official's estimated costs of labor and materials for the proposed improvements or dave lopment. 4. 177 (5)(c) - (d), 4. 178, 4,179 (].) (4) The City shall hold the surety bond until completion of the proposed improvements or development and a certificate of occupancy indicating compliance with the use permit and the regulations and laws of the City has been issued by the City Building Official. (d) Failure to comply with the conditions of the use permit and/or the regulations and laws of the City shall result in forfeiture of the bond. 4.178 Variances and Amendments. (1) In addition to the procedures and requirements for variances and amendments as established in Sections 4.20 and 4.21, the commissioner of Natural Resources shall be give at minimum a ten day notice of any public hearing, and a review and written report must be obtained from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and any other governmental body or commission having jurisdiction for such changes, additions or modifications affecting a "FP" Flood Plain District. The Commission of Natural Resources shall be advised in writing of all decisions made regarding variances and amendments. (2) No variance or amendment shall have the effect of allowing a prohibited use within an "FP' District, permit a lesser degree of flood protection than the established flood protection elevation and/or permit standards lower than those required under applicable State law. 4.179 Permitted Uses. Uses having a iow flood damage potential and not obstructing flood flows shall be permitted within the FP District to the extent that they are not prohibited by any other regulations or provisions of this Code and are allowed within the Residential, Business, or Industrial District which jointly applies, and provided they do not require fill, storage of materials or equipment, or structure (except as structures are permitted in paragraph (5) below) In addition, no use shall adversely affect the capacity of the channels, of floodways of any tribut~ry to the main stream, or of drainage ditches or any other drainage facility or system. Permitted uses are limited to the following: (1) Agricultural. Agricultural uses such as general farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant nurseries, forestry, horticulture, truck farming, sod farming, and wild crop harvesting. (2) Residential.' Residential uses such as lawns, gardens, parking and play areas. (3) Industrial and commercial. Loading areas and parking areas. (4) Private and Public Recreational. Recreational uses such as golf courses, ~enn~s courts, driving ranges, archery ranges, picnic grounds, boat launching ramps, swimming areas, parks, wildlife and nature preserves, game farms, fish hatcheries, shooting preserves, target ranges, trap and skeet ranges, hunting and fishing areas, and single or multiple pur~;ose recreational trails. D-3 072684 &,.L79 (5), ~..179A, 4. ].79B (1) and electrical transmission lines which have been flood-proofed in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated a~ove the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation; also water and sanitary sewer mains, public storm sewer mains and appurtenant structures, public streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks and parking areas. (Ord. 80-9) 4.179A Permitted Accessory Uses. None. 4.1798 Conditional Uses. The following open space uses require accessory structures (temporary or perm~anent), or fill or storage of materials or equipment. These uses may be permitted in the Flood Plain District only after the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit as provided in Section 4.20. (1) Permitted Uses. Uses shall be limited by the standards established by Section (2) below and as restricted by this Code as to the respective zoning districts. (a) Accessory Uses. Uses or structures accessory to open space or conditional uses. Signs. Signs. (c) Extraction of Materials. Extraction of sand, gravel, and other materials. (d) water Related Uses. Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, and water control structures. (e) Transportation and Utilities. Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission lines, and pipe lines. (f) Storage Yards. Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or material. (g) Animal Housing. Kennels and stables. (h) Drive-in Theaters~ Sales Operations. Drive-in theaters, car, ~chinery, or similar sales, roadside stands. (i) Towers. Radio transmitter towers, and appurtenant cables, grounds and lines. 072686, 4.179B (2)(a)(i) - (x) (2) Standards for Conditional Uses. (a) Procedure and Standard~. No structure (temporary or permanent), fill (including fill for roads and levees), deposit, obstruction, storage of materials or equipment, or other uses may be allowed as a conditional use w~ich, acting alone or in combination with existing or anticipated future uses, affect the capacity of the floodway, or increase flood heights. Ail conditional use applications shall be accompanied by a flood impact statement drafted by a registered engineer. The City Engineer shall be responsible for a review and recommendation on the application and shall be responsible for submitting the proposal and application to the Department of Natural Resources and any other governmental unit having flood control jurisdiction over the area for review and written comment. In determining the acceptability of a proposed conditional use, the City Engineer and the City Council shall consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this appendix and this Code, and: Danger of Increased Height or Velocity. The danger to l&fe and property due to increased flood heights or velocites caused by encroachments. (ii) Danger of Swept AwnM Materials. The danger that materials may be swept onto other lands or downs=ream to the injury of others. (iii) War. er Supply and Sanitation. The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary conditions. (iv) Flood Dazaa~e Susceptibility. The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and the effect of such damage on the individual owner. (v) Importance of Service. The importance of the services provi4ed by the proposed facility to ~he community. (vi) Waterfront Requirements. The requirements of the facility for a waterfront location. (vii) Alternative Locations. The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed use. (viii) Compatibility with Other Developments. The colapatibility of the proposed use with existing development and development anticipated in the foreseeable future. (ix) Relation to Comprehensive Plan. The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood plain management program for the area. (x) Vehicle Access Safety. The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and emergency vehicles. 07268~ 4.179B (2)(a)(xi) - (d)(i) Expected Flood Waters. The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of t~e flood waters expected at the site. (xii) Other Factors. Such other factors which are relevant to the purposes of this Code. (Ord. 80-9) Fill. (i) seneficial Purpose. Any fill proposed to be deposited in the floodway must be shown to have some beneficial purpose and the amount thereof must not exceed that necessary to achieve the intended purpose, as demonstrated by a plan submitted by the owner showing the uses to which the filled land will be put and the final dimensions of the proposed fill or other materials. (ii) Protection of Fill. Such fill or other materials shall be protected against erosion by rip-rap, vegetative cover, or bulkheading. (c) Structures (Temporary and Permanent). (i) Not for Human Habitation. Structures shall not be designated for human habitation. (ii) Low Flood Damage Potential. Structures shall have a low flood damage potential. The structure or structures, if allowed, shall be constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters. Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood flow, and so far as practicable, structures shall be placed approximately on the same flood flow as those adjoining structures. (iii) Anchoring. Structures shall be firmly anchored to prevent floatation which may result in damage to other structures and/or restriction of bridge openings and other narrow sections of =~e stream or river. (iv) Utilities. Service facilities such as electrical and heating equipment shall be installed at or a~ove the regulatory flood protection elevation for the part£cula= area to be flood proofed. Storage of Material and Equipment. ~ (i) No Flotation. The storage or processing of materials that are in time of flooding buoyant, flammable, explosive, or could be injurious to human, animal, or plant life, is prohibited. D-6 07268& 4.179B (2)(d)(ii) - (3) 4.179C, 4.18, 4.181 (1)(2) (ii) Anchoring. Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed if not subject to major damage by floods and firmly anchored to prevent flotation or readily removable from the area within the time available after flood warning. (e) Garbage and Solid Waste Disposal. (i) No Waste Disposal Sites. No conditional use permits for garbage and waste disposal sites shall be issued for floodway areas. (ii) Expansion of Site. There shall be no further encroachment upon the floodway at existing sites. (f) Structural Works for Flood Control. Structural works for flood control such as dams, levees, dikes, and floodwalls, shall be allowed only upon issuance of a conditional use permit. In addition, any proposed work in the beds of public waters which will change the course, current, or cross-section of the waters shall be subject to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1969, Chapter 105, and other applicable statutes. (g) Flood Proofing Requirements. When flood proofing is permitted or required under this Code, such structure or use shall be flood-proofed in accordance with the requirements of the State Building Code. The City Engineer shall maintain a record of the elevation of the first floor (including basement) of all new structures or additions to existing structures in the Flood Plain District. He/she shall also maintain a record of the elevations to which structures or additions to structures are flood-proofed. (Ord. 80-9, 80-12) (3) Flood Fringe. (Deleted by Ord. 80-9) 4.179C Amendments to Sections 4.17 through 4.179C. Pursuant to M. S. 104.04 Subd. 4, amendme~:s to Sections 4.17 through 4.17C shall be submitted to the commissioner of Natural Resources of the State of Minnesota for review and approval prior to adoption. 