The URL can be used to link to this page

00-188Covncil File # dl`� ^ ��d� QRI�I�IAL Resolution # Green Sheet # ��,� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Approval of Trucking Facilities Zoning Study and Zoning Code Revisions WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Resolution 99-1064 on 11/10/99 requesting PED to conduct a study of the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities; and WHEREAS, to protect the status quo during the study period, the Resolution directed that no permits or pernussion shall be issued or granted for the construction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until Mazch 1, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Piamiing Commission has determined: 1. That the nuxnber of real estate descriptions affected by the ordinance renders the obtaining of written consents impractical, 2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made, 3. That a determination has been made that the amendment to this ordinance proposed is related to existing land use and to a plan for future land use, and 4. That proper notice and hearing have been given pursuant to state statutes; and WgIEREAS, the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee of the Planning Commission worked with staff to prepare the proposed regulations; and WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of trucks to our local economy; and WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it is possible to build new facilities that have loading docks positioned to not impact adjacent residential property; and WHEREAS, cities around Saint Paul are limiting the location of truck terminals to only the heaviest industrial land and imposing conditions; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and testimony at the public hearing, which included representatives of the trucking industry, was supportive of the proposed policy; and WHEREAS, the Plauniug Commission unanimously voted to approve the proposed regulafions; I �O—\$'� 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council adopts the zoning code revisions 38 proposed in the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. ORIGINAL AdaptiOn Approved by Mayor by Council Secretary Requested by Department of: Plannin & Economic Jevelo ment ay: Form Approved by City ttorney BY ��//!/AVt�� t( ! 6(0 0 Approved by May f Submissio Council d� --.—_ By: Adopted by Council: Date � 1_ _��pp �i7 � �� ,,, „ T,,�, TOTAL S OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oc� _ .r� No 10? 3�3 03 m,,.,,� 1t� ❑ �„� _ ❑ ..,.�.�,�, � ❑ ..�.,�.a �Ml'ORIORAtfiGMll�� `�� (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� E(IUESTm a �do�con �� ro{�o5e�l �9✓v�'� CodP_J'2u`isio.�s relcd�a� 'fo 'f-t'u�J<ie�c� �il�fes l �MMtNUAI1VIV APDlOV2 W) Of KEyeR �KJ PERSONNLSERVSCE GOf1�RNGIS XUSTAIVSWER iME WLLOWIN6 QYESilO1V5: 1. lies tltis PersaJfirm eyer v,wked iuMe18 contraU �rfhie tlepahmenl? _ PL4NNING COMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMfTTEE 2. H� Mis penaJfam aver been a ary emqoyce7 CMLSERVICECOMMISSION vES NO � i`3wbin¢ss PffiJtewl�.nal s.00esm�o��a�asarr�ana�wya�seanr�r��r�wov�? rES rio 4. Is tlss peisoNfmm a t� N.vdoYt YEu MO F�lain all Yec answe�s m aep�e sheet and atlaoh to 9reen sheet ,TING PROBLEM ISSUE, OP (Who. Wha[. When, Wh6re, �Nhy) �} + � �G� �✓�ac.��t a, N'�fJi'a,`f+�t'iu_wV o✓� '�/'ucC�Ci"� `4G,C�jc �c�-01 /Lg�NL'Sfcst c 3f'��y. / U / CL�.�i�'.`es �� eocle, acCo�, �� t �^ � Gl� P�� n.o r�e. VANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED ' W� �rtou� lnco�x��e la�d� Fnadj�ce.� rwwsacnoK f [l� � SOURCE INFORMATION (EXPIAIN) CASTrttEYENUE BUDGEim (�� NE) ACTNITY NUMBER YEE NO �i0tlflC� R8S°�fr¢� l;�n�� FEB 1 � 2Q0� 0 � ov_�"� C� �F' Sf�� PA� 390 City Hall Telephane: 612-266-8510 Norm Coleman, Mayor IS West Kellogg Bou[evard Facsimile: 6I2-228-8513 SaintPau[, 14N5�102 February 14, 2000 Councal President Bostrom and Members of the City Council 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Members of the City Council: In November 1999 the City Council initiated a zoning study of trucking facilities and requested the Planning Commission to make recommendations. At the same time, the Council adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the establishment of trucking facilifies or the expansion of existing ones. On January 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed trucking facility zoning aniendments. On February 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reached a recommendation. They recommend that three definitions be added to the zoning code, and conditions placed on two of the newly defined uses. Specifically, "trucking terxninals" as newly defined, will be allowed in I-2 zones with a special condition use permit. "Package delivery services" as defined will be allowed in I-1 with a special condition use permit. Additionally, other structures built on industrially zoned land with seven (7) or more loading docks within 300 feet of residentially zoned land will need a special condition use permit. I am pleased to transmit the Planning Commission's trucking facility recommendations to you for your review and action. Sinc ely, G�c-� �r�'� � Norm Coleman Mayor Attachments DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Brian $weeney, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor February 14, 2000 Mayor Norm Coleman 390 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mayor Coleman, 25 West Fourth Sbeet SaintPoul, MN55102 Do �f�� Telephone. 651-266-6565 Facsimile: 651-228-3267 In November 1999 the Council initiated a zoning study of trucking facilities and requested the Planning Commission to make recommendations. At the same time, the Council adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for tl�e establishment of trucking facilities or the expansion of existing ones. On January 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed trucking facility zoning amendments. You will be pleased to know that the proposed amendments received support from all sides, including the Minnesota Trucking Association who stated that they were a"rational compromise." Additionally, on February 3, 2000 the Business Review Council met with PED staff on the issue and voted to support the revisions. On February 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reached a recommendation. They recommend that three definitions be added to the zoning code, and conditions placed on two of the newly defined uses. Specifically, "mzcking terminals" as newly defined, will be aliowed in I-2 zones with a special condition use permit. "Package delivery services" as defined will be allowed in I-1 with a special condition use permit. Additionally, other structures built on industrially zoned land with seven (7) or mare loading docks within 300 feet of residentially zoned land will need a special condition use perxnit. I am pleased to transmit the Planning Commission's trucking facility recoxnmendations to you far endorsement and transmittal to the City Council. Sincerely, Brian Sweeney Director Enclosures K:\Shared\SpoonheilTruckma\transmllsweeney.wpd oo�� ATTACHNIENTS FOR TRUCKING FACILITY ZONING STUDY 2000 1. Planning Commission Resolution recommending changes to the zoning code 2/11/00 2. Tnxcking Facility Zoning Study approved by Planning Commission on 2/11/00 3. Written public testimony from Planning Commission Public Hearing on 1J28/00 4. DRAFT - Planning Commission minutes from trucking facility pubiic heazing and discussion, 1128/00 5. Memorandum from the Saint Paul Business Review Council, 2/7/00 o0�i�5' city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 00-14 date Februarv 11, 2000 Approval of Trucking Facilities Zoning Study WIIEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Resolution 99-1064 on 1 U10/99 requesting PED to conduct a study of the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities; and WHEREAS, to protect the status quo during the study period, the Resolution directed that no permits or permission shall be issued or granted for the construction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until March 1, 2000; and WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined: L That the number of real estate descripfions affected by the ordinance renders the obtaining of written consents impractical, 2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made, 3. That a determination has been made that the amendment to this ordinance proposed is related to existing land use and to a plan for future land use, and 4. That proper notice and hearing have been given pursuant to state statutes; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee of the Planning Commission worked with staff to prepare the proposed regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of trucks to our local economy; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it is possible to build new facilities that have loading docks positioned to not impact adjacent residential properry; and WHEREAS, cities azound Saint Paul are limiting the location of mick terminals to only the heaviest industrial land and imposing conditions; and moved by Farl�V seconded by Mar�ulies in favor IInanimrn�c against �b-� WHEREAS, on January 28, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and testimony at the public hearing, which included representatives of the trucking industry, was supportive of the pzoposed policy; and WfIEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the proposed regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Pianning Commission recommends to Saint Paul City Council the zoning code revisions proposed in the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. DEPARTMENTOFPLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN'I Brian Sweeney, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Ca[eman, Mayor 25 Wesi Fourth Sbeet SaintPaul, MIVS102 TRUCKING FACILITY ZONING STUDY February 11, 2000 � b — \�S� Telephone: 657-266-6655 Facsimile. 651-228-3374 This report is recommended by the Saint Paul Planning Commission for approval by the City Council. For more information, please contact Joel Spoonheim, Saint Paul Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development, at (651) 266-6614 or joelspoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us � o - �86� TRUCHING FACILITY ZONING STUDY Citv Council Request City Council Resolution 49-1064, adopted on 11/10(99, directed PED to conduct a study of the City's official controls relating to tnxcking facilities. To protect the status quo during the study period, the resolution directed that no permits or perxnission sha11 be issued or granted for the conshuction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until Mazch l, 2000. On December 22, 1999, the City Council adopted an ordinance matching the eazlier resolution. Authoritv for the Studv Amendments to the Zoning Code follow the procedures in Section 64.400 of the Code and Minnesota Statutes Section 462357. Either the City Council or the Planning Commission can initiate citywide amendments. Public hearings with required notice aze held at both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Issue In recent years, communities azound Saint Paul have reduced land zoned appropriate for trucking uses. A result is increased demand far land on which to locate trucking facilities in Saint Paul. However, with limited industrial land available in the city, the City Council, acting in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, wishes to discourage uses with low employee density such as trucking. Because of their increased employment objective, the Saint Paul Port Authority does not allow trucking uses in business parks the Port owns. A second aspect is that traffic, noise, vibrations, and fumes necessarily associated with a hucking facility can be detrimental to a residential area nearby. The City Council and the Planning Commission have heard considerable testimony on this point in their review of some trucking facility permits during 1999. Many trucking operations are located in areas zoned I-1 Industrial in Saint Paul. The I-1 district, frequently found adjacent to residential districts, is intended to accommodate industrial operations "whose external, physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding disiricts in a detrimental way." Some hucking facilifies may be in conflict with this intent, yet the I-1 district currently identifies trucking facilities as a permitted principle use. What is a Trucking Facilitv? There is no definition for a hucking facility in the Saint Paul Zoning Code because the use is allowed in both major industrial zones. Pick up and delivery of goods by truck is, obviously, a necessary accompaniment to many businesses including any type of manufacturing moving, or Page 2 of 13 oD �� storage. For tl�ese, trucks aze accessory. Accepted definitions that provide for special regulations on uses where trucking is the primary activiry generally describe "tmck ternvnals" or "motor freight terminals." The definirion in the Roseville Zoning Code is an example: A buiZding in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intr-astate and interstate shipment (Ord. 275, 5-12-59, City of Roseville) A Fairfax Co., Virginia defuution is broader: 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 pat^ked or stored. The Minnesota State Statutes provide the following definition: "Terminal" means (1) afacility thczt a motor ccrrrier owns, Zeases, or otherwise controls, and uses to load, unload, dispense, receive, interchange, gather, or otherwise physically handle fretght for shipment, or (2) any other location at which freight is exchanged by motor carriers between vehicles. "Terminal" does not mean a public warehouse with a storage capacity of at least S, 000 square feet that was licensed under chapter 231 on or before March 1, 1992. Shucturally truck terminals are generally built with "cross-docks" -- a design where loading docks are on opposite sides of a building usually 60 feet deep, allowing for easy transfer from one trailer to another. Due to deregulation of the riucking industry in the 1980s and changes in the economy, the blending of warehousing and trucking terminals occurs in some facilities. "Just-in-time delivery" is the dominant production model today, which has changed the warehousing industry from one that stores large quantities of product/material for long periods of time, to a service that stores smaller quantities that have high turnover. The result is that most warehouse uses see more traffic today than 15 years ago and need more docks than the old standard of one dock per 10,000 squaze feet. However, there remains a difference between the most intensive truck terminal uses and warehouses. One way to differentiate between warehousing and truck terminals is based on the number of docks per square feet of floor area. Based on research, including interviews of six large warehouse developers in the Twin Cities, staff recommends a ratio of one dock per 5,000 square feet (1:5,000) of warehouse space as a threshold; facilities with more than one dock per 5,000 squaze feet should be treated as truck terminals and facilities with fewer than one dock per 5,000 square feet should be treated as warehouses. Page 3 of 13 �o-�� The Current Saint Paul Zonin�Code Trucking faciliries aze first pemutted in the I-1 Industrial District where they are permitted by right. The use is listed as follows: (3) Warehousing and wholesaZe establishments, and trucking facilities. This use in the I-1 district also carries over as pernutted in the I-2 Industrial District. As stated in the Zoning Code the intent of the I-1 district is as follows: The I-1 Industrial District is intended to primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse activitzes, 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 specif ed uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, assembly, or treatment offznished or semifinished products from previously prepared material. (Sec.60.610) For comparison, the stated intent of the I-2 (heavier) Industrial District is: The I-2 Industrial District is intended primariZy for manufacturing, assemb7ing and fabrication activities, including Zarge 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 semifznished products fi�om raw material and prepared material. The processing of raw material in bulk foym to be used in an industrial operation is a permitted use in the I-2 District. (Sec. 60.620) Existin�Operations in Saint Paul The Saint Paul Midway area, due to its location between the two major city centers, has been historically an important center for trucking and warehousing operations. Over the last two decades, expansive sites in suburban locations have become more attractive for trucking uses. The majority of operations in the east metro area are in the suburbs. However, during the last five years many cities around Saint Paul have rezoned land or taken other action to limit or reduce trucking terminals on their industrial land. As trucking firms seek to relocate, demand for land in Saint Paul is increasing. In otie case, a truck company bid one million dollars over the estimated market value of $1.2 million which was offered by an office developer. Recent industrial land sales as detailed in appraisals and Ramsey County tax data, show that two trucking terminals have paid $4.51 and $6.52 per squaze foot, well over average industrial land values of two-to-three dollars per square foot. Truck companies will increasingly be willing to pay a premium in order to secure available land. Unlike other cities, the existing Page 4 of 13 oo—��' Saint Paul Zoning Code allows truck terminals on all industrial land. Staff visually inspected all industrial property abutting public streets in Saint Paul and found five possible truck terminals (using the proposed definition). All five are in I-1 zones currently. Intensitv of Land Use The Saint Paul Port Authority, as the City's lead industrial developer, seeks to ensure as high a density of industrial employment as possible. The Port Authority does not allow trucking facilities within Port owned industrial parks because such firms do not meet standazds including: 1 job per 1,000 square feet of building; a th3riy-two (32) percent coverage of building to land; a minimum consiruction cost per squaze foot; and design guidelines. Truck terminals are rarely affiliated with high intensity land use. Generally, ternrinals: • are buildings with "cross-docks" - a design where loading docks are on opposite sides of the building, usually 60 feet deep, allowing for easy transfer from one trailer to another; • have significant pazking space for trailers and tractars; • may have a repair facility for trucks. In some cases, terminals may be built attached to a warehouse in arder to serve a vaziety of clients. For these reasons, truck terminals do not qualify for construction on Port Authority controlled industrial land. Detrimental Impact of Large Volumes of Truck Traffic The external characteristics of a trucking operation that are degrading to a neazby residential azea aze precisely the kind of impacts that zoning is intended to prevent. Trucks, especially tractor trailers, generate more noise than automobile traffic. Even when minimum noise standards are met, the constant nature of large truck motors arriving and leaving, and sometimes idling on the site, is a particular annoyance for nearby residents. A street with large tractor trailers as a common element of the traffic is substantially different in character from a street with only car and stnall truck traffic. The larger the truck, the greater the detriment to residential tranquility. Lazge trucks reduce comfort for pedestrians and, at least in perception, reduce safety for children and pedesTrians. Odarous fumes, high and bright headlights that can shine in windows, and vibrations are other characteristics that residents find detract from the quality of a residential environment. These residential detractions aze readily apparent and may reduce residential property values. Page 5 of 13 oa—�� Staff Recommended Alternafive and Analvsis Truck and Motor Freight Terminals by the very nature of their primary activity aze apt to have significant impacts on properiy adjacent to access routes and facilities. Pernutting truck terminals by right (Sec. 60.612(3)) is incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 District (Sec. 60.6ll). A review of regulations in other cities indicates that this incompatibility is commonly recognized and the impetus for policy. Such policy also addresses the economic impact of low-intensity uses most common with trucking fums. These aze solutions in established practice. Staff recommends adding three definitions to the zoning code and making text modifications as follows. The modifications include new restrictions for certain facilities where associated huck traffic may have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. Definitions to Be Added Truck and Motor Freight Terminals. A facilit�with more than six (61 docks and more than one (1Zock per five thousand (5,000) square feet of wazehouse, storage, or related use and used for either (11 the loading, unloadin¢, dispensine, receivinE, interchan ig ne, ag thering, or otherwise nhvsicallv handling frei¢ht for shi�ment or (21 any other location at which freiEht is exchanged b�motor carriers between vehicles. This includes but is not limited to cross-dock operations and does not include a packaee deliverv service. Packaee Delivery Service. A business which transports packages and articles far ex�edited deliver,�primarily in single rear �le straieht trucks or smaller vehicles, where no single item w�hs over one hundred fifty (150) nounds. Excludes courier services. Loading dock. A laz�e buildin door primarily used for loadine/unloading items from trucks. The floor of a loadine dock door is raised above the truck ramp surface. This excludes bay doors which aze laree building doors throu¢h which vehicles can drive. Zoning Code Amendments For the following read the text formatting as: Insert, �erne�e, and staff comments/ explanation. Sec. 60.612. Principal uses permitted. [I-1} In an I-1 Industrial District the use of land, the location and erec6on of new buildings or siructures and the alteration, enlazgement and moving of existing buildings or structures from other locations or districts shall conform to the following specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this code: (3) Warehousing and wholesale establishments, . Page 6 of 13 b�-�� Sec. 60.614 [I-1] and 60.624 [I-2] Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. The following additional uses shall be pernutted subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use and subject to the standazds specified for all special condition uses as set forth in section 64.300(d). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the plauuing commission. (141 ContiQuous or otherwise connected structures within three hundred feet of a residentially zoned prope , except cemeteries, with seven (77 or more loadin¢ dock doors subiect to the following conditions: This new addition is to address a weakness within the code as it currently exists. Properry zoned I-1 is by defznition to have no impact on adjacent property owners, and property zoned I-2 as heavy industrial land is allowed to have uses that impact adjacent properties. The City of Saint Paul has industrial property that abuts residential land, and trucks in Zarge numbers can have a negative impact on adjacent uses including residential and commercial. Historically, trucks have not been defined as an activiry with negative impact on adjacent owners, but recent public testimony negates that premise. Furthermore, environmental impacts of signifzcant numbers of idling and moving trucks may spread beyond industrial land The first draft of this study recommended revisions to where large warehouses are aZlowed. Instead, Zooking at all uses where trucks are used is appropriate to solving the problem of incompatible uses. To set the standard for seven (7) or more docks as a threshold requiring a special condition use permit, staff conducted fzeld research and reviewed policies in other cities. Field research found that most industrial uses have relativelti few dock doors, most often less than five (S). Based on how other cities, especially Minneapolis, seek to hcxve their light industrial zone have no impact on adjacent properties, staff incorporated and modified the following standard. Warehousing buildings which by necessity have truck activity, are allowed in Minneapolis I-1 zones if the buildings are under 3Q 000 square feez While other industries use trucks, warehousing is dependent on it most intensely. Therefore, using 30, 000 square feet as a basis for defining heavy truck use not appropriate for I-1, and the standard set in the new "trucking terminal" definition proposed in this report (one dock per S, 000 square feet), a principle use allowed would be any building with szx (6) or fewer docks. The 300 foot inter-val was identified in three ways. First, the Zoning Code identifies 300 feet as an appropriate buffer between residential uses and outdoor storage. (Sec. 60.613(3) j Second, the Zoning code identifies 1, 000 feet as an appropriate distance for intermodal fi�eight yards which are generally both rail and truckfacilities (Sec. 60.624 (16)J. The noise ofsuch facilities is greater due to rail uses, therefore a shorter distance such as 300 feet seems appropriate for large buildings. Addi6ionally, staff believe that this distance diseourages devedopment of buildings with seven or more dock doors facing residential areas due to the loss of Zand to building space. Instead developers will be encouraged to meet the special conditions outlined Page 7 of 13 � a- �� below, thereby generating more intensive land use. � Noise impacts shall be mitieated to prevent excessive impact on residential lots within 300 feet. This mav include usin� the building as a sound barrier beriveen truck docks and residences bv aligning the structure close to lot lines. Staff believe that a building constructed with a solid wa11 near the street toward residential neighborhoods, and truck docks on the opposite side is an appropriate site design that shields residents fi�om much of the truck noise. Similarly, a solid wall functioning as a sound barrier can be constructed � Truck access to the properiv shall be directlYonto a desi¢nated truck route or onto the street at a rooint nearest to a desienated truck route. In some cases direct access to a designated truck route may not be available. Therefore, to limit truck traff c along residential streets, requiring the access point to be at the nearest Zocation to a truck route is appropriate. � Loading docks shall not face residentiallv zoned lots Loading docks are the source of most noise due to loading equipment and Zruck engine idling. Clearly, on some lots this may not be possible, and staff will note the limitation of the site in their reports. � The buildine and site sha11 be desi�ned and landscaped to be comnatible with adjacent properties. Sec. 60.614 Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. [I-1 Industrial District] The following additional uses shall be permitted subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use and subject to the standards specified for all special condition uses as set forth in section 64300(d). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission. (15) Packa¢e Deliverv Service Package Delivery Services are recommended to be a special condition use in order to be consistent with the Minneapolis Code. Sec. 60.624. Principal uses subject to special conditions [I-2 Industrial District]. The following additional uses shall be permitted [in an I-2 Industrial District], subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed far each use and subject to the standazds specified for a11 special condifion uses as set forth in section 64.300(c). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions sha11 be reviewed and approved by the plamiing commission. 