Loading...
07-25-2000AM PLANNING COMMISSION om AGENDA July 25, 2000 7:00 p.m. Introductory Items Roll Call Approval of Minutes: Regular Planning Commission meeting of June 27, 2000 and Bike Tour-of July 11, 2000. Opportunity for Citizens to Address the Commission on Items not on the Agenda Public Hearing ITEM #1 00- CUP -11 6529 Penn Avenue Walser Auto Sales Renewal of conditional use permit ITEM #2 00- CUP -12 6309 18th Avenue Time Warner Cable Conditional use permit New Business ITEM #3 PC Letter #27 Consideration of Zoning Ordinance requirements relating to corner visibility Old Business Liaison Reports School Board Community Services Advisory Commission HRA City Council Adjournment Planning Commission Minutes Regular Meeting June 27, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners: Terry Ahlstrom, David Gepner, Bill Kilian, Mark Tolvstad, John Bjostad, Donna Drummond, Gordon Hanson and Jeffery Walz. MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairperson Brenda Bjorklund COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator Mark Andrle, Community Development Technician The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairperson Gepner at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/ Bjostad, S/ Kilian to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting of May 30, 2000. Motion carried: 8 -0 CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION Randy Darling, 6945 Russell Avenue, stated that the 50 foot visibility rule for corner lots is excessive and needs to be changed. He stated that to meet the requirements he would have to cut too much of his yard off. In addition, there are many properties in violation of this rule. Commissioner Gepner asked if people need to get a permit to construct a fence. Ms. Urban stated that they do not and that is one reason why it is hard to regulate fences, shrubs, tress, etc. that are in violation of the 50 foot visibility requirement. Commissioner Drummond asked if a chain link fence can be in the 50 foot area because a motorist can see through it. Ms. Urban stated that nothing over 30 inches can be in the 50 foot area. June 27, 2000 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARINGS PC Letter #25 ITEM #1 6400 Portland Ave. S Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield Underground utilities and relocating sidewalks in portion of park George Atkinson, Engineering Supervisor, clarified some of the information listed in the staff report. He stated that the project to relocate sidewalks and to place overhead utilities underground will not take place at 66`h Street and 35W. The project will only happen along Portland Avenue, north of 66`h Street and along 66`h Street east of Portland. Both will be next to Veterans Park. Mr. Atkinson reviewed the purpose, funding and design of the project. He added that at their open house they conducted a survey that showed 76 out of 82 people were in favor of having one dollar a month added to their electric bill for eight months to pay the City's portion of the project. Commissioner Kilian asked if the widening of Portland will affect the relocation of the sidewalks. Public Works Director, Mike Eastling stated that the current sidewalks and utilities will remain at the corner of 66`h Street and Portland Avenue. If the intersection is widened, then sidewalks and utilities will be relocated. Jeremy Semore, stated that he opposes the additional cost to the electric bill to pay for the project and feels the sidewalks are fine the way they are. Commissioner Ahlstrom asked if there Mr. Atkinson stated that it will be very small. the new one is complete. will be a large disruption during construction. The existing sidewalk will remain in place until Commissioner Bjostad stated that he is not in favor of having residents pay for the project through their electric bill and is concerned that this type of payment situation will come up again. M/Kilian, S /Tolvstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 Commissioner Kilian-stated that having the sidewalks so close to the roads is a safety issue, and the Commission is responsible for making the area pedestrian friendly, not for determining the funding mechanism. June 27, 2000 Page 3 Commissioner Gordon also expressed his support for making the sidewalks safer in an area with so many children. M/Kilian, S/Hanson to recommend approval of the plan to move sidewalks away from the curb and require NSP to place existing overhead facilities underground provided that the City Council makes the appropriate decision on how to finance the groject. Motion carried: 8 -0 Mr. Eastling updated the Commission on the Engineering Department's traffic calming efforts. He reviewed the proposed one -way on 70` h Street at Xerxes Avenue to reduce the volume of traffic on 70`x' Street. He added that residents in the area are 4 to 1 opposed to the plan. 00 -CUP -8 ITEM #2 620 East 78'" Street Hampton Court Apartments Amendment to conditional use permit Zoning Administrator Julie Urban, reviewed that staff report, stating that Hampton Court Apartments will be renovated by the new owner Village Green. Village Green will construct three garages, provide additional landscaping and lighting and construct facade improvements and a courtyard area. She stated that staff recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit. Brad Froling of Village Green gave the Commission the background of what Village Green does and presented past projects and the proposed improvements to Crestwood, Hampton and Heritage apartments. Commissioner Gepner asked if there will an increase in rent and if so, will there be a large turn over in tenants. Mr. Froling stated that the rents would increase somewhat, but Village Green will try to retain the existing tenants. Commissioner Drummond asked what the average rent increase will be. Mr. Froling stated that it is hard to determine the average increase, but rents will be higher for the units that are closer to the club house, pool and other amenities. Commissioner Drummond requested more information regarding the 4D Program. Ms. Urban stated that the program sets aside some units that will be designated as affordable. Ms. Urban stated that Village Green has agreed to continue the program at Hampton Court. June 27, 2000 Page 4 Arleen Frances, Hampton Court, stated that she supports the improvements to the apartments because crime has increased. She doesn't like the rent increase which would raise her rent from $665 to $860 a month. M/Kilian, S /Tolstad to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 Commissioner Drummond asked if the issue of rent could even be considered by the Commission in making a recommendation. Ms. Urban stated that it would be difficult to tie the rent issue to the conditional use permit. M/Kilian, S /Ahlstrom to recommend approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Hampton Court Apartments, 620 East 78` h Street, to allow the addition of garages and other site changes with the following stipulations: 1. That a storm water management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. Motion carried: 8 -0 00 -CUP -9 ITEM #3 900 East 78`h Street Heritage Square Apartments Amendment to conditional use permit Zoning Administrator Julie Urban, reviewed the staff report, stating that Heritage Square Apartments will be renovated by the new owner Village Green. Village Green will construct a clubhouse, fagade improvements, additional parking, a new 77`h Street access and an expanded pool deck. She stated that staff recommends approval of the amendment to the conditional use