Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-10-20 PC Packet Meeting is also available on Comcast Ch. 16 and streaming via maplewoodmn.gov AGENDA CITY OF MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 20, 2020 7:00 PM Held Remotely Via Conference Call Dial 1-888-788-0099 or 1-312-626-6799 When Prompted Enter Meeting ID: 978 1017 3414# No Participant ID, Enter # When Prompted A. Call to Order B. Roll Call C. Approval of Agenda D. Approval of Minutes 1. September 15, 2020 E. Public Hearing 1. 7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit and Home Occupation License Resolution, Home- Based Lawn Care Business with Storage of Commercial Vehicles, 821 Bartelmy Lane North 2. 7:00 p.m. or later: Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance Resolution, Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Storage Lot, 2999 Highway 61 F. New Business 1. Proposed North End Zoning District G. Unfinished Business H. Visitor Presentations I. Commission Presentations J. Staff Presentations K. Adjournment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1.The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2.Staff presents their report on the matter. 3.The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4.The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5.This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium and speak clearly. Give your name and address first and then your comments. 6.After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 7.The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8.The Commission will then make itsrecommendation or decision. 9.All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. “Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood Planning Commission. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the Planning Commission, please familiarize yourself with the Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. At the podium please state your name and address clearly for the record.” Revised:02/18 D1 MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, September 15, 2020 7:00 P.M. (THIS MEETING WAS HELD REMOTELY VIA CONFERENCE CALL) A. CALL TO ORDER A meeting of the Commission was held and called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Chairperson Arbuckle. B. ROLL CALL Paul Arbuckle, Chairperson Present Frederick Dahm, Commissioner Present Tushar Desai, Commissioner Present John Eads, Commissioner Present Allan Ige, Commissioner Present Lue Yang, Commissioner Present Staff Present: Michael Martin, Assistant Community Development Director C. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Desai moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Yang. Ayes – All The motion passed. D. APPROVAL OF MINUTES CommissionerIgemoved to approve theAugust 18, 2020, PCminutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Dahm. Ayes – All The motion passed. E. PUBLIC HEARING 1. 7:00 p.m. or later: Boater’s Outlet Exterior Storage, 2000/1986 Rice Street a. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing. Glenn Kloskin, the applicant spoke. Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Desai moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit Resolution to allow the exterior storage of boats at 1986 Rice Street for the benefit of Boater’s Outlet at 2000 Rice Street. September 15, 2020 1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PC Packet Page Number1 of 69 D1 Seconded by Commissioner Dahm. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on September 28, 2020. 2. 7:00 p.m. or later: Rezone Property from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2), 680 Viking Drive a. Rezoning Resolution. Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing. Tom Mooney, 674 Viking Drive and Troy Olson of BMT Properties LLC, the applicant spoke. Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing. Commissioner Yangmoved to approve theResolutionto rezone the property at 680 Viking Drive from Single Family Residential (R-1) to Double Dwelling Residential (R-2). Seconded by Commissioner Desai. Ayes – Dahm, Desai and Yang Nay – Arbuckle, Eads and Ige The commission did not make a recommendation. This item will go to the city council on September 28, 2020. F. NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Vacation Resolution, Portion of Curve Street, north of Frost Avenue and west of Clarence Street a. Public Vacation Resolution Chairperson Arbuckle opened the public hearing. Betty and Michael Schultz, the applicants, were present on the call. Chairperson Arbuckle closed the public hearing. Chairperson Arbuckle moved to approve the Public Vacation Resolution. Seconded by Commissioner Dahm. Ayes – All The motion passed. This item will go to the city council on September 28, 2020. G.UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. H.VISITOR PRESENTATIONS September 15, 2020 2 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PC Packet Page Number2 of 69 D1 None. I. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS None. J. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. K.ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Arbuckle adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. September 15, 2020 3 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes PC Packet Page Number3 of 69 This page intentionally left blank. PC Packet Page Number4 of 69 E1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 20, 2020 REPORT TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager REPORT FROM: MichaelMartin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER:MichaelMartin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director Conditional Use Permit and Home Occupation License Resolution, Home- AGENDA ITEM: Based Lawn Care Business with Storage of Commercial Vehicles, 821 Bartelmy Lane North Action Requested: MotionDiscussion Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution Ordinance Contract/Agreement Proclamation Policy Issue: Jeremy Hirdler has applied for a conditional use permit and home occupation license to store commercial vehicles at his residential property located at 821 Bartelmy Lane North. Mr. Hirdler operates a lawn care business and intends to store equipment within his garage, shed and behind a privacy fence. No customers would visit his property but he is proposing to have up to two employee vehicles parked within the privacy fence area during the day. All work related to the lawn care business would be performed off-site. To move forward with this project, the applicant needs city council approval of the following applications: conditional use permit and home occupation license. Recommended Action: Motion to approve a resolution for a conditional use permit and a home occupation license for a home-based lawn care business with the storage of commercial vehicles at 821 Bartelmy Lane North. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact? No Yes, the true or estimated cost is $0. Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source Use of Reserves Other: N/A Strategic Plan Relevance: Financial SustainabilityIntegrated CommunicationTargeted Redevelopment Operational EffectivenessCommunity InclusivenessInfrastructure & Asset Mgmt. The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on October 9, 2020. Minnesota State Statute 15.99 requires that the city take action on land use permits within 60 days. The 60-day review deadline for a decision on the home occupation license and conditional use permit is December 8, 2020. PC Packet Page Number5 of 69 E1 Background: Jeremy Hirdler owns a lawn care business. The applicant has lived at this house for approximately one year. The city received neighborhood complaints about the applicant’s business. The city’s neighborhood preservation officer visited the site and spoke with the applicant and relayed to him the city’s requirements for home occupations. Following is an overview of the business operations: The business is managed from the residential property at 821 Bartelmy Lane North, but all activities will be conducted off-site. The business will be operated Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. There are three commercial vehicles for the business that are stored at the residential property: 2 3/4-ton pick-up trucks and one 1-ton pick-up truck. In addition to the trucks, the applicant is proposing to store trailers and equipment related to the business on-site. There are three employees. Code allows one non-resident employee to park on-site. No customers will come to the property. No production or major advertisement will occur on the property. Home Occupation License Section 14-56 outlines the licensing for home occupations on residential property if any of the following circumstances would occur on the property more than 30 days each year: 1. Employment of a nonresident in the home occupation. 2. Customers or customers' vehicles on the premises. 3. Manufacture, assembly or processing of products or materials on the premises. 4. More than one vehicle associated with the home occupation which is classified as a light commercial vehicle. 5. A vehicle used in the home occupation, and parked on the premises, which exceeds a three-quarter-ton payload capacity. 6. If the home occupation produces any waste that should be treated or regulated. Jeremy Hirdler’s home occupation requires a license due to the storage of commercial vehicles and an employee parking on the property. Conditional Use Permit Section 44-6 defines a heavy commercial vehicle as one with more than one-ton nominal rated carrying capacity including trucks, trailers, and earth moving equipment such as a bobcat. Section 44-108(2)(a) and 44-102(1) allows the storage or parking of heavy commercial vehicles on a residential property with a conditional use permit as long as it meets the following standards: PC Packet Page Number6 of 69 E1 1.The owner or operator of the vehicle or commercial equipment must reside on the property. 2.The vehicle or commercial equipment shall be parked in an enclosed structure or on a hard-surface driveway that meets the applicable zoning district requirements. 