2�2 Truck and motor frei¢ht terminals Page 8 of 13 �-1� � Noise impacts shall be miti¢ated to grevent excessive im�act on zesidential lots within 300 feet. This mav include using the building as a sound barrier bv ali¢nin_g the structure close to lot lines. �b Truck access to properiv shall be directiv onto a desi�nated truck route. � The buildine and site shall be desiened and landscaped to be compatible with adjacent properties. Sec. 60.562. Principal uses perxnitted. In a B-5 Central Business-Service District the use of land, the location and erection of new buildings or structures, and the alteration, enlargement and moving of existing buildings or structures from other locations or districts shall conform to the following specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this code: (2) Wholesaling, warehousing, or storage «s� buildings, but excluding steel warehousing, storage of bulk petroleuxn or related products, and garbage, rubbish or junk. All material must be completely enclosed within a building. "Transfer buildings" are synonymous with terminals and therefore need to removed as a permitted xise in B-5. Imnact of Recommendations Terminal Definition cznd SCUP reguirements Five terminals were identified in Saint Paul based on staff research, though without hauing building dimensions, at least one of the sites may actually be a warehouse. All five would become non conforming uses if the proposed language is adopted. However, it is important to note that three of the five are surrounded by industrial ar commercial uses, and one site is completely self contained and isolated on two sides by natural barriers from the xesidential zone. The key impact of making these uses legally non-conforming is that for them to expand, two- thirds (2/3) of adjacent property owners must sign a petition in support of the enlargement. With similar uses surrounding most the identified terminals, staff anticipates a strong likelihood of securing needed signatures. By requiring any new terminals to locate in I-2 and to receive a special condition use permit, the likelihood of many new terminals being built in Saint Paul is diminished. SCUP for Buildings with more than 6 docks within 300 feet of residential zones Page 9 of 13 ��- 1�� Staff analyzed the impact of the proposed language by inspecting roughly I 15 non-residential buildings located within a 300 foot residential buffer. Only nine buildings had seven or moze docks. Of these nine, many had conditions that would allow them to receive a special condition use pemrit easily, including: • one warehouse with 22 doors is buffered from the residential neighborhood by a lazge hall; • one warehouse is buffered from residential uses by a half block of industrial buildings; • three buildings fall within the buffer because a pazk or cemetery, which are zoned residential, aze adjacent properties; • three buildings aze across a major street from residential zone and there is significant green-space buffering; additionally, two of these buildings do not have any docks facing residential uses. • one building has eight docks fairly near residential properiy, but four face toward industrial property. The impact of the proposed language would make these buildings legally non-conforming structures with conforming uses [62102(e)]. Buildings are allowed to expand so long as the expansion does not increase the non-conformity, ar the owner can apply for a variance. A variance does not require signatures of adjacent property owners. The key finding generated by this analysis is that most buildings aze designed to respect adjacent properties, and that adopting the recommended policy ensures this practice continues. Other Alternatives Considered Staff considered other alternatives including: 1. Distinguish trucking facilities by size, permitting only smaller ones in the I-1 district and larger ones in I-2. 2. Make trucking facilities a special condition use permitted in the I-1 zoning district with conditions that would include a specified distance from residentially-zoned property. Upon establishing a definition for trucking ternunals distinguishing it from wazehousing and other uses where trucks are accessory, staff believes that lumping all uses under "trucking facilities" is inappropriate. Trucking terminals are a distinct, low intensive use, with negative externalities that should be isolated from residenfial areas. Other businesses such as warehousing that use trucks as one part of their business should by right continue to locate throughout I-1 zoned areas, with regulations sufficient to mitigate possible impacts when near residential azeas. Page 10 of 13 � �� Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends amending the Zoning Code to inciude the definitions and modifications discussed above. Attachment: Appendix A- suiuinary of other ciries' codes Page 11 of 13 ��--1�� Append� A Regulations and definitions from other cities: Definitions Rochester, N.Y. Truck Terminal. Land and buildings used as a relay station for the transfer of a load from one vehicle to another or one parry to another. The terminal cannot be used for permanent or long- term accessory storage for principal land uses at other Zocations. The terminal facility may include storage areas for trucks and buildings or areas for the repair of trucks associated with the terminal. Fairf� 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 semitraiZers, including tractor andlor trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. Roseville. MN Motor Freight Terminal (Truck Terminal): A building in which fr�eight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastate and interstate shipment. (Ord. 275, 5-12-59) [Wholesale and warehousing uses are permitted in I-1 Light Industrial Districts. Motor Freight Terminals are not permitted in I-1 Light Industrial Districts but are first permitted as a conditional use in I-2 Genexal Industrial Districts.] Minne�olis. MN Motor Freight Terminal. A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily involving truck tractors and semitrailers, and which is not a package delivery seYVice. 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 sing7e item weighs over one hundred fifty (I50) pounds. Minneapolis Code A new Zoning Ordinance, in preparation for several yeazs, was adopted (fall) 1999 consideration by the Minneapolis City CounciL In this code, package delivery and motor freight terxninal uses, Page 12 of 13 8�-�`� as with all transportation uses, aze not permitted by right in any district, but aze conditional uses wherever they are allowed. Package delivery is fust permitted as a condiuonal use in the C4 General 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." A key component of the new zoning code was creation of the Il Light Industrial District, as part of a redefining the code from Manufacturing (M) to Industrial (I) classifications. This new district was created to protect residential areas, and was placed on the map where possible throughout the city to achieve this goal. Overall, most former manufacturing (Ml) land became I2. However there aze long-term existing trucking uses adjacent to residential azeas that were zoned as I2; a few firms were also made non-conforming uses within the new I1 district. The stated purpose of the Il Light Industrial District is: The II Light Industrial dist�ict is established to provide clean, attractive locations for low impact and technology-based Zight industrial uses, reseczrch and development, and similar uses tivhich produce little or no noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable influences, and have little or no adverse effect on surroundingproperties. (550.190 draft) Motor Freight Terminals are allowed as conditional uses in the I2 Medium and I3 General Industrial Districts. They are not permitted in the I1 Light Industrial District. Other uses with which truck hauling is associated are restricted in size in the Ii Light Industrial District Warehousing and distribution; furniture moving ancl storage. (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 of gross floor area. (Can be increased by conditional use permit.) (550.230) Factors specifically identified for consideration when increased floor area is requested include: 1) proximity to residential uses; 2) screening and landscaping of truck parking and loading area; and 3) location of truck routes and amount of truck tr�c. Stated purpose of the I2 Medium Industrial District (in which motor freight terminals are first allowed) The 72 Medium Industrial District is established to provide locations for medium industrial uses and other^ specific uses which have the potential to produce greater amounts of no%se, odor, vfbration, glare or other objectionable influences than uses allowed in the II District and which may have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. K.\Shared\Spoonhe�\Truckmg�report2_3_OO.wpd Page 13 of 13 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNMG & ECONOMIC DEVHIAPMENT Brran Siveeney, Director CITY OF SAIN"I' PAUL Norm Coleman,�Nayor To: Saint Paul Planning Commission From: Joel Spoonheim, Planner Date: 2 February 2000 25 West Fourlh Street Saint P¢ul, M.V iJ /0? Re: Written comment on Tnxcking Facilities Zoning Study �D-1� Telephone: 631-266-66» Facsimile: 651-228-331 d Please see the attached written comments submitted on the Tnxcking Facilities Zoning Study. They include comments from: Steve Wellington - Wellington Management Inc. Paul Knapp - Space Center Joe Meyer - JLT Group Cathy Nordin St. Anthony Park Community Council K �Shared\Spoonhei\7mckmg\comment memo.wpd --------- - -- Joel Spoonheim - Trucking land use issue V ' �� 4 Page 1 �a-1� From: Steve Wellington <swellingtan@WELLINGTONMGT.COM> To: "'joel.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us"' �joel.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 1 /3/00 321 PM Subject: Trucking land use issue 1 would like to provide information regarding the trucking land use issue now under consideration by the Planning Comission and the City Council. I feel strongly that the City Council needs to act to ensure that good land use prevails in the Midway area of St. Paul. While trucking uses have always been a major user of industrial space in this portion of St. Paui, several recent changes in the economics of Midway-area development require careful consideration: 1. The Midway area is currently a very strong market 4or both o�ce space and retail space. Projects such as Midway Marketplace, Court International, Energy Technology Center, Spruce Tree Center and 1919 University Ave. have demonstrated the area's economic development potential. Traditionai uses such as secondary retailing, car dealerships and older manufacturing uses are giving way to a more intense and productive set of land uses. 2. This natural evolution, which is very beneficial for St. Paul's tax base and employment is under pressure from the north. The City of Roseville is aggressively attempting to relocate the many trucking frims that have been based in that City. This city is using substantial tax increment financing doilars to attract new single level office and office/showroom facilities to these older trucking areas. Simply driving along 35w north of Highway 36 will provide clear physical evidence of the impact of this planning. This effort will continue, since Roseville intends for a major upgrade in land uses along County Road C, west of the Byerleys retail center. Large development firms like Opus and Ryan have made substantial recent investments on these older trucking sites.The trucking firms which require a central location to meet their distribution needs have to go somewhere. The Midway is a naturaf choice fos their relocation. Roseville has got a good plan and has been quite successful with its implementation. Their tax base is going to go up (at least after all the tax increment subsidy is re-paid). Their community already has much higher employment density and a more hi-tech amenity-tech appearance as a result of this plan. St. Paul needs to compete effectively with this community and make sure the Midway area continues to prosper. 3. Minneapolis is also going to put pressure on the Midway area. Minneapolis' traditional lackluster industrial development program has recently gotten lots more effective. The Southeast Minneapolis Industrial District (SEM{) is gradually getting organized. This 300 acre (?) redevelopment district is already attracting big-time office developers like CSM to make major changes in older industrial, railroad and trucking-related uses. A drive west on Kasota, west of Highway 280 can easily confirm the nature of this plan. Unfortunately, this area is just starting to blossom. Minneapolis will be putting a large amount of the under-developed land in this area on the market in the next 3-5 years Successful, growing Midway area businesses will be prime targets for the space that will become availa6le in this area. To deai with these competitive pressures, St Paul needs the land and �---- ---- --- - - - - ------- --- _ . .____ __. ---- E Joef Spoonheim - Trucking land use issue Page 2 i�. _� «�--- -`- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - �-=-= - - ------ 8�-1� buildings necessary to provide the room needed for expanding Midway-area businesses. Last year a prime 62 acre site on Energy Park Drive came up for auction in a bankruptcy court proceeding. This site could easily have accomodated a major new office facility. Most observers felt that this land and the older, deteriorated empty truck terminal on it would lead to a value of $1.� - 1.4 million. Unfortunately, Koch Trucking from Roseville purchased the property for $22 million, well above any market price for such industrial property. Koch Trucking has since invested a substantial sum in upgrading the facility. They are a good company with a strong track record. The old truck terminal certainiy looks a lot better. I do not begrudge Koch Trucking its needs for a new facility. I do object to St. Pauf getting Roseville's undesireable industrial uses. I also object to the very limited land use that a 60,000 s.f. truck terminal has for a 6.2 acre site. When the Port Authority develops a new industrial park it sets standards for employment and building density. A 62 acre site should accomodate an o�ce and production facility of 80,000 - 100,000 s.f. with overall employment of at least 200. This is simply not what occurs with a 60,000 s.f. warehouse and truck terminal. If one drives around St. Paul's Midway area, you can find numerous sites where a small warehouse building is surrounded by a huge expanse of asphalt and many, many parked semi-trailer trucks. St. Paul should not deliberately try to eliminate these uses. The Mldway will always be a warehousing and distribution center for the Twin Cities. But we need Yo change the current situation where our I-1 zoning code provides a big green light to trucking uses migrating from otner areas. The Midway sould be the office headquarters for these firms not the spot where aff the unwanted uses congregate. St. Paul's traditional response to these market pressures has been to rely on the considerable skills and financiaf muscle of the St. Paul Port Autority. During the past 20 years, the Port has provided excellent leadershp in Midway-area industrial redevelopmentwith its Westgate, Energy Park and Midway Industrial Parks. Today, however, the Port is totally out of Midway-area industrial property. Worse yet, there is no Midway-area Port Authority project even on the drawing board. The Port has #argeted Shepard Road, the Phalen Corridor and the Maxson Steel area for its efforts during the next 3-5 years. These are excellent projects, but this means that the strongest market in St. Paul for small business and industrial expansion will have nothing to offer in the short-term. Without aggressive intervention, growing idway-area businesses will certainly be lost to other areas. An excellent shost-term so4ution would be for the C+ty to co�sider changes to the zoning code that would encourage more appropriate industrial uses. These changes would not only benefit the Midway, they would also help industrial and smali business investment city-wide. I urge the Planning Comission and the City Councii to aggressively investigate and act on this issue. +-s�-oo;++:z�aM;space center,inc ;o� o�ns�c� _ < < � CE SS�A SPACE CENTER`� January 31 zooa Cicy of Saint Paul Ptanning Commission c/o Mr. )oel Spoonheim City of St. Paul Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 2S West 4� Street St. Paul, M1�i 55102 Dear Planning Cominission: VIA FAX: (G51} 228-3314 1 am writing to expzess my company's support for P�n's proposed zoning code amcndments regazding trnck terminals. o o—�� Space Center owns the building generally known as the Pillsbury Pood Testing Pacility on Pelham and Franldin in ehe Midway. Space Center also owns wazehouse facilities across the country. We recommend that d1e Planning Commission encourage the highest and best uses of property in the Midway. The Commission should encourage office and retaiI uties as oppo�ed to industrial uscs: thc Commission should spccifically discourage die constrvction or operation uf trucl: terminal facilities. 1'ruck termintils constitute low density, low employment use of property and generally inhibit the development of residenual, office and retail development. I furthcr recomnZend that the Commission aggzessively encourage the redevelopment of existing older industrial properties in the Ivlidway to office and retail uses. Yours tnily, Spxce Center, Ine. � Paul R. 1Cnapp Sei�ior Vice Preszdent SPACE CENTER, INC. 2507 CI0v212f,tl AvenuO NORh ! SI PaUI, MN 55173d717 Telephon: (651) 604-4200/ Facsimile: (651) 604-4222 61(28/2606 16:21 6516411244 JLT GROUP rHUt n�iG� �.�/LTGROu P 1NC. 739 Vandalia Street • St. Paul, MN 55114 MEMORANAUM '�O: FROIVI: DAT�: SYIBJECT: Joel Spoonheim Joe 11�eysr January 27, 2000 Trucking Facilttfes Study ��-� (651) B41-1111 • (651) 641-7244 F�c We appreciate your efforts regarding the above-refezenced study. We flave revzewed the draft dated January 7, 2000 and we have the following comments: 1. I£ the number of 48" high truck doors is the dete�mining factor as to whefher a facility is deemed a"trucking terminal," then the ratio you propose (i dock per 5000 square feet; 1:5000) is unworkable. Clearly there are facilities with a greater than 1:5000 dock zatio that aze not truck teLmiaals and do not have the type of traffic that a truck terminal creates. With that in mind, the ratio should be 1:1000. 2. A 1:5000 ratio would immediately eliminate any business that uses a dock and occupies less than 5,000 square feet. 3. As noted in your study, a true truck terminal is a 60' wide building with truck doors on both sides. These faciliries have a ratio of appzoximately 1:300 or 1:400. This fuzther demonstrates that the detei�nining ratio should b l:1000. We understand the dilemma of defining a hvck terminal, but it is cleaz that a 1:5000 ratio will not work. joc25St cpoo�heimmzmo �_. _ _. _ -T � Joel Spoonheim - Trucking Facility Zoning Study Page 1 �._ __ _,�_ _ _..__== . - -- . . __ � � o-�� From: Cathy Nordin <cathy.n@wcla.com> To: <joef.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 1/28/00 9:37AM Subject: Trucking Facility Zoning Study Saint Paul Planning Commission Attn: Joel Spoonheim 1 have read through your proposed Zoning Amendments and would like to follow up on a couple issues. First The definition of "Package Delivery Service" is identical to the New Minneapolis Zoning Code but there is a flaw in this definition. 1 have been recently working with a dient "DHL Wor{d Wide International Express" They compete with Fed Ex, UPS .......etc. They are most known with the international business world so some of us don't know who or what they are. They almost fit the defin+tion you have on the table but - They do take packages over 150 pounds. DHL has two buildings in the twin cities, one in Eagan and one in Mpls. They service building receive 2 to 3 packages a week that are between 150 to 600 pounds. This would exclude them from this Definition even though they fit all the other peramiters. They have 2 dock doors for 12,000 s.f. of warehouse space. All there packages under 150 Ibs are transported in standard �ord ar chivy full size vans, not even the step vans that UPS uses. In our Mpls facility there will not be any semi trailers even bringing the packages from the airport. because of the site restrictions in turning space. We will use only 24 ft long trucks. Mpls also requires a"Conditional Use Permit" for a Package Delivery Service in all the 11, 12 and 13 zones in Chapter 550 and also has Specific Development Standards for them in Chapter 536. I think this, on top of your 300 ft. separation can give St. Paul control over whaYs happening. Second I do see a problem with Sec. 60.612 (3) the 300 feet is measured from the exterior wall of the bldg. to the nearest residential lot line. OK IeYs think about this. A lot line typically has a sidewalk and blvd. before the street. than we have the street width - lets say iYs a major road like Rice St. or Como Ave. two lanes traffic each way and parking both sides -( Joel please get curb to curb width for the committee) Than add the sidewalk and blvd. in than your finally to their property line. Now we can begin to add into the distance on their own Iand. they need -length of truck plus 10 feet to maneuver the truck. � Joel Spoonheim - Trucking F acilit y Zoning Study Y '� Page 2 _ _ .._ , __ w _ . __ � --`-`-==- = - -- - — -the length of truck plus 5 feet to park the truck. -this adds up to '125 feet for a standard semi trailer on their property plus the street right of way and your almost at the 300 ft. now three hundred feet may seem like enough but I warn you. Once iYs written i� the code they find a way to comQly and come. be careful. I would consider the SCUP to allow any trucking in 11, 12, or 13 zones. f wanted to bring this to your attention because you have a chance to write your zoning ordinance correctly and do a betterjob than Minneapolis did. I bet you thought you heard the last from me. No way. I miss you guys. Thank you, Cathy Nordin A.I.A. � �.�bK� CC: gladys morton <gladysmort@aoLcom> Jan �� u� ud:aip on;�� t�� .. �.. �i:�*�!i 60- St. Anthony Park Community Council - Ioel Spoonheim, Pianner St Paul Planning Commission 1400 City Hatl Annex 25 W.Fourth St St Pau� MN. 55102 January 27, 2000 Joel: The St Aiuhony Park Community Council (SAPCC) strongly supports cl�az�ges to the St Paul Zoning Code to define Truck and Motoc Fieight Temiinals and to limit theu location We believe tt�at reshictions on truck termi�als within City limits should be as stringent, if not more stringent, than the suburbs sutrounding St Paul. Our district includes a large amount of industcial land, andthe impaas af the industrial use on adjacent residenval properties have been a major concem since the Community Council was first cteated in 1976. We recoguze the necessity of indushial property in the ciEy, and one-third af our Community Council is made up of business people from our azea Our concems aze with mitigaiing any neg�iive impacts tHat result from the close proximity af industrial and residential uses. We believe the proposed changes fo fhe Zoning Code ihaf we 2iave reviewed (Trucldng Facitity Zoning Study Draft dated 1/7/00) to lunit Truck Terminals to I2 mnes will help mitigate the impacts tl�at the ternunals themselves have on residential areas Likewise, the proposed changes adding conditions to large wazehouse facilities ne� residenrial areas should he2p mitigyte the impacts these buildings would have on nearby residences. We do have some concems that the proposed changes do not provide adequate tools to prevent ne�tive impact to residenual, educational institutions �d business azeas by large volumes of truck traffic. We believe that ]arge volumes of truck traffic can be detrimemal to business azeas u wefl as residentiai azeas and educaziona! institutions These negptive unpacts aze �e to noise, truck vibrations, and pollution. The noise from Rucks traveling along our roads and using jake brakes is disniptive to residents, students, artd businesses alike. The fumes enutted by diesel Wcks add to an already high level of air pollution, increasing healih problems for residents, students, and employees o£businesses. Pedestrian safety is aiso a concem in all areas af the community whether residtntial or commercial in nahue. Because these imgac[s occur ouuide af [he invnediate area af the truck temrinal facility, the siting af such facilities should take into consideration in regards to how the trucks access the facility. If it is not possible to access the facility without going through residential or business azeas then the location may not be appropriate, no matter wliai tl�e mne or how many feet it is from a residential azea It seems ro us that permitting a uucldng facility, or large vrarehouse facility with high levels af truck �c, should always be conditional on the abiliry of the bvcks to access the facility without traveling tivough a residential ar business area St.�} thony�j Commwvty uncil l;Q�lL�. N�!�fL�f.kti Carol Madison Hxecutive Director CC: City Council Membeis Mayor Norm Coleman 890 Cromwell Avenue, Saint Pauf, Minnesov SStt4 •> 651/649-5992 voice •: 65t/649-5943 fax �o-��Y � Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 28, 2000, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: I. Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Engh, Fazicy, Geisser, McCall, and Morton and Messrs. Corbey, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Geroais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mara lies, Nowlin and Shakir. Messrs. *Johnson and *Mardell *Excused Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Virginia Burke, Tom Harren, Danette Moore, Richelle Nicosia, Joel Spoonheim, and James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. Approval of Minutes of January 14, 2000 The minutes of January ]4, 2000 will be on the February 11, 2000 agenda. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that Matt Anfang has been appointed to the Planning Commission by the Mayor and is on the CiTy Council agenda for next Wednesday. The Steering Committee talked about the annual meeting and the annual report. Jim Zdon and Allan Tarstenson aze working on the report. The annual meeting according to the by-laws should be held by February. Since new members haven't been appointed yet, we may consider postponing the annual meeting until after appoinhnents aze made. The Steering Committee also discussed a letter from Councilmember Pat Hatris asking for the Ford Mall parking ramp hearing be postponed. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved that we lay over the previously scheduled site plan review of the Ford Mall parking ramp until the Zoning Comminee meeting of March l6. Councilman Harris is requesting a layover because, being new in the office, he would like to have ertra time to consult with the community in preparation for thatpublic hearing. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair Morton announced that the River Corridor Design Wark Group will be starting � �� their meetings sometime in February. Commissioner Faricy will be chairing the River Corridor Design Work Group and Steve Gordon will also be attending. Commissioner Field announced that the Advertising Sign Committee had a meeting on Tuesday and concluded its work with respect to reconciling the conflicts that existed within the recommendations received from the Legislative Advisory Committee on advertising signs. The Planning Commission Committee's recommendations will be contained in a report and ordinance drafts which Mr. Soderholm will be working on. Hopefully, this report will be prepared by February 11 to set a public heazing. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Soderholm reported that the Metro Council has completed a preliminary review of the Comprehensive Plan and sent him comments. They held up their review until the City developed more detailed data on sewer flows. The City Council adopted the rezoning of 550 Concord and the two special sign districts for the West Side and Snelling-Hamline. At the discussion of the special sign districts, Councilmember Benanav said that if new citywide regulations on advertising are approved that satisfy the neighborhood concerns, he is willing to reconsider the need for special sign districts. The City Council also approved a resolution authorizing the staffto apply for DNR planning funds for the Trout Brook Greenway. It would connect along the west side I- 35E and down to the lower Phalen Corridor. About three months ago this Commission asked staff to develop a proposal for a 40-acre study that would include the Trillium site and the proposed Greenway. StafFthinks that a planning step is going to be more successful than a 40-acre study. The application to the DNR is for $20,000 to be matched by $20,000 of City staff time. Finally, Mr. Soderholm announced that District 1 has requested establishment of a temporary special sign district until the new sign regulations are adopted. Since the Advertising Sign Study started, two billboards have been approved in District 1, which is one of the neighborhoods that had not previously asked for a temporary special sign district. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Truck Facilities Zoning Study (Joel Spoonheim -266-6614) Chair Morton read the rules and procedures for public hearings. Mr. Joe] Spoonheim spoke on the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. When the study began, one issue was identified, when infact, there are two: 1) truck terminals with intense trucking uses that are being phased out of cities around us and 2) the broader issue of using zoning codes to address incompatible land uses nea�t to each other. ao��f DRAFT In recent yeazs, cities around Saint Paul have made intentional redevelopment plans that have focused on utilizing land to create more jobs. These redevelopment plans have created trucking terminal policies that aze forcing terminals to relocate. Being that Saint Paul is located in the center of the metropolitan region, it is seen as an ideal location for distribution. Mr. Spoonheim showed an overhead of recent industrial land prices. Many of the values fall within a$2.00 per sq. fr. range (highly contaminated land prices were not included). In contrast, the two truck terminals included on the list were bid at $4.51 and $6.52 per sq. ft. Mr. Spoonheim noted that truck terminal firms are willing to pay higher than the mazket rate for industrial land. Mr. Spoonheim stated that PED staff had driven every street of industrial land in Saint PauL In doing so, they found that there is a lot of underutilized industrial land, but limited vacant land. Other than land held by the Port Authority, the City has no way of knowing who is bidding to buy industrial land. Currently, there is a demand for industrial land that the Port Authority controls. However, it remains unclear as to whether this is true for all industrial land in Saint Paul. Mr. Spoonheim stated that trucking terminals should be classified as a specific use. The draft language has been modified to include a new definition that staff recommends adding to the zoning code. The primary definition focuses on the terminals function, to move freight from one semi trailer to another with minimal storage. Mr. Spoonheim added that terminals are usually a stopping point along the way where a truck full of product is disbursed to 15 or more trucks that then take the goods out to small towns, or less major metropolitan areas. One of the key challenge is defining the difference between a warehouse and truck terminal. They both have large numbers of trucks and big buildings. Mr. Spoonheim stated that he made contact with six of the warehouse developers in the area to determine how much storage space is uCilized per loading dock. Ten years ago, the standard in the industry for building a warehouse was one dock per 10,000 sq. ft. Today, the standard is one dock per 6,000 sq. ft., and it is moving toward one dock per 5,000 sq. fr. The shift is a result of our economy fuctioning under a"just in time" delivery framework. Companies do not wish to spend money storing goods. In acknowledging the need for trucks, the proposed language is written to support the indushy and conform with the ration of one loading dock per 5,000 sq. ft. Terminals typically have a large quantiTy of doors. They have at least seven, and usually more than fifteen. It is difficult to determine a standard number because of various sized terminals. The draft language states that a terminal is a building with more than six docks and has a ratio of one dock per 5,000 sq. fr. The Minneapolis code states that heavy trucking uses are allowed in light industrial land, if the warehouse is under 30,000 sq.ft. Mr. Spoonheim presented slides showing the difference between trucking terminals and 3 a� -`�� DRAFT non-terminal structures. Mr. Spoonheun outlined staff recommendations that include a pmposed defmition for trucking terminals and require a Special Condition Use Permit on heavy industrial land (I-2). In addition, stafFrecommends adding conditions that mitigate noise, direct truck traffic to designated routes, and design sites to provide compatibility with adjacent landuses. Mr. Spoonheim reviewed the five trucking terminals located in Saint Paul: the Koch terminal in Energy Park, Ovemite Express on Pellum, Midland, Case Distribution Center, and the United States Post Office. All five terminals aze located in I-1 zoning districts and would become non-conforming uses. By requiring all new terminals to locate on I-2 land, the City will be creating a similar policy to what surrounding communities have incorporated. Commissioner Field asked if truck terminals create more jobs than wazehouses. Mr. Spoonheim briefly outlined the Port Authorities employment standazds and stated that no terminal has ever qualified. However, Mr. Spoonheim added that most terxninals are Teamster facilities and typically pay $18 per hour, plus benefits. Commissioner Shakir asked Mr. Spoonheim how he classifies intermodal sites in the neighborhoods. Mr. Spoonheim responded that intermodal use is defined within the code and require 1,000 feet distance from a residential neighborhood. The trucking study is not intended to address intermodal sites. Commissioner Nowlin clazified definitions 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Spoonheim responded that the definitions were written to allow flexibility far LIEP staff. Commissioner Gordon questioned whether the Minnesota Statue distinguishes between truck terminals and warehouse facilities. In addition, Commissioner Gordon asked if there are any studies that analyze the number of jobs that are related to each type of activity permitted in I-1 or I-2 zones. Mr. Spoonheim responded that he was not aware of statue definitions for truck terminals and warehouses. He also added, that the Director of Research at the State Department of Labor had confirmed that the level of detail needed in tracking labor statistics for this purpose was unavailable. Commissioner Gordon stated concerns related to staff conclusions that trucking terminals take up a lot of land and don't generate many jobs. He also stated concems regarding the ainount of traffic visiting a warehouse versus a truck terminal. Mr. Spoonheim responded that there can be a correlation between the number of docks and the amount of traffic. Typically, terminals have higher traffic flows than warehouses because the freight is brought in and then sent out within 24 hours. Mr. Spoonheim stated that the second issue of the study is meant to deal with trttcks verses adjacent land uses. Mr. Spoonheim acknowledged that this was a difficult issue ao �� DRAFT due to trucks being fundamental to the economy. However, they do have an impact on adjacent properties. They can impact commercia] as well as residential. Their impact has two issues: 1) when they drive by and 2) when they aze sitting and idling. If trucks aze cutting through residential nei�hborhood and taking shortcuts, that is an enforcement issue. However, the issue of trucks sitting and idling is an issue where the code can play a roll in mitigating. The proposal states that businesses on industrial land or buildings on industrial land that aze within 300 feet of residential land and that have seven or more docks need to have a SCUP (Special Condition Use Permit). The 300 foot spacing between terminals and residential uses is to allow for a buffer, as is the case in spacing for outdoor storage and residential uses. The code also states that 1,000 feet is the appropriate spacing for intermodal yazds and residential uses. It is felt that truck terminals are less intensive than the intermodal yards. The four recommendations are: 1) Tum the trucking building perpendiculaz to the sh with the loading dock at the far end of The building. Build a sound barrier between the end of the building and the street nearest the residential area. Another option is tQ put the building between the lrucks and the residential azea, using the building as a sound buffer and locating the trucks at the back of the building. 2) Truck access on the property should be directly onto a designated truck route or onto the street at the nearest point to a designated truck route. 3) Loading docks should not face residential zoned lots. 4) Buildings being built with seven of more docks need a SCUP. Commissioner Field questioned Mr. Spoonheim on why the docks weren't being built similar to bays, with the abiliry Por trucks to pull within an enclosure that will mitigate perceived undesirable activity. Mr. Spoonheim responded that he didn't consider that possibility. Mr. Spoonheim suggested that it is likely an economic choice and suggested that Commissioner Field direct the question to someone in the industry. Commissioner Margulies asked to refer to a previous trucking terminal layout and if the docks could be moved laterally to the right under this scenario? Mr. Spoonheim responded that they could. In talking with the people in LIEP the intention of this proposal language would be clearly to discourage that and through site plan review that would not be allowed. The office space would be required to be up nea�t �o-�Y� �� to the building. It's a matter of creating a sound barrier because not every lot is going to contain enough frontage to contain the building and the City wants to create another opportunity and this is what this tries to do. Commissioner Mara lies responded that requirements make a great deal of sense. He added that Mr. Spoonheim has efFectively found a way to in vazious configurations. However, Commissioner Margulies suggested tightening up the configurations to avoid situations where the sound barrier is not effective. Commissioner Mazgulies noted that he realizes that the trade-off is less efficient in the use of land. Mr. Soderholm stated that if the terminal falls within 300 feet of residential properry there would be a conditional use. It would require a special conditional use pennit. The issue of dock placement would be open for discussion at the Planning Commission meetings. It would then become a matter of site plan review. Commissioner Gordon questioned if the 300 foot spacing is measured from the residential lot line to the loading dock. Commissioner Gordon added that he thought it should be measured from the residential lot line to the trucking terminal building. Mr. Spoonheim clarified that the 300 foot separation would not be for trucking terminals. Rather, trucking terminals within a I-2 zone would be required to have a SCUP. The 300 foot separation is for all intense trucking uses with seven or more loading docks. The separation is from the dock to the residential lot line. 1. Ms. Lorrie Louder, Director of Industrial Development from the Saint Paul Port Authority, addressed the Commission. Ms. Louder stated that the Saint Paul Port Authorities mission is to maximize job creation on industrial pazcels in Saint Paul while providing business retention. Their statutory charge is to provide redevelopment of industrial land that is blighted and under utilized. They try to make the best economic decisions for Saint Paul by bringing in the best manufacturing and industrial companies that can offer the best quality products and employment opporiunities. Over the past thirty-five years, they have created fifteen business parks which provide two-thirds of Saint Paul's cominercial and industrial tas base. 2. Kathy Gravlun, 582 West Minnehaha, addressed the Commission. Ms. Gravlun is a resident that lives directly across from the Cobra IntermodaUBurlington Northem Property. Ms. Gravlun stated that her main purpose in attending the public hearing is to convey how the trucks at this faciliTy impact her family and neighbors. Starting at approximately 730 am. each day, the trucks start coming in, loading andJor unloading, then leaving. Ocassionally, trucks are waiting to get in at 5:30 a.m. and often times, trucks are arriving and leaving the Bwlington Northern parking lot between 11:00 to 12:00 pm. With this type of activity in the neighborhood, they are sunounded with air pollution, noise, and dust These nuisances greatly impact the residents even more so in the summer season when windows aze open. There is also ffaffic congestion because of ��-�� the number of trucks in the azea. Ms. Gravlun feels that if she were able to sell her properry, the value would hazdly be equitable. Ms. Crravlun finds the truck activity to be mentally disturbina and havina a direct negative impact on her neighborhood. 3. Eleanor Strantz, 584 West Minnehaha, addressed the Commission. Ms. Strantz stated that she suppods all of the comments stated by Ms. Gravlun. Ms. Strantz added that the trucks that arrive around midnight are most disturbing because of the truck lights that shine directly into her bedroom. 4. Richazd Murphy, Jr., President of Murphy Wazehouse Co., Como Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mr. Murphy stated that he was impressed with Mr. Spoonheim's presentation and feels that his recommendations for truck terminals and trucking facilities are positive. Whether you have a distribution center, wazehouse, or manufacturing facility, there is going to be truck tra�c. Mr. Murphy stated that his company successfully uses both building layouts: wazehouses with loading docks on the back of the building, and warehouses placed perpendicular to residentia] structures(sound walls may be necessary). Mr. Murphy supports truck terminals/wazehouse facilities in I-2 zones. However, Mr. Murphy added that with certain mitigating tools, they could work in an I-1 zone. Mr. Murphy suggested that each application be looked at for specific cases, versus relying on the land use classification for guidance. Mr. Murphy stated that location is everything, consequently, distance drives up the cost to all consumers. Truck terminals and warehouses need to be within reasonable distance to their customers. 5. Mike Koch, Gazsten Perenial Management and Metro Planes Development, 1919 University Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mr. Koch explained to the Commission his frustrations regarding the trucking faciliry that occupies the land nea�t doar to his building. He feels that trucks offer a challenge to adjacent commercial buildings and noted specific problems with the newer (lazger) trucks not fitting the older trucking facilities. 6. Nell McClug, Progressive Management Investments, 1821 University Avenue, addressed the Commission. Ms. McClug states that her partnership owns over one-half million squu�e feet in the Midway area. Even though her company does not experience the adverse effects that Mr. Koch's company does, she says they still experience the noise, increase in traffic, and congestion. 7. Todd Iverson, Representing the Minnesota Trucking Association, 2515 Wabasha Avenue, Suite 150, addressed the Commission. Mr. Iverson stated that he wished to make two points: 1)that everything comes at a cost and 2)the truck industry has located in the Midway area because it is mid-way between the two cities. Mr. Iverson stated that he appreciated Mr. Spoonheim wanting input from the Minnesota Trucking Association while he was preparing his report. Mr. Iverson feels that Mr. Spoonheim's recommendations are a"rational compromise", and that any new trucking facilities should build with the loading docks facing away. He feels that this would be a �_lb'� DRAFT smart landuse and any trucking facility policy that should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Iverson concluded by saying that all products used by consumers aze brought to us by trucks. Truck facilities wish to be good neighbors and want the capacity to do business in an efficient and profitable way. MOTION: Coinmi.ssion Faricy moved to close the public hearing and move it to the Neighborhood and Current Planning Cornminee; Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. V. Zoning Committee West Side Citizens Oreanization (WSCOI - Special sign district for all areas of Saint Paul on the west bank of the Mississippi River except those areas included iu the Smith Avenue Special Sign District (Nancy Homans 266-6557) Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid over and will have the results at a later date. Snelling-Hamline Communitv Council - Special sign district for Snelling-Hamline Community Council Area (Nancy Hamans 266-6557) Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid over and will have the results at a later date. #99-179-377 Dr. Irving Herman Trust - Rezoning from RM-3 to I-1 for an auto sales, auto body and auto repair shop at 2336 Territorial Road, SW corner Territorial and Carleton (James Zdon 266-6559) MOTION: Commission Gervais moved the staff recommendation to deny rezoning of the auto sales, auto body and auto repair shop at 2336 Territorial Road, it is not consistent wilh the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. #99-179-560 Robert Scott Stern - Enlargement of a nonconforming use permit to convert the attic into living space and enlarge the two second- floor one bedroom unit into three-bedroom units at 1696 W. Minnehaha, SE Corner Minnehaha and Aldine(JoelSpoonheim 266-6614) MOTION: Commissioner Gervais moved approval of the enlargement of a nonconforming use permit to convert the attic into living space and en[arge the two second-floor, one-bedroom units into three-bedroom units at I696 W. Minnehahtt The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. � � VL Comprehensive Planning Committee Commissioner Geissec reported that their next meeting will be on Tuesday, Fe6mary 1, tp complete the transit issue. She also commented on the Firstar Bank block and emphasized the importance of major issues and how important it is for the Planning Commission's involvement in the decision making process at the front end and not and the back end of a project. VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee No Report. VIII. Communications Committee Commissioner ponnelly-Col�en reported that two staff people have been assigned to the annual report for 1499. IX. Task Force Reports Commissioner ponnelly-Colien reported that the Brewery/Ran-View Task Force has finished its work and the draft was approved by the group last Tuesday. Next they will set up a community meeting, and after that a design process. Commissioner Gordon reported on the next cycle of small Star Grants, $20,000 or less, will have an orientation session on Wednesday, February 2, at the Hillcrest Recreation Center, 1978 Ford Pazkway. This will be the start of the next cycle, applications will be due sometime in February or March. There is now a procedure for large grants ar loans to be considered any time during the yeaz if there aze reasons for immediate consideration. X. Old Business No Report. XI. New Business No RepoR. XII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 a.m Recorded and prepazed by o �, � �� DRAFT Richelle Nicosia, Planning Commission Secretary Planning and Economic Development Department, City of Saint Paul Respectfully submitted, Larry Soderholm Planning Administrator Approved (Date) 7ennifer Engh Secretary of the Planning Commission \planningUni�utes.frm 10 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nomi Co[eman, .Lfa}'or February 7, 2000 To: Saint Paul Planning Commission SAINT PAUL BUSiNESS REVIEW COUNCIL O � �` � Randy Geller, Chair doOFFlCEOFLIEP Telephane:65f-266-9090 Suite 300 Fauimile: 651-266-9114 350 St. Peter Streef Saint Pau( Minnuota 55/0?-1�10 Saint Paul City Council � Fr: Randy Geller, Saint Paul Business Review Council (BRC) Chair � �� Re: Proposed Trucking Facilities Zoning Study The Business Review Council (BRC) voted to support the Tn�cking Facilities Zoning Study and the proposed revisions (dated January 27) at its February 3 meeting. Joel Spoonheim, a PED planner and staff to the Planning Commission, presented the information and addressed BRC questions and concems. BRC members emphasized that while they support the Su�dy, they still oppose the use of moratoriums as a means to craft city policy and that moratoriums send a"closed for business" message to anyone who does or wants to do business in Saint PauL The BRC voted to support the Stzrdy because they believe it is a fair compromise that balances both business interests and neighborhood/residential concerns. The BRC also unanimously approved a motion to request that PED staff continue to monitor this issue. The motion requests that PED staff conduct a follow-up study in approximately 24 months that reviews the impact of the new legislation and �vhether or not the needs of businesses that depend on trucking facilities are being met adequately. Many members believe that the core cities have an obligation to provide trucking facilities and that the cost of goods for consumers will rise if the trend to push trucking facilities to locations farther from population centers is continued. In addition, PED staff have not examined either the potential need for trucking facilities (based on Saint Paul's and the entire metro region's size and population) or the number of land acres that will be available for future trucking facilities under the proposed definitions and revisions. The BRC believes that trucking facilities are a vital part of Saint Paul's business environment and that additional research is required to determine the appropriate ratio of trucking facilities needed to serve Saint Paul and the metro region and whether or not the proposed legislation, if implemented, will have an adverse impact on Saint Paul's trucking indushy in particular and commerce in general. Please contact me with any questions or concems. You can reach me at 651-222-8971. c: Mayor Norm Coleman Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor Joel Spoonheim, PED Saint Paul Business Review Council Covncil File # dl`� ^ ��d� QRI�I�IAL Resolution # Green Sheet # ��,� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Approval of Trucking Facilities Zoning Study and Zoning Code Revisions WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Resolution 99-1064 on 11/10/99 requesting PED to conduct a study of the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities; and WHEREAS, to protect the status quo during the study period, the Resolution directed that no permits or pernussion shall be issued or granted for the construction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until Mazch 1, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Piamiing Commission has determined: 1. That the nuxnber of real estate descriptions affected by the ordinance renders the obtaining of written consents impractical, 2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made, 3. That a determination has been made that the amendment to this ordinance proposed is related to existing land use and to a plan for future land use, and 4. That proper notice and hearing have been given pursuant to state statutes; and WgIEREAS, the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee of the Planning Commission worked with staff to prepare the proposed regulations; and WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of trucks to our local economy; and WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it is possible to build new facilities that have loading docks positioned to not impact adjacent residential property; and WHEREAS, cities around Saint Paul are limiting the location of truck terminals to only the heaviest industrial land and imposing conditions; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and testimony at the public hearing, which included representatives of the trucking industry, was supportive of the proposed policy; and WHEREAS, the Plauniug Commission unanimously voted to approve the proposed regulafions; I �O—\$'� 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council adopts the zoning code revisions 38 proposed in the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. ORIGINAL AdaptiOn Approved by Mayor by Council Secretary Requested by Department of: Plannin & Economic Jevelo ment ay: Form Approved by City ttorney BY ��//!/AVt�� t( ! 6(0 0 Approved by May f Submissio Council d� --.—_ By: Adopted by Council: Date � 1_ _��pp �i7 � �� ,,, „ T,,�, TOTAL S OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oc� _ .r� No 10? 3�3 03 m,,.,,� 1t� ❑ �„� _ ❑ ..,.�.�,�, � ❑ ..�.,�.a �Ml'ORIORAtfiGMll�� `�� (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� E(IUESTm a �do�con �� ro{�o5e�l �9✓v�'� CodP_J'2u`isio.�s relcd�a� 'fo 'f-t'u�J<ie�c� �il�fes l �MMtNUAI1VIV APDlOV2 W) Of KEyeR �KJ PERSONNLSERVSCE GOf1�RNGIS XUSTAIVSWER iME WLLOWIN6 QYESilO1V5: 1. lies tltis PersaJfirm eyer v,wked iuMe18 contraU �rfhie tlepahmenl? _ PL4NNING COMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMfTTEE 2. H� Mis penaJfam aver been a ary emqoyce7 CMLSERVICECOMMISSION vES NO � i`3wbin¢ss PffiJtewl�.nal s.00esm�o��a�asarr�ana�wya�seanr�r��r�wov�? rES rio 4. Is tlss peisoNfmm a t� N.vdoYt YEu MO F�lain all Yec answe�s m aep�e sheet and atlaoh to 9reen sheet ,TING PROBLEM ISSUE, OP (Who. Wha[. When, Wh6re, �Nhy) �} + � �G� �✓�ac.��t a, N'�fJi'a,`f+�t'iu_wV o✓� '�/'ucC�Ci"� `4G,C�jc �c�-01 /Lg�NL'Sfcst c 3f'��y. / U / CL�.�i�'.`es �� eocle, acCo�, �� t �^ � Gl� P�� n.o r�e. VANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED ' W� �rtou� lnco�x��e la�d� Fnadj�ce.� rwwsacnoK f [l� � SOURCE INFORMATION (EXPIAIN) CASTrttEYENUE BUDGEim (�� NE) ACTNITY NUMBER YEE NO �i0tlflC� R8S°�fr¢� l;�n�� FEB 1 � 2Q0� 0 � ov_�"� C� �F' Sf�� PA� 390 City Hall Telephane: 612-266-8510 Norm Coleman, Mayor IS West Kellogg Bou[evard Facsimile: 6I2-228-8513 SaintPau[, 14N5�102 February 14, 2000 Councal President Bostrom and Members of the City Council 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Members of the City Council: In November 1999 the City Council initiated a zoning study of trucking facilities and requested the Planning Commission to make recommendations. At the same time, the Council adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the establishment of trucking facilifies or the expansion of existing ones. On January 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed trucking facility zoning aniendments. On February 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reached a recommendation. They recommend that three definitions be added to the zoning code, and conditions placed on two of the newly defined uses. Specifically, "trucking terxninals" as newly defined, will be allowed in I-2 zones with a special condition use permit. "Package delivery services" as defined will be allowed in I-1 with a special condition use permit. Additionally, other structures built on industrially zoned land with seven (7) or more loading docks within 300 feet of residentially zoned land will need a special condition use permit. I am pleased to transmit the Planning Commission's trucking facility recommendations to you for your review and action. Sinc ely, G�c-� �r�'� � Norm Coleman Mayor Attachments DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Brian $weeney, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor February 14, 2000 Mayor Norm Coleman 390 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mayor Coleman, 25 West Fourth Sbeet SaintPoul, MN55102 Do �f�� Telephone. 651-266-6565 Facsimile: 651-228-3267 In November 1999 the Council initiated a zoning study of trucking facilities and requested the Planning Commission to make recommendations. At the same time, the Council adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for tl�e establishment of trucking facilities or the expansion of existing ones. On January 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed trucking facility zoning amendments. You will be pleased to know that the proposed amendments received support from all sides, including the Minnesota Trucking Association who stated that they were a"rational compromise." Additionally, on February 3, 2000 the Business Review Council met with PED staff on the issue and voted to support the revisions. On February 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reached a recommendation. They recommend that three definitions be added to the zoning code, and conditions placed on two of the newly defined uses. Specifically, "mzcking terminals" as newly defined, will be aliowed in I-2 zones with a special condition use permit. "Package delivery services" as defined will be allowed in I-1 with a special condition use permit. Additionally, other structures built on industrially zoned land with seven (7) or mare loading docks within 300 feet of residentially zoned land will need a special condition use perxnit. I am pleased to transmit the Planning Commission's trucking facility recoxnmendations to you far endorsement and transmittal to the City Council. Sincerely, Brian Sweeney Director Enclosures K:\Shared\SpoonheilTruckma\transmllsweeney.wpd oo�� ATTACHNIENTS FOR TRUCKING FACILITY ZONING STUDY 2000 1. Planning Commission Resolution recommending changes to the zoning code 2/11/00 2. Tnxcking Facility Zoning Study approved by Planning Commission on 2/11/00 3. Written public testimony from Planning Commission Public Hearing on 1J28/00 4. DRAFT - Planning Commission minutes from trucking facility pubiic heazing and discussion, 1128/00 5. Memorandum from the Saint Paul Business Review Council, 2/7/00 o0�i�5' city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 00-14 date Februarv 11, 2000 Approval of Trucking Facilities Zoning Study WIIEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Resolution 99-1064 on 1 U10/99 requesting PED to conduct a study of the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities; and WHEREAS, to protect the status quo during the study period, the Resolution directed that no permits or permission shall be issued or granted for the construction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until March 1, 2000; and WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined: L That the number of real estate descripfions affected by the ordinance renders the obtaining of written consents impractical, 2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made, 3. That a determination has been made that the amendment to this ordinance proposed is related to existing land use and to a plan for future land use, and 4. That proper notice and hearing have been given pursuant to state statutes; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee of the Planning Commission worked with staff to prepare the proposed regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of trucks to our local economy; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it is possible to build new facilities that have loading docks positioned to not impact adjacent residential properry; and WHEREAS, cities azound Saint Paul are limiting the location of mick terminals to only the heaviest industrial land and imposing conditions; and moved by Farl�V seconded by Mar�ulies in favor IInanimrn�c against �b-� WHEREAS, on January 28, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and testimony at the public hearing, which included representatives of the trucking industry, was supportive of the pzoposed policy; and WfIEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the proposed regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Pianning Commission recommends to Saint Paul City Council the zoning code revisions proposed in the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. DEPARTMENTOFPLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN'I Brian Sweeney, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Ca[eman, Mayor 25 Wesi Fourth Sbeet SaintPaul, MIVS102 TRUCKING FACILITY ZONING STUDY February 11, 2000 � b — \�S� Telephone: 657-266-6655 Facsimile. 