The URL can be used to link to this page

10/30/1989 CONF MTG - 4999CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE MEETING JULY 31, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. CITY OF FRIDLEY COUNCIL CHAMBERS � 1, � 2� � � GTYOF FRIDLEY CITY COUPJCIL CONFERENCE MEETING OCTOBER 30, 19d9 - 7:30 P,M, CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORECMENT� COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROCESS� 3� ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS� A� PARKING STALL SIZE� B� LOT COVERAGE IN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS� C� HOUSEKEEPING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS� D� LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE� � 4� STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE APPEALS COMMISSION� 5�. TEMPORARY EMPLOYEE ISSUE� � � unroF F� �� C011MI1UNITY DEVELOPMEiti�' DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM D71TE: October il, 1989 � �' TO: �illiam Burns, City Manager;� 1�ROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator Steven Barg, Pianning Assistant BUBJECT: Consideration of Systematic Code Enforcement �IISTORY On September 14, 1988, the Planning Commission discussed its concern over the manner in which the City carries out code enforcement. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Council support Systematic Code Enforcement, whereby each property in the City would be inspected on a reqular basis, even if no complaints aze received. The purpose of this is to improve the appearance of the City and to provide a system of fair and equal enforcement. On September 26, 1988, the Council considered the matter and requested that staff prepare a proposal. Subsequently, the attached memo was submitted explaininq the present enfor•cement policy, outlining Systematic Code Enforcement and its benefits, and recommendinq that Systematic Code Enforcement be adopted. RECOMMENDATION On October 30, 1989, the Council �till consider Systematic Code Enforcement at its conference meeting. Staff recommends that this policy be adopted as outlined in the proposal. (The minutes of the above referenced meetinqs are attached.) SB:ls 1d-89-621 � � crnroF fRlDLEY COMMLiN[TY DEVELOPMENT TO: FROM: DATE: REGARDING: DEPARTNiENT MEMORANDUM William Burns, City Manaqer Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Steven Barg, Code Enforcement Officer November 2, 1988 Systematic Code Enforcement A. Introduction Most of us desire to live in an attractive, well-kept community that we can look at with pride. It increases the value of our homes and gives us a nice feeling about ourselves and our neighborhoods. For this reason, city ordinances and zoning code requirements have been adopted. However, some people inevitably maintain their properties in a manner such that minimum standards are not met. When this occurs, it is the City's responsibility to step in and correct problems. The City Council has requested that staff look at the possibility of inspecting all properties on a reqular and proactive.basis', rather than on a complaint basis. In order to decide if the need exists for such a program, an examination of the current code enforcement process is provided first. B. Present Code Enforcement Policy 1. Current Enforcement Procedure Presently, if an individual calls to lile a complaint reqazdinq his neighbor's lot, the followinq procedure is used. After receiving the complaint, the Code Enforcement Officer investigates the situation. If it is determined that one or more code violations exist, the property owner is informed fn writinq and qfven ten days to brinq his property into compl iance . Should he do so, he is sent a letter thanking him for the prompt response. However, if the problem remains, a second letter is �ailed allowinq hfm tive more days to comply, and he is informed that continued noncompliance after this time period would lead to leqal action. - Systematic Code Enforcement November 2, 1988 Paqe 2 2. The next step (if property still does not meet code requirements) is to issue a citation. I►t this point, the matter is referred to the court system for further action. City Ordinance does provide for a procedure by which the Council can order the abatement of a nuisance (City cleans the property and owner is assessed for cost) although the provision is seldom used. Problems/Need for Improvement There are several problems with the present system which bring about the need to look at Systematic Code Enforcement. First, since violations are addressed on a complaint basis, those property owners receiving noncompliance letters often feel as though they are being "picked on" and singled out. They arque that others have worse violations and quickly point their fingers at other homes in the neighborhood. In addition, this system rewards the chronic complainer, whose requests are always beinq investigated, while many less forceful individuals quietly put up with eyesores in their areas for years. Finally, this approach does not make the most effective use of Code Enforcement Officer time as it results in spotty enforcement throughout the City with much driving between locations foz inspections, followup, etc. It appears as though, while complaints need prompt attention, some organized effort should be undertaken to clean up entire neiqhborhoods instead of just individual homes. C. Systematic Code Enforcement l. Benefit Systematic Code Enforcement would improve the situation by providing a more fair and equitable method of evaluating problem properties. Each lot would be inspected on a reqular basis, thus assurinq that all code violations in the City are corrected reqardless of whether or not anyone complains. The impact that such a proqram would have on a neighborhood miqht be extensive. Systematic Code Enforcement November 2, 1988 Paqe 3 2. 3. Once things started to look really nice in an area, residents would likely take more pride in their homes and yards. people might even feel a sense of neighborhood identity as a result of a more attractive appearance. Complaints would still be received and processed as always, but we feel that Systematic Code Enforcement Would serve as a positive tool to improve the City. Feasibility The idea of having a proactive code enforcement policy is definite�� feasible, although the priority ranking assigned to the project will determine how often each area is inspected. The City vould be divided into sections and a projected schedule desiqned for completing each section accordinq to a proposed timetable. A decision must be made as to how much staff time should be committed to this plan, and it should be understood that during certain months when the workload is heavy (numerous complaints, etc.), limited proactive enforcement can occur. With this constraint in mind, Systematic Code Enforcement is a very workable idea. Implementation There are four major steps which need to be followed in order to implement this program successfully. These are as follows: a) Determine Priorities "Checklist" - A well-orqanized checklist should be developed for use as an inspection quide. This form will contain the ordinance/code requirements which are being reviewed when a property is evaluated. It will ensure that all properties are inspected using the same criteria, and it will serve ns a qood reference for keeping this project's priorities clearly focused at all times. b) Review/ImDrove Weak or Unclear Codes - In order to properly carry out Systematic Code Enforcement, we must have stronq and clearly understood ozdinances and code requirements. Undoubtedly, the City will be tested on our enforcement practices, and we must have full confidence that citations written can stand in court. . ,� Systematic Cone Enforcement November 2, 1988 Paqe 4 Two current problem areas (definition and enforcement) involve the parking of vehicles in front yards and illeqal home occupations. Clearing up these and other codes will be a key to making the proqram work, and we would work with the City Attorney in accomplishing this. c) A��ronriate Public Relations - Once we have completed the previous two steps, ve must use good public relations sc that residents are aware of our plan and will view it in a positive way. We spoke with Mihce Osmundson, who works for the City of Minneapolis and has been involved with its proactive code enforcement program which began last year. He said that they put Systematic Code Enforcement substantial advanced warning (through newspaper articles) that the program was going to start and advising residents as to what inspectors would be lookinq for and why. These articles stressed the positive results which occur when a neighborhood is beautified. Zn addition, prior to the inspection of a given section, a neighborhood meetinq vas held (a staff person and the area councilperson were present) so that the program could be further explained and residents might voice their concerns. According to Mr. Osmundson, Fridley residents would better understand and cooperate with the proqram if it follows a solid positive public relations campaiqn. d) �nspection1Followuo Procedure - For the reason of "positive publicity" noted earlier, it is recommended that a aliqhtly lonqer time period be allowed for compliance than in a normal complaint situation. This is because we, as the so-called "complainant" in these cases, have as our primary interest the notion of improving the City as opposed to maximizinq citations issued. A good idea would be to allow a total oi thirty days instead of fifteen (a 20-day notice tollowed by a 10-day final) for compliance, as ve are likely to encounter some rather larqe violations which have existed for a lonq time but have never been reported. This should assist us in presentinq a positive image by showinq fairness in dealinq with violations. Systematic Code Enforcement November 2, 1988 Page 5 D. Summary/Recommendation Staff recommends that the City adopt a program of Systematic Code Enforcement as an important tool in promotinq a better urban environment, and that it do so under the quidelines outlined in this memorandum. JR/BD/SB:ls M-88-309 m p'L�,.`z:ING C�M�".ISSIOh I+�TII�1G► � 14, 1968 PA� 13 � b. C.oc3e Fhfoxt�arent in the City of flridley NLs. Sherek stated she was one of the vocal people calling City Hall aver the last five years catplaining a},�out cbr�oxious sites in the neic�3bc,rhood. She is really getting to feel that the only places that get hit with any z�equests ta co�rtply with City Coaes in Fridley are pec�ple that are either requesting sane type of build.ing penr,it or special use peanit or wt�ose neighbors oor�lain to City Hall. NLs. Sherek stated that in N.inneapolis once or tkice a year the}• floo.? sor.�e of the neighborhoods with oode caRpliance situations. �ey write warnings to all people not in cctr�liance with city codes. She state�: she wot:ld li3:e to see the City of Fridley do sat�e`hing similar and then follvk through with the oode enforeerent. Z7ie citizens oould be r�otified via the me3ia prior to this city-��de oode enfozvne�t sea:ch. t�Ls. Sherek stated th�.• need to do a oode oorrpliance thing, not basec on just somP��od��'s c�orrplain�.s or somebod}�'s request to upgrade a propert}•, but basec on those people ma}:ing messes in Fridley. She st�ted her neigt�borhood is really getting to look like a char�. Mr . Ft�ertson stated he appreciatec? and agre�e� M i th Ms . Shere}:' s r�a rY.s . He stated that the histozy of oode enforcenent aver the last five years � is that it has been relegated to part-time te�orary e'rployees . Tt,e}• have finally been successful in getting a full-ti.me career oode enforce- ment officer, Steve B�rg. He has beez given a job description to rnt only respo�xi to canplaints, but also to design and irs�lement systenatic code enforcesnent throughout t}�e City. Within that, Mr. Robe�.'tson stat.ed he has given Mr. Barg discretion to take a look at the City ar� to ma3:e same recam�endations on how to piveeed with systematic code enforcenent. Mr. Barna stated one of the problens has been the lack of "teeth" in the enforcenent of a lot of vodes. Ms. Castle stated also ti,e stipulations to building permits are not really m�nitered. She has been wor3cing on trying to change that, and in the past few we�3cs, she, along with Michele McPherson, the Larxiscape Architect, and Steve Barg have gone thmu9h all the building permits designating areas to inspect. She is r�o�w reviewing tho.�e inspections and in the next wee]c she will start contactin9 these pe�le. «at success she will have, she did not knv�a. She dia kna' that the 2oning Code is not stron9 in the enfoz�cer�ent of any kind of pezmits• Ms. Sherek stated it appears that �ity staffis �go�g�ir► plii�gh,et d.irectio�. She felt �at is =+eally t�eeded inspection of the City. l�C7I'ION by NLs. S'�'eerek, SeCOrx3ed by Mr. ( Cow ci 1 that they sup�ort a syster�atic ! Fridley. Barna, to r�oartnerid t�o the City code enforane�nt is� ti�e City of UPUN A VOICE Vi0►I'E. ALL VCITING AYE, VICE-�'+IRPi�t.SOTJ KOt�IDRICK D�C71�Ftm TI� MO►TION C� iR�1N�JSLY. i � • r� • % �� L'�•J of this property and didn't lspecially feel a commercial use vas wrong. �' ' felt the question is really what is the best use of the land. Mr. Herrick stated the sarket value for a cinqle family bose on this property vould be very low. MOTION by Councilman Billfngs to qrant �pecial use permit, SP �88-12, with the following stipulations: (1) petitioner aqrees that any future re-use of the building is 6ubject to finding, throuqh the cpecial use permit process, that the ze-use would be compatible vith the �urrounding neighborhood; (2) a portion of Lot 29, appzoximately 1,604 square feet will be leased from the City for 51.00 per year as long as the business is in operation at this site; (3) landscaping to be installed as per plan by September 1, 1989; (4) a performance bond or letter of credit for 3 percent of the construction value be qiven to the City prior to issuance of the building permit; (5) parkinq demand shall not exceed nine cpaces unless additional spaces are provided; (6) install six inch concrete curbinq around the entire perimeter of the parking lot including driveway openinq by September 1, 1989; (7) parking lot to be sealccated and rtriped with nine apaces by September l, 1989; (8) bollards are to be removed upon installation of landscaping; and (9) petitioner to maintain site immediately by cutting grass and eliminating veeds. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Councilman Schneider �tated if the building had been destroyed, he felt the S-1 zoning is very specific and it could not have been rebuilt. Ne stated he does agree it is an eyesore. Councilwoman Jorgenson stated under the 5-1 zone, the propezty would ha�� reverted to R-1, if the structure had been destzoyed. She stated she is in favor of this business on the property, but did not like to rezone for one parcel. Councilman Billings �tated he would aqree that by qranting the �pecial use permit, the strictest interpretation is not being applied. Mayor Nee stated there have been proposals for various uses for this property, therefore, the propezty has not really been abandoned. UPON A VOZCE VOTE TI�,i�N ON THE 1►BOVE MOTION, all voted aye, and Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. g, �SnT.trrT�N N�_ 83-1988 �,PPROVING �► SUBDZVISION. jAT SPLIT L S. #88-04. TO SPLIT 1�, FOUR FOOT �,RZANGLE OFF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF IAT 2. �IACK 2 MARIAN HILIS SECOND 1�►DDITION TO BE �OMBINED F7ITH TNE PROPERTY TO THE EAST. IAT 1. �I,OCK 2 lSARIAN HILIS SECOND 7�►DDITION, l�LL �O CORRECT J�► CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY DONE IN 1969 1GENERALLY LOCATED l�T 1350 52ND l,VENUE AND 1340 �2ND AVENUE. BY STANLEY JWD PHYLLIS PROKOPOWICZI: MOTION by Councilman Billings to adopt Resolution No. 83-1988. Seconded �-• Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declai the motion carried unani�ously. � C. �ONSIDERATION OF SUPPORTING SYSTEMATIC CODE ENFORCEMENT � � �N THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: �i._� � � >� • - � �r • - JTION by Councilman Schneider to refer this item to staff for a proposal, in consultation with tne City l�ttorney's Office, to be presented at come \/ � future Conference Meeting. Seconded by Councilman Billinqs. Upon a voice �'` vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the �otion carried tu�animously. D. jTEM FROM THE 7�►PPEALS COI�tISSION KE�TING OF li►UGUST 30 �8- 1. �,ONSIDERATION OF �, VARI?�T10E VP►R �88-22. TO �rn1rF THF STnF YARD sETBACK FROM 15 TO 5 FEET: �O REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 25 FEET_� 7 FEET, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM HARD SURFACE SLETBACK FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM 20 FEET �O 7 FEET; TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM HARD SURFACE SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET �►T THE SIDE IAT �.INE TO �LIAW AN AIR CONDITIONING HEATING AND �LECTRICAL CONTRAC'TOR OFFICE ON LOTS 27 AND 28. BIACK 12 HYDE PARK THE S�►ME BEING 5973 3RD STREET N E BY DONALD DICKISON: MOTION by Councilman Billings tc qzant the variances, VAR �88-22, to zeduce the side yard 6etback from 15 to 5 feet; to reduce the rear yard 6etback from 25 to 7 feet; to reduce the minimum hardsurface setback from a public ziqht- of-way from 20 to 7 feet; and to zeduce the minimum hazdsurface cetback frcm 5 to 0 feet at the side lot line, but to deny the variance to reduce the :nimum hardsurface setback from the main building irom 5 to 0 feet, �ubject Lo the followinq stipulations: (1) petitioner agrees that any futuze re-use of the building is zubject to finding, throuqh the special use permit prccess, that the re-use would be compatible with the 6urroundinq neighborhood; (2) a portion of Lct 29, approximately 1,604 6quare feet, will be leased from the City for 51.00 per year es long as the business is in operation; (3) landscaping to be installed as per plan by September 1, 1989; (4) a performance bond or letter of credit for 3 percent of the construction value be given to the City prior to issuance of the building permit; (5) parking demand shnll not exceed nine opaces unless additional spaces aze provided; (6) install �ix inch concrete curbing around the entize perimeter of the parking lot including driveway openinq by September l, 1989; (7) parking lot to be cealcoated and ctriped with nine spaces by September l, 1989; (8) bollards are to be removed upon installation of landscapinq; and (9) petitioner to maintain site immediately by cutting qrass and eliminating weeds. Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenscn. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Maycr Nee declared the sotion carried ur�animously. MOTION by Councilvoman Jorgenson to receive the �inutes of the Planninq Commission Meeting of September 14, 1988. Seconded by Councilman Billings. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, liayor Nee declared the sotion carried unanimously. rr FOR THE MOORE 4. �ONSIDERATION OF RECEIVING BIDS J►ND I�WARDING THE CONTR� :�►KE i�TEST BASIN �iER.ATOR PROJECT NO 182 ITABLED 9y12/881: "'c. Burch, 1►ssistant Publi� Works Director, stated four bids were received _�r this project and staff is recommending the lov bid from Sevcon, Inc. ior S15,476 be accepted. MOTION by Ccuncilman Schneider to zeceive the bids: t i unoF f R! DLEY DATE: T0: FROM: SUBJ ECT : WHY PLAN? COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 26, 1989 ✓William Burns Cit Mana er'1� �� I . Y 9 Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Comprehensive Plan Process r c f' � ,_ ,.. ,- �. The City Council directed staff to place this item on a City Council conference agenda to discuss the comprehensive plan process. Our goal is to make the comprehensive plan a more usable and visible document for the City Council, the commission members and City staff. We believe that the Plan should be regarded as more than just a document which satisfies a statutory requirement. The existing Plan was entitled "The Plan for the '80's". The City needs to revise the Plan in order to compile its statement of goals and objectives for this community in the next ten years. The City must also comply with Metropolitan Council recent zevisions to its regional plans (transportation policy plan and waste vater management plan). PLANNING COA'ffrSISSION ACTION The Plnnning Commission discussed the comprehensive plan revision process at the July 12, 1989 and the l�uqust 16, 1989 meetings. The Planning Commission recommended that the Plan have a ten year horizon, as was done in the 1980�6. The Commission expressed the need to have a proactive plan which can identify strategies vbich can be implemented in a realistic time frame. The Planning Commission aqreed with staff's recommendation to create a year 2000 land use plan. Throuqh the comprehensive plan update process, the various land uses in the City will be updated, and any changes should be sade durinq the comprehensive plan process. �,fter the Plan adoption, the City could then pursue rezoninq of properties inconsi�tent with the land use plan. The Planning Commission recommended that the following review process be implemented: Compzehensive Plan Process October 26, 1989 Page 2 A. Sdentify items to revise in each chapter and prepare draft outlines - July 1989 to January l, 1990. B. Prepare drafts of each chapter; =eview with Planning Commission and City Council - January 1, 1990 to July 1, 1990. C. Conduct informal meetings with neighborhood qroups (block captains, chamber of commerce, Ward Councilmembers, and other groups) - Auqust 1990 to September 1990. � D. Planning Commission conducts two public hearings - October 1990 to November 1990. E. Revise draft for Planning Commission action - November 1990. F. Establish City Council public hearing - December 1990. G. City Council conducts public hearing - January 1991. H. Revise Plan for City Council action, determine need for another hearing, and/or adopt revised Plan - February 1991. I. Submit to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval. More time may be needed in the period between January l, 1990 to July 1, 1990 in preparinq the actual drafts of each chapter. Each draft is proposed to be reviewed by the Planning Commission with copies sent to the City Council as we progress through the process. Prior to conducting public meetings, either informal or formal, staff will need City Council concurrence of the Planning Commission's proposed draft. We will review the proposed draft at the City Council conference sessions or efter City Council meetinqs. The Planning Commission has started to draft tentative outlines of each chapter of the Plan in order to quide staff's research. No policy making has been discussed since at this time we need to gather basic information regarding each topic. !►ttached are copies of the outlines they have reviewed to-date. CZTY COUNCIL RECOIrIIr1ENDATION Staff recommends the City Council concur with the Planninq Commission's approach to the comprehensive plan revision process; however, any additions or revisions to the process will be welcomed in order to achieve a document that is usable and a community-wide statement of the City's goals and objectives. BD/dn M-89-653 LAND USE I. Introduction II. Existing Land Use Inventory A. Residential 1. Single Family 2. Low Density 3. Medium Density 4. High Density B. Commercial l. Office 2. Neighborhood Commercial 3. General Commercial 4. Shoppinq Center 5. Multi-tenant buildings C. Industrial 1. Light 2. Heavy D. Public/Quasi-Public E. Parks/Open Space F. Inventory Vacant Parcels 1. Residential 2. Commercial 3. Industrial G. Nonconforming Uses H. Inventory Blighted Areas I. Redevelopment Areas III. Define Land Use Goals and Objectives IV. Analyze Neighborhood Areas A. Reevaluate Perceived Neighborhood Map B. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area Land Use Chapter Page 2 V. Analyze Commercial and Industrial Corridors A. Identify Corridor B. Analyze Strengths, Weaknesses and Opportunities C. Identify Policies for Each Area VI. Visual and Aesthetic Policies VII. Zmplementation Strategies A. Update City Codes B. Redevelopment Projects C. Systematic Code Enforcement I. II. HOUSING Introduction and Definitions A. Life Cycle Housing B. Housing Type Definitions Existing Housing Inventory A. Number of Single Family Detached B. Number of Single Family Attached 1. Townhouse 2. Condominium 3. Double�Bungalow 4. Triplex C. Number of Multiple Family 1. Apartments 2. Group Facilities a. Fridley Convalescent b. Lynwood Care Center c. Group Homes D. Number of Senior Housing 1. Multiple Family 2. Single Family E. Mobi2e Homes F. RentaZ versus Owner-Occupied Units G. Income H. Race I. Age J. Head of Household Housing Chapter Page 2 IZI. Housing Stock Condition A. Define Terms for Exterior Condition B. Define Terms for Interior Condition (Multiple Family Units) C. Tabulation of Housing Stock Condition � 1. Single Family Detached 2. Single Family Attached 3. Multiple Family 4. Mobil� Home 5. Total D. Identify Areas of Substandard Housing l. Neighborhood Analysis IV. Existing Housing Supply A. Vacancy versus Occupancy 1. Single Family 2. Multiple Family B. Housing Costs 1. Rental Ranges 2. Owner-Occupied C. Income D. Housing Tenure • V. Housing Demand A. Land Availability B. Household Formation C. Household Size ' D. Household Projections Housing Chapter Page 3 E. Population Projections F. Employment Projection VI. Analysis of Gaps in Housing Continuum A. Identify Housing Types which are Needed in Relation to Analysis of Demand and Household Projections. B. Analyze Neighborhood Areas ' 1. At risk 2. Standard 3. New � C. Analyze Areas for New or Rehabilitated Housing Opportunities VII. Existing Housing Programs A. Federal 1. Section 8 2. Section 202 3. Section 235 4. Section 236 . 5. CDBG 6. Other B. State l. MHFA 2. Other C. Anoka County D. Local VZI. Goals and Policies Housing Chapter Page 4 IX. Strategies A. Discuss Strategies to Provide Types of Housing Styles 1. Relate to Life Cycle Theory B. Strategies to Improve Substandard Housing C. Strategies to Maintain Standard Housing � D. Strategies to Remove and Replace Substandard Multiple Housing ENVZRONMENTAL RESOURCES I. Introduction II. Inventory of Natural Features A. Woodlands and Vegetation l. Oak/Oak Savannah 2. Riverine Woodlands/Flood Plain Woodlands 3. Urban Forest B. Waterbodies - Water Courses 1. Lakes 2. Rivers, Streams, Creeks 3. Other (Harris Pond) C. Geology l. Regional 2. Local Subsurface 3. Local Surface 4. Aquifers D. Wetlands i. Location 2. Characteristics 3. Regulatory Agencies a. Minnesota DNR b. Army Corp of Engineers c. US Fish and Wildlife Service d. Watershed Districts E. Air Quality �1. PCA Standards � Environmental Resources Outline Page 2 F. Historic Sites 1. Locke House/Banfill Tavern 2. Hayes Annex 3. Moore Lake Dunes ISI. Inventory Vacant Parcels for Natural Resources; Unique Features A. Residential B. Commercial C. Industrial IV. Threats to Natural Resources A. Vegetation 1. Oak Wilt 2. Dutch Elm 3. Purple Loosestrife B. Waterbodies l. Storm Water Runoff 2. Pollution a. Industrial �laste b. Commercial Chemicals (1) Fertilization (2) Herbicides (3) -Pesticides C. Air Quality 1. Traffic Impact 2. Industrial V. Goals and Objectives � � cinro� F�� DATE: T0: FROM: SUBJECT: C011/LMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 26, 1989 �william Burns, City Manager /��)r , Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele'McPherson, Planninq ]�ssistant Parking Stall SiZes Councilman Steve Billings at the September 11, 1989 meeting requested the City Council dizect staff to investigate the proposed change to the definition of the parking stall size and the zoning code (Exhibit A). The City Council agreed to direct staff to conduct such an analysis. PROPOSAL The proposed language is intended to permit a developer to stripe parking spaces at 9' x 20' if it is double striped in accordance with a design authorized by the City. Ti�e proposed language requires an application and review process by the City to utilize the 9' x 20' space size. RESEARCH As is typically done with zoning ordinance amendments, staff researched other communities for their requirements. Exhibit B lists 22 communities and their stall size, aisle vidths and whether or not they have a compact stall size. I►lso included is a memorandum from a local architect which was submitted with the Vantage Companies variance request for a smaller parking 6ta11 size. Of the 22 communities listed, 19 of them have a stall width of nine feet. Nine provide for compact cars. We also have provided copies of pertinent articles reqarding the �ize of parkinq 6talls from publications written by the Urban Land Institute and another book entitled �arSca�e. The article identified as Exhibit C contains the �ost useful analy6i6 of this i6sue. The article points out that the percentaqe of compact cars has increased significantly in the last 15 years. The proportion of smaller cars in 1984 totalled approximately 50� of the current auto fleet. Current2y, the larqest car in the Ford fleet, an LTD Parking Stall Sizes October 26, 1989 Page 2 wagon, measures 6.6' in vidth and 17.9' in length. �n F-350 Ford pickup truck is 19' in lenqth and 7' in width. Howevez, these large cars represent a very small percentage of the total amount of the driving public. Other car sizes, for example, range between 5.3' in width (Ford Festiva) to a Ford Thunderbird which is 6' in width. Length varies from 11.7' to 16.5'. Given that small cars comprise 50$ of the auto fleet and qiven the implications of fuel economy and fuel shortages, the percentage of small cars is predicted to increase to 75$ and higher in the 1990's. It is therefore prudent to define parking spaces which will accommodate smaller cars for the future. The Urban Land Institute article also explained results of a study completed in Toronto regarding the maneuverability of cars in various sizes of parking systems. The most successful system where parkers could maneuver into the space in one attempt was a 9' wide stall, 20' in length, with an aisle width of 20'. Fridley's code requires a 25' aisle width. Given that this analysis was completed at "parking facilities desiqned for high turnover retail situations", the necessity to require a 10' wide stall may be wasting lot area. Requiring a 9' wide stall can increase the amount of parking available in a lot by at least 10$. This can be very important in a larger development where economies of scale can be achieved with longer parking rows. Conversely, in the case of the Fridley Alano building, a 9' wide space may have added 5 to 6 spaces on the lot without the need for a variance. Exhibit F is a parking stall survey conducted by the City on May 27, 2986 listinq establishments in the City and the stall widths as striped. A number of establishments have striped the lots at 9'. There are also a number of locations which currently have 9' double stripes such as the East River Road Business Center. Exhibit G lists the variances that have been considered in the past for a 9' stall width. Nine foot stall widths have been qranted to SBF Development along the perimeter of the lot, and to large employers such as Onan and LaMaur. ALTERNATIVES The City Council has the following options: 1. Maintain existing definition of a parking stall size. 2. �mend the definition fzom 10' x 20' to 9' x 20' and retain the language regarding the reduction of stall depth when abutting a boulevard. Parking Stall Sizes October 26, 1989 Page 3 3. Option �2 but require double striping. 