permit. Commissioner Gepner asked if a median cut would be provided on 77`h Street. Mr. Froling stated that it would and it would be at the expense of Village Green. Commissioner Walz asked for clarification regarding the garage door on the clubhouse. Mr. Froling stated that the door will be used by the apartment golf cart. June 27, 2000 Page 5 Holly Bloom, Heritage Square, stated that she is concerned about maintenance of the added lighting and doesn't see the need for a club house. She stated that the building is currently affordable and many residents chose it because it doesn't have a lot of amenities. She is also very concerned about the rent increase and is not sure if she can afford to remain at Heritage Square. M /Kilian, S /Walz to close the public hearing. Motion carried: 8 -0 Several Commissioners expressed their concerns regarding the increase in rent and the desire to retain the current residents but there is the need to remodel and improve the City's existing apartment complexes. The conditional use permit regulations don't give the Commission the ability to use the rent issue as a reason for denial M/Kilian, S/Drummond to recommend approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the Heritage Square Apartments, 900 East 78`" Street, to allow the addition of a clubhouse facility and other site changes with the following stipulations: 1. That the clubhouse parkin loot be redesigned to provide a Ionizer entrance area and the final design be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. That a stormwater management plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 3. That a sediment and erosion control plan be approved by the Public Works Director. 4. That a final landscape plan be submitted and approved by the Community Development Director. Motion carried: 8 -0 NEW BUSINESS Item #4 Clarification of Planning Commission minutes From March 24, 1998 Ms. Urban reviewed the minutes from the March 24, 1998 meeting stating that the discrepancy in the minutes occurred when Commissioner Kilian suggested a motion for the conditional use permit for 1100 East 66` h Street. Commissioner Meter then stated that he will make the motion Commissioner Kilian had just suggested without restating the motion. Ms. Urban explained that the minutes stated that Kilian made the motion not Meter. These minutes were later amended at the next meeting and approved by the Commission. Ms. Urban stated that the minutes kept in the vault where never exchanged for the amended minutes. June 27, 2000 Page 6 As a result, the unamended minutes were mistakenly mailed to people who requested them in relation to the rezoning issue for 1100 East 66`" Street. OLD BUSINESS None. LIAISON REPORTS School Board: Commissioner Drummond reported that they denied the request by the Historical Society to donate the Bartholomew House land to them. Community Services Advisory Commission: Commissioner Ahlstrom reported that the Commission was presented with renovation options for the pool and is considering a proposal for a skate park. KRA: Commissioner Gepner reported that the HRA has authorizes the City to negotiate with Walser. City Council: Mayor Kirsch reported that the Council dedicated a C -130 airplane, three police officers were sworn in and a request for a kennel license was denied. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:35 p.m. Mark Tolvstad Planning Commission Secretary Planning Commission Minutes Study Session July 11, 2000 MEMBERS PRESENT: David Gepner, Bill Kilian, Mark Tolvstad, Donna Drummond. MEMBERS ABSENT: Brenda Bjorklund, Terry Ahlstrom, John Bjostad, Jeff Walz, Gordon Hanson COUNCIL LIAISON: Martin Kirsch, Mayor STAFF PRESENT: John Stark, Community Development Manager Julie Urban, Zoning Administrator The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Vice - Chairperson Gepner at 7:00 p.m. The Commission toured the central part of the City on bicycles. The following areas were visited: Noise wall along the Crosstown Bridge at the Crosstown and Nicollet Avenue Soo Line railroad Bridge at Crosstown and Lyndale Avenue Richfield Lake Bridge at 35W and 66th Street Gramercy Cooperative Woodlake Centre ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned by unanimous consent at 9:20 p.m. Planning Commission Secretary AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 00 -CUP -1 I 49 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JULY 259 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow auto sales at 6529 Penn Avenue. Ill. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a renewal of a conditional use permit for 6529 Penn Avenue for an auto sales lot for an additional three years. II. BACKGROUND The property owner is requesting a renewed temporary conditional use permit for the property. Walser currently operates the car lot. In 1990, a three -year conditional use permit (CUP) was approved to allow use of the property as a used car lot. A temporary CUP was issued for three years because a planning study had recently been completed for the area and the proposed car lot was inconsistent with the results of that study. The CUP was renewed in 1993 and 1996. In 1999, the conditional use permit was renewed for just one year because the Penn Avenue and 66th Street ( PASSS) planning study was in process. Recently, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) determined that it is not feasible to actively pursue redevelopment in this area. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY There is no longer an active attempt by the HRA to redevelop the PASSS area so a longer time period for the CUP would be appropriate. Historically, the operator of the car lot has not complied with the conditions of the CUP. In the past year, however, there have not been problems ,with compliance. Renewal of a temporary CUP may be appropriate to ensure continued compliance. If a permanent CUP were to be issued, some additional site improvements may be warranted. J B. CRITICAL ISSUES N/A C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL Zoning: I (industrial) Land Use: commercial Comprehensive Plan: Regional commercial /office Notification: Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property. Other Actions: Council: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., Monday August 14, 2000 An auto sales /lease lot is a conditional use in the I (industrial) district. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: The auto lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of regional commercial /office, although the Plan also refers to the PASSS study adopted in 1988. b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: When the property first became an auto lot in 1990, the Council found that the use was not consistent with the PASSS plan and determined that a temporary CUP was warranted. c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: The Engineering Division has determined that on -site stormwater capacity should be provided on the site. Because the auto use is seen as an interim use, the Engineering Division has allowed the property owner to delay those improvements. d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities,. utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: The facility has been in operation since 1990 as a car lot. Since the CUP was renewed in 1999, the property has been in compliance with the CUP. e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare: The facility has been in operation since 1990 as a car lot. Since the CUP was renewed in 1999, the property has been in compliance with the CUP. t) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location: g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit: At the time the auto lot began operation, the property met all conditions. The Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1995 and additional conditions were placed on auto lots. The site would not be able to C,? meet the condition of a 15 -foot buffer yard from all adjacent land uses (see Section 526.72, subd. 11 c). Stipulations of Approval: 1. That a 22 -foot minimum drive aisle be maintained in the parking area. 2. That landscaping in the front of the property be maintained in compliance with the approved landscape plan and in compliance with PASSS design guidelines. 