09/08/1993 t
A
I
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1993
7:30 P.M.
Public Copy
Planning Commission
A
f
City of Fridley
AGENDA•
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1993 7:30 P.M.
LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E.
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: August 11, 1993
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #93-14.
BY JAMES WOLD:
Per Section 205. 07.01.C. (1) of the Fridley City Code, to allow
accessory buildings other than the first accessory building, over
240 square feet, on Lot 16, Block 2, Meadowmoor Terrace, the same
being 1425 Meadowmoor Drive N.E.
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING TIF DISTRICT #13
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY
COMMISSION MEETING OF JULY 20, 1993
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MEETING OF
AUGUST 5, 1993
RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF AUGUST 17,
1993
OTHER BUSINESS:
Ordinance Amendment Amortizing Non-Paved Driveways
Update Regarding Planning Issues
ADJOURNMENT
a
*
CITY OF FRIDLEY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairperson Newman called the August 11, 1993, Planning
Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL:
Members Present: Dave Newman, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba,
Brad Sielaff, Connie Modig
Members Absent: Diane Savage, LeRoy Oquist
Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
• Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Oliver Tam, 1150 Fireside Drive N.E.
Joyce Moen, 1128 - 63rd Avenue N.E.
Joyce Trebisovsky, 1130 Fireside Drive N.E.
APPROVAL OF JULY 28, 1993, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the July
28, 1993, Planning Commission minutes as written.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S.
#93-03 , BY OLIVER TAM, TAM ADDITION: To replat property
described as that part of the Southeast Quarter of t2 ,e
Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township
Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing
at a point on the east line of the Nortfwest the Quarter rters of said
Section' 12 distant 726 feet southerly o
corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 12 ; thence westerly along a line which, if
extended, would intersect the west line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12 at- a
point distant 726 feet southerly of the northwest corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said
Section 12, a distance of 661.45 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described, thence continuing
westerly along said last described line a distance of 288
feet; thence northerly a distance of 396 feet;
thence
easterly at a right angle a distance of 288 feet; thence
southerly at a right angle a distance of 396 feet
otott the
at
point of beginning. This property is generally
1160 Fireside Drive N.E.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11. 1993 PAGE 2
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:33 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is processing three land use
requests. One is a plat request to subdivide the subject parcel
which is addressed as 1160 Fireside Drive, located between the
two mobile home parks east of Highway 65 into three lots. The
second request is to rezone a portion of the subject parcel from
C-3, General Shopping Center District, to R-3, General Multiple
Dwelling District. The third request is a variance request to
address the existing encroachments by the restaurant facility
currently located on the property. On August 17, 1993, the
Appeals Commission recommended approval of the variance request
to the City Council.
Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to replat the
existing parcel into three separate parcels. Two parcels are
proposed to be used for two new four-unit residential dwellings,
and the third parcel is for the existing restaurant facility.
There are currently two dwelling units on the lots proposed for
the two new four-unit dwellings.
Ms. McPherson stated the lots for the multiple family dwellings
meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements as required
by the R-3, General Multiple Dwelling District. Each lot meets
the minimum 15, 000 square foot area requirement and also meets
the minimum lot width of 85 feet. Each parcel has a minimum of
25 feet of access from a public street. The second lot achieves
its access via a "flag lot". While typically a flag lot is not
an ideal subdivision pattern, there is adequate room on the
remainder of the parcel for a cul-de-sac should the parcel change
use at a later date, and additional right-of-way could be
dedicated to the east of the easterly lot line and a public
street could be constructed for a future subdivision.
Ms. McPherson stated the remaining portion of the subject parcel
is for the existing restaurant facility. The lot area exceeds
the minimum of 35,000 square feet as required for the C-3,
General Shopping Center District. There is not a minimum lot
width requirement in the C-3 district, however, there is adequate
room on site for the parcel to meet the minimum setback and
parking requirements, with the exception of the two existing
encroachments on the southwest corner of the property for the
restaurant facility.
Ms. McPherson stated a portion of the restaurant's parking lot
and access does encroach onto the multiple family lot as
proposed. Cross parking and access easements will need to be
recorded against both the proposed restaurant property as well as
the proposed multiple dwelling property.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 3
Ms. McPherson stated that as part of the overall plat request,
the petitioner is proposing to improve the parking lot and
provide the required B618 concrete curb and gutter as required by
City Code. A landscaping plan should be submitted by the
petitioner to provide adequate screening and buffering between
the restaurant facility and the proposed multi-unit buildings. A
detention facility will also be required as part of the parking
lot upgrade. The Engineering Department will require the
petitioner to sign and record against the property a storm water
pond maintenance agreement. The Engineering Department has
reviewed the preliminary grading plan and has submitted a list of
comments via the surveyor to the petitioner.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the plat request meets the minimum
requirements of each of the zoning districts, staff recommends
that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to
the City Council with the following stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit the information requested
in Scott Erickson's letter dated July 16, 1993,
regarding the stormwater pond and the grading and
drainage plan.
2 . The petitioner shall record against proposed Lots 2 and
3, Block 1, Tam Addition, cross parking and access
easements.
3. The petitioner shall submit a landscaping plan.
4. The petitioner shall execute and record against the
property a stormwater pond maintenance agreement.
5. The park dedication shall be $1,500 per lot for the
residential portion and $.023 per square foot for the
remaining portion for the restaurant facility. (shall
be paid at the time of the issuing of the building
permit - for residential)
Mr. Newman stated that access to the flag lot would really be
through the parking lot and that the residential property would
have to negotiate parking spaces with the restaurant property.
Has the City ever done anything like this before?
Ms. McPherson stated that typically most of the cross parking
easements have occurred between two commercial properties or two
industrial properties. In reviewing this request, . the City
Assessor suggested that perhaps the flag could be rotated so that
the flag portion is on the westerly side, and the access would
then occur over the driveway for the other multiple family
dwelling. Then, the back yard of the second multiple family
dwelling would be facing the restaurant facility. However, that
eliminates the potential for any future subdivision and public
roadway.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11fl 1993 PAGE 4
Mr. Kondrick stated that when the restaurant is having a
successful evening, the possibility exists that there will be
times when there are no parking spaces for the multiple family
dwellings.
Ms. Dacy stated the petitioner is proposing a four stall garage.
If that is a concern, the owner can post a sign reserving the
first four stalls for additional parking. That has been done for
commercial developments.
Mr. Newman stated that if, in fact, the multiple family property
is under separate ownership from the restaurant property,
how is the City going to get the additional 25 feet to put in the
public roadway.
Ms. Dacy stated that in answer to that concern, as part of the
plat request, they should reserve a 25 foot street easement along
the entire length of the flag to reserve that option.. Maybe the
following two stipulations should be added in the event the
restaurant property should ever return to residential:
l
6. Is the eeparkingt property encroachmentsisoremoveddfromathese
use, the parking lot
two properties.
7. The dedication of the street easement
Mr. Oliver Tam stated he is the owner of the Rice Bowl
Restaurant. He stated he is very appreciative of staff's ideas
and suggestions to make the lot work for everyone involved.
Mr. Kondrick asked if the petitioner agreed with the stipulations
recommended by staff.
Mr. Tam stated he had no problems with the stipulations.
Mr. Newman asked if the petitioner understood that the City may
require a 25 foot street easement.
Mr. Tam stated he had no objection to that, whatever works best
for the property.
