The URL can be used to link to this page

99-10641 WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul desires to temporarily prohibit the �9- �oG�.( 2 establishment of new trucking facilities until such time as a study of possible amendments to the 3 City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities has been completed and the Council of the 4 City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that under separate ordinauce, the Council of the City of Saint Paul will direct the Department of Planning and Economic Development to undertake and compiete study of the City's official controls relating to trucking faeilities and to submit its report and recommendations to the CouncIl; and, be it 10 11 FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting 12 any development that might be inconsistent with the study and any amendments to the City's 13 zoning regulations, no pernuts or permission shall be issued or granted far the consriuction of INaw�+ 4, �'O°' 14 any new hucking facility in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from this date and until'� e-�� 15 n£h. � �i�s ��" "� °` '°-^`" "", °-- ;";; or until such eazlier time as the 16 Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recoxnmendations contained in the 17 study; and be it 18 19 2� 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 o _�_. . . - - - ---- - � � � u • . �.� ��. . - " • - .�i . . - . . - -, ,� .�� .. - --- . - - �r.r�n=.-Tr.�� 4..=_... '' " ii:a� v�R�tv�in��a.n1111C'd`�.`11.�1 " 1 � 1 � � tl�� ".�'.i1L��1:1� FINALLY RESOLVED, that the trucking facility presently approved for property commonly known as 685 Fairview and which is the subject of litigafion in District Court File No. C7-99-7679 is exempt from the restrictions in this resolution and accompanying interim ordinance. Requested by Department of: BY� ��.,�.� 1Vw__� ' � 1 Appro d by Mayor: Date BY � V�.�� - J '�i � By: Fosm Approved by City Attorney BY: y.�l✓1�.,-,�--� iv/ z�195 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: _.i�� ` � �S �h�� Adopted by Council: Date �� -�,[��,�,�q � � l Adoption Certified by Council Secretary a�i�ter_�I DEPARiMENT/OFFICE2�OUNCIL On'fEINR1ATED � � City Council 10-27-99 GREEN SHEET No � �� ?G9 CON�ACi PFRSON 8 PHONE YJUy1Q� NXYWa1. Jay Benanav 266-8640 �� Musr ee orr counica nce+w� er lon�I �" ❑ AJ 14.Z'1 '1, ❑ rnrasu � � arc..ro.�r eaaa+c � rwxou.tmurraon waweuuamvrKCro ❑MYORI�AtYifA1R1 ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N REQUESIED Approve resolution regulatinq truck facilities pending passage of an interim ordinance. RECOMMENDATION A(1pfOV¢ (A a RejeM () PERSONALSERViCE CONiRACTS MUSTANSWER 7HE FOLLOWIN6 QUES7ION5: 1. Flss Mis P��m e+erworketl under a cantract torthia dH�aAment? PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITfEE 2. Hec thie parsaVfirm evu 6een a qty empbyee? CMLSERVICECOMMISSION YES NO ' 3. �oes this Persanl�rm poesess a sldN rwt rwimallYPOSeessM DY arry curceM cilY emPbYee? YES � 4. isihispersoNF'malarDe4edVendoYt rES rio Fiqdain all es aireueis on sepa�ate aheet and aCxh to yreen sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WM, What, When, Wl�ere. Why) Resolution is needed to protect zoning process pendinq the passage of an interim ordinance regulating trucking facilities. VANTAGES IFAPPf20VED No permits may be issued to truck facilities during the period between the introduction and passage of the interim ordinance. DISADVAMAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED � The planning process may be compromised if permits are iasued between the time the interim ordinance is introduced and as ed. TOTAL AMOl1NT OF TRANSACTION f COSTlREVENUE BUD6ETED (qRCLE ON� YEb NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlwuaCw.lNFOa�7n�+I�wM , � . � SAINT PAUL PORT AUTHORITY 99- lo�y PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS & BENEFITS Brownfield Redevelonment 1. Additional Site Acquisition Cost Acquisition Costs of Blighted Property Redevelopment In Excess of Raw Land Cost Agency 2. Relocation Extraordinary Of curtent occupants and businesses Predevelopment 3. Demolition, Site Grading 8 Preparation Costs 4. Pollution Remediation & Soil Correction 5. Project Engineering 6. ProjectAdministration Costs t Greenfield Develoament (None) Redevelopment 1. Acquisition Cost of Raw Land 1. Acquisition Cost of Raw Land Agency 2. public Infrastructure 2. Pubiic Infrestructure TypiCal Roads and Utilities Roads and Utilities Development 3. Marketing of Land 3. Marketing of Land Costs 4. Project Planning & Admir.;stration 4. Project Planning � Administration PUBLIGNEIGHBORNOOD BENEFlTS PORT AUTHORITY MANUFAC7.'Rlh'� REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 1. 2. 3. 4. Quality Construction: Minimum S38 per square foot constr�ction va{ue. Valuable Use of Scarce City Land: Minimum ccrerage of building to land of 32%. Job Creation and Retention: At least one job per 1,000 square feet of building space. Full-Time Production Wages: Wage rates at least S9 per hour. Lesser wage rates may be acceptable if the company can show upward mobility within a year. 5. Neighborhood Economic Enhancement: Contractual commitment by each manufacturer that at least 70 percent of new hires will consist of Saint Paul residents. Financial penalty to manufacturer for failure to follow-through on commitment. Port Authority provision of customized job training services to assist with linkage between job openings and neighborhood residents. 6. Covenants: Commitment to abide by the Port Authority's Urban Design Covenants. G:\data\Pllpubredev > F� 1 ¢ �� - ' - --. �� za a� NS a n e o � � m y O m N tA c � U J v ��_ a q d com��n M<C c m RNNmm N0 Q t�Nln m (�t00 y � t9 Q(V (D O Q .fl m i9 V3 Vi �� y 69 (R E N y W a' tA �` ��N(�V C 3 0cp00 ¢1 i� _ � 69�M�W 69�� m W rn � � > a o<o�n<om�no c 1� C N�(O tD R I ? H O�OtOmtn O < � N N c t�l � il N o °� � Z �O� ° m�N�� m m d N C m K 0000000 rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o000000 'o LL 001t1 `O 00 �rv� v�n �n m w m NoJth�tn00 NI Oi < Q � f�1 < I� � � N U = Q � a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d °' o00000 m E � ° o° N a> r; �ri v N'"F' vS � � »vaw »" C m 9 N � O o v y o Y N 3 L� y Z� C� m � R U? O R z N E� Z y � � � U � a w `- m rn Y A �'< < u g �v�3 �� E o t m m U a V a1 �>. o `o m �c=U N v E�v `' O U° E� c m � � R � � 3 � o U W Ztq � 1-=f e � C � � y O a o� y c � U 3 � ,n v > a � � m � m � � j K O� V fV O tD C R t?a?RNOI Q mo�rn� N y � (9i9f9 W W E � N y W d' tH �+ mtD00 3 f�mN� O � = d Kb4f9� a 1 O �3 < �noNm •�-�� N Q ml H O ItJ O N 1� < 1� (V tn c0 a 3I o ° � Z . o oo� v rn nin m C 'm K 0000c c � o ° o � o c � n�mm� m O In LL] N 1� t"> V W L Q � a' 000 � � ° o ° o_ o > E ° o_ ° m a � m t�i � u��»w n Z Q � z �.! � Q 0 a � � y Q G � m N � m �i �m3 R tO � fD C -- � m LL N � e � � � n � � d t� m c E U J � s v > 3 � c a j w 61 th t7 N Ifl O.- X Nt�� O e-< W � m (V O 10 m C) O� N Q ( � r � P� V N " y w �M iR t9 �9 �9 �9 c� E � N y W a' u� T tD oJ O01 ON � W fV tD C'l O V � O (7 R' OI =ml ��Kt9W� OI � �I a' �on�oncoc� �'�. (O(O�F W N � � �I � F ' 0��06� roi� V7 N tn M In F M(O Q !V � 3I mi o ° � Z . mm ooco �o v � m�o in co 0 C � N � m K 0 0 o O o 0 0 0, m o � � D �� [�Ol�D <t� � m N o � m r m v o N NI 4) N h<(V f7 N N L Q � a' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° �'�c o000000 oc�0000 > E ° m Mi N v N N N(V t7N d � ssww«>wu>` a a � R O m � d m C C N CI 10 U y � Y N x ji m c m � O C � ~ Q N Z 10 E N � ` m � N � 11 N = � � m m m m m ` J E N G y S � � . a y U � � '` 6 '�a � � � J 'O Y N K O Q>QiLF- �i c T o A C E C � J v Q O N � � y � F O '� j� Y J � d � U v N c Z c� a-,°�ma`o` z � ` N N N N � � Q�m U' ?U h�- U' F ¢ S ¢' Q � � m Q' � ORIG�NAL � Presented Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PATL, MINNESOTA Council FIle #�q . 10 G t� Green Sheet # l0 y Ll. "14 �7 Committee: Date � 10 il I2 13 � 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 � 38 39 VJf�EREAS, Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 60.622 provides that "trucking faciliYies" are first permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts; and WfiEREAS, because the term "trucking facilities" is not defined in the City's zoning regulations and because trucking facilities are fust permitted in I-1 industrial districts which, by, definition, are intended for those uses which restrict the eaternal and physical effects of the use to the zoning district boundaries and in no manner affect sunounding zoning districts in a detrimental way, raises substantial questions as to whether trucking facilities are adequately regulated and properly sited under Section 60.612; and WHEREAS, the current regulatory condiuons incorporated in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108, as they may be applied to new trucking facitities, raises substantial questions as to whether such conditions are ineffective to mitigate potential detrimental effects of tnxcking fiacilities including noise, pollution, and vehicuiar tr�c on surrounding zoning districts; and WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul understands that new truck facilities are planned or aze being seriously studied for construction and that such plans raise substantial questions relating to whether or not an increase or concentration of such uses would have a detrimental impact on the general health, welfare and safety of the public and the natural environment; and WHEREAS, an increase or concentration of truck faciliries operated as presently permitted raises substantial questions relating to whether or not the City's present zoning regulations adequately address, provide and plan for the impact of such uses on adjacent neighborhood values, institutions and community chazacteristics, on vehicular traffic levels, on public iufrastructure assets, on the noise, vibrafions and other effluents generated by such facilities and the impact of such uses on other surrounding area plans which may have been adopted or aze presently under consideration for adoption; and WHEREAS, the recitavon of the concems noted above demonstrates the need to determine whether the City's present zoning code contains adequate safeguards which will provide for the orderly and appropriate approval and development of trucking facilities in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts; and QRIGINAL Presented Ar�.��1,Q�i- Svc�.�o,��tq� �saLU�rioN CTTY OF 5AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA c�'] Referred To �/ " Committee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Saint Paul Legisla6ve Code § 60.612 provides that "trucking facilities" are 3 first permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts; and 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 WHEREAS, because the term "hucking facilifies" is not defined in the Ciry's zoning regulations and because trucking facilities are first pernutted in I-1 industrial districts which, by definition, are intended for those uses which restrict the external and physical effects of the use to the zoning district boundaries and in no manner affect surrounding zoning districts in a detrimental way, raises substantial questions as to whether trucking facilities are adequately regulated and properly sited under Section 60.612; and WHEREAS, the current regulatory conditions incorporated in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108, as they may be applied to new hucking facilities, raises substantial questions as to whether such conditions are ineffecfive to mitigate potential detrimental effects of trucking facilities including noise, pollution, and vehicular traffic on surrounding zoning districts; and WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul undezstands that new huck facilities aze planned or are being seriously studied for construcrion and that such plans raise substantial questions relating to whether or not an increase ar concentration of such uses would have a detrimental impact on the general health, welfare and safety of the public and the natural environment; and WHEREAS, an increase or concentration of truck facilities operated as presently permitted raises substantial questions relating to whether or not the City's present zoning regulations adequately