3.Noise from idling the engine shall not exceed the L50 standards provided for in state statutes. The owner or operator shall not let the vehicle's engine idle for more than 30 minutes in any one-hour period. In no circumstance may the owner or operator run or let the engine idle for more than two periods, lasting 30 minutes each, in one 24-hour period. The commercial vehicles, trailers and equipment are stored on a Class 5 (hard surface) driveway. This driveway is located to the west of the house. The driveway was put in without a permit. The applicant must apply for and receive approval for a grading permit from the city’s engineering department and maintain a five-foot setback from the side and rear property lines. In addition to the driveway, the applicant has also installed a privacy fence. Fences do not require permits but must be located on the applicant’s property. In the neighborhood comments the city received, there is some concern about the placement of the fence. Staff is recommending the applicant be required to submit a survey to the city ensuring the location of the fence meets all code requirements. In addition to the privacy fence already installed, the applicant will be installing a gate to enclose the storage area. An image of the gate is below. The applicant has ordered the gate already and will be installing it as soon as he receives it. Staff Review Public Safety Police and Fire have reviewed this project and have no comments. Engineering Jon Jarosch, assistant city engineer, has reviewed this project and is requiring a grading permit be submitted to the city. PC Packet Page Number7 of 69 E1 Resident Comments Staff surveyed the 65 property owners within 500 feet of the property and received the following comments: 1. I think Mr. Hirdler has done a good job of transforming half of his lot into an effective storage/parking area for his equipment. It is definitely not an eyesore. I have no complaints about added noise or traffic congestion. He has made excellent use of his large yard. I wish him the best of luck with his business as I feel it would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. (Jean Heininger, 2404 Bush Avenue East) 2. I am returning your request for opinion about 821 Bartelmy Ln N. After looking at the views and walking past the property, there is a few items that stand out... a. The neighborhood is not zoned commercial or cross but residential. b. The area being use as a parking area is directly beneath 815 Bartelmy’s bedroom windows. I would be very, very irritated if I lived in a zoned residential neighborhood, lived there for quite awhile and one day I had two trucks idling under my windows from then on. Does the lawn care company also do snow removal for income in the winter months? The property is quite large by the pictures-to avoid idling motors I suggest he park lawn equipment, boats, trailers be parked next to 815 Bartelmy’s house. (Dee Ryan, 2424 Bush Avenue East) 3. Christy and I are ok with the request being granted. They are good neighbors who take care of their property well. (Jeff and Christy Kleve, 822 Meyer Street North) 4. I’ve reviewed the request of Mr. Hirdler for the conditional use permit for his home and small business and I support the approval. It is both reasonable and appropriate, and community support of small businesses is the right thing to do. (Harvey Beliveau, 761 Crestview Drive North) 5. Our main concern with Mr. Hirdler’s request is that we feel he may have built his privacy fence and large wooden shed on a portion of our property and/or too close to the property line, based on where we were advised the property line to be when we purchased our home in May 2007. We are not aware if Mr. Hirdler had the property line legally surveyed prior to constructing the shed and/or fence. Mr. Hirdler also moved the previous existing shed that was on his property when he purchased it, behind his garage and this shed may now be too close to the property line, as well. We have a chain link fence on our property that is set inside our property at the top of a small hill on the southeast side of our property. We had been informed when we purchased the home that our property line went past the bottom of that hill and inward about 5 feet. The previous homeowners at 821 Bartelmy had also verbally agreed to that estimate. Mr. Hirdler built his fence butted up to the bottom of the small hill and his shed is quite close to his new fence. Because of his new fence being so close to our existing fence, the area between the two fences is now very narrow for us to safely maneuver between them for any attempted maintenance or lawn care. Our greatest concern is that we want to make sure, if we choose to sell our home in the future, Mr. Hirdler’s fence will not affect our home sale with prospective buyers, based on the intrusion of the property line or by forfeiting property to him, making our lot size smaller. PC Packet Page Number8 of 69 E1 We had only spoken to Mr. Hirdler on one occasion prior to him building the fence and he asked me where the property line was. I informed him of where I believed the property line to be, but his fence is built beyond that area, intruding to what we believe may be part of our property. I had even told him that I thought the shed may be too close to the property line, he shrugged his shoulders, changed the subject and walked away. In regard to the work equipment and employee trucks being parked on his property during the day, we do not have a great issue with this, as long as he abides by the City of Maplewood’s noise ordinances. We are usually awake by 6:30 am, as we both have full time jobs. We are okay with the sound of vehicles starting at 6:45 am when he leaves for work(per his letter), but would like to make sure he avoids starting up loud lawn equipment that early. We have noted that after work when we are trying to relax in our backyard (between 4pm-10pm), it can be quite noisy with employees loading and unloading equipment. We have also noticed that on occasion, during daytime work hours, some equipment has been started up, making it difficult for me to hear patients on the phone (I am an RN that works for an insurance company at my home office). I have done my best to decrease outside noise by keeping our windows closed, but this is not always possible. While these noises may be a nuisance to us and some in the neighborhood, we do not feel that this is beyond the noice ordinance laws set forth by the City of Maplewood. We are somewhat flexible with this issue. We asked that Mr. Hirdler follow all ordinances set forth by the City of Maplewood. We would like to make sure that Mr. Hirdler has built his shed and fence within the city code and prove to us that his shed and fence are not intruding onto our property at 814 Meyer Street North. If Mr. Hirdler did construct these items on or too close to our property, we would ask that he remedies this situation immediately or make arrangements with us to resolve this issue. (Christina and David Ernster, 814 Meyer Street North) 6.We received your letter regarding the property listed above. We have no concerns regarding th the conditional use permit. (Rachel Murphey, 2456 7 Street East) 7.I am opposed to this permit. I have lived two homes away for 21years. I am at 833 Bartelmy Lane. There are now several trucks and trailers plus all sorts of lawn care equipment on this property. There are also a number of personal vehicles on the property, some of which park in the street during the day. From the SOUNDS of things there is much more noise than a residential property. My guess is they do all of their equipment maintenance there, at the business-residence. He built a 3 sided wooden enclosure for some of his equipment but there doesn't seem to be a gate to totally enclose it. When he moved in a year ago he just seemed to charge ahead with his home business venture without any regard for potential zoning issues. I have nothing against him personally but the FEEL of the neighborhood has taken a step backward. Don't open the floodgates for others to follow suit. THANK YOU for listening. (Jeff Tjaden, 833 Bartelmy Lane North) 8.We would like the request denied please. As you can see from the attached photos taken 5 minutes ago (photos attached to this report). The trucks he has parked are 2 ft from the fence. He has been told by Mr Russel from code enforcement. He was to sod 5 ft out from the fence and remove the class five. He was told by Russel not to park closer than 5ft from the fence. He placed 2 ft of sod, and is parked 2ft from the fence. PC Packet Page Number9 of 69 E1 I have asked him many times not to start his truck too early and he says he can start his trucks any time he wants. As you can see from the last pic taken from inside our bedroom. The truck is literally less than 8 ft from my window. This is a 1 ton diesel truck. We haven't been able to open our windows and enjoy the breeze for a year. Many neighbors are upset with the trucks. I have been threatened with a restraining order, one of my neighbors has been challenged by one of his employees, and I see in the pic. He bought a third plow! As you know these run all hours of the night in winter. Now he wants a big iron gate? How loud will that be?? He told Russel he had 1 full time employee. He has at least 4. His 3000 sq ft area of class five should be removed. This is a natural collecting area for runoff in the spring. Our yard will be a mess every spring. What will this do to our property value? We moved here for a quiet neighborhood. Please support the neighborhood. (Scott and Patricia Evenson, 815 Bartelmy Lane North) 9.I am writing in response to your letter dated 01 OCT 2020 in regards to the conditional use permit for 821 Bartelmy Lane N. I'm generally pro small businesses, if they are operated in a manner that meets regulations and zoning. I am thankful that the resident of 821 Bartelmy Lane is attempting to mitigate effects on the community with this permit request. However, I'm still not excited about this proposal. I believe the residents of 821 should be allowed to keep their personal vehicles on their property. I generally feel that it is acceptable for them to keep a vehicle belonging to their business there as well, but I'm not in favor of turning the property into a parking lot for their fleet of business vehicles and employee parking. My concerns for this permit are the following: Deleterious effect on property value of homes in the neighborhood (this certainly won't increase it) Safety of children and pedestrians. The home is on a walking path leading to the Nature Center, park, and ballfield. Aesthetics - The parking lot is not attractive. I'm concerned about what precedent this sets for the local community and future owners of the property who might not be as careful to respect the neighborhood. I'm also concerned about current or futures employees getting complacent and causing safety, noise, or traffic violations. I'm concerned about local crime, and whether this facility will attract vandals and thieves, and if preventative measures to deter break-ins will cause light pollution or privacy violations (i.e. lighting and camera systems). (Steve Olson, 808 Bartelmy Lane North) 10.I strongly object to my neighbor’s request for an exception to the zoning restrictions currently in place in my neighborhood and for granting him a permit and license to operate his large business, out of his home, in our quiet, residential neighborhood. To do so would subject myself and anyone within earshot or visibility to endure an unacceptable level of noise and constant activity of people and equipment on a near-daily, any-hour basis; including weekends; not to mention the direct negative impact it would have on the value of my home, should I decide to sell. It is simply asking too much that I myself, or any of my neighbors forfeit the peace and beauty of our private homes and residential neighborhood by approving his request. Our homes, and this neighborhood provide retreat from our own jobs and businesses and is worth preserving from the impact of a commercial operation such as PC Packet Page Number10 of 69 E1 the one my neighbor has been operating and now attempting to expand directly adjacent to my home. My neighbor who is requesting this permit resides at 821 Bartelmy Lane North Maplewood, directly adjacent to my house. He has lived there approximately 1 year and has been operating his lawn-care, landscape, and snow removal business from his home throughout this duration. According to his business website: https://cjslawnllc.com, his business address is located in Oakdale, approximately 3 miles from his residential address here in Maplewood. I assumed that he was no longer operating his business from the Oakdale address based on the robust amount of activity and business being conducted right here at his home in Maplewood, on a daily basis. But upon a google street view map search, I discovered company trucks parked not only at the business address in Oakdale, but across the street as well, at another address altogether. Both of the driveways of these addresses depict company trucks and trailers parked there. To me it seems obvious that his business has outgrown the restrictions of the location(s) in which he has operated his business and where he maintains and stores his equipment. I suspect he is growing and needs more space, or it’s even possible that the neighbors at his Oakdale address have complained as well? It could be a number of reasons why he moved 3 miles away from his Oakdale address to set up and expand his operation here in Maplewood. Regardless, his daily business routine being conducted next-door to me in Maplewood is wholly inconsistent with the residential atmosphere in which I bought my home 20 years ago, and which has remained so up until his move here, one year ago. My home is a reprieve from the hectic pace of the commercial and business world, as well as from my occupation. The business of which my neighbor is practicing from his home is commercial in nature and already exceeds the residential zoning of my neighborhood. He should never be allowed the opportunity to expand. In fact, I would ask that the City limit him from the already-excessive operation he has taken liberty of. It is and has been entirely disruptive and inconsistent in my neighborhood, and to residential living as a whole. I would like to describe the scope of my neighbor’s operation that is not evidenced in his proposal nor photographs, and which impact me and my neighbors more than the pictures show: a.A class-5 stone parking lot, approximately 2000 to 3000 square feet was created to the side of his concrete driveway. Much of this parking lot is surrounded by a newly constructed fence that protrudes or extends approximately 20 feet past the face of the homes and toward the street. This site alone would be more representative of an area zoned as commercial, not residential; especially when loaded with big commercial equipment which was not depicted in the photos of his property. b.As for equipment: (not shown in the photos), there are two work trucks; each pulling a flatbed trailer. These trucks depart from and return to his residence multiple times a day; loading, off-loading, or exchanging equipment such as multiple riding lawnmowers, push mowers, blowers, weed trimmers, snow blowers, Bobcat, pressure washers, etc. c.Many pieces of equipment need to be started and running to move themselves off of the flatbed trailer. Oftentimes these operations are conducted in the street, in front of the homes adjacent to his, which would include mine. In fact, during the course of these operations, it is not uncommon for his trucks and trailers to be parked in the street; sometimes for hours at a time. PC Packet Page Number11 of 69 E1 d.Moving on to maintenance: All of this equipment requires maintenance. It is here at his residence, after-hours, when returning from their contractual job sites, where these tasks are conducted. Maintenance can come in the form of “tuning up” equipment; running machinery or running pressure washers to clean their equipment for extended periods of time. e.Employees and Personnel: On any given day including the weekend, it’s common to observe the delivery, transport, exchange or maintenance of equipment at all hours by a multitude of people or employees required to accomplish these tasks (from two to four employees). This has brought with it a blur of constant comings and goings of people, equipment, noise, and extra cars needing to be parked; thereby occupying the property and road. Altogether, The array of equipment, employees, and activity reflect a much larger operation than one whose impact to the neighborhood is minimal to benign. The photos of his property that were included in the letter that I received don’t begin to describe the scope of this business and the impact it’s already had on my neighborhood and myself; short of what granting this permit would allow to exacerbate. One statement that the applicant wrote in his letter to the City of Maplewood was, “no work would be performed on the property or in the home as all work is performed off site”. Yes, lawn cutting, landscaping, snow removal, etc. are done off-site at a customer's address, however, maintenance and management of equipment is done at Mr Hirdler’s residence, next to mine. I am able to describe these events because I'm a shift worker and I'm often home during daytime hours. I’d also like to state that I'm a person who is “pro-business”, and yet I believe that a business such as this should be operated from an area zoned as commercial, not residential. People live in a residential area for a reason; it’s a place to reside away from an industrious or a business atmosphere. These are some reasons and examples why I object to granting a “Conditional Use Permit & Home Occupation License” to my neighbor, Jeremy Hirdler. While I appreciate being asked for my input, I am wondering why the City of Maplewood would consider a proposal from Mr Hirdler to expand his commercial business from his home within a residential area such as mine in the first place? The fact that myself and my adjacent neighbors are being presented with this proposal; essentially to forfeit the peace and beauty of our quiet neighborhood; indicates to me that the applicant's request is outside of acceptable limits which exceed the current zoning restrictions; thereby requiring an exception in the form of a permit. Why are we, the residential owners and adjacent neighbors of this applicant put in the position of what the city; a neutral party, should have denied or rejected from considering in the first place? It is or should be the job of the various city departments involved to be the ones to reject a proposal of this kind for obvious reasons as I stated throughout this letter, rather than us, their adjacent neighbors. We are now the ones whom he will know and hold responsible for approving or disapproving his request. We will be the ones to suffer the fallout of tension between neighbors instead of the City, a neutral party. It is a set-up for division between the applicant and us, his neighbors, whose identity and confidentiality is not held secure by this method, and now exposed for his knowledge. The end result of this method is certain to create tension and unforeseen future problems when the city could have and should have simply denied a proposal of this nature altogether. In summary and in response to your request for input, I not only reject Mr Hirdler’s proposal, I would like to present a proposal of my own: I would ask that the City of Maplewood PC Packet Page Number12 of 69 E1 consider all I’ve presented here, and to not only reject his proposal altogether, but to further take the necessary steps that limit the excessive liberty Mr Hirdler has already claimed in operating his business from his home; next to mine; in my neighborhood. (Ted Miller, 827 Bartelmy Lane North) Commission Recommendation October 20, 2020: The Planning Commission will review and conduct a public hearing on these requests. Reference Information Site Description: Site Size: 0.35 Acres Surrounding Land Uses North: Single Dwellings East: Single Dwellings South: Single Dwellings West: Single Dwellings Planning Existing Land Use: Low-Density Residential Existing Zoning: Single Dwelling Attachments: 1.Conditional Use Permit and Home Occupation License Resolution 2.Overview Map 3.Zoning Map 4.Applicants’ Narrative and Photos 5.Photos Submitted by Property Owners of 815 Bartelmy Lane North PC Packet Page Number13 of 69 E1, Attachment 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Jeremy Hirdler is proposing a home-based lawn care business with the storage of commercial vehicles. 