Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/27/2002BOOK 2. 3. 4. §. o 10. AGENDA MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD August 27, 2002 6:00 P.M. Maplewood City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Agenda Approval of the August 13, 2002 Minutes Unfinished Business: a. Hillcrest Animal Hospital Landscape Plan - 1320 County Road D East Design Review: a. Hillcrest Village Design Standards Visitor Presentations Board Presentations: Council Meeting Staff Presentations: a. Chair Ledvina's presentation of the August 26, 2002 City Community Design Review Board Representation at the September 9, 2002 City Council Meeting Reschedule the September 10, 2002 Community Design Review Board Meeting Due to Primary Elections Adjoum WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The review of an item usually follows this format. 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed. 2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant. 3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision. Most decisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal. jw\forms\cdrb.agd Revised: 11-O9-94 I1. III. IV. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002 CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Ledvina called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. ROLL CALL Matt Ledvina Craig Jorgenson Diana Longrie-Kline Linda Olson Ananth Shankar Present Absent Present at 6:11 p.m. Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF AGENDA Board member Shankar moved to approve the agenda. Board member Olson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Olson, Shankar The motion passed. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the CDRB minutes for July 9, 2002. Board member Olson moved approval of the minutes of July 9, 2002. Board member Ledvina seconded. The motion passed. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None. Ayes-Ledvina, OIson Abstention - Shankar Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-13-2002 VI. DESIGN REVIEW Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan (White Bear Avenue between Ripley Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue) Mr. Ekstrand reported the Metropolitan Council and their design consultants, together with the cities of St. Paul and Maplewood, have developed a neighborhood redevelopment land use plan for the Hillcrest Shopping Center and the contiguous part of Maplewood north of Larpenteur Avenue. This plan is called the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan site was developed over the past 11~ years. Concerned property and business owners were involved with the development of this plan. Staff is requesting that the planning commission, community design review board and housing redevelopment authority forward a recommendation on the Hillcrest Village Plan to the city council. The council needs to decide whether the city should adopt the redevelopment plan for Hillcrest Village, some variation of it or not adopt it at all. Board member Olson said she was originally opposed to the realignment of North St. Paul Road but she has reevaluated the situation and now thinks it is a positive design element. She went to one of the neighborhood meetings and thought there was a lot of negativity voiced. Ms. Olson felt this was partly because of the way the presentation was made by the Metropolitan Council. She felt people thought this plan was already decided on and there could be no changes. She said people felt they were being talked down to and that they had no voice in the development of this area. Board member Shankar asked if sidewalks would be part of this design and how will the city implement the sidewalks being put in. Mr. Ekstrand said the key element to this whole development is pedestrian walkways. He said sidewalks would be part of the design criteria in order to create a pedestrian friendly environment. Chairperson Ledvina asked staff about overlay districts. He asked how they would work with this plan. Ms. Finwall said the city has discussed the possibility of rezoning some of the properties rather than doing an overlay district. Some of the existing zoning is a higher use commercial so for this reason an overlay district may not work. The City of St. Paul is currently working on the design elements of their portion of the plan. They are also looking at rezoning the properties rather than doing an overlay district. The city would like to have this all wrapped up by November which is when the moratorium on development in the area expires. Chairperson Ledvina wanted to make sure that the CDRB was involved in the decision making process for design standards for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Community Design' Review Board Minutes 8-13-2002 3 Mr. Ekstrand said the CDRB will continue to review all new buildings within the Hillcrest Village just as they are currently involved in reviewing projects. In addition, staff will work with the CDRB on the implementation of design standards for the area. Board member Olson made a motion to recommend approval of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in concept and intent. Chairperson Ledvina added a friendly amendment to the motion. The CDRB is requesting that the city council enable the CDRB to provide input as it relates to architectural and site development design standards. The City of Maplewood should work very closely with the City of Saint Paul in developing the details for implementation as it relates to zoning and rezoning and reviewing the design structure and traffic flow. Board member Shankar seconded. The motion passed. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson, Shankar b. Keller Lake Golf Course Maintenance Building - 2166 Maplewood Drive Ms. Finwall reported Ramsey County Parks and Recreation Department are proposing to build a 10,560 square-foot maintenance building at Keller Golf Course. The proposed building would replace the older of the two existing maintenance buildings on the site. The county would keep the brown-colored structure. The exterior of the proposed maintenance building would have a white metal panel exterior with a tan colored wainscot base or an optional rock-faced block wainscot. The roof will be green with optional dormers facing Highway 61. The building will be setback 30 feet from Highway 61. An existing parking lot will be expanded to accommodate 15 parking stalls. The driveway and parking lot will be resurfaced with this project. The landscape plan which was recently submitted by Ramsey County and included in the CDRB packet, shows a variety of plant materials to be planted on the west side of the new maintenance building. The cities engineering department is requiring that rainwater gardens be installed around the building. These rainwater gardens will act as bioretention ponds for water runoff. With this revised landscaping plan there should also be a plan submitted which shows all required landscaping in the rainwater gardens as well as the size of the proposed plant materials. There are six-wall pack lights that are proposed for the maintenance building. The county must also submit a photometrics plan to staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The county should install a dumpster enclosure as part of this project. This dumpster enclosure plan should be submitted to staff prior to issuance of a building permit. - Board member Olson asked staff if the small building by Highway 61 will remain. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-13-2002 4 Ms. Finwall said correct. The maintenance building closest to Highway 61 will remain. Chairperson Ledvina asked if the applicant is requesting approval without the rock base and dormers. Ms. Finwall said those two items are listed on the plan as options. The county prefers to construct the building with both features, but the final budget will determine that. Mr. Kevin Finley with the Ramsey County Parks & Recreation, 2015 N. Van Dyke Street in Maplewood addressed the board. He said the pump house building and the water holding tank building will remain. He said the roof and the siding are made of metal. The purpose of the building is to support the turf grass maintenance equipment for the golf course. Half the building is a garage area for storing the mowers and is unheated. The north part of the building will have a maintenance shop, some offices, a lunchroom, and restrooms. The colors to be used on this structure are Forest Green for the roofing, White Sand for the siding, the garage doors will be brown and the skirting is Sahara Tan. Board member Longrie-Kline asked Mr. Finley how many employees work there and will there be enough parking available. Mr. Finley said during the summer there are 25 employees and then that number goes down as kids go back to school and winter comes. He said there will be plenty of parking in the back of the facility. Board member Shankar asked what type of vehicles will be parked in this building. Mr. Finley said the building is primarily used for grass mowing equipment and the storage of a pickup truck. Board member Shankar asked why the county was installing tall doors on the maintenance facility. Mr. Finley said the height of the garage doors is standard. He said some of the mowers are fairly large in size and have outrigger reels on them. Board member Olson asked what the rock-faced block material is made of and how the white metal siding is made of. Mr. Finley said the rock-faced block is a rock veneer material. The white metal siding is a panel with a baked on paint material that holds a 25-year warranty. Board member Shankar asked the applicant why there are high windows on one side and Iow windows on the other side. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-13-2002 Mr. Finley said the reason the windows are at two different heights is because it is more appealing to the eye to see the buildings with different window heights. Also, the garage area will allow light in and the building where the employee area will have lookout windows. Chairperson Ledvina said if he had to chose between the rock-faced wainscot and the dormers, he would chose the dormers. Board member Olson said if the rock-faced block is not used on the lower panels of the building she thinks the landscaping should be increased because the building will be visible from Highway 61. Board member Longrie-Kline said because of the size of the building she believes having the three dormers on the roof is critical. Without the dormers the building would look like a pole barn and this building is quite visible from Highway 61. Board member Shankar said his concern is having three dormers on the one side and nothing on the other building. He believes in order to create a more uniform appearance there should be two dormers on each side of the building making a total of four dormers. He also thinks the dormers should match up with the spacing of the windows and the windows on the south side should be raised six inches so the top of the window lines up with the joint. Board member Longrie-Kline said she has no problem with the height of the windows on the south side. When she looks at the dormers on the roof it appears the three dormers are spaced out evenly into three equal parts. They are not using the windows to disperse the dormers into three equal segments; they are using the roof to position the dormers equally. She said from Highway 61 the dormers are more visible than the Windows. Mr. Finley said if the decision is made that they can't afford to put up the rock-faced block they will still be putting up the Sahara Tan metal panels to create a contrasting color. Board member Shankar said he would like to see the applicant either put four dormers on the roofs or keep the three dormers and introduce the rock-faced block on the bottom panels of the buildings. Chairperson Ledvina said he feels the three dormers would be more critical for the aesthetics of the building. Board member Olson asked staff if a lighting plan is required. Ms. Finwall said that six-wall pack lights are proposed at this time; however, a photometrics plan will be required. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-13-2002 6 Board member Olson said there are no standing light poles for the employee parking lot. She asked if the six-wall pack lights will illuminate the parking area and if there are any additional lights around the pump house. Mr. Finley said the six-wall pack lights will light up the parking area. There are no additional lights around the pump house. There are lights along the highway that light up the area. Board member Longrie-Kline moved to approve the architectural and site plans date- stamped July 12, 2002, and the landscape plan date-stamped August 1, 2002, for the Keller Golf Course maintenance building, subject to the findings required by the city code. The county or the developer shall do the following: Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. Provide the following for approval before the city issues grading or building permits: ao A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan, subject to the city engineer's approval. This plan shall include the reconstruction of the entrance drive into the site. A detailed photometric plan for all proposed outdoor lighting, subject to staff approval. Plans for a trash dumpster enclosure. These shall include a revised plan to show the location and elevations of all four sides of the enclosure. The gates shall be 100 percent opaque and the materials and colors of the enclosure shall be compatible with those of the new maintenance building. This plan shall be subject to staff approval. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit that shows the size of the plantings and all landscaping within the rainwater gardens. 3. Complete the following before occupying the new maintenance building: ao The construction of the required trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers for this facility. (code requirement) The enclosure must be 100 percent opaque, match the color of the building and have a closeable gate that extends to the ground. Install all required landscaping around the driveway, parking lot and the site. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-13-2002 4. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if: aJ The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or welfare. The city receives cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required work. The amount shall be 150 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. The owner or contractor shall complete any unfinished landscaping by June 1 if the county occupies the building in the fall or winter or within six weeks if the county occupies the building in the spring or summer. Co The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished work. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. o The city is not requiring in-ground lawn irrigation since the applicant has the means and the workforce to maintain the landscaping. Chairperson Ledvina made the following friendly amendment: 1) The three dormers as shown on the elevation plans are not optional and need to be constructed as part of this proposal. 2) The CDRB is approving the site plans date-stamped July 12, 2002, and the landscape plans date-stamped August 1, 2002, subject to the findings of the city code. 3) The elevations were modified and presented to the CDRB as of August 13, 2002, which show the position of the windows on the south portion of the .west elevation and an addition of a third garage door on the east elevation as proposed by the applicant. Board member OIson seconded. Ayes - Ledvina, Longrie-Kline, Olson Nay - Shankar Board member Shankar said this building would be an improvement over what is there now but since he feels the dormers as well as the base material is important he is voting nay. The motion is passed. - Staff said this goes to the city council August 26, 2002. Community Design Review Board Minutes 8-13-2002 8 VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS Mr. Mike Dusette from Eldridge Avenue addressed the board. Mr. Dusette thought the city was discussing the street improvements on Eldridge Avenue at their meeting. Ms. Finwall said that was discuSsed as an agenda item at the city council meeting Monday August 12, 2002. Chairperson Ledvina referred him to contact the City Engineer in the Public Works Department for more information. VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS Board member Longrie-Kline gave a report on her representation for the CDRB at the August 12, 2002, city council meeting. She reported the city council voted 3-2 to approve Mr. Schreiers appeal of the CDRB's recommendation to put partial brick around the base of the apartment buildings in the Beaver Lake Estate development. The buildings will have vinyl clad siding instead of brick on the lower portion of the building. She also reported on Mr. Mogren's appeal of installing sidewalks in front of the Care Free Villa development. That passed - ayes all. IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Ms. Finwall asked CDRB members if they think the CDRB should be broadcast on cable. All members felt the broadcasting of the CDRB meetings would be a good public service, especially since the planning commission meetings are broadcast as well. Ms. Finwall reported on the following: am Board member Ledvina will be the Community Design Review Board representative at the August 26, 2002, city council meeting. The Keller Lake Golf Course Maintenance Building will be discussed. Board Appreciation Dinner - Battle Creek Regional Park: Thursday, September 5, 2002, at 5:30 p.m. Arbor Lakes Field Trip - Maple Grove: Monday, September 30, 2002, leaving the city hall at 5:15 p.m. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:42 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: PROJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Landscape Plan Design Review Hillcrest Animal Hospital 1320 County Road D August 21,2002 INTRODUCTION Background On March 12, 2002, the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) reviewed the design elements of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital project. The CDRB recommended approval of the design on the condition that the applicant submit the following revised items for the CDRB's review: 1) landscape plan to include additional landscaping on the north and the east sides of the building (especially in front of the dog run) and the code-required screening on the west side of the parking lot and driveway; and 2) retaining wall plan which shows the retaining wall with a minimum of a two-foot step or breaking in tiers with landscaping located above the tiers. (Refer to the original site plan date- stamped February 12, 2002, and included as a separate attachment.) On March 25, 2002, the city council approved a conditional use permit and design of the Hillcrest Animal Hospital. During the city*council meeting, the applicant requested that the city council amend the CDRB's condition that the retaining wall be constructed with a minimum of a two-foot step or breaking in tiers. The applicant requested the amendment because the contractor had indicated that the tiering of the retaining wall would require the removal of mature oak trees. The city council agreed with the applicant's viewpoint and amended the condition to allow the retaining wall to be constructed as proposed. Project Status The contractor has completed the retaining wall and final grade for the project (see picture of retaining wall on page 3). The building is currently under construction. DISCUSSION Retaining Wall Landscaping The retaining wall appears to be 12 feet high at its highest point. The three existing oak trees help to soften the appearance of the wall from Highway 61. To further soften its appearance, the applicant is proposing to plant five 6-foot-high Colorado green spruce and two 2 % caliper inch Deborah maple trees (see attached plan on page 4). Because there is an additional downward slope from the retaining wall to the property line, and the intent of the landscaping is to visually soften the look of the large wall, staff recommends that the Colorado green spruce be increased in height from six feet to eight feet. Dog Run Landscaping To help screen the dog run on the north side of the building from County Road D, the applicant is proposing three 6-foot-high balsam fir trees and eight lilac bushes (see attached landscape plan on page 4). Landscape Screening Requirement City code requires that the applicant screen the parking lot from the home to the west by a 6-foot- high, 80 percent opaque screen. The applicant can accomplish this by berming, fencing, plantings, or a combination of these. The applicant is proposing two alternatives to accomplish the required screening. Both alternatives include five river birch trees and seven 6-foot-high blue spruce (see attached landscape explanation and plans on pages 5 through 7). The first alternative clumps the spruce trees together on the southwest side of the site with the birch trees planted along the driveway. The second alternative places the spruce trees along the west property line and the birch along the driveway. Staff recommends the second alternative because it creates more screening along the west property line. Building Foundation Landscaping The applicant is not proposing any changes to the originally submitted building foundation landscape plan (see plan on page 8). This landscaping includes 53 shrubs of two varieties including spiraea little princess and dwarf Korean lilac. RECOMMENDATION Approve the retaining wall and dog run landscape plan date-stamped August 21, 2002; the residential screening landscape plan B date-stamped August 21,2002; and the building foundation landscape plan date-stamped February 12, 2002 for the Hillcrest Animal Hospital at 1320 County Road D with the following condition: Submit a revised retaining wall landscape plan for city staff approval that shows five, 8-foot-high Colorado green spruce instead of the proposed 6-foot-high trees. Attachments 1. Retaining Wall Picture 2. Retaining Wall and Dog Run Landscape Plan 3. Applicant's Explanation of Landscape Screening Alternatives 4. Residential Screening Landscape Plan A 5. Residential Screening Landscape Plan B 6. Building Foundation Landscaping 7. February 12, 2002, Landscape Plan (Separate Handout) Attachment 1 Attachment 2 4 ~/At~achment 3 Attachment 4 $1'ONE I='L ,N,,I~ EX C:ULVEI~ I~EI=t. AC, E Ex lqUJ IL L UI"IlI',IA'r EHC~L:'E TENT h I='L.,ANT I1',1CI EX C4~LvE~ I p=m=:=~ I'~ / B U) 15'-~' O.C. DETEI Attachment 5 !,~ ILLI,~IIN~,Tt II PLANT MATERIAL 7 Attachment 6 c~ I L,~,NiDSC.,~,PE NOTE5 ] PLANT I"IATEf~IAL $C_..NEDkJLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards City of Maplewood Along White Bear Avenue, North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Street July 21,2002 INTRODUCTION Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan The Metropolitan Council and the cities of Maplewood and St. Paul created the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to implement smart-growth