address, provide and plan for the impact of such uses on adjacent rieighborhood values, institutions and community chazacteristics, on vehicular traffic levels, on public infrashucture assets, on the noise, vibrations and other effluents generated by such facilities and the impact of such uses on other surrounding azea plans which may have been adopted or are presently under consideration for adoption; and WHEREAS, the recitation of the concerns noted above demonstrates the need to determine whether the City's present zoning code contains adequate safeguazds wkrich will provide for the orderly and appropriate approval and development of hucking facilities in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts; and Council File # � . t0 G �( GreenSheet# toya�..q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & 9 10 11 12 T3 14 15 16,� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 as Zs 30 31 32 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paui desires to temporazily prohibit the 99- loG y establishment of new trucking facilities until such time as a study of possible amendments to the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities has been completed and the Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendafions; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that under separate ordinance, the Council of the City of Saint Paul will � direct the Department of Planning and Economic Development to undertake and complete study of the City's official conuols relating to trucking facilities and to submit its report and recommendafions to the Council; and, be it F'ITRTF�R RESOLVED, that pending the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting any development that might be inconsistent with the study and any amendments to the City's zoning regulations, no germits or permission shall be issued or granted for the construction of m� j� any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from this date and until �� or until such eazlier time as the <20o�j'1 ouncil of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendatio ns contained in the study; and be it � R RESOLVE , that the restri ' ns in this resolu 'on and in the said interim ay be e�ende y action of ity Council for itional periods of ' e not to alditional ' teen (18) m in the event th ch study and re endations and ation o e City Coun ' requires such ea-t ions of tirne; an e it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the trucking facility presenfly approved for property commonly lmown as 685 Fairview and which is the subject of Tiugation in District Court File No. C7-99-7679 is exempt &om the restrictions in this resolution aud accompanying interun ordinanc:. � $�� .�s� � ' w �� V n (� r!- � Requested by Department of: By: Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by Mayor; Date By: Fprm Approved by City Attorney a >'.�7n 1✓�irv►�� Iv/ z7195 Approved by Mayor foi Suhmission to Counci2 By: � qq-toG� Interdepartmental Memorandum CIIY OF SAINT PAUL Date: October 21, 1999 To: Councii President Bostrom Councilmembers From: Ken Ford� 5ubject: Zoning Study on Trucking Uses �� Enclosed is a preliminary report'on zoning for trucking uses pursuant to the Council's request of July 14. A report was requested for October 27. Additional field checking is needed to complete the inventory of uses thaT would be affected by the recommendations, but a direction is recommende@. A suggesYed Council resolution is included reqnesfing teview and completion by ihe Plamiing Commission. Q q _ Ie�`� Zoning Regulations for Trucking Facilities Preliminary ReporE October 21, 1999 The Issue The truck tr�c and noise, vibrations and fiunes necessarily associated with a trucking facitity can be detrimental to a residential azea neazby. The City Council and the Planning Commission have heazd considerable testimony on this point in their review of some trucking facility permits this yeaz. Many hucking operations aze located in azeas zoned I-1 Industrial in Saint Paul. The I-1 districi, frequently found adjacent to residential districts, is intended to acconnmodate industrial operations "whose external, physical effects are restricted to the azea of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding districts in a detrimental way." The City Council requested the prepazation of amendments to the zoning code that would more adequately protect residential azeas. A second objective identified by the City Council is to limit the amount of industrial land in the City devoted to a use with as low an employee density as trucking. This would fiirther the Comprehensive Pian poiicy which favors uses with high employee density for the city's limited amount of industrial ]and. Because of their increased emgloyment objective, the Saint Paui Port Authority does not allow trucking firm uses in business pazks under their control. It may be appropriate to apply such a policy to a lazger portion of the city's industrial land. What is s tracking use? There is no definition for a trucking use or trucking facility in the Saint Pau] Zoning Code. Pick up and delivery of goods by truck is, obviously, a necessary accompaniment to many businesses including most any type of manufacturing, moving or storage. For these, trucks are accessory. Accepted deftnitions that provide for special regulations on uses where trucking is the primary activity generally describe "truck terminals" or "motor freight terminals." The definition in the Roseville Zoning Code is an example: A building in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastale and interstate shipment (Ord. 275, 5-12-59, City of Roseville) i-i Fairfax Co., Virginia definition is broader: A buiZding or area in which freight brought by truck is assembled and/or stored for routing or reshipment, or in which semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. The Current Situation in Saint Paul Trucking facilities permitted - qq . to��1 Trucking facilities aze first permitted in the I-1 Industrial District where they aze permitted by right. The use is listed as follows: (3) Warehousing and wholesate establishments, and trucking facilities. This use, along with other uses pemutted in the I-1 district, is also permitted in the I-2 Industrial District. Intent of the I-1 District As stated in the Zoning Code: The I-1 Industrial District is intended to primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse aclivities, and industrial operations whose external, physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding districts in a detrimental way. The I-1 District is intended to permit, along with other specified uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, asserrzbly, or treatment of frnished or semifinished products from previousZy prepared materiaL (60.610. I-1 Industrial District) ' For comparison, the stated intent of the I-2 (heavier) Industrial District is: The I-2 Industrial District is intended primarily for manufacturing, assembling and fabrication activities, including large scale or specialized industrial operations whose external effects will be felt in surrounding districts. The I-2 District-is intended to permit the manufacturing, processing and compounding of semifinished products from raw material and prepared material. The processing of raw material in bulk form to be used in an industrial operation is a permitted use in the I-2 District. Existing Operations The Saint Paul Midway area, due no doubt to its location between the two major city centers, has been, historically, an important center for trucking operations. Over the last two decades as the metropolitan region has expanded, expansive sites in suburban locaTions have become more attractive for trucking uses and the vast majority of operations in the east metro azea aze in the suburbs. Some 90 operations aze located in the east-metro suburbs of Saint Paul compazed with some 20 in the City. Since the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits trucking faciIities in both major industrial zones, it has never been necessary to define a trucking facility or to identify firms by this use. AvaiIable information on the firms that exist in the City is limited in completeness and accuracy. Through available directories, a Minnesota Department of Training and Economic Development listing and field observation, staff has identified operations that may qualify under one or another definition at 21 locations. Fifteen of these are in areas zoned I-1. Four are in areas zoned I-2, and two aze presently non-conforming in residential districts. (These figures, and others that follow, are preliminary fgures that �� -�� t will iikely change as fiuther field checking is completed.) Detrimental Impact The external characteristics of a trucking operation that are degrading to a nearby _ residential azea aze precisely the kind of impacts that zoning is intended to prevent. Trucks, especially tractor trailers, generate more noise than automobile traffic, and even if minimum noise standards are met, the constant nature of lazge truck motors arriving and leaving, and sometimes idling on the site, is a particulaz annoyance for nearby residents. A street with lazge tractor trailers as a common element of the trafFc is substantially different in chazacter from a street with only caz and small truck tr�c and more detrimental to residential tranquility the greater the number of trucks. Lazge trucks reduce comfort for pedestrians and, at least in perception, reduce safety for children and all pedestrians. Odorous fumes, high and bright headlights that can shine in windows, and vibrations are other chazacteristics that residents find detract from the quality of a residential environment. Since these chazacteristics aze readily perceived impediments to a quality residential environment, they inhibit attractiveness in the mazket place and, consequently, reduce residential property values. Identification and Analysis of Options The problem is evident: trucking firms, by the very nature of their primary activiry, aze apt to have significant adverse impact outside the zoning district in which they are located, particularly if they aze near the edge of that district. Permission of trucking firms by right, therefore, would appeaz to be incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 Industrial Dishict in the Zoning Code. A review of regulations in other cities indicates that this incompatibility is commoniy recognized. There are solutions in established practice. Altematives for consideration include: 1. Remove trucking facilities from the list of uses permitted in the T-1 zoning district, restricting new and expanded facilities (truck or motor freight terminals according to z specific definition) to the I-2 district. 2. Make trucking facilities (truck or motor freight terminals according to a specific defmition) a use permitted only by special condition in the I-1 zoning district with conditions that would include a specified distance from residentially-zoned property. 3. Eliminate trucking facilities from the pemutted uses in the I-1 district and pernut them oniy as a conditionai use in the I-2 District. 