The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/22/1989 - 7091� -; City of Fridley A G E N D A Jock Robertson Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1989 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: COMMUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, 6085 - 7TH STREET N.E. CALL TO ORDER• ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING CONIlKISSION MINUTES: February l, 1989 February 8, 1989 CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION SAV #89-01 BY WBDH REALTY , 1- 1G COMPANY : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To vacate a 30 foot road easement located along the east property line of Lot 3, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, except the east 200 feet thereof, generally located southwest of 7810 University Avenue N.E. �� LIGHT RAIL TRANSI UPDATE . . /� • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ' 2 - 2H � �+�ti��s��?�,�i ��a 1989 WORKPLAN . � _ _ , n / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 3C ..�.,.�� .... _. .. ..__---- — -- ---- - -- CONII�lISSION MEETING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yel l ow RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 61 1989 PARKS AND RECREATION CONII�IISSION MEETING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Green OTHER BUSINESS• f��T�Ii1.�►1u��flY n h� '= w CITY OF FRIDLEY BPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINC�, FEBRIIARY 1, 1989 ------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the February 1, 1989, special Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Paul Dahlberg, Alex Barna Members Absent: Sue Sherek Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Jock Robertson, Community Development Director � John Flora, Public Works Director Steve Billings, City Councilmember Tim Yantos, A.C. Regional Railroad Authority Dick Wolsfeld, BRW Doug Moore, BRW Scott Lund, Corridor Advisory Committee Greg Owens, Chamber af Commerce DISCUSSION OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT): Mr. Betzold stated the Planning Commission had requested this opportunity to meet with the individuals involved with light rail transit and to invite other interested parties to discuss light rail transit. He stated they have to start with the assumption that light rail transit is going to come through Fridley. The Planning Commission's concerns are: If it comes through Fridley, what are the impacts on Fridley? Where should it go? How can the Planning Commission affect this process? Even though there are some overall major decisions that will be made for light rail transit at a far higher level, he felt they should concentrate on planning for light rail transit in Fridley. Mr. Tim Yantos, Deputy City Administrator for Anoka County and Director of the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority's Light Rail Transit Planning, was at the meeting to give an overview of light rail transit. Mr. Yantos stated also at the meeting with him were Dick Wolsfeld and Doug Moore from BRW. He stated Mr. Wolsfeld and Mr. Moore were hired by the Anoka County Regional Railroad -1- � BPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION 1►IEHTINa FBHRIIARY 1 1989 Authority and the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority to assist the Railroad Authority in developing a comprehensive plan. In.this first phase they will be developing a comprehensive plan working with Hennepin County because the line obviously goes beyond 37th Avenue fram Anoka County to downtown Minneapolis. Hennepin County has.four differrent routes they are going to build. Mr. Yantos stated the reason the Railroad Authority got involved in the first place was because they are very concerned about the traffic �qrid lock", and they want to provide transportation for their citizens in the future. Also, the Metropolitan Council, in its long ranqe transportation plans, does not look at any more freeways or expansion of hiqhways, but are looking at light rail transit as the next mode of transportation. Mr. Yantos stated that with the comprehensive plan, they are looking at whether light rail transit works in Anoka County; and if it does, where? To assist them in that process, they have developed quite an elaborate committee process. The Technical Advisory Committee with various technical people from all over the cities and counties look at the same information. The Corridor Advisory Committee is made up of citizens and business people who are impacted by the proposed routes. The Intergovernmental Committee is made up of elected officials of the cities and counties. The information flows from the Technical Advisory Committee to the Corridor Advisory Committee, to the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. The Interqovernmental Advisory Committee very quickly will be making a recommendation to the Railroad Authority regarding the routes and station locations, etc., of the project. Mr. Yantos stated in the study they are looking at patronage analysis or the ridership. They are looking at the alignment studies of which routes they want to select, the various station locations, the "park and ride" (another key element), the cost, the roadway system interface, the funding and financial alternatives. Those all then become part of their comprehensive plan which will then go to the Railroad Authorities for approval. Mr. Yantos stated another aspect of what they are trying to complete as part of their comprehensive plan is to look at the transportation plan in the future--all the transit systems, the bus systems--to find out how it is all going to weld together within the next 20 years. Mr. Yantos stated he would like Dick Wolsfeld to �alk about the technical portion and how light rail transit affects the City of Fridley, where it is going, some of the station locations, and how -2- � ?`� SPECIAL PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETING. FBBR�ARY 1, 1989 the decisions are made. Mr: Wolsfeld stated he is a member of the Citizen Advisory Committee and a member of the Technical Advisory Committee. He stated he would start out by telling how this relates to the rest of what is going on in Hennepin County. He stated Hennepin County adopted a comprehensive plan for the City last June, and they saw a long range basic service in six corridors focusing on downtown Minneapolis: one out Hiawatha to the airport with an extension to the proposed Megamall; one in the 35W South corridor; southwest service out to Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden Prairie; northwest service to Crystal, Robbinsdale, Brooklyn Park/Brooklyn Center; a northeast line which will connect Anoka County with Hennepin County; and then a connection in the Midway corridor over to downtown St. Paul. The concept was that light rail would be a system which will facilitate the movement from the northwest corridor to the airport and southwest to the University. So, they thouqht it was important in the beginning not to build a single long corridor but to start service in multiple corridors and then have the system grow. Mr. Wolsfeld stated the Northeast Corridor Study focused on that concept, and the Committee started with 110 miles of candidate places to locate light rail transit service in the northeast corridor. The charge to each of those advisory committees was to come back with a single preferred alternative and to make that advice to the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority. The Committee went through the process of looking at technical infonaation on those routes, narrowing them, eliminating and screening out the ones they did not see were superior, until they got down to where they have reached some tentative conclusions they would be discussing at this Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Wolsfeld stated the would give the Planning Commission a flavor of the kinds of technical information the Committee looked at. Generally, they divided the northeast corridor down into Northeast Minneapolis (the City of Minneapolis out to 37th Avenue) , from 37th Avenue to I-694, and then north of I-694 generally up to the Northtown area. They looke.d at how much right-of-way is required, the impact on the frontage roads, the impact on sidewalks, whether there is adequate room for parking, right and left turn lanes, crossing traffic, the impact on land use, and major environmental impacts. The Committee spent a lot of time discussing the issue they refer to as "urban versus commuter" service, and it gets to the philosophy of what they want light rail transit to do. Do they want it to be high speed with relatively infrequent stops that provides a service that can compete with the automobile, or is their objective to provide more localized service, maybe 1/2 mile -3- SPECIAL PLANNING CO1rII►IISSION MESTING, F$HRIIARY 1, 1989 to 3/8 mile stations? The travel time is going to be longer, but they can provide more access to the user. Mr. Wolsfeld stated when they started narrowing the alternatives, they very quickly began to focus on University Avenue and Central Avenue, and a number of transitions between those two routes. These two routes were deemed as being the best in terms of service, travel times, and other characteristics. Then, the Committee had to begin to evaluate those and choose whether to be on Central or University or a combination of both �nd where. Each of the Advisory Committee members were asked to identify the test, the criteria, and the issues that were most important to them. Some said the highest ridership, some said it should be the fastest travel time, some said it should be the cheapest system, some thought they should avoid the environmental impacts, and some thought they should use light rail transit to foster economic growth. Mr. Wolsfeld stated they talked about economics from three different standpoints: 1. in terms of new development 2. better productivity of the economy 3. fostering redevelopment Mr. Wolsfeld stated that as they. began to look at how one would achieve each of those individual criteria, they ended up with a different answer in terms of alternatives. If they want to maximize the ridership, the data says they can maximize ridership by starting at Northtown, staying on University Avenue down to I- 694, then transitioning over to Central, servicing the businesses that exist on Central Avenue, all the way to downtown Minneapolis. Mr. Wolsfeld stateci if their objective is to minimize the impacts from a traffic and land use standpoint, the best thing to do is to stay on University Avenue and avoid all the commercial development and right-of-way constraints that exist on Central, down to the Burlington Northern main line, avoid all the single family homes that exist along University Avenue and into downtown. Mr. Wolsfeld stated•if they are tryinq to maximize economic impacts, in terms of development as it relates to the north, they could probably be on either one of those routes, but they need to get over to Central Avenue to get better sales productivity per square foot, and they might want to introduce a new alternative of going over to Marshall to try to foster some redevelopment. Mr. Wolsfeld stated the last one is to minimize the environmental -4- � v SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 1. 1989 impacts, and the major environmental concern is Moore Lake. In putting all this together in a composite drawinq and look at those factors of the ridership, minimizing impacts, economic impacts, environmental impacts, the conclusion of the Advisory Committee to date is that north of I-694, University Avenue offers more advantages in terms of ineeting more of these criteria than does Central Avenue. When they get south of I-694, that situation changes, and Central Avenue appears to offer more advantage, and then south of 37th Avenue, it is a mixed bag. Mr. Wolsfeld stated each of the advisory eommittees is at a different stage. The Citizen Advisory Committee made its recommendations in terms of what should happen in the next phase, the Technical Advisory Committee is waiting for some additional information on transitions along I-694 before they reach any conclusions, and the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee is waiting for the Citizen and Technical Advisory Committees to give them information. Mr. Wolsfeld stated that at this point, he would say that north of I-694 there was a fairly good concensus that University has more advantages than Central. It focuses on Northtown; it provides good travel time; it maximizes ridership; and it minimizes the environmental impacts. Mr. Wolsfeld stated he had a series of complete aerial photos so the Planning Commission members could see where the line was proposed within Fridley. He stated Doug Moore has been the Project Manager for the northeast corridor,and he would review the proposed alignment through Fridley. Mr. Moore stated they are tryi�g to take advantage of the existing noise barrier that is already protecting the homes from the noise of I-694, so they will be locating the light rail up against and adjacent to the noise barrier. Mr. Saba asked �ahy the Burlington Northern route was not selected. Why go along University Avenue or Central Avenue? Mr. Yantos stated the County is concerned that if they are going to have a route, they have to have ridership. The concerns with the Burlington Northern line are: (1) the ridership would not be there; and (2) Burlington Northern does not want the light rail there. Mr. Saba stated that he looked at some developments on the East Coast and on the West Coasts that use railroads very successfully and with an extremely high volume of ridership. He just did not -5- d SPECIAL PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINa, FEBRIIARY 1. 