HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 06201995 Meeting Sheet
11111 VIII 11111 VIII 11111 VIII IIII IIII
101447
Box: 20
Folder: PL PACKETS 1995
Document: PL PACKET 06201995
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
JUNE 20, 1995
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL.
III. APPROVAL OF JUNE 20, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
IV. APPROVAL OF MAY 9, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION
MINUTES.
V. APPROVAL OF MAY 16, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.
V. PUBLIC HEARING - None
VI. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. Concept Review of City Hall/Community Center.
B. Tax Increment Financing Amendment Review.
C. Lot Coverage Survey -- FYI.
D. Staff Report regarding trees on Stop 'N Go property
E. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review
1 . Columbia Heights Comprehensive Plan Amendment
F. Letter from Jack Dietsch regarding the Bowling Alley
VII. ADJOURNMENT.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES
3 May 9, 1995
4 I. CALL TO ORDER.
5
6 II. ROLL CALL.
7 Planning Commissioners Present: Doug Bergstrom, Chair; Chris Makowske;
8 George Thompson; Rosemary Franzese; Jerry Faust; Jim Gondorchin; and Kim
9 Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant.
10 ABSENT: Dick Horst.
11 GUEST: Richard Paidosh
12 III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
13 IV. ITEMS.
14
15 A. Discussion regarding the role and responsibility of the Planning Commission.
16 Reviewed packet prepared by Staff.
17 B. Chair Bergstrom presented a copy of the City of Columbia Heights
18 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Discussed various issues that need to be
19 addressed and incorporated into St. Anthony's Comprehensive Plan
20 Amendment.. The Commissioners agreed that the comprehensive plan
21 amendment should be initiated soon before the Legislature compels other
22 municipalities to amend their plans.
23 Mr. Paidosh asked the Commission to keep in mind how St. Anthony exists
24 with the rest of the Metro area and how they Metro area also impacts the
25 community. Demographics should also be very important to the City;
26 especially insuring that the community attracts young families. He indicated
27 that St. Anthony has a large senior community and they aren't going to be
28 around forever. The Commission's primary responsibility is to maintain the
29 housing stock for young families who will in turn make up the community
30 of St. Anthony.
31 Business retention is also important. The commissioners felt it very
32 important to attract good, well-paying jobs. Felt there is a need to look into
33 ways of attracting and retaining businesses in St. Anthony. Should also look
34 at future business trends to see how they might fit in with St. Anthony's
35 amended plan.
li
1 If an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is done this year, it will have
2 to be budgeted for 1996. Research costs for an engineering firm, i.e., BRW,
3 will have to be determined to be budgeted. They also discussed the need for
4 a Committee or Task Force to compile information that is not necessary for
5 an engineering firm to do.
6 V. STAFF UPDATES.
7 1. Fordham Drive Development, Bruce Nedegaard — Staff reported on the
8 application of Mr. Nedegaard to rezone and subdivide Mounds View Acres
9 in order to build twinhomes. He is also planning to re-plat two residential
10 lots. Nedegaard will move in a house one lot and has sold the other lot to
11 the Schroeders.
12 2. Mako, Inc/Olson Properties, Arnold Gregory — Staff reported on the
13 application of Arnold Gregory to rezone and subdivide three parcels
14 originally owned by_Mako, Inc./Olson Properties so that he can build a
15 townhome development. Staff also reported that Mr. Gregory will need to
16 apply for frontyard and backyard setback variances.
17 3. Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Lot Coverage — Staff reported that
18 several cities have more lenient lot coverage restrictions. City Council has
19 asked that this issue be studied to determine if St. Anthony's restrictions are
20 too strict.
21 4. Zoning Ordinance Amendment regarding Adult Use/Sexually Oriented
22 Businesses — Staff reported that because this is a zoning ordinance
23 amendment, the Planning Commission will need to hold a public hearing on
24 this issue. Staff presented a draft of the proposed amendment of the
25 ordinance along with information from the studies that the City Council had
26 to review in drafting this ordinance amendment.
27 5. Tax Increment Financing Budget and HRA Plan Amendment — Staff
28 reported that the Legislature requires the municipality's planning agency
29 review amendments to the TIF Budget and HRA Plan. The Commission's
30 opinion needs to be in writing.
31 VI. ADJOURNMENT.
32 The worksession was adjourned at 9:30PM.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
3 MAY 16, 1995
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
5 The meeting was called to order and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chair Bergstrom at
6 7:02 P.M.
7 II. ROLL CALL.
8 Commissioners present: Bergstrom, Makowske, Horst, Faust, Franzese, and Thompson.
9 Commissioner Gondorchin arrived at 8:35 P.M.
10 Commissioners absent: None
11 Also present: Michael Mornson, City Manager and Kim Moore-Sykes,
12 Management Assistant.
13 III. APPROVAL OF MAY 16, 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA.
14 Chair Bergstrom asked if there were any additions or changes to the May 16, 1995 Planning
15 Commission agenda. There were none.
tIII. APPROVAL OF APRIL 18,1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES.
17 Motion by Franzese, second by Faust,to approve the Planning Commission minutes of April 18,
18 1995 with the following changes:
19 Page 6,Line 2; change had to "has",was to "is", and add after visible "and distracting".
20 Page 17, Line 1 and 2: delete all after the word funds.
21 Page 17, Line 5: the correct spelling for Melkerson is "Milkerson".
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24 IV. DESIGNATE PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO COUNCIL'S MAY
25 23, 1995 REGULAR MEETING.
26 Commissioner Horst will represent the Planning Commission at the May 23, 1995 Council
27 Meeting.
28 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
29 Chair Bergstrom indicated the public hearings will be addressed individually with the first public
30 hearing regarding rezoning,then the public hearing regarding the subdivision of the property will
be addressed. He noted the order of discussion will be: staff report, applicant comments,
2 commission questions, and then public comments.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes .
May 16, 1995 •
Page 2
1 A. Bruce Nedegaard, for XXXX Fordham Drive, rezoning.
2 At 7:07 P.M. Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing for a site rezoning for XXXX Fordham
3 Drive.
4 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes explained Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc. has
5 submitted a petition for rezoning of a parcel of land known heretofore as Mounds View Acres,
6 Second Addition, from R-1, Single Family District to R-2, Two-Family District. Mr. Bruce
7 Nedegaard, owner of Nedegaard Construction, Inc. has acquired the back portion of 4001
8 Fordham Drive, and the vacant lots behind 3929 Fordham Drive, 3921 Fordham Drive and a
9 portion of the vacant lot behind 3917 Fordham Drive in order to construct a proposed twin
10 homes project that will be,southwest of the Evergreen Townhomes.
11 Moore-Sykes indicated by allowing the rezoning of this parcel of land, Mr. Nedegaard's project
12 will benefit the City in a number of ways. Rezoning this area will allow development of these
13 vacant lots; the proposed project will increase the tax base of the City; and will provide alternate
14 living options for those people who no longer want to live in a single family residence or for
15 those who are first time home buyers.
16 Moore-Sykes stated staff recommends the approval of the rezoning of this R-1 zoned parcel to an •
17 R-2 zoned parcel.
18 Commissioner Franzese asked, if in order to replat, does the entire parcel including the site of the
19 two single family homes. Moore-Sykes indicated Lots#15 and#16 will continue to be zoned R-
20 1, Single Family,only the property with the proposed townhomes would be rezoned.
21 Mr. David Newman,Vice-President Nedegaard Construction, reviewed the site and indicated the
22 request for rezoning is for only fourteen lots. He indicated each unit will be approximately 1400
23 square feet with a cost of approximately $130,000 and up.
24 Mr.Newman indicate there is a proposed storm retention pond on the northeast portion of the lot.
25 He noted the requirement for filing application with Rice Creek Watershed District is in process
26 and the district is scheduled to review the application the following week.
27 Mr. Newman indicated the applicant is also requesting Tax Increment Financing from the City.
28 Mr. Newman noted the covenants are similar to those presented with Evergreen.
29 Commissioner Franzese indicated she had met with a resident of Evergreen and noted their
30 concerns regarding Evergreen. The resident's concerns were: inefficient parking and inefficient
31 green space. Commissioner Franzese asked if those issues are addressed with this project. •
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• May 16, 1995
Page 3
1 Mr. Newman indicated there will be approximately one-third of the units as compared to
2 Evergreen, there will be double garages and parking by the garages. In regards to the green
3 space, he believed it would be more than Evergreen, but was guessing because the requirements
4 of the Rice Creek Watershed District have not been given as of yet.
5 Chair Bergstrom invited the public to address the applicant or Commission with any of their
6 questions or concerns.
7 Ms. Sandy Rogers, 4011 Fordham Drive read a letter from her husband who was unable to
8 attend. His letter addressed various concerns regarding:
9 *invasion of privacy at 3924 Fordham Drive, due to auto headlights shining into their
10 bedroom window.
11
12 *130 additional automobile movements, dangerous for children already living in the area.
13 *Fordham Drive is already used as shortcut from Silver Lake to New Brighton
14 Boulevard, and could not handle increased traffic
*excessive number of multiple family dwelling including: Windsor South and Silver
6 Oaks Condominiums,to the north; Evergreen on the east and Diamond A. MacAlster
17 Apartments and numerous double bungalows to the south.
18 *concern for future possibility regarding home owned properties becoming rentals.
19. His letter requested that the Planning Commission review proposed projects to be sure that they
20 are not restrictive of future developments nor ignore problems of the existing Planned Unit
21 Developments.
22 Commissioner Franzese inquired if Ms.-Rogers would have any ideas for other uses of property.
23 Ms. Rogers indicated she was unsure and indicated nine years ago the land was proposed as park
24 use,which would be beneficial to the neighborhood.
25 Mr. Bob Gram,4020 Fordham Drive, expressed concern regarding the development of a property
26 that is hard to access, simply for the increase of$23,000 in funds received by the City.
27 Mr. Gram indicated the $23,000 would be divided by approximately 8,000 residents, indicating
28 approximately$3.00 per residents. He did not feel the benefit was greater than the detriment to
29 the neighborhood. He believed the value of the properties would decrease with the addition of
the townhomes.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
Page 4 •
1 In response to Commissioner Makowske's question, Mr. Gram indicated devaluation of property,
2 and increase in traffic would create impacts to the neighborhood that he felt were detrimental.
3 Chair Bergstrom inquired if there were any traffic studies regarding Fordham Drive.
4 Moore-Sykes indicated the study done in 1991 does not include Fordham Drive, because traffic
5 count reports Fordham was not busy enough to be included in the traffic study. Moore-Sykes
6 indicated the statistics she had were for Silver Lake and Silver Lane.
7 Ms. Diane Schroeder, 3929 Fordham Drive, indicated this project started because of the desire of
8 accessible homes. She noted that while she and her husband, Tom, would benefit as a result of
9 the replatting of the property, she too was concerned about additional traffic, but perhaps a stop
10 sign would be a benefit. She indicated herwheelchair is her only means of mobility, and she
11 would like to see a stop sign to slow traffic on Fordham Drive.
12 Mr. Roger Zambinski, 4013 Fordham Drive, inquired as to why the property could not be
13 accessed from Silver Lane.
14 Moore-Sykes indicated that the property is a self contained area and the option of access through
15 Silver Lane, would be through the Evergreen property. She indicated the road through Evergreen
16 is a private road and the residents of Evergreen have indicated they did not want traffic through
17 their property.
18 Moore-Sykes indicated that as suggested by the State traffic study,there may not be as
19 substantial an increase in traffic to Fordham Drive. This will depend upon the residents of the
20 Townhomes.
21 Mr.Newman indicted Nedegaard Construction, Inc. has sold all rights to Evergreen,that
22 property was not designed for an expansion. He noted the applicant is willing to work with
23 Evergreen if they would allow a drive through,but that does not seem to be the desire of the
24 residents.
25 Ms. Linda Jessen, 3476 Silver Lane, president of Evergreen Townhomes Homeowners'
26 Association, indicated the road under discussion is a private road and the residents do not want
27 through traffic.
28 Ms.Norma Gordon, 4012 Fordham Drive,asked if the Commission had seen the property. She
29 felt there was not enough room for the project and suggested fewer buildings.
30 Ms. Gordon suggested Single Family homes be proposed.
31 Chair Bergstrom indicated he had walked the site. He noted the lot sizes are in accordance with
32 City code.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
0 Page 5
1 Ms. Gordon inquired if this is a fair use of the land, she felt there were too many multiple family
2 dwellings in the area.
3 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 7:42 P.M.
4 Commissioner Makowske indicated he would like to see more traffic information, he noted some
5 questions are still unanswered as to the need of stop sign or other options.
6 Commissioner Horst indicated in reviewing options he felt this was the best use for the property.
7 In regards to the access to Silver Lane, there is no option for access and a the proposed access is
8 the only way to service a multiple family development.
9 Commissioner Franzese indicated in reviewing the Comprehensive Plan the area including the
10 Evergreen property is noted as industrial, which is even more incompatible than what is being
11 proposed.
12 Chair Bergstrom indicated the task is to find the appropriate zoning for the property.
13 Commissioner Makowske indicated the R-2 zoning would be the most agreeable. He still
questioned the detriment to the neighborhood of a townhome development. He indicated the
Commission has not heard a better use for the property.
16 Chair Bergstrom questioned the age of the homes on Fordham Drive.
17 Commissioner Franzese indicated the Evergreen site previous to the townhome development was
18 used as a dumping site and there were various vacant lots in the area with older homes in 1971.
19 A resident from the audience inquired as to how much it would cost to have the soil corrected,
20 and if the City was reimbursing the applicant for the entire cost.
21 City Manager Mornson indicated the totals have not been finalized as of yet, but would be
22 approximately $150,000 that the City would reimburse the applicant.
23 Commissioner Horst indicated in response to references that the townhomes would become
24 unsightly, he noted the townhomes would be owned by the occupants and there would be a
25 Homeowners' Association that would impose regulations upon the townhomes.
26 Commissioner Faust indicated if the Commission believes in the system, they have to review the
27 highest and best use for the-property. He believed the highest and best use would be the
28 proposed townhome development.
it Commissioner Faust indicated in response to the comment of the area becoming park,a park
would not be an option due to the railroad.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995 •
Page 6
1 Commissioner Faust continued, in response to traffic, this would be an assumption that traffic
2 would increase to the detriment of the neighborhood. He noted a stop sign could be reviewed.
3 Commissioner Faust felt there would not be a devaluation of the surrounding homes, the units
4 would be $130,000 for each unit, probably higher than most of the surrounding homes.
5 Commissioner Faust commented that with the cost at$130,000 it would be most unlikely the
6 owners would rent the property out. He noted there would be procedures the owners would have
7 to go through before renting, including approaching the Homeowner's Association.
8 Chair Bergstrom indicated the Commission is only making a recommendation to the City
9 Council and they will give the final approval of the project.
10 Commissioner Thompson indicated he did not believe traffic would become a problem. He
11 believed if a project can be brought in to improve the area, it would increase the value of the-
12 homes as compared to an empty lot.
13 Commissioner Makowske estimated the increase in traffic to be at 30%, but reiterated that would
14 only be an estimate. He still believed this would be the highest and best use of the site.
15 Commissioner Franzese agreed with previous comments of the Commission, that this is the
16 highest and best use of the land. She inquired if there would be a way to buffer the auto
17 headlights for the property to the east.
18 Chair Bergstrom also felt the proposed project to be the highest and best solution for the site.
19 Motion by Commissioner Faust, second by Commissioner Makowske,to recommend to Council
20 approval of the rezoning of parcel of land know as Mounds View Acres, Second Addition from
21 an R-1, Single Family District to R-2, Two Family District, on the basis that this is the highest
22 and best use of the property and zoning is compatible and is not incompatible with the
23 Comprehensive Land Use.
24 Commissioner Franzese asked for a friendly amendment, to direct staff to address the issues
25 regarding traffic and automobile headlights.
26 Chair Bergstrom suggested that those comments be forwarded to the City Council by
27 Commissioner Horst.
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29 Chair Bergstrom indicated this item will be reviewed by the City Council at their May 23, 1995 •
30 meeting and urged those concerned to attend that meeting.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
•
Page 7
1 B. Property subdivision request for property known-as Mounds View Acres, Second
2 Addition.
3 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 8:02 P.M.
4
5 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes explained Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc. has
6 submitted a petition for subdivision of property known as Mounds View Acres, Second addition
7 into three parcels which would allow for the construction of six two family residential dwellings
8 and two single family dwellings. The two parcels for the single family dwellings are on
9 Fordham Drive and will have that street address. The third parcel will be used to construct the
10 proposed twinhomes project.
11 Moore-Sykes indicated staff recommends the approval of the subdivision of the property and the
12 replatting of this parcel, which will update the legal description, create two single family
13 residential lots on Fordham Drive and create a parcel large enough for the proposed construction
14 of the twinhome project.
15 Chair Bergstrom indicated he had spoken with Kate Drewry, representative of the Rice Creek
16 Watershed District, and she had indicated they have received application from the Nedegaard
Construction Company and will be making their analysis in the near future. He noted the District
�18 will hold a$2,000 bond already provided, P rovided, until completion of the project and will-not release
19 until they have had full inspection of the site.
20 Mr. Dave Newman, Vice-President of Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc., in response to
21 previous concerns indicated although occupancy is not restricted,the market for the townhomes
22 will be for older residents without children, or those who do not have children yet. He note this
23 will address several of the traffic concerns.
24 Mr. Newman, in response to the issue of the automobile headlights,the applicant will work with
25 the resident to resolve this issue.
26 Chair Bergstrom asked if the resident impacted, would be able to contact Mr. Newman with any
27 concern. Mr.Newman indicated that would be fine.
28 Mr. Newman, in response to concerns of the City Attorney noted that the Homeowners'
29 Association will be provided, the road will be a private road, all setback requirements are met, lot
30 size requirements are met,each unit will have private utilities, final plat will show drainage
31 easements, and evidence of title will be provided by final plat.
32 Mr. Newman indicated the plat meets all other City Code requirement and he believes the design
is a good one.
34 Chair Bergstrom inquired if the railroad has any jurisdiction regarding setbacks.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995 •
Page 8
1 Moore-Sykes indicated she had contacted the railroad company and their only jurisdiction is to
2 the property line.
3 Mr. Newman indicated the only time there may be concern is when there is FHA financing,
4 sometimes there are requirements of setbacks from a railroad.
5 Commissioner Franzese inquired as to the entrance of the private drive.
6 Mr. Newman indicated the applicant has not received direction from staff as to an entrance
7 monument.
8 Commissioner Franzese asked if a fence could be added along Fordham Drive.
9 Mr.Newman indicated the developer is hesitant to adding a fence due visibility of the road.;He
10 indicated they would prefer a stop sign.
11 Commissioner Faust inquired if speed bumps could be added.
12 Mr. Newman indicated there would be an issue of liability and the applicant still prefers the stop
13 sign.
14 Commissioner Horst asked for the location of the common areas.
15 Mr.Newman indicated Lots 1 through 12 would be conveyed and Lots 13 and 14 would be
16 deeded to the Homeowners'Association and would be common areas.
17 Chair Bergstrom indicated an arrow on the landscape plan noting the emergency flow of the
18 detention pond.
19 Mr.Newman indicated the plan is still preliminary until the Rice Creek Watershed District has
20 given their direction, but the overflow would not be allowed to go into any other property
21 without consent.
22 Commissioner Horst asked if Lots 15 and 16 were for the Single Family homes.
23 Mr.Newman indicated Lots 15 and 16 are for Single Family homes with one being moved in and
24 one being constructed.
25 Chair Bergstrom asked if there would be any variances required for these Single Family homes.
26 Mr. Newman indicated there would be no variances requested for these homes. •
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
0 Page 9
1 Commissioner Makowske inquired if the Fire Department had an opportunity to review this site
2 plan.
3 Moore-Sykes indicated she had contacted the Department and they had no concerns at this time.
4 Commissioner Franzese asked if the applicant has held a neighborhood meeting.
5 Mr.Newman indicated due to time restraints, the applicant has not held any neighborhood
6 meetings.
7 Commissioner Franzese indicated a neighborhood meeting would provide answers to the
8 residents that still had concerns.
9 Mr. Bob Rapp, 3924 Fordham Drive, inquired as to total number of Single Family homes on the
10 site.
11 Mr.Newman indicated there would be only two,and pointed the sites out on the map.
12 Ms. Linda Jessen, 3476 Silver Lane, president of Evergreen Townhome Homeowners'
Association, expressed concern for drainage onto the Evergreen property.
14 Ms. Jessen also expressed concern that children from the proposed site would migrate to the
15 Evergreen site, and danger of the two ponds on the Evergreen site would be an issue. She
16 suggested a visual separation of the properties would help address this.
17 Chair Bergstrom indicated according to the City Ordinance, the proposed property could not
18 cause any additional drainage run off onto the property-of Evergreen.
19 Mr. Bob Gram, 4044 Fordham Drive, did not feel the resulting effects of the development upon
20 the neighborhood would be worth the benefits received by the City.
21
22 *Commissioner Gondorchin arrived at 8:35 P.M.
23 Chair Bergstrom indicated he did not know how to answer,he inquired if there were any
24 information regarding the detailed analysis of the Tax Increment Financing.
25 City Manager Momson indicated these parcels were once in the Tax Increment District and they
26 will be put back in the District. The funds used will come from existing Tax Increment funds, so
27 the potential is there that the taxes be immediately be paid to the County, City, School District
28 and miscellaneous taxing districts.
4? Momson indicated the guideline for the Tax Increment Financing will indicate in the year 2002
30 the area will benefit by $60,000.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
Page 10
1 Mornson indicated the request by the applicant was for$260,000, but the City is only providing
2 $150,000.
3 Mr. Gram inquired if there has been borrowing for this project.
4 Mornson said the funds are already available,there is no borrowing for this project.
5 Mornson, in response to Mr. Gram, indicated that the money is set aside by Minnesota Statutes
6 for the use in Tax Increment Financing and can not be used for other projects.
7 Commissioner Faust indicated if the funds are not used,the City does not received them. He
8 noted the taxes received by the City do not cover the expenditures of the City.
9 Mr. Gram still believed the amount of money received by the City is insignificant and does Aot
10 cover the detrimental affect to the residents. His main point was the cost/benefit for the residents
11 is negative.
12 Commissioner Makowske indicated Mr. Gram feels the project is going to have a negative effect
13 on the neighborhood, but how could the development of homes be more detrimental than an
14 empty lot.
15 Mr. Gram indicated the units would be worth only $65,000 and that would be devaluating to the
16 neighborhood.
17 Commissioner Makowske indicated Mr. Gram misunderstood, each unit would be sold for
18 $130,000 or more.