4.18 wetland Systems District (W) 4.181 ~. The Wetland Systems District (W District) is a district relating to low lands, marshes, wetlands, drainage ways, water bodies, and watercourses regulating alteration and development of such lands and provided for the issuance of permits therefore, and specifically to: (1) Reduce Hazards. Reduce danger to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of New Hope by protecting surface and ground water supplies from the impairment which results from incompatible land uses and alterations, and by providing safe and sanitary drainage. (2) Restrict Development. Restrict and control land development so it will not impede the flow of flood water or cause danger to life or property. D-7 07268~ 4.181 (3) - (6), a.182, 4.183 (1) - (3) (3) Desiqnated Land for W District. Designate suitable land uses that are compatible w~th the preservation of the natural vegetation and marshes which are a principal factor in the maintenance of constant rates of water flow through the year and which sustain many species of wild life and plant growth. (4) Runoff Requlated. Regulate runoff of surface waters from developed areas to prevent pollutants such as motor oils, sand, salt and other foreign materials from being carried directly into the nearest natural stream, lake or other public or private watera. (5) Alteration of Wetlands Regulated. Regulate the alteration of wetland systems to prevent excessive sediment pollution, increased and rapXd water runoff, excessive nutrient runoff pollution and to maintain the aesthetic appearance of the wetlands. (6) Protection of Watercourses. Prevent the development of structures in areas which will adversely affect the public passage and use of creeks, marshes, low lands and watercourses within the City. 4.182 District Application. (1) Joint Application. The Wetland Systems District shall be applied to and superimposed upon all residential, commercial, or industrial distr~cts contained herein existing or amended by the text and map of this Code. The regulations and requirements imposed by the "W" District shall be in addition to those established for the district which jointly applies. Under the joint application of districts, the more restrictive requirements shall apply. (2) District Boundary Definition. The Wetland Systems District w~tnin the City of New Hope is defined and established to include those areas adjoining and including any watercourse, natural drainage system, water body, or wetland, that may be subject to periodic flooding, overflow, or seasonally high water tables. The specific district boundary lines shall be established by the C~ty Engineer and approved by the City Council. Ail proposals to adjust a wet,and systems district boundary line shall follow the same a~inistrative procedures as outlined in Section 4.20. In addition, the applicant must submit engineering data that clearly indicates the magnitude of impact on the wetland system, if any, that will result from the proposed development. 4.183 Permitte~ USES. The following operations and uses are permitted in the "Wetland Systems DiStrict" as a matter of r~g~t, subject to any other applicable code, ordinance or law= (1) Certain A~ricultural Uses. Grazing, farming, nurseries, gardening, and harvesting of crops. (2) Forestry. Sustained yield foresty and tree farms. (3) Conservation. Conservation of soil vegetation, water, fish and wildlife. D-8 07268~ · ~.183 (4) - (6), 4. 4.185 (4) Research and Education. Scientific research and educational activities that teach principles of ecology and conservation. (5) Recreational Activities. Leisure activities such as hiking, nature studies, canoeing, boating, camping, water-skiing, skin- diving, horseback riding, field trails, and general outdoor recreat%on including play and sporting areas that are not inconsistent with the intent of this Code. (6) Essential Services. 4.184 Prohibited Uses. Except as may hereinafter be permitted, it shall be unlawful for any person to: (1) Fill. Place, deposit or permit to be deposited, debris, fill or any material including structures into, within or'~pon any water body, watercourse or wetland, flood plain or natural drainage system. (2) Dredge. Dig, dredge, or in any other way alter or remove any ma%erial from any water body, watercourse, wetland, flood plain, or natural drainage system. (3) Build. Erect structures for human habitation. (4) Change. Create ponds, dam or relocate any watercourse, or change the natural drainage system. (5) Clear Vegetation. Clear and/or cut trees or other vegetation. (6) S~ore. Permanently s~ore materials. (7) Signs. Erect signs. (8) Waste D~sposal. Dispose of waste materials, including but not limited to sewage, garbage, rubbish and other discarded materials. 4.185 Development Regulations. ' (1) Development Application. Land owners or developers desiring to develop land or construct any dwelling or any other artificial obstructioa oh land located within any of the wetlands district within the City of New Hope shall first submit a conditional use permit application as regulated by Section 4.20 and a plan of development, hereinafter referred to as "a wetland systems impact plan", which shall set forth proposed provisions for sediment control, water management, maintenance of landscaped features, and any additional matters intended to improve or maintain the quality of the environment. Such a plan shall set forth proposed changes requested by the applicant and affirmatively disclose what, if any, change will be made in the natural conditions of D-9 07268~. (2) destruction of trees, grade changes and its effect, if any, uDon lakes, streams, wager courses and marshes, lowlands and wetlands in the area. The plan shall minimize tree removal, ground cover change, loss of natural vegetation, and grade changes as much as possible, and shall affirmatively provide for the relocation or replanting of as many trees as possible which are proposed to be removed. The purpose of the wetland systems impact plan shall be to eliminate as much as possible potential pollution, erosion and siltation. (2) High Water Elevation. For lakes, ponds, or flowages, no structure, except boat houses, piers and docks, shall be placed at an elevation such that the lowest floor, including basement floor, is less than three feet above the highest known water level. In those instances where sufficient date on known high water levels are not available, the elevation of the line of permanent shoreland vege%ation shall be used as the estimated high water elevation. When fill is required to meet this elevation, the fill shall be allowed to stabilize, and construction shall not begin until the property ham been inspected by the Building Official. D-10 072684 CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-11 Request: Composting Ordinance Location: City of New Hope PID No: Zoning: Petitioner: City of New Hope Report Date: May 31, 1991 Meeting Date: 1une 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. This is a request by the City of New Hope to amend Chapter 9 of the New Hope City Code by adopting an ordinance that would permit and establish procedures for composting yard waste. The ordinance would be incorporated into the City Code under Section 9.11, Trash and Waste. 2. The City has received requests from several residents that an ordinance be adopted to regulate composting. The City Council discussed this issue in March, reviewed ordinances from several other cities, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance for New Hope. The Council requested that both the Citizens Advisory Commission and the Planning Commission review and comment on the proposed ordinance before it comes back to the Council for consideration. 3. The City Attorney drafted the enclosed Ordinance 91-11 "ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 9 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY PERMITTING AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR COMPOSTING YARD REFUSE". The ordinance was reviewed by the Citizens Advisory Commission at their April 16th meeting. They voted to support the adoption of the ordinance and requested that their comments on the ordinance be taken into consideration by the City Council. Their comments and the major points of the ordinance that were discussed are outlined in the attached April 17th memo and include: A. Limitation to single or two-family residents B. Setbacks C. Size D. Screening E. Contents F. Joint sites The Citizen Advisory Commission comments were presented to the City Council at the April 22nd Council meeting and the Council comments are attached. 4. The ordinance was then sent to the Planning Consultant for comment and his report specifically addresses setback and screening issues. Northwest Consultants recommended that four modifications be made to the ordinance: (A) A compost pile may not exceed 300 cubic feet in size. (B) A five-foot side/rear yard setback is imposed upon compost facilities. Planning Case Report 91-11 lune 4, 1991 Page -2- (C) The ordinance be revised to include specific stipulation of construction type for compost containment structures. Such language may allow the structure to both contain compost material and provide a visual screen to neighboring properties. (D) In no case may a compost facility overlay an established drainage easement. 5. The City Attorney revised the ordinance to incorporate the recommendations of both the Citizens Advisory Commission and the Planning Consultant. 