11-14-2000PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
November 14, 2000
Roll Call
Study Session Items
ITEM #1 PC Letter #31
ITEM #2 PC Letter #32
ITEM #3
ITEM #4 PC Letter #33
Adjournment
7:00 p.m.
Update on Low Frequency Noise Report and Airport
Mitigation
Update on City Visioning Process
Airport Video
Annual Review of Zoning Ordinance
Auxiliary aid for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests must be made
at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Service's Director at 861- 9702 ".
AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION ITEM
AGENDA ITEM # 1
REPORT # 31
CASE #
J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: NOVEMBER 149 2000
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION. CONSIDERATION:
Update on the Low Frequency Noise Report and Airport Mitigation.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This is a discussion item only.
II. BACKGROUND
The Low Frequency Noise Report was issued this fall. Perry Thorvig, Community
Development Specialist, will give an update on the report.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
N/A
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
N/A
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S)
N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
Low Frequency Noise Report
Map of Low Frequency Sound Mitigation Zones
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Perry Thorvig, Community Development Specialist
Az R AU'r,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introduction
II. Policy Committee Review of Expert Panel Work
III. Findings of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee
IV. Recommendations of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee
Appendices
A. Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. Membership, Expert Panel Membership
B. Meeting Agendas and Minutes
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 FICON Annoyance Curve
Figure 2 MSP and LAX Annoyance Surveys
Figure 3 MSP and LAX Annoyance Relative to Distance
Figure 4 Hams Low Frequency Sound Level Contours
Figure 5 Fidell /Sutherland Low Frequency Sound Level Contours
Figure 6 Low Frequency Sound Level Policy Contours
Figure 7 Low Frequency Sound Level Mitigation Areas
i !,7i
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Levels Identified by Government Entities for Various Purposes with Associated
Percentages of Highly Annoyed Population (from FICON)
Table 2 Recommended Treatment to Reduce Interior LFSL in Existing Residential Areas
Table 3 Recommended Rattle Prevention and Limits for.lnterior LFSL for New. Construction
1 + L-i
INTRODUCTION
The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee was formed as a part of a December 18, 1998
agreement between the City of Richfield and the Metropolitan Airports Commission.
The agreement between the City and the MAC arose out of the City's concern regarding the
potential impact of low frequency noise from the new North /South (17/35) Runway on
established residential neighborhoods in east Richfield. The North /South Runway is part of
MAC's 201.0 expansion plan... The new runway is.currently under construction ..and is scheduled
to be completed and operational in December, 2003. When complete, the runway will be 8000
feet long and will carry up to 300 to 400 daily operations.
The Agreement charged the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee with completion of the
following tasks:
A. Review all existing information pertaining to SFO, BOS, BWI and LAX and any other
published studies of the audibility and impact of Low Frequency Noise, not excluding
impacts outside of residential settings.
B. Conduct such studies as, in the opinion of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee, are
necessary to address issues related to low frequency noise.
C. Convene an Expert Panel consisting of Sandford Fidell, Andrew Hams, and a third member
to be named by these two (Louis Sutherland), to provide technical input and information to
the Policy Committee for consideration.
D. Present recommendations regarding the appropriate noise metric, compatibility standards,
and recommended mitigation programs, measures or techniques.
E. Prepare a report or reports documenting the Policy Committee's deliberations and
conclusions.
The Committee began meeting in February, 1998, and held 15 meetings. At the
final meeting, the Policy Committee adopted the Summary Report. Appendices A
and B contain information regarding membership and activities of the Policy
Committee.
POLICY COMMITTEE REVIEW OF THE EXPERT PANEL WORK
This section of the Report presents the Policy Committee's interpretation and review of the
information prepared and presented by members of the Expert Panel.
Methodology
The Committee instructed the Expert Panel, convened pursuant to the Agreement, to
undertake the following tasks:
Task 1. Review the literature on audibility, noticeability and the effects of low -
frequency noise on individuals and communities.
Task 2. Identify relevant noise effects and descriptors.
Task 3. Determine existing and predicted low- frequency noise levels in
the vicinity of MSP runways, based on field measurements in
areas adjacent to MSP.
Task 4. Identify criteria for acceptability of low- frequency noise in
residences, including a laboratory study of annoyance of a set of
sounds under controlled listening conditions and a social survey
in neighborhoods adjacent to MSP.
Task 5. Determine low- frequency noise reduction provided by typical
residential construction in the vicinity of MSP, based on field
measurements of typical homes in the area.
Task 6. Determine low- frequency noise reduction provided by residences
subsequent to treatment in the MSP Residential Sound Insulation
Program.
Task 7. Evaluate the acceptability of low- frequency noise environments in
residences without and with treatment from the MSP Residential
Sound Insulation Program.
Task 8. Determine the types of treatment required to improve the noise
reduction and achieve compatibility of the low- frequency noise
environment, including a laboratory analysis of low frequency
transmission loss of typical wall, window and door construction.
Task 9. Prepare reports for the Policy Committee documenting the work
of the Expert Panel.
Task 10. Measure noise in the vicinity of MSP for comparison with calculated C- weighted
values from Integrated Noise Model 6.0 (INM 6.0)'.
This task was added at the request of the FAA's Office of Environment and Energy.