651-228-3374 This report is recommended by the Saint Paul Planning Commission for approval by the City Council. For more information, please contact Joel Spoonheim, Saint Paul Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development, at (651) 266-6614 or joelspoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us � o - �86� TRUCHING FACILITY ZONING STUDY Citv Council Request City Council Resolution 49-1064, adopted on 11/10(99, directed PED to conduct a study of the City's official controls relating to tnxcking facilities. To protect the status quo during the study period, the resolution directed that no permits or perxnission sha11 be issued or granted for the conshuction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until Mazch l, 2000. On December 22, 1999, the City Council adopted an ordinance matching the eazlier resolution. Authoritv for the Studv Amendments to the Zoning Code follow the procedures in Section 64.400 of the Code and Minnesota Statutes Section 462357. Either the City Council or the Planning Commission can initiate citywide amendments. Public hearings with required notice aze held at both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Issue In recent years, communities azound Saint Paul have reduced land zoned appropriate for trucking uses. A result is increased demand far land on which to locate trucking facilities in Saint Paul. However, with limited industrial land available in the city, the City Council, acting in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, wishes to discourage uses with low employee density such as trucking. Because of their increased employment objective, the Saint Paul Port Authority does not allow trucking uses in business parks the Port owns. A second aspect is that traffic, noise, vibrations, and fumes necessarily associated with a hucking facility can be detrimental to a residential area nearby. The City Council and the Planning Commission have heard considerable testimony on this point in their review of some trucking facility permits during 1999. Many trucking operations are located in areas zoned I-1 Industrial in Saint Paul. The I-1 district, frequently found adjacent to residential districts, is intended to accommodate industrial operations "whose external, physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding disiricts in a detrimental way." Some hucking facilifies may be in conflict with this intent, yet the I-1 district currently identifies trucking facilities as a permitted principle use. What is a Trucking Facilitv? There is no definition for a hucking facility in the Saint Paul Zoning Code because the use is allowed in both major industrial zones. Pick up and delivery of goods by truck is, obviously, a necessary accompaniment to many businesses including any type of manufacturing moving, or Page 2 of 13 oD �� storage. For tl�ese, trucks aze accessory. Accepted definitions that provide for special regulations on uses where trucking is the primary activiry generally describe "tmck ternvnals" or "motor freight terminals." The definirion in the Roseville Zoning Code is an example: A buiZding in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intr-astate and interstate shipment (Ord. 275, 5-12-59, City of Roseville) A Fairfax Co., Virginia defuution is broader: 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 pat^ked or stored. The Minnesota State Statutes provide the following definition: "Terminal" means (1) afacility thczt a motor ccrrrier owns, Zeases, or otherwise controls, and uses to load, unload, dispense, receive, interchange, gather, or otherwise physically handle fretght for shipment, or (2) any other location at which freight is exchanged by motor carriers between vehicles. "Terminal" does not mean a public warehouse with a storage capacity of at least S, 000 square feet that was licensed under chapter 231 on or before March 1, 1992. Shucturally truck terminals are generally built with "cross-docks" -- a design where loading docks are on opposite sides of a building usually 60 feet deep, allowing for easy transfer from one trailer to another. Due to deregulation of the riucking industry in the 1980s and changes in the economy, the blending of warehousing and trucking terminals occurs in some facilities. "Just-in-time delivery" is the dominant production model today, which has changed the warehousing industry from one that stores large quantities of product/material for long periods of time, to a service that stores smaller quantities that have high turnover. The result is that most warehouse uses see more traffic today than 15 years ago and need more docks than the old standard of one dock per 10,000 squaze feet. However, there remains a difference between the most intensive truck terminal uses and warehouses. One way to differentiate between warehousing and truck terminals is based on the number of docks per square feet of floor area. Based on research, including interviews of six large warehouse developers in the Twin Cities, staff recommends a ratio of one dock per 5,000 square feet (1:5,000) of warehouse space as a threshold; facilities with more than one dock per 5,000 squaze feet should be treated as truck terminals and facilities with fewer than one dock per 5,000 square feet should be treated as warehouses. Page 3 of 13 �o-�� The Current Saint Paul Zonin�Code Trucking faciliries aze first pemutted in the I-1 Industrial District where they are permitted by right. The use is listed as follows: (3) Warehousing and wholesaZe establishments, and trucking facilities. This use in the I-1 district also carries over as pernutted in the I-2 Industrial District. As stated in the Zoning Code the intent of the I-1 district is as follows: The I-1 Industrial District is intended to primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse activitzes, 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 specif ed uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, assembly, or treatment offznished or semifinished products from previously prepared material. (Sec.60.610) For comparison, the stated intent of the I-2 (heavier) Industrial District is: The I-2 Industrial District is intended primariZy for manufacturing, assemb7ing and fabrication activities, including Zarge 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 semifznished products fi�om raw material and prepared material. The processing of raw material in bulk foym to be used in an industrial operation is a permitted use in the I-2 District. (Sec. 60.620) Existin�Operations in Saint Paul The Saint Paul Midway area, due to its location between the two major city centers, has been historically an important center for trucking and warehousing operations. Over the last two decades, expansive sites in suburban locations have become more attractive for trucking uses. The majority of operations in the east metro area are in the suburbs. However, during the last five years many cities around Saint Paul have rezoned land or taken other action to limit or reduce trucking terminals on their industrial land. As trucking firms seek to relocate, demand for land in Saint Paul is increasing. In otie case, a truck company bid one million dollars over the estimated market value of $1.2 million which was offered by an office developer. Recent industrial land sales as detailed in appraisals and Ramsey County tax data, show that two trucking terminals have paid $4.51 and $6.52 per squaze foot, well over average industrial land values of two-to-three dollars per square foot. Truck companies will increasingly be willing to pay a premium in order to secure available land. Unlike other cities, the existing Page 4 of 13 oo—��' Saint Paul Zoning Code allows truck terminals on all industrial land. Staff visually inspected all industrial property abutting public streets in Saint Paul and found five possible truck terminals (using the proposed definition). All five are in I-1 zones currently. Intensitv of Land Use The Saint Paul Port Authority, as the City's lead industrial developer, seeks to ensure as high a density of industrial employment as possible. The Port Authority does not allow trucking facilities within Port owned industrial parks because such firms do not meet standazds including: 1 job per 1,000 square feet of building; a th3riy-two (32) percent coverage of building to land; a minimum consiruction cost per squaze foot; and design guidelines. Truck terminals are rarely affiliated with high intensity land use. Generally, ternrinals: • are buildings with "cross-docks" - a design where loading docks are on opposite sides of the building, usually 60 feet deep, allowing for easy transfer from one trailer to another; • have significant pazking space for trailers and tractars; • may have a repair facility for trucks. In some cases, terminals may be built attached to a warehouse in arder to serve a vaziety of clients. For these reasons, truck terminals do not qualify for construction on Port Authority controlled industrial land. Detrimental Impact of Large Volumes of Truck Traffic The external characteristics of a trucking operation that are degrading to a neazby residential azea aze precisely the kind of impacts that zoning is intended to prevent. Trucks, especially tractor trailers, generate more noise than automobile traffic. Even when minimum noise standards are met, the constant nature of large truck motors arriving and leaving, and sometimes idling on the site, is a particular annoyance for nearby residents. A street with large tractor trailers as a common element of the traffic is substantially different in character from a street with only car and stnall truck traffic. The larger the truck, the greater the detriment to residential tranquility. Lazge trucks reduce comfort for pedestrians and, at least in perception, reduce safety for children and pedesTrians. Odarous fumes, high and bright headlights that can shine in windows, and vibrations are other characteristics that residents find detract from the quality of a residential environment. These residential detractions aze readily apparent and may reduce residential property values. Page 5 of 13 oa—�� Staff Recommended Alternafive and Analvsis Truck and Motor Freight Terminals by the very nature of their primary activity aze apt to have significant impacts on properiy adjacent to access routes and facilities. Pernutting truck terminals by right (Sec. 60.612(3)) is incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 District (Sec. 60.6ll). A review of regulations in other cities indicates that this incompatibility is commonly recognized and the impetus for policy. Such policy also addresses the economic impact of low-intensity uses most common with trucking fums. These aze solutions in established practice. Staff recommends adding three definitions to the zoning code and making text modifications as follows. The modifications include new restrictions for certain facilities where associated huck traffic may have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. Definitions to Be Added Truck and Motor Freight Terminals. A facilit�with more than six (61 docks and more than one (1Zock per five thousand (5,000) square feet of wazehouse, storage, or related use and used for either (11 the loading, unloadin¢, dispensine, receivinE, interchan ig ne, ag thering, or otherwise nhvsicallv handling frei¢ht for shi�ment or (21 any other location at which freiEht is exchanged b�motor carriers between vehicles. This includes but is not limited to cross-dock operations and does not include a packaee deliverv service. Packaee Delivery Service. A business which transports packages and articles far ex�edited deliver,�primarily in single rear �le straieht trucks or smaller vehicles, where no single item w�hs over one hundred fifty (150) nounds. Excludes courier services. Loading dock. A laz�e buildin door primarily used for loadine/unloading items from trucks. The floor of a loadine dock door is raised above the truck ramp surface. This excludes bay doors which aze laree building doors throu¢h which vehicles can drive. Zoning Code Amendments For the following read the text formatting as: Insert, �erne�e, and staff comments/ explanation. Sec. 60.612. Principal uses permitted. [I-1} In an I-1 Industrial District the use of land, the location and erec6on of new buildings or siructures and the alteration, enlazgement and moving of existing buildings or structures from other locations or districts shall conform to the following specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this code: (3) Warehousing and wholesale establishments, . Page 6 of 13 b�-�� Sec. 60.614 [I-1] and 60.624 [I-2] Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. The following additional uses shall be pernutted subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use and subject to the standazds specified for all special condition uses as set forth in section 64.300(d). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the plauuing commission. (141 ContiQuous or otherwise connected structures within three hundred feet of a residentially zoned prope , except cemeteries, with seven (77 or more loadin¢ dock doors subiect to the following conditions: This new addition is to address a weakness within the code as it currently exists. Properry zoned I-1 is by defznition to have no impact on adjacent property owners, and property zoned I-2 as heavy industrial land is allowed to have uses that impact adjacent properties. The City of Saint Paul has industrial property that abuts residential land, and trucks in Zarge numbers can have a negative impact on adjacent uses including residential and commercial. Historically, trucks have not been defined as an activiry with negative impact on adjacent owners, but recent public testimony negates that premise. Furthermore, environmental impacts of signifzcant numbers of idling and moving trucks may spread beyond industrial land The first draft of this study recommended revisions to where large warehouses are aZlowed. Instead, Zooking at all uses where trucks are used is appropriate to solving the problem of incompatible uses. To set the standard for seven (7) or more docks as a threshold requiring a special condition use permit, staff conducted fzeld research and reviewed policies in other cities. Field research found that most industrial uses have relativelti few dock doors, most often less than five (S). Based on how other cities, especially Minneapolis, seek to hcxve their light industrial zone have no impact on adjacent properties, staff incorporated and modified the following standard. Warehousing buildings which by necessity have truck activity, are allowed in Minneapolis I-1 zones if the buildings are under 3Q 000 square feez While other industries use trucks, warehousing is dependent on it most intensely. Therefore, using 30, 000 square feet as a basis for defining heavy truck use not appropriate for I-1, and the standard set in the new "trucking terminal" definition proposed in this report (one dock per S, 000 square feet), a principle use allowed would be any building with szx (6) or fewer docks. The 300 foot inter-val was identified in three ways. First, the Zoning Code identifies 300 feet as an appropriate buffer between residential uses and outdoor storage. (Sec. 60.613(3) j Second, the Zoning code identifies 1, 000 feet as an appropriate distance for intermodal fi�eight yards which are generally both rail and truckfacilities (Sec. 60.624 (16)J. The noise ofsuch facilities is greater due to rail uses, therefore a shorter distance such as 300 feet seems appropriate for large buildings. Addi6ionally, staff believe that this distance diseourages devedopment of buildings with seven or more dock doors facing residential areas due to the loss of Zand to building space. Instead developers will be encouraged to meet the special conditions outlined Page 7 of 13 � a- �� below, thereby generating more intensive land use. � Noise impacts shall be mitieated to prevent excessive impact on residential lots within 300 feet. This mav include usin� the building as a sound barrier beriveen truck docks and residences bv aligning the structure close to lot lines. Staff believe that a building constructed with a solid wa11 near the street toward residential neighborhoods, and truck docks on the opposite side is an appropriate site design that shields residents fi�om much of the truck noise. Similarly, a solid wall functioning as a sound barrier can be constructed � Truck access to the properiv shall be directlYonto a desi¢nated truck route or onto the street at a rooint nearest to a desienated truck route. In some cases direct access to a designated truck route may not be available. Therefore, to limit truck traff c along residential streets, requiring the access point to be at the nearest Zocation to a truck route is appropriate. � Loading docks shall not face residentiallv zoned lots Loading docks are the source of most noise due to loading equipment and Zruck engine idling. Clearly, on some lots this may not be possible, and staff will note the limitation of the site in their reports. � The buildine and site sha11 be desi�ned and landscaped to be comnatible with adjacent properties. Sec. 60.614 Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. [I-1 Industrial District] The following additional uses shall be permitted subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use and subject to the standards specified for all special condition uses as set forth in section 64300(d). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission. (15) Packa¢e Deliverv Service Package Delivery Services are recommended to be a special condition use in order to be consistent with the Minneapolis Code. Sec. 60.624. Principal uses subject to special conditions [I-2 Industrial District]. The following additional uses shall be permitted [in an I-2 Industrial District], subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed far each use and subject to the standazds specified for a11 special condifion uses as set forth in section 64.300(c). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions sha11 be reviewed and approved by the plamiing commission. 2�2 Truck and motor frei¢ht terminals Page 8 of 13 �-1� � Noise impacts shall be miti¢ated to grevent excessive im�act on zesidential lots within 300 feet. This mav include using the building as a sound barrier bv ali¢nin_g the structure close to lot lines. �b Truck access to properiv shall be directiv onto a desi�nated truck route. � The buildine and site shall be desiened and landscaped to be compatible with adjacent properties. Sec. 60.562. Principal uses perxnitted. In a B-5 Central Business-Service District the use of land, the location and erection of new buildings or structures, and the alteration, enlargement and moving of existing buildings or structures from other locations or districts shall conform to the following specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this code: (2) Wholesaling, warehousing, or storage «s� buildings, but excluding steel warehousing, storage of bulk petroleuxn or related products, and garbage, rubbish or junk. All material must be completely enclosed within a building. "Transfer buildings" are synonymous with terminals and therefore need to removed as a permitted xise in B-5. Imnact of Recommendations Terminal Definition cznd SCUP reguirements Five terminals were identified in Saint Paul based on staff research, though without hauing building dimensions, at least one of the sites may actually be a warehouse. All five would become non conforming uses if the proposed language is adopted. However, it is important to note that three of the five are surrounded by industrial ar commercial uses, and one site is completely self contained and isolated on two sides by natural barriers from the xesidential zone. The key impact of making these uses legally non-conforming is that for them to expand, two- thirds (2/3) of adjacent property owners must sign a petition in support of the enlargement. With similar uses surrounding most the identified terminals, staff anticipates a strong likelihood of securing needed signatures. By requiring any new terminals to locate in I-2 and to receive a special condition use permit, the likelihood of many new terminals being built in Saint Paul is diminished. SCUP for Buildings with more than 6 docks within 300 feet of residential zones Page 9 of 13 ��- 1�� Staff analyzed the impact of the proposed language by inspecting roughly I 15 non-residential buildings located within a 300 foot residential buffer. Only nine buildings had seven or moze docks. Of these nine, many had conditions that would allow them to receive a special condition use pemrit easily, including: • one warehouse with 22 doors is buffered from the residential neighborhood by a lazge hall; • one warehouse is buffered from residential uses by a half block of industrial buildings; • three buildings fall within the buffer because a pazk or cemetery, which are zoned residential, aze adjacent properties; • three buildings aze across a major street from residential zone and there is significant green-space buffering; additionally, two of these buildings do not have any docks facing residential uses. • one building has eight docks fairly near residential properiy, but four face toward industrial property. The impact of the proposed language would make these buildings legally non-conforming structures with conforming uses [62102(e)]. Buildings are allowed to expand so long as the expansion does not increase the non-conformity, ar the owner can apply for a variance. A variance does not require signatures of adjacent property owners. The key finding generated by this analysis is that most buildings aze designed to respect adjacent properties, and that adopting the recommended policy ensures this practice continues. Other Alternatives Considered Staff considered other alternatives including: 1. Distinguish trucking facilities by size, permitting only smaller ones in the I-1 district and larger ones in I-2. 2. Make trucking facilities a special condition use permitted in the I-1 zoning district with conditions that would include a specified distance from residentially-zoned property. Upon establishing a definition for trucking ternunals distinguishing it from wazehousing and other uses where trucks are accessory, staff believes that lumping all uses under "trucking facilities" is inappropriate. Trucking terminals are a distinct, low intensive use, with negative externalities that should be isolated from residenfial areas. Other businesses such as warehousing that use trucks as one part of their business should by right continue to locate throughout I-1 zoned areas, with regulations sufficient to mitigate possible impacts when near residential azeas. Page 10 of 13 � �� Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends amending the Zoning Code to inciude the definitions and modifications discussed above. Attachment: Appendix A- suiuinary of other ciries' codes Page 11 of 13 ��--1�� Append� A Regulations and definitions from other cities: Definitions Rochester, N.Y. Truck Terminal. Land and buildings used as a relay station for the transfer of a load from one vehicle to another or one parry to another. The terminal cannot be used for permanent or long- term accessory storage for principal land uses at other Zocations. The terminal facility may include storage areas for trucks and buildings or areas for the repair of trucks associated with the terminal. Fairf� 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 semitraiZers, including tractor andlor trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. Roseville. MN Motor Freight Terminal (Truck Terminal): A building in which fr�eight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastate and interstate shipment. (Ord. 275, 5-12-59) [Wholesale and warehousing uses are permitted in I-1 Light Industrial Districts. Motor Freight Terminals are not permitted in I-1 Light Industrial Districts but are first permitted as a conditional use in I-2 Genexal Industrial Districts.] Minne�olis. MN Motor Freight Terminal. A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily involving truck tractors and semitrailers, and which is not a package delivery seYVice. 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 sing7e item weighs over one hundred fifty (I50) pounds. Minneapolis Code A new Zoning Ordinance, in preparation for several yeazs, was adopted (fall) 1999 consideration by the Minneapolis City CounciL In this code, package delivery and motor freight terxninal uses, Page 12 of 13 8�-�`� as with all transportation uses, aze not permitted by right in any district, but aze conditional uses wherever they are allowed. Package delivery is fust permitted as a condiuonal use in the C4 General 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." A key component of the new zoning code was creation of the Il Light Industrial District, as part of a redefining the code from Manufacturing (M) to Industrial (I) classifications. This new district was created to protect residential areas, and was placed on the map where possible throughout the city to achieve this goal. Overall, most former manufacturing (Ml) land became I2. However there aze long-term existing trucking uses adjacent to residential azeas that were zoned as I2; a few firms were also made non-conforming uses within the new I1 district. The stated purpose of the Il Light Industrial District is: The II Light Industrial dist�ict is established to provide clean, attractive locations for low impact and technology-based Zight industrial uses, reseczrch and development, and similar uses tivhich produce little or no noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable influences, and have little or no adverse effect on surroundingproperties. (550.190 draft) Motor Freight Terminals are allowed as conditional uses in the I2 Medium and I3 General Industrial Districts. They are not permitted in the I1 Light Industrial District. Other uses with which truck hauling is associated are restricted in size in the Ii Light Industrial District Warehousing and distribution; furniture moving ancl storage. (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 of gross floor area. (Can be increased by conditional use permit.) (550.230) Factors specifically identified for consideration when increased floor area is requested include: 1) proximity to residential uses; 2) screening and landscaping of truck parking and loading area; and 3) location of truck routes and amount of truck tr�c. Stated purpose of the I2 Medium Industrial District (in which motor freight terminals are first allowed) The 72 Medium Industrial District is established to provide locations for medium industrial uses and other^ specific uses which have the potential to produce greater amounts of no%se, odor, vfbration, glare or other objectionable influences than uses allowed in the II District and which may have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. K.\Shared\Spoonhe�\Truckmg�report2_3_OO.wpd Page 13 of 13 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNMG & ECONOMIC DEVHIAPMENT Brran Siveeney, Director CITY OF SAIN"I' PAUL Norm Coleman,�Nayor To: Saint Paul Planning Commission From: Joel Spoonheim, Planner Date: 2 February 2000 25 West Fourlh Street Saint P¢ul, M.V iJ /0? Re: Written comment on Tnxcking Facilities Zoning Study �D-1� Telephone: 631-266-66» Facsimile: 651-228-331 d Please see the attached written comments submitted on the Tnxcking Facilities Zoning Study. They include comments from: Steve Wellington - Wellington Management Inc. Paul Knapp - Space Center Joe Meyer - JLT Group Cathy Nordin St. Anthony Park Community Council K �Shared\Spoonhei\7mckmg\comment memo.wpd --------- - -- Joel Spoonheim - Trucking land use issue V ' �� 4 Page 1 �a-1� From: Steve Wellington <swellingtan@WELLINGTONMGT.COM> To: "'joel.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us"' �joel.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 1 /3/00 321 PM Subject: Trucking land use issue 1 would like to provide information regarding the trucking land use issue now under consideration by the Planning Comission and the City Council. I feel strongly that the City Council needs to act to ensure that good land use prevails in the Midway area of St. Paul. While trucking uses have always been a major user of industrial space in this portion of St. Paui, several recent changes in the economics of Midway-area development require careful consideration: 1. The Midway area is currently a very strong market 4or both o�ce space and retail space. Projects such as Midway Marketplace, Court International, Energy Technology Center, Spruce Tree Center and 1919 University Ave. have demonstrated the area's economic development potential. Traditionai uses such as secondary retailing, car dealerships and older manufacturing uses are giving way to a more intense and productive set of land uses. 2. This natural evolution, which is very beneficial for St. Paul's tax base and employment is under pressure from the north. The City of Roseville is aggressively attempting to relocate the many trucking frims that have been based in that City. This city is using substantial tax increment financing doilars to attract new single level office and office/showroom facilities to these older trucking areas. Simply driving along 35w north of Highway 36 will provide clear physical evidence of the impact of this planning. This effort will continue, since Roseville intends for a major upgrade in land uses along County Road C, west of the Byerleys retail center. Large development firms like Opus and Ryan have made substantial recent investments on these older trucking sites.The trucking firms which require a central location to meet their distribution needs have to go somewhere. The Midway is a naturaf choice fos their relocation. Roseville has got a good plan and has been quite successful with its implementation. Their tax base is going to go up (at least after all the tax increment subsidy is re-paid). Their community already has much higher employment density and a more hi-tech amenity-tech appearance as a result of this plan. St. Paul needs to compete effectively with this community and make sure the Midway area continues to prosper. 