Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/03/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, November 3, 2003, 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road B East 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. October 20, 2003 5. Public Hearings None 6. New Business a. University Auto Sales Conditional Use Permit (1145 Highway 36 East) 7. Unfinished Business a. Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. October 27 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler b. November 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fisher c. November 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Pearson 10. Staff Presentations a. Note: The December 1,2003 Meeting as been rescheduled to Tuesday, December 2, 2003 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner William Rossbach Commissioner Dale Trippler Present Tushar Desai Present Mary Dierich Present Jackie Monahan-Junek Present Paul Mueller Present Gary Pearson Present Present Absent Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OFAGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for October 6, 2003. Chairperson Fischer suggested Will Rossbach should be the acting chairperson instead of sitting in as chairperson) on the front page of the October 6, 2003, minutes under role call. Commissioner Monahan-Junek moved to approve the planning commission minutes for October 6, 2003, as amended. Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach Abstention - Mueller, Fischer Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 V. PUBLIC HEARING -2- None. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. Home Occupation License - 1828 Radatz Avenue (Horvath) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Christine Horvath is requesting a home occupation license to start and operate a naturopathic healing clinic in the house at 1828 Radatz Avenue. The applicant's business would be using naturopathic medicine (therapeutic natural health care) to help heal various ailments of individuals. Ms. Horvath would be using much of the lower level of the home for the business, including having an office and two bedrooms for treatment rooms. The city's home occupation ordinance limits a home occupation to occupy a maximum of 20 percent of the floor area of the house. Her proposed business would use about 620 feet of the lower level of the home, which is 20 percent of the floor area of the house. This space limit also is important to David Fisher, the Maplewood Building Official. Commissioner Rossbach asked if the current recommendation was for the applicant to have a limit of 30 customers per day? It states in the staff report that the applicant would have about 32 customers per day, Mr. Roberts said he did state 30 customers per day in the staff report but that was only to limit the potential impact on the neighborhood, however, 30 to 32 is not a large impact on the neighborhood as far as traffic either way. Commissioner Desai asked staff if 30 customers per day is a city ordinance or was that just an arbitrary number from staff? Mr. Roberts said 30 was only an arbitrary decision from staff. Commissioner Dierich asked staff how many other medical home occupation businesses there are in the city of Maplewood? Mr. Roberts said there are no other medical home occupation businesses that have gone through the home occupation process. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Christine Horvath, Park Rapids, addressed the commission. She said this is a transitional move. She has six clients that she sees twice a month at this current time so the expectation of 32 clients a week will take awhile to accomplish. She said if it got to that many clients she would gladly move her business to an office instead of a home occupation location. Commissioner Dierich asked Ms. Horvath who oversees her license as a naturopathic person? Ms. Horvath said there is no licensing for a naturopathic person. She has the client sign a Client Bill of Rights before they except service. Planning Commission -3- Minutes of 10-20-03 Commissioner Dierich asked if there is oversight by the state or anybody else? Ms. Horvath replied no there is not. She said this was enacted in July 2001, and the only requirement is to have the client sign the Client Bill of Rights before treatment. Commissioner Dierich asked about the privacy issues and records? Ms. Horvath yes that is included in the Client Bill of Rights. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant if she had any questions of the staff report? Ms. Horvath said no she did not. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience would like to speak regarding this issue? Nobody came forward. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the home occupation license for Ms. Christine Horvath to have a naturopathic healing clinic in the house at 1828 Radatz Avenue. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. Meeting all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. This includes that the area of the home occupation is limited to a maximum of 20 percent of the floor area of the house. 2. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 3. There shall be no more than 30 customers visiting the home per week. 4. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. 5. Provide a five-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the lower level of the home. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach Nay- Dierich Commissioner Rossbach said he would like to comment regarding the residents that wrote into staff regarding the traffic concerns in the area. These comments show another instance where residents are commenting on the traffic from the commercial areas using residential streets. Commissioner Dierich said for the record the reason she voted Nay was because she thinks the city should reconsider the ordinances for home businesses. In her opinion this is a very inappropriate place to be running a medical business especially for reasons of record storage and privacy issues. The motion passed. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -4- This item goes to the city council on November 10, 2003. b. Heritage Square Townhouses (Legacy Village) Mr. Ekstrand said Mr. Phil Carlson, AICP, with Dahlgren, Shardlow, and Uban, Inc., will be presenting the staff report. Mr. Carlson said the Legacy Village PUD, being developed by the Hartford Group and approved earlier this year, consists of a number of separate parcels with a variety of land uses. Outlot H of the PUD consists of approximately 20 acres in the southwest corner of the PUD, bound by the new Kennard Street on the east, the power line easement on the north, and abutting the south and west lot lines of the Hajicek Property. This parcel was approved in concept by the city council for up to 250 owner-occupied townhomes. Town and Country Homes, a national residential builder, is proposing a project of 221 townhomes, to be called Heritage Square. Mr. Carlson said Heritage Square involves two building types: the Hometown units, which are back-to-front units with an entry at the front and garage/driveway in the rear, in 4-, 5-, and 6-unit buildings, labeled Building Type A on the site plan; and the Chateau units, which are back-to-back units in 8-unit buildings, four on a side, labeled Building Type B on the site plan in the report. Commissioner Rossbach asked who is developing the open space to the north? Mr. Carlson said that open space is owned by the Hartford Group and there was some discussion about the city buying the open space for park land. Staff would be able to update the commission on the latest information. Mr. Ekstrand said the city was asked to pay a certain dollar amount for the open space, which the city rejected. Therefore, the property remains an open space and will remain an open space as long as the dollar amount remains to be asked. The city would like to see that land incorporated into the other properties or retained as a recreational area. Commissioner Rossbach asked if that open space is set aside in the PUD to be an open space park land? Mr. Carlson said it's set aside to be an outlot within the approved Legacy Village PUD. Commissioner Rossbach asked if it has a specific designation? Mr. Carlson said it is designated as open space. Mr. Ekstrand said that is correct. Commissioner Rossbach asked if in the original PUD an area in the northeast corner was still being set aside as affordable? It was going to be apartment buildings and then there were going to be 50 townhomes. He asked if this affordable housing was going to take the place of that or is this an additional 50 affordable housing units? Planning Commission -5- Minutes of 10-20-03 Mr. Carlson said there are going to be 50 homes for affordable housing within Heritage Square and they are guaranteeing 50 homes, however, he was not privy to the discussion of it being "in place" of or "in addition" to the 50 affordable housing units. Mr. Ekstrand said it was his understanding that it would be "in addition" to the 50 affordable homes. Mr. Carlson said the overall Legacy Village PUD is owned by the Hartford Group and this piece of Outlot H is being sold as an option to Town & Country Homes and they are only dealing with this Outlot H and not the other parcels within the PUD. Commissioner Rossbach said at the last planning commission meeting the commission discussed the additional parking on Kennard Street and he was led to believe there would be carriage walks put in by the developer. In Mr. Carlson's report it sounds like a question that the carriage walks would be put in and he would like that clarified. Mr. Carlson said he would have to ask Mr. Cavett if that has been incorporated into the design or not. Mr. Cavett said as part of the change order to add parking to the Kennard Street project, the city felt the carriage walks should be put in by the developer. The city would put in the sidewalks and the developer should find out how many carriage walks would come out to those parking stalls. Commissioner Rossbach said he has a concern about the setback, regardless of the fact that he understands some of the residential homes have been sold to a developer. He said the ordinance states that the setbacks are taken from the property line so he doesn't agree with that portion of Mr. Carlson's report. He is hesitant to put the townhomes so close to the current residential property lines without knowing the fate of what is going to happen in that location. Mr. Carlson said three out of the five residential homes have been optioned to another developer so it is possible that those homes will stay there for the foreseeable future. He said if Outlot H were platted as single family homes it could be developed with the lots budding up to the back end of the property with homes that would be about the same size, shape, and profile as the townhouse buildings that are proposed and within the 30 foot setback. He said this development is not dramatically different from what a single-family development could accomplish on this same site. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the engineering comments on pages 22 through 26 were incorporated into the staff report, and if not, why not? Mr. Carlson said the engineer provided a full review, as well as a list of conditions for approval that the engineer thought would be appropriate. He said those conditions of approval were incorporated into the memo and the resolution. However, not every one of those comments were put into the staff report. Chairperson Fischer asked what the procedure would be if the carriage walks did not get put in prior to occupancy and the potential of having unhappy neighbors if they tried to go in afterwards and finish the job later? She asked if the carriage walks would have to be put in before occupancy permits could be issued? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -6- Mr. Ekstrand said the carriage walks would be covered in the CDRB requirements. Typically the city would require escrow to guarantee all work would be completed before occupancy. Mr. Carlson said to clarify there are two pieces of sidewalk being discussed. The townhomes facing Kennard Street will have a walk from the front door to the city sidewalk parallel to Kennard Street. The second piece is for the carriage walk, which is from the sidewalk across the boulevard to the curb at the parking space itself. Both of those pieces are covered in the requirements of Town & Country. He said the first is shown on the site plan. The second piece would need to be part of Town & Country paying to build the sidewalks in the city right-of-way and those would be part of the private development. He said the sidewalks would be constructed in a manner agreed to at an appropriate staff level. Chairperson Fischer asked the applicant to address the commission. Ms. Krista Flemming, Project Manager of Land Development, Town & Country Homes, 7615 Smetana Lane, Suite 180, Edina Prairie, MN, addressed the commission. Ms. Fleming wanted to thank everyone who had been involved in this project for the past few months. She said this project creates a pedestrian friendly, streetscape feeling that is desired with a village feel. Commissioner Monahan-Junek asked what the difference in grade would be on Kennard Street? Ms. Flemming said depending on where you are on Kennard Street the grade ranges from four feet to eight feet in height. The walks going up to the townhomes have stairs and railings so there is an elevated feeling for the homes. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said the color rendering on page 3 of the booklet provided doesn't show the increase in the grade from the street level. Ms. Flemming said as you get farther down along the street there is more of a significance along that area that has the green space area. She said part of the color rendering was done before they had the final plan for Kennard Street because of what was happening with the final plat plan and when this rendering had to be completed. Commissioner Mueller said he has a concern about the stairs going up to the property. He said that causes a problem for anybody who is in a wheelchair or handicapped. He asked if it's a standard practice to use steps or is there usually an attempt to try to make it a winding slope? Ms. Flemming said they try to have a graded area that can accommodate all conditions. Depending on the grade of the site they may not be able to provide that. They try to use long risers and stretch them out to eliminate the need for stairs. Town & Country has developed this design in a number of different locations under similar conditions and haven't had any issues or concerns. She said stairs make it more difficult to access the front of the home but you can access the home by the garage where there is a level plain. Commissioner Mueller said his concern is not so much for the access to the townhome because the homeowner can pick and choose the unit that is best for them but the concern is relating to the public pathways. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -7- Ms. Flemming said public paths are different from private paths. Public paths have to be winding or at a grade. The private paths are the ones that would have steps and then they could use retaining walls to wind the path along in place of using steps. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody in the audience wanted to address the commission. Mr. Gerald Peterson, 3016 Hazelwood Street, Maplewood, addressed the commission. He said as far as the setback variances he doesn't think the setback is large enough. He said those lots are deep and just because the lots are deep doesn't mean there should be any exceptions made to allow the development to be any closer to the existing homes. He is concerned about the glare from headlights for the homes on the ends. He thinks the landscaping should be heavy and with a decent size tree between the existing homes and the new townhomes. Mr. Peterson said he noticed on the plans that there were some additional lines on Legacy Parkway and wondered what the lines represented? Mr. Carlson said those lines represent a possible future continuance of the road going through the area. He said Legacy Parkway could be a through street to Hazelwood Street to provide a thru connection. If the existing single-family homes that have not sold yet remain there than Legacy Parkway would not go through as it currently shows on the map. If the homes get sold, and the area is redeveloped, than Legacy Parkway could go through to Hazelwood. However, there is no street design; it is simply a suggestion that Legacy Parkway could be extended in the future. Chairperson Fischer asked if anybody else wanted to speak on this item? Nobody came forward. Commissioner Dierich asked what the purpose was for having two entrances to the driveway? Ms. Flemming said the area was designed that way for public safety purposes for fire and emergency vehicles to gain access. She said they would plant coniferous trees between the residential area and the new development to help block the vehicle headlights shining through for the four seasons of the year. Commissioner Mueller said he would recommend using Blue Spruce evergreen trees as the barrier between the homes and the townhome development. He asked if it was possible to use berms? He also asked how Town & Country Homes felt about fences? Ms. Flemming said they tried to tie into the neighborhood without having to create an offsite drainage issue and without having to look at grading. She said typically you can put a berm within a 20-foot area. She said they would prefer to use landscaping as a barrier instead of a fence. Commissioner Mueller said he doesn't care for fencing either but maybe the best thing would be to check with the homes that have not been sold to see what they would like to see in their backyard. Ms. Flemming said they could discuss that with staff as well. Commissioner Rossbach asked what type of landscaping and variety and size of trees Town & Country plans on planting on the boundary line? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -8- Ms. Flemming said they propose to use eight-foot high trees. They will try to cluster five to six different species of trees along with some deciduous trees to provide a balance as well as some ornamental trees. Commissioner Dierich asked if there are other public streets in this development besides Legacy Parkway? Mr. Ekstrand said just Kennard Street and Legacy Parkway. Chairperson Fischer asked what the distances would be of the setbacks of the buildings? She noticed on the plan that it cuts farther in then the private road shown on page 6? Mr. Ekstrand said the plan is not to scale but he would venture to say that the center of Legacy Parkway looks like 20 feet as compared to the setback for the homes on Kennard Street. He said other areas range from 12 to 15 feet and up to 30 feet for the setback. Chairperson Fischer said a comment was made in the report regarding additional trails may compromise the design of the rainwater gardens. She asked if that was going to be a problem or can they be accommodated? Mr. Cavett said there should be no problem and it should be a very workable plan. Commissioner Monahan-Junek said she likes this plan except for the setback issue on the west side that meets up with some of residential homes. She said even though some of the properties have been sold to a developer there are two other homes that have not been sold. Since the city does not know what is going to be put in the area where the homes have been sold, and we can't assume the area will be developed, she does not think we should ask for a variance to allow a smaller setback. Chairperson Fischer said she shares the same feeling. Some people have deeper properties that they have maintained and it should not be used as an excuse for a development to not meet the requirements that would normally be in place. She said then the commission is faced with the unusual conditions of the property it is highly possible that the property will be redeveloped and the city does not know the time frame and that adds to the dilemma. She said if the city knew what the time frame was she would not have as much of a problem with this. Commissioner Dierich said what about the people that would live in the end townhome units, they would not have a reasonable setback from the existing residential homes. She agrees with the commissioners about the setback, maybe not as strong as some, but the new homeowners need to have a reasonable distance from the existing homes. Commissioner Pearson asked Mr. Cavett at one of the previous planning commission hearings a few homeowners to the west had some serious concerns that this development would be draining onto their properties and were concerned about potential flooding problems. He asked Mr. Cavett if he is satisfied the drainage will be maintained without draining excessively onto the neighboring properties? Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -9- Mr. Cavett said the city is very satisfied that there will not be any drainage problems. There was an extensive drainage study done as part of the Hartford Development for this property. Part of the water will drain towards Kennard Street, into the drainage system, to the north and into the two drainage ponds. He said much of the drainage would be contained in the streets and conveyed by storm sewers. The drainage may be reduced from what currently goes to the neighbor's properties. Commissioner Rossbach said he believes the residents were concerned that the drainage would flood their basements. He said maybe the city could make a reassurance that the drainage would go to the drainage system and not into their basements? Mr. Cavett said staff will certainly look into that. The city will make sure that flooding would not be the case. This concern is the first time he had heard people were concerned there would be a potential flood problem so he will check into it. Chairperson Fischer asked if the commission wanted to call a five minute recess to come to a resolution regarding the motion? The Planning Commission members agreed to a five-minute break. When the commission reconvened, Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend adoption of the resolution on pages 33-34 of the staff report, approving the Planned Unit Development for Heritage Square, Outlot H of the Legacy Village PUD, as illustrated on the drawings prepared by Landform, date-stamped October 15, 2003, except as revised in accordance with the following conditions: (changes or additions to the motion are in bold and underlined.) 1) Outlot H is approved for 220 units of townhouses as revised according to the conditions in this report. 2) The southern unit of the Hometown (Type A) building, as the southwest corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street, shall be eliminated, reducing it from 5 units to 4 units, thus continuing the internal linear green space out to Kennard Street at a width of at least 70 feet. The landscape treatment of this green space shall be continued into this new area in similar fashion to the rest of the linear green space. 3) Within the linear green space two north-south segments of sidewalk shall be added, one connecting Driveways K and U, the other connecting Driveways G and W. The rain gardens and landscaping shall be revised to accommodate these sidewalks. 4) The dead ends of all driveways behind the Chateau (Type B) buildings - Street B and Drives G, I, K, M, O, Q, U, V, and W - shall be designed, striped and signed to accommodate two common parking spaces each. 5) The monument signs and associated landscaping at the corner of Legacy Parkway and Kennard Street shall be revised to place trees or other landscape features that are at least 25 feet in height and close to the right-of-way, while still maintaining safe sight distances, that will create a significant tall edge mimicking the scale of the proposed senior building and future office building on the opposite corners of the intersection. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -10- 6) The setbacks are approved as shown on the site plan except the west side setbacks for the buildings shall be 50 feet. 7) All construction shall follow the plans date-stamped October 15, 2003. The city council may approve major changes. The director of community development may approve minor changes. 8) The proposed construction must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall end. The council may extend this permit for one year. 9) The city council shall review this permit in one year. 10)The homeowners association documents shall state that the visitor parking areas shall be kept open for visitor parking and shall not be used as a storage area for RVs, trailers, campers and the like. Commissioner Pearson moved to recommend the Preliminary Plat as illustrated on the drawings submitted by Landform, dated September 12, 2003, in the staff report except as revised in accordance with the following conditions: 1) The plat shall be revised in terms of the dimensions and numbering of lots if necessary to reflect the recommended revisions to the number and location of buildings in the above conditions for the PUD. 2) Legacy Parkway west of Kennard Street is shown as a public roadway. The following conditions must be met if Legacy Parkway is constructed as a public roadway: a. The city should be responsible for the design and construction of the roadway. b. The developer will need to petition the city for the improvements. c. The roadway needs to be redesigned to a more typical city street design or the developer needs to be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of all of the amenities and rainwater gardens included in the design. The city will grant an easement to the developer for the maintenance of the amenities and rainwater gardens. The developer will be required to prepare a maintenance agreement detailing the specifics of the maintenance operations for city review and approval. 3) The plan shows on-street parking along the west side of Kennard Street. The following conditions must be met if the on-street parking is to remain on Kennard Street. An additional 8 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated by the developer along the west side of Kennard Street to accommodate the parking bays and allow for the necessary sidewalk and boulevard areas. The developer shall be responsible for the costs (construction and 31.5% admin & engineering) to add the parking bays along Kennard Street. These costs are estimated to be approximately $70,000. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -11- 4) The plans show grading outside of the property boundary along the north, west and south sides of the site. All grading shall be restricted to within the property boundaries or temporary construction easements need to be obtained from the adjacent property owners. The developer must provide evidence of any temporary construction easements. 5) The developer must prepare an operation and maintenance plan for the proposed storm drainage system for the review and approval of the city. An active operation and maintenance program is critical to the proper function and operation of the system. 