4. Distinguish trucking facilities by size, permitting only smaller ones in the I-1 district. _ q�-�°�`� Any of these solutions would require the addition of an appropriate definition to the zoning code. A number of definitions from various city codes are cited below. Option i, Define Truck Terminals and permit them only in the I-2 Zoning District. This is the most direct response to the recognition that these facilities aze inconsistent with the stated purpose of the I-1 Zoning District. This option would accomplish two purposes: it would eliminate at least most of the potential conflict with residential azeas, and it would significantiy reduce the amount of industrial land in the City potentially devoted to low-employee-density trucking uses. Available information indicates that under this option existing trucking operations in approximately 161ocations would be made non-conforming. (Four would remain as conforming uses because they aze already in I-2 districts and one presentiy on residentiaily-zoned land would remain non-conforming.) Option 2, Require a Special Condition Use Permit for Truck Terminals in the I-1 Zoning District. Conditions established could address noise, traffic and visual chazacter and could include a specified distance from residential uses. This would address primazily the neighborhood protecfion objective, but would not as cleariy reduce the land azea potentialiy put to this use. Most applications of the I-1 District in the City were established with the districYs limited purpose in mind; many are close to non-industriai uses, often residential. On the other hand, some I-1 azeas aze extensive and some existing trucking facilities zoned I-1 aze not close to residential districts. The number of current operations made non-wnforming under this option is in the range of 5- 10, the actual number depending on actual distance measurement. Option 3, Permit Truck Terminals Only Conditionally in the I-2 District. Because of potential traffic and neighborhood impacts, all transportation uses, including motor freight terminals, aze conditional uses wherever permitted under the new code currently in preparation far the City of Minneapolis. This alternative is not suggested by the objectives for new provisions in Saint Paul. The problems identified involve indusTrial land adjacent to residential or non-iridustrial uses, typically land zoned I-1. The site pian review process ensures that traffic and other impacts will be reviewed for proposed development even where land is zoned I-2. Option 4, Permit Only Smaller Terminals in the I-1 District. Building squaze footage would be the standard basis for discrimination on the basis of size. While the relationship isn't necessazily direct, a larger facility is generally going to involve more truck tr�c, tha major factor that causes detrimental impact. A larger number of smaller facilities in an azea, however, could have as much traffic and as much impact as a single lazger facility. For this reason, pemussion of only smaller facilities would not necessarily contribute to either of the objectives for improvement. 0 Recommendation A definition should be added to the zoning code to provide for addressing trucking operations specifically. A definition similaz to that included in the new code under consideration for the City of Minneapolis covers both buildings and land azea and appeazs to be appropriate for our purposes: _ Motor Freight TemunaL A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily involving truck tractors and semitrailers. Since operations have been found to be incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 zoning district, they should not continue to be permitted in that district by right. They should either be permitted only under conditions that would prevent detrimental impact on property outside the district, or not pemutted in the district at all. The conditional use approach is suggested by the following factors: 1. Most of Saint Paul's firms are located in areas zoned I-1 and all of these would be made non-conforming and would be prevented from expanding if ihe use is no longer permitted in that district. Trucking has an essential role in the city and regional economy and it is not cleaz that all opportunities for this use in I-1 districts as presently mapped need to be eliminated. 2. The distribution of trucking facilities in the east metro region indicates that Saint Paul's shaze is not excessive. In fact, proportional to the city's size, Saint Paul's share is low in compazison with a number of suburban communities. Because of the nature and use of the I-1 district, prohibition of trucking facilities within 600 feet of a residential district will significantly reduce opportunities for new facilities and will make a number of existing firms non-conforming, preventing expansion. Conditions placed on trucking uses should addxess the following: • Distance from a residential district • Visual and noise impact on a residential district • Direct access by truck route not impinging on a residential district a9-b�y Simply from the standpoint of the language of the zoning code, removing trucking facilities as a permitted use in the I-1 district is logical because the finding has been that they aze, by nature, inconsistent with the stated purposes of this district. Q� _ �ocy ?? Are they a necessary part of the city's economy? Most aze in I-1. Would a restriction to I-2 be too limiting? 0 ag - rocN Appendix Definitions - Rochester, N.Y. Truck Temunal. Land and buildings used as a relay station for the transfer of a load from one vehicle to another or one party to another. The terminal cannot be used for permanent or long-term accessory storage for principal land uses at other locations. The terminal facility may include storage areas for trucks and buiZdings or areas for the repair of trucks associated with the terminal. Fairfax County, VA Truck terminal. A building or area in which freight brought by truck is assembled and/or stored for routing or reshipment, or in which semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. Minneapolis, MN The new zoning code proposed for the City of Minneapolis includes the following definitions: Motor Freight Terminal. A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily im�olving truck tractors and semitrailers, and which is not a package delivery service. Package Delivery Service. A use which transports packages and articles for expedited delivery primarily in single rear axle straight trucks or smaller vehicles, where no single item weighs over one hundred fifty (I SO) pounds. Roseville, MN Motor Freight Terminal (Truck Terminal): A building in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastate and interstate shipmeni. (Ord. 275, 5-12-59) Minneapolis Code, Proposed Package delivery and motor freight terminai uses are not permitted by right in any district, but aze conditional uses wherever they aze allowed. Package delivery is frst permitted as a conditional use in the C4 Generat Commercial District, the most intense of the code's four commercial districts "established to provide for a wider range of commercial development allowing a mix of retail, business services and limited industrial uses." aq ' �� Motor Freight Terxninals aze atlowed as condifionai uses in the IZ Medium and I3 General Industrial Districts. They aze not pernutted in the Il Light Industrial District. Stated purpose of the I1 Light Industrial District: The II Light Industrial district is established to provide clean, attractive locations for low impact and technology-based light industrial uses, research and development, and similar uses which produce Zittle or no noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable influences, and have little or no adverse effect on surrounding properties. (550.190. Staff Altemative) Other uses with which truck hauling is associated aze restricted in size in the I1 Light Industrial District: Warehousing and distribution; furniture moving and storag�. (a) In general. Warehousing and distribution uses and furniture moving and storage uses in the II District shall be limited to thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet ofgross floor area. (Can be increased by conditional use permit.) (550.230. ) Factors specifically identified for consideration when increased floor azea is requested include: 1) proximity to residential uses; 2) screening and landscaping of truck pazking and loading area; and 3) location of truck routes and amount of truck traffic. Stated purpuse of the I2 Medium Tndustrial District (in which motor freight terminals aze first allowed) The I2 Medium Indistrial District is established to provide locations for medium industrial uses and other specific uses which have the potential to produce greater amounts of noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable inf2uences than uses aliowed in the I1 District and which may have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. Roseville Zoning Code Wholesale and wazehousing uses are permitted in T-1 Light Industrial Districts. Motor Freight Terminals aze not permitted in I-1 Light industrial Districts but aze first permitted as a conditional use in I-2 General Industrial Districts. E3 1 WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul desires to temporarily prohibit the �9- �oG�.( 2 establishment of new trucking facilities until such time as a study of possible amendments to the 3 City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities has been completed and the Council of the 4 City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that under separate ordinauce, the Council of the City of Saint Paul will direct the Department of Planning and Economic Development to undertake and compiete study of the City's official controls relating to trucking faeilities and to submit its report and recommendations to the CouncIl; and, be it 10 11 FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting 12 any development that might be inconsistent with the study and any amendments to the City's 13 zoning regulations, no pernuts or permission shall be issued or granted far the consriuction of INaw�+ 4, �'O°' 14 any new hucking facility in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from this date and until'� e-�� 15 n£h. � �i�s ��" "� °` '°-^`" "", °-- ;";; or until such eazlier time as the 16 Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recoxnmendations contained in the 17 study; and be it 18 19 2� 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 o _�_. . . - - - ---- - � � � u • . �.� ��. . - " • - .�i . . - . . - -, ,� .�� .. - --- . - - �r.r�n=.-Tr.�� 4..=_... '' " ii:a� v�R�tv�in��a.n1111C'd`�.`11.�1 " 1 � 1 � � tl�� ".�'.i1L��1:1� FINALLY RESOLVED, that the trucking facility presently approved for property commonly known as 685 Fairview and which is the subject of litigafion in District Court File No. C7-99-7679 is exempt from the restrictions in this resolution and accompanying interim ordinance. Requested by Department of: BY� ��.,�.� 1Vw__� ' � 1 Appro d by Mayor: Date BY � V�.�� - J '�i � By: Fosm Approved by City Attorney BY: y.�l✓1�.,-,�--� iv/ z�195 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: _.i�� ` � �S �h�� Adopted by Council: Date �� -�,[��,�,�q � � l Adoption Certified by Council Secretary a�i�ter_�I DEPARiMENT/OFFICE2�OUNCIL On'fEINR1ATED � � City Council 10-27-99 GREEN SHEET No � �� ?G9 CON�ACi PFRSON 8 PHONE YJUy1Q� NXYWa1. Jay Benanav 266-8640 �� Musr ee orr counica nce+w� er lon�I �" ❑ AJ 14.Z'1 '1, ❑ rnrasu � � arc..ro.�r eaaa+c � rwxou.tmurraon waweuuamvrKCro ❑MYORI�AtYifA1R1 ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N REQUESIED Approve resolution regulatinq truck facilities pending passage of an interim ordinance. RECOMMENDATION A(1pfOV¢ (A a RejeM () PERSONALSERViCE CONiRACTS MUSTANSWER 7HE FOLLOWIN6 QUES7ION5: 1. Flss Mis P��m e+erworketl under a cantract torthia dH�aAment? PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITfEE 2. Hec thie parsaVfirm evu 6een a qty empbyee? CMLSERVICECOMMISSION YES NO ' 3. �oes this Persanl�rm poesess a sldN rwt rwimallYPOSeessM DY arry curceM cilY emPbYee? YES � 4. isihispersoNF'malarDe4edVendoYt rES rio Fiqdain all es aireueis on sepa�ate aheet and aCxh to yreen sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WM, What, When, Wl�ere. Why) Resolution is needed to protect zoning process pendinq the passage of an interim ordinance regulating trucking facilities. VANTAGES IFAPPf20VED No permits may be issued to truck facilities during the period between the introduction and passage of the interim ordinance. DISADVAMAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED � The planning process may be compromised if permits are iasued between the time the interim ordinance is introduced and as ed. TOTAL AMOl1NT OF TRANSACTION f COSTlREVENUE BUD6ETED (qRCLE ON� YEb NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlwuaCw.lNFOa�7n�+I�wM , � . � SAINT PAUL PORT AUTHORITY 99- lo�y PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS & BENEFITS Brownfield Redevelonment 1. Additional Site Acquisition Cost Acquisition Costs of Blighted Property Redevelopment In Excess of Raw Land Cost Agency 2. Relocation Extraordinary Of curtent occupants and businesses Predevelopment 3. Demolition, Site Grading 8 Preparation Costs 4. Pollution Remediation & Soil Correction 5. Project Engineering 6. ProjectAdministration Costs t Greenfield Develoament (None) Redevelopment 1. Acquisition Cost of Raw Land 1. Acquisition Cost of Raw Land Agency 2. public Infrastructure 2. Pubiic Infrestructure TypiCal Roads and Utilities Roads and Utilities Development 3. Marketing of Land 3. Marketing of Land Costs 4. Project Planning & Admir.;stration 4. Project Planning � Administration PUBLIGNEIGHBORNOOD BENEFlTS PORT AUTHORITY MANUFAC7.'Rlh'� REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 1. 