Ms. Joyce Trebisovsky, 1130 Fireside Drive N.E. , stated she
represents Park Plaza Mobile Home Park and Estate Mobile Home
Park. Her only concern is that if the parking lot is expanded to
the right side of the property, there should be some type of
barrier so the lights do not shine into the mobile home park.
Mr. Newman stated that, at this time, there is no proposal to
move the parking lot. If in the future, the owner decides to
replat the restaurant property and break it into residential
lots, then at that time a public street would go in. However, in
all likelihood the parking lot would also go away. If any of
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 5
this happens, there would be another public hearing, notices
would be sent out, and this process would repeat itself.
Ms. Trebisovsky thanked Mr. Newman for this clarification.
Mr. Saba stated he did not think it is a good situation to have a
cross parking easement between commercial and residential.
Ms. McPherson stated the proposed multi-family units are not
intended to be the typical general occupancy units. They are for
Mr. Tam's family and employees of the Rice Bowl, and he will be
the owner of both the properties.
Ms. Modig stated that is fine for the present time; but if, in
the future, Mr. Tam sells the property, then there is a parking
lot situation with a cross parking easement and two pieces of
property under separate ownership.
Ms. Dacy stated there have been instances on commercial
properties where signs reserving parking spaces are successful.
The Code requires eight parking spaces for each multi-family
dwelling unit, and they already have four garage spaces. That
leaves only four spaces that are needed, and she believed those
spaces can be reserved. She did not see a big conflict with the
cross parking easement.
Ms. Modig stated the only times she could see the parking being a
problem is during private parties or large events at the
restaurant.
Ms. Dacy stated that if the Commission feels strongly about this,
then one solution would be to flipflop the flag to the west side
of the property.
Mr. Saba stated he could not see a problem with a cross parking
easement with commercial/commercial properties, but he did see
potential problems with commercial/residential.
Ms. Modig stated she did not see a problem now with the proposed
usage of the multiple family units by Mr. Tam's family members.
Her concern is for the future. If the property is sold and the
new owners do not want the cross parking easement, does the City
have to get involved?
Ms. Dacy stated staff is recommending that the cross parking
easement be executed as part of the plat approval. If there are
any changes, then both owners would have to agree to that.
Ms. Dacy stated that in looking at the plat, there might be
enough area on site to create a little pad for four parking
spaces on each lot separate from the commercial property. Staff
could work with the petitioner on this.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 6
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:00 P.M.
Mr. Newman stated staff has done the best they can with some
undesirable choices. He did not particularly like the cross
parking easement, but he did think that keeping the flag on the
east side of the property preserves some options for the future.
There might be some problems with the cross parking easement in
the future, but those are the types of issues that are better
left resolved by the property owners. In the cases of
redevelopment, there are going to be some problems in working
around existing structures. He stated he is comfortable with
approving the plat with the stipulations as recommended by staff,
with the addition of a stipulation to vacate the street easement
and to terminate the cross parking easement upon change in use of
restaurant or discontinuation of use of the lot.
Mr. Saba stated he is not comfortable with the cross parking
easement. It is a good situation now, but what about the future?
What if the restaurant changes to a night club, and there are
even more cars in the parking lot? He would like to see
something else worked out with the parking.
Ms. Modig stated that she did not have a problem with the flag
lot. She would like to figure out something to do with the cross
parking easement if it becomes a problem in the future without
having to go through this whole process again.
Ms. Dacy asked if the Commission members would like staff to
explore the possibility of finding a separate area for eight
spaces other than on the commercial lot.
Ms. Modig stated she is just concerned about the cross parking
becoming an -issue in the future, and it may never be an issue.
Mr. Sielaff stated that if it is possible, he would like to see
the parking kept on the residential lots to prevent any future
parking problems.
Mr. Kondrick stated he would also be in favor of the present
configuration with access into the lots with eight parking spaces
on the residential lots.
Mr. Newman stated he had no problem with that, except that would
mean blacktopping more area of the overall site to put in eight
more stalls.
Ms. Modig stated she would be comfortable with trying to put
eight parking spaces on the residential lots.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 7
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend
approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #93-03, by Oliver Tam, Tam
Addition, to replat property described as that part of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12,
Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as
follows: Commencing at a point on the east line of the Northwest
Quarter of said Section 12 distant 726 feet southerly of the
northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of said Section 12; thence westerly along a line which,
if extended, would intersect the west line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12 at a point
distant 726 feet southerly of the northwest corner of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12, a
distance of 661.45 feet to the actual point of beginning of the
land to be described, thence continuing westerly along said last
described line a distance of 288 feet; thence northerly a
distance of 396 feet; thence easterly at a right angle a distance
of 288 feet; thence southerly at a right angle a distance of 396
feet to the point of beginning. This property is generally
located at 1160 Fireside Drive N.E. , with the following
stipulations:
1. The petitioner shall submit the information requested
in Scott Erickson's letter dated July 16, 1993,
regarding the stormwater pond and the grading and
drainage plan.
2. The petitioner shall record against proposed Lots 2 and
3 , Block 1, Tam Addition, cross parking and access
easements.
3. The petitioner shall submit a landscaping plan.
4. The petitioner shall execute and record against the
property a stormwater pond maintenance agreement.
5. The park dedication shall be $1,500 per lot for the
residential portion and $.023 per square foot for the
remaining portion for the restaurant facility. Payment
of the park dedication fee for the residential
properties shall be paid at the time of the issuance of
the building permit.
6. A 25 foot street easement shall be dedicated on the
easterly portion of the flag lot for a future road.
7. Staff shall work with the petitioner to provide eight
parking spaces within both residential lots.
Mr. Newman stated that although he would vote in favor of the
motion, he did not think they need to require this additional
parking. However, it is a good approach to a difficult
situation.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 8
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #93-01, BY
OLIVER TAM: To rezone property from C-3, General Shopping
Center to R-3, General Multiple Dwelling on property
described as that part of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 12, Township 30, Range 24,
Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing
at a point on the east line of the Northwest Quarter of said
Section 12 distant 726 feet southerly of the northeast
corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
said Section 12; thence westerly along a line which, if
extended, would intersect the west line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12 at a
point distant 726 feet southerly of the northwest corner of
the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said
Section 12, a distance of 661.45 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described, thence continuing
westerly along said last described line a distance of 288
feet; thence northerly a distance of 396 feet; thence
easterly at a right angle a distance of 288 feet; thence
southerly at a right angle a distance of 396 feet to the
point of beginning. This property is generally located at
1160 Fireside Drive N.E.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to waive the
reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8:15 P.M.
Ms. McPherson stated that currently, the two dwelling units are
located on the same parcel as the restaurant. These dwelling
units are currently nonconforming as residential uses are not
permitted in the C-3, General Shopping Center District. In order
to allow the petitioner to even upgrade the existing dwellings or
construct new ones as he is proposing, the property needs to be
rezoned from C-3 , General Shopping Center District, to R-3,
General Multiple Dwelling.
Ms. McPherson stated the rezoning request only pertains to the
proposed lots for the multiple family dwelling units. The
remaining parcel will remain C-3, General Shopping Center
District.