4. Amend the definition to provide a 9' x 20' as an alternate upon application and approval by the City. � 10' x 20' space �ould still be preferred (Councilman Billings' proposal). 5. Require a certain mixture to be 9' x 20' (perimeter spaces� and the remaining 10' x 20' (interior spaces). 6. Require a 9' x 20' stall for non-retail or high turnover uses and maintain 10' x 20' stalls. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above research, staff is �onvinced that a 9' x 20' stall can function effectively in any situation including high retail turnover uses. Double striping is recommended as it will help the parker to maneuver better into the parking space. Therefore, option �3 is recommended. Requiring an application process to utilize the 9' wide alternative (option �14) would be difficult to administer and may promote second-guessing situations for City staff. Options �5 and �6 would also be more difficult to administer. Differentiating between the intensity of uses may be difficult in some cases where an office building may change tenants over a period of years and different uses may generate different types of traffic volume. PLANNING COMMISSZON ACTION At the October 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission concurred with the staff recommendation for option �3. CITY COUNCIL RECOMr�tENDATION Staff recommends the City Counci2 concur with the Planning Commission action and direct staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to contain lanquage as proposed in option �{3. BD/dn M-89-615 EXHIBIT A E%ZSTING 55. Parkinq Stall. A ten (l0) foot wide by twenty (20) foot long area to store one (1) automobile, which has access to a public street or alley and permits ingress and egress of an automobile. Where a parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk the lenqth may be reduced to eighteen (18 ) feet. PROPOSED 55. Parking stall. Standard � A ten (10) foot wide by twenty (20) foot long area to store one (1) automobile, which has access to a public street or alley and permits ingress and egress of an automobile. Where a parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk the length may be reduced to eighteen (18) feet. Alternate A nine (9) foot wide by twenty (20) foot long area to store one (1) automobile, which has access to a public street or alley and permits ingress and egress of an automobile and which is double striped in accordance with the design on file in the office of the City Engineer. Where a parking stall abuts a curb or sidewalk the length may be reduced to eighteen (18) feet. The above Alternate may be used only upon application and approval of the City of Fridley. CO1�II�iENT It would seem logical to also clarify the lanquage of the sidewalk/curb overhang. It would also seem logical to prohibit the NINE foot stall in areas of grocery and similar stores. - --10'- - - �+ I � � � �G r � M i ►.� �� i ; ;� � il �! I �! t � 'I ' �: �.�.5' � Y� M �►� i 7. 5' � M ,�,; i 0 /1' i 1� � rr �. nr 4�� ST F'�' ; � � . I , 1 � � t � � r� / �► CITY OF f Rl DLEY DATE: T0: � FROM: P LANNING DNISION EXHIBIT B MEMORANDUM May 24, 1969 iJilliam Burns, City !lanagez Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator SUBJECT: Parking Space Sizesfor Houndsview and Brooklyn Center � Councilman Fitzpntrick inquired as to the parking stall 6izes for HoundsvieW and Brooklyn Center. Brooklyn Center requires a parking space of 8.8' x 18' and 8.8' a 19.5' r+hen abutting a sideWalk or a landscaped island. MoundsvieW require6 a parking space of 9' x 20'. We will be continuing ouz research on parkinq stall sizes and will be prepared for a future conference meeting. BD/dn N-89-246 , Communitv 1. Blaine 2. Burnsville 3. Coon Rapids 4. Eden Prairie 5. Edina 6. Hopkins 7. Lakeville 8. Maple Grove 9. Plymouth 10. St. Louis Pa 11. New Brighton 12. Columbia Hts 13. Brooklyn Par 14. Minnetonka 15. Robbinsdale 16. Edina 17. Maplewood gARKING STALL SIZE SLTMMARY �ea. Stall Size Aisle 90$ Angle 9 x 20 24 ft. 9 x 18 -- 9 x 18 24 ft. 9 x 19 25 ft. 8.5 x 18 24 ft. 9 x 20 � -- 8.5 x 20 -- 9 x 18 -- 9 x 18.5 26 ft. rk 9 x 20 -- 9 x 18 24 ft. . 9 x 20 -- k 10 x 18 (retail) 25 ft. 9 x 16 (other uses) 8.5 x 18 26 ft. 8.5 x 18 25 ft. 9 x 18 -- 10 x 20 (lst 1/2) 24 ft. 9 x 20 (2nd 1/2) 18. Brooklyn Ctr. 8.8 x 18-19.5 24 ft. 19. Woodbury 9 x 20 25 ft. 20. Spring Lk Pk 8.7 x 18.6 (interior) 25 ft. 8.7 x 19 (perimeter) 21. Eagen 10 x 20 (commercial) 24 min. - 9 x 19 (office) 26 ft. 22. Moundsview 9 x 20 24 ft. Compact Stall Size 8.5 x 18 8 x 16 8 x 16 7.5 x 16 8 x 16 9 x 18 7.5 x 15 7.5 x 16 8.5 x 16 (10$ of tot.) �,�� E [�`�� ,f t � � f r .i .. E � .`,,- � � ` ' F - -- -- F� r.',� . � . � . _ - NEMORANDUM PROJECT: Ynolesale CIuD; Fridley DATE: July 9, 1986 (REV15E0) SUBJECT: Parking Statl Yidths FR011: Paul Dahiberg T�e following data Aas been caDileO to illustrate tAe standard ridths of parking stalls in several trin city suburbs. The inforaation is taken fra citr ordinantes and Ciscussions vith citr staff �e�Ders. STANDARD CIT� STAII YIDTH Blaine 9'-�' Bloo�ington j 9'-0' Brooklyn Center 8'-8' 6rooklyn Park 10'-0' Burnsville 9'-0' Colu�bia Meignts 9'-0' Coon Rapids 9'-0' Eagan • 10'-0' Iretaii) 9'-0• (otAersl Maplerood 10'-0' Minnetonka 8'-6' Mounds View 9'-0' Mer 8righton 9'-0' Plysoutn 9"-0• Richfield 6'-6• Sprin9 lake Park 8'-1' St. louis Park 9'-0' Yhite Bear lake 8'-6• • At the present ti�e, the tity of Eagan is evaluating use of 9'-0' ride stalis for all develcp�ent projects. � Bloa ington Aas on several occasions alloved the use of 8'-6' ride stails as the standard ridt�. Provision for capact parking stalls is Provided in several corunities. TAe approved stall �idths vary f�a 1'-6' to 8'-6'. TAe percentage of use �Ilared raries fra 101 to SO1 of total parking stalls provided. cc: Kelly Doran Ji� RoDinson Jock Robertson � . � . 11 `� u� '�t t i.k�`-�{.�. �1 ` � lt`.��1� - � Z�� Yi.��; ��r�� -�i �'� � EXHIBIT C . �- ' .� .n • �+�� • ..- ♦ � • r �..� •� i ` �,• � � � � � � -� � : ll ars�- i eslgn ; or ma _ : ' � •y ' ••� L .� � J , �� / � � A 9 ' �_ .� Jean 11Z. Keneipp : � • } � 1 l 1 � � . ( �� • . • • �� • w R� �a � L��ith ri�ing m„tur Fuel c�►sts and oc�a�iuna) �as •h��rta�es, man}� American� have ch�►.pn t�� ive up thrir lar�e cars fur smaller, mnre fuel-effi- cient aWnm��biles. In recent years, the prup„r- ti�m ��f �mall cars in the U.S. aut�► fleet has in�rea<ed t�, a current kvel uf about 50 perc�n% Alth��u�h recent overall declines in new� car •ale� ha�e tempurarily sluwed this trend, it is e�ti- mated that ��ithin the next � tu 7 years, sma11 car� Mill represent alrr�►st i� perrrnt ��all csrs.i�/ use and pussibty 90 percent by 1990 ��r ga�n afte� ;\eM �arage de�igns and the m�rdificatiun uf ex- i�tin� �ara�es and l�ts can take ad�antage uf the trend tuN�ard small cars. Existing "fwll-Kizt'i1 parking stalls appn►ximate 9 feet in widtM and 18 : t„ 20 feet in I�ngt�. Q�ith smaller autum��biles. s�►me uf these stal s can be+� r►nsia�: x- imateh• 7.5 tu 8.0 feN in Nidth and I� utY16 a+� in len�th:� The purp��se of this chapter is to address the questiuns and issues surrounding the ge�►metric design uf parkin� �paces fur smaU cars. H�►M�ever, the ideas and standards su�gested are nut the "last word" since the profound chan�es being caused by duwnsiting the automubile in the United States will nut be fully� apparent fur an- other tew years. 1��w parking facilities Nith �mall dimensiuns can minimize the overall construc- tiun co�t. Existing parkin� facilities can be al- tered: the restriping uf garages and luts tu pr�►vide smaller car spaces present� a l��v►-r��;t means tu add tu parking supply. The capacity increase that can be ac•hiP�ed thruugh the applicati�m of smaller �tandard� t�► new con�tructiun ur thr��ugh the restripin� and changing of �eumetrics in an existin� parkinK facility usually ran�es from a�l�►v► ��f � t�► 7�►rr- cent to a hi�h u! 30 percent. �i�,-�• �n� C�QiCII�' uf �O [U �S �fClAt ��E �R`?!�t`t� ��flr exact gain will depend on the uri�inal �r„- metrics, the prupurtiun of small spac•es that are to be pruvided, and the small stall dimPn�i„n� tu be employed. Size Definitions a�at is a"small car" or a"large car"? In a discussion of the current trend toward smaller cars, many terms are used without being pre- cisely defined: large, medium, small, full-size, standard-size, compact, subcumpact, and so forth. The classification of automobile si2es can be made on the basis of inertial weight of the ve- hicle or area occupied by the vehicle. For design of parking facilities, the latter classification is most useful. �ith this system, the length and width of the vehicle, measured in meters, are multiplied to give the area covered by the vehicle in square meters. Tbe convcntion is to drop the decimal parts of the measurement and use only 71 / �_ ._ _. � the integer for the classification. For ex- ample, a 1982 Ford Escort covers an area of 6.4 square meters. It M•ould be considered a Class 6 vehic•le. By comparison, a 1982 Lincoln Continen- tal covers an area of 11.02 square meters and would be cunsidered Class 11. The cars in use today generally fall in the range of Cl�s � thrvug}� Class 12 (no models in Class 12 or lar�er have been built since 19811. The fullow- ing list gi��es examples of the 1982 model cars in each class si2e. Class S Renault Le Car �+ Class 6 Furd Escort. Chevrulet Chevette � Class 7 Pl��muuth Huriton. Furd �lustang. i To�•c,ta Celica Class 8 P„ntiac Firebird. Chevrulet �Ialibu. F��rd Fairmunt ; Class 9 Cadillac Se��ille. �Buick Regal, Old�mubile Cutlass Cla�� 10 Oldsmubile Delta 88. f�►rd LTD. Chr��ler Imperial C�as, 11 Linculn C�mtinental G1a�se� � thrwu� 8 are cu�sidercd �tnali c�: E:ia•ses 9 and ab+��e, lar��-csr� Exhibi� 11-1 �hc�ws h��w �ehicles ran�in� fr��m Cla�s S thruu�h Cla�� 11 fit intu a typical full-size parking mud- ule uf 60 feet N�ith stalls that are 9 feet M�ide. l:lrarl��, a m�►dule uf this �ize is o��erde�i�ned fur ��ehicles uf Class 8 ur smallrr. 11-1 Module � �. 1 ; � �i � 3 i �o � � � 9 � � e�_ ' 1� ;8 . , , , Parker Performance with Small Stalls Parking designers are faced with a dilemma. On the one hand, it is certain that in xn��ther 10 years or so the standard parking dimen�i�ms M�ill cater to the small car. At the mument, h�►v►�e�er, only about one-half of the automubilP pupulation may be classified as small. The other hali is large. If a n�w facility is planned N�ith an ex- pected useful Gfe of 30 years or so. v►�hat dimen- sions should be emplo}�ed in its de�i�n'.' H��v►� many spaces in an existin� facility �huuld be doM•nsized? lf the chan�ted dimensi�m� acc��mmu- date full-site vehicles, a ne.+� facilit�� N��uld br overdesigned M�ith tM�o-thirds ��f its u�eful life re- maining but if it is designed f��r �mall car� ��da��. one-half or mure of the m�►turi�ts u�in� it ma� en- counter difficulties. There are �e�eral N�a.�� t�► deal v►ith this prublem: • Size the facility to acc�►mm��datP all Iar�P car� nuw in a 60-de�ree I��r �imilar► an�lr hith a module w�idth that Ni11 fac�ilitate ��mrr�i��n tu 90-degree small-�ize parkin� in thr futurr. � Bui1d part uf the facilii� t�� a�c��mm��cl.�tr full- size vehicles n�►N� and part t�� a�•��mm�ai3tr small-size cars. The que�ti„n is, h��N man� uf each? • Build the entire facility� M�ith �mall-�ize dr�i�n standards. One of the con�iderati��n� in dre•idin� h��w tu proceed is tu determine h��N' m��t��ri<t� n��w rrdrt M�hen faced M•ith the pn�t�lrm uf parkin� a lar�r car in a small space. A number ��f rx{��•rim<�nt< ��r tests are being cunducted �+► r�alua�r thi� E►��int. Exhibit ll•3 summarize� the re�ult� ��f ��nr ��f the tests that w•as made in ah�►ppin� centrr, in Turonto. The tests Kere c�mductrd b�� b�rnin� hoM• muturists v►�ith different sizes ��f .rhi�•Ir� ma- neuvered into and out ��f three differrnt ba�ir mudules. As a ba�is t��r re��iev►in� the re�ults ��f the Toronto obser�atiuns, the fi�ll�wing 90-dP�:ree modules should be cunsidered: Mod- Stall Stall Ai•le O�rrall ule R'idth L.ength R'iJth �todulP A-1 8.5' 19' 2i' b�' B 7.5' 17' 21' ��' F 9.0' 20' 20' b�' C 8. �' 18' 20' �' H 8.5' 18' 18' �" �ludules A-1 and F provide generous dimen- siuns M�hich are typica] of those commonly found in parking facilities designed for high turnover. retail situations. �lodule B approximates the Eu- ropean standards for normal freestanding garages or lots. �iodules F, G, and H were used in the Toronto observations. 'To put the five modules in perspective relative to changing car sizes, Exhibit 11-2 shuws the seven ciasses of automobile sizes superimposed un the parking stall of each module example. A total of some 1.500 observations was re- corded during the Turonto tests. The largest, or the standard for comparison, �todule F. measured- 60 feet with a statl M�idth of 9.0 feet. As shown in Exhibit 11•3 all drivers in Class 7 or smaller ' ��ehicles v►�ere able to drive in and to back out of the lar�est mudule in one maneuver. About half uf the dri�er� uf t�e Class 9 ur larger vehicles re- Module A-1 � ,• � r �L i• T' � � ��• � .� � �s . _ ,. � ; _ I_ �s —1 � Module 8 � - . _ . _ '_' _� .� :� L ss• J r - Module F Modute G .I� •; _ _ . _ � y —� Module H 11-2 The se�Yn classes of antomobJe sises superimposed on parkin�t stalls of virious siser. 79 - -- _ - --- -- �--�--�----t -- --� 11-3 Maneuvera Required to Park in Sa�ller Spaces (Retail Parkera) Namber ot Maneoven 1 2 3 4 Modnle F 60' x 9' (S00 observstions) Vehicie Class �rcent of vers 9. 10, 11 Drive ln 50 50 —— Back Out 100 — — — 7. 8 Drive In 100 ——— Back Out l00 — — — 5. 6 Drive ln I00 ——— Back Out 100 — — — Mod�ile G 56' x 8.5' (780 observstions) Vehicle Cla�s �erceat o�' Uriver� 9. 10, 11 Drive ln 32 55 I1 2 Bacic Out 91 7 I 1 7. 8 Drive In 82 9 9— Back Out 93 7 — — 5, 6 Drive In 97 3—— Back Out 94 6 — — Modul� H 54' x 8.5' (247 obser�ations) ♦chicle Cla�s �e reent of Drivee� 9, 10, 11 Drive In 19 57 24 — Bacic Out 56 33 7 4 7. 8 Drive in SO 50 -- — Back Out 89 11 — — S, 6 prive In 93 7-- — Back Ouc 92 8 — — quired a second attempt or maneuver to drive into the largest module but all were able to back out in one maneuver. In the middle-sized module l�iodule G, a 5� [oot by 8.�-foot stalll most of the drivers of Class 5 or 6 vehicles were able to drive in and back out in a single maneuver with fewer than 6 percent requiring a second attempt. However, drivers of Class 7 and 8 vehicles had more difficulty. Only 82 percent of them were able to enter in a single maneuver and only 93 percent were ab)e to back out in a single maneuver. As would be expected, drivers of Class 9, 10, and 11 vehicles had the most difficulty with this middle-size module. Onl�• a third of them were able to enter in a sin�e 80 attempt while 13 percent required at least three attempts to maneuver into the stall. Drivers using the smallest mudule I�lodule H, a 54foot by 8.5-foot stall) had the most difficulty in parking and unparking. Even dri��ers of small vehicles, Class 5 and 6, had some difficultp M•ith almost 10 percent requiring a second maneuver to drive into or back out of the atall. One-half uf the drivers of Class 7 and 8 vehicles required a second attempt to drive into the stall� and 11 per- cent a second attempt to back out of the stall. Drivers with Class 9, 10, and 11 vehicles M�ere able to use the small mudule but required a num- ber of maneuvers to move intc� and out uf it. Only 19 percent were able to mu.�e into the ctall on the first maneuver; Si percent required two maneuvers; and 2�3 percent required three. In backing out, 56 percent .+•ere able t�� du su in one attempt. a third in two attempts. 7 pPrcent in three attempts, and � percent required a f��urth maneuver. On the basis of these tests--and it sh��uld be noted that the resulta of additi��nal te�ts �h��uld be considered—the minimum mudule thdt seemed appropriate f�,r retail facilitie� is �6 fPet with an 8.�-fuut-stall .+�id►h. Ub��i��u�l��, thi� di- mensiun could be reduced somew�hat f�►r rnm- retail facilities. European Standards The cumbinaii��n uf hi�h furl c�►st� anr� lim- ited street v►�idths ha� pr��du��ed an aut��m��l�ilr pupulatinn in Eurupe alm��t Pxclusi�rl� r��m- pused „f small cars. Since thi� rnn�liti��n ha� ex- isted in Eurupe Fur a numbPr ��f y�rar�. the standards empluyed there f��r parkin� �ir�i�:n re•p- resent thuse that sh��uld be appn�priate in thP United States in an��ther decadr ��r p��•�il►ly Ir�•. Therefure, it is wurth..hile to examinP thr•e standards, the fulluN•ing nf M�hich are �rnrrally empluyed in SN•itzerland. German�•. and ��thrr Eu- rupean countries. Althuugh the standards en- eumpass buth 90-dettree and an�le-parkin� eonfiguratiuns for off-street facilities. attenti�m here is directed unly at the 90-degree standards. The European standards recuRnize three t�•pes ��f facilities: "normal" lor to serve the general pub- lic in a freestanding facility); retail ��r h�►tel �itua- tions: and employee facilities.�As in the l'nited States, the most generous dimensions are all�►- cated to facilities to serve retail or high turnuver parkers and minimum dimensions applied t�► em- ployee facilities with a low turnuver uf re�ular users. �Porkin�rStructu►es—G�ometn: Standard: �� 6N►603. Nr�- partd and edited by the l�niun of 5wiss Hi�hwa> En- Bneen. :�urmal Facilities Stall StaU Aisle R'idth Len�th R'idth Module 7.55' 16.�0' 22.40' S�.O' 8.20 16.�0 19.70 52.5 8.86 16.30 16.40 49.20 Retail and Hutel Facilities Stall Stall Aisle 1�'idth Length A'idth Module 8.2' 18.0' 23.0' S9.0' 8.9 18.0 21.3 57.3 9.2 18.0 19.7 5�.7 £mpl��Pe Farilities Stall Stall Aisle Q�idth Len�th �t'idth Module 7.2' 16.�' 20.�' �3.3' 7. i 16.� 18.9 �1.7 8.Z 16.� 16.4 49.2 lt �li��uld be nutPd that the changes in geo- mrtric dr>i�n: in<•lu�r m��re than the m��dule di- men�i��ns. Uther elementc that need w be c�m�i�iered are the wrning radius, the vertica! rlearance, the placement uf contruls, and su f��rth. �1ea�urements made in a number uf existing parkin� €ara�es in Germany and SN itterland by the auth��r conrrmed that the indicated standards are generall�� empl��ed. Fur example, the a�•er- a�e stall len€th Mas fuund tu be 16.1 feet, the a.era�e ctall N�idth 7.5 feet, the average aisle , M idth 20.6 feet, and the a.•erage mudule N•idth �2.8 feet. Stall Geometrics in the United States There is a definite relatiunship between the alluMable M�idth uf a parking space and the aisle that cerves the space. 4s the aisle width in- creases, the stall Nidth can be pruportiunately smaller. The anrle of the parking stall alsu has a bearing un the stall w idth. As the angle becomes less than 90 degrees, the stall M•idth can become sumew•hat less and �till be cumfortabte to use. The eomplex relatiunships among stall width and angle and aisle M•idth are part uf the reason that prufessiunal ad��ice is required in new de�ign or in making recisions to the �eumetrics of an e!ust- ing parking facilit�: Exhibit 11-� provides gener- ` 11-4 General StaU G�ometrica Guidelines (for Car�e Clase 8 or Smaller) P�rkiy Crt� St�ll 5ta11 Ai�le Ba. AwRk Lea�t6 Dept6 �"idth R'idi6 R'idth P C S � A B 90 7.5' 16.0' 7.5' 23.0' S5.0' 90 8.0' 16.0' 8.0' Z''.0' S4 0' 90 8.5' I6.0' 8.�' 21.0' S3.0' bo e.;• �;.e• �.s ��.o• So.l� 60 9.2' 17.9' 8.0' 1�.2' S0.0' i5 10.6" 16.6' 7.5' 1:.0' I5.2' 45 11.3' 17.0' d.0' 11.0' 35.0' a1 guidelines that relate parkin� an�1e, sta�l width, and aisle width. It dues n��t. huM�ever, ad- dress the critical questiun �►f end-ai�Ie treatment for parking angles that are less than 90 de�rees. This topic requires more discussiun than can be included here. The dimensidns shuN�n in the table apply� to Class 8 or smaller dimensiuns in either neN� r„n- struction or mudificatiun of existing facilities. Based on the simplest modific•ati�ms-the reduc- tion of stall widths in a 90-degree c�►nfi�urati�►n- the length of the bay (ur rov► uf parking stallsl will affect the amuunt of �ain tu be experted. F'ur instance, if the existing stall M�idth is 9.0 feet, there M•ould be a tutal uf five stalls in �� lineal feet, 5.6 stalls in �0 feet, 10 stalls in 90 feet, and 11.1 stalls in 100 feet. [f the stalls were reduc�ed to a Midth of 8 feet, a 45-foot bay wuuld c�,ntinue to have five spaces (since only a full stall can be considered), a SO-foot bay would have six �paces. a 90-foot bay would have 11 spaces, and a 100- foot bay would have 12 spaces. !f the 9-frH,t �tall were to be reduced to 7.5 feet in v►�idth, the ��- foot bay would accommodate �ix spaces. the �0- foot bay six spaces, the 90-fuut length 12 spaces. 8l , � � � { � � 4 . � i � and the 100-foot length 13 spaces. In brief, if the facility consists of a number of very short park- ing row�s, the gain will be considerably less than if the rows are longer. As mentiuned earlier, most of the existing "standard-size" stalls are 9.0, 8.7�, or 8.� feet in Midth. a�hile there is no universal agreement among traffic en�ineers or parking designers, many engineers feel that the apprupriate width to consider in b�►th neM• parking facility design and in the c�nversion of existing facilities is as ful- I„w' S: • F„r small cars in Classes 5 through 8, spaces sh��uld be 7.� feet in M�idch. • F��r full-size cars in Classes 9 and hi�her. spaces �h�,uld be 8.0 ur 8.2� feet in w�idth. A�tall N�idth uf 7.� feet is adequate tu pr��vide a minimum clearance ui 22 inches betM•een tw•o �mall c•ars that are reasunably M�ell centered in thr �ta(Is. Sma1I cars have duur cx•ings �an�in� fr��m 21 tu 2� inches at the first d�►�,r st��p—the {►��int Mhere the d�►ur hin�e mechanism h��ld� the d��r partly ajar. .... � �S ,' 1 � �% E t ' i. � j � t z� �t _ ..i :.. <': , .! � ,� �' . 7 � , .-� - � � � �` ; _ � , i . ..�' �. ! --,.... cr " ►�- -� �.- .4 � � � c � = ' ' . ��.,y;� - �'✓�,7' j _ 7 �.f�� -/ .� �♦ T.�. 'r.1. �• �. L� �'�T ' I ~` �'� � �L� � ��_ .� � " . �i" ' / � _ �� I t� . _ .A ��t�� . :'��7��+3 � . ._ �` _ . I 1-S. 11-6 Comp�et car sp�ces s6odd be m�rked and distin�ui�hed [rom standard spaees. 82 a =� � � �. . 1 � , 1 � ?hP criteria that a�tall be 7.� feet Nide and ap- pn�ximatel.� 16 feet l�m� shuuld be adequate to a�c�►mm��date all cars cla�sisied a� Class 8 or smaller. 4s a matter �►f fact, sume of the cars in Class 9 cuuld fit int�► the stalls M•ithuut cauaing tuo much uf a pr��blem. even th��u�h the avera�e for thi� �ruup � 198Z dimensiunsl is 16.88 feet in len�th and 6.4� feet in ��idth. The prupurti�►n uf �paces tu duN�nsize in a gi�en facility depends un the f��Uuw�in� fact��rs: � L�rcal z�min� re��uirements ur �►ther re�ula- ti�ms. • The t}�pe ��f custumer the gara�e or lut M�ill �ene: • Empl��rr/cnmmuter facilities can usually pro- vi��e �0 t�� pPreent ��f the tutal capacit�� a� �msU �pace�. e�peciall. if the d��N�n�izPd �tall i• 8 frrt hide. If the Midth is 7.� feet. the ma�imum number uf �mall �paces �h��ulci be �0 p<•r��ent. • Fac�ilitiE�� Pr�in� the �c�nera! pul,li� and;��r .�1��4�Ert•f� �h��uld limit thr pr��p��rti��n �� fTl,�� .�,�,�r, �� a rantr ��f 2� t�� U j1Pfl'Pfll ��f �'d41SC- it� N ith 8.0-f��t �tall� ��r 2� p��rc�Pnt if thr •ta11 M i�1th i� �.� fert M�ide. • �mall �tal[- �h��ul�i i�a�•e a �tan�lard �itP Nith- in ��ac�h {►arkin� fac•ilit��. Mhrthrr the �tan- cl�nl i� i.� ��r 8.0. �►r an��ther dim�n-i��n. Onl. th.►t Mi�ith al��n� Mi�h the "full-�izr" aut�� i- m��n�i��n �h��u1�1 l►e u�rd. Locatin� and Identif�•in� Smaller 5tall� In tl►r I��c•:�ti�m ��f �mellercar =�►ac•r�. tM�� F��int- -h��u1�1 l�r kPpt in mind: • �m�ll-c•ar <pac�r� <h��ul�i hr nritl�rr m��re n��r Ir<� c•umrniPnt than lar�e-c•ar �pac�r�. •'l�hr parkin� la��ut :h��ul�i br ea:)' 1�� un�irr- �tan�i. �fhat i�. �•��mpact spacP� �h��uld br Nrll marked and quickly distinguished fn�m �tan- dard �pace�. Small-car spaces �h��uld n��t br "sprinkled" here and there in such a Na� tF�at the customer parking a lar�e car is decei�Pd b} the size of an empty space, findin� it tuu small for his use. Public acceptance ��f the small�ar parking cuncept depends up��n thr customer being able to trust the size ��f a park- ing space. Small �paces ma�• be l��cated on either the right ur the left side uf an aisle. ur an entire be> can be devuted to smatl �pace�. The dr�i�nrr shuuld strive fur eun�istenc�� in I�►catin� �mall �paces su that the repeat parker krn�N� N1i��c� �� 1�►��k. TN�► meth��ds are c�►mmunl�• empl��ed t�� i�1c•n- tif� small =ta11<: • �]�n: unl��- • C��I��r-c�►drd stall lines. a� MPII a� �i�n�. �1am• uperat��rs find tkiat =i�n� al��ne• �n• a�1r- quate. lt ma�� al�� he u-rful t�� p:�int a line• at tlu• rntn� t�� the �mallrr �talL �Thi� rxtra linr M��ul�1 ��ar�l- (rl the �i�lr and mark the E,uint br��m�l hhi� h tlie• c•ar �h��uld m�t e�tend.� Thr u�r ��f ►u�•h a�l�li- ti�mal linr� r:�n dl�� hrlp edu<•ate �•u�t��mrr- in grttin� a"frel" f��r the �ize �►f th�ir :tu��n��l�il�•�: if a car pn�trude� be��nd the markin��. it i� n��t �mell. E.�rn if a m��derate am��unt ��f ��1i1'P �T11�U-�• ��'- cur�—Iar;:P c•ar� u�in� -mall �pa<•r- ��r �i��' ��'r' aa—it <h��uld n��t cau�e am real pn�l�l�•m,. R��•�f ��n the �r��Nin� numhrr ��f �mall �•ar�. Il�r chanc•rs are =1i�ht that �e��era) full-�izr �•ar� Nill arri�e �imultanr��u�ly� and park in a�lja�•rnt -tall�. 83 � � � Z � � � � �O EXHIBIT D �-o o � o p� 3 N� Q^��3 � �� O�p ��O n�'7 cp T1 O 1� � � � � � U 3 � z � � � 7 O �Q � 0 .�n►' � � �- O. � 3 3. N � � � Q Z � -- CD � � 0 a 7 � 1 (p t� � � � � � � �. � � � � N � � a � � O ~ � Y/ �`° ��,� Q c� ��o p� 3 T�� '� 3 5�p o 5 '^ ,�, � �- � �' � • tD � m C o 3 � a m �" � ^- Q fD N�' v' � 0 (� � T1 g f1 A �� O m � o �(� � �. �� a�� a a� T� � N f1 0 a C � � T s � 1 N �a � N � � � � _ � ^ � � � � : � � � O ~ O � � N. a�� Q o�� a�c� T p m �'^ o'^ =i � N Q � ��0�`�o?�='Q° a<�m�om°��,�Q¢� � �1 � N � jJ � � � M � � � � = � �. � � r+ O � � � � A � � � � r Q � Q �C o��a'�>>�� ?��x.�sm''� ��- Q � N ca n m� D m �� u+ O�, O,�, � � cD � � � � O � O � � "� � g' ' o � � � 3 O Q. � Q" � � (/'1 �� j Q T� � � � � N� m/� O N��' � a 5 � " c � n � � X �`` ,Q� � cD '� � iD � U � �' N � � f1 _ � � m O� iV � � � G a 0 � � � N, � � � N �� ^ �1 • � 3 � N �. � N = � N � � � � �ag a� D � '� � � N N • � n . = � � 3q� � m � �^., � N Y � 5 �� cd } N S � � $� �� I �!'o � I? L� � � 3� �� Cn � m � � g�� in O�p' QO R� � N m N ~ � � �J ^ U N � s;gR�� ,� � �� S r� 1 S � � � � �� H N � � s g I"s f� O D N�^ O Q� � � � � � � � �p � a � - � � m O O p� �' � ��f .��""� � � M N � �� N N�� =�Q�' ��Q < O m cD � N � ��Q�`a�� m � _ , � ^ N .�J � N � � V ' � o � � � m N �s � � � � � N ' m ...�_ �� x` Q Q� T`�� D� 11 �� m� ��y� � i e� � o � c� � '�'C. `°�s �- Q�^m��yoN�°-Q� O N � Z �LT. � ~ � � ri � � � 1� � � .� � �� N g Q ` Q � N � �• . GL � � � � O �� 0 O � � � _ • . o a Q m� � � � ' � ^ o $� � $ . p � � m ` � � a Q � � p ( � v' • � ' ' � n � ' � � � i �� _ � � � � Q � � N N � � � m =� ^ O �. � Q � � � � p � bi' � � p � � � X ,,,� N � � N Q � D � �1 . N < m � Q $• ��m � c � � � ^ �� 7�, Q N � � p � � � N �. � �. � � ; �f � � N W m Q , O � � rs•-. N ��'"C1 �lT�� O O = O � � M � : O � � � ,t n • p . Q- p �. S ^ O � � ? a O T� T�� w C O d O�a�'o i�e E s� 3 v « �e � 3 > > �� • c • ao e� R o:��= � � � ° 3 a S Q'" • • ;_ Z`� a� T°� T°� M • N �� « o ° g� e o e� s' Q o � � o s -0 1 R � 3?� ; = `- m M ; ..� >ao � m � 0 3 0 � �o :+ o � m s$ a: "a m > > S 1 � � M ~ M � � � 4 � � v O o` �o : Q, � • � � ° 3 o s o � °� � � v 3 i ,� o z M m � • O A � 1 � � • • �'. � __� ��, i ,•.e � ��` '�, ► . x � n D I �6 - O" n< •. � �1 � D �� x , � � . ¢ it � 0 ( o � .� � . � �� N �?I! 0� . 0 r,.n�cwG o�c > � � r r w r > � � Z, 0 0 i r r � 1 Z O s � s ; 1 i x � a O w > r O � T m � : � : = �. �! 0 � : Y � � � i : 0 7 � 0 � r < � � ol o o b� z� � O n9 i � 0 O .n 3� �o 'o � = Z — . 0 o m m ,,, o, o e� o � �eeeeeeeeeoe0000000000v000�� {T� I vI 10 N �T II V f0! N t7� V O N♦ I V (O I N � O�' 10 I N V� I V iD I N Q� � m�' O,. l7' a y I� I� ♦ W`v �i♦ tT �D N v mi0 N IO m♦ I� IO wd lGO O�O C?i�DIOItD � ' I . . ! p � � �r �• a v� , w a a u� w e a cr� , u a♦ cr u♦ a v� .�.r �' o,•.°� oN+. �, p�.� O N O� OD O N O� f0 � tJ tT m O N O�1 m� N Q� �O , �,� O ' �O ,� m m iD � � m � r N O' N O� m O� I r O 1D • i� 1D I � IJ I N I O i Q! c p; :;�� :�:,:;�� :�_ :� :�o :� :� :�o� o e�v��cnlu o�crl�r�u n�v� an�u a�n��r u a�cn tt� w�o��r trju��• a••� � o..a u m O..� � u �o ,.a u l e v ��o — a�v — u a �o l u'? I — a"-' `; � {T N � N I O tT N N I O O N W( O 01 � O I O O O O N O O� O� O N fD V� � h7 I O 1 i 0 ir v�, v�i u tr �r �r u cr cn cr u a. tr tr u tr cr v� u v� �r v� u ♦ a a a, � o I y� r O•a a�— w v. �r �o �,r �,, v! — u�r I�r —� o;' o; .a a�n �o o, n m�� I p I r m� O� m m♦� I p� O' O Q� O O� ♦ m O O N I �O N m a �+� O; � > a x cr v� tr u cr c* cr w v� v� �r u, w i�r v� u cr v� � � i;� m�' c'r, '' m � W o, u cr�v+;.� �.,�v� a;�.� a�o� a m'n'•'�� I�Ip pi..Io�lo�la� rlv!I�olq�n,(io � pp ..�Q�iN CoI�lO+iwr tDIN O�i.�l0!Ir . O . O( .I - ( .I :I : i i cn �r o+'� ♦ a�cr1� tn w cn u cn tr v� w�r cn g+ . o �.Ni � �: v �o o�.• oc �o ' O ! .. m � �o �c v m �o io m �o � � . �' � � o �,�I� �Ip � y�l�ip n,i ♦Ir IOIO O p O ml0 mi010 NIO O� C;IO!iG o � I � v� p1 a� � a v� pf m� a ol m o� a w v� pf ♦ v� o� m• p�! o� o�' • v� cr� v� i� IC O� N i0 O� N��.i 4i m 10 O � i0 r� Ai O � N iJ � r N� O+ � O� p I Y� O � 10 � v! O � 10 Or 10 m O� Q� m O p O O I N O I O� � 0�! ��? i W A! �{J t7� N A�i I Iri i tT iJ {J ♦ i1� � N N iJ N iJ 4i �• N 1 47 i�.7 i7!' LJ 47 � 1' m w� � I� O N � I 1 I O N eD 4r v� O; O m Go O O 1 I a O� � G O� Q I• p I!