19 Mr. Keith Gordon, 4012 Fordham Drive;inquired if a traffic study could be done by the May
20 23rd meeting of the City Council.
21 Mornson indicated that would not be-the business of the City,traffic studies are done by the
22 County.
23 Mr. Gordon, inquired as to the soil correction, were there borings done.
24 Mr.Newman indicated studies had been done, and borings were provided to staff.
25 Mr. Gordon asked if the reimbursement by the City for soil correction is based on actual or
26 estimated cost.
27 Mornson indicated the City has set a cap to the funds at$150,000. •
28 A resident indicated the City does have a traffic counter and could hold a traffic study.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• May 16, 1995
Page 11
I Chair Bergstrom requested staff to do a traffic study and have the results for the Council by their
2 May 23rd meeting.
3 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 8:47 P.M.
4 Commissioner Horst indicated even after a traffic study is done,the numbers would still be
5 estimates and it would be difficult to quantify the results.
6 Chair Bergstrom indicated presumably there is a maximum to the capacity of traffic for the road.
7 Commissioner Thompson indicated if he lived on Fordham Drive he would welcome this type of
8 development.
9 Commissioner Makowske indicated he felt the development would have benefit to the
10 neighborhood. He urged the developer to hold a neighborhood meeting to answer questions of
11 the residents.
12 Commissioner Makowske indicated the headlights are still an issue,but if the developer is
13 willing to work with the residents, his concerns would be addressed.
q4 Motion by Commissioner Faust, second by Commissioner Horst, to recommend Council
15 approval of property subdivision of property known as Mounds View Acres, Second Addition
16 into three parcels, with specific attention to:
17 * drainage and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements
18 * visual separation of property between Mounds View Acres and Evergreen Townhomes
19 * stop sign placed on 39th and Fordham Drive to address traffic concerns
20 * resident directly across from entrance to Mounds View Acres, be given consideration
21 regarding automobile headlights.
22 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if there is concern with any site plan changes.
23 Mr.Newman indicated there would be no drastic changes other than custom designs, perhaps
24 patios, etc., but the overall appearance of the site plan would not change.
25 Motion carried unanimously.
Chair Bergstrom indicated this item will be reviewed by Council at their May 23, 1995 meeting,
7 and urged those concerned to attend that meeting.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995 •
Page 12
1 Chair Bergstrom called a brief recess at 9:03 P.M. Chair Bergstrom reconvened the meeting at
2 9:12 P.M.
3 C. Rezoning request for Arnie Gregory, for 2926, 2930, 2938, and 3004 Old Highway 8.
4 Commissioner Makowske stepped down from the Planning Commission for this issue due to
5 conflict of interest.
6 Assistant Manager Kim Moore-Sykes explained Arnold Development has submitted a petition
7 for rezoning of 2938, 3004, and 2926/2930 Old Highway 8 to an R-4 zoning district. These
8 properties were briginally know as the Mako Inc./Olson properties and the residential structures
9 were converted to rental units before the area was zoned.
10 Moore-Sykes noted out of consideration of the neighbors, Mr. Gregory is requesting that the'
11 Planning Commission consider approving an R-3 designation rather than the original request to
12 rezone the property to an R-4. The City Attorney has indicated to City staff that a petitioner can
13 revise a zoning request to a lower zoning level during the public hearing but can not go up to a
14 higher zoning level.
15 Moore-Sykes indicate with minor adjustments to the site plan and plat map, Mr. Gregory's
16 project meets all the height, area, density, front and sideyard setbacks and parking requirements.
17 He will require a variance for backyard setbacks,which will be addressed in a later public
18 hearing. He is also petitioning the City for Tax Increment Financing assistance to defray
19 demolition costs that estimate to be $30,000.
20 Moore-Sykes indicated after reviewing the developer's revisions to this project,the Staff
21 recommends the approval of the rezoning of this R-2 property to R-3, allowing for the
22 construction of owner occupied townhomes.
23 Mr. Arnie Gregory, of Arnold Development, indicated the site is difficult to develop and
24 believed this proposed development would be the best use for this site.
25
26 Mr. Gregory indicated as mentioned before, the townhomes would be for sale for owner
27 occupancy.
28 Mr. Jerry Mazzara, architect for the project elaborated regarding the site plan and described the
29 proposed development and townhome design, using diagrams. He indicated there would be
30 extensive landscaping, exceeding the City's requirements.
31 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired as to the fireplace. Mr. Mazzara indicated the fireplaces
32 would be gas units.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
- 0 Page 13
1 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired as to why the site is unsuitable for Single Family homes.
2 Mr. Gregory indicated with the topography and the price of the land, it was not economically
3 feasible.
4 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if there is concern with the cul-de-sac and emergency
5 vehicles. Chair Bergstrom indicated he had reviewed the plan with the Fire Department and they
6 had no concerns.
7 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired about a fire hydrant on the site. Mr. Mazzara noted a
8 hydrant on the site.
9 Mr.Gregory indicated he had held a neighborhood meeting and address various questions at that
10 time.
11 Ms. Robin Bednarz-Rovich, 3000 Croft Drive, indicted she felt this project proposed is a
12 wonderful alternative to the current apartments.
13 Ms. Bednarz-Rovich expressed concern regarding future development in the other near by sites,
and additional density.
15 Ms. Bednarz-Rovich indicated in regards to quality of life and.free enterprise, she encouraged the
16 Planning Commission to weigh all aspects in their review of petitions.
17 Ms. Bednarz-Rovich indicated she felt the proposed plan was a good design, but was concerned
18 for green space on the site.
19 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 9:40 P.M
20 Chair Bergstrom indicated this land use is compatible with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
21 Motion was made by Commissioner Horst, second by Commissioner Faust,to recommend
22 Council approval of rezoning of 2938 Old Highway 8, 3004 Old Highway 8, and 2926/2930 Old
23 Highway 8, from an R-2 to an R-3 zoning district.
24 Motion carried unanimously.,
25 Chair Bergstrom indicated this item will be reviewed by the City Council at their May 23, 1995
26 meeting, and he urged all those concerned attend that meeting.
7
4 -
D. Property subdivision for 2926, 2930, 2938, and 3004 Old Highway 8.
28 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 9:43 P.M.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995 •
Page 14
1 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes explained the request for the subdivision of property
2 and the platting of 2926, 2930, 2938 and 3004 Old Highway 8. These properties were originally
3 known as the Mako Inc./Olson properties and the residential structure were converted to rental
4 units after the area was rezoned R-2.
5 Moore-Sykes indicated staff recommends the approval of the subdivision of property and the
6 replatting of this parcel, which will update the legal description and create a single parcel of land
7 for the proposed construction of the townhome project.
8 Commissioner Horst inquired as to the location of the current streets and alleys. Mr. Gregory
9 indicated the locations using the maps and diagrams. He noted the alley would be blocked at the
10 corner, but landscaped and kept available for emergency vehicles.
11 Mr. Gregory indicated the easement stops at the alley,they would like to keep the remainder' of
12 the alley open for the residents, so they would have access to their properties.
13 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired as to parking. Mr. Mazzara indicated guest parking and
14 noted,the width of the street is 68 feet from curb to curb.
15 Mr. Roger Braun, 3000 Rankin Road, indicated his property is north of the-edge of the property •
16 and he has an easement to the alley, or Lot 13 as noted. He indicated his,access would be cut off
17 if the alley was landscaped at the corner.
18 Chair Bergstrom inquired if his lot was the only one impacted by the landscaping. Mr. Braun
19 indicated his lot would be the only one that would be prevented access, unless he backed up
20 approximately 100 feet to Croft Drive from his garage.
21 Chair Bergstrom inquired if the landscaping would be an infringement onto Mr. Braun's
22 easement. Mr. Braun believed the landscaping would be an infringement of his easement.
23 Mr. Jerome Grummier, indicated he felt the project was a very good project and he encouraged
24 the developer to stay with the proposed plan and block off the alley to prevent drive through. He
25 also suggested to prohibit truck use on the alley.
26 Ms. Vandarsrobik also supported the block off in the alley,this would prevent racing in the alley.
27 Mr. Gregory indicated if the alley remained open,the marketability would be limited for the end
28 townhome. He indicated he would work with Mr. Braun to resolve the issue.
29 Mr. Chuck Makowske, 3005 Croft Drive, indicated Lot 13 (alley) is owned by Mako and
30 easements were given to the residents. He pointed the boundaries of Lot 13 on the diagrams. •
31 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 10:06 P.M.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
0 Page 15
1 Motion was made by Commissioner Franzese, second by Horst, to recommend Council approval
2 for subdivision of property and the platting of 2926, 2930, 2938, and 3004 Old Highway 8.
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4 Chair Bergstrom indicated this item will be reviewed by the City Council at their May 23, 1995
5 meeting and urged those concerned to attend that meeting.
6 E. Backyard variance request for 2926, 2930, 2938, and 3004 Old Highway 8.
7 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 10:07 P.M.
8 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes explained the request for backyard variance for the
9 Arbors Townhome development.
10 Moore-Sykes indicated Mr. Gregory is requesting he be granted a 10 foot variance to the
11 backyard setback of the townhome development.
12 Moore-Sykes indicated staff recommends approval of the backyard variance request.
qMr. Gregory indicated due to the reconfiguration of the site the variance is requested for the
14 backyard setback.
15 Ms. Carol Barkley, 3003 Rankin Road, indicated the proposed development is a good design, but
16 the backyard setback should not be allowed. She indicated the backyard in question would face
17 her property's backyard.
18 Ms. Barkley inquired as to what type of guarantee would they have to develop the site as
19 proposed.
20 Mr. Greg Barkley, 3003 Rankin Road, indicated he agreed with his wife. He indicated if a buffer
21 could be created between the yards, it would not be as much of a concern.
22 Mr. Mazzara indicated mature trees would be placed in that area and other options could be used
23 to alleviate any visual concerns.
24 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 10:21 P.M.
25 Commissioner Franzese complimented the developer on their presentation and the willingness to
26 work with the neighborhood.
q7 Commissioner Faust inquired if the Barkleys' would be satisfied with the developer's proposal
28 for additional screening. Ms. Barkley indicated if there was a guarantee, she would be satisfied.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995 •
Page 16
1 Mr. Mazza a indicated this would be identified in the landscape plan and approved by staff.
2 Motion was made by Commissioner Faust, second by Commissioner Thompson, to recommend
3 Council approve the backyard variance of 10 feet for Lots 1 through 8 due to the shape and the
4 topographical conditions of the parcel.
5 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if added conditions could be added to guarantee the site plan
6 be developed as presented.
7 Commissioner Horst did not believe the Planning Commission could add that condition.
8 City Manager Morrison indicated this has been done in the past, but could refer conditions to the
9 Council.
10 Motion carried unanimously.
11 Chair Bergstrom indicated this item will be reviewed by the City Council at their May 23, 1995
12 meeting and urged those concerned to attend that meeting.
13 F. Zoning ordinance amendment regarding lot coverage. •
14 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 10:32 P.M.
15 Commissioner Makowske rejoined the Planning Commission at this time.
16 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes explainedthat staff was asked to research the
17 possibility of increasing lot coverage for R-1, R-lA, and R-2 zoning districts.
18 Moore-Sykes indicated staff recommends that lot coverage be increased from 30%to 35%. Lot
19 coverage will continue to include driveways and sidewalks.
20 Commissioner Faust indicated he understood this was not going to be discussed.
21 Commissioner Gondorchin indicated he was not in favor of increasing lot coverage.
22 Commissioner Horst felt this would give new homes more opportunity for building in St.
23 Anthony.
24 Various discussion was held regarding lot coverage and previous variances, it was concluded that
25 most all previous variances were for garages and did not address lot coverage.
26 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 10:42 P.M.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
• May 16, 1995
Page 17
1 Motion was made by Commissioner Horst, second by Commissioner Franzese, to recommend to
2 Council approval of the increase of lot coverage from 30%to 35% for R-1, R-1A, and R-2
3 zoning districts.
4 Vote: Commissioners Franzese, Thompson and Horst voted yes.
5 Commissioners Bergstrom, Makowske, Gondorchin and Faust voted no.
6 Motion failed.
7 G. Zoning ordinance amendment regarding adult uses.
8 Chair Bergstrom opened the public hearing at 10:43 P.M.
9 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes explained in October, 1994, the City Council
10 discussed the possibility of amending the City's Code of Ordinances to include an adult use
11 ordinance in the event that someone may be interested in locating such a business in St. Anthony.
12
13 Moore-Sykes noted the Courts have indicated to local governments that they can only regulate,
14 not restrict, adult use/sexually oriented businesses. The City Council, the City Manager, Staff
and the City Attorney have been working to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that
6 will regulate these businesses.
17 Chair Bergstrom inquired if the restrictions are imposed, the only location for this type of
18 business is Apache. Moore-Sykes indicated it the only location available would be the Apache
19 Plaza and still meet the distance required in the proposed ordinance.
20 Chair Bergstrom closed the public hearing at 10:55 P.M.
21 Motion was made by Commissioner Franzese, second by Commissioner Horst,to recommend
22 Council approval of Ordinance regulating Adult Use and Sexually Oriented Businesses as
23 proposed by the City Attorney.
24 Motion carried unanimously
25
26 VII: MISCELLANEOUS.
27 A. Concept review of house to be moved onto Lot 16 of the Village Commons replat
28 (Nedegaard).
29 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes reviewed the proposal for moving a single story,
rambler-type house from property on Silver Lake onto Lot 16 of the Village Commons replat.
q11 She presented a drawing of the home.
32
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
Page 18
1 City Manager Mornson indicated this is for Planning Commission information,the Commission
2 would not need to take action on this item.
3 B. Tax Increment Financing Amendment.
4 Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes indicated in the Minnesota Statue 469.027, the
5 planning agency of a municipality is to receive a plan for redevelopment of an area for
6 consideration. Once the planning agency has reviewed the redevelopment plan an opinion shall
7 be submitted to the municipality in writing.
8 City Manager Mornson-indicated this would not be a redevelopment of the taxing district. This
9 would provide for a_ list of areas to be redeveloped with Tax Increment,but the list would only be
10 an option,the City may or may not develop those areas.
11 Commissioner Faust did not feel comfortable with providing an opinion with something he.did
12 not understand.
13 Chair Bergstrom indicated the Commission could give random comments or a Commissioner
14 could review the information and make a presentation to the Commission and then provide
15 comments.
16 Mornson indicated through the discussion held,the obligation of the Planning Commission is
17 met.
18 Mornson indicated various areas where funds are available in the Tax Increment District, but
19 could not be used if not identified before the deadline.
20 Commissioner Makowske did not feel comfortable with any comments.
21 Commissioner Franzese inquired as to those items not on the list.
22 Mornson indicated changes could be made up to the public hearing on June 27, 1995, but the
23 City Attorney suggested doing any changes by 30 days prior..
24 Commissioners Faust and Gondorchin indicated they were not informed well enough to form an
25 opinion.
26 Mornson indicated the comments would be forwarded to the City Council.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
May 16, 1995
it Page 19
1 VIII . ADJOURNMENT.
2 Motion by Makowske, second by Franzese, to adjourn the meeting at 11:22 P.M.
3 Motion carried unanimously.
4 Respectfully submitted,
5 Ruth McLaurin
6 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
7 barkley
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 20, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant
ITEM: Concept Review of City Hall/Community Center
BACKGROUND
The City has received the latest building plans for the City Hall/Community Center from
the architects. They were presented to the City Council by Jim O'Brien and Liz
Hermann at the June 6, 1995 worksession. The City Council has referred these plans to
the Planning Commission for a concept review.
Also attached to the packet is a schedule for construction showing two scheduling options.
Schedule 1 has been selected as it takes advantage of the current low interest rates and the
continued ability to use funds made available by TIF.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 20, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant
ITEM: Trees on the Stop 'n Go Property
BACKGROUND
I received a call from the Mayor requesting that the Planning Commission review the issue
of the trees on the east side of the Stop 'N Go gas station on 2400 - 37th Avenue NE. Mr.
David Olson contacted Larry Hamer, the Public Works Director and the Mayor to inform
them that in order to install the fencing on the east side of the station as originally agreed
to, he will have to remove the six mature trees.
Mr. Olson is asking the City to allow him to keep the trees as they do provide screening
to the adjacent residential property and are beneficial in a number of ways to the area. He
stated that he will make improvements on the existing fence, build the 6' foot behind the
trees or do whatever the City recommends. If the City recommends that he build the 6'
fence behind the trees, the 6' fence will be too close to the property line and may need a
variance.
The Mayor asked that I report on this situation to the Planning Commission for their
recommendation to the City Council. I have attached for each Commissioner, copies of
the minutes from the August 16, 1994 Planning Commission meeting that discussed fencing
and copies from the Zoning Ordinance that discusses retention of existing trees.
(3) Within 10 feet of the rear lot line.
(b) Where an R4, B, C LI District abutts an R4, R-2 or R-3 District, it is
,; unlawful to park a vehicle, or provide a parking space, on the -4, B,
C v V 'C or LI property closer than 20 feet from the R-1, R-2 or R-3 property.
"t,
1650.06 Curb Cuts. The Council has the authority to limit the curb cuts serving a property
or properties where the Council deems it appropriate for safety reasons due to the traffic
on abutting streets. No curb cut to a parking area may be more than 28 feet in width. Curb
cuts on any one street must be at least 30 feet apart, unless curb cuts are to be used for one
way traffic only and dearly designated as such. No C or LI use may have a curb cut within
.30 feet of any residential district boundary, unless it is located across a street from the
residential district boundary.
1650.07 Off-Street Loading Docks. All loading docks must be off-street and must be
attached to the building to be served. A loading dock may not be located closer than 25
feet to a street intersection, or 50 feet to a residential district, unless the loading dock is
totally within a building. Loading docks may not be located within the required front yard
setback space. Loading docks must be located in a manner which will least interfere with
traffic. No portion of any truck trailers using a loading dock may'project into.a public
street. All loading docks and accessways must be paved with concrete or bituminous
surfacing.
1650.08 Landscaping.
Subd. 1. Existing Trees and Vegetation. Existing healthy trees and native
vegetation on a site are to be preserved to the maximum extent feasible during site
development.
Subd. 2. Landscaping Plan. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the
development of property in any district, the owner must submit to the�City for
approval a landscaping plan showing:
(a) Placement and height of plantings and decorative features such as
fences, walls, berms and other landscaping features.
(b) Species, quantity and diameter of trees, grasses and shrubs.
(c) Areas to be left in their natural state and areas to be seeded or sodded.
(d) Dimension, descriptions and other pertinent data identifying proposed
special landscaping effects such as ponds, rock gardens, fountains and
other similar items.
(e) When requested by the Council, a grade and contour plan showing
elevations at two foot intervals, or less where necessary, to identify
16-36
C
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 4
1 commended the owners for wanting to clean up the site. He stated he fully supports the
2 variances.
3 St. Anthony resident Bob Taylor owns property directly behind the station at 3639
4 Stinson Boulevard and stated the property is now an eyesore and he has no problem \Nith
5 a convenience store. He did express concerns over the hours the business would be open
6 and suggested it not be open for business past 11:00 p.m.
7 Aland owner on the east side of the property, Mike Lupient, wanted to know if anything
8 would be done with the existing fence. The architect explained they would totally
9 replace it with a 6-foot high fence.
10 Chair Gondorchin closed the public hearing at 7:26 P.M.
11 Chair Gondorchin stated the variances with setbacks for the canopy, consideration of
12 hours, and the pylon requirements should conform to the dimensions of the station that
13 went up recently.on 40th or 33rd.
14 Commissioner Faust stated he had one resident call him who was against the plan as the
15 resident thought there was an overabundance of convenience stores in the community and
16 was concerned about parking. This resident also wanted to know about sidewalks.
17 Commissioner Faust noted that staff has indicated the request meets parking requirements
18 and the applicant feels traffic counts will sustain the business.
19 Chair Gondorchin recommended looking at the setbacks on the south side and the back
20 yard. Commissioner Bergstrom stated the neighbors and owners had expressed their
21 concerns but didn't seem to be concerned with a convenience store in the location.
22 Commissioner Thompson stated it was a blighted area now and he liked the proposed
23 store. Commissioner Franzese stated her only concern was with traffic entering and
24 exiting from Stinson and wanted to know if staff had looked into whether there should be
25 a right-turn-only lane.
26 Commissioner Faust stated an 11:00 p.m. closing would be consistent with other stores in
27 the area. He asked Mr. Taylor if he knew there would be a trash dumpster on the
28 northeast comer of the property. Mr. Taylor was not aware of this but thought there
29 would not be a problem because of the fence.
30 Chair Gondorchin wanted to know if the area provides access wide enough for a trash
31 truck. The architect said there would be enough footage,the dumpsters would,be
32 enclosed and the trucks would access through a gate on the enclosure.
Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes
August 16, 1994
Page 5
1 Commissioner Makowske asked City Manager Morrison, if with a 13-foot variance,there
2 %vould be enough accessibility on the east side if there Nvere a fire. City A4anager
3 Morrison said there would be.
4 Motion by Commissioner Faust, second by Commissioner Bergstrom to recommend
5 Council approval of the conditional use permit requested by C.M. Group, Inc. for the
6 operation of a convenience store with a fuel area at 2400 - 37th Avenue NE%,-ith the
7 follo%%ing conditions:
8 1. Structure must meeting existing building requirements.
9 2. Ground cleaning, including fuel spills be removed, and tank removal as required
10 by PCA.
11 3. The trash dumpster to be located on the south end will be enclosed in material
12 similar to that used for the main structure.
13 4. The sign not exceed current requirements and no variances granted regarding
14 signage.
15 5. Landscaping to include a fence to be installed on the south and east sides of the
16 property to shield residential areas,and trees and shrubs to be planted according to
17 recommendations of City Staff.
18 6. Hours will be limited from 5:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
19 A lengthy debate was held regarding the hours of operation. Commissioner Horst
20 favored a midnight closing since it would allow the owner to remain more competitive
21 with other businesses. Commissioner Faust favored an 11:00 p.m. close due to the close
22 proximity of residences. Commissioner Berg agreed and noted that variances closer to
23 residential property were also under consideration. Commissioner Franzese spoke in
24 support of a midnight closing,noting the business will closer earlier if there is not
25 business,but she does not want to restrict them. This discussion concluded in a majority
26 of the Commissioners favoring an 11:00 p.m. close.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 Chair Gondorchin urged the petitioner to attend the City Council meeting on August 23, 1994,
29 for the final commitment of their conditional use permit.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 20, 1995
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant
ITEM: PROPOSAL TO AMEND CHAPTER 16 OF THE 1993
ST. ANTHONY CODE OF ORDINANCES, SECTIONS
1615, SUBD. 8; 1616.05, SUBD. 8; AND 1620, SUBD. 8
RELATING TO LOT COVERAGE
BACKGROUND
As stated in last month's Staff Report, Staff was asked to research the possibility of
increasing lot coverage for R-1, R-1A, and R-2 zoning districts. The City Council has
requested that Staff contact additional cities in the Metro area to see if there exists a more
standardized lot coverage restriction.