2
Ir
Effects of Low Frequency Aircraft Noise
The primary effect of existing or forecast low frequency aircraft noise on the residents of
neighborhoods near MSP is rattle - related annoyance. The low frequency aircraft noise poses
no known risk of adverse public health consequences, nor a risk of structural damage. Under
the expected circumstances of residential exposure, low frequency aircraft noise will not
interfere with indoor speech, nor is this low frequency noise likely to awaken people.
Annoyance is not a trivial effect of aircraft noise exposure. The Federal Interagency
Committee on Noise (FICON) recognizes annoyance as the best indication of adverse
community reaction to aircraft noise. It is the highly annoyed portion of the population that is
usually identified. The prevalence of annoyance also provides much of the rationale for
federal and state policies concerning mitigation of aircraft noise impacts in residential areas.
Additional information about the effects of low frequency aircraft noise on individuals and
communities may be found in the technical reports.
A laboratory study in which test subjects judged the annoyance of recorded samples of low
frequency aircraft noise confirmed the following facts:
Low frequency noise is more annoying than aircraft overflight noise heard at the
same A- weighted sound level.
The addition of even minor amounts of rattle to low frequency noise increased its
judged annoyance by about 5 dB in this study.
Reductions in the low frequency content of this noise proportionally decreases the
annoyance of non - rattling test sounds.
Descriptors of Low Frequency Aircraft Noise and Low Frequency Noise Dose
The Expert Panel recommended that the Policy Committee adopt the sum of the maximum
sound levels in the 25-80 Hz one -third octave bands (the low frequency sound level,
abbreviated LFSL) during individual aircraft noise events, as the preferred descriptor of low
frequency aircraft noise in the vicinity of MSP. This recommendation was accepted on May 19,
1999. Further review identified the arithmetic average of the maximum low frequency sound
levels for those events as the best measure of low frequency aircraft noise dose. The Expert
Panel did not agree on whether the lower bound for the dose analysis should be 60 or 70 dB.
3
1 -'
Criteria for Acceptability of Low Frequency Noise in Residences
FICON and its constituent federal agencies have adopted the relationship between overall
noise exposure and the percentage of the population that is annoyed by the noise exposure
for guidance in setting policy.2 The descriptor for overall noise is Day -night Average Sound
Level (DNL). Figure 1 shows the FICON relationship. Table 1 shows the FICON levels and
also levels identified by various bodies for specific purposes.
100
U 90
2
Q 80
A
v
70
FICON (1992) --y
60
O
s0
Q
40
L -3ti.5% ---------------------------
30
20 -
22.5 % ----------------------
L 10 '
12.3 °Jo----------------
O - -6.5 " - -- - -- - , ;
45 50 55 60 65 70 T5 80 65 90
Day -Night Average Sound Level, dB
Note: The above graphic depicts the relationship of noise exposure to the prevalence of high
annoyance, per the dosage- response relationship by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (1992). .••:
5 5i
2 The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsored the initial research that
showed this relationship.
4
r
s *
Table 1
Levels Identified by Government Entities for Various Purposes with Associated
Percentages of Highly Annoyed Population (from FICON)
Entity Purpose Identified Level DNL Percentage Highly
Annoyed
U.S. E.P.A. Level identified as 55 4
Requisite to Protect
Health and Welfare
with Margin of Safety
Not policy, standard
or regulation)
Minnesota Legislature Identify Area to Study 60 7
Treatment
Minnesota Legislature Identify Area for 65 12
Sound Insulation
Metropolitan Airports Lower Limit of 60 6
Commission Residential Sound
Insulation
HUD Level below which 65 12
Untreated Residential
FAA Use Compatible
Regulation)
HUD Range of Levels 65 -75 37
where Improved
FAA Noise Reduction is
Required (Regulation)
HUD Level above which 75 37
Residential Use not
FAA Compatible
Regulation)
HUD, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
and the Urban Mass Transit Administration (UMTA)-have adopted criterion levels for noise and
vibration compatibility where the percentage of persons highly annoyed was selected to
correspond to the percentages reflected in the FICON relationship for DNL 65, DNL 70 and
DNL 75. The Expert Panel recommended, and the Policy Committ ee has used, the same
approach in basing its recommendations on the percentages of the population that is highly
annoyed.
5
During this study a social survey of the annoyance of low frequency aircraft noise and noise -
induced rattle was conducted in a Minneapolis neighborhood north of the intersection of
Runways 12U30R and 4/22 at MSP. The results of the MSP survey are consistent with those
observed within the comparable range of LFSL (low frequency sound level) values in a survey
conducted in a neighborhood near Runways 25 UR at Los Angeles International Airport.
Annoyance due to low frequency aircraft noise was strongly related to LFSL values. The most
common frequency of awareness of noise - induced rattle was "a few times a day". Windows
were the most cited sources of rattling noises.
Figure 2 summarizes the relationship between low frequency aircraft noise levels in the MSP
and LAX survey areas and annoyance.
0
100
40 HA = LFSL *1.33 - 82.6
B0 HA = LFSL *1.43 - 89.5
O 70 - HA = LFSL *0.35 - 2.41
60 From LAX survey
0 0 JASA, September 1999)
c m 50 -
aa
m j 40
0
30
d
d Combined
10 From Minneapolis survey regression
4 June 1999)
60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
Low- Frequency Sound Level Dose, dB
Note: The above graphic depicts the noise levels and percentages highly annoyed in MSP and LAX surveys.