3. That a maximum of 30 cars be on the site at any one time. 4. That the alley located to the south of the property be maintained free of vehicles. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S Deny the request for a renewal of the conditional use permit. Renew the conditional use permit for a different period of time. Approve a permanent conditional use permit for auto sales at this property. V. ATTACHMENTS Code References: 531.07, subd.3; 526.27, subd. 11, 546.05 Attachment A: Site plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Applicant/Owner: Ray Tharp PCode Citations Section 531 - Zoning: Industrial District 531.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the I District, and are subject to the provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 3. Those uses outlined in Section 526.27, Subdivisions 4 through 29 of this code, subject to the same conditions. 526.27. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the C -2 District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 11. Auto or boat sales /lease lots, provided the following conditions are met: a) the business shall be licensed under Section 1155 of the City Code; b) the use site shall not abut a lot which is in the R or R -1 District -- for the purpose of this subdivision, a lot which merely adjoins the use site at one corner shall not be deemed to abut the use site; c) a buffer yard of not less than 15 feet in width shall be provided to separate all aspects of such use from abutting parcels; d) landscaping for the site, including display areas, shall meet the City of Richfield Landscape Requirements, on file with the Office of Community Development; e) inoperable vehicles shall not be stored on the premises, except in appropriately designed and screened areas as approved by the City; f) parking of vehicles on public right -of -way shall be prohibited; g) all repair, assembly, disassembly, maintenance, and detailing of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building, except minor maintenance such as tire inflation or adding windshield wiper fluid; and h) any exterior speaker shall comply with the noise control limits set by Section 930 of the City Code. iSECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. Permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the zoning district for which the permit is sought. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever H public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 60 days of submission of a completed application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. '(Amended, Bill No., 1995 -19, Sec. 4) Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Subd. 7. Recording of CUP. Upon commencement of an approved conditional use, a certified copy of the conditional use permit shall be filed by the applicant with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. The permit shall contain the legal description of the property. Subd. 8. Expiration of CUP. A conditional use permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless: a) the use for which the permit was granted has commenced within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the CUP, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year. Subd. 9. Term of CUP. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed, unless specifically stated otherwise. A conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. i J Subd. 10. Amendment to CUP. Holders of a conditional use permit may propose amendments to the permit by following the procedure set in this subsection for issuance of a new permit. Significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the use shall require approval of the Council. Such changes may include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, increase in number of employees, expansion of structure or premises, or major operational modifications, as determined by the Director. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may impose, additional or modified conditions as a result of the amendment. Subd. 11. Fee. The fee for a conditional use permit or amendment thereto is set by Appendix D of the City Code. i -b Ob O ui z 3NIl Ald3dOUd Q z w 14 j za w V/ Mw CL 0 N a Lo 0 M a 7- 4 UNINEWd a 0 J Z Z W N o a W m ax w99 Ni avd a JNINHVd 3NIl A J z W a z x ax w AGENDA SECTION AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # PUBLIC HEARING 2 00- CUP -12 J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JULY 259 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Public hearing on a conditional use permit to allow construction of a utility building at 6309 18th Avenue South. U. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 11 Conduct and close a public hearing and by motion: Approve a conditional use permit to allow construction of a 1,411 square foot utility building at 6309 18th Avenue South with the stipulation listed in the Leaal Basis of Recommendation. II. BACKGROUND Time Warner Cable requires a small building within each city it provides service to serve as a relay station for its cable operations. A relay station is currently located at 6509 Cedar Avenue South. This property is being purchased for the roadway improvements at 66th Street and TH 77. The facility needs to be relocated within the general area by the end of the year in order for Time Warner to continue providing services to Richfield. The City owns the property at 6309 18th Avenue. Some attempt has been made over the years to develop the property; however, nothing has been successful. Time Warner is proposing to construct a 1,411 square foot building to house necessary equipment. The building would be of rock -face block. Landscaping would be provided around the foundation. The existing trees will be maintained. A driveway would be constructed to provide access to the occasional service truck that would need to access the facility. The lot currently provides stormwater holding capacity for the block. The building would be situated on the property so that the existing capacity would be maintained. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY Time Warner located its facilities at the Cedar Avenue location two years ago before a final decision had been made regarding the upgrade of interchange. The facility has to be relocated by the end of the year when the Cedar property will be purchased for roadway improvements. The property at 6309 18th Avenue has been chosen because it is located on the north edge of the airport mitigation area. The site provides a place for the relocation of the Time Warner facilities without interfering with future redevelopment of the mitigative area. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The property does not meet setback and lot size regulations for a non- residential use in the R (single family residential) district. Variances have been requested to allow development of this site,. The proposed location of the building on the lot will allow for the current stormwater capacity to be maintained. C. FINANCIAL N/A D. LEGAL Zoning: R (single family residential) Land Use: Vacant Comprehensive Plan: R -SFH (high density single family residential) Notification: Notice of the hearing was mailed to property owners and occupants within 350 feet of the subject property Other Actions: Council: A public hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m., August 14, 2000 Hearing Examiner: A public hearing is scheduled for 5:30 p.m., August 1, 2000 A utility building over 500 square feet is a conditional use in the R district. The findings necessary to issue a CUP (546.05, subd.6) are as follows: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: the facility is necessary to provide cable services to the City. The proposed location is at the edge of the residential area and should not interfere with any future development of the area. b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines: The facility is being relocated because of the reconstruction of the interchange at TH 77 and 66th Street. The proposed location is at the north edge of the residential area and should not interfere with future development of the area. c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code: Landscaping will be provided around the building; the existing stormwater capacity will be maintained; one parking space will be available for a service truck. Other items in Section 541 (e.g. trash enclosure) are not required for this type of use. d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements: The facility is necessary to provide cable services to the City. It is a low impact use requiring few if any City services. 0? -d e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare: The facility is a low impact use. A service truck may need to visit the facility an average of once per week. The building is designed of high quality materials and landscaping will be installed, so its appearance will not negatively impact the neighborhood. Existing mature trees which provide some screening of the site will be maintained. t) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location: The facility is necessary to provide cable services to Richfield. The facility is being relocated from 65th and Cedar and must be in place before the end of the year. g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting .of such conditional use permit: There are no specific conditions listed in the code for a major public utility. Stipulation of Approval: 1. That a variance be granted for setback and minimum lot size requirements. 2. That the Public Works Director approve the stormwater management plan. 3. That at least 80 percent of the building facade be made of brick. IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S) Deny the request for a conditional use permit with a finding that the proposed use will have a negative impact on surrounding properties or the City as a whole. V. ATTACHMENTS Code References: 521.07, subd. 15; 506.07, subd. 64; 546.05 Attachment A: Survey of existing conditions Attachment B: Site plan Attachment C: Landscape plan Attachment D: Floor plan and elevations Attachment E: Grading plan VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING Applicant/Owner: Bernie Doffing, Time-Warner Cable a3 Code Citations SS,ECTION 521 - ZONING: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 521.07. Conditional uses. Subdivision 1. The uses listed in this subsection are conditional uses in the R District, and are subject to the conditional use permit provisions outlined in Section 546.05 of this code. Subd. 15. Major public utilities. SECTION 506 - ZONING: PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS 506.07. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purpose of this code, the following words and terms shall have the meanings stated: Subd. 64. "Public utilities, major" - Public utility buildings with more than 500 square feet of gross floor area; electric sub - stations; or high voltage transmission lines. SECTION 546 - ZONING: ADMINISTRATION 546.05. Conditional use permits. Subdivision 1. permit required. It shall be unlawful to engage in any use listed in this code as a conditional use without first obtaining a conditional use permit (CUP) from the City pursuant to this subsection. Subd. 2. Limitations. A conditional use permit may not be issued for the purpose of granting an adjustment or appeal, or for any use prohibited in the zoning district for which the permit is sought. Subd. 3. Application. Application for a conditional use permit shall be made to the Director on forms provided by the City. Subd. 4. Planning Commission review. After receipt of a completed application, a date shall be set for consideration before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may offer whatever public notice of its review it deems necessary. Following this consideration, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the application. Subd. 5. Public hearing. After receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a date shall be set for a public hearing. Not less than 10 days prior to the public hearing, notice shall be published once in the official newspaper and sent by mail to all the owners of properties located wholly or partially within 350 feet. The Council shall make the final determination on the application, and in doing so shall make findings regarding its review. The Council may impose conditions and require guarantees on the granting of the permit in order to ensure compliance with the conditions designated in connection therewith. The Council shall make a decision within 60 days of submission of a completed application unless written notice of an extension is provided to the applicant. The notification must state the reasons for the extension and its anticipated length, which may not exceed 60 days unless approved by the applicant. If the Council fails to make a timely decision, the conditional use permit shall be deemed to have been approved. (Amended, Bill No. 1995 -19, Sec. 4) Subd. 6. Conditions for issuance. The Council may not grant a conditional use permit unless it finds that all of the following conditions will be met: a) the proposed use is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan; a_y b) the proposed use is consistent with any officially adopted redevelopment plans or urban design guidelines; c) the proposed use is or will be in compliance with the performance standards specified in Section 541 of this code; d) the proposed use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, utilities, services, or existing or proposed improvements; e) the use will not have undue adverse impacts on the public health, safety, or welfare; and f) there is a public need for such use at the proposed location; and g) the proposed use meets or will meet all the specific conditions set by this code for the granting of such conditional use permit. Subd. 7. Recording of CUP. Upon commencement of an approved conditional use, a certified copy of the conditional use permit shall be filed by the applicant with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles. The permit shall contain the legal description of the property. Subd. 8. Expiration of CUP. A conditional use permit shall expire one year after it has been issued unless: a) the use for which the permit was granted has commenced within the one year period; or b) upon written request of the person or corporation holding the CUP, the Council extends the expiration date for an additional period not to exceed one year. Subd. 9. Term of CUP. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect for so long as the conditions regulating it are observed, unless specifically stated otherwise. A conditional use permit shall expire if normal operation of the use has been discontinued for 12 or more months. Time shall be calculated as beginning on the day following the last day in which the use was in normal operation and shall run continuously thereafter. Subd. 10. Amendment to CUP. Holders of a conditional use permit may propose amendments to the permit by following the procedure set in this subsection for issuance of a new permit. Significant changes in the circumstances or scope of the use shall require approval of the Council. Such changes may include, but are not limited to, hours of operation, increase in number of employees, expansion of structure or premises, or major operational modifications, as determined by the Director. The Planning Commission may recommend, and the Council may impose, additional or modified conditions as a result of the amendment. Subd. 11. Fee. The fee for a conditional use permit or amendment thereto is set by Appendix D of the City Code. Subd. 12. Revocation of CUP. The Council may review conditional use permits periodically and may revoke a permit upon violation of any condition of the permit, any law of the United States or the State of Minnesota, or any ordinance of the City. The procedure for revocation set out in Subd. 13 of this Subsection shall be followed. If it is discovered after approval of the conditional use permit that the City's decision was based at least in part on fraudulent information, the Council may revoke the permit, modify the conditions, or impose additional conditions. Subd. 13. Procedure for revocation. The procedure for revocation of a conditional use permit shall be as follows: a - _; a) Complain . The Director shall review any complaints received by the City or any other party involving property which is subject to a conditional use permit, and shall determine whether, in the Director's judgment a violation of the terms or conditions of any conditional use permit appears to have occurred. b) Notice of apparent violation. If the Director determines that an apparent violation of such terms and conditions exists, the Director shall cause a notice of violation to be mailed to the owner of the property or owner's agent and to any other person known to the City to be conducting the use for which the conditional use permit was granted. The notice shall: i) be in writing; ii) state the violation or violations found to apparently exist and state the remedial actions which must be taken to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit; iii) provide a reasonable time, but not less than ten days, for the recipient to remedy the violation or violations stated in the notice; and iv) inform the recipient that if the stated violations are not remedied within the stated time period, the Director will request the Council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. c) Failure to comply. When notice has been given in accordance with "item b)" above and the recipient has failed to correct the violations stated in the notice within the time allowed, the Director shall refer the matter to the City Manager with a recommendation that a hearing be held by the Council to consider the revocation of the conditional use permit. A copy of the Director's recommendation shall be mailed to the same persons who previously were mailed the notice of violation. d) Scheduling of hearing. If the City Manager concurs in the recommendation of the Director, the City Manager shall schedule a hearing before the Council to consider revocation of the conditional use permit. The date of the hearing shall be as soon as is reasonably convenient. e) Notice of hearing. Upon the scheduling of the hearing, the Director shall furnish mailed notice of such to the same persons who were mailed notice of the violation. The notice shall: i) state the time, date and location of the hearing; ii) describe all violations which will form the basis of the Director's recommendation to the Council; iii) describe the recommendation which the Director intends to make to the Council with respect to revocation; and iv) inform the recipient of its opportunity to be present at the hearing, to be represented by legal counsel during the hearing, and to present testimony and evidence. - f) Public notice. The Director shall also provide a mailed notice containing the information described in subparagraphs (i), (ii), and (iii) of "paragraph e" above to all other persons Q — who would have been entitled to notice had the hearing been to consider the granting of the conditional use permit. g) Determination. At the conclusion of the hearing, or as soon thereafter as is reasonably possible, the Council shall render its written decision. The decision shall state the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit found to have been violated; and shall state the determination of the Council with regard to revocation of the conditional use permit. The Council may, in lieu of revocation, permit the conditional use permit to continue subject to such further or additional terms and conditions as in its judgment are necessary to insure compliance with the conditional use permit. The Council's written findings and determination shall be mailed to the persons who were mailed the Director's notice of violation. If a conditional use permit is revoked, all uses and activities which are permitted only by such conditional use permit shall immediately cease. In addition, all other licenses and permits issued by the City which require, as a condition of their issuance, the existence of the conditional use permit, shall be subject to termination in the manner set forth in the City Code or other applicable law. Subd. 14. Other remedies for violation of CUP. In addition to the procedure set forth in Subd. 13 above, the City may exercise, with or separately from such procedure, all and any other remedies and actions available to the City including, but not limited to those contained in Sections 115 and 320 of the City Code. I I I I r I I 1 v I z QLI I I o I I I I+ ! I l I I I I I. I I 14 I 06 I — G. ' ab J e e e e e e e e e e p° a o,* b m C q oyO a2 O• m u e 1 D- 1 O C y) u bJ Y u< E L 30O— y1 V O O s i 5 V Z C y Y O M y u Y O U O N fyyH INi §I 1; 0 IOINQ 11 ` I 11 7 i15fI I] V N R I aag'I 9Nlallna xxia I 313tDN0.) 7NIl SIX3 Hl nos -3n V yyL El c t O — b C d w E' p z a Z a x So n o U o O _T zty cit4 0 E 1 2 h O 2 I O O o ° 4 O CC V OT'n Q t 6 O I o y M 00 % y m Cd U U V J w oI • o 04 h: 4na z. m 1l n P m m w oI • o 04 h: 4na z. th I id 811 a'- B I r J O • i7 lnsLwNvn OYl l< u3<M1o91f5 n.3m pf, 1 a lA! ui 1 3w11 ilx Ii a # €_ kid a a; a e $ 4- y Fr ijQ a B a,, m m m m Y 1 819 y • • e - - ..' rP Y Q o r b O O < < E a ! YZ YB IIE S .y I ° S i ei_': ° . (y 3! 6]] o n 0 i i y 4 .7a 4i.. ' ?'i ira : It FeEl a; fi'C: `i.. o ^ o 0 Y_ t •53 as- ei .la ;• i ¢ YY';sY r1; n e0b] MOP, I ] e5 p •[ i3a -- (n 1[ c [a(y• : •`.15.1 Z]Ir .:r C T Q 3. is F.. -(_31 YYltl -•• 7 ra p pSaYx11 } r, 1... -_ r-(e rr.. ac P[ E aQl e N Z •':`: -• !ii(rlr"ii.•, ]3P eQ < c o U] i y r`_' 3 Y ( j]«[`S I(- e;ae ` 1` 1r Fi4 ed-i Y < << W¢ a2 Ifc e. ell.+2t1:,ji r>y] IH-M 1]_y Q < w W 'C c c O jlSf .s'f 5' S 66 Y Q wm a¢ <mm 2yu ii "I !'_;tea -1.19 9"SI .aY y 1• i a U t, ( :ap2e iP 41 t a 0 "' 0 00 < < is cr i° s apc 9- i5 pp9yyl ac(;:•y 5I >Ipt I y c i w m J m m2FacaE5a =° a f- gig E ¢ yliillP9i::'l"gi tC( 55y e!° o Jm W. r W ]Y6P6.