Loading...
10/16/1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1991 7:30 P.M. Public Planning Commission City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1991 7: 30 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: October 2, 1991 CONSIDERATION OF A VACATION, SAV #91-04 , BY BOB'S PRODUCE RANCH: To vacate that part of 77th Avenue lying easterly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch • Estates Third Addition, all as platted and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 7620 University Avenue N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #91-03 , BY BOB'S PRODUCE RANCH: To rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping Center, on Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition, generally located at 7620 University Avenue N.E. PUBLIC HEARING: SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #91-11, BY BOB'S PRODUCE RANCH: Per Section 205. 15. 01.C. (11) of the Fridley City Code, to allow garden centers or nurseries which require outside display or storage of merchandise, on Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates First Addition, and Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition, and Lot 4, Block 2 , East Ranch Estates Second Addition, except the East 200 feet thereof, also except the West 115 feet of the East 315 feet of the North 160 feet of said lot subject to an easement, all in Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 7620 University Avenue N.E. LRT PRELIMINARY DESIGN PLANS RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 9, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY . MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 12 , 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY & ENERGY COMMISSION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 1, 1991 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: lb. CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the October 2, 1991, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7: 30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Larry Kuechle (for Diane Savage) , Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: Sue Sherek Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Jim Hill, Public Safety Director Steve Billings, Councilmember William Burns, City Manager Randy Thompson, 1115 - 2nd Avenue South, Mpls. See attached list APPROVAL OF AUGUST 21, 1991, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to approve the August 21, 1991, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A LICENSE FOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR GARAGES (PROPOSED CHAPTER 18) : MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Saba, to open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:31 P.M. Ms. Dacy stated that in July 1991, the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a moratorium on the issuance of special use permits for repair garages. The purpose of the moratorium was to provide staff with the ability to research and develop an ordinance to evaluate whether or not a business license for repair garages should be passed by the Council. The ordinance creating the moratorium stipulated that a public hearing be conducted -by the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 2 Planning Commission within 60 days of the effective date of that ordinance. The effective date was August 15, 1991. As an ordinance, the City Council by charter and state statute, is also required to conduct at least two readings of the proposed ordinance. The moratorium ordinance requires that the moratorium is lifted within 180 days, so the City Council has until February 15, 1992, to finish this process. Ms. Dacy stated the Council was aware that the impact of this ordinance would be discussed by the existing repair garage owners; therefore, this item was placed on the Planning Commission agenda in order to give a public hearing forum and opportunity for all those businesses affected to give testimony and comments on this particular proposal. Ms. Dacy stated the intent of the ordinance is summarized in four points: 1. To establish uniform regulations for auto body repair garages. 2 . To enable the City (as it does with the liquor license, massage parlor license, and sexually-oriented business license) to perform personal and criminal background investigations on the operator. 3 . To provide a basis for the City to deny a license based on illegal activities. 4. To protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Fridley. Ms. Dacy stated that the City Council became aware that if, for example, a business was denied a license in Minneapolis or St. Paul, the business could locate in Fridley. The City's existing controls are merely those of zoning and land use controls, fire, and building codes. Ms. Dacy stated other automotive related uses that require some type of license are junkyards and/or salvage yards, motor vehicle rental agencies, retail gas sales, and used motor vehicle sales. Chapter 108 of the Fridley Fire Code has extensive regulations for storage of flammable liquids and spray booths. Ms. Dacy stated staff identified 47 businesses in Fridley that are related in some way to the automobile business. Quite a few of those businesses have contacted City staff. Mr. Phil Leffel of MAACO Auto Body organized a group of repair garage owners who have hired an attorney to draft some ordinance language for the City to consider. Mr. Leffel has identified at least 15 concerns and questions which are included in the agenda packet. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 3 Ms. Dacy stated each business on the mailing list received a copy of the proposed ordinance. Jim Hill, Public Safety Director, is also at the meeting to act as a resource and answer questions. Ms. Dacy stated that, in summary, there are two overall issues that face the City on this particular issue: 1. Should the City even have an ordinance? Some have commented that this is an extra layer of regulation. 2. If the City does have an ordinance, how can they reasonably accomplish the purposes referred to earlier? Ms. Dacy stated the Commission has a first draft of the ordinance. It was based on the existing Minneapolis ordinance. Staff realizes there are areas that need to be changed and that additional changes will be suggested. Therefore, staff is not recommending that the Commission approve this particular ordinance. Staff is recommending that the Commission consider the testimony from people in the audience, the Commission offer its suggestions and comments, and staff will take all this input, meet with the attorney for the repair garage owners, and propose an alternative ordinance for consideration by the Council. Mr. Betzold asked how close the proposed ordinance is to the Minneapolis ordinance. Is it more restrictive or less restrictive? Mr. Hill, Public Safety Director, stated that the Minneapolis' ordinance as it relates specifically to this issue of repair garages is probably less in length. The authority that lies within it for both cities is probably about the same. There are certain sections of the Minneapolis that they chose not to use that are more restrictive or more inclusive. The proposed ordinance is probably more fine-tuned, only because it is the most recent ordinance of this type. Mr. Hill stated staff was directed by the City Council to draft this ordinance. Many hours of staff time was spent on it. The original draft included parts of several other City ordinances such as Chapter 31, Pawn Shops; Chapter 127, Sexually-Oriented Businesses; Chapter 19, Used Motor Vehicles; Chapter 205, Zoning; Chapter 123, Junk Vehicles; Chapter 125, Saunas and Massage Parlors; Minneapolis Chapter 317, Motor Vehicle Repair Garages; and Minneapolis Chapter 362, Intoxicating Liquor. Mr. Hill stated that upon review of the draft ordinance, the Community Development Department had additional comments about what should be incorporated into this ordinance. The City Attorney's office reviewed the draft ordinance and had additional suggestions. They used the recently adopted Chapter 31, Pawn Shop ordinance, as a draft as it related to the mechanics of the application, the definitions as applicable, and all the requirements of the PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 4 application. Investigation and recommendation of the Public Safety Director is different from the pawn shop ordinance in that he or his designee would make a recommendation to approve a license unless one of the former conditions were found or believed to be true. It is Council 's decision, not his, whether or not a license is issued and whether or not a license should be revoked or suspended. No City staff can close a business down as it relates to this ordinance. Mr. Hill stated there is concern on the part of one or more members of Council that more regulations are probably needed on some businesses, not out of desire, but out of necessity. Police calls are increasing by 10-15 calls per day. Council became keenly aware recently that they were without authority and power under the City's existing ordinances to prohibit any business that operates motor vehicle repair garages from entering the community, even though hypothetically, they could be convicted felons. Or, someone who applied for a license in the City of Minneapolis and under the Minneapolis' ordinance, has been denied that license, can come across the border into Fridley and open the business without any regulation prohibiting it. The City Council felt some responsibility to do something to protect the citizens of Fridley and also to maintain the reputability and honesty of the existing business people. Mr. Betzold stated that Mr. Leffel has submitted five comments and questions regarding the proposed motor vehicle repair garage licensing ordinance. He would like to identify the provisions and questions and ask Mr. Hill or Ms. Dacy to respond to each one. 1. Section 18.08.04. GRANTING LICENSES. No change in ownership, control, or location of a license shall be permitted except by amendment to the license which amendment must be approved by the City Council. Why does the City need to know about the change in ownership or control of a business and why must an amendment to the license be approved by the City Council? Ms. Dacy stated this is a transferability clause. This language also appears in other ordinances mentioned by Mr. Hill. The purpose is to be able to know who is going to be operating the business, and the City wants to be aware of that person, partnership, or corporation, and through the application process, the personal and criminal background checks are conducted. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding why an amendment to the license must be approved by the Council, again, if the ownership changes, it is not atypical to see this language in other ordinances. The purpose is to evaluate the proposed corporation, partnership, or person that will be operating the business. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 5 Mr. Hill stated that from the enforcement standpoint, it is maintaining a paper trail. This requirement is in the Pawn Shop ordinance, and he believed it is in the Sexually-Oriented Business ordinance. 2. Section 18.11.01. INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. The Public Safety Director shall recommend approval of the issuance or a license by the City to an applicant within 45 days after receipt of an application unless the Director finds one or more of the following to be true: (C) An applicant has failed to provide information reasonably necessary for issuance of the license or has falsely answered a question or request for information on the application form. What happens if an unintentional mistake is made on the application? Ms.. Dacy stated the City Attorney has advised her that if the error was intentional and inconsequential, then probably nothing would occur. However, if the Public Safety Director feels it was intentional and material, it may be grounds to take an extra look at the license. Again, the Council has to ultimately approve any action. 3. Section 18.11.O1.C. INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATION OF PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR. The Public Safety Director shall recommend approval of the issuance or a license by the City to an applicant within 45 days after receipt of an application unless the Director finds one or more of the following to be true: (I) In the judgment of the Public Safety Director, the applicant is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business operated, or to be operated, under the license. The "judgment of the Public Safety Director" is too broad to determine whether or not the applicant is not the real party in interest or beneficial owner of the business to be operated. Ms. Dacy stated if there appears to be a question, the Council will make an opportunity at the public hearing for the owner to state facts for or against whatever is the issue. The Council decides whether or not to issue a license. - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 6 Mr. Hill emphasized that the Public Safety Director shall recommend approval unless a condition exists. If for some reason, the investigators feels that a condition exists, then he is prohibited from recommending approval; he simply reports the fact to Council based upon the evidence, and the Council has to make the final decision. 4. Section 18.12.03. ISSUANCE OF LICENSE CONDITIONS. Licenses issued to corporations shall be valid only as long as there is no change in the officers or ownership interest of the corporation unless such change is approved by the Council, in which event said license shall continue in force until the end of the then current license year. Failure to report any change in stockholders, officers, or managers shall be grounds for the revocation of all licenses held by the corporation. Every corporation licensed under the provisions of this section shall adopt and maintain in its bylaws a provision that no transfer of stock is valid or effective unless approved by the City Council and shall require that all of its certificates of stock shall have printed on the face thereof: "The transfer of this stock certificate is invalid unless approved by the City Council of Fridley," and failure to comply with this provision shall be grounds for the revocation of all licenses held by the corporation. The provisions of this section shall not apply to the issuance of any license to a corporation whose stock is traded on a public stock exchange. Why does the City need to require that businesses adopt and maintain in its by-laws a provision that no transfer stock is valid or effective unless approved by the City Council. Is this required for any other license in the City, for example, a liquor license? Why does the City have to approve the transfer of a stock certificate? Why is it grounds for revocation of a license? Ms. Dacy stated the City Attorney advised her that, again, the intent is• to determine who is operating the business and to determine the background of the operator of the business. To her understanding, it is not in the liquor ordinance; however, it is in the recently adopted pawn shop ordinance regarding license. The City Attorney indicated that the Commission and the Council might want to entertain an amendment that would require more than 500 of the stock change. It gets back to the original intent of trying to determine who is operating the business. Mr. Hill stated that specific provision was explicitly requested by at least one member of Council to be placed in the pawn shop ordinance. That language is directly out of the City of Minneapolis' long standing intoxicating liquor ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 7 5. Section 18.13.01. INSPECTION. An applicant or licensee shall permit representatives of the Police Department, Health Department, Fire Department, and the Community Development Department including the Building Inspection Division, to inspect the premises of a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the law, at any time it is occupied or open for business. What rules would be used for the inspection permitted under 18.13.01? City staff will need to address this. • Ms. Dacy stated this will have to be verified with the City Council, but internally in discussing how to administer this ordinance, staff is intending to propose that a number of these shops have already received a special use permit and a file is maintained on that. If the business is in compliance, someone from the Community Development Department may not have to go out and make an inspection. Ms. Dacy stated there are very strict codes regarding the paint booths. Again, if the City knows the business is up to code, then there may not be a need for an inspection. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the Building Code is concerned, all the existing repair garage owners were issued a certificate of occupancy. If the City staff is not aware of any ongoing violations, they may not need to do an inspection. There may be a question on the application form: Have you been cited recently for any kind of violation? Again, the burden would be on the owner to provide the correct information. If it is a new business, then staff would need to do an inspection. Ms. Modig asked if there is a provision in the other ordinances regarding an inspection by the Health Department. Ms. Dacy stated the Health Department needs to be deleted. There is no need for that inspection. 6. Section 18. 13.02 . INSPECTION. A person who operates a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage or the person's agent or employee commits an offense if a person refuses to permit a lawful inspection of the premises by a representative of the Police Department any time it is occupied or open for business. What is a lawful inspection of the premises? Does that mean that a police officer can stop at any time and shut down the business for some type of offense? Does this conflict with the need for a search warrant, and does this constitute an unreasonable search? PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 8 • Ms. Dacy stated that, according to the City Attorney, the answer is, no. In order for the Council to revoke the license, according to the ordinance, there has to be a public hearing and the owner has to be notified why the Council is considering revoking the license and to give the owner ample opportunity to present his/her case. The intent of this section is merely to provide the ability for City officials to have access to the property. It does not give City officials the authority to revoke the license. Mr. Betzold stated that if someone refuses to let the police officer on the premises, what happens? Mr. Hill stated that in theory the police officer could cite the owner for violation of the ordinance, because the violation of any code of the City Code is a misdemeanor. That would be an option, but a more realistic approach would be for the police officer to report that incident to him and he would report to Council and recommend they consider a suspension or revocation hearings. 7. Section 18.14.01. REFUSAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. It is unlawful for any applicant to make a false statement or omission upon any application form. Any false statement in such application, or any omission to state any information called for on such application form, shall, upon discovery of such falsehood, be grounds for denial of a license, or, if such license is already issued, shall be grounds for revocation. Issuance of a license shall not protect the applicant from prosecution of violation for this section. Again, what happens if an unintentional mistake is made on an application. Will this be grounds for revocation? How does the Public Safety Director administer this? Ms. Dacy stated that, according to the City Attorney, it depends on the mistake. If they believe the petitioner is concealing information, they will make the City Council aware of it. Again, the City Council approves the license and they need to conduct the hearing and give the petitioner or applicant an opportunity to present the facts. 8. Section 18. 14.02 . REFUSAL, SUSPENSION OR REVOCATION. The City Council may suspend or revoke a license issued under this Chapter for operation on any premises on which real estate taxes, assessments, or other financial claims of the City or of the state are delinquent or unpaid. What happens in a multi-tenant building situation where one of the tenants is not ultimately responsible for payment of taxes and assessments? What happens if the property owner, and in some PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 9 cases, an out-of-town property owner is delinquent? Can the tenant be exempted from this requirement? Ms. Dacy stated that according to the City Attorney, if the tenant is not the owner of the property, the tenant is not responsible for the taxes and assessments. This section will have to be adjusted. 9. Section 18.15. INSURANCE REQUIRED. Every license applicant shall provide and maintain in full force and effect public liability insurance to indemnify any person against loss or injury in the sum of one hundred thousand ($100,000) for injury or death to one person and three hundred thousand ($300,000) for each accident or occurrence, and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) property damage, and shall contain a provision that no cancellation thereof shall become effective without thirty (30) days prior notice thereof in writing to the City Clerk. In addition, each applicant for a Motor Repair Garage License shall file with the City Clerk a public liability policy or certificate of insurance for each vehicle used in the business of its Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. Why is there insurance required? Why does the City Clerk need to be notified about the 30 day notice for change of insurance? Policyholders only receive a 30 day notice, so it may be possible for the repair garage owner to notify the City within 30 days. Why is a public liability policy or certificate of insurance required for each vehicle used in the business of the repair garage? Ms. Dacy stated it is not atypical for the City to require public liability insurance. They do it in other ordinances. The intent is if the City is authorizing a license for an entity to do business within the City, there are some expectations on the part of the consumers about issuing that license. Authority does exist for the City to require some type of insurance to protect the consumers. Ms. Dacy stated that as far as the mechanics, staff acknowledges that the 30 day time period may be constraining. They will have to work with the repair garage owners on that. As far as whether or not insurance is required for each vehicle used in the business, staff believes that language came from the Minneapolis ordinance. After working with the repair garage owners, it may be prudent to delete that requirement. Maybe it is not atypical for communities to also require workmen's compensation insurance. That might be another issue that needs to be discussed. Mr. Hill stated the language for this section came from Minneapolis Chapter 317.70 which has been effective since 1984 . He is not sure why they would need to require insurance for each vehicle used in PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 10 the business. The 30 day clause is consistent with either insurance or bond requirements in various ordinances. The intent is for consumer protection. 10. Section 18.16. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS REQUIRED. Every Motor Vehicle Repair Garage Licensee shall maintain, on the premise, original records which shall include all work orders, estimates, invoices, and names of all customers for whom motor vehicle repairs have been performed. As used in this section, the term "invoice" shall contain that information required in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 3253F.56 to 325F.65. Such records shall be immediately available for inspection and copying by enforcement officials and shall be retained for at least two (2) years. A customer has a right to a copy of documents maintained by the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage reflecting any transaction to which he was a party. 1. The operator of the Motor Vehicle Repair Garage is required to identify the source of the parts used on repaired vehicles. 2. The operator is required to keep a record of parts that are purchased and all purchased parts are to be paid by checks rather than cash. 3. The operator is required to keep invoices and cancelled checks to establish the source of parts used on repaired vehicles. Why do the records have to be available? Can't that be done through request of a search warrant? What do Minnesota Statues Chapter 325F.56-65 require? Ms. Dacy stated the intent was to mirror some of the existing regulations that are in State Statutes. The proposed section states two years rather than at least one year in the State Statute. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding whether that can be done through request of a search warrant, both the statute and the ordinance state that they have to contact the owner prior to that and give him/her a reasonable amount of notice. 11. Section 18.16.02. MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS REQUIRED. The operator is required to keep a record of parts that are purchased and all purchased parts are to be paid by checks rather than cash. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 11 There are some occasions where some parts are paid with cash. Why does it have to be checks? Why can't the building owner have the ability to pay with cash for some parts if so desired? Ms. Dacy stated staff has received a lot of telephone calls about checks versus cash. Some business owners feel that is going too far, because, in some cases, they may need to use cash to purchase small parts. Again, the intent is to provide a paper trail on auto parts to be able to determine the origin of each particular part and to determine whether or not the part is stolen. Mr. Hill stated the Minneapolis ordinance is basically the same except for the check issue. The issue of a check over cash is a recommendation made by the City Attorney. Mr. Saba asked if a minimum level of cash purchase could be allowed, such as $5 or $10. Mr. Hill stated that since the issue had been brought up, it is a logical issue to discuss. 12. Section 18.7. UNAUTHORIZED WORK; CUSTOMER'S RIGHT TO RETURN PROPERTY No Motor Vehicle Repair Garage shall fail to return to any customer, upon demand, the customer's vehicle in violation of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325F.61. What does Minnesota Statutes Chapter 325F.61 require? What happens if an auto repair garage performed work in the amount of $2,500, returned the vehicle to the customer, the customer with no basis demanded the vehicle without paying? Would this void the process of a mechanic's lien? Ms. Dacy read Chapter 325F.67. Ms. Dacy stated that regarding whether or not it voids the mechanic's lien, the City Attorney wants to do more research on that issue. Maybe the repair garage owners and their attorney can give some direction on this particular issue. Mr. Hill stated that as he read this section of the statutes, it is not implying any additional requirements upon the business owners than what currently exist today under State Statute. The mechanic's lien is a State Statute issue, not a City issue. 13. Section 18.18. REFUSE All refuse must be stored in a completely enclosed trash/ dumpsters and must be fully enclosed as required by the zoning ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 12 If refuse is defined as motor vehicles which are abandoned, some of the vehicles may not be able to be deposited in dumpsters. Ms. Dacy stated they obtained the definition of refuse from the Minneapolis ordinance. It does need to be reworked. The intent is that if there are sizable car parts that are in a state of disrepair, they need to be screened from the public right-of-way or adjacent residential districts. To a certain extent, this will be addressed through the special use permit process for those areas that require a special use permit for repair garages. Repair garages are a permitted use in the M-2, Heavy Industrial district. The intent is to make sure that everyone is conforming to the same rules. Mr. Hill stated that they significantly reduced the language from the Minneapolis ordinance in an effort to simplify it. 14. Section 18.20. SEVERELY DAMAGED VEHICLES All severely damaged vehicles must be completely drained of all fluids prior to transfer to Motor Vehicle Repair Garage. Who is responsible for determining what a severely damaged vehicle is? Where are the fluids to be drained? How is severely damaged defined? Ms. Dacy stated this section was inserted in the ordinance because City Council discussed this particular issue at great length with at least one special use permit application. The issue was when the vehicles get to the repair garage and if they are stored in an area that is not paved, is there surface contamination and possible underground contamination from fluids from the vehicles? This section needs to be reworked if it is to remain in the ordinance. The questions are well posed. Staff needs to come up with language that is reasonable, enforceable, and that the repair garage owners are willing to live by. 15. The City should require motor vehicle garage owners to obtain a hazardous waste generator's license and submit an EPA number to the City. Ms. Dacy stated staff agrees with that and that should probably be included in the ordinance. Mr. Randy Thompson stated he is an attorney representing the following businesses: Maaco; Christensen Auto Body; Tires, Inc; Fridley Tire & Brake; Triangle Coach Works; Rensfeldt' s Auto, Inc. ; Fridley Fast Lube, Amaco; Fridley Auto Body, Kennedy Transmission; Lisell Auto Service; Gary's Automotive; Northeast Towing Service; and Phillip's 66. These businesses represent a number of businesses from service stations to body shops, towing businesses to tire shops to repair shops. In listening to the presentation, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 13 this ordinance seems to be drawn and has taken restrictive covenants from liquor, massage, adult use, and pawn shop types of ordinances, yet they are really talking about mainstream legitimate businesses who have done business in this community for a long time. Mr. Thompson stated they strongly oppose the ordinance in its present form. It is overly restrictive to the number of constitutional infirmities, and it is basically impractical and unworkable. To say something has been taken from a liquor ordinance fails to recognize that the liquor industry, because of the advent of prohibition and subsequent appeal, has always occupied a special place in terms of the ability of the governing body to regulate liquor as opposed to other types of businesses. Just because the City can regulate something in the liquor industry does not mean they can do it in another type of business. Mr. Thompson stated the Minneapolis ordinance is approximately 2 1/2 pages. The City of Fridley's proposed ordinance is 9 pages. That points out their initial concern. What is the purpose of this ordinance? Is it to regulate "chop shops"? Is it environmental protection? Is it consumer protection in connection with automotive repairs? It is just not clear. It seems to touch on a little bit of everything, but doesn't do a good job on anything. Until there is a focus, it is difficult to tailor something that is going to be narrowly drawn and generally focused and reduce the restrictions of legitimate business operations. Mr. Thompson stated there is no indication that there is any particular reason to believe that the businesses represented are any more ripe for criminal activity or any more suspect to criminal activity than any other business. Mr. Thompson stated their second main concern is: What is a fair, economic, and practical method to obtain a purpose for this ordinance? They want something that is not burdensome to legitimate businesses. They do not want to drive businesses out of Fridley to neighboring cities. They want to keep paperwork to a minimum. They need to stay within constitutional standards. They need to make it cost-effective, because any costs imposed on businesses are eventually passed on to the consumers. Mr. Thompson stated that using the example of the draining of fluids of vehicles that are severely damaged, they have to talk about what is practical and what is understandable in the business operations. What fluids have to be drained from a severely damaged vehicle? Mr. Thompson stated by putting it in the licensing provision, are they putting the businesses of the City of Fridley - at a disadvantage and are they creating a situation where, for example, a consumer would call a tow truck operator from the City of Blaine PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 14 because there won't be as many problems. If they are going to restrict it, it should be a separate ordinance and it should be something that deals with vehicles in the City of Fridley so that anyone towing vehicles in the City of Fridley are subject to the same restrictions. Mr. Greg Accomando, Fleetwood Motor Company, stated it seems the City is approaching the situation of how to identify chop shops in a backward manner. Instead of identifying chop shops, the City wants to identify all the auto body shops and is telling the auto body shops they must maintain records indicating where all the parts come from, so the City of Fridley can backtrack these records to identify the original chop shop or where these parts came from. It is extremely difficult to backtrack parts, because they get parts from various sources such as junk yards and several out of state operations, where they may get a receipt from Texas for a part. For the City of Fridley to backtrack to Texas to find out if that part was stolen in Texas would be very difficult. Asking body shop operations and repair companies to keep track of their records to identify chop shops that are operating in Fridley seems very backwards to him. It would seem more logical to start from the beginning. If a chop shop operation is doing business in the City of Fridley, that should be easily identified. Mr. Accomando stated that if he were to operate a chop shop and handle a lot of cars, he would first want to have a dealer's license. The guidelines involved by the State of Minnesota in having a dealer's license are very restrictive. The State has investigations and checks every car to make sure it is property bought. So, this is already being done by the State of Minnesota. Mr. Accomando stated he agreed that overall the City of Fridley should have a general business license and some type of guidelines so the City knows what kinds of businesses are coming into the City of Fridley. It seems more realistic to identify chop shops operations by the use of a general business license by finding out what these businesses are doing. That seems fair. If he was to start a business in any other community, he would expect to go through those types of investigations. But, to take an existing business and backtrack parts to try to identify chop shops is very backwards. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:35 P.M. Mr. Kondrick stated he believed there should be an application process. The business owners and their attorney have brought up some new points of view that should be considered. They have agreed to meet with City staff and rework this ordinance. He is PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 15 not willing to make any recommendation, other than to have City staff work with the business owners and attorney to come up with a workable ordinance. Mr. Betzold stated he could not go along with the ordinance as written. It is too restrictive. A general business license might have some merit, but he could not recommend that at this time. To try to keep the honest legitimate repair garages in business and to try to keep the dishonest illegal ones out of business requires some oversight on the part of the City which means there has to be some kind of application process or some standards and criteria to determine whether or not an application should be denied or approved. Mr. Saba stated the attorney brought up the possibility of some kind of grandfather clause or section that would basically license the existing businesses. That is a good suggestion. What they are really concerned about are the new businesses or the change in ownership. He believed there might need to be a different level _ of applicability in terms of the ordinance. He believed there is a need for an ordinance for the reasons discussed. The worst thing that can happen to a small city like Fridley is to have chop shops or illegal activity occurring in any of the City's businesses, because it gives the whole city a bad name. This ordinance goes a long way toward protecting the business owners as well as the citizens of Fridley. Mr. Kuechle stated that from his personal view from being in business himself, he fully agrees that 120 days to approve a license is too long. That time has to be shortened. Thirty days would be right, with 60 days absolute maximum. Mr. Kuechle stated the comment about a short form renewal is a good idea. He would not be in favor of grandfathering in existing businesses, because you end up with two classes of facilities, some licensed and some unlicensed. Mr. Kuechle stated that as far as the insurance requirement, it seems every legitimate business already has some kind of liability insurance. As far as the maintenance of records, the City is asking for two years. In reality, businesses must keep records for three years for the IRS. Many times the current year's records are kept on the premises, and the other years are stored off the premises. The ordinance has to be changed to a reasonable time to produce the records. Mr. Kuechle stated he is somewhat surprised about the concern over checks versus cash. In his business, he doesn't deal with cash at all simply because there is no way of tracing purchases. The potential of inappropriate activity with cash is simply too' high. He would be surprised if a lot of businesses didn't deal with Mk PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 16 checks, because without checks, there is no record if audited by the IRS. Ms. Modig stated she cannot support a lot of the ordinance because it is very restrictive. She has a lot of concerns about the privacy factors. She knows it is necessary to know about illegal activities pertaining to this type of business. If someone has been convicted of a felony for chopping up cars before, then that might be a valid problem; but she did have a problem making it prohibitive for someone who has been convicted of another type of felony, has been rehabilitated, and is trying to start over in a new business. Ms. Modig stated that regarding the licensing on the ownership, they talked about the ownership being changed to more than 50%. That would be a good idea. She would like to see a lot of changes made in the records required. Recordkeeping in a day-to-day business is not always readily accessible. Ms. Modig stated she did not think they need to have language in the ordinance which is already in the State Statutes. There is no point in being redundant. Ms. Modig stated she would like this ordinance to do what it is intended to do, to protect the community from an influx of potential criminal activity by chop shops. But, she also does not want to lose any of the existing businesses in Fridley. Ms. Modig stated staff has done a lot of hard work on this ordinance; but she did agree with a statement made earlier and that is that just because it is a Minneapolis ordinance, that doesn't make it great. Mr. Betzold stated having the State Statute references in the ordinance does clarify that these are some of the criteria that will be considered for a revocation of a license. It helps establish a baseline. Mr. Betzold stated he agreed that records did not necessarily have to be produced immediately, but he did think the record-producing requirement is a good idea. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to forward to the City Council without a recommendation the proposed ordinance (proposed Chapter 18) to require a license for Motor Vehicle Repair Garages along with the comments from the October 2 , 1991, meeting. The Planning Commission cannot concur with the ordinance in its present written form and requests that the City staff, motor vehicle repair garage owners, and their attorney work together to produce a workable ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 1991 PAGE 17 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 5, 1991, HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Modig, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the September 5, 1991, Human Resources Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3 . RECEIVE SEPTEMBER 17 , 1991, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES. MOTION by Mr. Kuechle, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the September 17, 1991, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to adjourn the meeting. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Chairperson Betzold declared the motion carried and the October 2 , 1991, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 10: 00 p.m. R s ectfully ubmitted, Lyir Saba Rec rding Secretary S I G N - IN SHEET PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, October 2► 1991 Name Address/Business -Pi.,-, \ teS4,I Mad.,c_6 - 19, (-)Acii-r-e--5--)4 'o-,t_c�se-1' Z e//, 7' J.-v/,t' �' ?C//,, J7 ce,f- t' 75-titAio atc. . Iv.57 1, 4oi 011 Sep,t eec r iri'ifA `'7/' dad d due_ 0 a - *MOD Zailt o 7thO�si�v 7* 4 0 I‘ A11 / u it 7213 aviG ' ./* , A46-ai-- /1/0,/ez7,-,0-4-.(7- 7,/,,r,-(-- - ar7 9 exe-,,,,noe e Lu r,y LA 1/' n,e 64rys /lmlii)m lie , -19 C-drhf 17ve. &r-(ca,.„/„....4 ,....„ 6:a rg,..s'91C..14. 4 fra'a/6/EX R.4.1;?-- E-47‘. kOrki F-411)Lcv Ar,k_i-? looi 940 oskowie_ a iv., (( ,,4J Vie!ou v 4Jro ?()o•' 960 as -L'� Po lug $00,11 �vL JO�{�SG JAyJF /1/Z L,Lo. ,44,f 7 ao.,I,J/t/i rr.OAJ 7P/0 iJ" h✓ , /*K/ ; r j fly �eA4)5s/e-r i/',r toN1/y GtieveoIe-f- 7sOl /v". )Lf , 6s- 4 a_0,.._._ a Wig, 0,_, -. agen AconMpa y c)0 -Ple e%c.�..).(-9 1'v1o7 i2 do Wr p u�✓y _ (} �O GY K o/ h /eelLi,nr nin17-) ►2 re)7-2ipnr.uy '//' rs- 6,/,3 j I,/Ai1 ve z_514 fue/+,01 111-5` 2'ld Ave Si), . ylq„✓.Ve d/,.s Rcp,vd , o RiA 7r, ,tie QI, ; GL,ps (0 6 Wrif/i/feliC.1-eczA* "idxf' -=- 0-7,e /,)' 6,---7).,,,_ A -7 3� � L rjF S7 -)„ ,, Gim-et '�; v,� � 7! G{,✓�J. /mac .J . /7 ,644a R. iDA,vsv"i Q ,6 :›i-t S,#'c% Hark( F►-;Ll/c %i`rk f J3r°X- /wo 03�crr► Aka / rJ( j-t-,Sic7, 7'r`I . • fori STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : October 16, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER SAV #91-04 APPLICANT Bob Schroer/East Ranch Estates PROPOSED REQUEST To vacate a portion of 77th Avenue dedicated over Lot 1 , Block 1 , East Ranch Estates Third Addition LOCATION 7620 University Avenue N.E. SITE DATA SIZE Area to be vacated: 33' x 118' = 3,894 sq. ft. DENSITY PRESENT ZONING M-2, Heavy Industrial ADJACENT LAND USES C-3, General Shopping Center to the east; M-2, Heavy & ZONING pp g Industrial to to the north, south and west; C-2, General UTILITIES Business to the west PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SAV #91-04 Bobs Produce �, a 4y : a �' Q CiTiI1iii0 � q. / .'/ , PA'), C�'�'• I z. ` 6 `h+ a r'•~.' r;J` W s ROS-E�OALE R A0 ��)1.., 4lv); ra,i I ,.., - m ` ,' '?' Q? > y(rJy (xl�('PI 5') °lz C")I 0)4. x . ;n 'ts 6 I ``r' 'Pn y- ` •.. • aN-I 70 i •:;" !t 7s., y. ca: C /...X .� i� �") _ ,. .. I N.rvn Porgy 1 CN 2 ' a cc .. s't ,(s t(f) .�N l' 2•',:i0 77= W , } , �t AST a AI p�T _ ;�> I _, .- k chi - v '," ,--, I -" I .... ,Yae, 4 ij I. 111 W • F.1,A a, " h r +,. r• , t1 EAST RA CH ESTATES '' _ ��ES ,TES 11' FIRsn�� ,~�(� �, I fill0 . gg NE ! -.JTH/R r ADD. Aoa '` ` � a' '.. �n` ' ��..+ ►�. ,s7Iffia , . , - - - - . 4‘,-... : I; I A errliiiiit r.V 76114 �� ltel • _ s G) :29 � •,, t1 r 1 ��(J� 11 !ail 1 !N Ella g:‘,. •% �//�/ 04501 i se_ ✓ ') t 2 = ,' i 4, w 4i . lissol ..., Ap3v1low Z. i / . (40ol ( :a i (, I , t v t (W two) i , F- l24001 ° VVIZ t La�`r � (r)(2501 ;• I Nam¢. 26 ii A'_�� Ai mom t1 i SINN 2 05001 i 26 :1 :a:: i N.E.:iWIZIE t t- ea•' �tX _ wi c t . :1 1 _ - j i, n M ... - N2, �lsool i W . "2 a - rr 1 woo, (.0 0,501 2rt /O . ,g a 1. ' Ez4ricisl (44,„. M i 5, 1 ;. . j2 tt`0207 �11, �' — a•�; �,m 74TH f/ENUF i '''' W L.'...".1 �elNEE. ' ;1w2' 2 hi ( .x J i N „•19 i N / LOCATION MAP SAV #91-04 Bobs Produce r W © I• , Ili Q0r de'010fOr w cc tie00; �iOr, 4 1,//11U 1fZ " i, fii k40111 tit . %UAL/ „, pp oAØ k�,111 :7- ,,,,,Tp;••; . ►,V f/ ••••••:•sue.• , .4,,,,1/7 / ,.::::44 'A,:,,.., • ., "Kv9 ••e-•-•-4 1.Z .1 ►",.!i;•�i i / ja ,►•• • i,►•� :0° `a i 11 litrit. ' to.-4 A o N.ictIL T4 R•N FIC41,40.,NPA, d � � � „voA` 0-7. ,7%.. -4- 44, 4Aft ems ,.�n . I " `° + UNITY FIOA.wig �11�1 Y _ E . • � i _ ` %1fI111Q T-z� • HOSPITAL 1,1 , 7 \z/ illi Y 'o� ' -4 t 1 (i • ' llil II ' } 11 °." �_. * 16\1 ,Y1 lli or ;, � . ,e P': / 1;Y 7011 7 TH AVE. N.E. e. ^�ti' i7 32 r • 1N111N , .,,. GJIA . . . ••\ .• < 'Li' "� N“1,11 '••••• , 49 ••r.• , it YA!rir . . . I, � r -�� ZONING MAP Staff Report SAV #91-04, Bob Schroer Page 2 Request The petitioner requests that the City vacate that portion of 77th Avenue dedicated over Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition, generally located at the northwest corner of the parcel addressed as 7620 University Avenue N.E. The petitioner is also processing a rezoning, variance, and special use permit request to allow redevelopment of the 7620 University Avenue parcel. The Appeals Commission, at their October 1, 1991 meeting, reviewed the petitioner's variance request. The petitioner is requesting four variances: 1. To reduce the width of a parking stall from 10 feet to 9 feet for the spaces along the perimeter and in the northwest corner of the site. 2. To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 15 feet for the Lyndale Garden Center building. 3 . To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 10 feet for the Bob's Produce building. 4 . To reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 4 feet for the Bob's Produce building. The Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve all the variances except the reduction in parking stall widths along the perimeter of the site. Site The area proposed to be vacated is located north of the existing "L" shaped building which contains Bob' s Produce Ranch and two other tenants. The area is currently unimproved and is vegetated with a variety of native plant materials. The property is zoned M-2 , Heavy Industrial. There is C-3 , General Shopping Center district zoning to the east, additional M-2 , Heavy Industrial to the north, south, and west and also C-2, General Business zoning to the west. Zoning History The subject parcel has had a history of special use permit requests: * SP #71-04, by Green Giant Garden Center Staff Report SAV #91-04, Bob Schroer Page 3 * SP #71-07, by Andy Haugan, to allow the display of swimming pools * 1972 - transfer an extension of SP #71-04 to Green Giant Home and Garden Center * 1973 - extension of original SP #71-04 * 1974 - review of SP #71-04 (new number - SP #74-15) ; request to change the required cedar screening fence to chain link fence The most recent special use permit, SP #74-15, was issued to Frank's Nursery and Crafts. The purpose of SP #74-15 was to review the original special use permit requirements from 1971. Frank's Nursery relocated to Blaine, and the space was then occupied by Malmberg's Garden Center. In June 1991, Malmberg's closed the Fridley location and consolidated their operation at the Brooklyn Park facility. Analysis The portion of 77th Avenue proposed to be vacated is located along the northerly lot line of Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition. The petitioner is proposing to vacate the 77th Avenue right-of-way and include it with the proposed redevelopment of the parcel. The petitioner is also proposing to obtain a common access easement with the property owner to the north to provide improved access to his property, and new access to the proposed redevelopment area. The access easement and driveway design should be finalized prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed vacation has no impact on traffic patterns in the area. Only half of the required right-of-way was dedicated for 77th Avenue in the East Ranch Estates Third Addition plat.. The City vacated a portion of 77th Avenue located west of the University Avenue West Service Drive along the south property of the Kennedy Transmission parcel. Even if 77th Avenue was extended, it would be constructed through the center of the proposed redevelopment area. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed vacation request to the City Council, as the vacation request does not adversely impact traffic patterns in the area. Staff recommends two stipulations: 1. Variance request, VAR #91-32, rezoning request, ZOA #91-03 , and special use permit request, SP #91-11, be approved. Mk Staff Report SAV #91-04, Bob Schroer Page 4 2 . The access easement and driveway design between the redevelopment area and the property owner to the north be reviewed and approved by staff; and executed prior to issuance of a building permit. SAV #9 1-04 Bob's Produce 1ti*b 43aL 1 ..iba BU!L-.I • , alpi.IA io it.t... I It( . _ ..-......_ • 0 0 CO III Z Z < M IIL1 L . -1 13 . • 11.1 CC LL 0 D 0 _._._._ ._. \\ \ IWO L 0 Jattir --'-••••'. 1 ‘,, % \ 's .T7.-• ' V t' \!'‘ \ \ .•Zi • . N ti. i i 1 1- ' F --_„g-,_1*.--1, :-- . . .•id, ....• .•.• .•,•. VA§ _J • , __ ---. ll- -iii- --1:1 - :. \CO CC r-,--- 3i_-- - ::'-1 --1. • - - - - • _... , \ . , k \ -i•,,.) '' ' 1, . --...... IN • , _ M _, i____L______, :_ i, -1-k ;,=-1:,171H-:: . -1 15,;:i l' gr: Li '''t----3'7'-'A Z ---- -AM --7 1E§ 0 > 1Igf;:O gIolII I 1.____-_4 \\ ‘1,7 .), i a) _ o .. .. .. . 4.0. ...,. . al ... 0 a- 4 SITE PLAN • SAV #91-04 Bob's Produce DESCRIPTION SKETCH' 77th Avenue Vacation FORS Bob's Produce Ranch / .� NORTH SUBl7P9AN SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT 77TH AVENUE T 'r rea aoir • 118.00 N Z 0 :) W O r V w e 1, m z . n S - rg ,, 3�� z. 1" = 60' 2 b z i I 04 r PROPOSED DESCRIPTION S p � , That part of 77th Avenue lying easterly of the northerly O extension of the westerly line of Lot L Btock L EAST i RANCH ESTATES THIRD ADDITION, all as ptatted and of.record in the office of the County Recorder.. Anoka CoUrIty, . _ o9i�3i�t ' W;nnesota. i SITE PLAN CITY OF FRIDLEY FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER•6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432•(612)57I-3450• FAX (612)571-1287 September 25, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The City of Fridley Planning Commission will be holding an informal hearing on a request for a vacation, SAV #91-03 , by Bob's Produce Ranch, to vacate that part of 77th Avenue lying easterly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition, all as platted and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 7620 University Avenue N.E. Anyone who wishes to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, October 16, 1991 at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. , at 7 : 30 p.m. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OP FRIDLEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AV 2 LJE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Domminity Deve_torment Department (612) 571-3450 VACATION APPLICATION P 3RM PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittals; see attadled Address: 7620 University Ave. NE Legal description: See Exhibit A(attached) Lot Block Tract/Additioa� Legal description of easement to be vacated: See Exhibit B (attached) Current zoning: Commercial Square footage/acr+eage k.Approx. 207,000 ft.2 Reason for vacation: There is no need for this road to pass through the parcel. All o er rose y own s a red a dir �l street e s Ave. is only used as ace o Ranc rs oa s pe tttea%o con roue. FEE OWNER IITIOTT (Ccritract Purchasers: Fee Owners must sign this form prior to prooesing) NAME East Ranch Estates/BoB's Produce Ranch ADDRESS 7620 University Ave. NE Fridley, Minn. 55432 DAYTIME PHONE 571-6620 SIGNATURE DATE 9-13-91 PETITIONER INFORMATION NAME East Ranch Estates/BoB's Produce Ranch ADDS 7620 University Ave. NE Fridley, Minn. 55432 DAYTIME PHONE 571-6620 :� l SIGNATURE 1 DATE. 9-i3-91 Fee: $150.00 x Permit SAV # Recepit # 3 7) 7 Application received by: Scheduled Planning Commission date: QCt ejk" ((O , ! ? 7/ Scheduled City Council date: EiJiIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, east Ranch Estates First Addition Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition Except East 200' thereof also Except West 115' of East 315' of North 160' of said lot subject to easement, all in Anoka County, Minnesota. Planning 9/27/91 SP #91-11 , SAV #91-04 , ZOA #91-03 Bob's Produce Ranch MAILING LIST Council Bob's Produce Ranch J. Benson/G. Bradbury Bob Schroer 7710 University Avenue N.E. 7620 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 J. Benson/G. Bradbury Malmberg's Nursery 5353 Gamble Drive 7616 University Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Fridley, MN 55432 Kennedy Transmission Flower City 7700 University Avenue N.E. 7618 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Niebuhr University Station 7501 Hyde Park Drive Gary Braam Minneapolis, MN 55435 7610 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Machining Inc. 7773 Ranchers Road N.E. Marquette State Bank Fridley, MN 55432 225 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 William Minder . Lail 2100 Lyndale Avenue S. Marquette State Bank Minneapolis, MN 55405 5250 Central Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Planning Comm. Chair RECC Fridley Limited Part. City Council Members 530 Parkland Place Minneapolis, MN 55416 RECC Fridley Limited Part. 7685 Main Street N.E. Hinrich's Properties Fridley, MN 55432 ',/• 220 - 77th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55442 Mill End Textile 250 Osborne Road N.E. Pet Food Warehouse Fridley, MN 55432 250 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Newman Nedegaard Const. Charles Smith 1814 Northdale Boulevard N.W. 10512 Spring Hill Drive Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Carmel, IN 46032 Conoco 7600 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Continent Oil Company Drawer 1267 Ponca City, OK 74601 STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : October 16, 199 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER ZOA #91-03 APPLICANT Bob Schroer/East Ranch Estates PROPOSED REQUEST To rezone Lot 1 , Block 1 , East Ranch Estates from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping Center LOCATION 7620 University Avenue N.E. SITE DATA SIZE Area to be rezoned 118' x 372.25' = 43,925.5 sq. ft. ( 1 acres DENSITY PRESENT ZONING M-2, Heavy Industrial ADJACENT LAND USES M-2, Heavy Industrial to the north and west; C-3, General & ZONING Shopping Center to the east; C-2, General Business to UTUTIES the west PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ZOA #9 1-03 Bob's Produce ai 1 .. %, 4 : , • i.I ,"„.., .... :.s; /5-.07).. t'. (. ' ' I ..: e f ii r . ..... .. . .-.,.. .. —•-- .9_w- u_ 9 1.. , :. ,..)44, 1 ROSEDALE' 1 a R ,t; - y,0,:..3 42's 0 a '''' f f'42'I••a , . , , , .,.-..-- : .. r .g• il .1i „... • 0 - , - w _____ 1 1 ...... . ..,, ........,, ..c r i ..90:).i.••,c'P' *,; x ; ,,,•(?)••1 6-Of, M ....'0 4 I'S 4, 1 , •, i '.7• ' Z•• , zi- - .., i . - t 9091 .:(,), ..=., ,,•,,, ‘ ,' isi it , „ (..) c' : .., ,-:'z •, 2, k :4_ ..._. ,,,, _,,, ,, 4, . _ , _ .... . _, . f - , ZI:' 7 . - d'e I 7,t)-. --:0,, ') ''" -..'.-- --• '.. •i VZ, — ..,,.. _ : '''''' 'ra Ti1 1: AN4:x,-:„..s. k ,.....", • ,n/ "'" "'"" ....‘:.,•••::,;\...\.i....:::/ , , • ,-tnigf,:....:;:-;7i.... , 60) 0 kJ " ' 4.4.0 . r. ,,f / i.' tt s /(,) -* temae•Per4 ty, . r•., • -,,.....,....... ...It Z • 3 q I CH .4: 2 i = ,..- m rr 1- ...e.ri isi _ . i 41 • )-- . .. r- -- 0) .•, 1 z ....) •- ..r.1 v ,, !i...> ? ......:...,..._ , ,.., ,.- -...,...-:, r. . r A- _ ::, -.. — ' ___, .....-. ! %46V k i 1 4 1r t • swomnp...•4.4,04.4....,4 1 1 (- - , i , • 1 a , ,- .„„.....-/ .....i•i,-, - e'fc' ...• 1 = ouar....,..•.1%.•••••,•••• ..• 04 T k ••iii Izi to •• 1 i 1 pi) 1 it, ; , •r• 4 4 ., I-- • l< • Pi- i-69 1 4 4 .A•• ''.. ':,,, N lif..‘ c ..., 1 1) ....,!,,•,..-.•-•#. - %.t.-..- ... .,°. 4.rie* . _, ,,,Fa! ts„_,44,- , ....... --.:;,---•-•• _.... .d.r,--e,dg•,cip E. " • - ...... ..,. 77 T H—Nay. ._.--1.1 , - . •. _ , 1.'4.... .,_# roar- • psi 1 icirt4-4::g. ,o.4 r Or .,,•,;.../.••••• :-..t.:: -• Ey I = I wow, ‘ , c co ..:‘, i 4./ ,:,., -• , ,. ; .t • -- , .44,. . E 11 j TH/R A D. ..t. , = AD _ ..1. MI R _-„ 411' I • (261°1 ' ( • —....marisfi10 6.,0.,) ill (410114g144;-• 2 0 .a'-----. ........- a • -••- 1• /m(eiw)I/.,'.0"0.0....,4.„.//- ;-". -#..•.•..f...t,:,—,... . 2•50,6, -------• -.0-,,.:;,4.c(*.o.„'•,,•,.,..,,.,,,--,•a•1 .•,••,••„r,,„.i(.0.,.4,.,.•.,.. 1'.I,1 11, "L•.-' •.W=ff 7••i••i• 1 ..•.•.1Bi'•.%••2- e•=fr'.'1E'•.••'•i•'i 1.30 i-76,TV -nLai,IW AvMiE•ni•0f ,7 - . ,,4,01 ) " 15 — - ,,iI• i.•. ....1_...A_. II - - it 1 0 9 -Tr:a••• . I : Z - W • zill • 1 oe,sco -. fr.) I, 04001 (1)(150) 4 ''''' * • lizi,—. 5m. . ,‘ , ..-- r7 t 6)0'001 !, 112F82,2 Si1=1!)-‘1 1 ., „ I 4 7. „,,,, • t (24.,k2''(4 0442'E:72,2 . , R(.....,(1350) 2 5 ,' 2 ;• IV*IP * . . EZ Milli , 26 . A MOM . 6 1 i Cilia 09421 •07g,,, 4,, * 0: 1.. , 09' • - a kt„ ••I - kz• t114" Eilialita rMigEl •' • .. sli 2 00 (0.500) 0)0501 % r tk -----/--- A.._tt___...,,- ...,._ ,..2. .,,:,.._ ..,______75, .e ..1 4 t • 4CZ,.. 0)(400) : cr I 0 *0 ,,,,„ .......-,_,. ,, ..-..r. "•' ....... ; • -, (%) •, ' 7.' a • -• - 4 ,, 4350 - 00i - 44 ii • 0(4501 'a • 03 . 't x ‹Z 11 4. • ,.:'? 4.. 0,50, 21 (""'" 1 td tt 1 ' law Jo , ,. 210:4, 1 1-1;, :_i_1:, , , • 2P 1%0 ', (0(5501 7, ICS IN. :;;'1„1...., E A _211 „,,• 4 , -.. ; cn.— 1 It .' ' 4 TH AVENUE RE. 25 I 2 4 AV 4' _ 1 6m.-00, I a. • . ... ''' ........ ...‘ 140) 0 r 4 • 0 (4i.lo, I 1 I... -11 ":r. ,_ 62: 1,7 .1/'_. z . ,__ ,_..5 LOCATION MAP ZOA #91-03 • Bob's Produce 4 • y • U V';1' ,.._A.; tt ' �:It ,,j, 1tt,�t0,44/��� 4i01 1 0 /V/ r. j 3- ..i,•, . 441 *, ., 4 r... 0,::.4.,.....,........i......-4::;: , 6.i .4 / 11;":".311k4rj j// ►••••4i,•• •$ ••�►•..' ►••••••�•4 1 c CV, "•"•;,":;•", 4 ♦•. '1;� ►•••.1_ - 2 ..•.•i •4"'v,''Iv q�y 4e ! k • s,,4.4, ��i7VW .�rlr1i,,, a ADD I► . Ao __..:: rl 1 UNITY lii.:. .5. Ir Ft0 _ llY �.2 Ntll . - E .. :' ll ® e r1 HOSPITAL iiiiiil�l�l , 1- - 4 0...■ • 1, ...� .fir ; IIf11f11f111fC: :7C� l 4 0':! 111f17 ®®I ``� 6 ;7A 03 t ' '1$ i + li ,,./e IV418 :NM: Eibig".Mli . ! el, � A ;tro o _ `TH AVE. N.E. G •••1 �3 Ii JJ.lEIIAI, ;I Aritit,N�• z 7.::.*::::;..1 Irr � 1. f.t:.i:.q..,t 1 I 1:. 1,''(1? ;r4Ittos'''. r 14?.1.1 ANTI • r % �r ,�. illr if a, r11•►11: N, ,R Q wribL iiii MOW 44 �' 4 , .q r 4 •IA, g. • . .7 7 if . ZONING MAP Staff Report ZOA #91-03, Bob Schroer Page 2 REQUEST The petitioner requests that Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition be rezoned from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3 , General Shopping Center District. The subject parcel is a portion of 7620 University Avenue N.E. The rezoning request is one of four land use requests the petitioner is processing. The Appeals Commission, at their October 1, 1991 meeting, reviewed the petitioner's variance request. The petitioner is requesting four variances: 1. To reduce the width of a parking stall from 10 feet to 9 feet for the spaces along the perimeter and in the northwest corner of the site. 2 . To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 15 feet for the Lyndale Garden Center building. 3 . To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 10 feet for the Bob's Produce building. 4. To reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 4 feet for the Bob's Produce building. The Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve all the variances except the reduction in parking stall widths along the perimeter of the site. SITE Located on the property is the west leg of the "L" shaped building in which Bob's Produce and two other existing tenants are located. The parcel is located adjacent to the Marquette Bank facility and is currently zoned M-2, Heavy Industrial. There is additional M- 2 , Heavy Industrial zoning to the north and west, C-3, General Shopping Center zoning to the east, and C-2, General Business zoning to the west. ZONING HISTORY The subject parcel has had a history of special use permit requests: * SP #71-04, by Green Giant Garden Center * SP #71-07, by Andy Haugan, to allow the display of swimming pools - Staff Report ZOA #91-03 , Bob Schroer Page 3 * 1972 - transfer an extension of SP #71-04 to Green Giant Home and Garden Center * 1973 - extension of original SP #71-04 * 1974 - review of SP #71-04 (new number - SP #74-15) ; request to change the required cedar screening fence to chain link fence The most recent special use permit, SP #74-15, was issued to Frank's Nursery and Crafts. The purpose of SP #74-15 was to review the original special use permit requirements from 1971. Frank's Nursery relocated to Blaine, and the space was then occupied by Malmberg's Garden Center. In June 1991, Malmberg's closed the Fridley location and consolidated their operation at the Brooklyn Park facility. ANALYSIS In analyzing any variance request, three tests must be met: 1. The compatibility of the proposed use with the district intent; 2 . Compliance with the district zoning regulations; and 3 . Compatibility with adjacent uses and zoning. Proposed Use Compatible with the District Intent The proposed use for this portion of the redevelopment parcel is for a Lyndale Garden Center facility and outdoor storage area. The C-3, General Shopping Center district regulations allow as a special use garden centers which require outdoor storage. The petitioner has also applied for a special use permit in order for the City to review the change of operation from the previous special use permit in 1974 . Compliance with District Regulations The subject parcel can meet the district regulations as outlined in the C-3 zoning district. The parcel currently functions in conjunction with the adjacent property to the east and the petitioner is proposing to continue this use. The parcel should be officially combined with adjacent parcels. Compatibility with Adjacent Uses and Zoning By rezoning the subject parcel from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping Center District, the City will improve the Staff Report ZOA #91-03, Bob Schroer Page 4 compatibility of the parcel with adjacent uses and zoning. The parcel has been functioning in a retail capacity since the construction of the original Bob's Produce facility. Retail sales are a permitted accessory use in the industrial district if the retail sales are in conjunction with a manufacturing or wholesaling operation. As this is currently not the case, the use is in nonconformance with the M-2 zoning district regulations. The, proposed retail sales will be compatible with the proposed redevelopment plan as well as with the adjacent use of the bank facility to the west. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of rezoning request, ZOA #91-03, to rezone Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping Center, with the following stipulation: 1. Vacation request, SAV #91-04, variance request, VAR #91-32, and special use permit request, SP #91-11, be approved. ZOA #91-03 Bobs Produce i DESCRIPTION SKETCH' 77th Avenue Vacation FORt BoWs Produce Ranch — - - - �,� NORTH SUBUR$AN SANITARY SEVER EASEMENT --�.. " ` ','"� -- -- - r ''�f 77TH AVENUE 1{ vacaTiNI SYREET S 89. 59' 30e E 118,00 fr" N A 0 X \, OG r V w E '�, �' m co ‘0 , _. JD a S . ; cy r3�� 1" = 60' 9 , cn x h z Area to be Rezoned 7.3 r 3 1 I IA Ts.te% PROPOSED DESCRIPTION_ �N RQ�`� That part of 77+.h Avenue lying easterly of the northerly extension of the westerly line of Lot t Btock L fAsr 1 RANCH STATES THIRD ADDITION, all as platted and..Of_record in the of F!ce of the County Recorder, Anoka County, . p9i_3/91 i F1!nne ota, - I SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, October 16, 1991 at 7: 30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Rezoning, ZOA #91-03, by Bob' s Produce Ranch, to rezone from M-2, Heavy Industrial to C-3, General Shopping Center, on Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition, generally located at 7620 University Avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: October 2, 1991 October 9, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. • ,.. CITY OF.FRIDLEY : r 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E.. •• •? ;. FRIDLEY MN :55432 :,. Q ariunity Development Department (612) 571-3450 7,1 << � APPTAICATION FORM PROPERZ'Y II ATIM : site plan required for sukinittals; see attached Address: 7620 University:Ave NE, Fridley, Minn: Legal;de -iption 'ca t l Bik; 1 East Ra 19h Estates '3rd.Addition a' • • • Lot Block W�r,, ; _ ,ZTr�act/Addition z fi'0:tore , .Af, + •`^ '` Square: et f _ x,a '.�- ...e ,,,, • x Current zoning � M � Square t oatage/ creag • �y�'{ ram„ r ', . zoning:; L,� •th*v- x 't Yt: � t. • 7 Requesting �O 3= �� .4�.��� tx 4 Reason for"rezon rg FEE °FINER'INFOORMATION - h, (Contract tk rchasers: •_ Fee Owners must:sign this form prior to processing) East Ranch Estates/BoB's:Produce Ranch • .ADDREss 7620 University Ave. NE Fridley, Minn. 55432 DAy'rimE pf'itNE 571-6620 SIGNATURE mri 9-20-91 • kwrxr1ONER INFORMATION u 'f " NAME East Ranch Estates/Boa's Produce Ranch ADDREss 7620 University Ave.,NE - Fridley, Mirth `'55432 DAYTIME PHONE 571-6620 SICAZURE DATE 9-20-91 Fee: $300.00 X Permit zOA # 9 /—O 3 Receipt # °y l 13 Application received by: - Scheduled Planning Qrunission date: (�J /(p, y19' 9 l Scheduled City Council date: , 'Tor F Sn I 4 a ��22vv; I Planning 9/27/91 SP #91-10, SAV #91-04, ZOA #91-03 Bob's Produce Ranch MAILING LIST Council Bob's Produce Ranch J. Benson/G. Bradbury Bob Schroer 7710 University Avenue N.E. 7620 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 • Fridley, MN 55432 J. Benson/G. Bradbury Malmberg's Nursery 5353 Gamble Drive 7616 University Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Fridley, MN 55432 Kennedy Transmission Flower City 7700 University Avenue N.E. 7618 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Niebuhr University Station 7501 Hyde Park Drive Gary Braam Minneapolis, MN 55435 7610 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Machining Inc. 7773 Ranchers Road N.E. Marquette State Bank Fridley, MN 55432 225 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 William Minder 2100 Lyndale Avenue S. Marquette State Bank Minneapolis, MN 55405 5250 Central Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Planning Comm. Chair RECC Fridley Limited Part. City Council Members 530 Parkland Place Minneapolis, MN 55416 RECC Fridley Limited Part. 7685 Main Street N.E. Hinrich's Properties Fridley, MN 55432 220 - 77th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55442 Mill End Textile 250 Osborne Road N.E. Pet Food Warehouse Fridley, MN 55432 250 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Newman Nedegaard Const. Charles Smith 1814 Northdale Boulevard N.W. 10512 Spring Hill Drive Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Carmel, IN 46032 Conoco 7600 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Continent Oil Company Drawer 1267 Ponca City, OK 74601 STAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITYOF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : October 16, 1991 FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER SP #91-11 APPLICANT Bob Schroer/East Ranch Estates PROPOSED REQUEST To allow garden centers or nurseries which require outdoor display or storage. LOCATION 7620 University Avenue N.E. SITE DATA SIZE 218,989.59 sq. ft. (5.03 acres) DENSITY PRESENT ZONING C-3, General Shopping Center District ADJACENT LAND USES C-3, General Shopping Center to the north; M-2, Heavy & ZONING Industrial to the west; C-2, General Business to the UTILITIES west and south PARK DEDICATION ANALYSIS FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS CONFORMANCE TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJACENT USES & ZONING ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval with stipulations APPEALS RECOMMENDATION PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION SP #9 1-I11 . , Bob's Produce I r1 � 4 ; O , �� p — 1 J \ 1^ a 1 :U) _ J. j}I 1 1 1 6 ;st l„,•• . ,,,.r y„. .. 0i 1.4i)iI J( :lr/1 . •'3- I „t :��: r „, • m J _? T t f•' 7 W 1 ROSEDA(.E .• I } ,�� fl .u.: I 4.,•Ai- = U .J' 4' :� J,(, I."i 00.�'� `f). �2 Z ,J'(`)1 rcO1R x .it",9 , .i:s 1 I '1 ' t (.0 . ¢ , i ' 1'. 2C,Jin 4 C7 rn . ,.. .4 7' ) a �(r),1 c�9)z 1D ;u's M'c r— , i '� r 1 i i (rr):(i v (1r j ir... • - y.. .'.:'.A �,. a.r _ • "?oy_ : J 'i: ` i,e,; 7_')! .ii8 1t',`a �-r l e. ,i=, 1 1. ;a w • - •AV ' l i ' •• ' • e rr! s t /a> li . ,`., yI ES -Y . n. _air. .. .vv. .. 3 N ``` .„7„.0.5)Ali,?. I'..1 S., 4:,) * ZIZ:—i' Ec©N 1 . ; s ' s. -, w ,u. s )4.)1`k4ji (� !J Ii1 ., y. i .... ��.��J r— W 77 TH....WAY _ =i 17l�J/ ..4.-'4 'I; ���7 _ /'ySc/ ' CH (ASfRAA(CH:.wt .° I iSBORN . x � " `?ASr RAID £srar£s 4 • _ , .r-% : " J ' IooES TES (:) > FIRSfit) f,,(+ , .i ' 4... f. TH/R ADD. _ �� - 1 gieggli ,. ----". T_5-.I 0 g i 3 Am , L i E .s, 24°/ ....Ili a ..." ..... , ... se.,,,,a ,...„._____,_ „GI,' „7.-.1, ,,,t /~ / �/, ./ (O ( mil rat. z' I =WI �� f—_i • t- (IIJOI I re e (/400) i NSW 2 / = 2T .y a, ' m is .t t !_ (U/LOOT t i , (24001 I �r w k•�/. =Ma 1 3 s. U26 e • 1 A`1� SZEISill - t605 ,. i (9(woJ ® „WO ,! _t _2J t. o/..4 r,i.."I -----A-- :c• _ 35 p/.• : N.E.u i •� _�n It,E ./4501 i1 o., t a` , :oc., • lr : i y • C . IQ 1% J . R r4i Pool .a.. ,/5 W � r v �)i;y �•—„- I W .1 iiibt:= r,�t�" �.. } _ - - �,." �,74TH 40 A/ENUc N.E. t+ �11 I. &WON , i, 4 „,....). „„i ,, ,,, LOCATION MAP - SP #91-11 Bob's Produce o , a �T�� sr cc , A 4 „, A e crwAr..... k""" / ' /a / 'Ji` '� : ' filc;lyle 7 7 ;�11�11� ��ylaK'ff,,e.r - . r pralt•v:::. kat( p, v- ...• ,11 i vv• ►rt►t►Ot►t►t►t►t►t► t►t•t►.i•♦ 6,,i� ►fit►♦<te.oli ,. Ad.,• , ,vis -....,,,.,....-, .•••••, ••,........ ►!'►�,4-::,t►.-1 z '.'•:,;,, i. / ja� *.♦ t .►t►t ! , ►t►L�t►t•-,'.•• .....„. ill •r 0,0-4404-:., ,,..., i' ,. ,1 � 0►C , . :Y :0, .e.fdTjE ►4�+v.'►�• e� WORK�- t►S� i B!1R _ M cc,tot ll s,,4•l'fi1, i� �/ �r� A'° ' UNIT Y � o _: 11111� • ,- - ,,Y 1 .. iItis T•z� HOSPITAL o i . 1 idh 0 Mill '0 ,1 f lb( 4111 • A •. ' /VIITIt--— -1 0 / ' . —WI 9 * ..EIII ;._ ' ° a -"1/ 1 ,..,\ 1 4i!I 1 /eV M11E,2• ' ,- ;'yi +p r/ Ir I5 '' r. f '�" T TH AVE. N.E. ly 1? - 3y� r' �Ir1�1.11111111 GftA .:.\ 4< yy; • AlleilliA., 1,-W, - ci-4, it-P ... 47140 i\ .4 4400.-- . . . .•:;:r.:•.:F:;:!:':•-•• ! • •••••• . -•, 4414- , % '-' / Atifilli -..:: :;:.Q..:.:i p 4 4 t..-'-9. - iiii ,. Oc ,1\•'riffatatatatAM; ZONING MAP mmmmm Staff Report SP #91-11, Bob Schroer Page 2 REQUEST Although previous special use permits have been granted for garden centers, additional outdoor storage is proposed and the proposed screening is different than originally approved. Staff advised the petitioner to file a request for a special use permit. The request is for 7620 University Avenue N.E. The special use permit is one of four land use requests that the petitioner is processing. The Appeals Commission, at their October 1, 1991 meeting, reviewed the petitioner's variance request. The petitioner is requesting four variances: 1. To reduce the width of a parking stall from 10 feet to 9 feet for the spaces along the perimeter and in the northwest corner of the site. 2 . To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 15 feet for the Lyndale Garden Center building. 3. To reduce the rear yard setback from 40 feet to 10 feet for the Bob's Produce building. 4. To reduce the side yard setback from 15 feet to 4 feet for the Bob's Produce building. The Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve all the variances except the reduction in parking stall widths along the perimeter of the site. SITE Located on the property is a single story "L" shaped building in which Bob's Produce Ranch and two other tenants are located. The petitioner is proposing to redevelop the site with two stand-alone facilities; one for Bob's Produce Ranch and the other for Lyndale Garden Center. The special use permit specifically pertains to the proposed Lyndale Garden Center site, as they require outdoor display and storage. The property is zoned C-3 , General Shopping Center District. There M-2 , Heavy Industrial zoning to the west; C-2, General Business zoning to the west and south; and additional C-3 zoning to the north. Zoning History The subject parcel has had a history of special use permit requests: * SP #71-04 , by Green Giant Garden Center Staff Report SP #91-11, Bob Schroer Page 3 * SP #71-07, by Andy Haugan, to allow the display of swimming pools * 1972 - transfer an extension of SP #71-04 to Green Giant Home and Garden Center * 1973 - extension of original SP #71-04 * 1974 - review of SP #71-04 (new number - SP #74-15) ; request to change the required cedar screening fence to chain link fence The most recent special use permit, SP #74-15, was issued to Frank's Nursery and Crafts. The purpose of SP #74-15 was to review the original special use permit requirements from 1971. Frank's Nursery relocated to Blaine, and the space was then occupied by Malmberg's Garden Center. In June 1991, Malmberg's closed the Fridley location and consolidated their operation at the Brooklyn Park facility. ANALYSIS The requested special use permit will continue the garden center use; however, the proposed Lyndale Garden Center tenant will be enlarging the existing outdoor storage area. Currently, the property contains approximately 34 , 000 square feet of outdoor storage. The Lyndale Garden Center tenant is proposing 47, 000 square feet. The outdoor storage area is proposed to be enclosed by a six foot high picket fence. Staff has recommended to the petitioner that the fence be maintained at the required parking setback of 20 feet from the public right-of-way. This is to ensure adequate separation between traffic and pedestrians, as well as provide area for landscaping and snow storage. The proposed outdoor storage facility will not conflict with traffic patterns, as the traffic and parking areas will be separate from the outdoor storage area. Staff recommends that bulk materials such as mulches, fertilizer, peat moss, top soil, etc. , be stored along the west portion of the property near the proposed building, and not be visible from Osborne Road. Site Design Issues Drainage The petitioner will be required to submit a drainage plan with calculations for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. The existing storm water system does not serve the site, so the petitioner is proposing to split the drainage on the parcel. The south half of the site will drain east into the Minnesota Department of Transportation ditch along the west side of • Staff Report SP #91-11, Bob Schroer Page 4 University Avenue. The drainage from the remaining portion of the site will be detained and then released into a pipe which will carry the water north to another series of pipes. Parking The petitioner is proposing 190 parking stalls. Based on the ratio of one space for every 150 square feet of gross retail building area, the code requires 220 spaces. This is the most restrictive requirement. There is adequate area on the parcel in the outdoor storage area to provide the additional 30 spaces, should they be required. Signage Redevelopment of the parcel will eliminate the current use of temporary signs in a manner that is nonconforming with the ordinance. Signage will be allowed on both buildings as well as on a pylon sign. The petitioner may propose a silo to be located between the buildings. Staff is researching if or how the proposed silo is to be regulated by the sign ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the special use permit request, SP #91-11, by Bob Schroer, with the following stipulations: 1. Variance request, VAR #91-32, rezoning request, ZOA #91-03, and vacation request, SAV #91-04, shall be approved. 2. The petitioner shall submit, and staff to approve, a drainage plan prior to issuance of a building permit. 3 . The petitioner shall submit a completed access easement with the adjacent property owner to the north prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. Bulk items, such as mulches, fertilizer, peat moss, top soil, etc. , shall be stored along the west portion of the building. Only plant materials shall be visible from the public right- of-way. 5. The proposed picket fence shall be installed at the 20 foot parking setback, and shall not exceed six feet in height, along the east and south sides of the storage area. 6. A landscaping plan in conformance with the ordinance shall be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff Report SP #91-11, Bob Schroer Page 5 7. All parcels shall be combined into one tax parcel. . a SP #91-11 < , Bob's Produce . !VeI.L 63aLi ,aa 2U!L alpiiA io A4.