0
j -1 v
Figure 3 indicates the relationship between the percentage of respondents in the LAX and
MSP social survey who were highly annoyed by rattle and vibration from aircraft and the
distance from their homes to the nearest runway. The prevalence of annoyance to vibration
increased in degree the closer in proximity the home was to the runway. This relationship is
variable depending on a number of other factors.
Based on the relationships shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 the actions by federal agencies and
the Minnesota Legislature, the Expert Panel and Policy Committee recommendations are
based on the percentages of highly annoyed persons that correspond to DNL 65 (12 %), DNL
70 (22 %) and DNL 75 (37 %). From Figure 2, the equivalent levels of low frequency sound
dose are 70 dB, 78 dB, and 87 dB.
Predicted Low Frequency Noise Levels in the Vicinity of MSP
Daytime ambient sound levels in low frequency one -third octave bands in residential areas of
Minneapolis, Richfield, and Bloomington near MSP are currently on the order of 55 dB ± 5 dB.
Nighttime ambient sound levels in Richfield are roughly 10 dB lower. These findings are
consistent with previous surveys that identified -typical levels of environmental noise in
developed areas and approximately a 10 dB difference between daytime levels and nighttime
levels.
7
i;
16
o
V
7o
cr
0
0
C
ccU
40 Combined findings of LAX
t„ and MSP social surveys
i
0 20
10
0.
t,600 2,000 2.515 3.165 4A00 5.015 0.310
Sideline Distance from Closest Departure Runway Centerline (ft)
Based on the relationships shown in Figures 1, 2, and 3 the actions by federal agencies and
the Minnesota Legislature, the Expert Panel and Policy Committee recommendations are
based on the percentages of highly annoyed persons that correspond to DNL 65 (12 %), DNL
70 (22 %) and DNL 75 (37 %). From Figure 2, the equivalent levels of low frequency sound
dose are 70 dB, 78 dB, and 87 dB.
Predicted Low Frequency Noise Levels in the Vicinity of MSP
Daytime ambient sound levels in low frequency one -third octave bands in residential areas of
Minneapolis, Richfield, and Bloomington near MSP are currently on the order of 55 dB ± 5 dB.
Nighttime ambient sound levels in Richfield are roughly 10 dB lower. These findings are
consistent with previous surveys that identified -typical levels of environmental noise in
developed areas and approximately a 10 dB difference between daytime levels and nighttime
levels.
7
Figures 4 and 5 show projected low frequency sound level contours with Runway 17 -35 in use.
Two approaches were taken toward contour development, one which determined that takeoff
noise impacts were more significant and one which determined that reverse thrust impacts
were more significant. The two contours were the result of different approaches taken by the
consultants toward interpretation of the data collected during the monitoring program
completed as part of this work effort. The takeoff - dominated contour (Figure 4) has more
impact at the northern end of the runway whereas the reverse thrust dominated contour
Figure 5) incorporates additional areas toward the midpoint of the runway. No consensus was
reached by the Expert Panel that one contour or the other was a better representation of low
frequency noise impacts.
S
PON
0
ir .°- .ten. h - r
r} • .
70 ee
y
7e ae
f
r, 197 ae
7o ee
78 de
e7 ae
r
t 1
71 -
78 dB
r L,
1
70 dB
78 d8
e7 dB
Existina and Potential Low Freauencv Noise Reduction of Residences near MSP
Field measurements of single family detached residences near MSP provide roughly 15 dB of
noise reduction at frequencies between 25 -100 Hz regardless of construction type. No
meaningful differences were observed in the reduction of LFSL values of homes that had
MSP's standard acoustic insulation treatments and homes that had not been so treated.
However, the social survey indicates a decrease in persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise in
homes that have received the treatment. The decrease is equivalent to a 5 dB decrease in
sound dose or a 5 dB increase in noise reduction. The reasons for this change in attitude are
not known, although they may be associated with changes such as a reduction in rattling
windows or with the difference in noise levels at frequencies above 80 Hz.
Modifying the structure can increase the low frequency noise reduction provided by
residences. An improvement of approximately 5 dB can be achieved by adding a heavy layer
to the outside or inside (e.g., the equivalent of a 1" heavy- weight plaster /stucco skin resiliently
supported from the standard construction or a double layer of Y2" gypsum board added to all
interior wall surfaces and ceiling).
F9
The upper limit of improvement is approximately 10 dB. This low frequency noise reduction
would require use of a complex structure (e.g., a brick wall with minimal openings toward the
noise source with separately supported interior skins and multi -pane windows of limited size).
The interior levels of low frequency noise can be reduced by a number of methods. These
include increasing the noise reduction of the structure, decreasing the outdoor noise levels or
a combination of the two.
Level of Noise Reduction Required to Achieve Compatibility with the Low Frequent
Aircraft Noise Environment
Table 2 identifies the level of treatment recommended to achieve compatibility for existing
residences. Table 3 identifies the level of treatment recommended to achieve compatibility for
new construction.