Attached for your information is a survey of the cities contacted. While most cities
surveyed do not have lot coverage restrictions, they do require that structures be
constructed within the setback requirements.
St.Anthony R-1, SFD 30%,inc d/w & s/w 9,000 SF 75' combined 15'
11 000 cnr 90' min 5'one side 30' 25'
ZONING�O 6��0Y-SETB7�CR
CITY DIST COVERAGE AREA WIDTH SIDEYARD FRONT REAR
Arden Hills R-1 25%, structure only 14,000 SF Minimum 25' 40' 30'
SFD with one side
being 10'
New Brighton R-1, SFD 40% 10,OOOSF 75'
Mounds View R-1, SFD None; need to meet
setback requirements 11,000 SF 75' 10' each side; 30' or equal to 30'
garage, 5' , adjacent structure
Fridley R-1, SFD 25%, structure only
Cottage Grove R-1, SFD None; need to meet varies 7.5' 30' 35'
setback requirements
Vadnais Heights R-1, SFD None; need to meet 10,200 SF 85' 25' 25' 25'
setback requirements 40' if on
arterial street
Golden Valley R-1 None; need to meet 10,000 SF The City has no residential lots for development;
SFD setback requirements no other information available.
Robbinsdale R-1 None; need to meet 6,000 SF 50' 5' each side 30' 25% of lot
SFD setback requirements depth
Lauderdale R-1 30%
SFD
Little Canada R-1 None; need to meet 10,000 SF 10' 30' 30'
SFD setback requirements
Mahtomedi R-1 C, SFD 25%, structure only 11,900 SF 100' 12' 30' 40'
Low Density corner lot
R-1 D, SFD 25%, structure only 10,400 SF 80' 8' 30' 40'
Low Density
North St. Paul R-1, SFD None; need to meet 6,000 SF 50' 6' and 9' 30' 30'
Low Density setback requirements
Prior Lake R-1, SFD No coverage 12,000 SF
Low Density restrictions
Shoreline SFD 30% 12,000 SF
Shoreview R-1, SFD 40%; lakeshore 30% 10,000 SF 75' Need to check with DNR if changing lakeshore
restrictions.
Richfield R-1, SFD 35%, structure only 7,000 SF
or less
25% or 2,500 SF which more than
ever is greater 7,000 SF
Spring Lake Park R-1, SFD 35%. structure only
1
ht
n. 1 PI
'el: Sly. .
-I.t d- t
Ci(y of
Columbia I Icigh(s
. Mimicso(a
1992
9/30/92
Columbia Heights
Columbia Heights Planning and
City Council Zoning Commission
Donald J. Murzyn, Jr., Mayor Marlaine Szurek
Gary Peterson Joseph Ryan
Bruce Nawrocki Gary Peterson
Sean Clerkin Marilyn Deering
Robert Ruettimarm Gary Larson
City of Columbia.Heights, MN
590 NC 40th Avenue
(612) 782-2854
Stuart Anderson, City Manager
Donald Schneider, City Planner
1992
99425
,
r,
r �• r, S ,� � 4� r t .� L• .,7 � c. t
M ,a
.t..i!.>�� - rC^:I+'raf�Y.al' �rt,�!:�.•{f.,:;�i'�. � ::�y .:,i }� r;:in 4 :;��r�i`._ '�1 �,!•�S'-I•��, � � �!�
SC'
1
. 1
�B� W
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Analysis of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Population, Households and Employment Plan . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 8
HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Analysis of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Housing Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Analysis of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Land Use and Redevelopment Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
"TRAFFIC AND 'IRANSI"I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Analysis of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Traffic and Transit System Plan . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 41
PARKS, SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Analysis of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Parks, Sidewalks and Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
N9425 i
COMMUNITY IMAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Analysis of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Community Image Plan . . . .*. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Analysis of Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Utilities Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY ISSUES IDENTIFICATION AND
RANKING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
i
APPENDIX B: COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY B-1
69425 ii
LIST OF TABLES
1 Population Change, 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Population by Race and Hispanic Origin, 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
3 Households and Families, 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
4 Employment, 1970-2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
5 1990 Employment by Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
6 Housing Inventory, 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
7 [-lousing Inventory, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
8 Residential Building Permits, 1987-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
9 Estimated Value of Building Permits Issued, 1987-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . 13
10 Age Distribution of Housing, Columbia Heights an
Inner Ring Suburbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
11 Housing Cost, 1980-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
12 Land Use and Development Action Program . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . 37
#9425 iii
13 Park Classification System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
14 Columbia Heights Parks Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
15 Parks Action Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
16 Community Image Action Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Community Opinion Survey B-3
B-1 Age of Residents Who Returned Community.Opinion Survey . . . . . . . B-8
.v,zs
iv
T , ,
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Pattern of Land Use; 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2 Redevelopment and Revitalization Possibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3 Land Use Plan . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4 Locations of Special Planning Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5 Roadway and Light Rail Transit System Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
G Municipal State Aid Street System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7 Parks, Sidewalks and Trails Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
.8 Community Image . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
9 Sanitary Sewer Districts, Interceptors and Inter-Community
Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
89425 v
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS, AND EMPLOYMENT
ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS
This section is an analysis of all available information pertaining to socioeconomic trends including
population, households, employment, building permits, and assessed valuation in Columbia Hcights.
Other considerations include the changing demographic mixture of the City and its effects on the future
of the housing stock.
Population
Table 1 compares population data from the 1980 and 1990 Census. The population of Columbia
Heights' decreased approximately six percent from 1980 (20,029) to 1990 (18,910). During this same
time period, Anoka County grew by 24 percent. According to 1990 Census data, there has been a
geographic shift in population from the central city (Minneapolis) and first-ring suburbs (includes
Columbia Heights) to the outer suburbs.
09425 1
.
TABLE 1
POPULATION CHANCE: 1980 to 1990
1990 1990 Change
Total Population 20,029 18,910 -6%
Under 5 years 1,100 1,231 12%
5 to 17 years 4,086 2,890 -29%
18 to 30 years 4,567 3,497 -3%
30 to 44 years 3,539 4,178 -18%n
45 to 59 years 3,799 3,081 -19%
60 to 64 years 951 1,124 18%
65 years and over 1,987 2,909 46%
Median Age 31.0 31.0
Source: 1980 and 1990 Census.
Although the median age of the residents of Columbia Heights (31.0 years) has not changed since 1980,
it is important to note than the age group, 65 years of age and older, increased by 46 percent from 1980
to 1990--more that any other age group. The Metro Council projects (for the metro area) the number
of elderly persons 85 years of age and over will increase by 25 percent in the 1990s.
The group known as "baby boomers" (people born between 1946 and 1965) triggered the creation of
thousands of new classrooms across the nation. Likewise., in the 1970s and 1980s they were responsible
for the addition of thousands of housing units in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area as well as other parts
of the country. As baby boomers age, the 35 to 49 age group will become the largest age group and
the "baby boomlet," an increase in births to baby boomers, will decline in the 1990s as baby boomers
move out of their child-bearing years. According to the Metro Council, the number of people ages 15
to 24 will continue to decline.
The change in racial composition in Columbia Heights is shown in Table 2. Overall, the percentage of
non-whites has increased from 2.2 percent in 1980 to 4.4 percent in 1990. Those persons of hispanic
rv�zs 2
f r r r
origin represent 1.4 percent of the total population of Columbia Heights. The Metro Council projects
that during the 1990s, the minority population will continue to grow faster than the while population.
In addition, the minority population is younger and has higher birth rates than;the white population.
TABLE 2
POPULATION BY RACK and HISPANIC ORIGIN 1980 TO 1990`
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
1980 PCT 1990 PCT
White 19,588 97.8% 18,086 95.6%
Black 30 .15% 227 1.2%
American Indian 116 .58% 210 1.1%
Asian 212 1.1% 270 1.4%
Other Races 83 .44% 117 .62%
Hispanic Origin 141 .7% 273 1.4%
Source: 1980 and 1990 Ccnsus.
Households
In the last two decades, across the country and in the Twin Cities metro area, household composition
has been changing and is expected to continue to change in the 1990s. A comparison of.1980 and 1990
Census data on households in Columbia Heights is shown in Table 3. Whale the numbers of families
decreased by four percent, the numbers of households increased by six percent. According to the U.S.
Census Bureau, this change is due to the increased growth in non-traditional households: single-parent
and single-individual households.
This trend, the growth of non-traditional households over traditional households, has affected Columbia
Heights. The following observations can be made from the 1980 and 1990 Census data in Table 3:
• While the population decreased by six percent, the number of households increased by
six percent.
19425 3
• 11ie number of one-person households has increased by 33 percent.
• The number of single-male headed households and single-female headed households, with
their own child, has increased by 128 and 146 percent, respectively.
• The number of married-couple households with their own child have decreased by 31
percent, while married-couple households without children have increased by 4 percent.
TABLE 3
HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES: 1980 to 1990
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
1980 1990 Change
Families 5,433 5,215 -4%
Family Size 3.24 2.94 -9%
Households 7,343 7,766 6%
Household Size 2.71 2.42 -11%
Households, 1 person 1,606 2,131 33%
Households, Married Couples - No .Children 2,395 2,492 4%
Households, Married Couples - With Children 2,293 1,577 -31%
Single Male, With Own Child 65 148 128%
Single Female Head,.With Own Child 363 892 146%
Source: 1980 and 1990 Census.
09425 4
Population Forecast
The Metro Council projected Columbia Heights to have a 1990 population of 20,000 and to gain 250
additional households. As shown in Table 1, the actual population for the City was 18,910 and them;
was an increase of 423 households. The most recent Metro Council population projection (prior to the
1990 Census) for Columbia Heights is 20,000 for the year 2010 and they predict that household size,
for the entire metro area, will level-off at 2.57 persons in the 1990s. The Metro Council projects no
change in population for the Cities of Fridley, New Brighton, and St. Anthony from 1990 to 2000 while
Minneapolis is projected to lose 12,000 people. The population of Columbia Heights should remain near
its' 1990 level through the next decade.
Because Columbia Heights is fully developed, there is no open land available for additional housing--
except for a few scattered vacant lots. Because of the decrease in household size and lack of
undeveloped land, the only way for Columbia Heights to gain population is for the trend of household
size to reverse and/or add more housing units through redevelopment (replacing existing housing with
new housing at a higher density).
Employment
The numbers of jobs in Columbia Heights are shown by Table 4. There was a modest increase of 141
jobs (2.8%) from 1980 to 1990. The projections by the Metro Council have been optimistic--the actual
numbers of jobs in 1990 was only 87 percent of the projected number. If that trend were extended, then
the adjusted projection for 2000 would be 6,090 jobs (87% of 7,000).
A9425 5
1
TABLE 4
EMPLOYMENT 1970 TO 2000
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
1970 1980 1990 1990 2000
(actual) (actual) (actual) (projected) ..(projected)-
3,900 5,100 5,241 6,000 . 7,000
Source: Metropolitan Council, 1986.
Note: Figures represent numbers of jobs in Columbia Heights.
y in Columbia Heights are concentrated in retail trade (30%) and
As shown b Table 5, the jobs available
services (291%). The.Metro Council is predicting that employment in the Twin Cities metro area in the
1990s will experience slower growth and greater diversification than it did in the previous decade. The
metro area will have a greater concentration of employment-opportunities in low-paying industries and
outlying areas. Other key trends in employment for the metro area are as follows:
• Fewer new workers will enter the labor force each year, causing labor shortages in some
occupations.
• Work places will become more; diverse, with fewer white males and more women and
people of color entering,the work force.
• Employment will grow fastest in the low-paying service and retail trade industries.
• Growth occupations will include the high-paying professional and technical category and
the low-paying service category.
0 Household incomes will continue to increase, but the income differential between higher-
and lower-income families will also increase.
09425 6
TABLE 5
1990 EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS/IHLLTOP
Sector Jobs Percent
Manufacturing 631 12%u
Construction 391 7%
Transportation & Utilities 32 1%
Wholesale Trade 193 4%
Retail Trade 1592 30%
Finance, Insurance.& Real Estate 217 4%
Services 1500 29%
Government 685 13%
Total 5241 100%
Source: Minnesota Department of Conunerce, 1991.
Major Population Issues
The following are the major issues related to population and demographic change in Columbia Ileights.
• What should the City do, if anything, to respond to recent and forecast changes in population in
terms of housing, parks, public facilities or other actions`!
• Should special provision be made by the City for the sizable elderly population in Columbia
Heights which is expected to become greater in size? If so, what is the range of housing options
for the elderly? Are there non-physical programs for the elderly that bear upon their housing
choices?
N425 7
• Does a changed population need different parks and recreation programs?
• What response should the City make to such demographic changes? Can the-City learn to
function as a multi-cultural community?
• What other changes or challenges can be expected to occur as a result of demographic changes
in Columbia Heights?
• Can Columbia Heights use these demographic changes to its advantage based upon its location,
housing stock or other features?
POPULATION, HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENT PLAN
Goals and Policies
Goal: Maintain a strong sense of community in Columbia Heights by attracting and
retaining young families and couples.
The Columbia Heights population is changing in many ways. One of the great challenges before
the community over the next two decades will be-to maintain the high quality of population and
strong sense of community that has long distinguished it.
1. Young Families and';Couples: The City shall strive to attract and retain young families and
couples by:
(a) Helping. to •maintain the quality of the stock of single-family *detached housing,
partictilarly the older houses west of Central Avenue
(b) Providing new multiple-family housing of high quality
(c) Providing attractive options for senior citizens who might desire to. move out of their
detached house
19425 8
(d) Providing attractive parks and recreation programs
(e) Striving to enhance the image of Columbia Heights as a very attractive and safe place to
live and raise a family
(f) Provide mortgage assistance (when fiscally possible) to low- and moderate-income first-
time buyers.
(g) Improving the quality and quantity of local shopping opportunities.
(h) Increasing the number of local jobs.
0425 9
HOUSING
ANALYSIS OF CON®1TO1NS
Housing inventory_
The City of Columbia Heights, contains 7,975 housing units. The City is predominantly single-family
in nature, as shown by Table 6, 64 percent of the housing is of the single-family detached type.
TABLE 6
HOUSING INVENTORY 1980 TO 1990
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
1980 PCT 1990 PCT
Total Housing Units 7,463 7,975
Occupied 7,343 98% 7,766 97%
Owncr-Occupied 5,129 67% 5,465 68%
Renter-Occupied 2,214 30% 2,301 29%
Vacant 120 2% 209 3%
Source: 1980 smd 1990 Census.
#9425 1 1
TABLE 7
HOUSING INVENTORY - 1990
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Unit Type Total Units Vacant Units Units Units
,Single-Family 5,634 101 5,053 480
Multi-Family 2,280 108 385 1,787
2 546 16 130 400
3 or 4 192 13 15 164
5 to 9 298 16 55 227
10 to 19 574 32 15 527
20 to 49 173 9 4 160
50 or 497 .22 166 309
more
Other 56 0 23 33
Total 7,970 209 5,461 2,300
Source: 1990 Census.
Building Permits
Because Columbia Heights is a fully developed_community, (lie only land available is in the form of
scattered vacant lots or when existing housing is replaced. Consequently, the number of residential
building permits are low, as shown in Table 8. New building opportunities are found by redeveloping
lots where the existing buildings have been demolished or by re-subdividing (creating new lots by
splitting large existing lots into smaller lots).
.9425 12
TABLE 8
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS, 1987-1991
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Type 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Single-Family 21 7 4 7 10
Duplexes 0 0 0 0 0
Multi-Family 1 . 10 5 3 1
Source: City of Columbia Ilcights, Annual Report.
The estimated value of residential building permits from 1987 to 1990 is shown in Table 9. The
information indicates how multifamily projects can have a greater impact on the City budget versus that
of single-family homes--especially when considering the difference in tax revenue per acre or square foot
of lot and the cost of providing services. The City benefits financially more from the new multi-family
project than it does from single-family units.
TABLE 9
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS
ESTIMATED VALUATIONS Or PERMITS ISSUED
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
Type 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Singlc-Family $1,500,566 $637,900 $265,417 $507,177 $802,686
Duplexes 0 0 0 0 0
Multi-Family $288,700 $3,097,485 $1,575,923 $869,492 $1,750,000
Source: City of Columbia Ilcights, Annual Report.
#9425 13
Housing Conditions
For the most part, the housing stock of Columbia Heights is in good condition. However, the housing
stock is aging and dealing with the maintenance of an aging housing stock will become an ever
increasing problem. Columbia Heights has a greater percentage of older.housing than other "inner ring"
suburbs of the metro area (The inner ring, as defined by the Metropolitan Council, includes all cities in
the metro area that are directly adjacent to the center cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul). Table 10
compares the age of housing stock in Columbia Heights with the housing stock of all (lie inner ring
combined. In Columbia Heights, 57 percent of the housing-units are more than 30 years old. The oldest
housing (many units 50 years or more in age) is located in the southwest quadrant of the City, while the
newest housing is in the northeast quadrant.
TABLE 10
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF HOUSING
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS and INNER RING.SUBURBS
Year Columbia Heights Inner Ring
Built
1939 and older 15% 8%
1940 to 1959 42% 39%v
1960 to 1980 37% ; 47%
1981 to 1990 6% 6%
Source: 1980 and 1990 Census, Metropolitan Council, 1986.
Note: figures are the percentage of the total housing stock.
Housing Cost
Table 11 compares the cost of housing in 1980 and 1990. The median price of owner-occupied housing
has increased from $57,800-in 1980 to $73,600 in 1990 (27%). The median contract rent has increased
from $231 per month in 1980 to $426 per month in 1990 (84%u).
0%25 14
TABLE 11
HOUSING COST 1980 TO 1990
. 1980 1990
Contract Rent $231 $426
Median Price Owner-Occupied Housing
$57,800 $73,600
Source: 1980 and 1990 Census.
Housing Demand
The high demand for housing,in the metro area in the two previous decades was directly linked to the
tremendous growth in the number of new households. .While the population of the metro area grew by
only six percent in the 1970s, the number of households grew by 26 percent. Most of this growth was
attributed to a large number of baby boomers reaching adulthood setting up new households. During
most of the 1980s, the younger baby boomers continued to contribute to the demand for large numbers
of housing units.
In the 1990s that situation will end. The baby boomers, now between the ages of 25 and 44, are housed
for the most part. The generation behind them is substantially smaller and their demand for housing will
be much smaller. The Metro Council has described the demand for housing in the 1990s as follows:
• Lower demand for first-time rental and ownership housing.
• Very high demand for move-up housing. However, to accomplish a move to a higher-priced
home, a buyer typically depends on the sale of his/her present home in order to cash in the
home equity and use it for.the next home. The smaller number of first-time home buyers in
the 1990s is likely to make this transition for move-up buyers more difficult than in the past.
09425 15
• The older age groups--like the move-up group--also ,tend to depend on the younger home
buyers for liquidating their home equity. The increase in older households will create demand
for both home-based and community-based housing and service combinations.
• The projected slower turnover of homes for first-time home buyers could have a favorable
impact; the homes would remain more affordable for first-time home buyers, making it
possible for the children of current residents to buy homes in Columbia Heights.
• Although the overall demand for additional housing units is .expected to diminish in the
1990s, the need for affordable units in the region, including subsidized housing, will continue
to increase.
Activities of the Columbia Heights HRA
(lousing Programs:
A. Parkview Villa North (PVVN) Public Housing, 965 40th Avenue NE: 101 units of public housing
for lower income seniors and handicapped or disabled persons,completed in 1975 with construction
financed by and project major improvements/maintenance assisted by HUD under their Public
Housing Program.
B. Parkview.Villa South Senior Public Housing, 965 40th Avenue NE (located south of and attached
to PVVN): 45 units of senior public-housing for lower income seniors, completed in 1991 with
development and construction financed through tax increment General Obligation Bond proceeds.
The TIF GO Bond will be paid off by tax increments from the Downtown Business District Tax
Increment District from the Years :2003 to 2009. On-going operation/ maintenance and
improvement cost will be paid for through rents received.
C. Rental Assistance Program: Under this Federally (HUD) funded Section 8 Rental Assistance
Program, an average of 215 very low income families are being assisted in paying their rent in
rental units in-Columbia Heights. The HRA administers this program for both Columbia Heights
and Hilltop (an'additional 7 units on the average) through a contract with the Metropolitan Council
HRA.
.�.�s 16
D. Housing Rehabilitation Programs: The [IRA administers both federally funded (through Anoka
County Community Development Block Grant Program) and state Minnesota Housing Finance
Agency (MHFA) funded home improvement grant and loan programs for homeowners. The HRA
also administers MHFA Rental Rehabilitation Programs which assist rental property owners in
fixing their rental housing through both loans and grants.
E. First Time Homebuyer Program: Currently the HRA has. a $1.4 million first time homebuyer
program for the City of-Columbia Heights through the -MHFA Minnesota City Participation
Program and Marquette and Norwest Banks. Over the years, the HRA has frequently been
involved in first time homebuyer programs financed through Housing Mortgage Revenue Bonds
and/or through MHFA programs.'"'
F. The HRA is involved in the,financing of two four-plexes and several single-family homes which
the HRA has acquired and sold to low to moderate income families over the past 12 years.
Community/Economic Development:
A. CDBG Program: The HRA administers the City CDBG Program which is funded through Federal
CDBG Entitlement funds through Anoka County. Each year the City.receives $130,000 to
$150,000 to use for eligible community development activities.
B. Redevelopment/Development Projects: The HRA plans and completes redevelopment and
development type projects. A recently completed development project was the development of the
45 units of additional senior public housing (Parkview Villa South) at 965 40th Avenue NE. Past
redevelopment projects(public costs financed through tax increment financing) include the Sullivan
Shores Townhouse Development (65 Townhomes), Columbia Square Shopping Center, University
Heights Townhouses, LaBelle Condominiums, and others. The HRA is currently working with a
developer on a redevelopment in the industrial area in the southwest area of the City.
C. Economic Development: The HRA is involved in assisting and promoting commercial and
industrial developments and expansions in Columbia Heights. The HRA has recently established
a Business Revolving Loan Fund to assist businesses to establish or expand in Columbia Heights.
The HRA and City are working on other economic development programs to assist in business
retention in Columbia Heights.
09425 17
D. Other: The HRA Executive Director acts as the City Planner., The HRA assists the City with
management of the two public parking ramps and with other special projects as may be assigned
to the HRA.