- ` o Vcn W Zz Z QM Cr W WC L v • D ... \ \ to o --.-.- ;\ \ > , ; \\ \ 0 IA \ . CIC > III C . ' <4....\..._ 11-2k ) \ 1 (1. >-, -,-1 - -- '1'. CO • J Eill iL Cf) CC r—.-7.-_, -...--_...__:___ ____ > .. mL.,_____.;__,_ :4 4-4- 4,,',:14 111"-- -.---1 vieti V, : \', 1.1; Irk' '1. v ;3 s..1..,� 3 e , 1,'�\ \ o z mN. El 1 4 1 \ gt SITE PLAN PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION Notice is hereby given that there will be a Public Hearing of the Fridley Planning Commission at the Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, October 16, 1991 at 7: 30 p.m. for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #91- 11, by Bob's Produce Ranch, per Section 205. 15. 01.C. (11) of the Fridley City Code, to allow garden centers or nurseries which require outside display or storage of merchandise, on Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates First Addition, and Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition, and Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition, except the East 200 feet thereof, also except the West 115 feet of the East 315 feet of the North 160 feet of said lot subject to an easement, all in Anoka County, Minnesota, generally located at 7620 University Avenue N.E. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIRMAN PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: October 2, 1991 October 9, 1991 Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department, 571-3450. CITY OF FRIDTEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 Community Development Department (612) 571-3450 SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FORM PROPERTY INFORMATION - site plan required for submittals; see attached Address: 7620 University Ave. NE Fridley, Minn. 55432 Legal description: See exhibit A (attached) Lot Block Tract,/Addition 2 Current zoning: Commercial _ g foota e,/a acre ge Approx. 207,000 ft. Reason for'special use permit: Nursery with outside storage. This has been a use on this. property for several years. The only differences are new tenant and a new Section of City Code: building. j FEE OWNER INFORMATION (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners.=miust sign this form prior to processing) NAME -East Ranch Estates/Boa's Produce Ranch ADDRESS 7620 University Ave. NE Fridley, Minn. 55432 (MIME j PHONE 571-6620 SIGNATURE DATE 9-13-91 rvrmONER INFORMATION NAME East Ranch Estates/BoB's Produce Ranch ADDRESS 7620 University Ave. NE Fridley, Minn. -55432 DAYTIME PHONE 571-6620 SIGNATURE DATE 9-13-91 Fee: $200.00 x $100.00 for residential second accessory buildings Permit sP # 1- !o Receipt # /7/J Application received by: ,.tV( fi GL 3:( 4046/NA--- Scheduled Planning Commissionhate: D Iep1. ??I Scheduled City Council date: EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates First Addition Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates Third Addition Lot 4, Block 2, East Ranch Estates Second Addition Except East 200' thereof also Except West 115' of East 315' of North 160' of said lot subject to easement, all in Anoka County, Minnesota. Planning 9/27/91 SP #91-10, SAV #91-04, ZOA #91-03 Bob's Produce Ranch MAILING LIST Council Bob's Produce Ranch J. Benson/G. Bradbury Bob Schroer 7710 University Avenue N.E. 7620 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 J. Benson/G. Bradbury Malmberg's Nursery 5353 Gamble Drive 7616 University Avenue N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55426 Fridley, MN 55432 Kennedy Transmission Flower City 7700 University Avenue N.E. 7618 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Kenneth Niebuhr University Station 7501 Hyde Park Drive Gary Braam Minneapolis, MN 55435 7610 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Machining Inc. 7773 Ranchers Road N.E. Marquette State Bank Fridley, MN 55432 225 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 William Minder 2100 Lyndale Avenue S. Marquette State Bank Minneapolis, MN 55405 5250 Central Avenue N.E. Columbia Heights, MN 55421 Planning Comm. Chair RECC Fridley Limited Part. City Council Members 530 Parkland Place Minneapolis, MN 55416 RECC Fridley Limited Part. 7685 Main Street N.E. Hinrich's Properties Fridley, MN 55432 220 - 77th Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55442 Mill End Textile 250 Osborne Road N.E. Pet Food Warehouse Fridley, MN 55432 250 Osborne Road N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 David Newman Nedegaard Const. Charles Smith_ 1814 Northdale Boulevard N.W. 10512 Spring Hill Drive Coon Rapids, MN 55433 Carmel, IN 46032 Conoco.. 7600 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Continent Oil Company Drawer 1267 Ponca City, OK 74601 214 5. • • • • REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 1974 PAGE 4 6- • - • and that the proper charges be taken care of for the Metro Sewer Board. Sec. •.ed by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl decl• -• the • - • motion carried unanimously. - RECEIVING THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING'OF DEC 16, 1974:0 EC • CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT, P. S. #7, 18, HERWAL RICE CREEK TERRACE, BY GEORGE L. WALQUIST: A REPLAT OF LOT 1 i OUTLOT 1, BLOCK 1, DON'S i ADDITION, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF ' - CREEK ROAD AND CENTRAL AVENUE N. E.:• . The Public Works Director advised the •uncil that the Planning Commission at their r meeting of December 4th recommen• . approval of the plan with the four stipulations #: . listed in the minutes. He said e present action of the Council should be to set a public hearing. . NOTION by Councilman rwalt to set a public hearing on the matter of a preliminary • plat P. S. #74-08 - requested by Mr. George L. Waiquist for January 13, 1975. Seconded by Co • lman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared - the motion • ried unanimously. - Coun man Starwalt noted. that the drainage in this area is critical. Mayor Liebl . . - this could be discussed at the.Public Hearing. . • • REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERM SP. #74-15 FRANK'S NURSERY: PER FRIDLEY CITY CODE, SECTION 205.101, 3, N, TO AL W-4H TSIDE STORAGE OF MERCHANDISE BEHIND AN x UNSCREENED CHAIN LINK FENCE, TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, EAST RANCH ESTATES • 1ST ADDITION, TOGETHER WITH THE EASTERLY 120 FEET OF THAT PART OF NWT OF THE NW4 OF ' `s SECTION 11 T-30, R-24, LYING NORTH OF OSBORNE ROAD AND WEST AND ADJACENT TO LOT 1, a BLOCK 1, EAST RANCH ESTATES 1ST ADDITION, THE SAME BEING 7620 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N. E.: j • The Public Works Director pointed out that the recommendation of the Planning • Commission was that an application for a special use permit was not necessary . at this time, but the stipulations on the current special Use permit should be - f modified. He further explained that in the original special use permit, the wood i • fence had been stipulated for screening purposes because there Was storage of p • material in this area. He pointed out that the present request asked for the use of I a chain link fence for security purposes and there is not much material being - . stored in this area with the present usage. Mr. Sobiech said the area in question is to E i • be used as a display area rather than a storage area. He repeated the request would • be to change the stipulation requiring a wood screening fence to a chain link security • fence. . MOTION by Councilman Breider to approve the request for the modification of the original sti ulations of the Special Permit q . f. P p Use emit to allow the installation of a chain link fence for security purposes at Frank's Nursery. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon 1 a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. j REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP. #74-16, BY REYNOLD E. SWANSON: PER FRID • - i CITY CODE, SECTION 205.101, 3, N. TO PERMIT THE EXTENSION OF THE PRESENT SP ' AL USE PERMIT FOR A MOBILE HOME SALES LOT, LOCATED ON THE WEST 375' OF LOT ., AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89, SUBJECT TO A STREET AND UTILITY EASEMENT OVER T. •EESTERLY 40' THEREOF, THE SAME BEING 7151 HIGHWAY #65 N.E.: • • The Public Works Director said the Planning Commission h.• recommended approval of the extension of the special use permit with several: ipulations as listed on I, pages 7-K through 7-L of the agenda booklet. MOTION by Councilman Starwalt to concur ' the recommendation of the Planning Commission and grant the Special Use ' mit for five years for the Mobile Home Facility as requested by Reynold .nson with the stipulations recommended by the Planning Commission. Seconde. .y Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote; all voting • . aye, Mayor Liebl declared e motion carried unanimously. i MOTION by Councilman er to receive the minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 4, 19 Seconded by Councilman Starwalt. Upon a voice vote, all voting . . . aye, Mayor Li•: declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEI ' THE MINUTES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 25, 1 : / 1 - • Councilman Utter said before the Council receive the minutes there is an item he would 1 Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 4 • MOTION by Lindblad, seconded by Harris, that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the consideration of a preliminary plat, P.S. #74-08, Herwal Rice Creek Terrace, by eorge L. Walquist. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Clark said he would like the memo from the Engineering Department as part of the motion. They could probabl call it Exhibit "A" , and also the drainage easement for the .. itch along the Westerly boundary should be wide enough so we •ould maintain a three to one slope on its banks. He said he c. ldn't tell the Planning Commission how wide it should be, beca . se he didn' t know how . much fill it would take to make the property gher than the ditch. He said that maybe Mr. Walquist would go along with a 30 to 40 foot easement for both a drainage and utility e. ement in this area. He said this property line is adjacent to R- property and they will • have to maintain a 50 foot setback from his zoning in a M-1 District. Mr. Clark said this setback could be -ed for storage and parking areas. If the Planning Commission s ► pulated that anything 15 feet from the East side of the sanitary -ewer line to the west property line be dedicated for drainage an. utility easement, this-would take care of it. MOTION by Harris, secon. -d by Lindblad, that the Planning . Commission recommend to Cou ' cil approval of the preliminary plat,' . P.S. #74-08, Herwal Rice eek Terrace, by George L. Walquist, a replat of Lot 1 and Outlat 1, Blook .l , Don 's Addition, located at the Northwest quadr- t of Rice Creek Road and Central Avenue N.E. , with the following s pulations•: 1 . All the 1 . sizes meet the requirement of 3/4 acre. 2. A drai . ge and utility easement be established from 15 feet 'ast of the Sanitary Sewer pipe to the Westerly property line. 3. 'edicate a 30 foot drainage ditch easement on the South property line. 4 . Footing elevations to be adjusted as per memo from the Engineering Department, dated December 4, 1974 and designated as Exhibit "A". Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 2. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMI'k, SP #74-155 FRANK' S NURSERY: Per Fridley City Code, Section 2O5:1403;--3;N, to allow the outside storage of merchandise behind an unscreened chain link fence, to be located on Lot 1, Block 1 , East Ranch Estates 1st Addition, together with the Easterly 120 feet of that part of the NWa of the NW; of Section 11 , T-3.0, R-24, lying North of Osborne Road and West and adjacent to Lot 1, Block 1, East Ranch Estates 1st Addition, the same being 7620 -University Avenue N.E. Mr. Jerry Schroer was present to represent the petitioner. Planning Commission Meeting - December 4 , 1974 Page 5 MOTION by Drigans , seconded by Lindblad , that the Planning Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-15, by Frank 's Nursery. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously . Mr. Clark said the main reason for this request was that they want to put in an outside display west of the present structure, and they do not want to put up a screening fence. He said this was before Building Standards a couple of weeks ago and the plan was approved with the stipulation that if the petitioner did not put up a screening fence, he had to have a Special Use Permit granted by Council to put up an unscreened chain link fence. Mr. Lindblad said that normally Building Standards ask for a wood fence or a chain link fence that was slatted. Mr. Clark said the area we are taking about is about 100 feet from Osborne Road, and was an area used mostly for sales and storage. Mr. Schroer said it would be used mostly for retail sales. He said that Frank' s Nursery takes a little different view of a close out sale in the fall, so to speak, and they basically sell down. to nothing. He continued that this area would be used to sell nursery stock and bag goods in the spring of the year. The bag goods would be kept along the West fence line. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the fence we are discussing will be between the' blacktop area and the new nursery bed, then. Mr. Harris asked about the zoning of this property. Mr. Clark said it was C-2S (general shopping areas) . Chairman Fitzpatrick said the Special Use is for sales of merchandise in the open then. Mr. Clark said this was correct. Mr. Harris said he felt this should have gone for a variance rather than a Special Use because it was just a change in the fence. Mr. Clark said that in a commercial area, if there was outdoor storage of merchandise in the open, it requires a Special Use Permit, and this was basically what it was. Mr. Lindblad said this area was no longer the way it had been in the past. A lot of changes have been made. They are not going to have concrete blocks, etc. towards Osborne Road. The frontage that faces Osborne Road was shrubs from Osborne Road to the parking area. There will be no storage in the front, it will all be in the rear. Mr. Harris asked what section of the code was being used so that this required a Special Use Permit. Mr. Clark said it was 205. 101, 3, N. Mr. Drigans said he thought it should be 205. 101, 3, 0. Mr. Clark said the section of the code quoted says "trailers, campers, mobile homes, boats, machinery, sporting equipment and like enterprises having its merchandise in the open and not under cover of a display room. " . - Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 6 Mr. Harris said as he reads the Public Hearing notice, this was a special use to take out the screening fence. Mr. Clark said he either had to put up a screening fence, or get a special use to store the merchandise in the open. Mr. Drigans said then the code says you have to have a screening fence to have outdoor sales. Mr. Clark said no, you do not. Mr. Harris said the code says you have to have a special use permit. Mr. Drigans said they must have a special use permit for outdoor sales , because they have been selling out there for years. Mr. Lindblad said the basic reason they had been asked to put up a wooden fence in the first place, was not that this was a sales area, but because this was a storage area. He said the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee always recommends a screening fence when outside storage was visible from the street. Mr. Harris asked what section of the code was being used as the basis for a screening fence? Mr. Clark said that our interpretation was that if you want to have display merchandise, whether it be boats, snowmobiles or nursey stock, in the open, why would you want to screen it? Mr. Harris said that was not what the ordinance said. Mr. Clark said it doesn' t say anything, it says out in the open, not under cover of a display salesroom. Mr. Fitzpatrick said then what you are saying is that this would be allowed with a Special Use Permit, if there was screening. He . said he thought outdoor sales required a Special Use Permit whether it was screened or not. Mr. Harris said this is what he thought also. Mr. Harris said he still wondered where the screening fence came from. Mr. Clark said this came up at Building Standards where they told him to either put up a screening fence, or get a Special Use Permit. Mr. Drigans said then the screening is merely a stipulation, and is not a violation of the code. Mr. Lindblad said this has been a recommended policy for some time. Mr. Harris said it has been arbitrarily recommended, let's put it that way. He said he could take someone all over the community, and some places we do, and some places we don' t. Mr. Lindblad said he didn' t think Mr. Harris would find that in the last two or three years. Mr. Harris said he could show where it happened last year. Mr. Lindblad asked where this was. Mr. Harris said the Building Standards probably didn' t even see it, and it was arbitrarily done. Mr. Harris said the code has been arbitrarily administrated ever since it was adopted. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Schroer if Frank' s Nursery already had a Special Use Permit to sell nursery stock? Mr. Schroer said they did. Mr. Drigans said that he felt that was all they needed. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that there was a stipulation on that Special Use Permit that they have a screening fence. Mr. Drigans said this was just a stipulation, and not a violation of the code. Chairman Fitz- • • ' Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 7 patrick said this was a stipulation of the Special Use Permit, so where we are now, was that they wanted to continue to do as they have always done, but without the screening fence. Mr. Clark said that Frank' s Nursery was doing things a lot different than the way things were done before . He said the merchandise area had been moved way back on the lot, that they had put in berms and shrubbery in front of the parking area, and the entire area was very much improved. Mr. Fitzpatrick said it was a much improved business, and yet he felt they were still operating within the Special Use Permit they already have, with the exception of the screening fence. Mr. Harris asked Mr. Schroer how tall. the nursery stock was. Mr. Schroer held out his hand and showed how high the shrubbery was , and he said the trees were taller. Mr. Harris said he would have to cut all the trees off at six feet, because this is what the code says. It says you can' t have a screening fence over eight feet high , and anything behind the screening fence has to be two feet shorter. Chairman Fitzpatrick said they weren' t thinking about nursery stock when they wrote the ordinance. Mr. Harris said they weren't thinking about anything. Obviously, the person who wrote this didn' t know what he was writing. Mr. Fitzpatrick said this was written for the stacking of merchandise behind a fence. He said this wouldn' t pre- clude acting on this petition. Mr. Drigans said he didn't see how they could act on this petition. He was afraid that if we did this , he could lust see this compounding. Every time someone wanted to put up a fence, Building Standards were going to tell people to get a Special Use Permit, and he didn't feel this was required. He said that the section of the code that this business was operating under, doesn' t require a screening fence. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Special Use that he was operating under had a stipulation that there must be a wooden screening fence, and that' s what the petitioner wants to change. Mr. Drigans said he thought what the petitioner should do was just go to the City Council and say he wants this fence, and ask them to waive this stipulation on the Special Use Permit. Mr. Lindblad said then Mr. Drigans would be fighting everything that the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee had been suggesting and enforcing. Mr. Drigans said that these were only stipulations. Mr. Lindblad said that was right, but the object of Building Standards was to make some of these places a little more attractive to the people who have to look at them. If Mr. Drigans was going to take that point of view, then there was no point in Building Standards requesting or suggesting anything. He said it was just like pre cast curbing, which we really don' t approve of, but he said he didn' t know if there was anything in the code that said they couldn' t be used. Mr. Harris said just a minute. He told Chairman Fitzpatrick that he wished to step down from his position on the Planning Commission and take issue with the City administration and the Building Standards Chairman. In his own personal dealing with them, we have been forced to put in concrete curbs on a particular project of ours , when we Planning Commission Meeting - December 4 , 1974 Page 8 had requested to put in pre cast curbing for drainage purposes. He said he thought the code had been arbitrarily and capriciously administrated since 1969. He said he wasn' t saying it was all the administration' s fault. The ordinance, in many cases, was lacking in candor and knowledge of the situation as it exists in the City of Fridley. He said that he personally felt that the person who wrote the ordinance hasn' t the faintest idea of what's going on, has never driven anything larger than a half ton pick-up truck, and sits in an ivory tower someplace and doesn' t know anything about business, building or anything else. He thanked the Planning Commissior and said that was all he had to say on the subject. Mr. Drigans said he understood what the Building Standards- Design Control Subcommittee was trying to do when they try to enhance 'the surrounding property, but he thought they extended themselves a little too far when they direct a petitioner that they must have a Special Use Permit, or get a variance, when in essence they were not violating any codes. They are only attaching a recommendation or a stipulation, and he thought that if the petitioner wanted to take issue with a stipulation, that it should go directly to Council. He said he could see nothing in the code that says the petitioner must have a screening fence. Mr. Fitzpatrick said there was a stipulation on the existing Special Use Permit that says they must have a wooden screening fence. Mr. Drigans said then they are being asked to get a Special Use Permit on a Special Use Permit. Mr. Clark said that when this Special Use Permit was issued there were certain stipulations put on this Special Use Permit. Now the petitioner has come up with a new plan, and he doesn' t want the wooden screening fence. It was the Planning Commission and the Council who originally approved this Special Use Permit with this stipulation. Now the petitioner was back before the same body asking to have the stipulation for the screening fence removed. Mr. 'Drigans and Mr. Harris said they did not get this information from the hearing notice for this request. Mr. Clark said the reason this was brought to the Planning Commission' s attention was because the petitioner was no longer providing a screening fence to keep this area from being out in the open. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the reason this stipulation was put on the other Special Use Permit was because we were screening something that was much closer to Osborne Road, and his interpretation of the present petition was simply to have a Special Use Permit without that stipu- lation. Mr. Harris said that the petitioner was in essence asking that the screening fence be removed. Mr. Clark said the present location of the nursery stock would make this screening fence unnecessary. Mr. Lindblad said he thought that he was under a misunderstanding as far as the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee was concerned. It was his understanding that this Subcommittee was a recommending and advisory _ group set up by Council to give recommenda- tions and advice to the Council. He said they didn' t have any say on whether this or that was done, we just make suggestions on how we think something could be done better, whether this is code or not Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 9 code, it' s still strictly up to the Council. For instance, the code says a building has to be painted. If they really want to get nit- picking, they can just paint it one solid color, but we suggest maybe breaking this up into different colors, using some break-off block, or other means, so that when this building is constructed, there is some type of break in a long wall. As far as this screening is con- cerned, he said he didn' t care if it was code, law or what have you, he didn' t care at his point. We recommend that some things have to be screened, and why it has to come to a Special Use Permit, we don' t care about that either. It' s just that he thought the Subcommittee was supposed to be doing a job of making recommendations to the Council, who can over-rule us whether we like it or not. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that in this instance, he thought the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee had a good reason for stipulating the wooden fence at the time that they did, ' but now that the plans have changed, he didn' t think they would make the same stipulation now. Mr. Lindblad said he thought when it got right down to it, they were saying the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee wasn't necessary and everyone should just interpret the code any .waythey want to. That's what seems to be being said here, if we recommend anything that' s not specifically in the code, we are wasting our. time. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that stipulations can be recommended. Mr. Lindblad said that is what happened on this. We made the recom- mendation that the screening fence remain, and the petitioner did not want this because he wanted his display visable and open. Mr. Lindblad said why this recommendation for a Special Use Permit didn' t go direct11, to Council, instead of being routed to the Planning Commission, he really didn' t know. Mr. Harris said he thought the basic fault lies with the ordinance. He said that he didn' t think the ordinance even comes close to being able to handle the situations we get into. If you go through the screening section, it was obvious that it was inadequate and just won't fit any of the problems. He said that as he read the petitioner' s request, the basic reason for this fence was for security. He said that maybe this wasn' t the time to discuss this, but maybe we should get down to the problem of why we have fences . If it is for security reasons , then obviously a wooden fence or a slatted chain link fence wouldn' t be for security. The police couldn't see through a solid fence, and anyone could hide behind such a fence. If it' s a fence between residential and commerical or industrial property, then you need a screening fence. There is no place in the ordinance where these different situations are taken into account. He said the Planning Commission would really have to make a greater effort to get through these ordinances so we can make some recommendations to the Council. Chairman Fitzpatrick said he agreed that there were many sections of the code that needed recommendations for change,. but he didn' t think the present petitioner should be held up on his request. He has a legitimate request, and a recommendation should be made one way or the other. Planning Commission Meeting - December 4, 1974 Page 10 Mr. Drigans said that what he thought was required by the Planning Commission was a motion to Council recommending that they modify the existing Special Use Permit stipulation for a wooden screen- ing fence to an unscreened . chain link fence for security. He said he thought this was the motion to be made for two reasons , one• being that he didn' t think a Special Use Permit was necessary for a fence, and the other reason was because he thought the wrong section of the code was used in the Public Hearing notice. MOTION by Drigans , seconded by Harris , that the Planning Commission close the Public Hearing on the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-15, Frank's Nursery. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. • ' MOTION by Drigans, seconded by Harris , that the Planning Commissior recommend to Council that the request for a Special Use Permit, SP #74-15, by Frank 's Nursery, per Fridley City Code, Section 205. 101 , 3, N, to allow the outside storage of merchandise behind an unscreened chain link fence, to be located on Lot 1 , Block 1 , East Ranch Estates, 1st Addition, together with the Easterly 120 feet of that part of the NWk of the NW'3 of Section 11 , T-30, R-24 , lying North of Osborne Road and West and adjacent to Lot 1 , Block 1 , East Ranch Estates 1st Addition , the same being 7620 University Avenue N.E. , is not necessary, and recommend that Council modify the existing Special Use Permit, SP #71-07, to change the stipulation of a wooden screening fence to • a chain link fence for security purposes . Mr. Langenfeld said that if the merchandise on 'display should become a visual hazard, he felt that at that time, this request should be reconsidered as to whether this area should be screened or not, or else they should move the display under cover. Mr. Drigans asked Mr. Langenfeld what he meant by a visual hazard? Mr. Langenfeld said it would be something that was unpleasing to the eye. Chairman Fitzpatrick said that originally when the fence was required, this business was 30 feet from the road, and now we are talking about it being setback almost 150 feet from Osborne Road. Mr. Drigans said he didn' t see that this would ever create a visual hazard. Mr. Schroer said that no one has asked for it, but he was willing to take a portion of the wooden fence, that has been taken down, and put it up from the building and on out about 30 feet. All the tools and nursery stock that has to be brought back to look good again, would be stored behind this wooden fence. Mr. Langenfeld asked where they kept their bales of hay at this time? Mr. Schroer said they kept them underneath the roof. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously . 3. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #7 , BY REYNOLD E. SWANSON: Per Fridley City Code, Sect' ..3 . 101, 3 , N, 1 permit the extension of the present Spec' se Permit for a MobileHome Sales Lot, located on est 375 ' of Lot 3 , Auditor' s Subdivision No. 89 , sub ' o a street and utility easement over the Westerly 40 ' - eof, the same being 7151 Highway #65 N.E. • REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 7 , 1973 PAGE 8 Mayor Liebl said in the past there had been an emergency and all of the property owners were involved . lie : aid he believed the City used some general money at that time . Mayor Lie , 1 :irked the Cit - Attorney if the request could be granted if only the cost of labor were to he involved? He added the property owner would do the necessary work . The City Attorney said he had the same opinion on the ma er as he had previously expressed . He said if the City has fill available , it should be utilized. He said the labor cost could b - taken from whatever department that would do the actual hauling or work. He said this should be put in a spot that it practical . Councilman Nee said he believed this would be a matter of a defense investment . He added , the City does have a co iderable investment in the area. MOTION by Councilman Nee that the City at -empt to provide sufficient fill to Mr. Dueholm to back up the retai ng wall the City built there . Seconded by Councilman Utter . Councilman Utter asked Mr. Dueholm i - he wanted all three of the loads of fill at one time? Mr. Due ' olm said no , one at a time. Councilman Nee said he would lik, to commend Mr. Dueholm for under- taking the labor project . UPON A VOICE VOTE , all voti o aye , Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. RECEIVING THE MINUTES 0 . THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF APRIL 18 , 1973 : PROPOSED PLAT, ' .S. #73-02 , INNSBRUCK NORTH TOWNHOUSES PHASE IV AND V BY DARR A. FARR DEVELOPMENT: AND . PRELIMI RY PLAN APPROVAL : PHASE IV AND V (118 TOWNHOUSE T #73-01 BY DARREL A. FARR DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION: Mr. lark said the item will be taken care of at the May 14 , 1973 , Pu•lic Hearing meeting and there would be no action needed at e present time . EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #71 -04 , GREEN GIANT HOME AND GARDEN POOL CENTER: Mr. Clark said there would be two parts to the consideration. He said the Pool Center would be on a different site than it had been last year . He added , the pool center and also the new REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING CF MAY 7, 1973 PAGE 9 land use had to be considered. Mr. Clark said the new site would not be in the public's eye view. He said the City is asking for a more orderly site plan and also is suggesting the construction of a fence to obstruct the view of the materials. Mr. Clark said. Building Standards Design Control Subcommittee and the Planning Commission both felt that vines on the west fencing would provide for screening. Mr. Clark said the petitioner had agreed to abide by the sign requirements. He added, an additional consideration must bd'' that the planned parking would be on property not owned by the petitioner. Mr. Clark said the Planning Commission had recommended this not to be approved until some provision are made to lease or come to some term on that proposed park- ing area to the north. Councilman Breider asked to see the plot plan. Mr. Clark said he did have one and- he pointed out the various areas where fencing would be provided. MOTION by Councilman iiruider to concur with the Building Standards Desi?z . C.,ntrol Subcommittee and the Pl^nni.ng Commission and grant the special use permit for the pool sales and approve ti:e new ,i;.c p:tin with the following- stipulations: 1. A wood fence be constructed between the main driveway and the service drive along Osborne Road. 2. That there will be a screening fence along the North and West boundaries with a green covering of some type planted. 3. Green Giant get a letter of approval and agreement from the St. Paul Water Works Department. 4. The old business shed be discarded and' not be moved to the new site. and the agreement from the St. Paul Water Works Department had been received and they complied with the stipulations of the Planning Commission. Seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared the motion carried unanimously. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP�#73-02, RUSSELL SCHLEMMER: Mr. Clark said this item had beenr°continued by the Planning Commis, on. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT: ' SP #73-02 RICHARD A. FREN Mayor Liebl said there had .been no opposition from t. neighboring property owners. Clark said he recommended the Coun ' concur with the recommend- ations of th Planning Commission. MOTION by Counciman Starwalt to appro - the special use permit requested by Richard A. French"yith the stipulat .n that this building not be used for passenger cars, and`,the drawing r. French presented to the Planning Commission be the ones used' of its equ' . lent. Seconded by Gouncilmas tter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Liebl declared, t e motio' carried unanimously. VACTION RE• ST: S&V #73-05, BY GILBERT MENKVELD: VACATE THE PUBLIQ EASEMENT ON 67TH ' 'ENLr N. E. BETWEEN ANOKA STREET N. E. AND FRIDLEY STREET N. E. ,. TO .DD ' FEET TO THE NORTH/SOUTH DIMENSION OE LOT, 1z BLOCK 1, OAK GROVE ADDITION FRIDLEY PARK, MAKING IT A BUILDABLE SITE. , Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 1973 Page 5 letter from Darrel Farr in which he agrees to work with tt Planning Departme. - to provide additional recreational areas . This tennis court would not erfere with the townhouse dwellings as it would be across the street, beh' - • the garages MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Pla g Commission recommend • to Council approval of proposed plat, P.S. #73-02 nsbruck North Townhouses Phase IV and V, and preliminary plan approval .r Phase IV and V, for the townhouse area generally located one qu- er mile East of Matterhorn Drive and North of Interstate No. 694, bein: - replat of Outlot H, Innsbruck North, with the provision that as much pa ng space as can be provided on Meister Road for parallel parking fo $0 feet; the recommendation of the Building Standards- Design Control Sub :iiittee for a tot lot to be located as shown on the plan, and a planti, : creep for noise be_provided along I. 694, the evergreens being at leas feet high. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried u mously. 3. CONTINUED; EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT SP #71-04 GREEN GIANT HOME AND GARDEN CENTER POOL CENTER: Located niversity Avenue N.E. Mr. Jack Jones, Construction Superintendent of the Engineering Department of Green Giant, and Dave Rick, Manager of the Green Giant Garden Center, were present. Chairman Erickson said we have asked for additional information on this item also, Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee has recommended approval with the stipulations that a wood fence be constructed between the main driveway and the service drive, that there will be a chain link fence along the North and West boundaries with a green covering of some type, planted, Green Giant get a letter of approval and agreement from the St. Paul Water Works Department, and the old business shed be discarded and not be moved to the new site. Mr. Fitzpatrick'asked why there was a property line between the Garden Center and the Pool Center. Mr. Rick said because they were leasing the land for the pool center. Mr. Zeglen said Green Giant wanted to slat the chain link fence but the Subcommittee felt they wanted thin to be a screening fence with something growing on it for a screen, such as ivy. Mr, Minish asked the petitioner if he expected this to be an on-going operation from year to year. Mr. Jones said they did as they have quite an investment. Mr . Minish said that in going through the previous minutes and the action taken, this had been approved on a temporary interim basis . He said he thought this was what we were talking about. Mr. Clark said we are talking about two things; the pool center, and also a new land use plan for the entire Garden Center, Mr. Fitzpatrick asked the petitioner if he was aware that this Special Use Permit was subject to annual renewal, Mr. Jones said that he was, Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 1973 Page 6 Mr. Clark said the reason this was an annual permit was because of its location. We wanted to see how the business was conducted. Last year, I don't recall that we ever had any reason to discuss the way the business was conducted for the pools and we didn't receive any complaint calls. Mr. Minish said they are asking for an extension of the Special Use Permit. Mr. Clark said that technically they were, but at this time, they were asking that the extension not have a time limit, at least not an annual time limit. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the first year there was a stipulation that everything be removed at the end of the season. Mr. Clark said it was not removed. Mr. Fitzpatrick said we are just trying to clarify how the permits have been made the last two years. Mr. Clark said the first year it was not a Green Giant operation, but it was the second year. Mr. Clark said that another thing that should be discussed is that they not be allowed to add pennants or banners or any.new signs. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the sign ordinance would keep them from putting up additional signs . Mr. Clark said he just wanted to draw it to the petitioner's attention what the ordinance was. Mr. Rick said they would like to put up a temporary sign that the pool center has been moved. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that what we're talking against is any sign that would be visible from any street. Chairman Erickson asked Mr. Clark if the Planning Commission was being asked to approve the plot plan. Mr. Clark said this wouldn't be necessary as this was a Building Standards item. The Planning Commission was only being asked to approve the Special Use Permit, although they are tied closely together. It wouldn't be out of order to act on both of them. MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to Council of the extension of the Special Use Permit, SP #71-04, Green Giant Home and Garden Center Pool Center, and approval of relocating the pool center with the stipulations of the Building Standards- Design Control Subcommittee which are: X 1. A wood fence be constructed between the main driveway and and the service drive along Osborne Road. 2. That there will be a screening fence along the North and West boundaries with a green covering of some type planted . 3. Green Giant get a letter of approval and agreement from the St . Paul Water Works Department . , 4. The old business shed be discarded and not be moved to the new site. end alsp banning any signs visible from the street , The Planning Commission also recommends approval of the site plan. • Planning Commission Meeting - April 18, 1973 Page 7 Mr. Harris asked if the area to the North is part of this project. Mr. Jones said it was just an additional parking lot. Mr. Harris asked what was going to happen to the land where the pool center had been located. Mr. Jones said they will blacktop the area and landscape arpund the sign. Chairman Erickson said the plan for this area should be brought to the City. • Mr. Zeglen AMENDED THE MOTION stating the Planning Commission does not approve the area North of the property line in East Ranch Estates Addition. Mr. Fitzpatrick seconded the AMENDED MOTION. UPON A VOICE VOTE, all voting aye, the MOTION carried unanimously. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: RESUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #73-02, RUSSEL SCHLEMMER: To construct a detached second garage on Lots 5 and 6, Block 14, Spring Brook Park, per City Code Section 45.051, 2A. Mr. Schlemmer was present. MOTION by Fitzpatrick, seconded by Minish, that the Planni►: Commission waive the reading of the Public Hearing notice for Special Us- Permit, SP #73-02, . by Russell Schlemmer. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, t motion carried unanimously. Chairman Erickson asked Mr. Schlemmer if he has a _arage now. Mr. Schlemmer said he has an attached single car garage. r. Erickson asked him what type of driveway he has . Mr. Schlemmer sa : he has a concrete drive and would have a concrete driveway for the -coed garage. Mr. Erickson asked Mr. Clark if the City ,as any objection to this request. Mr, Clark said there might be a dr. nage problem, and we have had a call from a neighbor who was concerned a. .ut the driveway having to be so close to the property line. There is on 11 feet between the house and the property line. There could be a pr%•lem concerning snow removal. Mr. Erickson asked Mr. Schlemm- how he intended to handle the snow problem, Mr. Schlemmer said he h. . a snow blower and could direct the snow to some other area. Mr. Erickson asked Mr. S hlemmer what the elevation was where he planned to build the garage. Mr. S• lemmer said it was pretty level, maybe a little higher. Mr. Harris asked r. Schlemmer the size of his single garage. Mr. Schlemmer said it was 1.1 feet 21 feet . • Mr. Mykola .roz, 289 Ely, said his driveway was 5 feet from his property line. This new driveway would only be about six feet from that driveway, and then abou' 20 feet further was the driveway for Mr. Schlemmer's existing garage, He .aid it would make the whole area look like a drive-.;ay. He said he had on bought his home a year ago, and wouldn't have bought tt if he had know another driveway was going in or another garage would be built . He said h' thought this would hurt the resale value of his home. Mr. Robert Freeman, 273 Ely, said this garage would block his view of the 'ark because his living area is facing North. Planning Co nissioa Meeting -• April 4, 19'3 Page 6 • Mr. Erickson- said he didn't know if they would have to get a vent, — if the plat was approved with this narrow lot. Mr. Minish asked who would determine if an easeme• - should be retained. Chairman Erickson said it would be the Subcommit - - and the Planning Commissioi MOTION by Minish, seconded byZ• : en, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval • e preliminary plat, P.S. # 73-04, Veit's Second Addition, by Lond- ' glund, a replat of Lot 15, Revised Auditor's Subdivision No. 23 ,- cept that part platted as Veit's First Addition, with the sti• ion that Lot 1 be included in the plat and red tagged for 90 days • •etermine if a road easement should be retained. Upon a voice v• , all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. 5. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #71-04, GREEN GIANT HOME AND GARDEN CENTER, POOL CENTER: Located at 7622 University Avenue N.E. • Mr. Dave Rick, Store Manager of Green Giant, was present. Mr. Rick said they were proposing to move the pool area to another location on the site. It will be closer to the road for higher traffic count, They were also proposing to change the fence from a cedar fence to a chain link fence, Mr. Boardman said the fence should -remain cedar. • Mr. Minish asked the purpose of changing the fence, Mr. Rick said "the chain link fence would be slatted and it would be easier to maintain. Mn, Minish felt the cedar fence would follow the architectural theme, as opposed to a chain link fence,. Mr. Zeglen said a slotted fence only . looks good when its first put up. He said as long as this was a garden center they should be able to plant some trees along the fence and this would eventually provide good screeusng. • Mr. Erickson said that what he was most concerned about was that the Special Use Permit was granted on an experimental basis, and this was the second time it was being renewed. It has gone past the experimental basis. We should know the size of the area being used by the pool center, where the fence will be located and the dimensions of the existing building, Mn, Rick said he had a plot plan that had been drawn up at the request of the Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee when they had built an addition to the Garden Center for storage. Chairman Erickson asked if that plan had ever been approved. -Mr. Boardman said it had not. Chairman Erickson said he didn't think they should act on the Special Use Permit until the plot plat and the location of the pool, center had been approved by Building Standards-Design Control Subcommittee. Mr. Zeglen said Mr. Rick could bring this to the Subcommittee meeting on April 10, 1973, Planning Commission Meeting - April 4, 1973 Page 7 MOTION by Zeglen, seconded by Fitzpatrick, that the Planning Commission continue the extension of the Special Use Permit, SP #71-04, by Green Giant Home and Garden Center Pool Center, located at 7622 University Avenue Northeas until April 18, 1973. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, the motion carried unanimously. Chairman Erickson said he would like to see the previous minutes on this Special Use Permit so they had the history of it. 6. CONSIDERATION OF NATIONAL GUARD ARMORY PROPOSAL Chairman Erickson asked Mr. Fitzpatrick if he had discussed the armory proposal with the Parks & Recreation Commission. Mr. Fitzpatr k said he hadn't. He said he had come away from the meeting after Ge. -ral Cheeseman was here, 'feeling that the City would have to be willin: to put a lot of money into the armory if recreation facilities wer- going . to be provided. Hr. Minish said if this was going to be a primary co. -ern in considering the armory proposal, we could put up recreat onal facilities for a lot less cost than paying for them in an armory. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the Parks & Recreation C•..,.. ssion is making a comprehensive study of cost in providing recreat in and this study could include the cost of providing recreation in an armory. Chairman Erickson asked if anyone on a Commission felt we had a five acre parcel we could purchase for t . s use that would meet all the requirements the armory must meet. Mr. Fitzpatrick said he though' a site would be difficult to find ,,hen Fridley was already so well •eveloped. Mr. Erickson said we are having a problem finding a site or a library. Mr. Minish said Genera Cheeseman had said the community has to be in favor of the armory an. give it good support. I can't see that strong support coming from Fri. ey, Mr. Erickson s : the proposal was so vague and there was no commitment from the Army. Mr. Minish said it would be five years or more before we would have a de nite'commitment. Chairma. Erickson said the City is involved in Chose Island, the North Park -rea, the Ice Arena and other projects that are all going to have to nd a place in the budget and I don't feel we should lock up a parcel if land for years when we don't know if an armory will ever be loca here. Mr. Fitzpatrick said that Fridley will have done its share as a co mwity. REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 17, 1972 PAGE 6 I fi trek TRANSFER AND EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #71-07, BY ANDIE HAUGEN (MR. SWIMMING POOL, INC.) TO GREEN GIANT HOME AND GARDEN CENTER FOR SWIMMING POOL: The Engineering Assistant said that this request is for the same area as last year by Bob's Produce Ranch. They were granted a special use permit for one year. Last year the operation was not under the jurisdiction of Green Giant, but this year they will be responsible for the maintenance, display and sales of the pools. He showed the plans on the easel and said that the plans include the X 12' cabana used last year. The cabana will be used mainly for handout material and display of pool supplies and the actual sales will take place in the main Garden Center. Q9uncilman Utter asked if the pool area would be fenced and the Engineering Assistant replied yes, it was last year. Councilman Utter asked if it would be locked so there would be no possibility of a youngster getting infix this area, Mr. Bob Schroer said that it would be locked at night and it would also be locked if the salesman steps out for a cup of coffee. There will be an attendant there all the time. MOTION by Councilman Mittelstadt to concur with the Planning Commission and grant the special use permit SP #71-07 to Green Giant dome & Garden Centers, Inc. for the purpose of above ground swimming pool display and to allow the cabana structure to be used again for a one year period as of the date of approval: seconded by Councilman Utter. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor T,iebl declared the motion carried unanimously. PLANTING BOULEVARD: 40 FEET, MOORE LAKE HIGHLANDS 4TH ADDITION: Ow Engineering Assistant said .there is a program sponsored by the Beni. High for planting trees and the thought was that the school might cipate. cow cilman Utter talked to-the school and found that there is more and for planting now than trees available. Councilman Utter added that 4 a school has a number of things scheduled for this year already and e is neither trees nor time available. Mayor Liebl said he would like to encourage the young •-ople to participate in the beautification of their City, and that it • -' d be a worthwhile project for them to plant trees, nurture them and see th:.n grow. He said, as he recalled, about 5 years ago Former Councilman :amuelson mentioned this, Mayor Liebl said he felt that the schools should more involved in plantings within the City of Fridley. He asked that the • anning Commission pursue this and, perhaps something could be worked out •r next year. The Engineering Assistant suggested that this strip of land • . d lend itself to a walking trail to Locke Park and that the Parks and Recr- - ion Commission could consider it. FORTY FOOT LOTS IN FRID 4 Y: Mayor Liebl said that F idley still has some 40 foot lots left undeveloped, and if anyone should she an interest in purchasing them, he would like to have a . policy already fo lated that would be fair and impartial to all. The Engineering Ass -tant pointed out that last December the Planning Commission made a reco',,, ndation on the use of some of the 4Q' lots in Plymouth Addition, . There can , be a blanket policy for use on all AO' lots, because some of them are in - e intlrior of a bloc) and some are on a corner where if they were 0403. upon ey would create a traffic hazard. Mayor Lie* said that over the pact fi - years, he has received calls from people having 40' 41ots and they ygondere4 at they should do with them. He said he would like to see every lot utilized Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1972 Page 6 'The members felt there should be more provisions for off street parking, and it should be sketched on the plan as to the number and the ratio of par, ng stalls away from the front of the garages. Mr. Nordaune said it seemed the Commission was asking for more han two parking stalls and it would be difficult in this situation to co,..ly. Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick said he did not accept th- tandem parking space. There must be access to each stall, not as the plans sh• • , one parking stall in the garage and the second one to be in the driveway front of the garage. A discussion followed regarding the use of .rick with Mr. Zeglen saying the Subcommittee felt there was enough bric .n the buildings. A further problem was the difficu y of the on-street parking. NOTION by Zeglen, seconded Schmedeke, that the Planning Commission recom- mend approval of the Prelimi - y Plans for the Viewcon, Inc. (9 four unit quadrominiums) Phase I in e condominium portion of the total multiple unit complex on part of Out1. A, Innsbruck North Addition, with the following sug- gestions: Parking as hown on the plans wii xe.vnein as drawn (tandem parking)I the off-street par .ng will have to be resolved by the Home Owners Association or Council; the .ntinuation of the street South to Phase II and III, the East/West ro be continued 20 feet to 50 feet beyond Blocks 7 'and 8 for a turn aro that Viewcon be allowed to start a model quadrominium upon Council approv- of the Preliminary Plan if the storm sewer outfall is settled, Upon a v. ce vote, Fitzpatrick, Zeglen, Schmedeke voting aye, Minish voting nag, the -tion carried. S. TRANSFER & EXTENSION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #71-07L BY ANDIE HAUGEN (MR. SWIMMING POOL, INC. TO GREEN GIANT HOME & GARDEN CENTER FOR SWIMMING POOL: S.)61 Bob Schroer, Jerry Schroer and Dave Rick were present. Bob Schroer explained that the swimming pool venture was not handled satis- factorily last year and now the Green Giant people requested your consideration for a transfer and extension of the Special Use Permit to them. He referred to a letter dated March 28, 1972 from the Green Giant Home & Garden Centers, Inc. , which the Planning Commission had before them stating they "were pre- pared to accept full responsibility and accountability for compliance with applicable codes". Mr. Schroer continued that one of the things not fulfilled was that the small house be removed. It is there yet. The pools were taken down as recommended. The landscaping was done, but not kept up. The fences were mandatory and still exist. The provision to come back in October for review of the permit was never done. This was not a profitable venture feat year, but the Green Giant people wish to remain in the swimming pool business, especially as one of the competition in Fridley will not be in the busineea this year. The little house sitting in the fenced-in area is still there. It is a well constructed building and very attractive. Its use is mostly for hand out material and display of pool supplies. An extension phone was installed, Planning Commission Meeting - April 5, 1972 Page 7 Most of the actual closing of the sales was done inside the main building of the Garden Center. They would like to keep the house there because it is an emergenc3 type of thing for adverse weather waiting in there until a shower passes. Mr. Schroer continued that there are other style pools besides what they have on display. The landscaping will improve quite a bit in that corner. They were also in the process of making additional parking North of the main building. The cabana was at the main entrance hopefully to sell with the pool setup. Mr. Schmedeke said this was a temporary building with no foundation and no sanitary facilities. The Commission have tried to shy away from the temporary buildings. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council that the Special Use Permit, SP #71-07, be granted to the Green Giant Home & Garden Centers, Inc. for the purpose of above ground swimming pool display and to allow the cabana structure to be used again for a one year period as of the date of approval. Upon a voice vote, Minish, Fitzpatrick, Zeglen voting aye, Schmedeke voting nay, the motion carried. 6.LOOPBACKS: Mr. Schmedeke said that these loopbacks are attractive for a service sta •H use. ' He felt a service station could be built behind a service drive and t+ -re would be no need for a loopback. The station would be 75 feet from the n thoroughfare under a regular loopback, but the station built behind t - service drive would be back 150 feet. What we are saying and asking is tha the access goes back the same distance as the service drive would be if the was a service drive next to the Highway. The second recommendation that the exit should be the same as that of the White Knight Car Wash on rd Avenue and University. The more he thought about it, if the servic- .rive was between the service station and the main thoroughfare, the statio ould automatically be put back. Mr. Clark said that service stations and y drive-in type of patronage have to have a Special Use Permit and appear •efore the Planning Commission and Council. Where medians are construc d, they go past the first entrance, Where there is a 150 foot median, the ats & Subdivisions-Streets & Utilities Subcommittee thought the Planning C►t,..ission should consider no exits on the mainIstreet or cross street. ,He continued that the • -w lots being created are industrial, light indus- trial or commercial. Th: e lots are at least 3/4 of an acre. Mr. Schmedeke - .id that it will be up to the Building Inspector and Building Standards-Design ontrol Subcommittee to see that a nice station is built. The service static s are improving themselves as far as looks are concerned. Mr. nish asked for drawings of the loopbacks for the next meeting. Acting Chairman Fitzpatrick tabled the item of Loopbacks at the April 19th ,:-eting. • 3 . • • I - • SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 10, 1971 PAGE 3 - . MOTION by Councilman Harris to approve the Final Plat Silver - y Keith Harstad with money held in escrow for _ ary storm sewer, with Lots 1, 2, 3, and 6 to b _e and Lots 4 and 5 to be an outlot. Seconded by C elshaw. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor eclared the motion carried unanimously. • CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP 071-07 TINDIE HAUGEN TO LEASE LAND FRad ROBERT SCHROER, EAST RANCH ESTATES, TO SELL S`.iIIIIING POOLS: Councilman 8reider asked how large the swimming pools would be. Mr. Robert Schroer said that 16' X 32' would be the largest. There would be four or five inside the enclosure and they would all be the above the ground type. These are not taxable and are considered portable pools and do not become a permanent part of the home owners yard. He added- that to clear up any misunderstanding, they would be leasing from Green Giant, not him. . • Councilman Liebl asked if there was a State license required. *Mr. Haugen - - said no'. Councilman Braider asked if there had been any letter from the abutting property owner and the City Engineer said no. Councilman Liebl said that there would be a lot of people going into this • area and asked about rostrcoa facilities. Mr. Schroer said that they have agreed to let them use theirs. Councilman Liebl said that the Planning • Assistant has pointed out that it is a requirement in a C-2S District that there be a setback of 80 feet,. and added that there would be no building on the land so there would not be the taxes derived. Mr. Schroer said that there are already high taxes paid on this land. He added that this would be a one year lease with Green Giant and that the cabana that would . . be used as a sales office would be saleable. MOTION by Councilman Ereider to approve the special use permit for Green Giant requested by Mr. Andie Haugen for the sale of swimming pools and cabanas, 'the permit to expire October 31, 1971 and at that time the cabana is to be removed. Also that a letter from Shell waiving the public hearing be obtained. Seconded by Councilman Harris for discussion. Councilman Harris asked if the swimsung pools would be removed. Mr. Schroer said- if the lease was renewed, the pools would stay. •If the contract was 'not 1 renewed, everything would be removed. The pools will all be landscaped. ( -- - The City Engineer said that the general feeling of the Planning Commission was that this does not comply with the requirements of the ordinance and • they did not think the City of Fridley is looking for this type of development. It was felt that this is an intern type of development with only a one year lease, so they felt that they would give it a try and see what happens. A special use permit is only for a specified time and at the end of that time either it has to be renewed, or everything has to be removed. Green Giant must clean uo the area and there are to be no a:ditioaal signs or b..nner . Fe .add_ t` ;:._ he had alre<z:c?y discussed this with oii Sc ircAer an.i h - ...,.:c: -1 this. - Councilman Y.elshaw asked if they would be blacktopping the area. The City Engineer said that they would be using crushed rock and the rest will be landscaped. They have agreed to keep the crushed rock confined to the certain areas. • SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OF MAY 10, 1971 PAGE 4 • • Councilman Liebl asked the City Engineer if he would recomrsend this type of business along University Avenue. The City Engineer said that there is - ; a difference between what you want and what you get and you have to live . i with the facts. It is true that this area does need improving. Councilman Liebl said that in the past the Council has made people spend a considerable I amount of money on commercial areas to comply with the Code and this has been enforced. He felt that it would be well to continue on this basis, or they would be accused of favoritism. Mayor Kirkham pointed out that I this would be a seasonal permit and the Council would be under no obli- gation to renew the permit. Councilman Liebl felt that if you relax the requirements in this case, you would have to in other cases also. This Council wants to get in something that looks nice and brings in tax revenue. Mayor Kirkham said that the Council must consider every problem on its merits, • 1 and he did not want. to set a precident either, but this special use permit would be only for a few months on a trial basis. . THE VOTE.upon the motion, being a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. • - CONSIDERATION OF RECREATION EQUIPMENT SALES, INC. , •SP. 071-06, CA PING • TRAILERS AND SALES R M IS ON EAST 200 FEET OF SOUTH 60 FEET OF LOT 7, EAST RANCH ESTATES 2ND ADDITION: • Mr. Robert Schroer presented each member of the Council with a copy of a letter withdrawing the request for a special use permit by Recreational Equipment Sales, Inc. MOTION by Councilman Liebl to receive the letter from Mr. Robert Schroer dated May 10, 1971. Seconded by Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Kirkham declared the motion carried unanimously. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAI, USE PERMIT, SP 071-05, SHELTER HOES CORPORATION - PERMIT FOR A MODEL HOME CENTER ON TARGET PROPERTY: • The City Engineer said that the Planning Commission considered this equest and recommended approval subject to getting a waiver of the re. . ement for a public hearing and that the water and sewer hookup waiver . approved by the Health Department for a six month duration. If it is o be extended, there must be reapproval by the City. He said that - applicant does have letters from the adjacent property owners wai •ng the necessity of the public hearing. He said that he wanted to empt - ize that if this is permitted, it should be on a temporary basi .s it is felt that this property could be used for a better and more prod ive use. There is the question of the water and sewer facilities an e said he also wanted to point out that these houses could not be bu' - in Fridley as they do not meet the Code,. because they are pre-2eb Mr. Steve O'Brien repr t n Shelter Ho- es Cor o=tion, said that they do •-e factory their pl=t in St. Gx3.1. He said that he would like to •erect the City Engineer in that this prcduc they want to exhibit is - conventionally built home. All the lumber is pre-cut and built on - site in the conventional manner and they would abide by the Codes nP essary. They do offer a modular home and this home would be con- str - ed to the particular building codes in the cc:anunity. He said that he talked to Target for over a year about this proposition. He said he • EXCERPT FROM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MAY 5, 1971 PAGE 1 • • 5. - REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #71-07, ANDIE HAUGEN: For swimming pools on Bob's Produce Ranch property. C-2S zoning - Code 45.101, B-3N. • Bob Schroer and Andie Haugen were present. Bob Schroer explained this request was for the sale of above the ground swimming pools and a cabana type of building which could be used for a dressing room or shelter. The cabana on display would be resaleable. The area would have five pools and the cabana, and is a triangular piece of property located at the Northeast corner of the loopback on University Avenue. To the North of -this property would be the next request, the Recreation Equipment Sales, Inc. This. area has been leveled off, and will be used for excess parking. There will also be parking made available inside the rental and sales area. The camping trailers will be fenced with a Western stockade type of fence across the front and back 30 feet. . Mr. Schroer said the pools are fenced in and cars do not enter the pool area. Mr. .Schroer said the Company handling the recreational equipment is from Roseville. Mr. Schmedeke said that a company selling used rentals or used auto trailers has to have sanitary facilities with a permanent building. This is what every dealer has to do. If the City allows one person to disregard this stipulation, he knew of one half dozen other auto agencies that would like to come in under such a temporary basis. Mr. Schmedeke then read from the State of Minnesota Dealers Guide. Mr. Schroer said he was not selling recrea tional equipment, but he was representing the company and he was certain they were aware of those problems. • The discussion returned to the request for the swimming pools. Mr. Schroer said the cabana and almost all the pools would be removed in the fall. He stated the Green Giant people have the contract for the swimming pools and the contract stated the area was to be cleaned up by October 31st. Mr. Schroer was asked if there would be book work done in the cabana. He • said the sales probably would be written up there, but the final sales trans- action would be in the main building through the central check out. Chairman Erickson said the basic question is whether or not the sales of swimming pools require a special use permit. Peter Herlofsky referred to Section 45.101, B-3N "--- sporting equipment and like enterprises having its merchandise in the open and not under the cover of a display salesroom." and said that was why they felt a special use permit was needed. Mr. Schmedeke said he had no objection to the pool center providing the - building was not used for an office. • Mr. Andie Haugen said that on October 31st, Green Giant will decide if the project is to be continued. If the decision is not in favor of -being continued, all the equipment will be removed; otherwise most of the pools would be removed and the cabana could be placed on joist-like skids to move it if it were not sold. Chairman Erickson said that as long as this is a temporary status, he did not see any particular objection having the cabana for a sales office as long as the stipulation is that it has to be taken out by a specified time. Excerpt from Planning Commission Minutes: May 5, 1971 Page 2 • • • • Mr. Haugen said he had a one year lease with option for renewal. This is an experiment by Green Giant and if it goes through, permanent buildings may be built. The pool center would have a chain fence. Mr. Schroer said that this request is on a temporary basis. MOTION by Minish, seconded by Zeglen, that the Planning Commission recommend to Council approval of a Special Use Permit for the ands easonal lnas, use .business and experiment by Green Giant to sell swimming poolss of the cabana for a sales office until October 3I, 1971 and removal of the cabana in October. Also, with the stipulation that the proper waiver of the public hearing be obtained. Upon a voice vote, Erickson, Minish, Zeglen, Fitzpatrick voting aye, Schmedeke voting nay, the motion carried. The storage of pools would be through May 1, 1972. Community Development Department (111 PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: October 11, 1991 TO: Planning Commission Members Environmental Quality & Energy Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Review Preliminary Design Plans for Proposed LRT System Process The commissions and City Council reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and submitted comments to the Anoka County Regional Rail Authority in the first week of July 1991. The Rail Authority promised that each of the comments and questions posed by members of the public and City would be addressed in the Final EIS. According to the schedule submitted by the Rail Authority, the Final EIS will be published in December 1991, and the comment period will occur between December 10 - 22, 1991. The Rail Authority has summarized commenting agencies' Draft EIS comments (see attached) . For the City of Fridley, the Rail Authority noted that the issues regarding the necessity for pedestrian overpasses will be identified in the final EIS and at the Preliminary Engineering stage. MTC service routes, screening and fencing at stations, and storm sewer locations will also be further addressed during the Preliminary Engineering stage. Issues pertaining to the access from the Fridley Fire and Police Stations will be addressed in the Final EIS, Final Design, and additional information has been submitted to our office during Preliminary Design review. In regards to the access points to the 53rd and 57th Avenues park-and-ride stations, the plans were amended to correspond to the comments made during the Draft EIS process. Site design issues of the stations will be further addressed during the Preliminary Engineering stage. Preliminary Design Plans A majority of the comments that were asked through the Draft EIS process are not addressed in the Preliminary Design Plans because a majority of them deal with environmental impacts. The purpose of the Preliminary Design Plans is to provide a representation of Proposed LRT System October 11, 1991 Page 2 about 10% of the construction project. General right-of-way limits are identified, preliminary station design plans are provided, general alignment of bus routes have been identified, as well as preliminary information regarding operation of the system. Purpose of Preliminary Design Review Minnesota State Statute (473 . 3994) requires cities in which a proposed LRT system is located to review and to hold a public hearing within 45 days of the receipt of the plans. The proposed public hearing is to be conducted on October 24, 1991. The 45 day review period expires on November 11, 1991. According to State law, the City must approve or disapprove the plans. If the City disapproves the plans, the City must identify items/issues which would make the plans acceptable. The Rail Authority has the option of contacting the Regional Transit Board to mediate some of the issues if a community recommends disapproval of the plans. Previous Comments During the Draft EIS review, we identified five specific categories for comments on the EIS. They were as follows: 1. The City recommended that the Rail Authority work with the regional agencies to conduct a study of an LRT system versus a "all bus system" (note that the Metropolitan Council had the same comment) . 2 . We noted that the Fire and Police Departments are opposed to the closure of access onto University Avenue. If the access is maintained, construction of the tracks should not adversely affect the turnaround of the fire vehicles and timing of Opticom systems as vehicles are trying to leave the station area. 3 . The City requested that the EIS include an analysis of the properties to be acquired for park-and-ride sites along the entire corridor and identify the amount of tax base loss to each community (we identified about $6, 400 in City taxes would be lost) 4 . We identified concern for the park-and-ride sites-- at 53rd and 57th Avenues and their impact on adjacent neighborhoods. We provided a list of specific questions and comments regarding compatibility. Proposed LRT System October 11, 1991 Page 3 5. An eight page list of comments were submitted on the Draft EIS. 6. We also submitted copies of the results of the community survey which was completed last spring. Update on Comments 1. Since the EIS, the Metropolitan Council has initiated a process to create a "Transit Facilities Plan". The plan will evaluate corridors in the metropolitan area and determine which transit facility system, LRT, bus, HOV, etc. , is the most appropriate in each corridor. The Northeast Corridor will be a study area in the plan. A bus alternative (a dedicated right-of-way for buses) will be evaluated against LRT and other transit alternatives. 2 . The Rail Authority has submitted a site plan showing the dimensions between the proposed track alignments and the Fire Department. Staff is currently reviewing this preliminary site plan to determine whether or not adequate room exists to continue operation. Further, we have requested more information regarding how coordination would occur between the Fire Department and the LRT train during an emergency. We are also trying to determine if there would be any delay in response time for fire and police vehicles leaving the station area. 3 . Information regarding the loss of tax base will be identified in the Final EIS document. 4 . Specific questions regarding the park-and-ride sites at 53rd and 57th Avenues will be addressed in the Final EIS document. 5. The Rail Authority has stated that all comments and questions will be responded to in the Final EIS. 6. A copy of the community survey results were submitted to the Rail Authority, and a copy of the results have also been attached for your review. Land Use Impacts Reviewing the Preliminary Design Plans also gives the cities a chance to initiate an analysis of the impact of the LRT system on adjacent land uses. If the system is constructed, the City should begin a process to develop goals and policies for each of the station areas and along the alignment. The Metropolitan Council in its transportation policy plan requires local governments to Proposed LRT System October 11, 1991 Page 4 evaluate the impacts transit facilities have on adjacent land uses and to determine ways that abutting land uses can promote transit use and reduce reliance on automobiles. Attached is an analysis that staff conducted last winter in order to begin our process to analyze land use impacts and to develop future policies. We identified goals for each of the station areas and identified comments for each of those station areas. Some of these comments and questions have been addressed by the Rail Authority, but others remain as issues to be discussed by the City. One issue that was raised at a neighborhood meeting in March 1991 was whether or not the station at 57th Avenue should be located where the vacant commercial buildings now exist. The Rail Authority proposed the station south of 57th Avenue in order to obtain adequate room as a major bus transfer point, as well as to be in close proximity to the I-694 interchange. Another concern that the City Council had is the impact of bus traffic through residential neighborhoods and automobile traffic from the park-and-ride sites through adjacent neighborhoods. Attached is a summary of their comments from November 1990. Requested Action 1. Whether or not LRT is to be constructed in the Northeast Corridor cannot be decided through the Preliminary Design Plan process. The design plan process is merely an opportunity for the cities to review proposed construction plans at a 10% level. The Regional Transit Facilities Plan is proposed to be completed in February 1992 . The results will be forwarded to the legislature as well. Whether or not any of the proposed LRT corridors will proceed will be decided at the regional and state levels. The City should review the Transit Facilities Plan, make comments, and forward them to the Rail Authority, the Metropolitan Council, and our legislative delegation, if necessary. No action is needed from the commissions on this particular issue. 