The URL can be used to link to this page

PL 02/14/1990 - 7128PLAPPIPG COMMISSION MEETIPG AGEFDA WEDPESDAY, FEBBIIABY 14, 1990 7:30 P.M. Public Planning Commission City of Fridley A G E N D A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1990 7:30 P.M. IACATION: FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER, 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL• APPROVE PLANNING CONII�IISSION MINUTES: January 31, 1990 1990 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROPOSAL APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDING THE MODIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS N0. 1 THROUGH NO. 9 AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MODIFIED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO; AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 10 AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING THERETO TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY DISTRIBUTE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET AND DRAFT SCOPING DECISION DOCUMENTS 1989 WORKPLAN EVALUATION AND ESTABLISH 1990 WORKPLAN OTHER BUSINESS• ADJOURN• ..� 1 � CITY OF FRIDLEY pLANNINa COI�IISSION �BTING, JANQARY 31, 1990 w.w.w�w.ro.w.w. rw.�.�.rrw..w.w.w.�w.�.rw.�r�.w�1rr�►w.w.wra►w.w�w.wn.�i►w�wr�rw�w..w�wrw.rwr�.r�r�.w.r.rrw. CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the January 31, 1990, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Members Absent: Don Betzold, Dave Rondrick, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Sue Sherek, Dean Saba Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Dale Edstrom, Northco Corp. Kelly Doran, Robert Larsen Partners, Inc. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 6. 1989. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to approve the December 6, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE� ALL VOTING AYE, CSAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIIBLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT. P.S. #90-01, BY ROBERT LARSEN PARTNERS, INC.: To replat Lot 2, Block 1, Northco Business Park, into two separate parcels, generally located directly east of University Avenue, north of 71st Avenue, and south of 73rd Avenue. Ms. McPherson stated that the petitioner is requesting to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Northco Business Park into two separate parcels. Northco Business Park (which is zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial) was recently platted. The purpose of replatting Lot 2 into two separate parcels is partially due to the fact that this is a two- phase project and in order to receive financing for this project, the lender has requested that there be a separate legal description for each phase of the project. Ms. McPherson stated that when Northco Business Park was platted as part of the development agreement, there were concerns regarding the issues of architectural standards, landscaping � PLANNINa CO1�I88ION MELTINa. JAN. 31. 1990 PAGE 2 ' requirements, and stormwater management requirements. This particular proposal takes into account those items outlined in the development aqreement. Ms. McPherson stated that across both parcels, a pcnding easement is proposed which should be adequate area to ensure retention space for the required stormwater management. The City Engineer has also requested that the stormwater calculations be submitted so that he can check to make sure this is, in fact, an adequate retention area. Ms. McPherson stated the architectural standards have been taken into account. It is a one-story building composed of a brick and metal facade. In addition, the petitioner has submitted a preliminary landscape plan which includes many of the existing trees on the site. There are some weak spots along the southwest portion of the site as far as screening of perimeter parking, and that is one of the stipulations recommended by staff. Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the replat request with the following stipulations: 1. Stormwater calculations shall be submitted prior to insurance of a building permit. 2. Joint driveway easements shall be filed against both parcels prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A ponding easement(s) shall be dedicated on the plat or by separate document prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include additional screening at the southwest corner of the site. The revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Ms. McPherson stated Phase II is not shown on the site plan; however, the circulation pattern will be such that the rear driveways will continue northward and will exit out onto the service drive that will create a circular driving pattern. There is a driveway which will exit out onto Northco Drive as well. Mr. Barna asked if a variance will be required for the zero lot line driveway. There was no problem when it was one property, but now there are going to be two properties. Ms. Dacy stated that again they are going back to the interpretation of the ordinance (similar to SBF Corporation) that if it is a joint driveway and if the lot line goes through the � � PLANNING CO1rII�iIBBION ME�TINa, JAN. 31. 1990 PACiE 3 driveway and not the parking spaces, it was determined that a variance is not needed. Mr. Dahlberg asked if that was only if the buildings meet the setback requirements. Ms. Dacy stated that, yes, the building has to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Barna asked if the proposed building is going to meet the setback requirements against this lot line. Ms. McPherson stated this can be checked prior to the City Council meeting. Mr. Kelly Doran stated that the sideyard setback is 20 feet, and the distance from the building to the lot line is 20 ft. The same is true for the building to the north as well. The driveway to the south will be approximately 30 ft. in depth from curb to curb and then a 5 ft. landscaped area adjacent to both buildings for a total of 40 ft. between the two properties. Ms. Dacy stated the sideyard setback is 20 ft.; however, where a driveway is to be provided in the sideyard, the minimum required sideyard increases to 30 ft. so the petitioner might have to shift the lot line. Mr. Doran stated that in phase 2 the other option is to come back and simply join the two properties together again. That would eliminate the need for increased setback. The primary reason for splitting the two lots is for financing purposes. Mr. Betzold stated there is always the possibility that a different person buy one of the lots and develop it. Mr. Doran stated that is a remote possibility. Mr. Kondrick stated the petitioner should be aware that if that ever happens, it would necessitate a variance. Mr. Doran stated he thought the issue can be resolved with staff. He appreciated the Commission's concern. Mr. Doran stated the stipulations as proposed are acceptable to them. OTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to close the public hearing. Q�N A VOIC$ VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BET20LD DECLARED T8E PIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:40 P.M. p��TNTN(� ce�IBBION MEETIN�3, JAN. 31. 