Table 2
Recommended Treatment to Reduce Interior LFSL in
Existing Residential Areas
Average Treatment to Reduce Rattle Interior LFSL Reduction
Exterior LFSL
in dB
70 None Required None Required
70 -77 Treat Rattle Directly Decrease interior LFSL by 5 dB*
78 -86 Treat Rattle Directly Decrease Interior LFSL by 5 dB
and Consider Reducing by more
May not be fully adequate than 5 dB
87 Treat Rattle Directly Decrease Interior LFSL by at least
10 dB. Probably not Economically
Probably not fully Adequate Feasible
Based on findings of the social survey, the existing Part 150 Residential Sound Insulation
Program provides the equivalent of 5 db. reduction, therefore no further reduction is necessary.
IM
Table 3
Recommended Rattle Prevention and Limits for Interior LFSL for New Construction
Average Exterior
LFSL in dB
Rattle Prevention Treatment Interior LFSL Reduction
70 None Required No Special Requirement
70 -77 Rattle Prevention 15 dB
78 -86 Rattle Prevention 20 dB
87 Do not develop for residential use
11
FINDINGS
The following represent the Findings of the Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee. The
findings are based on information developed by the Expert Panel and Committee discussion.
Effects on People: The primary effect of low frequency aircraft noise on the residents
of neighborhoods near MSP is rattle- related annoyance. Low frequency aircraft noise
poses no known risk of adverse public health consequences, nor a risk of structural
damage. Under the expected circumstances of residential exposure, low frequency
aircraft noise will not interfere with indoor speech, nor. are the levels of low frequency
noise likely to awaken people.
2. Noise Descriptors: The preferred descriptor of low frequency aircraft noise is the sum
of the maximum sound levels in the 25-80 Hz one -thins octave bands during individual
aircraft noise events. This measure is called the low frequency sound level (LFSL).
The best available predictor of the prevalence of annoyance due to multiple aircraft
events is the arithmetic average of low frequency sound levels above a selected
threshold. This measure is called the low frequency sound level dose (LFSL Dose).
3. Information on Compatibility: Many bodies have identified levels of general aircraft
noise in terms of their compatibility with a range of land uses. These levels are typically
expressed relative to the Day -night Average Sound Level (DNL). HUD and the FAA
have established regulations that place no restrictions on residential development
where the exterior DNL is less than 65 dB. They also do not allow new residential
development where the exterior DNL exceeds 75 dB, except under special
circumstances. In the range of exterior levels from a DNL of 65 dB to a DNL of 75 dB,
residential development is allowed if the noise reduction provided by the building
structure prevents interior noise levels from exceeding a DNL of 45 dB.
4. Community Response to Noise: Annoyance related to environmental noise is typically
described in terms of the percentage of the community that reports a high level of
annoyance to the noise.
5. FICON Relationship: Figure 1 shows the relationship of noise exposure (DNL) to the
prevalence of high annoyance as adopted by the Federal Interagency Committee on
Noise ( FICON). Table 1 shows the percentages of the population highly annoyed, from
FICON, associated with levels of overall environmental noise identified 'by various
bodies.
6. Low Frequency Survey Responses: Responses to low frequency noise obtained by a
social survey conducted in Minneapolis showed results consistent with a social survey
conducted adjacent to LAX in the range of LFSL Dose from about 75 dB to 88 dB.
Figure 2 shows the results of the individual surveys and the combined results.
7. Relationship between sideline distance of households to runway: A relationship exists
between the distance of homes from the runways and the prevalence of high
annoyance. Figure 3 indicates the percentage of respondents in the LAX and MSP
social survey who were highly annoyed by rattle and vibration from aircraft and the
12
HU,
distance from their homes to the nearest runway. This relationship is variable
depending on a number of factors.
8. LFSL Dose Relationships: The exterior LFSL Doses corresponding to various levels of
the population highly annoyed are 12.3% HA (70 dB), 22.5% HA (78 dB) and 36.5% HA
87 dB). Exterior LFSL Doses below 70 dB are considered fully compatible with
residential use without any special treatment. Exterior LFSL Doses at or above 87 dB
are considered incompatible with residential use. Exterior LFSL Doses at or above 78
dB and below 87 dB require structures that provide higher than normal low frequency
noise reduction.
9. Low Frequency Noise Reduction Provided by Existing Residences: Existing residences
in the vicinity of MSP, whether or not treated under the MSP Residential Sound
Insulation Program, provide approximately 15 dB of low frequency noise reduction.
However, residents in structures that have been treated report levels of annoyance to
low frequency noise that would be expected only if the residence provided'a 20 dB low
frequency noise reduction.
10. Forecast Exterior LFSL Dose near MSP: The Expert Panel did not reach consensus on
a LFSL contour representing conditions with Runway 17 -35 in operation. Two contours
have been presented to the Policy Committee. The Policy Committee has indicated
uncertainty about certain aspects of both contours: 1) the reverse thrust dominated
contour potentially understates impacts at the north end of the runway, and 2) the
takeoff dominated contour potentially understates impacts toward the midpoint of the
runway and potentially overstates impacts at the north end of the runway. A policy
contour has been developed which takes these concerns into consideration (Figure 6).
This policy contour is appropriate for use in determining land use compatibility.
11. Treatment of Existing Single - Family Residences: Table 2 shows the treatment that is
appropriate for existing single - family residences exposed to low frequency noise.
