030591 Planning AGENDA
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 5, 1991
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
7:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 Case 90-27 Request for Final Plat, Don Harvey First
Addition, 3970 Quebec Avenue North, Winnetka
Properties, Petitioner
3.2 Case 90-35B Request for Site/Building Plan Review Approval
to Modify Existing Building, 4300 Xylon Avenue
North, Weis Builders/K-Mart, Petitioners
3.3 Case 91-07 Request for Preliminary Plat, Don Harvey
Second Addition, Quebec and Winnetka Avenues,
Winnetka Properties/Don Harvey, Petitioner
4. COMMITTEE REPORTS
4.1 Report of Design and Review Committee
4.2 Report of Codes and Standards Committee
A. Floodplain Ordinance
B. Shopping Center Parking Requirements
5. OLD BUSINESS
6. NEW BUSINESS
6.1 Approval of Planning Commission Minutes of February 5, 1991.
6.2 Review of City Council Minutes of January 28, 199~, and
February 11, 1991.
7. ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PL~ING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 90-27
Request: Request for Final Plat Approval for Don Harvey Addition
Location: Quebec and Winnetka Avenues North
PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001
Zoning: I-2 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Winnetka Properties/Don Harvey
Report Date: March 1, 1991
Meeting Date: March 5, 1991
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting Final Plat approval of Don Harvey Addition
located on the extension of Quebec Avenue where construction was
recently completed. The request is made pursuant to Chapter 13 of the
New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. As you will recall, the original proposal was to subdivide the entire
ll-acre parcel into 2 blocks with 5 lots. The plat was tabled because
of a number of problems regarding the westerly portion of the property
where two existing warehouses are located. The petitioner met with the
staff, revised the plan and requested to plat only the portion of the
property east of Quebec Avenue.
3. The revised Preliminary Plat was submitted to the appropriate
departments and agencies for review and staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
4. The Preliminary Plat was approved by the Planning Commission on Nov. 7,
1990, and was approved by the City Council on November 13, 1990, subject
to the following condition:
Final Plat to be submitted to the Planning Commission for review
with the following changes:
1. All easements to be dedicated as requested by the City,
including utility and drainage easements on side and rear lot
lines and over existing watermain and storm sewer,
2. Plat to incorporate to the center line of Quebec Avenue,
3. Plat to include Minnegasco easement,
4. Plat to incorporate concerns of Hennepin County,
5. Approval from Shingle Creek Watershed and the DNR for dis-
charge of storm water,
6. Approval from Soo Line Railroad for any grading that
encroaches on their property.
Planning Case Report 90-27 ~
March 5, 1991
Page -2-
5. Section 13.03/Subdivision 6c of the City Code, "Time Limit on Pre-
liminary Plat Approval", states that if the preliminary plat is approved
by the City Council, the subdivider must submit the final plat within
one hundred days after said approval, or approval shall be void unless
a written request for a time extension is approved. This Final Plat was
received the first of February and meets the 100-day requirement.
6. The Final Plat of Don Harvey Addition was submitted to the appropriate
City Department Heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review
and comment.
ANALYSIS
1. The Final Plat has been submitted to the City Engineer and he recommends
approval.
A. The required drainage and utility easements are properly shown.
Note the 15-foot easement on the east property line, and 10-foot
easement on the west property line, and the 5-foot easements on the
north and south property lines.
B.The required 10-foot wide watermain easement has been provided.
C. The plat incorporates to the centerline of Quebec Avenue, as
requested.
2. The easement originally requested by Minnegasco is located on the
westerly 850 feet of the Don Harvey Second Addition, now being platted,
and will be required as a condition of that plat approval. The easement
is not located, nor is it applicable, to the Don Harvey Addition Final
Plat.
3. The concerns of Hennepin County are not directly applicable to this
plat, as the plat does not abut a County roadway. The County's letter
dated 10/31/90 deals with issues related to the westerly portion of the
property (to be platted as Don Harvey Second Addition) and will be
addressed in that plat.
4. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed final plat and has no
objections. The Attorney is following up on the evidence of title
showing appropriate ownership of the land and does not anticipate any
problems.
5. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission has reviewed the
project for conformance to the watershed standards and recommends
approval, subject to temporary erosion control measures being used
during construction to prevent sediment from entering the storm sewer
system. These measures are currently in place.
6. The Final Plat includes or addresses all of the conditions listed under
the Preliminary Plat approval.
Planning Case Report 90-27
March 5, 1991
Page -~-
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the Final Plat of the Don Harvey Addition.
The petitioner should record the plat with Hennepin County within 100 days
from the date of approval. After the plat has been filed, the petitioner is
required to return one mylar and 8 blue line copies of the recorded plat to
the City.
Attachments: Section/Zoning Map
Final Plat
Engineer Correspondence (2-21-91)
Attorney Correspondence (2-22-91)
Watershed Correspondence (12-13-90)
Staff Correspondence (2-12-91/12-19-90/11-14-90)
Staff Preliminary Plat Report (11-2-90)
Planner's Preliminary Plat Report (10-25-90)
Planning Commission Minutes Excerpts (10-2-90/11-7-90)
Council Minutes Excerpts (11-13-90)
[~ o ~ hne ~ OCJg~L~IS ~.. I'
c o ~ ~DDITION "
Il ~ ~
........
C~ '" ' C) ' SCALE "N FEET
The ~est llne of DEJARLAIS ~lTl~
I ' ' o ~notes ]/2- Inch x 14- Inch set
I ~r ~k ~13~Oe~s, ~e~ '~(c -~ iron pipe larked by License No.
g: 4L germ, Co, ~,nnesoto. ':', -.-
E IJ~ o[ t~e S ~ ~eet
of fhe N 48 r~s oF ~
KNOff ALL HI# BY TH[SE PRES[NTS: That #innotka Properties, a Hinnesota General Partnership, fee oNner, and
Citizens State Bank of St. Louis Park, a #innesota corporation, ~ortgagee, of the following described
property situated In the County of Hennepin, State of #innesota, to wit:
lhat part of the North q8 rods of the Northwest i/4 of Ihe Southwest I/4 of Section I1, lownshlp ll8,
·
· /-*~ ,_..' L~
r. li,~ ot" the ~. ,14 o[t~e Sw. ,14 ~ ~ '
~SeC. II,T 118. ~. 21 7~ /SWCOK. o[DEJR~L~IS ROD. N
I
~°00
. Noo;
: ' ~1 ~. ~.,,
/ ..."..'
..~,~~.'2 S
/ ......: .._
,_,
. 0 I00
. -,.. [~ :.,),--
/ n :: :
~... t .': o
;ne o[ ~e S. ..:.. ~ C) ~ ;: SCALE IN
.oo ~eef o~ l~e ..:-..
~ ~oas o~ ~e N~ V4 ..... '.-'
. ....-...
....' " 0
~4 ..... m "..I. ~ _
_ ... ...
""" .... ~°'~-:"i "[~; The Hest line 0f DEJARLAI5 AD~
,,*. b~ .: · .... has an assumed bearing 0f Sou
N'~. _-7_ 0 degrees 15 minutes 4T secon,
/-' .'
' . r.:: _.
~ ~ot ~ngen~ .. ~ I ....J ',' :.)
~o ~oot ~otermoin ~osemen
~ I. · ~ ''~ o Denotes l/~-lnch x 14
gE u) iron pipe marked by L
per ~ook
4~, ~enn. Co., ~inneso{o. C},... ;'~ a~ 17006.
e). , ~ co~e~ oF ~e s 4~.oo Feet
-- oF F~e N 48 r~ oF ~e N~ ~/4
LL., r..- , ,
~. hne oFlhe s.~ Feel
oF f he N. 48 ro~s oF ~he
N~ f/4 o¢ ~he ~ ~/4 J
o[ Sec. I?- -.....
rods ~,/' IL .,, ///,
Bonestroo 0~0 C.~ 8ones:too, PE K~crl ^ GorOon PE Kenneth P Ancler~on. PE Mdes 8 ~erse~ P~
R~ W Rosene. PE R~c~a~ ~ ~ster. ~E. Ma~ ~ Rolls. PE L. P~llifO Grave~ U ~
JO~D~ C. Rnde~k. PE, Oonal~ C. Bu~a~. PE R~e~ C Rus~. A.~A. Rene C mutual. A ~ A
Rosene Ma~,n L ~ala. PE Jer~ R ~u~n. PE Thomas E. *~gus. PE. ~nes M ~,~g. · :=
Richa~ E Turner. PE. Mar~ A Hanmn. PE. H~a~ A ~n~. PE. Je?~ D Pe~sc~ oE
Thomas E. NO~S. PE. Michael T Rau~mann, PE Ma~ A ~o. PE. Ro~ff ~ D~ PE
~n M E~flin. CPA ~avrO O ~s~ta. PE Ismael Mamnez. PE Chanes A Ericsson
Thomas ~. ~te~n. PE. Mar~ D ~allis, PE. ~ M P~ls~y
M,c~l C. Lynch. PE. Thomas R Ande~n. AIA.Ha~an M Olso~
February 21, 1991
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, Minnesota 55428
Attn: Kirk McDonald
Re: Don Harvey Addition
OUr File No. 34-Gen.
Dear Kirk:
We have reviewed the final plat for Don Harvey Addition and recommend approval. The
required drainage and utility easements are properly shown in conjunction with the required
right-of-way for Quebec Avenue.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact this office.
Yours very truly,
Mark' A. Hanson
MAil:dh
34GEN.
2335 ~(/est Higlw~ay 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota S5113 · 612-636-4600
COF~UCK & SONDRALL
SBt1 WEST BROADWAY
~AL~. M~e~.~Tt^ 55422
WILLIA~ J. CORRICK
STEVEN A. SONDRALL SHARON D. DERBY
MICHA[L R. ~FLEUR
MARTIN P. MAL[GHA
WILLIAM C. STilT
February 22, 1991
Hr. Kirk NcDonald
Nanagement Asst.
City of New Hope
4401Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, NN 55428
RE: Don Harvey Addition
Our File No. 99,15027
Dear Kirk:
! have reviewed the proposed final plat of Don Harvey Addition and
have no objections to the plat itself. You should know that our
office has not yet received title evidence showing appropriate
ownership of the land to be platted. We will be following up with
the owner on that and ! will contact you regarding our review of
that information,
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Nalecha
s3f
cc: Daniel J, Donahue
Steven A. Sondrall, Esq.
12-13-90
SHINGT.~, CI~ WATEI~._qI-II~ MANAG~ COMMISSION
PROJECT REVIEW SC 90-15: Winnetlm l~oo~rtie~
Owner. Winnetka Properties
7147 Sandberg Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
Project: Development of a 3.2 acre industrial site to be known as "Don Harvey
Addition" consisting of an office/warehouse building and adjacent
parking areas.
Loeatio~ East side of Quebec Avenue, 1300' south of County Road 9 in New Hope.
~ 1. Verbal instructions from Mark Hanson, City of New Hope, on 11-15-90
authorizing review.
2. Site Drainage Plan, prepared by R. Johnson Construction and
Development, Inc., last revised 10-25-90.
3. Preliminary Plat prepared by Schosll & Madson, Inc.
4. Site location map undated and received 11-15-90.
~: 1. The site is located just to the south of DNR Protected Wetland 628W and
is required to meet the Management Standards for Developments
Adjacent to or Within a Protected Water or Wetland.
2. The majority of the site drains to an existing ponding area located
along the south edg~ of the property. The pond, which outlets north into
Wetland 628W, was designed to serve a 24-acre drainage area along
Quebec Avenue including the Don Harvey Addition. The pond was
previously reviewed by the SCWMC on 2-8-90 as Project Review SC 90-6
and found to meet the Management Standards for stormwater
treatment.
0.2 acres of the bituminous parking area on the north side of the
building is proposed to drain north into Wetland 628W via a storm
sewer outfall.
3. An existing silt fence along the edge of Wetland 628W is shown on the
Site Drainage Plan.
12-13-90
SHINGI. ~E CI~EEK WATEP. S~ MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
PROJECT REVIEW SC 90-15: Winnetka Pron~rtie~
Rneommen~tion.~: The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
Management Standards of the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission and is recommended for approval by
the City of New Hope with the addition of the following conditions.
1. The owner shall consider directing stormwater runoff from
the 0.2 acre area north of the building south to the existing
storrnwater treatment pond.
2. Required drainage easements for ponding areas and land
adjacent to Wetland 628W shall be dedicated to the City.
3. The existing silt fence shown on the Site Drainage Plan shall
be maintained to prevent deposition of sediment in~o Wetland
628W during the development process.
4. The owner shall stabilize slopes at storm sewer outfalls to the
wetland and ponding area.
5. Temporary erosion control measures (e.g. hay or straw bales,
rock filters, etc.) shall be used at catch basin inlets to prevent
sediment from entering the storm sewer system.)
JAM~S M. MONTGOMERY, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
Engineers for the Commission
Dale Claridge, P.E. / Date
COMMISSION ACTION 12-13.90
Approval of the above recommendations.
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 12, 1991 '
TO: New Hope Director of Public Works
New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services
New Hope City Attorney
New Hope City Engineer
New Hope Building Official
Northern States Power Company
U.S.West Telephone
King Cable TV
Minnegasco
Hennepin County DOT
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community Development
Coordinator
SUBJECT: Final Plat
Don Harvey Addition
Enclosed you will find a final plat for Don Harvey Addition.
Please review and forward comments to me prior to 4:30 p.m. on
Fri4a¥,Fe~ruarv 22, 1991.
If yOU have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Family Styled City'~~ FM FalMly Livi~
4401 Xylon Avenue Not,It New Ho~e, ~innesota 55428 P/~one: 535.; 521
December 19, 1990
Mr. Don Harvey
Winnetka Properties
7147 Sandberg Road
Minneapolis, MN 55427
and
Mr. R.J. Johnson
R. Johnson Construction & Development, Inc.
Louisiana West Building
7204 West 27th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Subject: DON HA~RVEY ADDITION FINAL PLAT-PLANNING CASE 90-27
Dear Mr. Harvey and Mr. Johnson:
As you are aware, the preliminary plat for the Don Harvey Addition
was approved by the New Hope City Council on November 13, 1990. I
wanted to make you aware of Section 13.03/Subdivision 6c of the New
Hope Code, "Time ~imit on Preliminary Plat Approval", which states
that "if the preliminary plat is approved by the City Council, the
subdivider must submit the final plat within one hundred days after
said aDDrova1, or approval of the preliminary plat shall be
considered void, unless a written request for a time extension is
approved by the City Council".
I would request that you either submit a final plat or a request
for a time extension to the City by mid-February, 1991. The
February Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for February 5th
and the application deadline is January llth. The March Planning
Commission meeting is scheduled for March 5th and the application
deadline is February 8th.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
K~/lb
cc: Dan Donahu~ City Manager
Planni~ Case File 9a-27
Family Styl~ City ~ Fol' Family Livin8
4401 Xylon Avenue North New Hope, Minnesota 55428 Phone: 533-1521
November 14, 1990
Mr. Don Harvey
Winnetka Properties
7147 Sandberg Road
Minneapolis, MN 55427
and
Mr. R.J. Johnson
R. Johnson Construction & Development, Inc.
Louisiana West Building
7204 West 27th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55426
Subject: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION AND PLATTING-PLANNING CASE 90-27
Dear Mr. Harvey and Mr. Johnson:
Please be advised that on November 13, 1990, the New Hope City Council
approved the referenced request as submitted in Planning Case 90-27, subject
to the following conditions:
Final plat to be submitted to Planning Commission for review with the
following changes:
A. Ail easements to be dedicated as requested by City, including
utility and drainage easements on side and rear lot lot lines and
over existing water main and storm sewer,
B. Plat to incorporate to the centerline of Quebec Avenue,
C. Plat to include Minnegasco easement,
D. Plat to incorporate concerns of Hennepin County,
E. Approval from Shingle Creek Watershed and DNR for discharge of
storm water,
F. Approval from Soo Line Railroad for any grading that encroaches on
their property.
Please refer to the enclosed schedule for possible final plat
submission/approval dates.
If you have questions, please call.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Donahue
City Manager ..
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant/Community Development Coordinator
~/lb F m,v$~
Eric losure FM Fami~ Livin~
cc: Plannin ca,. ,i1-% -27
Property File
CITY OF NEW HOPE
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 204
RESOLUTION AppROVING PLANNING CASE 90-27
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DON HARVEY ADDITION
AT 3970 QUEBEC AVENUE NORTH
PID #17-118-21 32 0001
WHEREAS, the City of New Hope is a municipal corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of'Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of New Hope has adopted
subdivision regulations for the orderly, economic and safe
development of land within the City; and
WHEREAS, the applicant, Winnetka Properties, has submitted a request for
a preliminary plat for Don Harvey Addition at 3970 Quebec
Avenue North, pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 2, and
November 7, 1990, and recommended approval of the preliminary
plat subject to conditions: and
WHEREAS, the City Council on November 13, 1990, considered the report
of the City staff findings and the recommendations of the
Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of New
Hope hereby approves the preliminary plat of Don Harvey
Addition, as requested in Planning Case 90-27, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Final plat to be submitted to Planning Commission for
review with the following changes:
A. Ail easements to be dedicated as requested by City.,
including utility and drainage easements on side and
rear lot lot lines and over existing water main and
storm sewer,
B. Plat to incorporate to the centerline of Quebec
Avenue,
C.Plat to include Minnegasco easement,
D.Plat to incorporate concerns of Hennepin County,
E. Approval from Shingle Creek Watershed and DNR for
discharge of storm water,
F. Approval from Soo Line Railroad for any grading that
encroaches on their property.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of New Hope, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, on this 13th day of November, 1990.
City Clerk J J
-. CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLAh'NIN~ CAHE REPORT
Planning Case: 90-27
Request: Request for Subdivision and Platting
Location: 3970 Quebec Avenue North
PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Winnetka Properties
Report Date: November 2, 1990
Meeting Date: November 7, 1990
1. The petitioner is requesting subdivision and Preliminary Plat approval
of the Don Harvey Addition located on the extension of Quebec Avenue
currently under construction. The request is made pursuant to ChaDter
13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. The original proposal considered at the October Planning Commission
meeting was to subdivide the entire 11 acre parcel into 2 blocks with 5
lots. The preliminary plat was tabled primarily because of a number of
problems regarding the westerly portion of the property where two
existing warehouses are located.
3. The petitioner has met with staff and has revised the plan and is
requesting only to plat the portion of property east of Quebec Avenue at
this tame. The westerly portion of property will be platted at a later
date and the petitioner understands that green area requirements will
have to be met.
4. If the preliminary plat is approved, the subdivider must submit a final
plat within 100 days. Approval of the preliminary plat does not
constitute final acceptance of the layout. Subsequent approval of the
final plat is required with such revisions as are deemed necessary.
cQD~e$ of the final Plat are to be submitted to the Plannin~ Commission
fQr r~view and recommendations, unless this re~auirement is wa%red by the
Plannin~ C~mmission durinu the review of the preliminary Plat. Staff
recommends that the Commission not waive this requirement.
5. As noted in the Planning Consultants report, the plat (Lot 1,
Block 1) contains 137,465 square feet or 3.1558 acres and meets the lo=
area requirement.
6. The revised plat was sent to the appropriate City department heads,
utility companies and County agencies for review and comment.
Planning Case Report 90-27
November 7, 1990
Page -2-
7. Property owners within 350' of the request were notified for the October
public hearing.
1. The plat notes that easements are to be dedicated on the final plat as
requested by the City.
2. The Planning Consultant recommends approval subject to the condition
that the City Engineer review the plat to see if any easements are
required.
3. The City Engineer has reviewed the plan and has two recommendations (in
addition to those covered in Planning Case 90-29):
A. The plat shall incorporate to the centerline of' Quebec Avenue,
B. The appropriate easements shall be shown over the existing water
main and storm sewer.
4. The Minnegasco concern regarding an easement near the north line of the
plat remains unchanged and said easement should be incorporated into the
final plat.
5. The Hennepin County concerns have remained unchanged and they should be
addressed in the final plat.
6. Refer to the Planning Consultant's report (included under Planning Case
90-29) for further information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat of Don Harvey Addition
subject to the following conditions:
1. Final plat be submitted to Planning Commission for review with the
following changes:
A. Ail easements to be dedicated as requested by City, including
utility and drainage easements on side and rear lot line and over
existing water main and storm sewer,
B. Plat to incorporate to the centerline of Quebec Avenue,
C. Plat to include Minnegasco easement,
D. Plat to incorporate concerns of Hennepin County,
E. Approval from Shingle Creek Watershed and DNR for discharge of
storm water.
F. Approval from Soo Line Railroad for any grading that encroaches on
their property.
Attachments: Section Map
Preliminary Plat
Minnegasco Letter (9-19-90)
Hennepin County Letter (10-31-90)
City Engineer Letter (10-25-90)
Mmnegasco
A Company of D~vetsi~ed Energies. [nc.
September 19, 1990
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Mope, MN. 55428
RE: Preliminary Plat of Don Harvey Addition
Dear Mr. McDonald:
With reference to the preliminary plat of Don Harvey Addition,
Minnegasco, Inc. currently has an easement near the North line of
the plat.
I have enclosed a copy of Minnegasco's easement number 76-8,
recorded with the Hennepin County recorder as document number
4256368. I request that this easement be referred to on the
final plat.
Thank you for the advance notice and could you please send me a
copy of the final plat when it is approved.
Sincerely,
ste/v~n Von ~argen ~
Real Estate Specialist
Minnegasco, Inc.
cc: R. J. Pilon, Minnegasco
TOO West Linden Avenue
P.O. Box tt65
Minneaooiis. MN 55440-1165
Nort west s ociat Consul ants, Inc.
U R B"A P L A N N · D E S N · I~1 A R K E R E S E A R C H
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Kirk McDonald/Dan Donahue
FROM: Allan Hunting/Alan Brixius
DATE: 25 October 1990
RE: New Hope - Don Harvey Addition
Preliminary Plat Review and Site/
Building Plan Review
FILE NO: 131.01 - 90.27
EXECUTIVE'SUMMARY
Background:
Applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of the Don
Harvey Addition located on the extension of Quebec Avenue which
intersects Winnetka Avenue. The request is to subdivide the back
portion of an already developed lot. The new lot known as Lot 1,
Block 1 will be served by Quebec Avenue. The property is
currently zoned I-1.
Attached for reference:
Exhibit A - Preliminary Plat
Exhibit B - Site Plan
Exhibit C - Interior Layout
Exhibit D - Drainage Plan
Exhibit E - Landscape Plan
Recommendations
Based upon the ensuing review, our office recommends preliminary
plat approval and site/building plan approval contingent upon the
following conditions being met:
1. The City Engineer review the plat to see if any easements
will be required.
4601 Excelsior Blvd.. Suite 410. Minneapolis, MN 55416. (612) 925-9420. Fax 925-2721
2. Ail grading and drainage plans be submitted to the City
Engineer for his review and comment.
3. A revised landscaping plan be submitted showing the required
screening along the width of the paved area across the back
of the lot.
4. Curb cut widths be reviewed by the City Engineer and
approved by both he and the City Council.
5. Any further comments from the City Staff.
ISSUE ANALYSIS
Area Requirements and Setbacks. Minimum lot size in the I-1
Zoning District is one acre and minimum lot width is 150 feet.
Lot 1 meets all minimum area requirements.
Setbacks for the I-1 zone are as follows:
Front Yard - 50 feet
Side Yard - 20 feet
Rear Yard - In either the General Industrial
District or Limited Industrial District,
the minimum side or rear yard setback
from the lot line of the side or rear
yard of the parcel adjacent to a
railroad right-of-way shall be ten feet.
Ail proposed structures meet minimum setbacks.
Access. As mentioned earlier, the new lot will be accessed by
Quebec Avenue. The right-of-way width for Quebec Avenue is shown
to be 60 feet wide. This width satisfies City requirements.
Because Quebec Avenue will intersect a county road, the County
Public Works Department must comment on the proposed
intersection. The project has been reviewed by Hennepin County
and a review letter dated 21 September 1990 makes specific
recommendations which were mentioned in the City staff review of
2 October. The County recommended that all access to Winnetka
Avenue should be limited to Quebec Avenue and the existing
driveway be removed. Our office recommends that once access to
Quebec Avenue is obtained by all the existing developed lots,
then the original driveway should be terminated.
Easements. Easements at least ten feet wide, centered on rear
and other lot lines, shall be provided for utilities, where
necessary. The applicant shall be required to provide 10 foot
easements on the side and rear yard. The City Engineer shall
review the plat and comment if any additional drainage easements
will be required.