1989 understand why they could not either use the existinq track or at least build a track alongside, even if they have to take property. Mr. Yantos stated usinq the Burlinqton Northern track was one of the first things looked at by the committee members. They also looked at the potential for development, ridership, and the ability to either share or use or buy property; and it was extremely difficult w�th the Burlington Northern route compared to the University and Central Avenue routes. Mr. Wolsfeld stated that for Hennepin County's system, the northwest is in a Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way, and the southwest line is in an old Chicaqo/Northwestern railroad right-of-way that Hennepin County purchased. In looking at the Burlington Norethern trackage for the northeast corridor, the major problem is it is way off center in terms of where the primary activities are in terms of access, so its ability to attract ridership would be difficult. Plus, Burlington Northern has said this is their main line for Montana to Chicago, and there is not excess right-of-way within that trackage. Mr. Saba asked what kinds of hazards were there as far as pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the tracks. Mr. Yantos stated they would have gates and lights. There was probably more protection at intersections than there currently is at semaphores and stop signs. Mr. Saba asked if Mr. Yantos had any pictures of what the light rail transit would actually look like. Mr. Yantos stated "Reach of Rail" is an excellent video showing how light rail transit works and what it looks like. Mr. Kondrick asked if Mr. Wolsfeld had any idea what the ridership would be down University Avenue to downtown. He stated a lot of people who live in his neighborhood work in Bloomington, Maple Grove, all over the Twin Cities area. How are they going to service these people with light rail transit? Mr. Wolsfeld stated they are not qoing to be able to service someone who lives in Fridley and works in Maple Grove with light rail transit. Light rail transit is servinq a certain segment of the travel market, and it is not the answer to all the transportation problems within the region. The estimate is that about 60� of the ridership will be to or from downtown Minneapolis. The other 40$ will have a destination of Northtown, University of Minnesota, the airport,and other destinations along the route. The -6- � � BPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINQ, FEBRUARY 1, 1989 primary reason that the Hennepin County Railroad Authority is proceeding with a system that goes out to County Road 18 as part of the first stage, goes northwest to 63rd Avenue, qoes over to the University of Minnesota, and out to Hiawatha to 46th Avenue is to give service in four corridors such that people have the ability to go more places than just from a single corridor to downtown. They want to get away from that orientation to downtown. Mr. Wolsfeld stated when Hennepin County put its plan together, they had strong advocates for the downtown tunnel. The people who studied that and supported that were qenerally the suburban mayors. They wanted the ability to move through the downtown area as well as to get to the downtown area. Still, the primary destination is downtown Minneapolis. But, if they look at the percentage of the bus riders today who go to the two downtowns compared to the total ridership, he would guess that number is higher than 60�. Mr. Dahlberg asked if this wasn't a pretty expensive system to replace bus service. In effect, it is eliminating the University Avenue bus; and at $15 million per mile, couldn't that money be used to really upgrade the existing transportation system to do the same kind of thing or better? Mr. Wolsfeld stated people ask themsel'ves the question: "Is it something they ought to do in terms of the system?" Adding all the capital costs and operating costs that people in the Twin Cities area spend per year for transportation, Metropolitan Council ended up with a number between $3-5 billion per year. Light rail is oriented to only about 2-3� of the person trips in the region. If they spend $120 million and serve 3� of the people, that would be in proportion to what is being spent. In amortizing this in terms of an annual cost, they do not get anywhere close to $120 million per year. Mr. Wolsfeld stated he thought the problem with light rail is that people tend to look at it as the solution to the transportation problem in the Twin Cities, and it is not. It might be one part of the overall problem. Yes, it is expensive. The trains carry 500 people and 1 driver. With a busy, they have one driver for 48 people. The operating costs per passenger are significantly lower with light rail th�n they are with a bus. The question is: "Do they get enough people to use the light rail transit system that can justify the capital expenditures?" He stated it is a labor productivity decision. , Mr. Saba stated if they used that kind of money to upgrade the bus system, couldn't that end up with a much more portable and service- able system, even though they had more labor costs? -7- BPECIAL PLANNING COMMI88ION MEETINd. F$BRIIARY �. 1989 Mr. Saba asked about the reliability of light rail transit as far as time. Mr. Wolsfeld stated the one great advantage of light rail transit is its extreme reliability. It is in its exclusive right-of-way so it cannot get caught in traffic congestion. Mr. Yantos stated the service will be coming at 12-15 minute intervals, both directions, all day from 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Mr. Saba asked about the timeframe for building the northeast corridor, and how long it would take to complete the route to downtown Minneapolis. Mr. Yantos stated they could be under construction in 2-5 years. Mr. Wolsfeld stated the major difference between the old trolley car service and light trail is the trolley was a street car, and they ran down the middle of the street. It had to stop whenever there was traffic congestion. Light rail has its own right-of-way and will not be competing with automobiles. The automobiles cross the light rail tracks only. The Commission members viewed the videotape, "Reach of Rail". Mr. Betzold asked what the Anoka County Regional Railroad Authority was looking for, if anything, from the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the other people representing Fridley. Mr. Yantos stated that at this point in time, the committee members have been providing the Railroad Authority with guidance on the general route selection and possible station locations. After the comprehensive plan is completed the end of February, the next phase is the preliminary design stage. The County Railroad Authorities will look at that information and ultimately make the final decision as to where the system will be built. Then they will get into the final engineering stage. Mr. Saba asked how would the light rail transit system be paid for. Mr. Yantos stated they are looking at a variety of ways. Obviously, property taxes would be one way, another would be the State providing a large portion, Federal funding, and a variety of other revenues. Mr. Dahlberg stated that the present infrastructure of the roadways in Anoka County potentially could not accommodate expansion just -10- BPECIAL PL�INNING COMMISSION MEETINa. FBBRIIARY 1. 1989 due to limitation of right-of-way, required acquisition, etc. If a two track rail system is installed, at what level would the two tracks be at capacity? Mr. Moore stated it depended on how frequently they want the trains to run. In theory, they can operate the trains at 3 minute intervals, so that is 20 trains an hour. If they put 500 people in three car trains, that is potentially 10,000 people an hour in one direction. A freeway lane is moving fairly well at 1,200-1,400 people an hour. However, he did not think they could operate at a 3 minute frequency in the northeast corridor because there is too much conflict in getting through the cross streets. A 6-10 minute frequency is something they could expect on a long term basis, if they could generate that kind of ridership. Mr. Yantos stated to give the Commission members a perspective of the timing, the comprehensive plan will be acted upon by the end of February. The Railroad Authority will make a decision whether to go on to the next phase, the preliminary design phase. That will take about 8 months to complete. All the communities impacted at that time will have interaction all during that 8 months. Then, the preliminary design plan will come back about 8 months from March for review and comments by the communities. Mr. Robertson stated if it is the Railroad Authority's decision to proceed with light rail transit, the concerns the Planning Commission and Housing & Redevelopment Authority will have are the station locations and station types and the actual visual treatment decisions. Who is going to make that decision? How can the Planning Commission, Housing & Redevelopment Authority, and the City Council evaluate information and provide recommendations back to the Railroad Authority? Mr. Yantos stated each community has a different structure as to how they want to have their information flow up and down to the committees, but they hope that communication will happen. The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee will be continually active throughout the entire process. They will be working with John Flora, Public Works Director, and other Public Works people continually over the next 8 months. The Planning Commission reviewed the videotape of the proposed route through Fridley. The Planning Commission suggested a station be evaluated at the Lake Pointe site or at 7th Street along the I- 694 crossover. . Further, the Planning Commisson initiated discussion reqarding the number of station locations in the City. -11- A 1 I BPECIAL PLANNINa CO1rIISI8BION MEETINa, FEBROARY i. 1989 Mr. Barna suggested three stations along University Avenue to minimize the impact on city businesses. Mr. Dahlberg suggested the Planning Commission formalize its discussion on February 8 since no regular items are scheduled. Mr. Betzold agreed to conduct a meetinq on February 8 at 7:30 p.m. Mr. Betzold thanked Mr. Yantos, Mr. Wolsfeld, and Mr. Moore for coming to the Planning Commission meeting. He stated they could see that the Planning Commission wants to be involved in the process. ADJOURNMENT• � Chairperson Betzold declared the February 1, 1989, special Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lyn Saba Recd ding Secretary � - -12- � J �� A'� � ° f'"' e CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 8, 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the February 8, 1989, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: Others Present: Alex Barna Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator APPROVAL OF JANUARY 25 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the January 25, 1989, Planning Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CIiAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOIISLY. The Commissioners February 1, 1989, meeting. agreed to continue the approval of the Special Planning Commission minutes until the next 1. DISCUSSION OF LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT: Ms. Dacy stated at the end of the February 1 meeting, the Commissioners were talking about three stations in Fridley. Staff's questioh was: If development starts to happen at other locations along the route such as 81st Avenue or Osborne Road or Lake Pointe and there are only three station locations, will they have the ability to add stations in the future? She stated she had asked the BRW consultant about this. He said he would prefer that the Commission make a recommendation for the ultimate plan for station locations now, because it is more cost effective to design the station locations into the system design at this point. Ms. Dacy stated it is the consultant's recommendation that if the Commission is not going to recommend the urban philosophy or recommend certain station locations, they should at least prioritize alternate station locations. � � ,� PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 8. 1989 , Ms. Dacy stated she asked the consultant how many riders will be using this for internal trips (non-commuter oriented trips), and he said no more than 20�. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought they can make the assumption that the people using the LRT in Fridley are not going to do it internally. They are going to use it from whatever station location to downtown and then to points east and west. Whether Fridley has three stations or eight stations, the use is going to be primarily from the station to downtown. So, the determination of whether to have three stations versus eight stations is based on whether they want to provide the residents of Fridley an easy access from their homes and their neighborhoods to downtown. Ms. Dacy stated the urban philosophy affects the travel time, and that information was in charts included in the February 1 Planning Commission meeting agenda. The difference between the urban and commuter philosophy is about 4-5 minutes. Mr. Dahlberg stated the travel time potentially will be a critical element for people who are going to downtown from way out, and they are not going to want very many stops. Mr. Saba asked if any thought had been given to using the LRT for anything other than passenger service, such as a parcel service from the airport to industries or vice versa. If Lake Pointe is ever developed, some type of business center might want to use the LRT for an express type postal service. However, he did not see any point in having an LRT station at Lake Pointe. He would rather see the LRT run all the way down University Avenue with a minimum number of stops in Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated that other than the Columbia Arena station, the Mississippi Street station, the 57th Place station, and the 61st Avenue commuter site, they are looking at the following station locations: Osborne Road, 81st Avenue, Lake Pointe (possibly), and 53rd Avenue (possibly). The other factor that has to be looked at is whether the Columbia Arena sste is hampered because it does not have the east/west access. That is the last stop until Northtown, and having a station at either Osborne Avenue or 81st Avenue (or even 85th Avenue) wotald provide that east/west access. Ms. Dacy stated in her memo dated February 3 to the Planning Commission, she tried to summarize some pros and cons under the urban and commuter philosophy to help the Commission formalize their thoughts about what type of philosophy they wanted to recommend to the City's representatives on the Anoka County LRT Committees. -2- � r n � pLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 8, 1989 Mr. Betzold stated there is going to be a need for mass education to the public so they understand what is happening. The Commission might want to consider having a public hearing to inform the public and solicit input from the public. He stated two issues he felt the Planning Commission can influence are: 1. the route 2, the commuter or the urban philosophy Mr. Betzold stated that in order for the Commission to make a decision as to how many stops in Fridley, he would like to see what the whole system is going to look like. If they decide they want the fast LRT system with as few stops as possible in Fridley, that is fine; but then there �Bght be 11 stops in Columbia Heights. He thought a decision has to be made on a higher level as to whether there should be a few or many stops in, not only Fridley, but the other communities as well. Mr. Dahlberg stated he did not necessarily agree. At the Feb. 1 meeting, Mr. Flora suggested the possibility of the LRT system functioning like a bus service where there is an express vehicle that does not stop at every station. If the trains can be sequenced to operate in this fashion, then they can provide as many stops as is reasonable t� provide through the community. That seemed like the b�st recommendation. Why be strictly urban or strictly commuter? Why can't there be a mix? Mr. Saba stated the advantage of light rail is it is supposed to be more reliable than the bus service where people do not have to look at schedules but know that the train runs on a regular basis. Having a mix of urban and commuter might cause a problem with reliability of the service. Ms. Sherek asked why not a mixed transit model like the one in Chicago. The trains go downtown, but for local commuting, people take the bus. She had a problem with the elimination of the buses entirely. The bus system should be left in place. Mr. Dah�berg stated if the Commission decides to recommend an urban system, anaybe they should say that in order for the urban system to work in Fridley, there has to be a bus system running on the same street or line. Or, if they reeommend a commuter system through Fridley, then the Anoka County Railroad Authority, as well as the Metropolitan Council, should also include an express bus system on University Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated that under the urban philosophy, there are seven -3- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 8. 1989 stops north of I-694. There are a total of 18 stops from Northtown to downtown with seven stops in Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated under the commuter philosophy, there are 10 stations to downtown. The difference in time between the commuter and the urban north of I-694 is 7.6 minutes versus 9.7 minutes, so there is a difference of approximately 2 minutes. Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Dahlberg's point regarding a commuter/urban mix is a good one. Can the trains be established time-wise to have a commuter train and an urban train on the same line, also making sure there is a good feeder east/west bus service. Mr. Dahlberg stated that, academically, it might not be feasible to have a�ore than three stops in Fridley. Mr. Saba stated if the bus system is set up east and west, and there are reliable pickup points on the LRT route,; he could visualize companies running van service for their employees. Ms. Sherek stated the St. Paul Company does that right now in downtown St. Paul. Because of the expansion of parking space into office space, the company established a"park and ride" lot and run buses every three minutes from 6:00-9:00 a.m. and 5:00-7:00 p.m. for employees. If light rail transit is going to be a reality, then in a clevelopment like Lake Pointe, there are some detenainations that can be made as to how many employees would be commuters; and adjustments can be made in the parking requirements and things like that as far as incentives. Mr. Betzold asked what the time line is for a recommendation for urban versus commuter. Ms. Dacy stated the Committee representatives want to get some determination by February 15, 1989, so the Committees can recommend to the Anoka County Railroad Authority. At the end of February, the Anoka County Railroad Authority will then decide on the preliminary engineering phase. Ms. Dacy stated advantageous to intersections and well. if the LRT system works, it can be very City af �°ridley businesses at these key provide a service to the citizens of Fridley as Ms. Sherek stated she had a real problem with a station at Columbia Arena. There is just no east/west access. Mr. Dahlberg agreed. The only reason this station location was -4- � 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRUARY 8, 1989 selected is because of the large empty parking lot. Ms. Dacy stated the alternative to Columbia Arena is a station at 8lst Avenue, because there is some vacant property there now. Ms. Sherek stated the Columbia Arena station location can work if MnDOT cooperated by making a left turn directly from University Avenue with a stoplight. Mr. Kondrick stated that entering and exiting the Columbia Arena site either at 69th Avenue or 71st Avenue would create a lot of traffic. Mr. Dahlberg stated the new Immanuel Christian Center (the former Fridley Assembly of God) at Osborne Road and University Avenue has a very large parking lot, most of it unused during the day, and that might be a possibility for a station location. Ms. Dacy stated maybe the suggestion should be to reorient the Osborne Road station to commuter and the Columbia Arena station to urban, because of some of the local function it can serve and the parking it can provide. Ms. Dacy stated a parking lot is proposed northeast corner of the intersection for 44 is also proposed in the southwest corner between The Cattle Company and I-694 for 75 Rapid Oil Station and the repair service at proposed for redevelopment. at 57th Place in the cars. A parking lot of the intersection cars. She stated the 57th Place is an area Mr. Dahlberg stated he had a fundamental problem with the way right-of-way is being used for parking. Ms. Sherek agreed . It also did not do anything for the whole urban development they are trying to accomplish through Fridley with the University Avenue Corridor improvement project. Mr. Kondrick stated he would like to see all the parking on the same side of the street as the LRT stations. Mr. Dahlberg stated �aybe the Commission should recommend that if the LRT is going to run on the east side of University Avenue (or any street), any parking that accommodates the LRT station should be on the same side of the highway or street as the station and not in the right-of-way. He agreed with Ms. Sherek that this did not fit in with the University Avenue Corridor plans at all. Mr. Dahlberg suggested they look north of the old Zantigo where -5- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 8. 1989 there is some vacant property. His point is not whether it is appropriate to have a station at any certain location, but if they are going to go through contortions to squeeze cars into little garking lots within the right-of-way, why not just purchase the necessary property to accommodate the projected parking requirements and make it work? Ms. Sherek stated that there is enough property in the redevelop- ment area at 57th Place that could be acquired for a parking lot (Rapid Oil and the old Shorty's Towing Service). Mr. Saba stated another thing they have not discussed is land- scaping and how these parking lots are going to look. They have to be very adamant about proper landscaping and lighting, and this landscaping and lighting should fit in with the University Avenue Corridor planning. Ms. Sherek stated another important thing is a telephone system in the parking lots for security and emergency reasons. Ms. Dacy stated that from this discussion, she had outlined four general principles for the route: 1. Keep the station locations and parking lots on the same side as the LRT track. 2. Try and avoid locating the parking lots in the right-of- way to avoid an overcrowded appearance. 3. Purchase the necessary land at each station location that is needed, rather than trying the "hodge podge" approach. 4. Make the landscaping consistent with the University Avenue Corridor project. Mr. Kondrick stated another important link right now would be into Coon Rapids and Anoka because of the new proposed "Dale" shopping center at Round Lake Boulevard & Highway 10. Mr. Saba stated there is presently a bikeway/walkway along the east side of University Avenue, north of Mississippi Street. He would not want the LRT tracks jeopardizing any of the bikeway/walkway system. Mr. Kondrick stated the concern of overflow parking at the Columbia Arena site and the bikeway/walkway easement are concerns of the Parks & Recreation Commission. -6- � � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 8. 1989 Mr. Kondrick expressed concern about whether there was going to be a physical barrier/separation between the traffic lanes and the LRT track to avoid any accidents. This definitely should be considered. � Mr. Dahlberg stated another important consideration is the impact on Rice Creek north of Mississippi Street. Mr. Kondrick, Mr. Saba, and Ms. Sherek did not think Highway 65/ Central Avenue is a viable route for the LRT system. Where is it going to fit down Central Avenue? They thought the system should run down University Avenue to the Burlington Northern tracks, and then on to downtown Minneapolis. Mr. Dahlberg stated if.this is going to be a commuter service, then it makes sense for it to go down University Avenue. If it is going to be an urban service with as many stops as possible, then the route should go over to Central Avenue. Ms. Dacy asked if the Commissioners thought a stop at Lake Pointe is justified. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought the proximity from Lake Pointe to 57th Place is within walking distance, and maybe businesses within Lake Pointe would run shuttle vans/buses for employees to and from the 57th Place station. Mr. Saba and Ms. Sherek agreed. Ms. Dacy stated that as she understood the discussion, the Commissioners were more in favor of the commuter philosophy with a minimum of three stops in Fridley. The Commission did, however, have a lot of reservations about the Columbia Arena station and would like an evaluation made of a commuter stop at Osborne Road, possibly approaching the Immanual Christian Center about a joint use of their parking lot. If a location is not feasible at Osborne Road, then a station should be considered at 83rd Avenue. Also, the Commissioners would like someone to look at the property at 57th Place for a parking lot. If the proposed redevelopment does not happen at 57th Place, then the used car lot should be evaluated for a parking lot. Ms. Sherek stated that, regarding the placement of an LRT track down Central Avenue, there just is not enough space to do that. Some of the worst intersections for traffic and accidents are in the metropolitan area. Two good examples are the Lowry/Central Avenue intersection and the Broadway/Central Avenue intersection. -7- PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 8. 