1.02 The property is located at 821 Bartelmy Lane North and is legally described as: Lot 14, Block 2, Minnehaha Highlands, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Property Identification Number 25-29-22-34-0065 Section 2. Standards. 2.01 Section 44-6 defines a heavy commercial vehicle as one with more than one-ton nominal rated carrying capacity including trucks, trailers, and earth moving equipment such as a bobcat. 2.02 Section 44-108(2)(a) and 44-102(1) allows the storage or parking of heavy commercial vehicles on a residential property with a conditional use permit as long as it meets the following standards: 1. The owner or operator of the vehicle or commercial equipment must reside on the property. 2. The vehicle or commercial equipment shall be parked in an enclosed structure or on a hard-surface driveway that meets the applicable zoning district requirements. 3. Noise from idling the engine shall not exceed the L50 standards provided for in state statutes. The owner or operator shall not let the vehicle's engine idle for more than 30 minutes in any one-hour period. In no circumstance may the owner or operator run or let the engine idle for more than two periods, lasting 30 minutes each, in one 24-hour period. 2.03 Section 14-56 outlines the licensing requirements for home occupations on residential property. Section 3. Findings. 3.01 The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit and home occupation license standards. PC Packet Page Number14 of 69 E1, Attachment 1 Section 4. City Review Process 3.01 The City conducted the following review when considering this conditional use permit and home occupation license request. 1. On October 20, 2020, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The Planning Commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council ________ this resolution. 2. On November 9, 2020, the City Council discussed this resolution. They considered reports and recommendations from the Planning Commission and city staff. Section 4. City Council Action. 4.01 The City Council hereby _________ the resolution. Approval is based on the findings outlined in Section 2 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. The home occupation business is limited to Monday through Friday. 2. No exterior storage of building or landscaping materials is allowed as part of the home occupation license. 3. Three commercial vehicles and their trailers and associated equipment are allowed to be stored on a hard surface out of sight of the public right-of-way. 4. No vehicles associated with the business may be started between the hours of 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. 5. One employee vehicle can be parked on the property on a hard surface during business hours. 6. An area equivalent to no more than 20 percent of each level of the house, including the basement and garage, shall be used in the home occupation. 7. No vehicles associated with the home occupation, including employees, shall be parked on the street or block sidewalks or public easements. 8. A gate must be installed enclosing the storage area from the front view of the house. This gate must be closed at all times outside of loading and unloading of vehicles from the storage area. 9. Any minor maintenance of vehicles or equipment can only take place inside of the garage. No major maintenance of vehicles or equipment is allowed to take place on this residential property. 10. The applicant must apply for and receive approval of a grading permit from the city’s engineering department for the class 5 driveway west of the house. PC Packet Page Number15 of 69 E1, Attachment 1 11.All driveway surfaces must maintain a five-foot setback from all side and rear property lines. 12.The applicant must submit to city staff a property survey showing the privacy fence meeting all height and location requirements. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on November 9, 2020. PC Packet Page Number16 of 69 E1, Attachment 2 821 Bartelmy Lane North October 1, 2020 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Parcel 0120 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County PC Packet Page Number17 of 69 E1, Attachment 3 821 Bartelmy Lane North October 1, 2020 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Zoning Open Space/Park Single Dwelling (r1) Planned Unit Development (pud) Parcel 0120 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County PC Packet Page Number18 of 69 E1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number19 of 69 E1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number20 of 69 E1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number21 of 69 E1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number22 of 69 E1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number23 of 69 E1, Attachment 4 PC Packet Page Number24 of 69 E1, Attachment 5 Photos Submitted by Property Owners of 815 Bartelmy Lane North PC Packet Page Number25 of 69 E1, Attachment 5 Photos Submitted by Property Owners of 815 Bartelmy Lane North PC Packet Page Number26 of 69 E1, Attachment 5 Photos Submitted by Property Owners of 815 Bartelmy Lane North PC Packet Page Number27 of 69 E1, Attachment 5 Photos Submitted by Property Owners of 815 Bartelmy Lane North PC Packet Page Number28 of 69 E2 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 20, 2020 REPORT TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager REPORT FROM: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER: Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance Resolution, Maplewood Toyota Vehicle Storage Lot, 2999 Highway 61 Action Requested: MotionDiscussion Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution OrdinanceContract/Agreement Proclamation Policy Issue: Maplewood Toyota has purchased the property located at 2999 Highway 61 – the former Gulden’s Restaurant property. The auto dealership intends to tear down the building and use the property to store automobiles as part of its dealership operation. To move forward with this project, the applicant needs city council approval of the following applications: conditional use permit and a variance from the required setback of 350 feet between auto and residential uses. Recommended Action: Motion to approve a resolution for a conditional use permit and setback variance at 2999 Highway 61. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact?NoYes, the true or estimated cost is $0. Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source Use of Reserves Other: N/A Strategic Plan Relevance: Financial SustainabilityIntegrated CommunicationTargeted Redevelopment Operational EffectivenessCommunity InclusivenessInfrastructure & Asset Mgmt. The city deemed the applicant’s application complete on October 9, 2020. Minnesota State Statute 15.99 requires that the city take action on land use permits within 60 days. The 60-day review deadline for a decision is December 8, 2020. PC Packet Page Number29 of 69 E2 Background: Maplewood Toyota has purchased the property located at 2999 Highway 61 – the former Gulden’s Restaurant property. The auto dealership intends to tear down the building and use the property to store automobiles as part of its dealership operation. Conditional Use Permit A conditional use permit (CUP) is required for the exterior storage of goods or materials and any building or exterior use within 350 feet of a residential district. Maplewood Toyota is proposing to store vehicles related to its dealership operation on the property located at 2999 Highway 61. The existing footprint of the parking lot is not proposed to expand towards the residential properties to the west. Additional parking spaces for the dealership’s inventory will come from the removal of the existing restaurant building which will then be converted into a surface lot and a handful of spaces being added on the east side of the site. The existing lot has 117 parking spaces and is proposing to add 66 additional spaces. Staff visited this site and there were several vehicles parked on the private street – Gulden Road – that runs between this property and the property to the north. Staff is recommending that the applicant be required to park vehicles in a designated parking stall on-site and not on the private drive. Setback Variance State statute allows variances to be approved when practical difficulties exist. State statute also dictates that practical difficulties occur when the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Auto dealerships are required to be setback at least 350 feet from residential properties. The applicant is expanding its operations along Highway 61 and most of its facilities are directly next to or near residential properties. It is not possible for this dealership to expand its operations in this area without requesting a variance from the 350-foot setback standard. The existing parking lot is 72 feet at its closest point – thus requiring a 278-foot variance. Maplewood is home to several auto dealerships that front major roadways and are also next-door neighbors to residential areas. Tesla, 2590 Maplewood Drive – 102-foot setback from nearby residential property Kline Auto, 2610 Maplewood Drive –102 foot setback from nearby residential property Maplewood Toyota (main facility), 2873 Maplewood Drive – 160 feet from nearby residential property Schmelz Countryside, 1180 Highway 36 – 23-foot setback from nearby residential property Department Comments Engineering A grading permit will be required for the parking lot expansion. PC Packet Page Number30 of 69 E2 Environmental Any trees removed will need to be replaced per the city’s tree replacement requirements. Also, the southwest corner of this site is within the shoreland overlay. Any future alterations within this area of the site will need to meet all shoreland requirements. Commission Review October 20, 2020: The planning commission will hold a public hearing and review this project. Citizen Comments Staff surveyed the 69 surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the proposed site for their opinion about this proposal. Staff received two responses – all shown below. 