� a! i il • v� v� e� a o� o� m a e�l o+ v� • o� i�� %'� a� w • v� ir I v� • i or � a a e� a v! v! o� �.? a. � o� � w� or v? �r � v; o m �n Oi+ m Ql 01� m O� 0 N iT ID O I{.1 01 O N 01 � N i.1 O� b V! 0? i � O � � � w.a� e�• o+ .�me�a�•��S;��a°i,�Si�m�� ;�o�ma��o±m�v,��'m�n�n�r!m _ • oolol000000000l� .—00000000lol►.,NNo °�T��.°S.Ms � o 0 4 o s� s �4op4a�s s` � � a � '+ �, 3 w��.'� q O O 4�. � � � � � � � ^ S w � � . e «o��'�m3 � a � • p � E s � i � : atO e � � ao M�o � q. �. 0 3 0 « �«'°sa�� a.+�aooM � ° � `` n � �� = �' '� � ?. ti � � o �. t C 3 � • -. o s' . M� 9;:a'- o.�m�° o'�'o o, > n � > z � � v � � i N �,0 I�r 1� cOr ;!0 W�O ��.�.��.��.�� a. \ `` `` \ \ �: 0 f R�Sa'«Y��`:o �.'�Z� �' �� n�, f �r�oo7:��°3i� � �o . i � �s�'�S; � o: 3a= I � � � O i c�_�� p t � �� ro��n 3Y��'��:-^!3 w .:� °`��'e+f �: �s � �o�=n�t==at� M C ��„_ ��0 Sn..- 'i�oo5io ---rT- �c�-.-. �. . . ... �... -. , . . . . � — v 3 - c �,. ._....•-.�. � �� o��`•�3iyw� : °`��ng"-=1� ZOp � a isw��3jsn^"c �� C °4 e�i w�!' rw� 0�� Z �� n.�. �=� � c�n �r� ��3 � ns� � O�rr SH, € o'�x•c :��3 �� p< n_0 1� iaso��•!'ooS� Of � f� _� ! 21�iy � nj� Z �n� � �Z� � ^ r �` � u c � o �; � a � � m . �3 a .. b� a 0 --�— , �,� - -,�'E a �ool �•. � � � o � c K o . � � � n�� %/ � � / / � �� o m D rI m f i�� i � r � �"�0, f ! � o (1 I � ; � �� r Z O . �+ m�ol � � Y g� \ � � \ � p g Ir o « 0 A � m � 0 0 ' �\ a ic �\ \ �Om •� r�A� � x � f �� S� L n00 • « a:► : �° / / /; , s . � , / � �� o _ -- � � �; ; ; � o • < , � � �� o 0 . � �� ; � . � Z � �. s � tn r t� I y 3�� .� c�c o�^ � � o m , :i nl� - � Cl �� ;<�:O �i �. o��x _3 ,r' � + � c •. `IAIC 1 � � .�n� o m ' �i. t � 2 "?i � v _ 3+� m � tI� > ,:.: T't,;. • ni : �- + . :.-.... . � A' �� m� � � r r - .. f .� �v _ N N � 'o �� o O � � � .� G 10 --� �im�!°I� A in 0 � � ? � D — 5 0 D O � � 3 m m � ° o �o � � � � � O O N o � m � m � � N . o m Q O m C � o�� ni � � N � � �� ;�m c� Jo,to � ~ 1 0 H 0 a � O � � � 3 N _ ��$-� �� ° � m �S�o �D� � N �' � � m s�m �N o o m co �. '^ 8 ` N N ^ N O � N� � � � . o` R��cg�mo�'{��j a� ` � N N m N � � � � `� � � f° � �i�a 1 � � = o � � � � �_ � � � � �n (Q O � � � y� � f1 m m � � � . � . �D p cD m � � 3� o � � � � � m � � � �b � 5 � �� Q �, ? � N O II' m � � � O _ � � � � O � oNo- �?zan�� N m�Q�o�a��o�N � g � �� o �°-=� m°^��°�.� � a � N O � N � = p � Q , <o N000v N� so s — S`" � O S cD O s s� s p� O>>� cD � O �;� C� cp �, � o a� � o m� � aa� �i�o� a� am �� .'s o�� o f o c� 4 � s � `-' � 0 3 � c o '- o ? � f � � `° o � o � m ^_ N � a � � � � a�o o � � cov� o� o�� ca o � °� �� -�� ° � g — co �, p co c� � Q�p � c� o S=� s � a�� 0�p m a Q � m Q�^�'��ooms�i°�Qsa��°O-� �N �'�N� �� o � N� N a� m�-� °� �� aQ o Q� �`^ �� °-� �p ce 3 '` a � � ' � i o _ � ;� � = � a 3 � m � � Q � a o � �� m� C^ ifl � f1 T N � �(fl Q,� - c � 1 S m � � N � G N m � �D � � � � ? � m Q � o � � � � " � S � � � m � � a R �' N � � �p g� � �, = R �^ � b � m � p ; � � 3 Q' � � n � O N m `Z � � � � O � � � c�Rm°`Ds �c�N Sa�N,o�m��?��p ��003 °� �a�a g�3wamm�� m�m�Sm � � � `•^ � � � 0 � � O � �^ � m � — � � � Q� � � -c �^�_� ��.. Q-'` °-�� °Q mo �� og� m�c S o � ° �` � � m c'' � '" `° 1 � � ^ � �_'�� `" m � >"� � � 1 C 0 � �r�, � 3 � S � � m � � � � � � � � m � .�.. G ^ N �/f � � , m �,� N , �-3 �� g��m^��<3 �q �� m o ��c'-` _ ��;�N m"t�,G� ��i�_IZ $'�� Q - � $, � � f o�° �� . �� m �� o m o� o Z� �� C 2 5 m p 'G' � m g m� s j m H 0 �S� N � � � N < � � � � ` � r � � � � � Q x si� 3' m t� � R O� �m T m N 3�� N. � p� m� f �� m N Q � O � � D m � m � � Q' � �'� � �• Q= � � � � m � � O � � � � �� ^ � � � � � � N �� s � Q �� ._.�o�.�N�� m � =3�� -�c � � 1 � ` � � � o � `^ p � S � �^ � � o Q � 3 p D '^ O — N � � (i1 � " cn ° � • � �: (D � N � 7 N Q` � O � � 7 � C � T n j C p C� - � � G � Q I� c.� � � � O � �° � a �u (,Ni+ � Q ca � O O Q r� � � � �n� ; � -�<Q�mc�no � �Q ��o��; �s��m��-�o � Q n m v� �� oC m Q��p 2 rT—', p �, p �� p f 7�� C cD �� O � O m�� m°�Q-�� a- m c�� o N �m � _ R o T� � o Q �a�� m� �rm mmm.R�c,ta�$^_,s � �$ O N�A � � � � N Q� � � y N L n� G^ a�� a� � � r� � m r, S N �D tv.r p �Qp � �?' � !�N O � S, � m � ^ � � � �i � � � '� N � o��am ?�� 3 �� u N = � � � � i. � � � � O � N m. > > � p V� �-1 C� t!� V� Q7 �' -i (� V� (� y C N� D � d ?O 07 00� ?� m O? ?O ?� ?�. 3 o, i< i� �° id oo °< °� � �. �a mm �d �� mc� v� �m �� m � mm �„� �w m� �. DN m a�.� mm n � , ^' -. c� °1 � l� f� � c� � °' � � m°' m d eo m m � � m � m > >N � � -- -- d � m m m m � m O O n• n > > d � w � O O O� O j j d d� n � 4' x o' v�i � d� V� 2 7� c ° � � ? C n p�i N �[ 0 0 � � � <.� o o mm n m y d G� d a � �m m d � � = d < O o � O O �• d d � � 7 a z e� � { O � EXHIBIT E A 3 a � d m n 0 � 7 �D n n � A � � � � N d A � O < �' � �. a l` T ^ ,� ..C..'��. �� 1 � , �1 � � � 0 3 � 0 � � � y � 0> Ol � � � � � A " �� N H � � 3 Q' ?�� 3� y� 1.A+ 7 y N �.� !D � � �? O � m 'm��NO��y.o�� .�Oy�m 3� m w d a► �.�-� a� a� ��`�.� H�.o m� 'a !� N y � N� w t0 N� a�� y� m d m� O� A H O �� 7�y�=mm��aaa�'�r��O��~ �� 3 0 :'� m C �'m ��' � � � � � � � � m H � aQ � N eo..,� ��m�� a „ � O1 f! � N tN a m ? �p n 3, 0 0� C 01 �? a; N n � �� ' 3 o Qf�� a��p y � ��?�� .d m a� o � 3m m o� 'r'J � �� d�� ep vi O� D o� � d.+ A? vi ^ :� � ft 41 N 41 w O :" �� O O��'" 1?�< d C1 p 01 . m C O O Oi -� S m ' . cf 3 m d � Q�� N .�.. O�07 � a 07 a N' C�1 � A� y � �i � m � O � ..n. 3 T � ? ? N .�.. N p� ' . + � � �• . � S1 (/� '11 V� c~D �. C � C� �p �. � � o� aQ � � O� � � �. .�i. � � � � n j,� fD � �a .. ea n 1 H d -a N ._.. d h. Q 0 �� d A� O� m m� O � Q? d � w'7 L d a.'i w N� 3� Ci � w'.� � 3�_" o'� � �n�o acev, ".��m�c' �° 3 . n c� ca � d D a' n, < w �, f ��.� � 3�w�3��a„�s•�,o....e��3� N, ?� O�� -, c� y �? � y a tD p C m � ¢: � d j d N O :' ep � � ? C � � � �' a �, �?Q �a�� y� � m 3 a� m�� n f 7 m O N�G <? O� �' � m y w C y � N� H � a`�v 0�� °� o ae� �� m a� � o d' : W � � o � � . °: � � e� p/ a � � �; C 3� � i0 O'O C> 0� � p �G �� iG �• �. � �—. c�3 0°_e� �>>.o� � � o� c� ° a" y� d� o.� o>> o�° o y? �� a � a cn df = >>�� c,o om �p - tn� y n l�D p cD p� Q��G � d � n a�D p� ��. �� C Q 0' � G� p� Ri �p H �p N .� _ < (p N ��.� p' 0 p? a cD O p� �� y� � , � 3 � 7coc �� y' � � � � �� .� � � am a � 7� _ ir n y A 7 C a N y � O y�{C N �D C� � N y o�� d x w d � � � 3 Q o�� a a 2 m d�c�� v'i w °`° �� H� � � d f� N. T� Q�� c a° w . c� {C.� y � � � C� A j� n> 3 � � �. � N� N 0 n d� O V f�9 a� 1�� H a o � N� ... � N � `o � ? c i d � ° � � � ^ � !D � 3 ? p� � n_.w Q e� ..d 3 t� c'_-1� � 1 1 � � A � � � � y � �D � � t'f ?< N y y Q � � N � N x. � 0 � � n n� � � pt . C � N � `p � � � eo � � � �< �.dny�Ne� ? O � � 0� � o�3c'��'°� �o�ad�" °—'�aye��co N� d N N. < W � �p fD !C fD O p� a ... 7 7 Q� j� m Q � � � � N{O f'f � Q f'f C� � a A 0� ff A n f� Q� `°v�°'�c�m3.�� `°°�w��>>`y°" a pi G� y N V� 7!C N� a� �n 3 y� N .� eD c� a � cn ep �c o?� �.�.. � v� y> j v+ y N c ic �, ��' tfl < ��t°w°— �'ado�om�i� N�"°a ��,m��,NoaS ��y>>vf�o� ` � 1 � 1 1 {� 3��,' �' 3�� fD �� co �o �p aQ�v �, � v� v� g� n o�? d a Q_'' � y b�� c° d'� a d �o � d f c�� i eo � �� aeo ?'�^ o c`fl � �oa° �a�aa�Ny��T`"od�v .+ ��, � G� � �� s� O y a(A C� v� � t�o d w� c� o o a e� o�-� —��' �°— � e� 3^� N" � ^ � C � � ^ G �D � � � a y A � � � � �� j� �_? �A l� 0� � 3 t0 • y eD v, �>> p n� � v� �— ep b� �p �� y 0� C) N �� N� C f � N p 6 1 "" „C'1� ? � i�/f � � � n - 3 �� o�.� p�� aca'i � C>>eDa7�yc�p,o�c�y �ca��cx.coHa3o� �►d; ��<°'aw3c� -�H-°'�° ��° c� 3�'.� 3�c w H� � e� ��> >°—' a� �' N L N�� C d�G G� {O C.N,. m %+ y 3 N tD 61 ? C) -� y d � W C 'C m? ff O W N�� n� �� c N�� d y no y<� n', � ff m� N. tD � � y n � � y ^ �D a � � � � � �D � c N �< Q 7 n?� < p� 0�3 c�o`�ac��de�� H?� � 3 N N H n?� � ? � �D y � ' � � � � � N1 pl w?? 7 p �D V' � C d 0� 3H.>>� d� =�o Hd w��c • a� aaw � �v o a� � �=o'o ?� c �.�.c� a� � �' �� ''o N � x ee��.�m�^��^. ` eD � N t0 0 tC N�. p� Q�"�'t 7 d� � � � � _ a .1^. ? N,� y � a' .� �D N W{C y p� y N'� a 7 � � � d � � A1 ? N t^N d � n d f a�eoa�<?^c � m �D � �G �'�?o�w?�oa'�c � ,�.. � � w ... � 0 � � � H � � � ��G� � 0 p _ �•�p w � d �• � O p� : '� � •C m� 0, �� m y n�D a ? N V t!i � � -I m N �d � N� N - mma�o� n� n i d a � � � a�no�n� A m �, m d e� � Q�,d3��v � � w � � m Q � �p n 0� N W O d � � � � y � 3 . c� f c � Q � � � �G .c y � N � � cn A ca �:a�cfl U,o � _ ��c�o� � ... � � ca O p fJ Q � � � d � n a �G �. 7� Cj 6� � ��c0 ao��c� �3d�,�n v > > � O . Cl1 �^ N CJ rj A N N N N � � � n� O cD c� O> c� � m � � � Vl Q (n � d d GI � �0 a fD - -, -� �:Z •� ` � � �,� ;�� . • . � � `_ • ``�� '. '' - � .� ..._.� _� -r. �- �... � � _ .� � -� � -.�� . } '. , . ' ' � • . , . , ( I N+ ' v O � a \ A n � p� O N � 0� n � � A � � � � n n � O � �Nn 3 �� ? y � � O � j � � �. O1 �� tna°—'dd� N �m. ��°'cn —a o � � a N � in �G � O �da3 d�� . , � � v� y N �� ` a •� Z ;� h . 1 � � " •, � � � • • � y 3 ' � � � � ', � � m . ' i � � `1 � � i. � �'� n�i � 105' � N o '� � w � W � cn 3 °i o � d m � � n � � a{ � N � � � � 7 � v+ w w a co 3 f � � � Ci �' N � a w a ^vT � � � 3 °' c � ?� � A � � � a� d � � � � � n � � O N ~' �• "'� �� O �` � � � � � Q 0� � .... I�AME PARRZt� ST�I�.L �EY lsAY 27, 1986 • � �,• �. EXHIBIT F ST11LL WIT1I?i Menarcls Skywood Inn lbore Lake Beach Fridley Liq uor Annex Hayes School Fridley Library Fridley Civic Center Black Forest Apartlnents US 9witn � Fitness . rsnncast Frito-Lay Bekins Mbving Fridley Sr. High School Friale� Plaza C1uuc Ca�,le Television Target Store rbon Plaza Grace Luth Cnurch Kennedy Transnission Learning Tree P1ckw ick Books Skywood N',�11 Zkin City F�ederal Shorewood Inn Sears Snorewocx� Plaza r��le Lanes T;a�,le Lane Apartment Fridley State Bank Village Green Apartiuent Target Off ioe Bldg Grace High School P',edtronic Onan Corp Carter Day Paco Bldg Paco 5iog l��eadowrun Apartments River Roaci Apartrnent E. River Rd Bus. Genter Alidaest ractiine Pride Machine C�b Building Bob's Produae Zbwn Crier Restaurant T. R Mc.,Cay' s Paoo Bldg Paco Otiioe Bldg United Store Paco Bldg. Sandee's Restaurant Larson riig. St. Williams Church Herrick Oifioe Bldg 1�Iinco Zbtino's 5351 Central Avenue 5201 Central Avenue 5874 CQntral Avenue 6289 Iiigt�way t65 615 N.ississippi st 401 Mississippi St 6431 Zfi,iversity Avenue 1601 North Innsbruck Dr 7200 University Avenue 200 CatQneroe Cir. So. 7180 Catuneroe Cir. k'. 7580 Canunerce Iane 6100 West Moore Lake Dr 6341 Lin�versity Avenue 350 - 63rd Avenue 755 - 53rd Avenue 6225 University Avenue 460 - 75th Ave 8 ► 7700 University Ave 5310 t�'adison Street 765 - 53rd Avenue 5363 Central Avenue 52Q5 Cerctral Avenue 6161 Highway #65 6199 Highwa5� #65 6225 Higt�wa}� #65 6310 Higt�way �65 6379 Higt�way �65 6315 University Ave 460 Mississippi St 6499 University Ave 1350 GaFdena Avenue 6970 Central Avenue 1500 - 73rd Avenue 500 - 73rd Avenue 7151 Cvrur�erce Cir. k. 251 Catuneroe Cir. So. 7805 Fast River Rd 6540-50 East R.iver Rc 5301 East River Rd 230 Commeroe Cir. So. 7220 Ccr,unerce Ciz. W. 250 Osborne Raad 7620 ifiiversity Ave 7730 University Ave 7850 University Ave 7280 Cann�erce Cir E 7260 Lfiiversity Avenue 785 - 53rd Avenue 7281 Ca��erae Gir W 6490 Central Ave 7421 Caiut�erce Lane 6151 Lk�iversity Ave 6279 University Ave 7300 Catunerce Lane 7350 Ca��erce Lane E 9, 9 9, 9 8 10 FEET 10 F'EE.T 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 F'EE.'T 10 FEh'T 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEb'T 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 1/2 � 10 f'EET 9 1/2 FEET 9 1/2 FEET 1/2 6 10 F'EET 1/2 6 10 FE�,'I' 9 & 10 FEET 9.1 FEET 9 FEE'T 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FE�"T 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 F'EET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 F'EET 9 FEET 9 fEET 9 FEET 9 F'£ET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEET 9 FEE,'I' 9 FEE,'T 1/2 & 9 FEE'I' 8 1/2 FEET Not Marked Not t�',arked Not N,arkeci Not t�arked , pARKZNG SPACE SIZE VARIANCE REQUESTS PETITIONER Vantage Properties W. G. Doty University Avenue Assoc. Winfield Development LaMaur Inc. Onan Corporation SBF Development { YEAR REQUEST 1986 10' to 9' 1986 20' to 18' 1986 10' to 9' 1986 10' to 9' 19g7 10' to 9' 1g88 10' x 20' to 9' x 18' 1989 10' x 20' to 9' x 18' ACTION Withdrawn Approved Denied Denied Approved Approved Approved 9' x 18' along perimeter of site only. G H �LANNIPIG CO24i288ION I�iEETIIdG, OCT. 11. 1989 - PliGE 12 Mr. Dahlberg stated he would rather see the special use pe it included as part of the proposed change, primarily fro the standpoint�that if they do it at 50$, then it will be eas'er for people to go after larger percentages. Most people wil look at this and say 40$ is allowable, and the special use pro ss to get more than 40$ might deter some people. Mr. Betzold stated he did not know if the special se penait adds any protection, because a person or a company s 11 has to get a building permit, and there are requirements ith the building permit, i.e., parking requirements. ' Ms. Dacy stated Fridley's parking requirem ts are based on square footage, not on employee generation, so t ey could get a very small warehouse with a large number of emplo es, or vice versa. Staff is evaluating whether or not they wa to change that to require one space per "x" amount of employe s on the largest shift. *�s. Sherek stated that is not an ' sue before the Commission now, but her opinion on that is that ommercial property changes hands frequently enough that the park' g should be planned to the highest density of employees that are nticipated in that type of building at any point, not necess ily for the use currently in the building. Ms. Sherek stated she id not think they wanted to qet into that kind of evaluation, cause that is more or less saying that the use to which the b' ding is put today is its use in perpetuity. Whatever the parki g requirement is at the time a person or company comes in for a b ilding permit, whether or not there is a special use permit, th parking requirement has to be met. If they do not change that a d someone comes in with an unusual situation, there is always t variance process. DPON A ICE VOTE, BETZOLD, BHERER, BABA, BARNA VOTING AYE, DAHLBE VOTZNG NAY, CHAZRPERBON BETZOLD DECLP►RED THE MOTION CARRI� BY 7► VOTE OF �-1. Mr. Dahlberg stated he does not object to the 50� lot coverage, �ut does feel the special use permit shou2d be included. 5. �v�� p�nvncFn r�srnNrFC Tc] PARKiNG STALL SIZES• Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending a chanqe in parkinq stall sizes from 10 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. x 20 ft. (Option #3). Staff feels the double stripinq is reasonable. Mr. Dahlberg stated he would like to discuss the issue of compact parkinq stalls. Most municipalities have some Ianquaqe in their parking ordinances relative to allowinq compact stalls. Stall widths for compact spaces vary from 7.5 - 8.5 feet, and percentages of allowable stalls vary from 10-50$ of the total in a qiven parking lot. He �ras not sure he advocated compact stalls, but he pLANNING CO?QiZ88ZON ZSEETING. OCT. 11. 1989 - P!►GE 13 was sure that on occasion a developer is goinq to request some compact spaces. � - Ms. Sherek stated compact spaces work fine in a parking ramp or against a wall where the appropriate siqnage is posted that it is for compact parkinq only so it can be somewhat controlled. Mr. Dahlberg asked the Commission if they vanted to add some lanquage that relates to the issue of compact spaces. Ms. Dacy stated some compact parking is fairly coaunon now. She has seen as high as 20� of a parkinq lot for compact stalls. Mr. Dahlberg asked if compact stalls have been allowed by variance. Mr. Barna stated they have never qranted a variance for parking stalls below 9 feet. Mr. Dahlberg stated that he did not see too much benefit for compact stalls. Nine feet will make a significant difference in Fridley. If they get any reqvests for compact stalls, then those can always go through the variance process and be judged on an individual basis. o� TION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to the City Council approval to amend the definition of a parking stall size from 10 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. x 20 ft. with double striping and retain the language regarding the reduction of stall depth when abutting a boulevard (Option #3 as presented in the staff report). IIPON !1 VOICE VOTE, 11LL VOTZNG AYE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE lIOTION Cl�RRZED IINANIMOIISLY. 6. REVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO SIGN ORDZNANCE: Ms. McPherson stated staff incorporated the suggestions discuss � at the September 27, 1989, Planning Commission meetinq. St has also received siqn ordinances from other cities, th esult of which are in the "Signs" chart located in the ag . The chart was limited to deal with those issues that we discussed at the September 27th neeting: campaiqn siqns, mporary signs, porta panels, banners, streamers, etc. l�z�. Barna referred to Section .04.09, Siqns Prohibited in All Districts: ]�iny siqns which e attached to trees, iences, utility poles or other such pe ent supports, not specifically intended as siqn structures. t+ir. Barna st chain link fences often have the aanufacturers' identific on loqo on them. Could some wordinq be added that allow is type of siqnaqe, a2so warninq siqns �uch as "No T passinq", etc., on fences? . t t c�nr o� F�a� DATE: TO: FROM: C01N1MUNIT�Y DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 26, 1989 V William Burns, City Kanager.�' � �. Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning l�►ssistant SUBJECT: Increase in Naximum Lot Coverage in Coma►ercial and Industrial Districts by 10� with a Special Use Permit (40$-50$) Councilman Steve Billings initiated the proposed lanquage change at the September 18, 1989 meeting (see attachment A for language). The City Council directed staff to study the proposed lanquage. The proposed amendment is in response to a lot coverage variance request by Cortron Corporation, 7855 Rancher's Road N.E. which was similar to previous variance requests by ELO Engineering and Kurt Manufacturing. Other cities were Of the 24 cities, five do not have B-2) but use the coverage. �lternatives �: ,_ � surveyed to compare lot coverage requirements. six have 50$ for the maximum lot coverage, and a lot coverage requirement (6ee attachments B and setback and parking requirements to enforce lot The language as proposed would increase the maximum lot coverage allowed in all commercial (including office) and industrial districts by 10� with a special use permit. The Planninq Commission had two alternatives; amend the lanquage in all commercial and industrial districts or to amend only the industrial districts. The variances for lot coverage have been qranted only in the industrial districts (see attachment C). More importantly, commercial uses are typically more intense, with large amounts of lot area needed to fulfill the parking requirements. Typically, an expansion in an industrial use is for additional varehouse/manufacturing space whose parkinq zequirements are less than commercial uses. Lat Coverage Memorandum October 26, 1989 Page 2 ��aff Recommendation Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve amendinq the lot coverage requirement only in the industrial districts with a special use permit (see attachment E). This is because lot coverage variances have typically occurred in industrial districts, and the intensity of commercial uses precludes an increase in lot coverage. Plannina Commission Action The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council that the increase in lot coverage be allowed onZy in industrial districts. The Planning Commission also voted unanimously to delete the special use permit requirement (see attachment D). The Planning Commission stated that the special use permit was not necessary since the parking and setback requirements would control the amount of building expansion (see attached minutes). �itv Council Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council pursue an ozdinance amendment to allow an increase in the maximum lot coverage of 10$ in industrial districts only. While the Planning Commission's coma►ents regarding the special use permit are valid, the special use permit would enable the City to control the impact of each request. We have found that some industrial uses generate more parking than our ordinance requires. The number of employees may increase with building expansion. Therefore, the special use permit would enable the City to evaluate the request and address any unusual situations. Staff recommends that the above ordinance amendment also include the special use permit provision (see attachment E). IrIIrf/dn M-89-614 ; PROP'OSED CSA?IGES TO TSE ZONII�IG CODE The fo2loving code �ections shall be amended: 205.13.3.B. Z05.14.3.B. 205.15.3.8. Z�5.16.3.C. 205.17.3.C. Z05.1�.3.C. (C-1) (C-2) (C-3) (CR-1) (M-1) (M-2) by adding the follovinq lanquage: (4) The above maxi,�um lat eoveraqes in (1) may be increased by ten percer�t (lOt) of the lot size with a cpecial use perait. A � , �� :: 5Q UP W F.� 612 �6J 1OB0 C0� SPiC Lot Coverage Study for Cortron Corporation Acden Hilis !•2 40°� 633-5676 ta i n No req. controfled by set backs 784-6700 Chamnlin 75% buildinD and iot 25°�6 green 421-8064 a ka SO°�6 buildi�D covera8e Coon Aanids 50% me�c building �ottaae Grove 50°�6 lot coverape Ezgan � � 35% building 454•8100 Falcon Heights No industrial distriCt 644-5050 Forest Lake No req. controlted by set backs 464-3550 Fridiey 40% Grarrt Township No industrial district 426-3383 Inver Grove Heiqhts SA°� Coverage 457-2111 Lake Elmo No industrial c�strict 777-5510 Mahtomedi 95% building coverage a2s-33aa Map(e Grove _ _. ... - .. .- . ,. . No. rQq. controlled by set backs 420-4000 No. r�q. conto�led by set backs no,a�000 ao�,� 452-1$50 No. req. oonttolfed by sei bscks 784-3055 � ��8 ►� .,.,_ .�- _ �___ u� :_ bP � OQ:03 F.+►I 61. i6J 106u New Brighton ewnors North St Paul date �horeview Spring Lake Par�c Sti i Iwaie r Va�nais HeiDhts West St Paul White Bear Lake Woodbury C0� ' SPEC 40% 50°� 459-5677 770-4500 90°�6 coverage 739-5086 85°k max. 484-3353 35% 784-��91 �0% 90% 370-8700 30% 455-9671 30% 429-8526 30% 739-5972 � iiu�2 3oJ Js.b 40� 5�; Building �0 �� 6 Parking coverage require- �►ent 3 3 g 6 4 S pREVIOUS LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES PETITIONER Kurt Manufacturing ELO Engineering Kurt Manufacturing EIA Engineering EIA Engineering YEAR 1975 1983 1987 1987 1988 REQUEST 40$ to 47.5$ 15,949 sq. ft. 40$ to 45.5$ 8,998 sq. ft. 47.5$ ta 49� 2,698 sq. ft. (enclosed existing over- hang) 45.5$ to 46.5$ 1,010 sq. ft. 46.5$ to 49.5$ �►CTION �►pproval Approval Approval Approval Denial c �t-»7NCi COlQiI88ZON RECO?II�SENDATION: 3. IAT REQUIREMENTS PiND SETBACKS C. Lot Coverage. (1) The maximum percent of the area of a lot allowed to be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings is as follows: (a) One (1) Story - 'ft percent (50$) maximum. (b) Two (2) Story - ' � fortv-five �ercent (45$� maximum. (c) Three (3) Story - ort percent (40$1 maximum. (d) Four (4) Story - � thirty-five percent (35�) maximum. (e) Five (5) Story - thirty percent (30�) maximum. (f) Six (6) Story - ' twenty- five vercent (25$) maximum. (2) The above lot coverage will be subject to other considerations including parking and open space requirements, use of facilities, and proximity to other districts, which may decrease the maximum lot coverage. (3) The lot coverage may be reduced by the City if and when there is provision for underground parking within the main structure provided that the lot coverage shall not be more than fourty pezcent (40$) . j,4� �n no case shall the maximum amount of buildina and parking areas exceed 88� of the lot area. � The followinq lanquage shall be amended in Sections 205.17.3.0 (M- 1) and 205.1'7.3.0 (M-2) of the Fridley Zoning Code: BTAFF RECOlD�iENDATION : 3. IAT REQUZREMENTS AND SETBACKS C. Lot Coverage. (1) The maximum pezcent of the area of a lot allowed to be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings is as follows: (a) one (1) story - forty percent (40�) maximum. (b) Two (2) Story - thirty-five percent (35$) maximum. {c) Three (3) Story - thirty percent (30$) maximum. (d) Four (4) Story - twenty-five percent (25$) maximum. (e) Five (5) Story - twenty percent (20$) maximum. (f) Six (6) Story - fifteen percent (15�) maximum. (2) The above lot coverage will be subject to other considerations including parking and open space requirements, use of facilities, and proximity to other districts, which may decrease the maximum lot coverage. (3j The lot coverage may be reduced by the City if and when there is provision for underground parking within the main structure provided that the lot coverage shall not be more than fourty percent (40$) . j� �he lot coveraaes stated in (1) above mav be �ncreased bv 10� of the lot area with a s�ecial use permit. E Y ING COI4SI88ION 1QLTZNG. OCT. 11. 1l69 -� ��GE 6 the Commission does not control this process. He is afraid that there is qoing to be s point in time vhen a lot of rumors and �isinformation can ctart coming out, and he did not vant comeone to point to the Fridley Planninq Commission that they vere the ones who �ade the decision vithout public input. hr. Saba 6tated it could be vcrse, though, if they do not have •dequate information. l4r. Robertson stated he would forvard the Planni Commission's concern abcut public input to BRw. Ms. Sherek stated that vhen they do have a ublic Aearinq, she would like representatives from BRW to atte d thnt meeting. Ms. Sherek stated 6he felt BRW does have o make n decision on the corridor first before,they can 6tart t king about stations. �� bOTION by Mr. Dahlberq, seconded Hr. Saba, that the Planning Commission recognizes the update information presented by staff and is willinq to update their ecommendations after staff gets more information on the follow'ng issues: 1. The closinq off� 73rd; directing traffic to 69th; or traffic through he Northco development to 73rd. 2. � The traffic ssiqnments east/vest on 73rd Avenue and the impact of hat traffic on the residential area to the north . The ' pact on reneqade parking in the Centez City area if here is a"walk and ride" station located at V versity/Mississippi. 4. The implication of parking facilities on the opposite side of the roadWay from the rail right-of-way vith a pedestrian bridge. DPOlQ � VOICE OOTE, �I.L oOTItiG 71YE, C8]1IRpERBOld BETZOLD DECL�RED TH� MOTION C7IRRZED ONANZMOUBLY. q� �VTFW pR�P�SED CHANGES TO LOT COVERAGE REOUIREMENTS IN �OI�SERCIAL �J+TD INDUSTRIAL DISTRI Ids. McPherson �tated the reason for the initiation of the code Change was in zesponse to a vaziance request by Cortron �ianufacturing in September 1989. In the discussion at the City Council �neeting, it was discussed that information be gathered on hov other cities bandle lot coverage requirements. That information was included as items B and 82 in the Commission aqenda. �,.��.'AiZNG COZU�iI86I0I�1 �[LETII�G, OCT. 11, 1989 � pl►GE 9 lis. lScPherson itated, as proposed, the increase by lOt of all the lot coverage reqvirements vould occur for both commercial and industrial districts. Staff has recommended, however, that the increase only be allowed in industrial districts as the lot usage in commercial districts in usually �ore intense, the parking requirements are hiqher, and the ratios are.qreater. Sn industrial districts, many times the expansions that cause the increase in lot coverage are usually for warehousing and iome �anufactuzing uses. The parking ratios are 1 parking space for 2,000 �q. ft. so tne parking demand is not as greatly increased es the retail use wnich is 1 parking space for 150 cq. ft. ' Ms. McPherson stated also included vas a list of lot coveraqe �' variances that have been requested in past years. As stated in the memo dated October 6,..1989, all lot variances were within industzial districts. Ms. Dacy stated it was Councilmember Billings' proposal to increase lot coverage by 10�ras a 6pecial use permit (Exhibit A). Mr. Dahlberg asked vhy the special use permit 6ituation would be any better than just increasing the allovable lot coverage by lo$ to 50$ vitheut e special use permit in the M-1 district. Mr. Barna etated maybe the Council could just give the 1►ppeals Coaunission some direction that the Council was comfortable vith variances for lot coverage up to 50t. Ms. Dacy 6tated that to choose Detveen amending the ordinance or considerinq each ease on a variance basis, ehe vould recommend that the ozdinance be ehanged so that there could not be a ehallenge if a variance was denied for vhatever reason. Mr. Dahlberg agreed vith Ms► Dacy. He stated it 6hould not be n variance situation, but what is the benefit to having it allowed with a specia2 use permit? Ks. Dacy stated etaff's initial eoncern was to �ake eure that the requests would l�ave adequate parking, to analyze the long tera� situation if the use vas to change over in the future, and to look et adjacent uses. In the ease of ELO Engineering, there was an issue about ehared parking. Ms. Dacy atated the City has the burden of proof to �hov if there are any problems with the special use permit. �ir. Barna otated that vith the EIA Enqineering lot eoverThe variance, ft vas revealed tAat there vas insufficient parkinq. l,ppeals Commission put on a contingency of qaininq additional property vhich ELO vas not able to do and, therefore, denied the variance for a variance from 46.5� to 49.5t. Handlinq it that way has kind of limited lot eoverage to �5-47�. Y��ING CO�D�iIBBION 1�LTING. OCT. I1 1989 � p�GE�O Ms. Sherek ctated that if iomeone eomes in requesting an increase in lot coverage fzom 40� to 50t and the ordinance iays 50�, doesn't the petitioner ctill have to demonstrate adequate parking? If they cannot meet their parking requirement, it �nkes no difference if there is a special use permit procedure or.not. Tt►e value she raw in the special use permit process is if the ordinance is set for 50�, then they will get requests for 55�. Mr. Saba stated the whole electronic industry and oheet metal industry is chanqing, and eorporations are requiring more space for storage of inventory in their buildings. By denying this type of lot coverage, they could lose a lot of business. That is what is happening to companies like EIA Engineerinq. Mr. Betzold stated the variance process is always available, but then the burden is o� the petitioner to 6how a hardship. If they go ahead and increase lot covezage to 50� vith a special use permit, then they aze saying it is all right, and the City has to come up with good zeasons why the request shou2d be turned doWn. They have only had five lot �overage variance requests in five years, so he really did not see this as an issue. He would almost rather 6ee a sunset provision where there vould at least be some review at some point in the future so they do not have a needless procedure on the books. Ms. Sherek ctated allowing 50� lot coverage vith a ipecial use perinit is still the 6ame thing as allowinq 50�, but the City is tequiring the petitioner to jump through some hoops. She felt they should either allow 50� oz just leave it as ft is now. Mr. Barna stated he basically agreed vith lis. Sherek. If they are going to have a percentaqe at all, he liked vhat some of the other cities are doing where ,the cetback requirements and pazking requirements basically control the lot coverage. Mr. Dahlberg stated the danger there is if they inctease the number too much (and 50t is not outrageous), they have to take into account that there is parking lot and hard suzface thnt has to be accommodated on the parcel. l►t azound 40� lot coverage and adding the parking and bard iurface, the total building and hard surface area on the lot could be at approximately 75-80� maximum. That is all zight, but as scon as they start to inczease the lot coverage to 50�, then maybe the total developed piece of property including parking and hard curface is closer to 90�, snd that becomes a little more difficult to deal with. The objective is to have come qreen ipace and landscaped treatment on eaeh parcel. Hs. Sherek stated �aybe they should add an edditional statement that cays the total lot aoverage cannot sxceed a certain percentage. g�,.