Major Housing Issues
• What should the City do to promote the maintenance, rehabilitation and modernization of its
housing stock and the preservation of its single-family housing neighborhoods? This is clearly the
most serious issue facing the community.
• Should efforts continue to be made to attract young couples and families to Columbia Heights
through housing assistance programs? One of the reasons that housing for the elderly was built
by the Columbia Heights Housing and Redevelopment Authority was to open up those persons'
housing for occupany by young.families.
• What should be done by the City, if anything, to help maintain the attractiveness in the market of
the small-housing units?
• What should* be done to counter the negative effects on the housing stock from industrial and
commercial areas?
• Should Columbia Heights continue to increase its efforts to provide special housing for the elderly?
• Is the City in danger of having too high ia proportion of assisted housing (especially for senior
citizens) relative to its total population? .
• If light rail transit is built through Columbia Heights, should the City do-anything to assist the
redevelopment of areas near any of the stations to higher density housing?
I -
- I
89425 18
HOUSING PLAN
Goals and Policies
Coal: Maintain and enhance the quality of the single-family detached Dousing stock
and the neighborhoods in which it is located.
Coal: Upgrade and improve attractive multiple-family loousing for those segments of
the population that cannot afford or do not desire to live in detached Dousing.
Since Columbia [Heights is predominately residential, the City regards the preservation and
enhancement of the housing stock as its most important task.
1. Single-Family Code Enforcement: The City shall strive to maintain the physical quality of
single-family housing through Code enforcement.
2. Spot Clearance: The City shall remove and replace the most seriously deteriorated single-family
houses so that they do not continue to harm the value of nearby housing.
3. Multiple-Family [lousing Maintenance Standards: The City shall maintain minimum standards
for multiple-family housing through a program of regular inspections and Code enforcement.
4. Housing Assistance: The City shall continue to provide adequate housing programs.
5. Equal Opportunity: The City shall continue to promote and protect equal housing opportunity
in publicly assisted and private housing.
6. Neigleborhood Protection: The City shall work to protect the integrity and long-tern viability of
its neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of nearby commercial or
industrial development through zoning, site plan reviews and Code enforcement.
7. Site Maintenance: The City shall strictly enforce its municipal regulations pertaining to yard and
building maintenance so as to protect residential property values.
"425 19
8. Land Use Plan: Land uses that are inconsistent with die Land Use Plan and incompatible with
housing will be improved or removed over time where possible and the land reused in conf6rinance
with the Land Use Plan.
9. Multiple-Family Housing Standards: The City shall enforce high standards for all multiple-
family housing development. Included will be the aspects of building massing, parking location,
access, traffic impact, landscaping exterior architectural design, fencing, trash handling and parking
ratios.
10. Alternative Ilousing: The City shall promote the development of medium-density, owner-
occupied and rental housing for one- and two-person households. This would provide an
opportunity for larger households to acquire housing made available by the one and two person
households owning detached single-family housing.
11. Duplexes: The City shall allow "zero-lot-line" duplex units so as to encourage individual
ownership of the units.
12. Architectural Design: . The design of new housing on infill and redevelopment sites should be
compatible in scale, materials, and rooflines with any single-family housing on the same block or
immediate vicinity.
13. Financial Tools: The City will continue to use such tools as revenue bonds, tax increment
financing and Community Development Block Grants (along with other public funding source as
may be available) to assist decent, affordable housing in the community, especially the elderly.
The City will enter into such partnerships in a business-like fashion, seeking to improve the quality .
of such housing and/or ensure that rents remain affordable. However, the City will not jeopardize
the quality of existing housing and neighborhoods through the siting of subsidized housing.
89425 20
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT
ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS
Existing Land Use
The City of Columbia Heights is nearly fully developed and in the process of undergoing redevelopment.
Therefore, planning for the use of vacant land is not an issue although deciding how built-up areas
should evolve over the next several decades is. This is more a matter of redevelopment planning than
what we normally think of as suburban land use planning. In fact, the challenges and characteristics of
a Columbia Heights are morelike those of a central city than like a developing suburb. This observation
is probably the central point of this comprehensive plan update and epitomizes the differences between
this and previous plans.
The present pattern of land use is illustrated by Figure 1. The great majority of the land area of the
community is devoted to single-family housing, and it is that activity that gives Columbia Heights its
dominant character.
For the most part, the continuous pattern of housing with parks and schools intermixed has produced a
very livable community. The small, older.houses on rectilinear blocks in the western half of the City
present a pleasant, neat appearance. The eastern half of the community boasts newer houses on larger
lots, and in the northeast corner of the city, curvilinear streets and more.pronounced hills.
This pattern of land use, along with the fine quality of the residents and good City facilities and services,
has helped maintain the good condition and value of the housing stock. It is difficult to identify a
residential neighborhood that is in'need of redevelopment or which shows widespread deterioration. The
N9,25 2.1
City should do everything possible to keep.these neighborhoods free from negative influences and to
accentuate their positive attributes.
Constraints to further new development in Columbia Heights include:
• The community is fully developed and surrounded by other municipalities.
• Locations-suitable for commercial or redevelopment have single-family housing.adjacent to them.
• The City of Hilltop, primarily devoted to"mobile-homes, is located along Central Avenue in the
middle of Columbia Heights.
Conflicts in the pattern of land use are:
• Single-family housing is scattered among commercial development along Central Avenue and
along 40th Avenue between University and-Central, to the detriment of both land uses. -
• There is a mixture of residential and commercial activities on University Avenue.
• The single-family neighborhood bordered by 40th Avenue, University Avenue, 37th Avenue, and .
California Street is flanked by two industrial areas without any buffer.
• The housing in the vicinity of Huset Park is affected by the presence of the old, deteriorated
industrial development also nearby.
• Single-family residential areas on 37th and 38th Avenue have unbuffered industrial areas to the
north and west. Huset Park is adjacent 'to this same industrial area.
Redevelopment Opportunities
There seem to be several possible areas where the nature and/or intensity of land development is ripe
for change in Columbia Heights. These possibilities are based on an examination of the general physical
exterior condition of buildings, apparent economic obsolescence, conflicts with.nearby land development
and/or underutilization of the site relative to.access, visibility and adjacent land use.
89425 22
"�-; '&- CITY OF FRIDLEY
C D�l ,':;�-•� ..:, I S x e
CI
Pattern l ol' I and Use HDR 4 tai: r 1= -- -
��1�I ';� r PAI'N,�,�--. / PARK
I I
t1 i li 1 I PARK ••"�� J rnm
HDR dl l ,..I:�
PARK
e HDR i II.ILII..Ii[II.�I II .i`DIRI II II II I�-:: .:.: �I I II LDR
I i I
PCHOOL PARK
�I I IMDR '' //�//O/ SCHOOL i
c-__ .. MINNEAPOLIS
-�„ - [ _ -,< < _ _
1 I `PARK �..,T, CITY OF I MDR LHDR�
HDR J( ._I I_ �� HILLTOP PUBLIC
:a . n
II I I I I HDR LDR Low Density Resideniiai [11 I u Ii_RS IJ1I[EL, — �_�I_�_I _ PARK ,
�MDRj Medium Density Itesidenlia+ II I III
C
HDR
• I —��m= Y
�HDRj Iligh Density Residential I L�UI- HDR r
t.C j Commercial I I LID PARK
n I�
i IRduslrlal PARK HDR 4
-� .: . - MDR-n- .-
f � I IIIIII. ir...._
II J \f H [ll l IJ(_I L II 111LI I�LOR I[��I_I�fJl_I I_IL I I I I HDR PARK
MU n, Ill�,l�I HDR
(_ILJ 1 HDR l PUBIJ`'UIJ�CHOO
CITY OF •��. _1 - - c -Rf-tl-lW c ..
II.' I�l �
FRIDLEY "D•II-�II�1._II_J�ItIl_._i _I .I I---. �f_.L/•�___S PAR
PARK ��(( IIDR: .:��\ \ _. ewr r
J L1l.J c�• J+��\""', A K;..\ LIBRARY C L-_") PARK
r _ Ui- rl-- _ ` h•
I
PAR r `— ^ DR
I_ILI I� L� I :� !� ,.K,ti � �I III HDR•• I
PARKK DR - ( — _ _ — J LDR LDR \ —C
-- - -- - --
PUBLIC. CITY OF MINNEAPOIS --
23 FIGURE I
The potential redevelopment or revitalization areas, shown on Figure 2, include:
• Single-family housing along Central Avenue and non-residential structures along that street that
are economically and/or physically obsolescent (some of these would probably have to be
combined with other commercial sites and/or housing sites in order to make a sufficiently large
parcel)
• The portions of the industrial area in the southwest corner of the city
• Industrial sites west of University Avenue
• Industrial properties along California Street
• Single-family housing in the vicinity of 38th Avenue
• Single-family housing facing University-Avenue (possible consolidation for .redevelopment to
higher density housing)
• Several parcels near the southwest corner of University and 40th Avenues(possible consolidation
for redevelopment to business and/or multiple-family housing)
• The several very large blocks in the southeastern part of the city that are large enough to possibly
accommodate a new local street up the middle.
• The immediate vicinity of'the potential light rail'transit stations along University Avenue.
p.0 24
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Redevelopment and
Revitalization
Possibilities I I N --rr U Sing
I:I II �a 11.�a I �L_I� _II J�._.J�_.= _JAL I Iii �`�+:_/// ;� � �'� .�':..L.,...���,
onversion to high density housing.
0
0
000 0
0
pt!� II II IL.II VIII IL IIll1I111 • - J n I I LMt�+ , � • .-' 1 •a,t. a .
°° � _I I L II;I I.ICI I I I I I � I%� ..:. 1/ .... 3/'� r � � �.._ _
_II�IJI�ILJI�IfI ._� . !;.�� ... MINNEAPOLIS
OF
CITY
I_J( �111
f__I HILLTOPJJ_ _ X.uti
Poiculial lighl rail transit I l�II_I I�(]I] T['11-11-1-1
develtipliteni inIblenceareas commercial redevelopment
fI II ( l 1
0 (C
11(thi,Mill
11 1 Iju __IL :f lt _ml Ill[ll�l_I I_���I_ �I�(l C�(x- 11�- � _ . ___>•�_ _i interest In crealing
( _I :.� interior )I
0 ��__ . . ,•. .::�
11111 I t I_ll_l[�I I __ ,t..+ _ _ _ ���
_I Cllr�fJ I�0 0��l� f�. . L.+. : > .. .; 7
CITY OF l l IL I � I l(I I I I I(.l(l I ll�ICI:l I I ��(I., r, t
FRIDLEY i O 4 11 LI I[-i•
oc O I LInIIdLulslril+l and mm�ncrcinl r. j / r/ �' r\
I_I�JI_fl-JLFI rcdcvclupmL X°,'r. If_ I JIJ1 K.
)\poo
0misolidale properlies for r I
or commercial redevgI ipsucid
X_ t
.1111ily 11111
111111liple-f. Isili•
Incomp; ild r
industrial activities 0 Ill'using rehabili aflon
and infill
Ir LJ
C17 Y OF MINNEAPOLIS
25 FIGURE 2
Major Land Use and Redevelopment Issues
The following are the major issues in the subject area of land use and redevelopment.
• Should the City assist the redevelopment of the southwest industrial -area? How aggressive
should the City be in this endeavor given the fact that the costs could be high and there is the
possibility of acquiring responsibility for toxic waste problems?
Should the southwest industrial area remain exclusively industrial or should commercial and/or
high-density housing be introduced?
• Should the City be involved in further redevelopment along Central Avenue? If so, under what
conditions?
• What should be done by the City, if anything, to help maintain the market attractiveness of the
small housing units?
• Are there any locations in which it might it be appropriate to increase the housing density from
single-family,,detached to some form of multiple-family housing? If so, where. might these
locations be and under what conditions might this be possible?
• What can or should be'done to increase the amount of taxable property in Columbia Heights
given the great number of public, non-taxable sites (e.g., schools, parks, water works).
• Should the City promote the resubdivision of any of the very large blocks with deep parcels that
are located in the southeastern part of the community? (Example: the block bounded by 39th
and 40th Avenues, Hayes and Arthur Streets).
"425 26
LAND USE AND REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
Goals and Policies
Goal: Protect and enhance the residential neighborhoods of the community.
Goal: Improve the commercial viability of the Central Avenue Corridor while protecting
nearby residential neighborhoods.
Goal: Improve the quality of the industrial area.
I. Neighborhood Protection: The City will work to protect the integrity and long-term viability
of its low-density residential neighborhoods and strive to reduce the potential negative effects of
nearby commercial or industrial land development through zoning, site plan reviews and Code
enforcement.
2. Infilling: The infilling of vacant parcels and the rehabilitation of existing development land will
be in accordance with uses specified in the Land Use Plan.
3. Incompatible Land Uses: Incompatible land uses will be improved or removed where possible
and the land reused in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Central Avenue: The City will work to complete the evolution of the Central Avenue Corridor
to commercial activity through land use planning, zoning and, when warranted, private
redevelopment assistance. More municipal control will be exerted over the appearance and
function of commercial areas along Central Avenue.
5. Iligher-Density Mousing: Higher density housing may be allowed in certain locations near
Central Avenue and near the planned light rail transit stations if nearby single-family housing is
protected.
G. Light Rail Transit Stations: If light rail transit stations are scheduled and programmed to be
built along'University Avenue, the City will study the possibility of allowing redevelopment in
09425 2
the immediate vicinity of the stations and establish the private and public features that ought to
be included so as to protect nearby residential areas and promote transit-usage.
7. Water Utility Property: The City will open discussions with the City of Minneapolis about the
possible development of unused portions of the water utility property.
8. Industrial Redevelopment: The City will continue to promote and assist through careful
financial incentives the redevelopment-of the aging industrial area in the southwestern corner of ;
the City to new uses that have high numbers of jobs and substantial capital investment.
9. Wetlands: The City will protect remaining wetlands from further degradation or loss.
Land Use Plan Map
Because Columbia Heights-is a fully-developed community and its pattern of land use is established,
only minor adjustments to that pattern are expected during the next decade or two. The single-family
housing neighborhoods are quite sound and attractive, the'park system is complete, and there are several
nice locations of townhouses or apartments.
However, there are certain locations where land is being utilized at less than its full potential or where
present development is causing problems for its neighbors. Thus, the City's land use and zoning
challenges have to do with allowing or promoting private redevelopment of properties in a manner
consistent with the previously presented Goals and'Policies and the following Land Use Plan Map.
The Land Use Plan Map (Figure 4) illustrates the City's desired pattern of development and includes
these categories:
• Low-Density Residential: One- and two-family housing. Appropriate zoning includes R-1 and
R-2 Districts.
• Medium-Density Residential: Townhouses, four-, six- and eight-family buildings. Appropriate
zoning includes the R-3 District (amended as recommended below).
.�.0 28
IF CITY OF FRIDLEY
'
C III B MDR
F . ................
HDR--
17.7
Land Use 1111111 c
I II I C� fl.l1 ( rl II ICI I� _.I� _ --�a I. I MDR II ,,
r—
LDR - _ . ,� ��� :4'.�r,.r�4 �t,
o um a HDR- LDR
-j I .II L- _L ._ I._7�.I_I I J. ___�U__� I I I \�.. \I b i &-i'g-k
c-
7,11117102111111, L
Comprehensive Plan' c
Updats, l I`�\.�. \\1 Lf'_._„-iH_.�',I II!D
CITY
I t 1 ,....,�,. I . .a ., �. 1 . `_ _ ,
THDR- 41- OF
L_(L U�� -r Jrrl' MDR
65, LDR 11 PU
MPLS W•ER DEPT
C-
Low Density Residential ___ L ; I
GLTI, [III(_I�1 M[I (J�l��_ T E-
r.E.-D Medium Density Residential c-t
I R II I 7
ED lligh Density Residential LDR
hI a Diu L—
LDR
t
r/ _-InuLR��J s C
LDR
Commercial
Industrial
""E” I T T U U U ULJ U UL L J U�
U, •-uwi� I"r 1,1 ....
I'M FF LDR
Park
School ltd.
]I, T Cif T T T T T 1 11 Cam_. _",92, lJ II HEIR
HDR
Potential LIATSIalinn Ill 17
CITY OF -= II T I]
rl FRIDLEY rMDR 6 & . MDR
J ��:
Pu a LDR
MDR
C _ . : ,711
0
LDR
AIR J.1
') , I I :II_i I.I - I I
mcrun 1, Fi
il) Pu HDR
LDR
46 ZI c
I L—c
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
29 FIGURE 3
helpful along Central and University Avenues where commercial development abuts housing.
Many suburban cities in this metropolitan area perform a more detailed and somewhat subjective
site plan review.
Locations of Special Interest
There are several locations that ought to be given special consideration by the Planning Commission and
City Council. They are listed below and shown on Figure 4. Each is significant because it is an area
of transition and change or presents a conflict with nearby development.
1. Main Street
This neighborhood consists of single-family houses with an occasional duplex but has been zoned _
R-3, which would allow townhouses and apartments: There is no apparent reason.to zone this
neighborhood for higher density housing, and the zoning should be revised to R-2.
2. Third Street Neighborhood
On the west side of Third street there are duplexes and on the east side-there are dilapidated
industrial buildings with no landscaping, insufficient off-street parking, and unscreened outdoor
storage. Since it will be very difficult to change the east side to any land use that would be more
compatible with the duplexes, the City should actively enforce regulations pertaining to off-street
parking, outdoor storage, site maintenance, and building maintenance. As redevelopment slowly
occurs, the City should insist upon careful selection of land uses and high-quality site planning.
3. University Avenue Frontage
The east frontage road of University Avenue has several problems. It is a mixture of businesses,
high-density housing, and low-density housing. The businesses are not doing well because,
although they have good visibility.from University Avenue, access is difficult. Only a few of
the businesses are near streets that intersect with University Avenue and those locations still
suffer from the frontage road being too close to University Avenue for easy and safe turns. Tile
housing along University Avenue suffers from the commercial traffic and the poor quality of the
commercial site and building maintenance. The attached housing along this stretch usually has
89425 32
NVra�r. iiiri�iairrraioriiaa�
` Co mprehensi�e Paai , ,
II III i "II' '� �; � i►'
uMir
IIIIIIIII IIII L��
1 _
_
very little setback, open area or landscaping. The single-family housing south of 44th Avenue
is in good condition, however, and is not chopped up by commercial sites. To the east, there is
a stable neighborhood of single-family housing that needs to be protected from the mixture_ of
activities along the frontage road.
Finally, light rail transit stations may be developed some day by the Anoka County Railroad
Authority near 40th, 44th and/or 49th Avenues which could.advers ely affect the neighborhood
to the east if not designed carefully- although the stations could have several benefits to the
community. (Only -two of those three .locations is expected to be selected and plan
implementation does not appear to be imminent.)
Through.its land use plan and zoning map, the City should encourage this area to evolve to a
greater separation between incompatible types of development. As with the Third Street
neighborhood, site design and maintenance standards should be aggressively enforced to protect
the housing to the east.
4. 40th Avenue Corridor
The 40th Avenue corridor is a mixture of housing and businesses, with mostly businesses west
of Washington and mostly housing to the east.. The City has long zoned the corridor for-business
rather than housing because of the level of traffic on_40th Avenue. That plan is sound and the
City should continue with it in order to achieve a long-term evolution to more appropriate land
uses. However, cane should be taken to ensure that the abutting housing, is protected through
proper site planning and design.
5. Huset Park Edge
There is an opportunity to make a significant expansion to Huset Park by acquiring railroad land
that may soon be abandoned along with also buying a single industrial facility. This would allow
better screening of the park from the industrial area south of 39th Avenue. The industrial
buildings-north of 39th east of Jefferson are probably too costly to acquire for park expansion.
RU25 34
6. Industrial Area,
Although the plan prepared in 1988 for the redevelopment of this industrial area was not
economically feasible at that time, the City should continue to pursue opportunities to assist the
industrial redevelopment and upgrading of these sites because this is the only industrial area in
Columbia Heights. A commercial opportunity also exists near the intersection of University and
37th Avenues. "The Housing and Redevelopment Authority must be careful about its liability
when acquiring sites contaminated with toxic wastes.
7. 38th Avenue Neighborhood
During the preparation of the 1988 plan for the adjacent industrial area, it was decided that the
City would attempt to protect and sustain this neighborhood of single=family housing rather than
try to change it to industry. The City has closed off the western end of 38th Avenue and insisted
upon high-quality site planning and maintenance on the nearby industrial sites. Also, this
residential area was rezoned from R-3 down to R-2 to prohibit townhouses and apartments.
8. Van Buren Street Neigliborliood
This pocket of single-family houses among the commercial sites to the east and the church and
schools to the north and west appears to be a candidate for evolution to some form of medium-
density attached housing such as townhouses or four- or sik-unit buildings.
9-11. Central Avenue Redevelopment Areas
Tlie entire Central Avenue corridor is of concern to the City as it forms the major image that
others have of the community, it is a major location of investment, taxes and jobs, and it is used
frequently by residents of Columbia Heights for shopping and travel. Therefore, the City should
follow the recommendations of the Image Plan that refer to Central Avenue, should promote
private redevelopment of underutilized and/or deteriorated sites, should minimize the number of
driveway intersections and should work against the further widening of this roadway to
accommodate increased traffic through the community.
"+z5 35
Locations 9, 10 and 11 on Figure 5 are composed primarily of housing, and the City should allow
and promote their redevelopment to commercial activity. As with other recent commercial
development, good-quality site planning should be expected including proper parking lot setbacks
and landscaping.
12. Minneapolis Water Department Property
If the City of Minneapolis can be convinced that it does not need this property for future water
department facilities, the City should promote its sale- to a private developer for high_value
single-family housing. This site would be ideal for that use because its high elevation gives it
great views, it is heavily wooded, has good access, and has*a wetland on its eastern side to buffer
the outdoor storage-portion of the water department operation.. Access to 47th Avenue NE across
a corner of the High School property might be helpful.
13-15. InGll Development Possibilities
There are several blocks in the southeastern portion of the community that have very deep lots
that could conceivably accommodate a cul-de-sac street with a row of lots .on each side. The
difficulty is in getting a great number of landowners to cooperate on the venture.
V%25 36
TABLE 14
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT ACTION PROGRAM
Coordinate
Action Responsibility Timing Funding with
Revise the Zoning Ordinance P&Z 1992 None needed
CC
Amend the Zoning Map P&Z 1992 None needed
CC
Develop excess Mpls. Water HRA 1992-2000 Assessments City of Mpls.