6) In the future, the city may design to extend sanitary sewer and water main services into Outlot I from the sanitary sewer and water main utilities in the driveways north of Legacy Parkway. The services may be for future park and/or open space uses on Outlot I. The developer and the Home Owners Association must agree in writing that they will not object to the future installation of these utility services. 7) The plat includes Outlot A for the storm water pond. The pond must be included in a public drainage and utility easement rather than an outlot. The developer must also dedicate a public drainage and utility easement for the pond outlet. 8) The plat shall include 20' wide utility easements along all water main outside of public right-of- way per SPRWS requirements. 9) The developer shall be required to grant the city a right of entry/temporary construction easement, as necessary, for public roadway construction outside of the limits of the public right-of-way. Commissioner Dierich seconded. Ayes - Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Pearson, Rossbach Nay- Mueller Commissioner Mueller said he voted nay based on the information he received tonight that there is really only one property that is affected by the setback being less than 50 feet. The other lot that has not been sold is 52 feet from the setback. The rest of the homes have been sold and are to be redeveloped by a developer. Staff told him that once a developer comes to the city they have to work with what is "existing". Staff said the developers have to work with the land that is there and with the rules and regulations that exist. So with that information we know the remaining homes that have sold will be redeveloped in some way. Eventually maybe the two remaining unsold homes will decide to sell and the whole area will be redeveloped. The motion passed. This item goes to the city council November 10, 2003. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -12- VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Proposed Mixed-Use Zoning Ordinance Mr. Roberts said the planning commission reviewed the draft mixed-use zoning ordinance at the October 6, 2003, planning commission meeting. During that review, the planning commission requested clarification or changes on the following items: 1. Nonconforming uses. 2. Limited production and processing. 3. Motor vehicle fuel stations. 4. Dry cleaning. 5. Setbacks to non-mixed-use residential zoning districts. 6. Alley right-of-way and pavements widths. Mr. Roberts said at the previous planning commission meeting there was a question raised about having less than 1 year for a nonconforming use. There was not time to get the updated information in the staff report, however, the city attorney said the state law for a nonconforming use is 1 year and the city is not recommending anything less than that. Mr. Roberts continued to explain some of the clarifications and/or changes to the proposed mixed-use zoning district ordinance. Mr. Roberts handed out some comments from Richard McLaughlin, an architect that worked with the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards booklet during his employment with HGA. Mr. McLaughlin had comments on the live-work units and the alley width and garage setbacks to alleys. Chairperson Fischer asked a two-part question. She said with this urban village proposal for the Hillcrest Redevelopment area will the intent of drivers be that there are too many hassles driving on White Bear Avenue because of the traffic calming devices so the drivers will use the side streets or is the plan to have a steady flow of traffic with different things happening on the side? Mr. Cavett said White Bear Avenue is under Ramsey County's jurisdiction and he does not see major things happening to hinder traffic. He said there will be more pedestrian friendly things redeveloped on the side streets. There may be sidewalks close to the roads and parallel parking, but as far as traffic moving off White Bear Avenue and onto other streets, he does not see that happening. Commissioner Pearson said regarding alley widths with combined commercial shops and living quarters above; he asked how the city contemplates those shops receiving deliveries? Will they park in the street and unload or in an alleyway and unload? Mr. Roberts said it is his understanding that many of these units will have both street frontage and an alley possibly on the back for a garage for residential. If it is commercial the main focus will be on the street and an alley for service, whether that is for trucks and deliveries he cannot make any guarantees. Commissioner Pearson said his guess is that the shops would use the garage space for storage so the shop would probably need additional parking. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -13- Mr. Roberts said if it is strictly a commercial building they probably wouldn't be building a garage but if it is a mixed use building then you will have a mix of commercial and residential and there would probably be a garage. Commissioner Rossbach asked if Commissioner Pearson was making a pitch for Mr. McLaughlin's comments about the alley width and garage setbacks to alleys? Commissioner Pearson said he likes Mr. McLaughlin's recommendations for the alleyways. Commissioner Rossbach said in the areas that are commercial oriented there should be alleyways that are wide enough to accommodate larger vehicles for deliveries so vehicles are not sitting out on White Bear Avenue. Mr. Roberts said he is not sure having a 30-foot alleyway is appropriate for all uses. However, there is some safety in having a standard number used. Commissioner Mueller said he is not sure if the 30-foot alleyway is appropriate for all areas. You may have a problem setting a number because things change and down the road and it may not be appropriate. Commissioner Rossbach said just remember the 30-foot alleyway people are referring to is a 30- foot alleyway right-of-way. So when you hear 30-foot alleyway it doesn't mean that is how wide the alleyway is going to be. Commissioner Dierich said regarding the snow removal piece and the unloading 30 feet is larger than many of the streets in the new developments. She can't imagine needing more than 20 feet unless you are having a huge issue with garbage containers and unloading trucks. She is comfortable leaving it up to the discretion of the staff because the planning commission would review every one of these requests. Mr. Roberts said at minimum the CDRB will be reviewing the development requests as they come in. Commissioner Rossbach said setbacks at the perimeter of the mixed-use zone language do not reflect what he thought the commission was talking about. The language on page 7 of the staff report up against existing mixed-use zone they have to have matching setbacks. The perimeter in the mixed-use zone meets existing zoning that should match. The way this is worded only applies to residential units within the mixed-use zone and is not addressing the commercial units that could be up against residential. His intent was where ever you are budding existing R-1 you need to provide a larger setback then what is currently being provided. Mr. Roberts asked if he meant that any commercial use within the mixed-use district would have to meet the city's current setback standards from residential? Commissioner Rossbach said it needs to meet the existing setback standards and not be modified for the mixed-use zone in those perimeter locations and it would not just be the commercial it would be the residential within the mixed-use zone. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -14- Commissioner Pearson said the whole idea of having pedestrian friendly side streets and a mixed-use zone it would be defeating the purpose to have large trucks sitting on the streets to make deliveries. It should be a requirement that where the commercial applications in the mixed- use zone exist, deliveries be made in the alleyway. Commissioner Mueller said the city should plan for the worst that could happen in the future. The saying goes plan for the worst rather than waiting for the worst to happen and then try to figure out how to handle it. Plan for what "could" happen in the future. Commissioner Pearson said he would like to see Mr. McLaughlin's comments incorporated into the mixed-use zoning ordinance. Mr. Roberts asked if Commissioner Pearson meant to have all Mr. McLaughlin's recommendations incorporated or just the alleyway recommendation? Commissioner Pearson said he meant the alleyway recommendation. However, if the city incorporates the alley width recommendation that would help with the recommendations above recommendation number 2. Commissioner Rossbach asked Commissioner Pearson if he would be okay with keeping the 30- foot alley right-of-way but eliminating the 6-foot setback for all garages to an alley so that they can build right up to the right-of-way? Commissioner Pearson said yes. Commissioner Rossbach said he likes number 1 in Mr. McLaughlin's recommendation as well. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if we would still require that they meet the minimum frontage that is imposed on developments in the R-1 district or would we allow a smaller front? Mr. Roberts said the city has not specified lot widths we have lot areas that are smaller on the top of page 7 but that doesn't get into specific lot widths. Chairperson Fischer said she is not as concerned about the lot width as she is the structure width because these are smaller structures. She asked what the minimum structure width currently is? Mr. Roberts said the minimum structure width is 21 feet. Chairperson Fischer asked Commissioner Pearson how wide a typical single-wide manufactured home is? Commissioner Pearson said a single-wide manufactured home is 16 feet wide. Commissioner Rossbach said in reading the building facade width paragraph on page 9 of the staff report he does not see if that refers to single or double dwelling. Mr. Roberts said he would have to check with Ms. Finwall to see if the building facade width refers to single family or multiple dwellings. He would assume it refers to multiple dwellings but he would check further for the commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -15- Commissioner Mueller said the more specific the commission and staff get with this mixed-use zoning ordinance the harder it will be to overlay in any other part of the city. He said maybe the city should be more general instead of providing the specifics. He thinks if you get "too" specific with this mixed-use zoning district ordinance you may have to come back to the commission to rewrite this ordinance. Commissioner Pearson said at the last planning commission meeting he asked that a playground be listed as a permitted use and he did not see that in the updated staff report. Chairperson Fischer asked if staff left out the playground information intentionally or was it an inadvertent omission. Mr. Roberts said his understanding was that playgrounds were intentionally left out of the ordinance because any public use or public park has no designation in the zoning code. He said if it is part of the comprehensive plan those dedications are looked at by a case-by-case basis. There is no zoning designation for a park and the city would look at open space and playground space as development plans are submitted to the city. Commissioner Pearson said it bothers him that a playground cannot be a permitted use so that the city could require the developer to provide a play area as part of the housing development. Mr. Roberts was wondering if Commissioner Pearson would be okay with a paragraph added on page 8, under the design standards that public open space and/or playgrounds may be required by the city as part of the development within this district? Commissioner Pearson said he would be okay with that. Chairperson Fischer invited members to attend an informational session on the Hillcrest Redevelopment area to help revitalize the area. There are two sessions on Thursday October 23, 2003, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., and from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. in the city council chambers at City Hall. Please R.S.V.P. to the department secretary Andrea in Community Development. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if the Hillcrest presentation was open to the public? Mr. Roberts said yes. The reason he asked Chairperson Fischer to announce the invitation is there may be comments out of the discussion that may help the commissioners or staff for that matter regarding this mixed-use zoning district ordinance. Commissioner Desai said he would be more comfortable with staff bringing this back to the planning commission with the clarifications and/or changes. Chairperson Fischer asked staff if they would be okay with bringing this back to the planning commission? Mr. Roberts said yes. Commissioner Rossbach moved to table the mixed-use zoning district ordinance to allow staff more time to incorporate changes and/or clarifications in the proposed mixed-use zoning ordinance that were discussed by the planning commission. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-20-03 -16- Commissioner Pearson seconded. Ayes- Desai, Dierich, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Dierich was the planning commission representative at the October 13, 2003, city council meeting. Planning commission items that were discussed included Gruber's Power Equipment that was tabled so the city council could get a feeling of the fence size, ground covers, and for conditions to be approved and to allow Gruber's to put together their plan. The swimming pool fence code amendment was discussed and will come back for a second reading after staff gets clarification of having the ordinance for a fence around all pools or just the below ground pools. There was also miscellaneous discussion regarding road improvements in the city. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the October 27, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed include the Street Right-of-Way of Karth Road north of County Road D, the South Maplewood Rezoning to R-I(R), Gruber's Power Equipment at 1762 White Bear Avenue, and the second reading of the Swimming Pool Fence Code Amendment. c. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the November 10, 2003, city council meeting. Home Occupation License for Christine Horvath on Radatz Avenue, Heritage Square Townhouses (Legacy Village). X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Rescheduling of the Monday, December 1, 2003, planning commission meeting. Mr. Roberts said due to the city council budget hearing that evening the planning commission meeting is rescheduled for Tuesday, December 2, 2003. Xl. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Conditional Use Permit - University Auto Sales and Leasing 1145 Highway 36 East October 28, 2003 INTRODUCTION Project Description Hossein Aghamirzai of University Auto Sales is requesting approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) for a motor vehicle repair business at 1145 Highway 36 East. The motor vehicle repair business will provide service for vehicles purchased and sold by University Auto Sales and Leasing. The proposal calls for an approximately 1,040-square-foot addition to be constructed on the north side of the building to accommodate the service area. Refer to the conditional use permit statement and maps on pages 7 through 13. Requests The applicants request the city approve the following: 1. Amendment to their existing CUP for a used motor vehicle sales business. 2. CUP for a motor vehicle maintenance business. 3. Design review. BACKGROUND On March 25, 2001, the city council approved a CUP for used motor vehicle sales at University Auto Sales and Leasing. On June 24, 2002, the city council reviewed and renewed the CUP for used motor vehicle sales at University Auto Sales and Leasing. DISCUSSION Conditional Use Permits Since opening the facility in 2001, University Auto has been in compliance with their entire CUP conditions associated with motor vehicle sales. The existing CUP prohibits motor vehicle maintenance, except for minor work such as battery replacement and minor clean up and spot washing. The applicant states in his CUP statement attached on page 7 that University Auto has since had customers requesting motor vehicle service and repair on vehicles that University Auto sells and purchases. For this reason the applicant is requesting a second CUP for motor vehicle maintenance and repair as well as a revision of his existing CUP which prohibits such use. Staff finds the proposed repair facility to meet all city code CUP standards as specified in the attached CUP resolutions on pages 19 through 22. Design Review Review of Buildinq Desi.qn City code states that the community design review board shall review all additions to a commercial building if the cost is $200,000 or more. The applicant had several estimates for the construction of the proposed addition, all of which determined the addition to be under $200,000. Therefore, community design review board review of the plans is not necessary. For this reason, staff will request planning commission recommendation on the design elements. Addition Location The 1,040-square-foot addition will be constructed on the north side of the building, adjacent the existing minor maintenance garage. Refer to pictures on pages 14 through 16. The addition will be eight feet higher than the existing building and will be constructed within two inches of the north property line, which is the shared property line with Second Harvest food bank warehouse to the north. University Auto's property is zoned Light Manufacturing. In this zoning district there is a required 30-foot front yard setback, with no required rear or side yard setback when adjacent other commercial properties. Therefore, the addition as proposed is allowed per the city's zoning code. Staff also believes the location of the addition adjacent the existing minor maintenance garage to be the best use of space on the site. However, the two-inch setback does present building and fire code concerns. The city's building official and fire marshal have reviewed the applicant's addition plans. Refer to the building official and fire marshal memorandums attached on pages 17 and 18. To summarize, the construction of the addition will require fire retardant materials on the north wall and the entire building will need to be sprinklered. The applicant is aware of these requirements and prepared to comply. In addition to the above-mentioned concerns are the possible negative impacts an addition constructed just two inches from the property will pose for the adjacent business, Second Harvest. Staff met with John Livingston, Food Bank Operations Director for Second Harvest, to review the plans. Mr. Livingston stated the two concerns he had were the location of an existing power pole on the shared property line and water drainage from the addition. Mr. Ross Nezhad, contractor for the project, states that Xcel Energy has been contacted regarding the relocation of the power pole. Xcel has indicated that the power pole can either be relocated or buried, at the applicant's expense. If financially feasible, the applicant would prefer to bury the lines. Chris Cavett, Assistant City Engineer, has reviewed the plans and determined that a grading and drainage plan is not required due to the fact that the addition will be constructed over existing impervious surface. Mr. Cavett also notes that the proposed addition has two roof scuppers located on the east and west sides of the building to ensure water is directed to the sides of the building and that Second Harvest's parking area is located approximately two feet above University Auto's site, both of which will ensure the addition will not pose a drainage problem for Second Harvest. University Auto 2 October 28, 2003 Exterior Buildin.q Materials The existing building is constructed of painted concrete block, manufactured to resemble lap siding. This building material is apparently no longer available. Therefore, Mr. Donald Louka, architect for the project, is proposing the addition be constructed of 12-inch concrete block painted to match the existing building. This material will be used on the north, east and west walls, with the south wall that extends eight feet above the existing building constructed as a metal stud wall with stucco on the exterior. Due to concerns over the possibility of the painted concrete block chipping, staff suggested that the stucco material be used for the entire addition. Mr. Nezhad