2
Grading and- Drainaqe. Ail grading and drainage plans shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for his review and comment prior
to further approvals.
Site/Buildinq Plan Review. Applicant is also applying for site
plan review for a 30,000 square foot manufacturing warehouse
structure, which is permitted use in the I-l, Limited Industrial
District.
Limited industrial uses have special requirements above and
beyond the general provisions. These special requirements are
discussed below.
Lot Coveraqe. Not more than 40% of the lot shall be covered.
Total land area for Lot 1 is 137,465 square feet. The proposed
building is 30,000 square feet or 22% of the total lot.
Green Area. Not less than 35% of the lot shall remain as a grass
plot. The site plan proposes 40% of the lot to remain in green
area.
Employee Parking. No parking in front of the building shall be
used by vehicles of the employees.
Parkinq Lot Screeninq and Landscaping Plans. These requirements
will be addressed later in this report.
Screeninq and Landscaping. According to the landscape plan
presented, most landscaping efforts occur at the perimeter of the
site and along the front yard. Efforts are made by the screening
to block the parking areas from view from Quebec Avenue. One
area of concern lies in the lack of screening along the rear yard
adjacent to residential zoning. The loading docks are located in
the rear of the building adjacent to the residential zone which
will generate concentrated truck traffic. It is important that
this activity be screened along the rear lot yard. Even though
the railroad right-of-way does provide a distance buffer, it does
not provide a visual buffer between the site and the houses
across the railroad tacks. Visual inspection revealed that the
elevations on the site, the tracks and the residential lots were
nearly identical. Much of the existing natural screen will be
removed for this project which currently screens the existing
structures from the houses. The grading plans show the proposed
first floor elevation to be at 918 feet, the railroad tracks are
at 916 feet and the house lots are nearly identical to the
railroad tracks. Due to proposed elevations, finished floor
elevations and loss of existing vegetation, a vegetative screen
is recommended to run the width of the paved area across the back
lot. Our office recommends that the applicant resubmit a
landscape plan addressing the screening requirements mentioned in
this section and that such revised landscape plan be reviewed
prior to further approvals.
3
Parking Requirements. The Zoning Ordinance prescribes the
following parking requirements:
Total Building = 30,000 square feet
Parking
Use Sq. Ft. Ratio Requirement
Office - 10% 3,000 x .9 1/200 14 2,700 sq.ft.
Warehouse - 45% 13,500 x .9 1/1000 12 12,150 sq.ft.
Manufacturing - 45% 13,500 x .9 1/350 35 12,150 sq.ft.
TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING 61
The proposal meets requirements for number of parking stalls.
Parking lot also conforms to all minimum distances from property
line. Our office would like to comment on the circulation
pattern' and parking layout in the front of the building.
Circulation is designed as a one way flow to the front of the
building and to the parking stalls. Because of the parallel
parking design, a one way traffic flow would be necessary. This
pattern may, however, become confusing to any visitor who may
access the site by the wrong driveway. They must either drive
around the back of the building to enter or they must turn around
and drive back to the other entrance. The parallel parking in
front is also not the most pleasing or desirable layout for
visitors as it makes for an awkward entrance to each separate
office. All appropriate traffic flow signage should be provided
to direct car traffic flow and so that the appropriate access
points will be used.
Our office recognizes that the applicant is attempting to fulfill
all of the I-1 requirements concerning parking and green space
and this site plan does meet. all requirements, but a better
traffic flow may be possible. One suggestion would be to
eliminate the parallel parking and create a parking area into the
green area in front of the building. Some parking from the rear
could also be moved to the front. To compensate for any lost
green space in front, additional green space could be provided
for in the rear. This suggestion does, however, create more
front yard parking which the City may not like. The City must
weigh the pros and cons of' each proposal in determining the
merits of each. The requirements of the I-1 zone have created
this situation of parking vs. green space and the City must
determine which is of more value to this particular site.
4
Off Street" Loadinq. The site plan shows three loading berths to
service this building. Minimum requirements have been met
concerning number of berths, size of berths and location. The
site appears to show adequate space for circulation leading to
the berths. Ample space is provided for the maneuvering of the
trucks into and out of the berths. Again, because this activity
is adjacent to residential uses, it is important that proper
screening be provided for along the rear yard.
Curb Cuts. Maximum curb cut width is 26 feet. The site plan
shows curb cuts to be 27 feet wide. Curb cut widths not
exceeding 32 feet may be permitted subject to the review of the
City Engineer and the City Council.
Lighting. All exterior lighting must be designed and arranged in
such a way to direct light away from any adjoining residential
zone or from the public streets.
Trash. Site plan indicates all trash storage will be inside of
building.
Snow Storage. Snow storage from the plowing of the lot may not
be piled an areas designated as required parking, but must be
stored on the provided green area. These storage areas must be
shown on the site plan.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the preceding review~ our office would recommend
approval of the preliminary plat and site plan review contingent
upon the issues that were brought up in the report.
cc: Doug Sandstad
5
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF:
DON HARVEY ADDITION
WINNETKA PROPERTIES, INC.
..4'-. 7'147 SANDBURG RD.
v
~t~ I GOLDEN VALLEY, MN. 55427 ':' I
': ................................... EXHIBIT A- .
,, ,, ,~,, SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. '
. ~..~,~ ~ ................
~_, "~_. ~
S,~,L PROJECT NO. ~ 0~
I~f, ~ .~ -. ,- -.----.
~ '~.'i'"
EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN .-.~?.i:' .'
EXHIBIT C - INTERIOR LAYOUT
1
EXHIBIT D - D~AINAGE PLAN
. [~ ~: ~ ~
~-~_ .~ , · .: ~ ...
- .. _ ..:~, 'r
.~ . .
EXHIBIT E - LANDSCAPE PLAN
CITY OF NEW HOPl
4401 ZYLOII AVBNUB NORTH
KBNNEPIN COUNTY, MI]iNBSOTA
PLANNING COJeqlSSlON MINtYTBS October 2, 1990
CALL TO ORDEH Chairman Cameron called the meeting Co order aC ?:30 p.m.
RO~ ~ Present: Caslln, Sonlin, Frildrich, C~eron, Gundershaug,
O~a
~eonC ~ Zak, Wa~achkl
P~IC ~INGS
PC 90-17 (3. X) The Cha~an no,Id I re.el= ~r~ =he ~i=~oner =ha= Planning
~ST ~R Case 90-17 be wiChdra~ fr~ consideraCion.
O~R S~GB
ZN l-I DXS~X~ &
V~X~ ~OM MO.
OF P~Z~ SPA~BS
820~ 45~ AV. N,
M~XON ~ion ~ Co~em~oner FrLedr~ch, second ~ Co~ise~oner
Sonsin, to close the p~l~c hearing and accep~ the withdrawal
Vo~ing in favor~ caslon, sonsin, Fried~ich, C~eron,
~unde=shaug,
Vot~g against: None
~8onC ~ Zak, Wa~echke
PC 90-27 (3.2) Charon C~con ~n~c~uc~ P~annLnv Came 90-27 and asked Kir~
~ST ~l ~ McDonald, M~nagmnC Aom~8C~, Co rmv~ ohm case.
S~XVXSXOM ~. McDonald expla~n~ che r~eg= for mubdLvisLon and
3020/3940/3960/ p=el~n~ plat
3980 WX~ AV. =ho ~ Avenue ~tenoLon which is curron=ly under
consC~ct~on. He not~ the pro~sa1 is =o su~ivLde an 11-
acre p~co~ ~ocaC~ ~n an
whLch have ~dent~ca~ warehouses ~ocaC~ ~fl CAe Chem. He
on
oCaC~ Chic all CAm mifl~ area ~d width r~ir~encs for
Ohm lo~m arm ~, buC
prml~ina~ pLa~ Co dmp~n~m and agencies involved, there
have b~n a n~r of c~n~m expregoed. One of =he scarf
concerns dealo w~h ~ 2 and 3 on Block 1, where =he curren=
buildings arm loca~, beclulm Chi I-1 3S% grin area
rm~Lr~nt La nec ~. Ho add~ ~ha~ ML~mlco rmm~ndmd
wtCh a concern ~uC ~ oafmflC, He.open County rom~nded
r~ardLnq addLC~onaL rLght-o~-way ~d access on
N~ ao~ Planing ~ss~on -lc ~tober 2, 1990
? Winnetka Avenue, &nd the City Engineer h.d a number of
~ cerements. He concluded that it was the consensus of
that the request be tabled and the petitioner mee= with staff
=o address all =he concerns.
Chairman Cameron requested the petitioner =o speak =o =he
issues brough= up by staff.
/ Bob Johnson, representative for the Don Harvey AddS=ion,
in=reduced himself and Don Harvey. He commented =ha= he
=hough= everything was in conformance as far as =he pla= is
concerned and has no= received any co~men=s since =he plan was
submit=ed. He IXprlllld =he feeling =ha= tabling =he case
/ would be a hardship on =he petitioner, therefore =hey would
- .... like =he preliminary plat ·pproved ·nd will address =he
concerns when =he final pla= is
Chairman Cameron pein=ed our =ha= mince =he peCi=ioner is
aware of =he issues =ha= have been brough= for~h, i= would
rake a great deal of rime =o address =hem all in =his meeting
'~. and he suggested =hep e=i=ioner make arrangements =o meet with
/ staff and look a= all =he concerns Ixprlllld by =he City,
County, and others. He suggested =he case be tabled for one
month.
~c. Johnson lXprlllld dilm·y =h·C they were no= con=ac=ed by
~ staff and made aware of =he current issues prior =o =his
. meeting since they h·d me= with Delign & Review for =he
Si=e/Building Plan Review and had conformed with =heir
suggestions.
'~ Mr. McDonald explained =he= when a pla= is received i= is
/ our =o all =he City dip·fOments, ·11 =he utility companies,
and Hennepin County, but their reeponlel do not always reach
, =he staff until =he last minute. He et&ted the= if =here are
~ only one or Cwo concerns regarding · preliminary pla= i= can
be approved with the underl=anding =ha= =he changes can be
/ inco=por&ted into the final pl&=, but staff feels =here are
too m·ny issues in this p·~cicular pla= =o handle in =ha=
MOTION N~tion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner
Gunderlhaug, to table Planning Cale 90-27 for one ~onth.
Voting in favorl Calsen, Sonlin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gunderlhaug,
VotLng agl~nlt: None
Absent: Z&k, Wetlchke
Notion passed.
Pc ~0-21 (3.3) Chairman Cameron introduced Plinn~ng Cele 90-28 and called on
I~EgUEST FOI Kirk McDonald =o review =he request from Continental Baking
Net PLanning ~lllion --2-- Ocober 2, ~990
CITY OF NEW HOPE
4401 XYLON AVENUE NORTH
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 7, 1990
C~T~. TO ORDER Chairman Cameron called the meeting to order at ?:$0 p.m.
ROLL CALL Present: Zak, Cassen, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke'
Absent: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
PC 90-2? (3.2) Chairman Cameron introduced Planning Case 90-27 and asked Kirk
REQUEST FOR McDonald, Management Assistant, to review the case.
PLATTING AND
SUBDIVISION Mr. McDonald noted the preliminary plat for the Don Harvey
3979 QUEBEC Addition was tabled at the October meeting because of a number
AVENUE NORTH of concerns regarding the westerly portion of the property,
~-- but since then the petitioner has had several meetings with
/ staff and hal submitted a revised plan which requests
'~ preliminary platting for the portion east of Quebec Avenue
only, with the westerly portion to be platted at a later date.
, He stated staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat
based on recommendations listed in the staff report.
Chairman Cameron questioned if petitioner has any problems
the
with the recommendations that have been made.
' Bob Johnson, representing Don Harvey, replied they feel they
can conform=o =he requirements without any problem, with one
exception regarding the request to obtain approval from the
railroad for any encroachment on their property. He stated
their feeling is that their grading plan would not cause any
, encroachment.
Kirk McDonald explained that it was a recommendation from the
City Engineer because he felt that in order to accomplish
their grading plan they might have to encroach on =he railroad
propeL~cy.
Mr. Johnson noted their slope would be 3 =o 1 and they do not
feel they would encroach on the proper~y.
MOT~O~' Motion by Commissioner Friedrich, second by Commissioner
Sonsin, to approve ~dI~Li,w~ and preL~m/~ar~ pAs~ as
requelted in Pl&nning Call 90-27 with the recommendation that
the final plat be submitted to the Planning Commission for
review with the following ch&ngel~
1. ALI easements to be dedicated as requested by the City,
including utility and drainage easement on side and rear
lot lines and over existing water hain and stoFu sewer.
New Hope Planning Commission -1- November 7, 1990
/~ -. 2. Plat to incorporate to the center line of Quebec Avenue.
/ 3. Plat to include Minnegasco easement.
-~ 4. Plat to incorporate concerns of Rennepin County.
5. Approval from Shingle Creek Watershed and DNR for
discharge of storm water.
. 6. Approval from Soo Line Railroad for any grading that
encroaches on their property.
/
?~ Voting in favor: Zak, Cass&n, Sonsin, Friedrich, Cameron,
'~ Gundershaug, Oja, Watschke
,,' Voting against: None
Absent= None
Motion passed.
PC 90-29 (3.2) Chairman Cameron noted that Planning Case 90-29 is connected
REQUEST FOH COP with the platting request submitted in the previous case.
TO ALLOW SHARED
PARKING/LOADING Kirk McDonald outlined the new plan for site/building plan
FACILITIES AND review for a new 30,000 square foot office/warehouse building,
SITE/BUILDING noting that a request for a conditional use permit for shared
PLAN REVIEW FOR p&rking/loading facilities has been withdrawn. He stated that
NEW OFFICE/WARE- code requirements have been met in a revised plan submitted by
HOUSE, 3970 =he petitioner which staff approves, with the exception of
QUEBEC AVENUE N. several items regarding certification by an architect and
compliance with City Engineer's and Planning Consultant's
recommendations.
Commissioner OJaquestioned the petitioner regarding materials
to be used on the outside of the building, roof-top equipment,
west sidewalk to parking, signage on building or on site,
parking and flow of traffic in and out of site, continuous
curbing, lights on building, and trash disposal.
Mr. Johnson presented an artist's conception of the building
and explained that it would be basically decorative concrete
block, some bands of plain block, painted in varying earth
tones, and the roof-top equipment would be painted to match
the building. He indicated that eignage as defined on plan is
strictly traffic signage directing customer parking flow to
the north and truck entrance from the north with exit to the
south. He noted the curbing would be bituminous and the
building lights would be wallpacke. Ho pointed out there will
be two outside trash enclosures construcCred of cedar.
Commissioner Oja commented on the landscape plan and
complimented the petitioner on the much improved revised
landscape plan. She asked the petitioner to address the
parking for tho tenant in the middle unit, and also snow
storage.
Mr. Johnson stated no tenant is currently occupying the unit
and indicated there is snow storage provided.
New Hope Planning Co--lesion -2- November 7, 1990
BID/TRUCK "- Approval of Specs and Authorization to Call for Bids for
Item 6.13 One (1) Pick-up Truck.
RESOLUTION 90-20.2 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and
Item 6.15 moved its adoption: 'RESOLUTION AMENDING THE YEAR XVI
(1990) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY STATEMENT OF PROOECTED USE OF
FUNDS - CONTRACT NO. A05700.' The motion for the adoption
of the foregoing resolution was seconded by Councilmember
Williamson, and upon vote being taken thereon; the
following voted in favor thereof: Erickson, Enck,
L'Herault, Williamson; and the following voted against the
same: None; Absent: Otten; whereupon the resolution was
declared duly passed and adopted, signed by the mayor
which was attested to by the city clerk.
IMPROVEMENT Approval of Final Pay Request for Park Acres Drainage
PROJECT 418 Improvements (Project 418) and Yunkers Park (Project 446)
Item 6.15 - $2,427.19.
RESOLUTION 90-203 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and
Item $.17 moved its adoption: 'RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER
NO. 1WZlllVEIT AND COMPANY, INC. FOR IMPROVEHENT PROJECT
NO. 434A (NORTHWOOD I.AXE BANI(EROSION) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$836.' The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and
upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in
favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, L'Herault, Williamson; and
the following voted against the same: None; Absent:
Otten; whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed
and adooted, si~miby the mayor which was attested to by
the city clerk.
VESTS/RIFLESCOPE Approval t~ Purchase Two Bullet Proof Vests and One
Item 6.18 Rtflescope~e- $,139.50. -,
BID/SALT ApprovaJ/of Bid Submitted ~l!argill Inc. for Salt to be
Item 6.19 Used fer Ice Control - $7,
.x'
BID/WINTER MIX A~)roval of Bid Submitted by Midwest Asphalt for Winter
Item 6.20 .Mix and Authorization to Purchase - $2,340.
BID/SAND ..~ Approval of Bid Submitted by Shiely Company to Purchase
Item 6.21 Sand Needed for Winter Ice Control and Authorization to
Purchase - $1,150.
BID/SANDER Approval of Bid Submitted by Boyum Equipment, Inc. for One
Item 6.22 (1) Tail Gate Sander and Authorization to Purchase -
_ $1,850.
PLANNX.Ii(~dkSE Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.1,
9~,~.- Planning Case 90-27, Request for Platting and Subdivision,
I~~ 3970 quebec Avenue North (PID #17-118-21 32 0001),
' Winnetka Properties, Petitioner.
New Hope City Council November 13, 1990
Page 3
/~': Mr. Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/CommunitY
Oevelopment Coordinator, presented the planning case and
' stated the petitioner is requesting subdivision and
preliminary plat approval of the Don Harvey Addition
located on theextension of Quebec Avenue currently under
construction.
The original proposal considered at the October Planning
Commission meeting was to subdivide the entire 11 acre
parcel into two blocks with five lots. The preliminary
plat was tabled primarily because of a number of problems
regarding the westerly portion of the property where two
existing warehouses are located.
He stated the petitioner has met with staff and has
revised the plan and is requesting only to plat the
portion of property east of Quebec Avenue at this time.
The westerly portion of property will be platted at a
later date and the petitioner understands that green area
requirements will have to be met.
The Planning Commission discussed this case at their
meeting on November 7, 1990, and approved the Preliminary
Plat subject to the Final Plat being submitted to the
Planning Commission for review with certain changes as
tnoted on the resolution.
Mr. Robert Johnson, representing Don Harvey and Winnetka
Properties was recognized and stated he was prepared to
answer questions.
RESOLUTION 90-204 Councilmember Enck introduced the following resolution and
Item 8.1 moved its adoption: 'RESOLt~TI~ APPROV)~ PUtNN%~ CASE
90-~7 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR DON
HARVEY ADDITION AT 3970 qUEBEC AVENUE NORTH PID
32 0001'. The motion for the adoption of the foregoing
resolution was seconded by Councilmember Williamson, and
upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in
favor thereof: Erickson, Enck, L'Herault, Williamson; and
the following voted against the same: None; Absent:
Otten; whereupon the resolution was declared duly oassed
and adopted, signed by the mayor which was attested to by
the city clerk.
PLANNIN6 CASE Mayor Erickson introduced for discussion Item 8.2,
90-29 Planning Case 90-29, Request for Site/Building Plan Review
Item 8.2 for New Office/Warehouse at 3970 Quebec Avenue Nort#, PID
#17-118-21 32 0001, Winnetka Properties, Petitioner.
Mr. McDonald explained thmt the petitioner is requesting
a Site/Building Plan Review approval for construction of
a new 30,000 sq. ft. office/warehouse building on Lot 1,
Block 1, of the proposed plat of Don Harvey Addition,
New Hope City Council November 13, 1990
Page 4
CITY OF NEW HOPE
PLANNING CASE REPORT
Planning Case: 90-35B
Request: Request for Site/Building Plan Review to Modify
Existing Building
Location: 4300 Xylon Avenue North
PID No.: 18-118-21 11 0013
Zoning: B-4
Petitioner: Weis Builders/K-Mart Corporation
Report Date: March 1, 1991
Meeting Date: March 5, 1991
UPDATE
Staff recommends that this case be tabled again. The City has forwarded
the "phase-in" parking/site improvement plan to K-Mart officials with 'a
letter indicating our expectations. To date no response has been
received.
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit based on the
fact the K-Mart officials had agreed to cooperate with the City on
improvements to the site. If K-Mart determines not to make the
improvements or proceed with the modifications to the building, then
some type of enforcement action will be necessary. The Planning
Consultant outlined the pertinent issues in the attached report. K-Mart
has three options:
1. Proceed to meet with Design & Review and come before the Planning
Commission with the site/building plan review and incorporate the
changes recommended by Design & Review and the City Engineer,
2. Appear before the Planning Commission with the original plan and not
incorporate the recommended changes (with staff recommending
denial), or
3. Withdrawing the site/building plan review request and face enforce-
ment action.
For your information, the 1971 Council minutes are attached regarding the
original K-Mart construction and parking requirement variance.
Attachements: Planner's Report (2-6-91)
Excerpt, City Council Minutes (9-27-71)
we ssociat Consultants, Inc.
P L N N G DES N M A R K E T R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kirk McDonald
FROM: Alan Brixius
DATE: 6 February 1991
RE: New Hope - K-Mart CUP
FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.03
On 12 November 1990, K-Mart filed two applications for improving
their building at 4300 Xylon Avenue North. The first application
was for a conditional use permit to convert their present sit
down restaurant to a convenience food restaurant and relocate it
to the front of the building. The second application involved a
building facade modification converting the glass windows to some
type of masonry wall treatment.
In consideration of these applications, the City of New Hope
desires to require some overall site improvements including
improving the parking lot traffic circulation and some
landscaping. The conditional use permit was approved contingent
on parking lot improvement. Currently, K-Mart is hesitating on
fulfilling the parking lot improvements. Questions have arisen
with regard to the initial need for the CUP; whether parking lot
improvements were warranted by the interior improvemen~ and
whether the City now has an enforcement position based on t.he CUP
approval. The following paragraphs outline NAC's response' on
these questions.
1. Was the conditional use permit necessary for the convenience
food alterations?
Convenience food is a conditional use in the B-4 Zoning
District. Although the proposed restaurant alterations
occurred initially within the existing building, the change
in food service type and location will serve to increase
business attraction and traffic generation. In this regard,
it was appropriate to process a conditional use permit in
the consideration of change in food service at the K-Mart
site.
4601 Excelsior Blvd.-Suite 410.Minneapolis, MN 55416-(612) 925-9420-Fax 925-2721
2. Are parking lot requirements warranted as part of the CUP
review?
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance requires that the City make a
determination as to whether the proposed CUP will not cause
traffic hazards or congestion in the B-4 Zoning District.
With the understanding that the K-Mart restaurant
alterations will help to improve the commercial attraction
of the building and generate additional traffic to the site,
then the consideration of on-site parking and circulation as
par.t of the CUP review is appropriate. This has particular
merit in light of the site's unusual striping layout and
traffic flow patterns.
New Hope CUP approval was conditioned on K-Mart cooperating
with the parking lot improvements as pa~t of the building
facade changes. This condition outlined the City's
willingness to expedite the CUP approval, provided K-Mart
was willing to implement some parking lot design changes.
The approval did not, however, layout the specific
improvements that the City wanted implemented.
Without outlining a specific design standard, the City left
this condition open ended. As such, the enforcement
potential is questionable.
3. Enforcement Options.
K-Mart seemed to be agreeable to making necessary parking
lot improvements in a three to five year plan. Through this
staged improvement plan, K-Mart may retain a reasonable
improvement costs and the City will enhance the site from
both a traffic safety and aesthetic perspective. This
cooperative effort may be the most expedient way to improve
the site.
If K-Mart is unwilling to cooperate, the CUP approval.may be
a tenuous enforcement position. A more potent option for
compliance may be holding K-Mart to abide by the original
approved site plan parking lot layout. This would require
K-Mart to correct the traffic circulation problems and non-
conforming conditions.
cc: Dan Donahue
Doug Sandstad
Council Minutes - 7 - September 27, 1971
7. The Village Manager advised the Council that bids for 1971 Street
Improvements had been opened at 2:00 p.m. this date by the Manager
and the Village Clerk-Treasurer. A bid tabulation was then pre-
sented to the Council for consideration. The bid covers construction
of the portion of Jordan Avenue adjacent to Northwood Lake, various
streets in Twin Terra Linda Additions and a portion of 38th Avenue
at Louisiana Avenue and will be known as Street Improvement No. 269.