Dept. property
Promote industrial HRA Ongoing TIF,
redevelopment assessments
Promote Central Avenue HRA Ongoing TIF Public image
redevelopment P&Z improvements
Key: P&Z = Planning and Zoning Commission
CC = City Council
HRA = Housing and Redevelopment Authority
09425 37
TRAFFIC AND TRANSIT SYSTEMS
ANALYSIS Or CONDITIONS
Existing Traffic and Transit
Street System:
North-south movement in Columbia Heights is served principally by State Trunk Highway 65 (Central
Avenue) and 47 (University Avenue), which are classified as Minor Arterials on the Anoka County
highway system and link to I-694 on the north. Both of these are four lane divided roadways.
University Avenue has a rural design with a grassy median and shoulders while Central Avenue has an
urban design with concrete median'and curb-and-gutter. Local north-south streets of importance include
5th and Jefferson Streets and Reservoir and Stinson Boulevards.
East-west movement is handled by County Roads 2 (40th Avenue) and 4 (49th Avenue). Important east-
west streets under the jurisdiction of the City include 37th and 45th Avenues.
The Anoka County Comprehensive Transportation Plan (1990) identified Highway 65 in Columbia
Heights as operating at Level of Service D on a scale of A through F. (Level of Service D means that
many vehicles stop, there is unfavorable progression through traffic signals and vehicles often fail to
make it all the way through a queue at a traffic signal during a red-green-red cycle.) Highway 47
(University Avenue) operates at a Level of Service of C or better.
The County Comprehensive Transportation Plan forecasts that Central Avenue will slip to Level of
Service E or F by 2010 and that University Avenue north of 49th Avenue will fall to Level of Service
D. Consequently, the Plan recommends that both Central Avenue '(TH 65) and University Avenue
#9425 39
(TH 47) be reclassified as Minor Arterial "A". (The Minor Arterials would have two subclasses, A and
B, with A being the higher class.) Additionally, the Plan recommends that both these roads be
transferred from State to County jurisdiction. The Minnesota Department of Transportation previously
planned to widen Central Avenue through Columbia Heights from four lanes to six to accommodate
forecast traffic growth. However, this idea is not included in the Department's 20-year program so it
is not an imminent threat.
County Roads 2 and 4 would remain as Minor Arterials on the County system and 7th Street would
remain as a Collector.
Bus Transit System:
Columbia Heights and Hilltop are served with regular fixed-route bus service by MTC lines 24, 29, 10
and 18 and also by a route of the North Suburban Lines. All of these routes are basically radial, that
is the service is oriented to and from downtown Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota and
service to locations such as Rosedale shopping center is difficult and circuitous. Central and University
Avenues are the primary.routes for these bus services.
Trips within and nearby these two communities are provided the Columbia Heights/Hilltop Share-Ride
Program. Eastside Neighborhood Services, Inc. provides transportation for congregate dining and-
shopping, primarily to seniors who live in their own homes in the Columbia Heights/Hilltop area.
Finally, Metro Mobility pro_ vides dial-a-ride service to the handicapped throughout parts of the
metropolitan area.
Light Rail 'Transit Plans:
The Comprehensive Light Rail Transit (LRT) System Plan for Anoka County identified two alternative
routes through southern.Anoka County between downtown Minneapolis and Northtown Shopping Center,
one along University Avenue and the other along Centr;il Avenue. The Central Avenue alignment was
dropped from consideration during 1990 for reasons of higher capital and operating cost and loss of on-
street parking. Stations have been proposed at four locations in Columbia Heights: 37th, 40th; 44th
and 49th Avenues. At least one of these locations will likely be deleted because they are too close
together for efficient LRT service. As of 1991, there is no identified source for capital and operating
costs for LRT service in Anoka.County or elsewhere in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
89425 40
Traffic and Transit Issues
The following are the major issues in the subject area of traffic and transit.
• What position should the City take regarding the potential need to upgrade Central Avenue in
the future to accommodate increasing traffic?
• Which of the four potential light rail transit stations are favored?
TRAFFIC AND TRANSIT SYSTEM PLAN
Goals and Policies
Goal: Protect residential neighborleoods from unwanted traffic.
Goal: Protect the integrity of the community from further negative effects from the two
major highways that already divide it.
1. The City will monitor whether excessive non-local traffic uses residential streets and, if so,
explore means to minimize it.
2. The City will resist the widening of Central Avenue because that would further divide the
community. Alternative means to move people from Anoka County to downtown Minneapolis,
such as light rail transit, will be promoted.
3. Tlhe City encourage the Anoka County Railroad Authority to construct a light rail transit line,
including stations, as soon as possible to Columbia Heights in order to improve access to other
parts of tlhe7 Metropolitan Area while also relieving pressure on Central and University Avenues.
The City will continue to participate actively in the system planning.
4. The City supports the location of LRT stations in Columbia Heights and will work with the
Railroad Authority on station planning and design.
N942S 41
5. If a light rail transit system is funded for construction through Columbia Heights, the City will
study the station areas to determine whether or not there should be changes in land use nearby
and also to consider public improvements, such as street realignment, street closings, or
sidewalks, that would promote the use of the system.
6. The City will publicize the expected location of the three LRT stations in its community in order
to promote the use of this new travel mode and also to make the general public more aware of
the easy access Columbia Heights will enjoy to and from the central city.
7. The City will work with the Metropolitan Transit Commission to create new or improved bus
waiting stations along new cross-town routes that would serve the planned L•RT system.
8. The City will review major new developments for the inclusion of bus.shelters.and pull-outs if
such sites are along MTC bus routes.
9. The City will continue to do what it can to facilitate transit service by the Columbia Heights/
Hilltop/Fridley Share-a-Ride Program,-Eastside Neighborhood Services, Metro Mobility and the
Anoka County Traveller.
10. The City will continue to design and maintain its roads and to review site plans according to the ,
functional classification system of road illustrated by Figure 6 in order that they serve the needs
of the community and enhance regional efforts to reduce traffic congestion.
I 1: The City will, protect_the function of collector and arterial roads by limiting the number of
driveways or intersections to a number compatible with the function of the roadway. This policy
will be especially important along Central Avenue. The use of shared driveways and the use of
intersecting streets for site access are two ways roads such as Central Avenue can he protected.
12. The City will continue to maintain its local road system to high standards of quality through a
program of regular patching, seal coating and reconstruction.
#9423 42
Physical Plan
The Traffic and Transit System Plan for Columbia Heights includes roads for cars and trucks, a planned
light rail transit (LRT) system line, and bus lines.
No major changes are planned in the roadway system in Columbia Heights since the community's
roadway system is fully developed and no changes are-expected in the land use pattern that would
significantly affect the distribution of vehicle trips.
The plan for roadways illustrated by Figure 5 reflects the functional classification plan of the Anoka
County 2010 Comprehensive Transportation Plan (1990).
The City supports the proposal reflected in the Anoka County Transportation Plan'to transfer jurisdiction
for the portions of University and Central Avenues Columbia Heights to Anoka County from the
Minnesota Department of Transportation.
Figure 5 also shows the proposed -alignment of a light rail transit line that would, if constructed, run
between downtown Minneapolis and Northtown Shopping Center. Three stations(park-and-ride sites)
are being considered in Columbia Heights, although it is expected that one of them will be deleted
during the Preliminary Engineering phase in 1992-1993. If the LRT'system were built, the bus system
lines would be adjusted to bring passengers to the rail stations.
09425 43
CITY OF FRIDLEY
1,10" Syslein Roadwa & v
I•.I II �J II �7 II 17 Irl � I>I� I'I I I �� ��. :� ��I. .��..-.,,. ..,� r,
� U J'/lhAs•enaell III 1 I ,mw. .�1: .ti.N ,r....• ,•.. �� � ({p'/, .,.,.. y,
y
h
Plans
•uir%vny 1)
o I( I I IL I I I I L II �.-._ ...`..... ........
CITY .r.�:1A /�/N,/%/,,' ;.,
MINNEAPOLIS
41
OF � ,� 9 �I�_61.11 �I �l���=_� _�►�� I, ��..��.•�I
�� o I I � �I �I I I L I��' HILLTOP
UI .............
� ; II:I I f F ri;nn I�'J"�lIl I I I II II 1 I I I I d �I I IIII I I I I I I Iu III I L1 I-I 1�:n�p.�II I q, I II:�i r.�I i II� II i I:I I I i ++p p!I I I ' I II
I'I•• If 't L l..�,°•I'_.:Ii�_
451h Avenue
mys
System of 1611111".
Type A
Nlintir Arterial-
Minor Arterial-Type It 4411 'A ve"n I I e
I F�11 11 11 1I
0illuctor Itail'I'l-ansil sy%I4•111
cim— Lighl Rail'Fransil Rollie .4
4;0;
. ..........
CIIY OF
FRIDLEY
C
Al I
or,
I�° I I I\. � (, ,1� :�,•`�'s[r r••x. ;;• I I<,°. ....... ......... ................
L III
7%
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
44 FIGURE 5
i
------- CITY OF FRIDLEY
Municipal State Aid
f r . ■■ ■■ Trrl ■■■■ ■■ u
Street System
1
_ I- --- - 1.
I .• •r I llfnl-__..- ,`,,'is��,ii '�• � .rn,•-p
I 1 1 1 ' r.[r'..'�r I I ......,w CITY Or
1 •i.y,N ,. i '•��� � „ NEW Brll>I1 1 Fxa/
Updaf,l I I II_II 11:11:11: I
III_II�LII II II I I ■ r . CITY 3 r�%;r///✓/���f,/,
I I I I I I I I I I I \�J ,i a +. ■ L_ ■■■ a■■r MINNFAf OUS
• w it nm rae' m.•w I OF �t �.•n• ..r•.w �I
HILLTOP _ _ .a `■ 6A
.■• -
wagon Trunk Ili{h;;ay ■ °.�l
�. Cnunly Slate Aid Ili'h\ra• • 3 y l
. . ............._
■■■so Mi nici lal Slack Aid Slrccl 4 • 4
...... _uua-.':-.-
county Iso•Id �., a II
I_II_l T I I�l f[I[II I_ _►�� ____ ___ _-f, ��/�/�
CI TY OF I l r [J[l I: :I[ 1�J�I(_ll _l[J[ C� � '.. ��n , :y : �% ��� p J .:fp.% a CITY OF
— ,, rn z ul
FRIDLEY c�n c -c ? ; L S L AN f IIO�
it-j! u- IL
a . :rte: , c.� `C 1• /� �:'•
1110■■■■ ■■■■■■■ ■ 0 1 ME Maness
' : LI ��■ I_ ■r■.w.� uovcr n.nn I�I�/�'• L' L \.1
• 1 u'T-__ I 1111L� 11��� /- � t.n \,\I I.
■■■■■ u ■ u ■
In
Ndr
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS
45'. FIGURE 6
PARKS SYSTEM
ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS
The City of Columbia Heights recognizes the importance of a parks system which:
• Contributes to the health and well being of Columbia Heights' citizens.
• Makes it a vital component to the quality of life.
• Play an important role in the development of a sense of community within a neighborhood.
• Adds much needed "green, open spaces" within a typically urban inner-ring suburban setting.
• Allows its citizens various recreational facilities and programs.
Figure 1, Pattern of Land Use, 1991, illustrates the location of the existing parks facilities in the City
of Columbia Heights.
Classification
Table 13 lists park facility classifications which were adapted from the Metropolitan Council's Regional
Recreation Open Snace Develonment Guidc/Policy Plan and will be used in identifying park facility
types throughout this Plan.
89425 47
• i
TABLE 13
PARK SYSTEM CLASSIFICATION
SERVICE SIZE
CLASSIFICATION/DEFINITION AREA RANGE ATTRIBUTES
MINI PARK Less than 1/4 mile Less than 1 acre N/A
Specialized facilities that serve a concentrated
population or specific group such as tots or
senior citizens.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK/PLAYGROUND 1/4-1/2 mile radius 10-25 acres Proximity to elementary
Area for intense recreational activities such as to serve population schools
field games, court games, crafts, apparatus area, of 4-5,000 (neigh-
skating and neighborhood center. borhood)
.COMMUNITY PLAYFWLD 3-5 neighborhoods 25-50 acres Proximity to secondary
Area for intense recreational facilities such as (community) schools and other public
athletic fields and swimming pools. facilities
COMMUNITY PARK 3-5 neighborhoods 25-50 acres Affords natural features
Area of natural or ornamental quality for outdoor (community) with varied physiogeo-
recreation such as walking, viewing, sitting, pic- graphical interests in-
nicking; could have some field and court games. proximity to community
facilities
SPECIAL USE N/A N/A Appropriate to a par-
Area that preserves, maintains and/or provides ticular special feature_
specialized or single purpose recreational activi-
des such as a golf course, museum, zoo, river
access or sites of historic significance.
.. . #9423 - 48
While standards are important when analyzing and evaluating the adequacy of the.'.system, they do not
consider factors such as:
• Age distribution of the service area
• Income '
• Type of housing/density
• Availability and quality of natural amenities
It is important to note that the standards identified should not be accepted as absolute determinants of
park needs, but rather a guide to developing a park and open space system.
Parks Inventory
A total of 195 acres of park and recreational open space now exists in the City of Columbia Heights.
The City owns and maintains a total of 125 acres of parks ranging in size from .26 to 28 acres. Anoka
County maintains the. 15-acre Kordiak Park (counting the lake), and School District #13 has 55 acres
within Columbia Heights. Table 13 identifies the existing park facilities, which include; 3 mini-parks,
8 neighborhood parks, 1 community playGeld, 2 community parks and I special use facility, and 4
school sites.
From the standpoint of total park-area per population, Columbia Height's ranks at the high end of the
scale. The National -Recreation and Park Association guidelines suggests: ". . . that a park system, at
a minimum, be composed of a `core' system of parkland, with a total of 6.25 to 10.5 acres of developed
open space per 1,000 population."
The City currently has a ratio of 6.6 acres per 1,000 people when counting just the City-owned parkland
and 9.5 acres per 1,000 people counting school district open space. This is fortunate since there is no
vacant land within the City should additional parks be required.
While the total amount of park land may be close to sufficient, analysis of population and demographic
data is important when determining park needs. The population has decreased from 23,997 in 1970 to
18,910 in 1990, increasing park space per capita. While this may seem like a positive aspect, it does
09425 49
Table 14
City of Columbia Heights
Parks Inventory
Major Activities
., E c
c
' o
c E
W {U is y .0 o
U
h R u t o Y v, Y V _ = v G h J
Facility Name v a r �' O O C) V m U :Y U i°. p
U < n n a T. w U = _ ` Z s~ i; 02 (n (n � cX 9 F- E- > 3
Edgemoor MP ae
Hilltop
NIP 1 • :_ • •
Southwest Nip s 1 • I 2 • • W • • 0 0`
McKenna NP 11 • I • • • 2
. • : • • • •
Ostrander NP 3 • 2 • _ • • •
Mathaire NP $ • :. • • • • • • • •
Gauvitte NP 16 • • • • • • • •
Keyes h'P 16 • • • • • • •
Prestemon NP s • 7;: • •; • • • 2
..:
Sullivan Lake NP 8 2: • • 2
Silver Lake Beach NP s �. • • • • • • •
Huset cP is 2 • ! • • • • • 4 6.: •
Albert A.Kordiak* CPK 15 • • `� •
LaBelle C?K 20 • 2 • • • • •
Silver Lake Landing sU 1 I • �: I I .
Central Jr.High s 13 • • • • • • • • • •
Columbia Hts.Elem. s 6 • • • • • •
Columbia Hts.High s 31 • • • • • • • • • •
Valley View s s • •
cmw 05.22."se.co,
MP-Mini-Park; NP-Neighborhood Park/Playground; CP-Community Playfield; CPK-Community Park; SU-Special Use;
S-School Site *Anoka County Park Facility
not address other trends which influence park use, such as a decrease in school age children and an
increase in the retired age population. In order to achieve a balanced program for all of its citizens,
Columbia Heights may have to restructure some of the activities within the parks should this trend
continue.
Also, while the geographic distribution of parks throughout the City is basically uniform, the residential
area north of 40th Avenue NE and west of Central Avenue lacks a convenient neighborhood park.
However, a community playfield and a neighborhood park are each within 1/2 mile of the center of this
neighborhood, which is a reasonable maximum distance. In summary, another neighborhood park of 3
to 5 acres would be helpful in the area bounded by 40th, 45th, Central and universities Avenues.
Trails
Currently, the City of Columbia Heights has a very limited trail system. Short, perimeter paths around
the lakes in Sullivan, Kordiak and LaBelle Parks are the only recreational trails within the City.
Park Issues
The following issues have been identified as matters which need resolution by the Comprehensive Plan
for Columbia Heights:
• Do the existing parks provide sufficient_facilities to meet the community's recreation needs?
• Are the existing facilities in each park appropriate for the neighborhood it is located in?
• Should the facilities in the neighborhood parks be modified to accommodate the change in
residential climate?
• Can the City afford to allocate revenue sufficient to upgrade and maintain its current park system?
• What role should local parks play in strengthening the City of Columbia Heights community image`!
09425 51
PARKS, SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS PLAN
Columbia Heights has established a solid park system which has met the needs of its residents well. The
City, however,cannot underestimate the impact of the changing trends in demographics as it affects park
use. The challenge is to effectively provide services and facilities to keep pace with the changing mix
of the population. Close monitoring of facility use and program enrollment as well as public
involvement and feedback is important in determining a need for change. This change.must consider
all segments of the population, with a plan that allows flexibility and versatility.
Goals and Policies
Goal: Maintain and expand the parks and trails systems to continue to function as
important.elements in the quality of life in Columbia Heights.
1. Importance of Parks and Trails: The City will work to create a renewed interest in the minds
of the City decision-'makers that parks and trails are not luxuries, but essential elements of a broader
strategy to promote fiscal strength, private economic growth and quality of life.
2. Maintenance Standards: The City will continue to maintain standards for all parks so as to
provide safe as well as attractive facilities for its residents.
3. Community Image: The City will work to enhance the community image and quality of life of
Columbia Heights through improvements to the park system.
4. Sidewalks and Trails: The City will create a more well defined system of sidewalksitrails
throughout the City, linking major activity areas and all park facilities. The City will develop this
system of sidewalks/trails. as a potential additional City recreational facility.
5. Demographic Changes: The City will monitor the changing trends in population, acquire public
opinion and assess park use so as to maintain an up-to-date but flexible system of activities and
programs.
89425 52
CITY OF FRIDLEY ,
�LIUIII1�illrlll�I q� ar
R rwuww iu ' 6 e
Parks, Sidewalks
& Trails Plan a I _ I �, F�`� / ! �� ;�� J%ML7 "`�
'r. t •
ColumVia a
Comprehensive Plan�
I I LII I I� �I � •,..:;��.a:/%h../ .....� /�9r/Uiw,!nv4 „r.�i r��n�r •l cl-- :-- �
iii i 1r�� .•r u. �% r � I iN•
a
wn urw,w uv✓,.
rl I_IIII CITY .. gx";n
. •Ca. ✓/ //�..</� MINNEAPOLIS O /
• ,m rmd ,w rood nuxm LG•� OF
r u uU — L A i
1 I II�LTIIII LY1
HILLTOP _ _
Parks
Mini-Park if s I ill I ill lfi _ Rf" 11 ��Neighborhood Park/Playground I I'l
-
Q Conununily Playfaeld 1 I ,4
r.. ■cl J )
Q C7nnmuni(y Park [_II_ M -_J L_--
Y1
•y T i'i.•\
Q Special Use
---Neighborhuiad ><Park Search Area .. I I_______._. 1� . .
EM••••• .xisling A s phall•1'ark) I[•'.'l�N_l I ��I J
P,Schunls
Trails IF Houle'Trails(Proposed Asph:dl-I'arkl
Major I:dcslrian City ILE.4 'G J
sxisling walk
l
U _�/ �� ,✓� I Ir
Prnpusxvl
Sidewalk �, III •�•�ii `W� ,��� .�..■:.\ I= �'� � �.. %;/� I .� .��.
SJI? Proposed l.ighl Hail ^.ate —:. -- l�__ - — — -- :• -,116'ate'•
7 1
M
1'ransil Station
-nd Pork Into
Y Ab■,Won RIN N.ILW, gnd¢r vwn•
A Aqulrr L•ndL �/ j/ j ,••r
53 FIGURE 7
. 1
Park System Improvements
Figure b illustrates existing parks, sidewalks and trails, and identifies proposed major improvements.
In addition,Columbia Heights will implement the following list of detailed improvements to its existing
park system:
• New Mini-Park: Investigate the need for an additional neighborhood park of 3 to 5 acres in the
residential area north of 40th Avenue NE and west of Central Avenue: The Jackson Pond site
should be considered.
Hilltop and Edgemoor Park: The mini-parks of Hilltop and Edgemoor are designed for small
child play, but are located on narrow sites near intersections. Consider the use of fences and
barriers, along with dense landscaping, for increasing their protection from traffic.
• Trees: Increase the quantity of overstory trees.in all City parks to create more sheltered "green,
open spaces" for refuge and recreation.
• Parking: Investigate the current parking needs, with the intent of decreasing .the amount of
bituminous in the parking lots of Silver Lake Beach and Huset Park by installing landscaped '
islands.
• Iluset Park Plan: Develop a plan which combines fragmented Huset Park to form a unified,
community playfield.
• Huset Park Property: Acquire additional land and the abandoned railroad right-of-way south of
Huset Park. .Evaluate the needs and develop this additional park space.
Huset Park Trail: Install a continuous, perimeter trail in Huset Park.
• Huset Park Fence: Install fence and/or heavy landscape screening on the south side of Huset Park
to screen views and noise of the adjacent industrial area.
W,2S 54
• Sidewalk System: Establish a major pedestrian sidewalk system throughout the City. Consider
special paving, route naming, signage and variable distance alternatives when designing this special
recreational facility.
• LaBelle Park: Construct a support building/warming but at LaBelle Park.
• Handicapped Access: Ensure all park facilities are accessible to the handicapped, as well as
providing facilities for residents with special needs/handicaps.
• Sullivan Lake: Improve the water quality and appearance of Sullivan Lake, Hart Lake, Silver
Lake, Highland Park and LaBelle Pond.
• Updated Activities: Investigate the use of updated recreational activities which could include:
- rollerblading/skateboarding facilities
- fitness trails with exercise apparatus
- modular playground apparatus
- variable length and surfaced walking/bicycle trails
• Signage: Incorporate a system of graphics, signage and landscaping to visually unify the park
system.
"425 55
TABLE 15
PARKS ACTION PLAN
ACIION RESPONSIBILI7T TIMING FUNDING COORDINA'T'E W1TI1:
Develop at a minimum, a City- Planner, PRC, PD 1992-2000 GF. Land Use Plan
wide trail system also functioning
as a recreation facility.
Monitor public use and opinion for PRC,PD Ongoing None
updating park facilities.
Investigate need for mini-park PRC,Planner, PD 1993-1995 None Land Use Plan
north of Constitution and west of
Central Avenues.