12. Noise Reduction Requirements for New Single - Family Residences: Table 3 shows the
noise reduction requirements that are appropriate for new single - family residences
exposed to low frequency noise.
13
I -17
14
l_ 16
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee recommends that:
1. The recommendations of the Low Frequency Policy Committee be adopted by MAC,
incorporated into the Part 150 Noise Mitigation Program Update, and submitted to FAA
for review and approval as soon as possible.
2. The FAA be urged to act expeditiously in review and approval of the Part 150 Update
since Runway 17 -35 is currently under construction.
3. The best descriptor of low frequency aircraft noise is the sum of the maximum sound
levels in the 25-80 Hz octave bands, and the best descriptor of low frequency aircraft
noise dose is the arithmetic average of low frequency sound levels above a selected
dB threshold.
4. The mitigation measures identified in Table 2 be used as the basis -for determining
appropriate low frequency noise mitigation for existing areas, including single - family
residential conversion at levels above 87 dB LFSL.
5. The mitigation measures identified in Table 3 are to be used as the basis for future
residential development.
6. Blocks intersected by low frequency noise contours be treated as if the whole
block is included within the contour.
7. Land use conversion be used as the preferred method of mitigation in residential
neighborhoods inside of the 87 db contour.
8. The low frequency sound level contours shown on Figure 6 (LFSL Policy Contour with
Runway 17 -35 in use) be adopted as the best representation of areas potentially
affected by low frequency sound.
9. Figure 7, identifying the blocks impacted by the 87 dB, 78 dB, and 70 dB LFSL, be
adopted for application of the mitigation measures indicated in Tables 2 and 3.
10. Homes previously insulated under the MSP residential insulation program, and now
included within the low frequency impact area, receive additional low frequency
mitigation as appropriate.
11. Homes included within both the DNL (for overall noise) and LFSL (low frequency noise)
contours receive appropriate treatment for both types of noise concurrently.
12. FAA move forward . expeditiously with development of national standards for
determining both the impacts of low frequency aircraft noise as well as appropriate
mitigation measures.
13. Information developed by the Expert Panel be forwarded to FAA for use in
development of national standards for low frequency noise.
15
96
At
cot
LUNORIMW-—-
0
41
II
WS
Az 14WIN-
w-
lo&-
NS
r
I 1i'! Lam.
Ill-/
APPENDIX A
Low Frequency Noise Policy Committee Membership
MEMBERS
Richfield
Mike Sandahl (Co-Chair)
Metropolitan Airports Commission
John Himle* (Co-Chair)
Alton Gasper (Co-Chair)
Bloomington
Larry Lee
Minneapolis
Sandy Colvin -Roy
John Himle resigned from the MAC on March 31, 2000, and was replaced on the Low
Frequency Noise Policy Committee by Commissioner Alton Gasper.
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Metropolitan Council
Nacho Diaz
Federal Aviation Administration
Glen Orcutt
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Brian Timerson
MASAC
Dick Saunders
17
I ,>` lJ
Andrew Hams
Sanford Fidell
Lou Sutherland
EXPERT PANEL MEMBERSHIP
18
APPENDIX B
LOW FREQUENCY NOISE POLICY COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDAS AND MINUTES
Will be included once report is approved)
19
I
1
7c `
JS
rr rr _
rr rw
roi 7i-.Elm
r rr r
r
r
ma.
rr
rr
rr wr rw ww i
ar rw
it rw rr
air rr wr rr wr c.+'
rr rr r+ r •t IIirrrr —
rr wr
rr rr
1 rr rr
a
r
O i= iamrs1irIr
2as 'a-
r as s
r WE
ow—
ES
SO
r rr r
r
r
ma.
rr
rr
rr wr rw ww i
ar rw
it rw rr
air rr wr rr wr c.+'
rr rr r+ r •t IIirrrr —
N
AGENDA SECTION
AGENDA ITEM #
REPORT #
CASE #
STUDY SESSION ITEM
2
32
J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000
ITEM,F.ORTLANNIN.G COMMISSION_CONSID.ERATIOM
Update on City visioning process.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This is a discussion item only.
II. BACKGROUND
Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager, will give an update on the City visioning
process and how it relates to the work of the Planning Commission and the
Comprehensive Plan.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
N/A
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
N/A
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S
N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
Critical issues from City visioning meetings
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Pam Dmytrenko, Assistant to the City Manager
oz 1.
RICHFIELD
Ranking Critical Issue
Richfield Critical Issues
October 3, 2000
Visioning Forum
of votes
1. Community Center /Recreation -- Performing Arts 25
2. Transportation /Mass transit (dependency on cars) 24
Gridlock
Roadway development prior to incoming development
Mass transit
3. Maintain parks, greenways & areas of tranquility 23
4. Encouraging small businesses including neighborhood small businesses ( "home grown) 20
5. Varied housing choices & opportunities 19
6. Maintain a strong education system 18
6. Airport concerns 18
7. Positive redevelopment of Cedar Avenue corridor 15
7. Encourage citizen participation 15
7. Complete community of work, shop & live 15
8. Personal safety and concern for neighborhood safety (security) 14
9. Economic Development - proportioned to community development needs 13
balance of economic funding"
9. Finding right combination of urban /suburban /rural characteristics to drive the changes 13
in our community
10 Encourage people to buy & then stay here "Stop & stay" 12
10 Preserving little town character & atmosphere 12
11. Life -long learning opportunities 11
12. Greater accommodations for walkers & bikers (leisure & recreation) 10
13. Variety of care facilities (elderly, children) 8
14 Finding positive aspects of geographic location & population size (reality 7
15. New City Hall 6
15. Having a "real" lake 6
16. Fear of corporations 5
16. Attracting & assimilating diverse cultures 5
16 Adaptation or utilization of changes in the surrounding communities _- - 5
we can't operate without them)
17. Not being absorbed by another community 4
RICHFIELD
209jjjj Q`-
o° heSFUTURE!