6. This is not an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance therefore no public hearing is required. The City Council is seeking input from the Planning Commission especially on screening and setback requirements because these are the types of issues routinely discussed in planning cases. ANALYSIS 1. The Codes & Standards Committee met on May 29th to review and comment on the proposed ordinance. The Committee discussed changes to the ordinance regarding location, containment, and composition. These changes are listed below and are more specifically addressed in the Planner's Report, which summarizes the meeting. 2. Recommended changes by Codes & Standards: (A) Location - the ordinance states that compost sites may not be closer than 5 feet from any rear or side property line, may not be located in any front yard, may not be located in any drainage easement, or may not be closer than 25 feet from any residence. Codes & Standards wanted to require that the compost site must be located in the rear yard and may not be located in any side yard abutting a public right-of-way. Codes & Standards also recommended that if the lot had an approved boundary line fence, the fence could be used as part of the compost eontalnment structure (which would negate the 5-foot setback). The Planner drafted the following revised language to incorporate the change: ',Location - Compost sites may not be closer than five (5) feet from the rear or side lot lines. Compost site must be located within the rear yard and may not be located in any front yard, side yard abutting a public right-of-way or a drainage easement. Compost sites may not be located closer than 25 feet from any residence. On lots with approved boundary line fences, the compost site may use the boundary llne fence as part of the compost eontalnment structure." (B) Containment - the existing ordinance states that all compost sites must be totally contained within a structure eoustrueted of rot-resistant wood in a manner which allows the circulation of air and is usually complementary to a lot's principal structure. Codes & Standards felt that this language was too restrictive and recommended that the wording be changed to Wa structure constructed of a permanent, non- degrading material. * This would allow wire enclosures as being acceptable for containment. Planning Case Report 91-11 June 4, 1991 Page -3- The Planner drafted the following language to incorporate this recommendation: 'X2ontalnment - All compost sites must be totally cOntained within a structure constructed of a permanent, non-degrading material in a manner which allows the circulation of air and is visually complementary to a lot's principal (C) Composition - The current ordinance allows compost to consist of yard waste, fruit or vegetable waste, eggshells or coffee grounds generated from the site. Codes & Standards recommended that the ordinance be changed to allow only the composting of yard waste, no fruit or vegetable waste and no eggshells or coffee grounds. The following language was drafted to incorporate the change: "Composition - A compost may consist only of yard waste generated from the site upon which the compost is located." 3. The Planning Commission should review these changes in comparison with the original draft and comment on their acceptability. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Composting Ordinance with the inclusion of the changes recommended by Codes & Standards. Attachments: May 29th Planner's Report - Codes & Standards Changes May 24th Attorney's Letter - Ordinance Changes Compost Ordinance 91-11 May 7th Planner's Report on Ordinance April 16th Citizen Advisory Minutes Staff Report following CAC Meeting April 22nd/March 25th Council Minutes Compost Information Northwest Associated Consul.tan s,.. I MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Kyle Brown/Alan Brtxius DATE: 29 May 1991 RE: New Mope - Composting Ordinance FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.10 Upon review of the Compos=ing Ordinance by the Codes and Standards Con%mi~tee, the following changes were discussed regarding location, containment, and composition. It. is anticipated that these changes can be incorporated into the draft prepared by Mr. Sondrall's office. The Planning Commission should review these changes in comparison with the origina! and comment on their acceptability. 9.119 (a) Location. Compost sites may not be closer than five (5) fee= from ~he rear or side lo= lines. Compose site must be located within the rear yard and may not be located in any front yard, sade yard abutting a public right-of-way or a drainage easement. Compos= sites may no= be located closer khan 25 fee= from any residence. On lots with approved boundary line fences, the compost site may use the boundary line fence as part of the compost containment structure. (d) Con~ainmen~. Ail compost sites must be totally contained within a structure constructed of a permanent, non-degrading material in a manner which allows the circulation of air and is visually complementary to a lot's principal structure. 4601 Excelsior Blvd..Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-g420.Fax 925-2723 .M. A Y -- $ 0-- 9 I *l' H U i ~; -' I 4 P . 0 ~ (f) Composition. A compost may consist only of yard was%e generated from %Ae si%e upon which %he compost is located. cc: Doug Sandstad Dan Donahue Steve Sondrall COR~CK & SON~RALL A PARTN[RIHIP OF PROIr[SIIONA~. CORPORATION8 ?~ (6 J 2) 533-2243 ~[~A~ AISISTAN~S CORRICK ~W OFFICES, ~.A. WILLIAM J. CO~RICK ~VONNE [. KESK[ STEVEN A. ~OND~ALL, P.A. SHARON D. DERBY STEVEN A. SONORAL~ MICHAEL R. ~FLEUR MARTIN P. MALECHA WILLIAM C. STRAIT Hay 24, 1991 Kirk McDonald Hanagement Asst. City of New Hope 4401Xylon Avenue North New Hope, MN 55428 RE: Composting Ordinance Our File No. 99.49111 Dear Kirk: Please find enclosed a revised Composting Ordinance incorporating the recommendations of the Citizen's Advisory Commission and the City Planner. I did speak with A1 Brixius relative to the Northwest Associated Consultant's May 7th, lg91 memo. With reference to the size limitations, we agreed that a cubic feet standard should not be used because it would not provide for height limitations. In other words, a 300 cubic foot compost site could be 12 feet in height if it were 5' x 5' in area. The enclosed Ordinance provides for a compost site that would be 25 sq. ft. in area and 4 ft. in height. Such a compost site would contai~ 100 cubic feet of material. With respect to screening and containment, the reference to screening has been removed and replaced with the word containment. The enclosed Ordinance requires that all compost sites be contained by a rot resistant wood structure that doubles for screening as well as containment. A provision has been included to prevent the location of a compost site in a drainage easement as recommended by the City Planner. Finally, A1 and I agreed that the intent of the City Council is to discourage composting within the City. As a result, we do not want to provide industrial or commercial property owners with any Mr. Kirk McDonald May 24, 1991 Page 2 greater ability to compost material than provided to residential property owners. As a result, industrial or commercial users could also compost material on their property subject to the same regulations as imposed on residential property owners. Again, it is my own opinion that we should limit composting to residential property since it seems odd to me that we would allow commercial properties along 42nd Avenue to contain composting sites. Nevertheless, the Ordinance is now written to allow all property owners to compost material on their property as long as the material is generated from the site upon which the compost is located. If you have any questions concerning this revised Ordinance, please contact me. Very truly yours, Steven A. Sondrall slf2 Enclosure cc: Daniel d. Oonahue (w/eric) Alan Brixius (w/enc) ORDINANCE NO. 91-11 AN ORDINANCE ANEND[NG CHAPTER 9 OF THE NEW HOPE CITY CODE BY PERN[TT[NG AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR COHPOST[NG YARD REFUSE The City Council of the City of New Hope ordains: Section 1. Section 9.111 (1) "Accumulation of Waste Prohibited" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection (c) "Exception, Compost Sites" to read as follows: (c) Exception, Compost Sites. Compost sites as defined by §~]~.~___O? .... this Code is__permitted on all property p. Ep.~i.~e__d ..... ~hat the compost site complies with the regulations set forth in §~.119 of this Code. Section 2. Section 9.119 "Defense to Prosecution" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.119 CcfA-~-~,,~ ~-~ P-~-"t~--, ~ ,~,,. -~ ~,-'--~,~,, ~ ..... ~ ~ff~-~,,t,~,~- dcf~-oe~,, ~ ......... ~--"-~-- ~ S~t~-- ~-~ th ......... l~t~ ~y ..... ;d~, ~blc ..... b~r ...... , thc , ...... Permitted Composting/Regulations. CompoSting of certain yard wastes as defined by this Code shall be permitted above ground in a control led area per the followin~ regH ]_~ i OhS .... a ~_1 g~ i~.._ fo r.. the .... ~G~mp_~s.i t i on of the maten~, a]s thr~op~h._ .~n]~_[p.~._p_F~G.~.s__ prov i d i Dg adeQuat9 ~yg~n.a~d.~_.sture. At n~ime shall composting create a health hazard or a nuisance to adjginin9 properties. ~cation. ComEos~ sites may not be closer than five feet from any rear or side property .1..i ne, ..may _.~ot__b~ l_o~a~_e_d iDea_ny_ _[r~.nt yard ~ Day not be located in any drainage easement, or may no~ be closer than 25 feet from any residence. _(bt Si ze. No compp~__~_a~ exceed 25 square fee~ in area or exceed 4 feet in height. .(_Ct Numbe~_o_f Si~.~.