Loading...
04/08/1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1992 7:30 P.M. Public Copy City of Fridley AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WEDNESDAY, APRIL 8, 1992 7:30 P.M. LOCATION: Fridley Municipal Center, 6431 University Avenue N.E. CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: APPROVE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: March 25, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-02. BY STEVEN LIPA• Per Section 205. 24 . 04.B. (2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of a dwelling in the CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) district, on Lots 22 and 23, Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7995 Riverview Terrace N.E. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 205 OF THE FRIDLEY CITY CODE ENTITLED "ZONING" DISCUSSION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT RECEIVE THE MINUTES OF THE APPEALS COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 17, 1992 OTHER BUSINESS: ADJOURN: CITY OF FRIDLEY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Betzold called the March 25, 1992, Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Don Betzold, Dave Kondrick, Dean Saba, Sue Sherek, Diane Savage, Connie Modig, Brad Sielaff Members Absent: None Others Present: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant Ron Bollinger, VFW #363 Henry Berg, VFW #363 Jim Hollom, VFW #363 Ron Saba, VFW #363 Walter & Caroun Klus, 7899 East River Road Steven Hardel, 1010 Osborne Road APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 26, 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to approve the February 26, 1992, Planning Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT, P.S. #92-01, BY FRIDLEY VFW POST #363, VFW ADDITION: To replat that part of the East 46 acres of the West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12, Township 30 North, Range 24 West, Anoka County, Minnesota, described as follows: • Commencing at a point on the North line thereof distant 10 rods East of the Northwest corner thereof; thence South parallel with the West line of said East 46 acres, a distance of 264. 00 feet; thence West parallel with the North line of said Northwest 1/4 to the West line of said East 46 acre tract; thence South along the West line thereof 359.5 feet; thence East parallel with the North line thereof, a distance of 538.73 feet, more or less, to the Westerly right-of-way line of State Trunk Highway PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 2 65, so called as the same is now laid out and constructed; thence Northwesterly along said Westerly right-of-way line to the North line of said West 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence West along the North line thereof to the point of beginning, subject to the rights of the public over the North 33.0 feet thereof for road purposes, except Lots 1, 2, 3, and Outlot 1, in Block 1, Lampert's Addition to the City of Fridley, and Lots 2, 3, and Outlot 1, Block 1, Lampert's Addition to the City of Fridley. Generally located at 1040 Osborne Road N.E. 2. CONSIDERATION OF A REZONING, ZOA #92-01. BY FRIDLEY VFW POST #363: To rezone Lot 1, Block 1, VFW Addition, from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business, generally located at 1040 Osborne Road N.E. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to waive the reading of the public hearing notices and open the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 7:32 P.M. Ms. McPherson stated the subject parcel for both the plat request and the rezoning request is located south of Osborne Road and west of Highway 65. The parcel includes the old Lampert Lumber site and the VFW property. The property is currently zoned M-1, Light Industrial. There is C-2 , General Business zoning, to the east and west, and additional M-1, Light Industrial zoning, to the west and south. Preliminary Plat Ms. McPherson stated the VFW currently owns the entire subject property and is proposing to plat the property into two portions. One portion is for the VFW which will contain an expanding parking area and the other portion which will be sold to Division 7, a roofing and waterproofing contractor. In addition to the plat request, the VFW is requesting a rezoning of its remaining parcel from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2 , General Business. Ms. McPherson stated variances have been requested by the VFW for its parcel. The variance request was heard by the Appeals Commission on March 10, 1992. Variances will also be requested by Division 7 for their parcel which will be heard by the Appeals Commission on April 7, 1992. The variance request by the VFW included a reduction in the setback from an existing condition, the reduction in the width of a parking stall, and the reduction of a two-way driving aisle. The Appeals Commission recommended approval of the request to correct the existing condition, but PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 25 1992 PAGE 3 recommended denial of the other two requests which are related to the proposed parking lot expansion. Ms. McPherson stated several issues need to be evaluated prior to recommending approval or denial of the preliminar include whether or not theyan Y plat. These neet the zoning. require- ments in relation to drainage, traffic, and on nginance Drainage Ms. McPherson stated the City has experienced drainage problems in this area in the past. There is an opportunity the preliminary plat request and the parking lot xpan ion to, th if not correct the drainage problems, aid in improving the drainage situation. The preliminary drainage plan shows that the site has been split in a north/south direction into two basic watersheds. Water will flow in an easterly or westerly direction. If it flows in an easterly direction, the water will flow across the parking lot through the driveway openings, across the service road, into the ditch where it will flow south to Rice Creek. Water flowing westerly will pool and collect in the proposed landscape plan where it will either soak into the ground or, if it reaches a certain elevation, will flow easterly or top the curb and cross the Division 7 property and flow south to the vacant property north of the trailer court and west of 7570 Highway 65. This is basically the way the drainage flows now, so there is no substantial change in the drainage pattern once the improvements are completed. However, there is a slight improvement in the fact that water will be held on site in the detention area. The City Engineering Department has calculated that there should be less water flowing from the site. However, as required by the ordinance, the water flow cannot exceed what leaves the site at this time. The Engineering Department feels this is an improved drainage situation from what exists. Ms. McPherson stated there is one amendment to the proposed plan. Currently there is no concrete curb along the south parking area next to the landscaped area. The Engineering Department has recommended a 6 inch curb and gutter with a 4 foot opening which would be rip-rapped to prevent erosion. Ms. McPherson stated there is an existing 8 inch sanitary sewer which runs along the north property line of the expanded parking area. The City has a 30 foot utility easement in this area; however, it is not adequate on the south side of the existing sewer line. The Engineering Department has requested a 10 foot easement along this area. Traffic Ms. McPherson stated there will be no change in traffic pattern. Traffic will continue to access the VFW site from Osborne Road and PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 4 travel along the west side of the building and into the expanded parking areas. The petitioners have submitted a new site plan which meets thes there should be room for maneuverability wwidth requirement width of requirements vehicles in the proposed parking area. Zoning Ms. McPherson stated that with the exception of the variances, both parcels can meet the minimum lot area and lot width requirements. There is a Building Code issue with the existing Lampert Lumber site. Due to the nature of the construction of the building and its sprinklered status, an open space easement of 14 feet will need to be granted by VFW to Division 7. Ms. McPherson stated a preliminary landscape plan has been proposed and submitted by Division 7 for r he ved by staff prior Lampert Lumber lto issuingte and aa l landscaping plans should be app building permit. Division 7 Ms. McPherson stated Division 7 is a roofing and waterproofing company. Currently, they have offices in Savage and Burnsville. The existing Lampert Lumber building will be used by Division 7 as office spaces for their architectural division and also to store their fleet vehicles. Division 7 also plans to use the existingas cold storage buildings for additional storage; however, portion of the site along the west is currently not paved, any vehicular use in this area should not be permitted until a paving plan has been submitted and hard surface installed in this area. In 2-3 years, Division 7 plans to redo the existing fencing on the property and make other general improvements on the site. Recommendation Ms. McPherson stated staff is recommending that the wPsanning ning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat seven stipulations: 1. Variance requests for VFW and Division 7 shall be approved. 2. The final drainage plan shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The final plan shall include curbing with a four foot rip-rapped opening between the parking and landscaped areas. 3 . The landscaping plan, including ngundergrround irrigation, a shall be approved by prior building permit. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 5 4. The 14 foot open space easement shall be recorded against the Lot 1, Block 1, VFW Addition, and a copy shall be submitted to the City for its files. 5. Rezoning request, ZOA #92-01, shall be approved. ' 6. A ten foot utility easement for a distance of 165 feet along the north property line of the expanded parking area shall be granted to the City. 7. A paving plan shall be submitted to the City prior to the use of the existing gravel area by vehicles on the Division 7 property. Rezoning Ms. McPherson stated the rezoning request is by the VFW to rezone the proposed Lot 1, Block 1, VFW Addition, from M-1, Light Industrial, to C-2, General Business. This only affects the VFW portion of the plat. The existing VFW building was constructed in 1964. At that time, assembly uses were permitted in the M-1 zoning district. Since that time, the Zoning Code has been amended to eliminate assembly uses in the industrial district. At this time, the VFW is a nonconforming use in the district. Ms. McPherson stated that rezoning requests are evaluated on three criteria: district use, district intent, and whether or not the parcel meets the district requirements. Rezoning the property from M-1 to C-2 will bring the existing use into conformance with the Zoning Code. There is currently C-2 district zoning on both the east and west sides of the VFW property, so a consistent zoning pattern will be established by the City if the rezoning request is approved. Ms. McPherson stated the property does meet the minimum lot size and lot width requirements and the required number of parking spaces with the proposed expansion. Ms. McPherson stated variances were granted in 1975 to reduce the hard surface setback from the public right-of-way, a side lot line, and the building. In addition, the petitioners have re sted additional variance to correct an existing encroachment for eside yard setback. Ms. McPherson stated that as all three criteria are met by the rezoning request, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request with one stipulation: 1. Plat request, P.S. #92-01, shall be approved. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 6 Mr. Ron Bollinger, VFW Post #363, stated he had nothing to add to the staff's presentation. They have no problem with any of the stipulations. Ms. Savage stated the VFW might want to contact the Rice Creek Watershed District regarding a permit. Ms. McPherson stated that could be added as a stipulation. Mr. Steven Hardel, Fridley Tire and Brake, 1010 Osborne Road, asked that regarding the variance to the existing side yard encroachment, will the driveway changed or is that just a paper change? Ms. McPherson stated the driveway will not be changed. Mr. Hardel stated he would like to keep the existing fence between the VFW property and his property. Mr. Bollinger stated that all the internalexisting fencingfencing onwill thestay. propertyThe only fencing that will change is Mr. Sielaff asked if Division 7 would be storing any hazardous chemicals. Ms. McPherson stated Division 7 has an architectural section which does the design work, a structural section, and the installation portion. Division 7 intends to cold store materials and equipment on site that are associated with the installation work. Also, the northern half of the Lampert Lumber site will be used for storage of fleet vehicles associated with the installation work. All the chemicals used by Division 7 are finished chemicals. Division 7 has been in close contact with the Fridley Fire Department for the proper storage of materials. Mr. Sielaff asked about traffic on the Division 7 property with the moving of materials and equipment. Ms. McPherson stated she believed the vehicles used by Division 7 are smaller trucks. She would anticipate that most of the materials would be delivered to the job site. MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Saba, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 7:50 P.M. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council approval of preliminary plat, P.S. #92-01, by Fridley VFW Post #363 , VFW #363, with the following stipulations: • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 7 1. Variance requests for VFW and Division 7 shall be approved. 2. The final drainage plan shall be approved by the Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit. The final plan shall include curbing with a four foot rip-rapped opening between the parking and landscaped areas. 3. The landscaping plan, including underground irrigation, shall be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. The 14 foot open space easement shall be recorded against the Lot 1, Block 1, VFW Addition, and a copy shall be submitted to the City for its files. 5. Rezoning request, ZOA #92-01, shall be approved. 6. A ten foot utility easement for a distance of 165 feet along the north property line of the expanded parking area shall be granted to the City. 7. A paving plan shall be submitted to the City prior he the use of the existing gravel area by vehicles on the Division 7 property. 8. The petitioners shall receive a permit from the Rice Creek Watershed District prior to construction of the parking lot. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. MOTION by Mr. Saba, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to recommend to City Council approval of rezoning, ZOA #92-01, by Fridley VFW Post #363, with the following stipulations: 1. Plat request, P.S. #92-01, shall be approved. 2. The petitioners check with the Rice Creek Watershed District regarding any needed permit. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE., CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated that at their April 6, 1992, meeting, the City Council will establish a public hearing for these items on April 20, 1992, with final approval on May 4, 1992. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 8 3. CONSIDERATION OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SP #92-01, BY WALTER KLUS: Per Section 205. 13 .01.C. (7) of the Fridley City Code, to allow motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service as an accessory use to a convenience store, on Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson's 1st Addition, the same being 7883-7899 East River Road N.E. (Riverboat Shopping Center) MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open waive the reading of the public hearing notice and open the public hearing. UPOND A VOICE CARRIED AND THETING PUBLIC AYE, HEAR HEARING OPEN AT 8T 00L P.MDECLARED THEEMOTION Ms. McPherson stated the property is located at the southeast corner of 79th Way and East River Road. The property is zoned C- 1, Local Business. There is R-3, General Multiple Family Dwelling, on all sides of the property. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner is proposing to install a pump island canopy which requires a special use permit. In addition to the special use permit request, the petitioner was required to request a variances to the hard surface setback: 20 feet to 17 feet to correct an existing encroachment; and 20 feet to 14 feet and 20 feet to 6 feet. The greatest encroachment is at the southwest portion of the property. Prior to the Appeals Commission reviewing the proposed plan and variance request on March 17 , 1992, the petitioner was able to arrange a lease agreement with the property owner to the east to lease a minimum of four and maximum of ten parking spaces. This eliminated the need to expand the parking area at the southwest corner. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner needs the variances in order to expand the parking area to accommodate the addition of the pump island. As proposed the site plan does meet the parking requirements as calculated based on the existing uses in the building. However, if the uses change and become retail, the site could be short parking spaces. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner has located the pump island in an area that does not conflict with the overall traffic pattern of the site, and the placement of additional curbing along the southwest corner of the pump island will aid in directing traffic into and out of the gas pump area. Ms. McPherson stated the petitioner should submit a sign plan if the request is approved showing where directional signage would be placed and the type of directional signage. The petitioner is also proposing to additional landscaping per the Code requirements. While the petitioner has carefully located the pumps to minimize internal conflicts, the property will still be short parking spaces if the uses in the building change to retail. While the addition of the leased parking spaces would alleviate any potential parking PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 9 problems, the site still cannot meet the parking requirements as stated in the Code. The Code does require that all parking associated with a particular use be accommodated on site. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the special use permit; however, if the Commission recommends approval, staff recommends the following stipulations: 1. The variance request, VAR #92-02, shall be approved. 2. A signage plan showing the placement and type of directional signage shall be submitted prior to building permit application. 3. The landscape plan shall be approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. Mr. Kondrick stated that if the building was converted to a full retail operation, does the consideration for the number of spaces for the whole center include employee parking? • Ms. McPherson stated, yes, it does. Mr. Kondrick stated that if the leased parking is used for employees only, would there then be enough parking spaces on site? Ms. McPherson stated that she calculated the parking requirements on the existing uses in the building. If the variances are not granted by the City Council, at a minimum, the petitioner would be short six spaces based on today's uses, not including the potential of adding up to ten leased parking spaces. If the entire building was converted to retail uses, that shortage would become nine spaces based on retail calculations in the Code. Although the opportunity to lease parking spaces exists, she calculated the shortage as if that opportunity did not exist. If the Commission agrees that the addition of the leased spaces meets the Code requirement and the petitioner leases ten spaces, then that would meet the Code requirement and the petitioner would have one extra parking space. Mr. Klus stated he and his wife own and operate the Riverboat Shopping Center. The reason they are asking for the special use permit and the variances is because the market has changed. it is a very unique property. It is small and has a lot of angles. The market for convenience stores today has changed and convenience stores will not operate without gas pumps. This has put them in a very difficult position. With this site being small and having the angles, they realized they could have a problem with parking. There is a legal precedent for having parking off the site. The adjacent apartment building owner has allowed him to lease up to ten parking spaces on a long term lease. The parking spaces will • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 10 be for employees and they believe that will meet their parking needs for the center. Mr. Klus stated he hired an architect to draw up the plans. He stated they had three drawings and, with the help of City staff, chose the plan that best fit the needs of the site. They have tried to find ways to not encroach into the setbacks any more than they have. Mr. Kondrick asked what kind of gas would be dispensed. Mr. Klus stated they will have two blending pumps which will allow four products for each pump: unleaded, super unleaded, high test unleaded, and regular or diesel. Mr. Betzold stated he would like the petitioner to have every opportunity to stay in business, but he wordered ifsp it t,wouldn'tlt be e detrimental in the long run to try to squeeze knowing that East River Road wito Patronize expandea center that in the ris Customers might not be willing difficult to get into and out of and possibly the shortage of parking spaces. Mr. Klus stated they feel they have sufficientThe parking cen ifer they on use the leased spaces for employee parking. signalized intersection so the brie fwa c is the always controlled. By they have tried locating the pumps and parking Y Y to minimize any external problems. Ms. Modig asked how long the lease would be for the parking. Mr. Klus stated it is a 10 year lease with a 5 year renewal. Mr. Stan Jones stated he owns the video store in the Riverboat Shopping Center, and he will be parking in the leased parking area. He stated he is in favor of adding the gas pumps to the center. He stated he did not think adding the gas pumps would have an adverse impact on the traffic into and out of the c b t the mix an understand the Commission's concerns about parking, businesses in the center is such that one portion of the center is busy at one time of the day, and another portion is busy at another time of day. By moving the employees to the leased parking area, there will not be any parking problems. Mr. Betzold asked where snow is stored in the winter. Mr. Jones stated the snow is pushed to the open area in the southwest corner of the site. e is ked off, Mr. Kondricko statedf e n he is concerned about • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 25 1992 PAGE 11 to the pump island on the east side having enough turning radius to leave the gas pumps and exit the northern entrance. MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 8:25 P.M. Mr. Kondrick agreed the addition of the gas pumps will bring more business to the tenants in the center. Leased parking spaces for employees is a definite must for the property. He has shopped this center, and sometimes there is no room to park, especially with the video store, during certain times of the day. This property is pretty cramped, but he could recommend approval of the special use permit. Mr. Betzold stated he does want to help the the center going, but there are a lot of thin property squer to keep a small piece of real estate. g being �lueezed into Ms. Savage stated the site is not very appealing the way it is now. The property is rather rundown. The site definitely needs improvement, and it appears this plan will be a definite improvement. There is also a landscaping plan that will improve the property. Ms: Savage stated the Appeals Commission recommended a the variance based on the following factors: PProval of 1. Economic hardship (which is not sufficient under State Statute, but the Commission felt it was an issue) 2. A unique sized lot 3 . The proposed plan will improve the site and the area. Ms. Savage stated that in order to be consistent with the Appeals Commission's action, she would recommend approval of the special use permit. Mr. Saba agreed. The pumps will help the tenants, especially if they are multi-usage pumps. On the other hand, the time of usage is a significant factor with the business hours of the tenants. As long as they can be assured that there will be employee parking off site, the site should be improved. He would like the Commission to stipulate that an irrigation system will be required for maintenance of the landscaping. Mr. Kondrick stated that a proper landscaping of that landscaping plan could certainly change the andn look enforcement ethat site. • PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 12 Ms. Sherek agreed. She stated that so many times the City has allowed people to put more than they should onto a piece of property, and then staff has to deal with the problems plans that neverd with it. The City has also experienced landscape p quite make it to compl should also beva bonded they should stipulate a completion date. There Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to recommend to City MOTION by Walter Klus, Council approval of special use permit, SP #92-01, by to allow per Section 205.13.01.C. (7) of the Fridley City Code, motor vehicle fuel and oil dispensing service as an accessory use to a convenience store, on Lot 1, Block 1, Pearson's 1st Addition, the same being 7883-7899 East River Road N.E. (Riverboat Shopping Center) , with the following stipulations: 1. The variance request, VAR #92-02. shall be approved. 2. A signage plan showing the placement and type of directional signage shall be submitted prior to building permit application. 3. The landscape plan with underground irrigation shall b approved by staff prior to issuance of a building permit and. shall be completed by November 1, 1992 . 4. A performance bond in the amount of 3% of the construction value shall be required to ensure completion of the landscape plan. 5. An executed copy of the parking lease shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Betzold stated he is supporting this motion with great reserva- tions. He wants to see s the mall sit center succeed, but this is just putting too much on this UPON A VOICE VOTES ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Ms. McPherson stated the variance and special use permit requests will go to the City Council on April 6, 1992 . 4. CONSIDERATION OF N AMENDMENT TO THE PATER AND SEWER CHAPTER OF THE CITY OF FR LAN: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Savage, to open the public hearing. D UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL gETpUBLIC HEARING OPEN AT 8T3SNG AE, CHAIRPERSON L P.M.CLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 13 Ms. McPherson stated that in 1988, Metropolitan Council revised its Water Resources Management Plans, both the Water portion and the Sanitary Sewer portion. At the May 8, 1991, Planning Commission, staff presented a draft of a proposed Water and Sewer Chapter of the City's Comprehensive Plan. At that meeting, the Commission had several concerns and questions. Staff compiled those comments and, hopefully, provided answers to those questions in a memo dated August 8, 1991. Ms. McPherson stated that regarding the regional goals and policies, only the sewer revision to the Water Resources Management Plan affects the City of Fridley. Three policy areas at the regional level which affect Fridley are: (1) Reduction of infiltration and inflow (I/I) in the local sanitary sewer system; (2) Elimination of on-site sewage disposal systems; and (3) Determination by the community that projected flows to the year 2010 are within the capacity of the system. Ms. McPherson stated City staff has determined that the City is in compliance with the regional policies, and they have ordinances and policies which encourage reduction and elimination of inflow and infiltration as well as the elimination of on-site sewage disposal systems. They have calculated that the available capacity in the existing system will be to handle the projected flows to the year 2010. Ms. McPherson stated there were no revisions to the water portion of the Water Resources Management Plan at the regional level; however, the Metropolitan Council has completed a long term water plan which was submitted to the legislature for review in the 1992 session. There are nine recommendations in that long term water supply plan, some which may affect the City's policies as far as water supply. Staff plans to continue to monitor those activities and legislative actions as to how they may impact the proposed goals and policies as outlined in the draft submitted to the Commission. Ms. McPherson stated staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to the Water and Sewer chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sielaff stated it might be useful to have information of what percentage of the water supply comes from the Mt. Simon-Hinckley aquifer versus the Prairie Du Chien-Jordan aquifer. It might be useful to know what aquifers the City gets its water from and the percentage. Mr. Sielaff stated that regarding the contamination, does the City sample at the wellhead? Ms. McPherson stated the City has been sampling the outgoing product, as well as at the wellhead. They also have monitoring PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 14 wells in the Commons well which are separate from the actual producing wells. Mr. Betzold asked how Fridley's plan compares with the plans for other cities. Ms. McPherson stated the only Comprehensive Plan she revidewed is the New Brighton plan. As far as the water supply y portions, she feels useful to the general has more detailed information in the chapter and is more Mr. Sielaff stated that regarding the construction of the wells, some that have beenr � forn he groun for awhile might need monitoring what wells need repair? Is there some program ro Ms. McPherson stated she believed takes intotal improvements account the age pof gthe ram which is in 5 year increments water systems and budgets for repairs. She believed some well repair has been done within the last five years. Mr. Sielaff stated the plan talks aboutwellhead protection. It is not required, but maybe the City wants be proactive. Ms. McPherson stated there is a Wellhead Protection Technical Advisory Committee through the MPCA which in is in thin e prowess of of setting guidelines and providing typical wellhead protection. She spoke to John Flora, Public Works Director, regarding wellhead protection. Mr. Flora's response was that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance is such that it protects the wellheads from neighboring industrial uses versus residential uses, etc. , plus the fact that Fridley is a fully developed community makes implementing some of the technical recommendations more difficult. Staff will continue to look at the information coming from the Wellhead Protection Technical Advisory Committee for future projects or new wells. Mr. Saba stated that with the accelerated phase-out of CFC's by industry, one of the ready options is to go to water cleaning. He can see increased water uses by industry in the next few years. Has there been any contact with industry to see what plans they have for increased water usage? Ms. McPherson stated, no, they have not done that. She was not aware there would be this technological change. The proposed rates for future water usage projections deal mainly with the development of existing commercial and industrial land that is available in the community. She did not know if the consultant who did the original water supply study and made a lot of the recommendations about the new water reservoir addressed this issue. She stated she could s talk to the Public Works futuree impacts and rtment about if ito see would if change have considered it andthe consultant. original recommendations made by PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 15 Mr. Saba stated his concern is the amount of water that will be used by industry because of the mandatory phase-out of CFC's. Mr. Sielaff stated that on page 5 under Water Usage, it stated: "In 1977, 1,467,459,000 gallons of water were used. In 1987, that number increased to 2,538, 043,000 gallons. This is an increase of 170%. " He stated he is concerned about a 170% increase over a ten year period, while the population decreased. Ms. McPherson stated that between 1977 and 1988, there was a large amount of commercial and industrial development in the City. Mr. Kondrick stated that in the past, homeowners have been restricted from watering during certain hours and days. Does the City envision any water restrictions on underground irrigation systems to prevent them from sprinkling with a certain frequency? The consumption of water for commercial and industrial developments is very large. Should the City be considering restrictive measures in case of an emergency? Ms. McPherson stated the commercial and industrial irrigators fall under the same ordinances as the homeowner. If underground irrigation systems are designed properly, they can actually aid in water conservation. So, theoretically, they should actually use less water than the average homeowner. However, in answer to Mr. Kondrick's question, yes, they may need to consider restricting commercial irrigators to do less watering. Mr. Betzold stated he saw references throughout the plan about planning for droughts. Is the City waiting for the legislative study to be completed before the City completes its drought preparations? Ms. McPherson stated, yes, at this time. In 1990 and 1991, the Council passed an ordinance restricting watering. In 1992, the Council did not adopt those same measures. Under the long term water supply plan which was submitted to the legislature, there are several recommendations as to a region-wide conservation plan. Ms. Modig stated she is more concerned about contamination than conservation. Does the City have a contingent plan for when it gets near the point where the water is not safe for drinking? Ms. Dacy stated that might have to be addressed fairly quickly. She could follow up on that. Mr. Saba stated the City needs to be concerned about lawn companies and what kind of insecticides and weed controls they put on lawns in the City, because what goes on the lawn goes into the water supply. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 4.992 PAGE 16 MOTION by.Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to close the public hearing. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL gETpIIBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9020 P.M.NG AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZLD ,ARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND T+ MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Sherek, to and commeewerndathat the City Council adopt the amendment to the Water of the Comprehensive Plan. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AY HEAR HEARING CLOSED AT 9:20 P.M.ELARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC 6. RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 3, 1992 . PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the February 3, 1992, Parks & Recreation Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSONC SED ETT 9O D0 DIP.MLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLICHEARING 7. RECEIVE THE FEBRUARY 13 , 1992 , HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the February 13, 1992, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, JD THETING PUBLIC SHEAR NG CLOSED AT 9O 20 P.M.ELARED THE MOTION CARRIED �i 8. RECEIVE THE FEBRUARYMINUTES- 1992, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND ENERGY COMMISSION . Mr. Sielaff, seconded by Mr. Saba, to receive the MOTION by Commission February 18, 1992, Environmental Quality & Energy minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE CARRIED, AND THEALL ING PUBLICAYE, DECLARED THE MOTION CAR HEARING CLOSED AT 9:20 P.M..R 9. RECEIVE THE MARCH 5, 1992 , HUMAN RESOURCES COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Sherek, seconded by Ms. Modig, to receive the March 5, 1992 , Human Resources Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE AND, ALL THETPUBLIC HEARING AYE, ING CLOSED AT 9O 20 P.M.I,ARED THE MOTION CARRIE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, MARCH 25, 1992 PAGE 17 10. RECEIVE THE MARCH 10, 1992, APPEALS COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Ms. Savage, seconded by Mr. Kondrick, to receive the March 10, 1992, Appeals Commission minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:20 P.M. 11. RECEIVE THE MARCH 12, 1992, HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Kondrick, seconded by Mr. Sielaff, to receive the March 12, 1992, Housing & Redevelopment Authority minutes. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON BETZOLD DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED AT 9:20 P.M. 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 March 25, 1992, Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 9: 30 p.m, e ectfully ubmitted, 711111 Q L e Saba ijL- L-ll.11I..11ll. Recording Secretary IiiSTAFF REPORT APPEALS DATE CITY OF PLANNING COMMISSION DATE : April 8, 1992 RIDLEY CITY COUNCIL DATE AUTHOR MM/dn REQUEST PERMIT NUMBER SP #92-02 APPLICANT Steven Lipa PROPOSED REQUEST To allow construction of a dwelling in the Flood LOCATION Fringe .(CRP-2) District. 7995 Riverview Terrace N.E. SITE DATA SIZE 8,670 square feet DENSITY PRESENT ZONING R-I , Single Family Dwelling ADJACENT LAND USES R-1., Single Family Dwelling to the north, south, and & ZONING east; Mississi MUTESPPi River to the west. Available to site. 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 #92-02 Steven Lipa S //2 SEC. CITY Oa © 31 SCREE " it* I .. • . �� o p� f� fbr� \ "04.,.0.:401' 0i1. 1A,t1.eVat°t.lisol.ti1 l.1li1to11°0to ikl v'lla et*i-t- 1 1,.isiovi„,,rtiO.1t;01,ra0, \ ,�t��ti1.��E►G_l�►����t������� r fiilIttP .„',. � M , ., i• „ �� - -- E___r_., I.'. . r'.,. • \' "`'. .001 Witt liftit, valltitiox4/'.ift, *_,oip4Iliffililis.14:1.1 ,,\. :,'......)* ;.4 5 . ' ill*lit lt 1:10* . l'Ilittt5444t' ./ I r•e(2) 744°417".57155 ...; EL) A i 414 vii, I. -' Avt,n*.c. ,„A:.. ,1 0 '.., ,:„.:-..''..- ,,„ ',„, L--4102. mi, p ,...0..f. 5_,,,,filli , ots, i;,,,,..r. vailli, \e , \ ,.'%t°x irrtagt**314 01118bittirsntiolitillig-r.ci?ini.Z.\\ OWItiii r t .2.-11r-4„Tisio,t ,00, ,F. „„„,,„ ,,,,n...t, ,,„ lit -,. 11 . - ALL 1\ `` 3 ��00.,,,*_, {! ,gop.,�t St ' LIBERTY ^ ` No ititi '1,-3,5101-,- t-V,,:e,ViMulit.t.vt.ltkots 4- _ , a,,14,9.,' il t ' 'maw. mama - - '°'°*.li°3‘ii'Alta° ' Verlt14:/ . '' 1' '4 ''':.:rlitTe iv, • ., • „fritioltrik 4 A al .At ti • Air AutiN .Zi.1 s s � t i thria" ' P'''"" 1 F i, \,'"\—..nliiii ���. ,� ��� ,� � L�lIGFE�L • , 01 . . . li OWa F----:.',...., . � . ,.. .-. .1r1 a -Thi—r----1- a• -.Tersb. \ \lfr.Viro-,00-1"iietitt 11:4.b ii a "'•i h i -5' Z g E L - ; -i•i!,-4,, -:,..-w16;F-ve` \ A 9 v:` .,A pf '�era "� -:;:a c. .7 re 1 ,I, E.M11111110,111 .lia7iMI ,,,,6,, ,„ .,;10111 E wr.�v\ [1 `:,". _®'Vim_ eli ` �4 R 'E^44) p eN*4 00 V' '' 5 ' „ main � 9 w' `0\ ,, .., : , p,,. s, 1G . 400, i.) -(^).• flii �� l\ ,\\ r -a • (4,, - 9,_ V.*9 '`'- \--kz% 01) 440,,,,, , ,,_ , ,,,,,.., „....._ , s 0 , _ ,... , . , , \ ,64) 34 LOCATION MAP . , SP #92-02 Steven Lipa ...• 't..„.? •-•., ,., ' ) ' ) 1 %.? • -., 0- 3 0 , , CITY , OF \ - , 0 - THOMPSON' clisitig 0 1? ) n .,. RIVERVIEW j• it) •......) HEIGHTS 0 ? k) ,, .41„,,I• IVIPINIIIIIIII/I1111111111,0 Q...' , . ; ; -.gas i z P : • Millie . -.;idilmil i .rei A oosilsil I t IRONTON CI WigialiZITIlliiiiRVE Eli PS. I.,z i• D. sPRio ITZIIIIIIIMPIIIIIImm vi 10. F?VI % tBR Oft is me auctes...fs.11:; 4.. i A .LI NM 16Y, A ° 1 - isci2.4.7=4,11 [gawp' . I „ . GLE N Co 24 IrglItrAg rri fa imiaturicrirrt „ ' i J ,, . la ••f % % „ Irtgli %WIT: 1111122 Lif•ri7 ,7;01 FidiFt Tor Ait FAIZE4.5 nrit 11U ::« LZPT OWEN ,iFre.. c di d,,,,,, iEtc,_ Or„, ggilltilgbiliiia ilia • • -1(c). ..egi ligitiimimApi ligleseawl inm ig Ist*Lir 0 Ait . Pr# • \• ;vim., 'arm r 199 • ELY IR. cOr ELY aysolli . O• it 4 11 • 70 s IMP; f/1)41c tii , Ik ‘ ,iiip:ors 4; \it arri LIBERTY ST \VAIIM: / \ g 7P t \1111r • V71 0_4101- ..11011f • Z ct V \ . .. to iv err.o......... ... • a • LONGF LLOW ' ST. i ,1 Iv • •. P \\\\*\ .101-311. . !! fef • • I 4 • \ 7./ •„2 • s • .3 • . • . , \ \-it . • • • , • • • • • • • • • • • • • C •r • . 4-'a-1- ' T 1111E:t . • t. \ 4:11 •*• N,••:;-•t- 2.4%;. 7•WS'S.ii. .1 ,. - •-. -......-•..._•., RI V ERVI.EW 4 i N ' L '1.4. 9 1111 1‘‘,%lir, 0 • • • • • ,:-. .:::::' , HEIGHT M , ,• . •34\1: s,,, .. • •• . . . . ._,, 0. . c k 1% 1 % • • ' 6 I ri,;-. 6*-4 i••10 *,..; . 56 • • • • • , • • . • • • •20 •1 • . • • 4.%) 9 V 41' .‘ ',. \ •••••••• *.ik:Sj - Vik It lo, I i , f* \ AK .s. " \ %Witt t Oti \ \\,..,N ... 61,41, • • • F... 1 W.- .4. le ev. •ell ,•••••• ••0•N PI, ska ,f... 41/4 ' I• • 4-A \ •••••v• • ° • \.... • '‘ ". t 1 • % . % -*% .../ r. , \ . 'tAct, \A , , t •,,,„ 0," 9 0•'% •,e N -• • • ' N .• OE-) k.4,\• , (t, 17,./. ) — 0 ef, 1 • • • ' ‘ kr 1° ..."61 \ •4*. . • ‘`'',..-... . .1." " 4 9 1 * • .•'., • •., \ k•0 M . • 1 6 • 5 'id). , 15 • SSi /". - s ... V\ % 15 ' I '• ' : •I. •4 PE __ __ - \‘.....__ _ _ • .. _, _i ' ___1,',._,..._ ‘. -- - ZONING MAP • Staff Report SP #92-02, Steven Lipa Page 2 Request The petitioner requests that a special use permit be issued to allow construction of a new single family dwelling unit in the CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) district. The request is for Lots 22 and 23, Block W, Riverview Heights, the same being 7995 Riverview Terrace N.E. Site The subject parcel is located at the corner of Dover Street and Riverview Terrace in Riverview Heights. The property is zoned R-1, Single Family Dwelling, as are all surrounding parcels. Analysis The subject parcel meets all of the lot width and lot area requirements. The lot has been a platted lot of record since prior to 1955; therefore, the minimum lot area need only be 7,500 square feet (Section 205.07.03.A. (2) ) . The location of the proposed dwelling meets all of the required setbacks. The petitioner is proposing to move the house 2 1/2 feet to the west (toward Riverview Terrace) to take advantage of the view of the river. The lot coverage is 21. 6%. A split level dwelling unit is proposed, with no habitable spaces below the regulatory flood elevation. There will be accessory uses, such as a laundry area, below the regulatory flood elevation; however, this is permitted. A crawl space is also proposed, and all spaces below the flood elevation are required to be flood proofed according to current flood proofing regulations. • The Engineering Department has requested a ten foot street easement along Riverview Terrace, which has been signed and returned by the petitioner. The City should require a hold-harmless agreement to release the City of any liability for issuing the special use permit. The petitioner should also submit an elevation certificate to verify the first floor elevation once construction is completed. Recommendation and Stipulations As the request meets all of the code requirements for recommending approval of a special use permit for construction in the flood fringe district, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request to the City Council, with the following stipulations: 1. A hold-harmless agreement releasing the City from liability shall be recorded against the property. Staff Report SP #92-02, Steven Lipa Page 3 2. The petitioner shall submit an elevation certificate completed by a registered surveyor once construction is completed, to verify the first floor elevation. 3. All areas below the regulatory flood elevation shall be flood proofed in accordance with current codes. • SP #92-02 Steven Lipa SURVEYING 1 TEL 614 743 3031 Certificate of Survey for: OLMST1 AD BUh1J)G s .�om....— NORTH •.! • OR Viet/ 44•°° ( 'IP t tip' i s• 1 gJ t ;.5 , 1 ys.y •4 ` 70 1 C$ c9•o • I�)P % 1 \ • % 1-.! • 6•e t" w -1��" gvSi • • ',..,zs.'13. i 1 4 a t<j v . \ V' \ 40 • J "900.o Denoks Exislin7 Elevation PROPOSED osw House EEEvarfow •40oo.0) berries Prnpo ed Elevation lowest floor Elevation 8Ic• ►t -------- Denotes Drainer eiU/ility Easement Topo('Block Elevation 9z3•I - -•- Denotes D!alncY0e Floor Direction Gcllan�¢¢e Slab Elevation zz. ' o Denotes Monument Bearings shown are bissurr d oDeno s c e flub L07;z zj BLOCkW , RIVER vice/ � k /lE -ITs AMOKA couNrY ,MINNESOTA I hereby certify the Ode eureeY,plan of rnporl y Aar M n by UMW my deerwINAIVMn Mid Ihet I um d M hlu, Land Purveyor rthe le r,el lhu am.el.MInnerole.bated fhb 7 day of reiS A.O.III Z_.. /J`)^ i t SITE PLAN • SP #92-02 Steven Lipa I • 1 • j . ; r v • • N O-42S 0 /II N42 lei S Q 79 i I QD I mc! N j10 :IV;16tj • (11: . V/ FLOOR PLAN SP #92-02 Steven Lipa ID'" 6 I 4 • I . 11 *NM.' '. lil i . 46 mimg:777ii P-,2i i 1P i t'l . AIR 10 H .. D t F , _i__,_. h .: . 9 r N ! t - • - ' d _O 1 0 ,� [t M�;� air s:9 • b, , p;��� I 4 b Ili kk 0 si -sr( i6 '0 • a N J [.....w___-.--......1.......millh,...... - FLOOR PLAN . • SP #92-02 Steven Lipa 1111111111111111111.11111111111111111Z ------- ----- I:ri ..: . . I • 0 li • , ;Mill L. . . . j I � Cy : : .a w 11 ? Ia g . / _ III 1 II ., . . . 0.. 1. ma -_, I _.6.::.....i.„ in_ 1 It� HO fial . a N Z D . . il . ' . I . FLOOR PLAN SP #92-02 . Steven Lipa '�': 1 •1• ''s - t- ,-—, V .-4..: -..--._:---:___-_,T,--,----. ._- ;'I;,.i 4., .• . . •. . •• • 1 • 1 orl i , wz i ,.. , • . . ... , , • ., . _____ , 1 . . . . • . , • 21 ,,g,., , . . . ._. • . . , , . A\ . i I 1 1 . .- A. ; . „, , •. v , .„ • �� \\ "ate I i[ II i ar ::"...:1,i.i i LI"• Till ,:.i. 1 1111 11I IIi*tIL ire 1 1111i .! I Ii� f �� II.III ,0 I 'Anil ,, .I ‘ ,N, WW1 . , , 0 N .I- i I' 1i1. 1u 1 . . . - . . ' . . I I II ' .:14..1: i',.. '4111°- . •. - :1 1 . :. '. . iii,,./.. . .- "'''.. '.-.7-''.:i•--,..- \. '' 0 V. - ._ iiCr I ELEVATION ` CITY OF FRIDIEY 6431 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY,, MN 55432 C(612) 571-3450 ]ity Development Department «««- SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION ON site plan required for,submittals; see jattached q 95 Address: -1 �i uer�ie.c,, � „ . " p .� s }, Legal(descrlption: .', ,..' ,t . 4 .' 6` = x i{ : flit o,.�Q �Ca 3 .5ec N, �c1� i ver urew,.; $/" �a,ue , #I. Tr /Addition" /Itervf2w HtilkJS Current zoning; -1 Square footage/acreage y Reason for special use permit: 1 4.b1 ou/ a i 4'aL p Section of City Code: ?A-. Bi'. ( ) � 2 `' FEE _t INFOMATION (Contract Purchasers: Fee Owners must signou � this form prior to processing) NAME S-i-eYen, l�nl, i d ALs da4 a rn�cs Q.► 41-1, Yl gxookl fefh mn SSq4y DAYTIME PHONE C I -06 6 3 SIGNAMRE a/aI/la Y�11T1ONER IN_.____ICl�1 ««.•,««, «««««« NAME C AS Co VG II ADtS DAYTIME PHONE SIGNATURE DATE Fee: $200.00 ?OV5 $100.00 for residential second accessor y buildings Permit SP # /2- t�2 Receipt # / 3a V 6 Application received by: /4V1 Scheduled Planning Commission date: k 4 %/ r /?? Scheduled City Council date: 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 at n7er,:30 p43m1 University Avenue N.E. on Wednesday, April 8, for the purpose of: Consideration of a Special Use Permit, SP #92- 02, by Steven Lipa, per Section 205. 24.04 .B. (2) of the Fridley City Code, to allow construction of a dwelling in the CRP-2 (Flood Fringe) district, on Lots 22 and 23 , Block W, Riverview Heights, generally located at 7995 Riverview Terrace N.E. Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other tact ns with disabilities who require auxiliary aids Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than March 25 should contact , 1992. Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Anyquestions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department at 571-3450. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: March 24 , 1992 March 31, 1992 Planning 3/20/92 SP #92-02 MAILING LIST Steven Lipa Council Steven Lipa George Korich 8249 Thomas Avenue North 687 Dover Street N.E. Brooklyn Park, MN 55444 Fridley, MN 55432 David Lindquist Roger Holmgren 7941 Riverview Terrace N.E. 8001 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Donald Engebrit Timothy Hutchinson 60 Logan Parkway 8021 Riverview Terrace N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Current Resident Dennis Prince 627 Cheryl Street N.E. 8031 Riverview Terrace N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Marian Novcek Donald Reitner 641 Cheryl Street N.E. 684 Ely Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 M. Dwight Just John Koczur 661 Cheryl Street N.E. 680 Ely Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 Robert Schrader William Erickson 7965 Riverview Terrace N.E. 650 Ely Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Fridley, MN 55432 David Padilla City Council Members 670 Dover Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Planning Comm. Chair Michael Lafave 640 Dover Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Dale Tyson 641 Dover Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 Gordon Hedlund 1255 Pike Lake Drive New Brighton, MN 55112 Current Resident 665 Dover Street N.E. Fridley, MN 55432 i � Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: April 3, 1992 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Proposed M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive Zoning District Attached is the proposed ordinance and background materials for the M-3 industrial zoning district. Staff analyzed the feasibility of creating a third industrial zoning district to accommodate trucking terminals and uses which require large amounts of outdoor storage. M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive District Staff developed three options for the City Council to evaluate. With City Council concurrence, staff developed ordinance language to create a third industrial zoning district, M-3, and rezone a portion of the City to the M-3 zoning district. The M-3 zoning district would include such uses as trucking terminals and uses requiring large amounts of outdoor storage. In addition, staff included certain uses currently located in the M-2 zoning district which we believe also entails a lot of outdoor storage. Examples of these uses would include waste disposal or processing facilities; cement, lime, gypsum, or plaster of paris manufacturing; distillation of bones, coal, tar, petroleum, refuse, grain, or wood; etc. These uses are currently listed under the special use permit section of the M-2 zoning district regulations, and would be removed from the M-2 district. The proposed ordinance language increases the amount of screening required in the M-3 district for outdoor intensive storage yards. Screening would include the following: a continuous berm of three feet in height, and eight foot high chain link fence with slats, and a combination of deciduous and evergreen trees which provide 50% opacity year round. M-2 . Heavy Industrial and M-1, Light Industrial District Regulations All uses currently permitted in the M-1 and M-2 Industrial M-3 , Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive District April 3, 1992 Page 2 districts will also be permitted in the M-3, Heavy Industrial, Outdoor Intensive District. Language has also been added to include motor vehicle and equipment to those materials which require a special use permit for outdoor cases s�m rai ar to tFrior dleyc�us les were added to eliminateany future Company. Staff and legal counsel discussed various options to clarify when a special use permit for exterior storage would be required. These options and related scenarios are listed on the chart titled "Exterior Storage Options". The Commission should provide direction to staff regarding the appropriate option regarding exterior storage. the Staff met with affected property owners priopposition r too to the developing proposed attached ordinance. There was no language, as it does not adversely affect the properties in that they will not become nonconforming. We anticipatearepresentatives from Park Construction and ANR Trucking to Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct o the proposedthe pbc hearings and recommend to the City Council approval ordinance. MM/dn M-92-117 . H I 1-1 (U N -P 4-) N N C -.4 C 4-) W 0 4-I A O N W W C•rl W C •r.1 0 T3 U) b1 C 0 .0 >r 0 14 'd •r 1 4) W A O G) .0 0 .0 W-4•ri O-rI A al 4 a 0 W W W A > a) W 44Nw +) N a) 0 -�rib > w +-) 0 14-)-U (aU � A .C-.A 0 0 b71•1-1 r-I 14•r4 r-I .0 1.1 3 > a•) 0 (1) O W P S-1 X 0 O W RS t~ (1) tU U O 'd U +I O O O- I W-.-I 3-1 O N 4) N W W 4- A t~ r--I A 4 b-.i 'd >~ --I �-1 'd 1a C;II r-I 'd W I a N W +) 'd W CU 01 0W .Ct~ 0 AONS•1a A A 410-d .C .001~ W .CU•-I '-1 +) W 0 0 W +) (U W d •riH 'd 4 $. 'd4) 0A W .0 W4) Or-I N - > > - >r - 14 a $4 N (U W tT a 0 4r1 (U 4) A U N W W N 'd Cr >r >~ br Rs 0•r1•r1 !~-r1 4.) A •r-I•r1 X W C a.0 • G:l )-Ir-II-IW0 1-I1-10 $-IQ W ` > ) 0 14P00 3N43WH0NNd 0 di 0 -r1 0 al 4r1 RS-4 >+.0 C •,i•0-1 41 4-1 3 4) N •P W t~ W 4-3 >r+I W 1.1 0 W 14 C+ W N 'd 0 ) 41-4-1r�i 0 1 $40-r40 0N d UrI al Rl0 ' • 00W0WWW � +II W4) � HI ZWW1 WW 4" 0 3 g-rN o .p nUwOW OrHO +) W 'd 4)- 2 g, a xd11- Wo • Wp4AO —$- w . W • '�•r10U3dJ0WOWWW o 411~ 0a(44 riI"'-. 