1.We are okay with their request, but would like Maplewood Toyota to be better neighbors with all of us if we agree to their request. That means no more test drives through our neighborhood, be it potential customers or technicians testing out newly repaired vehicles. Likewise, I would love to see something done about the intersection at Beam and 61. It is very poorly designed to accommodate the high number of vehicle traffic, and the constant cars coming and going from the multiple driveways on both sides of the street is very frustrating. Would love to see the dealership utilize the space they now own on the north side of Beam to encourage customers to utilize the entrances from both 61 and County Rd D. That would go a long way to help eliminate the seemingly endless amount of accidents waiting to happen on Beam on a residential road not designed to handle that much traffic. Probably asking too much, given it would mean a complete redesign of their operation, but it feels like all the land they now own should be better utilized with the rest of the neighborhood in mind. (Mark Ivory, 3018 Duluth Street) 2.I just want to make a comment about the green area, I’m hoping that Toyota is not going to remove any trees I think our earth has suffered so much already with fires and climate change we should keep the green area here in Maplewood. (Eduardo Manuel Avila, 1241 Terrace Avenue) Reference Information Site Description Site Size: 2.43 acres Surrounding Land Uses North: Auto Repair Shop Operated by Maplewood Toyota East: Highway 61 South: Auto Repair Shop West: Attached Townhouses Planning Existing Land Use: Commercial PC Packet Page Number31 of 69 E2 Existing Zoning: Light Manufacturing (M-1) Attachments: 1.Conditional Use Permit and Setback Variance Resolution 2.Overview Map 3.2040 Future Land Use Map 4.Zoning Map 5.Applicant’s Narrative 6.Site Plan 7.Applicant’s Plans (separate attachment) PC Packet Page Number32 of 69 E2, Attachment 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SETBACK VARIANCE RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Background. 1.01 Maplewood Toyota has requested approval of a conditional use permit. 1.02 The applicant has also requested approval of a setback variance. 1.03 The property located at 2999 Maplewood Drive is legally described as: Parcel 1: That part of the North 409.5 feet of the East 500 feet of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County Minnesota, lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Northeast Quarter of Section 4 distant 235.77 feet South of the Northeast corner of said South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4 to a point on the West line of said East 500 feet of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 4 distant 115.53 feet South of the Northwest corner of said East 500 feet of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter. Ramsey County, Minnesota Abstract Property Parcel 2: Easement for the benefit of Parcel 1 as created by Reciprocal Easement Agreement dated December 29, 2004, filed May 9, 2005, as Document No. 3853813, for ingress and egress purposes. PIN: 04-29-22-14-0058. Section 2. Standards. 2.01 City Ordinance Section 44-512(4) requires a Conditional Use Permit for the exterior storage of goods or materials. 2.02 Section 44-637(b) requires a Conditional Use Permit for any building or exterior use within 350 feet of a residential district. 2.03 General Conditional Use Permit Standards. City Ordinance Section 44-1097(a) states that the City Council must base approval of a Conditional Use Permit on the following nine standards for approval. 1.The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be in conformity with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances. 2.The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area. 3.The use would not depreciate property values. 4.The use would not involve any activity, process, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. PC Packet Page Number33 of 69 E2, Attachment 1 5.The use would not exceed the design standards of any affected street. 6.The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7.The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8.The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site’s natural and scenic features into the development design. 9.The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. 2.04 Variance Standard. City Ordinance Section 44-13 refers to state statute which states a variance may be granted from the requirements of the zoning ordinance when: (1) the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this ordinance; (2) when the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and (3) when the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the ordinance. Practical difficulties mean: (1) The proposed use is reasonable; (2) the need for a variance is caused by circumstances unique to the property, not created by the property owner, and not solely based on economic conditions. Section 3. Findings. 3.01 The proposal meets the specific conditional use permit standards. 3.02 The proposal meets the required standards for a variance: Section 4. City Review Process 4.01 The City conducted the following review when considering the conditional use permit and setback variance requests. 1.On October 20, 2020, the planning commission held a public hearing. The city staff published a hearing notice in the Pioneer Press and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council ___________ this resolution. 2.On November 9, 2020, the city council discussed this resolution. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. Section 5. City Council 5.01 The city council hereby _______ the resolution. Approval is based on the findings outlined in section 3 of this resolution. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1.Adherence to the site plan date-stamped September 24, 2020. The director of community development may approve minor changes. PC Packet Page Number34 of 69 E2, Attachment 1 2.The proposed construction must be started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3.The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. 4.An exterior public address system shall not be allowed. 5.All activity shall be confined to the site. There shall be no loading or unloading of vehicles on any public or private street rights-of-way. All vehicles must be stored within the site. No employee parking is allowed on any nearby public or private streets. 6.No vehicle maintenance of any kind is permitted on this site. 7.Comply with all city ordinance requirements for signage. 8.All site lighting must meet city requirements and be shielded away from the neighboring residential properties. 9.The applicant shall obtain any required permits from the City of Maplewood, Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District, Ramsey County and the State of Minnesota and meet the requirements of those agencies. __________ by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, on November 9, 2020. PC Packet Page Number35 of 69 E2, Attachment 2 2999 Highway 61 September 23, 2020 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Parcel 0240 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County PC Packet Page Number36 of 69 E2, Attachment 3 2999 Highway 61 September 23, 2020 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Future Land Use - 2040 Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential Commercial Open Space Parcel 0240 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County PC Packet Page Number37 of 69 E2, Attachment 4 2999 Highway 61 September 23, 2020 City of Maplewood Legend ! I Zoning Single Dwelling (r1) Multiple Dwelling (r3) Planned Unit Development (pud) Light Manufacturing (m1) Parcel 0240 Feet Source: City of Maplewood, Ramsey County PC Packet Page Number38 of 69 E2, Attachment 5 2999 N. HIGHWAY 61 PROJECT NARRATIVE Location:2999 N. Highway 61 Applicant:2999 Maplewood Properties LLC Proposal: 2999 Maplewood Properties, LLC purchased the Gulden Restaurant property located at 2999 Hwy 61. The site was purchased to for automotive storage and to accompany the adjacent Automotive service building located at 3001 US-61. The existing restaurant facility will be torn down and new parking area will be placed in the existing footprint. Operations:Site operations will be for Automotive vehicle storage (future service and sales). Company:This property is part of the Maplewood Toyota business operations and will service as an expanded automotive parking area. Landscaping & Screening:Minimal perimeter landscaping will be removed or impacted by this project. Landscape plans will be submitted as required for any areas impacted. Signage:No signage is anticipated at this time. Lighting:New lighting will be placed as required. Lighting photometrics will be submitted in the site plan review process. Traffic Impacts:Existing curb cuts and site circulation to remain as existing. MINNETONKA FORDMINNETONKA FORD PC Packet Page Number39 of 69 E2, Attachment 5 REQUEST FOR VARIATION The proposed building located at 2999 N. Highway 61 requires a variation to the allowable building setback. Zoning code requires a residential property. Refer to attached site plan for setbacks. a.Practical Difficulties This is an existing commercial site adjacent to an existing automotive use. The business requires expansion and this site offers the most practical opportunity to expand PC Packet Page Number40 of 69 E2, Attachment 6 t f 0 . 8 1 t f 0 . 9 t f 0 . 4 2 t f 0 . 4 2 t f 0 . 