Ms. McPherson stated three criteria need to be evaluated in
analyzing any rezoning request:
1. District compatibility with adjacent uses and zoning
2. District intent
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 9
3. Whether or not the parcel meets the district
requirements
Ms. McPherson stated that as discussed earlier during the plat
request, the proposed lots under the subdivision ordinance meet
the minimum requirements of the R-3, General Multiple Dwelling
District. Also, the proposed use of the two lots for multiple
family dwelling units is also consistent with the purpose of the
R-3 , General Multiple Dwelling District, which is to provide
zoning for multiple family, two family, and single family
dwellings.
Ms. McPherson stated the adjacent properties are zoned R-4,
Mobile Home Park, so rezoning the two properties to R-3 would not
have an adverse impact on the R-4 residential zoning.
Ms. McPherson stated that as the request meets the criteria for
evaluation of a rezoning request, staff recommends the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request with one
stipulation:
1. Preliminary plat request, P.S. #93-03, shall be
approved.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:20 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to
City Council approval of rezoning, ZOA #93-01, by Oliver Tam, to
rezone property from C-3, General Shopping Center to R-3, General
Multiple Dwelling on property described as that part of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 12,
Township 30, Range 24, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as
follows: Commencing at a point on the east line of the Northwest
Quarter of said Section 12 distant 726 feet southerly of the
northeast corner of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of said Section 12; thence westerly along a line which,
if extended, would intersect the west line of the Southeast
Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12 at a point
distant 726 feet southerly of the northwest corner of the
Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of said Section 12, a
distance of 661.45 feet to the actual point of beginning of the
land to be described, thence continuing westerly along said last
described line a distance of 288 feet; thence northerly a
distance of 396 feet; thence easterly at a right angle a distance
of 288 feet; thence southerly at a right angle a distance of 396
feet to the point of beginning. This property is generally
located at 1160 Fireside Drive N.E. , with the following
stipulation:
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 10
1. Preliminary plat request, P.S. #93-03, shall be
approved.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated the City Council will conduct a public
hearing for the preliminary plat and rezoning requests on
September 27, 1993.
3. SAV #93-03 , BY THE CITY OF FRIDLEY: To vacate all easements
as donated and dedicated to the public for drainage and
utility purposes and as shown on the recorded plat of
Shorewood Plaza, as corrected by Surveyor's Certificate
files as Document No. 176792. All in Anoka County,
Minnesota.
This property is generally located at the intersection of
Highway 65 and East Moore Lake Drive between Highway 65 and
Central Avenue.
The subject parcels include the East and West Moore Lake
Shopping Centers, the Northwest Racquet Swim and Health
Club, and Sears Outlet.
Ms. McPherson stated the Planning Commission recently reviewed a
plat request by the City of Fridley to replat the Shorewood Plaza
plat which was approved by the City in 1987. New easements for
utility, drainage, and bikeway/walkway purposes are to be
dedicated on the new revised plat. In order to avoid any
confusion, staff is suggesting that the existing easements which
are not being utilized by the utilities or various bikeway/
walkways be vacated prior to recording the plat with its
associated easements. A number of utilities constructed within
this development were not located within the easements as they
were dedicated. The City is ensuring that appropriate easements
are being dedicated over those utilities to provide proper access
for the City.
Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of this vacation request. Staff
will ensure that the vacation ordinance is recorded prior to the
recording of the new plat.
MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to recommend to City
Council approval of SAV #93-03, by the City of Fridley to vacate
all easements as donated and dedicated to the public for drainage
and utility purposes and as shown on the recorded plat of
Shorewood Plaza, as corrected by Surveyor's Certificate files as
Document No. 176792 . All in Anoka County, Minnesota.
This property is generally located at the intersection of
Highway 65 and East Moore Lake Drive between Highway 65 and
Central Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, AUGUST 11, 1993 PAGE 11
The subject parcels include the East and West Moore Lake
Shopping Centers, the Northwest Racquet Swim and Health
Club, and Sears Outlet.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
4 . RECEIVE JULY 8 , 1993 , HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the July
8, 1993, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
5. RECEIVE JULY 27, 1993 , APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the
July 27, 1993, Appeals Commission minutes.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to adjourn the
meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Newman
declared the motion carried unanimously and the August 11, 1993,
Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynq -kr-Pt I, ?hd--/A__2
Saba
Recording Secretary
Community Development Department
IPLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 3, 1993
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consideration of Modification to Redevelopment
Plan, and Creation of Tax Increment District
No. 13 (Eco Finishing, Inc. )
State Law requires the Planning Commission to review amendments to
the Redevelopment Plan and pass a resolution certifying whether the
proposed project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The City Council has established a public hearing to consider
creation of Tax Increment District No. 13 for September 13, 1993.
The Housing & Redevelopment Authority will consider the proposal
on: September 9, 1993 .
Eco Finishing, Inc. is a plating and metal finishing manufacturer.
They are proposing to construct a 29, 000 square foot building on
a lot in the Great Northern Industrial Center at the intersection
of 51st Way and Industrial Boulevard. The property is zoned M-2,
Heavy Industrial, and is also designated as industrial on the 1990
Land Use Plan.
The proposed land use of the project is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
resolution confirming that the proposed modification to the
Redevelopment Plan is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
BD/dn
M-93-511
RESOLUTION NO. - 1993
RESOLUTION OF THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
FINDING THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE
CITY
WHEREAS, the City of Fridley's Housing and Redevelopment Authority
is proposing that the City modify its Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 to reflect increased geographic area,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.074,
inclusive, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed said modification to
the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and has
determined its consistency to the Comprehensive Plan of the City:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
that the proposed modification to the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1 is consistent with the Fridley
Comprehensive Plan, and the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the proposed modification.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FRIDLEY
THIS DAY OF , 1993.
DAVID NEWMAN - CHAIR
PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
WILLIAM A. CHAMPA - CITY CLERK
ECO FINISHING, INC.
1 . City Council public hearing on September 13, 1993, to
consider establishment of Tax Increment District #13.
2. The Company:
a. ECO-Finishing, Inc., is an expansion of Cooperative
Plating, Inc., now located in St. Paul.
b. Plating and metal finishing job shop.
c. 40 year old company.
d. 80 existing employees.
3. The Project:
a. 29,000 square foot manufacturing facility.
b. Northwest corner of 51st Way and Industrial Boulevard.
c. Create 30 new jobs; possibly 80 in five years.
d. Estimated project cost is $2,500,000.
4. Proposed Assistance:
a. Company is seeking SBA financing.
b. HRA assistance is $86,000 which is the 1993 present
value amount of $150,000 collected over the nine years
of the district.
c. "Pay as you go" assistance.
d. Economic Development District, expires in 2004.
N 1/2 SEC. 27, T.30, R.2 4
. . .
. .
...• , _ ... .
. •.. ,
..• . .. CITY OF FRIDLEY
t%• ' - ' 0 ::"....
.o
or
�a 1.C.4, N CORNER
2
,,,,, ,..,
I SEC. 53--._.....- A C.Jl •- /
•
;4 GREAT ,.,, OUTLOT DD (�...
1 l ? NORTHERN
I I I
// ar`Oj rot aryl 9 r
!� J ono 6 r
JHOG) II r r • On OUTLOT
V`"` 17 OUTLOT AA
/� ) OUTLOT BB (.�.
s.o4r! �� / .' ',OUTLOT M� KJ 3:.. .. . .a ......
/444
_ i ` c d^ OUTLOT q 3" a : _ ..ND WAY l y' VT NN(
r 35 a ` e,..a . a.