- p U UZE77° ;' Z ]S::e :I!:IGiY9il:sIy Iljiti7 W m m J m 7S'I•IIdII O FinaowiiO<iO _.. .. . • _ . _ 1•) _ _ • (A 002 J, a. CL M- t U r.00S vL >L 1010 00'SL) p I 7i amp ^ a, I coz H— ::_ " \ LU F— 3 sz' 42 u 0 IW ([•r.11.0° 141 V i I "i - •G/ ill '. ' y R H12_• .0 n. I H1 nos 3nN3A d HI 91 tr ey 1 z w H U) e 2 2IIIagag D y 9r @ a S.E gii z i is iF l a yy 9fy yy a5 }-Fi ;iL i ppq r z y D L Ord i. 0 i I5' W'. •} 4 ag # R0 { Y; Gd d Y g !iy7 j 55 i z 4a a q r 1 Z'7 is G ! ew aayy rytt F >" a !r I 6D cc pp E8c oI Sg j o$ i Z }.P ddE tiE" f i tl r O 1 w ds, 4 EQ8 91 a•: aa5' I a a1 sl : ! r 1vM fib asi a _ s' g $ H oroVne pov - - 3136ON00 DNUS(X3 I j I M.ti'•fv.00S vL vL , t °,Q 00'SL) 4 jQ i i =T _ - _ T _ _ • i I I • t g r` o co C, I ry N CD I . 0 V) L1 ( u LLJ ty I C-- _< 3 I , O L J 1 I cr- t z j ©I I co I' I Z 0o cn s QIHl Q J a• w NVId 3dV3SONV1 e! r D W: JC7• iip F -;,-.» J"n nos In 3A vi ix. aW' NOIIVIS AV138 3 83NHVM 3POI e 2 2IIIagag D y 9r @ a S.E gii z i is iF l a yy 9fy yy a5 }-Fi ;iL i ppq r z y D L Ord i. 0 i I5' W'. •} 4 ag # R0 { Y; Gd d Y g !iy7 j 55 i z 4a a q r 1 Z'7 is G ! ew aayy rytt F >" a !r I 6D cc pp E8c oI Sg j o$ i Z }.P ddE tiE" f i tl r O 1 w ds, 4 EQ8 91 a•: aa5' I a a1 sl : ! r 1vM fib asi a _ s' g $ H oroVne pov - - 3136ON00 DNUS(X3 I j I M.ti'•fv.00S vL vL , t °,Q 00'SL) 4 jQ i i =T _ - _ T _ _ • i I I • t g r` o co C, I ry N CD I . 0 V) L1 ( u LLJ ty I C-- _< 3 I , O L J 1 I cr- t z j ©I I co I' I Z 0o cn s QIHl Q J 0-/C sl L° f SNOIIVA313 V Nvld 800lJ Vln°5 .nu.r V.BI IOf9 !g NOUVIS 1,,V138 318VO 83N8VM 3Yi11 I a R w.". +e wr".Ia —llT n f3 p3 t H H i-i H, i. H .41 O. z H O O zi a. O lil/ I if II 7 ji L N Ll N F1 FlFi T Al f3 p3 t H H i-i H, i. H .41 O. z H O O zi a. O lil/ I r i j Yi L E 1 I 9J! { pi r EIE I I pl J Q' i NVId 9NIlJViJ9 81 Zw; 1 ? 4i III It Q r. w O N s, C Q?; w r Z t F!: @6 i -S_ it F i Q4F ;, i a 1 I I A I I I' • ,f ow W F AEI l lOSlwllll '(n2Ljm b xwyr Dual aa s Y W Z I E t w li; II. itW' L:7 NOIIVIS AV13N 318VO 2l3NIIVM 3WII t I I I ' - 3l itLZrrO .'JNUStr3 - --• - _ 1 : -- L:rL. _ ~•n —_ a —\ r- I la. Iv \ I Iv I; JI 2• I h rj I I I lD " e I Z SI I a _Y/ 74 l: y\ Ln ly. W cl uo 5c ff V - -1+9:t 2. H1 nos =; 3nyr /1 v H181 / Za3 Q a_ 7 Q cc 91 i j Yi L E 1 9J! { pi r EIE pl N Yrw. • .g gg 14 E , Q FIF FF -sF Si y: rF i 3I S pae `{ F 4i III It Q r. w O M Qa { sa3xS€ E! Y, i ci ` L4 !^ C t @ ag6 [) RS Fy F B p Z t F!: @6 i -S_ it F i Q4F ;, i a 1 I I A I I I' • ,f ow W F AEI l s Y WZ a I''I Ypb qe s Q• AFB j a a t w 7 5 ,Ye E a3 r e F.F FaSF F t I I I ' - 3l itLZrrO .'JNUStr3 - --• - _ 1 : -- L:rL. _ ~•n —_ a —\ r- I la. Iv \ I Iv I; JI 2• I h rj I I I lD " e I Z SI I a _Y/ 74 l: y\ Ln ly. W cl uo 5c ff V - -1+9:t 2. H1 nos =; 3nyr /1 v H181 / Za3 Q a_ 7 Q cc 91 3 AGENDA SECTION: NEW BUSINESS AGENDA ITEM # REPORT # CASE # 27 J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PC MEETING DATE: JULY 259 2000 ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION: Consideration of Zoning Ordinance requirements relating to corner visibility. I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review the information and provide direction to staff regarding the City's corner visibility requirements. II. BACKGROUND A resident has testified before the City Council that the current requirement regarding corner visibility is too strict and does not allow him to provide a tall enough fence in his front yard to provide safety for his children. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review the City's corner visibility requirement in light of the resident's concerns. The resident, Randy Darling of 6945 Russell Avenue testified at the Planning Comission meeting on June 27. The Zoning Ordinance currently states as follows: 511.15. Traffic visibility. On corner lots in all districts, nothing shall be erected, placed, planted, or allowed to grow in such a manner as to obstruct vision between the height of 30 inches and ten feet above the abutting curb line of the intersecting streets within a triangular area defined as follows: "beginning at the intersection of the projected curb lines of two intersecting streets, thence 50 feet along one curb line, thence diagonally to a point 50 feet from the point of beginning on the other curb line, thence to the point of beginning ". o ot\ 0 es Roadway v stye ear° 50' Curb to - -- Q Right -of -way Boulevard) O •- - - .- , -._. - Lot Line Off' o e m v Figure 9 0 J City Public Works and Public Safety staff strongly support the existing corner visibility requirement for safety and traffic control reasons. Attachment A gives some feedback from different departments. Fifty feet was established because that provides adequate distance for a car travelling at 18 -23 miles per hour to see another car coming from a cross street and stop before hitting the vehicle. This assumes an uncontrolled intersection. 3,1 The visibility requirement was added to the ordinance several years ago, but there are several examples of poor visibility situations that have been in existence since before the ordinance was passed. Some of the problematic intersections include 68th Street and 16th Avenue, 68th Street and 14th Avenue, and 67th Street and Portland Avenue. Attachment B lists information obtained from other cities' ordinances. III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION A. POLICY The City Council has asked the Planning Commission to review this requirement. B. CRITICAL ISSUES The ordinance is in place for safety and traffic control reasons. C. FINANCIAL A reduction in the corner visibility requirements would require the installation of additional stop and yield signs. In addition to installation and maintenance costs, these signs increase costs for vehicle maintenance. D. LEGAL N/A IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S N/A V. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Perspectives about the ordinance from City departments Attachment B: Visibility requirements from other cities Attachment C: Site plans showing the impact of the requirement on 50 -, 60 -, and 75 -foot wide lots VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING N/A 3a Feedback from other City Departments /Divisions Attachment A Department/Division Feedback Public Works /Central 50 feet of visibility at uncontrolled intersections should be Operations maintained (necessary for snow plowing, street cleaning, etc.). The rule is finally starting to have an effect. Less than 50 feet at intersections with stop signs or signals might be acceptable. Public Works /Engineering See traffic brochure from California and information from Northwestern University Traffic Institute. The corner visibility requirement is a traffic control measure based on speeds and an uncontrolled intersection. A relaxation of the rules at controlled intersections might be acceptable although stop signs are sometimes removed which could result in someone having to remove a fence or landscaping. More stop signs and yield signs would be needed if the requirements were relaxed. Installing these signs has a cost to the City and the user beyond the cost of installation (e.g. increased wear on vehicles). Public Safety /Police Strong objection to changing the rule because it's a matter of traffic safety. Thirty feet might be acceptable at controlled intersections if there are controls in all four directions. Chain link fencing might be acceptable. The rationale for the ordinance was made when the ordinance was passed. There should be a strong rationale for lessening the ordinance. Public Safety /Code The current rule should be maintained for safety and visibility Enforcement reasons. Calls from residents complaining about site obstructions are not uncommon, and this ordinance is necessary for dealing with these problems. 