~. No lot may contain more than one compos~ site. (d) Containment, All compost sites must (' totally contained within a structure constructed of rot resistant wood in a manner which allows the circulation of air and is visually complementary to a lot's principal structure. Herbicide/Pesticide Use. No compost may be treated with any kind of herbicides or pesticides. (f). ~p~position. A compost may consist only of yard waste, fruit or vegetable waste, eggshells or coffee grounds generated only from the site upon which the compost is l_o.q~ed. Fruit or vegetable waste, eggshells or coffee grounds must be enclosed in a G.pn%Qiner or other manner which will prevent aD..i.~als from disturbing or removing the contenLs. ~.~t]on__3. section 1.10 "Definitions" of the New Hope City Code is hereby amended by adding subsection 1.131A "Compost Sites" to read as follows: 1.13lA Compost Sites. "Compost sites shall mean locations on residential property for the controlled biological decomposition of selected organic matter, such as yard waste, vegetable or fruit matter, eggshells or coffee g~ounds in a manner resulting in an innocuous final product. ~¢tion.4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage and publication. Dated the day of , 1991. Edw. J. Erickson, Mayor Attest: Valerie Leone, City Clerk (Published in the New Hope-Golden Valley Post the day of , 1991.) Northwest AsSoCiated Consultants, Inc. R B A N' 9 L A N NI NG · DES I G N · M A R K E T R E S E A R C H MEMORANDUM TO: Kirk McDonald FROM: Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius DATE: 7 May 1991 RE: New Hope - Composting Ordinance FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.10 Following your request, we have undertaken a review of the submitted composting ordinance drafted by Steve Sondrall, the City Attorney. Specifically, our evaluation of the ordinance shall focus upon applicable requirements and their appropriateness in relation to existing standards held within the City Zoning Ordinance. In review of the Ordinance, we offer ~he following comments: Location: '['tie proposed ordinance limits compost sites to single family residences. Both City Staff and the Citizens Advisory Commission (CAC) have recommended that composting for other uses (i.e., multi-family residential, commercial, industrial) and larger sites be allowed only on a case-by-case basis subject to City approval. Our office concurs with this position and believes that uses other than single or two-family residential should requ£re ~eciftc City approval for the allowance of a compostJn~ facility. The City may wish to consider addressing larger site composting facilities by conditional use permit. Sizet The ordinance states that a compost pile may not exceed .025 percent of t}te total lot size or exceed 500 square feet or four feet in height. Both City Staff and the CAC have recommended that the maximum square footage be reduced to 300 square feet. 4601 Exce%sior tBWd..Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416.(612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721 In review Of this issue, it would appear that an error may hava been made in the noted reference to "square feet". The 300 square foot maximum stipulated above would allow a compost pile footprint which measures 22' x 22' Considering this size is extremely excessive, it is believed the "300 square foot" reference should be changed to "300 cubic feet". Generally, our office finds the 300 cubic foot maximum to be an appropriate volume of compost storage for single and two-family residences. Se=backs~ The submitted compost ordinance states that no compost pile may be: (1) closer than five feet from any rear or side property line, (2) may be located in any front yard, or (3) may be closer than 25 feet from any residence. The Citizen Advisory Committee, in review of the draft compost ordinance, indicated that the five foot rear/side yard setback for compost piles was, in their view, acceptable. In contrast to this position, previous staff comments have indicated that a ten foot rear/side yard setback should be required. In review of this issue, our office feels that a five foot setback for a fenced or screened compost pile, as recommended by the CAC, is considered appropriate for the following reasons: 1. The setback is consistent with the setback imposed upon accessory structures and garages within the City. In review of ordinance definition for "accessory use", it would appear that a "compost facility" may qualify in that it may be considered reasonably necessary and incidental to the primary use of the site. 2. A five foot setback will not encroach upon lot line utility easements as required within the Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance (Section 13.054) requires that ten (10) foot wide utility easements centered on all lot lines be provided. 3. A ten foot setback requirement would likely absorb valued rear yard activity areas. 4. Assuming the compost ordinance will provide stipulation that a compost pile be constructed in such a manner so as not t© create an odor, a five foot required setback will not- present any odorous concerns upon adjacent residences. 2 5. It should be recognized that the City Subdivision Ordinance does not present a specific drainage easement requirement which may influence compost facility location. Per the - Ordinance, specific drainage easement widths must be sufficient to accommodate drainage as determined by the City Council. In light of this fact, the compost ordinance should stipulate that, in no case, should a compost facility be located within a drainage easement. Based on the preceding text, it is believed that a five foot side/rear yard setback for compost piles may be acceptable. Compost Containments The draft ordinance does not contain specific language regarding compost structure construction. In an effort to present composting facilities which are both functional and aesthetically pleasing, it is recommended that the ordinance define preferred construction type. Specifically, it is suggested that containment structures be constructed of rot resistant wood in a manner which allows the circulation of air and is visually complementary to a lot's principal structure. Screenings The proposed compost ordinance stipulates that compost sites must be totally contained within screening or fencing and screened from view from adjacent properties. In discussion of the above requirement, both the CAC and City Staff agreed that compost piles should be contained within an appropriate structure. Because compost piles have an open wire containment which does not "screen" it in, the CAC and C£ty Staff indicated that if the intent of the ordinance is to prevent material from being blown away, then the term "containment" should be substituted for "screening". Our office must agree with the recommendation of the CAC and City Staff. According to previous staff discussion, the second part of the ordinance requirement: "and screened from view of adjacent properties" implies that all compost containers must have solid walls, a second fence or landscaping treatment installed beyond the wire containment for aesthetic purposes. The CAC has recommended that the statement "screened from view of adjacent properties" be eliminated. Again, our office must concur with the CAC recommendation. 3 If the ordinance includes language on the design and appearance'~''~ of the containment structure, the compost containment structure itself may serve a dual function by both containing compost material and screening the material from view of adjacent properties in an aesthetically pleasing manner. As a means of achieving desired screening of compost material, the draft ordinance should be modified to include compost facility construction requirements. Conclusion, Based on the preceding review, our office finds the draft compost ordinance to be generally acceptable. We do, however, recommend the following modifications: 1. A compost pile may not exceed 300 cubic feet in size. 2. A five foot side/rear yard setback is imposed upon compost facilities. 3. The ordinance be revised to include Specific stipulation of construction type for compost containment structures. Such language may allow the structure to both contain compost material and provide a visual screen to neighboring properties. 4. In no case may a compost facility overlay an established drainage easement. If you have any questions or comments regarding this material, please advise. -facility be licensed through their Service Sanitation Training program and pass the test. He commented that many people from Subway have gone through the training. Commission Stinson asked what the main reason is that Hennepin County is not having food handlers wear gloves. Mr. Meyers responded that the disposable gloves are difficult to manipulate the food because they don't fit very well. Also, if you have gloves on and you wipe your face or hair, the gloves are contaminated. Gloves are not, by themselves a cure-all. Gloves are required at events such as Duk Duk Daze where manual dexterity is not that important for handling ho=dogs and buns. CommissionerLandy asked Mr. Smith if Hennepin or =he State required gloves at some point in time, would New Hope follow those guidelines. Mr. Smith stated that New Hope would follow those same guidelines. Doug Smith informed the Commission that =he use of gloves will continue to be required at various functions such as Duk Duk Daze, Pancake Breakfasts, etc. Mr. Meyers advised that anyone that has a complaint at a certain restaurant, should speak =o the manager immediately. After further discussion Com-issionerLandy suggested that the Commission drop the issue until a time when Hennepin County adopts an ordinance. Ail .