` __ '.4-j--, INDU TRI 4 L ::�. oy,�oi Z °"-` ;
Zi
I. r'M +..-
/i Y. i ,.. .., ,,...a , ,....,T...• 9, 9 fl.OT Lt. ~
OUTLOTto
ffl
1 1 OUTLOT ♦
a�� CENTER
C-.) . i. i i .:
5 CA
V 1 1
j l :: i a /KJ
1. •
.... /is$'...r OT V ` ..
� 1 1 .....: ... ..s. .. ` w. ...
i:'a i j 1 �- ,. OUTLOT V•JTµ� —to
s.�r v:, T s.. J 1
;x 1ST
--L- c
yer :E
1 .1 A. OU
..it J� 1
�- ; s
Iv i z
t<y 3(0
t.
�___ I_ N0. 79
or 1 i
1
(saoo) ..lit: i 6
(r) \ .-.\:.„.
I /
14 i 1.; '1
I y.‘,..It ' 1" 1 k 3pe��R� UN/TEO ST.a/TES O'AiNER/CA
n'
, \
1
cry ,
I •
.,
1L • \ \I :�.
/ . ‘k
\ • \
\ ) ' -
SEC 17
24 13
5C
i
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: September 2, 1993
TO: ✓Planning Commission Members
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Steven Barg, Planning Assistant
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Steve Steiner, Planning Intern
SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Amendments
Background
On June 23, 1993, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
an ordinance amendment which was designed to require that all
parking on residential properties occur on hardsurface parking
areas. This amendment was needed from an enforcement standpoint
to tie parking behavior to parking facilities. The Commission
recommended approval, and the City Council is currently in the
process of adopting this ordinance amendment.
During the Planning Commission's discussion, Commission members
raised concerns regarding how the amendment would apply to those
without paved driveways, and how much of the front yard could be
paved. The City Council voiced similar concerns, and requested
that the Planning Commission take a further look at requiring
property owners without hardsurface driveways to pave them by some
future date, and limiting the amount of paved parking allowed in
the front yard. (I have attached copies of the Planning Commission
and City Council minutes for your review. )
Issues
Before determining whether or not ordinance amendments are
necessary, it is important to conduct a more detailed review of
these two areas.
1. Require property owners without hardsurface driveways to pave.
A. Rationale - Staff has prepared a list of reasons (copy
attached) why hardsurface parking serves an important
public purpose. These include promoting an attractive
appearance, reducing soil contamination, eliminating
` i
f J
Parking Ordinance Amendments
September 2 , 1993
Page 2
nuisances caused by dust, and maintaining/increasing
property values.
B. Cost - Staff researched the cost of providing asphalt and
concrete paving for typically-sized residential
driveways. This is important, since this expense may be
perceived as a burden to the 350 homeowners who would be
affected. A table containing ' the findings of this
research is attached for your review.
C. Other suburbs - Staff has contacted other communities to
question their ordinance requirements regarding
hardsurface parking. This information is also attached
to this memo for your review.
D. Compliance options - If the Planning Commission and City
Council decide to proceed with an ordinance amendment
requiring property owners without hardsurface parking
areas to pave their driveways, there will need to be a
compliance date established for these homeowners. Based
on the cost and other factors, the Planning Commission
may wish to recommend that homeowners pave their unpaved
driveways within three, five, seven, or some other number
of years.
2 . Maximum paved parking area.
A. Rationale - Staff believes that there are two main
reasons why the Planning Commission should consider an
ordinance amendment restricting the amount of paved
parking allowed in the front yard. First, over-paving
may be perceived as unsightly and presents a somewhat
commercial appearance. Second, the additional run-off
which results from excessive paving will likely place a
burden on the storm sewer system.
B. Other suburbs - Staff has contacted other communities
regarding this issue also. A report indicating these
findings is attached for your review.
C. Effect on existing properties - Staff identified and
analyzed several sites across the City to further clarify
this issue. A report concerning the findings is attached
for your review.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council authorize staff to proceed with the ordinance amendment
Parking Ordinance Amendments
• September 2, 1993
Page 3
process for these two issues as follows:
1. Require all driveways to be paved. Should the Planning
Commission and City Council wish to pursue this ordinance
amendment, staff proposes to work with the City Attorney to
identify and address any legal issues pertaining to this
matter. In addition, staff currently has a list of all
properties without paved driveways and would strongly
recommend that a meeting be conducted with these affected
homeowners prior to proceeding with the ordinance process.
Also, a compliance time period will need to be established.
2 . Pursue ordinance amendment requiring 30o maximum lot coverage
of hardsurface parking in the front yard.
SB/dn
M-93-507
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUKE 23, 1993 PAGE 10
exception of the boat which the petitioner shall remove
by July 1, 1994.
4. There shall be no exterior storage of materials and
equipment outside the storage area.
Ms. McPherson stated t 's item will go to City Council on July 6,
1993 .
Mr. Saba sta d stipulation #3 does not include the RV which is
related t he mobile home maintenance business.
IIPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
"MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3 . PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE FRIDLEY
CITY CODE, CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING" BY AMENDING SECTIONS
205. 07.06, 205.08.06, 205.09.07, AND 205.10.06, AND
RENUMBERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS:
MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to open the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Mr. Barg, Code Enforcement Officer, stated the City has had a long
standing policy through the Zoning Code to prohibit parking off
hard surface areas. There is also the problem of people who have
built their homes before there was the hard surface requirement,
but that is another issue. However, the City has always attempted
to require people who have hard surface driveways to keep their
vehicles on the hard surface or to require other people who don't
have hard surface driveway to keep their vehicles on whatever
existing driveway they have.
Mr. Barg stated that last fall, the City was unsuccessful in
attempting to enforce the hard surface parking requirement in Anoka
County Court. In this case, the resident was parking a vehicle in
front of his front door and had worn a path up to the front steps.
The Judge dismissed this citation telling the City that he did not
feel there was a tie in the current Zoning Ordinance between
required parking facilities and required parking behavior. There
is nothing in the current Zoning Ordinance that says directly and
clearly that parking off the required parking area is prohibited.
The Judge stated that in order to uphold the hard surface parking
requirement, the City needs to show a tie between parking
facilities and parking behavior.
Mr. Barg stated staff is recommending the following amendment to
the Zoning Code to make a tie between the parking facilities as
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 23, 1993
PAGE 11
required by the current code and the actual using of those
facilities:
B. Prohibited Parking.
No outside parking approved storage hard surface driveways hand
occur except PPoved
parking stalls.
Mr. Barg stated the Commission has received a copy of a letter from
Kathy McCollom, 197 Longfellow Street N.E. , who has a concern that at
her neighbor will begin paving large portions of his front yard
meet the parking requirement and be able to store more vehicles on
his property.
Mr. Newman asked if the Zoning Code specifies how much of a lot
can be impervious surface.
Ms. McPherson stated the Zoning Code, for both commercial and
residential properties, only covers lot coverage in terms of the
structures on the site.
Ms. McPherson stated there is a section in the Zoning Code that
requires landscaping, seeding, and sodding with the front yard
area. But, there are very few limitations as to the limit of hard
surface on any lot.
Mr. Oquist stated he believed that at one time, the Zoning Code
required a certain percentage of green area on a given property.
Ms. McPherson stated Mr. Barg also explored the possibility of
limiting the number of vehicles that can be stored on a property,
but the Council has chosen not to pursue that option. Coon Rapiids
has a requirement that the number of vehicles on any p
property can be two more than the licensed number of drivers.