��"�ZI�IG COl4iI86I0Ii I�LTZZtG. OCT. 11. 1l89 - p7►GE 11 Mr. Dahlberg asked itaff if there Das been any lanquage to that effect in other cities ordinances. Ms. Dacy ctated some ordinances do not have a building coverage; they will have a total impervious surface. She itated the City's parking cetbacks and building �etbacks are cet up so that 88� of the lot can be covered. She �tated staff lcoked at that option, and they could ctate in the ordinance that lot coverage �aximum is 88�, but they felt uncomfortable statinq that. On the other hand, they looked at vhat would happen if they reduced that to 75$ or 80$ total. Based on how Fridley has developed, they would probably render a number of properties nonconforming because basically � everyone Aas built to those parking and building 6etbncks in the commercial and industzial districts. Mr. Barna stated that vith the variance process, they look at each individual lot and each individual situation. Ms. Dacy stated staff wants to avoid the variance procedure, because of the hardship test. She would rather have the special use permit process rather than the variance process. Mr. Betzold stated the issues are: 1. Should they go to 50� lot coverage? 2. Zf so, should they also require a�pecial use permit? Ms. Dacy stated the Planninq Commission must remember that the pzoposal is to increase the lot coverage by lOt for more than one story buildings. Mr. Dahlberg ctated he would like to consider Ms. Sherek's suqgestion about an additional statement that total lot coverage of building and Aard surface will not exceed, in this case, 88$. The Commission �embers agreed to limit the amendment to industrial districts only. MOTION by Ks. Sherek, ieconded by Mr. Barna, to zecommend to City Council approval of the proposed chanqe in the Zoning Code for lot coverage in industrial districts only as follows: (4) The above naximum lot coverages in (1) �ay be inc in Sno by ten percent (10�) of the lot cize; hovever, event �ay the total impervious lot �urface exceed 88� of the total square footage. l�Is. Sherek �tated s�he did not vant to require a special u6e permit tor the increase in lot coverage. g�.�NNING CO?�SIBBIO� ldLTZ�G. OCT. il. 1�89 - p�GE 12 Mr. Dahlberg stated he would rathez cee the special use permit included as part of the proposed change, primarily from the standpoint that if they do it at 50�, then it vill be •asier for people to qo after larger percentages. Most people will look at this and say �0� is allovable, a�d the special use prxess to get teore than 40� �ight deter some people. Mr. Betzold stated he did not knov if the �pecial use permit adds any protection, because a person or a company still has to get a building permit, and there are requirements with the building permit, i.e., parking zequirements. Ms. Dacy ctated Fridley's parking requirements are based on 6quare footage, not on employee generation, oo they could get a very 6ma11 varehcuse with a lnrge number of employees, oz vice versa. Staff is evaluating whether oz not they vant to chnnge that to require one space per "x" amount of employees on the largest chift. Ms. Shezek ctated that is not an issue before the Commission ncw, but her opinion on that is that commercial property changes hands frequently enough that the parking should be planned to the highest density of employees that are anticipated in that type of building at any point, not necessari2y for the use currently in the buildinq. Ms. Sherek stated che did not think they vanted to qet into that kind of evaluation, because that is �ore or less saying that the use to which the building is put today is its use in perpetuity. i,Thatever the parkinq requirement is at the time a person or company comes in for a Duilding permit, vhether or not there is e �pecial use permit, that parking requirement has to be met. If they do not change that and comeone comes in vith an unusual �ituation, there is always the variance process. IIPON 71 VOZCE VOTE, SET20LD, 18ERElC� •71871. �7►RNA VOTZI�IG 71YE, D7►HLBERG oOTZZ1G �Y, C8l1ZRYLR80td �LTZOLD DLCI.�RED THE ![OTION CJ�RRIED BY 71 VOTE OP �-1. Mr. Dahlberq �tated he does not object to the 50� lot coverage, but does feel the special use permit should be included. 5. w o � - Ks. Dacy stated �taff is tecommending a ange in parking 6ta11 sizes from 10 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. 0 ft. (Option �3). Staff feels the double itriping i6 re nable. l�ir. Dahlberg stated he uld like to di6cuss the issue of compact parking ctalls. �unicipalities bave some lanquage in theiz parking ordin es telative �.o allowing compact sta116. Stall vidths fo mpact spaces vary from 7.5 - 8.5 feet, and pezcentages of a able italls vary trom 20-50t of the total in a given ing lot. He was not sure he advccated compact stalls, but he - _ C�TY OF F�a� C011IIMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0 MEMOR.ANDUM DATE: October 26, 1989 � �- To: �William Burns, City Kanaqer�►� FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Fridley Siqn Ordinance Amendments � Since the adoption of the temporary sign ordinance in May of 1988, staff encountered some discrepancies betWeen various sections of the sign code. We initiated this amendment for tvo reasons: � � _, f' e` ( � ..r. s• 1. To reduce the number of inconsistencies between various sections of the code, and f 2. To make administezing the code easier. Attached is the Fridley sign code with proposed amendments as recommended by the Planning Commission at the October il, 1989 meeting. Highlights of the proposed amendments are: • � : Differentiated between banners and pennants (refer to pages 2 and 3). l�dded a definition for community organizations including non-profit organizations (refer to page 6). �►dded a section reqardinq signs for community orqanizations (refer to pages 10 and 11). +� Deleted the option of roof siqns in commercial and industrial districts (refer to sections 214.04, 11, 12 and 13). * Changed the size of campaign siqns and the allowed time in displaying such cigns. The deposit required for such eiqns vas also changed to be consistent vith the temporary siqn ordinance zequirement (refer to paqes 9 and 10). Sign Ordinance �mendments October 26, 1989 Page 2 � Added lanquage to allow siqns in the public right-of-way on Central Avenue (refer to section 214.16). pLANNING COMMISSION RECOMIrIENDATION The Planning Commission determined that siqns for community or non- profit organizations have different requlations than those for temporary commercial signs. The commission recognized that these organizations have special signage needs because of the type of events they conduct. Many of the events sponsored by these organizations are short-lived, or occur cn an annual basis only. Further, other communities provide distinct and separate regulations for these signs. For these reasons, the commission determined it appropz'iate to create regulations specifically for community organizations. The Planning Commission used the Champlin and Brooklyn Center ordinances as models. The organizations will still be required to apply for a permit for the signs and pay the $200.00 refundable deposit. The Commission did, however, require a$200.00 deposit for bills and posters (i.e. for the 49'er Days and the Taste of Fridley). The Commission wanted to ensure that these items would be promptly removed after the events. The Planning Commission also recommended that charts be created for the sign requirements and be include3 in the ordinance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recoauaends amendments to the Commission. I+�i/dn M-89-633 that the City Council pursue the ordinance sign ordinance as recommended by the Planning 214. SIGNS. (Ref. 318, 330, 344, 382, 438, 666, 672, 799, 837, 860, 913) (This Chapter has been recodified as of September 1, 1988 and includes all amendments to the Chapter enacted by the City Council prior to said date) (Second Reading: July 11, 1988) 214.01. PURPOSE PURPOSE The purpose of this Chapter is to protect and promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the City of Fridley through � the establishment of a comprehensive and impartial set of regulations governing the erection, display and use of signs serving as a visual media to persons upon public or private properties. These regulations are intended to provide an opportunity for effective communication, allow a reasonable freedom af choice and promote a concern for the visual amenities on those people designing, displaying, erecting or utilizing signs while at the same time assuring that the public health, safety and general welfare of the City is preserved. 214.02. DEFINITIONS DEFINITIONS The following words and terms, wherever they occur in this Chapter, are defined as follows and shall apply in its interpretation and application: 1. Abandoned Siqn. A sign which no longer correctly advertises a bona fide business, lessor, owner, activity, use or product available on the premises where the sign is displayed for a continuous period of more than three (3) months. 2. Address Sign. A sign consisting of numbers or numbers and a street name, identifying the address of a building. 3. Advertising Siqn. A sign which is used to advertise products, goods, uses or services . 4. Alteration. Any major change, excluding routine maintenance, of an existing sign. 5. Area Identification Sign. A sign which identifies the name of a neighborhood, a residential subdivision, a multiple residential complex or a business or industrial area. 6. Sanners --' �--- -`�, Refers to a� temporary siqn . • � �uch as used to announce oven houses, grand ovenings or special announcements or sales. 7. Bench Sign. A sign which is attached to a bench. 8. A sign advertisinq a business, product, service, use or entertainment which is conducted, sold or offered somewhere other than on the premises where the sign is located. 9. Changeable Sign, Automatic. An electronically cofitrolled sign, including a time, temperature or date sign, or a message center or a readerboard, where different message changes are shown on the same panel. 10. Changeable Sign, Manual. A sign on which the message is changed manually. 11. Construction Sign. A temporary sign erected at a construction site identifying the project. It may include the name of the architect, engineer, contractor, financier or other information about the project. 12. District. A zoning distzict as defined in Chapter 205, Zoning, of the City Code. 13. Flashing Sign. An illuminated siqn which has intermittent flashing lights, revolving beacons, zip flashers or exhibits a noticeable change in color or light intensity. 14. Free Standing Sign. A siqn which is securely attached to the ground and not attached to any part of a building or structure. 15. Governmental Siqn. A siqn which is erected by a qovernmental unit for the purpose of E directinq or quidinq traffic or providinq public information. 16. Illuminated Sign. A sign which is illuminated by an artificial light source. 17. Information Sign. � sign giving information or directions to employees, visitors or delivery vehicles and containing no advertising. An information sign may display the name, address or identifyinq symbol of the business. 18. Institutional Sign. A sign which identifies a public or private institution including churches, schools, hospitals and medical clinics. 19. Motion Sign. A sign which revolves, rotates, has moving parts or qives the illusion of motion. 20. Nonconforming Sign, Legal. A sign which lawfully existed prior to the adoption of this Chapter, but does not comply with all requirements of this Chapter. 21. Nonconforminq Sign, Zllegal. Any sign in any district which was constructed in violation of any requirements of this Chapter, and is not a legal nonconforming sign. (Ref. 837) � Pennant. � Attention aetting devices (such as streamers) constructed of oaver. cloth plastic or similar materials (excludina banners and flaas). � �3. Permanent Sign. A sign constructed of materials includinq plastic or metal that are durable and easily maintained, and which is intended to be used for an indefinite period of time. Signs painted directly on structures, wood or wood products are not authorized or included in this definition. Any sign that is not a tem�orarv sian. � � Personal Expression Sign. J� siqn which expresses an opinion or feeling of an fndividual or qroup and which its principal purpose is not for the promotion of any good or service. (Ref. 860) F7 � �5. Political Siqn. � temporary siqn advertising election issues or the candidacy of a person running for public office. ,'�5-� j� Portable Sign. �ny temporary sign that is desiqned to be transported, including but not limited to: (Ref. 913) A. B. C. D. A sign with wheels removed. A sign with chassis or support constructed without wheels. A or T frame siqns. Signs temporarily or permanently attached to the ground, a structure, or other signs. E. A sign mounted on a vehicle for advertising purposes, parked, and visible from public riqht-of-way, except signs identifying the business when the vehicle is being used for normal day to day business operations. F. G. N. Z. Menu and sandwich boards. Searchlight stands. Hot air or qas-filled balloons or umbrella's used for advertising. .�anners or pennants connected with a �usiness advertising a �roduct or service. �6- � Porta-panel. A portable sign, mounted on wheels and used for commercial as well as civic promotions. � �8. Projecting Sign. A sign, attached to a wall, that projects perpendicular from a building or structure. �8- � Real Estate Sign. 7� temporary sign erected for the purpose of sellinq, leasing or promoting real estate. �►9-:- �0. A siqn which is erected, constructed or attached above 4 the roof line of a building, except where the roof is an extended facade or mansard. 39z }� Rummage/Garage Sale Sign. A temporary siqn which advertises or directs the public to the sale of used merchandise, sold from a private residence. 3�- � Shopping Center/Multiple Use Building. A building planned and developed for multiple occupancy whether as a commercial or industrial use. �- � Siqn. A painted panel, lettered board, series of letters or eymbols or other display and any supporting structure used to advertise, direct, identify, inform or convey a message to anyone who views it. i 3�3- 34. Sign Area. The area of a sign, including the border and the surface which bears the advertisement. In the case of inessages, fiqures or symbols attached directly to any part of a buildinq or sign structure, it is that area which is included in the smallest � geometric fiqure which can be made to circumscribe the message, figure or symbol. 3�- 35• Sign Area, Maximum. The maximum allowab2e siqn area for a sinqle faced free standing sign refers to that single facing. When a free standing sign has multiple faces, then the maximum allowable siqn area doubles. 3�: � Sign Structure. Any structure which supports or is capable of supporting a sign, but not including a building to which a sign is attached. �7. S4ecial Event An event which occurs within a des�„anated time period, for instance on an annual basis. 3c� �$,.= Temporary Siqn. Piny siqn fabricated of paper, plywood, fabric, or other light, fmpermanent material intended to be displayed unchanged for a period of 14 days. (Ref. 913j 3�- �9. Wall Graphic. 5 A graphic desiqn or decorative mural, not intended for identification or advertising purposes, which is painted directly on the exterior 6urface of a building. 3&: g� Wall Sign. � sign which is attached to the wall of a buildinq or structure. � � Window Sign. A sign attached to the inside of a window for the purpose of viewing from outside the building. This term does not include merchandise located in a window. � Community Orqanization. � communi� or civic qroup such as the Lions Club. Javicees, etc., �nd which is formed for a vurvose not involvina vecuniarv aain to �ts shareholders or members and vavinq no dividends or other pecuniary enumeration directiv or indirectiv to is shareholders or members (churches, etc.). 214.03. GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR ALL DISTRICTS GENERAL PROVISIONS The fo22owinq provisions shall apply to Sections 214.04 through 214.07. Any sign shall be constructed in such a manner and of such material that it will be safe and substantial. Nothing in this Chapter sha21 be interpreted as authorizinq the erection or display of any sign not now p�rmitted under Chapter 205 of the City Code. 214.04. SIGNS PROHIBZTED �N ALL DISTRZCTS SIGNS PROHIBITED 1. Any permanent signs, other than governmental siqns, erected or displayed upon any right of way or public property. exce�t as allowed in Section 214.15. 2. 3. Any signs or wall qraphics that contain words or pictures of obscene, pornoqraphic er immoral character. l�,ny signs painted directly on buildings. 4. l�ny signs which be reason of size, location, movement, content, colorinq or manner of illumination may be confused with the light of an emerqency or road equipment vehicle, a traffic siqn, siqnal or device or which hides from view any traffic siqn, siqnal or device. 6 5. Any projecting signs. 6. Any motion siqns. 7. Any flashing signs, including neon. 8. Any signs located within a corner vision cafety zone as defined in Chapter 205. � Any sians which are attached to trees, fences, utility,poles or other such,permanent su,pports, not specificallv intended as sicn structures. Siqns or fences disAl�ina manufacturer's logos, warnings or safetv signs are vermitted. ' �Q goof signs. 214.05. SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS SIGNS PERMITTED 1. Address Signs. Each dwelling, business or building must have a minimum of one (1) address sign, that is a minimum of three and one-half (3-1/2) inches high and a maximum of twenty-four (24) inches high. The sign must be illuminated or reflective and visible from the public right of way. 2. Bench Signs. Displayed only at bus stops and cannot be any larger than or extend beyond any portion of the bench. 3. Flags. Shall be displayed as outlined in Tit2e 36, Section 173-3�8 of the United States Code, State Flag and Corporate Flag. 4. Governmental Signs. 5. Informational Signs. Provided they meet the following requirements: A. A maximum size of four (4) square feet in area. B. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. 6. Institutional Siqns. Provided they meet the followinq requirements: A. A maximum size of thirty-two (32) square feet in area. 7 � i B. A minimum distance of ten (lOj feet from any property line or driveway. C. A hospital emergency siqn may be a maximum of 100 square feet in area. � A maximum height of six (6) feet above the finished ground qrade. 7. Personal Expression Siqn. Provided they meet the following requirements: A. A maximum size of thirty-two (32) square feet in area per siqn. B. A maximum of three siqns per tax parcel. C. A maximum iiistance of ten (10) feet from any property line or dr�veway. D. The sign is erected by the owner of the property upon which it is located, or the tenant with the permission of the owner. (Ref. 860) � ��ans Displayin,g Days of Recyclina Pickuv. 214.06. TEMPORARY SIGNS PERMITTED IN ALL DISTRICTS TEMFORARY SIGNS 1. Construction Signs. A. Multiple Developments. Construction signs may be erected for the purpose of identifying a development of ten (10) or more dwellings, ten (10) or more mobile homes, three (3) or more multiple dwellings, or a building consisting of three (3) or more businesses or industries, with the following restrictions: (i) One (ij sign per street frontage. (2) A maximum size of fifty (50) square feet in area per development. (3) Located no closer than 100 feet to a building outside the development. (4) x ninimum distance of ten (10j feet from any property line or driveway. (5) To be removed upon completion of the construction. 8 B. Other Developments. (1) One (1) siqn per building. (2) A naximum size of six (6) square feet in area. (3) A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. (4) To be removed upon completion of the construction. 2. Rea2 Estate Siqns. A. Multiple Developments. Real estate signs may be erected � for the purpose of selling, 2easinq or promotinq development of ten (10) or more dwellings, ten (l0) or more mobile homes,'three (3) or more multiple dwellings or a building consisting of three (3) or more businesses or industries, with the fo2lowing restrictions: (1) One (1) sign per street frontage. (2) A maximum size of fifty (50) square feet in area per development. (3) Located no c2oser than 100 feet to a building outside of the development. (4) To be removed when the project is ninety-five (95$) sold or leased. (5) A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. B. Other Developments. (1) One (1) sign per building. (2) A maximum size of six (6) square feet in area. (3) To be removed within five (5) days following the sale or lease of the building. (4) A minimum distance of ten (l0) feet from any property line or driveway. (5) "Open House" sigris are allowed only during the day of the open house. 3. Political Siqns. A. A maximum size of ��i+e--f3�} sixteen (16) square E I feet in area. � �o be installed no more than 30 davs prior to the �rimarv glection. �-� To be removed within five (5) days followinq the ene a election. �p� Two hundred dollars (S200.00� will be deposited with the City pzior to the erection of any siqns and retained until all of the siqns are removed. If all of the siqns are not removed, the deposit will be used to defray the cost of removal. Any additional cost will be billed to the person postinq the original deposit. �-� Any siqn larger than three (3j square feet in area must be placed a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from a street curb and ten (10) feet from any driveway. 4. Rummage/Garage Sale Signs. A. A maximum size of three (3) square feet in azea. B. To be removed within three (3) days following the sale. 5, �Te�s-- - ---- . $vecial Event Sians. A. Banners or pennants commemorating a special event not connected with a business, are permitted when installed not more than twenty-five (25) days prior to the event and removed within five (5) days following the event. $-$�rsrrr�r9'�i`"� a � � - -- - - - - a - - � ,� �ills and �osters rewire a two hundred dollar (S200,00) deposit. S'� 214.07. Community Oraanization Event Signs. LA1 1$1 0 readerboards shall not exceed sixteen (16) sware feet �n area�er sian face. io jCZ Minimum Setbacks these sians shall not be erected closer than ten (10) feet from anv orovertv line or driveway. � Maximum Height of Sians - no temporarv non-�rofit oraanizational event sian shall exceed six (6) feet in height above crade If building mounted. sians shall not exceed the hei,ght of the building Roof sicns shall not �e �ermitted. � Anv communitv oraanization shall be encouraaed and �llowed to promote events on an unlimited number of existing readerboards mounted on existina free-standina Qr monument sicLns throughout the Citv. � In no case shall Dortable readerboards be used off the premises from which the event is being held However, -- - --- -- �L--- � � � 4_ The use of readerboards shall not precede or exceed the actual date of the event. The readerboards shall not exceed thirtv-two (32� �ware feet. The readerboards shall not be used on oublic propertv. ��he community oraanization shall avplv for and receive - - - - . �` - -----_ --�..... � A refundable deposit of 5200 00 shall be aiven to the City uvon a�plication for permit The de�osit shall be returned upon promDt removal of all sians. 214.6��. SIGNS PERMITTEO WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PERMITTED WITH SPECIAL 1. Automatic chanqeable siqns are permitted except residential districts, and then only of a special use permit subject to the conditions: li USE PERMIT in all districts after the issuance followinq minimum A. Conformance to the ciqn requirements within that district. B. The message shall not change more than once every fifteen (15) minutes. Siqns displayinq time, temperature, and/or date may change nore than once every fifteen (15� minutes. 2. Billboards. 214.6809. SPECIFIC DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC DISTRICT In addition to those siqns permitted in all districts, the � following signs are permitted in each specific district and shall be regulated as to type, size, and setback according to the following requirements. 214.&9�0. TYPES, SIZE�, AND SETBACKS FOR RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DISTRICT l. Area Identification Signs. A. One (1) sign per development. B. A maximum size of twenty-four (24) square feet in area. C. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. 2. Wall Signs. A. One (ij sign per dwellinq unit. B. A maximum size of,three (3) feet in area. 214.3��. TYPES, SIZES, AND SETBACKS FOR CR-1 DISTRICTS CR-1 DISTRICT l. Area Identification Siqns. A. One (1) siqn per development. B. A maximum size of twenty-four (24� square feet in area. C. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. 2. Free Standing Siqns. A. One (i) siqn per street frontaqe. B. A maximum size of forty-eight (48) square feet in area 12 per development. C. A maximum heiqht of six (6) feet above the finished qrade. D. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. �—�e-- f �-}-o-�g�r-P 4. A maximum coverage of forty percent (40$) of the window area,. excluding merchandise. 5. Wall Signs. The total sign area shall not exceed fifteen (15) times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed. 6. Portable Signs. (Ref. 913) A. May be displayed for a period of 14 days after a permit is issued by the City. Such siqns shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The number of permits issued per year for single and multiple use buildings/shopping centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said bui2ding as follows: Number of Maximum Number of Businesses � Permits Allowed 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 + 2 3 4 5 B. The use of such signs by businesses within the building shall be the responsibility of the property owner or desiqnated manager. All temporary eiqn permit applications must be signed by said property owner or designated manager before processinq can beqin. C. Al1 portable siqns shall be located on the property on which the business is located. Such siqns 6ha11 be located a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 13 D. Prior to the issuance of a permit, a deposit of S200.00 in the form of a certified check or money order must be provided to the City. Said deposit will be refunded only if siqn is removed by noon of the next business day after the permit period expires. 214.i��. TYPES, SIZES, �ND SETBACKS FOR C-1, C-2 1hND C-1, C-2 C-3 DZSTRICTS AND C-3 DISTRICTS A. B. C. One (1) sign per development. A maximum size of twenty-four (24) square feet in area. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. 2. Free Standing Siqns A. One (1) sic�n per street frontage. B. C. A maximum size of eighty (80) square feet in area per development. A maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet above the finished qround grade. D. A minimum height of ten (10) feet from the bottom of the sign to the finished ground grade when within twenty-five (25) feet of a driveway or a corner vision safety zone. E. F. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. A minimum distance of fifty (50) feet from any residential district. $--�irv—as �-^ez`--a�-a e�--$�i� � � � .- �- , _ . . � �-� 4. Window Siqns. � maximum coverage of forty percent (40$) of the window area, excluding merchandise. 5. Wall Siqns. 14 � gllowed only on two (2) different walls ver business. �� The total siqn area shall not exceed fifteen (15) times the square root of the wall lenqth on which the 6iqn is to be placed. 6. 7. Portable Siqns. (Ref. 913) A. May be displayed for a period of 14 days after a permit is issued by the City. Such siqns shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The number of permits issued per year for single and multiple use buildinqs/shopping centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said building as follows: Number of Businesses 1 - 5 6 - 10 11 - 15 16 + Maximum Number of Permits Allowed 2 3 4 5 B. The use of such sign by businesses within the building shall be the responsibility of the property owner or designated manager. All temporary sign permit applications must be siqned by said property owner or designated manager before processing can begin. C. All portable signs shall be located on the property on which the business is located. Such signs shall be located a minimum distance of ten (1) feet from any property line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian cr vehicular traffic. D. Prior to the issuance of a permit, a deposit of $200.00 in the form of a certified check or money order must be provided to the City. Said deposit will be refunded only if siqn is removed by noon of the next business day after the permit period expires. Billboards. Shall be permitted only in the C-3 District within this Section. Specific requirements are listed under Section 214.12.7. 