2. 3. 4. Quality Construction: Minimum S38 per square foot constr�ction va{ue. Valuable Use of Scarce City Land: Minimum ccrerage of building to land of 32%. Job Creation and Retention: At least one job per 1,000 square feet of building space. Full-Time Production Wages: Wage rates at least S9 per hour. Lesser wage rates may be acceptable if the company can show upward mobility within a year. 5. Neighborhood Economic Enhancement: Contractual commitment by each manufacturer that at least 70 percent of new hires will consist of Saint Paul residents. Financial penalty to manufacturer for failure to follow-through on commitment. Port Authority provision of customized job training services to assist with linkage between job openings and neighborhood residents. 6. Covenants: Commitment to abide by the Port Authority's Urban Design Covenants. G:\data\Pllpubredev > F� 1 ¢ �� - ' - --. �� za a� NS a n e o � � m y O m N tA c � U J v ��_ a q d com��n M<C c m RNNmm N0 Q t�Nln m (�t00 y � t9 Q(V (D O Q .fl m i9 V3 Vi �� y 69 (R E N y W a' tA �` ��N(�V C 3 0cp00 ¢1 i� _ � 69�M�W 69�� m W rn � � > a o<o�n<om�no c 1� C N�(O tD R I ? H O�OtOmtn O < � N N c t�l � il N o °� � Z �O� ° m�N�� m m d N C m K 0000000 rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o000000 'o LL 001t1 `O 00 �rv� v�n �n m w m NoJth�tn00 NI Oi < Q � f�1 < I� � � N U = Q � a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d °' o00000 m E � ° o° N a> r; �ri v N'"F' vS � � »vaw »" C m 9 N � O o v y o Y N 3 L� y Z� C� m � R U? O R z N E� Z y � � � U � a w `- m rn Y A �'< < u g �v�3 �� E o t m m U a V a1 �>. o `o m �c=U N v E�v `' O U° E� c m � � R � � 3 � o U W Ztq � 1-=f e � C � � y O a o� y c � U 3 � ,n v > a � � m � m � � j K O� V fV O tD C R t?a?RNOI Q mo�rn� N y � (9i9f9 W W E � N y W d' tH �+ mtD00 3 f�mN� O � = d Kb4f9� a 1 O �3 < �noNm •�-�� N Q ml H O ItJ O N 1� < 1� (V tn c0 a 3I o ° � Z . o oo� v rn nin m C 'm K 0000c c � o ° o � o c � n�mm� m O In LL] N 1� t"> V W L Q � a' 000 � � ° o ° o_ o > E ° o_ ° m a � m t�i � u��»w n Z Q � z �.! � Q 0 a � � y Q G � m N � m �i �m3 R tO � fD C -- � m LL N � e � � � n � � d t� m c E U J � s v > 3 � c a j w 61 th t7 N Ifl O.- X Nt�� O e-< W � m (V O 10 m C) O� N Q ( � r � P� V N " y w �M iR t9 �9 �9 �9 c� E � N y W a' u� T tD oJ O01 ON � W fV tD C'l O V � O (7 R' OI =ml ��Kt9W� OI � �I a' �on�oncoc� �'�. (O(O�F W N � � �I � F ' 0��06� roi� V7 N tn M In F M(O Q !V � 3I mi o ° � Z . mm ooco �o v � m�o in co 0 C � N � m K 0 0 o O o 0 0 0, m o � � D �� [�Ol�D <t� � m N o � m r m v o N NI 4) N h<(V f7 N N L Q � a' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° �'�c o000000 oc�0000 > E ° m Mi N v N N N(V t7N d � ssww«>wu>` a a � R O m � d m C C N CI 10 U y � Y N x ji m c m � O C � ~ Q N Z 10 E N � ` m � N � 11 N = � � m m m m m ` J E N G y S � � . a y U � � '` 6 '�a � � � J 'O Y N K O Q>QiLF- �i c T o A C E C � J v Q O N � � y � F O '� j� Y J � d � U v N c Z c� a-,°�ma`o` z � ` N N N N � � Q�m U' ?U h�- U' F ¢ S ¢' Q � � m Q' � ORIG�NAL � Presented Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PATL, MINNESOTA Council FIle #�q . 10 G t� Green Sheet # l0 y Ll. "14 �7 Committee: Date � 10 il I2 13 � 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 � 38 39 VJf�EREAS, Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 60.622 provides that "trucking faciliYies" are first permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts; and WfiEREAS, because the term "trucking facilities" is not defined in the City's zoning regulations and because trucking facilities are fust permitted in I-1 industrial districts which, by, definition, are intended for those uses which restrict the eaternal and physical effects of the use to the zoning district boundaries and in no manner affect sunounding zoning districts in a detrimental way, raises substantial questions as to whether trucking facilities are adequately regulated and properly sited under Section 60.612; and WHEREAS, the current regulatory condiuons incorporated in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108, as they may be applied to new trucking facitities, raises substantial questions as to whether such conditions are ineffective to mitigate potential detrimental effects of tnxcking fiacilities including noise, pollution, and vehicuiar tr�c on surrounding zoning districts; and WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul understands that new truck facilities are planned or aze being seriously studied for construction and that such plans raise substantial questions relating to whether or not an increase or concentration of such uses would have a detrimental impact on the general health, welfare and safety of the public and the natural environment; and WHEREAS, an increase or concentration of truck faciliries operated as presently permitted raises substantial questions relating to whether or not the City's present zoning regulations adequately address, provide and plan for the impact of such uses on adjacent neighborhood values, institutions and community chazacteristics, on vehicular traffic levels, on public iufrastructure assets, on the noise, vibrafions and other effluents generated by such facilities and the impact of such uses on other surrounding area plans which may have been adopted or aze presently under consideration for adoption; and WHEREAS, the recitavon of the concems noted above demonstrates the need to determine whether the City's present zoning code contains adequate safeguards which will provide for the orderly and appropriate approval and development of trucking facilities in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts; and QRIGINAL Presented Ar�.��1,Q�i- Svc�.�o,��tq� �saLU�rioN CTTY OF 5AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA c�'] Referred To �/ " Committee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Saint Paul Legisla6ve Code § 60.612 provides that "trucking facilities" are 3 first permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts; and 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 WHEREAS, because the term "hucking facilifies" is not defined in the Ciry's zoning regulations and because trucking facilities are first pernutted in I-1 industrial districts which, by definition, are intended for those uses which restrict the external and physical effects of the use to the zoning district boundaries and in no manner affect surrounding zoning districts in a detrimental way, raises substantial questions as to whether trucking facilities are adequately regulated and properly sited under Section 60.612; and WHEREAS, the current regulatory conditions incorporated in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108, as they may be applied to new hucking facilities, raises substantial questions as to whether such conditions are ineffecfive to mitigate potential detrimental effects of trucking facilities including noise, pollution, and vehicular traffic on surrounding zoning districts; and WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul undezstands that new huck facilities aze planned or are being seriously studied for construcrion and that such plans raise substantial questions relating to whether or not an increase ar concentration of such uses would have a detrimental impact on the general health, welfare and safety of the public and the natural environment; and WHEREAS, an increase or concentration of truck facilities operated as presently permitted raises substantial questions relating to whether or not the City's present zoning regulations adequately address, provide and plan for the impact of such uses on adjacent rieighborhood values, institutions and community chazacteristics, on vehicular traffic levels, on public infrashucture assets, on the noise, vibrations and other effluents generated by such facilities and the impact of such uses on other surrounding azea plans which may have been adopted or are presently under consideration for adoption; and WHEREAS, the recitation of the concerns noted above demonstrates the need to determine whether the City's present zoning code contains adequate safeguazds wkrich will provide for the orderly and appropriate approval and development of hucking facilities in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts; and Council File # � . t0 G �( GreenSheet# toya�..q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & 9 10 11 12 T3 14 15 16,� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 as Zs 30 31 32 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paui desires to temporazily prohibit the 99- loG y establishment of new trucking facilities until such time as a study of possible amendments to the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities has been completed and the Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendafions; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that under separate ordinance, the Council of the City of Saint Paul will � direct the Department of Planning and Economic Development to undertake and complete study of the City's official conuols relating to trucking facilities and to submit its report and recommendafions to the Council; and, be it F'ITRTF�R RESOLVED, that pending the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting any development that might be inconsistent with the study and any amendments to the City's zoning regulations, no germits or permission shall be issued or granted for the construction of m� j� any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from this date and until �� or until such eazlier time as the <20o�j'1 ouncil of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendatio ns contained in the study; and be it � R RESOLVE , that the restri ' ns in this resolu 'on and in the said interim ay be e�ende y action of ity Council for itional periods of ' e not to alditional ' teen (18) m in the event th ch study and re endations and ation o e City Coun ' requires such ea-t ions of tirne; an e it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the trucking facility presenfly approved for property commonly lmown as 685 Fairview and which is the subject of Tiugation in District Court File No. C7-99-7679 is exempt &om the restrictions in this resolution aud accompanying interun ordinanc:. � $�� .�s� � ' w �� V n (� r!- � Requested by Department of: By: Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by Mayor; Date By: Fprm Approved by City Attorney a >'.