3. Minneapolis is also going to put pressure on the Midway area. Minneapolis' traditional lackluster industrial development program has recently gotten lots more effective. The Southeast Minneapolis Industrial District (SEM{) is gradually getting organized. This 300 acre (?) redevelopment district is already attracting big-time office developers like CSM to make major changes in older industrial, railroad and trucking-related uses. A drive west on Kasota, west of Highway 280 can easily confirm the nature of this plan. Unfortunately, this area is just starting to blossom. Minneapolis will be putting a large amount of the under-developed land in this area on the market in the next 3-5 years Successful, growing Midway area businesses will be prime targets for the space that will become availa6le in this area. To deai with these competitive pressures, St Paul needs the land and �---- ---- --- - - - - ------- --- _ . .____ __. ---- E Joef Spoonheim - Trucking land use issue Page 2 i�. _� «�--- -`- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - �-=-= - - ------ 8�-1� buildings necessary to provide the room needed for expanding Midway-area businesses. Last year a prime 62 acre site on Energy Park Drive came up for auction in a bankruptcy court proceeding. This site could easily have accomodated a major new office facility. Most observers felt that this land and the older, deteriorated empty truck terminal on it would lead to a value of $1.� - 1.4 million. Unfortunately, Koch Trucking from Roseville purchased the property for $22 million, well above any market price for such industrial property. Koch Trucking has since invested a substantial sum in upgrading the facility. They are a good company with a strong track record. The old truck terminal certainiy looks a lot better. I do not begrudge Koch Trucking its needs for a new facility. I do object to St. Pauf getting Roseville's undesireable industrial uses. I also object to the very limited land use that a 60,000 s.f. truck terminal has for a 6.2 acre site. When the Port Authority develops a new industrial park it sets standards for employment and building density. A 62 acre site should accomodate an o�ce and production facility of 80,000 - 100,000 s.f. with overall employment of at least 200. This is simply not what occurs with a 60,000 s.f. warehouse and truck terminal. If one drives around St. Paul's Midway area, you can find numerous sites where a small warehouse building is surrounded by a huge expanse of asphalt and many, many parked semi-trailer trucks. St. Paul should not deliberately try to eliminate these uses. The Mldway will always be a warehousing and distribution center for the Twin Cities. But we need Yo change the current situation where our I-1 zoning code provides a big green light to trucking uses migrating from otner areas. The Midway sould be the office headquarters for these firms not the spot where aff the unwanted uses congregate. St. Paul's traditional response to these market pressures has been to rely on the considerable skills and financiaf muscle of the St. Paul Port Autority. During the past 20 years, the Port has provided excellent leadershp in Midway-area industrial redevelopmentwith its Westgate, Energy Park and Midway Industrial Parks. Today, however, the Port is totally out of Midway-area industrial property. Worse yet, there is no Midway-area Port Authority project even on the drawing board. The Port has #argeted Shepard Road, the Phalen Corridor and the Maxson Steel area for its efforts during the next 3-5 years. These are excellent projects, but this means that the strongest market in St. Paul for small business and industrial expansion will have nothing to offer in the short-term. Without aggressive intervention, growing idway-area businesses will certainly be lost to other areas. An excellent shost-term so4ution would be for the C+ty to co�sider changes to the zoning code that would encourage more appropriate industrial uses. These changes would not only benefit the Midway, they would also help industrial and smali business investment city-wide. I urge the Planning Comission and the City Councii to aggressively investigate and act on this issue. +-s�-oo;++:z�aM;space center,inc ;o� o�ns�c� _ < < � CE SS�A SPACE CENTER`� January 31 zooa Cicy of Saint Paul Ptanning Commission c/o Mr. )oel Spoonheim City of St. Paul Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 2S West 4� Street St. Paul, M1�i 55102 Dear Planning Cominission: VIA FAX: (G51} 228-3314 1 am writing to expzess my company's support for P�n's proposed zoning code amcndments regazding trnck terminals. o o—�� Space Center owns the building generally known as the Pillsbury Pood Testing Pacility on Pelham and Franldin in ehe Midway. Space Center also owns wazehouse facilities across the country. We recommend that d1e Planning Commission encourage the highest and best uses of property in the Midway. The Commission should encourage office and retaiI uties as oppo�ed to industrial uscs: thc Commission should spccifically discourage die constrvction or operation uf trucl: terminal facilities. 1'ruck termintils constitute low density, low employment use of property and generally inhibit the development of residenual, office and retail development. I furthcr recomnZend that the Commission aggzessively encourage the redevelopment of existing older industrial properties in the Ivlidway to office and retail uses. Yours tnily, Spxce Center, Ine. � Paul R. 1Cnapp Sei�ior Vice Preszdent SPACE CENTER, INC. 2507 CI0v212f,tl AvenuO NORh ! SI PaUI, MN 55173d717 Telephon: (651) 604-4200/ Facsimile: (651) 604-4222 61(28/2606 16:21 6516411244 JLT GROUP rHUt n�iG� �.�/LTGROu P 1NC. 739 Vandalia Street • St. Paul, MN 55114 MEMORANAUM '�O: FROIVI: DAT�: SYIBJECT: Joel Spoonheim Joe 11�eysr January 27, 2000 Trucking Facilttfes Study ��-� (651) B41-1111 • (651) 641-7244 F�c We appreciate your efforts regarding the above-refezenced study. We flave revzewed the draft dated January 7, 2000 and we have the following comments: 1. I£ the number of 48" high truck doors is the dete�mining factor as to whefher a facility is deemed a"trucking terminal," then the ratio you propose (i dock per 5000 square feet; 1:5000) is unworkable. Clearly there are facilities with a greater than 1:5000 dock zatio that aze not truck teLmiaals and do not have the type of traffic that a truck terminal creates. With that in mind, the ratio should be 1:1000. 2. A 1:5000 ratio would immediately eliminate any business that uses a dock and occupies less than 5,000 square feet. 3. As noted in your study, a true truck terminal is a 60' wide building with truck doors on both sides. These faciliries have a ratio of appzoximately 1:300 or 1:400. This fuzther demonstrates that the detei�nining ratio should b l:1000. We understand the dilemma of defining a hvck terminal, but it is cleaz that a 1:5000 ratio will not work. joc25St cpoo�heimmzmo �_. _ _. _ -T � Joel Spoonheim - Trucking Facility Zoning Study Page 1 �._ __ _,�_ _ _..__== . - -- . . __ � � o-�� From: Cathy Nordin <cathy.n@wcla.com> To: <joef.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 1/28/00 9:37AM Subject: Trucking Facility Zoning Study Saint Paul Planning Commission Attn: Joel Spoonheim 1 have read through your proposed Zoning Amendments and would like to follow up on a couple issues. First The definition of "Package Delivery Service" is identical to the New Minneapolis Zoning Code but there is a flaw in this definition. 1 have been recently working with a dient "DHL Wor{d Wide International Express" They compete with Fed Ex, UPS .......etc. They are most known with the international business world so some of us don't know who or what they are. They almost fit the defin+tion you have on the table but - They do take packages over 150 pounds. DHL has two buildings in the twin cities, one in Eagan and one in Mpls. They service building receive 2 to 3 packages a week that are between 150 to 600 pounds. This would exclude them from this Definition even though they fit all the other peramiters. They have 2 dock doors for 12,000 s.f. of warehouse space. All there packages under 150 Ibs are transported in standard �ord ar chivy full size vans, not even the step vans that UPS uses. In our Mpls facility there will not be any semi trailers even bringing the packages from the airport. because of the site restrictions in turning space. We will use only 24 ft long trucks. Mpls also requires a"Conditional Use Permit" for a Package Delivery Service in all the 11, 12 and 13 zones in Chapter 550 and also has Specific Development Standards for them in Chapter 536. I think this, on top of your 300 ft. separation can give St. Paul control over whaYs happening. Second I do see a problem with Sec. 60.612 (3) the 300 feet is measured from the exterior wall of the bldg. to the nearest residential lot line. OK IeYs think about this. A lot line typically has a sidewalk and blvd. before the street. than we have the street width - lets say iYs a major road like Rice St. or Como Ave. two lanes traffic each way and parking both sides -( Joel please get curb to curb width for the committee) Than add the sidewalk and blvd. in than your finally to their property line. Now we can begin to add into the distance on their own Iand. they need -length of truck plus 10 feet to maneuver the truck. � Joel Spoonheim - Trucking F acilit y Zoning Study Y '� Page 2 _ _ .._ , __ w _ . __ � --`-`-==- = - -- - — -the length of truck plus 5 feet to park the truck. -this adds up to '125 feet for a standard semi trailer on their property plus the street right of way and your almost at the 300 ft. now three hundred feet may seem like enough but I warn you. Once iYs written i� the code they find a way to comQly and come. be careful. I would consider the SCUP to allow any trucking in 11, 12, or 13 zones. f wanted to bring this to your attention because you have a chance to write your zoning ordinance correctly and do a betterjob than Minneapolis did. I bet you thought you heard the last from me. No way. I miss you guys. Thank you, Cathy Nordin A.I.A. � �.�bK� CC: gladys morton <gladysmort@aoLcom> Jan �� u� ud:aip on;�� t�� .. �.. �i:�*�!i 60- St. Anthony Park Community Council - Ioel Spoonheim, Pianner St Paul Planning Commission 1400 City Hatl Annex 25 W.Fourth St St Pau� MN. 55102 January 27, 2000 Joel: The St Aiuhony Park Community Council (SAPCC) strongly supports cl�az�ges to the St Paul Zoning Code to define Truck and Motoc Fieight Temiinals and to limit theu location We believe tt�at reshictions on truck termi�als within City limits should be as stringent, if not more stringent, than the suburbs sutrounding St Paul. Our district includes a large amount of industcial land, andthe impaas af the industrial use on adjacent residenval properties have been a major concem since the Community Council was first cteated in 1976. We recoguze the necessity of indushial property in the ciEy, and one-third af our Community Council is made up of business people from our azea Our concems aze with mitigaiing any neg�iive impacts tHat result from the close proximity af industrial and residential uses. We believe the proposed changes fo fhe Zoning Code ihaf we 2iave reviewed (Trucldng Facitity Zoning Study Draft dated 1/7/00) to lunit Truck Terminals to I2 mnes will help mitigate the impacts tl�at the ternunals themselves have on residential areas Likewise, the proposed changes adding conditions to large wazehouse facilities ne� residenrial areas should he2p mitigyte the impacts these buildings would have on nearby residences. We do have some concems that the proposed changes do not provide adequate tools to prevent ne�tive impact to residenual, educational institutions �d business azeas by large volumes of truck traffic. We believe that ]arge volumes of truck traffic can be detrimemal to business azeas u wefl as residentiai azeas and educaziona! institutions These negptive unpacts aze �e to noise, truck vibrations, and pollution. The noise from Rucks traveling along our roads and using jake brakes is disniptive to residents, students, artd businesses alike. The fumes enutted by diesel Wcks add to an already high level of air pollution, increasing healih problems for residents, students, and employees o£businesses. Pedestrian safety is aiso a concem in all areas af the community whether residtntial or commercial in nahue. Because these imgac[s occur ouuide af [he invnediate area af the truck temrinal facility, the siting af such facilities should take into consideration in regards to how the trucks access the facility. If it is not possible to access the facility without going through residential or business azeas then the location may not be appropriate, no matter wliai tl�e mne or how many feet it is from a residential azea It seems ro us that permitting a uucldng facility, or large vrarehouse facility with high levels af truck �c, should always be conditional on the abiliry of the bvcks to access the facility without traveling tivough a residential ar business area St.�} thony�j Commwvty uncil l;Q�lL�. N�!�fL�f.kti Carol Madison Hxecutive Director CC: City Council Membeis Mayor Norm Coleman 890 Cromwell Avenue, Saint Pauf, Minnesov SStt4 •> 651/649-5992 voice •: 65t/649-5943 fax �o-��Y � Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 28, 2000, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: I. Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Engh, Fazicy, Geisser, McCall, and Morton and Messrs. Corbey, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Geroais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mara lies, Nowlin and Shakir. Messrs. *Johnson and *Mardell *Excused Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Virginia Burke, Tom Harren, Danette Moore, Richelle Nicosia, Joel Spoonheim, and James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. Approval of Minutes of January 14, 2000 The minutes of January ]4, 2000 will be on the February 11, 2000 agenda. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that Matt Anfang has been appointed to the Planning Commission by the Mayor and is on the CiTy Council agenda for next Wednesday. The Steering Committee talked about the annual meeting and the annual report. Jim Zdon and Allan Tarstenson aze working on the report. The annual meeting according to the by-laws should be held by February. Since new members haven't been appointed yet, we may consider postponing the annual meeting until after appoinhnents aze made. The Steering Committee also discussed a letter from Councilmember Pat Hatris asking for the Ford Mall parking ramp hearing be postponed. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved that we lay over the previously scheduled site plan review of the Ford Mall parking ramp until the Zoning Comminee meeting of March l6. Councilman Harris is requesting a layover because, being new in the office, he would like to have ertra time to consult with the community in preparation for thatpublic hearing. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair Morton announced that the River Corridor Design Wark Group will be starting � �� their meetings sometime in February. Commissioner Faricy will be chairing the River Corridor Design Work Group and Steve Gordon will also be attending. Commissioner Field announced that the Advertising Sign Committee had a meeting on Tuesday and concluded its work with respect to reconciling the conflicts that existed within the recommendations received from the Legislative Advisory Committee on advertising signs. The Planning Commission Committee's recommendations will be contained in a report and ordinance drafts which Mr. Soderholm will be working on. Hopefully, this report will be prepared by February 11 to set a public heazing. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Soderholm reported that the Metro Council has completed a preliminary review of the Comprehensive Plan and sent him comments. They held up their review until the City developed more detailed data on sewer flows. The City Council adopted the rezoning of 550 Concord and the two special sign districts for the West Side and Snelling-Hamline. At the discussion of the special sign districts, Councilmember Benanav said that if new citywide regulations on advertising are approved that satisfy the neighborhood concerns, he is willing to reconsider the need for special sign districts. The City Council also approved a resolution authorizing the staffto apply for DNR planning funds for the Trout Brook Greenway. It would connect along the west side I- 35E and down to the lower Phalen Corridor. About three months ago this Commission asked staff to develop a proposal for a 40-acre study that would include the Trillium site and the proposed Greenway. StafFthinks that a planning step is going to be more successful than a 40-acre study. The application to the DNR is for $20,000 to be matched by $20,000 of City staff time. Finally, Mr. Soderholm announced that District 1 has requested establishment of a temporary special sign district until the new sign regulations are adopted. Since the Advertising Sign Study started, two billboards have been approved in District 1, which is one of the neighborhoods that had not previously asked for a temporary special sign district. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Truck Facilities Zoning Study (Joel Spoonheim -266-6614) Chair Morton read the rules and procedures for public hearings. Mr. Joe] Spoonheim spoke on the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. When the study began, one issue was identified, when infact, there are two: 1) truck terminals with intense trucking uses that are being phased out of cities around us and 2) the broader issue of using zoning codes to address incompatible land uses nea�t to each other. ao��f DRAFT In recent yeazs, cities around Saint Paul have made intentional redevelopment plans that have focused on utilizing land to create more jobs. These redevelopment plans have created trucking terminal policies that aze forcing terminals to relocate. Being that Saint Paul is located in the center of the metropolitan region, it is seen as an ideal location for distribution. Mr. Spoonheim showed an overhead of recent industrial land prices. Many of the values fall within a$2.00 per sq. fr. range (highly contaminated land prices were not included). In contrast, the two truck terminals included on the list were bid at $4.51 and $6.52 per sq. ft. Mr. Spoonheim noted that truck terminal firms are willing to pay higher than the mazket rate for industrial land. Mr. Spoonheim stated that PED staff had driven every street of industrial land in Saint PauL In doing so, they found that there is a lot of underutilized industrial land, but limited vacant land. Other than land held by the Port Authority, the City has no way of knowing who is bidding to buy industrial land. Currently, there is a demand for industrial land that the Port Authority controls. However, it remains unclear as to whether this is true for all industrial land in Saint Paul. Mr. Spoonheim stated that trucking terminals should be classified as a specific use. The draft language has been modified to include a new definition that staff recommends adding to the zoning code. The primary definition focuses on the terminals function, to move freight from one semi trailer to another with minimal storage. Mr. Spoonheim added that terminals are usually a stopping point along the way where a truck full of product is disbursed to 15 or more trucks that then take the goods out to small towns, or less major metropolitan areas. One of the key challenge is defining the difference between a warehouse and truck terminal. They both have large numbers of trucks and big buildings. Mr. Spoonheim stated that he made contact with six of the warehouse developers in the area to determine how much storage space is uCilized per loading dock. Ten years ago, the standard in the industry for building a warehouse was one dock per 10,000 sq. ft. Today, the standard is one dock per 6,000 sq. ft., and it is moving toward one dock per 5,000 sq. fr. The shift is a result of our economy fuctioning under a"just in time" delivery framework. Companies do not wish to spend money storing goods. In acknowledging the need for trucks, the proposed language is written to support the indushy and conform with the ration of one loading dock per 5,000 sq. ft. Terminals typically have a large quantiTy of doors. They have at least seven, and usually more than fifteen. It is difficult to determine a standard number because of various sized terminals. The draft language states that a terminal is a building with more than six docks and has a ratio of one dock per 5,000 sq. fr. The Minneapolis code states that heavy trucking uses are allowed in light industrial land, if the warehouse is under 30,000 sq.ft. Mr. Spoonheim presented slides showing the difference between trucking terminals and 3 a� -`�� DRAFT non-terminal structures. Mr. Spoonheun outlined staff recommendations that include a pmposed defmition for trucking terminals and require a Special Condition Use Permit on heavy industrial land (I-2). In addition, stafFrecommends adding conditions that mitigate noise, direct truck traffic to designated routes, and design sites to provide compatibility with adjacent landuses. Mr. Spoonheim reviewed the five trucking terminals located in Saint Paul: the Koch terminal in Energy Park, Ovemite Express on Pellum, Midland, Case Distribution Center, and the United States Post Office. All five terminals aze located in I-1 zoning districts and would become non-conforming uses. By requiring all new terminals to locate on I-2 land, the City will be creating a similar policy to what surrounding communities have incorporated. Commissioner Field asked if truck terminals create more jobs than wazehouses. Mr. Spoonheim briefly outlined the Port Authorities employment standazds and stated that no terminal has ever qualified. However, Mr. Spoonheim added that most terxninals are Teamster facilities and typically pay $18 per hour, plus benefits. Commissioner Shakir asked Mr. Spoonheim how he classifies intermodal sites in the neighborhoods. Mr. Spoonheim responded that intermodal use is defined within the code and require 1,000 feet distance from a residential neighborhood. The trucking study is not intended to address intermodal sites. Commissioner Nowlin clazified definitions 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Spoonheim responded that the definitions were written to allow flexibility far LIEP staff. Commissioner Gordon questioned whether the Minnesota Statue distinguishes between truck terminals and warehouse facilities. In addition, Commissioner Gordon asked if there are any studies that analyze the number of jobs that are related to each type of activity permitted in I-1 or I-2 zones. Mr. Spoonheim responded that he was not aware of statue definitions for truck terminals and warehouses. He also added, that the Director of Research at the State Department of Labor had confirmed that the level of detail needed in tracking labor statistics for this purpose was unavailable. Commissioner Gordon stated concerns related to staff conclusions that trucking terminals take up a lot of land and don't generate many jobs. He also stated concems regarding the ainount of traffic visiting a warehouse versus a truck terminal. Mr. Spoonheim responded that there can be a correlation between the number of docks and the amount of traffic. Typically, terminals have higher traffic flows than warehouses because the freight is brought in and then sent out within 24 hours. Mr. Spoonheim stated that the second issue of the study is meant to deal with trttcks verses adjacent land uses. Mr. Spoonheim acknowledged that this was a difficult issue ao �� DRAFT due to trucks being fundamental to the economy. However, they do have an impact on adjacent properties. They can impact commercia] as well as residential. Their impact has two issues: 1) when they drive by and 2) when they aze sitting and idling. If trucks aze cutting through residential nei�hborhood and taking shortcuts, that is an enforcement issue. However, the issue of trucks sitting and idling is an issue where the code can play a roll in mitigating. The proposal states that businesses on industrial land or buildings on industrial land that aze within 300 feet of residential land and that have seven or more docks need to have a SCUP (Special Condition Use Permit). The 300 foot spacing between terminals and residential uses is to allow for a buffer, as is the case in spacing for outdoor storage and residential uses. The code also states that 1,000 feet is the appropriate spacing for intermodal yazds and residential uses. It is felt that truck terminals are less intensive than the intermodal yards. The four recommendations are: 1) Tum the trucking building perpendiculaz to the sh with the loading dock at the far end of The building. Build a sound barrier between the end of the building and the street nearest the residential area. Another option is tQ put the building between the lrucks and the residential azea, using the building as a sound buffer and locating the trucks at the back of the building. 2) Truck access on the property should be directly onto a designated truck route or onto the street at the nearest point to a designated truck route. 3) Loading docks should not face residential zoned lots. 4) Buildings being built with seven of more docks need a SCUP. Commissioner Field questioned Mr. Spoonheim on why the docks weren't being built similar to bays, with the abiliry Por trucks to pull within an enclosure that will mitigate perceived undesirable activity. Mr. Spoonheim responded that he didn't consider that possibility. Mr. Spoonheim suggested that it is likely an economic choice and suggested that Commissioner Field direct the question to someone in the industry. Commissioner Margulies asked to refer to a previous trucking terminal layout and if the docks could be moved laterally to the right under this scenario? Mr. Spoonheim responded that they could. In talking with the people in LIEP the intention of this proposal language would be clearly to discourage that and through site plan review that would not be allowed. The office space would be required to be up nea�t �o-�Y� �� to the building. It's a matter of creating a sound barrier because not every lot is going to contain enough frontage to contain the building and the City wants to create another opportunity and this is what this tries to do. Commissioner Mara lies responded that requirements make a great deal of sense. He added that Mr. Spoonheim has efFectively found a way to in vazious configurations. However, Commissioner Margulies suggested tightening up the configurations to avoid situations where the sound barrier is not effective. Commissioner Mazgulies noted that he realizes that the trade-off is less efficient in the use of land. Mr. Soderholm stated that if the terminal falls within 300 feet of residential properry there would be a conditional use. It would require a special conditional use pennit. The issue of dock placement would be open for discussion at the Planning Commission meetings. It would then become a matter of site plan review. Commissioner Gordon questioned if the 300 foot spacing is measured from the residential lot line to the loading dock. Commissioner Gordon added that he thought it should be measured from the residential lot line to the trucking terminal building. Mr. Spoonheim clarified that the 300 foot separation would not be for trucking terminals. Rather, trucking terminals within a I-2 zone would be required to have a SCUP. The 300 foot separation is for all intense trucking uses with seven or more loading docks. The separation is from the dock to the residential lot line. 1. Ms. Lorrie Louder, Director of Industrial Development from the Saint Paul Port Authority, addressed the Commission. Ms. Louder stated that the Saint Paul Port Authorities mission is to maximize job creation on industrial pazcels in Saint Paul while providing business retention. Their statutory charge is to provide redevelopment of industrial land that is blighted and under utilized. They try to make the best economic decisions for Saint Paul by bringing in the best manufacturing and industrial companies that can offer the best quality products and employment opporiunities. Over the past thirty-five years, they have created fifteen business parks which provide two-thirds of Saint Paul's cominercial and industrial tas base. 2. Kathy Gravlun, 582 West Minnehaha, addressed the Commission. Ms. Gravlun is a resident that lives directly across from the Cobra IntermodaUBurlington Northem Property. Ms. Gravlun stated that her main purpose in attending the public hearing is to convey how the trucks at this faciliTy impact her family and neighbors. Starting at approximately 730 am. each day, the trucks start coming in, loading andJor unloading, then leaving. Ocassionally, trucks are waiting to get in at 5:30 a.m. and often times, trucks are arriving and leaving the Bwlington Northern parking lot between 11:00 to 12:00 pm. With this type of activity in the neighborhood, they are sunounded with air pollution, noise, and dust These nuisances greatly impact the residents even more so in the summer season when windows aze open. There is also ffaffic congestion because of ��-�� the number of trucks in the azea. Ms. Gravlun feels that if she were able to sell her properry, the value would hazdly be equitable. Ms. Crravlun finds the truck activity to be mentally disturbina and havina a direct negative impact on her neighborhood. 