Mr. Oquist stated that the way the current ordinance reads, there
is no way to prevent someone from paving his/her whole front yh
r .
Mr. Newman stated that maybe the Commission should ask staff to
evaluate whether or not they need to adopt a new ordinance or amend
the ordinance to limit the impervious the ssue of dirt area.driveways h this
ordinance, are they addressing
Mr. Barg stated, no, they are not. It is his understanding
in
talking to the City Prosecutor that the City has lost thevtaskeirk n
trying to require anyone, under normal circumstances, to to makee it
driveway. However, when someone applies for a permit
improvement to the home, the City does require a hard surface
driveway within one year. a reducedts are also co t during street encouraged provement
surface their driveway
projects.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUNE 23, 1993 PAGE 12
Mr. Barg stated that for those homes that were built before the
hard surface driveway requirement, he has always tried to work
toward requiring those people to keep their vehicles parked in
whatever driveway they have. He asked the Judge if that is
enforceable, and he basically said, yes.
Mr. Newman stated the recommended amendment states that: "No
outside parking or storage of motor vehicles shall occur except on
approved hard surface driveways and parking stalls." So, if
surface
drad
iveway?a grandfather driveway, would that be an approved
driveway?
Mr. Barg stated asked if Mr. Newman is saying that the wording
should be amended to cover those grandfather cases.
Mr. Newman stated it seems they are running into the issue of
discretionary enforcement if they are not going to enforce the
driveway requirement against the person who does not have a hard
surface driveway, but do enforce it against the person who has a
hard surface driveway but parks his/her cars in the middle of the
front yard.
Mr. Oquist stated that maybe the Parking Ordinance should be
reworded to include the non-hard surface driveways that still exist
but are approved driveways because they are grandfathered in.
Mr. Newman suggested the Commission approve the Parking Ordinance
amendment so that it goes on to City Council, but that the
Commission ask staff and the City Prosecutor to review the issues
of how this ordinance impacts those homes that are grandfathered
and do not have hard surface driveways.
Mr. Oquist agreed with Mr. Newman.
MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Oquist, to receive the letter
dated June 23, 1993, from Kathy McCollom, 197 Longfellow Street
N.E.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public
hearing.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:20 P.M.
MOTION by Mr. Oquist, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City
Council the adoption of the Parking Ordinance Amendment in concept,
but to ask staff to consider some rewording regarding the
terminology for hard surface driveways and non-hard surface
L
r
r
,
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JUKE 23, 1993 PAGE 13
driveways and to ask the City Prosecutor to review the issue of
how this ordinance impacts those people who do not have hard
surface driveways.
UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON NEWMAN DECLARED THE
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Ms. McPherson stated that staff will address the issues of non-hard
surface driveways and will evaluate the ordinance with the City
Prosecutor as to the larger policy impacts prior to the City
Council 's public hearing. If there does need to be an ordinance
change, these changes will be brought back to the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Newman asked staff to write a letter to Kathy McCollom on
behalf of the Commission letting her know the Commission's action.
Mr. Barg stated that the second part of Ms. McCollom's letter
refers to the fact that the person who owns the property next to
her actually lives across the street but keeps his dogs and
vehicles on the subject property. Her concern is why should this
person be allowed to use a property for vehicle storage even if
the surface is paved and to have a kennel area in the rear yard if
that is not the person's primary residence. He stated he has done
some checking on this and has not been able to find anything that
would restrict the use of a property in that way.
4. APPROVE HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION FOR 1993
CDBG ALLOCATION:
..-
Mr. Barg stated that, again, this was a tough process. They had
only $30,600 in CDBG funds and $108,705 in requests. The
Commission tried to focus on youth programs and-new and innovative
programs. j
Mr. Newman stated that by just looking at the names of the
organizations on the funding chart, it is difficult to know what
the programs are. zz
Mr. Oquist explained some of the programs. He stated it might be
a good idea to add a short explanation of the program after each
organization's name on the -chart.
/
Mr. Oquist stated that/in reviewing the funding requests, almost
all of them had some/real needs. But, in looking at some of the
organizations the City has funded in the past, particularly in the
mental health areas, some of them have very large budgets. In the
past, the Commission has recommended funding a few thousand dollars
to these organizations, but even without funding, the programs will
continue. his year, since the City did not receive that much
money, a Commission decided not to fund these larger
organic tions, knowing that the programs will continue anyway.
a
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1993 PAGE 4 \``
would fill with water only at high water events and the
sedimentation levels have reduced the water depth f four feet
to about one foot. It is only inches in some are. , .
Mr. Geiger stated that the east basin resi. -nts of Locke Lake
believe it is grossly unfair on the pa of the Rice Creek
Watershed District Board of Managers t' make a decision that
ignores the rest of the lake. He state. hat the lake would become
a nuisance to the City, as well as th- .roperty owners. A petition
was presented last year which iden ' fied a plan for the east basin
to open the original channel a remove the sedimentation. He
stated that, in return, th- residents agreed to a special
assessment. The benefits o sedimentation removal for the west
basin would only be tempor. with no sedimentation removal on the
east side.
Mr. Geiger asked th= Council to endorse an action to initiate
discussion with th= residents on the east side and the Rice Creek
Watershed Distri to implement a plan to include the east basin.
Mayor Nee stated that he believed the Public Works Director, John
Flora, is r= iewing this proposal.
Mr. Gei. • r stated that he understands that August 14, 1993 is the
date f. an appeal to the Watershed District.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that there is an appeal by a Mounds
V' -w resident, and the discussion may go on for some time.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. PUBLIC HEARING ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE,
CHAPTER 205, ENTITLED "ZONING, " BY AMENDING SECTIONS
205.07.06, 205.08.06, 205.09.07, AND 205. 10. 06, AND
RENUMBERING CONSECUTIVE SECTIONS:
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to waive the reading of the public
hearing notice and open the public hearing. Seconded by Councilman
Schneider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously, and the public hearing opened at
8: 12 p.m.
Mr. Steve Barg, Planning Assistant, stated that this is a proposed
ordinance amendment to the parking restrictions of the Fridley City
Code. He stated that in April of this year, the Council directed
staff to proceed with revision of the hard surface parking
requirement. He stated that the City recently lost a court case
when a judge ruled the City's ordinance language was unenforceable
since it refers only to parking facilities and not parking
behavior.
3
lb
•
•
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1993 PAGE 5
Mr. Barg stated that the Planning Commission conceptually approved
this amendment at their meeting on June 23, 1993, but instructed
staff to work with the City Prosecutor prior to Council's
consideration to determine the ordinance's impact on those persons
without hard surface driveways. He stated that the City Prosecutor
has recommended that another statement be added to the proposed
amendment clarifying that on those properties without hard surface
driveways, all parking and storage of vehicles must be limited to
those areas previously established for such purposes.
Mr. Barg stated that staff has contacted other cities and performed
research work on the amount of pavement permitted on a lot. This
report has been submitted to the Council.
Ms. Dacy, Community Development Director, stated that if Council
wishes to take any action regarding the amount of pavement
permitted on a lot, the Planning Commission would like this brought
back to them for a separate amendment.
Councilman Schneider stated that he has a problem with the sentence
that "properties without hard surface driveways or parking stalls
shall be restricted to outside parking or storage of motor vehicles
to those areas previously established and used for such purposes."
He asked how this would be enforced.