1990 PAGE 4 Mr. Dahlberg stated that reqarding the discussion about the appropriate location for the property line, he would recommend another stipulation that states: Any change or modification to the property line as proposed shall be resolved with staff prior to review by the City Council. OTION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Barna, to recommend to City Council approval of Preliminary Plat, P.S. #90-01, by Robert Larsen Partners, Inc., to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Northco Business Park, into two separate parcels, generally located directly east of University Avenue, north of 71st Avenue, and south of 73rd Avenue, with the following stipulations: 1. 2. Stormwater calculations shall be submitted prior to insurance of a building permit. Joint driveway easements shall be filed against both parcels prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. A ponding easement(s) shall be dedicated on the plat or by separate document prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. The landscaping plan shall be revised to include additional screening at the southwest corner of the site. The revised site plan shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. Any change or modification to the property line as proposed shall be resolved with staff prior to review by the City Council. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. Ms. Dacy stated that because of the petitioners' particular demands to start construction and their commitments to their tenants, they requested that the City Council establish a public hearing in advance of the Planning Commission meeting, so that public hearing will be on February 12, 1990. 2. 1990 WORKPLAN AND EVALUATION OF 1989 ACCOMPLISHMENTS: Ms. Dacy stated that at the December 6, 1989, Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the "14 Ways to Build a Better Commission". One of the items the Commission wanted to look at was what they have been doing in the past year, determine how they did it, and set some new goals for the upcoming year. Ms. Dacy stated she had come up with a draft evaluation for the Commission's review. As far as 1989 was concerned, she made a � � D � PLANNINa COl�iI88ION MEETIN�. JAN. 31. 1990 PAGE 5 list of all of the major issues the Commission discussed and then came up with an Evaluation Matrix for the Commission to rate the Commission's performance for each of those issues and to rate staff's performance for each of those issues. Ms. Dacy stated she would also like the Commission to go through the four issues for 1990. The Commission might have some issues to add to this list. Mr. Betzold stated he would like to table discussion until Ms. Sherek and Mr. Saba can be in attendance. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to table discussion of the 1989 Accomplishments and 1990 Workplan until all Planning Commission members are present. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPBRSON BETZOLD DECLARED THF MOTION CARRIED DNANIMOIIBLY. Ms. Dacy stated she had also included in the agenda a memo to Mr. Burns dated January 16, 1990, regarding the Community Development Department's Priorities and Accomplishments for 1990/1989. She stated this is something Mr. Burns has requested, and it will be done on a quarterly basis. 3. REVIEW HOUSING WORKSHOP MEMORANDUM: Ms. Dacy stated this memo is for the Commission's information. It lists the types of things they will see in the Housing Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. McPherson and she went to this workshop. It was a very helpful workshop. The Metropolitan Council is very aggressive on this issue, and housing has become a priority. Jack Kemp, Secretary of HUD, will be speaking at the State of Region address on March 7, 1990. 4. CENTRAL AVENiJE CORRIDOR UPDATE: Ms. Dacy stated this update summarizes the results of the City Council's discussion at their January 8, 1990, meeting. Mr. Betzold attended that meeting. Mr. Betzold stated he thought one of the Council's main concern was that they thought the Planning Commission was advocating rezoning everything up and down Central Avenue. They articulated a number of criteria as to what kind of development they would like to see, their long range goals along Central Avenue, etc. Although there have been other discussions, this is the first time the Council has ever outlined everything they want to see along Old Central, and the information was very helpful. After a long discussion, he thought the Council agreed that they do want to do something to improve the Central Avenue Corridor, but they PLANNINm COlrIIrII88IOH M�BTINa, JAN. 31. 1990 PAGE 6 would like to talk to people along Central Avenue and encourage people to voluntarily rezone. Mr. Barna stated he had assumed that from previous planning documents and discussions, these were things the Planning Commission would like to see happen, not what they demand, and in reality, some of these things may never happen. Mr. Dahlberg stated he thought the Planning Commission members all feel comfortable enough with what they have done to this point to say that they don't see it as something etched in stone. Mr. Dahlberg asked if it was the position of the City Council that the Planning Commission should re-evaluate what they have done to this point and bring back new recommendations, or reject it in its entirety and leave the Corridor as it is? Ms. Dacy stated there is sentence in Phase I and Phase II that says: "After completion of the Comprehensive Plan, consider rezoning properties and marketing them as they become available." The Council recommended to delete that sentence and state that they would encourage property owners to rezone on a voluntary basis, instead of the City starting the rezoning process. 5. SENIOR HOUSING STUDY UPDATE: Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Burns' memo dated January 4, 1990, regarding "TIF Guidelines for Senior Housing" summarizes the Council's informal consensus regarding senior housing financial policies. Basically, the Council said that the current policies are acceptable for senior housing projects and listed three ways the HRA currently uses to assist the projects. Item #4 identifies the basic criteria for the guidelines. 6. CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULE: Ms. Dacy stated this schedule was included in the agenda for the Planning Commission's information. 7. RECEIVE NOVEMBER 6. 1989. PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1KINUTES • OM TION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the November 6, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED TH8 MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 8. RECEIVE NOVEMBER 28 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND_ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: � � pLANNIN�,4 COI�IIBBION MgETINa. JAN. 31. 1990 PAdE 7 OM TION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the November 28, 1989, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICL VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYR, CHAIRBLRSON BETZOLD D$CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. g. �ECLIVE DECEMBER 7 1989. HUMAN RESOURCES CONIIrIISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive December 7, 1989, Human Resources Commission minutes. OPON A VOIC$ VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 10. RECEIVE DECEMBER 14 1989 HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES• OM TION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Rondrick, to receive the December 14, 1989, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTIN�3 AYE� CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMO�BLY. 11. RECEIVE DECEMBER 19, 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION MINUTES: OM TION by Mr. Dahlberg, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the December 19, 1989, Environmental Quality and Energy Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPBRSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. 