principals within the Hillcrest Shopping Center area. The goal of the plan is to help guide changes within the area in order to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, recreation and civic uses. Background Last November the city council approved a one-year moratorium on development within the Hillcrest area in order to allow the city time to formally adopt the plan and to develop design standards for the area based on the smart growth principals. The moratorium ends on November 13, 2002. On August 13, 2002, the Community Design Review Board (CDRB) recommended approval of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. The CDRB also requested that the city council enable the CDRB to provide input into the architectural and site design standards for the plan. The city council has yet to formally review and adopt the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Staff hopes to bring the plan to the city council in the near future. Design Standard Implementation In order to ensure that the city implements design standards for Hillcrest Village by November 13, 2002, staff proposes discussing the item with the CDRB during a series of meetings in order to receive comment and guidance on the creation of a new ordinance. The new ordinance will then be presented to the city council before the November 13, 2002, deadline for their approval. DISCUSSION Zoning Issues The city could implement several different tools to create design standards for Hillcrest Village. One tool is the creation of an overlay district. An overlay district would be imposed on top of the existing zoning districts. Development of properties within the overlay district must comply with all regulations of the base district in which it was originally located plus the overlay district. Where there is any conflict in a base district and an overlay district, the more restrictive of the two would apply. There are currently two zoning districts located within the City of Maplewood's portion of Hillcrest Village including Business Commercial (BC) and Single Dwelling Residential (R-l). The BC zoning district is one of the city's highest intensity commercial zoning districts. Permitted and conditional uses within this zoning district include automotive-related uses like gas stations, auto repair, and car lots. Because of the incompatibility of these uses to the uses envisioned in the Hillcrest Village, staff feels that an overlay district would not be an appropriate tool for creating design standards within this area. An alternative would be to create an entirely new zoning district. This district would allow for a mixture of land uses and would promote the development/redevelopment of an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city could implement the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a walkable, urban village setting. Staff recommends the creation of a new zoning district that could be tailored to meet the special design standard needs for Hillcrest Village and future urban village areas within the city. Metropolitan Council's Proposed Urban Design Standards Calthorpe Associates, design consultants hired by the Metropolitan Council, created an urban design standard document for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. (Refer to the Hillcrest Village Proposed Urban Design Standards document attached as a separate handout.) This document includes the proposed placement, orientation, and massing of new buildings within the area and is intended to help guide the cities (Maplewood and St. Paul) in discussions on implementing new regulations or ordinances for the area. Staff recommends that the CDRB review and comment on this document for use in the City of Maplewood's new ordinance. St. Paul's Existing and Proposed Design Standards St. Paul's city council has not formally adopted the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. They are currently working with a group of neighbors, business owners, and city staff to examine the plan and possibly make modifications. St. Paul city staff have indicated that it may not be until next spring that their city council actually reviews the plan. On July 5, 2001, the City of St. Paul created a White Bear Avenue Small Area Plan. This plan was put in place as a prelude to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to promote redevelopment along White Bear Avenue, from Highway 94 to Larpenteur Avenue. The redevelopment envisioned in the plan includes mixed-use developments that enhance the livability of the area, reduce adverse traffic and parking conditions, and create buildings and spaces consistent and compatible with the architecture of St. Paul. To implement the plan, the City of St. Paul adopted two overlay districts. These overlay districts specify prohibited uses within the district and go into some design elements for the area. (Refer to the White Bear Avenue overlay districts attached as a separate handout.) Once St. Paul's city council adopts the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan, or a version of the plan, the city will likely drop the overlay districts and rezone the area entirely. The most likely scenario is the adoption of one of three recently drafted mixed-use ordinances. These ordinances were drafted by the City of St. Paul earlier this year after a year-long planning project. The project was funded by the Metropolitan Council and was undertaken to support urban village redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, by creating a new zoning model that allows a broader range Of land uses than existing zoning districts while establishing physical design standards for several different types of urban villages. The St. Paul City Council has not formally adopted the new ordinance yet. The new zoning district is titled