~'-J-' commissioners agreed. ~ RBGULATION ~ Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant, was present to ~ OP COMPOST ~ discuss regulating compost piles in New Hope. He gave ES the Commissioners a little background information on the composting issue. The CAC had discussed the issue last year. The General Inspector at that time did not ~--. favor legislating composting because of the  enforcement problem. Recently the City Manager received a complaint from a resident about compos=ing ~ and recommended that the City adopt an ordinance for the regulation of compost piles. The City Attorney has drafted a Composting Ordinance in which the City Council is requesting that the CAC review and offer input on the ordinance. Citizen Advisory Commission April 16, 1991 Page 3 'After review of the ordinance with Mr. McDonald, the CAC recommended the following changes= -Section 1: Too limiting with the sites listed as single or two-family residences. -Section 2: (a) Favor 5 feet from any rear or side property. Look at the 25 feet from any residence-- could be closer to your own residence. (b) Limit square footage to 300 square feet, not percentage of lot. Percentage should depend on lot size. (d) Screening should consist of open wire mesh and should be worded as "be contained" rather than screened. Delete "screened from view." -Section 3: Specify organic matter. Motion was made by Commissioner Landy to support the City Council in their recommendation in having an ordinance for composting. The Commission also recommends the above items be'addressed. Second by Commissioner Stillman. Voting in favor: Ail. Motion carried. SECOND PLAY Shari French, Director of Parks & Recreation, · R · & T O explained that the storm sewer work at Fred Sims will REBUILD FOH begin right away and the City Engineer feels there 1991 will be enough time left in 1991 to do the storm sewer work and add new play equipment. Commissioner Rubin made a motion proposing that Fred Sims Park, as originally scheduled, receive the new play equipment in 1991. Second by Commissioner Perhai. Voting in favor: Ail. Motion carried. C & P I T A L Ms. French stated that the department is now in the IMPROVeMeNT process of planning for the 1992-93 Capital PROGRAM FOR Improvement Program. Capital Improvement is funded 1992-93 for two years at a time and consists of everything costing over $1,000. Ms. French distributed copies of the department's wishlist for the Commissioners to review. She is looking for the Commission's input on any changes or additions. Ms. French continued by discussing a few of those items. Ms. French commented that the fishing dock at Northwood Park needs to be replaced. The old fishing dock was removed when the rip rap was put in. Also at Northwood is the recommendation for lights on the walking path and sand volleyball courts. Citizen Advisory Commission Aprill6, 1991 Page 4 CITY OF NEW HOPE MEMORANDUM DATE: April 30, 1991 TO: Dan Donahue, City Manager FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator SUBJECT: Proposed ComDostin~ Ordinance Comments on the proposed composting ordinance from the staff and Citizen Advisory Commission include the following issues:. 1. Limitation to Sinale or Two-Family Res%dencem - The proposed ordinance limits compost sites to single Or two-family residences, but the Inspections Department indicates that some commercial/ industrial properties have been allowed to compost in the past. Does the City want to prohibit composting at townhouses, apartments, senior buildings, group homes, office buildings, warehouses, cemeteries, and public lands? Staff and CAC recommend that composting not be prohibited on these types of property, but that City approval be required on a case-by-case basis and that different guidelines be established for large sites. The Eden Prairie ordinance prohibits any person from engaging in composting on public, commercial, office or industrial property without written permission from the City. 2. Setbacks - The proposed ordinance states that no compost pile may be closer than 5 feet from any rear or side property line, may be located in any front yard, or may be closer than 25 feet from any residence. The CAC felt that the 5-foot rear/side yard setback was acceptable, but staff recommends changing the rear/side yard setback requirement to 10 feet. The Eden Prairie ordinance contains a 10-foot setback requirement and staff feels a larger setback would help eliminate odor and screening complaints. CAC felt that a resident should not be restricted to the 25-foot building setback for a compost pile on their own property, but supported the 25-foot setback from buildings on neighboring properties. Staff supports thisportion of the ordinance as it is written. 3. Si$~ - The ordinance states that a compost pile may not exceed .025% of the total lot size or exceed 500 square feet or 4 feet in height. The CAC and staff both recommend that the maximum square footage be reduced to 300 square feet. There was some discussion by the CAC as to whether a percentage of lot size was necessary when a maximum square footage was included. 4. Screenin~ - The proposed ordinance states that compost sites must be totally contained within screening or fencing and screened from view from adjacent properties. There was considerable discussion on this point from both the CAC and staff. The first part of the sentence states that compost will be totally contained within screening or fencing. Everyone agreed that compost piles should be contained within an appropriate structure - most compost containers consist of simple bin-type structures built from woven wire fencing and metal posts, snow fencing, cylindrical pens, wooden bin systems or steel barrels with holes. "Screening" from the zoning point of view means to block, cover up, or hide. Compost piles must be air-ventilated so that the material can degrade. Most compost piles have an open wire containment which does not "screen" it in the zoning sense. Staff and CAC both feel that if the intent is to prevent material from being blown away or scattered into an adjacent yard, then the term mcontainmentm should be used. The second part of the sentence "and screened from view from adjacent properties" implies that either all compost containers must have solid walls or that a second fence or landscaping be installed beyond the open wire containment for aesthetic purposes. CAC recommendedthat this statement be eliminated altogether. The Eden Prairie ordinance states that compost piles shall be contained within a fenced area. ~ 5. ~ - The proposed ordinance would allow the composting of yard waste, vegetable or fruit matter, eggshells, or coffee grounds. The City of Crystal allows only the composting of yard waste, the CAC felt the proposed contents section was fine as written, but several were concerned about the attraction of rodents. They suggested that the Council consider adding a statement similar to one found in the Eden Prairie ordinance, "fruit or vegetable waste, eggshells, or coffee grounds must be enclosed in a container or other manner which will prevent animals from disturbing or removing the contents", 6. Joint Sit~ - One other concern that was raised by a staff member was that the setback requirements would prohibit several abutting property owners from forming a joint compost site across rear property lines. Perhaps this issue could be addressed in a policy for large compost sites. reconstructed the outlet to the pond closer to 58th which required some grading inside the pond. The City of New Hope's Public Works Department did some dredging but did not have proper equipment to finish grading the area. Mr. Donahue stated the City has received complaints from Crystal residents and from the Wincrest Apartment owners regarding the ponding area near 58th and Winnetka. Mr. Hanson stated he received quotes from Shingo-See Builders for $8,197. He stated Tri-K Construction declined to bid on the work. He stated a large portion of the bid ($3,270) is for removal of $00 cu. yards of soil. The Council discussed the need for a second quote. MOTION Motion was made by Councilmember Otten, seconded by Councilmember Williamson to table awarding a bid until the May 13th Council Meeting or until another quote is obtained. All present voted in favor. Motion carried. C//~J~OM~$TZ~YARI) Mayor Pro tem Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.1, / REFUSE ~ Consideration of Proposed Ordinance 91-11, An Ordinance ___ Item 10.1 Amending Chapter 9 of the New Hope City Code by Permitting and Establishing Procedures for Composting Yard Refuse. Mr. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator, stated at the Council's direction, the proposed ordinance was reviewed by the Citizen Advisory Commission at its meeting of April 16th. He explained that the CAC basically supported the ordinance and had five areas of concern: 1) the current ordinance limits compost sites to single or two-family residences and the Commission recommended allowing other types of property to compost with City approval on a case- by-case basis; 2) that the rear/side yard setback requirement be increased from $ feet to 10 feet; 3) that the compost pile maximum size be reduced from 500 square feet to 300 square feet; 4) that the "screening or fencing" requirement be changed to "containment" and elimination of the "screening fr°m view" part of the ordinance; and 5) that a clause be added regarding the contents so as to not attract rodents: "fruit or vegetable waste, eggshells, or coffee grounds must be enclosed in a container or other manner which will prevent animals from disturbing or removing the contents". ( Mayor Pro tem Enck suggested having the proposed ordinance reviewed by the Codes and Standards Committee of the Planning Commission since it includes zoning matters. New Hope City Council Page 5 April 22, 1991 Councilmember Williamson commented that she is agreeable ~-~ to the recommendations made by the Citizen Advisory Commission. She stated due to the potential rodent problems as well as odor problems arising from compost sites she feels strict regulations must be adopted if composttng is allowed. Councilmember Otten pointed out that if the compost sites are treated properly there should be no odors. He stated residents must be educated on proper methods. ...... Mayor Pro tem Enck requested that staff consider lot sizes which may be adversely affected by a lO-foot set-back requirement as opposed to a 5-foot setback. He felt the City may want it set at 10 