2. As of the writing of this report, some of the questions that the Fire and Police Departments have are not answered. In order to approve the plans, the City wants the assurance that: A. There should be adequate room for vehicles from the Fire Station to maneuver in the reconstructed area between the tracks and the Fire Station; and B. The Opticom system and signalization issues need to be reviewed to the satisfaction of the City. Proposed LRT System October 11, 1991 Page 5 3 . The City cannot respond to a number of issues until they are addressed in the Final EIS; therefore, any approvals are subject to satisfactory responses from the Rail Authority on the list of comments that were submitted in early July 1991. . 4 . The commissions should review the goals and comments for each of the station areas and identify any specific concerns which should be listed as an item to be addressed in additional stages of the LRT planning process. Staff recommends that the commissions agree with the above three points and provide any other direction to staff to forward to the City Council for their consideration in deciding whether to approve or disapprove the plans. Further, all of the commission members are invited to the public hearing on October 24, 1991, should your schedule permit. BD/dn M-91-753 1. 1 UQ c coi c - - o .0 vi w 8 a o ci, e,.., a o oEl . ^» WV .� 3 c H [ w 0 .o .r .. 0 U w a) ca o a O rn ..oi E- �_ H y C•'. y Uc 6A .,0, y •N 4 3 ... a) 4i 3 •d •E o .• 3 0 0 b �3 w • rn c -" e tti ) C •.00 3 ~ c '. 04 4+ • E V V o o c0� E• • c Q 3 Cg U a Q 8b V 0 0 0 0 0 e e •c •c an as) W W NE (A ~ cl) c c " � u ;U U 0Ey -cc o 0 0 4 W A 0 E. a c c a a 0 ° 4 a °' _ = a' X . a zz 0 n •.0 v) 0 to C) v) c a °� 0 c o -a > '� •c 0 a 3 Q '- x a 8 .� U 0 y � v�i > 3 aA y z A a , 3 , , - 0 0 0 0 Gml E4 a 0 z w O H O a a .1 a •8 o u ) 0 c X E 'u E U X o � O c4 ci. o s b C d� 3 V N ca a •S 3E 2 ,E u Ufill c°, N >, <>C .o a 3 � :30 .r ? ° H O > 74 S gi N. .- g 0 cl. ..*LE en w d '3 i i 4 > raj � o 'E E ' U 3 at ' • 8C o. 0 N ^ G >. a j N E 3 Q E1 : w © s F .4 a ' U O a O O O O O o 0 a e Ltl .&V.) ao W 4 GI 4 u A E° Q O G O O O 2 N z z u cts � • � — . EOH v O 01 "al a Cl) E V, 5 E -53w0Vi .g % *0 73... g, ,2 .g TA .s 0 t,,0 3 ug Ucor FL .� • ' WI Urt 8 Z < 1 1 . . / i C4 A E-. • 1 . cr R. c. N 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 N .r r.. O 030. N d u •� .ra 8 C ti a.+ a � 1 O ar 0 •� v >, , � � 13 E tDm U U U co u O V U444 0 0 0 ei E-0 0 y C y w b y o ;tom. r= .. -0 °qa X c •3a la y • w > Q < �b � bN E"v W>+ y cd 6 o V C o yle. 5.4 .G V] ca bq .0 Fr a y y .b +r et) 0 p •y 0 .� ++ p o 0 VlI E o '5.tvi .'. 03 ° A •0 eCyCO • c0 ` C ' Cw c w " Cw ' C . .a 0 cd V C d c00 obc5 � o �° C Eas w 'g • a o . o o 5 ° on � ?'4: � Ew � ¢ 0 a '0a 3 .9 u0 : OU •a o U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C C ,C 8to 8 ey) 0 C bbO C C w w 01)C y �� •C •4 •C C GA W AW W C ) C W E o E E � E E E E 0 ' we c arE AE- 44 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 V! C VI N y 10 p e+ 0 .0 GTr N W ..cel en , U > c u EZ ow O ,� .y 3 g o .0 18g t i -0 w 'N C 3 0 CA g> �• oy o.EC '� 4 o 0 yvD0 U •� U •O a, .10 .., C ya �, « � c �. � p o .te o 0 i U 4 Q .n � Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u C b ', w W 's 0 0 E .0 E " U Z. U a V. 0 0 C 4 u § a d y � e = I tn O V 1.1 i, w j e! § x 'a z a 0 0 a H Eb0c = 0 � .. �" alE u Q a 1 bA u ° t ! Li a v w • Qr O u � O u '�" „O„ .8 g .. .. es .e a '3' .3 u � Ai 3 c Q $ � 3a a o0 .; .5 0 c =� c 4 ii • c .y O ,G ..., C I C 4 y 0+ 0 y 0 bo e3 $ N Oo Q U C glig V o °Q»�u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • a eZa► to to ac a c c a a 'on 'an 'ao .CO W . C,; w i v) w.t G 0 A a ad 172 a a w t • < o 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 'o a aaiasa a a/ > .Q O u Q 0 ,0 4 u C = "' 0 w .0 g E" ,a = z u t aIq ° § ,a H Se0 o Q ° � � ,o � 0 cc! a a � °� O yap' v, ram. �>y, w z .- v, 0 .`- 0 a go 0 1a ; z u a 0 a ` N .o = .o - ca.as Q o $' oo =I 4a ' u 0 a 0 c E� bra, tG rx � tray Q4 H ►CA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.4 .A H to MFra -a ) F» UO O 'O'iQ s�o0 E a Ix Oa •, Cgaw 0 0 V Ti eA Z 3 0 ,o ,s .... H H 3 N NV '� a ~ 0 " O C cn ,g .-y - 0 Lit . oA 4 '[ .a E 0 y �.° > 0 ' :E 3 w •q N O a+ W O it v > :3 3 .. �{4 .0 a� o c H >. o > .» w e .s es oZ C ° '3 ab•E 300 ... 0 .0 ° 9 2 'v 00 os" b ° 0 •2 0 ao ... o > u � w0 ..4 , .i .°2'D � R. IA 0 v F. C cis ... Lam' 1 O C o •E g w a a O N �+ 3 'L7 go p p N — 00 •� .r ~ter 'O C w 4 y o Q 04 .E�+ o c 03 to bn Q •E 'C a... 0 •y .= ..r'i G `. ..r g C ° O .E". (S,t 5, — .) 0 ° e' �' a 0 o .00 E vn •y 0 t -v c IL, 'b •� O O 0 0 •--� Qq • qq •v, :.. 'OOq vQQ3 .Oi N G O N E S E rt0 Om 0 L a �S. gi E° C ._g U - 2Q "i < d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 a E . e o0 E E E 8 Ct � ft G ) 4 ,3 w w w8 w8 w8 w ° gq 4w w ww wLi wW w 8 ° v AE-+ < 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 8 a. 0 a 0 -a > ., — Cl• a �u, c 0 C 6. %� I. 0 ar o w bl1 O 8 tV aC, 0 � ° >, Z E r�E „oE _o •� 2 Vgq ° �. H `'' c ad �o66 Li . :3 a U VI ba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..,. 0 C cA U E-. .. ) p o 0 o o E $ E (X 02 UwLi 0 0 441 ... b4 y �+ 0 as u w .d a 0. 14 y 0 on © a - til 0 E § OA 0 C h.• b 5� a '> E � • WI c.b � o a 00U 5 Az. H uV u' E00 - 6 u § ' 0 o 0 Q. Ha �: o ' " ga'E gS . � o1 .0 45 0Z 03 cF' oa �.b `. I • o w aG .aa. , y 0 0 0 0 0 0 .5 � y ca ,y. 00 L' •.wr W y �t A ,� c .... 0 k .5 E c ~ W W W y C " ,e. § 0 .3 1;71 Eta o w w w w a .5 w " A F 4 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 • vre 8 oyya5 a. cSt 4 n a Ha E ▪ E ,, �' b c 0 E o., w .,:, 44. 0 g 4.4 a 'E g °? 2 0 �y .... . i it c4 a O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I k "S 6 r> o Att o E § 5 2 aA h . 0 vaw 0 0 £ o S p toy yr O A O L' H O '0 - N ►•• 'O O a U v Lz' 3 a 1.1 ao .S 'L3 'Cf O O. a. C—ilil ; E co Of UO •� - O a N y C •O2 • .-r O - i O 4) a ma � w g 3 g w •-ri .NpUNU w N .° > U O O 0 ►5 - .= • c N y C k R $° � Www w ww A E-. Q o 0 0 T 0 .'° '> b E u obi c � _ cif = O y . ". C 0 C) to ba° •z� u a y 2 Q" E+ `n 'o y 2- 3 ¢ Q a , . z — 0 0 0 z Q A a o p u _° o . •b c o u E U cL w o 0 .• tr. 17-C 53RD AVENUE STATION AREA Goals: 1. No change or intensification of existing development is recommended, but there is a need for housing rehabilitation in the area. A number of multiple family structures are located in the area which need rehabilitation. 2. Pedestrian and bikeway/walkway access must be promoted from single and multiple family properties on both sides of University Avenue to the park-and-ride site. This includes off-street sidewalks/bikeway/ walkways along 53rd Avenue, 49th Avenue, and 44th Avenue. We need to finalize with Anoka County and MTC the proposed east/west feeder bus transit routes. Either a shuttle system or the feeder system should provide connections to the industrial area along Main Street and the Lake Pointe site on the other side, and the Target and Menard's area on Highway 65. This system would serve about 850 - 1,500 employees. 3. Evaluate development opportunity at Naegele site and the vacant property adjacent to it. 4. ACRRA should address the need for two station areas at 53rd and 57th Avenues. Are both needed during initial construction of the system or can one be constructed prior to the other. 17-D 53RD AVENUE PARK-AND-RIDE SITE COMMENTS 1. Two commercial properties are proposed to be removed; no residential homes along 4th Street are proposed to be removed. 2. The plan apparently is assuming removal of the partial alley that exists and reconfiguration of garages that are currently located along the alley. 3. Two accesses are proposed on 4th Street. If possible, the northern most access should be removed and connected to the east bound I-694 ramp. If ramp access is not possible, the southerly most access to 4th Street should be maintained. Another alternative is to acquire the seven residential properties along 4th Street as is proposed on 57th Avenue. 4. Proposed screening should be consistent with zoning ordinance requirements. A 6 foot fence with 1 tree per 50 feet along common boundaries should be constructed to the rear of residential properties. A 20 foot setback should be provided along the public right-of-way of 4th Street, with a 3 foot hedge or berm and 1 tree per 50 feet around perimeter of parking lot exposed to public right-of-way. Lighting should be a neighborhood size, less than 20 feet, high pressure sodium, a shoe box, or Kimlite design. Interior landscaping should also be provided. Parking spaces may be striped at 9 feet wide but with a double stripe. 5. Pedestrian and bikeway access to the neighborhood to the east should be provided as well as coordination with the City of Columbia Heights for a sidewalk along 53rd Avenue. 6. Requirements of the Six Cities Watershed District must be met. 7. Station buildings should be handicap accessible, provide bike racks, adequate bathroom facilities, and a call box for 911. 17-E 57RD AVENUE STATION AREA Goals: 1. The area north of 57th Avenue to 61st Avenue and on to 4th Street has been identified as a potential redevelopment site for housing or a mixed use project of housing and a commercial node at the 57th Avenue intersection. The redevelopment would be compatible with LRT as it would provide easy mass transit access for those who desire it. 2. Feeder bus system needs to be further defined and should include Holiday Plus, the industries along Main Street and the Lake Pointe site, and the service/retail uses along 57th Avenue on the west side of University Avenue. 3. Pedestrian and bikeway access across University Avenue should be provided. 57TH AVENUE PARK-AND-RIDE SITE COMMENTS 1. Six residential structures will be removed (need to confirm # of units) plus two commercial properties. 2. Same site plan comments as was identified on 53rd Avenue, except that a screening fence will not be needed. A shorter decorative fence may be appropriate along 4th Street. 3. A driveway access to the frontage road in the extreme southeast corner of the site should be considered, if an access to I-694 ramp cannot be approved. 7-F' MISSISSIPPI STREET STATION AREA Goals: 1. Promote pedestrian connections across University Avenue. Coordinate bikeway/walkway access into the northeast corner if it is redeveloped. 2. Address the fire and police access issues as defined below. 3. Design elements of station need to be consistent with University Avenue corridor design plans. MISSISSIPPI STREET WALK-AND-RIDE SITE COMMENTS 1. Anoka County should provide the bikeway/walkway in addition to the sidewalk located at the northeast corner. 2. The frontage road must be retained in front of the Fire and Police stations. The Police Department uses the emergency access to University Avenue twice a day (730 times a year) . The Fire Department uses that access also on a daily basis. Plans indicate a discrepancy. A. What is distance between front of station and relocated frontage road? B. What will frequency of trains be at this intersection? C. What will the elevation of the tracks be? Will emergency vehicles be able to drive over them easily? D. Can the City pre-empt the LRT system as is done now in opticom system? E. What type of safety/warning sign apparatus can be installed at emergency vehicle crossing? 3 . Do long-term plans include only 20 drop-off spaces along Mississippi Street in the northeast quadrant? 4. The design plans did not appear to show the improvements to Mississippi Street which are proposed for 1991. Location of the bus drop-off spaces should be located an adequate distance from the intersection to not interfere with pedestrians and bicyclists. Further, because a new shopping center will be located in the northeast corner, the City will be monitoring traffic operations on Mississippi Street. ACRRA should also monitor traffic use to insure proper placement of bus drop- off sites. 17-G OSBORNE ROAD STATION AREA Goals: 1. Provide pedestrian and bikeway connections across University Avenue and to adjoining neighborhoods. 2. Bus feeder system needs to be better defined. System should serve Unity Hospital and areas around T.H. 65. 3. Park-and-ride improvements should match University Avenue corridor improvements. The City of Spring Lake Park needs to be notified of our recommendations. 4. Some type of crossing should be provided across Osborne Road for pedestrians to access hospital. OSBORNE ROAD PARK-AND-RIDE SITE COMMENTS 1. The storm sewer system should not be located underneath the LRT tracks. It must be closer to the frontage road, and its capacity must be double-checked. Local storm sewer connections must be made to the proposed storm sewer, and shown on engineering plans. 2. In order to be consistent with University Avenue design goals, design and landscape elements should be submitted to the City of Fridley. We should also retain on file site plans of the Osborne station. • i PLANNING DIVISION 1 ` MEMORANDUM CITYOF FRIDLEY , DATE: November 29, 1990 TO: William Burns, City Manager FROM: v Barbara Dacy, Planning Coordinator Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Summary of Comments from LRT Brainstorming Session on November 26, 1990; Future Steps To follow is a summary of the comments that the City Council made regarding the relationship of light rail transit to adjacent land uses in the City of Fridley: 1. East/west bus access should be promoted as much as possible to feed into the LRT system. This policy not only includes promotion of the MTC system, but also public/private shuttle bus systems from the LRT to: A. Lakepoint; B. Major employers on the east and west side of University Avenue, as well as major employers along the I-694 corridor; C. From Unity Hospital to Highway 65. 2. Pedestrian and bicycle access design issues should be promoted where possible to encourage people to utilize Other methods of transportation, other than the automobile, especially within a five minute walking distance of the stations. 3. Station design and the LRT system should aesthetically match the concepts and design standards proposed in the University Avenue corridor project, including but not limited to lighting systems, station improvement colors, landscaping treatments, etc. 4. The recreational opportunities at Columbia Arena and Columbia • Park: may dictate creation of another station at Columbia Arena. Access to the Springbrook Nature Center should also be promoted. . 5. Stations should not adversely impact adjacent neighborhoods by routing traffic through neighborhoods or routing automobile or bus traffic through neighborhoods. M 1 LRT Brainstorming Session November 29, 1990 Page 2 Our next step will be to apply these policies to site specific areas. We will forward our recommendations to the City Council in January. We also need to discuss with you the establishment of neighborhood meetings along the route in advance to the required public hearings for the EIS and preliminary design plans. BD/dn M-90-859 COMMENTS ON LRT EIS JULY 1, 1991 1. Summary Chapter. This chapter merely introduces the issues which are further described in the remainder of the draft EIS. A. Page 1.7, Community and Neighborhood Character, impact on Fire Station and access onto Mississippi to go east/west with Opticom system. The statement should read that there is an adverse impact on the Fire Station. B. Page 1.13, Storm Water Runoff, disregards storm water runoff from station area. C. Page 1. 14, Utilities, disregards the impact of all utility lines placed under the LRT tracks; what happens when water lines and gas lines break. D. Page 1.16, Safety, slights police support necessary for various activities in the park and ride facilities. E. Page 1.17, At Grade Street Crossings, does not incorporate sidewalks or bikeways at at-grade crossings. F. Page 1.18, Storm Water Runoff, does not call for detention ponding or filtering water in park and ride and station facilities. 2. Project Description Chapter. A. What are graffiti resistent vendomats? B. What are the merits of the proof of payment fair collection versus the Washington D.C. subway example (Nancy Jorgenson's questions) ? 3 . Alternatives Chapter. A. Figures 3.3, 3 .4, and 3 . 6 indicate only a 2 ft. space shown between tracks and frontage roads and no barriers. Need to put a barrier between the tracks and frontage roads. What types of protection/separation can be made within 2 feet? Vegetation? Fencing? Also, in area north of Mississippi, Russian Olive trees and fence will be removed. Existing trees should be replaced with some kind of landscape barrier. Will also help with noise issue. • Comments on LRT EIS, July 1, 1991 Page 2 Existing vegetation and greenery along the corridor should be acknowledged, and replacement landscaping should be identified as soon as possible and not until the final design stage. The landscaping criteria and details should address areas where the line immediately impacts residential areas. The Rail Authority should commit to a budget for landscaping early in the process, and not be reduced at time of construction. Significant sized plant materials should be used. Recycled products such as envirosoil, or compost mulch, should be utilized as a showcase for recycling efforts. B. Why isn't there an indication of the MnDOT right-of-way on Figure 3.6 (top half) ; and what is the distance in this area to the Fire Station? We would like a specific cross section of the Fire Station area to better understand how area would function under both alternatives. C. Page 3 . 10, talks about identifying feeder bus bays at various stations. In looking at Chapter 5, the bus that services 57th Avenue makes circular loop to include the west side of the Mississippi River coming through Northtown and back to 57th Avenue. What is demand for service or existing ridership west of River? Does it justify new feeder route? D. Figure 3. 13, consider second exit for park and ride facility at 49th Avenue. E. Figures 3. 14 and 3. 15, should eliminate one of the exits onto 4th Street. F. Figures 3.16 and 3. 17, suggest a second exit be put onto 4th Street. G. Figure 3. 18, here are comments on the Mississippi Street station design: (1) Provide sidewalk on Mississippi Street (2) There is no bike path north of Mississippi Street. How will connection be provided? Plans don't appear to be showing improved Mississippi Street. (3) Do plans show improvements to Mississippi Street which will be completed by Anoka County this year? Comments on LRT EIS, July 1, 1991 Page 3 (4) The new feeder route #125 stops at University Avenue and Mississippi Street. We would like this to continue to East River Road and south of the Georgetown Apartment area and then loop back. As it is right now, how are route #125 buses going to turn around? (5) The City requested analysis of the necessity of pedestrian overpasses at Mississippi, 57th Avenue, and Osborne Road during the scoping period. The advisory commissions also want an analysis of an overpass between Locke Park and Community Park. H. Is the Cambridge systematic report available for review and comment? I. The chart on page 3.30 indicates a higher park-and-ride activity than can be accommodated at the Mississippi Street station. Will Hide 'n Ride parkers generate need for pedestrian overpasses? Further, these numbers do not seem to correspond to the discussion in Chapter 5 regarding traffic from the park-and-ride sites. J. Will construction of park and ride sites at 57th and 53rd be phased? Are both needed? K. The section devoted to energy use should identify what kind of energy losses will occur "on line". How efficient is the system when it is "on line"? 4. Affected Environment Chapter. A. Page 4.5, City of Fridley, add 73rd Avenue as major east/west route. B. Page 4. 10, the City of Hilltop is also served by the City of Fridley Fire Department. C. Figure 4.2b, map errors include wrong location of Anoka County Library, the post office is located too far south, and the Middle School should be added. D. Figure 4.4b, the zoning maps needs to be amended to reflect the Springbrook Apartment site as residential, the southeast and northeast quadrants of Mississippi Street and University Avenue should be shown as commercial, and the Lake Pointe site should be shown as planned development. - Comments on LRT EIS, July 1, 1991 Page 4 E. Figure 4. 6, the transit map is too busy to be understood. The northeast corridor area should be enlarged and focused on. F. Page 4. 10, another Fire Station is located on Central and 63rd Avenue. G. Page 4.32, Table 4.9, why are there two rows for carbon monoxide? Why is there less carbon monoxide in the build alternative versus the no-build alternative at the Northtown station. Although it was stated that air quality mitigation would not be necessary because carbon monoxide levels have not been exceeded, what would mitigation entail? What types of procedures will be provided to monitor air quality along the system? H. There is no description given of what the electric poles look like. How often are they placed along the corridor? Station light standards, structures, and colors should be coordinated with concepts of the University Avenue Corridor Plan completed by Barton Aschman. Need to know height of electric poles for Fire Department information. I. Page 4.48, Vibration issues, will vibration cause problems for business computers and utilities underground? Would the vibration of the LRT system affect the water wells in the area? The EQEC wanted to reinforce the need for the vibration study and have it address impact on area wells. J. Page 4.47, how do traffic noise levels on University Avenue compare with LRT? How much additional noise will be created? Especially concerned about properties along east side, north of Mississippi. Will noise from LRT increase with the age of the system? K. Page 4. 67, the section on Parklands should include discussion of impacts of trail/bikeway/walkway systems/sidewalks. Specifically, existing sidewalks from 57th Avenue north to 61st Avenue should be replaced i removed by the frontage road. See other comments for the bikeway/walkway facilities at Mississippi Street. L. What procedures will be taken if contaminated soils are found during the construction? Comments on LRT EIS, July 1, 1991 Page 5 M. Impacts on residential development north of Mississippi Street need to be better identified and addressed earlier in the review process. 5. Environmental Consequences Chapter. A. Page 5.9, the City will object to closure of access onto University Avenue for Fire Station. Access is needed onto service road and good access is needed onto University Avenue and Mississippi Street. The EIS should include a specific cross section of the alternatives. B. Page 5.15, can more data be included to compare impact on land values from LRT versus Station Area redevelopment? Tax values of displaced properties should be indicated and incorporated into discussion through page 5.19. C. Page 5.17, the comment regarding the commercial redevelopment for the 53rd Avenue site is not entirely accurate. D. Page 5. 18, southwest quadrant should be identified as being a major redevelopment area of Mississippi station area. E. Page 5.20, "full system projections" by the Met Council. What are these and when will they be produced? F. Page 5.26, what factors at 57th Avenue make it operate under capacity versus what factors at 53rd Avenue make it fail? Again, the figures in this part of the traffic analysis do not seem to correlate to Table 3.30. G. Page 5.26, forgot Mississippi station in Table 5.9. H. Page 5.27, what is the breakdown of people exiting the park-and-ride site at the Osborne Road station going right versus going left? Are left turners of those headed east-bound going to need a stop light? Will the warrants be there? Exit needs to be wide enough to accommodate turning movements. I. Page 5.29, why is traffic increasing on 66th Avenue? Frontage road is merely being relocated. No motor vehicle access to 66th Avenue will be permitted. J. Page 5. 30, any change to the City in maintenance responsibilities for any items along University Avenue? Comments on LRT EIS, July 1, 1991 Page 6 K. Page 5.35, Frontage Road/Access Issues, there is no discussion of frontage roads at Mississippi Street and/or Fire Station. L. Figure 5. 