The Village Engineer recommended in favor of awarding the bid to
Matt Bullock Contracting Co., Inc., lowest responsible bidder in the
amount of $13,295.00.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by COuncilman Hokr, to award
the bid for 1971 Street Improvements to Matt Bullock Contracting
Co., Inc., in the amount of $13,295 as recommended by the Village
Engineer.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
8. Planning Case No. 71-56, request from Developers Diversified for a
variance in parking requirements for the K-Mart installation at 4300
Xyton Avenue North, was considered by the Council. Mr. James
Karabec, Developers Diversified, appeared before the Council to re-
view the proposal. Mr. Karabec stated that the variance in parking
was sought so that landscaping could be provided in accordance with
the wishes of the New Hope citizens living on Zealand Avenue near
42nd Avenue North. It is now proposed that 879 spaces be provided,
rather than 1,088 spaces as originally presented. He stated that
Barton-Aschman had conducted a traffic survey in respect to the pro-
posed New Hope K-Mart store and that said firm had stated that 850
parking spaces should satisfy the highest demand at the site. He
also stated that the Kresge Company also felt that 850 spaces would
be sufficient. Mr. Karabec told the Council that the Planning
Commission had recommended that he buy an additional 50 feet to hold
future parking expansion. He told the Council that he still would
just like to buy 816 feet, as measured on the back lot line. Mr.
Karabec further stated that his firm does not intend to add any extra
retail area to the New Hope store. He said he did not feel that
comparing parking facilities to the Target store was applicable.
He said that when trade warrants it, Kresges build additional stores
from 4 to 6 mi les apart.
The Council inquired as to whether arrangements had been made with
the owners of the New Hope Shopping Center for access across the New
Hope Shopping Center site. Mr. Karabec said that this had not been
done but he will be working on this in the future.
~unci Iman Plufka inqui red as to whether Developers Diversi fled had
worked out a land trade with Mr. Brown for the property on 42nd
A~nuc abutting the New Hope Shopping Center. Mr. Karabec said his
finn was working on this but the trade has not been completed.
uncil Minutes - 8 - SepTember =~,
#r. Rosene, Village Engineer, said that sight distances must be
taken into consideration together with the landscaping at the drive-
~ay entrances.
Discussion held relative to the eventual use of the 160 foot by 188
foot parcel at the northeast corner of Xylon and 42nd Avenues.
Mr. Ronald Frain, 850t - 46th Avenue North, inquired as to whether ;.---
there was ample room for del iveries by semi-trucks. He also asked II.
the Council what steps would be taken to control the traffic on
46th Avenue -- as a result of the K-Mart store. Mr. Fratn said that ~-'
there were several dead end streets to control the traffic into
residential areas from the Target store in Crystal. Hr. Frain was
advised that the K-Mart site was zoned for retail business and it was
f0 be expected that the property would develop in this manner. Mr.
Frain was also assured that if after K-Mart is in operation and it
appears that there is, in fact, a traffic problem through residential .
areas, the Council will' try to come up with an effective solution.
Upon further discussion all members of the Council stated that they
~ould be opposed to dead-ending residential streets at this time.
Further discussion held as to whether K-Mart should be asked to
acquire the extra 50 feet of property as recommended by the Planning
Commi ssi on.
Councilman Bosacker noted that signalization question and left turn
lanes had not been resolved. Hr. Karabec agreed that Developers
Diversified would be doing considerable sharing in the cost of the
traffic lights and some sharing in the cost of the turn lanes.
Motion by Councilman Johnson, second by Councilman Plufka, approving
the variance in parking requirements for the K-Mart site (down to
879 spaces), as requested under Planning Case No. 71-56.
Motion by Counci linen Plufka to amend the motion so that approval is
Conditioned upon resolution of the Brown/Hardy property trade and
joining of parking lots with the New Hope Shopping Center. Motion
to amend lost for lack of second.
Motion by Counci Iman Hokr to amend the motion so that the approval
of the parking variance is conditioned upon acquiring of the addition-
a fifty feet to the north of the K-lvlart site, to be avai labia for
future parking, if needed. Motion died for lack of second.
Counci I man Bosacker asked Mr. Karabec to assure the Council that he
would attempt to negotiate Brown/Hardy property switch and joint
parking with the shopping center. Mr. Karabec stated that he would
try to accomplish both of these items.
Vote was then taken on the question to approve the variance in
parking requirements as requested under Planning Case No. 71-56.
Council Minutes - 9 - September 27, 1971
¥oting in favor: Bosacker, johnson, EriCk§O~.
¥0ting against: Hokl-, Plufka.
~ H0tion carried.
lt. Planning Case No. 71-49, request for variance in front yard setback,
Richard Reimer, petitioner, to construct a single family dwelling
with an attached garage at 8310 - 36t!~ Avenue North, was considered
by the Counci I. The Vi I lage Manager advised the Counci I that Mr.
I~imer was unable to be present. The Village Manager then pre-
sented a revised site plan showing the proposed location of the
house. Permission is requested to place the house within 42 feet
of 36th Avenue North. No one appeared to object to the requested
var iance.
Motion by Counci Iman Bosacker, second by Counci Iman Johnson, to
approve a variance in front yard setback to 42 feet from 36th Avenue
for the lot at 8310 - 36th Avenue North, with house and garage to be
positioned as shown on the revised site plan (Planning Case No. 71-49).
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Vo, i ng against: None.
Motion carried.
10. Planning Case No. 71-50, request from Dan Countryman for a variance
in rear yard setback to permit construction of a multiple garage at
2724 Xylon Avenue North to come within I0 feet of the rear lot line,
was considered. Mr. Countryman appeared before the Council to dis-
cuss the location of the proposed garage. The plan, as approved by
the Planning Commission, was reviewed by the Council.
Motion by Counci Iman Bosacker, second by Counci Iman Hokr, to approve
the variance in rear yard setback to permit construction of a
multiple garage to come within I0 feet of the rear lot line at 2724
Xylon Avenue North, as requested by Dan Countryman under Planning
Case No. 71-50.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Ptufka.
Voting against: None.
Motion carried.
II Planning Case No. ?t-51, request from William R. Nelson for a I0 foot
variance in front yard setback to permit construction of a single
family dwelling with attached garage at 6132 Utah Avenue North, was
COnsidered. Mr. Nelson appeared to discuss the request.
Mo, ion by Counci Iman Plufka, second by Councilman Hokr, to approve
request for I0 foot front yard variance for construction of a house
wi,h attached garage at 6132 Utah Avenue North, as requested under
Planning Case No. ?1-51.
Voting in favor: Bosacker, Erickson, Hokr, Johnson, Plufka.
Voting agai ns,: None.
Mo, ion carried.
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
subdivided 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 outlot
were originally proposed.
4. The 7.5 acre parcel was first developed in 1976 with two identical
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 1 180,525 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 meet 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 Department
Heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review and comments.
7. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified.
ANALYSIS
1. The two-lot proposal for the property is an improvement over the
original three-lot/outlot 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, Block 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 i and Lot 2, Block 1, Don Harvey
Addition, east 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 on
Winnetka Avenue for a uniform width - this is shown on plat.
B. Ail 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)
BETHEl. L. IONS
CEMETERY , PARK
PRELIMINARY PLAT OF:
DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION
WINNETKA PROPERTIES, INC.
7147 SANDBURG RD.
GOLDEN VALLEY. MN 554:27
~, .,.~,,.,.,.o., ... .. ~ /
~ ,,/ /
", t ~ Z
,., /
.... ~ ~ // '
~' .... ,.~ ~ .~,,~.. , ., , ..........
DON HARVEY 2ND ADDITION
WINNE'FKA PROPERTIES, INC.
7147 SANDBURG RD.
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN 55427
'".¢."' %
I ~ / ~,~ -
i///~ ~" '"'
,, ~ /p ,,
~ ~' ~',,
.. - . ~ ~ ~ -- · ~ ~
,I
- ~ % , ,' , "" ~" ~
-' ~I '1 ' ~ ~ ~ / ~. H,i,I ,, .... ~,,,", ~., , ~
...... ---~ ~- ' ' t ( quebec
F E ~ -- 2 ?-- 9 1 WED I 6 : 4 4 ~ ON E $ T R 0 0 & '~iA $ $ 0 C I A T E $ P . 0 2
February 27, 199i
City of New l-lope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Itt)pc, MN 55428
Attention: Kirk McDonald
Re: Don Harvey 2nd Addition
Our File No. 34-gen
Dear Kirk:
We have revic:wed the drainage requirements for the above plat. Presently the existing
drainage is conveyed overland acrms private property (40(]0 Winnetka Avenue) to the north
to Old Dutch Pond. Therefore, the most efficic:nl storm sewer system to serve the area is
one which collects runoff from D~)n H;~rvey 2nd Addition a.qd the prop~:ny to the north
(40(,~ Winnetka Avenue). [n additiort. Shingle Creek Wate~hed will require that storm
water treatment be provided for a 2" ruinfall ,vent for the drainage area tributary m the new
storm sewer. The Department of Nutund Resources (DNR) will 'aLso encourage storm water
treatment because Old Dutch Pond is designated DNR Protected W~:tland. Attachgd is n
sketch which identifies a possible storm gwer system which will require construction and
eu~ments outside the Don Harvey 2nd Additkm.
tn summary, the Don Harvey 2nd Addition will require storm sewer imprcwements to Old
Dutch Pond (DNR Protected Wetland) which will extend beyond the plat. Thc
improvements will have to be reviewed and ultimutcly approved by the Shingle CrL:ck
Watershed, DNR, and the City of New Hope.
If you have any questions please contact this office.
Yours very truly,
BONERTRC)O, ROSENE, ANDERLIK & AS$OCIA'I'ES, INC.
Mark Hnnson
MH:Ik
Attachment
2:335 ~,'est Highway 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota 5SI13 · 612-636-4600
FE~--27--9 I ~D I ~ : 45 BONESTRO0 ~ ASSOC I ATES
~ ~ W. ~ne, PE. Eicna~ ~ ~er. PE. Ma~ R. ~ PE L. Phfll~D Gra~ m PE
JO~D~ C, A~ik; PE. ~na~ C 8u~ PE. ~ C.
Rosene Ma~,n L. ~a,a. PE. Jer~ A. ~n, PE. Thomas E. Angu[ PE. ~nesM
Ricna~ E. Turner, PE. Ma~ A Han~n. PE. H~a~ A
Glenn R. C~. T~ K. Field, PE. Dan~t J. EdWin. PE. C~fllo Ol~wer, PE
PE
Su~n M E~inr C.PA. Davl~ O. ~s~ca. PE. Israel Ma~ez. PE. Chanes A Enc~son
Thomas ~ ~n. PE. Ma~ D. ~llis.
M~ C. L~C~, PE. Thomas R.
Engin~rs & Archit~ts ~ ,. ~,~..~. ~ ~ ~,~
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 overan 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~TRO, O, ,R~)SENE, ANDERLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mark A. Hanson
MAH:dh
34GEN.
2335 gffest Highway 36 * St. Paul, Minnesota 55113 * 612-636-4600
September 20, 1990 ' - :" ~- --~_~,
Cit7 of New Hope
~401 ~71on Avenue North
New Hope, ~I 55~28
Attn: Kirk McDonald
Re.' Don Ha~e7 Addition
Our File No. 34-Gen
Dear Kirk=
Ve have reviewed ~he above pla= and reco~end =he
Gradin~
- The existing warehouse on Lots 2 and 3 Block 1 ~d Oucloc A presently drain
north overland across private properly to Old Dutch Pond. It's raco~ended an
easemen= be secured from the prope~ty ~o the north and s=or~ sewer be constructed
to properly convey drainase from ~he exis~in8 warehouse to Old Dutch Pond. Old
Dutch Pond is designated a D~ wetland; ~herefore the d~chars~ cf s=o~ water
into it shall be done ~ accord~ce with =heir require~nen=s and the Shingle Creek
~a=ershed. The stom sewer shall also be properly desired ~o convey the
water r~of[ from Lo= 1 Block 3.
- The drainage of Lo~ 1, Block 2 sha~l be directed northward to Old Duluth Pond.
However. =he drayage fro~ ~o~ 2, Block l sha!l be directed south by s=o~ sewer
into the pond~ area developed as par~ of Quebec Avenue Ex=~nsion -Projec= 450.
A proper 8rad~ p~an has not been provided for =he proposed developmen= of Lot
2, Block 2. Therefore ~ ens~eer~ review of ~he 8rad~ 91~ can not be done.
The discharge of s=o~ wa~er ~o O~d ~=ch Pond s~i be done ~ accordance with
D~ requirements ~d ~he Sherle Creek Wa=ershed.
- The 8radin~ of Quebec Avenue extension provided for min~al removal of
bit~ous ~d ~rad~ =o blend =he exis=~n~ park~ areas se~n~ ~he warehouses
~o the new street. Therefore, i~'s reco~ended the park~ areas, drivin8 13nes
and ~reen spaces se~ ~he exist~n~ warehouses be recons=~cted ~o confo~ with
~he new s~reet ~ accord~ce wi=h City requirements. (Concre=e curb, 8teen space
requiremen=s, l~dscape pl~, e~c.)
1
233S ~Vest Hlgl~way 36 · St. Paul, Minnesota S5113 · 612-636-4600
O
City of New Hope September 10, 1990
Page 2
At=n: Kirk McDonald
- The existing driveway access to serve this site at Winnetka Avenue is being
removed as part of Quebec Avenue to conform with Hennepin County's Access Permit
for Quebec Avenue connecting to Winnetka Avenue. The access will be removed and
a sidewalk will be constructed within County right-of-waF. Therefore, it's
recommended the remaining driveway access on proposed Lo= 1, Block 1 serving =he
existing warehouse be removed.
- The right-of-way dedication along Winnetka Avenue shall be reviewed by
Hennepin Co. and dedicated in accordance with their requirements. It' s
anticipated an additional 7' of right-of-way will be required along Winnetka
Avenue.
- The right-of-way dedication for Quebec Avenue extension has been acquired by
the City. However it's recommended an additional 10' wide utility and drainage
easement be dedicated beyond the street right-of-way acquired for Quebec Avenue.
A minimum 5' wide utility and drainage easements shall be dedicated on all side
lot lines and 10' wide on all rear lot lines.
- As part of Quebec Avenue extension, 3 accesses are being provided to serve the
existing Warehouses on Lot 2 & 3, Block 1, and Outlot A. It's recommended the
proper easements be executed for the shared accesses located between Lots 2 and
3 and the access across 0utlot A. It's recommended the access across 0utlot A
be constructed as part of the plat approval.
- Curb curs for driveway open,ss se~s Lo= 1, Block 1 and Lo~s 1 and 2 Block
2 have no= been provided with =he Quebec Avenue extension projec~ since
development plans for ~his area have no= been approved. ~e future driveway
accesses for =hess lots shall confo~ ~o city s~andards based on width and
spac~g.
- Sani=a~ sewer ~d wa~e= se~ices ~o se~e ~he exiscin~ warehouses on Lo= 2
and 3 Block I have been ma~=a~ed with ~e Quebec Avenue extension project. A
sani=a~ sewer ~d wa=e= se~ice has also been provided =o Lo~ i Block 1.
Relative =o Lo= 1 ~d 2 Block 2, dura& cons=~c~ion of Quebec Avenue =he proper
o~er vas con=ac=ed whether he would pay for the cost of an additional sever and
va=er se~ice to =he easterly side of Quebec Avenue. A response vas no= ~iven;
therefore only one sever ~d va~er se~ice has been provided ~o =he ease side o[
Quebec Avenue. Therefore, i~'s reco~ended the sever se~ice =o Loc 1 Block 1
be provided from the exisc~A sever located on i~s north line ~d ics va=er
se~ice be provided either from =he exisc~ hydr~ located ac i~s nor=byes=
co.er on the va=er se~ice s~ub provided from Quebec Avenue a~ i~s southwest
co.er. ~e sever se~ice provided a~ ~he southwest co.er of Lo~ 1 Block 2 from
Cit7 of New Hope September 20, 1990
Pa~e 3
Attn= Kirk McDonald
Quebec Avenue shall be used to serve Lot 2 Block 2. In the event the sewer
service extends across a portion of Lot 1 Block 2 (which it appears it does) a
utility easement shall be shown on the plat across the southwest corner of Lot
1 Block 2. The water service to Lot 2 Block 2 shall be provided from the
existin8 water main located alons its south line.
If you have an7 questions please contact this office.
Yours very trulT,
BONE~TRO0, ROS~, ANDEItLIK & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Hark~danson
MH:lk
\3~.gen
COP, PaCK & $ONDP~LL
~S! I WEST SROADWAY
CORRICK ~W OFFICE~, P.A.
WILLIAM J. CORRICK
~VONNE E. KESKE
$TEVEN A, SONORALL, P.A.
STEVEN A. ~ONDRALL SHARON D. DERSY
MICHAEL R. LAFLEUR
MARTIN P. MALECHA
WILLIAM C. STRAIT
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:
I have examined the preliminary plat of Don Harvey 2nd Addition.
The only comment I have is that the legal description on the plat
covers the proposed second addition as well as the land involved in
the Don Harvey 1st Addition. The legal description needs to be
modified to reflect only the land actually contained in the
proposed plat of Don Harvey 2nd Addition.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Martin P. Malecha
s3f
cc: Daniel J. Donahue
Steven A. Sondrall, Es~.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
320 Washington Avenue South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
PHONE: [6t2] 930-2500
FAX [612] 930-2543
TDD: [612] 930-2696
February 20, 1991
Kirk McOonald
Assistant Community Oevelopment Coordinator
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN 55428
Dear Mr. McDonald'
RE: Proposed Plat - Don Harvey Second Addition
CSAH 156, east side approximately 1300 feet south of CSAH 9
Section 17, Township 118, Range 21
Hennepin County Plat No. 1911
Review and Recommendations
Minnesota Statutes 505.02 and 505.03, Plats and Surveys, require County review of
proposed plats abutting County roads. We reviewed the above plat and have the
following comments:
- As shown on the proposed plat, the developer should dedicate 7 additional feet
of right of way for a uniform 40 feet of right of way from and along the CSAH
156 centerline.
- Access from the plat to CSAH 156 must be limited to Quebec Avenue. The existing
driveway located approximately 220 feet north of Quebec Avenue must be removed
and the area within County right of way restored. This restoration work
requires an approved entrance permit. The developer can contact Dave
Zetterstrom at 930-2548 for information and entrance permit forms.
- All proposed construction within County right of way requires either an approved
utility permit or entrance permit prior to beginning construction. The utility
permit includes, but is not limited to, drainage and utility construction, trail
development, and landscaping. Contact our Permits Office, 930-2549, for utility
permit forms.
- The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed
during plat construction.
Please direct any response or questions to Doug Mattson at 930-2675.
Sincerely,
Dennis L. Hansen, P.E.
Transportation Planning Engineer HENNEPIN COUNTY
DLH/DBM'gk
an equalopporluni~employer
ll/Imnega o
A Company of Divers~fi~l £nerg~s. [nc.
September 19, 1990
Kirk McDonald
Management Assistant
City of New Hope
4401 Xylon Avenue North
New Hope, MN. 55428
RE: Preliminary Plat of Don Harvey Addition
Dear Mr. McDonald:
With reference to the preliminary plat of Don Harvey Addition,
Minnegasco, Inc. currently has an easement near the North line of
the plat.
I have enclosed a copy of Minnegasco's easement number 76-8,
recorded with the Hennepin County recorder as document number
4256368. I request that this easement Be referred to on the
final plat.
Thank you for the advance notice and could you please send me a
copy of the final plat when it is approved.
Sincerely,
Ste/ve-~ Yon Sargen /
Real Estate Specialist
Minnegasco, Inc.
cc: R. J. Pilon, Minnegasco
?00 Wes~ L,mclen Avenue
P.O. Box tX~
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 14, 1991
TO: Hennepin County Department of Transportation
Minnegas¢o
Northern States Power Co.
U.S. West Telephone
King Cable Television
New Hope Director of Public Works
New Hope Director of Finance/Administrative Services
New Hope City Attorney
New Hope City Engineer
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community
Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat
Don Harvey Second Addition
Enclosed you will find a preliminary plat for Don Harvey Second
Addition. Please review and forward comments to me prior to 4:30
p.m.on Fri4a¥o February 22, 1991.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
P~'rNG C~%~E REPORT
Planning Case: 90-27
Request: Request for Subdivision and Platting
Location: 3920/40/60/80 Winnetka Avenue North
PID No.: 17-118-21 32 0001
Zoning: I-1 (Limited Industrial)
Petitioner: Winnetka Properties
Report Date: September 28, 1990
Meeting Date: October 2, 1990
BACKGROUND
1. The petitioner is requesting subdivision and Preliminary Plat
approval of the Don Harvey Addition located on the extension of
Quebec Avenue currently under construction. The request is made
pursuant to Chapter 13 of the New Hope Code of Ordinances.
2. The property is zoned I-1 Industrial and is proposed to be
subdivided into five lots.
3. The site is an 11 acre parcel that was first developed in 1976 with
two identical warehouses in the middle of the site sharing a back to
back loading zone. The new plat follows the bisection of the
acreage by Quebec Avenue and is being filed in conjunction with a
proposed warehouse development for Lot 2, Block 2. No PUD is being
requested.
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. The lot area sizes and width of the proposed plat are
outlined as follows:
~rea Width
Lot 1, Block i 115,450 sq.ft, or 2.65 acres 307 ft.(on Winnetka)
Lot 2, Block i 76,765 sq.ft, or 1.76 acres 218 ft.(on Quebec)
Lot 3, Block i 75.040 sq.ft, or 1.72 acres 225 ft.(on Quebec)
Outlot A 30,765 sq.ft, or .71 acres
Lot 1, Block 2 52,970 sq.ft, or 1.21 acres 180 ft.(on Quebec)
Lot 2, Block 2 84,495 sq.ft, or 1.94 acres 220 ft.(on Quebec)
Street 31,208sq. ft. or .72 acres
TOTAL 10.71 acres
Ail lots meet the minimum area and width requirements.
Planning Case Report 90-27
October 2, 1990
Page -2-
5. The Preliminary Plat has been sent to the appropriate City
Department Heads, utility companies, and County agencies for review
and comment.
6. Property owners within 350' of the request have been notified.
1. Staff has a concern with Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, as they are already
developed but do not meet the I-1 35% Green area Fequirement do to
the fact that the lot is almost totally covered with bituminous.
2. Staff has a concern with Outlot A standing on its own and recommends
that it be combined with Lots 2 and 3, Block 1, as shown on the
Attachment (One-Lot Option). The resulting lot would nearly meet
the I-1 standards with the "front" asphalt replaced by sod.
3. Other problems that should be corrected on the site include:
A. Construct a new driveway at northeast Quebec, as shown.
B. Remove all outdoor storage including 50 pallets, semi-trailers,
wire cages, trash, 30 barrels, inoperable vehicles, etc.
C. Extend both Fire Department connections from the south walls to
the common drive corner, as shown on staff sketch.
D. Replace front asphalt with sod.
4. If the "One-Lot Option" is not acceptable to the petitioner or the
Commission, then staff would recommend a "Two-Lot Option", as shown
on staff sketch. Under this option the easterly lot line of Lot 1,
Block 1, would be reduced by at least 50 feet and that strip would
be added to Lot 2 for green space. Outlot A would then be combined
with Lot 3 for green area, as show~ on staff sketch.
5. The petitioner needs to provide exact percentages to the staff on
lot coverage and green area for these two developed parcels.
6. Another staff concern is that Lot 1, Block 2, is quite small and
will not permit a building as large as the one proposed for Lot 2.
No building approval on the north lot is Dart of thi~ petition.
7. Minnegasco has responded that they have an easement near the north
line of the plat and this should be included in the final plat.
8. Hennepin County responded with 2 requests that should be
incorporated into the plat:
A. The developer should dedicate additional right of way so there
is a minimum uniform 40 feet of right of way from and along the
CSAH 156 centerline.
planning Case Report 90-27
October 2, 1990
Page -3-
B. Ail 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.
9. The City Engineer has made a number of recommendations regarding
grading/drainage, street/access, and sanitary sewer/water (a total
of 9 in all). No drainage or utility easement are shown on any of
the side or rear lot lines. Instead of repeating all of the issues
in this report, staff directs you =o the attached letter from the
City Engineer.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to the large number of items that need to be addressed on the
preliminary plat to answer staff, County and the Engineer's concerns,
staff recommends that the preliminary plat be tabled. Staff request the
petitioner to specifically address all concerns and to submit a revised
preliminary plat.