1989 Mr. Kondrick agreed. He stated he did not think the businesses along Central Avenue will agree to "no parking" in front of their businesses to make room for an LRT track. The Commissioners agreed the station locations in Fridley should be at 57th Place, Mississippi Street, Osborne Road (preferred over Columbia Arena), and maybe 81st Avenue or 83rd Avenue. Ms. Sherek stated she did not think Immanual Christian Center is the only option at Osborne Road either. There is other vacant land just north of Osborne Road. Mr. Dahlberg stated that if Central Avenue is determined to be the route south of I-694, then they should consider that this is no longer a commuter service, but an urban service from Northtown to downtown Minneapolis. If that is the case, then maybe they should add another stop in Fridley, having a stop at 81st Avenue and Osborne. Mr. Betzold stated he really felt there is a need to have a public hearing for residents and business people. Mr. Dahlberg stated staff should express to the Anoka County Rail- road Authority that the Commission is concerned that the process is going along and not involving the residents and business people who are tYae ones most directly affected by a system. Potentially, once the system is up and running, it is the cities that are going to get the flack from the residents. Mr. Betzold askecl Ms. Dacy to check with the City's representatives who work with the LRT committees to find out their thinking about having a public hearing/forum, and the Commission can schedule one accordingly. Mr. Saba suggested that a public hearing be held at a central location in order t� involve other communities affected such as Columbia Heights and Spring Lake Park. 2. RECEIVE JANUARY 12. 1.989, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the Jan. 12, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOOSLY. 3, RECEIVE JANUARY 17, 1989. JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY -8- � a d R r ° PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 8, 1989 COMMISSION/ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the Jan. 1�7, 1989, Joint EQC/Energy Commission minutes. QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY AND THE FEBRUARY 8, 1989, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:25 P.M. Respectfully submitted, r , � L �� nri Saba Reco ding Secretary -9- � CITY OF FRIDLEY REZONING REQUEST ZOA � � � 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. . � � FRIDLEY� MN bb432 VACATION REQUEST SAV ��9�° (612)571-3460 PLATTING REQUEST P.S. � x�u�r � si5o.00 �c � ��r � �J,� s��m �rn�nac a�r�ssw�v r�rn�c nA� �� O sa�� crr� aovNC� r�rnJC n� � PROPERTY INFORMATION PROPERTY ADL�2FSS 7810 University Avenue N.E. _ r•Fr�r. DESCRIPrFON: � 3 ��g 2 ��DTT� East Ranch Estates 2nd Addition except the east 200 feet thereof PRESFNT ZO�IIlVG C-3 R$�UFSTID ZONIlJG ��A REl�S�1 F�DR R�UF�T: A site. plan shoaing the proposed future use is required for all rez oning. Vacate 30 foot road- easement located along east property line of ,��g,�ertv described above - see plat attached ******************t�t******��*�****,�**�************************�******************** FEE OWNER INFORMATION N1�N� (please print) WBDH Realty Companv PHC�i�1E # ( 612 ) 942-7011 ��r-s. SIGN�UF Note to **,t****; PETITIONER INFORMATION NAA� (please print) Same as above ffiCt�E # � ... � � SIGI�URE DATE **************************************,k�it**,�r*********************,t,t****************** PL�Al�1NIlVG 4)N�iISSION : APPROVF� D�T� DATE MYY N. I�;MI :�::�./�`� �,yt 1�1� �' STIP[JLATI(7NS: � _ C[ZYOF FRIDLEY lA CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-3450 February 3, 1988 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The City of Fridley Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing on a request for a vacation, SAV #89-01, by WBDH Realty Company, to vacate a 30 foot road easement located along the east property line of Lot 3, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, except the east 200 feet thereof, generally located southwest of 7810 University Avenue N.E. Anyone who wishes to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, February 22, 1989 at the CONII�IUNITY EDUCATION CENTER, 6085 - 7TH STREET N.E. at 7:30 p.m. If you have any questions regarding this item, please feel free to contact the Community Development Department at 571-3450. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION u SAV 4�89-01 WBDH Realty Co. WBDH Realty Company Suite 950 7825 University Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55432 Robert Matson/Resident 7890 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Matson 2774 Dellwood Drive Roseville, NIN 55113 Angeles Properties 7820 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Angeles Properties ]0301 W. Pico Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90004 T.R. McCoys Bar and Grill 7850 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fantastic Sams 7860 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Minnesota School 7866 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Trial Lawyers and Legal 7868 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Petros Flowers 7870 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Home Liquidators Inc. 7872 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Video Update 7874 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning 2/3/89 MAILING LIST Council Summit Seminars Planning Commission Chair 7876 University Avenue N.E. �Fridley, MN 55432 City Council Members Summit Seminars 7878 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 WBDH Realty Co. 7810 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Pannekoeken House 7730 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Benson and Bradbury 5353 Gamble Drive Minneapolis, MN 55413 Benson and Bradbury 7710 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Kennedy Transmission 7700 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Niebuhr 7501 Hyde Park Drive Minneapolis, MN 55435 Machining Inc. 7773 Ranchers Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 P and•K Properties 5920 Kirkwood Lane North Minneapolis, MN 55442 Industrial Molded Rubber 7855 Ranchers Road N.E. Fxidley, MN 55432 Pitzen,Enterprises 3628 Connolly Arden Hills, MN 55112 1B � _ STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE �l��F PLANI�NG CON�VVqSS10N DATE �ruazy 22, 19.89 F[ZI DLEY CITY COLIWCIL DATE rtarc� 6, 19 89 . AuT►�oR SB /1 c REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER APPLICANT PROPOSED REQUEST LOCATION SITE DATA SIZE DENSITY PRESENT ZONING ADJACENT LAND USES 8� ZONWG UTq�T1ES PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FlNANCIAL IMPUCATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSNE PLAN CQMPAT�ILITY WITH ADJACENT USES 8� ZONWG ENVIRONMENTAL CONS(DERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNqVG COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SAV #89-01 WBDFi Rea1tY �anY To vacate a 30 ft. street easement Alo�g the east property line of I,�t 3, Bloc�c 2, East Ranch Estates, Seo�nd Additicn, exoept the east 200 feet thereof, generally located soufihwest of 7810 University Avenue N.E. 7.bta1 site: 5.0 acres. Expansion area: 1.0 acses N/A C-3, Ge�ral Shopping N: C-3; S: C-3; E: Spring Lake Park, �-3, Offioe, Comrer- cial, and 1�5, Multiple Dwellirigs; W: Nf-2, Heavy Industri y/A N/A N/A N/A N/A APProval with stipula.tions 1C ID STAFF REPORT SAV #89-01 Page 2 Rec�uest The Petitioner, WBDH Realty Company, is requesting the vacation of a 30 foot street easement located along the east property line of Lot 3, Block 2, East Ranch Estates, Second Addition, generally located southwest of 7810 University Avenue N.E. This vacation request was one of seven stipulations attached to SP #88-13 which was approved by Council on October 3, 1988. Background SP #8$-13 was issued to allow Northtown Nissan to expand its outdoor storage on a one-acre parcel to the south of 7810 University Avenue N.E. This site was affected by a lot split, L.S. #75-10, which required a street and utility easement along the east lot line of the property as well as the property to the east. The City vacated part of this easement in 1987 (SAV #$7-04) in connec- tion with the ABRA development (parcel to the east), but retained a 30 foot street and utility easement for the site on which Northtown Nissan later sought expansion. Analysis During the October 3, 1988, City Council meeting at which the special use permit was approved, concern was raised regarding future access problems if the property were to be sold. The possibility of those lots to the west becoming "landlocked" was discussed at that time. City Attorney, Virgil Herrick, explained that this problem could be avoided if the property in question were to be combined into one tax parcel. This would require that a lot split be approved if Nissan wished to sell the property at a future date, and the question of accessibility could be addressed at that time. Because'the combination has not yet been executed, it is recommended that the combination be a stipulation of approval. It is also recommended that the utility easement be retained and a drainaae easement be obtained for the same location. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested vacation, SAV #89-01, to vacate the 30 foot easement for street purposes with the following �tipulations: � . lE STAFF REPORT SAV #89-01 Page 3 1. The parcels shall be combined into one tax parcel prior to final adoption of the ordinance authorizing the vacation. 2. The easement for utility purposes shall be retained as currently described. 3. The petitioner shall execute a 30 foot drainage easement to the City for the same location. . SAV 4�89-01 WBDH Realty Co. LOCATION MAP IF � � un� F�� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PLANNING DNIS[ON MEMOR,ANDUM February 17, 1989 Planning Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Light Rail Transit Update The attached memorandum was forwarded to the City Council, the Housing & Redevelopment Authority, Tim Yantos, Dick Wolsfeld and the City representatives on the three LRT committees regarding the Planning Commission's recommendations on the proposed light rail transit and station locations. Also attached is a memorandum from John Flora summarizing the action of the TAC meeting of February 15, 1989. Also included is a letter from a resident on Rice Creek Boulevard N.E. expressing concern� regarding a proposed station location at Columbia Arena next to Locke Park. Please note that in Flora's memorandum, the TAC agreed that the "most realistic station locations would be at NoXthtown, 81st Avenue, Osborne Road, Mississippi Street, 57th Avenue and within the Lakepointe area prior to the transfer to Central Avenue". Also note that the Committee recommended that if an east/west connection between University Avenue and Central Avenue is to be accomplished, it should be accomplished on the north side of I-694 (the Committee eliminated the 73rd Avenue crossover to Central Avenue). The Inter-Governmental Advisory Committee passed a recommendation to the rail authorities that the University Avenue corridor should be used into Minneapolis, then to the Burlington Northern railroad tracks, and then to Central Avenue. Secondly, the Committee recommended that if a.crossover was to occur over to Central Avenue in Fridley, it should occur along the north side of I-694. In the correspondence to the City's committee representatives, Anoka County and its consultant, a response to the Commission's recommendations was encouzaqed. I also expressed the Commission's desire to have a public hearing early on in the preliminary engineering process, if authorized by Anoka County. I have spoken to the consultant regarding some of the Commission's recommendations. As to whether a commuter train could r�n simultaneously with a train making more frequent stops, the 2 a Light Rail Transit Update February 17, 1989 Page 2 consultant advised that such a system is technically feasible, Yiowever, it requires a multiple set of tracks such as is available in the Chicago and New York heavy rail systems. The consultant advised that three tracks would be necessary, with one track serving as the "bypass" track. Additional right-of-way would be required. Further, on the current two track system, the express trains would probably interfere with the more frequent service. The consultant also assured that the bikeways can be maintained over Rice Creek and that if existing bikeways needed to be removed that they would be replaced. The consultant is in the process of contacting the church at Osborne Road to determine the amount of available parking spaces. The consultant evaluated the used car lot site and noted that the LRT system will be going over I-694 such that the tracks will be at an incline along the used car lot property. Because of the angle of the incline and the amount of space necessary to bring the tracks to an at-grade elevation, the park and ride site at the used car lot is not feasible. He admitted, however, that it is a logical location for such a facility. The Commission's discussion and recommendations have been forwarded to the consultant by letter and by phone conversations from staff. It is apparent by the Committees' activities that the Commission's input has been