04-) NIUw0A1a 01P( (1 'd (1-1N4-) 4•) NC440ga1.1 V W g r-I 0W Rt >~ N-r1 WaW0 bl•r1 r-I W 2C-U UU) 0 W W . cil 4.) W Z N - > (U +) o N •ra H 4 1a r- 1a N w C °•rII 4 1W-t W o 0 14 )4 0 -rI fa., W +) 4)) � ° b1W 0 a •k (U -IWN g 0 W i~ 0 1a 0 to W 1 4A-) A a-) a) a) W ,--4g 4-) U) A -.4 W -r1 .0 � (U 'd A 0 1-1 (U o WC 0 •• I (U3 .C •• (4b) 00 )-It-. • aaf W -'- H W 0 W 1-i 0 $-1 W 'd-4•rl O -r1 O -rl O 4-1 W •r1 W U A P4 U 0 U) r-1 0 W W 'd W > 4 P ) -P A• U O N >r W v- W W C W a a) al W C Cl. W >~ 'd 4-1 4 N W >~ O 1a 01,9 H A •'�I ¢+'i E•1 (U b1-.4 r-I •r1 0 1-I -r-I •r.I 4-) 0 co A N >~ W 0 W H W 14 'd U) r-1 >C r 1 4. 'd d 0 W W - •I a b+•rI U a N W O) ' > Ori r- -dr-1Wp W ri O 'd W W M (U RS 4 'd O W .0 a W H .0 N !~ 1-I A A 00 •r1 r-I 0 C 1-1 0 >1 11) 11 W W U) 0 0 W -rI a W 0 •r1 r•1-r1 N >r ----- 0 •-1 (U 0 $4 )-( (U W 1-1 O U) - > >C -rI W C 1a 0414 U) as U) W A W ( - � 04-1 3 0 04 U) (U W 40 A W 'd (U 0-r1 -r.1 W•r1 r-1 a.0 • tl) - U) I •rI • 'd $-1 r- $1 W •1-) W $-I W > -P > 'd • )a N N 'd r-I N Cr'd 4-( >r W g 'd W so (d O W - > >r 1.1 RS >r.0 ZW •,-1O a) (U W W C W O 4 U W N •rl•rl 41 1-I 4 >v RS 0 >r W 4-3a•) W 1.1 41-I W al -P1-I -,-I 0 0 $ $a 0 -r1-rl S-i 14 0 N .0 (U O 'd 0 A f' W -- -.4 -4 P 0 'd W -P W $-1 •r- a•rl a W W ~ 0 ~ 0 al 1-1 -P 0 3 C•r-I + O k' aU) $a b' W 4) frill E ) W O W N O (0N A ARs W 4-W tl bW +U)W ArI }jdr-11 UW •Cr-I a-+)NrI NW A-)S a WOO f-1 a Z W -n 0 (U 4-1 0 A 1a 3 a-) 'd H 0 a $4 Z > p A U) $-I a'd 0 O I +1 -P 1a C .0 0 r-I W a) Cr W 'C r-I N g •rl 0 W +) 4.1 >~ (U d a (U $-I O •rI 0 al .0 -rI >r-r1 U W -'dN (U 1.1g--. H .C $-1AWW Z CT 1~ ---•r-1 0 W H a-) W UI a 1~ (U (U r-I al N 0 4) 'd 0 a•ra •r-1 . C $4 I I W O 'd W 4-1 1~ 0 'd W RS -,-I 0 Z N Z a 0 1.1 W -P 'd 4-) r-I N al 0 1-I 1-1 a O A $-I N al +) 0 4-1 g 0 O (1)•rl4) as N - U) $ Wr-1 1-1 r-I $-I s~ r-1 U) CT'd 0 S-1 RS a) 4) 0 al W W W • (U W W C W W •rl A >:-. -r1 •r1 -P I✓. 14 a-) •r•1 r-t A-4 g >r W U W 1-1 )-1 (d Cirri •ri $a 0 'd W RS WW r-I )4W 0 g-r1 W -4 W r-I W 3 •'l a H $-1 4) ( 0 b' d-) A N --I 1.1 I 'd ID RS d >C Uw W W (U W b b 0w 4 0 41 00W )-104 Z > 0AU) 0 (U (UN • • 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, April 8, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. for the purpose of: An ordinance recodifying the Fridley City Code, Chapter 205, entitled "Zoning", by amending Sections 205.17.01.C. (11) , 205. 17.07.B. (1) , 205.18.01.C. (12) , 205. 18.07.B. (1) , deleting Sections 205. 18.01.C. (9) . (a) , (b) , (c) , (f) , (i) , and (j) , replacing Section 205. 19, and renumbering consecutive sections. 205.17 M-1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. USES PERMITTED C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit (11) . Exterior storage of materials, equipment, or motor vehicles, incidental to the principle operation of the use, except as provided in Section 205. 17. 07.D. (05) 2 . USES EXCLUDED C. Trucking Terminals D. Uses whose principle operation requires the outdoor storage • of materials, motor vehicles, or equipment, including the outdoor manipulation of said materials, motor vehicles, or equipment. 7. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS B. Exterior Storage (1) All materials, motor vehicles, and commcrcial equipment shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened so as not to be visible from any public right- of-way or adjoining property of a different district. • (2) The City Council shall require a special use permit for exterior storage of materials and equipment when the requirements of Section 205. 17 . 07 .B. (1) cannot be met. D. Screening (5) Motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use, may be stored without screening only in the permitted rear yard area if they are not readily visible from a public right of way or adjacent residential zoned district. 205. 18 M-2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. USES PERMITTED C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit (9) The issuance of a special use permit shall be required before any of the following uses shall be established, reconstructed, structurally altered, enlarged, or moved. (a) Cement, lime, gypsum er piaster of paris man .fact. re (b) Distillation of bones, coal, tar, petroleum, refuse, grain or wood. (c) Drilling or excavation fer, er removal of, oil, gas or ether hydrocarbons er minerals. (d) (a) Fat rendering. -(-e--(b) Fertilizer manufacture. (f) Garbage, offal, dead animal or fish reduction or dumping. (g) (c) Gas, illuminating or heating, manufacture. (h) (d) Glue manufacture. (i) Stone quarry, gravel pit, rock 3h and '"� uaau cutting, gravel and sand washing and grading. (j ) Waste disposal or preecssing facility. (12) Exterior storage of materials, equipment, or motor vehicles, incidental to the principle operation of the use, except as provided in Section 205. 18. 07 .D. (05) 2 . USES EXCLUDED H. Any other use, unless a Special Use Permit is obtained there-fere, ieh- i3 ebj-eetionablc by reason of noise, du3t, dirt, noxieus gases, edor, vibration, glare, heat, explo3ion3 or bcca-ase of subjection of life, health and property to hazard. H. Trucking Terminals 2 • I. Uses whose principle operation requires the outdoor storage of materials, motor vehicles, or equipment, including the outdoor manipulation of said materials, motor vehicles, or equipment. 7. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS B. Exterior Storage (1) All materials, motor vehicles, and commcrcial equipment shall be kept in a building or shall be fully screened so as not to be visible from any public right- of-way or adjoining property of a different district. (2) The City Council shall require a special use permit for exterior storage of materials and equipment when the requirements of Section 205. 18.08.B. (1) cannot be met. D. Screening (5) Motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use, may be stored without screening only in the permitted rear yard area if they are not readily visible from a public right of way or adjacent residentially zoned district. 205. 19 M-3 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL, OUTDOOR INTENSIVE DISTRICT REGULATIONS 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this district is to: A. Allow for heavy industrial and outdoor intensive uses within the City. B. Control the location of outdoor intensive uses to areas where such uses would be more compatible with adjacent uses and zoning. C. Allow for the proper screening and buffering for outdoor intensive uses. 2. USES PERMITTED A. Principal Uses. The following are principal uses in M-3 Districts: (1) All uses allowed under M-1 Principal Uses and M-2 Principal Uses of this Chapter. 3 • (2) Trucking Terminals (3) Uses whose principle use requires the outdoor storage of materials, motor vehicles, or equipment, including the outdoor manipulation of said materials, motor vehicles. or equipment. (4) Exterior storage of materials, equipment, and motor vehicles incidental to the operation of the principle use. B. Accessory Uses. The following are accessory uses in M-3 Districts: (1) Retail sales or servicing of products manufactured or warehoused. (2) Offices associated with the principal use. (3) A dwelling for a watch person subject to the following conditions: (a) Any dwelling unit located in an industrial structure shall not occupy the front half of a ground floor or basement. (b) Any dwelling unit in an industrial building shall not contain more than one (1) bedroom. (c) No detached dwelling unit shall be permitted in this district. (d) A dwelling unit shall be a part of the principal building and shall be provided with an outside entrance. (4) Off-street parking facilities. (5) Off-street loading facilities. (6) Solar energy devices as an integral part of the principal structure. (7) Business signs for uses permitted. C. Uses Permitted With A Special Use Permit. The following are uses permitted with a Special Use Permit in M-3 Districts: 4 (1) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of paris manufacture. (2) Distillation of bones, coal, tar, petroleum, refuse, grain or wood. (3) Drilling or excavation for, or removal of. oil, gas or other hydrocarbons or minerals. (4) Garbage, offal, dead animal or fish reduction or dumping. (5) Stone quarry, gravel pit, rock crushing and cutting, gravel and sand washing and grading. (6) Waste disposal or processing facility. 2. USES EXCLUDED A. Any use allowed or excluded in any other district unless specifically allowed under Uses Permitted of this district are excluded in M-3 Districts. B. Uses which may be dangerous or otherwise detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity or to the general welfare and which may impair the use, enjoyment or value of any property. C. Manufacture of acetylene, acid or any other type explosive. D. Stock yards or slaughter houses, except of poultry or rabbits. E. Nuclear processing or storage facilities. F. Gas fired foundries. G. Asbestos manufacturing facilities. H. Junkyards 3. LOT REOUIREMENTS AND SETBACKS A. Lot Area. A lot area of not less than one and one-half (1-1/2) acre is required for one (1) main building. B. Lot Width. 5 A lot width of 150 feet is required at the required front setback. C. Lot Coverage. (Ref. Ord. 951) (1) The maximum percent of the area of a lot allowed to •be covered by the main building and all accessory buildings is as follows: (a) One (1) Story - forty percent (40%) maximum; fifty percent (50%) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (b) Two (2) Story - thirty-five percent (35%) maximum; forty-five percent (45%) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (c) Three (3) Story - thirty percent 130%) maximum; forty percent (40%) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (d) Four (4) Story - twenty-five percent (25%) maximum; thirty-five percent (35%) with a special use permit in (4) below. (e) Five (5) Story - twenty percent (20%) maximum; thirty percent (30%) with a special use permit as provided in (4) below. (f) Six (6) Story - fifteen percent (15%) maximum; twenty-five percent (25%) with a special use permit in (4) below. (2) The above lot coverage will be subject to other considerations including parking and open space requirements, use of facilities, and proximity to other districts, which may decrease the maximum lot coverage. (3) The lot coverage may be reduced by the City if and when there is provision for underground parking within the main structure provided that the lot coverage shall not be more than forty percent (40%) . (4) The lot coverage as stated in (1) above may be increased up to a maximum of ten percent (10%) of the lot area upon obtaining a special use permit. In addition to the requirements of this Section and the factors identified in Section 205.05.04 to evaluate special use permit requests, the City shall consider the following factors in determining the effect of the increase in lot coverage: 6 • (a) For existing developed properties, the total amount of existing hardsurface areas shall be evaluated to determine whether a reduction in the total building and parking coverage can be achieved. (b) The petitioner shall prove that all other ordinance requirements are met, including but not limited to, parking, storm water management, and • landscaping. D. Setbacks. (1) Front Yard: A front yard depth of not less than thirty-five (35) feet is required for all permitted buildings and uses. (2) Side Yard: Two (2) side yards are required, each with a width of not less than twenty (20) feet except: (a) Where a driveway is to be provided in the side yard the minimum required side yard increases to thirty (30) feet. (b) Where a side yard abuts a street of a corner lot, the side yard requirement 'increases to a minimum of thirty-five (35) feet. (c) No side yard is required where a common wall is provided between two (2) buildings which meet the requirements of the Building Code. (3) Rear Yard: A rear yard depth of not less than twenty-five (25) feet is required, with an additional foot of rear yard depth for each four (4) feet or portion of building height over thirty-five (35) feet. (4) Additional Setback Restrictions: Whenever any industrial district is adjacent to or adjoins on any other district, permitted buildings and uses, except automobile parking and loading spaces, driveways, essential services, walks and planting spaces shall not be: (a) Closer to a street right-of-way line, abutting a residential district, than 100 feet. 7 (b) Closer to the alley right-of-way line than forty (40) feet. (c) Closer to the boundary line of any commercial district than thirty-five (35) feet. (d) Closer to the boundary line of a residential district than fifty (50)- feet. (e) Where dense, natural vegetation, trees and screening exist, the fifty (50) foot residential buffer will be retained and maintained as established by the City. 4. BUILDING REOUIREMENTS A. Height. Building height shall be a maximum of six (6) stories not exceeding sixty-five (65) feet provided that no building shall be erected to a height exceeding forty-five (45) feet within fifty (50) feet of any R-1 or R-2 residential district unless one (1) additional foot of setback can be provided for each one (1) foot of building height or portion thereof exceeding forty-five (45) feet. B. Exterior Materials. The type of building materials used on exterior walls shall be face brick, natural stone, specifically designed precast concrete, factory fabricated and finished metal frame paneling, glass or other materials approved by the City. 5. PARKING REOUIREMENTS A. Reduction Of Parking. Reduction of parking stalls may be allowed when the provision of space required for parking stalls, due to the particular nature of the -proposed use or other considerations, would be an unnecessary hardship. Adequate open space shall be provided to satisfy the total number of required parking stalls. B. Additional Parking. When the provisions for parking space required for specific district uses is inadequate, the City may require that additional off-street parking be provided. C. Parking Ratio. 8 (1) For office use at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 250 square feet of office space use. (2) For retail use at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 150 square feet of retail space use. (3) For manufacturing uses at least one (1) off-street Parking space shall be provided for each 400 square feet of manufacturing space use. (4) For warehouse and storage use at least one (11 off-street parking space shall be provided for each 2,000 square feet of space use. (5) For speculative building use at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 500 square feet of floor area on lots of more than one and one-half (1-1/2) acres. (6) For speculative building use, at least one (1) off-street parking space shall be provided for each 700 square feet of floor area on lots of less than one and one-half (1-1/2) acres. (7) The speculative parking ratio will be used for all mixed uses unless the owner agrees to enter into a written agreement, in recordable form, with the City, in which the owner represents to the City what the ratio of all uses in the building will be. Upon this happening, the parking ratio for the building will be determined on a pro-rata basis by the parking ratio per the number of square feet for each type of use which the owner represents will be located in the building. After execution of this agreement, any changes to the specified uses will require a special use permit from the City. (8) At least one (1) handicap off-street parking space shall be provided for each fifty (50) spaces or fraction thereof. D. Design Requirements: (1) Drainage: All driveways and parking areas, except those for less than four (4) vehicles, shall be graded according to a drainage plan which has been approved by the City. (2) Lighting: 9 Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be shaded or diffused to reflect the light away from the adjoining property and traffic. (3) Curbing: The entire perimeter of all parking areas in excess of four (4) stalls, access driveways, truck loading spaces or other hard surface areas that handle motor vehicle traffic shall be curbed with a Poured six (6) inch high concrete curb and gutter. (a) Curbing shall be required around safety islands. (b) Curb cuts and ramps for the handicapped shall be installed as required by State law. (c) Construction shall be in accordance with curbing specifications on file at the City. (d) The City may exempt curbing: ( (1) ) Where the parking lot directly abuts a sidewalk which is sufficiently higher than the grade of the parking lot and satisfies the curbing requirements. ( (2) ) Where the City has approved future expansion. (4) Driveway Requirements: (a) A maximum driveway width of thirty-two (32) feet at the curb opening, excluding the entrance radii can be constructed. (b) The parking aisle shall be a minimum of twenty-five (25) feet in width for two-way traffic and eighteen (18) feet in width for one-way traffic. (c) The edge of the curb opening shall not be closer to the nearest portion of a street right-of-way intersection than seventy-five (75) feet or two-thirds (2/3) of the lot width, whichever is smaller. (d) Where a "T" intersection exists, a drive may be located opposite the end of the intercepted street. (e) The minimum driveway angle to the street shall be sixty (60) degrees. 