Attachments: Section Map
Preliminary Plat
Staff Sketches, "One-Lot Option"
"Two-Lot Option"
Letter Re: Plat Review
Minnegasco Response
Hennepin County Response
City Engineer Response
CITY OF NEW HOPE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 28, 1991
TO: William Sonsin, Codes & Standards Committee
Doug Watschke, Codes & Standards Committee
Mary Zak, Codes & Standards Committee
Dan Donahue, City Manager
Alan Brixius, Planning Consultant
FROM: Kirk McDonald, Management Assistant/Community
Development Coordinator
SUBJECT: March 5th Codes & Standards Meeting
Codes & Standards Committee will be meeting on Tuesday, March 5th,
7:30 a.m., at Perkins in Golden Valley.
We will be discussing ordinance revisions to the Floodplain
Ordinance and Shopping Center Parking Requirements. Information
regarding both subjects is attached.
The Planning Consultant will be unable to attend the meeting, but
has prepared reports on both subjects. The consultant feels that
both of these issues are relatively minor and the Committee should
have no problem reviewing these subjects.
Due to the fact that Codes & Standards is meeting on the day of the
Planning Commission meeting, you may want to pass your recommenda-
tions on these two ordinance revisions on to the full Commission
that evening. I have included these items on the agenda and sent
a Codes & Standards packet to the full Commission in anticipation
that this may occur. The recommendations from the Planning
Commission would then be forwarded on to the City Council for
consideration at the March llth Council meeting. On the other
hand, if there is not a consensus on these ordinance revisions at
the Codes & Standards meeting and you want further research/input
from staff, we can delete these items from the agenda and delay
them until the April 3rd Planning Commission meeting.
Please contact me if you have any questions prior to the meeting.
See you at 7:30 on Tuesday, March 5th.
FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE
A. Backqround
The Department of Natural Resources has sent the City a new model
floodplain ordinance to reflect the changes in federal regulations that
were actually effective in 1986. The model ordinance has been
negotiated between FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) and the
Minnesota DNR. 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 1, 1991.
B. Httachments
The model ordinance was referred to the City Engineer, city Attorney,
Building Official and Planning Consultant for comment and review.
Attached for your information are the following:
1. The current Floodplain Ordinance for the City of New Hope. The
Floodplain District and the Wetlands District are referenced in
Sections 4.17 and 4.18, respectively, of the New Hope City Code.
The actual ordinances are found in Appendix D of the Code for
administrative convenience. Note, however, that they are
considered part of the Zoning Code and are to be administered,
interpreted and enforced as such.
The existing ordinance was last amended in 1980.
2. The July 1980 Flood Insurance Study prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency provides an overview of the community
description, flooding problems,and flood protection measures. The
study identified three primary flooding sources within the City:
the Long Lake Outfall, Long Meadow Lake, and a local pond in the
southwestern part of the City.
3. Correspondence from the DNR and the model Floodplain Management
Ordinance.
4. Northwest Associated Consultants report, which provides a
comparative analysis between the existing Floodplain Ordinance and
the model ordinance. This report identifies the specific areas of
the ordinance and issues that we should review at the Codes &
Standards meeting.
c. Comments
1. The City Engineer, City Attorney, and Building Official are still
in the process of reviewing the ordinance and any comments that
they have will be presented orally at the meeting.
2. One of the Councilmember has raised the question as to whether
"walkouts" should be added to definition of "Basement" under
Section 2.812 of the model ordinance. I will contact the DNR on
this matter.
3. I have forwarded a copy of the Planner's report to our Area
Hydrologist, Ceil Strauss, for review and comment. She will
respond regarding each of the issues in the report prior to our
meeting.
ATTACHMENT 1
4.042 Zoning Map ......................... 4-46
4.043 Zoning District Soundaries ................. 4-46
4.05 "R-i' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 0ISTRICT ............. 4-47
4.051 Purpose .......................... 4-47
4.052 Permitted Uses, R-1 .................... 4-47
4.053 Accessory Uses, R-1 .................... 4-47
4.054 Conditional Uses, R-1 ................... 4-48
4.06 "R-2" SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDE~dTIAL DISTRICT .......... 4-50
4.061 Purpose .......................... 4-50
4.062 Permitted Uses, R-2 .................... 4-50
4.063 Accessory Uses Permitted, R-2 .............. 4-50
4.064 Conditional Uses, R-2 ................... 4-50
4.07 "R-3" MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT .............. 4-50
4.071 Purpose .......................... 4-50
4.072 Permitted Uses, R-3 .................... 4-50
4.073 Accessory Uses, R-3 .................... 4-51
4.074 Conditional Uses, R-3 ................... 4-51
4.08 'R-4" HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT .............. 4-53
4.081 Purpose .......................... 4-53
4.082 Permitted Uses, R-4 .................... 4-53
4.083 Accessory Uses Permitted, R-4 ............... 4-53
4.084 Conditional Uses, R-4 ................... 4-53
4.08A "R-5" SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING .............. 4-56
4.08A1 Purpose .......................... 4-56
4.08A2 Permitted Uses ....................... 4-56
4.08A3 Conditional Uses, R-5 ................... 4-56
4.08A4 Conditional Accessory Uses ................. 4-56A
4.09 "R-0" RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE DISTRICT ................. 4-57
4.091 Purpose .......................... 4-57
4.092 Permitted Accessory Uses, R-0 ............... 4-57
4.093 Conditional Uses, R-0 ................... 4-57
4.10 "B-i" LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT ............ 4-59
4.101 Purpose . . . ' 4-59
4.102 Permitted Uses, B-1 .................... 4-59
4.103 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-1 ............... 4-59
4.104 Conditional Uses, B-1 ................... 4-60
4.11 "B-2" RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT ................... 4-61
4.111 Purpose .......................... 4-61
4.112 Permitted Uses, B-2 .................... 4-61
4.113 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-2 ............... 4-61
4.114 Conditional Uses, B-2 ................... 4-61
4.12 "B-3# AUTO-ORIENTED BUSINESS DISTRICT ................ 4-63
4.121 Purpose .......................... 4-63
4.122 Permitted Uses, B-3 .................... 4-63
4.123 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-3 ............... 4-63
4.124 Conditional Uses, B-3 ................... 4-63
4.125 Conditional Accessory Uses, B-3 .............. 4-67C
4.13 "B-4" COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT ................. 4-70
4.131 Purpose .......................... 4-70
4.132 Permitted Uses, B-4 .................... 4-70
4.133 Permitted Accessory Uses, B-4 ............... 4-70
4.134 Conditional Uses, B-4 ................... 4-71
4.14 "I-l" LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ................. 4-73
4.141 Purpose .......................... 4-73
4.142 Permitted Uses ....................... 4-73
4.143 Permitted Accessory Uses .................. 4-73
4.144 Conditional Uses ...................... 4-73
4.145 Special Requirements for all Limited Industrial Uses .... 4-77B
4.15 #I-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ................. 4-78
4.151 Purpose .......................... 4-78
4.152 Permitted Uses ....................... 4-78
4.153 Permitted Accessory Uses .................. 4-78
4.154 Conditional Uses -'I-2 District .............. 4-78
4.16 BLANK ............................... 4-78
4.17 FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT (FP) ..................... 4-78
4.18 WETLANDS DISTRICT (W) ....................... 4-78
4.19 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD) .............. 4-79
4.191 Purpose and Intent ..................... 4-79
(1) Application ...................... 4-79
(2) Special Procedures .................. 4-79
4.192 General Requirements and Standard for a PUD ........ 4-79
4.193 Residential Planned Unit Development, CUP, Requirements . . 4-81
4.194 Commercial or Industrial Planned Unit Development, CUP
Requirements ................... 4-83
4.195 Mixed Use Planned Unit Oevelopment, Zoning Text Amendment . 4-83
4.198 Procedure for Processing a Planned Unit Development .... 4-84
4.197 Information and Documentation Requirements for Plan
Submission ................. 4-89
4.20 ADMINISTRATION: CONDITIONAL USES, TEXT CHANGES, VARIANCES,
ZONING APPEALS ............... 4-94
4.201 Special Zoning Procedures ................. 4-94
4.202 Decisional Process ..................... 4-94
Request for Special Zoning - mow Made''''''''' 4-94
(2) Request for Minor Variance .............. 4-97
4.21 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ....................... 4-97
4.211 Purpose of CUP ....................... 4-97
4.212 Criteria for Decision ................... 4-97A
4.22 VARIANCES ............................. 4-98
4.221 Purpose of Variance .................... 4-98
4.222 Additional Criteria for Decision .............. 4-99
4.23 TEXT CHANGES, APPEALS, AND PERFORMANCE BONDS ............ 4-99
4.231 Text Changes ........................ 4-99
4.232 Appeals from Administrative Action ............. 4-99
4.233 Performance Bond ...................... 4-99
4.24 DISTRICT BOUNDARIES ........................ 4-101
4.25 EXTENT OF R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS .......... 4-101
4.28 EXTENT OF R-2 SINGLE AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ...... 4-101
4.27 EXTENT OF R-3 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ......... 4-102
4.28 EXTENT OF 8-4 HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT .......... 4-103
4.28A EXTENT OF R-5 SENIOR CITIZEN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING DISTRICT ..... 4-104
4.29 EXTENT OF R-0 RESIDENTIAL-OFFICE DISTRICT ............. 4-105
4.30 EXTENT OF B-1 LIMITED NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT ........ 4-106
4.31 EXTENT OF 8-2 RETAIL BUSINESS DISTRICT ............... 4-107
4.32 EXTENT OF B-3 AUTO-ORIENTED BUSINESS DISTRICT .......... 4-108
4.33 EXTENT OF 8-4 COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT ............. 4-109
4.34 EXTENT OF I-1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT ............. 4-110
4.35 EXTENT OF I-2 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT .............. 4-110
4.36 ADMINISTRATION - COST RECOVERY. - .................. 4-112
4.361 Purpose .......................... 4-112
4.362 Basic Zoning Fee ...................... 4-112
4.363 Zoning Deposit ....................... 4-112
4.364 Supplemental Zoning Deposit ................ 4-112
4.365 Refunds - Indirect Costs .................. 4-112
4.366 Refunds - Direct Costs ................... 4-112
4.367 Enforcement ........................ 4-112
' 4~-5, 4.151, 4.152, 4.153,
4.154, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18
4.15 "I-2# GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
4.151 Purpose. The purpose of the "I-2" General Industrial District is to
provide for the establishment of heavy industrial and manufacturing
development and use which because of the nature of the product or
character of activity requires isolation from residential or non-
compatible commercial uses. The "I-2" District is also intended to
provide for large scale activities of a sociological nature not suited
to other districts, but reasonably compatible With the same
characteristics suitable for General Industrial Use.
4.152 Permitted Uses. The following are permitted uses in an "I-2"
District:
(1) Less Intensive Use District. Any use permitted in the "I-l"
Limited Industrial District:
4.153 Permitted Accessory Uses. The following are permitted accessory uses
in an "I-2" District:
(1) All permitted accessory uses allowed in an "I-l" Limited
Industrial District.
4.154 Conditional Uses - 1-2 District. The following are conditional uses
in an "I-2" District: (Requires a conditional use permit based upon
procedures set forth in and regulated by Section 4.20).
(1) Less Intensive Use District. Ail conditional uses allowed in an
"I-l" Limited Industrial District.
(2) Trucking Operation. Truck terminals and major truck repair
provided the site is adjacent to an arterial street.
(3) Health and Social Services. Private, non-profit social service
organizations providing broad based family and individual
activities of a health, athletic and social nature, provided the
site is adjacent to an arterial street.
(4) Day Care Centers. Group Day Care Centers operated in conjunction
with a Health and Social Services use which qualified under (3)
above.
(Ord. 79-11, 84-3)
4.16 Blank.
4.17 FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT (FP) The provisions of this Code pertaining to the
Flood Plain District are found in the Appendix as Appendix D, for reasons
of administrative convenience only, and are a part of the Zoning Code, and
administered, interpreted and enforced as such.
4.18 WETLANDS DISTRICT (W). The provisions of this Code pertaining to the
Wetlands District are found in the Appendix as Appendix D, for reasons of
administrative convenience only, and are a part of the Zoning Code, and
administered, interpreted and enforced as such.
4-78
072684
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 FP 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 that 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 Warninq 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
072684
4.176, 4.177 (1) (5)(b) ~
4.176 Rule for Interpretation of District Boundaries. The boundaries of the
Flood Plain D~strict shall be determined by scaling distances on the
Official Zoning Map. Where interpretation is needed to define more
exactly the location of the boundaries of the district as sh6wn 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 regional (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 to 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 City Engineer.
(Ord. 80-9)
4.177 Use Permit.
(1) - Permit Required. A use permit shall be required in the Flood
Plain 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-conforming 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 be refunded.
(3) Determination. Within ten days after the application for use
permit, the City Engineer shall determine whether the change,
modification, or alteration conforms to the requirements of all
applicable City, State and Federal regulations and laws, and that
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 in
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 4.22.
(5) Performance Bond.
(a) Upon approval of a use permit the City shall be provided
with a surety bond prior to 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
development.
D-2
072684
~ 4. 177 (5)(c) - (d), 4. 178,
~;.: :'''~-~,t~)'" (4)
(c) 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 low 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 tributary 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, tennis 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 purpose recreational
trails.
D-3
072684
4. 179 (5), 4.179A,
4. ~o~ (~)
(5) Public Utilities. Public utilities and facilities such as gas
and electrical transmission lines which have been flood-proofed
in accordance with the State Building Code or elevated above 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.
4.179B Conditional Uses. The following open space uses require accessory
structures (temporary or permanent), 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.
(b) 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.
Animal Housing. Kennels and stables.
(h) Drive-in Theaters, Sales Operations. Drive-in theaters,
car, machinery, or similar sales, roadside stands.
(i) Towers. Radio transmitter towers, and appurtenant cables,
grounds and lines.
D-4
072684
4.179B (2) (a) (i) - (x)
(2) Standards for Conditional Uses.
(a) Procedure and Standards. 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 which, 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:
(i) Danger of Increased Height or Velocity. The danger to
life and property due to increased flood heights or
velocites caused by encroachments.
(ii) Danger of Swept Away Materials. The danger that
materials may be swept onto other lands or downstream
to the injury of others.
(iii) Water Supply an~ Sanitation. The proposed water supply
and sanitation systems and the ability of these systems
to prevent disease, contamination and unsanitary
conditions.
(iv) Flood Damage 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
provided by the proposed facility to the 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
compatibility 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.
D-5
072684
4. 179B (2) (a) (xi) (d) (i)
(xi) Expected Flood Waters. The expected heights, velocity,
duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of the
flood waters expected at the site.
(xii) Other Factors. Such other factors which are relevant
to the purposes of this Code.
(Ord. 80-9)
(b) Fill.
(i) Beneficial 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 the stream or river.
(iv) Utilities. Service facilities such as electrical and
heating equipment shall be installed at or above the
regulatory flood protection elevation for the
particular area to be flood proofed.
(d) Storage of Material and Equipment.
(i) No Flotation. The storage or processing of materials
that are in time of flooding buoyant, flanunable,
explosive, or could be injurious to human, animal, or
plant life, is prohibited.
D-6
072684
,. 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, amendments 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 S~stams District (W)
4.181 Purpose. 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
072684
4. 181 (3) - (6), 4. 182,
4.183 (1) - (3)
(3) Designated Land for W District. Designate suitable land uses
that are compatible with 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 Regulated. 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
waters.
(5) Alteration of Wetlands Regulated. Regulate the alteration of
wetland systems to prevent excessive sediment pollution,
increased and rapid 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 districts 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
within 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
City Engineer and approved by the City Council. All proposals to
adjust a wetland systems district boundary line shall follow the
same administrative 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 Permitted Uses. The following operations and uses are permitted in
the "Wetland Systems District" as a matter of right, 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~
4.183 (4) - (6), 4.184,
4.1ss (1)
(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
recreation 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
~ny material including structures into, within or upon 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
material 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) Store. Permanently store materials.
(7) Signs. Erect signs.
(8) Waste Disposal. 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
obstruction on 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
072684
4.tBS (1) (2) ~'
destruction of trees, grade changes and its effect, if any, upon
lakes, streams, water 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) ~i~h ~ater 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 vegetation 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 has been
inspected by the Building Official.
D-10
072684
ATTACHMENT 2
FLOOD
INS'URANC
STUDY
CITY OF NEW HOPE,
MINNESOTA
HENNEPIN COUNTY
JULY 1980
federal emergency manage~-~nt agency
federal insurance administration
rnMMIJNITY NUMBER - 270177
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Purpose of Study 1
1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements
1.3 Coordination 1
2.0 AREA STUDIED 2
2.1 Scope of Study 2
2.2 Community Description 2
2.3 Principal Flood Problems 7
2.4 Flood Protection Measures 8
3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 9
3.1 Hydrologic Analyses 9
3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 12
4.0 FIJ~ ~OD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 14
4.1 Flood Boundaries 14
4.2 Floodways 15
5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION 16
5.7~ Reach Determinations 16
5.2 Flood Hazard Factors 17
5.3 Flood Insurance Zones 17
5.4 Flood Insurance Rate Map Description 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) .
Page ~-~
6.0 OTHER STUDIES- 18
7.0 LOCATION OF DATA 20
8.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 20
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 3
Figure 2 - Floodway Schematic 16
TABLES
Table I - Summary of Discharges 12
Table 2 - Flood Insurance Zone Data 19
EXHIBITS
Exhibit I - Flood Profiles
North Branch Bassett Creek Panel 01P
Bass Creek Panel 02P
Exhibit 2 - Flood Boundary and Floodway Map Index
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map
PUBLISHED SEPARATELY:
Flood Insurance Rate Map Index
Flood Insurance Rate Map
ii
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY
CITY OF NEW HOPE,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of Study
This Flood Insurance Study investigates the existence and severity of flood
hazards in the City of New Hope, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and aids in
the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This study will be used to convert
the City of New Hope to the regular program of flood insurance by the
Federal Insurance Administration (FIA). Local and regional planners will use
this study in their efforts to promote sound flood plain management.
In some states or communities, flood plain management criteria or regula-
tions may exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than those on
which these Federally-supported studies are based. These criteria take
precedence over the minimum Federal criteria for purposes of regulating
develoDment in the flood plain, as set forth in the Code of Federal
Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.1 (d). In such cases, however, it shall be
understood that the state (or other jurisdictional agency) shall be able to
explain these requirements and criteria.
1.2 Authority and Acknowledgements
The source of authority for this Flood Insurance Study is the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for this study were performed
by Edwards and Kelcey, Inc., for the Federal Insurance Administration,
under Contract No. H-3983. This study was completed in May 1979.
1.3 Coordination
Streams requiring detailed and approximate study were identified at an
initial coordination and time and cost meeting attended by representatives
of the Study Contractor, the FIA, and New Hope on March 8, 1976. Base
maps were coordinated with the City Manager; the Public Works Supervisor;
and representatives of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; the
FIA; and Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates, City Engineers. Actual
mapping was obtained from the city. Flood elevations and flood boundnrics
were reviewed by representatives of Bonestroo, l{oscne, Andcrlik &
Associates, City Engineers; the Minnesota Department of Transportation;
the Hennepin-County Highway Departfnent; the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE); the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service (SCS); the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); the Bassett Creek
Watershed District; the Bass-Shingle Creek Watershed District; the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; and the Public Works
Supervisor. Approval by the Inter-Agency Review Committee was received
on M~rch 10, 1978. This-review was subject to revisions in a letter dated
April 3, 1978.
On October 25. !97.q, the results of the work by the Study Contractor were
reviewed and accepted at a final coordination meeting attended by repre-
sentatives of the Study Contractor, the FIA, and New Hope.
2.0 AREA STUDIED
2.1 Scope of Study
This Flood Ins,~ranc,~ S~Idy covers the incorporated area of the City of New
Hope. The area of study is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1).
The areas studied by detailed methods were selected with priority given to
all known flood hazard ~reas, and areas of projected development or
proposed construction through March 198!.
Approximate ~,~et~c~s: of ,'.~.naiysis ,,,;err.- used to study those areas having a
low develop.'.,~ent p,,>t, ential or minimal flood hazards. The scope and
methods of study 7¢e.,'e proposed to and agreed upon by the FIA and the City
of Ne~v
Th~ flooding sources studied by detaiied metho(~ are listed below:
a. North Branch Bassett Creek, in south-central New Hope, for
the entire reach within the corporate limits; and
b.Bass C:reek, in northwest New Hope, for the entire reach
within tt~.e corporate limits.
· .. - ' appro~"m~e~'litet~cxl~ a~e: Long Meadow
eor~ ~mit;~l~ldi:ne' Lake ~ uorth-central New Hope; and Local
~~thwestern New Hope, for its entire reach within the city.
'2.2 Community Description
The east-central community of New Hope is located in the northwestern
quadrant of tl;e Twin Cities metropolitan area as a second-tier suburb of
Minneapolis. New Hope is bordered on the south by the community of
' ; ..... "~ ,~, -.~'"'., I ''v' .~
~.~ .... ' --t' ,'.:..:~'" ~ ' ......... "~ .'
~....' - ~...~ ~ .......... ~ ,- .... ?
- . ~., ---- -"~'-- ~' ~ .
.... ~ . ~, .
. .-.~; ~ ~' . ~ :~':, ~ . .'.' i .'.,?-,.~ .'
- .1 ' '~ ' '"
- ' ' ":~ '~'~ ~ '"'~ ~ :':" ~ -' ~- ~ ........
::'. , ..' ........ -
.... ;" "
u,~~' . ~..., , . ,-~-.~ -.
' I ~ '"~ 7'~<~ -"
........~.' ~ ~ City of, New.~.. Hope,.
'~: ' = 7 -. '
~:~'~ .. :; ......... ,~
~- : .i .... t:: ~ ~
. I~ ;~ ..' .'.:..~ '
~'~:a' :'-' =: ',: ,~7 " "~
· . "' '.
. -.. ..... ..
--.,* ** . } ~. ,~ ,- II
5 .?' ~,.~-~,' -- ..--' ~- e ....
~'.,~"~. ~s "' '~--~ i ~Z' ' e'.'~": .1 , .' ~1. '
. .. :. .~. ,:-~
FIG~RE
Golden Valley, on the west by the City ol' Plymouth, on the north by the
City of Brooklyn Park, and on the east by the City of Crystal. The 1978
population estimate of Ne'.~ ~{(;pe was 22,630, a -12.6 percent change from
the 1970 population of 23,180 (References l and 2). New Hope was
incorporated as a city in 195.5 with a population of under 1,000 persons.
Spurred by outward n:igra~ion f!'om the central city. Minneapolis, primary
growth occurred in ~he yeats 1~,62-72. The ~ecent decrease in population is
due to a shift toward s?:.:{I, ier family sizes and a resultant decrease in
population densities.
The climate ct' the are~ is su~humid, ~harac~erized by large seasonal
variations in tem~,e~'ature, norm:~lly sufficient rainfall for crops, and
moderate snowfa!i. Fh(~ summer's a~e warm and moderately humid, with
oecas~ou.,i short ~_,e:~cd~ ~.~ ho~. ~ery humid weather. The winters are cold
~.nd moderate{y ht~m~d, l'~e mean :mnual temperature is 44.1 degrees
Fahrenheit (}:.) :,v[th the variation in mean monthly temperatures varying
between 12.2 de?ee'q F. in January to 7[.~ dc. grees F. in July. In summer
(June to August. mcl(~sive), the average m~nthly temperature ranges from a
high of 80.l degrees F. to - ~.ow of ~a..~.~ ,~.~..~.v~-~ F. in winter (December to
February inclusive). ?~. .... .-:<~:r~ mon~.h!y high is 24.6 degrees F. and the
average monthly icky ~:, ~ ~ :"~7;rees F, (+lefe,~enee 3). Annual precipitation
averages 25.9 inches ;~q :~ ~as .'-,ng'e(l from ~ low of 11.5 inches in 1910 to a
high of t0.1 inci;es ' ~tl '~:,e mean monthly precipitation varies from
about 4.0 inches W &me to w>c~ut 0.7 inch in January; approximately 70
~,,. .... ~t~=tio,~ ¢cc:trs during ~he growing season. Snowfall
percent of t~e ~. =-:~'~ '
averages about ~11 inches ~nnua~ly and represents approximately 17 percent
of the total precip?:~tion. Snowf'all extremes range from 88.9 inches during
the 1950-5l season to [4.2 inches in 1930--3l. Intense summer thunder-
storms are eo~n:~,on an~ at'e oeca~ion:al~v ~ceompanied by tornado activity.