12. RECEIVE JANUARY 4 1990 HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the January 4, 1990, Human Resources Commission minutes. �PON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTINd AYE, CSAIRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED T8E MOTION CARRIED ONANIMOIISLY. 13. CEIVE JANUARY 23 1990 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr• Kondrick, to receive the January 23, 1990, Appeals Commission minutes. QPON A VOZCE VOT$, ALL VOTINa AYE, CHAIRPER80N BETZOLD DECLARED THB MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIIBLY. PLANNINa COl�MI88ION ME$TINa. JAN. 31. 1990 PAGE 8 � 14. �tECEIVE JANUARY 8. 1990, PARKS AND RECREATION CONaiISSION MINUTES: OTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to receive the January 8, 1990, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICB VOTL, ALL VOTIN�3 AYS, CHAIRPBRBON BETZOLD DECLARED TH$ MOTION CARRIBD QNANIMOIIBLY. Mr. Kondrick stated that on paqe 9, the Commission made a motion to the City Council stating: pthat the Parks and Recreation Commission strongly encourages the City Council to apply for the Canadian Geese Relocation Proqram through the Department of Natural Resources with the State of Oklahoma, understanding that they may not be able to get on this program this year due to the high demand for this program by other communities, but to apply for possible approval in subsequent years. This is an ongoing program for 3-4 years with a potential outlay of $3,000-4,000 per year." Mr. Kondrick stated he wanted to make the Commission members aware that this motion will be going to the City Council in the near future. . 15. OTHER BUSINESS: a. Liqht Rail Transit Opdate Ms. Dacy stated she had included the recent newsletter for the Commission's information. There will be a public meeting on February 13, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. at the Fridley High School. Ms. Dacy stated the City will be receiving a rezoning application for the northeast corner of Mississippi/ University for redevelopment of the 10,000 Auto Parts site. The developers are proposing to demolish the building and acquire the two single family homes immediately adjacent to the parcel, one abutting Mississippi Street and one abutting 66th Avenue. Those parcels, as well as the vacant piece north of 10,000 Auto Parts are zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling. The 10,000 Auto Parts site is zoned C-1, Local Business. The rezoning for the proposed redevelopment is S-2, Redevelopment District. Ms. Dacy stated the redevelopment proposal is for 28,000 sq. ft. of retail with Walgreen's as the anchor tenant and other smaller shops. Ms. Dacy stated this redevelopment involves the LRT issue, because they were looking at the 10,000 Auto � � pLANNING COI�lIBBION M$LTING4. JAN. 31. 1990 PAGE 9 Parts site for a"park and ride" lot. They have been meeting with Anoka County over the last 2 1/2 months, and they think they have a proposed short term and long term solution. Ms. Dacy stated the developers will be conducting a neighborhood meeting on Thursday, February 15, 1990, at the Municipal Center. The rezoning is scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on March 14, 1990. Not only are the LRT issues going to be involved, but also the compatibility issues between the commercial center and the neighborhood. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the short term issue on LRT, they are looking at prioritizing the expansion of some of the lanes on Mississippi Street for bus drop- off, not necessarily using the parking lot as a"park and ride". However, they are looking at reserving one row of parking spaces for the initial start-up of the LRT system. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the long term issue, Anoka County is evaluating the acquisition of eight lots to the north of 66th Avenue and directly north of the subject property and converting that land into a park and ride lot. b. Northco and Economic Development Districts Ms. Dacy stated Northco has a purchase agreement on the loopback parcel on the corner of 73rd/University Avenues (former Phillips 66 proposal) and has reached an agreement with Soo Line Railroad to develop 18,000 sq. ft. of one-story office and retail. The major tenant would be a bank, and it is currently proposed as Western State Bank. Ms. Dacy stated the property does have poor soil conditions so Northco is requesting soil correction assistance from the HRA. The City is creating a tax increment district (Tax Increment No. 10) to use the property taxes to give back to the developer to correct the soil problems. The City Council has established a public hearing for February 26, 1990. Tax Increment District #10 will be retired when the soil correction has been completed in 2-3 years. Ms. Dacy stated the other site is the Pro Engineering site, and that is for an industrial building. It will be the same process, a pay-as-you-go approach. The district will be retired when the assistance is complete in 3-4 years. � i ,� PLANNINQ COl�tI88ION MBETING. Jl�N. 31. 1990 PAGE 10 a ADJOURNMENT • OTION by Mr. Rondrick, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to adjourn the meeting. IIpon a voice vote, ali votinq ape, Cbairpersoa Betzol� declared the Januarp 31, 1990, Planninq commission adjourned at 8t35 p.m. Respectfully sub itted, yn Saba Recording Secretary �� PLANNING DNISION � MEMORANDUM cinroF FRIDLEY DATE: February 5, 1990 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Lisa Campbell, Planning Associate Steven Barg, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: 1990 Community Development Block Grant February 28, 1990, is the Anoka County deadline for submission of the 1990 Community Development Block Grant application. The public hearing has been scheduled by the City Council for February 26, 1990. Staff requests the Planning Commission review the proposed funding request and forward its recommendation to the City Council. The proposed 1990 allocation is $104,291. Staff proposes that $70,000 be committed to the Riverview Heights project, and $33,291 be committed to Human Services. Anoka County is requiring that $1,000 be allocated for its administrative services. This year's proposal is a different from previous funding years, since no funds have been set aside for Commercial Rehabilitation. The reason for this change is the estimated cost of the next acquisition in the Riverview Heights project is $97,750. Further, in both 1988 and 1989, the funds devoted to Commercial Rehabilitation were reallocated during the funding year to Riverview Heights and Human Services respectively. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 1990 CDBG funding request. The distribution of the 1990 allocation would allow the City to continue to acquire properties in the Riverview Heights Floodplain and provide year-to-year continuity in the level of funding to Human Service activities. BD/dn M-90-73 � PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF 1989 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ALI,OCATION Proposed Project Distribution Comments (Fridley) Riverview $70,000 Purchase & Heights relocation of Parcel 4 property in the Riverview Heights floodplain (see map) Human $33,291 Services Administrative $ 1,000 Fee 7" - '"; - � 1 ` ' � • p/ 0) "" ' r \ G r ` \ �_ :.. � l r��, � i �. , �1 ql 1� 4 3�� .1/- :�`�' �. '3, � � . . � � �;Q- �� - " '` �� T - . •� � � L�NGFELLOW � :. ' � �!