214.i��3_. TYPES, SIZES, �ND SETBACKS FOR M-1 P►ND M-2 DISTRICTS 1. Area Identification Siqns. A. One (1) sign per development. 15 M-1 AND M-2 DISTRICTS B. A maximum size of twenty-four (24) square feet in area. C. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. 2. Free Standing Siqns. A. One (1) sign per street frontaqe. B. A maximum size of eiqhty (80) square feet in area per development. C. A maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet abcve the finished qround qrade. D. A minimum height of ten (l0) feet from the bottom of the sign to the finished qround qrade when within twenty-five (25) feet of a driveway or a corner vision safety zone. E. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. F. A minimum distance of fifty (50) feet from any residential distzict. ir-�rP ., . - �- -� -----� . . � r 4. Window Signs. A maximum coverage of forty percent (40$) of the window area, excluding merchandise. 5. Wall Siqns. A. Allowed only on two (2) different walls per business. 8. The total sign area shall not exceed fifteen (15) times the square root of the wall length on which the sign is to be placed. 6. Portable Siqns. (Ref. 913) A. May be displayed for a period of 14 days after a permit is issued by the City. Such signs shall be restricted to one per tax parcel/development at any one time. The 16 0 number of permits issued per year for single and multiple use buildinqs/shopping centers shall be based upon the number of businesses within said building as follows: Number of Businesses Maximum Number of Permits l�llowed 1 - 5 2 6 - 10 3 11 - 15 4 16 + 5 B. The use of such sign by businesses within the building shall be the responsibility of the property owner or designated manager. All temporary sign permit applications must be 6igned by said property owner or designated manager before processing can begin. C. All portable signs shall be located on the property on which the�business is located. Such signs shall be located a minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway so as not to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic. D. Prior to the issuance of a in the form of a certified provided to the City. Said if siqn is removed by noon the permit period expires. 7. Billboards. permit, a deposit of S20o.00 check or money order must be deposit will be refunded only of the next business day after Shall be permitted in only C-3, M-1 and M-2 Districts. The following requirements shall be considered as minimum standards when issuing a special use permit to erect a billboard. The City Council may impose additional requirements. A. Billboards shall be restricted to property adjoining the right of ways of Interstate Highway 694, Trunk Highway 47, Trunk Highway 65 nnd East River Road south of Interstate Highway 694. B. The maximum height is twenty-five (25) feet above the finished qround grade, unless the sign is intended to be viewed from a highway, then the twenty-five (25) foot maximum heiqht shall be computed from the centez2ine of the traveled highway, but in no case shall the vertical distance between the bottom of the siqn and the qround be reduced to less than ten (10) feet. C. The maximum siqn area is three hundred (300) square feet per facinq not to exceed two (2j facinqs when erected on 17 � E. East River Road south of Interstate Highway 694 , on Trunk Hiqhway 47 and on Trunk Highway 65; and 750 square feet per facinq not to exceed two (2) facinqs when erected on Interstate Highway 694. Double faced siqns shall be attached back to back at a horizontal angle not to exceed forty-five (45) deqrees. The minimum distance between billboard siqns is 1,000 feet when erected on the same side of the hiqhway. The minimum setback from the hiqhway riqht of way is thirty (30) feet. F. The minimum distance is 500 feet from a billboard sign to the intersection of any street or ramp where traffic crosses or merges at the same elevation. The distance is determined by measuring from the intersection of the street and highway centerlines and the sign. G. The minimum�distance to a residential and public distance is 500 feet. H. The sign structuze painted or treated proper maintenance sign permit. shall be all metal and be either to prevent deterioration. Lack of shall be cause for revocation of the I. The minimum distance to a railroad crossing is 350 feet when there are lights and a qate, and 500 feet from a railroad crossing without lights and/or a gate. J. Any lighting will be shielded to not impair the visicn of any motor vehicle operator or to create a nuisance on adjoining property. 214.�314. TYPES, SIZES, PiND�SETBACKS FOR P AND PUD P AND PUD DISTRICTS DISTRICTS Sign requirements in Public and Planned Unit Development districts will be controlled by the City Council when any development is planned. 214.i#�5. SHOPPING CENTERS AND MULTIPLE USE BUILDINGS SHOPPING CENTERS AND MULTIPLE USE BUILDINGS 1. Within I80 days of the adoption of this Chapter, all owners of shopping centers and multiple use buildings of three (3) or more businesses or industries, if they have not already done so, must submit a comprehensive sign plan to the City for approval. 18 2. all future siqns erected within the shoppinq center or multiple use buildings shall conform to the conditions of the siqn plan and nay be subject to conditions other than tRose in the district requlations in order to promote uniform siqn appearance. 3. Existing eiqns within the shoppinq center or sultiple use building which do not meet the requirements of this Chapter and/or siqn plan, 6ha11 be defined as a 2eqal nonconforminq sign, and shall be subject to the restrictions set forth in 214.17.2.(B). (Ref. 837) 214.16. ,�TGNS WITHIN THE CENTRAL AVENUE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS � Intent. , The vurpose of this section is to provide a �rocess to evaluate if certain siqns can be placed in the Central Avenue riaht-of-wav in recoanition that Central Avenue contains an oversiZed riaht-of-wav in relation to its function This section should not be construed �s to permit sians by right within the vublic riaht-of-wav. The petitioner has the burden of proof to show whv the sian cannot be located on the property and must be located within the riaht-�f- way• � �liaibilitv. Prouertv owners directiv abuttina the Central Avenue riaht-of-wav may apDly to erect a sian within a public riaht-of-wav. Sians to �e erected on the riaht-of-way must pertain to the service, business or occupancy offered bv the vzopertv owner directiv abuttina the riaht-of-way. �, Review Process. . gr�or to constructina a sian within the right-of-wav the vro�ertv - - - - - --- ---� - -- --_...._,...� 0 necessarv to ensure the,public health safetv and welfare. � �tandards for Siqns. �iy sian within the public riaht-of-wav shall meet the followina standards: g� The sign shall be qround mounted No free-standinc �vlon �gns shall be vermitted. � � The sian shall be constructed with the followina 19 C. F� � materials either singlv or in combination: � � � � Brick p,ecorative concrete block e a Plastic materials typicallv associated with sianaae. A maximum heiaht of ten (10) feet above the finished ground qrade. The sign may be illuminated either internally oz from ?�ghts mounted at the base of the sian. A minimum of ten (10� feet from anv drivewav. � A maximum of ten (101 feet within the riaht-of-wav. � G. No temporarv sians shall be allowed within the ri4ht-of- wav• 5. In the event that public improvements (such as utilitv or road proiects) need to be made which reauire removal and relocation of the siqn from the riaht-of-wav the oermit shall become null and void The �roperty owner shall be resvonsible for all expenses to remove and relocate the sian The sian shall be �laced on the propertv in conformance with the a,pDlicable sections of the sign code. 214.�6�. SIGN PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 1. Sign Permit. A. Before a sign may be displayed in erector shall file an application permission to display such siqn. SIGN PERMIT REQUIREMENTS the City, the sign with the City for B. A permit is required for all existing, new, relocated, modified or redesiqned siqns except those specifically exempt under Section 214.15.1.E. C. The issuance of a permit may also be subject to additional conditions in order to promote a more reasonable combination of signs and to promote conformity with the character and uses of adjoining property. The conditions will be subject to the discretion of the City. Objections to the conditions can be appealed to the City Council by the applicant. D. Siqns erected by a nonprofit orqanization are not exempt 20 ___ _ _ _ i from obtaining a sign permit, but the City may waive the fee requirement. E. No permit is required to display the followinq signs. This shall not be construed as relievinq the erector of a siqn, or the owner of the property on which a siqn is located from conforming with the o�her provisions of this Chapter: {�} j� Any address siqns. {3} ,j� Any signs erected by a governmental unit. {#} u Any bench signs. f5-3- j� Any memorial signs or tablets containing the names of the building, its use and date of erection, when cut or built into the wall of a building. {6} � Any signs which are completely within a building and are not visible from the exterior of the building. � u �fr.- Anv construction real estate. political or rummaae/aarage sale sians. {e�- u Any siqns having an area of three (3) square feet or less. �9�- j$,� Any advertising siqns on litter receptacles having an area of four (4) square feet or less per side and limited to sixteen (16) square feet per receptacle, except that approval of the desiqn and location of the receptacle is required by the City Council. {�� P,ny perscnal expression signs which are erected by the owner of the parcel upon which the signs are to be placed, or by the tenant with the permission cf the owner. (Ref. 860) 2. Permit Application. A. Application for a siqn permit shall be made to the City cn forms supplied by the City. B. If a siqn has not been erected within ninety (90) days after the date of issuance of a permit, the permit shall 21 become null and void unless an extension is granted by the City. C. The City may require other information as necessary to insure that the siqn is erected in compliance with this Chapter. 3. Permit Fees. Siqn permit fees shall be as provided in Chapter 11 of the Fridley City Code. 214.��$. SIGN ERECTOR'S LICENSE REQUIREMENT SIGN ERECTORS' LICENSE REQUIREMENTS No person, firm, or corporation shall enqage in the business of erecting signs under this Chapter unless a license to do so has been approved by the City Council. The annual license fee and expiration date shall be as provided in Chapter ll of the Fridley City Code. A license shall not be required of any person who chooses to construct and erect their own sign on their own property 214.�&19. EXISTING SIGNS 1. Sign Maintenance. EXISTING SIGNS A. The structure and surfaces of all 6iqns shall be maintained in a safe and presentable condition at all times, including the replacement of defective parts, painting, repainting, cleaning and other acts required to prevent the sign structure and surface from becoming hazardous or unkept in appearance. B. When any siqn is removed, the City shall be notified and the entire sign and its structure shall be removed. 2. Legal Nonconforming Signs. A. Any siqn located within the City on the date of the adoption of this Chapter which does not conform with the provisions of this Chapter, is a"legal nonconforming" sign and is permitted, provided it also meets the following requirements: (1) The sign was covered by a sign permit on the date of the adoption of this Chapter, if one was required under applicable law, or (2) If no siqn permit was required for the sign in question, the sign was in all respects in compliance with applicable law on the date of the adoption of this Chapter. 22 B. A siqn shall immediately lose its «legal nonconforming" desiqnation and be termed illegal nonconforming if: (1) The siqn fs altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages, which �akes the sign less in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter than it was before the alterations. (2) The suppozting structure of the siqn is replaced or remodeled. (3) The face of the siqn is replaced or remodeled. (4) The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of bringing it into compliance is more than fifty percent (50$) of the value of said sign, at which time all of the sign and its structure must be removed. (5) Notwi{thstanding subparaqraph (1) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on this sign. 3. Abandoned Signs. Any sign which identifies a use that has discontinued operation for a period of more than three (3) months or any sign which pertains to a time, event, or purpose which no longer applies, shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Permanent signs applicable to a business temporarily suspended because of a change of ownership or management shall not be deemed abandoned unless the property remains vacant for a period of more than three (3) months. An abandoned sign is prohibited and shall be removed by the owner of the siqn or the property owner. 4. Illegal nonconforming siqns are prohibited within the City of Fridley. Should an illegal nonconforming sign be found to exist, the owner of said siqn will have thirty (30) days to remedy the situation in one of the following manners: A. Remove the existinq illeqal nonconforminq sign. If a new siqn is desired, it must meet all applicable requirements of this Chapter. B. Obtain a sign permit for the existing illeqal nonconforminq sign, and if applicable, apply for a variance to eliminate the illegal nonconforming status. (Ref. 837) 214 . i-9�,Q . ENFORCEMENT . 23 ENFORCEMENT The City Manager or designated agent shall be responsible for the enforcement of this Chapter. 214.�9�,. VIOLATIONS. VIOLATIONS 1. Any sign that does not comply with the provisions of this Chapter or that is a hazard to the health, safety and general welfare of the public is hereby declared to be in violation of this Chapter. 2. Notification of Violation. A. If the City determines that any siqn requlated by this Chapter is unsafe, a menace to the public; or has been constructed or erected without a permit first being granted to the owner of the property upon which said sign has been erected;" or is in violation of any other provision of this Chapter, then the City shall issue a written notice of violation to the property owner. If the owner fails to remove the sign or bring it into compliance with the provisions of this Chapter within ten f10) calendar days following the date of said notice, such 6ign(s) may be removed by the City. The cost of this removal, including any City expenses, shall be a special assessment against the property upon which the sign(s) was located and shall be so noted in the written notice to the property owner. B. The City may cause any siqn or sign structure which is an immediate public hazard, to be removed summarily after a reasonable attempt has been made to have the property owner remove the sign. C. When the City mails the notice of violation, copies will be sent to both the permit holder and the property owner, if they are different persons. 214 . z �� . PENALTY PENALTY Any violation of this Chapter is a misdemeanor and is subject to all penalties prcvided for such violations under the provisions of Chapter 901 of the Fridley City Code. Each day the violation continues in existence shall be deemed a separate violation. All signs are subject to any penalty for violation of the district requirements where they are located, even when not required to pay a fee or acquire a permit. 214 . ��3 . �iPPEAIS To provide for a this Chapter, a interpretation by APPEALS reasonable interpretation of the proviBions of permit applicant who wishes to appeal an the City may file a variance application and 24 request a hearing before the �ppeals Commission. The Commission shall hear requests for variances and nake their recommendation to the City Council in the followinq cases: 1. Appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination a►ade by the City in the enfozcement of this Chapter. 2. Requests for variances from the literal provisions of this Chapter in instances where the strict enforcement would cause an undue hardship. Before the Commission shall grant a variar►ce, it is the responsibility of the applicant to prove: A. That there are exceptional or extraordinazy circumstances applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property in the same vicinity and district. B. That the va�iance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and district; but which is denied-to the property in question. C. That the strict application of the Chapter would constitute an unnecessary hardship. D. That the qranting of the variance would not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare or detrimental to the property in the vicinity or district in which the property is located. 3. All variances qranted prior to November 21, 1977, unless otherwise specified by Council, zemain in effect until: A. The siqn is altered in any way, except for routine maintenance and change of inessages, which makes the sign less in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter than it was before the alterations. 8. The supporting structure of the sign is replaced or remodeled. C. The face of the siqn is replaced or remodeled. D. The sign becomes dilapidated or damaged and the cost of brinqinq it fnto compliance is more than fifty (50$) percent of the value of said siqn, at which time all of the siqn and its structure be removed. E. Notwithstandinq subparaqraph (A) above, upon the change of the name of the business being displayed on this sign. � At such time, the ovner of said siqn vill have three (3) months to obtain a 6iqn permit and construct a sign which meets all requirements of this Chapter or, obtain a variance for any new or existing siqn which does not meet all zequirements of this Chapter. (Ref. 83?) 26 YL7��T�.ir� v�iog�� FT7KG eCT ii 1l89 _ � ��GE 13 vas sure that on occasion a developez is qoing to requ t some compact spaces. Hs. Sherek �tated compact spaces work fine in a p inq ramp or aqainst � vall where the appropriate ciqnage is p ted that it is for compact parking only so it can be iomewhat ntrolled. Mr. Dahlberg asked the Commission if the vanted to add some lanquage that relates to the issue of co ct spaces. !!s. Dacy stated come compact parkinq s fairly common now. She has seen as high as 20t of a parkin lot for eompact stalls. , Mr. Dahlberg asked if compact st�s have been allowed by variance. Mr. Barna stated they have• ver qranted a variance for parking stalls below 9 feet. Mr. Dahlberg stated t t he did not see too IDuch benefit for compact stalls. Nine feet vill make a siqnificant difference in Fridley. If they g any requests for compact stalls, then those can always go thr gh the variance process and be judged on an individual basis �lOTION by Ms. Sherek, 6econded by Mr. Saba, to recommend to Lhe City Counci approval tc amend the definition of a parking stall size from 0 ft. x 20 ft. to 9 ft. x ZO ft. vith double striping and reta' the lanquage regarding the reduction of stall depth when abutti a boulevard (Option �3 as presented in the ctaff report). O T 6. /11 VOICE �IOTE, 71LL oOTING 71YE, CS7�►IRPER802d BLTZOLD DECL!►RED MOTI�Ii CI►RRZED QNJ►NIMOOBLY. �tEVIEW PROPOSED CHANGES TO SZGN ORDINANCE: Ms. McPherson stated staff incorporated the �uggesticns discussed at the September 27, 1989, Planning Commi6sion meeting. Staff has also received cign ordinances from other �ities, the result of which are in the "Signs^ chart located in the agenda. The chart was limited to deal vith those issues that were discussed nt T�a September 27th �eeting: campaiqn ciqns, temporary �iqns, P panels, banners, itreamers, etc. Mr. Barna referred to Section Z14.04.09, Signs Prohibited in All Districts: l�►r►y �igns vhich ate attached to trees, fences, utility poles or other cuch permanent supports, not cpecifically fntended as siqn ctructures. Mr. Barna �tated chain link fences often have the �anufacturers' idenwsf i�ais oL 1e3 of �iqn ge, also warni q r�iqns such as t"No allo yp Trespassing", etc., on fences? $I}��^,JZNG CO�QiIBBION IdETZI�IG. OCT• 11. 1l89 _ !'a1GE 1� Ms. McPherson ctated staff vill amend that section. Ms. McPherson atated ctaff improved the definition ior banners and pennants. They also added a definition for non-profit organization. She would like the Commission to diicuss the non- prcfit organization issue, as vell as Exhibits 1�► and B in the agenda vhich deal with cpecific lanquage for ciqns by non-profit organizations. Ms. McPherson ctated under "Political Signs", they made the suggested tecommended changes to the size of the siqns and IDade the time limits a little more specific. There really wasn't a consensus on the amount of deposit for political siqns, so 6taff used the $200 deposit which is consistent with the other temporary fee requirement. i Mr. Saba stated he agreed with that amount. Mr. Barna stated the person or organization can always go before the City Council to have the fee waived. Mr. Betzold stated he has trouble equatinq businesses with political cnndidates, and he thought S100 would be more reasonable. Mz. Barna stated the sign ordinance does not prohibit roof signs. There is still a roof sign on what used to be Raphael's �►hich should have been removed years aqo. Roof �iqns �hould be prohibited in the City of Fridley. Mr. Betzold aqreed with the prohibition of roof iigns. I+ls. McPherson =tated 6he thought there should be iome clarification on special event signs. Did the Commission want bills and posters to require a depcsit also? They have added the lanquage that prohibits such signs on utility poles and non sign-like structures. Mr. Betzold stated after what he saw this �ummer where the use of posters was abused in the City of Fridley, he never wanted to see anything like that aqain. People should be discouraged from puttinq the bills and posters on utility poles. Garage cale siqns can always be put on posts in the qround with the property owner's permission. He itated he is less concerned about the garage sale notices that are put up and taken dovn within a few days, than he is about the bil�s and posters. Ar. Barna �tated the ordinance should address recyclinq siqns. They should be allowed in the public tiqht-of-way. ris. Dacy ctated those �iqns could be added to the li�t of ciqns permitted in all distzicts. $I��"dING CO�QiIBBION 1dETZNG, OCT 11, 1989 � �J►GE 1S Ms. McPherson itated at the last seetinq, t�e Commission discussed the issue of requirinq two permits per year foz non-profit organizations. In goinq through the ordinances received from other cities, t?�ere were two cities, Champlin and Brooklyn Center, that allowed non-profit orqanizations cpecial consideration for siqnage, banners, porta-panels, etc., over business temporary signs. That is the langvage in Exhibit �, and Exhibit B. Does the Commission vant to include that type of lanquaqe in the ordinance or do they vant to change the temporary iiqn ordinnnce to allow nore siqns? i�Ihat does the Commission want to do to resolve the issues of the churches and schools and other non-profit organizations in the issue of two permits per year? Mr. Betzold cugqested that zather than �ay "non-profit" organizations, they refer to them as "community organizations". Non-profit does have a very specific meaning. The non-profit organization Aas to have come connection vith the City of Fridley as they do not war�t non-profit organizations from another city wanting to put up banners in the City of Fridley. It should be a civic community organization located within the City of Fzidley. Ms. McPherson stated that under "Special Event Siqns", item B states that "Signs over the public ziqht-of-vay must have City Council approval.° However, the two exhibits from Champlin and Brooklyn Center call out the fact that there miqht be signs existing that are not on the pzoperty where the event is being held, and they have restrictions on those 6iqns that are alloWed. That becomes another issue. Does the Commission vant to allow signage on propetty other than that owned by the organization? Mr. Barna 6tated 6ome non-profit organizations �uch as the Jaycees do not own their own property. Ms. Dacy stated she did not think they chould be encouraginq off- premise aiqns. �►11 cigns chould be on the ovner'6 property. Mr. Dahlberg stated it is virtually impossible for the Commission to anticipate and come up with lanquage for every conceivable cituation that can occur in the City of Fridley. Ms. Dacy otated both the Champlin and Brooklyn would be good if they vant the ability for the Club to put up off-premise ciqnage for cpecia ordinances list specific standards for ciqns organization's property. Park ordinances Jaycees or Lions 1 events. Those on oz off the Kr. Setzold ctated Exhibit B cpells out the requirements a little better. Mr. Saba ctated Exhibit B seems easier to understand end allows a little �ore leeway for non-profit organizations. p3,.��"�ZIdG CO?QiIB8IOt1 l[LLTII�IG. OCT. 11. 1l89 � pA�� 16 Ms. McPherson ctated the lanquage in Exhibit B does not include a permit, but they could have the orqanization fill out a permit co the City knows when the cign is going up, vhen it vill come down, and who is the responsible party. Ms. Sherek agreed there chould be a permit, but sbe alco thought there should a refundable deposit. Kr. Dahlberg atated that 6ince it is e temporary ciqn, a deposit would fall under that category. Mr. Dahlberg suggested the followinq changes to Exhibit B: (1) ]�dd come lanquage that ctates that all signs except zeaderboazds sha11 not exceed a certain sqvare footaqe. (2) Signs shall not be pcsted in excess of t�+�} fourteen (14) days prior to the event and 6ha11 be zemoved no later than �r==�; five (5) days follcving the final date of the event. (4) He would cuggest ctaff add a ctatement cimilar to one Item 1 in Exhibit A: "if building mounted, these signs shall be flnt wall signs and shall not prcject sbove the roof line. If ground mounted, the top chall be no more than six (6) feet above ground level." Ks. McPherson stated they vill add an item (7) and item (8) to Exhibit B for controls on the permit and the deposit. Mr. Betzold stated he would like the definition of non-profit organizations chanqed to community organizations that include non- profit organizations, churches, civic organizations, etc., located vithin the City of Fridley: Mr. Dahlberg stnted wherever non-profit organization occurs in the ordinance, it chould be changed to community organization. Mr. Dahlberg ctated he again wanted to raise his objection to 6igns over the right-of-way, even the lanquage does �tate that aigns ere allowed over the right-of-way vith Council approval. He personally objected to those ciqns across roadways. Kr. Dahlberg stated the ordinance refers to tiie number of permits allowed with cpecific instances based on soning. It doesn't specifically address the issue of non-profit orqanizations. Non- profit orqanizations fall into a separate cateqory. It aas his personal opinion that it vould vozk better to include in Section 214.16 under Siqn Permit Requirements a chart oz table that illustrates the number of permits allowed and hov sany permits per year for each of the zoning districts and/or types of uces, i.e., non-profit organizations. It is like takinq item 6 out of the Y ZNG COI4�II68I0?I 1dLTI2�lG. OC"�' il, if89 �_ _ p�GL 17 other �ections and consolidating each one into the sign permit requirement cection. Ms. McPherson stated zight now the interpretation is that non- profit organizations can only have two permits per year vhich vould include up to 12 siqns for each permit. Did the Commission want to change the "two° to n larger number? lir. Dahlberg ctated he would cuggest they look at a lazger number. Hr. Barna aqreed. Since non-profit organizations are dependent on volunteer wozkers, it is hard to say how many special events they vill have. Mr. Betzold stated he did not iee any organization having that many activities where it would be a problem. i Ms. Dacy stated 6�he would prefer to have the non-profit organizations not even referred to in the original ordinance but in a completely separate section. Ms. McPherson stated non-profit organizations could be added as item (9) in Exhibit B. Mr. Saba and Ms. Sherek agreed that the non-profit organizations should be included in the chart or table in Section 214.16. oM TION by Mr. Barna, 6econded by Ms. Sherek, to recommend to City Council approval of the amendments as discussed, to incorpozate Exhibit B to covez community organizations, and to request those requirements be included in e table or chart foz easy perusal. �PON J1 oOICE QOTE� 71I+L oOTZ1iG 71YE, CBJ►IRPLRBOli DLTZOLD DECI.ARBD THE MOTZOId CI�RRILD IINl1NIMOOBLY. � 7. MINUTES: OT ON by I�ir. Dahlberg, seconded by Ms erek, to receive the September 11, 1989, Parks and Recrea ' Commission minutes. DPON A oOICB VOTB, 71I�L oOTING I1 , C8l►IRpLR80H HET20LD DLCIJ►RBD THE MOTION CI►RRIED QN71ZtIM008LY �DJOLJRNMENT • �OTION by ?ir. a, �econded by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the �eetinq. Opon a♦oi vot�, all �otiaq ap�� Chairpsrson B�tsold d�clar�n tDe Octob• 2, if89, planniaq Cosmission ��tiaq .ajourn�d at f:So p.' City of Champlin B. Tea,porary Siqns. Temporary signs announcing any public, charitable, educational or religious event or function, shall be allowed under the followinq conditions: 1. If located entirely within the premises of that institution, the siqn shall be set back no less than twenty (20) feet from the property line and shall nct exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in area. Such signs shall be alloved no more than twenty-one (21) days prior to the event or function and must be removed within seven (7) days after the event or ,' function. Such signs may be illuminated in accordance with restrictions set forth in this Ordinance. If building mounted, these signs shall be flat wall signs and shall not project above the roof line. If ground mounted, the top shall be no more than six (6) feet above ground level. r 2. If located off-premise, the sign shall be set back no less than twenty (20) feet from the property line and shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet in area. Such signs shall be allowed no more than forty-eight (48) hours prior to the event or function and must be zemoved twenty-four (24) hours after the event or function. Such signs shall be non-illuminated and shall be no more than six (6) feet above ground level. Written authorization of the property owner shall be required for all off- premise signs and no more than one such sign shall be erected on each property. City of Brooklyn Park e. Temporary Non-Profit Organization Event Signs. (1) Siqns shall in area per signs shall the City. not exceed sixteen (16) �quare feet sign face. No more than six (6) be alloved, per event, throuqhout ( 2) Signs shal l not be posted in excess of ten (10 ) days prior to the event and shall be removed no later than three (3) days followinq the final date of the event. (3) Minimum Setbacks -- there is no setback requiretaent; however, these signs shall not be erected on the public right-of-way, on public property, nor in the public street intersection twenty-five (25) foot clear-view trianqle. (4) Maximum Height of Signs -- no temporary non- profit organizational event sign shall exceed six (6) feet in height above grade. (5) Any non-profit organization shall be encouraged and allowed to promote events on an unlimited number of existing readerboards mounted on existing free-standing oz monument signs throughout the City for an unspecified period of time. (6) In no case shall portable readerboards be used off tbe premises from which the event is being held nor shall this type of advertising precede or exceed the actual dates of the event. No portable zeaderboards shall be used on public property. No on-site readerboards shall exceed thirty-two (32j square feet. These signs shall be set back fifteen (15) feet from all property lines but not vithin the twenty-five (25) foot clear-view trianqle of entrances or public street intersections. .