A record sumn, e? :~orm t'ecm'ded at the Minneapolis-St. Paul ~ternational
Airport eceurved durin~ .~'.~gust 1977 when 7.25 inches of rain fell in a 5-
hour period ~.~d w~s a~co;'~pa~[ed ~y ~igh wiads. Winter storms with high
winds (musing ~2v~re bi~zzarO conditions eeeur occasionally. The worst
winter ~to,m :~t' :-~ccc,~ ccc irred January t0-11, 1975, when 7 inches of snow
fell in ~t ').t-hca.ir ~ec:.,>4 ~.~4 ;.va~ ace~)mpan~ed by winds of up to 60 mph. The
record 24-heur -.nev~fa{[, as ~..eeerded at the Minneapolis-St. Paul Inter-
national Airport.. '.,ms [~;.2 inctms on ~ovemoer 12, 1940.
Th~. rolling ,op,Jgrapk:~ and ~uil ty~es %trod in the w~tershed area are
typict~' ' ~ ....
~.!~ f'c~c~c~ ~.-, ~,i]~tci~d !c~)~e.i~!es. '=~'~ most ~'ecentty deposited glacial ti~
in tl~e area v,a~ ,.jeu(:sib>d ,ui~h ~he ['etre[,[ <,~ cite (h,antsburg Sublobe of the
~es Moines Lobe during the W~.sconsin 7lac[a1 period. The glacial drift left
~ehind is a heterogeneo,~s mixtu,e :,f ~ar~d.
. =~.. and clay; the thickness is
somew~t greater than 100 feet and var'lc3 [hrougiaout the watershed. The
extent to which soii" '
[ype= affect the runoff from the watershed depends
upon the duration of the rm~off aeriod. [n an urbanized watershed, where
large portions of the watershed are covered with impervious surfuce.~
cultured vegetation such as grass, shrubs, and trees, the nature ct' the
underlying till is of less importance for storms of short duration. For these
storms, the amount of water which infiltrates into the soil is more largely
affected by the type of cover and soil, which is often imported, to support
lawns and other vegetation. For longer duration storms, the surface soils
are generally well-drained and have a surface layer of grayish loam or clay
loam and a subsoil of light clay loam. They are moderately permeable and
have a high available moisture capacity.
The topographic relief of the North Branch Bassett Creek and Bass Creek
watersheds is about 210 feet. The western watershed boundary is about
elevation 1,000. From this point east, the northern and southern boundaries
drop to approximately elevation 800 where the creeks enter the Mississippi
River. Extensive urbanization has greatly altered the natural topography
the watershed, although drainage patterns generally follow natural w~ter-
shed boundaries. There are numerous lowlands and depressions located
throughout the watersheds. Old maps of the areas indicate that iai'ge
percentages of these suburbs were lowlands and marsh. There are several
large lakes in the watersheds, and a few smaller lakes, some of which are
unnamed. In the process of urbanization, many of the marsh areas which
existed prior to extensive development have been eliminated through filling
and building. Except for those lakes which are located along the main stems
of the creeks, very little marsh and lowland have been preserved. The North
Branch Bassett Creek watershed is located in the northwestern portion of a
bedrock structure underlying the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area,
which has a gentle slope to the southeast. The bedrock is overlain by a layer
of glacial drift which tapers from over 200 feet thick in the western portion
of the watershed to approximately 25 feet thick in the southeastern portion
of the watershed in Minneapolis. Generally, there is no uniform relationship
between the existing surface topography and the bedrock structure. ~lhe
city is underlain by up to 100 feet of St. Peter Sandstone except in
northwest portions. The watersheds are underlain by 5 major bedrock
aquifers: the St. Peter Sandstone, Prairie-du-Chien Dolomite, JoT'dan
Sandstone, Franconia-Galesville Sandstones, and the Mt. Simon-Hinckley
Sandstones. In addition, there are numerous aquifers in the glacial ~rift.
Some groundwater from the glacial drift and the St. Peter aquifer dis-
charges into Bassett Creek and Bass Creek. The remaining aquifers
discharge into the Minnesota River and the Mississippi River, the movement
of which is complicated by intersecting rift valleys. The groundwater in all
the major aquifers and glacial drift is of the calcium bicarbonate type.
A land use study of the Bassett Creek watershed has been made using land
use zoning maps, recent aerial photographs, and field verification
procedures (Reference 4). Of the 26,560 acres of the watershed,
mately 29 percent, or 7,710 acres, are presently undeveloped. The prinlary
la,id use is residential, comprising approximately 44 percent of the to~al
watershed area. Commercial and industrial land use comprises
approximately 12 percent, or 3,240 acres, of the watershed. Lands i~or
parks, open space, public, and semipublic use account for approximately 10
percent, or 2,600 acres, of the watershed area and approximately {,320
acres, or 5 percent of the total area within the watershed, is occupied by ~-~
open water. Prior to settlement, the city was located at the junction of 2
major cover, types. The south and eastern portion of the city was covered by
a predominantly oak forest interrupted by tall grass prairie and marsh. The
northern and western areas were covered by a dense deciduous climax forest
known as the "Big Woods." Elm, sugar maple, and basswood are
representative tree species. Scattered remnants of this forest are stil!
present throughout much of its original range. Natural vegetation in New
Hope has been greatly altered by agricultural development and increasing
urbanization. Remaining vegetation is typical of the Eastern Deciduous
Forest-Temperate Grassland interface. With farming rapidly diminishing,
urbanization is occurring in former agricultural areas and pressure to
develop existing natural areas is also occurring. In addition to the forested
areas, numerous wetlands were once present in the central and eastern
portions of the city; but the majority have been drained or filled for
development. Remnants of forest cover as well as landscaped plants provide
shade and shelter for many homes and add to the aesthetic quality of the
city. Common species in the landscaped plants include a variety of maples,
weeping willows, flowering plums, lindens, and numerous flowering shrubs
and herbaceous material. Residents have made it known that they wish to
keep areas in their "natural" state wherever possible. Many yards adjacent
to the study creeks resemble prime parkland. Included in this category are
the numerous recreation areas located throughout the watershed, which
provide habitat for birds and small mammals.
The major drainage feature in North Branch Bassett Creek is a 42-inch to
48-inch culvert beginning at 36th Avenue North, just upstream of the
Minneapolis Northfield and Southern Railway, and continuing to Louisiana
Avenue, downstream of the New Hope city limits. This tunnel extends
approximately 1,400 feet and the restrictive hydraulic capacity controls
upstream water-surface elevations. This, in conjunction with restrictive
culverts at the service road and Winnetka Avenue, effectively controls
discharge in this reach of the North Branch Bassett Creek. A second
significant drainage feature is the combination weir/culvert located at
Boone Avenue. The weir controls low flow water levels on the North Branch
Bassett Creek along Northwood Parkway. The former marsh has been
~redged and enlarged to provide a permanent low water pond and a
significant amount of storage during peak flows. Third, there is a
~ignificant amount of natural storage located upstream of County Road 18
in the City of Plymouth. This area is important for the mitigation of flood
flows within New Hope. The Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission
recognized this and will require maintenance of existing 100-year storage
volumes during the high density residential development anticipated for the
area.
One major drainage feature along Bass Creek is the culvert under 62nd
Avenue North. Restrictive hydraulic capacity limits discharge and defines a
single 100-year water-surface elevation for the reach within New Hope. A
second hydraulic structure =~eated 4,500~ feet downstream in the City
Brooklyn park also has sOme 'eofiirol on the water-surface elevations witimin
New Hope. This structure, loeated under Water Works Road, is schedulcd
for replacement in the immediate future and is discussed in more detail in
the Hydraulics section of this report.
Development in New Hope has been primarily residential in nature; 98
percent of ultimate residential growth has already occurred. Commercial
growth is scattered throughout the city and has developed to service the
surrounding single-family and multi-family housing. Existing industrial
development has been restricted to 2 primary areas: along County Road 18
in the "Science Center" area, and east of Winnetka Avenue between
Medicine Lake Road and 36th Avenue North. Within the City of New Hope,
development has occurred adjacent to the 100-year flood plains. Some
basement walk-outs are threatened during periods of high water and
localized intersection flooding occurs due to summer thunderstorms, but in
general, development has been restricted to areas outside the flood plain.
Virtually all of the 100-year flood plains are in parks or open space usage. A
portion of the North Branch Bassett Creek flood plain is in industrial use
(location for radio towers). The Bass Creek watershed within the city is now
in residential and open space usage, although the open space area will
become commercial/industrial in the future. The approximate study areas
tributary to these 2 streams are in residential and open space usage.
2.3 Principal Flood Problems
Flooding in New Hope has occurred both from summer rainstorms and spring
snowmelt runoff. The large number of isolated flooding events which have
occurred have been recorded in little or no detail. Residents have indicated
that while most of the isolated instances of flooding have resulted from
summer thunderstorms, flooding has not been strictly limited to that cause.
A recent incidence of severe flooding was due to a combination of long
duration spring rainfall and snowmelt. On April 27, 1974, about 2.25 inches
of rain fell in a 24-hour period, generally throughout the watershed tributary
to New Hope. Although this storm approximated a 1-year frequency rainfall
event, its effects were probably comparable to a 25-year frequeney runoff
event due to antecedent conditions (Reference 4). A substantial spring
snowmelt ended approximately April 15, and was followed by several days of
moderate precipitation. As a result of the snowmelt and subsequent period
of moderate precipitation prior to the 27th, the soils throughout the
watershed were in a saturated condition and much of the natural upland
dei;a'ession stoeage was full prior to the rainfall event of April 27th.
~_ _Due~ to the natural storage in the Bass Creek watershed upstream from New
, and the lack of development adjacent to the creek within the city
recently, there are no historical indications of past flood events in the
New Hope area.
Development in the North Branch Bassett C:'eek flood plain has occurred
over a longer period or' time. There has been historical re£'erenee to t'lood
events throughout the Bassett Creek watershed. These will be documented
as follows: On-September 5, 1903, 5 inches of raip in l0 hours caused
extensive flooding at the conduit er~.tranee in N~,rth ~Iinneapolis; In June
1.942, flooding at the conduit entrance m North Minneapolis has been
estimated as having a 50-year recurrence interval (Reference 4); On June 6,
t974, 3.5 inches of rain in a 6-hour period, a 25-year event, caused sanitary
sewe:' backup in New l-lope due to excessive infiltration into wastewater
coLleetic, n facilities. Also, many street intersections and other tow-lying
areas were inundated. On April ~?, 1~75, 2.25 inches of rain in' a 24-hour
oeriod, a 25-year event, was aggravated by saturated antecedent conditions
,,-,~ .-.~,.~:~c~. samtary sewer bae!<uo in New Hope due to excessive infiltration
. .~.- ..... ~er co[!ec~ion facilities, Also, many street ~ntersections were
,~,:'.n,?.:ed. And on July 6, 1978, a summer ~-ainstorm dropped 3 ~o 5 inches of
?~in 9vet the watershed in a period o~' 2 hours, causing flooding along the
North Br~nch Bassett Creek within New Hope. Flooding reached an
eievat:ion of 858.83 at the Boone Avenue crossing (Reference 5). This
'~e~'~s~3e;~.d$ to a 100-year ~et:::~:~ h'equency. Flooding resulted in inundation
of g'z, lkout basements ac, j~o~:, ,~ to the Norr. h Branch Bassett Creek, some
sanitary :~.ewer backup, ~r:.~ :nt~,:.=.ection floociing. This storm also produced
~ome ba3ement flooding ~long Bass f?eek.
2.4 ~ ~oo~' P,?etec~.ion ~teasures
The COE has been authorized by Congress to study flooding problems within
the ~ortb Branch .~a~set~ Croci< ?,'~'~e~i~ed. The pi. an selected for additional
anaiysis includes modificad~ ,?f certain restrictive hydraulic structures and
provision for additional ~torage areas, both within and adjacent to the 100-
year ?.ood plain. While modifications to the North Branch are anticipated,
none will ~£ffec~ ~he reach within New Hope. Flood plain development
con~rols ~.dminis~e~.'ed c)y the FIA and the 8assert Creek Flood Control
.-\dm~nistraLion are deemed sui'ficient to keeF flood plain damages at the
present minor level. The Bassett Creek Flood Control Administration was
formed i:~ [96~ by adoption o~ a Joint Powers Agreement among nine
munici[~,.!~.ties which have all or part of the:r total area located within the
Basse,.~ ~eek watershed. The Commission mandate is to prepare a
man~G~,~e.ut plan, insure compliance wi~h that plan, and insure cooperation
'.?. it. ~.~?,i-=men~a~ion. The plan was prepared and adopted in February 1972,
anc~ ~t'.~ ~een used for the managemen~ of water resources, flood plains, and
· ~:~:' :~{[ed },alld uses.
The ma~ement plan includes [00-yes. r profile "envelopes" based on
~ma~e watershed conditions anticipated at the time of the study and is
therefore more ~'es~rictive than profiles prepared for the Flood Insurance
Study ~>ased on existing conditions. Modifications contained in the report
awJ ;eheduled for the City of ~,~ew Hope have been completed. These
consist o~ provisions for additional ~torage upstream of the 36th Avenue
Not'th tm'mol entrance. The report also states for the Rockford Road
Stm';=~ge S{~e: North of County Road 9 and west of County Road 18 in
Plymouth ,is. an area which is
residential development. In the center of this area lies a pote~ti~l stol',~ge
site which may be developed either as a large inundation area or a s,nailer
inundation area with a pond. Details of this proposed ponding area have
been 'discussed in a report to the ViLlage of Plymouth regarding storage
requirements in the area. This plan proposes the same general method for
development except that the flood elevations and volumes shown represent
those relating to a 100-year frequency. The management plan has not
considered any storage in this area which would not be long term -- that is,
total storage of the 100-year runoff (60 acre-feet) with a detention time in
the neighborhood of 7 to 10 days. This storage site is required in
conjunction with the other storage sites recommended'for this branch of the
creek in order to provide long term, total storage of the 100-year runoff and
provide a smaller, more uniform discharge to the main channel (Reference
6).
In Bass Creek, a restrictive hydraulic structure located 4,200 feet
downstream from the New Hope corporate limits is scheduled for
replacement during the summer of 1979. This structure is located in the
community of Brooklyn Park at Water Works Road. The replacement of this
structure will lower water-surface elevations in New Hope approximately
3.3 feet. There are no further flood protection measures anticipated for
this stream reach.
3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS
For the flooding sources studied in detail in the community, standard hydrologic
and hydraulic study methods were used to determine the flood hazard data required
for this study. Flood events of a magnitude which are expected to be equalled or
exceeded once on the average during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500-year period
(recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for flood
plain management and for flood insurance premium ratesz These events, commonly
termed the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods, have a 10, 2, 1, and 0.2 percent
chance, respectively, of being equalled or exceeded during any year. Although the
recurrence interval represents the long term average period between floods of a
specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the
same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater
than one year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood which equals
or exceeds the 100-year flood (one percent chance of annual occurrence) in any 50-
year period is about 40 percent (four in ten), and for any 90-year period, the risk
increases to about 60 percent (six .in ten). The analyses reported here reflect
flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the community at the time of
eomi)ietion of this study. Maps and flood elevations will be amended periodically
to rel4eet future changes.
3.1 Hydrologic Analyses
Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish the peak discharge-
frequency relationships for floods of the selected recurrence intervals
for each flooding source studied in detail affecting the community.
There are no continuous streamflow records available for the North Branch
Bassett Creek watershed; however, the USGS has collected limited stream-
flow data at four partial-record stations in the watershed since 1952. There
are two stations on the main stem of Bassett Creek; one is located at the
County Road 66 bridge in Golden Valley and the other is located near Fruen
Mill in Minneapolis. In addition, there is a station at the 34th Avenue North
culvert in Crystal and on the Sweeney Lake Branch at the State Highway 55
culvert in Golden Valley. Generally, discharges have been measured several
times per year at each station.
As previously discussed, the process of urbanization in the North Branch
Bassett Creek watershed is well advanced in the area tributary to New
Hope. Urban development has drastically altered the natural drainage
patterns and hydrologic characteristics of the watershed. Infiltration
characteristics are reduced by the covering of permeable soils with
impervious surfaces, the extent of modification depending on the type and
density of urban land use. Small natural depressions are filled and graded
smooth, reducing the natural depression storage in the watershed. Storm
sewer and channel improvements provide hydraulically efficient means of
removing storm runoff. These factors result in increased storm runoff
volumes and higher peak runoff rates.
The hydrology for the North Branch Bassett Creek was prepared for the
1976 COE Feasibility study utilizing the HEC-1 Flood Hydrology Program,
723-X6-L2010 (Reference 4). To determine the peak discharge at various
points along the channel, the watershed was subdivided into 42 subbasins
varying in size from 0.13 to 9.44 square miles. Generally, the outlet of each
of the subbasins was at a restrictive channel crossing as previously
discussed. For each subbasin, the percentage of impervious area both for
existing development conditions and for expected ultimate development
were determined. Soils data were reviewed and the infiltration losses were
determined for each subbasin for both existing and ultimate conditions. The
average estimated loss including depression storage and interception losses
ranged from 0.28 inch per hour to 0.48 inch per hour with existing
urbanization and from 0.15 inch per hour to 0.43 inch per hour with ultimate
urbanization.
Point rainfall depths of various durations for the 10-, 50-, and 100-year
rainfall were obtained from the National Weather Service Technical Report
~N~. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States and were adjusted for
~..eal distribution (Reference 7). Due to the large amounts of temporary
~.;age in the lakes, ponds, and behind restrictive channel crossings, the
rainfall hyetograph adopted is generally not critical. This storage capacity
modulates the effect of varying hyetograph assumptions.
The lag time for each subbasin was estimated from the characteristics of
the subbasin. The peak for the unit hydrograph was then determined based
on the estimated subbasin lag. Again, the effects of both the natural
10
storage in the Watershed and~:the e£fed~ of, the storage behind the
restrictive channel crossings will modulate the effects o£ varying assuf~p-
lions in the determination of unit hydrograph characteristics. Synder
coefficients were calculated from the estimated unit hydrograph peaks and
subbasin lag. Runoff hydrographs for each subbasin were determined and
routed through the watershed using HEC-t (Reference 4). Discharge-
storage relationships were determined for each storage area. The runoff
hydrograph from upstream areas was routed through these storage areas
using reservoir routing techniques. In some instances, storage-discharge
relationships for major flood storage areas were revised to reflect changed
conditions or newly acquired information. In these eases, the channel
discharges determined in the Preliminary Feasibility study were revised to
reflect the revised storage-discharge relationship.
The 10-, 50-, and 100-year discharges were obtained from work prepared l'or
the 1976 COE Feasibility study, as described above. Subsequent construe-
tion of a restrictive culvert on the North Branch Bassett Creek upstream of
Northwood Pond in New Hope caused the discharges to be modified t'rom
those shown in the Feasibility study (Reference 8). The 500-year recurrence
interval discharge was determined by the Study Contraetor by graphically
extrapolating the 10-, 50-, and 100-year discharges on log-probability paper.
Bass Creek is one of four creeks contributing to the Shingle Creek
watershed. Upstream of the confluence with Shingle Creek in Brooklyn
Park, Bass Creek meanders through the communities of Plymouth and New
Hope with some contributing area lying within Maple Grove. Significant
floodwater storage is available in several major lakes and marshlands. Bass
Lake, the largest lake within-the watershed tributary to the study reach,
provides the greatest single storage potential. Topography throughout the
area is classified as gently rolling with large, flat marsh areas adjacent to
the creek bed.
A preliminary hydrology analysis o£ Bass Creek has been conducted by the
USGS as part of the Brooklyn Park Flood Insurance Study (Reference 9).
The USGS applied regional regression equations for Region D in Minnesota,
and applied an adjustment factor for urbanization (Reference 10). The
required watershed parameters for the equations include drainage area,
main stream slope~ and the percent of existing storage plus 1.0. Values for
these parameters were defined by the USGS for Bass Creek just downstream
of 62nd Avenue North. The computed 50-year discharge of 330 cubic feet
per second (efs) compared very well with the 5Q-year discharge of 332 efs
determined by the Hennepin County Highway Department for the design
discharge of Bass Creek at County Road 18 at the upstream corporate
limits. The contributing drainage area between County Road 18 and 62nd
Avenue North is approximately 0.4 square mile, and has some natural storm-
water storage available.
11
The 10-, 50-, and 100-year discharges were adopted from work p,'eparc,~l by
the USGS for the Brooklyn Park Flood Insurance Study, as described Above.
The 500-year recurrence interval discharge was graphically determined by
the Study Contractor by extrapolating the 10-, 50-, and 100-year discharges
on log-probability paper.
Discharge values for the North Branch Bassett Creek and Bass Creek in New
Hope were submitted for review to an Inter-Agency Review Committee
comprised of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the SCS, the
USGS, and the St. Paul District COE. Acceptance of the proposed discharge
values was transmitted via letter dated March 10, 1978.
Peak discharges for the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods of each flooding
source studied in detail in the community are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES
FLOODING SOURCE DRAINAGE AREA PEAK DISCHARGE (CFS)
AND LOCATION (SQ MILES) 10-YEAR 50-YEAR 100-YEAR 500-YEAR
NORTH BRANCH
BASSETT CREEK
At Winnetka Avenue 2.1 45.8 47.8 48.8 50.4
BASS CREEK
At 62nd Avenue
North 8.0 219 330 381 515
3.2 Hydraulic Analyses
Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of the streams in the community
were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of the floods of the
selected recurrence intervals along each flooding source studied in detail.
Field cross sections for the North Branch Bassett Creek were taken at each
hydraulic structure for input into the backwater routing analysis. Valley
cross sections were field surveyed at selected intervals to supplement
inadequate and obsolete topographic mapping. Field cross sections for Bass
Creek were taken at each hydraulic structure for input into the backwater
ro~tin~ analysis: one in the channel downstream from the city limits, the
culverts at 62nd Avenue North, and at County Road 18.. Valley cross
seetioims were field surveyed at selected intervals to provide data for the
downstream normal depth analysis and to supplement inadequate and
obsolete topographic mapping.
12
Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses are
on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1). For stream segments for which a
was computed (Section 4.2), selected cross section locations are ai,~o
on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (Exhibit 2).
Roughness factors for North Branch Bassett Creek or Bass Creek are not
applicable for this stream reach, as a standard step-backwater analysis was
not performed.
Bass Creek tailwater elevations for the various return frequencies were
determined using a HEC-2 normal depth analysis of the downstream channel
(Reference 11). This resulted in elevations approximately 3.3 feet lower
than obtained by the USGS in their Brooklyn Park Flood Insurance Study
(Reference 9). However, the impending (within the year 1979) revision to
the hydraulic capacity of Water Works Road, approximately 4,500 feet
downstream, will lower the water-surface elevations downstream of 62nd
Avenue North to a level approximating the normal depth analysis. This
procedure was directed by the FIA. Starting water-surface elevations for
the North Branch Bassett Creek at the 36th Avenue "tunnel" entrance
(located within the City of Crystal) were obtained from a rating curve
developed for the 1976 COE Feasibility study (Reference 4). This rating
curve was modified to reflect changed hydraulic conditions since completion
of the 1976 study (Reference 8). These elevations are: 500-year - 886.8
(extrapolated); 100-year = 886.2; 50-year - 885.9; and 10-year = 885.1. The
effect of the culvert under the access road to the apartment complex (also
located in Crystal) was evaluated using Federal Highway Administration
culvert nomographs assuming tailwater elevations were equal to those given
above, i.e., it was assumed that no drawdown curve exists (Reference 12).
The resulting elevations are: 500-year -- 887.48; 100-year -- 886.86; 50-year
- 886.53; 10-year - 885.69. The Winnetka Avenue structure, at the New
Hope corporate limits, was evaluated by employing Federal Highway
Administration nomographs (Reference 12) and assumed constant tailwater.
The resulting water-surface elevations upstream of Winnetka Avenue are:
500-year = 889.31; 100-year = 888.63; 50-year -- 888.23; and 10-year =
887.27,888.15 upstream Boone Avenue. Note that with the exception of the
10-year event, all the above water-surface elevations inundate the Boone
Avenue crossing (Centerline Boone Avenue at Centerline Structure
Elevation = 888.1).