10 • (5) All parking and hard surface areas shall be: (a) No closer than twenty (20) feet from any street right-of-way. (b) No closer than five (5) feet from any side lot line, except for a common drive approved by the adjoining property owners and the City. (c) No closer than five (5) feet from any rear lot line unless adjacent to an alley, then the setback shall be increased to fifteen (15) feet. (d) No closer than five (5) feet from the main building. (e) Curbed with minimum driveway access radii of ten (10) feet to match the existing street curb. (6) Loading Docks: (a) Outside loading docks are to be located in the rear yard or side yard and be properly screened. (b) The space needed for the loading docks must be adequate to handle the loading and unloading needs, without obstructing the public right-of-way. (7) Off-street parking shall be provided for all vehicles concerned with any use on the lot. (8) Parking lots with more than four (4) parking spaces shall be striped. (9) Sufficient 'concrete area may be required for motorcycle parking in addition to the required vehicle parking stalls. (10) Bike racks may be required by the City in an area that is convenient to each major building entrance and will not disrupt pedestrian or vehicular traffic or fire lanes. (11) Safety signs, markings and traffic control devices may be required to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. (12) Parking stalls may be nine (9) feet in width for manufacturing uses, warehouse and storage uses, speculative industrial buildings, and parking lots for long term employee parking. (Ref. Ord. 952 , 960) 11 6. LANDSCAPE REOUIREMENTS A. Scope. All open areas of any site, except for areas used for parking, driveways, or storage shall be landscaped and incorporated in a landscape plan. (1) All new developments requiring a building permit shall comply with the requirements of this section. (2) Existing developments shall comply with the requirements of this section if one or more of the following applies: (a) At the time of a building expansion or alteration which dictates the necessity for additional parking or hardsurface areas in excess of four (4) stalls. (b) Building alterations which dictate a change in use such that the parking area must be expanded in excess of four (4) stalls. (c) Construction of additional loading docks. (d) Construction of new parking areas in excess of four (4) stalls. (3) If full compliance cannot be achieved due to site constraints, partial compliance as determined by the City shall be enforced. • (4) The requirements of this section shall not be required for building alterations which do not affect the exterior portions of the site. B. Bonding Requirement The City shall retain a performance bond, cash or letter of credit, as required in Section 205. 05. 06.A. (3) of the zoning code for one growing season after the installation of landscape materials is completed. C. Plan Submission and Approval. (1) A landscape plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit or prior to approval of outside improvements not related to building improvements. A plan shall not be required for routine replacement of existing materials or the 12 installation of new materials when not associated with a building project. (2) The following items shall appear on the landscape 1�a11:: (a) General ( (1) ) Name and address of owner/developer ( (2) ) Name and address of architect/designer ( (3) ) Date of plan preparation ( (4) ) Dates and description of all revisions ( (5) ) Name of project or development ( (6) ) Scale of plan (engineering scale only) at no smaller than 1 inch equals 50 feet ( (7) ) North point indication (b) Landscape Data ( (1) ) Planting schedule (table) containing: ( (a) ) Symbols ( (b) ) Quantities ( (c) ) Common names ( (d) ) Botanical names ( (e) ) Sizes of plant material at time of planting ( (f) ) Root specification (B.R. , B & B. potted, etc. ) ( (g) ) Special planting instructions ( (2) ) Existing tree and shrubbery, locations. common names and approximate size ( (3) ) Planting detail (show all species to scale at normal mature crown diameter, or spread for local hardiness zone) 13 ( (4) ) Typical sections in detail of fences, tie walls, planter boxes, tot lots, picnic areas, berms, and other similar features. ( (5) ) Typical sections of landscape islands and planter beds with identification of materials used. ( (6) ) Details of planting beds and foundation plantings. ( (7) ) Note indicating how disturbed soil areas will be restored through the use of sodding, seeding, or other techniques. ( (8) ) Delineation of both sodded and seeded areas with total areas provided in square feet, and slope information. ( (9) ) Coverage plan for underground irrigation system, if any. ( (10) ) Statement or symbols, to describe exterior lighting plan concept. (c) Special Conditions: Where landscape or man-made materials are used to provide required screening from adjacent and neighboring properties, a cross-section shall be provided through the site and adjacent properties to show property elevation, existing buildings and screening in scale. D. Landscaping Materials; Definitions. All plant materials shall be living plants. Artificial plants are prohibited. (1) Grass and ground cover. (a) Ground cover shall be planted in such a manner as to present a finished appearance and reasonably complete coverage within twelve (12) months after planting, with proper erosion control during plant establishment period. Exception to this is undisturbed areas containing natural vegetation which can be maintained free of foreign and noxious materials. (b) Accepted ground covers are sod, seed, or other organic material. The use of rock and bark mulch 14 shall be limited to areas around other vegetation (i.e. shrubs) and shall be contained by edging. (2) Trees. (a) Over-story Deciduous. ((1) ) A woody plant, which at maturity is thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a single trunk un-branched for several feet above the ground, having a defined crown which looses leaves annually. ( (2) ) Such trees shall have a 2 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. (b) Ornamental. ( (1) ) A woody plant, which at maturity is less than thirty (30) feet in height, with a single trunk un-branched for several feet above the ground, having a defined crown which looses leaves annually. ( (2) ) Such trees shall have a 1 1/2 inch caliper minimum at planting. (c) Coniferous. ( (1) ) A woody plant, which a maturity is at least thirty (30) feet or more in height, with a single trunk fully branched to the ground, having foliage on the outermost portion of the branches year-round. ( (2) ) Such trees shall be six (6) feet in height at planting. (3) Shrubs. (a) Deciduous or evergreen plant material, which at maturity is fifteen (15) feet in height or less. Such materials may be used for the formation of hedges. Such materials shall meet the following minimum standards at time of planting: ( (1) ) Dwarf deciduous shrubs shall be eighteen (18) inches tall. ( (2) ) Deciduous shall (24) inches tall, except as in Section D below. 15 ( (3) ) Evergreen shrubs shall be of the eighteen (18) inch classification. (4) Vines. Vines shall be at least twelve (12) inches high at planting, and are generally used in conjunction with walls or fences. (5) Slopes and Berms. (a) Final slope grades steeper than 3: 1 will not be permitted without special approval or treatment such as terracing or retaining walls. • (b) Earth berm screening parking lots and other open areas shall not have slopes exceeding 3: 1. A minimum three (3) foot berm is required. E. Perimeter Landscaping; Standards. (1) In order to achieve landscaping which is appropriate in scale with the size of a building and site, the minimum standards apply: (a) One 11) tree for every one thousand (1, 000) square feet of total building floor area or one (1) tree for every fifty (50) feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. A minimum of thirty (30) percent of the trees required will be coniferous. (b) Two (2) ornamental trees can be substituted for every one (1) over-story deciduous shade tree. In no case shall ornamental trees exceed fifty (50) percent of the required number of trees. (c) Except for outdoor intensive uses, parking and driving areas between the building and frontage street shall be screened in the following manner: ( (1) ) A continuous mass of plant materials; minimum of three (3) feet in height at time of planting; or ( (2) ) A continuous earth berm with slopes no greater than 3 : 1 and a minimum of three (3) feet in height; or ( (3) ) A combination of earth berms and plant materials such that a minimum of three (3) feet of continuous screening is achieved. 16 F. Interior Parking Lot Landscaping Standards (1) All parking areas n avedlcontaining l ndscaped one islands that are stalls shall include u p reasonably distributed throughout the parking area to break up the expanses of paved areas. Landscaped islands shall be provided every two hundred fifty (250) feet or more of uninterrupted parking stalls. (2) All landscaped islands shall contain a minimum of one hundred eighty (180) square feet with a minimum width of five (5) feet and shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, or ornamental, or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch, and/or shrubbery, in addition to the minimum landscape requirements of this ordinance. Parking area landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a six (6) inch raised concrete curb. (3) Trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each fifteen (15) surface parking spaces provided or a fraction thereof. G. Screening and Buffering Standards (1) Where the parcel abuts elandscapedy zoned buffer property, there shall beprovided a which shall be constructed in the following manner: (a) A screening fence or wall shall be constructed within a five (5) foot strip along the property_ line(s) abutting the park or residentially zoned property. Said fence or wall shall be constructed of attractive, permanent finished materials, compatible with those used in the principal structure, and shall be a minimum of six (6) feet high and a maximum of eight (8) feet high. Chain link fences shall have non-wooden slats when used for screening purposes; or. (b) A planting screen shall be constructed in a fifteen (15) foot strip and shall consist of healthy, fully hardy plant materials and shall be designed to provide a minimum year-round opaqueness of eighty (80) percent at the time of maturity. The plant material shall be of sufficient height to achieve the required screening. Planting screens shall be maintained in a neat and healthful condition. Dead vegetation shall be promptly_ replaced. (c) If the existing topography, natural growth of vegetation, permanent buildings or other barriers 17 meet the standards for screening as approved by the City, they may be substituted for all or part of the screening fence or planting screen. (2) All loading docks must be located in the rear or side yards and be screened with a six (6) foot high minimum solid screening fence if visible from a public right-of- way or if within thirty (30) feet of a residential districts. (3) All external loading and service areas accessory to buildings shall be completely screened from the ground level view from contiguous residential properties and adjacent streets, except at access points. (4) Outdoor intensive uses or areas for exterior storage of materials and equipment shall screen storage yards in the following manner: (a) A continuous earth berm shall be installed along public rights-of-way with slopes no greater than 3 :1 and a minimum of three (3) feet in height; and (b) An eight foot high chain link fence with non- metallic slats shall be installed on the berm and around the perimeter of the property; and (c) A combination of deciduous and evergreen plant materials shall be installed along the fence such that a minimum fifty (50) percent opacity year round is achieved. H. Credit for Large Trees The total number of required over-story trees may be reduced by one-half (1/2) tree for each new deciduous tree measuring three (3) inches or more in diameter, or each new coniferous tree measuring eight (8) feet or more in height. In no event, however, shall the reduction be greater than twenty-five (25) percent of the total number of trees required. I• Credit for Existing Trees The total number of required new over-story trees may be reduced by the retention of existing over-story trees provided that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Such trees are four (4) inches or greater in caliper measured six (6) inches from soil level. (2) For each existing tree meeting the requirement, two trees as required in section D above may be deleted. 18 (3) Proper precautions to protect trees during development shall be indicated on grading plans submitted for plan review. Such precautions are outlined in section J. These precautions shall be included in the landscape surety. J. Irrigation. Underground irrigation shall be side quired to yard areas maintain all landscaped, boulevard, frontand K. Installation. (1) The following standards shall be met when installing the required landscaping: (a) Plant materials shall belocated to provide reasonable access to all s. (b) All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structures to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located on any public right- of-way. (c) Sodded areas on slopes shall be staked. (d) Seeded areas shall be mulched with straw to prevent erosion. Hydro mulching is acceptable. (e) Oak trees shall be their drip rrounded lineto snow fence or other means atprevent compaction of their root systems. (f) Plantings shall not be placed so as to obstruct lines of sight at street corners and driveways. (q) No plant materials reaching a mature height of twenty (20) feet or more shall be planted within a twenty-five (25) foot lineal path of the centerline of an overhead power line. (2) The applicant shall install all landscape materials within one year; but shall have three (3) yearsthein which to install the required landscaping if following minimum standards are met: (a) First year ( (1) ) All grading is completed, including installation of berms. 19 ( (2) ) The required irrigation system is installed. ( (3) ) Areas to be seeded and/or sodded are installed. ( (4) ) Screening for adjacent residential areas is installed, if required. ( (5) ) Twenty-five (25) percent of the required over-story trees are installed. ( (6) ) Twenty-five (25) percent of the perimeter landscaping is installed. (b) Second year ( (1) ) The remainder of the perimeter landscaping is installed. ( (2) ) Interior landscaping is installed. ( (3) ) Fifty (50) Percent of the remaining required over-story trees are installed. (c) Third year Any remaining landscaping shall be installed. L• Maintenance. (1) The property owner shall be responsible for replacement of any dead trees, shrubs, ground covers, and sodding. If any plant materials are not maintained or replaced, the property owner shall have, upon written notification from the City, one growing season to replace said materials before the City shall maintain or replace said plant materials and assess the property for the costs thereof. Plant materials need not be replaced specie for specie; however, in no case shall the number of plant materials be reduced from the minimum that is required by this section when replacing dead plant materials. (2) Screen fences and walls which are in disrepair shall be repaired. 13) All vacant lots, tracts, or parcels shall be properly maintained in an orderly manner free of litter and junk. (Ref. Ord 960) 20 • 7. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS A parking Facilities. in All drivewa s ar kt areas and concrete or other docks hard s surf ace all be surfaced with blaco material approved by the Cit . B Exterior Storage. 1 All materials and commercial e i ment shall be ke t in a buildin or shall be full screened so as not to be visible from an ublic ' ri ht-of-wa or ad'oinin ro ert in a different district. C. Refuse. l be All waste materials refuse or arba e under thelCha ter tentitled in closed containers as re ire "Waste Dis osal" of the Fridle Cit Code. D screening. 1 Screenin of off-street arkin shall be re uired for: a An off-street arkin area visible from a public right-of-way. b An drivewa to a arkin area ad'oinin a public right-of-way. 2 Where an industrial district is ad'acent to a ublic ri ht-of-wa or across from an residential district the followin re uirements must be met: a There shall be a five 5 foot sidewalk easement provided along the property line. Council ma allow the a licant to dela the installation of the sidewalk, if the applicant signs an a reement that it will be constructed when the Cityre uires the installation. b There shall be a fifteen (15) foot planting stri located behind the re uired sidewalk that is substantial enou h to create a h sical se aration between the ublic ri ht-of-wa and the industrial prop tY 3 All trash or arba a stora a rece tacles must be located in the rear or side and and be totall screened 21 from view from any public right-of-way. Provisions must be taken to protect screening from vehicle damage. (4) All raw materials, supplies, finished or semi-finished products and equipment, not including motor vehicles, shall be stored within an enclosed building or be screened on all sides from view from a public right-of-way or an adjoining property of a different district by a fence or other approved screen which extends two (2) feet above the highest item to be stored with the height not to exceed eight (8) feet except where materials and equipment are being used for construction on premises. (5) Motor vehicles necessary to the operation of the principal use, may be stored without screening only within the permitted rear yard area if they are not readily visible from a public right-of-way. Motor vehicles related to outdoor intensive uses shall be stored within the required screened storage yard. (6) All roof equipment, except alternate energy devices, must be screened from public view unless the equipment is designed as an integral part of the building and is compatible with the lines of the building, as determined by the City. (Ref. Ord. 960) E. Drainage And Grade Requirements. A finished ground grade shall be established such that natural drainage away from all buildings is provided. The following minimum criteria shall apply. (1) The minimum elevation of finished grade shall not be less than one-fourth (1/4) inch rise per horizontal foot of setback measured from curb grade. (2) The City may specify a minimum finished ground grade for any structure in order to allow proper drainage and connection to City utilities. F. Maintenance. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that: (1) Every exterior wall, foundation and roof of any building or structure shall be reasonably watertight, weather-tight and rodent-proof and shall be kept in a good state of maintenance and repair. Exterior walls shall be maintained free from extensive dilapidation due to cracks, tears or breaks of deteriorated plaster, 22 stucco, brick, wood or other material that gives evidence of long neglect. (2) The protective surface on exterior walls of a building shall be maintained in good repair and provide a sufficient covering and protection of the structural surface against its deterioration. Without limiting the generality of this section, a protective surface of a building shall be deemed to be out of repair if: (a) More than twenty-five percent (25%) of the area of any plane or wall on which the protective surface is paint is blistered, cracked, flaked, scaled or chalked away, or (b) More than twenty-five percent (25%) of the pointing of any brick or stone wall is loose or has fallen out. (3) Every yard and all structures, walls, fences, walks, steps, driveways, landscaping and other exterior development shall be maintained in an attractive, well kept condition. (4) The boulevard area of a premises for byll thee properly abutting maintained, groomed and cared property owner. G. Essential Services. (1) Connection is required on each lot served by City_ sanitary sewer. (2) Connection is required on each lot served by a City_ water line. (Ref. Ord. 960) 205.3320 PUD-PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.2021 S-i SPECIAL DISTRICTS 205.2122 S-1 HYDE PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.22-23 S-2 REDEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.2424 0-1 OVERLAY DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.2-425 O-i CREEK AND RIVER PRESERVATION DISTRICT REGULATIONS 205.2-526 0-2 CRITICAL AREA DISTRICT REGULATIONS 23 Hearing impaired persons planning to attend who need an interpreter or other persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids should contact Roberta Collins at 572-3500 no later than March 27, 1992 . Any and all persons desiring to be heard shall be given an opportunity at the above stated time and place. Any questions related to this item may be referred to the Fridley Community Development Department at 571-3450. DONALD BETZOLD CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION Publish: March 24, 1992 March 31, 1992 24 1 ::/ Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION - City of Fridley DATE: February 20, 1992 TO: William Burns, City Manager FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director - Michele McPherson, Planning Assistant SUBJECT: Proposed M-3 Industrial Zoning District Per your direction in the memo dated July 22, 1991 regarding the creation of a new M-3 industrial zoning district, we have completed the attached analysis. Intent The intent of the M-3 zoning district would be to create a district in which the only permitted uses would be those that require intensive outdoor storage. These would potentially include contractor yards, trucking terminals, rock crushing yards, and junk yards. The purpose of creating the new district is to limit the amount of outdoor uses within the City. Outdoor intensive uses do not generate as much value and taxes as other uses that are not outdoor intensive. Analysis We first analyzed the assessed values for various outdoor intensive uses, focusing specifically on those values generated by junk yards and trucking terminals (see Attachment A) . The junk yards' land values are higher than the building values. While it is true that the junk yards have a lower total value than typical industrial uses, values are not solely based on property use, but on other variables including parcel size, building size, type of building construction, age of the building, and the function of the facility. An opposite example is the ANR Trucking facility which has an extensive amount of outdoor storage area, but the building value is almost as high as some non-outdoor intensive industrial uses (Wickes and Willamette) . The building is valued at over $2 million, which is based on the age of the building and the fact that the building was designed to accommodate a very specific use. The amount of outdoor use for the ANR Trucking facility is necessary for truck traffic to maneuver in and out of the building. Proposed M-3 Industrial Zoning District February 20, 1992 Page 2 We have concluded that the amount of outdoor storage area may not drive the value of the property in every case, but the total value for outdoor sites is lower than typical developments. Even though half of the eight outdoor sites had building values higher than land values, there is no comparison in total value/square foot. The value/square foot of outdoor sites is about half that of typical developments (including ANR Trucking) . Other Communities We also researched other communities' regulations regarding truck terminals and automotive junk yards (see Attachment B) . Our survey indicated that 11 out of 22 cities prohibit junk yards from all zoning districts. Truck terminals are permitted either outright (54% of communities surveyed) or as a conditional use in most industrial districts in other communities (33%) . Only three communities prohibit truck terminals from all zoning districts. Some communities limit truck terminals to certain parts of the community, centrally locating them in one area of the community which can provide adequate access and proper roads for these types of uses. Location of Existing Uses Junk yards and trucking terminals are generally located in two areas of the City (see attached map) . Trucking terminals (ANR and Joseph Land) are located north of 83rd Avenue and west of Main Street. Junk yards are located west of Central Avenue between 72nd and 75th Avenues. The City has issued four Special Use Permits to the existing junk yards. The City Code also requires licenses which are reviewed annually. Park Construction is also located near the ANR site. Options We have developed four options for consideration. These are summarized in a chart entitled "Ordinance Options" . The options necessitate text and zoning map amendments which would render some uses nonconforming. Option A would create the M-3 District in text only, permitting trucking terminals, rock crushing activities, and contractor's yards. These uses would be removed from the M-1 and M-2 districts, and existing uses would become legal nonconforming. New uses would need to rezone property to M-3 . Option B would create the M-3 district in text and on the map. A specific area in the City would be rezoned to M-3 . Proposed M-3 Industrial Zoning District February 20, 1992 Page 3 Option C maintains the status quo. Currently, junk yards are a special use permit in both Industrial Districts. Trucking terminals and contractor's yards are still permitted uses. Option D, eliminating junk yards as a use in the City, could be pursued in conjunction with Options A, B, or C. We proposed this option in an effort to determine if it was legally feasible, and also to force removal of them completely for redevelopment purposes. Other Possible Uses We are also evaluating other uses to include in the M-3 district, such as those listed in Section 205.18.01.C. (9) . The "Uses Excluded" section of the M-2 district would also be included. Finally, the lot and structure requirements would stipulate greater landscaping and screening. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council pursue Option B; create the M-3 district text and rezone a portion of the City to M-3 (see attached map) . This option allows property owners the most flexibility while achieving the City goal of limiting the number of uses which require large amounts of outdoor storage. Of the eight parcels to be rezoned, four are occupied, and four are vacant. In addition, the City Council may wish to evaluate Option D regarding the junk yards. Staff has not developed ordinance language for the new district; however, language will need to be carefully worded to accurately describe "outdoor" uses. Staff recommends that prior to ordinance development, informal meetings with affected property owners be held to receive input and feedback. MM/dn M-91-893 Alumni MEMORANDUM MEMO TO: Barbara Dacy Community Development Director Michele McPherson Planning Assistant /)I MEMO FROM: Virgil C. Herrick rn,// City Attorney SUBJECT: Proposed M-3 Industrial Zoning District DATE: February 3, 1992 This Memorandum is in response to your Memorandum of January 24, 1992 regarding the above subject. In your Memorandum you indicate that there are two questions that you would like me to address. These are as follows: 1. Please review Option A and identify any concerns regarding legal consequences. 2. Options B and D propose removing junk yards as a special use • in the M-1 and M-2 districts. Please provide an analysis as to whether or not this is a legitimate alternative. Based on our phone conversation i am assuming that the goal of the City Council is to limit further expansion of those uses that require an excessive amount of outdoor storage i.e. contractor yards, truck terminals and junk yards. In this regard, it is my understanding that the intention is not to attempt to remove existing businesses within those categories. I have examined Options A, B, C and D as set forth in your Memorandum. It is my understanding that the staff is recommending Option A. I believe that this Option would have the effect of preventing the establishment of uses permitted in the M-3 zone i.e. truck terminals, junk yards, and contractors yards, including rock crushing. If the Council adopts an ordinance creating the M-3 zoning district but does not zone any land as an M-3 district, any party desiring to establish such a use would have to rezone the property from its present zone to the M-3 zone. This would give the Council considerable authority to either approve or deny the rezoning. The wording in your Memorandum might be interpreted that the present owners of the above described businesses would not be able to sell their businesses to a buyer because the businesses are nonconforming. It is my understanding of the law, both in Minnesota and most other jurisdictions, that a nonconforming use could be sold to a subsequent owner and the subsequent owner • Barbara Dacy Michele McPherson February 3, 1992 Page Two could continue to operate the nonconforming use in the same manner as the seller. I include this comment so that there is no misunderstanding that Option A would prohibit a new owner from continuing to operate a truck terminal, junk yard or contracting yard. If Option A were adopted, the existing truck terminals, junk yards and contractors yards would become a nonconforming use. As you know, this has the effect of prohibiting the owner from rebuilding in case of destruction by fire or other causes. It also would prohibit the present owners, or future owners, from expanding the present operation. I can visualize that this would be considered detrimental by some of the owners of these businesses and I might anticipate that the owners would be opposed to such action. You also asked me to comment on Options B and D as they relate to the removing of junk yards as a special use in the M-1 and M-2 districts. If the Council determines that it wishes to eliminate junk yards in the City, I believe they have three means of accomplishing this goal. Which of these should be adopted depends largely upon how quickly the Council wants to remove these facilities. The alternatives as I see them are as follows: 1. To amend the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit junk yards or salvage yards from all of the zoning districts in the City. This would make the present facilities nonconforming. Absent any other action on the part of the City, these uses could continue as a nonconforming use until such time as the use ceased or was abandoned. This would be a long term solution to the problem. 2. The Council could take the first step outlined above and in addition put an amortization provision in the ordinance which would provide that these uses are nonconforming and they could continue as nonconforming for a stated period of time. Many courts, including the Minnesota Supreme Court, have held that a city can place an amortization period on nonconforming uses. The issue in these cases usually is whether the amortization period is a reasonable time for the owner to amortize their investment in the business. In theory, this procedure should work. In practice, it might well involve litigation to test the reasonableness of the ordinance. I would describe this as a medium term solution to the removal of these facilities. Barbara Dacy Michele McPherson February 3, 1992 Page Three 3. The Council, or the HRA, could declare these areas as redevelopment areas and acquire the property from the present owners either through a negotiated purchase or condemnation. Obviously, this would require the acquiring authority to pay a fair market value for the property. This would be a short term solution.to the removal of the facilities. Whether this should be pursued is probably an economic or financial consideration that the Council would have to weigh in making its decision. In summary, I believe that Options A or B could be used to control expansion of the uses described above. Option C describes the present situation. Because this Option relies on special use permits, the burden of denying such a permit rests with the City and there would have to be valid reasons to show that the applicant does not meet the standard for obtaining a special use permit. I hope that this has answered your questions. If not, please contact me. • 1-) C rO 4.• 4 1 k. a) CO CO to at M m O. • • 01 N N 0 0 W to sr t0 at N to O r••1 U) t-. N N N d' N M H O 01 co r- ri t0 N O H 4-) I4 in- VT ilkilkilkilkilkV) V) V) in. V) V) V) a) > O al 'd Ha H at 0 a) o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -,4• o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al H 0 0 •r 01 In N N N 0 In to N - - - - - - • In CO 0% CO 0 In CO O '0 N t0 O H srsrH r) H. 01 In el t0 In N O In el In N t0 to rc • ch N 01 N H H N• N 4.4 0V) tn. ilkV) (? coV) V) ilkV) VI- ilkV) �? C 04 0 11 44 'II O co O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O sr 0 o O O O O 0 o O O O O O O 0 .-1 N M N CO N H t` N 0t 0 0t V' In CI\ O - > N t` at d' o H N CO d' M co at in N 01 M H 111 10 C CO 0 H 01 N CO t0 O U) .d H t0 01 N .-1 M d' co In O d' co a) C(0 N H .O 11 V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) or N H •r1 U) .40 0 0 0 O 0 do 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 zO o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O O O 0 0 H N M 01 O N t` co d' H In O we 01 N N A/ >N N 0 d' 01 H N I- In O O t0 In N U) • 0t to t` 0 t- N 01 0 t0 r) O In H In 0 H H 01 01 N d' d' COd' d' N o In al N 4-1 N H M H N M M > O H • [�V) V) V} �? V) V) V) V) co. V) V) V) V) V) G m 1) .. C U •,.1 O a dP de of de dP de dP OP dP dP de de de dP 'j.. 0 M H CO t0 N H 0t N 01 t0 CO sr M 0 - O 0 0% H 0 U) 14 H sr t` 0 N sr t` N CO H CO M H V) 0 a1-� -. co. - - .- - :� rs ... :� 'd 'O0 A v 0 .0 11 O M d' M sr 0 10 N N t0 t0 0 CO H 0 Z..W d O d' N IC) 01 0 01 N N 10 co 1- 0 N 01 0 U1 0 4)10 M 0 N M I0 to H to u1 M M t0 ID -) U de V) H N 01 N M sr 0 N t` N we I0 CO N a) g H N 10 N 10 10 M t0 t0 O M CO 10 N W O 'd' 10 N H N ID N H N H en cD 3-1•• $2. al H a O 1 O co 0•g 1 'd 0 N sr co Ot H co .-1 d' N 10 t` H H 0 • 01 • . . . • • • CO 10 In N 0t N tC) N t- H CO H ID CO U > M sr en N en M 0 d° 413 U> UG 4aN1IO1 Wz> tNNaN)+Wz IN z> MN11 a ONM W z OHNCOr+WzN M 1 W+z1 O•0xb.COtNNN z> OM a1a1 OCOMC)$O a OH1roOm) x O1aa z.>a NH"n0N•a>-1)+1 0OIUMn0C-1C)li 1 t W HH u N N 4-I0 Sa gAC 40 40 a ga ga 10 0 -( CO .CUdaaaa);)ll) 0\ O\ 0 14 a) •.-1 4).0 O O E- 11 0 14 •,1 .•] 11 0 0 b �H 4.1H 4 4J Ula x4J a o 1.1.k 4.) .0 4-) O.I.) Z4) 4) 4).0 I: C U CD 0 C U) UC) C0 el CC Cta 4., U) U) NC +►la W^i 0 0 r1 M 4 M >I a) 0 0 H O 0 ••1 O 0 10 0 b 'd 0 .. 0 0 11 b H 17 br• 1` C1U C1W t9 U01 ,010 NU $4W 0W gW '0U Pi 0 01Z 10f4 0 r•1 0 " 04 1.1 01 al $4 x 0 > 4.1 H O 'dO > N 1 .SGO ill H 190 H .. r) $ H 11IH H -,.10 CO 121d' •,.10 HM $ 110 010 'd0 30 UIn >40 CIn HI ?Gin 'd 0cm 10 01 $.1M 10 ts. H 1001 ON Ct0 0t0 •riM Hd' a) r) •.i In •.1 C. g O H k N N M H U) . In 01N )] CO .4 N 0In 310 t)1to Z 10 3M > In / 0 H N en sr H N M d' l0 10 N CO 01 H H H H H * r w 34 21 a) 0 •21 > .-0 4-' U O -.i-.i ••i 4.5 0 N • CD 0 E 4./ ro 0 4.) 14 i..-44 'Ti 0 04 • 4 3a C 21 CD4rt . �� 4) 0 0 0 >, ��i U 34 -4-1•-44 I A > • .i U1 0 4H Co $-1 h 0 rt o Ti 'o O ro •V '�C 0 +)w 0 0 •1•1 al = 0 Co 44 +I .--I U 4-1 -.•1 0 a) 4-I a) +I 03a +I 4-1 b+43 CI .120 0 $ Og E +13a00 • 4 0 0.0 4i 00.. 0. --4-1 U 0 +4 4.)+I ea O Mtn ,� •,.1 0 CO U i) Z 0 z CD O 0 W 0).--1 2f 0 O Cl 0 0 C. \cl h z Z UU Z a-.i3O C roM W Et N • 0 >' oO N H � a 7J roro0V' H03 RI Cc Ei0 0-.4 to x .-1 +5 .--1 �N•.-1 th 4 4I•.01 4 CV • 4)'0 3a C 'O 3-I 'O 0 > NrIO -1'C U O C'CS H U C r-1 •,-1N -a -'•1 23 ..i •.i to 0+l Z CO 0row 03a -.i 23•.1 0 000to o 4-) Ul N .gi C 3H1 W •,1 1 01.1 0 •r• �j� i� .�i •U C C o ro E" .--I al r1 •,1.0 0 E 0 0 0 . x 0 0C.-4� � ro 4-1 w 0H 343U 0� 0�.1 3400O aU E -'- - •--1 > 3'I "'I•--1 +� U +I U +I U i) U U 0 x 4-) ro KC 4) 4) el 4J•-I CI. i-I•.-I iJ.4.1 .1.1•.i 0 b+ E 0 23 >4J 4 .i U) 15 U g4J ro 0 � 04 ..'1 3roi • [� E U x U co al H 0 0 el-.-1 al 0•.i 0-.-1 0•.I ro 4) 0 U r, CL 27 ro C4'tf C4 21 C4 23 > N+) rn Z al w 0 �.0 0 C $4 I +) 0 0 E4 N (CI CON.