+ 0 O a � � 4 � � E � � � 4 � 4 a° e c v� N C C` � �e a E Q u c v s 0 .. < 0 � .w a+ t �� a� � oc>. � o � o� .+ a. a +�+ 'C 1� V C E av-� v� ar �.+ .r � N O �F,� 4.0 ... y �. x� �s eCE��o � N E C C O �� i..fC�>N .. o c-y � v �+E �eN v Q' C • C> i e � a.+ r • O �+ �+ vi i+ �1••� E C Oi +=.�QOO►� Z L • �1 N �0 e � s+ v� c � �� °c � x e=+ c> �a ag ��° i c -'�+ o 4 +r � 1+ v .r �+ O` m° � a �°,+ � c ., ., � �' v o u �+ � .� A .. 0 b m �v v v A L O M a C O om � 4 ryoG. w a+ y o e o a. �+ • • v-"+Y v� � u�� c oD� o v �+ r t� ra+> v�9 �+ t1 O ►. 6� �. r E �o E � .y �+ L i0 ►{�MVC e ya c � uc � �a � o a. s�+ c � �� s�►.o .� p` t a .°• `o � 0 .. .. >° • .. � v � � O C 4 �+ O a�.+ � �. � • .•o.+�c eu�av� � O � c°oD�o � V � C✓> v� V G O ►� 6 �� c � N�+I.NC c 0 � .. � � � v � � w 0 M a . �e o � O e~i r�a+ c C�iL C C r P ... 10 4� LL . j� .r al °a� o, m - �v �,.��wc .. ... d u R � � E C �+ � R rC N tr m c� OO�.C� L L ✓ 4 7 aaea� v > w 4 0 ..i . ad r � �+ !+ �o t � � �0 'C n • aj+i � .,�a o e��+ s,� o .. a+ r oa ��+ •+ r A ►+ar � � .�, �, p' i+ O C�EE 0� O?�w�t d er � o a [- a. • .. .+ .. � �o .. a° a � � w O E � E� � v .r � O �.+ F+ a° � C � H C Q' ., 0 a E 0 u a�+ e �� e�a � C a, .+ cw c� p � � u 0 .� � 0 �. a • . 1f1 i. +yi�� • � ��^ 4 A''a.aa w r+ �°'ao� �O r o s .+ 7 �. +i .+O�e d <�.�� a. .: o C e E n� O ++ 7 d C � CE O C> U .., l� X N 1+ r 6� ..n .� � b E V~ r . Ya+� O Q'0+ �T �+ O C ✓ • E 'C .•� �+ � . ., � ., o �=�ou: � ..�i t N C 4�+ 10 � E � +r 4t O 'O � . r+ a. �~� • ge o" � a �' a. a M .� °�ao� �p�.ea ., � �..+ .+ o e o+ t � � � � d a 0 oc g u � v � 0 a • C � N O.w 4 A �� v d o a e .+ O T� < �� e � E •� � � � X Q+ Rw►. O w... . O V 1+ .. a a+ .0 ✓ O' C �l �+ • � a,o �o �o ►. -• �o 0 0��4 �� •c vE � . 6e A �� ao .+ o °a. <�� w � 0 .. a i � � .. < ! E � K � �y •' ��+ � a ey N � �s c � > V N V O V V a� � � a. o 0 � � n� � v � 0 w d o � �o • � �o Q C 6� �o � ++ � O � E .r 4 � � ��+ 7 � Ol {� i0 E 7 � 1.u-+ A oxv�� " E�o �Ol C r+ c .+ °�a o d�.. ov C d E• i. O Y M a� � \" i� c e a � �9 o � �o •�� a�+ee �wM w.. �voc� e � � w°��n w � .. ceoc 'b..:�o�,o, �� 1eE7A s> > ai d w.+ �. a vt� � �" e�o �•cco �n �^ a000 e o"o� M � 0 ., e s x 0 � c c � s � � v � 0 4 a o• 0 0� m r, .+ • +E� E i+L E 'O O R C+ •-+ v�tax ++ � C E � 4 6� daai� ►�.. �.. ca.d �°=�c� E y1 E tll Y L >. L >. 6� � G R Y'+ a� a� � n E � E O 9 ...� v x v • � V � � � w {r ►. • 1+ l� Ma.� r �C . y. L Q�eR►. �9�� N .. L w+ ..N aA � .. .. > � � 0 e� IJ c � � o � .� +� +' �+ � � _, �. � � � � "y '� t t O Q � N d ~ y. a � r O a E V F \ V � � a� i+ O a � C C N c o� � a E � U � � � O U C �+ C > d8 -a ! C 4� � � c -~+ o� 0 !+ v � V �c 0 ,� -, 4 a� O U a� • . � 1+ V c e+�y l� i+ 6 r0 +y+�lOm �p(J V � ... . ...� L i0 � V a>-+ ►. 0 � � a�+ '�O _. �. � • e�� o E a� y aio •v ..x c•+ �oo+ -.y C i �J 1+ °DxaUi:' Y1 �1 .ti r. � N r a � � � p C c ►. a e ., �+ �. e 4 a C e w • y -� m h a �c �� a� x �� . 6 � E -+ ►+ C t ►+ `;°HO,. w m 4 OYC 0� o �p .E.� O � C4^��+ N v l� � Q` �[-aAa E +E+ r x eo M �+ Q� � Q� oe a ei •� a N O 'O c 0 • • e t � 0 � • � ... m e �� a.�a� x� m 4 �� E �d� .. ►. •CL �+ �oFd .. a • n M !fA✓ d d ��+E'��+ O C 4� ►+ 06�1��C' ••[-asa 0 � � c �� x >c e�-•o E..�i�►� .+ a • � `��od � Q r0 ✓ �. • 9 U �+ �u 10 O �+ w .r r+ r O �c �+ e a c a+ � x g � .. � �, :°. r c �� ►.oa o ..� a� ..+ > ... x d m ►. .. � �ece�a�u E.�+E C tn � �...� �. • 6 ai.. x�a c ��.,E�O��G�+ v ...o✓✓ Qc •�r+u�- o�•,,•d�,aA r++ E O� OI Ol �dc000� Z0. {ryCJ Nv:7 � a � U X d �a, v �, -, ++ E .�i p�i o °' aa • c � � ., � M 0 O � w � l. O a � � F � v .. � 0 � ►. 6 � C C' N C a e a E 0 u 0 cd °c� �$ a .� w� � -+ c '� ms � ,� � u c � � .. � �r t 0 4 a o ° o�a�+ U O .� �+ ir 1� X �►+ 31 N �0 {i1�0►+ 4�rtr�C aOr � fi9 v � �.,�'.� • c uu u E ... i.i •ow —�e+E w a a.d � o� a • ►. i�°p o m �y •� 0 4 r. �. a+ • a. c h. i. n� 10 � G►+ SS E � 7� m ..�.dA • eo�Oo � •o-'�u v M.y� C 'O V o'°�i � ��E4+ � o a o Y ►. � a � ..r 7o .7 ar � � v � � �r t � ►+ a � y .. p � l � ►r a � � y ., � � t � 1a O. d d � y � � � � � o a a E o v >.o E o � ,�, , V rp ... ... �.+ iC e c t 'fl .� x L � � �� C v o r�. E O � .. a � .. d ., �u c �w 4ac y.r O �J y� N� �f O C N �. •.. . � " � c� o R �� u a~, � i a+ � �o ►• �. � t ..+ `. Ca Z O ��ar .�r�ea�it c Q � • g a "a � c�'id ud o �� r � -, 'o -� �� .��" v � � � , v -� -+ • � �mA �ma �i a w ►61. a .°. � t e a 0 w w � a. a � c � � � a°4c s u > a .�•� a�. � C � x c°� m u g � t t cinroF F�a� DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: COl1/W1LiNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMOR.ANDUM October 26, 1989 � � • J William Burns, City Manaqer� • Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michel� McPherson, Planning Assistant Revision to the Landscape Ordinance The proposed ordinafice amendment has been proposed by staff in order to standardize and modernize the City's landscape requirements. The existing landscape tequirements are minimal. We have reviewed other communities' ordinances (Brooklyn Park, Maple Grove, Champlin and others), and have found that specific landscaping requirements are not unusual, and in fact, are common place. Further, because the existing ordinance is very general and does not specify the number, types, or sizes of landscaping, consistent enforcement from site to site cannot be achieved. Currently, there are three subsections (A, B and C) under "6" in each zoning district. This 6ection vill be expanded from "A" to "L". Further, come of the 6creening requirements in "7.D" (Screening) will be merged into the proposed ordinance. We have incorporated the best items of the existing ordinance and combined those into the proposed ordinance requirements. The landscaping requirements are proposed to be included in all commercial and industrial districts, and the R-3 district. Minor lanquage changes will bave to be made in the R-3 district 6uch that these requirements vould be applicable to apartment and large townhouse developments, and exclude single family and two family lots. we have also tested the proposed Iandscaping requirements on two sites which are now being considered for development (see attached memorandum from Michele McPherson). To summarize, the ordinance contains the following requirements which differ from the existing ordinance: 1. The ordinance contains a plan submission requirement and states minimum standards for landscaping species (see paqes 1 through 4). r- � ;.. ,� r Revision to Landscape Ordinance October 26, 1989 Page 2 2. The proposed ordinance identifies minimum requirements for trees and shrubbery around the perimeter of a lct and within the interior of a lot. Currently, the existing ordinance does not list a minimum tree requirement; however, the ordinance now requires three feet of shrub or hedge material between parking areas and the public right-of-way. This requirement has been incorporated into the ordinance (see pages 4 and 5). 3. The existinq ordinance required a minimum of 100 parking stalls before interior landscaping was required. The threshold has been reduced to 75 stalls. Further, it is proposed that landscape islands are needed to interrupt expanses of 250 feet or more of parking. Minimum dimensions and standards have been proposed for landscaped islands (see page 5). 4. Specific screening and buffering requirements have been developed for commercial or industrial properties abutting R- � or R-2 parcels. A minimum of a six foot screen must be constructed along the zoning district line between the diffezent zoning districts. If a six foot fence is not constructed, then a planting screen with a minimum width of 15 feet must be installed. The larqer width is necessary so that there is adequate room for plant materials to exist. These requirements are in the existing ozdinance, however, the proposed ordinance did not clearly state as is now prcposed (see pages 5 and 6). 5. "Credits" for existing trees and for large trees are proposed. These credits allow a reduction of the number of overstory trees required in the perimeter parking requirements or interior parkinq requirements (see pages 6 and 7). 6. Installation requirements have been amended as per the Planning Commission's direction to allow the property owner up to three years to install tbe required landscaping if minimum standards are met in each year (see pages 7 and 8). 7. Section "L" states that existing uses must comply with the screening zequirements at the time that alterations are made on the property; however, the City may determine that because of unique characteristics reqarding the site that full compliance cannot be achieved and the ordinance requirements will not be imposed. This qives staff adequate flexibility with existing situations (see page 6). Revision to Landscape Ordinance October 26, 1989 Page 3 We have not included the trash enclosure screening requirements since that is to be addressed through the pendinq dumping ordinance. We also have not tampered with the existinq lanquage regarding roof equipment screening. pLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance on August 30, 1989 and October 25, 1989. The Planning Commission concurred with staff's proposed ordinance lanquage as attached. CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the �City Council pursue the proposed ordinance amendment to include landscaping requirements in R-3, Commercial and Industrial districts. BD/dn M-89-652 LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 6. LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS A. Scope. B. , All open areas of any site, except for areas used for parking, driveways, or storage shall be landscaped and incorporated in a landscape plan.. Plan Submission and Approval. (1) A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to approval of outside improvements not related to building improvements. (2) The following,items shall appear on the landscape plan: a. General 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Name and address of owner/developer Name and address of architect/designer Date of plan preparation Dates and description of all revisions Name of project or development Scale of plan (enqineering scale only) at no smaller than 1 inch equals 50 feet 7) North point indication b. Landscape Data 1) Planting schedule (table) containing: a) b) c) d) e) f) Symbols Quantities Common names Botanical names Sizes of plant material at time of planting Root specification (B.R., B & B� potted, etc.) F� g) Special planting instructions 2) Existing tree and shrubbery, locations, common names and approximate size 3) Planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crown diameter, or spread for local hardiness zone) 4) Typical sections in detail of fences, tiewalls, planter boxes, tot lots, picnic areas, berms, and other similar features. 5) Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. 6) Details of planting beds and foundation plantings. 7) Note indicatinq how disturbed soil areas will be restored through the use of sodding, seeding, or other techniques. 8) Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with total areas provided in square feet, and slope information. 9) Coverage plan for underground irrigation system, if any. 10) Statement or symbols, to describe exterior lightinq plan concept. c. Special Conditions: Where landscape or man-made materials are used to provide required screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross-section shall be provided through the site and adjacent properties to show property elevation, existing buildings and screening in scale. C. Landscapinq Materials. All plant materials ehall be living plants. Artificial plants are prohibited. (1) Grass and qround cover. a. Ground cover shall be planted fn such a manner � -as to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within twelve (12) months after planting, with proper erosion control during plant establishment period. Exception to this is undisturbed areas containing natural vegetation which can be maintained free of foreiqn and noxious naterials. b. Accepted ground covers are sod, �eed, or other organic material. The use of rock and bark mulch shall be limited to areas around other vegetation (i.e. shrubs) and shall be contained by edqing. (2) Trees. a. Overstory Deciduous. �1) A woody plant, which at maturity is thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a sing�e trunk unbranched for several feet above the ground, havinq a defined crown which looses leaves annually. 2) Such trees shall have a 2 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. b. Ornamental. 1) A uroody plant, which at maturity is less than thirty (30) feet in height, with a single trunk unbranched for several feet above the ground, having a defined crown which looses leaves annually. 2) Such trees shall have a 1 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. c. Coniferous. i) A woody plant, which a maturity is at least thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a sinqle trunk fully branched to the qzound, having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round. 2) Such trees shall be eight (8) feet in heiqht at planting. (3) Shrubs. 3 a. Deciduous or everqreen plant material, which at aaturity is fifteen (15) feet in height or less. Such materials may be used for the formation of hedges. Such materials shall meet the followinq minimum standards at time of planting: 1) Deciduous ehrubs shall be thirty-six (36) inches tall. 2) Evergreen shrubs shall be in five (5) qallon containers. (4) Vines. � Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and•are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. (5) Slopes and Berms. a. Final slope qrades steeper than 3:1 will not be permitted without special approval or treatment such as terracinq or retaininq walls. b. Earth berm screening parking lots and other open areas shall not have slopes exceeding 3:1. A minimum three (3) foot berm is required. D. Perimeter Landscaping. (1) In order to achieve landscaping which is appropriate in scale with the size of a building and site, the minimum standards apply: a. One (1)'tree for every one thousand (1,000) square feet of total building floor area or one (1) tree for every fifty (50) feet of site perimeter, whichever is qreater. A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the trees required will be coniferous. b. Two (2) ornamental trees can be substituted for every one (1) overstory deciduous shade tree. In no case shall ornamental trees exceed fifty (50) percent of the required number of trees. c. Parkinq and driving areas between the building and frontage street shall be �creened in the followinq manner: 1) A continuous hedge of plant �aterials; 4 minimum of three (3) feet in height at time of planting; or 2) A continuous earth berm with 6lopes no greatez than 3:1 and a ainimum of three (3) feet in heiqht; or 3j A combination of earth berms and plant materials such that a minimum of three ( 3) feet of continuous screeninq is achieved. E. Interior Pazking Lot Landscaping (1) All parking areas containing over seventy-five (75) stalls shall include unpaved, landscaped islands that areas reasonably distributed throughout the parking area to break up the expanses of paved areas. In addition, landscaped islands shall be provid�d every two hundred fifty (250) feet or more of uninterrupted parking stalls. (2) All landscaped islands shall contain a minimum of one hundred eighty (180) square feet with a minimum width of five (5) feet and shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch, and/or shrubbery, in addition to the minimum landscape requirements of this ordinance. Interior parking landscape area trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each fifteen (15) surface parking spaces provided or a fraction thereof. Parking area landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a six (6) inch raised concrete curb. F. Screening and Buffering (1) Where the parcel abuts a property zoned R-1 or R-2, there shall be provided a landscaped buffer which shall be constructed in the following manner: a. A screening fence or wall shall be constructed within a five (5) foot strip along the property line(s) abuttinq the R-1 or R-2 district. Said fence or wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished materials, compatible with those used in the principal structure, and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high and a maximum of eight (8) feet high. Chain link fences shall have non-wooden slats when used for screening purposes; or b. A plantinq screen shall be constructed in a � fifteen (15) foot strip and shall consist of healthy, fully hardy plant materials and shall be desiqned to provide a minimum year-round opaqueness of eighty (80) percent at the time of maturity. The plant material shall be of sufficient heiqht to achieve the required screening. Plantinq screens �hall be maintained in a neat and healthful condition. Plants which have aiea shall be pzomptly replaced. c. If the topoqraphy, natural qrowth of vegetation, permanent buildinqs or other barriers meet the standards for screeninq as approved by the City, they may be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or plantinq screen. (2) All loading docks must be located in the rear or side yards and be screened with a six (6) foot high minim�m solid screening fence if visible from a public right-of-way or if vithin fifty (50) feet of a residential districts. (3) All external loading and service areas accessory to buildinqs shall be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential or commercial properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. G. Credit for Large Trees The total number of required overstory trees may be reduced by one-half (1/2) tree for each new deciduous tree measuring four and one-half (4 1/2) inches or more in diameter, or each new coniferous tree measuring twelve (12) feet or more in height. In no event, however, shall the reduction be qreater than twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of trees required. H. Credit for Existing Trees The total number cf required new overstory trees may be reduced by the retention of existing overstory trees provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Such trees are four ( 4) inches or qreater in cal iper neasured six (6) inches from soil level. (2) For each existing tree meeting the requirement, two trees as required in section D may be deleted. (3) Proper precautions to protect trees during 6 , development 6ha11 be indicated on qrading plans submitted for plan review. Such precautions are outlined in section J. These precautions shall be included in the landscape surety. I. Irrigation. Underground irrigation shall be required to �aintain all landscaped, boulevard, front and side yard areas. J. Installation. (1) The fcllowing standards shall be met when installing the required landscapinq: a. Plant ma�.erials shall be located to provide reasonable access to all utilities. b. All required screeninq or bufferinq shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structures to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right-of-�ray. c. Sodded areas on slopes shall be staked. d. Seeded areas shall be mulched with straw to prevent erosion. Hydro mulching is acceptable. e. Oak trees shall be surrounded by snow fence or other means at their drip line to prevent compaction of their root systems. f. Plantings shall not be placed so as to obstruct lines of •sight at street corners and driveways. (2) The applicant shall install all landscape materials within one year; but shall have three (3) years within which to install the required landscaping if the following minimum standards are met: a. First year 1) All qrading is completed, including installation of bernis. 2) The required irrigation system is installed. 3j Areas to be seeded and/or sodded are installed. 7 4) Screening for adjacent residential areas is installed, if required. 5) Twenty-five (25) percent of the required overstory trees are installed. 6) Twenty-five (25) percent of the perimeter landscaping is installed. b. Second year 1) The remainder of the perimeter landscaping is fnstalled. 2) Interior landscaping is installed. 3) Fifty (50) percent of the remaining required overstory trees are installed. c. Third year Any zemaining landscaping shall be installed. d. The City shall retain the required performance bond until installation of all landscaping is complete. K. Maintenance. (1) The property owner shall be responsible for replacement of any dead trees, shrubs, qround covers, and sodding. If any plant materials are not maintained or replaced, the property owner shall have, upon written notification from the City, one growing season to replace said materials before the City shall maintain or replace said plant materials and assess the property for the costs thereof. (2) Screen fences and walls which are in disrepair shall be repaired. L. Compliance. Existinq uses shall comply with the screening requirements listed in this section at the time alterations are nade on the building or premises. Compliance by existing uses shall not be required if the City determines either that because of the unique character of the existinq use compliance is not needed to promote the welfare of the City or that compliance is not reasonably possible because of the existing development. 8 t PLANNING DIVlSION � MEMOR,ANDUM c�nroF F� �� DATE: October 25, 1989 TO: ✓ Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator FROM: Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Testinq of the Proposed Landscape Ordinance Requirements I have tested the prbposed landscape ordinance requirements on two recently proposed developments in the City of Fridley. One is the McDonald's located at 81st 1�venue and University Avenue, and the second is the �sborne Crossinqs project proposed by SBF Development located at Osborne Road and University P,venue. The following are the results of the comparison of the new landscape ordinance requirements. McDonald's The new requirements of the proposed landscape ordinance requires that on the perimeter of the site, there be one tree per every 1�000 square feet of building area, or one tree per every 50 feet of perimeter, whichever is greater. Under the 1:1,000 rule, there is 5,100 6quare feet of buildinq, and 5.1 trees would be required. Under the 1:50 rule, there is 940 lineal feet of perimeter, and 18.8 trees would be required. The ordinance would require that 18 trees be provided around the perimeter of the site. McDonald'6 has proposed on their landscape plan to provide 18 overstory trees, and 8 understory trees. In this instance, they �eet and exceed the proposed landscape requirements. Concerning the parkinq lot �creeninq, the McDonald's 6ite on the west side of the lot and also the north is adequately screened throuqh the use of plant materials. However, due to the slopes along University l�venue on the east and the required area to hold storm water on the 6outh, the parkinq area alonq the east side and somewhat on the scuth 6ides are �creened with berms or landscape �saterials. Currently, University l�venue sits approxf�ately 5 feet biqher than the proposed McDonald's parking lot. J► berm of approximately l0 feet would be required to fully �creen the parking lot from the public riqht-of-vay. � cpecial exception for areas of unique topography �ay need to be added to the aection requiring parking lot screeninq. Proposed Landscape Ordinance Tests October 25, 1989 Page 2 The proposed landscape ordinance requires that any interior parking islands be 180 square feet and also be landscaped with trees and shrubs. The smallest parkinq island proposed in the McDonald's parking lot is 160 square feet, and is not proposed to be landscaped. However, other islands in the parkinq lot are larger than 180 square feet, and are proposed to be landscaped. Osborne Crossings The Osborne Crossings development, using the 1:1,000 rule, would require 44.8 trees. Under the 1:50 rule, 37.5 trees would be required. The ordinance would require that 45 trees be provided around the perimeter of the site. SBF Development, on their proposed landscape plan, is providing 33 overstory trees, 4 of which are located on an interior parking lot island. Of the proposed parking islands, the smallest is 135 square feet, others meet the 180 square foot requirement. The ordinance requires that for the interior landscaping, 1 tree is to be provided for every 15 parking spaces. Using this calculation, for the 213 parking spaces on the interior of the site, 14 trees would be required. SBF Development has provided 20 trees on their proposed landscape plan. The parking lot screening from the public right-of-way is adequate along the east property line along the University Avenue service zoad. However, there is a lack of any screening along the north property line to screen the parking lot from the public right-of- way. The landscape ordinance requires that a continuous hedge or berm of 3 feet be provided for parkinq lot screeninq, and this requirement would be require�d of the SBF Development IrIIrI/dn M-89-648 CITY OF FRIDLEY COI9+�IB8ION 1SEETING, OCTOBER Z5�' 1989 i ...____........_...._......___..__..__....�_.�..