As discussed previously, water-surface elevations for Bass Creek are
controlled by hydraulic structures located at 62nd Avenue North. The
effect of this structure is to create a constant elevation backwater pool
exten~ling upstream to County Road 18, the New Hope city limits. This
b'~-k~ w&ter pool utilizes existing valley storage. Water-surface profiles
r~sl~lted from routing through storage elevation curves which were then
che(~ked by making head loss computations utilizing Federal Highway
Administration hydraulic structure analysis criteria (Reference 12). Water-
surface elevations for North Branch Bassett Creek are controlled by
13
hydraulic structures located at 36th Avenue North, at the private entrance
to apartment buildings, at Winnetka Avenue North, and at Boone Avenue ~-~
North. The effect of these structures is to create an upstream backwater
pool that utilizes existing valley storage. Water-surface profiles resuitect
from routing through storage elevation curves which were checked by
making head loss computations utilizing Federal Highway Administration
hydraulic structure analysis criteria and roadway weir computations
(Reference 12). A constant discharge was assumed through each structure.
The hydraulic analyses for this study are based only on the effects of
unobstructed flow. The flood elevations as shown on the profiles are,
therefore, considered valid only if hydraulic structures, in general, remain
unobstructed and if channel and overbank conditions remain essentially the
same as ascertained during this study.
All elevations are referenced from National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929 (NGVD); elevation reference marks used in the study are shown on the
maps.
4.0 FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS
The National Flood Insurance Program encourages state and local governments to
adopt sound flood plain management programs. Therefore, each Flood Insurance
Study includes a flood boundary map designed to assist communities in developing
sound flood plain management measures.
4.1 Flood Boundaries
In order to provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the
100-year flood has been adopted by the FIA as the base flood for purposes of
flood plain management measures. The 500-year flood is employed to
indicate additional areas of flood risk in the community. For each stream
studied in detail, the boundaries of the 100-year and the 500-year floods
have been delineated using the elevations determined at each cross section;
between cross sections the boundaries were interpolated using USGS
mapping enlarged to a scale of 1:4800 (References 13, 14, and 15). This
mapping was supplemented by subdivision plats, topographic surveys supplied
by the Hennepin County Highway Department (Reference 16), and field
surveyed valley cross sections to ensure accuracy. This method of
delineation is felt to adequately reflect conditions along this stream reach.
The b~undaries of the 100- and 500-year floods are shown on the Flood
Bound~ and Floodway Map (Exhibit 2). Small areas within the flood
bouimdaries may lie above the flood elevations and, therefore, not be subject
to f'ieoding; owing to lack of detailed topographical information or to
limitaf~ionm of the map scale, such areas are not shown. In cases where the
100-year and the 500-year flood boundaries are close together, only the 100-
year boundary has been shown.
14
4.2 Floodways .:~
Encroachment on flood plains, 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 flood
plain management involves balancing the economic gain from flood plain
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 flood plain 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 flood plain areas that must be kept free of encroachment in order
that the 100-year flood may be carried without substantial increases in flood
heights. Minimum standards of the FIA limit such increases in flood heights
to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. In Minne-
sota, however, flood plain encroachment is limited by Minnesota Regulations
to that which would cause a 0.5-foot increase in flood heights above
prefloodway conditions at any point (Reference 17). Floodways having no
more than a 0.5-foot surcharge were delineated for this study.
The community has designated a political floodway encompassing the entire
100-year flood plain delineated for North Branch Bassett Creek and Bass
Creek. Due to the nature of flooding (i.e. backwater from restrictive
hydraulic structures) and existing development, a traditional floodway
analysis is considered inappropriate, and a Floodway Data Table is not
shown.
As shown on the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (Exhibit 2), the floodway
boundaries were determined at cross sections; between cross sections, the
boundaries were interpolated. In cases where the boundaries of the
floodway and the 100-year flood are either close together or collinear, only
the floodway boundary has been shown.
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 flood plain that could be completely obstructed without
increasing'the water-surface elevation of the 100-year flood more than 0.5
foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the
floodway fringe and their significance to flood plain development are shown
in Figure 2.
15
~1 _ F 81NGE - FRINGE
CHANNEL
FLO00 ELEVATION WHENfl..~
EE USED FOR OEVEL(:~MENT EY FLOOD ELEVATION
RAISING GROUND EEFORE ENCROACHMENT
LINE A8 IS THE FLOO0 ELEVATION EEFORE ENCROACHMENT. ON FLOO0 Ft. AIN
LINE CD IS THE FLOOD ELEVATION AFTER ENCROACHMENT.
*SURCHARGE IS NOT TO EXCEED 1.0 FOOT (FIA REQUIREMENT} OR i.E~ER AMOUNT IF SPECIFIED BY STATE.
FIGURE 2 - Floodway Schematic
5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATION
In order to establish actuarial insurance rates, the FIA has developed a process to
transform the data from the engineering study into flood insurance criteria. This
process includes the determination of reaches, Flood Hazard Factors (FHF), and
flood insurance zone designations for each flooding source affecting the City of
New Hope.
5.1 Reach Determinations
Reaches are defined as lengths of watercourses having relatively the same
flood hazard, based on the average weighted difference in water-surface
elevations between the 10- and 100-year floods. This difference does not
have a variation greater than that indicated in the following table for more
than 20 percent of the reach.
Average Difference Between
10- and 100-year Floods Variation
Less than 2 feet 0.5 foot
2 to 7 feet 1.0 foot
7.1 to 12 feet 2.0 feet
More than 12 feet 3.0 feet
The locations of the reaches determined for the City of New Hope are
shown on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) and are summarized in the Flood
Insurance Zone Data Table (Table 2).
16
5.2 Flood Hazard Factors
The FHF is used to correlate flood information with insurance rate tab{es.
Cort, elations between property damage from floods and their FtlFs are u~ed
to set actuarial insurance premium rate tables based on FHFs from 005 to
200.
The FHF for a reach is the average weighted difference between the 10- and
100-year flood water-surface elevations expressed to the nearest 0.5 foot,
and shown as a three-digit code. For example, if the difference between
water-surface elevations of the 10- and 100-year floods is 0.7 foot, the FHF
is 005; if the difference is 1.4 feet, the FHF is 015; if the difference is 5.0
feet, the FHF is 050. When the difference between the 10-and 100-year
water-surface elevations is greater than 10.0 feet, accuracy for the FHF is
to the nearest foot.
5.3 Flood Insurance Zones
After the determination of reaches and their respective FHFs, the entire
incorporated area of the City of New Hope was divided into zones, each
having a specific flood potential or hazard. Each zone was assigned one of
the following flood insurance zone designations=
Zone A.' Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by
the tOO-year flood, determined by approx-
imate methods; no base flood elevations
are shown or FHFs determined.
Zones Al, A3= Special Flood Hazard Areas inundated by
the 100-year flood, determined by de-
tailed methods; base flood elevations are
shown, and zones subdivided according to
FHF.
Zone B: Areas between the Special Flood Hazard
Area and the limits of the 500-year flood,
including areas of the 500-year flood plain
that are protected from the 100-year
flood by dike, levee, or other water
control structure; or areas subject to
. .... certain types of 100-year shallow flooding
,~/ where depths are less than 1.0 foot; and
?~.~,: areas subject to 100-year flooding from
~: sources with drainage areas less than 1
~.~. square mile. Zone B is not subdivided.
Zon~ C~, Areas of minimal floodint~.
17
Table 2, "Flood Insurance Zone Data," summarizes the flood elevation
differences, FHFs, flood insurance zones, and base flood elevations t'or
flooding source studied in detail in the community.
5.4 Flood Insurance Rate Map Description
The Flood Insurance Rate Map for the City of New Hope is, for insurance
purposes, the principal result of the Flood Insurance Study. This map
(published separately) contains the official delineation of flood insurance
zones and base flood elevation lines. Base flood elevation lines show the
locations of the expected whole-foot water-surface elevations of the base
(100-year) flood. This map is developed in accordance with the latest flood
in3urance map preparation guidelines published by the FIA.
6.0 OTH,~:~. STUDIES
A p~'etiminary report, "Projected Study and Report on the Bassett Creek Water-
shed." detailing the stormwater drainage problems in the watershed and developing
a pl~.,.n to pro,~ide protection from a 10-year frequency storm was prepared by a
consulting engineering firm in ~961 (Reference 4). The report recommended
store, ge sites and channel improvements throughout the watershed to provide that
protection.
A W~tershed Management Plan for Bassett Creek was prepared and adopted by the
Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission (Reference 4). The plan delineated the
100-year frequency t'lood plain and established a "management envelope" or
elevation below which future development would be restricted. The management
of the "enve',ope' will preserve the various options available for flood control until
a plan which meets the needs of the public can be implemented. The plan was
based on ultimate watershed development and includes proposed hydrologic and
hydr,~.u!ic chs. nges which do p. ot, at this time, exist. Further, watershed changes
have occurred which were not considered in the development of the profiles and
flooci plain delineations. Discharge figures are slightly higher (3-4 cfs at 100-year)
tha~, t~.:>se ,~'sed in this study. Elevations are approximately 0.6 foot higher than in
this st,~dy. The 500-year Flood Insurance Study elevation approximates the 100-
yes.. management elevation. Flood plain delineations are similar. As noted in the
sec' 'nns for hydrology and hydraulics, all work for this study was coordinated with
the eonsui~.ants for the Flood Control Commission.
A ':ater P~esourees Management Plan for Shingle Creek, which includes Bass
Crc..'<. '."as prepared in 1974 by Barr Engineering Company (Reference 8). The
ha.'-_ b-~pose of this plan is to identify the potential assets and problems
concerning the water resources of Shingle Creek and its tributaries. Studies of the
watershed a~,~umed ultimate development conditions and development of
significant amotmt of additional storage within the watershed. Since this study can
consider only existing conditions, data from the Management Plan is not considered
applicable. Further, changes to restrictive culverts downstream have revised the
hy,'?au]}c conditions assumed in the report. The 100-year elevations used in this
18
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE2
I BETWEEN 1.0~ (tOO-YEAR) FLOOD AND FLOOD BASE FLOO{)
FLOODING SOURCE PANEL HAZARD ZONE ELEVATiONa
I 10~ 2~ 0.2~ FACTOR
I
(NGVD)
:; (lO-YEAR) (50-YEAR) (500-YEAR) ,
BASS CREEK
REACH I [ 0001 -1.3 -0.4 : 1.3 015 A3 883
NORTH BRANCH
BASSETT CREEK
REACH I 0002 -!.4 --0.4 0.7 015 A3 889
REACH 2 00~ -0.5 -0.4 0.7 005 A1 889
,
IFLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PANEL
2WEIGHTED AVERAGE
3ROUNDED TO NEAREST FOOT
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD INSURAHCE ZONE DATA
Fmlefal Inm[an;e Administration
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MN
IHENNEPIN CO.I BASS CREEK - NORTH BRANCH BASSETT CREEK
study are approximately two feet higher than those shown in the report l'or
conditions existing in 1974.
The St. Paul District COE prepared a Feasibility Report for Flood Controh I{a~.~ctt
Creek Watershed-in March 1976 (Reference 4). As noted earlier, changes to U,c
watershed have occurred which were not considered in thc development of the I()()-
year profiles. Discharge figures were those used in the 1972 Watershed
Management Plan (3-4 efs higher than those used in this study) and the 100-year
profiles were about 0.6 foot higher than those shown in this study. The COE has
been notified of these differences and concurs with the elevations presented
herein.
The Hennepin County Highway Department prepared hydrologic studies for
crossings of County Road 18 and both study streams (Reference 8). In each case,
they contacted the Watershed District for information and are therefore consistent
with this study.
A Flood Hazard Boundary Map has been published by the Federal Insurance
Administration (Referenee l8). The differences between the Flood Hazard
Boundary Map and this study are justified due to the more detailed nature of this
Flood Insurance Study.
This report either supersedes or is compatible with all previous studies published on
streams studied in this report and should be considered authoritative for the
purposes of the National Flood Insurance Program.
7.0 LOCATION OF DATA
Survey, hydrologic, hydraulic and o~her pertinent data used in this study can be
obtained by contacting the Insurance and Mitigation Division, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, One North Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602.
8.0 REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Minneapolis Planning Association, Population Trends in the Twin Cities
Metropolitan Area 1970-1978, March 1979.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1970 Census
Population~ Number of Inhabitants, Minnesota, Washington, D.C., 1971.
Minnesota and Environs, Fresh Water Biological Research Foundation,
Weather Almanac 1976, Bruce F. Watson, Navarre, Minnesota, 1975.
4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District, Feasibility Report for
Flood Control: Bassett Creek Watershed, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
Appendix 1, pg. B-58, March 1976.
5. New Hope Public Works Department, by telephone call, July 10, 1978.
2O
6. Bassett Creek Flood Control Commission, Watershed Management Plan
Bassett Creek, pg. 49, February 1972.
7. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 40,
Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, May 1961.
8. Barr Engineering Company for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Hydrologic & Hydraulic Data for Bassett Creek, information received in
person, October 3, 1977.
9. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Insurance Administration,
Flood Insurance Study, City of Brooklyn Park, Minnesota, (in progress).
10. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigations 77-31; prepared in
cooperation with Minnesota Department of Transportation, Division of
Highways and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Waters, Techniques for Estimating Ma~mitude and Frequency of Floods in
Minnesota, Lowell C. Guetzkow, May 1977.
11. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, HEC-2
Water-Surface Profile Computer Program, Davis, California, 1972.
12. Hydraulics Branch, Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Federal Highway
Administration, Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 5; Hydraulic Charts for
the Selection of Highway Culverts, Washington, D.C., December 1965,
(reprinted) April 1977.
13. U.S. Geological Survey, 7.5 Minute Series Flood Prone Area Mapping, Scale
1:24000, Contour Interval 10 feet: New Brighton Quadrangle, 1955,
(photorevised) 1972.
14. , 7.5 Minute Series Maps, Scale 1:24000, Contour
Interval 10 feet: New Brighton Quadrangle, North Minneapolis Quadrangle,
1955, (photorevised) 1972.
15. ., 7.5 Minute Series Mai)s, Scale 1:24000, Contour
Interval 10 feet: Osseo Quadrangle, 1955, (photorevised) 1972.
16. Sub-Grade Contour Maps for County-State Aid Highway No. 18, Project No.
6707, State Aid Project 27-618-23, Sheets 45-47 of 158.
17. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water, Technical
Report No. 6, The Regulatory Floodway in Flood Plain Management,
September 1977.
18. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration, Flood Hazard Boundary Map, New Hope, Minnesota, July
1975.
21
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Minnesota, Twin ('ities
Metropolitan Area Sheet, Miscellaneous Report No. 130, Soil Landscapes
Geomorphic Re{{ions, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1975.
Agricultural-Extension Service, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Metropolitan Sheet, Extension Bulletin No. 320-1976, Interpretations of Soil~
Landscapes and Geomorphic Regions, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Federal Highway Administration, Circular No. 10, Capacity Charts for the
Hydraulic Design of Highway Culverts.
Hulsing, Harry, "Measurement of Peak Discharge by Indirect Method,"
Chapter A5, Book 3, Investigation of the United States Geological Survey.:
L'.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Waters, Technical
Report No. 2, Normal Depth Analysis (A Useful Tool in Flood Plain
Management), January 1971.
, Technical Report No. 3, Flood Data Collection, March
1971.
, Technical Report No. 4, Use of Experienced Flood
Data in Flood Plain Regulations, November 1971.
Powell, Roy F., D.L. James, and T.R. Jones, D. E., "Approximate Method for
Quick Flood Plain Mapping," ASCE Meeting Preprint No. 2559, Paper
presented at ASCE National Convention, Denver, Colorado, November 3-7,
1975.
Schwartz, G. M., and George A. Thiel, Minnesota's Rocks and Waters, A
Geological Story. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press,
1954, 1963, (revised) 1976.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center, Flood Flow
Frequency Analysis- Generalized Computer Pro~ram 723-X6-L7550, Davis,
California, June 1976.
U~S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Minnesota
H.j~'drology Guide, Harry M. Major, Robert C. Bintzler, and Howard C. Midje,
~l. Paul, Minnesota.
, Technical Report No. 55 - Urban Hydrology for Small
Water~., 1975.
U.S. D~i:~rtment of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration, Flood Insurance Study, City of Crystal, Minnesota, June
1978.
22
, Flood Ir~urance Stud}' (;~idcli~es ~d
January 1976, (revised)January 1977.
U.~, Cmologieal Survey, Open-File Report, Section IV, "Guidclinc.~
Prepm'ation, Transmittal and Distribution of Flood-Prone Area Maps
Pamphlet~," lqational Program for Managing Flood Losses, 1973, (revised)
19'/6.
, Water Supply Paper 1849, Roughness Characteristics
of Natural Channels, Harry H. Barnes, U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.
U.S. Water Resources Council, WRC BuUetin No. 17A; Guidelines for
Determining Flood Flow Frec~uenc},, Washington, D.C., (revised) June 1977.
Waters, Thomas F., The Streams and Rivers of Minnesota. Minneapolis,
Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press, 1977.
23
ELEVATtON IN FEET (NGVD)
................. _ ........ ; ..... ~ ..
.... ~ ....... ~ , .... ; LZZ.ZZ 77Z~7 ''
~-- ~.o ~v~,d~,,.t - t..~ ....................... .~ '
~7777-- -"_;'_ .
~~ ..... + ............~-~ -~2 ~ [_~ r ........ ~ ....... ~ ..... , ........
.......... -H":-, , .- ~ · ~.
- ; -- ! ....C 7- : ~ - ~'' '- ' - - - ~-
............. ,
'T'-'7'77~Z"Z~TZ-T"7 ~ -"~ ~ ~ -~
: ...... ~ .' - f ; ........ I: :..:-:: :7' :;7~: %
......~ ** .............. ~ ..... ;"' :._.L%~: .:. ; :;: -: -;-7--- ;' '
................ ~ ..... ~ ........... ~ .... ~ - ~ ......................
...-...~ .................................... ~. -
-~ ..... ~~ ~-~-_:-::::_-. :-. ~ :-_.__-__- .......
:h:=:]~ .' .... ~ :~-~ ........ . : -
........... ; .... ; ................
/ i ........... COR~A~ · LIMITS
~:- ~ .. t ...........
..................... ~ ............ : ......... ~ .......... : - __ L~:_: .... ~ iLL
.............. ~ ..... ; ...... ; .... .... · .....
'..'...:_;L:;'L:;.2LLL_:~ ....... :'L' '~ ................. t .... ~ ............. q:%%; ' '
..... ~ ........ ' ..... ~ ~ .... ~ T .... :_:.__Z'L; . L
: =:: ............................... ............... ....
Federal ImraKI Ad~listfl~ FLOOD PROFILES
CIII OF NEW HOPE, MN
IHENNEPIN CO.I BASS CREEK
ELEVATION IN FEET (NGVD)
.......... ; .... . ;' _:'._'::' . - .... : .... i_.L --.--L-4L..Z: Z::'~;_ ; .....
. r -.. i .......................... : .... '-;;. :
-- -- : ~,, ..... f_:.~z~;.:.: ........ :
.... r ........... ~ ..... ~ ..... r' _z~.',.;. ' '~ · _
-~ ............. ~ ......... ~--j ......... ~ ............. -~: ·:
, ....... ~ ...... ~ .... t ........... ~ ............. .....
- , . ;-;- .- ,,, , } .... ~: .......... ~ ...... :; .... :
. - .... :..-.:; :;--:: :',-:1: .... ,~ ..... .... ~ ....
..... , .......... ~ '~' '~:;_q _; :._.:z; ~: :- 7- - , . ':'-'
........ ~ ............ p_zN ; .....
' .'': ! ;;;-'_~' ''_L.;.;.. ;_22.&~Z2'f ......... _.:__;__ ; '
,. ~~_: .- ~ ................. ? , . --~--~--:-~ .
.... ~ ~7-7T~-'''';'~';[ ~.~'~_~2. .................. '7252''2.~ .......... _~.~~2 * ..... ~ .......
%_%_;:~ ....... ~ ' ~'; ............. :::--7:-: - 7- '
~ .... - . [. ~3 ;~-q%~q:.':;7-'-- -:.: ;7-. ~sT,t~s~ _ .
7'%'u-' 7';':.-; ';~; ;"; 7; ;': ' ~ ~.-;: :. :;; ~ ;."; ..l; :.; .;; :..:, ....................... · ' - ....
' ~.'-.':'-:':.":..::'-:: ..:' :':'- ~':::~: I:':':'"'::'; .... : -'. '.
.-- ~. f .... , .-: ......... %---%~%:
~~= =---7-7~-~%~ ~ . ~ _ ~-t~~~.y.y_...:.....~_ ':7:;'7'~':-":"""::': .... -.: . ..... ; . ._ ..
~ I I !-:. ':,;:',:- -- ;':.'~'~ ;-'l':.:':~ -."::'--;'-'.:
~' l I, ~ : _ ....... ~ ................
~ ) ¢ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... %;~ 1% 1_.211.1.;;..1..i.:1..i..i....'....; ........... 1 ........... L_.L. .--%
)~ · ~)) ) ...................... ~ ......................
~'=~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , - .... ~ ........ ; ........ ;- . ..-.:. _;: ....
FI~ll Illlrilcl ldilistrati# FLOOD PROFILES
CITY OF NEW HOPE, MN
(H[NN[Pm CO4 NOR~ BRANCH BASSE~ CREEK
'~ ELEVATION IN FEET (NGVD)
'.
:-:' -:_'- : .'~_ ::~::::~ .... ..... .'-"--:~:c~ " '
'~....... ~ .... ~ ~
................ t
0 ................. ~ ................ : ............... 2
~ : : '~ .
Fldlfi IRritate Ad~l~tfatiel FLOOD PROFILES
~ ~ CI~ OF NEW H~E, MN
IHENNEPIN CO.I NOR~ BRACH BASSE~ CREEK
ATTACHMENT 3
· ~ STATE OF
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
ONR INFORMATION 500 LAFAYE'I-I'E 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 ~o 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
Sample Three District Floodplain Management Ordinanace
Two-Map Format
October 17, 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND PURPOSE
1.1 Statutory Authorization 1 1.2 Findings of Fact 1
1.3 Statement of Purpose 1
SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS 1
2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies 1
2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map 1
2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation 2
2.4 Interpretation 2
2.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions 2
2.6 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability 2
2.7 Severability 3
2.8 Definitions 3
SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS 4
3.1 Districts 4
3.2 Compliance 5
SECTION 4.0 FLOODWAY DISTRICT (FW) 5
4.1 Permitted Uses 5
4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses 5
4.3 Conditional Uses 6
4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses 6
SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF) 9
5.1 Permitted Uses 9
5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted
uses 10
5.3 Conditional Uses 10
5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional
Uses 10
5.5 Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses 12
SECTION 6.0 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT 13
6.1 Permissible Uses 13
6.2 Procedures for Floodway and Flood
Fringe Determinations 13
SECTION _7.0 SUBDIVISIONS 15 ~
7.1 Land Suitability Review Criteria 15
7.2 Requirements for Floodway/Flood Fringe
Determinations 15
7.3 Removal of Special Flood Hazard Area
Designation 15
SECTION 8.0 UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND
BRIDGES 16
8.1 Public Utilities 16
8.2 Public Transportation Facilities 16
8.3 On-site Sewage Treatment and Water
Supply Systems 16
SECTION 9.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES/TRAVEL TRAILERS AND
TRAVEL VEHICLES 16
9.1 New Manufactured Home Parks 16
9.2 Replacement Manufactured Homes-
Existing Parks 16
9.3 Travel Trailers/Travel Vehicles 17
SECTION 10.0 ADMINISTRATION 18
10.1 Zoning Administrator 18
10.2 Permits, Certification Requirements
and Record Keeping 18
10.3 Appeals and Variances/Duties of the
Board of Adjustment 19
10.4 Conditional Uses-Standards and
Evaluation Procedures 21
SECTION 11.0 NONCONFORMING USES 24
SECTION 12.0 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION 25
SECTION 13.0 AMENDMENTS 27
SAMPLE THREE DISTRICT FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE
TWO-MAP FORMAT*
SECTION 1.0 STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION, FINDINGS OF FACT AND
PURPOSE
1.1 Statutory Authorization: The legislature of the State
of Minnesota has, in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103F and
(Zoning Enabling Statute)
delegated the responsibility to local government units to
adopt regulations designed to minimize flood losses.
Therefore, the of
(governing body)
, Minnesota does ordain as follows:
(local unit)
1.2 Findings of Fact:
1.21 The flood hazard areas of ,
(local unit)
Minnesota, are subject to periodic inundation which results
in potential loss of life, loss of property, health and
safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental
services, extraordinary public expenditures or flood
protection and relief, and impairment of the tax base, all
of which adversely affect the public health, safety, and
general welfare.
1.22 Methods Used to Analyze Flood Hazards. This
Ordinance is based upon a reasonable method of analyzing
flood hazards which is consistent with the standards
established by the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources.