3. Eleanor Strantz, 584 West Minnehaha, addressed the Commission. Ms. Strantz stated that she suppods all of the comments stated by Ms. Gravlun. Ms. Strantz added that the trucks that arrive around midnight are most disturbing because of the truck lights that shine directly into her bedroom. 4. Richazd Murphy, Jr., President of Murphy Wazehouse Co., Como Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mr. Murphy stated that he was impressed with Mr. Spoonheim's presentation and feels that his recommendations for truck terminals and trucking facilities are positive. Whether you have a distribution center, wazehouse, or manufacturing facility, there is going to be truck tra�c. Mr. Murphy stated that his company successfully uses both building layouts: wazehouses with loading docks on the back of the building, and warehouses placed perpendicular to residentia] structures(sound walls may be necessary). Mr. Murphy supports truck terminals/wazehouse facilities in I-2 zones. However, Mr. Murphy added that with certain mitigating tools, they could work in an I-1 zone. Mr. Murphy suggested that each application be looked at for specific cases, versus relying on the land use classification for guidance. Mr. Murphy stated that location is everything, consequently, distance drives up the cost to all consumers. Truck terminals and warehouses need to be within reasonable distance to their customers. 5. Mike Koch, Gazsten Perenial Management and Metro Planes Development, 1919 University Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mr. Koch explained to the Commission his frustrations regarding the trucking faciliry that occupies the land nea�t doar to his building. He feels that trucks offer a challenge to adjacent commercial buildings and noted specific problems with the newer (lazger) trucks not fitting the older trucking facilities. 6. Nell McClug, Progressive Management Investments, 1821 University Avenue, addressed the Commission. Ms. McClug states that her partnership owns over one-half million squu�e feet in the Midway area. Even though her company does not experience the adverse effects that Mr. Koch's company does, she says they still experience the noise, increase in traffic, and congestion. 7. Todd Iverson, Representing the Minnesota Trucking Association, 2515 Wabasha Avenue, Suite 150, addressed the Commission. Mr. Iverson stated that he wished to make two points: 1)that everything comes at a cost and 2)the truck industry has located in the Midway area because it is mid-way between the two cities. Mr. Iverson stated that he appreciated Mr. Spoonheim wanting input from the Minnesota Trucking Association while he was preparing his report. Mr. Iverson feels that Mr. Spoonheim's recommendations are a"rational compromise", and that any new trucking facilities should build with the loading docks facing away. He feels that this would be a �_lb'� DRAFT smart landuse and any trucking facility policy that should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Iverson concluded by saying that all products used by consumers aze brought to us by trucks. Truck facilities wish to be good neighbors and want the capacity to do business in an efficient and profitable way. MOTION: Coinmi.ssion Faricy moved to close the public hearing and move it to the Neighborhood and Current Planning Cornminee; Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. V. Zoning Committee West Side Citizens Oreanization (WSCOI - Special sign district for all areas of Saint Paul on the west bank of the Mississippi River except those areas included iu the Smith Avenue Special Sign District (Nancy Homans 266-6557) Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid over and will have the results at a later date. Snelling-Hamline Communitv Council - Special sign district for Snelling-Hamline Community Council Area (Nancy Hamans 266-6557) Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid over and will have the results at a later date. #99-179-377 Dr. Irving Herman Trust - Rezoning from RM-3 to I-1 for an auto sales, auto body and auto repair shop at 2336 Territorial Road, SW corner Territorial and Carleton (James Zdon 266-6559) MOTION: Commission Gervais moved the staff recommendation to deny rezoning of the auto sales, auto body and auto repair shop at 2336 Territorial Road, it is not consistent wilh the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. #99-179-560 Robert Scott Stern - Enlargement of a nonconforming use permit to convert the attic into living space and enlarge the two second- floor one bedroom unit into three-bedroom units at 1696 W. Minnehaha, SE Corner Minnehaha and Aldine(JoelSpoonheim 266-6614) MOTION: Commissioner Gervais moved approval of the enlargement of a nonconforming use permit to convert the attic into living space and en[arge the two second-floor, one-bedroom units into three-bedroom units at I696 W. Minnehahtt The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. � � VL Comprehensive Planning Committee Commissioner Geissec reported that their next meeting will be on Tuesday, Fe6mary 1, tp complete the transit issue. She also commented on the Firstar Bank block and emphasized the importance of major issues and how important it is for the Planning Commission's involvement in the decision making process at the front end and not and the back end of a project. VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee No Report. VIII. Communications Committee Commissioner ponnelly-Col�en reported that two staff people have been assigned to the annual report for 1499. IX. Task Force Reports Commissioner ponnelly-Colien reported that the Brewery/Ran-View Task Force has finished its work and the draft was approved by the group last Tuesday. Next they will set up a community meeting, and after that a design process. Commissioner Gordon reported on the next cycle of small Star Grants, $20,000 or less, will have an orientation session on Wednesday, February 2, at the Hillcrest Recreation Center, 1978 Ford Pazkway. This will be the start of the next cycle, applications will be due sometime in February or March. There is now a procedure for large grants ar loans to be considered any time during the yeaz if there aze reasons for immediate consideration. X. Old Business No Report. XI. New Business No RepoR. XII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 a.m Recorded and prepazed by o �, � �� DRAFT Richelle Nicosia, Planning Commission Secretary Planning and Economic Development Department, City of Saint Paul Respectfully submitted, Larry Soderholm Planning Administrator Approved (Date) 7ennifer Engh Secretary of the Planning Commission \planningUni�utes.frm 10 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nomi Co[eman, .Lfa}'or February 7, 2000 To: Saint Paul Planning Commission SAINT PAUL BUSiNESS REVIEW COUNCIL O � �` � Randy Geller, Chair doOFFlCEOFLIEP Telephane:65f-266-9090 Suite 300 Fauimile: 651-266-9114 350 St. Peter Streef Saint Pau( Minnuota 55/0?-1�10 Saint Paul City Council � Fr: Randy Geller, Saint Paul Business Review Council (BRC) Chair � �� Re: Proposed Trucking Facilities Zoning Study The Business Review Council (BRC) voted to support the Tn�cking Facilities Zoning Study and the proposed revisions (dated January 27) at its February 3 meeting. Joel Spoonheim, a PED planner and staff to the Planning Commission, presented the information and addressed BRC questions and concems. BRC members emphasized that while they support the Su�dy, they still oppose the use of moratoriums as a means to craft city policy and that moratoriums send a"closed for business" message to anyone who does or wants to do business in Saint PauL The BRC voted to support the Stzrdy because they believe it is a fair compromise that balances both business interests and neighborhood/residential concerns. The BRC also unanimously approved a motion to request that PED staff continue to monitor this issue. The motion requests that PED staff conduct a follow-up study in approximately 24 months that reviews the impact of the new legislation and �vhether or not the needs of businesses that depend on trucking facilities are being met adequately. Many members believe that the core cities have an obligation to provide trucking facilities and that the cost of goods for consumers will rise if the trend to push trucking facilities to locations farther from population centers is continued. In addition, PED staff have not examined either the potential need for trucking facilities (based on Saint Paul's and the entire metro region's size and population) or the number of land acres that will be available for future trucking facilities under the proposed definitions and revisions. The BRC believes that trucking facilities are a vital part of Saint Paul's business environment and that additional research is required to determine the appropriate ratio of trucking facilities needed to serve Saint Paul and the metro region and whether or not the proposed legislation, if implemented, will have an adverse impact on Saint Paul's trucking indushy in particular and commerce in general. Please contact me with any questions or concems. You can reach me at 651-222-8971. c: Mayor Norm Coleman Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor Joel Spoonheim, PED Saint Paul Business Review Council Covncil File # dl`� ^ ��d� QRI�I�IAL Resolution # Green Sheet # ��,� 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 i8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Approval of Trucking Facilities Zoning Study and Zoning Code Revisions WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Resolution 99-1064 on 11/10/99 requesting PED to conduct a study of the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities; and WHEREAS, to protect the status quo during the study period, the Resolution directed that no permits or pernussion shall be issued or granted for the construction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until Mazch 1, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Piamiing Commission has determined: 1. That the nuxnber of real estate descriptions affected by the ordinance renders the obtaining of written consents impractical, 2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made, 3. That a determination has been made that the amendment to this ordinance proposed is related to existing land use and to a plan for future land use, and 4. That proper notice and hearing have been given pursuant to state statutes; and WgIEREAS, the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee of the Planning Commission worked with staff to prepare the proposed regulations; and WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of trucks to our local economy; and WI-IEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it is possible to build new facilities that have loading docks positioned to not impact adjacent residential property; and WHEREAS, cities around Saint Paul are limiting the location of truck terminals to only the heaviest industrial land and imposing conditions; and WHEREAS, on January 28, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and testimony at the public hearing, which included representatives of the trucking industry, was supportive of the proposed policy; and WHEREAS, the Plauniug Commission unanimously voted to approve the proposed regulafions; I �O—\$'� 37 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council adopts the zoning code revisions 38 proposed in the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. ORIGINAL AdaptiOn Approved by Mayor by Council Secretary Requested by Department of: Plannin & Economic Jevelo ment ay: Form Approved by City ttorney BY ��//!/AVt�� t( ! 6(0 0 Approved by May f Submissio Council d� --.—_ By: Adopted by Council: Date � 1_ _��pp �i7 � �� ,,, „ T,,�, TOTAL S OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET oc� _ .r� No 10? 3�3 03 m,,.,,� 1t� ❑ �„� _ ❑ ..,.�.�,�, � ❑ ..�.,�.a �Ml'ORIORAtfiGMll�� `�� (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� E(IUESTm a �do�con �� ro{�o5e�l �9✓v�'� CodP_J'2u`isio.�s relcd�a� 'fo 'f-t'u�J<ie�c� �il�fes l �MMtNUAI1VIV APDlOV2 W) Of KEyeR �KJ PERSONNLSERVSCE GOf1�RNGIS XUSTAIVSWER iME WLLOWIN6 QYESilO1V5: 1. lies tltis PersaJfirm eyer v,wked iuMe18 contraU �rfhie tlepahmenl? _ PL4NNING COMMISSION VES NO CIB COMMfTTEE 2. H� Mis penaJfam aver been a ary emqoyce7 CMLSERVICECOMMISSION vES NO � i`3wbin¢ss PffiJtewl�.nal s.00esm�o��a�asarr�ana�wya�seanr�r��r�wov�? rES rio 4. Is tlss peisoNfmm a t� N.vdoYt YEu MO F�lain all Yec answe�s m aep�e sheet and atlaoh to 9reen sheet ,TING PROBLEM ISSUE, OP (Who. Wha[. When, Wh6re, �Nhy) �} + � �G� �✓�ac.��t a, N'�fJi'a,`f+�t'iu_wV o✓� '�/'ucC�Ci"� `4G,C�jc �c�-01 /Lg�NL'Sfcst c 3f'��y. / U / CL�.�i�'.`es �� eocle, acCo�, �� t �^ � Gl� P�� n.o r�e. VANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED ' W� �rtou� lnco�x��e la�d� Fnadj�ce.� rwwsacnoK f [l� � SOURCE INFORMATION (EXPIAIN) CASTrttEYENUE BUDGEim (�� NE) ACTNITY NUMBER YEE NO �i0tlflC� R8S°�fr¢� l;�n�� FEB 1 � 2Q0� 0 � ov_�"� C� �F' Sf�� PA� 390 City Hall Telephane: 612-266-8510 Norm Coleman, Mayor IS West Kellogg Bou[evard Facsimile: 6I2-228-8513 SaintPau[, 14N5�102 February 14, 2000 Councal President Bostrom and Members of the City Council 310 City Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear President Bostrom and Members of the City Council: In November 1999 the City Council initiated a zoning study of trucking facilities and requested the Planning Commission to make recommendations. At the same time, the Council adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for the establishment of trucking facilifies or the expansion of existing ones. On January 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on proposed trucking facility zoning aniendments. On February 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reached a recommendation. They recommend that three definitions be added to the zoning code, and conditions placed on two of the newly defined uses. Specifically, "trucking terxninals" as newly defined, will be allowed in I-2 zones with a special condition use permit. "Package delivery services" as defined will be allowed in I-1 with a special condition use permit. Additionally, other structures built on industrially zoned land with seven (7) or more loading docks within 300 feet of residentially zoned land will need a special condition use permit. I am pleased to transmit the Planning Commission's trucking facility recommendations to you for your review and action. Sinc ely, G�c-� �r�'� � Norm Coleman Mayor Attachments DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Brian $weeney, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor February 14, 2000 Mayor Norm Coleman 390 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Mayor Coleman, 25 West Fourth Sbeet SaintPoul, MN55102 Do �f�� Telephone. 651-266-6565 Facsimile: 651-228-3267 In November 1999 the Council initiated a zoning study of trucking facilities and requested the Planning Commission to make recommendations. At the same time, the Council adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the issuance of permits for tl�e establishment of trucking facilities or the expansion of existing ones. On January 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed trucking facility zoning amendments. You will be pleased to know that the proposed amendments received support from all sides, including the Minnesota Trucking Association who stated that they were a"rational compromise." Additionally, on February 3, 2000 the Business Review Council met with PED staff on the issue and voted to support the revisions. On February 11, 2000, the Planning Commission reached a recommendation. They recommend that three definitions be added to the zoning code, and conditions placed on two of the newly defined uses. Specifically, "mzcking terminals" as newly defined, will be aliowed in I-2 zones with a special condition use permit. "Package delivery services" as defined will be allowed in I-1 with a special condition use permit. Additionally, other structures built on industrially zoned land with seven (7) or mare loading docks within 300 feet of residentially zoned land will need a special condition use perxnit. I am pleased to transmit the Planning Commission's trucking facility recoxnmendations to you far endorsement and transmittal to the City Council. Sincerely, Brian Sweeney Director Enclosures K:\Shared\SpoonheilTruckma\transmllsweeney.wpd oo�� ATTACHNIENTS FOR TRUCKING FACILITY ZONING STUDY 2000 1. Planning Commission Resolution recommending changes to the zoning code 2/11/00 2. Tnxcking Facility Zoning Study approved by Planning Commission on 2/11/00 3. Written public testimony from Planning Commission Public Hearing on 1J28/00 4. DRAFT - Planning Commission minutes from trucking facility pubiic heazing and discussion, 1128/00 5. Memorandum from the Saint Paul Business Review Council, 2/7/00 o0�i�5' city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 00-14 date Februarv 11, 2000 Approval of Trucking Facilities Zoning Study WIIEREAS, the Saint Paul City Council adopted Resolution 99-1064 on 1 U10/99 requesting PED to conduct a study of the City's zoning regulations relating to trucking facilities; and WHEREAS, to protect the status quo during the study period, the Resolution directed that no permits or permission shall be issued or granted for the construction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until March 1, 2000; and WIIEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined: L That the number of real estate descripfions affected by the ordinance renders the obtaining of written consents impractical, 2. That a survey of an area in excess of 40 acres has been made, 3. That a determination has been made that the amendment to this ordinance proposed is related to existing land use and to a plan for future land use, and 4. That proper notice and hearing have been given pursuant to state statutes; and WHEREAS, the Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee of the Planning Commission worked with staff to prepare the proposed regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recognizes the importance of trucks to our local economy; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission believes it is possible to build new facilities that have loading docks positioned to not impact adjacent residential properry; and WHEREAS, cities azound Saint Paul are limiting the location of mick terminals to only the heaviest industrial land and imposing conditions; and moved by Farl�V seconded by Mar�ulies in favor IInanimrn�c against �b-� WHEREAS, on January 28, 2000 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and testimony at the public hearing, which included representatives of the trucking industry, was supportive of the pzoposed policy; and WfIEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously voted to approve the proposed regulations; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul Pianning Commission recommends to Saint Paul City Council the zoning code revisions proposed in the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. DEPARTMENTOFPLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEN'I Brian Sweeney, Director CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Ca[eman, Mayor 25 Wesi Fourth Sbeet SaintPaul, MIVS102 TRUCKING FACILITY ZONING STUDY February 11, 2000 � b — \�S� Telephone: 657-266-6655 Facsimile. 651-228-3374 This report is recommended by the Saint Paul Planning Commission for approval by the City Council. For more information, please contact Joel Spoonheim, Saint Paul Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development, at (651) 266-6614 or joelspoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us � o - �86� TRUCHING FACILITY ZONING STUDY Citv Council Request City Council Resolution 49-1064, adopted on 11/10(99, directed PED to conduct a study of the City's official controls relating to tnxcking facilities. To protect the status quo during the study period, the resolution directed that no permits or perxnission sha11 be issued or granted for the conshuction of any new trucking facility in I-1, I-2, and I-3 zoning districts until Mazch l, 2000. On December 22, 1999, the City Council adopted an ordinance matching the eazlier resolution. Authoritv for the Studv Amendments to the Zoning Code follow the procedures in Section 64.400 of the Code and Minnesota Statutes Section 462357. Either the City Council or the Planning Commission can initiate citywide amendments. Public hearings with required notice aze held at both the Planning Commission and the City Council. The Issue In recent years, communities azound Saint Paul have reduced land zoned appropriate for trucking uses. A result is increased demand far land on which to locate trucking facilities in Saint Paul. However, with limited industrial land available in the city, the City Council, acting in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, wishes to discourage uses with low employee density such as trucking. Because of their increased employment objective, the Saint Paul Port Authority does not allow trucking uses in business parks the Port owns. A second aspect is that traffic, noise, vibrations, and fumes necessarily associated with a hucking facility can be detrimental to a residential area nearby. The City Council and the Planning Commission have heard considerable testimony on this point in their review of some trucking facility permits during 1999. Many trucking operations are located in areas zoned I-1 Industrial in Saint Paul. The I-1 district, frequently found adjacent to residential districts, is intended to accommodate industrial operations "whose external, physical effects are restricted to the area of the district and in no manner affect the surrounding disiricts in a detrimental way." Some hucking facilifies may be in conflict with this intent, yet the I-1 district currently identifies trucking facilities as a permitted principle use. What is a Trucking Facilitv? There is no definition for a hucking facility in the Saint Paul Zoning Code because the use is allowed in both major industrial zones. Pick up and delivery of goods by truck is, obviously, a necessary accompaniment to many businesses including any type of manufacturing moving, or Page 2 of 13 oD �� storage. For tl�ese, trucks aze accessory. Accepted definitions that provide for special regulations on uses where trucking is the primary activiry generally describe "tmck ternvnals" or "motor freight terminals." The definirion in the Roseville Zoning Code is an example: A buiZding in which freight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intr-astate and interstate shipment (Ord. 275, 5-12-59, City of Roseville) A Fairfax Co., Virginia defuution is broader: 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 pat^ked or stored. The Minnesota State Statutes provide the following definition: "Terminal" means (1) afacility thczt a motor ccrrrier owns, Zeases, or otherwise controls, and uses to load, unload, dispense, receive, interchange, gather, or otherwise physically handle fretght for shipment, or (2) any other location at which freight is exchanged by motor carriers between vehicles. "Terminal" does not mean a public warehouse with a storage capacity of at least S, 000 square feet that was licensed under chapter 231 on or before March 1, 1992. Shucturally truck terminals are generally built with "cross-docks" -- a design where loading docks are on opposite sides of a building usually 60 feet deep, allowing for easy transfer from one trailer to another. Due to deregulation of the riucking industry in the 1980s and changes in the economy, the blending of warehousing and trucking terminals occurs in some facilities. "Just-in-time delivery" is the dominant production model today, which has changed the warehousing industry from one that stores large quantities of product/material for long periods of time, to a service that stores smaller quantities that have high turnover. The result is that most warehouse uses see more traffic today than 15 years ago and need more docks than the old standard of one dock per 10,000 squaze feet. However, there remains a difference between the most intensive truck terminal uses and warehouses. One way to differentiate between warehousing and truck terminals is based on the number of docks per square feet of floor area. Based on research, including interviews of six large warehouse developers in the Twin Cities, staff recommends a ratio of one dock per 5,000 square feet (1:5,000) of warehouse space as a threshold; facilities with more than one dock per 5,000 squaze feet should be treated as truck terminals and facilities with fewer than one dock per 5,000 square feet should be treated as warehouses. Page 3 of 13 �o-�� The Current Saint Paul Zonin�Code Trucking faciliries aze first pemutted in the I-1 Industrial District where they are permitted by right. The use is listed as follows: (3) Warehousing and wholesaZe establishments, and trucking facilities. This use in the I-1 district also carries over as pernutted in the I-2 Industrial District. As stated in the Zoning Code the intent of the I-1 district is as follows: The I-1 Industrial District is intended to primarily accommodate wholesale and warehouse activitzes, 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 specif ed uses, the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, assembly, or treatment offznished or semifinished products from previously prepared material. (Sec.60.610) For comparison, the stated intent of the I-2 (heavier) Industrial District is: The I-2 Industrial District is intended primariZy for manufacturing, assemb7ing and fabrication activities, including Zarge 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 semifznished products fi�om raw material and prepared material. The processing of raw material in bulk foym to be used in an industrial operation is a permitted use in the I-2 District. (Sec. 60.620) Existin�Operations in Saint Paul The Saint Paul Midway area, due to its location between the two major city centers, has been historically an important center for trucking and warehousing operations. Over the last two decades, expansive sites in suburban locations have become more attractive for trucking uses. The majority of operations in the east metro area are in the suburbs. However, during the last five years many cities around Saint Paul have rezoned land or taken other action to limit or reduce trucking terminals on their industrial land. As trucking firms seek to relocate, demand for land in Saint Paul is increasing. In otie case, a truck company bid one million dollars over the estimated market value of $1.2 million which was offered by an office developer. Recent industrial land sales as detailed in appraisals and Ramsey County tax data, show that two trucking terminals have paid $4.51 and $6.52 per squaze foot, well over average industrial land values of two-to-three dollars per square foot. Truck companies will increasingly be willing to pay a premium in order to secure available land. Unlike other cities, the existing Page 4 of 13 oo—��' Saint Paul Zoning Code allows truck terminals on all industrial land. Staff visually inspected all industrial property abutting public streets in Saint Paul and found five possible truck terminals (using the proposed definition). All five are in I-1 zones currently. Intensitv of Land Use The Saint Paul Port Authority, as the City's lead industrial developer, seeks to ensure as high a density of industrial employment as possible. The Port Authority does not allow trucking facilities within Port owned industrial parks because such firms do not meet standazds including: 1 job per 1,000 square feet of building; a th3riy-two (32) percent coverage of building to land; a minimum consiruction cost per squaze foot; and design guidelines. Truck terminals are rarely affiliated with high intensity land use. Generally, ternrinals: • are buildings with "cross-docks" - a design where loading docks are on opposite sides of the building, usually 60 feet deep, allowing for easy transfer from one trailer to another; • have significant pazking space for trailers and tractars; • may have a repair facility for trucks. In some cases, terminals may be built attached to a warehouse in arder to serve a vaziety of clients. For these reasons, truck terminals do not qualify for construction on Port Authority controlled industrial land. Detrimental Impact of Large Volumes of Truck Traffic The external characteristics of a trucking operation that are degrading to a neazby residential azea aze precisely the kind of impacts that zoning is intended to prevent. Trucks, especially tractor trailers, generate more noise than automobile traffic. Even when minimum noise standards are met, the constant nature of large truck motors arriving and leaving, and sometimes idling on the site, is a particular annoyance for nearby residents. A street with large tractor trailers as a common element of the traffic is substantially different in character from a street with only car and stnall truck traffic. The larger the truck, the greater the detriment to residential tranquility. Lazge trucks reduce comfort for pedestrians and, at least in perception, reduce safety for children and pedesTrians. Odarous fumes, high and bright headlights that can shine in windows, and vibrations are other characteristics that residents find detract from the quality of a residential environment. These residential detractions aze readily apparent and may reduce residential property values. Page 5 of 13 oa—�� Staff Recommended Alternafive and Analvsis Truck and Motor Freight Terminals by the very nature of their primary activity aze apt to have significant impacts on properiy adjacent to access routes and facilities. Pernutting truck terminals by right (Sec. 60.612(3)) is incompatible with the stated purpose of the I-1 District (Sec. 60.6ll). A review of regulations in other cities indicates that this incompatibility is commonly recognized and the impetus for policy. Such policy also addresses the economic impact of low-intensity uses most common with trucking fums. These aze solutions in established practice. Staff recommends adding three definitions to the zoning code and making text modifications as follows. The modifications include new restrictions for certain facilities where associated huck traffic may have a negative impact on adjacent residential property. Definitions to Be Added Truck and Motor Freight Terminals. A facilit�with more than six (61 docks and more than one (1Zock per five thousand (5,000) square feet of wazehouse, storage, or related use and used for either (11 the loading, unloadin¢, dispensine, receivinE, interchan ig ne, ag thering, or otherwise nhvsicallv handling frei¢ht for shi�ment or (21 any other location at which freiEht is exchanged b�motor carriers between vehicles. This includes but is not limited to cross-dock operations and does not include a packaee deliverv service. Packaee Delivery Service. A business which transports packages and articles far ex�edited deliver,�primarily in single rear �le straieht trucks or smaller vehicles, where no single item w�hs over one hundred fifty (150) nounds. Excludes courier services. Loading dock. A laz�e buildin door primarily used for loadine/unloading items from trucks. The floor of a loadine dock door is raised above the truck ramp surface. This excludes bay doors which aze laree building doors throu¢h which vehicles can drive. Zoning Code Amendments For the following read the text formatting as: Insert, �erne�e, and staff comments/ explanation. Sec. 60.612. Principal uses permitted. [I-1} In an I-1 Industrial District the use of land, the location and erec6on of new buildings or siructures and the alteration, enlazgement and moving of existing buildings or structures from other locations or districts shall conform to the following specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this code: (3) Warehousing and wholesale establishments, . Page 6 of 13 b�-�� Sec. 60.614 [I-1] and 60.624 [I-2] Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. The following additional uses shall be pernutted subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use and subject to the standazds specified for all special condition uses as set forth in section 64.300(d). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the plauuing commission. (141 ContiQuous or otherwise connected structures within three hundred feet of a residentially zoned prope , except cemeteries, with seven (77 or more loadin¢ dock doors subiect to the following conditions: This new addition is to address a weakness within the code as it currently exists. Properry zoned I-1 is by defznition to have no impact on adjacent property owners, and property zoned I-2 as heavy industrial land is allowed to have uses that impact adjacent properties. The City of Saint Paul has industrial property that abuts residential land, and trucks in Zarge numbers can have a negative impact on adjacent uses including residential and commercial. Historically, trucks have not been defined as an activiry with negative impact on adjacent owners, but recent public testimony negates that premise. Furthermore, environmental impacts of signifzcant numbers of idling and moving trucks may spread beyond industrial land The first draft of this study recommended revisions to where large warehouses are aZlowed. Instead, Zooking at all uses where trucks are used is appropriate to solving the problem of incompatible uses. To set the standard for seven (7) or more docks as a threshold requiring a special condition use permit, staff conducted fzeld research and reviewed policies in other cities. Field research found that most industrial uses have relativelti few dock doors, most often less than five (S). Based on how other cities, especially Minneapolis, seek to hcxve their light industrial zone have no impact on adjacent properties, staff incorporated and modified the following standard. Warehousing buildings which by necessity have truck activity, are allowed in Minneapolis I-1 zones if the buildings are under 3Q 000 square feez While other industries use trucks, warehousing is dependent on it most intensely. Therefore, using 30, 000 square feet as a basis for defining heavy truck use not appropriate for I-1, and the standard set in the new "trucking terminal" definition proposed in this report (one dock per S, 000 square feet), a principle use allowed would be any building with szx (6) or fewer docks. The 300 foot inter-val was identified in three ways. First, the Zoning Code identifies 300 feet as an appropriate buffer between residential uses and outdoor storage. (Sec. 60.613(3) j Second, the Zoning code identifies 1, 000 feet as an appropriate distance for intermodal fi�eight yards which are generally both rail and truckfacilities (Sec. 60.624 (16)J. The noise ofsuch facilities is greater due to rail uses, therefore a shorter distance such as 300 feet seems appropriate for large buildings. Addi6ionally, staff believe that this distance diseourages devedopment of buildings with seven or more dock doors facing residential areas due to the loss of Zand to building space. Instead developers will be encouraged to meet the special conditions outlined Page 7 of 13 � a- �� below, thereby generating more intensive land use. � Noise impacts shall be mitieated to prevent excessive impact on residential lots within 300 feet. This mav include usin� the building as a sound barrier beriveen truck docks and residences bv aligning the structure close to lot lines. Staff believe that a building constructed with a solid wa11 near the street toward residential neighborhoods, and truck docks on the opposite side is an appropriate site design that shields residents fi�om much of the truck noise. Similarly, a solid wall functioning as a sound barrier can be constructed � Truck access to the properiv shall be directlYonto a desi¢nated truck route or onto the street at a rooint nearest to a desienated truck route. In some cases direct access to a designated truck route may not be available. Therefore, to limit truck traff c along residential streets, requiring the access point to be at the nearest Zocation to a truck route is appropriate. � Loading docks shall not face residentiallv zoned lots Loading docks are the source of most noise due to loading equipment and Zruck engine idling. Clearly, on some lots this may not be possible, and staff will note the limitation of the site in their reports. � The buildine and site sha11 be desi�ned and landscaped to be comnatible with adjacent properties. Sec. 60.614 Principal uses permitted subject to special conditions. [I-1 Industrial District] The following additional uses shall be permitted subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed for each use and subject to the standards specified for all special condition uses as set forth in section 64300(d). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission. (15) Packa¢e Deliverv Service Package Delivery Services are recommended to be a special condition use in order to be consistent with the Minneapolis Code. Sec. 60.624. Principal uses subject to special conditions [I-2 Industrial District]. The following additional uses shall be permitted [in an I-2 Industrial District], subject to the conditions hereinafter imposed far each use and subject to the standazds specified for a11 special condifion uses as set forth in section 64.300(c). All principal uses permitted subject to special conditions sha11 be reviewed and approved by the plamiing commission. 2�2 Truck and motor frei¢ht terminals Page 8 of 13 �-1� � Noise impacts shall be miti¢ated to grevent excessive im�act on zesidential lots within 300 feet. This mav include using the building as a sound barrier bv ali¢nin_g the structure close to lot lines. �b Truck access to properiv shall be directiv onto a desi�nated truck route. � The buildine and site shall be desiened and landscaped to be compatible with adjacent properties. Sec. 60.562. Principal uses perxnitted. In a B-5 Central Business-Service District the use of land, the location and erection of new buildings or structures, and the alteration, enlargement and moving of existing buildings or structures from other locations or districts shall conform to the following specified uses, unless otherwise provided in this code: (2) Wholesaling, warehousing, or storage «s� buildings, but excluding steel warehousing, storage of bulk petroleuxn or related products, and garbage, rubbish or junk. All material must be completely enclosed within a building. "Transfer buildings" are synonymous with terminals and therefore need to removed as a permitted xise in B-5. Imnact of Recommendations Terminal Definition cznd SCUP reguirements Five terminals were identified in Saint Paul based on staff research, though without hauing building dimensions, at least one of the sites may actually be a warehouse. All five would become non conforming uses if the proposed language is adopted. However, it is important to note that three of the five are surrounded by industrial ar commercial uses, and one site is completely self contained and isolated on two sides by natural barriers from the xesidential zone. The key impact of making these uses legally non-conforming is that for them to expand, two- thirds (2/3) of adjacent property owners must sign a petition in support of the enlargement. With similar uses surrounding most the identified terminals, staff anticipates a strong likelihood of securing needed signatures. By requiring any new terminals to locate in I-2 and to receive a special condition use permit, the likelihood of many new terminals being built in Saint Paul is diminished. SCUP for Buildings with more than 6 docks within 300 feet of residential zones Page 9 of 13 ��- 1�� Staff analyzed the impact of the proposed language by inspecting roughly I 15 non-residential buildings located within a 300 foot residential buffer. Only nine buildings had seven or moze docks. Of these nine, many had conditions that would allow them to receive a special condition use pemrit easily, including: • one warehouse with 22 doors is buffered from the residential neighborhood by a lazge hall; • one warehouse is buffered from residential uses by a half block of industrial buildings; • three buildings fall within the buffer because a pazk or cemetery, which are zoned residential, aze adjacent properties; • three buildings aze across a major street from residential zone and there is significant green-space buffering; additionally, two of these buildings do not have any docks facing residential uses. • one building has eight docks fairly near residential properiy, but four face toward industrial property. The impact of the proposed language would make these buildings legally non-conforming structures with conforming uses [62102(e)]. Buildings are allowed to expand so long as the expansion does not increase the non-conformity, ar the owner can apply for a variance. A variance does not require signatures of adjacent property owners. The key finding generated by this analysis is that most buildings aze designed to respect adjacent properties, and that adopting the recommended policy ensures this practice continues. Other Alternatives Considered Staff considered other alternatives including: 1. Distinguish trucking facilities by size, permitting only smaller ones in the I-1 district and larger ones in I-2. 2. Make trucking facilities a special condition use permitted in the I-1 zoning district with conditions that would include a specified distance from residentially-zoned property. Upon establishing a definition for trucking ternunals distinguishing it from wazehousing and other uses where trucks are accessory, staff believes that lumping all uses under "trucking facilities" is inappropriate. Trucking terminals are a distinct, low intensive use, with negative externalities that should be isolated from residenfial areas. Other businesses such as warehousing that use trucks as one part of their business should by right continue to locate throughout I-1 zoned areas, with regulations sufficient to mitigate possible impacts when near residential azeas. Page 10 of 13 � �� Recommendation The Planning Commission recommends amending the Zoning Code to inciude the definitions and modifications discussed above. Attachment: Appendix A- suiuinary of other ciries' codes Page 11 of 13 ��--1�� Append� A Regulations and definitions from other cities: Definitions Rochester, N.Y. Truck Terminal. Land and buildings used as a relay station for the transfer of a load from one vehicle to another or one parry to another. The terminal cannot be used for permanent or long- term accessory storage for principal land uses at other Zocations. The terminal facility may include storage areas for trucks and buildings or areas for the repair of trucks associated with the terminal. Fairf� 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 semitraiZers, including tractor andlor trailer units and other trucks, are parked or stored. Roseville. MN Motor Freight Terminal (Truck Terminal): A building in which fr�eight brought by motor truck is assembled and sorted for routing in intrastate and interstate shipment. (Ord. 275, 5-12-59) [Wholesale and warehousing uses are permitted in I-1 Light Industrial Districts. Motor Freight Terminals are not permitted in I-1 Light Industrial Districts but are first permitted as a conditional use in I-2 Genexal Industrial Districts.] Minne�olis. MN Motor Freight Terminal. A building or area in which freight is assembled or stored for routing in intrastate or interstate shipment primarily involving truck tractors and semitrailers, and which is not a package delivery seYVice. 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 sing7e item weighs over one hundred fifty (I50) pounds. Minneapolis Code A new Zoning Ordinance, in preparation for several yeazs, was adopted (fall) 1999 consideration by the Minneapolis City CounciL In this code, package delivery and motor freight terxninal uses, Page 12 of 13 8�-�`� as with all transportation uses, aze not permitted by right in any district, but aze conditional uses wherever they are allowed. Package delivery is fust permitted as a condiuonal use in the C4 General 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." A key component of the new zoning code was creation of the Il Light Industrial District, as part of a redefining the code from Manufacturing (M) to Industrial (I) classifications. This new district was created to protect residential areas, and was placed on the map where possible throughout the city to achieve this goal. Overall, most former manufacturing (Ml) land became I2. However there aze long-term existing trucking uses adjacent to residential azeas that were zoned as I2; a few firms were also made non-conforming uses within the new I1 district. The stated purpose of the Il Light Industrial District is: The II Light Industrial dist�ict is established to provide clean, attractive locations for low impact and technology-based Zight industrial uses, reseczrch and development, and similar uses tivhich produce little or no noise, odor, vibration, glare or other objectionable influences, and have little or no adverse effect on surroundingproperties. (550.190 draft) Motor Freight Terminals are allowed as conditional uses in the I2 Medium and I3 General Industrial Districts. They are not permitted in the I1 Light Industrial District. Other uses with which truck hauling is associated are restricted in size in the Ii Light Industrial District Warehousing and distribution; furniture moving ancl storage. (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 of gross floor area. (Can be increased by conditional use permit.) (550.230) Factors specifically identified for consideration when increased floor area is requested include: 1) proximity to residential uses; 2) screening and landscaping of truck parking and loading area; and 3) location of truck routes and amount of truck tr�c. Stated purpose of the I2 Medium Industrial District (in which motor freight terminals are first allowed) The 72 Medium Industrial District is established to provide locations for medium industrial uses and other^ specific uses which have the potential to produce greater amounts of no%se, odor, vfbration, glare or other objectionable influences than uses allowed in the II District and which may have an adverse effect on surrounding properties. K.\Shared\Spoonhe�\Truckmg�report2_3_OO.wpd Page 13 of 13 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNMG & ECONOMIC DEVHIAPMENT Brran Siveeney, Director CITY OF SAIN"I' PAUL Norm Coleman,�Nayor To: Saint Paul Planning Commission From: Joel Spoonheim, Planner Date: 2 February 2000 25 West Fourlh Street Saint P¢ul, M.V iJ /0? Re: Written comment on Tnxcking Facilities Zoning Study �D-1� Telephone: 631-266-66» Facsimile: 651-228-331 d Please see the attached written comments submitted on the Tnxcking Facilities Zoning Study. They include comments from: Steve Wellington - Wellington Management Inc. Paul Knapp - Space Center Joe Meyer - JLT Group Cathy Nordin St. Anthony Park Community Council K �Shared\Spoonhei\7mckmg\comment memo.wpd --------- - -- Joel Spoonheim - Trucking land use issue V ' �� 4 Page 1 �a-1� From: Steve Wellington <swellingtan@WELLINGTONMGT.COM> To: "'joel.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us"' �joel.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 1 /3/00 321 PM Subject: Trucking land use issue 1 would like to provide information regarding the trucking land use issue now under consideration by the Planning Comission and the City Council. I feel strongly that the City Council needs to act to ensure that good land use prevails in the Midway area of St. Paul. While trucking uses have always been a major user of industrial space in this portion of St. Paui, several recent changes in the economics of Midway-area development require careful consideration: 1. The Midway area is currently a very strong market 4or both o�ce space and retail space. Projects such as Midway Marketplace, Court International, Energy Technology Center, Spruce Tree Center and 1919 University Ave. have demonstrated the area's economic development potential. Traditionai uses such as secondary retailing, car dealerships and older manufacturing uses are giving way to a more intense and productive set of land uses. 2. This natural evolution, which is very beneficial for St. Paul's tax base and employment is under pressure from the north. The City of Roseville is aggressively attempting to relocate the many trucking frims that have been based in that City. This city is using substantial tax increment financing doilars to attract new single level office and office/showroom facilities to these older trucking areas. Simply driving along 35w north of Highway 36 will provide clear physical evidence of the impact of this planning. This effort will continue, since Roseville intends for a major upgrade in land uses along County Road C, west of the Byerleys retail center. Large development firms like Opus and Ryan have made substantial recent investments on these older trucking sites.The trucking firms which require a central location to meet their distribution needs have to go somewhere. The Midway is a naturaf choice fos their relocation. Roseville has got a good plan and has been quite successful with its implementation. Their tax base is going to go up (at least after all the tax increment subsidy is re-paid). Their community already has much higher employment density and a more hi-tech amenity-tech appearance as a result of this plan. St. Paul needs to compete effectively with this community and make sure the Midway area continues to prosper. 3. Minneapolis is also going to put pressure on the Midway area. Minneapolis' traditional lackluster industrial development program has recently gotten lots more effective. The Southeast Minneapolis Industrial District (SEM{) is gradually getting organized. This 300 acre (?) redevelopment district is already attracting big-time office developers like CSM to make major changes in older industrial, railroad and trucking-related uses. A drive west on Kasota, west of Highway 280 can easily confirm the nature of this plan. Unfortunately, this area is just starting to blossom. Minneapolis will be putting a large amount of the under-developed land in this area on the market in the next 3-5 years Successful, growing Midway area businesses will be prime targets for the space that will become availa6le in this area. To deai with these competitive pressures, St Paul needs the land and �---- ---- --- - - - - ------- --- _ . .____ __. ---- E Joef Spoonheim - Trucking land use issue Page 2 i�. _� «�--- -`- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - �-=-= - - ------ 8�-1� buildings necessary to provide the room needed for expanding Midway-area businesses. Last year a prime 62 acre site on Energy Park Drive came up for auction in a bankruptcy court proceeding. This site could easily have accomodated a major new office facility. Most observers felt that this land and the older, deteriorated empty truck terminal on it would lead to a value of $1.� - 1.4 million. Unfortunately, Koch Trucking from Roseville purchased the property for $22 million, well above any market price for such industrial property. Koch Trucking has since invested a substantial sum in upgrading the facility. They are a good company with a strong track record. The old truck terminal certainiy looks a lot better. I do not begrudge Koch Trucking its needs for a new facility. I do object to St. Pauf getting Roseville's undesireable industrial uses. I also object to the very limited land use that a 60,000 s.f. truck terminal has for a 6.2 acre site. When the Port Authority develops a new industrial park it sets standards for employment and building density. A 62 acre site should accomodate an o�ce and production facility of 80,000 - 100,000 s.f. with overall employment of at least 200. This is simply not what occurs with a 60,000 s.f. warehouse and truck terminal. If one drives around St. Paul's Midway area, you can find numerous sites where a small warehouse building is surrounded by a huge expanse of asphalt and many, many parked semi-trailer trucks. St. Paul should not deliberately try to eliminate these uses. The Mldway will always be a warehousing and distribution center for the Twin Cities. But we need Yo change the current situation where our I-1 zoning code provides a big green light to trucking uses migrating from otner areas. The Midway sould be the office headquarters for these firms not the spot where aff the unwanted uses congregate. St. Paul's traditional response to these market pressures has been to rely on the considerable skills and financiaf muscle of the St. Paul Port Autority. During the past 20 years, the Port has provided excellent leadershp in Midway-area industrial redevelopmentwith its Westgate, Energy Park and Midway Industrial Parks. Today, however, the Port is totally out of Midway-area industrial property. Worse yet, there is no Midway-area Port Authority project even on the drawing board. The Port has #argeted Shepard Road, the Phalen Corridor and the Maxson Steel area for its efforts during the next 3-5 years. These are excellent projects, but this means that the strongest market in St. Paul for small business and industrial expansion will have nothing to offer in the short-term. Without aggressive intervention, growing idway-area businesses will certainly be lost to other areas. An excellent shost-term so4ution would be for the C+ty to co�sider changes to the zoning code that would encourage more appropriate industrial uses. These changes would not only benefit the Midway, they would also help industrial and smali business investment city-wide. I urge the Planning Comission and the City Councii to aggressively investigate and act on this issue. +-s�-oo;++:z�aM;space center,inc ;o� o�ns�c� _ < < � CE SS�A SPACE CENTER`� January 31 zooa Cicy of Saint Paul Ptanning Commission c/o Mr. )oel Spoonheim City of St. Paul Planning & Economic Development 1100 City Hall Annex 2S West 4� Street St. Paul, M1�i 55102 Dear Planning Cominission: VIA FAX: (G51} 228-3314 1 am writing to expzess my company's support for P�n's proposed zoning code amcndments regazding trnck terminals. o o—�� Space Center owns the building generally known as the Pillsbury Pood Testing Pacility on Pelham and Franldin in ehe Midway. Space Center also owns wazehouse facilities across the country. We recommend that d1e Planning Commission encourage the highest and best uses of property in the Midway. The Commission should encourage office and retaiI uties as oppo�ed to industrial uscs: thc Commission should spccifically discourage die constrvction or operation uf trucl: terminal facilities. 1'ruck termintils constitute low density, low employment use of property and generally inhibit the development of residenual, office and retail development. I furthcr recomnZend that the Commission aggzessively encourage the redevelopment of existing older industrial properties in the Ivlidway to office and retail uses. Yours tnily, Spxce Center, Ine. � Paul R. 1Cnapp Sei�ior Vice Preszdent SPACE CENTER, INC. 2507 CI0v212f,tl AvenuO NORh ! SI PaUI, MN 55173d717 Telephon: (651) 604-4200/ Facsimile: (651) 604-4222 61(28/2606 16:21 6516411244 JLT GROUP rHUt n�iG� �.�/LTGROu P 1NC. 739 Vandalia Street • St. Paul, MN 55114 MEMORANAUM '�O: FROIVI: DAT�: SYIBJECT: Joel Spoonheim Joe 11�eysr January 27, 2000 Trucking Facilttfes Study ��-� (651) B41-1111 • (651) 641-7244 F�c We appreciate your efforts regarding the above-refezenced study. We flave revzewed the draft dated January 7, 2000 and we have the following comments: 1. I£ the number of 48" high truck doors is the dete�mining factor as to whefher a facility is deemed a"trucking terminal," then the ratio you propose (i dock per 5000 square feet; 1:5000) is unworkable. Clearly there are facilities with a greater than 1:5000 dock zatio that aze not truck teLmiaals and do not have the type of traffic that a truck terminal creates. With that in mind, the ratio should be 1:1000. 2. A 1:5000 ratio would immediately eliminate any business that uses a dock and occupies less than 5,000 square feet. 3. As noted in your study, a true truck terminal is a 60' wide building with truck doors on both sides. These faciliries have a ratio of appzoximately 1:300 or 1:400. This fuzther demonstrates that the detei�nining ratio should b l:1000. We understand the dilemma of defining a hvck terminal, but it is cleaz that a 1:5000 ratio will not work. joc25St cpoo�heimmzmo �_. _ _. _ -T � Joel Spoonheim - Trucking Facility Zoning Study Page 1 �._ __ _,�_ _ _..__== . - -- . . __ � � o-�� From: Cathy Nordin <cathy.n@wcla.com> To: <joef.spoonheim@ci.stpaul.mn.us> Date: 1/28/00 9:37AM Subject: Trucking Facility Zoning Study Saint Paul Planning Commission Attn: Joel Spoonheim 1 have read through your proposed Zoning Amendments and would like to follow up on a couple issues. First The definition of "Package Delivery Service" is identical to the New Minneapolis Zoning Code but there is a flaw in this definition. 1 have been recently working with a dient "DHL Wor{d Wide International Express" They compete with Fed Ex, UPS .......etc. They are most known with the international business world so some of us don't know who or what they are. They almost fit the defin+tion you have on the table but - They do take packages over 150 pounds. DHL has two buildings in the twin cities, one in Eagan and one in Mpls. They service building receive 2 to 3 packages a week that are between 150 to 600 pounds. This would exclude them from this Definition even though they fit all the other peramiters. They have 2 dock doors for 12,000 s.f. of warehouse space. All there packages under 150 Ibs are transported in standard �ord ar chivy full size vans, not even the step vans that UPS uses. In our Mpls facility there will not be any semi trailers even bringing the packages from the airport. because of the site restrictions in turning space. We will use only 24 ft long trucks. Mpls also requires a"Conditional Use Permit" for a Package Delivery Service in all the 11, 12 and 13 zones in Chapter 550 and also has Specific Development Standards for them in Chapter 536. I think this, on top of your 300 ft. separation can give St. Paul control over whaYs happening. Second I do see a problem with Sec. 60.612 (3) the 300 feet is measured from the exterior wall of the bldg. to the nearest residential lot line. OK IeYs think about this. A lot line typically has a sidewalk and blvd. before the street. than we have the street width - lets say iYs a major road like Rice St. or Como Ave. two lanes traffic each way and parking both sides -( Joel please get curb to curb width for the committee) Than add the sidewalk and blvd. in than your finally to their property line. Now we can begin to add into the distance on their own Iand. they need -length of truck plus 10 feet to maneuver the truck. � Joel Spoonheim - Trucking F acilit y Zoning Study Y '� Page 2 _ _ .._ , __ w _ . __ � --`-`-==- = - -- - — -the length of truck plus 5 feet to park the truck. -this adds up to '125 feet for a standard semi trailer on their property plus the street right of way and your almost at the 300 ft. now three hundred feet may seem like enough but I warn you. Once iYs written i� the code they find a way to comQly and come. be careful. I would consider the SCUP to allow any trucking in 11, 12, or 13 zones. f wanted to bring this to your attention because you have a chance to write your zoning ordinance correctly and do a betterjob than Minneapolis did. I bet you thought you heard the last from me. No way. I miss you guys. Thank you, Cathy Nordin A.I.A. � �.