�7n 1✓�irv►�� Iv/ z7195 Approved by Mayor foi Suhmission to Counci2 By: � qq-toG� Interdepartmental Memorandum CIIY OF SAINT PAUL Date: October 21, 1999 To: Councii President Bostrom Councilmembers From: Ken Ford� 5ubject: Zoning Study on Trucking Uses �� Enclosed is a preliminary report'on zoning for trucking uses pursuant to the Council's request of July 14. A report was requested for October 27. Additional field checking is needed to complete the inventory of uses thaT would be affected by the recommendations, but a direction is recommende@. A suggesYed Council resolution is included reqnesfing teview and completion by ihe Plamiing Commission. Q q _ Ie�`� Zoning Regulations for Trucking Facilities Preliminary ReporE October 21, 1999 The Issue The truck tr�c and noise, vibrations and fiunes necessarily associated with a trucking facitity can be detrimental to a residential azea neazby. The City Council and the Planning Commission have heazd considerable testimony on this point in their review of some trucking facility permits this yeaz. Many hucking operations aze located in azeas zoned I-1 Industrial in Saint Paul. The I-1 districi, frequently found adjacent to residential districts, is intended to acconnmodate industrial operations "whose external, physical effects are restricted to the azea of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding districts in a detrimental way." The City Council requested the prepazation of amendments to the zoning code that would more adequately protect residential azeas. A second objective identified by the City Council is to limit the amount of industrial land in the City devoted to a use with as low an employee density as trucking. This would fiirther the Comprehensive Pian poiicy which favors uses with high employee density for the city's limited amount of industrial ]and. Because of their increased emgloyment objective, the Saint Paui Port Authority does not allow trucking firm uses in business pazks under their control. It may be appropriate to apply such a policy to a lazger portion of the city's industrial land. What is s tracking use? There is no definition for a trucking use or trucking facility in the Saint Pau] Zoning Code. Pick up and delivery of goods by truck is, obviously, a necessary accompaniment to many businesses including most any type of manufacturing, moving or storage. For these, trucks are accessory. Accepted deftnitions that provide for special regulations on uses where trucking is the primary activity generally describe "truck terminals" or "motor freight terminals." The definition in the Roseville Zoning Code is an example: A building in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastale and interstate shipment (Ord. 275, 5-12-59, City of Roseville) i-i Fairfax Co., Virginia definition is broader: A buiZding or area in which freight brought by truck is assembled and/or stored for routing or reshipment, or in which semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. The Current Situation in Saint Paul Trucking facilities permitted - qq . to��1 Trucking facilities aze first permitted in the I-1 Industrial District where they aze permitted by right. The use is listed as follows: (3) Warehousing and wholesate establishments, and trucking facilities. This use, along with other uses pemutted in the I-1 district, is also permitted in the I-2 Industrial District. Intent of the I-1 District As stated in the Zoning Code: The I-1 Industrial District is intended to primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse aclivities, and industrial operations whose external, physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding districts in a detrimental way. The I-1 District is intended to permit, along with other specified uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, asserrzbly, or treatment of frnished or semifinished products from previousZy prepared materiaL (60.610. I-1 Industrial District) ' For comparison, the stated intent of the I-2 (heavier) Industrial District is: The I-2 Industrial District is intended primarily for manufacturing, assembling and fabrication activities, including large scale or specialized industrial operations whose external effects will be felt in surrounding districts. The I-2 District-is intended to permit the manufacturing, processing and compounding of semifinished products from raw material and prepared material. The processing of raw material in bulk form to be used in an industrial operation is a permitted use in the I-2 District. Existing Operations The Saint Paul Midway area, due no doubt to its location between the two major city centers, has been, historically, an important center for trucking operations. Over the last two decades as the metropolitan region has expanded, expansive sites in suburban locaTions have become more attractive for trucking uses and the vast majority of operations in the east metro azea aze in the suburbs. Some 90 operations aze located in the east-metro suburbs of Saint Paul compazed with some 20 in the City. Since the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits trucking faciIities in both major industrial zones, it has never been necessary to define a trucking facility or to identify firms by this use. AvaiIable information on the firms that exist in the City is limited in completeness and accuracy. Through available directories, a Minnesota Department of Training and Economic Development listing and field observation, staff has identified operations that may qualify under one or another definition at 21 locations. Fifteen of these are in areas zoned I-1. Four are in areas zoned I-2, and two aze presently non-conforming in residential districts. (These figures, and others that follow, are preliminary fgures that �� -�� t will iikely change as fiuther field checking is completed.) Detrimental Impact The external characteristics of a trucking operation that are degrading to a nearby _ residential azea aze precisely the kind of impacts that zoning is intended to prevent. Trucks, especially tractor trailers, generate more noise than automobile traffic, and even if minimum noise standards are met, the constant nature of lazge truck motors arriving and leaving, and sometimes idling on the site, is a particulaz annoyance for nearby residents. A street with lazge tractor trailers as a common element of the trafFc is substantially different in chazacter from a street with only caz and small truck tr�c and more detrimental to residential tranquility the greater the number of trucks. Lazge trucks reduce comfort for pedestrians and, at least in perception, reduce safety for children and all pedestrians. Odorous fumes, high and bright headlights that can shine in windows, and vibrations are other chazacteristics that residents find detract from the quality of a residential environment. Since these chazacteristics aze readily perceived impediments to a quality residential environment, they inhibit attractiveness in the mazket place and, consequently, reduce residential property values. Identification and Analysis of Options The problem is evident: trucking firms, by the very nature of their primary activiry, aze apt to have significant adverse impact outside the zoning district in which they are located, particularly if they aze near the edge of that district. Permission of trucking firms by right, therefore, would appeaz to be incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 Industrial Dishict in the Zoning Code. A review of regulations in other cities indicates that this incompatibility is commoniy recognized. There are solutions in established practice. Altematives for consideration include: 1. Remove trucking facilities from the list of uses permitted in the T-1 zoning district, restricting new and expanded facilities (truck or motor freight terminals according to z specific definition) to the I-2 district. 2. Make trucking facilities (truck or motor freight terminals according to a specific defmition) a use permitted only by special condition in the I-1 zoning district with conditions that would include a specified distance from residentially-zoned property. 3. Eliminate trucking facilities from the pemutted uses in the I-1 district and pernut them oniy as a conditionai use in the I-2 District. 4. Distinguish trucking facilities by size, permitting only smaller ones in the I-1 district. _ q�-�°�`� Any of these solutions would require the addition of an appropriate definition to the zoning code. A number of definitions from various city codes are cited below. Option i, Define Truck Terminals and permit them only in the I-2 Zoning District. This is the most direct response to the recognition that these facilities aze inconsistent with the stated purpose of the I-1 Zoning District. This option would accomplish two purposes: it would eliminate at least most of the potential conflict with residential azeas, and it would significantiy reduce the amount of industrial land in the City potentially devoted to low-employee-density trucking uses. Available information indicates that under this option existing trucking operations in approximately 161ocations would be made non-conforming. (Four would remain as conforming uses because they aze already in I-2 districts and one presentiy on residentiaily-zoned land would remain non-conforming.) Option 2, Require a Special Condition Use Permit for Truck Terminals in the I-1 Zoning District. Conditions established could address noise, traffic and visual chazacter and could include a specified distance from residential uses. This would address primazily the neighborhood protecfion objective, but would not as cleariy reduce the land azea potentialiy put to this use. Most applications of the I-1 District in the City were established with the districYs limited purpose in mind; many are close to non-industriai uses, often residential. On the other hand, some I-1 azeas aze extensive and some existing trucking facilities zoned I-1 aze not close to residential districts. The number of current operations made non-wnforming under this option is in the range of 5- 10, the actual number depending on actual distance measurement. Option 3, Permit Truck Terminals Only Conditionally in the I-2 District. Because of potential traffic and neighborhood impacts, all transportation uses, including motor freight terminals, aze conditional uses wherever permitted under the new code currently in preparation far the City of Minneapolis. This alternative is not suggested by the objectives for new provisions in Saint Paul. The problems identified involve indusTrial land adjacent to residential or non-iridustrial uses, typically land zoned I-1. The site pian review process ensures that traffic and other impacts will be reviewed for proposed development even where land is zoned I-2. Option 4, Permit Only Smaller Terminals in the I-1 District. Building squaze footage would be the standard basis for discrimination on the basis of size. While the relationship isn't necessazily direct, a larger facility is generally going to involve more truck tr�c, tha major factor that causes detrimental impact. A larger number of smaller facilities in an azea, however, could have as much traffic and as much impact as a single lazger facility. For this reason, pemussion of only smaller facilities would not necessarily contribute to either of the objectives for improvement. 0 Recommendation A definition should be added to the zoning code to provide for addressing trucking operations specifically. A definition similaz to that included in the new code under consideration for the City of Minneapolis covers both buildings and land azea and appeazs to be appropriate for our purposes: _ Motor Freight TemunaL A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily involving truck tractors and semitrailers. Since operations have been found to be incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 zoning district, they should not continue to be permitted in that district by right. They should either be permitted only under conditions that would prevent detrimental impact on property outside the district, or not pemutted in the district at all. The conditional use approach is suggested by the following factors: 1. Most of Saint Paul's firms are located in areas zoned I-1 and all of these would be made non-conforming and would be prevented from expanding if ihe use is no longer permitted in that district. Trucking has an essential role in the city and regional economy and it is not cleaz that all opportunities for this use in I-1 districts as presently mapped need to be eliminated. 2. The distribution of trucking facilities in the east metro region indicates that Saint Paul's shaze is not excessive. In fact, proportional to the city's size, Saint Paul's share is low in compazison with a number of suburban communities. Because of the nature and use of the I-1 district, prohibition of trucking facilities within 600 feet of a residential district will significantly reduce opportunities for new facilities and will make a number of existing firms non-conforming, preventing expansion. Conditions placed on trucking uses should addxess the following: • Distance from a residential district • Visual and noise impact on a residential district • Direct access by truck route not impinging on a residential district a9-b�y Simply from the standpoint of the language of the zoning code, removing trucking facilities as a permitted use in the I-1 district is logical because the finding has been that they aze, by nature, inconsistent with the stated purposes of this district. Q� _ �ocy ?? Are they a necessary part of the city's economy? Most aze in I-1. Would a restriction to I-2 be too limiting? 