1.3 Statement of Purpose: It is the purpose of this
Ordinance to promote the public health, safety, and general
welfare and to minimize those losses described in Section
1.21 by provisions contained herein.
SECTION 2.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
2.1 Lands to Which Ordinance Applies: This ordinance shall
apply to all lands within the jurisdiction of
shown on the Official Zoning
(local unit)
*A Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and a Flood Insurance
Rate Map have been published for the community.
Map and/~r the attachments thereto as being located within
the boundaries of the Floodway, Flood Fringe, or General
Flood Plain'Districts.
2.2 Establishment of Official Zoning Map: The Official
Zoning Map together with all materials attached thereto is
hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of
this ordinance. The attached material shall include the
Flood Insurance Stud~ for the prepared by the
(local unit)
Federal Insurance Administration dated , and
the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map and Flood Insurance Rate
Map dated therein. The Official Zoning Map
shall be on file in the Office of the
and the
(City Clerk/County Auditor)
(Zoning Administrator)
2.3 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation: 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 on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
2.4 Interpretation:
2.41 In their interpretation and application, the
provisions of this Ordinance shall be held to be minimum
requirements and shall be liberally construed in favor of
the Governing Body and shall not be deemed a limitation or
repeal of any other powers granted by State Statutes.
2.42 The boundaries of the zoning districts shall be
determined by scaling distances on the Official Zoning Map.
Where interpretation is needed as to the exact 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 and there is a formal appeal of the decision of
the Zoning Administrator, the Board of Adjustment shall make
the necessary interpretation. Ail decisions will be based
on elevations on the regional (lO0-year) flood profile and
other available technical data. Persons contesting the
location of'the district boundaries shall be given a
reasonable opportunity to present their case to the Board
and to submit technical evidence.
2.5 Abrogation and Greater Restrictions: It is not intended
by this Ordinance to repeal, abrogate, or impair any
existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions.
However, where this Ordinance imposes greater restrictions,
the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail. All other
ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of the inconsistency only.
2.6 Warning and Disclaimer of Liability: This Ordinance
does not imply that areas outside the flood plain districts
or land uses permitted within such districts will be free
from flooding or flood damages. This Ordinance shall not
create liability on the part of or
(name of local unit)
any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that
result from reliance on this Ordinance or any administrative
decision lawfully made thereunder.
2.7 Severability: If any section, clause, provision, or
portion of this Ordinance is adjudged unconstitutional or
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder
of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby.
2.8 Definitions: Unless specifically defined below, words
or phrases used in this Ordinance shall be interpreted so as
to give them the same meaning as they have in common usage
and so as to give this Ordinance its most reasonable
application.
2.811 Accessory Use or Structure - a use or structure on the
same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and
subordinate to, the principal use or structure.
2.812 Basement - means any area of a structure, including
crawl spaces, having its floor or base subgrade (below
ground level) on all four sides, regardless of the depth of
excavation below ground level.
2.813 Conditional Use - means a specific type of structure
or land use listed in the official control that may be
allowed but only after an in-depth review procedure and with
appropriate conditions or restrictions as provided in the
official zoning controls or building codes and upon a
finding that= (1) certain conditions as detailed in the
zoning ordinance exist and (2) the structure and/or land use
conform to the comprehensive land use plan if one exists and
are compatible with the existing neighborhood.
2.814 Equal Degree of Encroachment - a method of determining
the location of floodway boundaries so that flood plain
lands on bosh sides of a stream are capable of conveying a
proportionate share of flood flows.
2.815 Flood - a temporary increase in the flow or stage of a
stream or in the stage of a wetland or lake that results in
the inundation of normally dry areas.
2.816 Flgod Frequency - the frequency for which it is
expected that a specific flood stage or discharge may be
equalled or.exceeded.
2.817 Flood Fringe - that portion of the flood plain outside
of the floodway. Flood fringe is synonymous with the term
"floodway fringe" used in the Flood Insurance Study for
a
(local unit)
2.818 Flood Plain - the beds proper and the areas adjoining
a wetland, lake or watercourse which have been or hereafter
may be covered by the regional flood.
2.819 Flood-Proofing - a combination of structural
provisions, changes, or adjustments to properties and
structures subject to flooding, primarily for the reduction
or elimination of flood damages.
2.820 Floodway - 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.
2.821 Obstruction - any dam, wall, wharf, embankment, levee,
dike, pile, abutment, projection, excavation, channel
modification, culvert, building, wire, fence, stockpile,
refuse, fill, structure, or matter in, along, across, or
projecting into any channel, watercourse, or regulatory
flood plain which may impede, retard, or change the
direction of the flow of water, either in itself or by
catching or collecting debris carried by such water.
2.822 Principal Use or Structure - means all uses or
structures that are not accessory uses or structures.
2.823 Reach - a hydraulic engineering term to describe a
longitudinal segment of a stream or river influenced by a
natural or man-made obstruction. In an urban area, the
segment of a stream or river between two consecutive bridge
crossings would most typically constitute a reach.
2.824 Regional Flood - a flood which is representative of
large floods known to have occurred generally in Minnesota
and reasonably characteristic of what can be expected to
occur on an-average frequency in the magnitude of the 100-
year recurrence interval. Regional flood is synonymous with
the term "base flood" used in the Flood Insurance Study.
2.825 Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation - 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 on
the flood plain that result from designation of a floodway.
2.826 Structure - anything 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 Section 9.31 of the ordinance and other similar
items.
2.827 Variance - mean~ a modification of a specific
permitted development standard required in an official
control including this ordinance to allow an alternative
development standard not stated as acceptable in the
official control, but only as applied to a particular
property for the purpose of alleviating a hardship,
practical difficulty or unique circumstance as defined and
elaborated upon in a community's respective planning and
zoning enabling legislation.
SECTION 3.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3.1 Districts:
3.11 Floodway District. The Floodway District shall
include those areas designated as floodway on the Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 2.2.
3.12 Flood Fringe District. The Flood Fringe District
shall include those areas designated as floodway fringe on
the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map adopted in Section 2.2.
3.13 General Flood Plain District. The General Flood
Plain District shall include those areas designated as
unnumbered A Zones on the Flood Insurance Rate Map adopted
in Section 2.2.
3.2 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 Ordinance and other applicable regulations
which apply to uses within the jurisdiction of this
Ordinance. Within the FloOdway, Flood Fringe and General
Flood Plain Districts, all uses not listed as permitted uses
or conditional uses in Sections 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 that
follow, respectively, shall be prohibited. In addition, a
caution is provided here that:
3.21 New manufactured homes, replacement manufactured
homes and certain travel trailers and travel vehicles are
subject to the general provisions of this Ordinance and
specifically Section 9.0;
3.22 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 Ordinance and specifically
Section 11.0; and
3.23 As-built elevations for elevated or flood proofed
structures must be certified by ground surveys and flood
proofing techniques must be designed and certified by a
registered professional engineer or architect as specified
in the general provisions of this Ordinance and specifically
as stated in Section'10.0 of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4.0 FLOoDwAY DISTRICT (FW)
4.1 Permitted Uses:
4.11 General farming, pasture, grazing, outdoor plant
nurseries, horticulture, truck farming, forestry, sod
farming, and wild crop harvesting.
4.12 Industrial-commercial loading areas, parking areas,
and airport landing strips.
4.13 Private and public golf courses, tennis 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 purpose recreational trails.
4.14 Residential lawns, gardens, parking areas, and play
areas.
4.2 Standards for Floodway Permitted Uses:
4.21 The use shall have a low flood damage potential.
4.22 The use shall be permissible in the underlying zoning
district if one exists.
4.23 The use shall not obstruct flood flows or increase
flood elevations and shall not involve structures, fill,
obstructions, excavations or storage of materials or
equipment.
4.3 Conditional Uses:
4.31 Structures accessory to the uses listed in 4.1 above
and the uses listed in 4.32-4.38 below.
4.32 Extraction and storage.of sand, gravel, and other
materials.
4.33 Marinas, boat rentals, docks, piers, wharves, and
water control structures.
4.34 Railroads, streets, bridges, utility transmission
lines, and pipelines.
4.35 Storage yards for equipment, machinery, or materials.
4.36 Placement of fill.
4.37 Travel trailers and travel vehicles either on
individual lots of r~cord or in existing or new subdivisions
or commercial or condominium type campgrounds, subject to
the exemptions and provisions of Section 9.3 of this
Ordinance.
4.38 Structural works for flood control such as levees,
dikes and floodwalls constructed to any height where the
intent is to protect individual structures and levees or
dikes where the intent is to protect agricultural crops for
a frequency flood event equal to or less than the 10-year
frequency flood event.
4.4 Standards for Floodway Conditional Uses:
4.41 Ail Uses. 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 that will cause any increase in
the stage of the 100-year or regional flood or cause an
increase in flood damages in the reach or reaches affected.
4.42 Ail floodway Conditional Uses shall be subject to the
procedures and standards contained in Section 10.4 of this
Ordinance.
4.43 The Conditional Use shall be permissible in the
underlying zoning district if one exists.
4.44 Fill:
(a) Fill, dredge spoil and all other similar materials
deposited or stored in the flood plain shall be protected
from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other
acceptable method.
(b) Dredge spoil sites and sand and gravel operations shall
not be allo~ed in the floodway unless a long-term site
development plan is submitted which includes an
erosion/sedimentation prevention element to the plan.
(c) As an alternative, and consistent with Subsection (b)
immediately above, dredge spoil disposal and sand and gravel
operations may allow temporary, on-site storage of fill or
other materials which would have caused an increase to the
stage of the 100-year or regional flood but only after the
Governing Body has received an appropriate plan which
assures the removal of the materials from the floodway based
upon the flood warning time available. The Conditional Use
Permit must be title registered with the property in the
Office of the County Recorder.
4.45 Accessory Structures:
(a) Accessory structures shall not be designed for human
habitation. "
(b) Accessory structures, if permitted, shall be
constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer
the minimum obstruction to the flow of flood waters.
(1) Whenever possible, structures shall be constructed with
the longitudinal axis parallel to the direction of flood
flow, and, (2) So far as practicable, structures shall be
placed approximately on the same flood flow lines as those
of adjoining structures.
(c) Accessory structures shall be elevated on fill or
structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with the FP-1
or FP-2 flood proofing classifications in the State Building
Code. As an alternative, an accessory structure may be
flood proofed to the FP-3 or FP-4 flood proofing
classification in the State Building Code provided the
accessory structure constitutes a minimal investment, does
not exceed 500 square feet in size, and for a detached
garage, the detached garage must be used solely for parking
of vehicles and limited storage. All flood proofed
accessory structures must meet the following additional
standards, as appropriate:
(1) The structure must be adequately anchored to prevent
flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure and
shall be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on
exterior walls; and
(2) Any mechanical and utility equipment in a structure
must be elevated to or above the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation or properly flood proofed.
4.46 Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) The storage or processing of materials that are, in
time of flooding, fla~able, explosive, or potentially
injurious to human, animal, or plant life is prohibited.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed
if readily removable from the area within the time available
after a flood warning and in accordance with a plan approved
by the Governing Body.
4.47 Structural works for flood control that will change
the course, current or cross section of protected wetlands
or public waters shall be subject to the provisions of
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 105. Community-wide structural
works for flood control intended to remove areas from the
regulatory flood plain shall not be allowed in the floodway.
4.48 A levee, dike or floodwall constructed in the floodway
shall not cause an increase to the 100-year or regional
flood and the technical analysis must assume equal
conveyance or storage loss on both sides of a stream.
SECTION 5.0 FLOOD FRINGE DISTRICT (FF)
5.1 Permitted Uses: Permitted Uses shall be those uses of
land or structures listed as Permitted Uses in the
underlying zoning use district(s). If no pre-existing,
underlying zoning use districts exist, then any residential
or non residential structure or use of a structure or land
shall be a Permitted Use in the Flood Fringe provided such
use does not constitute a public nuisance. Ail Permitted
Uses shall comply with the standards for Flood Fringe
"Permitted Uses" listed in Section 5.2 and the "Standards
for all Flood Fringe Uses" listed in Section 5.5.
5.2 Standards for Flood Fringe Permitted Uses:
5.21 Ail structures, including accessory structures, must
be elevated on fill so that the lowest floor including
basement floor is at or above the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation. The finished fill elevation for
structures shall be no lower than one (1) foot below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and the fill shall
extend at such elevation at least fifteen (15) feet beyond
the outside limits of the structure erected thereon.
5.22 As an alternative to elevation on fill, accessory
structures that constitute a minimal investment and that do
not exceed 500 square feet for the outside dimension at
ground level may be internally flood proofed in accordance
with Section 4.45 (c).
5.23 The cumulative placement of fill where at any one time
in excess of one-thousand (1,000) cubic yards of fill is
located on the parcel shall be allowable only as a
Conditional~Jse, unless said fill is specifically intended
to elevate a structure in accordance with Section 5.21 of
this ordinance.
5.24 The storage of any materials or equipment shall be
elevated on fill to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation.
5.25 Th? provisions of Section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall
apply.
5.3 Conditional Uses: Any structure that is not elevated on
fill or flood proofed in accordance with Section 5.21-5.22
or any use of land that does not comply with the standards
in Section 5.23-5.24 shall only be allowable as a
Conditional Use. An application for a Conditional Use shall
be subject to the standards and criteria and evaluation
procedures specified ~n Sections 5.4-5.5 and 10.4 of this
Ordinance.
5.4 Standards for Flood Fringe Conditional Uses:
5.41 Alternative elevation methods other than the use of
fill may be utilized to elevate a structure's lowest floor
above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. These
alternative methods may include the use of stilts, pilings,
parallel walls, etc., or above-grade, enclosed areas such as
crawl spaces or tuck under garages. The base or floor of an
enclosed area shall be considered above-grade and not a
structure's basement or lowest floor if: 1) the enclosed
area is above-grade on at least one side of the structure;
2) it is designed to internally flood and is constructed
with flood resistant materials; and 3) it is used solely for
parking of vehicles, building access or storage. The
aboved-noted alternative elevation methods are subject to
the following additional standards:
(a) Design and Certification - The structure's design and
as-built condition must be certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect as being in compliance
with the general design standards of the State Building Code
and, specifically, that all electrical, heating,
ventilation, plumbing and air conditioning equipment and
other service facilities must be at or above the Regulatory
Flood Protection Elevation or be designed to prevent flood
water from entering or accumulating within these components
during times of flooding.
(b) Specific Standards for Above-grade, EncloSed Areas -
Above-grade, fully enclosed areas such as crawl spaces or
tuck under garages must be designed to internally flood and
the design plans must stipulate:
(1) The mini~um area of openings in the walls where internal
flooding is to be used as a flood proofing technique. When
openings are placed in a structure's walls to provide for
entry of flood waters to equalize pressures, the bottom of
all openings shall be no higher than one-foot above grade.
Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or
other coverings or devices provided that they permit the
automatic entry and exit of flood waters.
(2) That the enclosed area will be designed of flood
resistan~ materials in accordance with the FP-3 or FP-4
classifications in the State Building Code and shall be used
solely for ~uilding access, parking of vehicles or storage.
5.42 Basements, as defined by Section 2.812 of this
Ordinance, shall be subject to the following:
(a) Residential basement construction shall not be allowed
below the Regulatory"Flood Protection Elevation.
(b) Non-residential basements may be allowed below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation provided the basement
is structurally dry flood proofed in accordance with Section
5.43 of this Ordinance.
5.43 All areas of non residential structures including
basements to be placed below the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with the
structurally dry flood proofing classifications in the State
Building Code. Structurally dry flood proofing must meet
the FP-1 or FP-2 flood proofing classification in the State
Building Code and this shall require making the structure
watertight with the walls substantially impermeable to the
passage of water and with structural components having the
capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
and the effects of bouyancy. Structures flood proofed to
the FP-3 or FP-4 classification shall not be permitted.
5.44 When at any one time more than 1,000 cubic yards of
fill or other similar material is located on a parcel for
such activities as on-site storage, landscaping, sand and
gravel operations, landfills, roads, dredge spoil disposal
or construction of flood control works, an
erosion/sedimentation control plan must be submitted unless
the community is enforcing a state approved shoreland
management ordinance. In the absence of a state approved
shoreland ordinance, the plan must clearly specify methods
to be used to stabilize the fill on site for a flood event
at a minimum of the 100-year or regional flood event. The
plan must be prepared and certified by a registered
professional engineer or other qualified individual
acceptable to the Governing Body. The plan may incorporate
alternative procedures for removal of the material from the
flood plain if adequate flood warning time exists.
5.45 Storage of Materials and Equipment:
(a) 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.
(b) Storage of other materials or equipment may be allowed
if readily removable from the area within the time available
after a $1ood warning and in accordance with a plan approved
by the Governing Body.
5.46 The provisions of section 5.5 of this Ordinance shall
also apply.
5.5 Standards for All Flood Fringe Uses:
5.51 All new principal structures must have vehicular
access at or above aK elevation not more than two (2) feet
below the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. If a
variance to this requirement is granted, the Board of
Adjustment must specify limitations on the period of use or
occupancy of the structure for times of flooding and only
after determining that adequate flood warning time and local
flood emergency response procedures exist.
5.52 Commercial 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.
5.53 Manufacturing and Industrial Uses - measures shall be
taken to minimize interference with normal plant operations
especially along streams having protracted flood durations.
Certain accessory land uses such as yards and parking lots
may be at lower elevations subject to requirements set out
in Section 5.52 above. In considering permit applications,
due consideration shall be given to needs of an industry
whose business requires that it be located in flood plain
areas.
5.54 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 100-
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.
5.55 Flood plain developments shall not adversely affect
the hydraulic capacity of the channel and adjoining flood
plain of any tributary watercourse or drainage system where
a floodw&y or other encroachment limit has not been
specified on the official Zoning Map.
5.56 Standards for travel trailers and travel vehicles are
contained in Section 9.3.
5.57 All manufactured homes must be securely anchored to an
adequately anchored foundation system that resists
flotation, collapse ~nd 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.
SECTION 6.0 GENERAL FLOOD PLAIN DISTRICT
6.1 Permissible Uses:
6.11 The uses listed in Section 4.1 of this Ordinance shall
be permitted uses.
6.12 All other uses shall be subject to the floodway/flood
fringe evaluation criteria pursuant to Section 6.2 below.
Section 4.0 shall apply if the proposed use is in the
Floodway District and Section 5.0 shall apply if the
proposed use is in the Flood Fringe District.
6.2 Procedures for Floodway and Flood Fringe Determinations
Within the General Flood Plain District.
6.21 Upon'receipt of an application for a Conditional Use
Permit for a use within the General Flood Plain District,
the applicant shall be required to furnish such of the
following information as is deemed necessary by the Zoning
Administrator for the determination of the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation and whether the proposed use is within
the Floodway or Flood Fringe District.
(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) Plan (surface view) showing elevations or contours of
the ground;.p~rtinent 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.
6.22 The_applicant shall be responsible to submit one copy
of the above information to a designated engineer or other
expert person or agency for technical assistance in
determining whether the proposed use is in the Floodway or
Flood Fringe District and to determine the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation. Procedures consistent with Minnesota
Regulations 1983, Parts 6120.5000 - 6120.6200 shall be
followed in this expert evaluation. The designated engineer
or expert is strongly encouraged to discuss the proposed
technical evaluation ~ethodology with the respective
Department of Natural Resources' Area Hydrologist prior to
commencing the analysis. The designated engineer or expert
shall:
(a) Estimate the peak discharge of the regional flood.
(b) Calculate the water surface profile of the regional
flood based upon a hydraulic analysis of the stream channel
and overbank areas.
(c) Compute the floodway necessary to convey or store the
regional flood without increasing flood stages more than 0.5
foot. A lesser stage increase than .5' shall be required
if, as a result of the additional stage increase, increased
flood damages would result. An equal degree of encroachment
on both sides of the stream within the reach shall be
assumed in computing floodway boundaries.
6.23 The Zoning Administrator shall present the technical
evaluation and findings of the designated engineer or expert
to the Governing Body. The Governing Body must formally
accept the technical evaluation and the recommended Floodway
and/or Flood Fringe District boundary or deny the permit
application. The GOverning Body, prior to official action,
may submit the application and all supporting data and
analyses to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the
Department of Natural Resources or the Planning Commission
for review and comment. Once the Floodway and Flood Fringe
Boundaries have been determined, the Governing Body shall
refer the matter back to the Zoning Administrator who shall
process the permit application consistent with the
applicable provisions of Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 7.0 SUBDIVISIONS2
7.1 Review Criteria: No land shall be~subdivided which is
unsuitable for the reason of flooding, inadequate drainage,
water supply or sewage treatment facilities. Ail lots
within the flood plain districts shall contain a building
site at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
Ail subdivisions shall have water and sewage treatment
facilities that comply with the provisions of this Ordinance
and have road access~both to the subdivision and to the
individual building sites no lower than two feet below the
Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation. 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.
7.2 Floodway/Flood Fringe Determinations in the General
Flood Plain District: In the General Flood Plain District,
applicants shall provide the information required in Section
6.2 of this Ordinance to determine the 100-year flood
elevation, the Floodway and Flood Fringe District boundaries
and the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation for the
subdivision site.
7.3 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 100-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.
2This Section is not intended as a substitute for a
comprehensive city or county subdivision ordinance. It can,
however, be used as an interim control until the
comprehensige subdivision ordinance can be amended to
include necessary flood plain management provisions.
SECTION _ 8.0 PUBLIC UTILITIES, RAILROADS, ROADS, AND BRIDGES
8.1 Public Utilities. Ail public utilities and facilities
such as gas,-electrical, sewer, and water supply systems to
be located in the flood plain shall be flood-proofed in
accordance with the State Building Code or elevated to above
the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation.
8.2 Public Transportation Facilities. Railroad tracks,
roads, and bridges t6 be located within the flood plain
shall comply with Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this Ordinance.
Elevation to the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation shall
be provided where failure or interruption of these
transportation facilities would result in danger to the
public health or safety or where such facilities are
essential to the orderly functioning of the area. Minor or
auxiliary roads or railroads may be constructed at a lower
elevation where failure or interruption of transportation
services would not endanger the public health or safety.
8.3 On-site Sewage Treatment and Water Supply Systems:
Where public utilities are not provided: 1) On-site water
supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the systems; and 2) New or
replacement on-site sewage treatment systems must be
designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of flood
waters into the systems and discharges from the systems into
flood waters and they shall not be subject to impairment or
contamination during times of flooding. Any sewage
treatment system designed in accordance with the State's
current statewide standards for on-site sewage treatment
systems shall be determined to be in compliance with this
Section.
SECTION 9.0 MANUFACTURED HOMES AND MANUFACTURED HOME PARKS
AND PLACEMENT OF TRAVEL TRAILERS AND TRAVEL VEHICLES.
9.1 New manufactured home parks and expansions to existing
manufactured home parks shall be subject to the provisions
placed on subdivisions by Section 7.0 of this Ordinance.
9.2 The placement of new or replacement manufactured homes
in existing manufactured home parks or on individual lots of
record that are located in flood plain districts will be
treated as a new structure and may be placed only if
elevated in'compliance with Section 5.0 of this Ordinance.
If vehicular road access for pre-existing manufactured home
parks is not provided in accordance with Section 5.51, then
replacement manufactured homes will not be allowed until the
property owner(s) develops a flood warning emergency plan
acceptable to the Governing Body.
9.21 Ail 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.
9.3 Travel trailers and travel vehicles that do not meet the
exemption criteria specified in Section 9.31 below shall be
subject to the provisions of this Ordinance and as
specifically spelled Put in Sections 9.33-9.34 below.
9.31 Exemption - Travel trailers and travel vehicles are
exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance if they are
placed in any of the areas listed in Section 9.32 below and
further they meet the following criteria:
(a) Have current licenses required for highway use.
(b) Are highway ready meaning on wheels or the internal
jacking system, are attached to the site only by quick
disconnect type utilities commonly used in campgrounds and
trailer parks and the travel trailer/travel vehicle has no
permanent structural type additions attached to it.
(c) The travel trailer or travel vehicle and associated use
must be permissible in any pre-existing, underlying zoning
use district.
9.32 Areas Exempted For Placement of Travel/Recreational
Vehicles:
(a) Individual lots or parcels of record.
(b) Existing commercial recreational vehicle parks or
campgrounds.
(c) Existing condominium type associations.