1, all development in this area drains toward Springbrook Nature Center; water quality and volumes should meet standards of the agreement between the City of Fridley and Coon Rapids. M. Page 5.39, No Build Alternative, shouldn't discussion contain information regarding what intersections fail or what happens if no improvements? Refer to Anoka County transportation plan? N. Page 5.41, is information available to indicate number of proposed buses/routes? Also, Year 2010 study by RTB for improved bus system is too general and not specific enough for a valuable comparison to LRT. Compounding the issue is increasing public demand to use money on a revamped bus system. Request ACRRA/HCRRA initiate a study of an improved bus system (2010) for Northeast Corridor and compare to LRT in terms of; (1) gas/fuel prices (2) reliability of service (3) traffic increase (4) capital investment (5) labor cost (6) dedicated right-of-ways (7) customer direction (8) cost effectiveness Further, when will detailed review of feeder bus routes in conjunction with LRT occur and when can City comment? 0. Page 5. 65, Feeder Bus Noise Impacts, what receiver points meet the three tests for no significant change in noise levels? Mississippi Street? 57th Avenue? P. Page 5.73, Storm Water Runoff, in rural section, need to make sure ditch is big enough. No reference to possible siltation downstream in Locke Lake from Rice Creek culvert expansion. When will erosion control plans for this area be completed, and what is anticipated to be proposed? Q. Page 5.81, what happens during main breaks or flooding? The City has a strong concern about all utilities under LRT tracks. Utilities should be relocated outside LRT line. Comments on LRT EIS, July 1, 1991 Page 7 R. Page 5.84, parkland analysis should refer to pedestrian and bikeway/walkway systems along the corridor. 6. Proposed Mitigation Measures Chapter A. Page 6.4, 53rd Avenue Station, it is not clear who would be responsible for the mitigation. B. Page 6.7, Frontage Road Mitigation, we need to begin analysis of what alternative would be appropriate in Fridley. C. Page 6.13, (if required) , delete "if". Stormwater detention is required in the City of Fridley. 7. General Questions A. What happens to ridership projections if employment trends are underestimated, i.e. , downtown employment decreases? Have 1990 census numbers affected ridership projections? Where does the employment forecast of a 47% increase come from? B. What will $211.7 million translate into 1996 or 1997 dollars? Or at anticipated time of construction? C. What is air quality impact at park and ride sites if during winter, parked cars are warming engines for extended periods? What will mitigation be? D. Will pre-empting signals cause more accidents? If lights suddenly change, won't motorists have to react too quickly, thus causing accidents? M ] vit p x IL InO .f N N O M N N 11 O. P .�O O _Y H U. M •O IN„ LA O A N .D y- QO IAN I ] O pC N-- xN �•O O O CO O CO d • � N• Os M � N ] Ce UJ O . In NO N N IA X• X• x i O `O �t 0 M O P• co M1• N N M • O N 3 In M N N N pO x �t •O N O N coX O P V1 A 1� M 4) .X- P Men• M • ^ O• < • N N •^ N I CN < Y1 O O•NO •a N NN O 00 N ca. M Te at K M Cs. O • O P O - NO — Na' N 0 at at .► •O O• N W a0 .O • c0 INN Inco co0. 0.0 0 O ^ to M • N O N NS N M .t u O . g 'y^ M ►� O Cs in CLA XD 24 N 0 WI PJ. O C • Ca /� M • 1_ M I- N24 • •OC ^ O O O O O N M I', xx I CO O O W L. Z N p ^ O VI M1 ♦+ O p IA M L _O C O CI Xxx xx J N CO O 1. - CO CXO• � O. d M P /� O i 4:1 •-• •►. Oi. W O^ CV IA N IA N Lil N N O a. pC u u M Z W N D N .• CO a• IA O. •• 0. • 0' • P COP s W J • CA C ` O O O• N M .N- N O Jg. Y W W N u Y u U ▪• g �Pn( ��(( pp..Q el D la U J O O •O N N J O• P X P 0 C W 1n •s P •A O • M1 O• J M O ^ CM N L 3 1 O� '- M N M H a N O. O �t • N LA Y1 M N in NO CO CV C LA- p O N C) N IL ^O N ^ In CO € CC .... " _ X X X • P CO .- y Q a P N N O 1 .O >4 >4 V1 NC g �" Cle �+ • ~ • N N O CO CO C N • < O N L Y W W O .- J • N J le- > IA OD C• OO yK<Y O • ^ O at ^ e-- •P co x Y • PM — NO In • toN N..C/ PN O .- N pC X XCU CC < P N O O N •O M 1N In • N N CO 0.<ILI O P M • N IA Y ^O VP CV N at x N III O Is. CO .^- N P N C- Lin 'A N 0 CO • J IXv • IAO IA • N W < O cn CM M C] W O �f N O o 2 iKi O g " X X .r IL • • M1 • .- O CO ON N 0 O O N < O •" — v O N N ^ N m set N OC1 = U 1 CC W CA W < N UJ W 0 �,•, W LA _ O W < < v1 M_ N pc \ > I- W W Os < a IX X OC W y a OWG 0a .. a ICJ UJ •-- < N.. W OC < W Z Z < OC I- 3 < < U 01 CO) O < V! C = N 21 < 1 • W W _ 0 • U X O. J s I_ o X X se se 414 se P i 3e Y enu. • CAP CO O. Os on .la Lie Lie en Co I e oc an 1 .OM • CoN M O O a) MIap O N Os O Co • CV N t tu 3. I Let x x •O �t O N N .O O O O. h M P IA• O O CO • O ry • CV • P •-, 03 .t N _ O N •� M 2O x xx yy 1f M O, N• h• N P• •O P h •O O• P • N O N .- Os •O v1 CD CV in CV r• N I CO V N < set CV O N • O .Op• so. in O .f inr- co _ CD N M CO •O '^ - ry 1 _� o •.r O o ek 1n X •n x• O N CO O '^ o O h N N J O N CO •~- .N- ry •- q N .- X • M it •i 0 3 O atse �! atCVO. O en O• • O IVto 0in CAO in V1 P ♦+ • M • M • CV • N • L O ,,.. N N Let 43 N M L I. N O v- X i C W O O O M .Xf .- M .t N O O O Y 2 O Z N ▪ OO ry h N M 4. V W OCO M x . K OXVl " O • LO WDC CAN N.- CV • CV inN 1 = W P O ^ •P N. M O N• 1 • •P co Off. .t Y 1 co C O ! cn O O P• P d N O ... 7 13 W WY N N h N 17 IL CD cc v �xt P W t�A •O h •O O .X•- O O. •O N N o E J M O a0 O • M O • . • �i O N '"' M O� ^ N 1 N T `° �° x X X X c 4.. o y P O J N Vl N IA .-- M O •O O .N•- qV. C. N Or O^ V, •N N .- Y C L in se '- ce O Ca M •O• A •O IN CA• .t O V1 CO CA N O.00 < •O CDN — O h L i W > Y • O^ CV inP N N J Q M N I CO o[ ▪ N X in M 0 o X X W • ^ W •O CO h M CO O in O. < O M • M • N • CV Art W O 1 P CV •O N Y V O Y N N N •. OC N ce at at at at at X N .t 1 ••••-. < On N C. Cs M .f InN M• h n0 MI CVCA P W IninCV• W O • N • cmCO M N • O. N in X X at at at X .t N 7 W CC < ..- O• N • M M N W• N • .t• O r M • l2 N N 2 Y N N N at W co g CV • p. N •O O CoP • CA CICm CV CV O. CO• N inCVt COCVN CV ACC 1 LA CL Z Cu < W V1 W 1 W .t V CO 1- C[ IA •-• < W Y1 M N OC \ > ~ U W Y 2 P [] < 2 O CC = cm )•' W > Z O f.7 UJ OC 0 Y OC = Z V W 1 < LaiO < La2 Z • O 2 C~.7 m CA CI < CaO0 CC 0 =W La W • • 2 -A 7 • — 0 LAa s i {AE Z W M O• m N IA N re W) -t -•• O et d CU N O. D W M O N 4, 1,11 0. M CO N O CC H IA re re'O O O 'O tel IA MI P O • N P O s O. OC .- a N IN0'• M a• ' CO M O N j Ore M M O x x 'O �t O g CV M CO M 0 P O CO In O CO • O 'O • ^ N • M N • M N _ O M N at re et re p 'O N O �t O N .t M In h• re 'O 1n �f P N O• .t O. 1/1 • IN1� '- MI • M141 • CV_ CICV M W In < CI WI O O O 'x0 sr vxi• 'O x M� O at t.- CO 'O P N O MI • M • M e- CID Q Mi ^• M • N _ O0- 101 M 1.41 S 43 x x 1 st pO O M P N M O • CP 1 MNNA In N O O. CI sr dkE M �} _ L . • CAM t� O et ►. if ▪ 1/1 �t Ixn re P CO re 'O 'O LCI C. 1-1 CA II V C C 0+ _ • O .Nt IN IN S Y pub ._ N xx 44 O C O W re S O• O O at N M M .Xt 'O O' re M sr M CO J ♦' 4 Z N ^ O N MI .t N M IA r ` w x x x x x x In N EE CO O O N P V1 O In CO CO O In O IL 2 6 VD O N • O N • v P N 1 .. ` t- L W M ►- L C[ O X X x X X In M 1n - W CICUJ W st O 'O 1s M O 1� O N sf 'O P a O O < 1n O Cr43 • O CO P N Cst �•' IO Z 2 O M • C �' p' W W I a M 2 •C .f CU O 1� ry P 'O o in o C O Vf = O N M L C. N P O re M O 44 'O 'O .t K at M at In M N COP a-7 3 L W ^ • O ^ .- • V1 MI N • L O M N N W CIC N L 4.' ^ x x X X X x �t P CA -' V C N • O 1� • vl ▪ �t In • u1 In P C oC O • P O • CO • = m cc < 'O O 'O CO N M •� CO N C) C N •� W Y O M �t M Cl `� L d CC N N et .- O N .f • 1 re O M N N M (� t� P O L L Z CC W • CI .N- MI Ps- .--• N • S IN CO• C) N Z O Y x Cq CO CC < P N O i• ll LA ' at O CO• st r VI • 00 II • Y I < CICV O ^ MI C) In I Y x�( xx N N N Oet M 1 'O N O' 'O A re CO M CO P OC W < • O CO N • 'O • f� N • ^ N • O. N O W O M Z Y X X X _ X X ^ N 'O 'O N I� 'O P .t M N 'O P W O • I� N O O ^ M ''O ^ N 1 m • O M flC U et W < O W ^ OC O 1- H (7 W Z < CC W < W • N M (7 W W P O Y Z CI 4- W Y 2 CI C] z OC -IW -.IXIX 0 [IC 0 < CO z H O CA IIIC • OC CC = W < W O 2 2 I 0 CO N O < N O = N O U W W • = a 0 ICO. s 1 (W JM O N Al M re O N M 0.re •0 Al I4 LL O P J 0 EO Al • d W C at H IA recv Al .O CO O PA M � aa) aPs. a0 Al Iv •- xN cr. •O O( • - O Al • O • PA • Cc/ • PAN 1 W O •n N O .p .t IA O• a0 N CO N M .*• a0 v la a0 aD O 0. O. N cm Al•O O Al O J M in K7 a -7 g P N CO W M • Al • N • Al • M • Al • • Al O O O .-- �t Al Al CU O Nre ^ x < N N O• P. P.• N N rt 1� Al N. 00• N CO P a0 • N O Ps O — M •O N O — •A .. 1 se. a •O O• N 0.• N UI• ^ 40 N M t0 a0 P.• P • •—O a M �t .f •0 O Al O .- •� J . M 1 M IXA • 1A x• M x 00 M P P. 1 § 11 1` P N e0 N • L Al • O •n • f- a x it x x — X X M MI OC yy ix UJ .�-• O Al M �f •O .O P 0 P • ✓ L+ 7 O • O P. co MIN CC Z N O Al .t 4E 0 > 43 L < a ?t x X > X X O to T O T w CO O IA .0 -f P a P 1A O N P CO N U 44 IA • PA .— • O CO O MIL �•. M+ E W O 111 L W m > X re 1c re re CO •O N ae x In O .0 1- • C Oc W 4. O in •O In `O •A CO CO C Z S O 1A In O 4- >. O O UJ IV w x re re .y ✓ Q �t O co at f� �f sitP •O P. .x- 0 N CO• CO .0 co W N • M • .t • •A • M O CO L aJ J M O O Al — 0 •O O N 1 v or . x W P O at M CO M CO •O •O ▪ M •O •O CO /43 M P 2 •- N d L 7 O IA IA — to N y ... IL O .- _— M M J CC O '0 O _ X X >4 X X X• PA v.,or Y • y Cr O ti • O 00- CO co •a7 I- OC Cr • to • 0a0 • CO • •-. 6i 10 0. Or < •O O 0, PA � N L Y W W O ." UA •V- W > Y •-• t J 0 O x • xx• aapp O( .r- N • O 1 P 00 CC P d N a0 L W oc ^ IA • O < O O • Al CO - - Al H Z W O S O Y .— oNc X x x at >t >t CO 0 < P N O O N - M •O - - - ^ P. CO >-1 CY < r' O P • C •O V1 Al W O •A IA Y �xt pp. VJ IA O J. a0 en O -s Cr .0 P In N P • P. ^• N • Al • UJ < • O d P P. P. Al p W O A • z Y •O O a0 ^ MC IA MIYe it 47 P. Al .x- UI a0 ILI O • 00 • N O O CO — IA ^ ..1. Al< - O IA I CO IX S H IX W IA CU < O C41 •-• C7 W 0 < W OC N N K \ > in 0 U./I- ena < 3 a 1 = UJ Ix pe J W J IL OC W V OC 0 < (.7 IQ3I- O .y.. _ Cn < re 6 .N-. oL UJ tY < < m CI) 0 < N a Z V! O < CaIJJ (u z O• z C.1 Z d t �. i� ca it x'C 01 O O M ^ v CV O O CO N C .O 0 NW • OO OM PM •O • fNAq C[ 1- In X x at•O O O CO CC •• .f •1xn J x CO to inM co inin • 1 OC .t N g O N -, .iIA x `O .t •O M •O O• In P .. CCOO N it• O. CEO 47 O N in is N .t N N M y ppO •O apt N a a •O P K N N CO .1. at In s P ti . in 0 in •9-- O • N .. W 1n a • pO. M a < inn O O N ...-- .1. X 1� •O at .O CO f� N CO in P /� 1 ry • Os a • N • _ O .-- .4. - M M s a . nJ .f .O O .- en P •XO in CO a• P Yt it x'1 O CO •O O• .• ,O • N IA ...1. N i CIA O N .r V PI d in t� O X X X at i CO N ..-- C(.• C O. • N C• N M .O O ^ CO N • s N q _ O .t > N q at Iv OC ^ O O O .. XO N in O ae O CO K M 1n i I-C[ 'V O W 2 N O CO is N E H dJ C 4- u xx eqq7 - _ m W CO O in .T .- N -a U N .t CO O o0 VI In in N •1 T •CO 4- -0 `O in •.- CO V C1C W O N ri in J W 4- Cr _J ^ Ceu q c {yn� -f C7 0 Q J � O Os in• •O • n. co• co .• ^ ..4. O f� • L Y O O •O N in M M N i � •C - q 4. 2 o U. W W N U 1L u L L it .r O it 1n J N apt X X �( a W N CO 1 in N .t O• O CO a 1 t J in • O CO O Lo • . J O N • O1 8- E • MI J yOit d ..- .0 W P O M CO •O •O M : ; ; 1AWOCC an IC < •O O • it -- f� N M it it M CVCa a,- W W it 6-1 CD O .- ., .•- IN L W > Y C CIA q ,- y x x X X o CC .N- • O N • an P v M N W O 63 CIC L. < O M ^ M P N O 2 W O N w C. Y Col C► W O` in N O P CO .t O M N M IA .- in it at 0 ti YCC • .- • ry W O ry P N • n. N 1n Y 1n x X X CA IA O N N C.- M P 9- CO IA O. P 6- CO CY OC W • LA M • < CIN ^ CO. in in CVC W CDinCVY x x W .Oppp • .0 • N �^• M M • O O 1� CO o O .- N .► N o- NI In N M N < O J INm CC W x 3 U CO i OC < W < W in y O F- cr. _M f- CO OC \ > V w W O. O < 7 p W J UJ W J Y cc m co U < W < IJJ W ~ C] 2 Z JJ = y OC VI OC CC < < aO < 1-- U 1- W H J s 1-• CO y CI < CO C] X CO I O or C3 W W -! _ 0 ` � _ & w s at at at at x s+ upM O O enN -* N .- x CO N N M • •- • Y - O M • p •O M N 1] W A oC ~ LA X X x x X x O N •O a a •O a .- in M M •- CO Q. .t ti •O M N • .t _• 1A cc O O N in .- w O CV M .t -_aO �t LA X •O . a0 t O N• r M V MI 0 r- CO iXn N .Xt N `O• a0 h �l • O 1 P CO _ O IN IA N •O _1 M a -' •O 00 x at • N QO PS O• M in CO PS • N O• •O /s. — M O M 1A .- O—y CV .t W N i 0 —j < in se N O• ii in CO• in• M v to N• N In .- w • N O O .t •O CO O N O N .t "'i .t 9 _J .� C p0 K• N M ^ N N• ��••• v 1 O • • 6- 0 CO 1 .- P O CVO PAN C M .1 to at LA O CO • �+ PAO• • •O iM O ^ J PA .0a • AJ OPel M N tp p N f_ ia. N it, w ..P. O O O d •xG M .Xt .t x0 an .Xt O PW �' O O tO •- tO .- M O to j Qa IN O (Si N N N ' a O• L a in IOA O tO O IA X - O• d X PS M co P L 3 W p ^ Yr1 •- try •O •O •- ty .-- g ac W �x( x xx CO • v cc W .t O O N PS P M PS IA U X O. N .f L. W J O• • .N•- • M • O• • M • OP •t• C. CO • 0 M• a `` Vl O O N P ^ LA CO N C tU X O �N( M y7O� O W V� O A O 1n •O at M •Oet • .t NI .- P O O J M O O .- P PA P •O N O N IAu u S j • fa o x x x x x x ..-- 2 as inP O M tO t_ 00 .-- M N LA •O •O O O in- •O V1 O .- NIIl O IAPAW cc N >• cc X O cm• M •O• it M S C. PA• M In to• x O CO 60 > W W O .-- N IN INM 06 PA LA • P NI N J O a- .0G Oc .�- N •- O C. CO• 0, inK •O NI LA J at x ry 13 CC • • O LL < .- CoanS O P PA IW O N .t •-- • N — oc • X X X x X x Al in < P fA O O P CO •O • M CV • IA LA a) O M 0.W cc ^ ...• MI> < O tO CO ^ CVw O • M Ln IA Y at at X Xx�(N Ni N LA O .t •O PA •O .- .t P.- W O r - m OC CC .....1 • AI • to M • W < O •O •p .t anO CZCI W O anN NI7 Y • •O O N M N O in .Xt M M • to O O N .- an 0. r .- tO N m C. N M oc W nt U in o[ Z < w < U./ W N .- cc IL .< (.7 W Z 6- - Z N _ < W 6- G • z oxJ WOr J ]( Ca oc VI x Wcc 2 Z O) N O < N X N U W IL•- = a •L.) i d M J ..t I c... 7 • W M O O Pet s• r N IA y p CSIVW O N • A CVLA 13 UA • O CC x o 0 W W N O 0 M N 03 •0 CO IV N A. O OY• a0 N • .- Al =N LLI = • .Ot 00 v • O N • N - • • = Y a I z o x itin it0 x • p AO p fMp p • ..0 it ^ P• O CO 0._ CO 3 .t O P. 0 P. N H O M CV I ...] 4 N O it O •O M Q M 34 - •• ^ P P W 1� ▪ cc�ri • Z O O O H •O N O Co �f N 0 O it it it .t g O O N Ws IA PA se g C US O O •O • H O N L CICVM N W OC J - it at IA U 12 PA O O t O. • .O •O col ou • CU CU I— 0 P. .- FA 0 MI— x ^ x i43 x N •o C7 O O O P • P. H •• _▪ N P P it itI 0Cp 2 O• O O H N N N C J W O •f AI I. J OL H x p O Copp 8 . •f /Q N M •O P N N '0 P OC▪ ` A 3 00 P O vv M K7 N i N I „ a OOO L C a �0se J 1+ a O O M O O O . O N O •f O M N ►• Ca W O O o[ ✓ N X atseatseX f..• PA In C 4 CCCU VP O • O O CoO O • O O N v rs S O IAIAIAIACV f C 2 01 O O CV IV CV CV J m > x x x X X CO• N I U W W N O : :• in sOC Y JW N Cfi �- ; = O4, ! _Y O O O .- O O O .f O A. O 4+ J ►- J N • N • r- IL C 3 7 S C. .or N CO N O S < - �E1 X it W • • N •O .f x O se N• O N O O 'J - T I— OC Z O 1- •C MN. S N f�'1 O H a = O re se it •• • •UJ IA 1,31 ma g on • ra L� s I J W 1 p O• M 0 O N H N M• f- O < -t 3 O N .4- N N W OO K ttyy xx Y W • us al W Cp N• 2 1a3 O p. o O; co of VI' O Cif .- O faN • ] = CI M p 47 -0 N 1A X IA C. N O. IS IS • O P 3 -4 O• G • .- f� M .• N- N q fs N P Cr N N ] aL W x x x x �t W • Y MI at �n /� O •O IV 0.CI0. IV "IO N M �O Ps N N W tri O 14 in Pei0 0 M O •O O N -0 N W O M N O N .- W .- Y O[ = OC • O PC O O N M •'• -f COx .f O N O .] --• 0- N W • OC = • O ^ M O O M O W O O N M M Y ] i Lre L eJ W O N N • MIM N • in 0 ✓ CS MI L t. y� O w 7 y� 2 CC O x X $ x x O. g O_ •• N• fQ COd u12 Y O O N M N O ^ f► • N piCM-13 2 00 O N M CMj O � y O CI O O CI .- PP O • O N se O CS 11 . O Sr i _. •... OLa O sn O O O O CVY ✓ of x x x x x d L.. 00 .t O .- O O O O O O N O in is 2 O 11.1 2 O UN in • i g ^ 7 O Co N N w1 Y y� v ' W W N O M• d Y• N N g• N Q7 .xT v O CI J g S Y J = N O M Cp N P •O N ✓ ►- = O N M Le • -_- 4.7 J • Y O O N O d 0 •O O O O .O O O co 8. J O • �f IV IV MI N Ca G i O N M M ✓ • O• 0 PC CO .-n.1 PI r0 IN CO Ai x .CV X P- ap 03 .Pi P a = O N N N N 00 < ✓ ✓ O W 3- -1 .t O • V1 .t O M se O .f .-ea p J V1 • O • IA • 14 ^ • • f.7 0O O N M N O. P N M N 4 •2• O es. es, Al{n W ✓ Ose P x pN ~ ^ .O UCI P • • • 0.W o • • • co <a0 cm O CD N NN N CON O hi PI NN I C[ UVI < 2 W <1/1W W OC in N < W Z < in in < us N cc \ Lu ...] O <4.3 usQs O = OL Y W Y = O W J W J I( 01 oc v < t7 W ►- CICaOC •<N� la OL CC < Z . Y m N O < N 2 y U ti I o 4. • J xx z WCA O N M be M -* .t ..0 '4 ..0 .t P M C:. N CO ti CO CV Y — O 0.1 CV W .- -2 e 0 ac r u x o -.r 0 pp� at CCV 0 p PS CO. PS A N IA IA PS P N = 2 d 00 ^ O ' O '0 WI N s 0c •t x N 00 "� .. at... CA 0 N O M •O M .t M at at se t. O• IA P M • f� • a0 N • O O, N N .t 0 ' M • Z O 1 y a. x ^ x '0 N •O P O. N 0 CO .M- s M M • 1 W (Si N N O 0 M N 0 M l xx 0 PS 0 O M) b M O M O M O M O 1A ^ ea • W 0 N N N N 0 0 N N W oL x '� N Y N .t /s CO N .se xt .t CO (N 2 UI 0 o 0 N W IA W UI M p( = 0 • W I— 0 X at x Xbe L m 0 O O Ps CO M st N f� V1 PS M .t Z 0 at Y a. 2 CO• v CC NO Y C C e+ J W O I > > J 4,1 jO r " • .. gUJ x X XXCP. p P P A .t N P .xt irl H• P P. J Y C 4 N 0 s N trt 7 j 1+ Y L -0 O 7 Y j GW m p ?t x x x x x M L 20 Y W O O N O M Cr cc O N O CO EEa N O O O 0 N ... ` L 1=r. ^ O N M M N w Y W _ . 0 CC v M g p x x ^ x ^ x x x P e CC .t CC O O 00 O O O 8 M O p Vl N N y� o O C x x x x x P in 7 �+ O C UJ O. J W N O N •t N P CO M •O •O M •O P O a+ C. S O P O ^ ^ N m .- • O • M N C O m • = L MCY Ce CA ^ • Is 0 uNt L2 m m O o CVM , ^ ^ N ^ N v ✓ O .t K P M O OaCV. R7 S . E . 2 O •O J 1 C S v- L C Y W > .t O M .t P .t ^ .t M •t m M •O P L > C 0 -J CO 0 � ^ Is N M •O ^ O Y Y 2 S CO M IX. N W x ^ N •O O N X 'O P P ^ M P • O P Ps (W O O ^ h ^ M1 NO ^ ^ N 0 M CO I I I 11 IX in 2 I .I U inOC 2 2 < W < O W 1/1 0 F- NCC I W i L., W 2 < OC in M_ UJ Cb < K \ > u I 'i 1t C1IC.4•J 10 1U0 p < 3 0 Y< O 2 W J Y < �y J W 0 .l,. W < W - 2 0 N OL y < < OL 02 0 f.. W F• W• _ W • z O U S O. 41111111110111111s 1 / 11 N at st Co CM M 14 AP M •O O�• O O• at J •O• J II ` ] O AiN NI II W O sir • O GC ~ I X X.4. X iA W W N O M P P • • • a0 -t▪ J O m] 8 = Oat 1.1 CV co3 CI • ce at •N►�Il w Jton alt Y1 M O O opt N or. ret ces re, ool i •••• at M 34 1A IA M CI PA N M 34 N at N ▪ •O MX1 • ] PA • N N J W O N JD CC a x X X X �t PA PA O atp. Q ▪ .t /� N P IAN m �D CC Y • I� • i -I .0 1 E II- LA qr. PP III aV0 L.. < O X X X X X X M y �p M w CoO APO • coM O • O M O J CO u O O co at • O coO N L u. W co• N M M cc 111 e > X X X x X X o 0 y L j ce W J O ^ O O O M O• O O O O N O x O IA (� N .J Y. gi Q O N rr a yre y �+ y co re UPUPCVOat ▪ IAPC M `O WI �t N I� •O 111 ' J C IU Y O. -I LIP IN O O a V r- 6 O J eM- L• O. A J o CV S v a w -IY 34 O O in O �A at O at M O so O M re O co CO to •L -IM O O O ^NI CV CC 2 o x 111 13 CO �[ `O O re J •Cat at onCaCO CDP enal L. Z O •O P �• M P N II _ I- a < W O v- < S xx aat re at X X z t0 W Y .t O V1 to COO. J ^ �A O. IA L J J lA • • 0 Z Z O O O J O LA ^ N 111 N U. x X X .t PA •p O eM- PM ^ N• a) N CO O • N O 00 • coNIA ^ CV 11 3 111 III OCI III ce III an CX tu II ! ac • I," it J I � I p �t at at at at on Q.,W ^ N M J •O `O �`j p ^ m !� P. N AIW O NJ IL O O[ x 2 W W N Ca m HA b I� • N m M O0. 1. N K J p a0 ^ N m ^ • N m m N 7 .- O J J O_ _ �t atx x atti N 3 O PA O A es onCIm in COI �{ 00 CO • COd • onJ N N N ex J a N O m ^ M P O. VI •O M .O N P W 1� O• N O• N N •- PI Al x �i W in O N aot M !� O O N M P 1A N PA PI U. .a. LC = CC M O O O M x M x •O N ..- O N W I W 1=- O A. PA N N J WIO 7 25 C.9 • ^ M �t Cx0 .- M •O i� O• 0. aD Z O PA• onti• AlM •O m N I J • • to p IA X 10 sr• i ; I ta • t. Oy G. W Wm = N O N • O a s co JM O on N on O I! • os on AI IN = 4 -+ v- J • Y O O O O P O O O O O O O P. I .• = g Jp 3J J WI O .- N a N N N N - to V 1 C Q at at at lirt �t i M i O .O O co .f J g .f. N . ••- •O CV .O CVM NNO. .00 x-• P N .O J N on• PO CO PAPIN x xN Jat m O P. N M M M/� J N .- M M NM < 4- O J .- Al 0 1 I CC = IX Z WCPI • SAW < — N .- W W J W V Z < CC -. 1A M_ N CWC - > I' 0 W W P 0 t 3 CI CO CC X_ X GC > W s• 2 O W - ILJ ICCC ce 00 1 _� CO CII 01.7 W 0 �- O • N = IX OC < z dUJ I- V alN p < UV Co2 (AW UP • Z 1 0 I 1 11 a ber be AlM r .... Nbe M O Z W O IA • W O A • 1N • Is IA N • J 3I a O CK 6- Jet 40 W W • p P • f� CO pp� p • N at i •. O P N Al N. 03 N ? = O .t r pp • O sr •xp •X-Al N M P •XO P e.41 CO CD ;N; 3 O N M r • N N 41 . W x X ae P & d /y O IA �t •A 40 M I W Al • • r N • O N • x M .{ f W 64 IA O e- g N M N M M O d' •o O O Ktr CP CMN N r W ' cc 7 a. S CC ^ O O O IA IA Al .t M M at apt ?it at .- CO P J cn ac = p CO IA M M N W O O M N N g x xx Y a• ~i 0 O O g P N O N P O • p a.% P I d E .Z.. = P p ^ N N• N N O ID N C J W O M N 8 J OC L. 3W ..pp Y iapQ O •O0. ?it M CXObe 3O IA O O O CO g CO O • Al M P N • •O • m N a O N M ..i ° s O x X x atr X x M PAY W O • �" O M O r 0• O �t O M O 41 L. N O O O CIO O N r t 2 o O M `t C Iy r tY } E L atatbebebeat pi CO 8 .� la at .f O O O N O r 0 O O r 0 IA IA CIIA IA at p IA AlAla a 2 O CO W W CV to sr N !s CO In K M •O M •O M O AC PA PA' CV4 e H 00 M N . u C7 Y CLj J • > C. N O O O P... O PA CO CZ CO 10 E2 O -I -I J IA • Al • • & coOr N J N C CD• L X A X r N M• PA g• •O .- N N P y • . Q O rC NC $ • r • N q D < W O M a P Al N yy N s .p d S • OL < :C a W >- J CIZ • CO •O CO CO CD O -t O O 2J -I CA • 00 M • • •O = -• .0.. CO 00 •-at N M it O. r it WI A O N WI W .{ C .� r P M Z • N•at C N O CD G (NJN M O. ^ ti CO CV t CO r Q Icy W (�W 0 rihi 2< W Z << W t7 s W O < O O Y W 3. 2 O V sVs It< W O .. 2 2 IA CC .y.. ►� W H m col CI < cif Cs = V-• 2 I CrLik. ca Z 0 U J JSUMMARY OF FINDINGS (CONT'D) U __I Two out of three, 62%, agree with the statement, "No one in a a single family area should be allowed to create a separate ..._ apartment unit unless it is for parents or relatives. " l LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT: 1 Two out of three surveyed indicated support for the development 1 of a Light Rail Transit System in the Twin Cities Metropolitan area, 22% do not and 15% did not know or did not answer. Even I with the relatively high percentage who support LRT, only 1/4 of those surveyed said they would actually use it to ride to and from work, if the line ran from Northtown Mall to downtown Minneapolis. over half, 52%, indicated that they would not use it and 24% did not know or did not answer. I A higher percentage, 51%, indicated that they would use LRT on 1 weekends and evenings to get to and from sporting events, 7 entertainment, shopping, dining and leisure activities. Thirty-two percent said they would not use it for such things and 1 17% were-undecided. 1 Two out of three said they would probably drive to the proposed park and ride sites on University Avenue, if they used the LRT system for any reason. Eighteen percent indicated that they Iwould take a bus to get to and from the LRT station. 1 15 1 A 1 J 1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (CONT'D) A LEVEL OF AGREEMENT WITH VARIOUS ISSUES: I MEAN SCORE t I SPEND MONEY TO ELIMINATE HARMFUL WATER SUPPLY SUBSTANCES 3 . 14 F JCONTROL SEX-RELATED BUSINESSES USING METHODS TESTED IN OTHER CITIES 3 . 13 I SUPPORT OF LRT SYSTEM 2 . 87 F AFINANCIAL SUPPORT OF CITY SENIOR CENTER 2 .29 I i I FIGHT SEX-RELATED BUSINESSES REGARDLESS l OF COST 2 .77 A DEVELOP LAKE POINTE SITE INTO RETAIL LCENTER 2 .37 1 L 1 1 DEVELOP LAKE POINTE SITE INTO CLASS A I 7 COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMPLEX 2 . 35 1_ -, FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF REGIONAL SENIOR Li CENTER 2 . 29 Mean scores are based on a 4 point scale with 1 meaning disagreed L strongly, 2 meaning disagreed, 3 meaning agreed, and 4 meaning A agreed strongly. I_i 19 i i- 7-1 ' CONCLUSIONS J Citizens of Fridley appear to be quite satisfied with the city rf-i regarding fire protection, law enforcement, parks and recreation r- J programs, street maintenance, and sewer and wate. service. z L. However, the survey results show somewhat less citizen �- city-J satisfaction when it comes to how the responds to their !_ jcomplaints and inquiries and their opportunity for i:vclve:aent in decision making. Based on these findings it would seem advisable to improve response time, getting back to individuals quickly with answers to questions and developing a program for handling 1 each complaint that includes follow-up feedback to the Jcomplaintant. Finding creative ways to make people feel involved in the process is no doubt a challenge. Perhaps more _ 1 emphasis on your Council Meetings and additional committees which would give individuals opportunity to serve. 1 'I Apparently most new development, such as building a Senior Citizen Center or supporting a LRT system which would mean additional local funding, would not be widely accepted by the citizens. - The areas of concern which seem important enough to Iwarrant spending tax dollars on are keeping the water supply safe Iand fighting sex-related businesses with methods which have withstood court challenges in other cities. 1 20 7 . 1 I UUa) E ✓ a) rj a3 CL.. 3 1--1 M4 c V c R cn v., cr) cn ad d u _> a) c a oA o4 o . cc cas v v v v To n cnA 1 O v d 0 :3 U E O c a) N U O Ca en '.. en M -Y 0) es cn C r., O to 3 c v Q (-4 c,4 �� N I 4.) t- LNi) >, >. 1 w yy.� 0' y _ E.r 0 a) H -0iI .i01! cs a aci o u to 0iliI u _ 3 .l a) ai O " 0 o V u ca 3 es a .� o ... Cp 3 is c .� > ra o, e a > I U• .n ,c " °' _� _ y c 0 V. y c b a - a) ^ d H Cv w cn c a .c c J c > �., �, :.a r En CCU �. c° `o, 0 3 eet S' o Q a° y'a o 3 MI�' a 3 °' a a g' a, $ 'y K .� .� c O E O L, O • 13 41UD uii u s c u Ulifli uiUilUflfl . u 'o OA a U 44 in 3 d 9, J ..c � ...1vnF E J w• .-. v vI I ascn L a) a "o a o Q c IQ �C v-) V) cn v � E � e I 0 c v v v v 8 c a) � C� N • .+ 4) et v w I U •>'• O OO U v, >, DO c c+, S . cn c 0 A Ifloas co 9 as a N N N (-4 a) a) I • U >, a>) ' .800u -c c 8 -v ...... .c ,.., 44.1 I 62 :aav, Q o � u r; q a c c° 0, .a 3 3 o �p N o C o o �) co co p % mac.) .o ... a, Z U c u CO , c -G $ ` �' > R =°C " v U . 0. d o s cis0 CO o 3 � :? � 3a � U � � � c. a�eu33 Feaou � 3vflU 3 v - ri, U M Q K.1 o 0 11-1 8 v, vi v, v, i cv Hfl v v 'I'Ir I 8 00 M M eC en en Q r 1 2 O6. N 00 N N N li, T .0 u Q O GmII .r .a. :'� Uh 0 CI 43 :El Cti �•• •O -• MI Cu...I 0 c . .o. O b p 1 dd C r _ C T ,> ' O ,-. O TIt, .,, ,u ., ifh w wEIJd2:H o. VI I u. co a ! iH anat-) an 08 anU i i C O II i 8 aG v, h :Hi1J IQ 2 y M M M M M IL Q _. N it I U. 00 N N N N N I >, 0Jfl 11 ! ..ccpp c mi a� `� C • ~ 6NR ij a: b E. U C.' iu y yel -4 LI 40 o a ''+ oto a o -o 0 3 U o E u u '3 p u o u v o o •o y 'Vl L.. .... C J= ... c V. E c E E F, N 3 >,it _ ti Co. o fk1HIlluI O0 0 UU 211U cauJa .7 �a ! 3HFI aw32 ° E o to CI .3 vVir 045 v vii ..: h 76. First,look at the map of the City of Fridley below. In which section do you live? Please write the number of the section in the space provided. 1 O; nod 3 j1:411t...frtvg ,O l o1 II I 1 T I i to