valuable. BD/dn M-89-84 2A �' � �.u_ ._,C _ � R�O: FtiC�I: �: [ngineenng Sewer Waler Parks Slreels Mainte��ance MEMORANDUM Williatn W. Burns, City Managex' PW89-36 John G. F1ora,�Public Works Director Feb�.aaxy 16, 1989 BUBJnL`P: IRT �ectuzic�l l�lcivisoYy Ooaimii.ttee The Technical Advisozy (�aa�unittee (TAC) met on Wednesday, Febniary 15, 1989, at the Spring I�ke Park City Hall. At that meeting, the Coamnittee a�odified the suggesrted IRT route option by eliminating the 73n3 to Central Avenue and Nioore Iake alternative. It was decided that if an ea.st/west connection between Univexsity and Central was to be accoa��plished, it should be a�lished on the north side of the I-694 right-of�ray. On the University Avenue Corridor IRT stations, I subanitted the Planning Ccmun.ission meetirig me�norandtnn tfl the represei�tative frca�► the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority arid to the �a��n of the TAC. It was agreed by the Canunittee that the most realistic station locations would be at Northtam, 81st, Osborne, Mi.s.sissippi Street, 57th, and then within the I�k+e Fbinte area prior to t1�e transfer to Central Avernxe. Colwnbia Heic,�ts supported LRT stations on Central Aver�ue at 53n�, 49th, 44th and 40th with the r�na'�nim stations into Minneapolis at approximately a one-half mile spacing. The Cxaiunittee also ac�dressed the extension of the IRT system beyond Northtvwn and left three options for either Coon Rapids Blvd., High�,ray 10 or Hiyhway 65 as possible locations. It �ras reoaa�aaesded that Mt�DOrr be appraised of these options and consider an IRT system in their Hic�ray 10 and Hic�ray 65 fiiture plans. • I also requested that the Anoka Cauity R�gional Rail Authority, if they make a decision at their FebruaYy 28 meeting, to retain a c�nsultant to prepare a preliminary design for the IRT system that they and the consultant work directly with the City to assist in inc�rporatirag ariy of tl�eir needs in our redevelopment plans for 57th, Mississigpi, OsUorne at�d the 81st areas. Based upon the decision.s reac�ed by ti�e TAC, a s�y report w�l.l be submitted to the Anoka C;atmty Regianal Rail Authority listing their positions ar�d essentially supporting the Authorities' praposal to initiate a preliminary design for an IRT fYnan Northt.a�m to Minneapolis. The C7oa�nnittee was then dissolved per�ding a fu�e reestablistm�ent by the Anoka County Rsgional 1?ail Authority. JGF/ts vc: JocJc R,�ertson � ��Y fRIDLFY ��_'•��I��r:� ��_. �I� �I.w•. �� .��.� �-� ��• —��_._��'-_".. ZCi � � , � •.t•t � , � �� . „��3 .. � , ' _ 1 ,.. , . � � '� °•�•t�ar��s��f��>aaa:"�.�..s: � � � � � �� .,, : . � l � - � . � � -,�� : — ..;.:,` � _ .; � �'�, � �� .. ,a � ... ::� . :— . �watri..t� .�� +fissisy, <� : . i �_' . � � ; � BLAI::E _� ..` � •� �� • � ! COG� RAPTi� �. w f � "u " ';�\ � e •1 %i 'Y �•' t- �� M M �. ��f� ~s � . • • � . 1�f . • .: '. �• 1 � ♦ . •�• �I�M • ryQ+ ♦'1i �� y4i�� t •} � ? � Wla� GOml4 � �?�'� ; ! �'�` � - . �. N 1 ` �� y�•, � S 0. � •.� ^ R. � . �.�. �r � ' � � t � �LECItiGTON �/ '� r.. .i � �• � _� �eC' w� � �p >.�� f.0 � •j''� P fEE' ��;t s_• t� w• t.� ..e '� � `� • �,• `� _ , �� f �-l`'. \ :K .y :l. ° ' �� '� ` -�` �; " y�' _ ;.� �!'' . ' ' p ' �r"I �% n•� wl.� •• H�{7LI` .�y�:.� . .�• �-1 e �..� �y " =1' i� � � i iJ ��.�..� � � I� � ~.�'�i� � Li.° :»_ .LL "' } s � N�• � . `� e•. a • �' i" � � � � {� � � .� � n. f' � wc oa y .y[. � A �� 1wr,a a: f� `% . •�i - � ..__ . ��: �1 PRL� � .� `� i_ C�':%'`: � dl LAIKE � • , � rj �� •� : �P�Y� � � PARK•W ,• '`Sc .,` �► 1 a. w • �` tj -! e�. _ .�t � R i. � .a ` , � j� . . E = ' Y� 3�� 't�c " � tlE�li �� = i ,s 1 ' 3 J':� , ,,:. .., . °'' `" • � �_ g . , ,: 4 • ; ..— � � �• •�,-�,�:. t: 1 °a : . �1 4 � ¢ - t: , � . . : . _ . . - �,•�' � � -L; � -.. .s: • �... ,;.* i �. � Z ; ~ � . ' II � • � !—� �. : � -�i,,. � � . � . � � •�.., � � „{� t�• ;Iia: 4 � • t • •�� _ 1 . �, ' � • �' r1 l • ; � • - '�. ,= P= u: . i _ _ � � - � - . .'-1_ • — • p _.. �- —� . t R � � _ ,� . :� +� c . ; y, ►L`%•c-r�`�,, %`2 '3 !i � - � _ •L„ ; .; � • .sxc�.�£•.� � � � T� «��..�i-JI c ��. A�.;, � � j/p e..'.`��/'' � � �i... �i: x.,.. :— , :.: •!" _ _ � ,� •.�a. !/ : xb :7/" ' t '� Lu•{ a:...•� 1 � •�``..� . ; • � ,•.. s. '� �..`� �i` y, �� J - ••• •�_� • � itWKLY�i � ` � � , • Ga:.� ��t �'• 1 �+•': . � r— —�• :EYTER � .,.� " � �7 ,.�,� � �r .n' .•.•,: � �� ,a . ,:a. . � ' � — . � � � a � _ � � � .� ..,. .. � _ v . ' [ � ` � � �'�i•nr�a � . ^� t�s. ~l�� ., �`: •...�• P � tiE14 � `: �,..��. Hr,.j, � �.,. _ wcN:o. r,:�.M L. ' � � �' ! � � � .e :.. � � TOP Z '` .�,�„_, � _ ��t �1 ^� .e-...� 4• : ., ..l:� r..� � " . W � �. � � I _ — _ �. J ._ c i ' �. , � • ri l,r. o-•• " .. : �. � '� ��' ..i • . 1� GLU;. � , �Ori' c � ^ f u. r:. .w � . ' ' "�' � n _ � � .•c^ � N�s �'.e.• -�.� ' �I s,n � ,, : �^, 3 �EU'HOP � .., .., • . R .n �.,,� r 1 �� .. 4" :i�. �+. , •CR'ISTAl. �. '• '.... �,, c"`.. n N, .�. � � �� ,� i..' '' IR� � t •• y�'��. . �ORIM� V'� Ph:M � � ..,: .:. os t�ssL� �e . s�Yvr � q� �, • %�, . . `.� • 1T " .+ ' ; ,' .. ' ......-A H(i%i Y � i r�� 'i � � _ t: r ,K ..� . . ri, ; :.•�„� L�C} .r" � ��vL� � *•• i , .' :l '� i'.� .a � i �' � ' , {; - �. � � •v ...i �a - ..� . 11 �'7' _ �. •', ..+ ,' _ « :• r � � �. .: rT� .• -•rJ M 1 N ti lL S �� •} � Rr� E..L:.F.L` i - R ` , {� °�' N � 4 �f j +'�,�y � '�-�� ,� .,._.� ',' - l,s' �. (Z, ,. •# r _ � _ � f :.••� � +_^ _ ; A� VT— - Li'�'. •ER : •Ai. _ � AI� -'.�]L�E.: :w:.:_Ei "� �•� F 'I v � ��a � 1 • . .� = ' � 1 •!' � ': ..1 � i."II 'i � `%'� y'i4 '.ti '' Y :�� y • '. ,� +�e� .�. \�.- �.. • � �' ' �►�� f �R.. �- _ .� +' � � .��:. -� !iF� :li .` � �v^= ��. �.� 71 1^��, . � Ar� .� +�'s.� , . *� ��+•.. 1� � • �� -.—�__... ' s ,. ' � �/ .7 ..,� ._�� }_� ----�. � � .,j� �';� —� � � ,�. ,�," _ ' _ ` . —`�� ,�� '` '� � _ ' i, '.. , ' � -"``'' :. -'�---�.'.`� �'` ;� :% (�� , � � 't� � I - . - .i�: _ �. � � �, : :1 .... 1 ~---- -! _ . Northeast Corridor Study � TAC LRT Route Comprehensive LRT System Plan R e e o m m e n d at f o n s Anoka Corrnly/1lennepin Couney Rcglonal Railroad Autborilies Fgure 1 Z�r �,�, �' o � z Nui� No�u, �I�R11' a r 2D �.�.f�-- /Q� 8' 9' ,� �� ..� _ �� -� .�. ��.�., .- � -��' ..d.cx: � c.�� 9 c.t�: c,,� '� � �� .� , .�.�� n-.�.� � a � .�� o-�, - . , �' Cz -r �v C��C►�.�t-Q� L.C�e,J ��.(Lj'�.0 li�e.� �✓,�t,Y L�l�e �.c.c.Er C2�.' cZ. �t.�-c�.X�� ci�t.. �--e�' � ��,�/ ; �''�-.c% �K� � �' C7��--�t7s��' �a " � �.�t.G�.t� _ ,; -�d�{,�i,(�.i �- � `L ae ,�- 7/ %�" � G� �aC.�-z�c�-- c_.-� �c�� ; '� �5.,1 �:.� c:�- C,iL.GtL t,� L�-c,. �-�� L� �� _�.��o� .�.e �� 1 � � C� � a-��.U�_ -C.C: � �..c��-c�a„a' t�.� ,.,�c�-e� �o- .�C-a�� _ G' �,,� -� --S�C � ° ' �'-�� .GL. ��44;v�'t..OL� f Gx-�./�� .��c�.<�Z�� `�..,�C �.e.c�� l� .�E'r�o c� �Q.�i �,o �. �� ,�....Ee�- ` -{�'..-t� �,c,�..�-t�- yv � �% . —�.�-� ��yo�J / � Z¢ �.c,�� 1� � ��% . � � , � • � , . .�...� , ♦ . / . � _ C� 1 1 Vl FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UIJIVERSTTY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (612) 571-345Q February 16, 1989 Tim Yantos Assistant County Administrator Anoka County 325 E. Main Street Anoka, MN 55303 Dear Mr. Yantos: Thank you for your attendance at the special Planning Commission meeting on February 1, 1989. The Planning Commission continued its discussion regarding the LRT route and station locations on February 8, 1989. Attached is a memorandum summarizing the Planning Commission's recommendations. This memorandum was also forwarded to the Housing and Redevelopment Authority and the City Council. The Planning Commission encouraqes you to respond or comment on the Commission's specific recommendations about the route and station locations. Also, important to the Planning Commission is the necessity of a public hearing sponsored by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed route and station locations. This should be coordinated with the preliminary engineering phase of the project, if authorized by Anoka County. Again, thank you for your attendance at the special Planning Commission meeting. We look forward to working with you in the future. ' Sineerely, Barbara Dacy Planning Coordinator BD/dn C-89-56 2E � � GZYOF fRIDLEY 2F DATE: T0: FROM: SUBJECT: - CO�ItMUNITY DEVELQPMENT DEPART1VlENT M EMO RAN D LiM February 9, 1989 William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator �- Planning Commission Meeting; Light Rail Transit The Planning Commission continued their discussion regarding the light rail transit route and station locations at the February 8, 1989 meeting. The Planning Commission would like the following recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council and the City's representatives on the LRT committees. The Planning Commission had the following comments regarding the LRT route: l. The Commission tended to agree with a commuter philcsophy for the LRT route; however, they recommended that the alignment should remain on University Avenue to downtown Minneapolis with no crossover to Highway 65/Central Avenue. 2. The Comffiission recommended that if the University Avenue/I- 6�4/Central Avenue route is chosen, the LRT route should travel along University Avenue to the north side of I-694 to Central Avenue at which point the LRT should go underneath the I-694 bridge along Central Avenue. 3. The Commission recommended the followinq points to be taken into consideration in constructing the system in Fridley: a. Station locations should be located on the same side of the stre�t as the tracks, i.e. the east side of University Avenue. b. Parking areas shouid not be located in the right-of-way. The Coauaission is concerned about an overcrowded appearance along the University Avenue corridor. c. Adequate land should be purchased to accommodate the projected parkinq demand at each station location rather than locating smaller lots in between station locations. � Light Rail Transit February 9, 1989 Page 2 4. d. There should be adequate landscaping and screening for park and ride lots to enhance the overall appearance of each station and each park and ride facility. e. Location of the route along University Avenue should not jeopardize existing bikeways. If bikeways must be removed because of the LRT construction, arrangements should be made for reconstruction of the bikeways. The Planning Commission is especially concerned about the bikeway route over Rice Creek. f. The Commission recommended an investigation of the necessity of barriers between the tracks and the traffic lanes, bikeways, or natural features, such as Rice Creek. The Commission recommended the following regarding station locations: a. The used car lot should be investigated for a park and ride facility for the 57th Avenue station. b. The Commission reconunended the HRA require redevelopment pro�ects located near station locations to try and accommodate necessary LRT facilities. c. The Commission had stronq reservations regarding the commuter station at Columbia Arena. The Commission was concerned about overflow parking from the Arena occurring into the park. They also noted that because the City had approved a plat on the Northco site, the ability of the site to provide adequate parkinq is questionable. The Commission noted that the site also suffers from lack of adequate east/west access and no direct turning movements into 71st Avenue from University Avenue. d. Based on this analysis at the Columbia Arena station, the Commission recommended that the Osborne Road intersection be evaluated closer as a commuter station. The Commission noted that the Immanuel Christian Center parking l�t is fairly large and under-utilized. The Railroad Authority may be able to obtain easement rights for parking facilities. � 2G 2H Light Rail Transit February 9, 1gg9 Page 3 e. In summary, the Commission concurred with commuter stations at 57th Avenue, Mississippi Street and Osborne Road. A station location around 81st Avenue may be too close to the Northtown station, however, if there is adequate separation between the Northtown station and the 81st Avenue area, a station may be possible. f. The Commission stated that the 57th Avenue location should be adequate to serve eventual traffic from the Lake Pointe site if adequate parking area is available. They also noted that a shuttle bus system could be established between Lake Pointe and 57th Avenue. Finally, the Commission recommended that the City representatives discuss the possibility of conducting a public hearing sponsored by the Planning Commission regarding the proposed route and the station locations. Should Anoka County pursue the project by entering into the preliminary engineering phase, such a public hearing should be conducted early in the preliminary engineering phase. Anoka County will decide in late February as to whether the preliminary engineering phase will be authorized. BD/dn cc: John Flora M-89-76 PLANNING DIVISION 3 � � . � M DI,iM ME O R,AN u-nroF � F�� DATE: February 17, 1989 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: 1989 Workplan At the December 6, 1988 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the workplan for 1989. The Commission added the Urban Design S�tandards notebook, review of the subdivision ordinance, and the light rail transit project, to the already established 11 items. This is to finalize the workplan for 1989 and to prioritize work items. Of the 14 items identified by the Planning Commission, the following take priority and should be initiated this year: 1. Urban Design Standards notebook 2. Inventory vacant land 3. Initiate update of Comprehensive Plan 4. Revise subdivision ordinance 5. Participate in light rail transit planning process (review light rail transit design plan) 6. Zoning ordinance revisions (housekeeping items) 7. Continue development of Riverview Heights Park These items will address five of the il iteans identified. by the Planning Commission. The remaining ar�a 1. Improve I�oore Lake as an asset 2. Improve the City's identity 3. Unauthorized junkyards 4. Plans to replace temporary land uses � 1989 Workplan February 17, 1989 Page 2 5. 