�bK� CC: gladys morton <gladysmort@aoLcom> Jan �� u� ud:aip on;�� t�� .. �.. �i:�*�!i 60- St. Anthony Park Community Council - Ioel Spoonheim, Pianner St Paul Planning Commission 1400 City Hatl Annex 25 W.Fourth St St Pau� MN. 55102 January 27, 2000 Joel: The St Aiuhony Park Community Council (SAPCC) strongly supports cl�az�ges to the St Paul Zoning Code to define Truck and Motoc Fieight Temiinals and to limit theu location We believe tt�at reshictions on truck termi�als within City limits should be as stringent, if not more stringent, than the suburbs sutrounding St Paul. Our district includes a large amount of industcial land, andthe impaas af the industrial use on adjacent residenval properties have been a major concem since the Community Council was first cteated in 1976. We recoguze the necessity of indushial property in the ciEy, and one-third af our Community Council is made up of business people from our azea Our concems aze with mitigaiing any neg�iive impacts tHat result from the close proximity af industrial and residential uses. We believe the proposed changes fo fhe Zoning Code ihaf we 2iave reviewed (Trucldng Facitity Zoning Study Draft dated 1/7/00) to lunit Truck Terminals to I2 mnes will help mitigate the impacts tl�at the ternunals themselves have on residential areas Likewise, the proposed changes adding conditions to large wazehouse facilities ne� residenrial areas should he2p mitigyte the impacts these buildings would have on nearby residences. We do have some concems that the proposed changes do not provide adequate tools to prevent ne�tive impact to residenual, educational institutions �d business azeas by large volumes of truck traffic. We believe that ]arge volumes of truck traffic can be detrimemal to business azeas u wefl as residentiai azeas and educaziona! institutions These negptive unpacts aze �e to noise, truck vibrations, and pollution. The noise from Rucks traveling along our roads and using jake brakes is disniptive to residents, students, artd businesses alike. The fumes enutted by diesel Wcks add to an already high level of air pollution, increasing healih problems for residents, students, and employees o£businesses. Pedestrian safety is aiso a concem in all areas af the community whether residtntial or commercial in nahue. Because these imgac[s occur ouuide af [he invnediate area af the truck temrinal facility, the siting af such facilities should take into consideration in regards to how the trucks access the facility. If it is not possible to access the facility without going through residential or business azeas then the location may not be appropriate, no matter wliai tl�e mne or how many feet it is from a residential azea It seems ro us that permitting a uucldng facility, or large vrarehouse facility with high levels af truck �c, should always be conditional on the abiliry of the bvcks to access the facility without traveling tivough a residential ar business area St.�} thony�j Commwvty uncil l;Q�lL�. N�!�fL�f.kti Carol Madison Hxecutive Director CC: City Council Membeis Mayor Norm Coleman 890 Cromwell Avenue, Saint Pauf, Minnesov SStt4 •> 651/649-5992 voice •: 65t/649-5943 fax �o-��Y � Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 28, 2000, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Also Present: I. Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Engh, Fazicy, Geisser, McCall, and Morton and Messrs. Corbey, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Geroais, Gordon, Kong, Kramer, Mara lies, Nowlin and Shakir. Messrs. *Johnson and *Mardell *Excused Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Virginia Burke, Tom Harren, Danette Moore, Richelle Nicosia, Joel Spoonheim, and James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. Approval of Minutes of January 14, 2000 The minutes of January ]4, 2000 will be on the February 11, 2000 agenda. II. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton announced that Matt Anfang has been appointed to the Planning Commission by the Mayor and is on the CiTy Council agenda for next Wednesday. The Steering Committee talked about the annual meeting and the annual report. Jim Zdon and Allan Tarstenson aze working on the report. The annual meeting according to the by-laws should be held by February. Since new members haven't been appointed yet, we may consider postponing the annual meeting until after appoinhnents aze made. The Steering Committee also discussed a letter from Councilmember Pat Hatris asking for the Ford Mall parking ramp hearing be postponed. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved that we lay over the previously scheduled site plan review of the Ford Mall parking ramp until the Zoning Comminee meeting of March l6. Councilman Harris is requesting a layover because, being new in the office, he would like to have ertra time to consult with the community in preparation for thatpublic hearing. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair Morton announced that the River Corridor Design Wark Group will be starting � �� their meetings sometime in February. Commissioner Faricy will be chairing the River Corridor Design Work Group and Steve Gordon will also be attending. Commissioner Field announced that the Advertising Sign Committee had a meeting on Tuesday and concluded its work with respect to reconciling the conflicts that existed within the recommendations received from the Legislative Advisory Committee on advertising signs. The Planning Commission Committee's recommendations will be contained in a report and ordinance drafts which Mr. Soderholm will be working on. Hopefully, this report will be prepared by February 11 to set a public heazing. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Soderholm reported that the Metro Council has completed a preliminary review of the Comprehensive Plan and sent him comments. They held up their review until the City developed more detailed data on sewer flows. The City Council adopted the rezoning of 550 Concord and the two special sign districts for the West Side and Snelling-Hamline. At the discussion of the special sign districts, Councilmember Benanav said that if new citywide regulations on advertising are approved that satisfy the neighborhood concerns, he is willing to reconsider the need for special sign districts. The City Council also approved a resolution authorizing the staffto apply for DNR planning funds for the Trout Brook Greenway. It would connect along the west side I- 35E and down to the lower Phalen Corridor. About three months ago this Commission asked staff to develop a proposal for a 40-acre study that would include the Trillium site and the proposed Greenway. StafFthinks that a planning step is going to be more successful than a 40-acre study. The application to the DNR is for $20,000 to be matched by $20,000 of City staff time. Finally, Mr. Soderholm announced that District 1 has requested establishment of a temporary special sign district until the new sign regulations are adopted. Since the Advertising Sign Study started, two billboards have been approved in District 1, which is one of the neighborhoods that had not previously asked for a temporary special sign district. IV. PUBLIC HEARING: Truck Facilities Zoning Study (Joel Spoonheim -266-6614) Chair Morton read the rules and procedures for public hearings. Mr. Joe] Spoonheim spoke on the Trucking Facility Zoning Study. When the study began, one issue was identified, when infact, there are two: 1) truck terminals with intense trucking uses that are being phased out of cities around us and 2) the broader issue of using zoning codes to address incompatible land uses nea�t to each other. ao��f DRAFT In recent yeazs, cities around Saint Paul have made intentional redevelopment plans that have focused on utilizing land to create more jobs. These redevelopment plans have created trucking terminal policies that aze forcing terminals to relocate. Being that Saint Paul is located in the center of the metropolitan region, it is seen as an ideal location for distribution. Mr. Spoonheim showed an overhead of recent industrial land prices. Many of the values fall within a$2.00 per sq. fr. range (highly contaminated land prices were not included). In contrast, the two truck terminals included on the list were bid at $4.51 and $6.52 per sq. ft. Mr. Spoonheim noted that truck terminal firms are willing to pay higher than the mazket rate for industrial land. Mr. Spoonheim stated that PED staff had driven every street of industrial land in Saint PauL In doing so, they found that there is a lot of underutilized industrial land, but limited vacant land. Other than land held by the Port Authority, the City has no way of knowing who is bidding to buy industrial land. Currently, there is a demand for industrial land that the Port Authority controls. However, it remains unclear as to whether this is true for all industrial land in Saint Paul. Mr. Spoonheim stated that trucking terminals should be classified as a specific use. The draft language has been modified to include a new definition that staff recommends adding to the zoning code. The primary definition focuses on the terminals function, to move freight from one semi trailer to another with minimal storage. Mr. Spoonheim added that terminals are usually a stopping point along the way where a truck full of product is disbursed to 15 or more trucks that then take the goods out to small towns, or less major metropolitan areas. One of the key challenge is defining the difference between a warehouse and truck terminal. They both have large numbers of trucks and big buildings. Mr. Spoonheim stated that he made contact with six of the warehouse developers in the area to determine how much storage space is uCilized per loading dock. Ten years ago, the standard in the industry for building a warehouse was one dock per 10,000 sq. ft. Today, the standard is one dock per 6,000 sq. ft., and it is moving toward one dock per 5,000 sq. fr. The shift is a result of our economy fuctioning under a"just in time" delivery framework. Companies do not wish to spend money storing goods. In acknowledging the need for trucks, the proposed language is written to support the indushy and conform with the ration of one loading dock per 5,000 sq. ft. Terminals typically have a large quantiTy of doors. They have at least seven, and usually more than fifteen. It is difficult to determine a standard number because of various sized terminals. The draft language states that a terminal is a building with more than six docks and has a ratio of one dock per 5,000 sq. fr. The Minneapolis code states that heavy trucking uses are allowed in light industrial land, if the warehouse is under 30,000 sq.ft. Mr. Spoonheim presented slides showing the difference between trucking terminals and 3 a� -`�� DRAFT non-terminal structures. Mr. Spoonheun outlined staff recommendations that include a pmposed defmition for trucking terminals and require a Special Condition Use Permit on heavy industrial land (I-2). In addition, stafFrecommends adding conditions that mitigate noise, direct truck traffic to designated routes, and design sites to provide compatibility with adjacent landuses. Mr. Spoonheim reviewed the five trucking terminals located in Saint Paul: the Koch terminal in Energy Park, Ovemite Express on Pellum, Midland, Case Distribution Center, and the United States Post Office. All five terminals aze located in I-1 zoning districts and would become non-conforming uses. By requiring all new terminals to locate on I-2 land, the City will be creating a similar policy to what surrounding communities have incorporated. Commissioner Field asked if truck terminals create more jobs than wazehouses. Mr. Spoonheim briefly outlined the Port Authorities employment standazds and stated that no terminal has ever qualified. However, Mr. Spoonheim added that most terxninals are Teamster facilities and typically pay $18 per hour, plus benefits. Commissioner Shakir asked Mr. Spoonheim how he classifies intermodal sites in the neighborhoods. Mr. Spoonheim responded that intermodal use is defined within the code and require 1,000 feet distance from a residential neighborhood. The trucking study is not intended to address intermodal sites. Commissioner Nowlin clazified definitions 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Spoonheim responded that the definitions were written to allow flexibility far LIEP staff. Commissioner Gordon questioned whether the Minnesota Statue distinguishes between truck terminals and warehouse facilities. In addition, Commissioner Gordon asked if there are any studies that analyze the number of jobs that are related to each type of activity permitted in I-1 or I-2 zones. Mr. Spoonheim responded that he was not aware of statue definitions for truck terminals and warehouses. He also added, that the Director of Research at the State Department of Labor had confirmed that the level of detail needed in tracking labor statistics for this purpose was unavailable. Commissioner Gordon stated concerns related to staff conclusions that trucking terminals take up a lot of land and don't generate many jobs. He also stated concems regarding the ainount of traffic visiting a warehouse versus a truck terminal. Mr. Spoonheim responded that there can be a correlation between the number of docks and the amount of traffic. Typically, terminals have higher traffic flows than warehouses because the freight is brought in and then sent out within 24 hours. Mr. Spoonheim stated that the second issue of the study is meant to deal with trttcks verses adjacent land uses. Mr. Spoonheim acknowledged that this was a difficult issue ao �� DRAFT due to trucks being fundamental to the economy. However, they do have an impact on adjacent properties. They can impact commercia] as well as residential. Their impact has two issues: 1) when they drive by and 2) when they aze sitting and idling. If trucks aze cutting through residential nei�hborhood and taking shortcuts, that is an enforcement issue. However, the issue of trucks sitting and idling is an issue where the code can play a roll in mitigating. The proposal states that businesses on industrial land or buildings on industrial land that aze within 300 feet of residential land and that have seven or more docks need to have a SCUP (Special Condition Use Permit). The 300 foot spacing between terminals and residential uses is to allow for a buffer, as is the case in spacing for outdoor storage and residential uses. The code also states that 1,000 feet is the appropriate spacing for intermodal yazds and residential uses. It is felt that truck terminals are less intensive than the intermodal yards. The four recommendations are: 1) Tum the trucking building perpendiculaz to the sh with the loading dock at the far end of The building. Build a sound barrier between the end of the building and the street nearest the residential area. Another option is tQ put the building between the lrucks and the residential azea, using the building as a sound buffer and locating the trucks at the back of the building. 2) Truck access on the property should be directly onto a designated truck route or onto the street at the nearest point to a designated truck route. 3) Loading docks should not face residential zoned lots. 4) Buildings being built with seven of more docks need a SCUP. Commissioner Field questioned Mr. Spoonheim on why the docks weren't being built similar to bays, with the abiliry Por trucks to pull within an enclosure that will mitigate perceived undesirable activity. Mr. Spoonheim responded that he didn't consider that possibility. Mr. Spoonheim suggested that it is likely an economic choice and suggested that Commissioner Field direct the question to someone in the industry. Commissioner Margulies asked to refer to a previous trucking terminal layout and if the docks could be moved laterally to the right under this scenario? Mr. Spoonheim responded that they could. In talking with the people in LIEP the intention of this proposal language would be clearly to discourage that and through site plan review that would not be allowed. The office space would be required to be up nea�t �o-�Y� �� to the building. It's a matter of creating a sound barrier because not every lot is going to contain enough frontage to contain the building and the City wants to create another opportunity and this is what this tries to do. Commissioner Mara lies responded that requirements make a great deal of sense. He added that Mr. Spoonheim has efFectively found a way to in vazious configurations. However, Commissioner Margulies suggested tightening up the configurations to avoid situations where the sound barrier is not effective. Commissioner Mazgulies noted that he realizes that the trade-off is less efficient in the use of land. Mr. Soderholm stated that if the terminal falls within 300 feet of residential properry there would be a conditional use. It would require a special conditional use pennit. The issue of dock placement would be open for discussion at the Planning Commission meetings. It would then become a matter of site plan review. Commissioner Gordon questioned if the 300 foot spacing is measured from the residential lot line to the loading dock. Commissioner Gordon added that he thought it should be measured from the residential lot line to the trucking terminal building. Mr. Spoonheim clarified that the 300 foot separation would not be for trucking terminals. Rather, trucking terminals within a I-2 zone would be required to have a SCUP. The 300 foot separation is for all intense trucking uses with seven or more loading docks. The separation is from the dock to the residential lot line. 1. Ms. Lorrie Louder, Director of Industrial Development from the Saint Paul Port Authority, addressed the Commission. Ms. Louder stated that the Saint Paul Port Authorities mission is to maximize job creation on industrial pazcels in Saint Paul while providing business retention. Their statutory charge is to provide redevelopment of industrial land that is blighted and under utilized. They try to make the best economic decisions for Saint Paul by bringing in the best manufacturing and industrial companies that can offer the best quality products and employment opporiunities. Over the past thirty-five years, they have created fifteen business parks which provide two-thirds of Saint Paul's cominercial and industrial tas base. 2. Kathy Gravlun, 582 West Minnehaha, addressed the Commission. Ms. Gravlun is a resident that lives directly across from the Cobra IntermodaUBurlington Northem Property. Ms. Gravlun stated that her main purpose in attending the public hearing is to convey how the trucks at this faciliTy impact her family and neighbors. Starting at approximately 730 am. each day, the trucks start coming in, loading andJor unloading, then leaving. Ocassionally, trucks are waiting to get in at 5:30 a.m. and often times, trucks are arriving and leaving the Bwlington Northern parking lot between 11:00 to 12:00 pm. With this type of activity in the neighborhood, they are sunounded with air pollution, noise, and dust These nuisances greatly impact the residents even more so in the summer season when windows aze open. There is also ffaffic congestion because of ��-�� the number of trucks in the azea. Ms. Gravlun feels that if she were able to sell her properry, the value would hazdly be equitable. Ms. Crravlun finds the truck activity to be mentally disturbina and havina a direct negative impact on her neighborhood. 3. Eleanor Strantz, 584 West Minnehaha, addressed the Commission. Ms. Strantz stated that she suppods all of the comments stated by Ms. Gravlun. Ms. Strantz added that the trucks that arrive around midnight are most disturbing because of the truck lights that shine directly into her bedroom. 4. Richazd Murphy, Jr., President of Murphy Wazehouse Co., Como Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mr. Murphy stated that he was impressed with Mr. Spoonheim's presentation and feels that his recommendations for truck terminals and trucking facilities are positive. Whether you have a distribution center, wazehouse, or manufacturing facility, there is going to be truck tra�c. Mr. Murphy stated that his company successfully uses both building layouts: wazehouses with loading docks on the back of the building, and warehouses placed perpendicular to residentia] structures(sound walls may be necessary). Mr. Murphy supports truck terminals/wazehouse facilities in I-2 zones. However, Mr. Murphy added that with certain mitigating tools, they could work in an I-1 zone. Mr. Murphy suggested that each application be looked at for specific cases, versus relying on the land use classification for guidance. Mr. Murphy stated that location is everything, consequently, distance drives up the cost to all consumers. Truck terminals and warehouses need to be within reasonable distance to their customers. 5. Mike Koch, Gazsten Perenial Management and Metro Planes Development, 1919 University Avenue, addressed the Commission. Mr. Koch explained to the Commission his frustrations regarding the trucking faciliry that occupies the land nea�t doar to his building. He feels that trucks offer a challenge to adjacent commercial buildings and noted specific problems with the newer (lazger) trucks not fitting the older trucking facilities. 6. Nell McClug, Progressive Management Investments, 1821 University Avenue, addressed the Commission. Ms. McClug states that her partnership owns over one-half million squu�e feet in the Midway area. Even though her company does not experience the adverse effects that Mr. Koch's company does, she says they still experience the noise, increase in traffic, and congestion. 7. Todd Iverson, Representing the Minnesota Trucking Association, 2515 Wabasha Avenue, Suite 150, addressed the Commission. Mr. Iverson stated that he wished to make two points: 1)that everything comes at a cost and 2)the truck industry has located in the Midway area because it is mid-way between the two cities. Mr. Iverson stated that he appreciated Mr. Spoonheim wanting input from the Minnesota Trucking Association while he was preparing his report. Mr. Iverson feels that Mr. Spoonheim's recommendations are a"rational compromise", and that any new trucking facilities should build with the loading docks facing away. He feels that this would be a �_lb'� DRAFT smart landuse and any trucking facility policy that should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Iverson concluded by saying that all products used by consumers aze brought to us by trucks. Truck facilities wish to be good neighbors and want the capacity to do business in an efficient and profitable way. MOTION: Coinmi.ssion Faricy moved to close the public hearing and move it to the Neighborhood and Current Planning Cornminee; Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. V. Zoning Committee West Side Citizens Oreanization (WSCOI - Special sign district for all areas of Saint Paul on the west bank of the Mississippi River except those areas included iu the Smith Avenue Special Sign District (Nancy Homans 266-6557) Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid over and will have the results at a later date. Snelling-Hamline Communitv Council - Special sign district for Snelling-Hamline Community Council Area (Nancy Hamans 266-6557) Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid over and will have the results at a later date. #99-179-377 Dr. Irving Herman Trust - Rezoning from RM-3 to I-1 for an auto sales, auto body and auto repair shop at 2336 Territorial Road, SW corner Territorial and Carleton (James Zdon 266-6559) MOTION: Commission Gervais moved the staff recommendation to deny rezoning of the auto sales, auto body and auto repair shop at 2336 Territorial Road, it is not consistent wilh the Comprehensive Plan. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. #99-179-560 Robert Scott Stern - Enlargement of a nonconforming use permit to convert the attic into living space and enlarge the two second- floor one bedroom unit into three-bedroom units at 1696 W. Minnehaha, SE Corner Minnehaha and Aldine(JoelSpoonheim 266-6614) MOTION: Commissioner Gervais moved approval of the enlargement of a nonconforming use permit to convert the attic into living space and en[arge the two second-floor, one-bedroom units into three-bedroom units at I696 W. Minnehahtt The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. � � VL Comprehensive Planning Committee Commissioner Geissec reported that their next meeting will be on Tuesday, Fe6mary 1, tp complete the transit issue. She also commented on the Firstar Bank block and emphasized the importance of major issues and how important it is for the Planning Commission's involvement in the decision making process at the front end and not and the back end of a project. VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee No Report. VIII. Communications Committee Commissioner ponnelly-Col�en reported that two staff people have been assigned to the annual report for 1499. IX. Task Force Reports Commissioner ponnelly-Colien reported that the Brewery/Ran-View Task Force has finished its work and the draft was approved by the group last Tuesday. Next they will set up a community meeting, and after that a design process. Commissioner Gordon reported on the next cycle of small Star Grants, $20,000 or less, will have an orientation session on Wednesday, February 2, at the Hillcrest Recreation Center, 1978 Ford Pazkway. This will be the start of the next cycle, applications will be due sometime in February or March. There is now a procedure for large grants ar loans to be considered any time during the yeaz if there aze reasons for immediate consideration. X. Old Business No Report. XI. New Business No RepoR. XII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:26 a.m Recorded and prepazed by o �, � �� DRAFT Richelle Nicosia, Planning Commission Secretary Planning and Economic Development Department, City of Saint Paul Respectfully submitted, Larry Soderholm Planning Administrator Approved (Date) 7ennifer Engh Secretary of the Planning Commission \planningUni�utes.frm 10 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nomi Co[eman, .Lfa}'or February 7, 2000 To: Saint Paul Planning Commission SAINT PAUL BUSiNESS REVIEW COUNCIL O � �` � Randy Geller, Chair doOFFlCEOFLIEP Telephane:65f-266-9090 Suite 300 Fauimile: 651-266-9114 350 St. Peter Streef Saint Pau( Minnuota 55/0?-1�10 Saint Paul City Council � Fr: Randy Geller, Saint Paul Business Review Council (BRC) Chair � �� Re: Proposed Trucking Facilities Zoning Study The Business Review Council (BRC) voted to support the Tn�cking Facilities Zoning Study and the proposed revisions (dated January 27) at its February 3 meeting. Joel Spoonheim, a PED planner and staff to the Planning Commission, presented the information and addressed BRC questions and concems. BRC members emphasized that while they support the Su�dy, they still oppose the use of moratoriums as a means to craft city policy and that moratoriums send a"closed for business" message to anyone who does or wants to do business in Saint PauL The BRC voted to support the Stzrdy because they believe it is a fair compromise that balances both business interests and neighborhood/residential concerns. The BRC also unanimously approved a motion to request that PED staff continue to monitor this issue. The motion requests that PED staff conduct a follow-up study in approximately 24 months that reviews the impact of the new legislation and �vhether or not the needs of businesses that depend on trucking facilities are being met adequately. Many members believe that the core cities have an obligation to provide trucking facilities and that the cost of goods for consumers will rise if the trend to push trucking facilities to locations farther from population centers is continued. In addition, PED staff have not examined either the potential need for trucking facilities (based on Saint Paul's and the entire metro region's size and population) or the number of land acres that will be available for future trucking facilities under the proposed definitions and revisions. The BRC believes that trucking facilities are a vital part of Saint Paul's business environment and that additional research is required to determine the appropriate ratio of trucking facilities needed to serve Saint Paul and the metro region and whether or not the proposed legislation, if implemented, will have an adverse impact on Saint Paul's trucking indushy in particular and commerce in general. Please contact me with any questions or concems. You can reach me at 651-222-8971. c: Mayor Norm Coleman Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor Joel Spoonheim, PED Saint Paul Business Review Council