-1.0 H'''1 x . "roi-� ro 0 SA a) W 0 3-4 +) 34 0 4.) 4-)4-1 .I N • 0 U .r1 'i .i 0 X •^I 14i'0.4'1 b $4 3a - 0-P b+ - C V H O-4-1 r-1 W --I 0-3i 0 b 5. a 0.0. b .)••U4 -.C4 • -4 El H 0) 0 .roi '[j i 3i a. 0) 0 4 •.-1 C 4) 0 0 21•'i Ill •-4--I • 0 .-i rn r1 3a ro H .--1 r0-I 10 d N-.U-1 ) rn C'b 21 0 w U 23 C C 0 O C el 0 > 0 +) U 0 H 0..i'b 4) 0 0 O 21 0 w•.•i ri a g 0 +I 3i 0 0 1.1•.i -.i 0 4.l 0 $1 w ,0 � > •-I-I 0 0.� • �i-..) TI al 4 a,0 $0-I `14 0. o O U x 31'O 1-1 alN >. O C C.0 O. H rn 25 3 Cl. U U of '"10 O (0 O s o o urn Z 3.r a) 4) x C 0 al C.) Ili 0 30 •'-i;-I 4) a 0 r1 C n, b >, --I •i 0 •0 x . >, 0. a a 0 0 C O 0 0 0 3-1 ro 00 N O C.) CO Cq CO CO U 0 21 41 H ro CU O • 0 rl '-I 4)) d 4 G) N G) 34 'd co U O • . 4-)J) d > 10 N 0) •.1 • -.-I all 0ro 0° Oro O� O � - i ..i ,1 O 3d-1 0 U� U'I-i G) 0 U x • N"1 • N O• Ts '� � O 0•.) bN T3 034 'O 0 h G) 0 US 41 4)4-� .i ,-1'd H 0--.I H 4 N O rot OO H •.1 - �O � O.4) • •H.I ""i 4J+) 0 -a ..-I H .,.I U • g. o,d-.1 S-I -.i U) ..-1 O 1 $a 04 •.-1 >r Pi ..1 S I m 0 'd C 'O 0 0 4.)0 0QItl•.NI 00O 00) 0 00) Z U'-1 4 Z Z••1 dV U-'.1 OC7 Z ..1 4) • -I 31 H • .i 4) N 0 O d 4 -.-1 4-).-II 0 US )4 0 • 4•NI 4 3� .0 In O • .0 -P -.NI SI.•i U) C U O H s 'd U a N g $4 •.1 ri U 0-.-1 N % • H ))-1 0 CUM OU > N .-1 a) 3'0) co S2 NI 0-•NI 0 m ' d y moo d W•.> C H •.OI'CS H'� .4'0 4-I .-I 13 U.-I �1 G) 'd 0 O al O H E 0 H all'd G) •0 U U G)-.i C), N U•''i 3-4 0•y41 0'd El AOUa -) O •d 4-) -4u .i4 S '•d 04 O P+ m O0� d d O U0 S-1 S-I O d O 0 H i 0 0'0 I-1 3 p1-.OI U-O-I U 4 Z U 4 sM a0 1UA U'd 4-) G) • O .-I • N U - 0 Z Z•U-I al us Q-1 `i-i • • G 4.) • U 0-1.I 0 )4 C .IU 'O0"1 0 A 4• 4) .-I +) S-1 •rN4 4 g 4J >-,4, $0.1 -.-1-.0I 0,al -I CO -•-4 ).4•, >.'l •.1 N 4 00 rt Q.Y, U a) 4) Cs G) 0 G) 4) G) 0 4-) G) U 10 > 0 4 G) N U tn N U) O O'd N N N G) N 'd N N-•I G) O l) 31 N 0 0 'CSd 'C3 N G) alO d d C7 43 O b�) w'Cf 3a O d • 0 4) .I It) J-i 1-1 .a'd G),-IH U) -,-4 O a) -.-1 010 t0 .--a U O U) 0.--1 a0 O rl G) t0 • U d 0 0-.-I 00 usU O•.UI 00 U•U-1 0 0 4-) 0 O G)'d•-1 U'd O ;1 •.-1 $a $4 G)•..-1 -'•1 S.a •.i'd $4 N•rl U •.-1 H 1J U.0 +) G)-.-i J-) 4) 04XI W -P +) 4 G)J) 4)••1 +) +) O 4) 0 -P 0 0, •'i N •.i •.i N •.-I-1-) U) >-'-I $4 -.i a-) •.i G)'d •,i G)-,1 40 d d .i+) 0 'd 0 'CS••1 b ri'0+) 'd 4 Q U G) S4 G)r0 O'd ••1 N G) O'd O 0'd .-ION O b' 3.1 3-i H 34 O 0 0 0 0 O 04 0 O 0••1 O d 0•.1 0...I G) U•••1 G) U O O V.,.i in X us U-•i U a••-1 44 U'd C. 1-] P, N LL 04 N 0 U) .0 to G) >. .-UI > > 0 3 )4 > N ).4 Sa 0 0 > •.I bi UI 0) 00 O 0) � . a U Oj S U G) '0 bF GI '0 ) O 0 • -I O. > a u, 0 0TS 0 (0ro •-c U W x Z £ Z r-I 'U 'U � ? ro co a4) t)).4 ro g -3 1-I .•.I H ro 3 >4 4 O H U U) ta ,-1 N 0)-7a O CD C 31.U3 b0 H • N 7 .•.1.,.1 Ts TS • •..I U -l-1 C a • -�H 3a 4 a) N 4) O x rt g •}4 0 4-3 �1 E 3.1 •o CV � a 'CS '.I N,-I L1. 4,U 4 H N O H Z 'CS 41 1A 0 Z Z° +- LP r-I >1 '.-' '1 'U > • rI 0-0 (U 4.) 4-1N • 4-1 -4 4) 3 00 3 C U 1 4) C•V O+.) b+0 \ O ~ CO• .--I .'.1-,4 H 0 --1 31 ••••1 ,J a) )4 . a) CaC4 a)CA •.iU 43 N jl N . N _.i 407 N -3+1 al 41 +i•.I--I 'O 0-•,1 '- CU) C g CN.i H •'� r , C N .1• 23 ? U) 1"1 4-) 'U • � � . ' 0Cli C (0 CA Ts A+1-ri 'O VU a30 N. O. 'O 'U O..I 4-) a .'� O D1 a)E-1 4-) U 4-1 P SA .'.1 3-1 0 .i x )4 --4 N C], •I-1 U) -4)4) -.4 N 34 •.-i N C U) •.-1 H O 'Cs N 1a V 4.) C'O •r1 N 'Cs i-1 k'O 34 O 3a'O k OC•'� E CCN E-I Cl. tU'CIGL.,.1 Z C.) H i7 O C•rl a) C 4_, as W C a.1-1 U•i 73 .-, U).i LL rtf 0 1 el \ -y N.Q U) 'CI N H N 4..) 4-1 0 al7 -•'1 3a H O 1k1 0I U 31 g•rt N tU•.-1 N x 0 CU � CAI C N +i 0 W C fa .O 0 3. 41 0 •CA --'1 '�W+41 y a-1 U3 (ClH+1 r 1+� N C CO '-34 rt a) H tUTS 3a U . a) .1 C •1~ C'C ri U C 4-1 U)13 .1 TS 4-1 O-.-4'CI a •r1 (1) ) U «1 to rt 0H CD-..I 4 Ts C )4 0 )4 .-1 a) 34 0 C '1 'ia) 44 C T a) U C 4) 1 0 LP al a a O N O U W \U) ..1 41 NC C U) Ca-1 4-1 a) a O U 01 0 .C1 )4 1 •C.1 C'0\ CO41 CTS -rl Oa3a1NN 0 N 4-1 A • U) • -rl .--1 • .rl H U) ,-I3 4 H 0 tU V'O•-1.-1 a) C 'U O '1 4.l • UCs N0 'S O -1 \H HOz-4)4 0 a) 01.•.I3 C O O C .'.1 O 0 'U U]al L) 4.1 1 a) 31..1 H �1 U 4-1 U . N0 - b a)•,i a) .1 + 4)4-1 4-1 U 1-1 1 3 43 C-rl +1--4 N 210 i 4-) g al a3 N co )4 -'1 -•i N O .'.I >1 -.-Ia3 •d1.•.1 1-1 -,-IU C 4.1 3-1 '0 a) U C (U a 140 41 a) N C•.-1 N ti~ 3: 3 a) a)--4 a)•'-1 C a1 a) C > O O a) al O a) N-.a O w 3.1 , 3+T3-.-I w OI H CO O a U x a U a O'O O iL[O t- 0 x 34 N 'U xx x 0 . k 4O ro o ,a Sa> b 'CI a) co b4 , '1 .-1 N a -.-1.1 -1 03 a) '1 a)3 41 O,pq ro ' O a) u 3 g x 0 a) 0 k a Z Oro a .0 0 a co CO • 3 3 3 2 1 1 t COON . RAPIDS 1 CITY OF BLAINE '�'0 ,..7 r.3 .^3 ),,...:te__:,..,.. ., 0 r 1 r., in 7 �" • ,c a .) -,' f •-) ,: { ( r W_ La'11111111,1 111111 7 r'•' ',.` 11111111111110111 VIi i_ nit _)P A RIQ 0 - 0 '-)'� r� 1111111N111111� \ ,-1 ,," )' 0 - 1" 1111u11111111111 00i r' fj 11 M11101.10111i 3 • - j -, , .. 7 ,3 S C" II1i1111111 11 �„�;- �A�.`)e �`� �� ..0 111,1111111111111111,®.r111 I , , ,,of,_ ........_.1 `� s",S C• �� 1111111111111111� r, r- : .� ,+rl .' J o E;C 1111111111111i111111i11111111� 7)pF -,t ,•-) `) ?.. 3, £,C� Cc• C 1u11111111111111 • _�3, ;,;M1'Dr ) '� •�,..- Cr C 11111111111111111111111111111i • .3:• J ✓�7C.�C C�G 1111111111111111111111111111111111 yJ c c e, 111111111111{I{ s,1 , �_ r� • = - 4 l 3 • 111111111H1...1. OF 11111111111111111 CITY j ^'^ -?�_��h� Y��' �� C 411111141t111111111111711 A £� , 11111111111N1111111111111111111 • momPsom - Area t• b-=_Reno t �` ` ~~ Nl1,.1.11.1l.1.1.1,. ear ,) ,1a11116 1. i ricA1011101"1111 I r, I i r roo:723 �o�moo,,,A.oik 00 ® 'a$3{$FBu,Y1irFifd7r851�y �?% //���/ �.. . ..�......�.a a % w.m������ ��j / oao.000000000.. 1 nileafKiwi 0�.� MAR"LEN ADD., :::::::::::: O�.�o� J( § c. rv- GLENCO=' +.Q°..a. IPfl.904i�'-•>f. yard".. / j �� •jl00000000®iooOo� ,1�G1 r Al ! "" �cy rso typo"Le-- A4A i iB NV • r •e.._:.......e. 1111001„0„,...1.101 \ .,.. kriiricr.,Ak\v'E4.,:cogi ef,/,f: 5. - .,a :,...7or_..,,,,t.34._,,,,,,„;;;4„,, -0.--- /74 / triagd; t ---0 1 ,.. .., T ,_ / A um \ 'a EiEvo, i / .7...,,/,'.....14.• t 4,, di • , 411 , / 'V Y V ,V ra: Ali::::.;;;Ii::::::::iii6.t:1:041;; �� • , • •: WA RIVERVIEW .4 • , ' •�� �o / �:� • I . 000000 HEIGHTS - 7 IL iy. Al7 J .S•�•. `� '�( ® Z��I I I I I �f/,�o�.�o•+••••e - k.4")•<c" ' ' Ill' ' - '''..`\ •••••••• •• •••l'a 4 75 " . 44- ' ' r ...........: -:: \••:1:4:•:-.•=5-•re - .T4p,, v ', 00 i *.v.ve `• tot, ,fir,• �/ /�_� , ::::::•.❖:� - ‘-'' V\:. \ • '' ••: \ .i c. .V...... ,,,,,, ./ ... , :::.,:\- -.7:451::;7:..,,,/, ,,,- -'o„lei/. ;.,;(,;:1:;?.:141,:,,,t;,.::, ,yg: Fii., \ s •v > fit '1 "0_»_` r1��'1�, IS. ,,I;11 ��/H11�111- i�.�..:;: 1111111. c Amin', ::_:,, „. j fy 11;1$;�1,1'1 'fP't.r-r - -. r IIIH11! r Z_ ,ENErG „ :a:a. ` 111111f11:1t1: IC?' .. s�111NI 1p'VEpSiD 4.3K•fUf ' 11111'�1ty{ �1 1 ' •r / lit 41 /'Nto ---;:' .i.'"' ;NFy%Ey WRE9 - \\\\'' 11 11 i / aCl fri ..1 , i Community Development Department f ` PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: April 3, 1992 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Statement for Northeast Corridor of Light Rail Transit I have not had enough time to coordinate a meeting between the City Manager, the Public Works Director, and the Fire Chief to review the responses contained in the Final EIS. I want to meet with these other staff people to formulate a recommended list of comments. I will have that developed for the Planning Commission's review on Wednesday evening. On a preliminary basis, it appears that some of the responses to our comments have been made, while others I believe are not specific and they may have misunderstood the intent of the question. In any case, I will have prepared for Wednesday evening a list of comments that I would like the Planning Commission to consider to recommend to the City Council. The comments would be considered by the City Council at either the April 20, 1992 regular City Council meeting or at the April 27, 1992 City Council conference meeting. This issue has yet to be decided by the City Manager. Although the comment period on the EIS expires on April 15, 1992, the ACRRA has given us an extension to May 1, 1992 . Legislative Auditor's Report Some of you may have seen the articles in the newspaper regarding the findings of the Legislative Auditor's report. I have attached the Executive Summary. The report was critical of regional planning undertaken to-date regarding the LRT system; however, it was supportive of the most recent plan by the Metropolitan Council known as the Regional Transit Facilities Plan. Our intern has prepared a summary memo regarding the contents of the plan (see attached) . The Auditor's Report also was supportive of the Regional Transit Board's Vision for Transit. • Final Environmental Impact Statement April 3, 1992 Page 2 It appears that these studies support allocation of money and resources on improvements to highly congested corridors like I-35W, I-94, or I-494 within the next ten years. Existing transit and transportation demand management technologies in our area will be pursued instead of major capital improvements. In the meantime, we should respond to the comments in the EIS as best we can. It is my understanding that the ACRRA will proceed to the next step of Preliminary Engineering, but they want to address major issues along the corridor first, prior to authorizing the contract for Preliminary Engineering. This means that they will spend a lot of time with the City of Fridley addressing the impact on the Fire Station. Thank you for your patience. I look forward to our discussion on Wednesday evening. BD/dn M-92-2291 dJ Community Development Department PLANNING DIVISION City of Fridley DATE: April 3, 1992 TO: Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director FROM: Scott Davis, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Regional Transit Facilities Plan I have reviewed the Regional Transit Facilities Plan regarding the impacts on the City of Fridley. The following is an outline of the major points of the Plan. Purpose of the Regional Transit Facilities Plan The purpose of the Plan is to serve as a guide for making the best choice of transit improvements and highway facilities. It recommends ways to increase the capacity of our transportation system to move people around the region and to reduce the problem of congestion. The Plan focuses on transit improvements carrying Multi-Occupancy Vehicles (MOV) such as Light Rail Transit (LRT) , buses, car pools, and van pools in addition to travel demand management strategies. Transportation Trends The Plan has identified Fridley as a fully developed first-ring city experiencing regional business concentrations of more than 10, 000 people. Suburban growth/decentralization of central cities, massive highway build-up, and large increases in vehicle ownership have resulted in increasingly congested highways, greater reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, a declining use of transit/ride sharing, and an increasing amount of air pollution/petroleum resource depletion. The Plan advocates that the metro area cannot build more roadways to solve transportation problems. Additional lane capacity, without provisions for MOV's, will feed into the very problem it tries to solve. A new transit vision is needed to accommodate a changing Metro area in the next 20 - 50 years. Regional Transit Facilities Plan April 3, 1992 Page 2 The New Transit System The Plan addresses the following approaches for a new transit system: i. Reorganize and strengthen the transit service to serve both city-to-suburb and suburb-to-suburb trips. The proposed LRT corridors, additional park-and-ride and park-and-pool lots, the MTC bus system, and local services will strengthen transit service to downtown as well as providing east/west transportation within and outside of the City. 2 . Improve the efficiency and safety of the existing highway system by enabling transit vehicles to travel better in mixed traffic. Examples include: a) meters at freeway entrance ramps, b) .MOV highway lanes, c) MOV by-pass lanes at metered freeway entrances, d) travel demand management strategies (ride sharing, company shuttles and van pools, "guaranteed ride home" programs, trip reduction ordinances, secured bicycle parking) , and e) Intelligent Vehicle/Highway System (IVHS) technologies that monitor traffic for problems and advise drivers accordingly. These strategies will encourage people to share rides or ride transit and reduce the use of single occupancy vehicles. 3 . Encourage higher-density "pedestrian friendly" development in corridors that are easily accessible by transit and ride sharing. The Plan identified Fridley as a city that could benefit from coordinated transit development by offering potential solutions to negative transportation trends such as congestion problems. The Plan also stated that proactive land use planning around transit facilities can offer opportunities to: 1) revitalize a portion of the community, 2) increase community's property tax base, 3) provide businesses and residents with high-quality transportation alternatives, and 4) enhance and buffer existing neighborhoods through design and landscaping. Evaluation The Plan has evaluated and ranked all metro area corridors according to specific needs and problems. The Minneapolis NE corridor is ranked sixth in terms of highway congestion, transit needs, and economic impact. The LRT corridor between the two downtowns and on I-35W are the priority corridors. HOV Lane Additions The Plan's HOV study has recommended that in the long term, MnDOT Regional Transit Facilities Plan April 3, 1992 Page 3 • should evaluate additional capacity needs on I-694 (from I-94 to I-35E) . If additional capacity is needed on the highway system, the Plan states it should be done in the form of HOV lanes. Light Rail Transit The Minneapolis NE corridor will provide LRT from Minneapolis to Northtown Shopping Center, a distance of 10.7 miles. This corridor is currently a group "B" priority. The capital cost is estimated at $329 - $333 million, and annual capital cost is $30 million. The cost per passenger is estimated at $7.00. Plan Recommendations Long-term service improvements in Fridley include an LRT corridor and additional MOV lanes on freeways and expressways. The Plan has recommended short term service improvements along the Minneapolis NE corridor including a new All Day Express service and a proposed Transit Hub in the southern part of Fridley/Columbia Heights area. "Team Transit" Projects This program has been implemented recently by the MTC in cooperation with MnDOT, Regional Transit Board, and the Metropolitan Council. it consists of small construction projects that provide travel time advantages to transit vehicles. The only project approved for 1992 that may affect Fridley is bus lane development on T.H. 252 and T.H. 610 in both directions. Other similar projects are currently under evaluation by MnDOT, such as lanes on portions of T.H. 65 and T.H. ' 47. Plan Implementation The Plan states that issues such as timing, funding, and governance still need to be addressed and may require legislative action. Resolutions may not develop until the end of the 1992 legislative session. Most of the major capital improvements, LRT development and possible MOV lanes, could require a 20 year time span due to environmental clearances, engineering design, and construction. Funding issues are presently unresolved due to the new Federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act which is not yet fully understood, and uncertainty surrounding the State budget. SD/dn M-92-230 04 O3 92 12:56 - FAX 612 296 4712 OFFICE LEGIS AtT a002 — . REGIONAL TRANSIT LANNI:NG Executive Summary . • he Twin Cities metropolitan area has a complex,multi-tiered structure for Planning and implementing public transit improvements. Agencies involved include the Metropolitan Council,the Regional Transit Board (pTB),"opt-Out"communities,and the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC)and other transit operators. In addition,the area's seven counties are responsible for acquiring right-of-way and planning for new light rail transit lines,and the Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)is in- volved in planning and constructing highway improvements which may include transit components. In spite of this level of agency involvement,there have been continuing cdn- cerns about transit performance and the adequacy of transit planning. During the 1980s,the Twin Cities area has experienced a substantial decline in bus ridership,growing highway congestion,and only limited suburban transit ex pansions outside of opt-out communities. In addition,the area has been split by disagreement over the desirability of implementing light rail.transit. This report examines transit planning in the Twin Cities area and addresses • the following questions: • What progress has the Regional Transit Board made in planning for and implementing cost-effective transit service improvements,as well • as providing oversight of existing transit operations? • Has the Metropolitan Council provided adequate long-range planning and policy direction for transit and highway improvements? • Has the Minnesota Department of Transportation appropriately integrated transit into its highway planning and construction activities? • Has transit planning become too fragmented and are structural changes needed to improve planning? - • What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Metropolitan Conncii's new Regional Transit Facilities Plan and the Regional Transit Board's new Vision for Transit? • 474 03/92 • 12:57 FAX 612 296 4712 OFFICE LEGIS ALTP 003 x REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING In general,we found a planning process which has been dominated in recent years by light rail transit to the exclusion of other transit options such as im- proved bus service and high-occupancy vehicle(HOV)lanes. Xn addition,the growing costs of Metro Mobility have made it difficult for the Regional Iran- sit Board to expand suburban bus service_ Over the Iast year,however,the Metropolitan Counc$has taken steps to reorient the planning process and more vigorously oversee the work of the Regional Transit Board. The Council's new facilities plan and the RTB's new transit vision are steps in the right direction,although many of their define will need to be worked out in the next few years. REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD In 1984,the Legislature created the Regional Transit Board to do short-and RTB's pro ess mid-range transit planning,contract for transit services,and review and ap- prove transit budgets_ The Legislature wanted the RTB to control rising Iran- has been slow sit costs,respond to growing suburban transit needs,improve oversight of the Metropolitan Transit Commission(MTC),and more closely integrate transit into the reb on's highway planning_ In a 1988 evaluation,we concluded that LCI.B had not yet-proven to be an effective problem solver. Now,four years later,we conclude that: • Although creation of the Regional Transit Board was a goad idea,the Board's progress has not lived up to expectations in several key areas. • Progress in some key areas has been slow and problems remain,but there have been some encouraging signs recently. The major problems with RTB's past performance are: • • There has been little progress in responding to growing suburban transit needs outside of opt-out communities. • RTB has been slow to provide adequate oversight of the Metropolitan Transit Commission despite substantial declines in regular route ridership. • RTB still does not have an adequate policy on competitive bidding of bus service and has allowed MTC to provide a significant amount of peak-hour express service outside MTC's exclusive service area despite significant questions regarding MTC's relative efficiency in providing that service. • RTB has not provided needed leadership from a regional perspective on light rail transit,and has focused too much on expensive transit options and too little on relatively inexpensive solutions. a r r• E ECUTh7E SUMMARY xi Transit Ridership, 19789-i Millions Bus ridership of Riders has declined 100- significantly. so -- Total Transit 70 Regular Route a I 60 1 ,,.r i j ! 