� i CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Bet�old called the October 25, 1989, Planning Commission meetinq to order at 7:30 p.m. � ROLL CALL• / Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberg Members Absent: None \ � Others Present: Barbara Dacy�,Planning Coordinator Michele McPhei'son, Planning Assistant . \\ \ APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 11 1989. PLANNIi1G COMMISSION MINUTES: �� MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the October 11, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as�written. IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL �VOTING AYE, CHAIRPEitSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED IINANIMOIISLY. i l. CONSIDERATION OF REVISED SITE PLAN FOR OSBORNE CROSSINGS. SBF DEVELAPMENT CORPORATION: � 2. REVIEW PROPOSED LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE Ms. Dacy stated the Commission members had received a memo dated October 23, 1989, explaining the revision to the Landscape Ordinance. Staff is insertinq the new requirements into an existing section in each of the zoning districts, commercial and industrial districts, and they are proposing R-3, as well. That section will expand from A- C to A- L with a number of subsections. Staff reorganized the ordinance to what they thought would be most easily read by a developer or person of what is required as far as landscaping. Ms. Dacy stated she summarized some other changes in the memo, but the major point is. how will the ordinance requirements work on sites within Fridley? Ms. McPherson had handed out a memo dated �LANNING COI�+II88ION l�IEETINQ. OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 2 October 25, 1989, summarizing two tests she did of the proposed Landscape Ordinance requirements on the proposed McDonalds site at 81st/University Avenue and SBF Development at Osborne Road/University Avenue. Ms. Dacy stated staff feels strongly that this standardizes the City's landscaping requirements. Staff has modernized the requirements to be consistent with what other communities require. They feel it is going to be a fair ordinance for property owners within the community and will set some standards the Planning Commission and City Council can be comfortable with. Ms. McPherson stated she chose McDonalds and SBF Development because they are very recent developments that have not been constructed. However, older developments that may come in for expansion were not tested. � Ms. McPherson stated that with the provision in the ordinance for the three year allowance for the installation of landscaping, this will help alleviate a lot of fears the Chainber of Commerce has been expressing to Jock Robertson. It will not require such a large expense in the first or second year. This will probably help a lot of businesses, as well as enable the City to get what it wants as far as improvinq the environment. Ms. McPherson stated of the two developments, McDonalds is more heavily planted than SBF Development. She reviewed the results of the new landscape ordinance requirements for each development. Ms. Dacy stated currently McDonalds does not have a berm and a 3 ft. continuous hedge along a,portion of the site. Mr. Dahlberq stated then it is not practical to have a 3 ft. hedge along the University Avenue side, because the roadway is 4-5 feet above the elevation of the parking lot.. Ms. Dacy stated the ordinance is not saying they have to screen 3 ft. above the elevation of the roadway. It is staff's interpretation that a 3 ft. hedge should still be required to screen the parking lot from any public right-of-way or adjacent property, even though in McDonalds' case, there is a 4-5 ft. elevation change. Otherwise, they can get into the arqument of how tall does the road have to be above the property to stop requiring hedges? Mr. Dahlberg stated that, using The Wholesale Club building adjacent and to the west of the new McDonalds as an example, the requirement for the berms and 3 ft. landscaped buffer was not from the parking lot 3 ft. high, but 3 ft. above the street/curb right- of-way. If the intention is to screen the parking from the riqht- of-way or adjacent development, then the 3 ft. high landscaped buffer interpretation does not make sense. So, in this case, how pLANNING COiSMIBBION l�IEETING, OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE 3 valuable is that requirement? Mr. Barna stated in this situation does it make sense to screen the parking lot from the University Avenue riqht-of-way or the parkinq lot from The Wholesale Club's parking lot, etc.? Whether or not the screening is there is immaterial, but it looks nice. Mr. Dahlberg stated that in defense of staff's interpretation, because it is a public right-of-way and there is a large amount of traffic on University Avenue, the cars that are parked in the McDonalds parking lot facing University Avenue in the evening or , night with headlights shining toward University Avenue, with the 3 ft. berm, those headlights will not be a qlare and have a significance influence on the'traffic on University Avenue. Mr. Dahlberg stated the way the ordinance has been an the past is that there has been some flexibility relative to interpretation or working with a given development to evaluate these kinds of things. He still thought the City should still have that kind of position or attitude about the landscape ordinance and not look at the ordinance as the "letter of the law". Ms. Dacy stated she is looking at the ordinance maybe in a less flexible fashion, but she feels it is very important that they try to be as consistent as possible. It gets to be a judgment standpoint for staff, and she would prefer to tell a developer that the 3 ft. hedge has to go all the way around the parking lot. To make a judgment as far as 4 ft. versus 5 ft. of elevation down to 3 ft. might be going a little bit too far. Mr. Betzold stated each piece of real estate is unique, but he thought the philosophy is that a developer has to come in with a landscape plan following these guidelines. Each developer is going to have complaints about certain parts of the ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg stated his only point is that staff should have a certain amount of flexibility to be able to negotiate with each project. Ms. Dacy stated she wanted the minimum amount of trees and hedge. There is a section of the ordinance that does qive some flexibility for existing developments. Mr. Kondrick aqreed with Ms. Dacy. It is important to have some standards. Mr. Barna stated it is alright to have standardization as long as the standard is something below the general standards, and also so particular types of vegetation on an island, or on the end of a driving aisle or internal driving aisle, for example, not be so hiqh as to block the view. pL�NNZNG COl�IIdIBSION IdEETZNG. OCT. 25. 1989 PAGE � Ms. Dacy stated there should be and staff did intend to include some site distance requirements. Those will under Section J. Installation. Mr. Betzold stated apparently the Chamber of Commerce was concerned about up front costs. Suppose a developer agrees to do certain things, but a couple of years later has not done those things? What recourse does the City have? Ms. Dacy stated the City would retain the letter of credit or performance bond until the landscaping is completed. They will need to retain the letter of credit or performance bond for a longer period of time with the 3 year installation period. That is more of an incentive to complete the landscaping as soon as possible, because it does cost the developer more to carry a performance bond for another year. Ms. McPherson stated the McDonalds and SBF Development landscape plans were examples to show the Commission how the new landscaping restrictions will be calculated and how they will work administratively. Mr. Dahlberg stated that now there is a provision for landscaping to be done over a 1-2-3 year period. He would personally like to see some of the over-story trees planted in the first year. The proposed ordinance says that all that needs to be done the first year is grading and sod or seed and screening for residential. He would like to see some planting in the first year other than screening from residential. He suggested adding an item 5) under Section 6.J.(2).a) that would require a reasonable percentage of over-story trees or shrubbery or plant materials in the first year. Mr. Dahlberg stated the lanquage in the ordinance should in no way prohibit a developer from doing all the landscaping in the first year. The sooner the plant materials are put in, the more they are going to enhance the project. Mr. Saba stated he saw the performance bond as the leverage to get the landscaping done as soon as possible. Mr. Dahlberg stated maybe there could be a preliminary statement under Installation that encourages developers to do all the landscaping in one year. Also, under 6.J.(2), it should say "�p � three (3) years" rather than just "three years". Mr. Dahlberg stated he wondered how this landscaping ordinance is going to be included in the Zoning Ordinance. The way he understood it is that in every zoning classification where landscaped requirements are going to be mandatory (10-i1 districts), staff is proposing to include all 8 pages of the landscaping ordinance in each zoning district. That means adding 80-88 pages to the Zoning Ordinance. Is that efficient? �LANNING COl�IIiZSBION ISEETING. OCT. 25. 1989 P�GE 5 Ms. Dacy stated staff has discussed this. The way staff is doing it now is if a developer comes in and wants to do a project, staff gives that individual that zoning district's packet of material. The way the original writer of the Zoning Ordinance set it up, everything is all in one district. The efficiency point could be addressed to the whole Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dahlberg stated he understood what Ms. Dacy was saying, but when he qoes to a City, he prefers to have the whole ordinance, zather than a part of the ordinance. The issue then is reprinting the entire ordinance and having multiple copies available for any one requesting them at a certain monetary charge. Landscaping is the kind of section where it applies to so many districts that maybe in each district, they could just have some basic "boiler plate" information about what the landscaping requirements are, and then refer to the landscaping section, the signage section, etc. Ms. Dacy stated that is a good suggestion. The Commission members commended Ms. McPherson and Ms. Dacy for an excellent job in revisinq the Landscape Ordinance. 3. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 19 1989 JOINT ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY/ENERGY COIrIIriISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Dahlberg, to receive the September 19, 1989, joint Environmental Quality/Energy Commission minutes. OPON !► VOICE VOTE� 71LL VOTING !►YE, CHl�IRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED ON]�TIKOIISLY. 4. RECEIVE OCTOBER 2 1989 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES• oTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to receive the October 2, 1989, Parks and Recreation Commission minutes. OP02�1 A oOICE VOTE, 71LL VOTING 71YE, CHl1ZRPERBON BETZOLD DECLARED THB 1�IOTZOId CARRIED IINANZ1ri0II8LY. 5. f2ECEIVE OCTOBER 10 1989 APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Barna, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the October 10, 1989, Appeals Commission minutes. IIpON !� VOICE VOTE, lrLL VOTING 71YE, CBAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTZON C!►RRIED � IINANIiI0U8LY. I+,DJOURNMENT • pLANNING COiII��ISBION ISEETING. OCT. 25. 1989 P�GE 6 I+IOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded meeting. IIpon a voice vots, all declarad tbe October 25, 1989 adjourned at 9:is p.�a. Respectfully submitted, Lynne Saba Recording Secretary by Ms. Sherek, to adjourn the votinq ays, Chairpersoa Betsold , Planninq Commission seetinq CZTY OZ lRZDLEY PLPINNII�IG CO?II�IISSIOI�I �IEETZNG, �UGDBT 30, 1989 �I��s CALL TO ORDER• Chairperson Betzold called the Auqust 30, 1989, Planninq Commission neetinq to order at 7:30 p.m. $OLL CALL• Members Present: Members Absent: Others Present: Donald Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Alex Barna, Paul Dahlberq, Bradley Sielaff Sue Sherek Michele McPherson, Planninq Assistant APPROVAL OF AUGUST 16 1989 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Barna, to approve the August 16, 1989, Planning Commission minutes as written. �PON A VOZCE VOTE, 11LL VOTZNG 11YE, CHAIRPERSON HETZOLD DECL�►RED THE MOTION CARRZED IINANIMODBLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED LANOSCAPING REOUIREMENTS Ms. McPherson stated the proposed landscape standards are for adoption in industrial and commercial districts and will standardize City requirements for developers and businesses. When developers come in with their site plans, etc., the City must tell them what is required. There are currently three lines in the ordinance to cover landscaping and screening. This lanquage is taken from a proposed ordinance for Champlin. The proposed standards need to be worked on to see if they match some of the other requirements, ie. how much is required for parking vs. how much is left over for qreen areas. Mr. Barna asked if staff had considered a type of parkinq lot paver which would allow the qrass to qrow through the block. Mr. Dahlberq stated the concrete block has been tried in this part of the country but doesn't seem to do that well. They can work where the qrass does not get as much tramplinq. The problem is that in the winter the grass will not survive if ft is plowed, because the frost will penetrate deeper. If there is a lawn area that is exposed in the winter, the frost will go six to seven feet deep. With a snow cover, the frost depth vill be more like three feet and the qrass will survive. BL.��^dING COiQi288ION KEETING, ��GUST 30. 1989 P�GE 2 Mr. Rarna stated he was considering the times when an industry does not need as much parking as is required by the City code and that this could be an acceptable alternative. Mr. Dahlberq stated some cities use "proof of parkinq". If the property owner or business can show that they have only a few employees, but the code requires 25 parkinq spaces, they can show they will not need that many spaces. A portion of the site can then be set aside for proof of parkinq so that it can be added if needed. Ms. I�icPherson stated several ordinance amendments would be coming through the commission. Councilmember Billings is preparing language about a reduction in the parking stall size, and she and Ms. Dacy had discussed addinq language concerning the number of employees and employee parking needed. Mr. Dahlberg stated proof of parking is a bit peculiar and may not want to use the interpretation of the parking. A buildinq could be used as a warehouse requiring few employees and few parking places. However, in t�he future, it could become a manufacturing facility. That is why there must be proof that there is parking space available if needed for a different use. Mr. Barna stated this is what is done here through proving there is a certain amount of square feet. This could be done through a special use permit. A business may not the amount of parking as required by code, but should have the space available for additional parking if needed. Mr. Dahlberg stated you can run into difficulties when you start to sway. Everybody needs to understand that as a manufacturing facility so many parking spaces are required. However, there should be potentially a means for a development to conform to landscaping by not putting the entire site into bituminous when they are not qoing to use it. He would like to incorporate a statement into the landscape ordinance that says a business may need to pave this area later, but in the meantime, the City would like to see landscape materials. The City can not foresee everything that will occur but it can allow for less bituminous and more landscape. Mr. Barna referred to agenda paqe iG, D, 3, indicating this statement should take into consideration the planting Beason. Mr. Betzold asked if Ms. McPherson knew how these ordinance quide- lines conform to what has been required in recent stipulations. Iis. McPherson stated berminq is pretty standard. As far as plant Qizes, which are on page 2, those are what the City requires now except for coniferous trees which are usually five to eix feet tall. Ms. Dacy and she calculated that in an industrial district m p��^dING COI4�Z88ION liEETING. �OGOST 30. 1989 P�GE 3 on a minimum lot, which is 1/2 acres, subtractinq that which can be parked on and allow for setbacks, etc., that leaves approximately 12� of the lot for qreen space. Eight-eight percent of the lot can be covered by bituminous. Twenty-five percent for commercial and industrial may be high unless the City chanqes its standard on how it calculates lot coverage. Lot coverage is currently calculated by building only, not by.impervious surface. Some other municipalities do not require lot coveraqe. They let building and parkinq setbacks determine that. Other cities have almost a 90� lot coverage for both parkinq and buildinq. The City vould either have to change setback requirements for parking or change the percentaqe to meet current standards. The City could reduce it to 12� or leave it at 25$. Mr. Betzold stated it would be important to look at what the City already has. . Ms. McPherson stated the Chamber of Commerce has started a new policy of reviewing City Council and Planning Commission agendas bafore the meetings, and they were concerned about how this would work. There are some things that need to be worked out. Staff is trying to help developers by presenting them with a set of standards regarding plant sizes, numbers, etc. This also incorporates a section which will help preserve existing trees through a replacement policy which the City does not have now. The City has no way to require developers to replace a ratio of trees that are taken out. Staff cannot say that for every 8" tree that is cut down, it has to be replaced with two trees, because it is not in the code. Mr. Betzold asked if the Chamber of Commerce had seen the proposed ordinance. Ms. McPherson indicated two persons who are part of the Chamber had seen the proposed ordinance.• One was a representative from McDonald's came to see what would be done. She did not expect this item to get started at the public hearinq level until next year. Mr. Betzold stated, as due process, the commission could take a look at the proposal and see how consistent it is. Ms. McPherson stated that many times staff has been asked to cut back on the number of trees. This will help in the future, if there is not a landscape architect on staff, to have quidelines to go by. Mr. Sielaff asked if Ms. McPherson currently looks at plans. I+Is. I�IcPherson stated she did, but without a knowledqe of plants �aterials, it is difficult to make an objective determination on the quality of the plants. It is arbitrary. This will help. p��dING COl�II�IISSION 1�[EETING, �DGOBT 30. 1989 P�GE 4 Mr. Sielaff asked if staff would look at plans. If so, then the request would not come before the Planning Commission. P�s. McPherson stated that not everyone who applies for a building permit and comes in with a plan is required to come before the Planninq Commission. For those vho do not come before the commission, staff will be able to check off those things that are required. The language is currently vague and non-specific. Staff has been very consistent in the last two years in the size of the trees. • Mr. Dahlberg asked if staff had gone through an evaluation of landscape ordinances other then Champlin's. Ms. McPherson stated yes. Almost all °500" cities have been called. Champlin's proposed ordinance is the most comprehensive landscape plan yet seen. Many cities have what Fridley curzently has. Eden Prairie has a comprehensive plan and a shoreline ordinance. Mr. Sielaff asked how many cities have instituted a landscape plan and do not have a professional on staff. Ms. McPherson stated she did not know how many cities employed landscape architects. Mr. Dahlberg stated most cities do. Almost every city he has dealt with had one landscape architect on staff. Mr. Dahlberg stated that, as an architect trying to get projects approved, there are some communities in the metro area that are too restrictive or too subjective. Ms. McPherson stated that this lanquage is setting up the number and standard sizes of trees. It still allows the developers to use any species they want. A landscape architect can help with proper placement of plants or providing suggestions for better plants in an area, but not necessarily following the ordinance requirements. Mr. Dahlberg recommended that this not be excessive. When a project is proposed or a developer wants to do a buildinq, the landscapinq is the last thing they �rant to consider. It is not necessarily riqht, but that is just the way it is. Every project should have something that is going to add to the environment; however, excessiveness in terms of the requirements does not make �ense. Kr. Kondrick stated there should be caoperation on the project on the part of the developers. Mr. Betzold felt it was better to have written standards. This is a step in the right direction. There will be criticisms along the pI.�NNING CO?�iI88ZON lIEETING. ��GIIST 30. 1989 p�GE 5 way and there will probably be modifications along the vay, but this is better than what we have now. Mr. Dahlberg suggested, if someone states they cannot put that much money into landscaping, the City should be �rilling to do some compromising, and say that this is ultimately what the City wants to have done on the property, and by the time of the occupancy permit, half should be done and by the next plantinq season, the rest should be done. He thought the City should be flexible to a certain extent, but not forget entirely, and work with the individual to get the required landscaping dcne in a reasonable period of time. However, he did not think this should be part of the ordinance but it should be an internal policy to be flexible according to our requirements. Mr. Sielaff felt this should be keyed into the required process. Compliance schedules can be put in which require a landscape plan to be submitted and rerviewed. This requires a staff person to do the review, but this also gets the landscape plan into the process. Mr. Dahlberg stated that, if a plan is required early enouqh in the process, the developer and owner understand that there is a certain amount of dollars required for the property. For example, in Plymouth, when a project is submitted, the developer is required to provide building, site, landscape, and utility plans before it will go to the Planning Commission; and even though most people despise working in Plymouth because it is so restrictive, they know what is required. If staff can require everything before it is considered, it may help. Many times the Planning Commission is not working with a lot of information when someone comes before the Planning Commission in Fridley. If it was outlined that certain things are required before cominq before the Planning Commission, everyone will understand what is zequired. This would not necessarily need to be part of the landscape ordinance, but should be a part of the ordinance requirements for submittal for review. Mr. Betzold stated he would also like to see from the developer, which staff could get all at once, the developer's timetable and when the developer plans to install. That way, the City would know what their priorities are. Mr. Barna stated, that in the past, there have not been excessive landscape requirements. When sites have desiqned a landscape plan, it has repeatedly occurred that the builders and/or owners wanted to put money into the buildinq, not trees. If it is in the ordinance at the pre-planning level, this will not happen. I�Ir. Sielaff asked if the City would require an inventory on existinq plants. Ms. McPherson stated she specifically asked for an inventory from pT ��dING COI�SIBSZON l�EETING. �OG�ST 30. 1989 P�GE 6 Northco, but it is not currently in the code. Mr. Dahlberg stated an inventory is part of the Plymouth ordinance. The inventory requires to have so many caliper inches of trees on the development. If you leave trees on the site, then the caliper inches of the existing trees are credited toward required landscape. Every property is required to have a survey done. I+Is. McPherson stated there is a credit for existinq trees. She will qo back to check that those numbers that are in the proposed ordinance are being requested are consistent with other cities. Mr. Dahlberg asked about credits for trees and if there is some formula for retaining existinq trees. If a developer retains a good percentage of existing trees, why would they need to add new trees? Perhaps adding shrubs would be enough. Mr. Sielaff stated that many times it is ignorance on the part of the developer. Mr. Barna stated there are sites in the City that at one time had existing trees and that are now bare. Ms. McPherson stated she will review the proposed ordinance and will discuss with Ms. Dacy the percentage requirements. Then, it will come back to the Planninq Commission to make sure nothinq has been missed and then go back to the City Council. Mr. Dahlberg asked about irrigation. He was not sure this was enough description or explanation. Ms. McPherson stated irriqation is one of three things the City does require. One of the issues of irrigation is, if there is another drouqht, should we require drouqht tolerant plants, and how to enforce the use of irriqation. If it is installed, how can the City be sure that it will be used? Mr. Dahlberg asked what vould happen if there is a waterinq ban. Mr. Barna stated the aquifer level is droppinq. Zf there is another drouqht, it is possible that irriqation will be banned. Mr. Dahlberq felt the water supply was sufficient. Irrigation does go back into the soil and will get back into the aquifer. He felt �they could vork together. His concern about statement is that it chould be more specific. Does the City require that a developer irriqate only lawn or landscape materials? Developers can irriqate sod areas only and shrubs die, which looks worse. Should the lanquaqe be more specific? Mr. Dahlberq also referred to the statement that irriqation chall be required in all industrial and commercial diatricts and p��wTVr� r+nwTQOTnv v�e�wTV� �nr_na�r 3e _ 1999 P�GE __7 �.��... .....-�-.+..�..... .�,�.�...� ... .. - - developments with more than three units per building. He asked if this was residential. Ms. McPherson stated this t�ras R-3 zoning. Currently, every building is commercial and industrial and is required to have irrigation so that lanquaqe should be chanqed to encompass consistent standards. Mr. Sielaff stated that many people have their own vells for irrigation. Mr. Barna stated this was not forbidden to 2ong as the water is not brought into the through the public water system. have a shallow well as house and will not run Mr. Sielaff stated that if irrigation is required it will take from the municipal water system. Will this level be significant? Ms. McPherson stated the technology is changing fast enough that companies are designing water efficient sprinkler heads that are designed to conserve water. Mr. Sielaff stated he could see irriqation as a problem. Mr. Sielaff stated concerns about erosion control. l, D, mentions erosion control, but felt it should be part of a plan. This could be part of a landscape plan. Mr. Dahlberg stated that enqineering reguire grading and drainage plans. Ms. McPherson stated that qrading and drainage plans will specify where and by what means erosion will be controlled. This is usually standard practice. Mr. Dahlberq stated there are qradinq and drainage plans prepared by civil engineers. Howevez this is not always done correctly. Ms. McPherson did not know that this would be the case. She would say civil enqineers are consistent in using those standard. Mr. Dahlberg stated the language should be something relative to slope. Mr. Sielaff also recommended material used. tir. Dahlberq stated this should not only incorporate soddinq, but if you are seedinq, you need some kind of mulch or mesh, and a qeneral measure necessary of qradinq. Enqineerinq is a good source of information. • � • �-- -� • '' _ - . - • iY�_ . • �; �,__ � �:? t t cinroF F� �� DATE: TO: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM October 25, 1989 1 �. V William Burns, City Manager�'� FROM: Jock Robertson, Community Development Director Barbara Dacy, Planninq Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Staff Recommendations to the Appeals Commission Chairperson Barna and ossibly Commissioner Sherek will be present at the City Council �nference meeting to discuss with the City Council the issue of whether or not staff should be making recommendations in the reports to the P,ppeals Commission. Mr. Barna is concerned that, as a consequence, the process becomes too lengthy. Previously, staff did not make recommendations which enabled the Appeals Commission to have final authority on cases in the R-1 zoning district. Section 205.05.05.D states that if the staff concurs with the recommendation of the 1�ppeals Coaunission, then the item can be approved by the Appeals Commission; however, if staff recommends denial and the Appeals Commission approves the request (or vice versa), the ordinance dictates that the item be placed on the City Council agenda for consideration. Thus, an additional two to three weeks is added to the process. Options for City Council consideration are: 1. P,mend the ordinance such that the item that zequires the staff to concur with the zecommendation of the Appeals Commission is deleted (Section 205.05.05.D.1.(b)). This would enable staff to continue making recommendations without hampering the process. 2. 3. Staff analyzes the request but stops short of IDakinq a recommendation. liaintain process as is. RECOIrII+iENDATION Staff recommends that option 1 is the best it affects variances in the R-1 district ninor in nature), option 1 saves both Council valuable time. BD/dn M-89-647 alternative. Given that only (which are usually the petitioner and City t. forth vithin this �aptez. (2) �e Camnission shall �ke its secommendation to City Go�cil within 6ixty (60) days of the date of hear g of the petition to the Plannin9 Can�nission or vithin xty (60) days of ar�y acntinuanoe o�f 6uci► matter granted tbe apFlicarn's vritten request. tbcncil 1lctian- . (1) �►pproval: In acr�sidering appliaetions for pecial �se Penr:its tsx3er this Code. the City Co�cil shal ocnsider the adviae and teoonuner�dations of the Planning ommission and the ef fect of the gopcsed tLSe upon the he th ► r.af ety ano gener�►1 velfare of occupar�ts.of surro�di lanas► existing and anticipated traffic ocnditions ano eifect on values of property in the �utro�ding area. f it is determined thnt the goposed use_ Will not be de nt,al to the health� safety cr general welfare of the �ity, not wi11 cause 6erio�s traffic cnngestion nor haz z�, nor will 6eriously oepreciate 6urro�ding property v ues, ano that the samne is in hannony With the general pur se and intent of the Zaning Code, the City Co�cil may gta =uch Permit and may impose oonnitions ano safecuard6 the in by a favorab2e vote of n majority af a11 menbers of e Co�cil. (2) �►gree�►ent: The City uncil may requite a vzitten agree-�ent, deposit of oe if ied check or f unos. a bond or other assuranoe of fai ul observance of conditions• the violation of vhich sh invali2ate the permit and bhall be a�nsidered a violati of this Chapter. (3) Denial: Spec' Use Permits may be denicd by mction of the Co�cil and s motion 6ha11 ccnstitute �� t��f or�a teguired for a�: al d� not exist. No aPP Special Use Per it vhi� has been denieo Whally or f n Fa rt, st,a1,1 pe res itteo for a period of six (6) scnths frar. the c�te of said re3er af cenial. except on neW 9=ou�o oI n�w �vidence or oof of chan9es cf acnditioc� fou�d to be valio by the pl ' ng Car,orsssion. G. Iapse Of b�ecinl Ose Pe�it By l�oR�ee• iJhenever thin one (1) year after granting a 6pecial Use permit, tecipient of the Special [ise Petmit shall not have comrr►enoe the vork as required by the permit. then such permit �hall .�,e n�i ana �oia ��S a petition for an exte�sion af ume Whidi to oomplete the wo�k i� cganted• 8ucb cxtension ihal pe requested in vriting and f iled vith the City at least tWe y(20) aays befo�e the expiration of the original Special Permit. �e reguest for extension chall ct�te facts sha�in9 � faith att�►pt to aar.plete the wak. 6uch petition �hall gpser�ted to the City Oo�cil for fir�al ac*.ion. S. 'oARI7�1�1�:S �. �p�,�ib O�►issian. 12/87 �- 0 2os.os.os . • .:. 205'22 � ' ' � � � � . Q � Q � �J Z?,e City Co�� a�d ad rust�nts a��t 1 exercise all the board of appeals a 7 authority and performe�ion�s 462 351f to 462.