Councilman Billings stated that he also has a problem with this
language, as there is no language that states how these parking
areas were established. He ' stated that it seems this added
language tears out the foundation of what the Council is trying to
accomplish.
Councilwoman Jorgenson stated that what the Council is trying to
accomplish is to get every resident to park on a hard surface. She
felt the Council does need to address what percentage of a lot can
be hard surfaced.
Mr. Herrick, City Attorney, stated that the question of closing the
loophole, as far as the deficiencies the Judge found in the
ordinance, could be done by stating that all vehicles must be
parked on driveways without reference to whether or not they are
hard surfaced. He stated that the ordinance provides for
driveways, but it does not address the question about having to
park the vehicles on the driveway. He stated that there is also
the question of whether the Council wants to authorize additional
hard surface in the front yard. If the Council wishes to address
this issue, there would have to be some limits.
Mr. Herrick stated that if there is a substantial runoff from non-
surfaced driveways into the sewer system the City could initiate
action to require driveways to be hard surfaced within a certain
period of time.
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 2, 1993 PAGE 6
Mr. Barg stated that there is a valid public purpose to require
hard surface driveways, but the question is -- can the City require
those properties who do not have a hard surface drive to install
one?
Mr. Herrick felt that staff should research the possibility of
requiring all driveways to be hard surfaced within a certain time
period.
Councilman Billings stated that in regard to a letter sent to the
Planning Commission concerning the question about whether someone
could conceivably pave their entire front yard, this is not
something he would like to see all over the City. He did not feel
it would be a real problem, and he was not sure this should be
addressed.
Councilwoman Jorgenson asked if there was an ordinance that refers
to the amount of green space on a lot.
Ms. Dacy stated that there is a lot coverage requirement, but it
is for buildings only. She felt that it may be beneficial for
staff to research the issue on the amount of hard surface allowed
on a lot.
Councilman Schneider stated that he would favor some liberal
coverage limits, as he felt some people may want to pave an area
to park a recreation vehicle.
Councilman Billings suggested that Council eliminate the sentence
in this proposed ordinance amendment which is shown as double
underlined and to proceed with the original language in the
proposed amendment with the understanding that staff will address
this other issue as soon as possible.
Mr. Oquist, a member of the Planning Commission, stated that
vehicles should be parked on a hard surface. He stated that there
is also concern about someone turning their whole front yard into
a driveway. He stated that he thought the ordinance stated that
25 percent of the lot should be a green area which included
buildings as well as driveways. He stated that he has a problem
defining driveways if they are not hard surfaced.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to close the public hearing.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously and the
public hearing closed at 8: 50 p.m.
2 . PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ON-SALE CLUB LIOUO CENSE FOR THE
KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS (CONTINUED FROM COUNCIL MEETING OF
JULY 19, 1993) :
Mayor Nee reopened this publi hearing at 8:50 p.m. which was
continued from the City Cou 1 meeting of July 19, 1993.
Mr. Champa, City Clerk, ated that the information the Council
requested at the July 1 , 1993 Council meeting has been furnished.
RATIONALE FOR HARDSURFACE DRIVEWAYS
ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
1. Promotes visual appeal and neat appearance of single-
family properties.
2. Restricts vehicles to one area of the lot instead of
allowing them to be scattered across the yard.
3. Eliminates the nuisance of gravel being sprayed on
neighboring yards and avoids unsightly ruts and ditches.
4. Eliminates problems created by blowing dust.
5. Protects soil from contamination due to oil and other vehicles
fluids.
6. Serves to maintain and increase property values by promoting
a more attractive appearance.
7. Reduces maintenance costs incurred when ruts are "evened out"
or gravel is replaced.
8. Promotes parking requirements consistent with that of other
zoning districts.
s
ss
-
COST IMPACT
Concrete Asphalt
City Contract $18. 00/sq. yd. $7. 00/sq.yd.*
Cost for 45 ' *25 ' d/w $2250.00 $875. 00
Cost for 70 ' *25 ' d/w $3490.00 $1385.00
Concrete Contractor $29.25
Cost for 45'*25' d/w $3656.25
Cost for 70'*25' d/w $5674.50
Asphalt Contractor $10.00/sq. yd.
Cost for 45' *25 ' d/w $1250. 00
Cost for 70 ' *25 ' d/w $1940.00
* The City contract costs will vary from year to year depending on
the bid amount.
I CommunityDevelopmentDepartment
De artment
PLANNING DIVISION
} City of Fridley
DATE: September 2, 1993
TO: L7Steve Barg, Planning Assistant
FROM: Steve Steiner, Planning Intern
SUBJECT: Actions Taken by Other First-Ring Suburbs on
Hard-Surface Parking
The City of Fridley is considering adopting an ordinance that would
require all property owners with unpaved driveways to pave them by
a set date, as yet undetermined. To see what other communities
have done about this issue, I called the following first-ring
suburbs:
Columbia Heights
Columbia Heights started the process in 1989. They ended up
requiring just two 9 ' by 20' paved pads (per single-family house,
evidently) , or one paved pad per rental unit.
They are again thinking about requiring paved driveways, but will
give residents five years to conform. The city council is
receptive to the idea, but must formally approve.
The main problem with unpaved drives has been washout into the
streets and storm sewers.
From 25-50% of the residences have unpaved drives or parking areas
(which includes garages) .
Crystal
The city council passed an ordinance requiring each resident to
pave his driveway, especially if the driveway is new. It is an
informal policy that those with an unpaved driveway may keep it so,
unless:
1) They make a modification that requires a permit (any
modification, any permit) , or
2) There are documented cases of runoff or other problems.
Hardsurface Parking
September 2, 1993
Page 2
Washout was the main justification for requiring people to pave.
Some have complained, but no one has gone so far as to demand that
the council repeal the ordinance.
New Brighton
In 1988 New Brighton passed an ordinance to require all new or
modified driveways to have a hard surface (concrete or asphalt) .
The ordinance is not retroactive. The main justifications for the
ordinance were dust and appearance.
Richfield
The council recently passed a resolution that requires all new
driveways to be paved; however, existing unpaved driveways will
be permitted. The planning commission is looking at making the
resolution retroactive.
Richfield has only about 30 gravel driveways, so it is not so
pressing a problem as it is in Fridley. Richfield is having a
larger problem with people paving their whole front yards. They
are now concentrating on an ordinance to combat over-paving.
Robbinsdale
Robbinsdale requires materials that control dust (gravel counts--
grass does not) . New driveways must be paved.
Roseville
The city council passed a five-year plan to get all owners to pave.
The public reaction has been generally positive because of the good
rates provided by the contractor, who is doing the streets at the
same time. The Roseville staff member knew neither the number of
gravel driveways in Roseville nor the council 's justification for
adopting the ordinance.
Saint Louis Park
Parking areas intended for three or more cars must be paved. The
main problems with unpaved driveways are dust and washout onto
public streets.
M-93-482
(111
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
DATE: July 29, 1993
TO: William Burns, City Manager
FROM: Barbara Dacy, community Development Director
Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant
Steve Barg, Planning Assistant
Steve Steiner, Planning Intern
SUBJECT: Parking Ordinance Amendment
BACKGROUND
During the public hearing regarding the parking ordinance amendment
conducted by the Planning Commission at its June 23, 1993 meeting,
the Commission received into the record the attached letter from
Kathy McCollom. In her letter, Ms. McCollom expressed concern
regarding the amount of area that a property owner could pave for
vehicle parking and storage. The Commission voiced some concern
regarding how much parking may be permitted in the front yard and
directed staff to further review this issue.