feet but note that under extenuating circumstances a variance may be granted to unusual shaped properties. Councilmember Otten discussed the appearance of the site and noted that a relatively attractive material should be required for containment. Councilmember L'Herault commented that the property owner should not have to construct a costly structure. Mayor Pro tem Enck directed staff to submit the proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission. Marky - Wanted clarification under #2 - regarding 5-foot rear/side yard setback (may or may not be located in front yard). Inclined to go with 10 feet. May want to change wording so not confusing. - #3 referred to .025% lot size - okay to eliminate and go with 300 square feet. - hang-up with rodents; personal feeling is to not allow composting simply because of rodent problem and stench (so ought to be as strict as possibly can be in that area). - does not know if feasible to screen because of air circulation - would like to look carefully into that. - #5 agrees with Eden Prairie re: contents. Jerry - all articles he has read, the stench problem is not a problem if properly treated and aired. \ - would not object to composting ordinance just because of possible odor problem. Pete New Hope City Council Page 6 April 22, 1991 - ask planning commission to look at some of the sizes of lots that might be adversely affected by a lO-foot requirement as opposed to a 5-foot requiremetn. Some of the lots taper to the back and some are relatively narrow. It is possible to have lO-foot as standard and then under extenuating circumstnaces a variance could be granted. May be difficult to just have same all across board. Jerry - structure and various alternatives that people could use to keep them relatively attractive. Not sure what restrictions might or might not be but seems that there ought to be a way of making compost sites relatively attractive, and at least not unattractive. Gary - don't want to make it such a project that ... guess I have not noticed unsightly piles, hate to require any people to have to spend lot of money on structure. Dan - there is one pile of 4-5 years worth of grass clippings piled up on a lot and they just keep adding to it. It must smell. Gary - there is nothing in the ordinance that regulates caring for it. They could be adding correct materials and have it properly screened but if it isn't turned, it may smell. Pete - well then, we have a public nuisance which would be addressed another ordinance. give to Planning Commission and bring back after their review. Val - cont at 1118 ORDINANCE 91-12 Mayor Pro tem Enck introduced for discussion Item 10.2, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT Consideration of Proposed Ordinance 91-12, An Ordinance DEFERHENT Establishing a Program to Defer Payment of Special Item 10.2 Assessments for Senior Citizens and Retired Disabled Homeowners. Mr. Oonahue stated there is a state law which allows cities to defer assessments for property owners 65 years New Hope City Council Page 7 April 22, 1991 ' Resurfactng of Xylon Avenue Between 45th and 46th Avenues, [mproveMnt Project No. 471. CouncJlme~ber Enck ¢o~nt~ that the ~oad~ays do not have to confom to HSA standards until they are because of thetr deteriorating condition. He stated he does hOC ~eel ~he sCree~ needs ~o ~e reconditioned CouncJ1N~er 0t~en suggested replacing ~he ~Jeld s~gn ~hl intersection o~ X~lon end 4S~h mJ~h ~ stop s~gn thus cre~ttng ~ s~fer intersection since ~he southbound ~uld bi required ~o stop. Counct1Nmber L'Her~ul~ tnqutr~ ~heCher ~here h~s been slvtril Kctdents ~ ~hl intersection. Nr. Oona~ue reglJ~ ~h~ ~here hive been m~n~ 'nee~ miss= occurrences. The Count11 dtscuss~ ~he possibility o~ placing ~ le~- ~urn l~ne on X~lon Avenue. The Count11 deCe~Jned the issue should be rlflrr~ hick to st~ff end that a ~eastblllty report should not be undertaken at this time, ~OTZ0N ~otton wms mmde by Counctlm~ber Enck, seconded by CounctlNmber L'Hlrmult Ce ~l~lt t)t tssue Co sCa~ Co ~evtw the visibility Isles and c~nstderlCton o~ ~ stop _ st~ of left-turn lane. All present voted in ~avor. ~~POST l~ ~tton c~rrJ~. /.ayor Ertckson Jntr~uc~ for discussion Item ~.~, / Discussion Regarding 0rdtnance to Regulate ComposC1 ~. ~n~hue stated the Ctty currently h~s no specific ~o~tnence pertaining to co~ostJng lnd Jt m~y ~n~ ~constder such ~ r~ul~tJon. He cownted ~h~t ~e /[nsp~tlons ~gerCNnC does receive ~ fe~ complaints e~c~ ~yee~ r~tng nelgh~r problems of odors c~used ~c~st sites. The ¢~n c~l~Jnt se~s ~o cen~er ~the unsightliness of ~he fe~nCtng pile ~nd the proxtm~ to g.perty 11nes. ~~eyo~ Ertckson c~nC~ that he ~uld 11Re l~nguage ~tK1~ tn the ordtnence sC~ttn9 ~he Ctty ~encourlgtng ¢~ostlng but tf e resident destres to do so, ~he sh~11 ~dhere to the per.rets for co~ostJng outlln~ tn the ordinance. ~CounctlWr Enck request~ that the Ctttzen Advisory CMJllJOn revt~ the c~osttng issue end property se~- beck requt rmnts. N~ Hope City Council Pmge 6 Mmrch 25, 1991 e, ffffO~TIPG 6 e, OIi4fOSTIidG IIA~ 1991 Yard ,WasteMarmgemnt Program By state Law 4nd ~i~y ordin~nt~, lea~, gmu and 3. Drop-off Sim herbaceous mattriab ca#nat b~ mLwd/n m~th ot/~r · Open to public Apdl 1 - Nov. 30 ~ba~e for dio~ML lt must be updrat~d ~nd ca~ be 8 a~m. ta T p. m., Mon..$at. (1) pnt;ately compost~l according tO city htal~ 12 to 7 p.m. Sunday guidtlin~s; (2) collected by your mj~s~ haul~ and · Location: A~.rox. four rnllm west of 85Lh Ave. taken to an appm~td compost facility; O) or can bt N. on Cry. .81 to Cry. Rd. 121 CFernbrc~k). takm to tht city's contracttd drop, off $itt for bulk Left on I21 across tracks to 101st. Right or~ ma tfrMts only. to site. · Acceptable materials: Gram cLipptngs, leaves, 1.8aclcyard compo~tin$ - gu/cleUne~ are bt-ash and small prunings up to I inch dmmeter, av~iT~ble t.htough the recyclJn$ office by plant material~ All materials must be buJ.k - No r'~llir~g S60-04~ ~gged rnaterial~ - ba~ must be ernpt~ec~ at s~te 2. Yard Waste Collection - Each hauler is and removed. req~ecl to provide sepa.,'am collection, · Cml: NO ~G£ to Brooklyn Park upon request, from its customer accounts, msicl~m. (Proof of residency m:[uized). The charge and collection ~enU for this service may vary between haule~. Contact your hau~er for theLr rotes and rules. Residential Backyard Composting Guidelines for City of Brook}y. Park New legi~lal~on prohibits leaves, grass clippings Proper Compost PiI~ Prepara~# and other yard waste from being mixed with our to a central compostin$ site or you can join Spud i~J" '- ' x ,.~=:.~. ~.¥ ~,, ......: i,..-_ , . McTator and become a backyard compostin$ , k~ ~.a ~,~z.,, ~.~ partici-tator. ' ri --'" , · -- · ':- - Grass clippings are best cut often and left on your ,,, ............. lawn. But, ff you must collect them, they can be i k-~ -- ~ .... ~ mixed with leaves, garden debris and composted right in your own backyard. It is convenient, · Place leaves, grass clippings and plant mmrr~r, gs economical, and finished compost will improve in layet~ approximately 8-10 inches thick your garden soil. coaner iterm at the bottom. Mix gram w~h other materiaLs to prevent mar'tins. Follow these basic direction~: · Locate your compost, pile no doses, than three · Moisten layer, but do not make soggy. ~eet from any rear or property line and no closer ~ha~ 25 feet fi'om any residence. · You may sprinkle with small arnoun~ of ferv.~er (no her~m or pesticides). I/fertg/zer is added · Build your pile so the area is not gre~ter than cover with one tnch of soil or tmis~ compost. t~ve percem of your total lot size and no taller than four feet. · Repeat layer~ and turn. pile occasionally to mrx motet'mia and dlltribute ne~t and ciec~ying process · Contain your entire compos~ pile within screen- thi. oug~uL (Internal temperatur, of decaying ings, fencing or ornamental landscaping, may math 130-160 degre~ F.) ~ Foradditiom~and more ~ ~.~,.~o~. call ~ ' ~H°use!*''-~--' ~ To.'de:' . . Sunclay/Al~l ?/1991 WHY COM YARD WASTE? · Ylrd waste ~ n~w banned from landfllle and burning ladlltbe in me ~ev~P.ceunty me~e ama. Off-alta dla. I:)eeM w~utd be M ~M?tnluntty M' Indlvldl,iJ · Yerd wl~tl le 10~ W rt~/clbb es ceRx)lt end muld% which Im bef~ to WI ami plan~ /WASTE HOMEMADE COMPOSTEFlS Leaves, gra~ clipoings Composers can be and kitchen vegetaole improvise~ from a scral~ can 0e u,~l. variety of inex~ensiv® MICROBES materials such as W~re Naturally present fencing, 13ricks or 55- in the back yard. gallon clrums. Struc- They digest waste tums should be boilt but need nitrogen, to allow a0equate air oxygen and water, circulation. NITROGEN EFFICIENT S'FRUCTURE~ Helps microbes Shown here is a 3 to $ weeks later 4 to 7 weeks later, OXYGEN rnatatx3iize waste. "production tine' matenal is moved material is moved to Aeratitlg WA'F~ system. Material to middle bin and last bin as finisj~ed piles with a Compost should for composting is a new 13arch is or nearly finished hoe speeds be ke~ m~st started in first bin. started in first bin. compost. process, but not soggy. ~.:. *~ ~ PREPARING THE PILE ideally to ~ ~ high. Organic waste will cl~x)m~ faster if the compost pile is initially built in layem. Generally, the smaller the particles, the faster ~ ic)n3ce~l. Coarser materials will process faster in the bettom layer. i Fertilizer adds nitrogen that's beneficial to microbes. ) Do not add ferlJlizers that contain i~stici¢les and herbi- ' cedes. Adding sail or finished compost ins...ures, tt~. t ) compost pile has a good starting po~leuon oT m~cro=e$. " MORE INFORMATION ' In Hennepin County call 542-1420 in Ramsey County call 777-8158 In offier counbe~, call your Minnesota Extension Service Sill Tnl~artl grll~rJ~l: Miflr',ll~ Extl~on Servel Unlvl~ry of Minnesota Yard waste must be separated from regular household trash A state Imw I~ohibiu the dumpinS of RAMSEY COUNTY WRIGHT COUNTY branches in landfills, meaaifll i! C~l't Tlte~ sites ~erve the entire ¢ounw. These sites are run by the " CITY .OE~W-!HOPE~. .~ PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-12 Request: Request for Variance to Exceed Fence Height Requirement Location: 2700 Boone Avenue North PID No.: 19-118-21 43 0010 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Theresa/Tony Lebahn Report Date: May 31, 1991 Meeting Date: June 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to exceed the fence height requirement, pursuant to Section 4.033(3)a of the New Hope Code. 2. The petitioner is requesting to construct a six-foot fence on the southern boundary of the property which abuts Medicine Lake Road. The fence would be constructed of Western Red Cedar with alternating boards and would serve as a privacy fence. 3. The property is located at the northeast intersection of Medicine Lake Road and Boone Avenue with the front of the home facing Boone Avenue. The applicant states that the largest yard area, deck and primary outdoor activity space is located between the home and Medicine Lake Road. The zoning ordinance definition of "front yard" is the area with the narrowest street frontage, which would be the Medicine Lake Road side with a 90-foot lot width (125-foot lot width on Boone Avenue side). 4. The Zoning Ordinance states that no fence other than a chain link or woven wire fence forty-eight inches (4 feet) or less in height with openings between one and five-eights and two inches shall be permitted, this a variance of two feet is required for the six-foot fence. 5. There is another stipulation in the code that does not permit anything over 4 feet in height within 20 feet of an intersection on a comer lot, but this "sight triangle" requirement is not applicable in this situation because that intersection has traffic control in all directions. 6. The surrounding land uses are all residential, except across Boone Avenue to the west where Sunny Hollow Elementary School is located. 7. Aside from privacy, increased traffic on the recently widened Medicine Lake Road and safety concerns for children are also cited by the applicant as reasons for granting the variance. 8. The home was constructed in 1958 and is described in the Comprehensive Plan a low- density housing area. 9. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. Staff agrees with the applicant that the useable yard is on the south along Medicine Lake Road. The topography of the property shows a flat south and west yard, but the rear is a steeply sloping Short back yard to a work-out basement. Planning Case Report 91-12 June 4, 1991 Page -2- 2. There currently is a 4-foot chain link fence that extends around two and on-half sides of the house. This request is to install a 6-foot fence extending east from the comer of Boone to the east comer of the property, then drop down to 4-feet, running the fence north to a gate that exists. 3. An alternative would be to have the beginning of the fence start at four feet (for traffic safety purposes), then rise to six feet (as suggested by the applican0. 4. The enclosed staff sketches show the location of the proposed fence, the proper zoning yards, and allowable fence height. 5. Staff agrees with the privacy, safety, increased traffic, and noise concerns that the applicant raises and finds that the increased traffic next to the useable yard, along with the topography of the property, could be cited as hardships for granting the request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for a variance to exceed maximum fence height to install a six-foot fence along Medicine Lake Road. Attachments: Lot Survey Zoning Yards Allowable Fence Heights Petitioner's Letter Zoning/Section Map $~[ PLAN DECI ~P~T~H CLAR~CE VOLP I -~-Fr. 3ERTIFY THAT I AM rilE PROPERTY ~OWNER, OR OWNERS RI !PRESENTATIVE & THIS PLAN IS COMPLETt AND ACCURATE: "". lnchor ...... OO, o 7:-- ~ol.I / I~ ~ ~ 2., .... ,...,,,.?-~ ~,/:,.. ~ I MEDICINE Denotes existin~ elevatio~ -~' 35-~ 5~' L We have been asked by Mr. Doug Sandstad of the City of New Hope to write a short summary as to why we are asking for a variance regarding the zoning of our property. As per his request, we have decided to write this note. We have applied for a variance that would allow us to build a six foot fence along Medicine Lake Road. Our home is located at the northeast corner of Medicine Lake Road and Boone Avenue North. The front of our house with the driveway, front entrance, mail box, and garage door are ALL on the Boone Avenue side. The side of our home with the largest yard area, deck, and primary outdoor activity location are the Medicine Lake Road side of the home. The zoning currently shows that the front of our home is the Medicine Lake Road side, with Boone Avenue being our side yard. However, our street address and other items (listed in previous paragraph) that are "normally" considered to be part of the front of a residential house are ALL on Boone Avenue. We are hoping to install a six foot Western Red Cedar, alternating boards, privacy fence. The obvious reason we would like an attractive wooden fence is for the privacy. We feel that it would cut down on total strangers honking their horns, and hollering as they either walk by or ~'ide by with bicycles. We also think it would lesson the noise pollution of the four lane Medicine Lake Road, as well as reduce some of the direct air pollution. Since Medicine Lake Road is busier than Boone Avenue, we feel that a six foot fence would also provide us with some additional assurances in safety concerns. We have a three year old boy that is fully capable of climbing a four foot fence, but not a six footer. Also, there are other children that Theresa cares for on a daily basis, as well as neighborhood children, cousins, friends, etc. So there are a lot of children at risk if one decides to chase after a lost ball, with an adult perhaps in the bathroom, and cars zooming along 5-15 miles per hour over the speed limit. There is probably a minimum of one car a day that will successfully speed through a red light. We currently have a four foot cyclone (chain link) fence that goes from our front door (Boone Avenue) all the way aronnd two and a half sides of the house to our walk out basement door. Our plan is not written in stone, but we would like to run a six foot fence going east from the corner of Boone and Medicine Lake Road to the corner of the property, than drop down to four feet running it north to a gate that we currently exists. For safety, an alternative would be to have the beginning of the fence start at four feet high, than rising to six feet. Thus keeping what is in reality the front of our home open to show off its' true beauty. 2 In closing, thank you very much for your time and consideration of our proposal that we think provides safety, privacy, and beauty. If you have any questions, please feel free to call us at 593-9502. Anthony R. Lebahn Theresa J. Lebahn 2700 Boone Avenue North New Hope, MN 55427 HIDDEN VALLEY PARK wi )N$1N 8 N. HOLLOW SCHOOL CITY OF NEW HOPE PLANNING CASE REPORT Planning Case: 91-13 Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval and Amendment to CUP Location: 4021 Winnetka Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 13 0001 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: The Catholic Cemeteries, Archdiocese of St. Paul & Mpls. Report Date: May 31, 1991 Meeting Date: June 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review Approval to allow construction of a temporary sales office for pre-sales of units in a proposed Mausoleum at Gethsemane Cemetery, pursuant to Sections 4.211,4.039, and 4.039A(1) of the New Hope Code. 2. The Catholic Cemeteries/Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis is requesting that the City grant approval for the placement of a temporary office facility on the grounds of Gethsemane Cemetery. 3. The purpose of the facility is to provide an office for the cemetery manager, a secretary, and a pre-need counseling manager. The counselors will be conducting a sale program in homes and for the most part will use the temporary office as a check-in point. The objective is to sell, on a pre-construction basis, crypts in a mausoleum which would be constructed when sufficient income is generated. 4. The petitioner states that the maximum time needed for the pre-construction phase should not exceed two years. 5. The hours of operation for the temporary office facility will be 8 AM to 5 PM Monday- Friday, 8 AM to Noon on Saturday, and closed on Sunday. 6. The petitioner states that the request should be granted to alloTM the cemetery to proceed with improvements included on the Cemetery Master Plan. 7. Section 4.039(1) of the City Code states that certain uses that are generally not suitable within a particular zoning district are potentially suitable on a temporary basis. Where not specifically listed, all temporary uses shall be permitted in any zoning district provided they apply and receive approval of a conditional use permit. 8. Section 4.039(A) of the Code requires site and building plan review approval for the erection of a building and/or the moving of a building to a location within the City. 9. Gethsemane Cemetery contains 80 acres, with about one-half of the site developed and existing burials and plots sold in about 12 acres. 10. The temporary sales office would be set back a distance of 164 feet from the side yard setback line (Rockford Road) and 1,050feet from the front yard setback line (Winnetka). Planning Case Report 91-13 Planning Case Report 91-13 June 4, 1991 Page -2- The building would be a modular unit measuring 12'x 44' and would not be elevated. Landscaping would be installed around the site and parking spaces would be provided. Access to the sales office would be through the existing entrance and on existing cemetery roads. 11. Surrounding land uses include business/industrial to the east, single family homes to the south, single and multiple family dwellings to the west, and a mix of single/multiple family dwellings and commercial to the north. 