0 ag - rocN Appendix Definitions - Rochester, N.Y. Truck Temunal. Land and buildings used as a relay station for the transfer of a load from one vehicle to another or one party to another. The terminal cannot be used for permanent or long-term accessory storage for principal land uses at other locations. The terminal facility may include storage areas for trucks and buiZdings or areas for the repair of trucks associated with the terminal. Fairfax County, VA Truck terminal. A building or area in which freight brought by truck is assembled and/or stored for routing or reshipment, or in which semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. Minneapolis, MN The new zoning code proposed for the City of Minneapolis includes the following definitions: Motor Freight Terminal. A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily im�olving truck tractors and semitrailers, and which is not a package delivery service. Package Delivery Service. A use which transports packages and articles for expedited delivery primarily in single rear axle straight trucks or smaller vehicles, where no single item weighs over one hundred fifty (I SO) pounds. Roseville, MN Motor Freight Terminal (Truck Terminal): A building in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastate and interstate shipmeni. (Ord. 275, 5-12-59) Minneapolis Code, Proposed Package delivery and motor freight terminai uses are not permitted by right in any district, but aze conditional uses wherever they aze allowed. Package delivery is frst permitted as a conditional use in the C4 Generat Commercial District, the most intense of the code's four commercial districts "established to provide for a wider range of commercial development allowing a mix of retail, business services and limited industrial uses." aq ' �� Motor Freight Terxninals aze atlowed as condifionai uses in the IZ Medium and I3 General Industrial Districts. They aze not pernutted in the Il Light Industrial District. Stated purpose of the I1 Light Industrial District: The II Light Industrial district is established to provide clean, attractive locations for low impact and technology-based light industrial uses, research and development, and similar uses which produce Zittle or no noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable influences, and have little or no adverse effect on surrounding properties. (550.190. Staff Altemative) Other uses with which truck hauling is associated aze restricted in size in the I1 Light Industrial District: Warehousing and distribution; furniture moving and storag�. (a) In general. Warehousing and distribution uses and furniture moving and storage uses in the II District shall be limited to thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet ofgross floor area. (Can be increased by conditional use permit.) (550.230. ) Factors specifically identified for consideration when increased floor azea is requested include: 1) proximity to residential uses; 2) screening and landscaping of truck pazking and loading area; and 3) location of truck routes and amount of truck traffic. Stated purpuse of the I2 Medium Tndustrial District (in which motor freight terminals aze first allowed) The I2 Medium Indistrial District is established to provide locations for medium industrial uses and other specific uses which have the potential to produce greater amounts of noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable inf2uences than uses aliowed in the I1 District and which may have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. Roseville Zoning Code Wholesale and wazehousing uses are permitted in T-1 Light Industrial Districts. Motor Freight Terminals aze not permitted in I-1 Light industrial Districts but aze first permitted as a conditional use in I-2 General Industrial Districts. E3 1 WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul desires to temporarily prohibit the �9- �oG�.( 2 establishment of new trucking facilities until such time as a study of possible amendments to the 3 City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities has been completed and the Council of the 4 City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendations; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that under separate ordinauce, the Council of the City of Saint Paul will direct the Department of Planning and Economic Development to undertake and compiete study of the City's official controls relating to trucking faeilities and to submit its report and recommendations to the CouncIl; and, be it 10 11 FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting 12 any development that might be inconsistent with the study and any amendments to the City's 13 zoning regulations, no pernuts or permission shall be issued or granted far the consriuction of INaw�+ 4, �'O°' 14 any new hucking facility in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from this date and until'� e-�� 15 n£h. � �i�s ��" "� °` '°-^`" "", °-- ;";; or until such eazlier time as the 16 Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recoxnmendations contained in the 17 study; and be it 18 19 2� 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 o _�_. . . - - - ---- - � � � u • . �.� ��. . - " • - .�i . . - . . - -, ,� .�� .. - --- . - - �r.r�n=.-Tr.�� 4..=_... '' " ii:a� v�R�tv�in��a.n1111C'd`�.`11.�1 " 1 � 1 � � tl�� ".�'.i1L��1:1� FINALLY RESOLVED, that the trucking facility presently approved for property commonly known as 685 Fairview and which is the subject of litigafion in District Court File No. C7-99-7679 is exempt from the restrictions in this resolution and accompanying interim ordinance. Requested by Department of: BY� ��.,�.� 1Vw__� ' � 1 Appro d by Mayor: Date BY � V�.�� - J '�i � By: Fosm Approved by City Attorney BY: y.�l✓1�.,-,�--� iv/ z�195 Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council By: _.i�� ` � �S �h�� Adopted by Council: Date �� -�,[��,�,�q � � l Adoption Certified by Council Secretary a�i�ter_�I DEPARiMENT/OFFICE2�OUNCIL On'fEINR1ATED � � City Council 10-27-99 GREEN SHEET No � �� ?G9 CON�ACi PFRSON 8 PHONE YJUy1Q� NXYWa1. Jay Benanav 266-8640 �� Musr ee orr counica nce+w� er lon�I �" ❑ AJ 14.Z'1 '1, ❑ rnrasu � � arc..ro.�r eaaa+c � rwxou.tmurraon waweuuamvrKCro ❑MYORI�AtYifA1R1 ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) C710N REQUESIED Approve resolution regulatinq truck facilities pending passage of an interim ordinance. RECOMMENDATION A(1pfOV¢ (A a RejeM () PERSONALSERViCE CONiRACTS MUSTANSWER 7HE FOLLOWIN6 QUES7ION5: 1. Flss Mis P��m e+erworketl under a cantract torthia dH�aAment? PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITfEE 2. Hec thie parsaVfirm evu 6een a qty empbyee? CMLSERVICECOMMISSION YES NO ' 3. �oes this Persanl�rm poesess a sldN rwt rwimallYPOSeessM DY arry curceM cilY emPbYee? YES � 4. isihispersoNF'malarDe4edVendoYt rES rio Fiqdain all es aireueis on sepa�ate aheet and aCxh to yreen sheet INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WM, What, When, Wl�ere. Why) Resolution is needed to protect zoning process pendinq the passage of an interim ordinance regulating trucking facilities. VANTAGES IFAPPf20VED No permits may be issued to truck facilities during the period between the introduction and passage of the interim ordinance. DISADVAMAGES IF APPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED � The planning process may be compromised if permits are iasued between the time the interim ordinance is introduced and as ed. TOTAL AMOl1NT OF TRANSACTION f COSTlREVENUE BUD6ETED (qRCLE ON� YEb NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNITY NUMBER FlwuaCw.lNFOa�7n�+I�wM , � . � SAINT PAUL PORT AUTHORITY 99- lo�y PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS & BENEFITS Brownfield Redevelonment 1. Additional Site Acquisition Cost Acquisition Costs of Blighted Property Redevelopment In Excess of Raw Land Cost Agency 2. Relocation Extraordinary Of curtent occupants and businesses Predevelopment 3. Demolition, Site Grading 8 Preparation Costs 4. Pollution Remediation & Soil Correction 5. Project Engineering 6. ProjectAdministration Costs t Greenfield Develoament (None) Redevelopment 1. Acquisition Cost of Raw Land 1. Acquisition Cost of Raw Land Agency 2. public Infrastructure 2. Pubiic Infrestructure TypiCal Roads and Utilities Roads and Utilities Development 3. Marketing of Land 3. Marketing of Land Costs 4. Project Planning & Admir.;stration 4. Project Planning � Administration PUBLIGNEIGHBORNOOD BENEFlTS PORT AUTHORITY MANUFAC7.'Rlh'� REDEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 1. 2. 3. 4. Quality Construction: Minimum S38 per square foot constr�ction va{ue. Valuable Use of Scarce City Land: Minimum ccrerage of building to land of 32%. Job Creation and Retention: At least one job per 1,000 square feet of building space. Full-Time Production Wages: Wage rates at least S9 per hour. Lesser wage rates may be acceptable if the company can show upward mobility within a year. 5. Neighborhood Economic Enhancement: Contractual commitment by each manufacturer that at least 70 percent of new hires will consist of Saint Paul residents. Financial penalty to manufacturer for failure to follow-through on commitment. Port Authority provision of customized job training services to assist with linkage between job openings and neighborhood residents. 6. Covenants: Commitment to abide by the Port Authority's Urban Design Covenants. G:\data\Pllpubredev > F� 1 ¢ �� - ' - --. �� za a� NS a n e o � � m y O m N tA c � U J v ��_ a q d com��n M<C c m RNNmm N0 Q t�Nln m (�t00 y � t9 Q(V (D O Q .fl m i9 V3 Vi �� y 69 (R E N y W a' tA �` ��N(�V C 3 0cp00 ¢1 i� _ � 69�M�W 69�� m W rn � � > a o<o�n<om�no c 1� C N�(O tD R I ? H O�OtOmtn O < � N N c t�l � il N o °� � Z �O� ° m�N�� m m d N C m K 0000000 rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o000000 'o LL 001t1 `O 00 �rv� v�n �n m w m NoJth�tn00 NI Oi < Q � f�1 < I� � � N U = Q � a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 d °' o00000 m E � ° o° N a> r; �ri v N'"F' vS � � »vaw »" C m 9 N � O o v y o Y N 3 L� y Z� C� m � R U? O R z N E� Z y � � � U � a w `- m rn Y A �'< < u g �v�3 �� E o t m m U a V a1 �>. o `o m �c=U N v E�v `' O U° E� c m � � R � � 3 � o U W Ztq � 1-=f e � C � � y O a o� y c � U 3 � ,n v > a � � m � m � � j K O� V fV O tD C R t?a?RNOI Q mo�rn� N y � (9i9f9 W W E � N y W d' tH �+ mtD00 3 f�mN� O � = d Kb4f9� a 1 O �3 < �noNm •�-�� N Q ml H O ItJ O N 1� < 1� (V tn c0 a 3I o ° � Z . o oo� v rn nin m C 'm K 0000c c � o ° o � o c � n�mm� m O In LL] N 1� t"> V W L Q � a' 000 � � ° o ° o_ o > E ° o_ ° m a � m t�i � u��»w n Z Q � z �.! � Q 0 a � � y Q G � m N � m �i �m3 R tO � fD C -- � m LL N � e � � � n � � d t� m c E U J � s v > 3 � c a j w 61 th t7 N Ifl O.- X Nt�� O e-< W � m (V O 10 m C) O� N Q ( � r � P� V N " y w �M iR t9 �9 �9 �9 c� E � N y W a' u� T tD oJ O01 ON � W fV tD C'l O V � O (7 R' OI =ml ��Kt9W� OI � �I a' �on�oncoc� �'�. (O(O�F W N � � �I � F ' 0��06� roi� V7 N tn M In F M(O Q !V � 3I mi o ° � Z . mm ooco �o v � m�o in co 0 C � N � m K 0 0 o O o 0 0 0, m o � � D �� [�Ol�D <t� � m N o � m r m v o N NI 4) N h<(V f7 N N L Q � a' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° �'�c o000000 oc�0000 > E ° m Mi N v N N N(V t7N d � ssww«>wu>` a a � R O m � d m C C N CI 10 U y � Y N x ji m c m � O C � ~ Q N Z 10 E N � ` m � N � 11 N = � � m m m m m ` J E N G y S � � . a y U � � '` 6 '�a � � � J 'O Y N K O Q>QiLF- �i c T o A C E C � J v Q O N � � y � F O '� j� Y J � d � U v N c Z c� a-,°�ma`o` z � ` N N N N � � Q�m U' ?U h�- U' F ¢ S ¢' Q � � m Q' � ORIG�NAL � Presented Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PATL, MINNESOTA Council FIle #�q . 