Increase overs(ory tree landscaping Planner, PD 1992-1995 GF Community Image Plan
in parks.
Install landscape islands in park Planner, PD 1992-1995 GF Community Image Plan
parking lots.
Acquire adjacent land for Iluset Planner, PD 1992-1995 Land Use Plan
Park Expansion.
Develop plan for unifying Iluset Planner, PD, PRC 1992-1995 GF Multi-use
Park. Redevelopment Plan of
10/88
Install a perimeter trail at Iluset Planner, PE, PRC 1992-1993
Park.
Upgrade playground equipment. PD, PRC Ongoing GF
Install a warming but at LaBelle PD, PRC 1993-1994
Park.
Install screening at Iluset Park. 1-1), I.RC 1992-1995 "Multi-usn
Rulevclupment Plan of
10/88
Provide handicapped accessible PD, PRC Ongoing GF
facilities.
.��zs 56
TABLE 15
PARKS ACTION PLAN
(CONTINUED)
AMION RESPONSIBILI'lT '11MING FUNDING CM11DINA111 WI'111:
111ciIIINg1110 xyx14,111 III g11111b1Cx 111111 1'111111101, PD. PRI' 1992 1991 1111 1'uuuuun11y Inulgo 1'11111 .,
111111114cuping lu vixuldly unify 1110 1 11goiug I towulowu 1'11111
park system.
Upgrade park maintenance PD. PRC 19.92-1993 None Public Works
standards.
PRC =Parks and Recreation Commission .
PD =Parks Director(Director of Public Works)
TIF =Tax Increment Financing
GF =General Fund
SA =Special Assessments
EDP = Economic Development Fund
89425 57
COMMUNITY IMAGE
ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS
The City of Columbia Heights, like many neighboring communities, would benefit from better definition
of its edges and entryways as well as a better sense of a downtown or city core. With major entrances
to the City not clearly marked, Columbia Heights seemingly becomes an extension of the Cities of
Minneapolis to the south, and Fridley to the north. This lack of identification, along with lack of a
distinct physical personality, influences residents' as well as outsiders' perceptions of the City as a
whole. These perceptions can form lasting impressions of the City's dedication to appearance, services
and quality of life. Figure 7 indicates the location of major issues affecting image.
Strengths and Weaknesses
The following are strengths and weaknesses of the existing community image of Columbia Heights.
Strengths
• Well-maintained residential neighborhoods, and an evident commitment to cleanliness and order.
• Variety in neighborhood character.
• Available recreational facilities provided at I-Iuset Park.
• Many tree-lined streets such as Reservoir Boulevard, Tyler and Polk Streets. Also, new
decorative lights along many streets.
19425 59
• Quiet, natural setting of Kordiak Park.
• A strong downtown retail community with sufficient off-street parking and a number of attractive '
new or rehabilitated buildings.
• Several attractive new multiple-family housing developments such as LaBelle,University Heights
and Sullivan Shores.
Weaknesses
• A fragmented "downtown" or core area.
• The division of the City by the dominant commercial strip of Central Avenue.
• The division of the City by University Avenue.
• Lack of identification and entry announcement to the City.
• Confusion created by the location of the mobile home community of Hilltop within the center
of Columbia Heights. '
• Heavy industrial area and railroad yards to the west of the City.
• Lack of landscaping elements to screen view of large parking areas along Central Avenue.
• Heavy traffic volumes- through the City on Central and University Avenues.
• Lack of a clear. "path-finding" system.
• Unscreened industry adjacent to 1-luset Park.
"425 60
tit-a-..-� ��....� 1�.,.-.�_ _........ o-... ., i_....,o .. _... _ .,�.: _. . .. _... ..,,.�.....� ._•.,. ... _.: ... r
--
�{y-, CITY OF fRIDLEY
ID
❑ r/ ...[ \\yid[ .,/ � _ � _ t
C0111lllllllllty Image ❑s F tl -- t i J , \� `P II
llrucli%e large IIIIIIICR 1•"�'�"�I:,���`:` '-IGIM�'
❑, I I I ll I I I I I ll I I_ I I J[1111 II I F_�_�--►I r �� - �—�� ,oq,._P
1 1 1 ' ❑I II���II°I 111"11 --1I__I I-_—I r" - �p•�n�-�,�, - - ..o.nl.
I I 1 �I ietcs and noise of bray Iraflic "'•Y/ '••/ -- `;" I -. ~ `
Y f'iineu•�//•ti"D r / /Nfi7A!/ 7///7///'
volumes of llniversil Avenue ...6'i o•rol. wm"I _
, j /r
❑ 1 111 I II 11 II 1 L. 1 I_ i 1. '//��u. ./ / �/r c�
1 �///r//rte// ��//�.� P.M vt - .
1cF:
1 � ❑ I ;�,;�..�. - ;� ...^.c7. ,%//,.////%/%/,////�//.�///q� !�000000000
1-�__ -'I r,, a
I I_J I IIII .II 1 .�....., —► CITY
L1
�__ MINNEAPOLIS
m .n I.m u. \IIMIII O I l OF
L----IJ`'il c,vs or crowded mobile= IT 1 f l I 0
htiwe ctinunwtity
"I'' HILLTOP A
O n o oO
0 U a
F II IN"II.F•1i 1.1 1l FI II 1:1 11 I:I I W I I:1 ••I• ••�. - - - - -li'1 •--
Mujor residential district-Small,tilde
Major culr%-Iack major I uu1-r.[- VeRelet4m/fencfnR• I
illcntil'icalinu/culry slalemctrl homes ore the inra a of the community
¢ 1 y pl to screen views
I .I
Ili
11.1 I II I I JI11�Ll;LJI_lilJlJ�lu ' n Central Avenue-Heavy commercial strip r J- /
- _ cuts wide swulb Ihru city.
IIII 1 I�II'I heavy traffic volumes minimal .�
Non-ccnlraliecJ ,I 0 cccd,fenced
drainage basin _—_ir landscaping/screening of 1
O giltcrmotcnt facilities lul uuatlractivc a „ large parking areas / II
I11.1111.If_j U L___ a 1�l-
;I 111'li i I-ir1 X111 nn 1111 In ri g is
Major view's Views of adjacent ❑ True Ctilumbla Ilel hts
heavy industrial area/ llnivcrsil _Avenue-Wlde roadwa corrldtir - "Ih.wnluwn(.'tire"
railroad•vnrd 1 I 1 —'y --— Y I Some streetscaping,
II I I I ."cols-ol1 a portion of the city 1.IJ J J/
^ I
�t�� _ `_furniture locksldentily._ - .i
III lI W-�I I I�I� i in ni i f nt
(y m_ xlilulfynAvc Main - 1
'I II t.. ❑ Il ISccondnr Utiwnlown 111u1n Slrcel:
CITY Of ,,,^, ❑ 11 Acttess to must chy facilities r _ L Sir
FRIDLEY ,1 H• / r [\\I �:
�❑ i t
I❑ �•.\ I �:.c'•` '-�"",7' � Attractive Irer lined sU'vels
to :r \ ''��ti1.•'� \\.. /j /w' �~
1.11 1�'ll I �I l. �� ,.. ;:; :' � '1'- �� .r• '_ . [ ,
industrial uses of s u l/ Illy park and
induslrirl area.No visual/noise battlers.
Retracts from park.I.1: I .I JI _
_ e-ludustrial Uislrlcl i •�[u.n t\
CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS„II
61 FIGURE R
Community Imagelssues
• Is the City satisfied with its current physical appearance?
• Flow should the entrances to Columbia Heights be more clearly announced?
• How should the City do to create a more unified system of municipal facilities?
• Should the City's zoning=and site planning regulations be amended to enhance the City's physical
appearance?
- Screening of park and loading areas
- Building renovation architectural design review
- Protection of existing vegetation
• What should the City do, if anything, to form a stronger image of a central focal point for the
community?
• What should the role of the City be in improving the image of Central Avenue?
What role should Huset Park play in projecting a positive image of the community? If so
adopted, how:should Huset"Park be changed to work toward that goal.
0425 62
COMMUNITY IMAGE PLAN
The following policies and practices will be observed in order to address the problems and opportunities
of community image in Columbia Heights.
• Overall Effort: The City will make a conscious effort to improve its image'to both residents and
visitors. An overall rehabilitation of elements within the City's control should be undertaken to
convey the ideals of a dedication to appearance.
• Entrances: Entrances to the City will be identified by the use of artfully designed entrance
signage.
• Commercial and Industrial Sites: The City will develop stricter performance standards for the
redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial sites, to include:
- Screening of parking lots and loading facilities by the use of plantings and earth berms.
- Establishment,of a minimum percent of landscaped islands within parking lots.
- Architectural renovation design review.
- Compatible facility signage.
• Central Avenue: The City will work to improve the appearance of Central Avenue by
incorporating a plan for landscaping the roadway edges.
• University Avenue: The City will work to increase the amount of landscape screening of
University Avenue to provide for visual and sound filtering.
• Hilltop: The City will attempt to resolve the issue of the negative visual appearance of Hilltop
mobile home community.
• City Facilities: The City will incorporate a system of architectural improvements, signage and
landscaping to visually unify the various City facilities.
• Downtown: The City will work to improve the image of downtown.
19423 63
TABLE 16
COMMUNITY IMAGE ACTION PLAN
ACTION RESPONSIBILITY TIMING FUNDING COORDINATE VIMP
Develop stricter site planning_ Planner Ongoing None Land Use Plan
standards for all new and
redeveloped commercial,industrial
and multiple-family residential
developments.
Identify entrances to City. Planner 1992-1995 GP Downtown Plan
Downtown and neighborhoods with
signage.
Improve appearance of Central Planner 1992-2000 TIF,GF, EDF Transportation Plan,
Avenue. Mn/DOT
Increase landscape screening of Planner 1992-1995 TIF,GF, EDF Transportation Plan,
University Avenue. Mn/DOT
Develop a system of graphics of Planner 1992-1995 GF,IIRA
building improvements to unify
City facilities.
Improve image and identity of Planner 1992-2000 -GF,EDF,IIRA Downtown Plan
Downtown.
Develop a sense of identity which Planner/Dir. of CD -1992-2000 EDF,IIRA Land Use Plan
distinguishes Columbia Heights Ongoing Downtown Plan
from adjacent communities.
PC = Planning Commission
CC =City Council.
IIRA =Columbia I[eights Ilousing and Redevelopment Authority
Dir of CD = Director of Community Ihwelopment
'fill =Tna Increment Financing
(II1 _General (fund .
ED11 = Economic Development Ivmd
69425 64
4r...... 1..:.......n ..M....i .......—... .n....r. 1.-....... LJ�a.... 1.i.v—...ry �....... ._ .__.r .-.....-r .,_,....r —....-.Y
�.. • .. ... ... r.
UTILITY SYSTEMS
ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS
Sanitary Sewer System
The City of Columbia Heights is almost completely served by an existing sanitary sewer collection
system. The. system includes approximately 318,000 linear feet of sewer mains ranging in size from 6-
inches to 33-inches in diameter. The City of Hilltop which• is located within the City of Columbia
Heights is also served by the collection system.
A majority of the sanitary sewers function under gravity flow; however, the collection system does
include four lift stations. The lift stations are located in the northern and eastern portions of the City
in areas where the existing topography does not allow gravity flow.
In the past, the sanitary sewer system has experienced problems including sags, roots and grease
buildups. These problems reduce the hydraulic capacity of the sewer system and limit the ability of the
system to adequately serve the City.
There are no waste water treatment facilities in the Columbia Heights and Hilltop area. Waste water
is collected by City systems,discharged to the Minneapolis and Fridley systems,and is ultimately treated
at the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) treatment plant at Pig's Eye Lake in St. Paul.
Waste water is discharged to the Minneapolis system at four locations and the Fridley system at one
location. The MWCC meters discharges at three of these outlet points, while the remaining two are not
metered due to their limited sewage flows.
09425 65
City and presents alternative water distribution system improvements to correct these problems. The City
1
has completed some of the improvements recommended by this report.
Water.System Issues
System Maintenance
• Does the City of Columbia Heights have the necessary funding to establish a monitoring,
evaluation and rehabilitation program for its existing distribution system? The age and history
of the system suggest that rehabilitation of the system may be economical considering past
maintenance requirements and main breakage.
System Improvements
• Based on the findings and recommendations of the Water:System Analysis report, what
distribution system improvements should be performed? Has a schedule for future water system
improvements been developed based on the priority of the recommended improvements and the
availability of funding?
Surface Water Drainage System '
Surface water drainage for the City of Columbia l leights is provided by an extensive storm sewer system
that-generally discharges to the Mississippi River and Rice Creek. The. existing system consists of
approximately 35 miles of gravity flow storm sewer pipe ranging in size from 8-inches to 96-inches in
diameter.
Eight lakes and ponds within the City collect storm water and serve as detention areas which reduce
peak flows in the storm sewer system. These lakes and ponds are as follows:
• Sullivan Lake
• Jackson Pond
• Clover Pond`
• llighland Lake
w.25 68
1
• Columbia HeighW17 idley Secondary Pond
• Silver Lake
• Labelle Pond
• Hart Lake
Sullivan Lake, Jackson Pond, Clover Pond and Labelle Pond all eventually discharge to the Mississippi
River. Silver Lake and Hart Lake discharge to Rice Creek. Highland Lake and the Columbia
Heights/Fridley Secondary Pond discharge to the landlocked Tertiary Pond in Fridley. Sullivan Lake,
Clover Pond, Highland Lake, Silver Lake and Labelle Pond are all Minnesota DNR designated protected
waters.
The City of Columbia Heights is located within both the Six Cities and Rice Creek Watershed Districts.
These water_management organizations (WMO's) were created for the purpose of preparing water
management plans to meet the requirements of the Metropolitan Water Management Act (Chapter 509,
Laws of 1982, Minnesota Statutes Sections 473.875 to 473.883). The WMO's and the water
management plans,in general, have the responsibility for the conservation of water and natural resources,
the prevention and alleviation of flood damage, and the regulation of creeks, lakes and water courses for
domestic, recreational and public uses across municipal boundaries.
BRW, Inc., is currently in the process of preparing a Surface Water Management plan for the City of
Columbia Heights. The Surface Water Plan will review and analyze the existing surface water drainage
system,determine current or potential system deficiencies and provide recommendations to accommodate
the City's water resources goals.
"425 69
UTILITIES PLAN
The water and sanitary sewer systems for the City of Columbia Heights is complete. The policy
decisions which the City must make will be-aimed at maintaining the existing systems and not towards
the need to serve any new development. The purpose of this section is, therefore, to promote the
maintenance and care of the existing sanitary sewer system to ensure that it continues to serve the
residents of Columbia Heights and Hilltop.
Goals and Policies
Goal: Maintain a high quality and reliable system of water distribution.
Goal: Maintain the existing sanitary sewer system for economical.service over the long
term.
1. System Monitoring: The City will implement an evaluation and -rehabilitation program to
continually monitor the water distribution facilities within the community.
2. Schedule of Water System improvements: The City will implement a schedule for the
performance of water system improvements as recommended by the Water System Analysis
report.
3. Sanitary Sewer System Cleaning and Maintenance: The City will implement a sewer cleaning
and maintenance program including the annual inspection of sewer mains and the performance
of cleaning and maintenance procedures as necessary.
4. Elimination.of Unwanted Sewer Inflow: The City will enforce the ordinances to eliminate
current and 'future clear water connections (rain leaders, :sump pumps, etc.) to the collection
system.
5. Reduction of Sewer Infiltration: The City will perforin periodic monitoring of the sanitary
sewer collection system to determine areas of suspected infiltration. Where infiltration is found
to be excessive, remedial measures shall be undertaken to reduce infiltration to acceptable levels.
"425 70
. . . .
CITY OF FRIDLEY
Sanitary Sewer Districts, P I
Interceptors, and
Inter -Community L L 1-11 1z;7 rr
I gm
Connections jNi
Columbia hehgkm,
CITY OF
Comprehensive Plaii
NEwBRIom
Updatt
or"i fn ITY
MINNEA
OF OLIS
P F1 HILLTOP
~~~~~
Sewer°~ir icl 0 –_
~~~~
Nfelropolilan Sewer Interceptor
Inter-Communily Connection
mxmmmp F mu 11 [�I�1111 Idi-M Ifid-I I I-
Oil
11 11 H H H T[I P
un, F U CITY OF
nn�c, n sz ^m/oow't[JIL
' U
10
— -------------------lK-----------------------------------------
71 FIGURE 9
APPENDIX A: ISSUES IDENTIFICATION AND RANKING
A meeting was called of all members of the Columbia Heights City Council, Planning and Zoning
Commission, Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Parks Commission and Traffic Commission on the
evening of April 29, 1991, to begin the process of identifying and ranking issues facing the community.
The results of the meeting were to be used to help the City officials understand and frame the questions
that the updated comprehensive plan would address.
Methodology
The planning consultant greeted the 15 members in attendance and explained the purpose and procedure
for the evening along with an overview of the process for updating the comprehensive plan. The
participants were seated in mixed fashion at two tables and worked through the following steps:
1. Each person silently and individually listed as many ideas as he or she could think of in response
to this question:
Regarding city planning and development, what are the chief problems, issues or challenges
facing the City of Columbia Heights over the next twenty years, in your opinion?
2. With a staff person acting as the recorder for each group, ideas were solicited from the participants
in serial fashion, one idea from each person, until all the ideas had been written on sheets on the
wall. No-criticism on any idea was allowed.
3. The recorder helped make sure the group understood each idea. Duplicate ideas were combined
with the permission of the people who named them.
89425 A-1
4. Using one card for each issue, each participant wrote down what he or she believed to be the top
four issues from those that his or her group listed on the wall. The votes were weighted and
tabulated with the top-ranked issue receiving the most weight. The results of the voting were
marked on the recording sheets.
5. The group then discussed the outcome of the process.
]Results
The list of issues and the order in which they were ranked reflects the nature of Columbia Heights: an
established, fully-developed, suburban community with an aging population and a slightly deteriorating
stock of residential and commercial or industrial buildings. The issues did not reflect the concerns that
might be found in a developing suburb nor those of an older central city. The'unedited results from the
two groups at the issues identification session are listed below including the top-ranked items and all
other issues nominated.
Summary of Issues
The outcomes from the two groups can be furt her classified and bundled under the following topic
headings. (Some elaboration has been provided by the planning consultant.) '
Housing and Population
I-low has the demoigraphic profile of Columbia Heights changed locally and across the Twin
Cities Metropolitan Area in recent decades and how will it change further in the next two
decades: number` of people, number of households, age, household composition, family
composition, income, race,ethnicity, gender split? How does Columbia.Hcights compare with
other cities regarding such demographic shifts?
O How have or will these changes affect the housing market and the demand for municipal
services and facilities in Columbia Heights? How have or will such changes affect
occupancies, values, ownership, maintenance and new development of housing in Columbia
Heights?
19,25 A-2
• Should special provisions be made by the City for the sizable elderly population.in Columbia
Heights which is expected to become greater in size? If so, what is the range of housing
options for the elderly? Are there non-physical programs for the elderly that bear upon their
housing choices?
• Does a changed population need different'parks and recreation ,programs?
• What response should the City make to such demographic changes? Can the City learn to
function as a multi-cultural community?
• What should be the City's response to existing physical deterioration of the housing stock?
• Are any neighborhoods becoming obsolescent and noncompetitive in the housing market? If
so, what are the causes and how can they be remedied?
• How can the local housing market be affected by the City's response to related factors such
as parks, crime prevention, police, street alignment and width, streets maintenance, city image
and identity, transit (including light rail transit) and social programs?
• What other changes or challenges can be expected to occur as a result of demographic changes
in Columbia Heights?
• Can Columbia Heights use these demographic changes to its advantage based upon its location,
housing stock or other features?
Finance and Services
• What would be a realistic assessment of the fiscal health of Columbia Heights now and in the
foreseeable future? Is this information crucial to making decisions relative to the
comprehensive plan?
19425 A-3
• Should the City continue to provide the same level of services, facilities, street and utility
maintenance, etc., as it has in the past given the reductions in state and federal financial
assistance, a stable or only slowly growing tax base and the increasing needs of an aging
infrastructure?
• If the answer to the first issue is affirmative, how can the City do so?
• Are there creative and novel approaches to this problem that can make a significant difference?
• How can the tax base be-expanded? How can the value of certain existing properties be
stabilized?
• How can new businesses be recruited and/or aging business or industrial areas redeveloped to
increase the tax base and provide more jobs?
• What can. be done locally about increasing problems with crime and illegal drug use?
• Should there be a plan for improving each park, and,.if so, of what should those improvements
consist?
Governance
• Are citizens sufficiently involved in and informed about City issues, problems and
opportunities?
• Is there sufficient feedback from the citizenry to the elected and appointed officials?
• How can citizens become more involved in the preparation and revision of the comprehensive
plan and other city'plans, policies programs or projects?
• Should Columbia Heights explore sharing services or facilities with other units of government
for sake of economy? The same goes for the school district? Should an attempt be made to
annex Hilltop?
.v.zs A-4
iLI...w� 1�:..::J �r..rn.d �........ u_..._ V.: ...... 1:....... ...... .i. .`..... ... .. .. . ....J ..._ _ _.... ....
.- 1 . .... .. .. .i
• Can volunteers, particularly the retired, be used more effectively to shave costs from
programs?
Identity and Image
• Are there problems with the image and identity of the City? if so, to what extent are they
physical problems versus image problems not directly connected to the built environment`!
• Are these problems within the realm of the City to change?
• Would an improved City image help solve other problems, such as housing maintenance?
Lake Water Quality
• What can be done to improve the water quality in the City's lakes?
• What might be the cost of each increment of water quality improvement?
• Are there ancillary benefits to improving lake water quality?
Planning and Design
• Should there be structural changes in the pattern of land use in Columbia Heights?
• Is the physical form of Columbia Heights becoming too much like that of a central city'!
• If light rail transit comes through Columbia Heights, what should be its alignment? Should
parts of neighborhoods be replanned to take advantage of it?
What is the desired density of housing in the various neighborhoods of the city?
• Do current traffic patterns and street designs negatively affect residential neighborhoods?
• How can sidewalks and bicycle paths be improved? How should such facilities be financed?
89425 A-5
Group Outcomes
The issues ranked highest by the two working groups were as follows: '
.Top Issues -- Group 1:
1. What should be the City's response to the need for greater housing maintenance?
2. What should be the City's response to the aging of the streets and utilities?
3. How can citizens become more involved in the formulation of the comprehensive plan update?
4. (Tie) What should be done about the number of vacant commercial and industrial buildings?
(Tie) How can City services be financed with declining assistance from state and federal
sources?