�d�a d�z te Minnesotat �e Fr ��1' ��7' �O°�' acc:ar din9 g. Petitian By Ovr�e=• � �i� AppPals fran Decisions on Code Enforcement: At any time within thirty (30) days. anY F�oPeity a"'ner who feels an alleged error in any order. sequir�ent, aggr ieved bY �, a��strative of f icez c3eci�ion or cetermination made bheL Mhid� affects the vwr�er's in the enforoer�ent of this �p't�b ��,ibsion by filing a pzoperty. m�Y aPF�� to the 1�PPeZ�e appeal shall fully state written appeal with the City the ozoer aF�Pealeo fron, the facts of the uatter ano the tnailing adci�ESS of the a�r• Cha er Provisions: �2� Request for Varianoes fran Zoning �i�tion of the A pro�xrty a�'ner m�y appeal ti'e strict aFP ractical provisions of this Chaptet Where th�enting t e strict diffic�ltiES oz particulaz hara�hips pc application of the regulations of thib Chapter. An appl ication foz a vatianoe shal l b� f�� Wlth �cu�l iai ana 6ha11 6tate the exceptional oenoitions and the Pe practical diff iculties claimed as a basis for a varianee- C. Re�a��ans BY �b ��ion. al f z om an within thizty (30) days after filing a�Sp�or variance ac3-.inistrative orc3ercor detenninat is c��sion shall hold a f z ar Ci ty Co3e Pc w i� ions the APPe zsons as want to be public hearing thereon and sha11 hear such Pe heard. Nctioe of such heazing sha11 be m�i�1e'a =60� ot � st o� (10) days before the date of hearing to th oPe �rers within Who f il e the eppeal s► ana to al l adj aaent g pe tY a 200 foot distance of the re�3�steo varianoe loc��on. within a reasonable time. after the hearing. the I►PPeals Ccxnmi6sion shall make its recommendations or agpiovals 6ubject to oenditions of the FridleY CitY Cod� � fori''nrd a eopy of 6uch recommenoation or approval to the City Council through the Planning Car,anission. � Vari��es In �l i�n9- (1) In areas soned R-1 (Or�e i'an•i1Y D�'�1�9 Distriet). �e AFpeals Coc;�ussion has the authority te c�ant final a�wal of varianoes when all of the f ollvwing oonditions a A metal s � i2/a� (a) There i6 unan imou s a g r e e m e nt of the ppe �o�c�ission. (b) ZY,e staff o�ncurs with �e reoa��ons of the 1hPP'ea2s Ca�ami�ss'°"' (c) The genezal public attend i ��earing bave �o responding to the notioe of pub ebjection. (d) The petitioner is in agreement with the 205.05.05. � 205-�3 r��t��. �2� When the above conditions are not IDeC�is ionivith request musQt� � the Ci �►c� lanning f ir�a1 aF�c �, �ra of �«� ��- �e �p�xals Catarus�all incllud theeminutes oftit� me te ing. its ., pcooeedinc� which tion c� a wal of each matter heard f indir►c,� ar.� the reoomnenna PP� by it. �e f inding of fact sha11 o�ntain the fallvwing: ic li whid� is served by requirenent. (1) Thc putil' P'o �Y �2� Z7:E: gactical difficulties or unique circumstance of the pt�,�erty that cause undue hardship in the strict application of the requirenent. (3) In reoocm�ending ot appcwing a varinnce. the Carta�u�i°T' anq/or Co�cil maY impos� a�nditions to ensure compliance ana to pcotect adjaqent pcoperties. P. l�ian By �e City �Qots�cil. Zl�,e Co�cil shall at its next regular meeting► after receiving tr,e te�oar,Qnendation of the AFpeals Cosnmission, with a policy re�vie�, by the Planning Ccranission, decide on the action to be taken. G. Lap6e Of Varianae BY Nor��. If work as permitteo by a varinnoe is not commenced vithin one year and com�•leteo vithin two years after granting of a varianoe, then the varianoe sha11 beoome null an° void unless a pe t i ti on f or extens i on of time in Wh ich to oomgl Ete the wor k has been grantec by the City Council. Such cxtension shall be reouested in writing and f iled with the City at least twenty (20) days before the expiration of the ozi5inal variaood.faith zequest for exterLSion shall state facts sha+ing � 9 guch atte�r�pt to oomF�lete the vork permitted in the variafc�=•=�ie�► petition shall be presented to the app�opciate baldy and/or decision. 6. IDII.�II� i�ll'L5 rmit pw Nc oonstruction shall comnenoe until a building pe been issued ir�dicating that the exi i� �isrChapter truc and the use of the land, oomP1Y bu il ding oodes • 12 ha� all (1) P11 aFplicatiaLS foc building perm' which will affect the outside �� °i�of a sit truct. . shall be acoomF+anied by three i3) P (2) If the site cons �a �� lots, the 6ite plan subdivision or lanc] P° shall be atta�e o a sucvey or a registered land survey shcwing the ual dimenSiarLS of t2ie lot. lots or Faroel to ��• n, �e site plan sha11 also sh�' dimensions of 205.05.06. ' r - r � :��.� ,• ►. 205-�4 1990 Scenario Hrs Cunent Cost to C. W. Adj 1/2 C.W. Mnual Increase Grand Job Title Wkd Pay Rate the City Level Hrs ay Rat Leave' Health•' C. W. PERA Etc Total Total Finance MIS Specialist 40 9.72 21,462 G-1 40 10.74 1,555 2,581 2,111 550 6,797 28,259 Info. Proc. Spec. 40 8.00 17,664 C-2 40 8.14 1,280 2,581 291 236 4,388 22,052 info. Proc. Spec. 30 8.40 13,910 D-1 30 8.57 1,008 0 257 190 1,455 15,366 Spec. Admnt. Clerk 30 9.20 15,235 E-1 30 9.42 1,104 0 343 217 1,664 16,899 Maintenance 20 7.42 8,192 B-1 20 7.12 0 Q 0 0 0 8,192 Maintenance 20 8.18 9,031 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 0 0 0 9,031 Clerk 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 6.38 541 0 924 220 1,685 9,157 Dept. Sub-Total 92,966 5�489 5,162 3,927 1�412 15,989 108,955 Comm. Develop. Planning Assist. 40 9.28 20,490 3-1 40 10.25 1,485 2,581 2,018 525 6,609 27,099 Planning Assist. 40 C 11.06 24,620 3-2 40 11.42 0 961 1,508 226 2,695 27,315 lerk Typist 40 8.65 19,099 D-1 40 8.69 1,384 2,581 83 220 4,268 23,367 Housing Spec. 32 C 12.90 23,086 3-4 32 12.90 0 961 0 0 961 24,047 Drafting Intern 20 7.64 8,435 C-1 20 7.77 0 0 130 20 150 8,584 Dept. Sub-Total 95,730 2,869 7,084 3,739 991 14,683 110,413 Public Works Constr. Mgmt. Insp. 40 C 15.03 42,990 H-4 40 14.90 0 0 0 0 (4,273) 38,717 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 6.38 541 0 924 220 1,685 9,157 Clerk Typist 20 5.64 6,227 B-1 20 6.38 0 0 770 115 885 7,112 Dept. Sub-Total 56,688 541 0 1,693 335 (1,703) 54,985 City Manager Pub. Info Spec. 40 9.72 21,462 2-2 40 10.20 1,555 2,581 988 381 5,506 26,967 Media Spec.•"" 40 9.26 20,446 E-1 0 9.45 0 0 0 0(20,446) 0 Media Spec. 0 N/A 15 12.50 0 0 9,750 1,463 11,213 11,213 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 6.38 541 0 924 220 1,685 9,157 Clerk Typist 24 6.10 8,081 C-1 24 7.00 586 0 1,117 255 1,958 10,039 Clerk Typist 24 10.03 13,288 D-4 24 10.03 963 0 0 144 1,107 14,395 Dept. Sub-Total 70,749 3,645 2,581 12�778 2,464 1,022 71,771 Recreation Prog. Specialist 40 9.73 21,484 3-1 40 10.48 1,557 2,581 1,550 466 6,153 27,637 Naturalist 40 8.42 18,591 2-1 40 9.30 1,347 2,581 1,820 475 6,223 24,815 Clerk Typist 40 6.86 15,147 C-1 40 7.38 1,098 2,581 1,071 325 5,075 20,222 Sr Citn Prog Coor 40 C 12.02 28,750 3-4 40 12.46 0 2,581 1,830 275 4,686 33,436 Clerk Typist 24 6.40 8,479 B-1 24 6.76 614 0 449 160 1,223 9,702 Chore Scvs Coord 24 5.50 7,286 A-1 24 5.96 528 0 574 165 1,267 8,554 Bus D�iver 35 6.44 12,442 A-1 30 6.44 0 0 0 0 (889) 11,553 Dept. Sub-Total 112,179 5�144 10,324 7,295 1,866 23,739 135,919 Public Safety Comm Serv Officer 35 6.10 11,785 B-1 30 6.61 732 0 796 229 73 11,858 Comm Serv Officer 35 6.46 12,481 B-1 30 6.79 775 0 515 194 (299) 12,181 Comm Serv Officer 30 6.78 11.228 B-2 30 7.13 814 0 548 204 1,564 12,791 Comm Serv Officer 30 6.15 10,184 B-1 30 6.64 738 0 757 224 1,719 11,903 Office Assistant 24 9.62 12,745 D-3 24 9.62 924 0 0 139 1,062 13,807 Comm Serv Officer 24 6.46 8,558 B-2 24 6.97 620 0 636 188 1,445 10,003 Comm Serv Officer 20 6.15 6,790 B-1 30 6.64 738 0 757 224 5,114 11,903 Office Assistant 20 10.21 11,272 D-4 20 10.21 0 0 0 0 0 11,272 Dept. Sub-Total 85,042 5,340 0 4,006 1,402 10,677 95,719 1990 Scenario Pa� 2 Hrs CuRent Cost to C. W. Adj t/2 C.W. Mnuai Increase Grand Job Title Wkd Pay Rate the City L.e�vei Hrs ay Rat leave' Heafth• • C. W. PERA Qc Total Total Liquor Division Liq Store Clerk 40 8.69 19,188 B-2 40 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liq Store Clerk 40 8.69 19,188 B-2 40 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Uq Store Clerk 40 10.06 22,212 B-3 40 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 22,212 Liq Store Clerlc 34 5.61 10,529 A-2 30 6.1 S 673 0 881 233 549 11,078 Liq Store Clerk 30 5.61 9,290 A-2 30 6.18 673 0 881 233 1,788 11,078 Liq Store Clerk 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.18 539 0 705 187 2,050 8,862 Liq Store Cierk 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.18 539 0 705 187 2,050 8,862 Liq Store Clerk 20 7.96 8,788 B-3 20 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 8,788 Dept. Sub-Tota{ 102,820 2.424 0 3,i73 839 6,436 109,256 7 70 18 11 30 843 68 0 1 6 9 9 4 2 51 36 4 :::::<: :::><::: 2 52 5 i «:::: 616 17 5 , � Tota s � �:.: ::::::::. :::: ......... ...:......... , � � � ' Leave =((Pay Rate per hour X Hours worked per week� 40) X 20 days x$ nrs *' Health =$210 per month X 12 months =�2520 + a61 (for weliness p�ogram) _�2581 Draft 10/30/89 *" Replaced by 15 hrs/wk @ 12.50/hr Total Annual Increase (in 1990 a)= 74,385 1991 Scenario Nrs Cunent Cost to C. W. Adj C.W. Mnual Increase G�and Job Trtte YVkd Pay Rate the City L.e�re1 Hrs ay Aai Leave' Heafth" C. W. PERI► Etc Total Total Finance MIS Specialist 40 9.72 21,462 G-1 40 11.75 1,555 2,581 4,222 867 9,225 30,687 Info. Proc. Spec. 40 8.00 17,664 C-2 40 8.28 1,280 2,581 582 279 4,723 22,387 Info. Proc. Spec. 30 8.40 13,910 D-1 30 8.73 1,008 0 515 228 1,751 15,662 Spec. Admnt. Clerk 30 9.20 15,235 E-1 30 9.64 1,104 0 686 269 2,059 17,294 Maintenance 20 7.42 8,192 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 0 0 0 8,192 Maintenance 20 8.18 9,031 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 0 0 0 9,031 Clerk 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,747 10,219 Dept. Sub-Total 92,966 5,489 5,162 7.853 2,001 20,505 f 13,471 Comm. Develop. Planning Assist. 40 9.28 20,490 3-1 40 11.22 1,485 2,581 4,035 828 8,929 29,419 Planning Assist. 40 C 11.06 24,620 3-2 40 11.78 0 961 1,508 226 2,695 27,315 Clerk Typist 40 8.65 19,099 D-1 40 8.73 1,384 2,581 166 233 4,364 23,463 Housing Spec. 32 C 12.90 23,086 3-4 32 12.90 0 961 0 0 961 24,047 Drafting Intern 20 7.64 8,435 C-1 20 7.89 0 0 260 39 299 8,734 Dept. Sub-Total 95,730 2,869 7,084 5,970 1,326 17,248 112,978 Pubtic Works Constr. Mgmt. Insp. 40 C 15.03 42,990 H-4 40 14.90 0 0 0 0 (4,273) 38,717 Cle�k Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,747 10,219 Clerk Typist 20 5.64 6,227 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 1,539 231 1,770 7,997 Dept. Sub-Total 56,688 541 0 3,386 589 244 56,932 City Manager - Pub. Info Spec. 40 9.72 21,462 2-2 40 10.67 1,555 2,581 1,976 530 6,642 28,104 Media Spec."" 40 9.26 20,446 E-1 0 9.64 0 0 0 0(20,446) 0 Media Spec. 0 N/A 15 12.50 0 0 9,750 1,463 11,213 11,213 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,747 10,219 Clerk Typist 24 6.10 8,081 C-1 24 7.89 586 0 2,234 423 3,242 11,324 Clerk Typist 24 10.03 13,288 D-4 24 10.03 963 0 0 144 1,107 14,395 Dept. Sub-Total 70,749 3,645 2,581 15,807 2,918 4.505 75,254 Recreation Prog. Specialist 40 9.73 21,484 3-1 40 11.22 1,557 2,581 3,099 698 7,935 29,419 Naturalist 40 8.42 18,591 2-1 40 10.17 1,347 2,581 3,640 748 8,316 26,908 ClerkTypist 40 6.86 15,147 C-1 40 7.89 1,098 2,581 2,142 486 6,307 21,454 Sr Ciin Prog Coor 40 C 12.02 28,750 3-4 40 12.90 0 2,58� 1,830 275 4,686 33,436 Clerk Typist 24 6.40 8,479 B-1 24 7.12 614 0 899 227 1,740 10,219 Chore Svcs Coord 24 5.50 7,286 A-1 24 6.42 528 0 1,148 251 1,928 9,214 Bus Driver 35 6.44 12,442 A-1 30 6.44 0 0 0 0 (889) 11,553 Dept. Sub-Total 92,451 4,616 10,324 11 �611 2,434 28,985 121,435 Public Safety Comm Serv Officer 35 6.10 11,785 B-1 30 7.12 732 0 1,591 348 988 12,773 Comm Serv Officer 35 6.46 12,481 B-1 30 7.12 775 0 1,030 271 293 12,773 Comm Serv Officer 30 6.78 11,228 B-2 30 7.48 814 0 1,092 286 2,191 13,419 Comm Serv Officer 30 6.15 10,184 B-1 30 7.12 738 0 1,513 338 2,589 12,773 Office Assistant 24 9.62 12,745 D-3 24 9.62 924 0 0 139 1,062 13,807 Comm Serv Officer 24 6.46 8,558 B-2 24 7.48 620 0 1,273 284 2,177 10,735 Comm Serv Officer 20 6.15 6,790 B-1 30 7.12 738 0 1,513 338 5,984 12,773 Office Assistant 20 10.21 11,272 D-4 20 10.21 0 0 0 0 0 11,272 Dept. Sub-Total 85,042 5�340 0 8,012 2,003 15.284 100,326 1991 Scenario Pase 2 Hrs Cunent Cost to C. W. Adj C.W. Mnual Increase G�and Job Title Wkd Pay Rate tAe City Lsvel Hrs ay Rat leave' HeaRh' • C. W. PERA Etc 7ota1 Totai Liquor Division - Liq Store Cierk 40 8.69 19,188 B-2 40 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liq Store Clerk 40 8.69 19,188 B-2 40 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liq Store Clerk 40 10.06 22,212 B-3 40 7.83 0 4 0 0 0 22,212 Uq Store Clerk 34 5.61 10,529 A-2 30 6.74 673 0 1,763 365 1,563 12,092 Liq Store Clerk 30 5.61 9,290 A-2 30 6.74 673 0 1,763 365 2,801 12,092 Liq Store Clerk 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.74 539 0 1,410 292 2,860 9,673 Liq Store Clerk 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.74 539 0 1�410 292 2,860 9,673 Liq Store Clerk 20 7.96 8,788 B-3 20 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 8,788 Dept. Sub-Total 102,820 2.424 0 6,346 1,315 10,085 112,905 7 714 068 12 8 894 1 1 83 9 4 2 25 1 60 33 :::>::::: 2 5 5 1 174 :::'» 5 . � I 6 6 � T a s :.: :. . :.; .>:::;:.:::.::.;.;:::. .:::;.;, ::. ...:::::: : :.:.::::::: ot , , . � " Leave =((Pay Rate per hour X liours worked per weeKN ao) x zv aays x ts nrs "* Health =$210 per month X 12 months =�2520 +$61 (for weliness program) = a2581 Draft 10/30/89 '•' Replaced by 15 hrs/wk @ 12.50/hr Totai Annual increase (in 1991 a)= 107,928 Year 1990 1991 1990 1991 1989 $$ $70,843 97 894 $70,843 - 5.400 $65,443 $97,894 - 5.400 $92,494 Adjusted $$ $ 74,385 5107.928 $182,313 $ 68,715 �101.975 $170,690 Target $ 70,000 $110,000 $180,000 $ 70,000 $110.000 $180,000 i MEM ORANDUM �, cit► •+ fri�i•r WWiam C. I�kx�t _' •� � 1 Yal��ltY A��• N.E. Fr�e�.r, ��n••oi• ssaaz Assistent to the City Menafler ►Aen• (�1!)671-�ISO ��MEMO TO: WII�LIAM W. BIIRNS� CITY MANAGER � J / FROM: WZLLIAM C. HIINT, llBBIBTANT TO THE CITY lLANAGER�c ' SIIBJECT: BENEFITS FOR TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES DATE: OCTOBER 26, 1989 Last June we prepared a scenario for providing benefits to long term temporary employees which was based on the following assumptions: 1. Employees assigned to work 20 hours or more per week (50� time) would be raised to the comparable worth rate of pay for their positions and would be given prorated leave benefits. 2. Employees assigned to work 30 hours or more per week (60� time) would be given full health benefit, i.e. they would be eligible for the flexible benefit plan. The additional cost to the City for this scenario was figured at $134,829. In discussions with the City Council this level of increase was found to be outside the restrictions of our budget, and targets were established at $70,000 in 1990 dollars and $110,000 in 1991 dollars. Presuming a 5$ increase in personnel costs each year, in 1989 dollars this would be $66,667 in 1990 and $99,773 in 1991. ' For the 1990 scenario I used the following assumptions and changes from the original June 26, 1989, scenario: l. Employees assigned to work 20 hours or more per week (50� time) would be raised one half of the way to the comparable worth rate of pay for their positions. 2. Employees assiqned to work 24 hours or more per week (60� time) would be qiven prorated leave benefits. 3. Employees assigned to work 32 hours or more per week (80� time) would be given full health benefit, i.e. they would be eligible for the flexible benefit plan. 4. Calculated the savings to the City from shifting the Construction Management Inspector's position from a contract'"for services to an employee position. Memo to William W. Burns Benefits for Temporary Employees October 26, 1989 Page 2 5. Combined the Public Information Specialist and Media Specialist positions in the City Manager's Office. 6. Pegged the comparable worth rate to the market rate in comparable cities for the following positions: a. Program Specialist b. Naturalist c. Senior Citizen Program Coordinator d. Community Service Officer (no change) e. Planning Assistant (no change) 7. Reduced hours to not more than 30 hours per week�for two (2) Community Service Officers and one (1) Liquor Store Clerk. The 1991 scenario made the same assumptions and changes with the exception of the first one. For 1991 all positions were raised to the full comparable worth rate of pay. Using these scenarios the increased cost to the City is as follows: Year 1990 1991 1989 $$ $ 70,537 $ 96,927 Adjusted SS $ 74,064 ,�106.862 $180,926 Target $ 70,000 S110.000 $180,000 You will note that I have allocated $2,581 to each employee eligible for the flexible benefit plan. It is highly unlikely that all of those eligible will choose the maximum benefit. I estimate that at least six will choose one of the alternatives ($135 per month in cash or additional vacation). This would result in a savings of at least $900 per employee ($210 - S135 = S75 x 12 = $900) or at least $5,400 over all. That would reduce the total increase for 1990 to $65,137 in 1989 dollars or $68, 394 in 1990 dollars which is below the target. Additional savings could come if the adjustment for either of the years was less than 5$. Also, I did not calculate a reduction in the staffing requirements for the Liquor Stores from what was planned last June. Further, during 1990 we will be reviewing staffing requirements for all departments which could lead to further consolidation of or elimination of positions. Memo to William W. Burns Benefits for Temporary Employees October 26, 1989 Page 3 In view of these considerations I would like to make the following recommendations: 1. Add fourteen (14) authorized positions to the'1990 budget. 1) MIS Specialist 2) Information Processing Specialist 3) Planning Assistant 4) Planning Assistant 5) Clerk Typist, Community Development 6) Housing Specialist 7) Construction Estimator and Inspector 8) Public Information Specialist 9) Program Specialist 10) Naturalist 11) Clerk Typist, Nature Center 12) Senior Citizen Program Coordinator 13) Liquor Store Clerk 14) Liquor Store Clerk 2. Amend the comparable worth plan to apply to long term part-time employees who are assigned to work twenty (20) hours or more in two stages with half of the adjustment effective January l, 1990, and the other half effective January 1, 1991. 3. Amend the Personnel Ordinance time to employees assigned to week or more on a regular flexible benefits to employees two (32) hours per week or m basis; and to establish a o period for all employees wheth to grant prorated leave work twenty (20) hours per ongoing basis; to grant assigned to work thirty- ore on a regular ongoing ne (1) year probationary er full-time or part-time. 4. Establish a policy of promoting current incumbents to the newly authorized positions if, upon review� they have shown satisfactory performance and have been recommended for the authorized position by their department head. Otherwise, the position would be advertised with the incumbent free to be a candidate. Hrs Cunent Cost to C. W. C.W. Mnuat Incxease Grand Job Tttle Wkd Pay Rate the Ciry Level Pay Rate Leave' eatth" C. W. PERA Etc Total Total Finance MIS Specialist 40 9.72 2t462 G-1 11.75 1,555 2,581 4,222 867 9,225 30,687 Inio. Proc. Specialist 40 8.00 17664 C-2 8.28 1,280 2,581 582 279 4,723 22,387 info. Proc. Specialist 30 8.40 13910 D-1 8.73 1,008 0 515 228 1,751 15,662 Special Admnt. Cle 30 9.20 15235 E-1 9,64 1,104 0 686 269 2,059 17,294 Maintenanoe 20 7.42 8192 B-1 7.12 594 0 0 89 683 8,874 Maintenanoe 20 8.18 9031 B-1 7.12 654 0 0 98 753 9,783 Clerlc 24 5.64 7472 B-1 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,747 10,219 Comm. Develop. Plannin Assist. 40 9.28 20490 3-1 11.22 1,485 2,581 4,035 828 8,929 29,4i9 Planning Assist. 40 C 11.06 24620 3-2 11.78 0 96t 1,508 226 2,695 27,315 Clerk Typist 40 8.65 19099 D-1 8.73 1,384 2,581 166 233 4,364 23,463 Housing Speaalist 32 C 12.90 23086 3-4 12.90 0 961 0 0 961 24,047 Drafting intern 20 7.64 8435 C-1 7.89 611 0 260 131 1,002 9,436 Qublic Works Constr. Mgmt., Insp. 40 C 15.03 42990 H-4 14.90 0 0 0 0 0 42,990 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7472 B-1 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,747 10,219 Clerk Typist 20 5.64 6227 B-1 7.12 451 0 1,539 299 2,289 8,516 City Manager Pub. Info Specialist 40 9.72 21462 E-2 10.13 1,555 2,581 853 361 5,350 26,812 Media Specialist 40 9.26 20446 E-1 9.64 1,482 2,581 790 341 5,194 25,640 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7472 B-1 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,747 10,219 Clerk Typist 24 6.10 8081 C-1 7.89 586 0 2,234 423 3,242 11,324 Clerk T ist 24 10.03 13288 D-4 10.03 963 0 0 144 1,107 14,395 Recreation Program Specialist 40 9.73 21484 4-1 12.38 1,557 2,581 5,512 1,060 10,710 32,194 Naturalist 40 8.42 18591 3-1 11.22 1,347 2,581 5,824 1,076 10,828 29,419 Clerk Typist 40 6.86 15147 C-1 7.89 1,098 2,581 2,142 486 6,307 21,454 Sr. Citn Prog. Coor. 40 C 12.02 28750 4-4 14.24 0 2,581 d,619 693 7,893 36,643 Clerk Typist 24 6.40 8479 B-1 7.12 614 0 899 227 1,740 10,219 Public Safety Comm. Serv Officer 35 6.10 11785 B-1 7.12 854 2,581 1,856 407 5,698 17,483 Comm. Serv Officer 35 6.46 12481 B-1 ' 7.12 904 2,581 1,201 316 5,002 17,483 Comm. Serv Officer 30 6.78 11228 B-2 7.48 814 0 1,092 286 2,191 13,419 Comm. Serv Officer 30 6.15 10184 B-1 7.12 738 0 1.513 338 2,589 12,773 Office Assistant 24 9.62 12745 D-3 9.62 824 0 0 139 1,062 13,807 Comm. ServOffioer 24 6.46 8558 B-2 7.48 620 0 1,273 284 2,177 10,735 Comm. ServOfficer 20 6.15 6790 B-1 7.t2 492 0 1,009 225 1�726 6,516 Offioe Assistant 20 10.21 11272 D-4 10.21 817 0 0 123 939 12,211 Liquor Division Liquor Store Clerk 40 8.69 19188 B-2 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liquor Store Clerk 40 8.69 19188 B-2 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liquor Store Clerk 40 10.06 22212 B-3 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 22,2t 2 Liquor Store Clerk 34 5.61 10529 A-2 6.74 763 2,581 1�898 414 5,756 16,285 Liquo� Store Clerk 30 5.61 9290 A-2 8.74 673 0 1,763 365 2,801 12,082 Liquor Store Clerk 22 5.61 6813 A-2 6.74 494 0 1�293 268 2,054 8,867 Liquor Store Clerk 22 5.61 6813 A-2 6.74 494 0 1�293 268 2,054 8,867 Liquor Store Clerk 20 7.96 8788 B-3 7.83 637 0 0 96 732 9,520 Totals 596,446 : 30,175 35,475 56,220 12,959 134,829 731,274 - �eave =��ray rsa�e per nour x Mours wor�ced per week�l 40) X 20 days X S hrs '` Health �$210 per month X 12 months = 52520 � S61 (for wellness program) = 52581 Draft 6/26/89 1990 Scenario Hrs Cunent Co6t t0 C. W. Adj 1/2 C.W. Mnual InCrease Gnnd Job Title Wkd Par Rate 1M City L�ve� Hrs ar Rat L�are' HeaRh• • C. W. PERl1 Etc Total Total Finance � MIS Specialist 40 9.72 21,462 G-1 40 10.74 1,555 2,581 2,111 550 6,797 26,259 Inio. Proc. Spec. 40 8.�0 17,664 C-2 40 8.14 1�280 2,581 291 236 4,388 22,052 Into. Proc. Spec. 30 8.40 13,910 D-1 30 8.57 1,008 0 257 190 1,455 15,366 Spec. Admnt. Cierlc 30 9.20 15,235 E-1 30 9.42 1,104 0 343 2ti7 1,664 16,B99 Maintenance 20 7.42 8,192 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 Q 0 0 8,192 Maintenance 20 8.18 9,031 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 0 0 0 9,031 Clerk 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 6.38 5dt 0 924 220 t,685 9,157 Dept. Sub-Total 92,966 5,489 5,162 5.927 1�412 15,989 108,955 Comm. Develop. Planning Assist. 40 9.28 20,490 3-1 40 10.25 1,485 2,581 2,018 525 6,609 27,099 Planning Assist. 40 C 11.06 24,620 3-2 40 11.42 0 961 1,508 226 2,695 27,315 lerk Typist 40 8.65 19,099 D-1 40 8.69 1,384 2,581 83 220 4,268 23,367 Housing Spec. 32 C 12.90 23,086 3-4 32 12.90 0 961 0 0 961 24,047 Drafting intern 20 7.64 8,435 C-1 20 7.77 0 0 130 20 150 8,584 Dept. Sub-Total 95,T30 2,869 7.084 3,739 891 14,683 110,413 Public Works Constr. Mgmt. insp. 40 C 15.03 42,990 H-4 40 14.90 0 0 0 0 (4,273} 36,717 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 6.38 54t 0 924 220 1,685 9,157 Clerk Typist 20 5.64 6,227 B-1 20 6.38 0 0 770 115 885 7,112 Dept. Sub-Totat 56,688 541 0 1�693 335 1,703) 54,985 Ciry Manager Pub. {nfo Spec. 40 9.72 21,462 2-2 40 10.20 1,555 2,581 988 381 5,SQ6 26,967 Media Spec. •' • 40 9.26 20,446 E-1 0 9.45 0 0 0 0(20,446) 0 Media Spec. 0 N/A 15 12.50 0 0 9,750 1,463 11,213 11,213 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 6.38 541 0 924 220 1,685 9,157 Clerk Typist 24 6.10 8,081 C-1 24 7.00 586 0 1,117 255 1,958 10,039 Clerk Typist 24 10.03 13,288 D-4 24 10.03 963 0 0 144 1,107 14,395 Dept. Sub-Total 70,749 3,645 2.58t 12,778 2,464 1,022 71,771 Recreation Prog. Specialist 40 9.73 21,484 3-1 40 10.48 1,557 2,581 1,550 466 6,153 27,637 Naturalist 40 8.42 16,591 2-1 40 9.30 1,347 2,581 1,820 475 6,223 24,815 Clerk Typist 40 6.86 15,147 C-1 40 7.38 1,098 2,581 1,071 325 5,075 20,222 Sr Citn Prog Coor 40 C 12.02 28,750 3-4 40 12.46 0 2,581 1,830 275 4,686 33,436 Clerk Typist 24 6.40 8,479 B-1 24 6.76 6t4 0 449 160 1,223 9,702 �ept. Sub-Total 92,451 4�616 10�324 6.720 1�700 23,361 115,812 Public Safety Comm Serv Otlicer 35 6.10 11,785 8-1 30 6.61 732 0 796 229 1,757 13,542 Comm Serv Offioer 35 6.46 12,48t B-1 30 6.79 775 0 5t 5 194 1,484 13,96d Comm Serv Officer 30 6.78 11.228 B-2 30 7.13 814 0 546 204 1�564 12,791 Comm Serv Office� 30 6.15 10,184 8--1 30 6.64 738 0 757 224 1,719 11,903 Ofiice Assistant 24 9.62 12,745 �-3 24 9.62 924 0 0 139 1�062 13,807 Comm Serv Officer 24 6.46 8,558 B-2 24 6.97 620 0 636 188 1,445 10,003 Comm Serv Off'icer 20 6.15 6,790 B-1 30 fi.64 738 0 757 224 1,719 8,508 Office Assistant 20 10.21 11.272 D-4 20 10.21 0 0 0 0 0 11,272 Dept. Sub-Total 85,042 5,340 0 4,006 1,402 10,749 95,791 1990 Scenario Pa9e 2 Hrs Cunent Cost to C. W. Adj 1R C.W. Mnual Increase Grand Job Title Wkd Pay Rate the City Le�rei Hrs ay Rat Leave' Health• • C. W. PERA Etc Total Tdal Liquor Division Liq Store Clerk 40 8.69 19,188 B-2 40 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liq Store Clerk 40 8.69 19,188 B-2 40 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liq Store Clerk 40 10.06 22,212 B-3 40 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 22,212 liq Store Clerk 34 5.61 10,529 A-2 30 6.18 673 0 881 233 1,788 12,317 Liq Store Cierk 30 5.61 9,290 A-2 30 6.18 673 0 881 233 1,768 11,078 Liq Store Cierk 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.18 539 0 705 187 1,430 8,243 Liq Store Clerk 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.18 539 0 705 187 1,430 8,243 Liq Store Clerk 20 7.96 8,788 B-3 20 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 8,788 Dept. Sub-Total 102,820 2,424 0 3,173 839 6,436 109,256 Totals <;; 596,446 !: 24,924 25.151 36,037 9,144 70,537 666,982 • Leave =((Pay Rate per hour x liours worKed per weeK)i av) �c cu oays � a nrs •• Health = 5210 per month X 12 months =�2520 + a61 (for weliness program) = 52581 Draft 10/26/89 "' Replaced by 15 hrsJwk @ 12.50/hr Total Annual Increase (in 1990 �)= 74,063 �� xenar�o Hrs Wn�nt Oost to C. W. Adj C.W. Mnual Ir►Crease Grarb .lob Title Wkd Par Rate ths Gt�r L�d Hrs r Rat Lsare' Hoalth •• C. W. PEFl/► Dc Tatal Tda� Finance MIS Specialist 40 9.72 21,462 G-1 40 11.75 1.555 2,581 4,222 867 9,225 30,687 Info. Proc. Spec. 40 8.00 17.664 C-2 40 8.28 1.280 2,581 582 279 4,723 22,387 Into. Proc. Spec. 30 8.40 13,910 D-1 30 8.73 1,008 0 515 228 1,751 15,662 Spec. Admnt. Clerk 30 9.20 15,235 E-1 30 9.64 1,104 0 686 269 2.�59 ��.294 Maintenar.ce 20 7.42 8,192 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 0 0 0 8,192 Maintenance 20 8.18 9,03t B-1 20 7.12 0 0 0 0 0 9,031 Clerk 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 7.12 54t 0 1.847 S58 2,747 10,219 �ept. Sub-Total 92,966 5.489 5,162 7,853 2.001 20,505 113,471 Comm. Develop. Planning Assist. 40 9.28 20,490 3-7 40 11.22 1,485 2,581 4,035 828 8,929 29,419 Planning Assist. 40 C 11.06 24,620 3-2 40 11.78 0 961 1,508 226 2,695 27,315 Clerk T'st 40 6.65 19,099 D-1 40 8.73 1,384 2,58t 166 233 4,364 23,463 Housing Spec. 32 C 12.90 23,086 3-4 32 12.90 0 961 0 0 961 24,047 Dratting Intern 20 7.64 8,435 C-1 20 7.89 0 0 260 39 299 8,734 Dept. Sub-Total 95,730 2,869 7�084 5,970 1�326 1�.248 112,978 Public Works Constr. M�mt. Insp. 40 C 15.03 42,990 H-d 40 14.90 0 0 0 0 (4,273) 38,717 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,747 10,219 Clerk Typist 20 5.64 6,227 B-1 20 7.12 0 0 1,539 231 1,770 7,997 �ept. Sub-Total 56,688 54t 0 3.386 589 2's4 56,932 Ciry Manager Pub. Inio Spec. 40 9.72 21,462 2-2 40 10.67 1.555 2,581 1,976 530 6,642 28,t 04 Media Spec."' 40 9.26 20,446 E-1 0 9.64 0 0 0 0(20,446) 0 Media Spec. 0 N/A 15 12.50 0 0 9,750 1,463 11,2t 3 11,213 Clerk Typist 24 5.64 7,472 B-1 24 7.12 541 0 1,847 358 2,74� 10,219 Clerk Typist 24 6.10 8,081 C-1 24 7.69 586 0 2,234 423 3,242 11,324 Clerk Typist 24 10.03 13,288 D-4 24 10.03 963 0 0 144 1,107 14,395 Dept. Sub-Total 70,749 3,645 2,581 15,807 2.9t 8 4,505 75,254 Recreation P�og. Speaalist 40 9.73 21,484 3-1 4Q 11.22 1,557 2,581 3,099 698 7,935 29,419 Naturalist 40 8.42 18,591 2-1 40 10.17 1,347 2.581 3,640 748 8,316 26,906 Clerk T'st 40 6.66 15,147 C-1 40 7.69 1,098 2,58t 2,142 486 6,307 21,454 Sr Citn Prog Coor 40 C 12.02 28,750 3-4 40 12.90 0 2,58t 1�830 275 4,686 33,436 Cleric T ist 24 6.40 8,479 B-1 24 7.12 614 0 899 227 1,740 10,219 Dept. Sub-Totat 92,451 4,616 10,324 11,6t1 2�434 28,985 121,435 Public Safety Comm Serv Officer 35 6.10 11,785 B-1 30 7.12 732 0 1,591 348 2,6T2 14,457 Comm Serv Officer 35 6.46 12,481 B-1 30 7.12 775 0 1�030 271 2,076 t4,556 Comm Serv Oiticer 30 6.78 11,228 B-2 30 7.48 814 0 1,092 286 2,191 13,419 Comm Serv Officer 30 6.15 10,184 B-1 30 7.12 738 0 1,513 338 2,589 12,T73 Office Assistsnt 24 9.62 12,745 D-3 24 9.62 924 0 0 139 1,062 13,807 Comm Serv Officer 24 6.46 8,558 B-2 24 7.48 620 0 1�273 284 2,177 10,735 Comm Serv Offioer 20 6.15 6,790 B-1 30 7.12 738 0 1.513 S38 2,589 9,378 Offic;e Assistant 20 10.21 11.272 D-4 20 10.21 0 0 0 0 0 11,272 Dept. Sub-Total 85,042 5,340 0 6�012 2�003 15,356 100,398 1991 Scenario Pa� 2 Hrs CuaeM Cost to C. W. Adj C.W. Mnwt Inctease (irand Job Title Wkd Pay Rate the Qitr L.sve1 Hrs a�► Hat Leave' Hea�th• • C. W. PEFiA Etc Tdal Tdal Liquor Division Liq Store Clerk 40 8.69 19,188 B-2 40 7.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liq Store Cterk 40 8.69 19,188 8-2 40 T.47 0 0 0 0 0 19,188 Liq Store Clerk 40 10.06 22,212 B-3 40 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 22,212 Liq Store Clerk 34 5.61 10,529 A-2 30 6.74 673 0 1,763 365 2,801 13,330 Liq Store C{eric 30 5.61 9,290 A-2 30 6.74 673 0 1,763 365 2,801 12,092 Liq Sto�e Clerlc 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.74 539 0 1,410 292 2,241 9,054 Liq Store Clerk 22 5.61 6,813 A-2 24 6.74 539 0 1,410 292 2,241 9,054 Liq Store Clerk 20 7.96 8,788 8-3 20 7.83 0 0 0 0 0 8,788 Dept. Sub-Total 102,820 2,424 0 6,346 1�315 10,085 112,905 Totals 596,446 : < 24,924 25,151 58,985 12,586 96,927 693,373 ' Leave =((PSy Rate per hour X Fiours wOrked per weeK� av) x zv oays � es nrs •• Health = 5210 per month X 12 months = 52520 � S61 (for wellness program) = 52581 Draft 10/26/89 ••` Replaced by 15 hrs/wk @ 12.50/hr Total Annual Incxease (in 1991 a� 106,862