0 5 3 SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL PC Packet Page Number41 of 69 This page intentionally left blank. PC Packet Page Number42 of 69 F1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date October 20, 2020 REPORT TO: Melinda Coleman, City Manager REPORT FROM: Jeff Miller and Laura Chamberlain, Consulting Planners Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director PRESENTER: Jeff Miller and Laura Chamberlain, Consulting Planners Michael Martin, AICP, Assistant Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: Proposed North End Zoning District Action Requested: Motion Discussion Public Hearing Form of Action: Resolution Ordinance Contract/Agreement Proclamation Policy Issue: At multiple Planning Commission meetings this summer, potential North End Zoning District standards for circulation, access, building placement and building form were presented and discussed. At the October 20 Planning Commission meeting, consulting planners will present a draft of the North End Zoning District. After the Planning Commission’s review, there will be a public review process of the draft ordinance before coming back to the commission for a final review. Recommended Action: No action is required at this time. Fiscal Impact: Is There a Fiscal Impact?NoYes, the true or estimated cost is $0. Financing source(s): Adopted Budget Budget Modification New Revenue Source Use of Reserves Other: N/A Strategic Plan Relevance: Financial Sustainability Integrated Communication Targeted Redevelopment Operational Effectiveness Community Inclusiveness Infrastructure & Asset Mgmt. The city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan calls out the North End region of Maplewood as an area of opportunity to do additional visioning and planning to help this important part of the city stay healthy. PC Packet Page Number43 of 69 F1 Background: Rezoning the North End to Regulate Future Redevelopment Using the direction provided by the Planning Commission, the Consulting Team has drafted the attached NE North End Zoning District regulations. The NE North End Form Based District is proposed to be a new division within Article II. The District is intended to contain most of the standards property owners and developers would need for development except for standards that apply to all properties. The NE North End Form Based District is organized into the following sections: Secs. 44-690. – Purpose. Secs. 44-691. – Definitions. Secs. 44-692. – Applicability. Secs. 44-693. – General Provisions. Secs. 44-694. – Administration. Secs. 44-695. – Subdivision Standards. Secs. 44-696. – Site Design Standards. Secs. 44-697. – Building Design Standards. Secs. 44-698. – Use Standards. As the Planning Commission has discussed various aspects of the North End Form Based District at previous meetings, the focus of the discussion at the upcoming Planning Commission meeting will be on targeted areas, such as applicability and parking, as well as answering questions commissioners may have after reviewing the draft standards. As a reminder, the topics previously discussed included: Establishing a framework for regulations that emphasize standards applied to Circulation & Access and Buildings Establishing a Street Typology for the North End area, and have regulations be based on street types Reviewing concepts for Building Placement & Form Standards Build-to-Zone Street Frontage Off-Street Parking Placement Height Width Entrances Articulation Establishing Building Placement & Form Standards based on Street Typology PC Packet Page Number44 of 69 F1 Applicability As a form based district, the North End will be a unique district in the city. Because the application of the district standards involves both subdivision and siting standards, it is important to establish how the ordinance language should be applied. Namely, Section 44-692(7) recognizes the reality that the application of this district is not going to happen overnight and that there are a number of existing buildings and uses that will continue in their current form. The standards allow the expansion of buildings or parking areas, as long as those expansions enable the establishment of the future street network. Parking Standards The North End Vision Plan envisioned the North End area to promote multi-modal transportation networks, where people can access housing, employment, and recreation by means other than an automobile. The Vision Plan recommended establishing parking maximums, rather than minimums, for the district, as one method to accomplish that goal. After comments from previous PC meetings, as well as discussion with City Staff, the consulting team shifted perspective, to adjusting parking minimums for the area that reflect its compact and multi-modal nature, while also establishing parking maximums, but ones that are not as low as suggested in the Vision Plan. These numbers are seen in the table below: EXISTING CITY VISION PLAN PROPOSED DISTRICT STANDARDS REC. STANDARDS TYPE OF USE MIN MAX MIN MAX RESIDENTIAL WITHIN 2 SPACES / 1.5 SPACES / 0.5 SPACES / 2.0 SPACES / 1/4 MILE OF THE BRT UNIT (ONE UNIT UNIT UNIT STATION ENCLOSED) RESIDENTIAL 2 SPACES / 2.0 SPACES / 1.0 SPACE / 2.5 SPACES / OUTSIDE 1/4 MILE UNIT (ONE UNIT UNIT UNIT OF THE BRT STATION ENCLOSED) 1 SPACE / 1 SPACE / 0.5 SPACES / 1.25 SPACE / LODGING GUEST ROOM GUEST ROOM GUEST ROOM GUEST ROOM 5 SPACES / 3 SPACES / 1 SPACE / 5 SPACES / BUSINESS 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF PC Packet Page Number45 of 69 F1 EXISTING CITY VISION PLAN PROPOSED DISTRICT STANDARDS REC. STANDARDS TYPE OF USE MINMAXMINMAX PUBLIC, SOCIAL OR 5 SPACES / 3 SPACES / 1 SPACE / 5 SPACES / HEALTH CARE1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF1,000 SF ARTS, 5 SPACES / 3 SPACES / 1 SPACE / 5 SPACES / ENTERTAINMENT OR 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF RECREATION 5 SPACES / 3 SPACES / 1 SPACE / 5 SPACES / TRANSPORTATION 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF 1,000 SF Attachments: 1. Draft North End Ordinance PC Packet Page Number46 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 ARTICLE II. DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 15. NE NORTH END FORM BASED DISTRICT Secs. 44-690. Purpose. The purpose of the North End (NE) form based district is to enable expansion of role as a local and regional economic activity center for purposes of obtaining goods and services, wellness, work, recreation, socialization, learning, and living. The zoning district accommodates and regulates: (1) New development and redevelopment site opportunities appropriate for an evolving transit-oriented environment to support planned transit improvements and investments within the North End; (2) Development of a significantly expanded and connected transportation network within the North End, including adding streets to create a smaller street grid and smaller blocks, expand the pedestrian/bicycle network (sidewalks, trails, bike facilities, pedestrian-friendly street crossings), and enable convenient multi-modal travel; (3) New and improved public green spaces, including urban parks, urban plazas, private open spaces, and an improved tree canopy along public streets; (4) A broad mix of integrated land uses, including commercial (retail, services, restaurants, and entertainment), medical and related office, residential, and lodging; (5) Management of overall parking needs for future development types and the future enhanced transportation facilities, including the reduction of surface parking lots, increase of on-street parking, and addition of structured parking in conjunction with development. (6) All new development and redevelopment to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the adopted North End Vision Plan. Secs. 44-691. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: (1) Block means an area of land surrounded on all sides by streets or other transportation or utility rights-of-way, or by physical barriers such as bodies of water or public open spaces. (2) Build-to Zone means the minimum and maximum distance a structure may be placed from a lot line. Figure 1. Build-to Zone 1 PC Packet Page Number47 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 (3) Lot Line Coverage means the minimum percentage of the lot line that must have a building façade located within the build-to zone. Figure 2.Lot Line Coverage 2 PC Packet Page Number48 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 (4) Street Frontage means the building and yard area facing and directly adjacent to a street right-of-way line. Secs. 44-692. Applicability. (1) These regulations shall apply to all subdivision, new development, and redevelopment of land located in the North End (NE) form based district on as regulated by Secs. 44-10. (2) Regulatory plan. The NE form based district shall be implemented through a Regulating Plan, The North End District Street Network and Types, which establishes the future street network, street types, and the development form appropriate to each street type. The North End Street Network and Types Regulating Plan is shown as Figure 3. Figure 3. Regulating Plan:North End District Street Network and Types (3) Street types. As shown on the Regulating Plan: four street types are established for the NE form based district. These types are applicable to existing streets and will be applied to future streets. a. Minor Arterials / Major Collectors i. Beam Avenue (County Road 20) ii. White Bear Avenue (County Road 65) 3 PC Packet Page Number49 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 iii. County Road D b. Local Connectors i. Kennard Street ii. Southlawn Drive iii. Legacy Parkway (extension) c. Neighborhood Main Streets i. (extension from Kennard Street to White Bear Avenue) ii. Future north-south through street alone west side of Maplewood Mall from Beam Ave to County Road D, as shown on the Regulating Plan iii. Future north-south through street alone east side of Maplewood Mall from Beam Ave to County Road D, as shown on the Regulating Plan d. Neighborhood Internal Streets i. Future streets, examples shown on the Regulating Plan, but final layout may be different (4) Subdivision and site development. a. All subdivision of land shall meet the subdivision standards in Section 44-694. b. All new site development and redevelopment shall be subject to the site design, building design, and use standards in Sections 44.695, 44.696, and 44.697. c. Sites that abut multiple street types shall meet standards based on the determination of priority frontages. Priority frontages are based on the following priority of street types: i. Neighborhood Main Street ii. Minor Arterial / Major Collector iii. Local Connector iv. Neighborhood Internal Street (5) Street rights-of-way. The street standards in Section 44-694 shall apply to all public rights-of-way in the NE form based district based on the specific street types. (6) Open spaces. The open space standards in Section 44.694 shall apply to all future public and private open spaces in the NE form based district based on the specific open space types. (7) Existing buildings. 