5. What should be dorie in response to the declining physical quality of the residential and non-
residential building stock in Columbia Heights?
6. What is the feasibility of sharing or consolidating City services with other municipalities?
7. What should be dome in response to the declining financial health of the City?
Top Issues -- Group 2:
1. There is a need to attract and retain businesses.
2. Flow to maintain and upgrade the City's infrastructure?
3. (Tie) How to generate a solid tax base?
(Tie) How can the quality of lakes be improved?
99425 A-6
(Tic) There is a need for a better balance in the types of uses to which land is put in Columbia
Heights.
4. There is a need to rejuvenate the old housing stock.
5. There is a need to educate the local population about City problems now and in the future.
. 6. How can the percentage of the housing stock occupied on a rental basis be reduced in favor
of owner-occupancy?
7. How should the parks be redesigned to serve the changing demographic composition of
Columbia Heights?
8. How can the image and identity of the community be improved?
9. Should more service charges be used?
Other issues that were nominated included:
GROUP 1:
• How can the industrial area of the City be redeveloped?
• How can or should the elderly be adequately housed and what is the City's role in this issue?
• What should be'the role of the City in responding to the potential of LRT stations in Columbia
Heights?
• The decline of the City's population is a problem.
• Off-street parking is insufficient.
There are insufficient incentives for attracting new businesses.
"425 A-7
1
• What should be the City's response to substandard housing, improvement, replacement or removal?
• Should the school district be consolidated with another?
• How can the quality of the lakes be improved?
• How can diverse recreation services and facilities be better provided for the population?
• How can City information to citizens be improved?
• There is a need for more sidewalks and bicycle paths.
• Traffic patterns and traffic flow are inadequate in some instances.
• Should the City be involved in any way in health programs?
• Can volunteers he used to assist the City in providing_services'!
• Can more efficient use be made of existing City buildings and facilities?
• What should be done about the increasing crime and drug problem?
• How can the entrances to the City be made more attractive?
• How should City services, be adjusted to respond to changing demographics?
GROUP 2:
• I
There is a need to develop a blueprint of the existing business and industry in Columbia Heights
• How can security be improved in parks and other public facilities?
• What should be the policy for the desired density of housing development?
.via A-8
How can the skills of retired people be used in volunteer positions?
How can public transit be improved?
How can or should park facilities be improved?
Should school districts and City services be consolidated?
How can residents become more involved in park and recreation programs?
How can hometown businesses be promoted?
Should Hilltop be annexed to Columbia Heights?
9%25 A-9
APPENDIX B: COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
On September 2, 1991, a Community Opinion Survey, an-orange colored insert in the City of Columbia
Heights Newsletter, was sent to the residents of Columbia Heights. As of October 8th,.895 (11%) of
the 8,150 surveys sent out had been returned. Note: For a target group in excess of 4,000, a sample
size of 384 is the minimum number of surveys required for a valid statistical analysis.
Summary
A majority of residents, who responded to the survey, feel that their own neighborhood is a good place
to live and raise children, crime is not a serious problem, and that Columbia Heights has a very good
quality of life and a strong sense of community. However, many residents think that the quality of life
has not improved during the last decade and that Columbia Heights needs to improve its image,
especially deteriorating commercial/ industrial buildings and housing--96 percent support enforcement
of regulations that would require owners to properly maintain houses or apartments.
Most citizens are generally satisfied with the City's services and facilities and feel they are worth the
taxes they pay. Eighty percent of the residents feel more jobs are in needed in Columbia Heights and
that the City should spend more money on attracting new businesses, redeveloping deteriorated
commercial buildings and renovating housing.
0425 B-1
The following text is a preliminary analysis of the survey. The questions in the survey cover four
general categories: (1) Economic Developme.nt/Redevelopment; (2) City Image; (3) Housing; and (4)
City Government and Services. The discussion is organized into these four general areas.
Image
• 76 percent agree that their own neighborhood is a very good place to live (#5).
• 56 percent disagree that crime is a serious problem in their own neighborhood (#6).
• 54 percent agree that major entrances to the city should be made more attractive (#8).
• 88 percent agree that the appearance of most new commercial developments in the city
are acceptable (#9).
• 69 percent agree there is a strong sense of community in Columbia Heights #10).
• 74 percent agree the quality of life in Columbia Heights is very good (#11).
• 58 percent disagree that people who do not live
in Columbia Heights think highly of it
as a place to live (#13).
• 74 percent agree Columbia Heights is a very good place to raise children (#17).
• 69 percent disagree that the quality of life in Columbia heights has improved in the last
ten years (#19).
• 58 percent support more landscaping along major streets (#23).
r� 2s B-2
4
L
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
September 2,1991 `
Dear Columbia Heights Resident, t
Please help us improve your community and provide the services and facilities that you desire. We ask that you complete
_ and return this community opinion survey and make your views known_All responses will be completely anonymous and
only numerical summaries will be published.
Thank you very much for your help.
Sincerely,
Edward M.Carlson Sean Clerkin Bruce Nawrocki Gary Peterson Robert Ruettimann
Mayor Council Member Council Member Council Member Council Member
1. For each question,please circle the number on the right that indicates your opinion.
Strongly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree
56 go 96 96
1. More jobs are needed in Columbia Heights. 29 51 17 2
2. Residents are well-informed about City government activities
and issues. 5 48 38 8
3. The City should put more money into attracting new businesses. 21 43 31 6
4. The condition of housing in your neighborhood is a problem. 22 21 44 13
5. Your neighborhood is a very good place to live. 21 55 19 5
6. Crime is a serious problem in your neighborhood. 13 31 50 6
7. Local officials are sufficiently accountable and responsive. 8 56 28 8
8. Major entrances to the City should be made more attractive. 12 42 40 6
9. The appearance of most new commercial developments in
Columbia Heights is acceptable. 8 80 9 2
10. There is a strong sense of community in Columbia Heights. 12 57 27 4
11. Quality of life in Columbia Heights is very good. 12 62 22 5
12. The services and facilities provided by the City are worth the
taxes that residents pay. 10 60 22 8
13. People who do not live in Columbia Heights think highly of
it as a place to live 5 36 47 11
14. There should be more publicly-assisted housing for the elderly
in Columbia Heights. 10 36 43 10
15. Huset Park should be enlarged and improved. 9 24 51 16
16. Water quality in the lakes is adequate. 3 51 34 12
17. Columbia Heights is'a very good place to raise children. 10 64 19 6
18. City government is doing a good job of preparing Columbia
Heights for the future. 3 41 43 13
19. Quality of life in Columbia Heights has improved in the last
ten years. 4 27 41 28
2.We would like to know if you support or oppose each of the following ideas.
(Please circle one answer for each idea.) `
Strongly S trongly
Support Support Oppose Oppose
20. More Citv-assisted redevelopment of deteriorating % % % %
industrial and commercial areas. 18 48 26 9
21. More City assistance with renovation of deteriorating housing. 24 40 27 8
22. Enforcement of regulations that would require owners to
properly maintain houses or apartments. 66 30 3 1
23. More landscaping along the major streets. 16 42 37 5
24. Increased housing density near future light rail transit(LRT). 3 23 53 21
25. Construction of a-light rail transit(LRT)line through the city. 11 31 32 26
26. Better City services even if it increased local property taxes and fees. 5 30 44 21
Strongly Strongly
Support Support Oppose Oppose
27. More redevelopment along Central,Avenue. l5 45 32 8
28. Maintaining the current level of City services and facilities
even if it increased local property taxes or fees a little. 10 59 23 8
29. Part of the cost of rebuilding any neighborhood street should
be paid by all taxpayers. 14 37 32 18
3. Please rate each of the following City services or facilities. I am willing to pay more to
(Cirde one answer for each service or facility.) improve this service.
(Check One)
Don't
Good Fair Poor Know Yes No
30. Police services. 68 21 6 4 55 J 45
31. Fue protection. 77 9. 1 13 50 50
32. Emergency medical services. 75 11 1 14 50 50
33. Surface water drainage. 43 36 10 10 24 76
34. Street surface conditions. 32 50 16 1 32 68 _
--Fold---- 35. Alley surface conditions. 24 30 20 26 18 81 ---' -------
Fold----
o� Ford
36. Snow removal from public streets. 72 20 6 2 31 69
37. Street sweeping. 53 33 10 4 18 82
38. Parks and recreation(for children). 61 27 3 9 38 62
39. Parks and recreation(for teens and adults). 46 30 11 13 31 68
40. City planning. 18 39 23 20 22 78
41. Public library. 63 25 4 8 38 62
42. Sidewalks and bike paths. 34 39 18 8 34 66
4.Please answer the following questions about yourself. This information will be used only to compare people's answers.
It will not be used to identify. .
Y ou in any wa Y
43. Look at the map on the right. In which part of the City do you live?
1 Northwest 23% 2 Northeast 24% 1 21 2
3 Southwest 22% 4 Southeast 32% <
44. What is the age of the"head"of your household? 45µ avenue
1 Under 25 1% 2 2545 33%
3 46-65 37% 4 Over 65 29% 3 4
45. Do you have children(under age 19)living at home? Ca
1 Ye's 28% 2 No 72%
Thank you for completing this survey. Please fold the survey into thirds along the dashed line so the address shows,tape it shut,(no staples,prase)and
mail. No stamp is needed. Surveys may also be returned in person to the office of the Gty Manager.
Other commwnts may be included on a separate sheet of paper.
-----°----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Ford �(Fold Nero So Address Skams) Fold
,NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY
F MAILED
N THE
tNRE'D STATES
BUSINESS REPLY MQMPLSMN
FIRST CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO.23863
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS _
590 40TH AVENUE NORTHEAST
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS,MINNESOTA 55421-9934
(Tape Here Please) (rape Here Prmu) '
�._..._.. �...,_._.... ems_,..,_... ,_._..._. c.-.:�_. ......... w._•__ _..._.,.. L.�...,.. .._....-.. ...._...._., v . _.._� ... .._., ......
....... . ... -. .. . .. ,.
Economic Development/Redevelopment
• 80 percent agree more jobs are needed in Columbia Heights(#I).
• 64 percent agree the City should put more money into attracting-new businesses (0).
• 66 percent support, more City-assisted redevelopment of deteriorating industrial and
commercial areas (#20).
• 58 percent oppose construction of a light rail transit (LRT) line through the city (#25).
• 60 percent support more redevelopment along Central Avenue (#27).
Housing
• 57 percent disagree that the condition of housing in their own neighborhood is a problem
(#4)
• 53 percent disagree that there should be more publicly-assisted housing for the elderly in
Columbia Heights (#14).
• 64 percent support more city assistance with renovation of deteriorating housing (#21).
• 96 percent support enforcement of regulations that would require owners to properly
maintain houses or apartments (#22).
• 74 percent oppose increased housing density near future light rail transit (LRT) (#24).
49425 B-5
City Government and Services
• 53 percent agree that residents are well-informed about City government activities and
issues (#2).
• 64 percent agree local officials are sufficiently accountable and responsive (#7).
• 70 percent agree that services and facilities provided by.the City are worth the taxes that
residents pay (#12).
• 56 percent disagree City government is doing a good job of preparing Columbia Heights
for the future (#18).
• 65 percent oppose better city services if it increased local property taxes and fees (#26).
• 69 percent support maintaining the current level of City services and facilities even if it
increased local property taxes or fees a little (#28).
• 51 percent support the idea that all taxpayers should pay part of the cost of rebuilding any
neighborhood street (#29).
Ratings of City Services or Facilities
The following services or facilities received a 'good' rating by 53. percent or more of the survey
respondents:
Police Services (68%)
Fire Protection(77%)
Emergency Medical Services (75%)
Snow Removal from Public Streets (72%)
Street Sweeping (53%)
Parks and Recreation for Children (61%)
Public Library (63%)
99425 - Q-6
Survey respondents were willing to pay more to improve only the police services (55%), while fire
protection and emergency medical services had 50 percent willing to pay more for improvement of the
services. All other City services received from 62 percent to 82 percent no responses to the question
of "willing to pay more to improve the service."
i
Profile of Residents Returning Surveys
The last three questions of the survey concern information about the resident responding to the survey;
the quadrant of the city in which the resident lives, the age of the "head" of household, and if there arc
any children under the age of 19 years living in the home.
Approximately one-third of the residents who returned surveys were from the southeast quadrant of the
City, while the other three quadrants were almost equally represented. The distribution was as follows:
Northwest Quadrant - 23%
Northeast Quadrant - 24%
Southwest Quadrant - 22%
Southeast Quadrant - 32%
Table B-1 shows the results of the question on the age of the head-of-household and compares the
percentage of each age group represented in the survey to that percentage that particular group
respondents in each. Approximately two-thirds of the respondents indicated that the age-of the head of
their household was 46 years of age or older.
#9425 B-7
TABLE B-1
AGE OF RESIDENTS WHO RETURNED COMMUNITY OPINION SURVEY
Percentage of Percentage of
Age Group Returned Surveys Total Population
Under 25 1% 32%
25 to 45 33% 32% .
46 to 65 37% 21%
Over 65 29% 15%
Most of the residents (72 percent) responding to the survey do not have children under _the age of 19
years living in the home. Only 28 percent
answered yes to that question. -
wus B-8
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
0 MAY 9, 1995
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL.
5 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor
6 Ranallo.
7 II. ROLL CALL.
8 Councilmembers Present: Ranallo, Marks, Enrooth, Wagner, and Fleming.
9 Also Present: Michael Momson, City Manager.
10 III. APPROVAL OF MAY 9, 1995 COUNCIL AGENDA.
11 Motion by Enrooth, second by Fleming to approve the May 9, 1995 Council Agenda.with the
12 following changes:
13 Under VII. REPORTS, add 4. Consider Contract with the State of Minnesota, Department of
14 Administration Building Codes and Standards Division.
15 Under X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS,B. remove "Adult uses" replace with "Sale of Alcoholic
16 Beverages".
07 Motion carried unanimously:
18 IV. APPROVAL OF APRIL 25, 1995 BOARD OF REVIEW MINUTES.
19 Motion by Marks, second by_Wagner to approve the April 25, 1995 Board of Review minutes as
20 presented.
21 Motion carried unanimously,
22 APPROVAL OF APRIL 25, 1995 COUNCIL MINUTES. -
23 Motion by Enrooth, second by Marks to approve the April 25, 1995 City Council minutes as
24 presented.
25 Motion carried unanimously_
26 V. LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS.
27 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the following licenses:
28 Garbage Haulers:
29 Vasko Rubbish Removal Inc., St. Paul, MN
30 Walter's Rubbish, Circle Pines, MN
31 Aagard Environmental,Eagan, MN
Contractors License
3 Silvertree Services Inc., Mpls., MN
34 Sign Art Company Incorporated, Mendota,MN
35 Motion carried unanimously,
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 2
1 Motion by Wagner, second by Fleming to approve temporary 3.2 beer permit to Sylvina
2 Robertson, Central Park, Family Picnic, June 3, 1995.
3 Voting on the motion:
4 Aye: Ranallo, Enrooth, Fleming, Wagner
5 Nay: Marks
6 Motion carried.
7 VI. PRESEN'TA'TION OF CLAIMS.
8 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve the following claims-
9 A.' Dorsey& Whitney, in the amount of$268.29 for legal services rendered through
10 February 28, 1995 and in the amount of$3,549.94 for legal services rendered in regards
11 to the issuance of$825,000 General Obligation Improvement Bonds, Series 1995A.
12 B. Superior Ford. Inc., in the amount of$16,376.00 for police vehicle, in the amount of
13 $16,376.00 for police vehicle,and in the amount of$14,147.00 for pickup truck.
14 C. Rieke Carroll'Muller Associates. Inc., in the amount of$2,452.13 for professional
15 services rendered from March 26 to April 22, 1995 in regards to St. Anthony street
16 construction.
17 D. 3 pages of Verified Claims as presented by the Finance Director.
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19 VII. REPORTS.
20 A. Mayor-None.
21 B. Council.
22 Fleming reported the library book sale is being held on Saturday,May 13, 1995.
23 Marks reported the Sister City Committee met and has determined an alternative place for
24 the Mayor/Manager of Salo to stay when he visits in August. There was Council
25 consensus for the Councilmembers to meet with Mr. Lindquist, Salo Finland,prior to the
26 work session on August 1, 1995.
27 Enrooth thanked the newspapers for their coverage on the St. Anthony city clean-up.
28 C. City Manager,
29 1. Fire Department's 1994 Annual Report.
30 Fire Chief Richard Johnson presented the Fire Department's 1994 Annual Report. He
31 indicated the City will need to acquire a new fire engine within the next three to five
32 years. Johnson explained a new fire truck will cost approximately$200,000.00 and will
33 last 20 to 25 years. He stated the three fire engines the Fire Department currently have
34 are a 1985, 1975, and 1972 models. He referred to the amount of mutual aid fire calls for
35 1994. During the year of 1994,the Fire Department responded to four major house fires,
36 an apartment building fire,a row of townhomes on fire, and two major gasoline fires in
37 neighboring communities. Johnson reported the Roseville Fire Department had donated
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 3
0 600 feet of 4" supply hose to St. Anthony and the mutual aid calls are a benefit as they
2 provide for a larger budget and sharing of training aids. Johnson reported that arson is
3 becoming almost an epidemic in the State and a lot of it is being committed by children.
4 He indicated the Juvenile Fire Setters Program in St. Anthony, which was implemented in
5 1980, has been very effective to curb the amount of arson by children in the community.
6 Ranallo stated he liked the amount of schooling and seminars the members of the Fire
7 Department attend. The Council commended the Fire Department for their good work
8 and efforts and indicated they had received favorable comments on their response time.
9 2. City's 1994 Financial Statement
10 City Manager Morrison referred to the audit packet. He advised the Councilmembers to
11 review the information and indicated Stuart Boniwell will be present at a future Council
12 meeting to discuss the report.
13 3. Consideration of a Resolution 95-033) and Letter of Support for Reallocation of
14 CDBG Funds for Northwest Youth and Family Services
15 Morrison reported of Management Assistant Kim Moore-Sykes attendance at a meeting
16 last week with Ramsey County and Northwest Youth and Family Services (NWYFS).
17 He reported that Ramsey County CDBG funding did not allocate as many funds to
8 NWYFS as they were expecting, to be used for the proposed building. In order for some
of the contingency funds to be redirected, the cities need to draft letters or resolutions
20 stating they support this action and would act to reallocate funding to NWYFS. He
21 indicated these are due by today, May 9, 1995. He stated half the cities did not attend the
22 meeting. He reported approximately 50% of the cities were in support of this reallocation
23 of funds.
24 Motion by Marks, second by Fleming to adopt Resolution 95-033, relating to Northwest
25 Youth and Family Services to reallocate Ramsey County Community Development
26 Block Grant Funds.
27 Motion carried unanimously.
28 4. Consider Contract with the State of Minnesota Department of Administration
29 Building Codes and Standards Division
30 Mornson explained that by law,the State of Minnesota has to be the building inspector
31 for the school unless the City has a qualified building inspector. He indicated St.
32 Anthony does have a qualified building inspector and this contract will allow him to do
33 the inspections.
34 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the Contractual Agreement between the
5 City of St. Anthony and the State of Minnesota, Department of Administration Building
Codes and Standards Division.
37 Motion carried unanimous
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 9, 1995
Page 4
1 Ranallo reported the Cable Commission will be foregoing all grant money that is
2 available to cities as it appears some cities have not been allocating all franchise funds to
3 cable related items.
4 VIII. PUBLIC HEARING -None.
5 IX. NEW BUSINESS.
6 A. Award quotation for the purchase of a new chipper.
7 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to award the quotation for the purchase of a new
8 chipper to ArborQuip as per staff recommendation.
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10 X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
11 A. Ordinance 1995-003. re: Mayor and Council Salaries ( 3rd reading).
12 Motion by Enrooth, second by Marks to approve the 3rd reading and adopt Ordinance 1995-003,
13 relating to Mayor and Councilmembers Salaries, amending Chapter 2, Section 200.12, Subds. 1
14 and 2 of the 1993 St. Anthony Code of Ordinances.
15 Motion carried unanimously.
16 B. Ordinance 1995-004. re: Sale of Alcoholic Beverages ( 3rd reading).
17 Motion by Marks;second by Wagner to approve the 3rd reading and adopt Ordinance 1995-004,
18 relating to hours of operation for the sale of alcoholic beverages, deleting section 1000.08(c) of
19 the St. Anthony 1993 Code of Ordinances.
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
22 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 P.M.
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24 Respectfully submitted,
25 Lorri Kopischke
26 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial
27
28 Mayor
29 ATTEST:
30 City Clerk
I CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
0'3 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
MAY 23, 1995
4 I. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL.
5 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor
6 Ranallo.
7 U. ROLL CALL.
8 Councilmembers Present: Ranallo, Marks, Enrooth, Wagner, and Fleming.
9 Also Present: William Soth, City Attorney; Roger Larson, Finance Director; and Michael
10 Mornson, City Manager.
11 III. APPROVAL OF MAY 23, 1995 COUNCIL AGENDA.
12 Motion by Wagner, second by Fleming to approve the May 23, 1995 Council Agenda as
13 presented.
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15 IV. APPROVAL OF MAY 9, 1995 COUNCIL MINUTES.
16 Motion by Fleming, second by Marks to approve the May 9, 1995 Council minutes as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
18 V. LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS.
19 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve the following licenses: ,
20 Cigarette License
21 Town& Country Foods
22 Amusement Devices License
23 Minneapolis Bowl-O-Mat/14
24 Bowling Alley License
25 Minneapolis Bowl-O-Mat
26 Vending;Machine License
27 Minneapolis Bowl-O-Mat
28 Heating License
29 Delmar Furnace Exchange
30 Multiple Dwelling License
31 Lakehill Apartment, 3804 Highcrest Road
32 Plaza Apartments, 3820 Macalaster Drive
33 Caravelle Apartments, Foss Road
34 Macalaster Manor, 3800 Macalaster Drive
IN Diamond 8 Terrace Apartments, 3200 Diamond 8 Terrace
36 Motion carried unanimously,
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 2 •
1 Motion by Wagner, second by Enrooth to approve the following permits and licenses:
2 Temporary 3.2 Beer and Wine Permit
3 To'Chester Mirocha, Central Park, Jax's Cafe Annual Picnic, July 4, 1995
4 To Claire Osborn, Central Park, Life Weight Loss Group, July 20, 1995
5 3.2 Beer Off Sale and On-Sale License
6 Minneapolis Bowl-O-Mat
7 Town & Country Foods
8 Voting on the motion:
9 Aye: Ranallo, Enrooth, Fleming, Wagner
10 Nay: Marks
11 Motion carried.
12 VI. PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS.
13 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the following claims:
14 A. TKDA Engineers, in the amount of$1,707.28 for engineering services in connection with
15 the initial energy audit of water utility facilities.