9.33 Travel trailers and travel vehicles exempted in
Section 9.31 lose this exemption when development occurs on
the parcel exceeding $500 dollars for a structural addition
to the travel trailer/travel vehicle or an accessory
structure such as a garage or storage building. The travel
trailer/travel vehicle and all additions and accessory
structures will then be treated as a new structure and shall
be subject to the elevation/flood proofing requirements and
the use of land restrictions specified in Sections 4.0 and
5.0 of this Ordinance.
9.34 New c~mercial travel trailer or travel vehicle parks
or campgrounds and new residential type subdivisions and
condominium associations and the expansion of any existing
similar use exceeding five (5) units or dwelling sites shall
be subject to the following:
(a) Any new or replacement travel trailer or travel vehicle
will be allowed in the Floodway or Flood Fringe Districts
provided said trailer or vehicle and its contents are placed
on fill above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation and
proper elevated road access to the site exists in accordance
with Section 5.51 of this Ordinance. No fill placed in the
floodway to meet the requirements of this Section shall
increase flood stages of the 100-year or regional flood.
(b) Ail new or replacement travel trailers or travel
vehicles not meeting the criteria of (a) above may, as an
alternative, be allowed as a Conditional Use if in
accordance with the following provisions and the provisions
of 10.4 of the Ordinance. The applicant must submit an
emergency plan for the safe evacuation of all vehicles and
people during the 100 year flood. Said plan shall be
prepared by a registered engineer or other qualified
individual and shall demonstrate that adequate time and
personnel exist to carry out the evacuation. All attendant
sewage and water facilities for new or replacement travel
trailers or other recreational vehicles must be protected or
constructed so as to not be impaired or contaminated during
times of flooding in accordance with Section 8.3 of this
Ordinance.
SECTION 10.0 ADMINISTRATION
10.1 Zoning Administrator: A Zoning Administrator or other
official designated by theGoverning Body shall administer
and enforce this Ordinance. If the Zoning Administrator
finds a violation of the provisions of this Ordinance the
Zoning Administrator shall notify the person responsible for
such violation in accordance with the procedures stated in
Section 12.0 of the Ordinance.
10.2 Permit Requirements:
10.21 Permit Required. A Permit issued by the Zoning
Administrator in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance shall be secured prior to the erection, addition,
or alteration of any building, structure, or portion
thereof; 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 the placement of fill,
excavation of materials, or the storage of materials or
equipment within the flood plain.
10.22 Application for Permit. Application for a Permit
shall be ma~e in duplicate to the Zoning Administrator on
forms furnished by the Zoning Administrator and shall
include the following where applicable: plans in duplicate
drawn to scale, showing the nature, location, dimensions,
and elevations of the lot; existing or proposed structures,
fill, or storage of materials; and the location of the
foregoing in relation to the stream channel.
10.23 State and Federal Permits. Prior to granting a Permit
or processing an application for a Conditional Use Permit or
Variance, the Zoning Administrator shall determine that the
applicant has obtained all necessary State and Federal
Permits.
10.24 Certificate of Zoning Compliance for a New, Altered,
or Nonconforming Use. It shall be unlawful to use, occupy,
or permit the use or .pccupancy of any building or premises
or part thereof hereafter created, erected, changed,
converted, altered, or enlarged in its use or structure
until a Certificate of Zoning Compliance shall have been
issued by the Zoning Administrator stating that the use of
the building or land conforms to the requirements of this
Ordinance.
10.25 Construction and Use to be as Provided on
Applications, Plans, Permits, Variances and Certificates of
Zoning Compliance. Permits, Conditional Use Permits, or
Certificates of Zoning Compliance issued on the basis of
approved plans and applications authorize only the use,
arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved
plans and applications, and no other use, arrangement, or
construction. Any use, arrangement, or construction at
variance with that authorized shall be deemed a violation of
this Ordinance, and punishable as provided by Section 12.0
of this Ordinance.
10.26 Certification. 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 ordinance. Flood-
proofing measures shall be certified by a registered
professional engineer or registered architect.
10.27 Record of First Floor Elevation. The Zoning
Administrator shall maintain a record of the elevation of
the lowest floor (including basement) of all new structures
and alterations or additions to existing structures in the
flood plain. The Zoning Administrator shall also maintain a
record of the elevation to which structures or alterations
and additions to structures are flood-proofed.
10.3 Boars of Adjustment:
10.31 Rules. The Board of Adjustment shall adopt rules for
the conduct of business and may exercise all of the powers
conferred on such Boards by State law.
10.32 Administrative Review. The Board shall hear and
decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any
order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an
administrative official in the enforcement or administration
of this Ordinance.
10.33 Variances. The Board may authorize upon appeal in
specific cases such relief or variance from the terms of
this Ordinance 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 ~egislation for planning and zoning for
cities or counties as appropriate. In the granting of such
variance, the Board of Adjustment 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.
No Variance shall have the effect of allowing in any
district uses prohibited in that district, permit a lower
degree of flood protection than the Regulatory Flood
Protection Elevation for the particular area, or permit
standards lower than those required by State law.
10.34 Hearings. Upon filing with the Board of Adjustment of
an appeal from a decision of the Zoning Administrator, or an
application for a variance, the Board shall fix a reasonable
time for a hearing and give due notice to the parties in
interest as specified by law. The Board shall submit by
mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of the
application for proposed Variances sufficiently in advance
so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten days
notice of the hearing.
10.35 Decisions. The Board shall arrive at a decision on
such appeal or Variance within days. In
passing upon an appeal, the Board may, so long as such
action is in conformity with the provisions of this
Ordinance, reverse or affirm, wholly or in part, or modify
the order, requirement, decision or determination of the
Zoning Administrator or other public official. It shall
make its decision in writing setting forth the findings of
fact and the reasons for its decisions. In granting a
Variance the Board may prescribe appropriate conditions and
safeguards such as those specified in Section 10.46, which
are in conformity with the purposes of this Ordinance.
Violations of such conditions and safeguards, when made a
part of the terms under which the Variance is granted, shall
be deemed a'violation of this Ordinance punishable.under
Section 12.0. A copy of all decisions granting Variances
shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
10.36 Appeals. Appeals from any decision of the Board may
be made, and as specified in this Community's Official
Controls and also Minnesota Statutes.
10.37 Flood Insurance Notice and Record Keeping. The Zoning
Administrator shall notify the applicant for a variance
that: 1) 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 2) Such
construction below the 100-year or regional flood level
increases risks to life and property. Such notification
shall be maintained with a record of all variance actions.
A community shall maihtain 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.
10.4 Conditional Uses. The
(Governing Body/Planning Comm./Bd. of Adjust.
shall hear and decide applications for Conditional Uses
permissible under this Ordinance. Applications shall be
submitted to the Zoning Administrator who shall forward the
application to for consideration.
(Designated Body)
10.41 Hearings. Upon filing with the
an application for a
(Designated Body)
Conditional Use Permit, the shall submit
(Designated Body)
by mail to the Commissioner of Natural Resources a copy of
the application for proposed Conditional Use sufficiently in
advance so that the Commissioner will receive at least ten
days notice of the hearing.
10.42 Decisions. The shall arrive at
(Designated Body)
a decision on a Conditional Use within days. In
granting a Conditional Use Permit the
shall prescribe appropriate
(Designated Body)
conditions and safeguards, in addition to those specified in
Section 10.46, which are in conformity with the purposes of
this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions and
safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the
Conditional Use Permit is granted, shall be deemed a
violation of this Ordinance punishable under Section 12.0.
A copy of all decisions granting Conditional Use Permits
shall be forwarded by mail to the Commissioner of Natural
Resources within ten (10) days of such action.
10.43 Procedures to be followed by the
(Designated Body)
in Passing on Conditional Use Permit Applications Within all
Flood Plain Districts.
(a) ReqUire the applicant to furnish such of the following
information, and additional information as deemed necessary
by the for determining the suitability of
(Designated Body)
the particular site for the proposed use:
(1) Plans in triplicate drawn to scale showing the nature,
location, dimensions, and elevation of the lot, existing or
proposed structures,"fill, storage of materials, flood-
proofing measures, and the relationship of the above to the
location of the stream channel.
(2) Specifications for building construction and materials,
flood-proofing, filling, dredging, grading, channel
improvement, storage of materials, water supply and sanitary
facilities.
(b) Transmit one copy of the information described in
subsection (a) to a designated engineer or other expert
person or agency for technical assistance, where necessary,
in evaluating the proposed project in relation to flood
heights and velocities, the seriousness of flood damage to
the use, the adequacy of the plans for protection, and other
technical matters.
(c) Based upon the technical evaluation of the designated
engineer or expert, the shall determine the
(Designated Body)
specific flood hazard at the site and evaluate the
suitability of the proposed use in relation to the flood
hazard.
10.44 Factors Upon Which the Decision of the
Shall Be Based. In passing
(Designated Body)
upon Conditional Use applications, the
(Designated Body)
shall consider all relevant factors specified in other
sections of this Ordinance, and:
(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 susceptability 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) Th~ requirements of the facility for a waterfront
location.
(g) The availability of alternative locations not subject
to flooding for the proposed use.
(h) The comparability of the proposed use with existing
development and development anticipated in the forseeable
future.
(i) The relationship of the proposed use to the
comprehensive plan aqd flood plain 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.
10.45 Time for Acting on Application. The
shall act on an application in the
(Designated Body)
manner described above within days from receiving the
application, except that where additional information is
required pursuant to 10.44 of this Ordinance. The
shall render a written decision within
(Designated Body)
days from the receipt of such additional information.
10.46 Conditions Attached to Conditional Use Permits. Upon
consideration of the factors listed above and the purpose of
this Ordinance, the shall attach such
(Designated Body)
conditions to the granting of Conditional Use Permits as it
deems necessary to fulfill the purposes of this Ordinance.
Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, the
following:
(a) Modification of waste treatment and water supply
facilities.
(b) Limitations on period of use, occupancy, and operation.
(c) Imposition of operational controls, sureties, and deed
restrictions.
(d) Requirements for construction of channel modifications,
compensatory storage, dikes, levees, and other protective
measures.
(e) Flood-~roofing measures, in accordance with the State
Building Code and this Ordinance. The applicant shall
submit a plan or document certified by a registered
professional engineer or architect that the flood-proofing
measures are consistent with the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation and associated flood factors for the particular
area.
SECTION _11.0 NONCONFORMING USES
11.1 A structure or the use of a structure or premises
which was lawful before the passage or amendment of this
Ordinance but which is not in conformity with the provisions
of this Ordinance may be continued subject to the following
conditions:
11.11 No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or
altered in a way which increases its nonconformity.
11.12 Any alteration or addition to a nonconforming
structure or nonconforming use which would result in
increasing the flood damage potential of that structure or
use shall be protected to the Regulatory Flood Protection
Elevation in accordance with any of the elevation on fill or
flood proofing techniques ( i.e. , FP-1 thru FP-4
floodproofing classifications) allowable in the State
Building Code, except as further restricted in 11.13 below.
11.13 The cost of any structural alterations or additions 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 Section are
satisfied. The cost of all structural alterations and
additions constructed since the adoption of the Community's
initial flood plain controls must be calculated into today's
current cost which will include all costs such as
construction materials 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 structure, then the structure
must meet the standards of Section 4.0 or 5.0 of this
Ordinance for new structures depending upon whether the
structure is in the Floodway or Flood Fringe, respectively.
11.14 If any nonconforming use is discontinued for 12
consecutive months, any future use of the building premises
shall conform to this Ordinance. The assessor shall notify
the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances of
nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for a period
of 12 months.
11.15. If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by
any means, including floods, to an extent of 50 percent or
more of its~arket value at the time of destruction, it
shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of this Ordinance. The applicable provisions for
establishing new uses or new structures in Sections 4.0, 5.0
or 6.0 will apply depending upon whether the use or
structure is in the Floodway, Flood Fringe or General Flood
Plain District, respectively.
SECTION 12.0 PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION
12.1 Violation of the provisions of this Ordinance or
failure to comply with any of its requirements (including
violations of conditions and safeguards established in
connection with grants of Variances or Conditional Uses)
shall constitute a misdemeanor and shall be punishable
as defined by law.
12.2 Nothing herei~ contained shall prevent the
from taking such other lawful action
(local unit)
as is necessary to prevent or remedy any violation. Such
actions may include but are not limited to:
12.21 In responding to a suspected ordinance violation, the
Zoning Administrator and Local Government 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
community must act in good faith to enforce these official
controls and to correct ordinance violations to the extent
possible so as not to jeopardize its eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
12.22 When an ordinance violation is either discovered by or
brought to the attention of the Zoning Administrator, the
Zoning Administrator 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 will be submitted to the
appropriate Department of Natural Resources' and Federal
Emergency Management Agency Regional Office along with the
Community's plan of action to correct the violation to the
degree possible.
12.23 The Zoning Administrator shall notify the suspected
party of the requirements of this Ordinance 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 Zoning Administrator
may order the construction or development immediately halted
until a pro~eer permit or approval is granted by the
Community. -If the construction or development is already
completed, then the Zoning Administrator may either (1)
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 (2)
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.
12.24 I~ the responsible party does not appropriately
respond to the Zoning Administrator within the specified
period of time, each additional day that lapses shall
constitute an additional violation of this Ordinance and
shall be prosecuted accordingly. The Zoning Administrator
shall 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 Ordinance.
SECTION 13.0 AMENDMENTS
The flood plain designation on the Official Zoning Map shall
not be removed from flood plain areas unless it can be shown
that the designation is in error or that the area has been
filled to or above the elevation of the regional flood and
is contiguous to lands outside the flood plain. Special
exceptions to this rule may be permitted by the Commissioner
of Natural Resources if he determines that, through other
measures, lands are adequately protected for the intended
use.
Ail amendments to this Ordinance, including amendments to
the Official Zoning Map, must be submitted to and approved
by the Commissioner of Natural Resources prior to adoption.
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 Natural Resources must be
given 10-days written notice of all hearings to consider an
amendment to this Ordinance and said notice shall include a
draft of the ordinance amendment or technical study under
consideration.
ATTACHMENT 4
Northwe ssoci Consul ants, Inc.
U R B A-N P L NG D N M A R K E R ES 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. I.n 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 - Floodplain 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 discrepancies
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 4.1~1 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 Dist'rict
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 4.174 Rule for Interpretation of District Boundaries
Section 4.176 -Qf 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 all 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 existing
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.
3
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
recommendation by the City Engineer.
OTHER ISSUES
Subdivisions. The State Model Ordinance contains specific
language relating to an applicant's responsibility to submit
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) Plan (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 onlo 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
Floodinq Sources. In determining appropriate applications 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:
1. 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 Usaqe.. 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.
Floodinq 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
EXHIBIT A - FLODPLAIN LOCATIONS
'- I ZONE CF
' I
-
, ;<; ZONE C
XYLON AV I~'~'0 r-'
[ ~/ r"~ RoADEAST
Z A A . ~'/ "'
~ A A -~ '/
~dONE --~ , ~V~E
KEY TO MAP
500-Year FlooO ~oundar~
lOO-Year FlooO Boundary
FLOODWAY FRINGE ~ FLOODWAY
~ t00-Year Flood Boundary
500-Year Flood Boundary
~mS~N ~ ~v~uE J Approximate lO0-Year
~ ~ Flood Boundary
~ *~av~u~ ~ ~ [levation Reference Mark ~M7X
-- River Mile
RM2 ~vE~u~ . ' ~
/ ZONE C ?,
][ ' -~ '- --~EXHIBIT-B1 - FLOOD BOUNDARY AND FLOODWAY MAP
____~. . ..... ~ ,
3N008
KEY
~~ 500-Yea~ Flood Boundar%
O
O 100-Year Flood Boundary ~
FLOODWAY FRINGE
100-Year Flood Boundary
500-Year Flood Boundary
Approximate tOO-Year
Flood Boundary
Cross Section Line
0
0 Elevation Re~erence Mark
River Mile
100 -YEAR FLOOD PLAIN --~
LOOOWAY ~ ~ FLOODWAY -"-- -Ir' L ()ODWAY~_
FRINGE FRINGE
STREAM
CHANNEL
FLOOD ELEVATION WHEN
CONFINED WITHIN FLOODWAY
ON FLOOD PLAIN
EXHIBIT C - FLOODWAY SCHEMATIC
~ SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS
A. Backqround
The New Hope Zoning Ordinance currently provides three different off-
street parking standards for shopping centers according to facility
size:
Building Area Parking Required
0-20,000 square feet 10 spaces per 1,000 square feet
20,000-30,000 square feet 8 spaces per 1,000 square feet
30,000 square feet and over 6 spaces per 1,000 square feet
In the past the current standard has worked well for centers less than
50,000 square feet in size, but the application of the standard of six
spaces per 1,000 square feet for shopping centers of 50,000 square feet
in Size has been questioned. The idea of creating new standard which
would specifically address shopping centers greater than 50,000 square
feet in size has been discussed with the Planning Consultant.
B. Attachments
The Planning Consultant has prepared the attached report and compared
the current New Hope Standards to the ITE (Institute of Traffic
Engineers) Parking Generation Manual. A sample survey shows that the
City standard of six spaces per 1000 square feet is high for a center
ranging from 50,000 to 100,000 square feet. The high average was 4.7
vehicles per 1000 square feet.
The Building official has prepared a chart illustrating available and
required parking at shopping center complexes in New Hope and shows the
impact that the ordinance change would have on proposed parking spaces.
The current parking requirements ordinance for shopping centers is
attached.
C. Comments
The Consultant feels that a revised standard should be considered and
the Building Official supports the change for the following reasons:
1. The current City standard groups all centers over 30,000 square
feet into the same category.
2. The current City standard is higher than the average for centers
over 50,000 square feet in size.
3. A new standard would provide adequate parking based on peak
parking demands, but would not promote an over-supply of parking.
4. Shopping centers promote one-stop shopping at several different
stores and this encourages a turnover in parking spaces.
5. Less restrictive parking requirements for larger centers would
reduce the asphalt coverage of a lot and would promote additional
landscaping/green area.
ATTACHMENT 1
' I R B A P L. N G D N . M A R K E T R E S E A R C H
MEMORANDUM
TO: Doug Sandstad/Kirk McDonald
FROM: Robert Kirmis/Alan Brixius
DATE: 17 January 1991
RE: New Hope - Shopping center Parking
Requirements
FILE NO: 131.00 - 91.01
BACKGROUND
At your request, I have conducted a comparative analysis of the
City's off-street parking standards for shopping centers and the
standards for similar facilities offered by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers within the ITE Parking Generation
Manual. The analysis has been initiated by a perceived need for
the City Zoning Ordinance to specifically address shopping
centers over 50,000 square feet in size.
ISSUES ANALYSIS
Existinq Standards. Currently, the New Hope Zoning Ordinance
provides three differing off-street parking standards for
shopping centers. The said standards vary according to facility
size and are listed below per Section 4.036 (10) (2).
(2) Shopping Centers.
(i) 0-20,000 square feet of building area - ten spaces per
one thousand square feet.
(ii) 20,001 - 30,000 square feet of building area - eight
spaces per one thousand square feet.
(iii)30,001 square feet and pver of building area - six
spaces per one thousand square feet.
All areas are cumulative and refer to gross leasable
building area and do not include covered or enclosed
walkways, malls or lanes between stairs and similar public
areas not intended or used for sales, display or other
commercial purposes.
4601 Excelsior Blvd.- Suite 410. Minneapolis, MN 55416. (612) 925-9420.Fax 925-2721
As shown above, a proportionate off-street parking standard for
shopping centers of varied size is offered within the Ordinance.
While past experience has shown the standard to work well for
centers less than 50,000 square feet in size, the application of
the six spaces per 1,000 square feet for larger centers (greater
than 50,000 square feet) has raised questions.
In addressing this issue, the City has requested an investigalion
· into the possibility of creating a new standard which would
specifically address shopping centers greater than 50,000 square
feet in size.
ITE Standards. To aid in the determination of an appropriate
off-street parking standard for shopping centers greater than
50,000 square feet in size, the ITE Parking Generation Manual has
been referenced.
According to the said manual, a sample of shopping centers
ranging in size from 50,000 to 99,999 square feet in size
revealed a peak weekday parking range from 1.3 to 4.7 vehicles
per 1,000 square feet.
Saturday rates (Thanksgiving-December), on the other hand,
revealed a range of from 3.7 to 5.4 vehicles per 1,000 square
feet.
Because Ordinance parking standards are designed to address peak
parking demands, it is recommended that this line of thought be
utilized in the formulation of a standard for shopping centers
greater than 50,000 square feet in size.
Resultantly, an off-street parking requirement of five spaces for
shopping centers greater than 50,000 square feet in size should
be subject to consideration for incorporation within the City
Zoning Ordinance.
CONCLUSION
Based on the preceding analysis, it appears that an off-street
parking standard of five spaces per 1,000 square feet of
building area is most appropriate for shopping centers greater
than 50,000 square feet in size. This standard differs from the
standard currently in place which requires six spaces per 1,000
square feet. "
cc: Dan Donahue
ATTAC! ]NT 2
CITY OF NEW HOPE SHOPPINg CENTERS
Building/Parking Ratios
February, 1991
EXISTINg CODE *O~DINANCE CHANGE
PROPERTY: ADDRESS: BUILDING AliEA: AVAILABLE PARKING: "REQUIRED P~.KING": PROPOSED P~tKING:
Poste Haste 9408-9450 36th 21,780 square feet 156 156 156 --
Midland Center 2703-61 Winnetka 69,062 " 421 414 345 [-69]
New Hope Mall 4203-39 Winnetka 79,844 " 463 (480 option)# 461 384 [-77]
Winnetka Center 4401-4471Wtka b 92,200 " 617 553 461 [-92]
KMART Center 4301-4351Xylon 118,300 " 630 (662 option)# 709 590 [-119]
# New Site Plans are in process of review with restriping using the
newer reduced dimensions in city code. In each case, more parking
can be created on these large properties with slightly smaller
stall widths and lengths.
NOTE:
Staff are not aware of any parking shortage on these Shopping Center lots. While one center, the
New Hope Mall has a rush hour heavy use of the north and center parking lot, it has a property
management problem because their are usually several dozen empty stalls at the rear where all
employees should be parking.
One option in a revised parking standard is to reduce the asphalt coverage of the lot with new
landscaping. Another option is to expand the buildings. A third option is to consider splitting
off new "Satellite" developments envisioned and built as described in our Commercial Core Design
Guidelines". [McDonalds and the Marquette Bank Drive-In are examples. ] No change will result in
the maintenance of the status quo, with excess asphalt on these B-4 sites~over 50,000 sqaure feet.
ATTACHMENT 3
4.036 (10)(z) - (ll)(a)(i)
~ , (z) ~hopping Centers.
(i) '0-- 20,000 square feet of building area - ten spaces
per one thousand square feet.
(ii) 20,001 - 30,000 square feet of building area - eight
spaces per one thousand square feet.
(iii) 30,001 square feet and over of building area - six
spaces per one thousand square feet.
Ail areas are cumulative and refer to gross leasable
building area and do not include covered or enclosed
walkways, malls or lanes between stairs and similar public
areas not intended or used for sales, display or other
commercial purposes.
(aa) Private Racketball~ Handball, and Tennis Courts. Not less
than six spaces for each court.
(bb) Manufacturinq, Fabricating or Processing of a Product or Material.
One space for each three hundred and fifty square feet of
floor area, plus one space for each company owned truck (if
not stored inside principal building).
(cc) Warehousing~ Storage or Handling of Bulk Goods. That space
which is solely used as office shall comply with the office
use requirements and one space per each one thousand square
feet of floor area, plus one space for each company owned
truck (if not stored inside principal building).
(dd) Other Uses. Other uses not specifically mentioned herein
shall be determined on an individual basis by the City
Council. Factors to be considered in such determination
shall include (without limitation) size of building, type of
use, number of employees, expected volume and turnover of
customer traffic and expected frequency and number of
delivery or service vehicles.
(11) Joint Facilities.
(a) Off-Site Joint Use of Parking. The City Council may, after
receiving a report and recommendation from the Planning
Commission, approve a conditional use permit for one or more
businesses to provide the required off-street parking
facilities by joint use of one or more sites where the total
number of spaces provided are less than the sum of the total
required for each business should they provide them
separately. When considering a request for such a permit,
the Planning Commission shall not recommend that such permit
be granted except when the following conditions are found to
exist.
(i) Entertainment Uses. Up to fifty percent of the parking
facilities required for a theatre, bowling alley, dance
hall, bar or restaurant may be supplied by the off-
street parking facilities provided by types of Uses
specified as primarily daytime uses an subsection (iv)
below.
4-38
072684