4 PC Packet Page Number50 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 A property owner or developer may expand an existing building or parking lot as long as the North End Street Network and Types Regulating Plan and meets the site and building design standards in this division. Secs. 44-693. General Provisions. (1) This division is designed, wherever possible, to act as a standalone set of standards and procedures for development in the North End (NE) form based district. References to other applicable standards and administrative procedures in the Maplewood City Code are provided as needed. (2) The standards and administrative procedures in this division shall apply in lieu of other provisions in this chapter, except where specifically stated otherwise in this division, and govern in the event of a conflict. (3) The provisions of Sec. 44-12 Nonconformities of the Zoning Code shall be fully applicable to all structures and uses within the NE form based district. (4) Along with standards established in this Division, developments in the North End district are encouraged to utilize the North End Design Guidelines for additional design guidelines. (5) Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), as provided in Secs. 44-687 through 44-730 Planned Unit Development (PUD), are not permitted within the NE form based district. Secs. 44-694. Administration (1) Subdivisions and platting within the NE form based district are subject to the procedures and application requirements established in Chapter 34 Subdivisions of the Maplewood City Code, with the following provisions and exceptions: a. The block, street, and lot requirements of Sec. 44-695 Subdivision Standards shall supersede any related standards in Sec. 34-8 Minimum Subdivision Design Standards. (2) New development and redevelopment are subject to the development design review procedure in Secs. 2-281 through 2-292 Community Design Review Board of the Maplewood City Code. Secs. 44-695. Subdivision Standards. (1) Block and Street Network Standards. a. For all developments with total combined parcel acreage of more than 3 acres, subdivision into blocks and platting of new streets is required. b. Maximum block length shall be 450 feet. c. New streets shall connect to and continue existing streets from adjoining areas to form an interconnected street network. 5 PC Packet Page Number51 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 d. New cul-de-sacs and dead end streets may only be permitted where intersecting with Minor Arterials / Major Collectors and are unable to meet minimum access standards or by approval of the director of community development to accommodate specific site conditions. e. The city engineer shall approve the type of street for each proposed development and/or subdivision and may require additional street right-of-way or configuration based on the regulating plan, existing context, and area circulation needs. Street Design Standards by Street Type are illustrated on the following pages. f. Each block is required to provide an alley or private lane to efficiently accommodate vehicle parking access, service/loading access, refuse pickup, and reduce the number of driveways/curb cuts. (2) Street Design General Standards The provisions of this section shall apply to all new streets as well as streetscape improvements to existing streets. a. Sidewalks or shared use trails shall be provided on both sides of all new streets and improved existing streets. Where sufficient public right-of-way width does not exist, and cannot be obtained to accommodate sidewalks or shared use trails on both sides, an easement may be required within a property line adjacent to a right of way to expand the clear walkway of a sidewalk. b. All sidewalks shall provide a clear walkway zone and a boulevard or street life zone. i. A clear walkway zone shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width, or wider as indicated in the Street Design Standards by Street Type illustrated in subsection (3). A clear walkway zone shall consist of a continuous, unobstructed and accessible path of travel for pedestrians that must remain clear of obstacles at all times. ii. A boulevard or street life zone shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width, with an ideal width of 5 feet or more, as indicated in the Street Design Standards by Street Type in subsection (3). In some locations the boulevard or street life zone may alternate with parking spaces. A boulevard or street life zone organizes the fixed sidewalk elements along the curb into an area that delineates the clear walkway zone from the roadway. This zone consists of street trees, stormwater planting areas, and street furniture, such as benches, trash cans, bicycle racks, street lighting and street signage. c. Shared use trail width shall be a minimum of 12 feet. d. Pavement markings for pedestrian crosswalks shall be provided at all controlled intersections. 6 PC Packet Page Number52 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 e. Pedestrian crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and mid-block, where required by the City Council, shall also have pavement markings. f. Sidewalk extensions or bulb-outs shall be provided at pedestrian crosswalks on streets with parking as a means of traffic calming. g. On-street bicycle lanes shall be a minimum of 6 feet in width and shall be Living Streets Policy and according to specifications required by the City Engineer. h. All streetscape trees shall be planted in consideration of utility offsets. i. Tree pits shall be a minimum of 4 feet in width, and a maximum of 3 feet in depth. Tree pits shall use planting or granite sets outside of the critical root ball zone or may use tree grates to create additional travel width for pedestrians. Tree boxes shall be sized to ensure sufficient growing space around root ball at installation. j. Trees shall be planted in contiguous open planting areas. Where continuous planting is interrupted by curb cuts, use of a modular suspended pavement system (such as Silva Cells) is required. (3) Street Design Standards by Street Type. The provisions of this section shall apply to all street types as shown on the regulating plan. a. Neighborhood Main Streets i. Neighborhood Main Street Section Figure 4: Cross Section of Neighborhood Main Street 7 PC Packet Page Number53 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 ii. Description of Street Elements Neighborhood Main Streets Right of Way Streetscape Sidewalk Width Shared Use Trail Width n/a Boulevard Width Tree Spacing 25 Travel Way Bicycle Lanes 2 Bicycle Lane Width Driving Lanes 2 Driving Lane Width 8 PC Packet Page Number54 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Parking Lanes 2 Parking Lane Width Median n/a b. Minor Arterial and Major Collector Streets i. Minor Arterial and Major Collector Street Sections Figure 5: Cross Section of Minor Arterial and Major Collector Streets ii. Description of Street Elements Minor Arterial and Major Collector Streets Right of Way minimum Streetscape Sidewalk Width n/a Shared Use Trail Width 10 Boulevard Width 8 9 PC Packet Page Number55 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Tree Spacing Travel Way Bicycle Lanes 0 Bicycle Lane Width n/a Driving Lanes 4+ Driving Lane Width Parking Lanes 0 Parking Lane Width n/a Median c. Local Connector Streets i. Local Connector Street Sections Figure 6: Cross-Section of Local Connector Streets 10 PC Packet Page Number56 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 ii. Description of Street Elements Local Connector Streets Right of Way Streetscape Sidewalk Width n/a Shared Use Trail Width Boulevard Width Tree Spacing Travel Way Bicycle Lanes 0 Bicycle Lane Width n/a Driving Lanes 4 Driving Lane Width maximum Parking Lanes 0 Parking Lane Width n/a Median 11 PC Packet Page Number57 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 d. Neighborhood Internal Streets i. Neighborhood Internal Street Sections Figure 7: Cross-Section of Neighborhood Internal Streets ii. Description of Street Elements Neighborhood Internal Streets Right of Way Streetscape Sidewalk Width Shared Use Trail Width n/a Boulevard Width Tree Spacing 25 Travel Way Bicycle Lanes 2 Bicycle Lane Width 12 PC Packet Page Number58 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Driving Lanes 2 Driving Lane Width Parking Lanes 2 maximum Parking Lane Width Median n/a (4) Open Space Standards. The standards in Table 1 shall apply to all land dedicated and deeded as public open spaces. Private open spaces meeting these standards will not count towards park dedication requirements. Table 1. Open Spaces Standards Service Size Type Access Location Illustration Radius Located along a public street with Centrally public transit or 0.25 located district shuttle Urban Park 3.0 Public within the ½ mile route; be adjacent acres North End to or incorporate area access to multi- modal circulation Must be Distributed connected by throughout public streets or 5,000 North End Urban by public paths 20,000 Public Area, filling ¼ mile Plaza that include sf in the service access for areas around pedestrian and Urban Parks bicycle 13 PC Packet Page Number59 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Service Size Type Access Location Illustration Radius Distributed throughout Must be North End Public Open 1,000 connected by Area, filling or 1 block Space 5,000 sf public streets or in the service Private by public paths areas around Urban Plazas At mid-block At least one end breaks and Public Pedestrian Width: must connect to a other key Adjacent or Passage public street or pedestrian corridors Private public path connection points (5) Lot Standards. a. Each lot must have a primary frontage along a public street, except where parcels shown on the regulating plan front on a public space or pedestrian passage. b. Where a lot has multiple street frontages, the primary entrance should be on the frontage with the highest priority, in accordance with Sec. 44-691(5)(c); if a lot has multiple street frontages of the same street type, the frontage with the primary entrance shall be determined by the director of community development. c. Minimum lot width along a street frontage shall be 50 feet. d. Flag