6. Poor perception of Fridley Unpaved driveways This is a proposed time schedule to address the 1989 work items: TASK Urban Design Standards Vacant land inventory Update Comprehensive Plan Revise subdivision ordinance Zoning ordinance revisions Light rail transit Riverview Heights Park START February January March March March Ongoing February FINISH July March Into 1990 July December June City staff is now preparing the 1990 goals and objectives in preparation for the 1990 budget process. The Comprehensive Plan will be an important part of that process as well as solid waste issues and implementation of the urban design standards. The Comprehensive Plan work item will include a number of issues, such as development policies of vacant properties, correction of improperly zoned properties, preparation of a revised and improved zoning map and development policies in conjunction with Housing & Redevelopment Authority regarding housing, commercial and industrial redevelopment. RECOMMENDATION Staff seeks the Commissions' confirmation of the 1989 projects. The zoning ordinance items are "housekeeping" items such as the dumpster ordinance and other issues that staff has identified which need clarification. The proposed start and finish dates are best estimates at this point. This is also dependent upon hiring of a Planning Assistant, which should occur within the next month. BD/dn M-89-86 � 3A � PLj1��'�If�G C01411SSI0�� •SECTIt�G APRIL 3 1987 PAGE 8 �, RECEIVC 19ARCI� 31 19�7, APPEALS COt41ISSI0t! t1ItJUTES: ' AJOTION BY MR, BETZOLD, SF,CONDED BY MR. KONDRICK� TO RECEIVE TXF. FlN2CH 3I� 1987, .�PPERLS COMI•1ZSSI09 t1I1JUTES. UPOV A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSO.'Y BILLINGS DECLARED TNE DfOTION CARRIED UIJWiiIMOUSLY. Ei. DEFI�JI��G ISSUES RELATED TO LOi�G R11t�GE PLAtJi�I�lG OE3JECTIVES: f�r. Itohinson stated the Planning Cor�mission had decided that it would be a good thing to have bi-monthly long range planning r�eetings. This idea ►•�as to qo to ti�e City Council conference meeting agenda for P1arch 31, but it ►•�as b;ir��d off the agenda because of an al ready heavy agenda. 14r. Robinson stated he felt nov� was a goocl time to at least get started on some of the issues tl�e Planning Cor�nission feels ti�ey want to be looking at, perl�aps to get to a point where ti�ey have sor�e �oals and objectives, and ti�en ask the City Council to sit in on a meeting before fornally puttinn togetl�er a worl: pl an. '4r, 6illings stated the City �1anager and a couple of other people indicated they did not know if not scheduling anything adrninistrative every fourth meeting ►�as going to make their process elongated so that it r�i�lht be detrir.�ental to a developer. So, the Plan��irig Cor�mission st�ould prohably cone up ��ith some kind of proposal to the City Council in terros of what they want to do on these fourth meetinc�s and if they can,in fact, set aside one r�eeting out of every four for long range planning. Then-cone up with a list of ten�aiive thin,qs they ►vant to be lool:ing at and discussing. t1r. f;ondrick stated lie felt every fourth neeting was reasonable to set aside fo?° long range planniiiy. In all fairness to petitioners, r�aybe once in awi�ile, tl�ey would have to hear a request on that fourth neeting. t1r. Betzold stated Staff could also use sor�e discretion in arranging their agei�das. Ti�e Cor.�missioners generated the following 11 issues for future discussion. These issues are ranked in the order of priority (1 being the highest priority, 10 being the lowest priority): 1- Identify undeveloped residential properties v�hich are either problenatic, traditionally landlocked, or properties which have rezoning potential for residential use. 2- Developnent and function of Riverviea� Heights Park as an asset 3- Review and uPdate Cor�prehensive Plan. � - Use of City lands. 3B !� 9 s � pLA��JIi�G COt1�tISSI0P1 t1EETI��G, APRIL 8 1937 PAGE 9 �'- Improperly zoned properties. �_ I�prove �1oore Lal:e as an asset. � - Inprove ihe City's identi�y(physical). $ - Unau�h��rized junk yards. �- Plans to replace temporary land uses. 69 - Poor perception of Fridley. ��' -- Unpaved drive�•�ays. ��1r. Qetzold stated the Commission members now have listed sort� issues. The next step was to define sor�e of thP problems for the top 4-5 issues. �laybe bei��een noti� and tl�e tlay 2flth neeti ng, i f Staff can hel p the Co�i ssi on on any of tl�ese issues, ttiey could provide the Cor�mission with that inforr�ati�n. �•tr. Cillings stated that at the itay 20th meeting, the Corr�►►issioners should � plan on be�ter defining the top 4-5 issues and better definin� wl�at direction tfi� Coi,�mission ►•�ould like to go on each one. 7. OTI�ER (�USItJESS: t•tr. Robi nson s �ated he j us t�•ranted to remi nd the P1 anni ng Conmi s si on rner�bers that t�ie public r�eetin� on the "No Parking Qan" being co-sponsored by the League of l•Jomen Voters and tl�e Planning Conmission 4�ould be held on Thurs., Apri 1 16, i n Co � � uni ty Room I at 7:30 p.r.�. ADJOUR��t1EP�T: �'��IO:: BY I�R. BETZOLD, SECOIIDED BY t?R. KOh.DRICK, :'O ADJOURIJ THE P7EF.TIt1G. UP011 n VOICF. VOTE, aLL VOTI:JG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BILLIl�iGS DF.CLARED THE JlPRIL 8, I987, pL.�.'1'�II7G COMI9ISSION 11EETING ADJOURiJED AT 9:30 P.M. Respectfully sub itted, .�'� .�-h�n-�- �-� LynnQ Saba Recording Secretary 3l` �1 tr�'�• `t�►� �� t�+,�. t� V�o� �`� +��.�e�. a`� `�- �, �� 9 F7 . V,,t�,2� . `�t. �u. v�� d� V�88 � � � � I�,,'A . � Vl �t c.e�.� ��M ��1�" ` � �� Y . CITY OF FRIDLEY APPEAL3 COMMISSION MEETING, JANUARY 31, 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Barna called the January 31, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL• Members Present: Alex Barna, Jerry Sherek, Kenneth Vos, Larry Kuechle Members Absent: Diane Savage Others Present: Darrel Clark, Chief Building Official Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Mearlin Nordstrom, 5908 - 7th Street N.E. Gus Fjetland, 5900 - 7th Street N.E. Jerry Higgins, 5924 - 7th Street N.E. APPROVAL OF NOVEMBER 15 1988. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Kuechle, to approve the November 15, 1988, Appeals Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. CONSIDERATION OF A VARIANCE REOUEST VAR #89-01 BY MEARLIN JOHN NORDSTROM• Pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback for an attached accessory building from 5 feet to 3.2° feet; pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D. (1) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the front yard depth from 35 feet to 30.24 feet; and pursuant to Section 205.04.05.B of the Fridley City Code to allow an accessory building in the front yard instead of the rear and side yard only, to allow the construction of a garage on Lot 10, Block 5, Bonny Addition, the same being 5908 - 7th Street N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to open the public hearing. -1- 3 APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 31. 1989 OPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AT 7:37 P.M. Chairperson Barna read the Administrative Staff Report. Mr. Clark stated the petitioner has decided to drop the front yard setback variance, so the Commission would be acting only on the side yard setback variance from 5 feet to 3.2 feet. Mr. Clark stated that, if approved, staff is recommending the following stipulations: 1. The garage be architecturally compatible with the existing house. 2� The petitioner to remove the existing garage and storage shed prior to completion of the new garage. 3. All exterior walls less than 5 ft. from the property line must be constructed of 1 hour fire resistance materials on the inside with no unprotected openings allowed. Mr. Clark stated that regarding stipulation #2, they normally allow the property owner to use the existing garage and/or storage shed until the new garage is completed as long as the existing garage and/or storage shed are not in the way of the construction of the new garage. Otherwise, all the things stored in the garage and/or storage shed are laying all over the yard. Mr. Clark stated the configuration of the depth and width of the garage might change, but it did not make any difference as far as the variance. Mr. Clark stated an alternate plan worked out by staff would not require any variances, but it might be rather difficult for maneuverability of vehicles because of the sharp turn into the garage. Mr. Clark stated this variance request would almost fit the amendment made to the Zoning Code by the Appeals Commission (that the setback for an addition to an attached single car garage can be reduced to 3 feet from the side lot line) if Mr. Nordstrom had a single attached garage. Because the existing garage is a two car � garage in the rear yard, it doesn't fit into this amended sect�on of the Code. Dr. Vos asked where the existing storage shed is located. -2- a y , �. � � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING, JANIIARY 31, 1989 Mr. Nordstrom stated the 10 ft. x 14 ft. storage shed is located in the back of the yard in middle, and it is not a permanent structure. He asked why he would have to remove his existing storage shed. Mr. Clark stated the Code requires a maximum size of all accessory buildings at 1,400 sq. ft., so if the shed is smaller than 240 sq. ft., Mr. Nordstrom would not necessarily have to remove it. Unless it is an eyesore, he would not have any problem with the storage shed remaining. Ms. Dacy stated the ordinance states that the maximum square footage of accessory buildings is limited in the R-1 district; and the building plan chosen by the petitioner will determine if that square footage is exceeded. If the maximum square footage is not exceeded, then she would not object to the storage shed remaining. Mr. Barna asked Mr. Nordstrom to explain why he wanted to construct this garage and to better explain his hardship. Mr. Nordstrom stated their exterior door is on the north side of the house, and they want to protect that entrance from the cold weather in the wintertime and keeping the kitchen warmer. They would also like room for four cars or three cars and a tent trailer in the new garage to keep them out of the Minnesota climate changes. They have decided to build a new garage and add on to the house at the same time. This is a nice, quiet, safe neighborhood close to schools and shopping centers, and they would like to stay in Fridley. Mr. Nordstrom stated both his neighbors on either side of his property have no objections to the construction and the variance. Mr. Clark stated that in the agenda was a letter from Doug & Miriam Haugland, 5916 - 7th Street N.E., stating they approved the Nordstrom's building an attached garage at the same distance from the boundary line as their existing non-attached garage. Mr. Gus Fetland, 5900 - 7th Street N.E., stated he had no objection whatsoever to Mr. Nordstrom's request. Mr. Jerry Higgins, 5924 - 7th Street N.E., asked about the overhang on the garage. He stated he was opposed to the front yard setback variance, but was not objecting to the side yard setback variance. Mr. Nordstrom stated the overhang would be 30 inches and would not overhang the property line. -3- � APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING. JANUARY 31, 1989 MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded Mr. Sherek, to close the public hearing. QPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY AND THE PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:55 P.M. Mr. Sherek stated that considering that this request does come close to the existing conditions in the Code that would allow a single car garage to be expanded to a double car garage at a 3 ft. setback, the fact that it would be very difficult to orient the garage on the lot in order to get additional space other than adding onto the existing garage, and the energy issue to help shield the kitchen area of the house from the north wind, he would be in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Barna, Dr. Vos, and Mr. Kuechle agreed with Mr. Sherek. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Dr. Vos, to approve variance request, VAR #89-01, by Mearlin John Nordstrom, pursuant to Section 205.07.03.D.(2).(b) of the Fridley City Code to reduce the side yard setback for an attached accessory building from 5 feet to 3.2 feet, to allow the construction of a garage on Lot 10, Block 5, Bonny Addition, the same being 5908 - 7th Street N.E., with the following stipulations: 1. The garage be architecturally compatible with the existing house. 2. The petitioner to remove the existing garage upon completion of the new garage. 