► E t� �1 /� `�I �� r f j � - � / !I �n N I V — t1 'I 9 � � , ' �� "�c '�'-�'� �� —h�r `v� (/� 4 4 � �� c� c� , �� '_ i � . � I ( �r '' ` - - • s i P � �4. .I i � '` J ! " it � _ • �f -. � �� •`� -c -- i� � , s - J � Y .. ! '�� t � �1 '' �, 0 , .• .r � ( � � „ - �. p ,� � - , .F � . . . ��S 3 ; � ° 0 3 I G, 361 J F ♦� , � � � � � � � � T s < �. /I /7 (� ( �. ' ,,~ e � ''•i'�� • y 1 � � � r ,i 4 = F .; f t f S �t . � ' 8- 4 � =� ` p ..,,, �- - - g '' " .' � S 0 0 0 �. � „ v, — � � 7 • \ � ` • iI= �' N � : � ;:�•�'•••' � '` � r • • •-n �� v �„r _ � , �� .r�r. , 7 �896 � �f � � � �� .r�� • •�w `�r n� Fi.��/✓ _ \ �a ��.: � .� � 1 t� �•�. t _� t ,�� (Piilt Oilt. i . � \ � � � M,�, �� '��r� •j �� '� �� + .:� � �� g r� �, ` � 89 � C�) •' r (r/ � " ::�� " � 7892t. 4 !> � ^� _ ;,� ,�"'� \ � �.r: . �, �ae� , -_ ��. .. � , , .0 �� ' �.', <� � � ��,, ;, . + � pr � ' ;�� 1 'r !! � � . '�� ) , ` .. �. . � `��' Q� � � �e� � � � � r� -. � . ;\� _� �,,,i � ,,..3 7566 , ,, p,• � . �"� G r� .s .•: ?� 'arcel 7 - Acquire�i i ,, � � ,.., ' R '" l �,q�v ' • � ' .. �p) ' � � , • . \ � �� - • r .r ,�f ' •�, . �ercel 9 - Acquired in 1 � � �/�1� �� :. �4 �g, ��,� � � P� � �' `,�'� � � '��'., � `.; �+,. .f7 �� -• � :: i$ir0 ' �6� � /jq) •we' 7r� •r . . �[3it �° � , �"' `.P'��., �s- _ �8�. �' � �arcel 6 - 1989 Proposed Acq `� '� � � � _ :,�. .,, ` cQ � - t'� •� .� �� ig�, : - \ �"`� � ��.,,� �,� ,� ¢ �?gsl \��c, Percel 8- 1989 Proposed Acquisition b•�'� ,�, " � � �_ •,• p , . '�, ' � ,� �7' `"� - . . *' ._ ��' : F•, • �BG� . �� ?, �� ; �,,, � ��-'� .��..� °� �. 0 . ��,ie�" � � ( �� ,. � E,, �, � , t q KEY N � y.�� V�:. �,;; ' z �esy �� 0.�a . \��- �.'� 4' � ,�� , -� , Previousiy Acquired Property � � ' . � �"3 .:,�` �' �� '�� y •. a " O � _, 7e� , '' 'proposed Acquisitions � ��' � � � �'� �e �"'a � a °s`' �„� � .; ,� Cny Par erty \� � ..- , . � � - ' \ \ �:3 � � , €h ` ��. sca�e: �•=200' � . \ _ . �� \ � `� ?',� �'�� - Q ' �� - - �. � 1 � � 34 � `s � � C�TY OF FRl DLEY DATE: TO: FROM: PLANNiNG DIVISION MEMORANDUM February 9, 1990 Planning Commission Members Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Consideration of Modification to Redevelopment Plan, and Creation of a Tax Increment District; Northco Phase III State Law requires that the Planning Commission review amendments to the redevelopment project area and the establishment of a new tax increment district to determine whether or not the proposed project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. In fact, the law requires the Planning Commission to adopt a resolution. The City Council has established a public hearing for the project on February 26, 1990. The Housing & Redevelopment Authority will authorize the project on February 8, 1990. The site is located at the southeast corner of 73rd Av University Avenue. Northco has reached an agreement with Line (property owner) to construct a one story, 18,400 s office building with a bank as the major tenant. The designated as commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, but M-2, Heavy Industrial. Northco will be filing a application in the near future to rezone the property Northco is requesting assistance for soil corrections. anticipated that the district can be retired within three years. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the resolution confirming increment plan is Comprehensive Plan. BD/dn M-90-93 enue and the Soo quare foot site is is zoned rezoning to C-2. It is to four Planning Commission adopt the attached that the proposed redevelopment and tax consistent with the City of Fridley's � RESOLIITION NO. - 1990 REBOLIITION OF TH$ FRIDLEY PLANNIN(3 COMMI88ION FINDING THE 1�ODIFICATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND TA% INCREMENT FINANCINQ DIBTRICTB NO. 1 TSROIIt3H NO. 9 AND THE APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE MODIFIED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MODIFIED TAB INCREMENT FINANCINa PLAN RELATING THBRETO; AND THE $BTABLIBffiKENT OF PROPOBED TAB INCREMENT FINANCIN(� DIBTRICT NO. 10 AND THE APPROPAL AND ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED TAB INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN RELATING TH8RET0 TO BE CONBIBTENT WITH THE COMPREHENBIVE PLAN OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Fridley's Housing & Redevelopment Authority is proposing that the City modify its Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1 through No. 9 to reflect increased project costs and increased geographic area and approve and adopt a Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto; and establish proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 10 and approve and adopt proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto; pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.074, inclusive, and Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, inclusive, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said modifications to Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1 through No. 9, and said establishment of proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 10 and has determined its consistency to the Comprehensive Plan of the City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Fridley Planning Commission that the proposed modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and Tax Increment Financing Districts No. 1 through No. 9 and the approval and adoption of the Modified Redevelopment Plan and Modified Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto; and the establishment of proposed Tax Increment Financing District No. 10 and the approval and adoption of the proposed Tax Increment Financing Plan relating thereto are consistent with the Fridley Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed modifications and the creation of the proposed Tax Increment Financing District. PASSED �AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY THIS DAY OF , 1990. ATTEST: SIiIRLEY A. HAAPALA - CITY CLERK DONALD BETZOLD - CHAIRMAN e M Public Trails/Recreational I,aprovements/Open Space Street 'ghting Demolitio Relocation Architectural/En ' Administration Fees Total Maximum Estima Bonded Indeb� ng Fees Total s* 325,000 450,000 200,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 400,000 $11,078,000 $14,401,400 *This unt includes capitalized interest in an amount sufficien to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until e date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenues to et scheduled interest payments when due. AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY 26, 1990 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 10 (NORTHCO PHASE III) Soils Correction Administration Fees Intersection Improvements to University Avenue Frontage Road and 73rd Avenue Total Maximum Total Estimated Bonded Indebtedness* $ 70,000 4,967 20.000 $ 94,967 $ 94,967 *This amount includes capitalized interest in an amount sufficient to pay interest on the bonds from the date of issue until the date of collection of sufficient tax increment revenues to meet scheduled interest payments when due. Storm Sewer Soil Improv Capitali� AS MODIFIED FEBRUARY , 1990 TAX EMENT FINANC ISTRICT N0. 11 �0 INEERING) �uts�and Preparation nterest 1 - 16 $ 15,000 50,000 12,750 e � SECTION XI T� INCg�NT FINAr1CING PLAN FOR TAX INCREN�T FINO P�SE III�I� N0. 