RESEARCH
Lot Coverage
Currently, the Fridley Zoning Code limits lot coverage to 25% on
all single family residential sites; 30% on other residentially
zoned properties. However, this requirement applies only to
buildings and does not include parking facilities. Staff contacted
other cities to determine if their lot coverage requirements
included all impervious surfaces; not only buildings. Only the
Coon Rapids ordinance requirements include parking facilities as
well as buildings.
Two communities (Brooklyn Park and St. Louis Park) limit the amount
of hardsurface area in the front yard to 30% and require all
parking on said hardsurface area.
Selected Site Analysis
Staff identified and analyzed several sites regarding total
impervious surface in the City of Fridley to further clarify this
Parking Ordinance Amendment
July 28, 1993
Page 2
issue. All sites used in this study appear to have an excessive
amount of hard surface parking, except for one standard residential
property which was used for comparison purposes. A copy of the
results of this analysis is attached for your review.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff has identified three possible alternatives in addressing this
matter. These are as follows:
1. Limit the total amount of impervious surface to some
percentage of the overall site.
2. Limit the percentage of hardsurface coverage permitted in the
front yard.
3. Do nothing.
SUMMARY
As previously indicated, this information has been prepared in
response to the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Please
provide further direction should you wish staff to look into
amending the ordinance to restrict the amount of hardsurface
parking permitted on residential properties.
SB/dn
M-93-435
• x +) I W U)
)41 U) a-) 0 4 4-1
4-1y {P 4 (I-I U .O 'd 3 S~ O N
U) U 4-) -H 0M M
b' d-Ho\ a) 3 0
x 3 o Oro > •� -.-4 4-) '0
MS• •` a) a) 4 U) (a U) !-1 as 3
aU) al > O > -4-) ?, 0 >1 as a)
>~ 3 O" IC •r-1 'd ( al 04 P >r
'El Oa) 4 S-I •,-43 U) 3 (i 'd (El
t-i •,4 > (U R$ 'd 3 a) a) a) Cl) )a
(U +)-•a a) a) 4J a) > > > +) >r Id a)
>r 0 5 x S-1 OP 0 +) 0•,-4 -,-4 � U•r cl >+ >
it. I •ri 'El iv /tf >~ 11l 0 a) d S-1 IT $-1 -r l 3 •.-I
a) 4i '- w H 'd 4- ga) g d 'd -P g • - 0 > '0
4 OU) -P3-1 U) <U >C >CP U) P U) •rlO
fOo al . N el WO P > Z Z Q (4-1 C4 'd W al
Cl)
(U U)
c‘• 3 (U
u) a) - w
• > U) S-1 0
r~ -H tr (1t -H ,_-. a) a)
>+ 'd 'd •H is cU ch 0 0
-ri a-) r-d I al al
El d 0 •,-4 X cC 'd
U) ,A s~ d $-i a) a) 0 0
A el W -P R, as U 4-)o r•-1 d U) 1 >4 $-1 S-1
O 'd >~ O O r-I r-I
ral U) U) H H O 0 0
O a) +) U - W >~ •'-1 -H
U 'd $-1 U) - U) U)
O 0 •rI O r l v
Q U I -•>1 U) U) U) lU U) U) Cl) U)
rl >~ 0 O Sa a) (1) a) 4 a) a) a) O
H 0 z 'd >4 >4 > U) >>4 >+ >4
•
$4
a«Yaa
U U) Cl) U) U) N>4U• >I z z z >a >4 > z >+ >4 >1 >
O
CO x
5 4) S-1
a) 4 x al
g 5 -H a) z a a
u a a) x � H �" x
> >i H -H ( °o , H 0 a >r
rl .-I > x s~ 3 •r I 0 rn a)
x x Cl) al a) a) co > a s~ r-+
O 0 s~ 0 >~ >~ 'd r-1 a) -r-1 Ts-) O O f-1 r-1 O -H H Pi N • S-I •ri
-H 5 5 0 0 'd 0 al a) 0 4 >� )a
v oo w co c.) c.) w 0 z z x U) cn 4.4
PARKING RESTRICTIONS
Brooklyn Center
No requirement
Brooklyn Park
No requirement.
Does have front-yard restrictions; must park on a driveway, which
must not take up > 30% front-yard area.
Burnsville
No requirement.
Must not have more cars than area to park them.
Columbia Heights
No requirement.
Driveways shall not exceed 22 feet in width.
Coon Rapids
Maximum of 30% for LDR1 and LDR2. For MDR (4 to 9.9 units/acre) ,
two-family dwellings must have less than 50% coverage of buildings,
driveways, and paved areas.
Edina
In R1 Districts, for lots 9,000 square feet or less, buildings must
cover no more than 25%, or 1, 000 square feet, whichever is less.
For lots greater than 9,000 square feet, buildings must cover no
more than 30%, or 2,250 square feet, whichever is less.
In R2 Districts, buildings must not cover more than 30% of the lot.
Code also gives maximum driveway widths, and minimum distances
between driveways.
Golden Valley
No requirement.
Maplewood
No requirement.
New Brighton
No requirement for R-1 (lots 10, 000 square feet or greater) , but
for both R-1A and R2, floor-area ratio must not exceed 30%.
Also gives maximum widths for driveways.
Roseville
For R1 it is 30%, for R2 it is 40%.
St. Louis Park
For both R1 and R2, it is 30%. Parking on the front yard is
prohibited unless it is the only practical place to park. Total
parking and driveway area must not occupy more than 30% of the
front-yard area, and a bufferyard must be built.
Spring Lake Park
For R1, it is 30%, and for R2, it is 50%.
p
A SAMPLE OF LOT COVERAGES (TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE) IN FRIDLEY
All coverages are in square feet.
R1
6600 Brookview Drive
lot: 21,497
house: 1, 056
garage: 620
driveway: 2,535
coverage: 20%
1153 Mississippi Street
lot: 22,500
house: 1, 092
garage: 720
driveway: 500 + about 900 gravel
coverage: 15%
6320 Quincy Street
lot: 10, 125
house: 1,212 + about 80 (shed)
garage: 484
driveway: 1,700 + about 2,400 gravel
coverage: 58%
43 62 1/2 Way
lot: 8820
house: 950
garage: 384
driveway:
coverage:
161 Hartman Circle
lot: 16000
house: 1485
garage: 550
driveway: 840
coverage: 18%
219 Logan Parkway
lot: 20000
house: 3075
garage: 900
driveway: 1200
coverage: 26%
R2
70-80 63 1/2 Way
lot: 11, 040
house: 1,588
garage: 0
driveway: 840
coverage: 22%
41
4
•
‘•
A SAMPLE OF LOT COVERAGES (TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE) IN FRIDLEY
90-100 63 1/2 Way
lot: 10, 056
house: 1, 588
garage: 0
driveway: 840
coverage: 24%
380 57th Place
lot: 9600
house: 1564
garage: 0
driveway: 900 + about 600 in rear
coverage: 32%
390 57th Place
lot: 9600
house• 1564
garage: 1, 056
driveway: 900 + about 1300 in rear
coverage: 50%
e
r
I
JET Dislocated ldkr Pgm TEL : Jun 23 93 10 :54 No .001 P .02
June 23, 1993
TO: David Newman, Chair
Planning Commission
FROM: Kathy McCollom
197 Longfellow Street N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
780-8038/Home 821-4038/Work
RE: Public Hearing-June 23, 1993/Hard Surface Parking Ordinance
Because of a previous commitment, I will not be able to attend this public hearing in
regards to the revised surface ordinance.