1 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 Year Source:Metropolitan Council. In part,these problems have resulted from factors external to RIB. For ex- ample,state funding for transit has bees relatively constant in recent years while Metro Mobility costs have grown significantly. The increase in costs has limited RTB's ability to fund service improvements for suburban areas and in the existing regular route system- Some of the increase in Metro Mobility costs is the direct result of RTB's decisions to expand and improve service. However,RTB did not anticipate much of the growth in ridership and costs. In addition,the planning proms has been dominated by light rail transit (LR'I)in recent years. Considerable staff and board time devoted to X IIT has taken time and attention away from other issues_ However,factors within RTB's control a s well. These in- clude:1)the board's promotion o � without adequate examination of the transit services,3)con- alternatives,2)the board's attitude toward contracting di:w ing internal tension due to the agency having both control execut Ivle�ector and a full-time chair,and 4)the by cap�being imposed by the 1991 Mobility costs,which led to an expenditure Legislature. On the positive side,we found that: • RTB recently adopted new plans which attempt to improve suburban transit service and control Metro Mobility expenditures- • RTB is developing five transit hubs in suburban ebu wh���a the has experimented with four new seilial-a-rides. circulators or general pure '04iO3 92 12:58 FAX 612 296 4712 OFFICE LEGIS AUD J005 REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING • Despite turnover,RTB has a strong staff which has laid a good foundation for the future with the work it has done on various planning projects and in contract management. • Since mid-1991,the Board has shown more interest in overseeing MTC as well as assisting it in improving ridership and efficiency. RTB recently completed a marketing study to determine reasons for the loss in MTC ridership and identify marketing strategies to address that concern. In addition,K113's budget for 1992 includes funds to conduct management audits of MTC and funds for MTC to perform a comprehensive operations analysis of MTC mutes_ METROPOLITAN COUNCIL The Metropolitan Council is responsible for long-range planning and policy • making for both transit and highways in the Twin Mies area and for oversee- ing the work of the Regional Transit Board. In our 1988 evaluation,we were critical of the Metropolitan Council's relatively weak oversight of RTB and lack of adequate policy direction fog-transit and highways. Since 1988,with adoption of a new transportation policy plan,the Council's The Planning work and policy direction gradually improved and,in the last year, Metropolitan improved dramatically. We found that. Council has begun to • Until last year,the Metropolitan Council did not provide(adequate oversight of the Regional Transit Board. provide stronger • Until this year,the Metropolitan Council did not provide sufficient leadership. leadership in formulating a long-range vision for transit in the region. These recent improvements in Council oversight and leadership have come about in two ways: • The Metropolitan Council and its staff provided significant oversight of RIB through the Council's review of the RTB's Five Year Plan in May 1991. • The Metropolitan Council and its staff have provided significant leadership for future transit and highway improvements with the recent adoption of its Regional Transit Facilities Plan. The plan is significant in that it recommends an even-handed approach to transit planning. While LRT has dominated planning in recent years, the Council's plan calls for service improvements,minor capital improvements, and major capital projects according to their effectiveness in solving transit and highway problems in various parts of the region. OFFICE LEGIS AUD 2g0U6 U�t%,U�-A2 - 12:SA FAX 612 296 4 i 12 - xzit EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The plan's specific recommendations for transit improvements should not, • however,be viewed as&Unitive. In developing the plan,staff have not been able to analyze in detail all of the transit options in each highway corridor. For example,staff did not have time to fully analyze the benefits and costs of I-RT compared to bus and other options in the Central Corridor between St. Paul and Minneapolis_ However,the plan recommends a process--an alterna- tives analysis—through which this important consideration will be examined. • MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Minnesota Department of Transportation(Mn/DOT)plays an indirect, but important,role in transit planning. Many transit services and car pools MST has utilize the highways which SOT is responsible for planning and construct cooperated ing. As a result,Mn/DOT's cooperation with transit planning agencies is vital • with transit in helping them achieve their goals. planning agencies. We found that • MA/DOT has been receptive to'iransit issues and has incorporated various transit options into its highway plans. Mn/DOT has worked with.the Metropolitan Council in providing bus and car pool bypass ramps at freeway exits as called for in the Councils 1988 Transpor- tation Policy Plan. Mn/DOT is currently working with MTC on MTC's'Team Transit°project to provide lane and ramp improvements which could help buses reduce their travel time and potentially increase their ridership. Finally, Mn/DOT has constructed high-occupancy vehicle lanes,park-and-ride lots, and transit stations in the I 394 corridor west of downtown Minneapolisand is • analyzing ROV lanes,as well as light rail transit,in its planning process for im- provements to 135W from downtown Minneapolis south to the Minnesota River. RECOMMENDATIONS Legislature We have five types of legislative recommendations,which address: 1)internal RTB structural problems,2)LRT funding and governance,3)financial disin- centives for automobile use,4)funding for transit improvements,and 5)the need for oversight of RTB. Regarding RTB's internal structure,we recom- mend that: "0443.92 12:59 FAX 612 296 4712 OFFICE LEGIS AL/ IZ 007 xiv REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING • • The Legislature should either make the position of RTB chair a part-time one or permit the chair to select the executive director with RTB needs the board's approval. consistent internal Since its inception,there has been internal tension at RTB because the agen- direction. �essentially has two heads:an executive director and a full-time chair_ This situation is not a viable one for an agency as small as RTB. It will continue to struggle to meet expectations unless it goes forward under strong and consis- • tent leadership. Second,we recommend that: • • The Legislature should not fund Construction of LRT in the Central Corridor until a satisfactory alternatives analysis has been prepared_ a The Legislature should change the governance structure for light rail transit planning to provide for more regional control of the process while continuing to involve county railroad authorities in a meaningful way. • The Metropolitan Council's facilities plan shows that,within the next 20 years,only two I T lines--the Central Corridor and the I-35W South lines— have the potential to be cost-effective under reasonable assumptions- Recent studies show that these two lines have a combined projected cost oflust under $4.00 per rider—the maximum permitted by Metropolitan Council policy in order for a line to be considered for implementation before the year 2010. - - Estimated Costs per Rider - ---------------for LRT Lines Paired with the Central Corridor $12— $10- $s- AFAAKIr Council Ceiling $o - 1-35W Hid- Mpls. Mp1& St_Paul Mpls. South watha NE NW South SW Wrthcxd Downtown W Downtown MIME Minneapolis Tunnels ® th Tunneir ne Source:Regional Transit board Note:Melmpoftan Council policy states that lines ex- ceeding$4 per rider should not be implemented before 2010_ 612 296 4712 �008 04:03/92 13:00 FAX 612 296 4712 OFFICE LEGIS AUD . - - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xv Furthermore,it has yet to be determined how the benefits and costs of a Central Corridor LRT line—the Council's highest LRT priority—compare to those for all-bus and other alternatives. As a result,it is important that an al- Alternatives to ternatives analysis be conducted before more design work continues or con- LRT have struction work begins. An alternatives analysis will also improve the region's chances of maximizing the amount of federal"new start'money which can be not been received and used to reduce the region's costs of building the line. adequately studied. The current governance structure for light rail transit planning is dominated by the region's counties and their td authorities.the new cx�st per ndery�it timata for on is to plan for light rah.transit. LRR the need for objective analysis of alternatives,and the need to use regional or state funding to implement LRT—there is a need to reorient the. governance structure to ensure that regional goals are met and that spending on additional lines is not continued_. We are generally supportive of the Metropolitan Council's proposed governance structure. That proposal would place RIB in charge of the alternatives analysis,Ms/DOT in charge of design and construction,and MTC.in charge of operations. However,given the counties'leadership on LET issues,the Legislature should consider ways in which the counties can be given a meaningful role in the design and construc- tion of Lft.I while assuring regional control over important decisions. • • We also recommend that • The Legislature should examine options for increasing automobile user costs to better reflect the costs to the region of automobile travel. • A modest increase in automobile user t costs through additional i automobile nmo gasoline taxes el and or other taxes or fees may help to lima futuregrowth would better reflect some of the regional costs of automobile use_ It would also make sense to use a portion of any tax or fee increase to helpd transit improvements or relieve some of the current burden on property How- ever,Constitutional limitations and budgetary constraints will affect the op- tions available to the Legislature_ If transit programs are allotted funds from de new funding source,d na p provide that the Legislature retain control over transit funding of thear transit agencies with an unlimited source of dedicated funding. Many com- The details of rnendations in the Council's new facilities plan and RTB's new vision are con- new transit ceptual and lack ridership estimates other de tails which would oversight of these agencies' n plans have not determining their cost-effectiveness. dincreased. been worked recommendations is need an ore trans incremeIIl lt jappro ch and fund some prove- ding is substantially oat The Legislature should t ments while requiring the agencies to report back on their progress in developing more detailed plans and ridership estimates. We recommend that u The Legislature should be generally supportive of the concepts contained in the Metropolitan Council's facilities plan. " "01.03/92 13:00 FAX 612 296 4712 OFFICE LEGIS AtT el 009 xvi REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANNING • However,the Legislature should require RTB and the Council to provide information on the potential cost-effectiveness of the recommended service improvements and transit hub projects. We also recommend that the Legislature strengthen oversight of.KI Li in the The Council's following ways: oversight authority over • The Legislature should require RTB to prepare an annual RTB needs performance report for existing transit services and submit the report to the Metropolitan Council for its review and comment. to be strengthened. • The Legislature should require RTB to report at least annually on its progress in implementing its five-year plan and submit the report to the Metropolitan.Council for its review and comment. • The Legislature should give the Metropolitan Council authority to review and approve RTB's annual capital budget and review and comment on RTB's annual operating budget. Metropolitan. Council We recommend that: • The Metropolitan Council continue the strong oversight and Ieadership it has shown over the last year. In addition,even without specific legislative authorization,we recommend that: • The Metropolitan Council should consider requiring RTB to prepare: 1)an annual transit performance report,2)an annual progress report on plan implementation,and 3)cost per rider estimates for the new services and other mass transit improvements recommended in the Council's new plan and RTB's new vision. Also,in formulating regional policy on highway and transit development,the Council should consider the extent to which automobile users are not directly paying the full costs of automobile use. We recommend that the Metropolitan Council:1)determine the extent to which automobile users do not directly pay for the costs imposed on the region from automobile use,2) examine the potential effect on automobile and transit use from raising automobile ownership and operation costs through additional taxes or other methods,and 3)study the impact which such action might have on future development pattern& 612. 296 471' ljo10 04%03/92 13:01 FAX 612 296 4712 OFFICE LEGIS AUD xvii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Regional Transit Board The Regional Transit Board has made only slow progress in achieving the goals envisioned when it was established- Improvement has been made since mid-1991,but it remains to be seen whether such improvement will be sus- tained. The RTB's Vision for Transit s much conceptual o the should beimpor- tant details. It is unclear at this point h implemented. It is also unclear how the results of needs assessments and MTC's comprehensive operations analysis will affect the vision. Despite reservations,we believe RIB should continue to exist in its current needs to form- The separation of planning and operations has had some desirable ef- R7`B fects and remains a good concept. However,RTB needs to continue the make progress progress of the last eight months and demonstrate to the Legislature that in some key RTB can be an effective problem solver. RTB can best develop this trust by areas. being a fair and objective planning agency. Advocacy on behalf of transit is best based on sound and thoughtful.analysis. Specifically,we recommend that • RTB should adopt a competitive bidding policy which adequately addresses the costing method MTC should use when bidding to provide Transit services outside its exclusive service area- • RTB should undertake the proposed management audits of MTC and review the comprehensive operations analysis of MTC when completed. RIB should ultimately identify any resources which can be freed up to provide needed service improvements. • RIB should examine the need for and potential cost-effectiveness of the service improvements and hubs recommended in the Metropolitan Conncil's facilities plan. Not all of the hubs and accompanying circulator and express routes may be cost-effective- • RTB should prepare an annual performance report which provides performance statistics for each route and type of service funded by RTB. • RTB should continue its recent efforts to work cooperatively with the opt-out providers an�ss�nt� in competitively d ttively bidding out transit services when.their • RTB should work with MTC to strengthen the region's efforts to • encourage ridesharing or consider moving Minnesota Rideshare to the Minnesota Department of Transportation.