10 (NORTHC g obiec�'ives. See Section I. gubsection 11.1. Statemente�ives. gubsection 1.5. Statement of Ob� $ee Section gubsection 11.2• Mod� a Redevelo�ment Plan. through 1•�5• I� gubsections �•2• zncluded. The boundaries of gubsection 11•3• �a�s �� 10 are described on the Tax Increment Financinq District No. Exhibit XI-A ana illustrated on Exhibit XI-B' horlty may attached The Aut parcels in Acrniisition. a=cels in Tax gubsection 11•4• —� — or all of the p publicly acquire andDis�=i�tyNonY�O identified on the attached Increment Financing Exhibit XI-A• =o erties not are conditions unuired at a future date: The followin9 ired may be acq designated to be acqu ift, dedication► acquire prOpertY by g sellers in order to ��) The City maY urchase from willing plan; and condemnation or direct p ' ve the objectives of the Tax Increment Financln hen there is achle 2) Such acquisition will be �deuisitionnand related � to finance the acq assurance of funding � costs. for which Contracts Subsection 11.5. Develooment Activi�ion of the Tax have been SiQ�- As of the date of adop Plan, the City intends to enter into a Increment Financing developer: Development Ag=eement with the following � Story 400 squa=e foot, for the construction of � 18total construction ietion Narthco, with a t$1,062,500 and anticipated construction comP commercial and office building estimated a in 1990. — 18 4�0 n 11.6. Spe_ ��fi� Develofacil tY ding cc ted. gubsectio ticipated that a f comn►ercial and office space will be construc At this time it is � square feet o 11 - 1 , � r nn i�^��pments. The Authority gubsection 11•7• P�-g- its request for shall, after due and diligenAuditorhoraitsmn° ice of district certification to the CountYof all proPerties within Tax Increment enlargement with a list;Ogfor which building permits have been Financing District No. receding issued during the eighteen (18) months i��ibyethepAuthority• approval of the T�ghalleincreaseathenoriginal tax capacity of The countY Auditor 10 by the tax capacity If Tax Increment Financing District No. e�it was issued. each impzovement for which the btheaaforementioned request or said listing does not accompa►aY shall indicate to thteenu(18� notice, the absence of such listing Auditor that no building permits were issued in the eig rior to the Authority's appraval of the Tax Increment months P plan. Financing hereby Subsection 11.8. Fiscal Dis_= ies- The Authority �� gubdivision 3, clause (a) if e lects the method of tax incre9ent computation set forth ln Minnesota Sta� S► Section 4 �ent occurs with Tax and when coma►ercial/Districtallo.e�plop Increment Financing t Costs. The Subsection 11•9• Estimated Public Improvemenect N-0 1 are estimated costs assocSubsectionsR�a9Vand me10,pro, listed in Section I, Subsection 11.10. Estimated Am�= of Bonded Indebtedness. ortion of Redevelopment Project It is anticipated that $0 of bonded indebtedness could e for incurred with respect to this p However, the City wishes to reserve the right to PaY No. �• Subsections 1.9. and 1.10. as activities listed in S1990°=elating to Tax Zncrement Financing modified February 26� increments are generated and become District No. 10 as tax t� increment financing bonds. available in lieu of issuing financed through the annual Subsection 11.11• So_ of be°�� The costs outline in Section I, Subsection 1.9. will collection of tax increments. ro erty in Tax Subsection 11.12• Estimat�fda111�'�ablenp Cpp ax Capacities. The t�DistriCtyNo• �0' as most recently certified Increment Financing b the Commissioner of Revenuet fbeh�9s695e of Minneso a on y 1989, is estimated January Z► 11 - 2 C i ; � � � _� t� capacity of Tax Incren►ent letion of the propoSed The estimated capt10�pon comp 28,540. Financing District No• �99� is estimated to be $ i�provements on January 2' Rate. The current total tax gubsection 11.13• ax a ci capacity rate is .97756- x Increment. Tax increment has been gubsection 11•�4• � 900 upon completion of the calculated at apP=oximately �27� acity rate and a valuation a static��)�c�po�ded annually. imprpVeQLents ass�ie=cent (3• lstrict. increase of three p 11 .15. �� Zncrementu S antito Mi.n� °—ta Subsection District No. 10 is, P ion 469.174► Subdivision 12, an Economic Tax In�=em$ect lnancing Sta� ment District. Develop f Tax Increment Financina - 16, Durati n - District Subsection 1'►• from receipt of the The duration of Ta� �a�ryea=s Finan�ln al of the tax District• ected to be e1gh No. 10 is eXP 10 ears from apProv The date of whichever is less• 1992. ten ( y first tax increment aistrict, pistrict increment financingt tax increment is estFinancing be July, receipt of the firs uent phases or Thus, it is estimaand �odificationsefarea�2000. No. 10, including Y other changeS► would tesminate in the y Estimated I.�a� � �t-�.Taxin Subsection 11• »' act on other taxing isdictions. The estimated imP �0.. If the Jur construction would h5�=1Ct�No ed withou t jurisdictions assun►es the imrzc sult of tax increment �heafact that the the the creation of Ta=elncrement Financin9 n o construction is a Notwithstand 9 p due t is $0 to other entities. urisdictions ls $ fiscal impact on the other taxing � ibit XI-E =eflects the cing would not have ri �urred Wlthout t e if fact that the finan the attached EX District No• �� assistance of the City, imated impact of Tax I�� ent Financing est �� test was n the "but for Modification � aX In�rement FinanclnQ As of FebruarY 260 Subsection 'i�•�S• District NOSaid to Tax Increment Fin=e�ria been made, 'strict and or Tax Increment Financina p_� D� n modif ications pl� therefo 1990' roval and adoption thereof bY or the Tax Increment Flinitial apP date being the date of the City Council. �� - 3 9 e EXHIBIT XI-A BOUNDARIES OF TAX INCREMENT FZNANCING DISTRICT NO. 10 NORTIiCO PHASE III AS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED FEBRUARY 26, 1990 .P I•N• 11-30-24-31-0002 Tract A of Registered Land Survey #78 XI-A-1 � , EXiiIBIT XI-B .. BOUNDARY MAP•OF Tp,� IyCgEMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.NO. 10 � ' . � � . � . . � ^ + .� . � �,�-� �1/p �� " � �� 41 --r�rc- ;r�;; :�f�. �.�� '' �,c � o ;i r i-1 � t. � � ��Pe�IIC �a�.. / I ��ll'I:��i� !T p.• L.�i.r�. � � ill��Y�.r��r1 �*' —�� . � • �=�t f / � 1 • �l�11��{i� � • r� � 1 � i �• �~ � ��' • � � � �. � � .w. �'� �I . , ;�;• �� e � � � • "'�.: S � • � •• � . � •�, �r. �t} �- s I r 1� 1 1 • � � \ �, �t • r� • I"'� �rw � • � \A � � ' r �� . v�f �,e-r•a::.•f o •• � i t �L'l1 I . ' � i � �0 �, �01: M , � � I , . �,�,� `1 ��„�� ' �V ; t O �. . ^� . N . � �, 'i s �{ N �' �(• . ; • . . ' h:_ J! Z � t I • �. 'ti l' � '� • ' --s • Q � � I� « �j . 'r I . �_ . �. � r. y� � j _• � � � v/ � • , —� st � � � � �� r l � �! W � i� i t�rr W Q � .�Y�_ Z � �� : � � ` I n i !!:� �� _ �� ,�s�= �I � ? O . � � w .�. � � � � ) �� ~ .I L . M I �7 � �_ p '�J�M /� �ti� ~ ♦ i � °� � �� ;_ ��•. � � � - �:, -� � r� I � - i, . �,' >"; � — 'I � � e�','' ;i�:.''`'. (fi � i � t i 3 . , �{ � ..�,� r'I � { � • � v +'� t� , ' �+ '�' � ::.,r� � iri .. � � .� N � � 1 ; , .. , :;.. � L( f/ � �/� i � • �r�-+�'�1�� • � � � ' N/ � : ��. T ,, • a + , � T l ' �� - � �y. � rrf.r r �.w � ` � � 1 �. ` .. , � r. �� I • s•��.n.•�� V . ..�.• '` . r, , � �.�r � _� r_. D . o:.o . I . � �rl � � �.,.�..�� 1 a . � � � �'�7 �d�i"r.� .,...�...� • .—� � � p p ,l �`. �r �r I J � �� '� i ^ • � 1 t � 9� � ,I � �- • ..{ ' L��l !� �� 1[s,t ��. �1 � • ! i' ry�l .: � ii..� �� — I is � ^� '!Zr � •� �.�. • ' ' � � ta:.r•�r'� � !i� ii Z '� � � i 1 �'�� g'!� �i � �! � � *� :: '� I , � t` � • -� °' � � r' -= ��Y , -� • :• .