3. All exterior line �must be materials on allowed. walls less than 5 feet from the property constructed of 1 hour fire resistance the inside with no unprotected openings UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON HARNA DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. ADJOURNMENT• MOTION by Dr. Vos, seconded by Mr. Sherek, to adjourn the meeting. " Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Barna declared the January 31, 1989, Appeals Commission meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. -4- r E .° � i ; "��' ' ' u� �� a� " r�� N �� _�' ` ` � � �..f.�;. +� �� ,, �, � ^ � � �� ; �, , � � :' � �;;' e �_ � '� '� �°"T" � � � , r, �� x ' ,� �.:'; � i 4`• � � /: "� ,� ��,� , . ,. � • , . , . �r....�— ` ` �� `h � � . - � ,, �. , _ . a t'. �. .. �, . ._ ��_ : - s �,. a �� " a � y� �, � , . , kLL.� � � �� 5 M1 �X � � �' \ .�. l � �€� F � ��, <r �; „* ��wL . � �� " � ' § '�, �' »`, � �.� y r- . ' ? . �z = ' �`' �,. � S �� '�. � h & �� 1 � �i�A .`7<.� , �_: 1 x �;. , �.' ' �. :; � � $ f �- � : i_ ¢ ; - . . .3. _� . . .., . ,„ s �, , � � sk �� ; � i , , r , ,. :_ - µ= � �, :� ; t ; ; � �� i� (j t S� Y;� . � rFx � �;� ;� r �"„�t t. -y'^ { .d d 9y,; � f �� 'i ¢; �} � � *� �s � � � � � � xt A £ 3 ��;,� .3i k` ,�'. �f fl ' �� . _ . � � ': � 3 C A t '� % �.�, ,_ a� ._ �. � ,�� <....w � �"� , �x�;y ._*�� , x '��. , , � � b .' � � �.- , `� CITY OF FRIDLEY PARRB & RECREATION CO1rIIriIBSION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 6� 1989 --------------------------------------------- CALL TO ORDER: -� -_>. Vi.ce-Chairper�on Schreiner called the February 6, 1989, Parks & �tecreation C�6mmission meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. � RO�� -�A�I,L • Members Present: Dave Kvndrick, Mary Schreiner, Dick Young, Dan Allen, John Gargaro Members Absent: None Others Present: Jack Kirk, Director of Recreation & Natural Resources Ralph Volkman, Superintendent of Public Works Kurt Schrupp, 6171 Kerry Lane Marcia Etlicher, 6870 - 7th Street N.E. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 9 1989 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: O�I TION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Young, to approve the January 9, 1989, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMODSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: MOTION by Mr. Allen, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to approve the agenda with a=earranting the age das to ac ommodatePthe guests�at Business an 5 the meeting. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. (Mr. Gargaro arrived at 7:10 p.m•) 1. BTAFF REPORT: a� park Improvements Schedule - Ralph Volkman _ -1- PARRS 6c RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRIIARY 6 1989 . d. __ i ? � y 3 �' entertainment groups. The carnival will also be held in the Fridley Plaza. Mr. Kirk stated it is Fridley's 40th birthday, and they are thinking Df Hemstatedt he will nkeeph the tCommi�ss on amembers occasion. informed as the plans progress. Showmobile Bids Mr. Kirk stated the bid opening was held last Thursday. Two companies submitted bids. Staff expected the price to come in around $65, 000, but the best bid was just over $54, 000. Pending City Council approval on February 13, they will work with the Wenger Corporation, Owatonna, to have the showmobile constructed. 2. EDGEWATER GARDENS PARK AREA SURVEY: Mr. Kirk stated Mr. Schrupp and Ms. Etlicher were at the meeting to discuss the request by Redeemer Lutheran Church to purchase or lease Edgewater Gardens Park land for more parking. Mr. Kirk stated the City sent out 108 surveys. There were about 130 parcels of land, but some of the parcels are City and County property. Of the 108 surveys, 3 were returned as undeliverable so only 105 surveys were delivered. Out of the lleased wei h the surveys were returned. He stated staff was very p time people spent filling out the surveys. Ms. Schreiner asked how many services Redeemer presently has. Ms. Etlicher stated they have services at 7: 30 a.m. , 9: 00 a.m. , and 10:30 a.m. every Sunday year around. Mr. Young asked what the seating capacity is for the church sanctuary. Ms. Etlicher stated the seating capacity is at 500 maximum. Ms. Schreiner asked if Redeemer had any additional space on their site for more parking. Ms. Etlicher stated they do not have any more space. The parking " lot was laid out to the maximum several years ago with the last construction. Mr. Young stated that in looking at the drawing, it looked like -4- � � a s � � PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRIIARY 6, 1989 Redeemer has 245 parking spaces. If the sanctuary seating capacity is 500, that didn't seem that far off for parking. Ms. Etlicher stated there is a lot of overlapping of parking because of other types of educational programs on Sunday morning. There is one-half hour between services, but a lot of people stay for.over 2 hours. There might be 500 in the sanctuary and another 250 in other types of education classes. Mr. Young asked about the property Redeemer owns across Mississippi Street. Ms. Etlicher stated that property was purchased because when it became available for sale, it was the only property available in the area so they purchased it. She stated they have thought about making a parking lot on that property, but it is not convenient because of its location across the street. Also, the property is currently zoned residential, so it would have to be rezoned, and the neighborhood might have some strong objections to that property being a parking lot. Mr. Young stated there was another church in Fridley abutting a park. Grace Evangelical Free Church on 73rd Avenue is located next to Madsen Park. He was concerned about setting a precedent of selling or lease park land for parking. It is a concern that should be seriously considered. Ms. Schreiner stated Mr. Young had brought up a good point. Mr. Gargaro stated he both agreed and disagreed with Mr. Young, only on the basis that Grace Evangelical is the onl church in Fridley located next to park land, and there really is not any physical space for that church to expand to accommodate more people. . Mr. Kondrick stated there are three things that can happen if the church is not allowed to expand their parking on City park land: l. Some people will have to go to another church. 2. People will have to walk from another parking location. 3. The church will have to add an additional service. � Mr. Kondrick stated he, too, shared the concern expressed by Mr. Young about setting a precedent. Ms. Etlicher stated Madsen Park is already developed. Edgewater -5- PARKS & RECREATION COMMIS6ION MEETING� FEBRIIARY 6, 1989 � �. �,. {� Gardens Park is not developed, except for a small portion. She wondered how many people even realize that the piece of land between the church and the railroad tracks is even park land. Mr. Kondrick asked about the possibility of the church adding another service. Ms. Etlicher stated they have reshuffled service times in the last few years. Reshuffling the service times does not necessarily get people to go to other services to ease the parking problem. For instance, not that many people attend the 7:30 a.m. service. Also, many people will not come to a service that lasts past 12:00 noon. She stated they changed service times from 8:00, 9:30, and 11:00, because the 9:30 service was so heavily populated. Now the 9:00 and 10:30 services are equally populated. She felt moving the service times back might not achieve what Mr. Kondrick is sugges�ing. Mr. Young stated the proposed parking e�ansion would give Redeemer another 90-92 parking spaces which would be a 37� increase in parking. Ms. Etlicher had said the sanctuary is at capacity at 500 people. Another concern he could see is that maybe Redeemer might decide to expand their sanctuary in the future, because they would then have more parking spaces to accommodate another 200 people. Did Redeemer have any plans for expansion in the future? Ms. Etlicher stated the overall building plan for the church could possibly involve an addition to the sanctuary, but there are no commitments for that expansion at this time. Mr. Young stated the way the parking is proposed to be laid out in the park would essentially eliminate the existing skating rink area. It Would have to be moved to the north end which is one of the only open green areas left in the park. It might never have green grass again without irrigation. Mr. Kirk stated number one item the park. that in the returned surveys, irrigation was the that people said had little or no importance in Ms. Etlicher stated that the parking lot is also used heavily on Wednesday mornings when they have an Ecumenical Bible study at the church. Mr. Allen stated he appreciates Redeemer's problem, but he is very concerned about losing park land. He stated these surveys really do not tell them who is actually using the park. From his experience, the ones who speak up are the ones who use it. The -6- � a s �� PARRS & RECREATZON COMMISSION MEETING, FEHRIIARY 6, 1989 ones who do � mare easily. preparing an park use. ot speak up are the ones The exception would asphalt surface for cars willing to'give the land up be if there was a way of that could also be used for Mr. Gargaro stated he agreed with Mr. Allen. Who really uses the park? Granted, people want to protect the park, but protecting an empty field is not necessarily his idea of putting that ground to a good use. It has to be used. If putting pa�ement on it and putting a basketball court on it gets more use, then maybe that is what should be done. Ms. McPherson stated there are products out on the market that provide support for parking, yet grass and p'lantings can be maintained over that support. There would be green grass when cars are not being parked on it, and at the same time there would be the struct�ral stability for parking cars. She did not know if this was a viable option, but the Commission members might want to look at that. Mr. Kirk stated there is new data in terms of urban parking lots- -doing more with green space and plantings so,the parking lot itself is more pleasing. They are looking at that kind of parking at the Springbrook Nature Center. Mr. Young stated regarding the product suggested by Ms. McPherson, it might not be too practical in Minnesota with the different weather situations. Mr. Allen asked if they did put in asphalt for parking in the park property, what would be some compatible uses for it park-wise? Mr. Kirk stated basketball, perhaps tennis, but tne type of tennis courts used as a standard in the City are color coated. Gars driving on it would ruin the color coating. He stated even for basketball, the court would have to be cleaned up for safe play before it could be used for basketball. Ms. Schreiner stated it seemed to her the parking problem really seemed to have occurred after the City allowed Redeemer to expand a few years ago. It is kind of a frustrating situation, because there is vacant property across the street which is not very accessible. She also tended to want to hang onto park land because once it is gone, it is never recoverable. Mr. Kirk stated after receiving the surveys, they did find some of the results of the surveys to be inconsistent.l Almost 80� are saying the park is ade,quate. They had an option �hat it was either -7- PARRS � RECREATION COMMIBSION MEETING. FEBRUARY 6, 1989 ,� _ � :�,� too large or too small, so maybe that wasn't the best choice of words. Less than half of the people who responded are saying parking is a problem, but then 60% are saying the City should- either sell or lease the land. Overall, comments were good. Mr. Kirk stated this is the first time Mr. Schrupp or Ms. Etlicher have seen the results of the survey, and they need time to look over the results and respond to them. Mr. Young stated another thing that might have to be considered is if the parking lot is increased, there might be requirements for water retention and it might require Rice Creek Watershed District approval. MOTION by Mr. Allen, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to present the surv�y results to the representatives from Redeemer Lutheran Church for their consideration and table further discussion until the April Parks & Recreation Commission meeting. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED tJNANIMOIISLY. Mr. Kirk stated he had also listed the names of those people who had indicated on the surveys that they might be interested in serving on a committee with Redeemer to study this parking lot issue. Mr. Young stated even though there is a Redeemer, he definitely would like to have input from the people in this area before made. 3. NEW BUSINESS• committee to represent a public meeting to get any final decision is a. Landsaape Intern Proposal - Michele McPherson Ms. McPherson stated that Mr. Kirk had recommended she come to the Commission to explain her proposal. She stated it is an important project in her scholarly career. It is the culmination of 5 years of work. Ms. McPherson stated she lived in Fridley with her parents for about 20 years, until a couple of years ago. Her parents still live in Fridley. She graduated from Fridley High School, and she is now a student at the University of Minnesota in the Landscape Architectural Program. She worked two summers for the Fridley Parks Department doing park maintenance, and she is currently the Landscape Intern in the Community Development Department. As Landscape Intern, she -8- s � I PARRB � RECREATION COMMIBSION MEETING FEBRIIARY 6 1989 reviews site plans, helps with things like parking lot layouts, designs landscape plans (she did the Satellite Fire Station and Midwest Van & Storage), and does a lot of graphics work and prepares maps for various departments of the City. Ms. McPherson stated she is proposing to do her thesis project in Fridley. The area she has picked, the Riverview Heights Park area, is fairly undeveloped. It has houses which the City is in the process of acquiring with CDBG grant monies program. That has been going on for a numb�r of years. Ms. McPherson stated she proposes to survey the residents of Riverview Heights, find out their basic general attitudes about the park. Once she has done the survey, she plans to study the park in a conceptual master plan which will include facilities to be implemented after the remaining parcels are acquired. So, it will be a phased master pl;an. This is all conceptual right now, because she is in the process of doing "thesis preparation", looking at future �rends, historic precedents, other parks, similar either in lo�ation or process or with the same facilities, and try to develop some ideas that could be implemented in the park. Ms. McPherson stated she did include in the agenda a timetable of events over the next 4-5 months through June where she will either come to the meeting and present work she has done or include an informational item in the agenda packet. Mr. Kondrick stated Ms. McPherson's proposal is an excellent idea. This information will certainly be' helpful to the Commission in the future. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Mr. Allen, to receive Michele McPherson's Landscape Architecture Thesis Proposal. DPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CBAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. b. Parks Capital Improvement Plan - 5 Year Mr. Kirk stated.the Commissioners had received a copy of the "Proposed Park Capital Improvement Projects for 1990-1994" in their agenda packet. He stated staff is in the process of looking at a five year plan. Some items listed were items in previous long term plans, and some items are items requested in previous years but not funded. Mr. Kirk stated he would like to the Commission's input as far -9- �,, � PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRIIARY 6. 1989 as priorities they would like to see with these projects. Mr. Young stated that since the new County park, south of I- ' 694, across from FMC has a boat ramp, he would rather see the $40,000 estimated for a Riverview Heights boat ramp under "Other Possible Park Improvement Projects" spent elsewhere. The Riverview Heights Park area really is not conducive to high speed boats. He thought of that park as more of a passive park, and possibly a canoe launch would be more appropriate there. Mr. Kondrick stated he agreed with Mr. Young. Mr. Allen stated that even though the improvements for Springbrook Nature Center (Springbrook parking and entrance, phases I, II, III; landscaping for wildlife at Springbrook, phases I, II; and Springbrook North Park boundary, phase I and II) were to be done in phases, it did seem like a lot of money is being put into one area. He just did not want some of the other little neighborhood parks to be forgotten in lieu of Springbrook. Mr. Young stated that in discussing the proposed parking for Springbrook because of the hazardous situation with people having to park across 85th Avenue, he really felt that 50 m.p.h. is excessive for that stretch of road. A more sensible speed would be 35-40 m.p.h. � Mr. Kondrick agreed. Even the speed limit on East River Road is 40-45 m.p.h. MOTION by Ms. Schreiner, seconded by Mr. Allen, to approve the "Proposed Park Capital Improvement Projects for 1990-1994" and the "Other Possible Park Improvement Projects". IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSI,Y. c. Athletic Facility Reservation Policy Mr. Kirk stated the City has had a number of requests each year from soccer teams and sometimes softball teams to reserve an athletic facility. Last year, there were a number of soccer teams wanting to use athletic facilities. It was worked out last year, but staff had promised to come back this year with a proposed reservation policy for athletic facilities. Basically, staff is stating that permits will be issued to Fridley residents' groups (50% of the group must be -10- • ,a � 4 PARRS 8 RECREATION COMMIBSION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 6. 1989 Fridley residents; Fridley businesses, registered teams participating in City programs, churches located within Fridley, and Fridley non-profit civic organizations. Mr. Kirk stated permits will be denied and/or revoked when and if the City believes damage may occur to the athletic facility, and the decision to grant or revoke a permit is solely up to the discretion of the Director of Recreation and/or his appointee. Mr. K irk stated staff is also recommending the following fee schedule: Softball/baseball fields -$10 per game (max. 1 1/2 hrs./game) Soccer -$15 per game (max. 1 1/2 hrs./game) Mr. Gargaro asked who is going to monitor the length of a game (1 1/2 hr.). Mr. Allen stated the University of Minnesota has gone to a per hour rate rather than a per hour rate, and he would suggest the City do the same. Mr. Young suggested they add a maximum of $60 per day for an individual group. Mr. Kirk stated it might work well to change the policy to $10 per hour for softball and $10 per hour for soccer. Mr. Young stated something should also be included in the policy to make sure people understand that the City will not provide bases or lime the fields except on a regular maintenance basis. MOTION by Mr. Young, seconded by Mr. Allen, to approve the Athletic Facility Reservation Policy with the following amendments to the fee schedule: A. Softball/baseball fields -$10 per hour (max. $60 per day) B. Soccer -$10 per hour (max. $60 per day) That the policy state that the reservation fee does not include additional maintenance and equipment, other than on - a regular scheduled ongoing maintenance basis. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERBON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. -11- � v 'm PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 6, 1989 �' d. National Youth Bports Coaches Association - Certification Review Mr. Kirk stated this certification started two years ago with the FYSA. The City had some money in a separate fund for joint City/FYSA use, and the City decided to use a portion of that fund to pay for the coaches becoming certified. That has been done for two years. The original motion approved this for two years, and those two years are now up. One hundred and seventeen coaches have been certified during that time for softball, baseball, soccer, basketball, football, and T-ball. The City is very happy with the program. Mr. Kirk staff is recommending that the Commission renew the motion made two years ago to use monies from the City/FYSA fund to certify coaches on the same basis. MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Ms. Schreiner, to approve the usage of City/FYSA funds for the certification of coaches for two years. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE� CHAIRPERSON RONDRICR DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Mr. Young stated the minutes from the January meeting indicate that the coaches who are certified are protected by $300,000 worth of liability coverage. If a coach does not participate in the certification program or even if he did participate in the program, if there is a problem on the athletic field, is the City of Fridley liable? Can the City require coaches to either show proof of their liability through homeowner's insurance or participate in the program to protect the City from any liability? Ms. Schreiner stated her concern would be, what if an allegation is made against a coach which is not true, who is going to protect that individual if the coach does not have any type of insurance? She stated she is thinking more in terms of the innocent person. Mr. Kirk stated the program itself technically is not a City of Fridley program. It is an FYSA program. There have been a number of discussions as to whether certification should be required, and the feedback from the FYSA is they are having a tough enough time finding coach�s without requiring the time for certification. He .stated he really did not know the answer to Mr. Young's or Ms. Schreiner's questions. -12- '�' ' v�l �` PARKS & RECREATION COMMI68ION MEETING. FEHRIIARY 6, 1989 Mr. Allen stated this should be an agenda item for further discussion at another meeting. Mr. Kondr:ick stated the City Council will be reading these minutes so they will be made aware of the Conunission's concern about this type of liability. e. Medtronic Boccer Team Request Mr. Kirk stated this request has been solved by the new Athletic Facility Reservation Policy. He stated staff is willing to work with Medtronic if the Commission approves Medtronic's request for the use of the soccer field for their soccer team on Monday nights, 6:00-9:00 p.m., May through August. � MOTION by Mr. Gargaro, seconded by Mr. Young, to accept the request from Medtronic with the understanding that the details will be worked out with City staff. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON RONDRICK DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. 4. OLD BUSINESS: a. Park 6helter 8tudy Mr. Kirk stated at the last meeting, the Commission members saw slides of the existing park shelters in the City. He stated staff has checked with some neighboring communities, and have found that all communities around Fridley have permanent park shelters, most of them with restroom facilities. The main item with this Park Shelter Study is to determine what type of shelter they want to put in at Creekridge Park. They are talking about an open air picnic shelter at Creekridge. One of the things being discussed is whether they want to have a set family of shelters so that every shelter put into the City park system in the future matches. Mr. Young stated they have to look at something that is identical throughout the community, even if one structure in one park is smaller than the shelter in another park. That way no one can say•that one shelter in one park is more elaborate than a shelter in another park. Both Columbia iieights and New Brighton have the same basic structure design in every one of their parks. Being consistent with the basic -13- PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 6, 1989 b. c. �: - � shape, building materials, etc., does two things: (1) it cuts down the cost of architecture, because one set of plans basically serves all the facilities; and (2) it cuts down the comparison by people in different neighborhoods. Mr. Volkman stated the Commission did not have to make a final decision on this until the next meeting. Policy Manual IIpdate and Review Discussion was continued until the next meeting. Commission Membership Mr. Allen stated this is his last meeting as he will not be to attend the March meeting, and his term expires in April. He wanted to take this opportunity to thank the Commission members for everything. He stated his fellow commissioners have been the best, and he will miss them very much. He has been impressed with the genuine caring they have shown. The Commission has had an excellent staff to work with. He appreciated the help of quality people like Jack Kirk, Lynne Saba, and other staff inembers. He will certainly miss attending these meeting, but he felt it is time to do other things. Mr. Allen stated he also wanted t stated Mr. Kondrick has been a treated everyone who has attended and with respect. No one left a the feeling that someone cared. � commend Dave Kondrick. He great chairperson. He has a Commission meeting fairly Commission meeting without Mr. Allen stated the one disappointment he experienced while serving on the Commission was that the Community Recreation Center was never built. It was too bad as it would have brought the community together. He stated he still thought a community center is a good idea. Mr. Kondrick stated he and the rest of the Commission members have certainly enjoyed working with Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen's expertise and educational background have been a real asset to the Commission. He stated he is unhappy that Mr. Allen is leaving, and everyone will miss him. Mr. Gargaro commended Mr. Allen for his many years of service to the Parks & Recreation Commission. Ms. Schreiner and Mr. Young also expressed.their regrets that -14- v e# .� 7 _A PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING FEBRIIARY 6 1989 Mr. Allen is leaving. ADJOURNMENT: 02ION by Mr.� Allen, seconded by Mr. Gargaro, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Kondrick declared the February 6, 1989, Parks & Recreation Commission meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, � , �- 7(.L ��-�GC_ Lynn Saba � Recording Secretary -15-