12. Property owners within 350' feet of the entire cemetery area have been notified. ANALYSIS 1. City Code states that all conditionally permitted temporary uses must satisfy the following criteria in addition to the general CUP criteria: A. Adiacent Sites - Adjacent vacant land is not to be affected by the proposed use. B. Noise and Nuisance - Adjacent developed land not to be adversely affected by use because of traffic, noise, dust, smoke, or unsightliness. C. Term of Permit - The time period for CUP will terminate before any adverse effects are felt upon adjacent property. D. Performance Bond - There is adequate assurance, guaranteed by a performance bond, that the property will be left in suitable condition after the temporary use is terminated. Staff feels this temporary use meets these criteria, as the site is isolated by a large distance from other properties, the use will not generate noise or dust, traffic will not increase significantly, and staff will be recommending a two-year termination date and a performance bond. 2. Other criteria to be considered for a CUP in residential districts includes: A. Traffic- Non-residential traffic to be channeled onto thoroughfares, not minor residential streets. B.Screening- Proposed use must be sufficiently separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned land. C. Comoatible Appearance- The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. Staff finds that these criteria are met due to the site location of the temporary structure and because landscaping will be planted around the temporary structure. 3. Design & Review met with the petitioner and the major issues discussed included time limit on structure, long-range plans, utilities, changing entrance location, parking, building footprint, hours of operation, signage, landscaping, setbacks, grading, and removal of debris. Revised plans were submitted as a result of the meeting. Planning Case Report 91-13 June 4, 1991 Page -3- 4. The landscape plan shows that a total of 51 trees and shrubs will be planted around the temporary sales office, including snow crabapple, green spruce, and junipers. 5. The sign setback has been revised to meet code requirements; the size also meets code requirements. 6. Parking for customers has been added to the plan. 7. The plans have been revised to show a possible future entrance road at the intersection of Xylon and 42nd Avenue. 8. The utilities plan shows "future" water main and sewer which have been moved to coincide with a new future street. 9. The plans have been revised to include the correct building footprint. 10. Staff finds that the construction of a chapel/mausoleum in the future on this site would be an asset to the community and a compatible use for the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit and Site/Building Plan Review approval for a temporary sales office facility at Gethsemane Cemetery, subject to the following conditions: 1. Two-year time period maximum. 2. Performance Bond to be submitted; amount to be determined by City Manager/City Council. 3. Installation of landscaping prior to occupancy of temporary structure. 4. Removal of debris, lumber, junk, broken down fence, etc. at south center of site near well house. LP tank enclosure must also be repaired to meet fire code standards and be secure. Attachments:* Zoning/Section Map Petitioner Letter Cemetery Survey Site Plan Landscape Plan Grading/Drainage/Utilities Plan Temporary Building Details Photos of Temporary Building Mausoleum Elevation Mausoleum Floorplan Sign Plan *Large plans to be available at meeting CIVIC CENTER ~. NEW ~ITY HALL ':~'~ ~TAT I ON ,, ~.,:~ NO 9 ~ I OFF~CE x ~VE. m GETHSEMANE ~ CEMETERY SCHOOL )OD THE CATHOLIC CEMETERIES .\RCHDIOCESE OF SAINT PAUL AND NIINNEAPOLIS 244 DAYTON AVENUE SAINT PAUL MN 55102 (61 2) 291-4533 May 22, 1991 City of New Hope $ 91 4401 Xylon Avenue N. New Hope MN 55428 Dear Sir: The Catholic Cemeteries, a Minnesota religious corporation, on behalf of one of its cemeteries, Gethsemane Cemetery, located at 4021 Winnetka Avenue N., requests that the City grant approval for the. placement of a temporary office facility on the grounds of the cemetery. The purpose of this facility is to provide an office setting for our cemetery superintendent, secretary and a pre-need counseling manager. The sales counselors, for the most part, will be conducting the program in homes and will use the office as a check-in point. The objective of the counseling program is to sell, on a pre- construction basis, crypts in a mausoleum which will be constructed when sufficient income has been generated. It is reasonably expected that the maximum time needed for the pre-construction phase is 2 years. The hours of operation for the temporary office facility will be 8 A.M.-5 P.M. (M-F), 8-Noon (Sat.) and closed on Sunday. Should you have any questions feel free to contact me at your convenience. Very truly yours, THE CATHOLIC CEMETERIES Director JMC:sa CALVARY ST. MARY'S ST ANTHONY'S . ~? GETHSEMANE ASSUMPTION RESURREC%CN Saint Paul Minneapolis Minneapolis ~-.~,~ New Hope New Hope Menclota ~-Tt~$I~MAN~: Cv-l~ T-T~RY ~ENNEPIN COUNTY, ~INNESOTA ~-E ~ ...... :~ ~:c~x;~C .............. ~s~ ~ ~ ~,~,~, ~ .................... ..... ..... ~ ~t~ore mt.J N~Ja~ ~1~ ,~ ~ ~ ~mx~ C~JI ~sm~ll~ i~F~ J- h?~ R~-~-~-n'~. r..- · ...'~, Plant List qty common & lath name size root r~s LANDSCAPE PLAN --- 44'- ....... ~-. -4'~. ~- 12" ........... ( 5 4 Wood Bi Irold GSD-1248 GSD-1248 THE DESIGNER 12'X 44' · One 12' private office · Display area · llalf-bath equipped for the handicapped · Closet · Coffee bar with sink · Recessed front door with porch · 30,{~011 BTU air condi- tioner PROPOSED ~NIT i/ILL BE 12' x 44t (12t feet shorter than photo) AND NOT ELEVATED Proposal for: GETHSEMANE CEMETERY ,.,,,,,o~,:"'"'G ..... ._______,.,~ .. NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA ! 24 COUCH CRYPT SPACES 948 TOTAL CRYPT SPACES · 6 HIGH ' : floor PLAIN roposa r: 'NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA ,.m,,, ...... ,, cn ' OF PLANNING CASE REPORT · Planning Case: 91-14 Request: Request for Variance to Exceed Fence Height Requirement Location: 3700 Jordan Avenue North PID No.: 18-118-21 33 0066 Zoning: R-1 (Single Family Residential) Petitioner: Larry Erickson Report Date: May 31, 1991 Meeting Date: June 4, 1991 BACKGROUND 1. The petitioner is requesting a variance to exceed the fence height requirement, pursuant to Section 4.033(3)a of the New Hope Code. 2. The property is located at the northwest intersection of Jordan and Hillsboro Avenues in a low-density single family residential neighborhood. 3. The petitioner is requesting to install a 6-foot fence on the southeast portion of the property adjacent to Hillsboro Avenue. The fence, shown on the attached survey, would be in two sections; one section would extend from the southeast comer of the garage to the front property line on Hillsboro (east of the driveway); one section would extend from the south comer of the house to the front property line on Hillsboro, then northeast along the property line to the driveway. 4. The reason the petitioner is requesting to build a 6-foot fence is for privacy and to avoid nuisance public shortcuts across their lawn comer. 5. Although the front of the house faces southwest toward Jordan Avenue, the zoning code definition (the narrowest lot width) makes the front yard that yard area that fronts on Hillsboro. (The lot width on Hillsboro is 86.86feet and the width on Jordan is 120 feet.) Thus, although the homeowner may consider the Hillsboro Avenue yard the side yard, it is actually the front yard. 6. The Zoning Code does not allow fences that exceed four feet in height in front yards, therefore a 2-foot variance is needed for a six-foot fence. 7. The 'bight triangle rule" (no fence other than four-foot chain link within twenty feet of any comer intersection) would be applicable in this case because the intersection is not regulated with traffic controls, however, the petitioner's fence request does not interfere with the sight triangle. 8. The home was constructed in 1958 and is surrounded by residential uses. 9. The topography of the property is flat in the southeast front yard, with a rear yard that slopes away from the home. 10. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified. Planning Case Report 91-14 June 4, 1991 ~". Page -2- ANALYSIS 1. The petitioner has not indicated the type of materials to be used for the construction and the type of fence has not been defined (solid, alternating boards, vertical, horizontal). The materials and fence type should be clarified at the meeting. 2. Staff does not find that the construction of the fence will impair traffic safety in the area, due to the low traffic residential character of the neighborhood and the fact that the sight triangle is kept clear. However, due to the fact that this is an uncontrolled intersection, any variance granted should be conditioned on the sight triangle being kept clear of any fencing. 3. The Commission will need to determine if privacy and nuisance shortcuts across property are reasonable hardships for a variance. The actual hardship is-the way the house was constructed on the lot. If the Hillsboro Avenue side was considered as a side instead of a front yard, no variance would be needed. 4. Staff views this as a minor variance request and has received no objections to date from neighboring properties about the request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends granting a variance to exceed the maximum fence height requirement for front yards so that the petitioner may construct a six-foot, two-section fence, subject to the following conditions: 1. That the sight triangle at the intersection of Jordan/Hillsboro Avenues be kept clear of all fencing. Attachments: Section/Zoning Map Lot Survey NORTHWO00 PARK NORTHWOOD PA~K :IRCLE NORT P WAY TH N. CHURCH CALVIN H. HEDLUND urv gar 's D~ AS, Lot 19, Block ~, N~T~D ~~ ]RD ADDICts Vi!~e of N~ Ho~, eaee~nt r?