Table #1
Table #2
Table #3
Table #4
Table #5
Table #6
Table #7
Table #8
Table #9
2020 Population
October 4, 2000
Visioning Forum
40,000
40,000
42,500
28,000
41,000
37,000
35,000
45,000
36,000
RICHFIELD
Z041iiLU-
FOCa,
e e - ...
n eSFUTURE!
Richfield Critical Issues
October 4, 2000
Visioning Forum
Rankin Critical Issue
1. Parks, recreation &.connecting paths :investment.& enhancement)
2. Education (all aspects)
3. Creation of a Downtown /Central Core (66th & Lyndale)
4. Transportation
5. Community Center
6. Diverse housing stock & affordability & maintenance
7. Business development & redevelopment (Cedar Ave) appropriate land use & traffic
management (safety)
8. Neighborhood planning & preservation
8. Amenities & entertainment, theatres, cafes "neighborhood feel"
9. Control airport growth
9. Community -based shopping
9. Community activities & gathering places
10. Visible community safety
11. Cultural inclusiveness
11. Maintaining support for family values & neighborhood cohesiveness
12. Attracting families
12. Revenues for dreams & high quality services & infrastructure
12. Preserving history (Ruthann) (continuum of past, present & future)
13. Engaging the entire community in pursuit of same vision
13. Commercial & light industrial development
14. Measurement & accountability
14. Computer - facilitated, community -led process in policymaking & planning (governance)
15. Maximization of service businesses
16. Responsiveness of elected official to present/future needs
17. Citywide communication (Town meeting)
17. Distinct community identity `
F
RICHFIELD
2 2 € .
FOU
o °theSFUTURE!
Table #1
Table #2
Table #3
Table #4
Table #5
Table #6
Table #7
Table #8
Table #9
2020 Population
October 3, 2000
Visioning Forum
40,000
40,000
39,400
37,000 +1
41,000
40,000
40,000
46,050
38,000
r
RICHFIELD Critical Issues
October20211a 4, 2000Q- Richfield High School
o ° heSFUTURE! 12th Grade Social Studies
Ranking Period 1: Critical Issue of Votes
1 Less retirement homes 16
1 More greenery (319 trees) 16
2 More children's programs 12
3 Newer houses 11
4 More community gatherings 10
4 Cleaner areas /air 10
5 Less crime 9
5 More arts /music in school 9
6 Larger land area 7
6 More money in community 7
7 No airport 6
7 More diverse teaching staff 6
7 No big construction 6
8 Movie theater 5
8 Community Center 5
9 Wooden play structures in parks 4
9 Zoo 4
10 Better balance of young & old 2
10 Bigger school 2
10 More affordable housing 2
11 More volunteers 0
11 Close Richfield schools to "outsiders" 0
Ranking Period 2: Critical Issue of Votes
1 Expand or preserve Richfield 29
2 Attract more young people 26
3 No more airport expansion /loss of homes 19
3 Dance clubs 19
4 No more "old people" homes 14
5 No more multi- family homes 11
5 Reasonable- priced & safe housing for young people 11
6 Redevelopment of some parts of City 10
6 Community Center 10
7 More youth activities (teens) 9
8 Funding for schools 8
9 Less crime 6
9 A cultural center ( "Amsterdam ") 6
10 Decide Best Buy issue 4
10 New golf course 4
10 Less disruptive construction 4
11 Cleaner & safer multi - family homes 3
11 More major highways 3
12 More academic & achievement classes in school 2
12 A mall 2
13 Safe environment 1
13 Clean streets 1
14 Bigger schools 0 :_
Ranking Period 3: Critical Issue of Votes
1 Bigger & better community center 25
1 More school funding 25
2 Less old people homes 20
3 No airport 17
4 Ice cream trucks 16
5 Preserve the parks 15
6 Safe environment/low crime 13
7 Uptown" /upscale -type shops 12
7 Movie theater 12
8 Coffee shops /cafes - Alternatives to fast food 11
9 Cleaner neighborhoods 10
10 Places for bands to play 8
11 More & nicerlbigger housing 7
12 No more big, high -rise buildings 5
12 Drive -in 5
12 More sit down restaurants 5
13 No Best Buy 4
14 Better, well- maintained streets 3
15 Brick sidewalks 2
15 More & clean ponds 2
15 Pedestrian lights 2
16 Winning school teams 1
16 More diversity in population 1
16 Skate park 1
17 No more multi - family units 0
17 Old- fashioned street lights 0
17 Field house with indoor pool /Recreational facilities 0
Ranking Period 4: Critical Issue of Votes
1 Entertainment center (movie theater) 39
2 Less airport disruption 23
3 Finish big construction'projects 20
4 Younger population 18
5 Community/Teen Center 13
6 More quality parks & nature centers 12
6 Classier dining 12
7 More affordable housing for families 11
8 Re -do HUB area 9
8 New golf course 9
9 Field house 7
9 Gardens - City 7
10 Forest/trees 6
11 Left turn traffic arrows 5
11 Relaxation of curfew laws 5
11 Better schools 5
12 Skate park 4
13 Distinctive street lights 3
13 Downtown area 3
13 Sound walls 3
13 Loss "big box" stores 3
14 Dance club 2
14 Wooden playground structures 2
14 Upscale homes (Holy Angels) 2
14 Re -do 76th & Penn 2
15 More parades 1
15 Homeless /battered women shelters 1
15 More community involvement in schools 1
16 Shopping mall 0_ --
16 Variety of athletic opportunities 0
16 Zoo 0
16 Improve pool 0
0
AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION ITEM
AGENDA ITEM # 4
REPORT #
CASE #
33
J PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2000
ITEM FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION:
Annual review of the Zoning Ordinance.