10 G t� Green Sheet # l0 y Ll. "14 �7 Committee: Date � 10 il I2 13 � 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 � 38 39 VJf�EREAS, Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 60.622 provides that "trucking faciliYies" are first permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts; and WfiEREAS, because the term "trucking facilities" is not defined in the City's zoning regulations and because trucking facilities are fust permitted in I-1 industrial districts which, by, definition, are intended for those uses which restrict the eaternal and physical effects of the use to the zoning district boundaries and in no manner affect sunounding zoning districts in a detrimental way, raises substantial questions as to whether trucking facilities are adequately regulated and properly sited under Section 60.612; and WHEREAS, the current regulatory condiuons incorporated in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108, as they may be applied to new trucking facitities, raises substantial questions as to whether such conditions are ineffective to mitigate potential detrimental effects of tnxcking fiacilities including noise, pollution, and vehicuiar tr�c on surrounding zoning districts; and WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul understands that new truck facilities are planned or aze being seriously studied for construction and that such plans raise substantial questions relating to whether or not an increase or concentration of such uses would have a detrimental impact on the general health, welfare and safety of the public and the natural environment; and WHEREAS, an increase or concentration of truck faciliries operated as presently permitted raises substantial questions relating to whether or not the City's present zoning regulations adequately address, provide and plan for the impact of such uses on adjacent neighborhood values, institutions and community chazacteristics, on vehicular traffic levels, on public iufrastructure assets, on the noise, vibrafions and other effluents generated by such facilities and the impact of such uses on other surrounding area plans which may have been adopted or aze presently under consideration for adoption; and WHEREAS, the recitavon of the concems noted above demonstrates the need to determine whether the City's present zoning code contains adequate safeguards which will provide for the orderly and appropriate approval and development of trucking facilities in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts; and QRIGINAL Presented Ar�.��1,Q�i- Svc�.�o,��tq� �saLU�rioN CTTY OF 5AINT PAUL, MINNESOTA c�'] Referred To �/ " Committee: Date 1 2 WHEREAS, Saint Paul Legisla6ve Code § 60.612 provides that "trucking facilities" are 3 first permitted in I-1 Industrial Districts; and 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 WHEREAS, because the term "hucking facilifies" is not defined in the Ciry's zoning regulations and because trucking facilities are first pernutted in I-1 industrial districts which, by definition, are intended for those uses which restrict the external and physical effects of the use to the zoning district boundaries and in no manner affect surrounding zoning districts in a detrimental way, raises substantial questions as to whether trucking facilities are adequately regulated and properly sited under Section 60.612; and WHEREAS, the current regulatory conditions incorporated in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 62.108, as they may be applied to new hucking facilities, raises substantial questions as to whether such conditions are ineffecfive to mitigate potential detrimental effects of trucking facilities including noise, pollution, and vehicular traffic on surrounding zoning districts; and WIIEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul undezstands that new huck facilities aze planned or are being seriously studied for construcrion and that such plans raise substantial questions relating to whether or not an increase ar concentration of such uses would have a detrimental impact on the general health, welfare and safety of the public and the natural environment; and WHEREAS, an increase or concentration of truck facilities operated as presently permitted raises substantial questions relating to whether or not the City's present zoning regulations adequately address, provide and plan for the impact of such uses on adjacent rieighborhood values, institutions and community chazacteristics, on vehicular traffic levels, on public infrashucture assets, on the noise, vibrations and other effluents generated by such facilities and the impact of such uses on other surrounding azea plans which may have been adopted or are presently under consideration for adoption; and WHEREAS, the recitation of the concerns noted above demonstrates the need to determine whether the City's present zoning code contains adequate safeguazds wkrich will provide for the orderly and appropriate approval and development of hucking facilities in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts; and Council File # � . t0 G �( GreenSheet# toya�..q 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 & 9 10 11 12 T3 14 15 16,� 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 as Zs 30 31 32 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paui desires to temporazily prohibit the 99- loG y establishment of new trucking facilities until such time as a study of possible amendments to the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities has been completed and the Council of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendafions; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that under separate ordinance, the Council of the City of Saint Paul will � direct the Department of Planning and Economic Development to undertake and complete study of the City's official conuols relating to trucking facilities and to submit its report and recommendafions to the Council; and, be it F'ITRTF�R RESOLVED, that pending the adoption of an interim ordinance prohibiting any development that might be inconsistent with the study and any amendments to the City's zoning regulations, no germits or permission shall be issued or granted for the construction of m� j� any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning districts from this date and until �� or until such eazlier time as the <20o�j'1 ouncil of the City of Saint Paul has taken action on the recommendatio ns contained in the study; and be it � R RESOLVE , that the restri ' ns in this resolu 'on and in the said interim ay be e�ende y action of ity Council for itional periods of ' e not to alditional ' teen (18) m in the event th ch study and re endations and ation o e City Coun ' requires such ea-t ions of tirne; an e it FINALLY RESOLVED, that the trucking facility presenfly approved for property commonly lmown as 685 Fairview and which is the subject of Tiugation in District Court File No. C7-99-7679 is exempt &om the restrictions in this resolution aud accompanying interun ordinanc:. � $�� .�s� � ' w �� V n (� r!- � Requested by Department of: By: Adopted by Council: Date Adoption Certified by Council Secretary By: Approved by Mayor; Date By: Fprm Approved by City Attorney a >'.�7n 1✓�irv►�� Iv/ z7195 Approved by Mayor foi Suhmission to Counci2 By: � qq-toG� Interdepartmental Memorandum CIIY OF SAINT PAUL Date: October 21, 1999 To: Councii President Bostrom Councilmembers From: Ken Ford� 5ubject: Zoning Study on Trucking Uses �� Enclosed is a preliminary report'on zoning for trucking uses pursuant to the Council's request of July 14. A report was requested for October 27. Additional field checking is needed to complete the inventory of uses thaT would be affected by the recommendations, but a direction is recommende@. A suggesYed Council resolution is included reqnesfing teview and completion by ihe Plamiing Commission. Q q _ Ie�`� Zoning Regulations for Trucking Facilities Preliminary ReporE October 21, 1999 The Issue The truck tr�c and noise, vibrations and fiunes necessarily associated with a trucking facitity can be detrimental to a residential azea neazby. The City Council and the Planning Commission have heazd considerable testimony on this point in their review of some trucking facility permits this yeaz. Many hucking operations aze located in azeas zoned I-1 Industrial in Saint Paul. The I-1 districi, frequently found adjacent to residential districts, is intended to acconnmodate industrial operations "whose external, physical effects are restricted to the azea of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding districts in a detrimental way." The City Council requested the prepazation of amendments to the zoning code that would more adequately protect residential azeas. A second objective identified by the City Council is to limit the amount of industrial land in the City devoted to a use with as low an employee density as trucking. This would fiirther the Comprehensive Pian poiicy which favors uses with high employee density for the city's limited amount of industrial ]and. Because of their increased emgloyment objective, the Saint Paui Port Authority does not allow trucking firm uses in business pazks under their control. It may be appropriate to apply such a policy to a lazger portion of the city's industrial land. What is s tracking use? There is no definition for a trucking use or trucking facility in the Saint Pau] Zoning Code. Pick up and delivery of goods by truck is, obviously, a necessary accompaniment to many businesses including most any type of manufacturing, moving or storage. For these, trucks are accessory. Accepted deftnitions that provide for special regulations on uses where trucking is the primary activity generally describe "truck terminals" or "motor freight terminals." The definition in the Roseville Zoning Code is an example: A building in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastale and interstate shipment (Ord. 275, 5-12-59, City of Roseville) i-i Fairfax Co., Virginia definition is broader: A buiZding or area in which freight brought by truck is assembled and/or stored for routing or reshipment, or in which semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. The Current Situation in Saint Paul Trucking facilities permitted - qq . to��1 Trucking facilities aze first permitted in the I-1 Industrial District where they aze permitted by right. The use is listed as follows: (3) Warehousing and wholesate establishments, and trucking facilities. This use, along with other uses pemutted in the I-1 district, is also permitted in the I-2 Industrial District. Intent of the I-1 District As stated in the Zoning Code: The I-1 Industrial District is intended to primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse aclivities, and industrial operations whose external, physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding districts in a detrimental way. The I-1 District is intended to permit, along with other specified uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, asserrzbly, or treatment of frnished or semifinished products from previousZy prepared materiaL (60.610. I-1 Industrial District) ' For comparison, the stated intent of the I-2 (heavier) Industrial District is: The I-2 Industrial District is intended primarily for manufacturing, assembling and fabrication activities, including large scale or specialized industrial operations whose external effects will be felt in surrounding districts. The I-2 District-is intended to permit the manufacturing, processing and compounding of semifinished products from raw material and prepared material. The processing of raw material in bulk form to be used in an industrial operation is a permitted use in the I-2 District. Existing Operations The Saint Paul Midway area, due no doubt to its location between the two major city centers, has been, historically, an important center for trucking operations. Over the last two decades as the metropolitan region has expanded, expansive sites in suburban locaTions have become more attractive for trucking uses and the vast majority of operations in the east metro azea aze in the suburbs. Some 90 operations aze located in the east-metro suburbs of Saint Paul compazed with some 20 in the City. Since the Saint Paul Zoning Code permits trucking faciIities in both major industrial zones, it has never been necessary to define a trucking facility or to identify firms by this use. AvaiIable information on the firms that exist in the City is