�... �� I .� ± =.� _•�: r_ ��. � � ��j i�, j �, !71 �,-`' ' � � ' � _� •.� � � � ` �S ,•�. z i . :• � i`It �,. . � � -- ��- ..�. . A � e M � � � 'E « � , ; .�--�- •� Z � n i l� � �Y � �-. XI-B-i � , „ �4 �l Q� �� F'.ii�'11lS1'1" A1 �• CASH FLOW ANALYSIS NORTHCO 12�Jan-90 CITY OF FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA NC�RTHCO PHASE III DEVELOPI�NT --------------------- -------- ---------------- ---------------------------- - LESS AVAILABLE ORIGINAL ESTIMATED ESTT�TED �MIN T� # OF T� T� EXPENSES INCREMENT YEARS DATE CAPACITY CAPACITY INCREMENT ----------- ----------0-- -o-o-----6-�90-------9�695-------9�695 � 0 p 0.5 12 /90 9.695 9,695 O � p 1.0 6/91 12,710 41,250 O 0 � 1.5 12 /91 12,710 41,250 698 13,253 2.0 6/92 16,661 42,488 13,950 698 13,253 2.5 12 /92 16,661 42,488 13,950 3.� 6/93 21,842 43,762 12,623 631 11,992 3.5 12 /93 21,842 43,762 12,623 631 11,992 536 10,178 4.0 6/94 28,633 45,075 10,714 �p,178 4.5 12 /94 28,633 45,075 10,714 402 7,634 5.0 6/95 37,537 46,427 8,036 402 7,634 5.5 12 /95 37,537 46,427 4�346 217 4,128 6.0 6/96 49,208 47,820 217 4,128 6.5 12 /96 49,208 47,820 4,346 7.0 6/97 64,509 49,255 � 7.5 12 /97 64,509 49,255 � 8.� 6�gg 84,567 50,732 0 8.5 12 /98 84,567 50,732 � 9.0 6/99 110,862 52,254 � 9.5 12 /99 110,862 52,254 � 10 0 6/00 145,332 53,822 � • -----99-339--------�----- � 4 967 94,372 ___________________________________ ORIGINAL TAX CAPACITY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED TAX CAPACITY YEAR CONSTRUCTED YEAR ASSESSED YEAR TAXES PAYABLE CURRENT TAX CAPACITY (PAY 1989 RATE ZNFLATION ADMIN EXPENSE RATE ASSUMED; 1990 UNAVAILABLE) 9,695 1.310936 850,000 41,250 1990 1991 1992 0.977560 CASSERLY MOLZAHN & ASSOCIATES XI-C-1 3.000� 5.000� EXiiIBIT XI-D "BUT FOR" ANALYSIS Northco is proposing to purchase and develop the 2.4 acre site between the University Avenue frontage road and University Road immediately south of 73rd Avenue. This parcel is located in an area in which the City has actively promoted development and redevelopment. The new facility will provide approximately 18,400 square feet of commercial and office space. In addition, approximately 25 employment positions will be relocated into the City, thereby providing additional consumers for existing retail and restaurant facilities. The project will also add over $850,000 of additional market valuation to the City's tax base. In order to proceed with the development, substantial soils correction are required. The need for tax increment is to assist in this increased cost and help provide the public assistance which makes this development possible. Without tax increment assistance, the project as proposed on this site would not be economically feasible and would not proceed in the foreseeable future. XI-D-1 1 � � FJCHIBIT XI-E ESTIMATED II+�ACT OF TAX INCREN�iT FINANCING DISTRICT N0. 10 ON OTHER TAXING JUAISDICTIONS II�ACT ON TAX BASE ------------------ g�=Ty TAX BASE -------------------------------------- City of Fridley 25,799,307 County of Anoka 149,612,820 ISD #16 18,025,730 TAX CAPACITIES DISTRICT -------------------------------- AS � OF ORIGINAL ESTIMATED CAPTURED TOTAL ---------------------------------------------- 9,695 32,648 22,953 0.089% 9,695 32,648 22,953 0.0150 9,695 32,648 22,953 0.127$ II�ACT ON TAX CAPACITY RATE --------------------------- �g�T POTENTZAL TAX CAPACITY TAX CAPACITY � OF TAX RATE �ITy RATE TOTAL INCREMENT INCREASE * --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- City of Fridley 0.12492 13� 2,867 0.011% County of Anoka 0.27425 28e 6,295 0.004% ISD M16 0.51607 530 11,845 0.066% Other 0.06232 6� 1,430 0.97756 100�s 22,438 * Assumes the construction would have occurred without the creation of a Tax Increment Financing District. If the construction is a result of Tax Increment Financing, the impact is $0. 7CI-£-1 s ;� ,_ � � c�nroF F�� D11TE a TO: FROM: SIIHJECT: C4MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM February 7, 1990 William Burns, City Manager Jock Robertson, Community Development Director John Flora, Public Works Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Comments on the N.E. Corridor Light Rail Transit System Environmental Assessment Worksheet and Draft Scoping Decision Document The Anoka and Hennepin County Reqional Rail Authorities have requested comments by February 21, 1990, on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet and the Draft Scoping Decision Document. These documents are required by the State and Federal government as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet is a document which is desiqned to establish the basic facts necessary to identify impacts which need further study in the EIS. It is also necessary to initiate the "scoping process" for an Environmental Impact Statement. The puzpose of the Scoping Document is to reduce the scope and bulk of an EIS and identify only those issues relevant to the proposed project including the form, level of detail, content, alternatives, and timetable for preparation of the project. Our comments are identified below. We recommend the City Council review these and determine any other comments to add. A. Environmental Assessment Worksheet Paqe 13, last bullet: "Current or recent past developments near the project" should be chanqed to "Commercial, light industry and sinqle family residential along University Avenue, City of Fridley". Paqe 14, item #17.a: Groundwater in Sprinq Lake Park varies from 4-6 feet. Paqe 17, item �22.b: Runoff from local stormwater collection systems eventually discharqes into the Mississippi River. Comments on the N.E. Corridor Light Rail Transit ' System Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and Draft Scoping Decision Document February 7, 1990 Page 2 Page 18, item �25.b: There is a potential for the replanting of indiqenous species as well as prairie plant species in both the liqht rail right-of-way; and, more specifically, in the Rice Creek/Locke Park area. Page 20, item #28: Park and ride stations in Fridley will have traffic impacts; therefore, the "no significant impact" category will not be applicable to these sites in the EIS. Page 22, item #28: The evaluation of pedestrian access at stations should also include an assessment of pedestrian overpasses at high vehicular volume crossings such as Mississippi Street where sharing of commercial parking lots across University Avenue is contemplated. Page 22, item #29: Add, "Some existing utilities and services may have to be relocated or duplicated in order to install the facility, stations, or parking facilities." Page 25, under "Transit Service": Add, "East/west buslines as they service residential/commercial and industrial land uses will have to be added to make connections to the northeast corridor." Page 25, under "Economic, Employment and Sociological Impacts", add bullet: "Acquisition of park and ride station sites on.existing urban economic development and tax increment financing commitments." B. Comments on the Draft Scoping Decision Document Page 5, the bullet regarding "Economic Development, Employment, and Neighborhood Impacts" should include "Residential displacements". Page 8, Section 1.5 regarding "Run-off and Receiving Waters": The language reads that "Stormwater run-off resulting from the construction of stations and major (more than 200 spaces) park and ride lots will be evaluated in the EIS." Smaller park and zide lots that may range from 10 spaces to 100 spaces still have an impact on the system and must conform to local