07/18/00 d dd E C O Ed d 3o t0 a .o 0 y y N N N N C >O Cto O D E dL y d j U D E E j N a+ N N d Ed d N aL+ Ln Ln r N tA D F_ 0 O O M LO LO O t d m dw d O ND to C a w MD N D u 0? to rn o O Q tri N : 03 O U_ O to O two W O ELiN O Cm d C 0. t0 to p y O N > d U to L O y dDCEN N W. :3v L _ C O ,W 3D,o o 0 o' - a E c Y O a 0 o ro N Q to 3 c O cOON L 4Z Q. L 7 L M C U L 45>aca E N U to u 04 Eu 0 obi 4+ to y N tn a 0 'O W -O_.. C= c -o:° c C: (a 'N N d cc0 d > p0 CL Ln N E E N C N tA D F_ 0 O O M LO LO O t O ND a 0m N u` C> N LOCli Co LO 0 Co 0 Ln co C14 O O D r r 04 04 M d a E a N o E E N D co M04C-4 u > d H ui E C E E El E E E to O Ln O todOGilGPIMMtcr d N I N N O C 6 L d N C L C N C w tC CSI +t, Y .N O n to , O O to ` 0 d C L N N aL, 7 r_ +' to o Q- CC' o -0 E >. 0 'nn ;- c w ta, o E a L 0 E C Q 3 cc , c`ao Ed oCis.- E O ' D 41 V a+ .r- C 7f C E u N O N > d C i i1 D> H 0 > O .0 3 Q uv d_a'd (0 otco E3ctnv Q O a0o''Ecn mavLOOOLn Y N i Cm TE,o 3 p_ > O Q d 0 vu3 in O a N> a + O i a cL3.CE Ln d• -Lc oo,E'Z O o..y i Q.. d,uc m d ZM•,5Q,rC D G U 0 E 01 E oCW C ' D L 4O a d 0 Q , a m C ddm >C.7 U`+c a D o in0s_uaOE C O r N Nw 00 N r. N w N Nd+) tr a CL d• L 2 04 D i P, 7W - sT RA; akt 'A rV RAr",c IAvs; )7-v7,'-- 3 -L I. SAFE APPROACH SPEEDS AT INTERSECTIONS A. There are potential vehicle conflicts at every intersection. The possibility of these conflicts actually occurring can be greatly reduced through proper channelization and appropriate traffic controls, but the avoidance of accidents and the efficiency of traffic operations must still depend to a large extent upon the judgment, capabilities and responses of the individual driver. The intersection design must provide sufficient sight distances for the driver to perceive potential conflicts and to carry out the actions needed to negotiate the intersection safely. B. Drivers approaching an uncontrolled intersection should have an unobstructed view great enough to enable them, after perceiving a vehicle on the cross road, to decide whether to stop, change speed, or continue through the intersection. The o eatest dictaara is required when it is necessary -to -. decide whe th r or Ot- `fib•- StOD -. y _ C. Figure 1 shows the sight triangle which s` developed when two vehicles approach the same intersection. The safe stopping distance (SSD) is given by: SSD = Perception /Reaction Distance + Braking Distance + Clearance Distance SSD = 1.47(V) (t) + VV2 CD uo FIGURE 1. Sight Triangle for Safe Approach Speeds at Intersection 1. V is the speed of the approaching vehicle in miles per hour. V is usua_ 1_ taken as the 85th percentile speed o e a plW_oa_ch. In .urban areas, this is usual l y close to the speed 1 imit. 3--s 2. t is the perception /reaction time of the driver. Percep- tion/reaction time is dependent on driver attentiveness and the complexity of the situation. In order to calculate SSO, it is necessary to assume a value for perception /reaction time. A value that is typical-ly used is 1.0 to 1.5 seconds. It should be noted, however, that the American Association. of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) sug- gg5ts a.percept.ionlreaction time of 2.5 seconds. This is extremely conservative. 3. f is the "friction factor," a measure of vehicle deceler- ation due to braking. When all wheels are locked and the vehicle is sliding on level pavement, f is equal to the coefficient of friction. Figure 2 shows coefficients of friction for wet and dry pavements for a variety of surface types and tire conditions. On grades, add or subtract the. decimal equivalent of the grade uphill or downhill, respec- tively, to or from the friction factor. 0.e D G Cr kJ a cr a a 0.7 UjNJ ED NO2 zLL00.6 00 U. P: WUj 91-0 LLa 0.5 LL M OU8 Izaz0.4 0. 0a U_ >- o_,N0.3 U W D: O 02 l RFS 4 TEST DATA vR} `.Fp - - EXTRA." DLATED RES B.C. NDRY-PLANT MIXES b ir -vc CONE RES A' COOP tRE 1 M> 4p -y,ET- i9 S ^`q S 4 wEr_ r S CONS Pl4Nl M ----------- 20 30 40 50 60 70 SPEED OF VEHICLE FIGURE 2. Coefficients of Friction for Various Tire and Pavement Conditions Source: AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets) 4. CD is a-clearance distance between the point where the vehicle stops and the potential point of collision. This is usually assumed to be 15 feet. This is simply a safety factor. D. After calculating the safe stopping distances for each intersec- tion approach, approach sight distance can be analyzed several ways. '* 2 31 1. If an accurate condition diagram exists, the SSD's can be laid out to scale on the diagram. Each intersection quadrant can then be evaluated for possible obstructions which interfere with the approach sight triangles. Care should be taken in accounting for the shape of embankment slopes as well as heights of fences and shrubs. A field check.should be made to verify any assumptions. 2. A current aerial photo at a known scale can similarly be used. The'same cautions for the use of condition diagrams apply for aerials. 3. In the field, SSD's can be laid out on the intersection approaches and approach sight distance evaluated. Observa- tions must be made from the eye height of a typical driver to the height of a typical automobile. AASHTO design cri- teria assume a driver's eye height of 3.50' and a vehicle height of 4.25. 4. Another method- --of -analyai -ng the- _inter-section involves calcu- lating the SSD for one street, measuririg-the length of -the sight triangle leg on the cross street (as determined by any sight obstr.uctions), and working backwards through the equa- tion for SSD to determine the safe approach speed on the cross road. If the calculated safe approach speed exceeds the actual speed of vehicles on the approach, the approach will operate satisfactorily. This is' illustrated in Figure 3. rwsr ...11.61. !u. C.IC.Lt..a. f...d FIGURE 3. Determining Safe Approach Speed by Measuring Available Sight Triangle 5. As an alternative to calculating the safe approach speed from the measured SSD based on a view obstruction, the sight angle to the restriction can be measured. A sight angle board is set up on one approach at a distance equal to' the 3 34 Ir J SSD from the potential collision point based on the speed on that approach. Sighting along this line toward the colli- sion point, an estimate of the angle to the view obstruction is made. This measured angle is trigonometrically related to the length of the opposite leg of the sight triangle. Therefore the sight angle is related to the safe approach speed on the intersecting street. Figure 4 illustrates this procedure. Figure 5 depicts the relationship between safe approach speed and sight angle. FIGURE 4. Field Procedure for Measuring Sight Angles a ri a 25 3 rd 20 0 IS xui! r 10K K Si 0 SSD• 1.47V t.M•CD Az:tmd: t • 1•5 sec. r . 0.50 Cp 15 It.. Level Grades ti- o 4 0 S 10 IS 20 25 30 1S ASSWID SdiE APPOCACw SPEED (wPw) FIGURE 5. Relationship Between Sight Angle and Available Safe Approach Speed on Conflicting Approach i -• SSD from the potential collision point based on the speed on that approach. Sighting along this line toward the colli- sion point, an estimate of the angle to the view obstruction is made. This measured angle is trigonometrically related to the length of the opposite leg of the sight triangle. Therefore the sight angle is related to the safe approach speed on the intersecting street. Figure 4 illustrates this procedure. Figure 5 depicts the relationship between safe approach speed and sight angle. FIGURE 4. Field Procedure for Measuring Sight Angles I x 21 9 x s0 z0 0 15 n i to Si SO . 