limited in completeness and accuracy. Through available directories, a Minnesota Department of Training and Economic Development listing and field observation, staff has identified operations that may qualify under one or another definition at 21 locations. Fifteen of these are in areas zoned I-1. Four are in areas zoned I-2, and two aze presently non-conforming in residential districts. (These figures, and others that follow, are preliminary fgures that �� -�� t will iikely change as fiuther field checking is completed.) Detrimental Impact The external characteristics of a trucking operation that are degrading to a nearby _ residential azea aze precisely the kind of impacts that zoning is intended to prevent. Trucks, especially tractor trailers, generate more noise than automobile traffic, and even if minimum noise standards are met, the constant nature of lazge truck motors arriving and leaving, and sometimes idling on the site, is a particulaz annoyance for nearby residents. A street with lazge tractor trailers as a common element of the trafFc is substantially different in chazacter from a street with only caz and small truck tr�c and more detrimental to residential tranquility the greater the number of trucks. Lazge trucks reduce comfort for pedestrians and, at least in perception, reduce safety for children and all pedestrians. Odorous fumes, high and bright headlights that can shine in windows, and vibrations are other chazacteristics that residents find detract from the quality of a residential environment. Since these chazacteristics aze readily perceived impediments to a quality residential environment, they inhibit attractiveness in the mazket place and, consequently, reduce residential property values. Identification and Analysis of Options The problem is evident: trucking firms, by the very nature of their primary activiry, aze apt to have significant adverse impact outside the zoning district in which they are located, particularly if they aze near the edge of that district. Permission of trucking firms by right, therefore, would appeaz to be incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 Industrial Dishict in the Zoning Code. A review of regulations in other cities indicates that this incompatibility is commoniy recognized. There are solutions in established practice. Altematives for consideration include: 1. Remove trucking facilities from the list of uses permitted in the T-1 zoning district, restricting new and expanded facilities (truck or motor freight terminals according to z specific definition) to the I-2 district. 2. Make trucking facilities (truck or motor freight terminals according to a specific defmition) a use permitted only by special condition in the I-1 zoning district with conditions that would include a specified distance from residentially-zoned property. 3. Eliminate trucking facilities from the pemutted uses in the I-1 district and pernut them oniy as a conditionai use in the I-2 District. 4. Distinguish trucking facilities by size, permitting only smaller ones in the I-1 district. _ q�-�°�`� Any of these solutions would require the addition of an appropriate definition to the zoning code. A number of definitions from various city codes are cited below. Option i, Define Truck Terminals and permit them only in the I-2 Zoning District. This is the most direct response to the recognition that these facilities aze inconsistent with the stated purpose of the I-1 Zoning District. This option would accomplish two purposes: it would eliminate at least most of the potential conflict with residential azeas, and it would significantiy reduce the amount of industrial land in the City potentially devoted to low-employee-density trucking uses. Available information indicates that under this option existing trucking operations in approximately 161ocations would be made non-conforming. (Four would remain as conforming uses because they aze already in I-2 districts and one presentiy on residentiaily-zoned land would remain non-conforming.) Option 2, Require a Special Condition Use Permit for Truck Terminals in the I-1 Zoning District. Conditions established could address noise, traffic and visual chazacter and could include a specified distance from residential uses. This would address primazily the neighborhood protecfion objective, but would not as cleariy reduce the land azea potentialiy put to this use. Most applications of the I-1 District in the City were established with the districYs limited purpose in mind; many are close to non-industriai uses, often residential. On the other hand, some I-1 azeas aze extensive and some existing trucking facilities zoned I-1 aze not close to residential districts. The number of current operations made non-wnforming under this option is in the range of 5- 10, the actual number depending on actual distance measurement. Option 3, Permit Truck Terminals Only Conditionally in the I-2 District. Because of potential traffic and neighborhood impacts, all transportation uses, including motor freight terminals, aze conditional uses wherever permitted under the new code currently in preparation far the City of Minneapolis. This alternative is not suggested by the objectives for new provisions in Saint Paul. The problems identified involve indusTrial land adjacent to residential or non-iridustrial uses, typically land zoned I-1. The site pian review process ensures that traffic and other impacts will be reviewed for proposed development even where land is zoned I-2. Option 4, Permit Only Smaller Terminals in the I-1 District. Building squaze footage would be the standard basis for discrimination on the basis of size. While the relationship isn't necessazily direct, a larger facility is generally going to involve more truck tr�c, tha major factor that causes detrimental impact. A larger number of smaller facilities in an azea, however, could have as much traffic and as much impact as a single lazger facility. For this reason, pemussion of only smaller facilities would not necessarily contribute to either of the objectives for improvement. 0 Recommendation A definition should be added to the zoning code to provide for addressing trucking operations specifically. A definition similaz to that included in the new code under consideration for the City of Minneapolis covers both buildings and land azea and appeazs to be appropriate for our purposes: _ Motor Freight TemunaL A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily involving truck tractors and semitrailers. Since operations have been found to be incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 zoning district, they should not continue to be permitted in that district by right. They should either be permitted only under conditions that would prevent detrimental impact on property outside the district, or not pemutted in the district at all. The conditional use approach is suggested by the following factors: 1. Most of Saint Paul's firms are located in areas zoned I-1 and all of these would be made non-conforming and would be prevented from expanding if ihe use is no longer permitted in that district. Trucking has an essential role in the city and regional economy and it is not cleaz that all opportunities for this use in I-1 districts as presently mapped need to be eliminated. 2. The distribution of trucking facilities in the east metro region indicates that Saint Paul's shaze is not excessive. In fact, proportional to the city's size, Saint Paul's share is low in compazison with a number of suburban communities. Because of the nature and use of the I-1 district, prohibition of trucking facilities within 600 feet of a residential district will significantly reduce opportunities for new facilities and will make a number of existing firms non-conforming, preventing expansion. Conditions placed on trucking uses should addxess the following: • Distance from a residential district • Visual and noise impact on a residential district • Direct access by truck route not impinging on a residential district a9-b�y Simply from the standpoint of the language of the zoning code, removing trucking facilities as a permitted use in the I-1 district is logical because the finding has been that they aze, by nature, inconsistent with the stated purposes of this district. Q� _ �ocy ?? Are they a necessary part of the city's economy? Most aze in I-1. Would a restriction to I-2 be too limiting? 0 ag - rocN Appendix Definitions - Rochester, N.Y. Truck Temunal. Land and buildings used as a relay station for the transfer of a load from one vehicle to another or one party to another. The terminal cannot be used for permanent or long-term accessory storage for principal land uses at other locations. The terminal facility may include storage areas for trucks and buiZdings or areas for the repair of trucks associated with the terminal. Fairfax County, VA Truck terminal. A building or area in which freight brought by truck is assembled and/or stored for routing or reshipment, or in which semitrailers, including tractor and/or trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. Minneapolis, MN The new zoning code proposed for the City of Minneapolis includes the following definitions: Motor Freight Terminal. A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily im�olving truck tractors and semitrailers, and which is not a package delivery service. Package Delivery Service. A use which transports packages and articles for expedited delivery primarily in single rear axle straight trucks or smaller vehicles, where no single item weighs over one hundred fifty (I SO) pounds. Roseville, MN Motor Freight Terminal (Truck Terminal): A building in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastate and interstate shipmeni. (Ord. 275, 5-12-59) Minneapolis Code, Proposed Package delivery and motor freight terminai uses are not permitted by right in any district, but aze conditional uses wherever they aze allowed. Package delivery is frst permitted as a conditional use in the C4 Generat Commercial District, the most intense of the code's four commercial districts "established to provide for a wider range of commercial development allowing a mix of retail, business services and limited industrial uses." aq ' �� Motor Freight Terxninals aze atlowed as condifionai uses in the IZ Medium and I3 General Industrial Districts. They aze not pernutted in the Il Light Industrial District. Stated purpose of the I1 Light Industrial District: The II Light Industrial district is established to provide clean, attractive locations for low impact and technology-based light industrial uses, research and development, and similar uses which produce Zittle or no noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable influences, and have little or no adverse effect on surrounding properties. (550.190. Staff Altemative) Other uses with which truck hauling is associated aze restricted in size in the I1 Light Industrial District: Warehousing and distribution; furniture moving and storag�. (a) In general. Warehousing and distribution uses and furniture moving and storage uses in the II District shall be limited to thirty thousand (30, 000) square feet ofgross floor area. (Can be increased by conditional use permit.) (550.230. ) Factors specifically identified for consideration when increased floor azea is requested include: 1) proximity to residential uses; 2) screening and landscaping of truck pazking and loading area; and 3) location of truck routes and amount of truck traffic. Stated purpuse of the I2 Medium Tndustrial District (in which motor freight terminals aze first allowed) The I2 Medium Indistrial District is established to provide locations for medium industrial uses and other specific uses which have the potential to produce greater amounts of noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable inf2uences than uses aliowed in the I1 District and which may have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. Roseville Zoning Code Wholesale and wazehousing uses are permitted in T-1 Light Industrial Districts. Motor Freight Terminals aze not permitted in I-1 Light industrial Districts but aze first permitted as a conditional use in I-2 General Industrial Districts. E3