Traditional Neighborhood and is broken down into three different levels of intensity: TN1 would function mainly as a transition zone between higher-intensity commercial and residential; TN2 would be used at pedestrian- and transit-oriented nodes where a diversity of land uses and some intensification of use would be appropriate; and TN3 is the most intense district intended primarily for the larger urban village redevelopment sites. (Refer to the Traditional Neighborhood zoning district attached as a separate handout.) St. Paul city staff have indicated that they will likely recommend that the St. Paul portion of the Hillcrest Village be rezoned to the new TN2 or TN3 zoning districts. As suggested by the CDRB, the City of Maplewood should work very closely with the City of St. Paul in developing design standards that are consistent in both cities. Because the City of Maplewood is proposing to develop design standards by November of this year, and the City of St. Paul will not adopt design standards until next spring, St. Paul's TN2 and TN3 zoning districts should be used by the City of Maplewood as a guide in developing our ordinance. New Zoning District Since the new zoning district will encompass mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented developments, staff is proposing to call it the "Mixed-Use Zoning District." Staff recommends the following headings and text to be included in the Mixed-Use Zoning District (italic text is included as guiding information for further development of the code). Mixed Use Zoning District Purpose: The purpose of the Mixed-Use Zoning District is to provide a mixture of land uses made mutually compatible through controls and high quality design standards. This district will promote the redevelopment/development of an area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The intent is to enhance viability within the area and foster more employment and residential opportunities. The placement and treatment of buildings, parking, signage, landscaping, and pedestrian spaces are essential elements in creating the pedestrian-friendly and livable environment envisioned in the area. Permitted Uses: Uses the city would encourage within the zoning district. Conditional Uses: Uses the city would allow within the zoning district with controls in the form of conditions. Prohibited Uses: The City of St. Paul's existing overlay district prohibits currency-exchange businesses, pawn shops, and automotive related uses. These uses are undesirable within a pedestrian-oriented urban center. Staff also recommends prohibiting drive-through uses, including fast-food restaurants or convenience drug stores. Density and Dimensional Standards: This area should include the minimum and maximum density, lot area size (if any), minimum and maximum height of buildings, and setbacks (if any). Parkinq: The City of Maplewood's current parking calculations would not work in this zoning district. The Mixed-Use Zoning District should depend on more on-street parking, underground parking, or structure parking, than on the traditional on-site surface parking. Design Guidelines: The City of St. Paul's Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District does an excellent job in defining design guidelines including exterior building materials, landscaping, and lighting (see Appendix C [-I'N Design Guidelines] in the TN Zoning document). The City of Maplewood should use this as a guide. Nonconforminq Uses: Any preexisting conforming or nonconforming residential uses which would become nonconforming by adoption of the Mixed-Use Zoning District may be expanded, extended or intensified so long as such expansion, extension or intensification would be permitted under the R-1 "Single Dwelling Residential" zoning district. How should the city handle nonconforming automotive related uses? There are currently three automotive related uses within the Hi//crest Village (Performance Transmission, Maplewood Self Service Car Wash, and Super America). Should the city allow these uses to be enlarged, expanded, or rebuilt or allow them to remain as is until such time as they expand or go out of business for one year, in which case a conditional use permit would be required to expand or rebuild? Revisions to Subdivision Ordinance: The city's subdivision ordinance currently requires all streets to be 60 feet in width. The city should consider reducing the required width for the Mixed- Use Zoning District. The subdivision ordinance allows the use of crosswalks or alleys only when necessary in the opinion of the city council. The city should promote crosswalks and alleys within the Mixed-Use Zoning District. Revisions to Si.qn Code: Staff recommends only permitting wall signs, sidewalk wall signs (wall signs that overhang the sidewalk), or monument signs. The city should prohibit pylon signs within the Mixed-Use Zoning District. Revisions to Comprehensive Plan: Density requirements are located within the city's comprehensive plan and not the zoning code. The highest density currently allowed is 16.3 units per acre. Calthorpe's Hi//crest Village Urban Design Standards document and the City of St. Paul's Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District allow for certain apartment buildings to have 30- 50 units per acre (with underground parking). The city should revise the comprehensive plan to include the higher densities envisioned in the Mixed-Use Zoning district. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the CDRB review all information included with this staff report and offer recommendations on the implementation of the new Mixed Use Zoning District. Attachments: 1. Proposed Urban Design Standards, Hillcrest Village 2. White Bear Avenue Special District Sign Plan 3. Urban Village Zoning and Zoning Code Reformatting