16 B. Foster, Ojile. Wentzell & Brever. LLC, in the amount of$7,200.00 for professional
17 services rendered for the months of April, May and June, 1995.
18 C. Midwest Asphalt Corp., in the amount of$66,918.10 for invoice dated May 17, 1995 for
19 St.-Anthony Watermain and Street Improvement.
20 D. 5 pages of Verified Claims as presented by the Finance Director.
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 VII. REPORTS.
23 A. Mark Flaten American Risk Services. 1995 Insurance Coverage.
24 Mark Flaten,American Risk Services, reported the City of St. Anthony insurance renewal
25 for 1995-1996 was favorable. He stated the premium for the year would be $240,537.00
26 which reflected a decrease in premiums of$13,153.00 from last year. This decrease in
27 premiums is primarily due to a decrease in St. Anthony's workers compensation
28 modification from 1.31 to 1.23 and Off-Sale liability dropped from$.57 per$100.00 of
29 receipts to $.52. He reported in 1986 the annual premium was$260,000.00 compared to
30 $240,000.00 for the upcoming year. This is due mostly to the city taking a pro-active
31 position. He suggested the City consider the addition of the Petro Fund to their policy
32 this year as there are several older underground storage tanks.
33 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to accept staff recommendations and implement the •
34 League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Renewal.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
0 Page 3
1 Motion carried unanimously
2
3 B. Planning Commission - May 16, 1995
4
5 1. Bruce Nedegaard. for XXXX Fordham Drive. Rezoning.
6 Commissioner Horst reported the Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc., has requested
7 rezoning of the area known as Village Commons from R-1 to R-2. Staff is
8 recommending approval of the rezoning. He indicated there was considerable discussion
9 by the Planning Commission and also the public. He reported the neighbors are opposed
10 to the rezoning due to increased traffic, invasion of privacy, concern for the children who
11 play on the street, and headlights shining into residerits windows. After due consideration
12 and discussion, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council
13 approve the rezoning with the attached conditions.
14 2. Bruce Nedegaard. for XXX { Fordham Drive. Subdivision of Property.
15 Commissioner Horst reported the Nedegaard Construction Company, Inc., is requesting
16 subdivision of the property known as Village Commons into three parcels which would
17 allow for the construction of six two family residential dwellings and two single family
18 dwellings. Staff has recommended approval of the subdivision as outlined in the
drawing. At the meeting, Mr.Neumann,Nedegaard Construction, indicated the homes as
platted will not require any variances. Horst reported the Planning Commission voted
21 unanimously to recommend City Council approve the plat as submitted.
22 3. Bruce Nedegaard. Request for Placement of a Moved House on a Single Family
23 Lot.
24 Commissioner Horst reported Bruce Nedegaard is proposing to move a single story house
25 to Lot 16 of the Village Commons replat. Since there will be no variances required, the
26 Planning Commission did not rule on this item.
27 Mr. Bruce Nedegaard,Nedegaard Construction, Inc., indicated he is proposing the
28 installation of a private road to be used in this development which would include six
29 double units and two single family homes. One single family home will be the
30 Schroeder's and the other will be the new home he is moving. He reported along the
31 railroad track by Evergreen, there is an 18 inch storm drain which extends approximately
32 half the distance of the road and into a manhole which leads to a six foot culvert under the
33 railroad track. There will also be a retention pond for overflow. This will be a mowed
34 area.
35 Commissioner Horst indicated the permit had been submitted to the Rice Creek
36 Watershed District and had been approved with the exception of one minor detail.
aMr. Bob Rapp, 3924 Fordham Drive, presented a petition signed'by all the residents of
38 Fordham stating they were firmly united in opposing construction of a private drive
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 4
1 which would enter onto Fordham Drive. He stated Fordham Drive is already used as a
2 shortcut from Silver Lake Road to New Brighton. He indicated the need for access
3 should have been addressed when the plan for Evergreen Townhomes was in process. He
4 suggested the private drive enter into the Evergreen property.
5 Ranallo indicated it would not be possible for the drive to enter into Evergreen as that
6 was private property.
7 Linda Jessen, Evergreen Homeowners Association, indicated entering into Evergreen was
8 not an option.
9 Ranallo explained the City had contacted Mr. Paddock at the Metropolitan Council to
10 obtain statistics of what amount of traffic would be generated by six to eight private
11 single family homes without variances. The Metropolitan Council Traffic Division
12 (MCTD) indicated this would generate 10 trips per resident, per hour, per day. The
13 MCTD also informed that a neighborhood with six two family residential dwelling would
14 generate five trips per resident,per hour,per day. In essence,the twin homes would
15 generate less traffic than the single family homes. The City them put a counter at the two
16 entrances of Evergreen Townhorrmes and recorded the same results as stated by the .
17 MCTD. He stated in regards to traffic,the City feel the twin homes are more
18 advantageous than the single family homes.
19 Im response to an unidentified.resident,Ranallo indicated the traffic count for a 24 hour
20 period on Fordham Drive generated 342 trips.
21 Commissioner Horst reported that at the Planning Commission meeting, the residents
22 indicated they'felt the increase in traffic will lead to a decrease in their property values
23 and the values of the homes on Fordham Drive.
24 Mr. Ted Dageford,4016 Fordham Drive, indicated he has lived in St. Anthony for forty
25 years. He built his home on Fordham and raised his children there. He reported people
26 drive very fast on Fordham and use the street as a throughway between Apache Plaza and
27 New Brighton. He indicated the neighborhood is already surrounded by multiple
28 dwellings. He stated when he bought his property the surrounded property was zoned R-
29 1. He bought the property under those terms and conditions and he wants it to stay that
30 way.
31 Marks asked if there had been traffic counts performed in other areas in the City.
32 Ranallo reported a count was done on Wilson Street from St. Anthony Boulevard to 33rd
33 and the result was the same as Fordham Drive. •
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
. Page 5
1 Enrooth indicated the last count done on Skycroft Drive generated 600 trips. He
2 indicated if there was a problem with people using Fordham Drive to cut through to
3 Apache Plaza, that was a separate issue to be addressed at another time.
4 Commissioner Horst reported this was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting
5 and they thought perhaps a stop sign could be installed at the new entrance and Fordham
6 Drive to slow traffic down in the area.
7 Ranallo indicated the policy for stop signs was left up to the neighborhood. If a
8 neighborhood is experiencing traffic problems, they come to the City and petition. A
9 traffic count is then performed for five to six days. The City confers with the
10 Metropolitan Council and the State of Minnesota and if traffic warrants, a stop sign is
11 installed.
12 Marks reported a phone call he had received from a resident who was concerned that
13 traffic going north on Silver Lake Road, turns by the bank and also cuts through the
14 parking lot, to avoid the stoplight when going onto Fordham Drive.
15 Mr. Birger Kylander, 4013 Fordham Drive, indicated he has been'a resident of St.
Anthony since 1966. He stated he felt Bruce Nedegaard had the opportunity to purchase
this property at the same time as the Evergreen development. If this area would have
18 been developed then, a road could have been brought in through Evergreen.
19 Enrooth indicated this issue is being raised because the Schroeders needed a variance to
20 build on their lot. The City is not inclined to consider a variance, so a different angle was
21 attempted to best suit the needs of the entire area. The Schroeder's request is what started
22 this chain of events. He stated Mr.Nedegaard became involved indirectly.
23 Mr. Kylander asked why the other residents had not been informed of this.
24 Fleming indicated there were 300 people in attendance at the meeting in October of last
25 year when the Schroeders first approached the Planning Commission and it was
26 suggested other approaches be investigated. Since then, this issue has been discussed at
27 almost every Council meeting and has been in the paper.numerous times.
28 Mr. Dageford asked if the members of the Council had driven around and looked at the
29 neighborhood. He asked if any of the members would like to.be in his spot surrounded
30 by that many multiple dwellings. He stated the quality of life means something to the
31 people who live in this neighborhood.
�r Enrooth stated if the property were zoned R-1, there would be more traffic as there would
�J3 be families dwelling there with children and probably multiple cars. The R-2 zoning will
34 most likely attract semi-retired or retired persons with possibly only one vehicle.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 6 •
1 Mr. Bob Graham, 4020 Fordham Drive, indicated he was a new resident in St. Anthony.
2 He reported while working at his computer Saturday morning, he counted one car pass
3 every minute for fifty minutes. He stated the residents have a unique relationship with
4 the City Council as they have voted them to act as their personal representatives. He
5 stated the residents need the Council to act as their professional representative and
6 customer service representative. He reported he has had people honk and pass him while
7 he was driving on his own road because he was driving too slow. He asked the Council
8 to mitigate this problem now.
9 Ranallo explained the public hearing had been conducted before the Planning
10 Commission. He indicated the Council does listen to what the residents have to say but
11 they have to look toward professional statistics to make decisions. He stated the
12 Metropolitan Council's prime function is to provide statistics. The City viewed the twin
13 homes as a good decision as they generated less traffic than the single family homes.
14 Fleming indicated the traffic problem of people cutting through on Fordham Drive was a
15 separate issue which needed to be addressed. She stated the Council was available to
16 address this issue but did not recall hearing the concern previously.
17 Mr. Graham stated he was concerned with the city supplying $250,000.00 in increment
18 financing to Mr. Nedegaard. He felt this was not in the City's best interest.
19 Morrison indicated the developer had requested$250,000.00 but the City was only
20 offering $150,000.00 for soil correction.
21 Marks answered an earlier question by stating he lived on Silver Lake Road and would
22 gladly trade places with a resident on Fordham Drive. He indicated the street was very
23 quiet compared to the amount of traffic in front of his house.
24 Enrooth indicated he agreed. He stated he lived on Skycroft Drive and the traffic count
25 there was 600 to 700 per day.
26 Commissioner Horst reported the option of the property being developed into single
27 family homes was not discussed at the Planning Commission meeting as it was not
28 possible due to the size of the parcel. The parcel is too small to support a public street.
29 Ms. Linda Jessen, 3475 Silver Lane, expressed her concern with the Evergreen
30 Townhome drainage issue. She indicated she did not have confidence that the Rice Creek
31 Watershed District would care for the residents' interest. She stated she thought the
32 Planning Commission recommended the subdivision with certain conditions.-
33 Ranallo indicated the Planning Commission recommended approval of the property •
34 subdivision with the condition there be visual separation of property between Mounds
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
• Page 7
1 View Acres and Evergreen Townhomes,stop sign placed on 39th and Fordham Drive to
2 address traffic concerns, resident directly across from entrance to Mounds View Acres be
3 given consideration regarding automobile headlights, and drainage and Rice Creek
4 Watershed District requirements.
5 In response to Marks, Commissioner Horst indicated the Watershed District felt the weirs
6 needed to be redone and the developer has agreed to correct this problem.
7 Ranallo indicated rezoning meant to amend the zoning ordinance and required three
8 readings. He stated it appeared the only problem here was a traffic concern.
9 Enrooth suggested conducting a week traffic count.
10 Ranallo agreed and suggested conducting counts on other streets as well to see how they
11 compared. He suggested the City Engineer investigate to see if there,was a way to deter
12 the other traffic using Fordham Drive to cut through. He indicated three readings were
13 required to change the ordinance and that would require three meetings. He proposed the
14 Council could approve the first reading and not the second and third readings if there was
15 a'deviation in traffic found. He indicated the property had to be developed to increase the
tax base.
17 An unidentified resident asked why this project was being done to appease the
18 Schroeders.
19 Ranallo stated this was not the reason for the development, it was to keep taxes at the
20 level they are at now or reduce them.
21 An unidentified resident indicated he thought the development should have been
22 incorporated with the original Evergreen Townhome project. He felt the land never
23 should have been landlocked in the first place. He stated he lived in the Evergreen
24 Townhomes and the resident there would have been happy to take another eight units in
25 with them.
26 Ranallo indicated-the project was being done to lessen the burden on the people. He
27 didn't think the traffic was from the residential area but coming from other areas. He felt
28 it appropriate.to approve the first reading and then do,some investigating prior to the
29 second reading.
30 City Attorney William Soth, explained that rezoning property meant amending the zoning
31 ordinance. It requires three readings for the City Council to amend any ordinance. This
10 item will be on the next two agendas. If it is approved at each meeting,the rezoning will
pass. This process is not required but it is what the,City of St. Anthony does. It is
34 possible for the readings to be waived but this is not typically what the City would do.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 8
1 He indicated that if City Council did proceed with the motion, they would need to note
2 that Lots 15 and 16 are not included in the rezoning, as they will have single family
3 houses located on them.
4 Mornson indicated those lots were not part of the legal description or rezoning
5 application.
6 Ranallo asked Mr. Nedegaard if he would continue with.the project if the Council
7 approved the first reading tonight.
8 Mr.Nedegaard indicated he would continue. He indicated he would include additional
9 screening between his addition and Evergreen Townhomes. He stated he has evergreens
10 along.the back of the two doubles, but will add more screening to the grassy area. He
11 indicated he will work something out for the person directly across the street for
12 screening of the headlights. He stated he intends to move ahead and present a final plat at
13 the Council meeting on June 27, 1995.
14 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the first reading of the rezoning of the
15 parcel of land known as Mounds View Acres, Second Addition from an'R-1, Single
16 Family District to R-2, Two Family District, and ensuring Lots 15 and 16 are not
17 included and implementing a week traffic count study of Fordham Drive and other
18 surrounding streets.
19 Motion carried unanimously.
20 Mr. Soth asked if someone had checked the preliminary plat to ensure it conformed with
21 all setback requirements,etc.
22 Mornson indicated Public Works Director Larry Hammer and Management-Assistant
23 Moore-Sykes had confirmed this.
24 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the property subdivision of the property
25 known as Mounds Views Acres, Second Addition into three parcels conditioned on
26 drainage and Rice Creek Watershed District requirements, visual separation of property
27 between Mounds View Acres and Evergreen Townhomes, stop sign placed on 39th and
28 Fordham Drive to address traffic concerns, resident directly across from entrance to
29 Mounds View Acres be given consideration regarding automobile headlights, and subject
30 to City Attorney approval.
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32 Mr.Nedegaard explained he had purchased and is moving the existing house at 4025
g P P
33 Stinson onto Lot 16 of the Village Commons replat. He indicated the house will be
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 9
1 completely redone and will require no variances. He reported he was building the house
2 for his daughter and it would be in the $150,000.00 range.
3 4. Arnie Gregory, for 2926. 2930, 2938, and 3004 Old l
Hi g,iway 8. Rezoning
4 Commissioner Horst reported Arnie Gregory was requesting a zoning change for Mako,
5 Inc./Olson properties on Old Highway 8. Mr. Gregory had previously requested the
6 parcel be rezoned to R-4 zoning to permit high-rise apartments. This however, was not
7 feasible and he later revised the design and changed the plat to townhouses.
8 Commissioner Horst reported the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended
9 the Council approve the rezoning from R-2 to R-3.
10 Mr. Jerome Grundmayer, 3013 Croft Drive, indicated in spite of individuals perceptions
11 and idiosyncracies, he felt this was the only way the land could be developed. If it was
12 not developed now it may become dead property. He reported all the residents along
13 Croft Drive are in favor of the development because the alley will be cut off. He
14 indicated he was very much in favor of the development and hoped it would be approved.
15 Ms. Roberta Lind, 3007 Rankin Road, indicated at present her backyard faces a garage
16 and six cars. The proposed building may be closer but she is envisioning nice
landscaping. She indicated the developer has been very, good about working with the
residents and she supports the development.
19 Mr. Roger Braun, 3011 Rankin Road, stated he agreed this was quite a development and
20 he was not opposed to the rezoning. He indicated his garage faced east and after the
21 development he would have no access. He reported Mr. Gregory was working with him
22 to correct this problem. He asked if this rezoning would also require three readings
23 because he needed time to work with the developer and have an agreement in writing. He
24 stated he was not opposed to closing the alley but needed to retain access. He reported
25 there was not enough room to make a u-turn.
26 Mr. Soth asked if the alleys were owned by the developer.
27 Mr. Gregory, Arnold Development, indicated the alley which is part of Lot 7 was part of
28 the purchase but the alley which is part of Lot 13 will stay with Mr. Makowske. He
29 noted Mr. Braun has an easement to cross Lot 13 that used to come out to Old Highway 8
30 but no easement out to Croft. He indicate this easement appeared on Mr. Braun's title but
31 did not appear on the title policy.
32 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the first reading of rezoning of 2938 Old
33 Highway.8, 3004 Old Highway 8, and 2926/2930 Old Highway 8, from R-2 to an R-3
zoning district.
35 Motion carried unanimously.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 10 S
1 5. Arnie Gregory. for 2926. 2930. 2938. and 300401d Highway 8. Subdivision of
2 Property.
3 Motion by Marks, second by Fleming to approve subdivision of property and preliminary
4 plat of 2926 Old Highway 8, 2930 Old Highway 8, 2938 Old Highway 8, and 3004 Old
5 Highway 8.
6 Motion carried unanimously.
7 6. Arnie Gregory. for 2926, 2930, 2938, and 3004 Old Highway 8. Setback
8 Variance,
9 Mr. Gregory indicated there were one or two neighbors who were concerned as their
10 backyards were not as deep as the others. He indicated he plans to do special landscaping
11 for them.
12 Andrea Braun, 3011 Rankin Road, indicated she had a deep backyard but was also
13 concerned with the landscaping. Currently, she looks at a one story garage but now she
14 will be seeing a two story building. She indicated she would prefer evergreens or
15 something tall between her backyard and the development.
16 Mr. Gregory indicated he felt everyone would be satisfied with the final landscaping as
17 he has budgeted$7,000.00 per unit of land for landscaping.
18 Motion by Enrooth, second by Marks to approve the backyard variance of 10 feet for Lots
19 1 through 8 due to the shape and topographical conditions of the parcel.
20
21 Motion carried unanimously.
22 Harold Olson, St. Anthony resident, asked if the alley were brought up to City Code,
23 would it be possible to plow this alley in the winter.
24 Council indicated it would be a difficult issue as this was a private road but they would
25 investigate the possibilities.
26 7. Ordinance Amendment Regarding Lot Coverage.
27 Commissioner Horst reported the Commission was asked to investigate the possibility of
28 increasing lot coverage from 30%to 35%. This would include the driveway and the
29 sidewalks. He reported this had been discussed at a previous meeting. He indicated that
30 after various discussion and a vote, the motion failed at the Planning Commission.
31 Mornson reported this ordinance amendment was a result of the Schroeder variance
32 request. He indicated St. Anthony was more restrictive than many of the surrounding
33 communities.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 11
1 Commissioner Horst reported the big concern among many of the Commission members
2 was that this ordinance amendment would encourage existing property owners to build
3 bigger garages and out buildings rather than help new development or redevelopment in
4 the City.
5 Enrooth indicated he felt the tendency in surrounding cities appeared to be greater lot
6 coverage. He suggested surveying 10-15 cities and comparing the results received.
7 There was Council consensus and City Manager was directed to survey surrounding
8 communities to obtain their lot coverage ordinances.
9 8. Ordinance Amendment Regarding Adult Uses,
10 There was no report by Commissioner Horst on this item.
11 C. Mayor
12 Mayor Ranallo reported his attendance at a meeting today with City.Manager Morrison
13 and Ms. Rothchild and Mr. Gerber of First Bank. He indicated First Bank now has title
14 to the property at Apache Plaza pending a couple things. They will look to sell the
15 property to someone who will develop it. If this does not occur, they will try to operate
16 the property themselves.
0 Ranallo reported his attendance at the Music in the Park event. He announced the Pig
18 Roast is coming up soon and only 30 tickets have been sold.
19 Ranallo indicated he had received the minutes from the Sister City Committee Meeting.
20 D. Council.
21 Fleming reported she had attended her first Library book sale in the rain. She indicated
22 there was a large turn out and was pleased to see so many people interested in the
23 Library.
24 Marks reported his attendance at a Sister City Committee,meeting last weekend. There
25 was Council direction to send a letter to Salo, Finland to congratulate on Sister City
26 Days.
27 Enrooth reported his attendance at a Village Fest meeting Thursday night. He indicated
28 the planning is proceeding well. He also reminded the Council of the Public Works Open
29 House scheduled for May 24, 1995 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.
30 E. City Manager,
31 City Manager Morrison reminded the Council to bring their Audit books to the meeting
on June 12, 1995. He reported the tax increment hearing will be held on June 27, 1995.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 12
1 Morrison indicated Larry Hammer had been with the City of St. Anthony for 36 years and
2 this was the first year he could remember that there were no injuries by City employees.
3 He reported that due to this fact, the City will have a lunch catered in for all the City
4 employees to thank the employees. The City's Workmens' Compensation costs have
5 decreased by $19,000 because there were no injuries to employees last year.
6 Ranallo reported that over the last week he had received ten different calls from residents
7 complaining of trash, trucks, cars, and boards in yards all through the city. There was
8 Council consensus to direct City Manager Morrison to put together a press release
9 indicating that if residents fail to correct the problem on their own, the City will have to
10 take action.
11 VIII. PUBLIC HEARING-None.
12 IX. NEW BUSINESS.
13 A. Unerade of Pavement Management System
14 Motion by Wagner, second by Marks to approve the purchase of an upgrade to the City's
15 Pavement Management Program to the new version of the software - Infrastructure
16 CONsultant.
17 Motion carried unanimously.
18 '13. Ordinance 1995-001:re: Lot Coverage (1 st reading).
19 Motion by Wagner, second by Enrooth to approve the 1 st reading of Ordinance 1995-
20 001, relating to lot coverage, amending sections 1615, Subd. 8; and 1620, Subd. 8 of the
21 1993 St. Anthony Code of Ordinances.
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23 C. Ordinance 1995-005. re: Adult Uses (1st reading l.
24 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve the first reading of Ordinance 1995-005,
25 relating to adult uses and sexually oriented businesses, amending Chapter 16 of the City
26 Code to add a new section 1670; amending section 1605.01, Subd. 4, defining adult uses,
27 amending section 1605.0.1 to add certain new definitions; and amending subsection
28 1635.03(a).
29 Motion carried unanimously.
30 Marks commented that the triangular piece of land, the Nedegaard Development, was discussed
31 at the time of the Evergreen Addition.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
May 23, 1995
Page 13
1 Ranallo agreed, indicating the land had been for sale but for an exorbitant price. He stated he
2 had been led to believe there was enough property there to put six to eight single family homes
3 including the two in front.
4 X. UNFINISHED BUSINESS -None.
5 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
6 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 P.M.
7 Motion carried unanimously.
8 Respectfully submitted,
9 Lorri Kopischke
10 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial
*1
12 Mayor
13 ATTEST:
14 City Clerk