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review the Zoning Ordinance and provide direction to staff regarding
any changes-.
II. BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission completed a comprehensive revision of the Zoning
Ordinance in 1995. At that time, the Commission committed to reviewing the
Zoning Ordinance on an annual basis.
Some amendments were started during last year's review, but they have not been
finalized. An update on those amendments is included as Attachment A.
Commissioner Drummond suggested that the City consider adding an office
zoning district. A limited office or retail district might provide a better transitional
zoning district in areas like East 66th Street where property along 66th Street is
also adjacent to residential neighborhoods. A summary of this type of district, as it
exists in other cities, is included as Attachment B.
There is no provision within the Zoning Ordinance that lays out the process for
amending the Comprehensive Plan. In the past year, there have been some
requests from developers and property owners to amend the Plan. While the
process is generally established in state statute, adding it to the local ordinance
would be helpful for staff. If the Commission agrees, staff could prepare an
amendment. An example of an ordinance from Golden Valley is Attachment C.
An issue that has come up several times over the past year has been
homeowners proposing detached garages that include uses other than the storage
of motor vehicles. A screened -in porch, woodworking shop, pool table room, hot
tub room, sauna, and a pool changing room are just some examples of the spaces
people are adding to their garages. Staff would like some feedback from the
Commission on whether or not these expanding uses are a cause for concern.
Commissioners should also review the ordinance and bring forth any issues for
discussion.
III. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION
A. POLICY
The Planning Commission reviews the Zoning Ordinance on an
annual basis.
B. CRITICAL ISSUES
The items recommended for discussion are issues that have been
problematic in the past. It is appropriate to review the Zoning
Ordinance in light of these issues.
C. FINANCIAL
N/A
D. LEGAL
N/A
IV. ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATION(S
N/A
V. ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Proposed amendments
Attachment B: Summary of Limited Office Districts in other cities
Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan ordinance, Golden Valley
VI. PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT
MEETING
N/A
Attachment A
Item Past Issues Proposed Ordinance
Gas stations The ordinance has gone back and forth over the years Subd. 12. Service stations, service
regarding whether or not gas stations are allowed next station/convenience stores, and conversion
to residential property. A recent gas station that was of a service station to a service
proposed raised several neighborhood compatibility station/convenience store, provided the
issues. following conditions are met:
Several existing gas stations are located next to 1) if the use is not located on a
residential, so any change to the ordinance would make county road or state highway or if the use
existing businesses nonconforming. site abuts a lot which is zoned single or
One option the Commission considered that would have multiple family residential, it shall not be
less of an impact on existing businesses would be to operated between the hours of 11:00 p.m.
limit hours of operation for gas stations located next to and 6:00 a.m. of the following day; and
residential property. Three current gas stations are
located next to residentially zoned property and have
hours of operation outside of 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.
They would be made legally nonconforming with this
ordinance change (Food & Fuel at 63rd and Lyndale;
Super America at 2913 66th Street; Phillips 66 at 1-494
and 12th Avenue).
Large residential A couple of large residential building additions Subd. 38. "Height of building" - The
additions generated several negative calls to the City. These vertical distance to the highest point of the
additions raised two issues: 1. the addition does not roof for flat roofs; to the deck line for
blend architecturally with the main structure; 2. the mansard and gambrel roofs; and to the
addition involves an attached garage and the owner was average height between eaves and the ridge
able to construct the garage in such a way that would for gable, hip and gambrel roofs, as
not be permitted if it had been a detached garage (e.g. measured from the average elevation of the
larger height, size). lot adjoining the front building line. (Figure
A design review ordinance for residential additions was 4)
considered, but it would add an administrative burden
that could discourage remodeling. 521.13. Additional rules for accessory
The City of Bloomington has a couple of provisions in buildings and uses. Subdivision 1. The
their ordinance that might help to prevent problems additional rules set out in this subsection
caused by the second issue: 1. the floor space of an apply to accessory buildings and uses in the
attached garage can't exceed the floor space of the R District.
house; 2. unfinished storage space counts as garage Subd. 8. No accessory building, or an
space. Bloomington also gives a garage size bonus for tlGcessory use within a principal building.
shall be more than one story in height, lots over 15,000 square feet.