1,47 V t . ' 2 NT Co Assured: t • 1.5 sec. t • O.SO Cp 15 Ft. Level Grades I 1 I 0S U a 10 1S 20 2S 70 ]5 ASSUMED SAFE APPROACH SPEED (HPH) FIGURE 5. Relationship Between Sight Angle, and Available Safe Approach Speed on Conflicting Approach yq II. FIELD PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING SAFE APPROACH SPEEDS A. There is another field method of determining safe approach speeds for intersections. This involves locating the view obstructions with respect to the drivers' positions on their respective approaches. This 1-1 the method described in the Traffic Control Dev'ces Handboo Parkin con i ions, stree wi s, and approac speeds are other factors used in the analysis. Safe nP approach speed is determined by means of a graphical solution. The following example and discussion explain the method in detail. B. EXAMPLE PROBLEM An evaluation of the intersection of Streets "X" & "Y" is to be made_i.n(order to determine the proper intersection control based on safe approach- speed,. The following information is given or has been determined. -` _ - -- - _ . _ X" Street is the major street based on a comparison of traffic volumes Posted speed limits on "X" Street and "Y" Street are 35 MPH Measured widths of "X" Street and "Y" Street are 44 and 32 feet, respectively Parking is permitted on al.l approaches to the intersection 6 The following distances were measured in the field, from face of curb or edge of pavement to the view obstructions on the western side of the intersection (Figure 6). all = 5 ft V = 10 ft Col = 6 ft d" = 8 ft Steps in determining safe approach speed for eastbound "Y" Street are as follows: 1) Determine worst case positions of vehicles on the respective approaches, depicted by the distances a', b', c', d' measured from the face of curb or edge of pavement. The' values of a' and c' are affected by parking. If parking is allowed on the approach, the value is taken to be 12 ft; if no parking is allowed, the value is 6 ft. Distances b' and d' are dependent upon the width of the approach and are given by the lesser of two values: 2 W a a'I at ol X N m m s- -- -- - Q Ile "Y" STREET A A dw d' TYPICAL NTEASECTiON ANALYSIS -- - - -::.- - ..::,:- -- — - - - - -- - == -- -- FIGURE 6 3"11 b' and d' = (width of street) - 12 ft T or b' and d' = 1/2 (width of street) + 3 ft Far--this- example.,_ parking is allowed on al l approaches so a' and c' equal 12 ft. To determine b' and"d' use the respec- ti -v-e street widths and choose the lesser of two calculated values. V = 32 - 12 = 20 ft. or W = 1/2(32) + 3 = 19 ft. so b' = 19 ft. d' = 44 - 12 = 32 ft. or = d' = 1/2 (44) + 3 = _'2'5"ft.- so d' = 25 ft. , 2) Now find the total distances a, b, c, d as follows a =a' +a "= 12 +5 =17 ft. b =b' +b"= 19 +10 =29 ft. c =c' +c" = 12 +6 =18 ft. _ d =d' +d "= 25 +8 =33 ft. 3) Using Figure 7 to determine the .safe approach speed for eastbound "Y" Street, an analysis is made based on the sight obstructions to the eastbound driver's left and right. The lesser of these speeds is the safe approach speed for east- bound "Y" Street. First, distances a and b are plotted to represent the location of the obstruction to the drivers left. Then points c and d are plotted, representing the obstruction to the driver's right. Using the posted speed or 85th percentile speed, if available, on "X" Street as a common point, 35 mph in this case, lines are constructed through `'points (a, b) and (c, d-). These.are extended until they intersect the bottom of the graph, which represents the safe approach speed on the intersecting street. Figure 8 shows safe approach speeds of 4 MPH based on (a, b) and 10 MPH based on (c, d). Therefore, the eastbound safe approach speed on "Y" Street is 4 MPH. 4) The procedure is then repeated for the westbound appraoch of Y" Street.'` 7 CRITICAL APPROACH SPEED ANALYSIS STREET b APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING CONTROL TYPE. CRITICAL APPROACH SPEED (MPH) RECOMMENDED CONTROL TYPE ss 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 . 40 20) . C%l tot of 11 o nn n Innnnn aaOAt fit ONw wt Aw!•saws Ts stsa andorlTrn n u w ww t1 0 t1Y tttYYt t t ttY YYt fi adB n d v w waauuouow uutnaaut on t cc 40 nuA n ® ®onnnnnln In o re. auoo uuu uutna twt>ft 1I1 as ado dd d n da nn tad a0a t tt tt!•t>•w!•N w t o on>.nnn n n IL vw a t t / w t w t wasosoo n ant nsn www w OYYB t aa ww t tYY t t t t I1 L; Yaa I ada t dd t a ttt ttt o CLr i sw w wa a o t ae t oaaoaoa dnd u u alu tt t taasosow u o t t ut Ino; adltaall, at tlrit tatt t a oututtul aa as ltl oorn o ttr•o n ttl a n ww#wa0wt >• f>wp w 1 tl CL COaaa a ldddd dauddit• oot rtt, tot a t tt u wt w w w ttt onwttr tto u t In t t Irl oaaaaoaddd uaudandd lo sit ww a ISt o w wttr w tu t aaa01 >I avd ao a daud ti wls os Inoao s vtn n aaaoat a YYY tYt w t tw t1 wwti tw BttY t1 1 tt Ot t at w Rfl t N at!a w tw tt tt a t tt Iww tta Y 0 Y O t a t d t Ifl1 t t a aou t a do i ttt aa uu t udtt u attl t tu o t we ttr,ss o.as t•1 w a aa o d u udt ura t B d dd t t aA tl<:t' so 45 40 33 30 25 20 Is a 3 Approach Speed (MPH) Itt ally a d dd t tlno t Itl lttl• In tuattt w v touu w w wo n a i i CRITICAL APPROACH SPEED ANALYSIS STREET d APPROACH DIRECTION EXISTING CONTROL, TYPE, CRITICAL APPROACH SPEED (MPH) RECOMMENDED CONTROL TYPE Distance a or d (Feet) so 220 200 180 160 140 120 too 80 60 40 20 Distance a or d (Feet) so 220 200 180 160 140 120 too 80 60 40 20 NI i I I S O0 I 1 I N 1 I 1 1 I 40 1 I 1 I m o 1 a V It 31I O a C r I Do1 c0 1 O o a Q25 1 co I I I I I T I I V'Z0 i I I 1 1 0 1 t I i1 Jr 10 IF1I1 4- 1 0 90 43 40 Y hT. 35 30 23 20 IS O Approach Speed (MPH) FIGURE 8 - Example Problem Solution 9 rp 5) The following general guide can be used as an aid to deter- mine proper control type based on safe approach speed. Safe Approach Speed Control Type 10 mph stop sign 10 -15 mph yield sign C. Safe approach speed-stiudies are applicable to the following problems: 1. Determining if there is a view obstruction at the prevailing speeds. 2. Finding out how far back a view obstruction must be removed to make further speed reductions unnecessary. 3.--- -Determining what restriction of-parking is required to "open up" the _ intersection. - 4. Determining whether stop or yield control is desirable. 5. Establishing design standards and zoning ordinances which will eliminate view obstructions on new or improved streets or highways. 10 Visibility Requirements in Other Cities Attachment B City Visibility Requirement Fence Rules Bloomington 15 feet from property line intersection (not Max. height: 3 feet street curb Chanhassen 30 feet Opaque fence in a front yard setback area is limited to three feet in height. Any open fence can be up to four feet in height. Edina 30 feet Max. height: 30 inches Lakeville 45 feet Max. height: 42 inches anywhere in front yard Within visibility area must be 75% open Minneapolis 20 feet for street and alley No fences allowed in this area Plymouth 30 feet Max. height: 3 feet Robbinsdale 35 feet Max. height: 3 feet Roseville 30 feet in residential districts No fences allowed in this area 40 feet in all other districts St. Louis Park 50 feet for streets Max. height: 30 inches 15 feet for alleys Woodbury General language stating nothing shall block Fence anywhere_ in the front_yard limited to 30 the viewef- vehicular_ traffic or restrict snow inches plowing- activities 07/18/00 J a G OQ J W W W 0 F- QO OH F- o C 0 0 2 0 N n J Q V S -i 1 LU J Ca G Q x W W J Q I- i- C) to O J W H O O LL O O I 1 I 0 0 0 N n w J Q W CL ao x J W W W a~ rc oo LL LO C) 34 O O 1 Lo O N a w J Q u