However, I would like to address my concerns with the wording of this upcoming
revision. Since you are already changing the ordinance, I would like to see a statement that
discusses the amount of hard surface that can be on any one property. I have done some
personal research with other Cities in the metro area and have found that most of these
Cities have a percentage of allowable hard surface on property.
The reason for the time and energy I'm putting into this is personal to myself and •
my neighbors. The person living next to me loves cars and trucks. He just recently put in a
new driveway and has it completely filled with vehicles. Currently, as the ordinance reads,
this person could decide to blacktop his whole front and backyard to add more cars and
trucks to his current. collection. This is clearly a possibility because he doesn't really live on
the property and uses the small house to store personal items and uses the backyard to house
his two dogs. He lives across the street with a girlfriend.
I would hope you would look at this situation and advise me with your comments.
Thank you in advance for your review of my position.
8
L
•
11 Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
} City of Fridley
DATE: September 3, 1993
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Status Report on Priority Projects
At the June 23, 1993 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
requested staff to update them in three months as to how the staff
workload is progressing, and when the land use planning process
could be reactivated. The following is a summary of activities
that have occurred in the past three months, as well as a potential
plan for the immediate future.
1. Lake Pointe.
I have been assisting the Executive Director of the HRA in
preparing a request for proposal to advertising and marketing
consultants to market the Lake Pointe property. We will be
selecting a firm by the end of September and implementing the
recommendations of the marketing consultant as quickly as
possible. I have also been assigned to update the Indirect
Source Permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency for
the property.
2. Housing Program.
The current effort is to assist the Housing Coordinator in
amending Chapter 220, the rental property ordinance, in
establishing an aggressive rental inspection program. We hope
to prepare a draft ordinance, propose a new fee schedule, and
establish an inspection schedule prior to January 1, 1994.
Also pertaining to the housing program is preparation of the
nuisance abatement ordinance which is the primary work duty
of Steve Barg, the Code Enforcement Officer. I am also
responsible for overseeing the processing of this ordinance
request.
3. Southwest Quadrant.
I have been assigned to organize an option analysis of
different development options for the southwest quadrant. The
w
I
Status Report on Priority Projects
September 3, 1993
Page 2
Executive Director has directed me to work with him in
establishing review sessions with the City Council and the
HRA. This is also programmed to occur prior to the end of the
year.
4. Comprehensive Plan.
The City Manager has directed me to complete the updates that
are currently pending with the Metropolitan Council (the Water
and Sewer chapter and the Transportation chapter) . He has
directed me to complete these amendments as quickly as
possible. The Metropolitan Council did request additional
information on the Water and Sewer chapter, and we hope to
complete that in the immediate future. The .Transportation
chapter, however, needs to be coordinated and processed. The
City Manager has also asked me to work with him on how citizen
participation will be organized in the future for planning
efforts such as the Land Use Plan.
5. Other Projects.
Michele McPherson will be responsible for organizing the
amendments to the zoning code to establish a wetland overlay
district in response to the Wetland Conservation Act of 1991.
The City has hired a consultant to evaluate properties within
the City that will be subject to the requirements of the
Wetland Conservation Act. Further, we have been notified by
the Department of Natural Resources that we need to amend our
flood plain regulations. Michele will also be processing this
ordinance amendment. Both ordinance amendments are
anticipated to be processed through the Commission this Fall.
Anoka County has recently initiated a groundwater needs
assessment. Lisa Campbell will be researching this study over
the next six to eight months and bring the documents from
Anoka County to the Environmental Quality and Energy
Commission and the City Council.
Finally, there will be minor housekeeping ordinance amendments
proposed for consideration. One is to expand the public
hearing notice requirement on special use permits requests to
350 feet instead of the current 200 feet.
I will provide another report for the Planning Commission at the
end of 1993 and the beginning of 1994.
BD/dn
M-93-513
1111 11111---77
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
J City of Fridley
DATE: August 16, 1993
TO: William Burns, City Manager
FROM: v$arbara Dacy, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Upcoming Legislation for the City Council
There are several ordinance amendments which are currently in
process which will be scheduled for City Council consideration this
fall. Tofolthl Department's each
work pr gress on action
each and
theestatuu s off the Development
1. Wetland Ordinance
As you are aware, Westwood Professionals, Inc. , and Peterson
Environmental are currently preparing the wetland study as
authorized by the Council in July. We anticipate reviewing
the first draft at the end of September. Depending on the
outcome of the study, staff will then evaluate and prepare an
ordinance to not only meet the state requirements of the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, but also to protect wetland
areas in our community.
It is anticipated that the results of the study and the
ordinance draft will be forwarded to the Environmental Quality
& Energy Commission and then the Planning Commission in
October and October the City Council would review it in
November and December.
2. Flood Plain Ordinance
The. Federal Emergency Management Association made several
amendments to flood plain regulations in 1986. The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is responsible for
enforcing those changes. A number of the changes affected
communities and counties which did not have any flood plain
regulations in place. Therefore, since 1986, the DNR has been
working with those jurisdictions to adopt the appropriate
regulations. Tom Hovey, the Metro Area Hydrologist from DNR,
advised us that Fridley is one of the remaining communities
that needs to update its regulations. Michele McPherson is
currently evaluating the proposed changes as compared to our
existing ordinance and is preparing a potential ordinance
amendment.
Upcoming Legislation for the City Council k
August 16, 1993 41
Page 2
Again, we would follow the same process as the wetland
ordinance, to the advisory commissions first and then to the
Council.
3 . Shoreland Ordinance
The Minnesota DNR is also requesting that communities update
their shoreland ordinances as a result of amendments to the
state law in 1989. The timeframe to adopt this ordinance is
not as immediate as the wetland ordinance or the flood plain
ordinance. Further, because Fridley is almost completely
developed in shoreland areas, different language in the
' " ordinance needs to be prepared to accommodate existing
structures and uses.
This ordinance amendment may take longer, but it would follow
the same process as the other two amendments.
4. Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MNRRA)
We are currently reviewing the Comprehensive Management Plan
Environmental Impact Statement for the Mississippi National
River and Recreation Area. After the EIS process is complete,
an "Implementation Plan" will be developed by the National
Park Service to implement the various aspects of the MNRRA
plan. At that time, we will have a better idea of the exact
nature of the impacts on Fridley. It will be necessary,
however, to amend our Comprehensive Plan to be consistent with
any of the policies developed in the MNRRA plan. The National
Park Service will execute an agreement with the Metropolitan
Council to require updates of local comprehensive plans.
Also, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources will be
responsible for reviewing local ordinances to ensure
conformance with the MNRRA plan.
Summary
The wetland ordinance and the flood plain ordinance will have a
priority over the shoreland and the MNRRA plan amendments. The
wetland ordinance needs to be adopted by the Council by January 1,
1994, in order to comply with the requirements of the Wetland
Conservation Act of 1991. The ordinance amendment will be
processed through the advisory commissions prior to submission to
the City Council. Please contact me if you have any comments
regarding this proposed process.
BD:ls
M-93-463