BLOOMINGTON CODE: greater in lot coverage than the principal
Structure Height:... the number of stories shall be building, or greater in height than the
determined by counting the total number of above - grade, principal building.
habitable floors in the building and shall not include walk -out
basements, attics or underground parking...
Co struction and finish buildings) accessory —
Exterior materials and finish must match or complement the
exterior finish of the principal structure in material, color, and
texture
Exception for tuck under garages. In those instances where
all garage space and accessory storage space is attached to
and located below floor area used for permanent four
season living area, there shall be no limit on the amount of
garage floor area. In these instances, the total floor area of
all detached structures shall be limited to 120 sq ft.
Overlay districts Discussed establishing an overlay district in areas of the No progress has been made on an
City where planning studies have been completed that ordinance. Staff is considering hiring a
recommend forms of development that not encouraged consultant to assist in this process.
by the City's zoning regulations. Design guidelines
have been developed in these planning studies which
are difficult for staff to enforce without ordinance
language.
Limited Business District
Pur op : to provide
areas appropriate for
office uses and multi-
family uses particularly in
transitional situations
between business or
industrial zones and
residential uses
Burnsville
Office Business District
Roseville
Limited Business District
St. Paul
Office- Service
Permitted Uses /Conditional Uses
Single, two-, multi - family housing
Hospitals, rest homes
Medical and dental services
Offices, business and professional
Public utilities
Public uses
Private colleges
Mortuaries
Clubs and lodges
Temporary uses
Motels
Commercial parking
Churches
Food catering
Towers
Antennas
Clinics for human care
Commercial zero lot line development
Daycare nursery
Government buildings (office uses)
Health clubs
Offices of a general nature (no retail sales or
warehousing)
Research centers
Schools, colleges, libraries
Towers
Art, music, photography studios (no retail sales)
Essential services
Funeral homes/mortuades
Historical buildings, museums, theaters
Nursing homes
Radio and television studios
Satelliate antennas
Therapeutic massage businesses
Medical and dental services
Offices, business and professional
Hospitals and rest homes
Private clubs or lodges
Beauty parlors
Greenhouses
Lawn and garden centers
Motels
Mortuaries
Research, design and development
Churches, public and private colleges and schools
Fumiture stores > 40,000 sq ft
Antiques, crafts and gifts
Dog kennels
Schools of music and dance
Mail order sales and limited production
Day care centers
Parking for contiguous business district
Veterinary clinics
executive, admininstrative
offices
Artist studios
Day care
Pohotgraphers
Mixed office /residential uses
Houses of worship
Personal services (beauty shops, barbers)
Attachment B
C -1 Zoning District Permitted Uses/
Conditional Uses
Shopping centers (6,000 sq ft or less)
Neighborhood retail estalishments (2,500 sq ft or
less)
Neighborhood service (2,500 sq ft or less)
Neighorhood office (2,500 sq ft or less)
Government buildings and libraries
Nursing homes
Minor public utilities
Neighborhood shopping centers > 6, 000 sq ft
Neighborhood retail, service & office > 2,500 sq ft
Traditional/take -out only restaurants
Auto detailing
Day care facilities
Multi - family dwellings
Antennas
Major public utilities
11y Ul %JViuCii v culcy - A.Uilwe, - LAUiiiiiti3udLIUil Nj, V. .
ATTACHMENT C
Subdivision 7. Comprehensive Plan.
A. The Council shall adopt, and may from time to time amend,
a comprehensive municipal plan pursuant to the authority
provided by and the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 473.858
and the related sections of said Minnesota Statutes 473.
Before adopting any such plan or any amendment the Council
shall solicit the recommendations of the Planning Commission
with respect thereto and shall take no action thereon until such
recommendation has been received or until 60 days have
elapsed since any such request for a recommendation and /or
a specific proposal relating to said plan was-submitted to the
Planning Commission. In considering any such request or
proposal, and before adopting any plan or part thereof or any
proposed amendment thereof or position with respect thereto,
the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing
thereon.
B. Following receipt of the Planning Commission
recommendation, or the elapse of said 60 -day period, the
Council shall upon published notice hold a public hearing with
respect to the proposed adoption of the Comprehensive Plan
or any amendment thereto and any action taken at such public
hearing shall become and be part of the Official
Comprehensive Plan for the City provided that a resolution
evidencing said action was approved by a two-thirds vote of all
of the members of the Council. All public hearings as required
by this Subdivision shall be held no sooner than 10 days after
published notice thereof in the official City newspaper in the
same manner as applies to the adoption of ordinances relating
to or amending the Zoning Chapter. The Comprehensive Plan
for the City as adopted pursuant hereto, and any parts thereof
or amendments thereto, shall serve as a guide to the City and
its public officials as respects future development and zoning
actions of and within the City. In the event that said
Comprehensive Plan shall be or come in conflict with the
zoning provisions of the City Code, then in all such cases the
zoning provisions shall supersede the Comprehensive Plan;
provided, however, with respect to all of such conflicts as may
exist or arise the Council shall within a period of no more than
nine months from the time such conflict develops call for and
act upon a public hearing at which such conflict shall be
addressed.
Source: Ordinance No. 670
Effective Date: 11 -15 -85
http: / /www.ei. golden - valley. mn .us /zoning/administration.htm 07/10/2000