requirements. Page 10, Section 1.9: There will be neighborhood concerns reqarding the use of the Columbia Arena lot as a park and ride lot, especially for user safety. For example, we have received a letter from a homeowner reqarding the potential loiterinq of passenqers that are riding the LRT and stopping at Columbia Arena and Locke Park. Comments on the N.E. Corridor Liqht Rail Transit , System Environmental Assessment Worksheet, and Draft Scoping Decision Document February 7, 1990 Paqe 3 Paqe 10, Section 1.9 should be clarified to read: "Impact on Columbia Arena which is a County facility and Locke Park which is a joint County/City facility. They are adjacent to eech cther." Paqe 13, Section 1.12: This should be clarified to specify that landscaping and streetscapinq should include the parking lots associated with the park and ride stations and should be consistent with the Fridley redevelopment plans and the University Avenue Corridor plans. Page 13, Section 1.13: Add bullet to include the impact on residential displacement and utility relocations and additions. Page 14, item 1.6, ^Issues the EIS will not Address": Consistency with existing local comprehensive plans should be included. High access adds substantially to land values; therefore, central business districts and neighborhoods which are included in comprehensive plans, in fact, will be substantially impacted. Footnote: This statement may reflect a misunderstanding about comprehensive plans. They are not merely a catalog of independent items, but, in fact, are a network of mutually supporting objectives and policies. Summarv We want to ensure that the EIS analyzes the impacts of the LRT and its park and ride facilities. The comments above address a wide variety of issues. To summarize, these impacts are as follows: 1. Screening of parking lots (fencing, landscaping, etc.) 2. 3. Traffic - automobile and bus Transit service (especially east-west routes) 4. Economic impact and relationship to the City's redevelopment plan 5. 6. 7. 8. Relocation of underqround utilities Residential and commercial displacement Safety and crime prevention Stormwater management Comments on the N.E. Corridor Liqht Rail•Transit System Environmental l�issessment Worksheet, and Draft Scoping Decision Document February 7, 1990 Paqe 4 9. Bikeway/walkway systems 10. Pedestrian access JR/JF/BD:ls M-90-87 = PLANNING DIVISION � MEMORANDUM cmroF FR! DLEY DATE: January 26, 1990 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: 1990 Workplan and 1989 Accomplishments On February 22, 1989, the Planning Commission identified the following items to be included in the 1989 workplan: 1. Urban Design Standards 2. Commercial and Industrial Vacant Land Inventory 3. Update Comprehensive Plan 4. Revise Subdivision Ordinance 5. Zoning Ordinance Revision 6. Light Rail Transit 7. Riverview Heights Park The status of these items are as follows: 1. Staff has decided that the Urban Design Standards should be considered as an implementation tool after the Comprehensive Plan is completed. In this manner, the goals of the community can be implemented through the tools that the Urban Design Standards propose. 2. The Commercial and Industrial Vacant Land Inventory was updated in 1989 and will be updated in 1990. Planning staff also began an inventory of vacant residential parcels, both single and multiple family. These will be incorporated into the basic data for the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Planning Commission initiated several items with the Comprehensive Plan update. The Planning Commission identified a general review process and received direction from the City Council on that process. Planning Commission also reviewed several chapter outlines and gave direction to staff. 1989 Accomplishments and 1990 Workplan January 26, 1990 Page 2 4. The Subdivision Ordinance was not considered by the Planning Commission. We did not prepare an ordinance amendment, based on the amount of zoning ordinance revisions that were occurring; however, we would recommend that this be a discussion issue with the City Council and the Planning Commission in 1990. 5. The Planning Commission discussed several housekeeping ordinance revisions. A majority of them are still being considered by the City Council at this time. 6. The Planning Commission conducted a special meeting on Light Rail Transit and wanted to become more involved in the LRT planning process. The Commission appointed Paul Dahlberg in February to work with Councilman Billings with the advisory committees. 7. We are continuing to acquire the three remaining single family homes in the Riverview Heights area. Michele McPherson has prepared a proposed development plan for the park area, and has presented that proposal to the Parks and Recreation Commission. The Parks and Recreation Commission gave Michele direction as to other items to be included in the plan. Presentation before the Planning Commission and City Council should occur in 1990. Evaluation of Issues Considered by the Planning Commission in 1989 One of the items that the Planning Commission discussed at the December 6, 1989 meeting about "ways to improve a commission" was to exam on an annual basis what the Commission is doing, how well they are doing it, and identify ways to do it better. Attached is a detailed list of the issues that the Planning Commission considered in 1989. The Commission did accomplish a majority of its workplan tasks; however, it may be prudent to have a discussion or "post mortem" of those issues that occurred in 1989 and identify areas that either staff or Commission could improve. We have therefore prepared an evaluation matrix for you to review each of the issues identified, and to make any comments. 1990 Workplan Also attached is the Planning staff's memorandum to the City Manager regarding our first quarter 1990 priorities and our 1989 accomplishments. Using this as a basis, plus Commission direction at Wednesday�s meeting, a 1990 workplan should be developed. We are proposing the Commission consider the following tasks: ° 1989 Accomplishments and 1990 Workplan January 26, 1990 Page 3 1. Initiation of the Comprehensive Plan review process, including a preliminary review by the City Council and other commissions. a. Review basic research data prepared by staff. b. Review initial goals and policy direction. c. Review Plan text. d. Participate in public meeting process. 2. Continue monitoring and review of LRT process, including a potential public hearing with the Planning Commission and City Council. 3. Discuss potential revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance. 4. Discuss potential revisions in zoning ordinance, housekeeping zoning ordinance amendments. Please note that we have been directed by the City Manager's office to emphasize analyzing various housing programs in 1990 which may be available to Fridley. This will work hand-in-hand with the policy discussion which will occur through the Comprehensive Plan process. . BD/dn M-90-56 Attachments: Issues considered by the Planning Commission in 1989 Evaluation matrix Planning Commission minutes of February 22, 1989 Zoning action totals for last six years Memorandum to Bill Burns dated January 16, 1990 . e ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN 1989 1. Comprehensive Plan a. Review process b. Chapter outlines 2. Consideration of Light Rail Transit Issues a. Route alignments b. Station locations c. Process 3. Zoning Ordinance amendments a. Landscaping ordinance b. Sign ordinance c. Lot coverage in commercial and industrial districts d. Parking space sizes e. Dumpster f. Churches in M-1 districts 4. Consideration of Osborne Crossings revised site plan 5. Discussion of Central Avenue corridor study a. Land use analysis b. Implementation plan c. Consideration of the revision to the redevelopment district to create a tax increment district for Onan and adjacent properties. 