lots are prohibited. Secs. 44-696. Site Design Standards. (1) Building Placement Standards. Minor Arterial / Local Neighborhood Neighborhood Major Collector Connector Main Street Internal Street Build-to Zone 15 ft. 30 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 5 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 25 ft. for Street 14 PC Packet Page Number60 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Frontage Minimum Side 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Yard Minimum Rear 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. Yard Minimum Street 60% 60% 80% 40% Frontage (2) Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. a. Off-Street Vehicle Parking Placement and Design. i. All Street Types: Off-street parking shall not be permitted to be located between the front of the building and the street. ii. Neighborhood Main Street Type: Off-street parking also shall not be permitted to be located in the side yard. iii. Off-street parking spaces for residential uses shall be located in a central location designed to support multiple uses or multiple units. iv. Vehicular entrances and exits to parking facilities shall have a maximum linear width of 11 feet if accommodating one direction of travel, and maximum linear width of 22 feet if accommodating both an exit and entrance at one opening. Entrances and/or exits that are shared with loading and service access may be 12 feet wide when accommodating one-way traffic and 24 feet wide when accommodating two-way traffic. v. Open surface parking areas must be limited to no more than 20 percent of total site area for any particular project. vi. Parapet edges of the parking areas, including the roof, and screening around open surface parking areas must be higher than vehicle headlights in order to screen adjacent properties. Figure 8. Off-Street Vehicle Parking Placement 15 PC Packet Page Number61 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 b. Quantity of Off-Street Vehicle Parking Spaces. The number of off-street vehicle parking spaces shall not exceed the maximum ratios listed in Table 2, Off-Street Vehicle Parking Spaces. Table 2. Off-Street Vehicle Parking Spaces Minimum Off-Street Maximum Off-Street Type of UseVehicle Parking Vehicle Parking Spaces Spaces Residential within 1/4 mile of the 0.5 spaces / unit 2.0 spaces / unit BRT station Residential outside 1/4 mile of 1.0 space / unit 2.5 spaces / unit the BRT station Lodging 0.5 spaces / guest room 1.25 space / guest room Business 1 space / 1,000 sf 5 spaces / 1,000 sf Public, social or health Care 1 space / 1,000 sf 5 spaces / 1,000 sf Arts, entertainment or recreation 1 space / 1,000 sf 5 spaces / 1,000 sf Transportation 1 space / 1,000 sf 5 spaces / 1,000 sf 16 PC Packet Page Number62 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 c. Off-Street Bicycle Parking. Off-street bicycle parking must be provided for new buildings in the minimum quantities listed in Table 3, Minimum Bicycle Parking Spaces. Table 3. Minimum Bicycle Parking Spaces Short Term Long Term Land UseSupport Facilities (Visitor)(Tenant) 1 space plus 5% of 1 shower per 4 spaces plus 5% of Non-residential required automobile gender / changing required automobile uses parking for tenants / facility per 100 parking for visitors occupants employees Residential buildings with 4 spaces plus 2 spaces plus N/A shared parking 0.10/unit 0.50/unit facilities Residential buildings with an 4 spaces plus N/A N/A individual private 0.10/unit garage d. Shared Parking. Shared off-street parking facilities are allowed to collectively provide parking in any district for more than one structure or use, subject to the following conditions: i. The uses must have their highest peak demand for parking at substantially different times of the day or week, or an adequate amount of parking shall be available for both uses during shared hours of peak demand. A parking plan shall address the hours, size and mode of operation of the respective uses. ii. The minimum spaces required under a shared parking agreement shall be based on the number of spaces required for the use that requires the most parking. iii. Shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant running with the land and recorded with the county in a form approved by the city attorney. A certified copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60 days after approval of the agreement by the city council. e. Off-Street Loading Facilities. 17 PC Packet Page Number63 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 i. Individual off-street loading spaces shall have a maximum width of 10 feet and a maximum vertical clearance of 16 feet. Loading docks shall be screened, both architecturally and with landscaping to minimize visibility from the street and neighboring buildings. ii. A maximum of one curb cut for loading and service is permitted every 600 linear feet of street frontage. iii. Garage, loading and service entry areas must include either opaque or translucent garage door panels. Loading entries must be well lit at night and obscure views into loading areas under daylight and night light conditions. Secs. 44-697. Building Design Standards. Buildings shall be constructed to meet the form requirements described in the sections below (1) Building Size Standards. Table 4. Building Size Standards Minor Arterial / Local Neighborhood Neighborhood Major Collector Connector Main Street Internal Street Minimum 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories 2 stories Building Height Maximum 8 stories 6 stories 6 stories 6 stories Building Height Stepback Stepback Stepback Stepback Upper Floors required above required above required above required above Stepback 4 stories 4 stories 3 stories 2 stories Maximum 250 ft. 250 ft. 250 ft. 250 ft. Building Width Figure 9. Building Design Element Illustration 18 PC Packet Page Number64 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 (2) Building Façade Standards. Table 5. Building Façade Standards Minor Arterial / Local Neighborhood Neighborhood Major Collector Connector Main Street Internal Street Principal Entrance Minimum of one required on street facade Placement Maximum Spacing of Entrances on No more than 75 ft. Street Façade Minimum Street At least every At least every At least every At least every Façade 55 ft. 45 ft. 35 ft. 20 ft. Articulation Minimum Street Façade 50% 50% 65% 20% Transparency: Ground Floor 19 PC Packet Page Number65 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 a. Parking Structures i. All off-street parking structures that front a public street must be lined with a minimum of 18 feet of occupied habitable space at the ground floor between the parking area and exterior wall of the building. ii. All other frontages must visually screen the interior from the exterior under daylighting and night lighting conditions. b. Exterior Building Materials Exterior-building materials shall be classified as primary, secondary or accent material. Primary materials shall cover at least 60 percent of all façades of a building. Secondary materials may cover no more than 30 percent of all façades of a building. Accent materials may include door and window frames, lintels, cornices and other minor elements, and may cover no more than ten percent of all façades of a building. i. Primary exterior building materials may be brick, stone or glass. Bronze- tinted or mirror glass are prohibited as exterior materials. ii. Secondary exterior building materials may be decorative block or stucco. iii. Synthetic stucco may be permitted as a secondary material on upper floors only. iv. Accent materials may be wood or metal if appropriately integrated into the overall building design and not situated in areas that will be subject to physical or environmental damage. v. All primary and secondary materials shall be integrally colored with no painted materials. Secs. 44-698. Use Standards. (1) Principal Uses allowed within the NE North End zoning district are as follows: Permitted (P) Type of Use Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Residential Household Living Dwelling, single unit attached (townhouses P or row houses) Dwelling, multiple unit (apartments) P 20 PC Packet Page Number66 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Dwelling, multiple unit and commercial P Group Living Residential care facility, licensed (up to six P people) Residential care facility, licensed (7+ people) CUP Senior care facility P Lodging Hotel or motel P Short term vacation rental (primary use) P Public, Social or Health Care Child care center, licensed group P Clinic, medical or health related P Clinic, veterinary (without external kennel) P Hospital P Municipal social, cultural or recreational P facility Municipal, county, state or federal P administrative or services building Place of worship P School, college/university/trade/business P School, elementary or secondary P Business Food or Beverage Services Bakery/candy shop/catering, which produces P goods for on-premises retail sales 21 PC Packet Page Number67 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Bar or drinking place P Brewpub P Brewery, small scale / microdistillery CUP Off-sale liquor business P On-sale liquor business P Restaurant P Specialty food or coffee shop P Drive-up food or beverage window CUP Retail Sales or Services Direct to consumer sales, up to four months P per year Dry cleaning and laundry pick-up station P Laundry P Retail P Small appliance and electronic component P or equipment repair Business or Technical Services Bank or credit union P Drive-through sales and services CUP Office P Photocopying establishment P Makerspace, studio or gallery P Arts, Entertainment or Recreation Health/sports club P 22 PC Packet Page Number68 of 69 F1, Attachment 1 City of Maplewood DRAFT North End District October 20, 2020 Indoor recreation P Indoor theater P Transportation Ambulance or medical carrier service P Minor motor fuel station CUP Off-street parking structure as a principal CUP use Public passenger transportation terminal P (air, bus, or rail) Utilities Essential public services P Stormwater ponding P Accessory Uses Accessory use customarily incidental to any P of the above uses Secs. 44-699. 44-730. Reserved. 23 PC Packet Page Number69 of 69