6. Discussion and recommendation on the use of 1989-1990 CDBG funds. 7. Recommendation on the combination of the Environmental Quality Commission and the Energy Commission. 8. Review of Commission Member Orientation handbook. e � Issue Number (from attached list) EVALUATION MATRIX 1989 Rate the Commission's performance in analyzing the issue and providing a recommendation to the City Council Poor Good Excellent 1 2 3 Rate the staff's performance in analyzing the issue and providing a recommendation to the Planning Commission Poor Good Excellent 1 2 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------- l.b. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2.a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2.b. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2.c. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.b. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.c. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.d. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.e. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.f. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5.a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5.b ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5.c. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Others ---------------------------------------------------------------- e EVALUATION MATRIX 1989 Page 2 Issue Number ldentify the item(s) which you would do (from attached differntly if the issue were re-presented. list) ---------------------------------------------------------------- l.b. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2.a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2.b. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2.c. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.b. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.c. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.d. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.e. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 3.f. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5.a. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5.b. ---------------------------------------------------------------- S.C. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 6. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 8. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Others ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- � PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. FEBRIIARY 22. 1989 Mr. Betzold asked if any-more thought had been given to having a public hearing. Ms. Dacy stated she has talked to Tim Yantos, Anoka County Railroad Authority. They are in the process of putting together their proposed public hearing schedule, and she would like to see that schedule before any plans are made for a public hearing in Fridley. Ms. Sherek stated that when they do publicize a public hearing, she would like them to do more publicity for Fridley residents. Mr. Betzold stated the Fridley High School Auditorium might be a good place to hold a public hearing. Ms. Dacy stated she would also suggest that a direct mailing be sent to those property owners abutting both sides of the proposed route.. Mr. Dahlberg stated that at the last Anoka County Railroad Authority meeting, if they proceed with the preliminary design and engineering phase, was a decision made to explore both corridors or both University and Central from downtown to I-694 and then only University from that point north? CJ Ms. Dacy stated it is her understanding they are going to meet at . the end of February to determine the preliminary engineering phase, so she could not answer Mr. Dahlberg's question at this time. 3. 1988 WORKPLAN � Ms. Dacy stated she wanted to be more definitive about the 1989 workplan. She stated some of the items established by the Planning Commission go back as far as 1987. On page 2 of her memo dated Feb. 17, 1989, she listed a proposed time schedule to address the following 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 Ms. Dacy stated they will also be addressing the Central Avenue Corridor Study in 1989, and she hoped to have something for the -4- n �J C. . � 4. 5. • pLANNING CO1rIIiiISBION MEETING, FEBRIIARY 22, 1989 Commission to discuss at their first meeting in April. Mr. Barna stated he would like to address the sixth workplan item, Zoning Ordinance revisions. He stated about 2-3 years ago, tho Appeals Commission looked at garage expansions from single car to double car garages, and they worked out a chart showing what garag� expansions would be allowed without requiring variances. He statecl he would like the Planning Commission to review that chart again and possibly look at expanding it a little further. This is basecl on the number of variance requests the Appeals Commission ia receiving for garage expansions. Mr. Betzold stated that since this originated with the Appealr� Commission and because the Appeals Commission has the expertise, he would suggest the Appeals Coaunission discuss this again and mak� any recommendations for change to the Planning Commission. Mr. Betzold stated that regarding the Central Avenue Corridc�� study, how is that going to tie in with the Brickner proposal? Ms. Dacy stated Mr. Brickner has not yet conducted a neighborhoc�� meeting. She thought the study would precede Mr. Brickner'�� application. The Commission has recommended the study go all tl►�� way to Osborne Road; but because the Brickner proposal is locat<•�� in the southern part of Central Avenue, she would recommend tl�� study be done in two phases: the southern half first and follc�w up with the northern half this summer. Mr. Betzold agreed. He stated that since this proposal will 1��' coming before the Planning Commission, it is important that thc•1' take a look at this area first. RECEIVE JANUARY 31. 1989. APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barfla, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the Janua��1' 31, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED Tlll: MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. RECEIVE FEBRUARY 6. 1989 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive tl�� February 6, 1989, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED Tllt� MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOUSLY. -5- .. , SIX YEARS OF ZONING ACTIONS , PLAT REQUESTS 1984 - 5 1985 - 7 1986 - 8 1987 - 7 1988 - 3 1989 - 2 SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUESTS 1984 - 26 1985 - 17 1986 - 17 1987 - 21 1988 - 17 1989 - 14 REZONING REQUESTS 1984 - 5 1985 - 5 1986 - 6 1987 - 4 1988 - 4 1989 - 5 VACATION REQUESTS 1984 - 6 1985 - 7 1986 - 7 1987 - 12 1988 - 1 1989 - 6 LOT SPLIT REQUESTS 1984 - 13 1985 - 8 1986 - 9 1987 - 10 1988 - 7 1989 - 4 VARIANCE REQUESTS 1984 - 26 1985 - 53 1986 - 36 1987 - 41 1988 - 26 1989 - 27 TOTAL P.S. REQUESTS (6 YRS) - 32 TOTAL SUP REQUESTS (6 YRS) - 112 TOTAL ZOA REQUESTS (6 YRS) - 29 TOTAL SAV REQUESTS (6 YRS) - 39 TOTAL L.S. REQUESTS (6 YRS) - 51 TOTAL VAR REQUESTS (6 YRS) - 209 TOTAL PROCESSED ZONING ISSIIES (6 YRB) - 472