states that the stucco material is specified on the eight-foot-high south wall because concrete block cannot be used in that area. Mr. Nezhad further states that University Auto would have to stucco the entire building, not just the addition, which would be cost prohibitive for the applicant at this time. Mr. Louka also assured staff that the painted concrete block should not be a maintenance problem if the applicants use the paint he specified (Sherwin Williams A-100 Exterior Latex Paint). Because the addition is compatible with the existing building, and assurances have been made that the painted concrete block will not be a maintenance problem, staff is comfortable with the addition as proposed. Parkinq Scheme The addition proposes a larger garage door to be constructed on the east wall, in the exact same location as an existing smaller garage door. Because of this, no parking lot layout changes are needed. However, the existing parking space striping is faded and should be repainted. RECOMMENDATIONS Adopt the resolution on pages 19 and 20 approving an amendment to University Auto's conditional use permit for used motor vehicle sales business at 1145 Highway 36 East. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to (amendment to original conditions noted): All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. c. The city council shall review this permit in one year. do The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. University Auto 3 October 28, 2003 eo There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. fo Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. The hours of operation of this used motor vehicle sales business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. 9 ~.,m. tc 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The used motor vehicle sales business shall be closed on Sunday. Adopt the resolution on pages 21 and 22 approving a conditional use permit for University Auto at 1145 Highway 36 East to operate a motor vehicle repair business. Approval is based on the findings required by the code and subject to: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. c. The city council shall review this permit in one year. d° The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. eo There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. The hours of operation of this motor vehicle repair business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The motor vehicle repair business shall be closed on Sunday. University Auto 4 October 28, 2003 Approval of the site plan date-stamped September 29, 2003, for a motor vehicle repair business at 1145 Highway 36 East. Approval is subject to the applicant complying with the following conditions: a. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project. b. Prior to issuance of a building permit, submit the following to staff for approval: 1 ) Revised building plans that meet the conditions specified in the October 27, 2003, building official memorandum. 2) Revised building plans that meet the conditions specified in the October 24, 2003, fire marshal memorandum. 3) Plans and Xcel Energy approval for the relocation or burying of the overhead power lines located on the north side of the property. 4) Trash dumpster enclosure plans for the outside trash containers if used (code requirement). This plan must show the placement and design of the enclosure. Trash enclosures must have a 100 percent opaque closeable gate. Enclosures must be of a material that matches or is compatible with the building. c. Complete the following prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy: 1) Repainting of the parking space stripes. 2) Construction of a trash dumpster enclosure for any outside trash containers if used. 3) Repair all portions of existing fence damaged by the construction of the addition. 4) Repair and paint all existing and new concrete block with Sherwin Williams Heavy Duty Block Filler and A-100 Exterior Latex Flat Paint. Paint color to match existing concrete block and wood trim (beige). 5) Relocating or burying the overhead power lines located on the north side of the property. d. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may approve minor changes. University Auto 5 October 28, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: Existing land use: 41,055 square feet (.94 acres) University Auto (Used Motor Vehicle Sales) SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: West: East: Second Harvest Highway 36 with Menard's and CountrySide Motors located across the highway Highways 36 and 61 interchange Commercial Pools PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: M1 (Light Manufacturing) M1 Ordinance Requirements Section 44-512(5)(a) requires a CUP for the sale or leasing of used motor vehicles. Section 44-512(8) requires a CUP for a motor vehicle maintenance garage. Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP based on nine standards. Refer to the findings in the resolutions on pages 19 through 22. Application Date The city received the complete application for this proposal on October 7, 2003. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. City council action is required on this proposal by December 6, 2003. p:sec9\university auto 2003 cup Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Conditional Use Permit Statement Location Map Land Use Map Zoning Map Site Plan Addition Elevations Addition Footprint Pictures Building Official October 27, 2003, Memorandum Fire Marshal October 24, 2003, Memorandum Used Motor Vehicle Conditional Use Permit Resolution Motor Vehicle Repair Conditional Use Permit Resolution University Auto 6 October 28, 2003 Attachment 1 PURPOSE Due to the increased volume of business and the customers' request and demand for service, we are requesting that City Of Maplewood grant permission so we can provide better quality of service. Our customers are requesting that we provide repair and maintenance service of the vehicles after they purchase them. Currently, such requests are outsourced to third party facilities. The problem is that our customers can not communicate with these facilities due to language barriers, we have multilingual staff at all times, and our customers prefer to (need to) stay with us to communicate their needs. EXTENT OF SERVICE This service would include diagnosis of various mechanical problems and repair or replacements to cure such problems. This would not include any body damage repair or painting. HOURS OF OPERATION Hours of operation shall remain the same. 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM. STAFFING There will be an addition of two (3) employees to the existing staff. PARKING SCHEME Vehicles, prior to and after completing service, shall be parked along the north fenced property line. From an onlooker's prospective, there will be no change to the existing layout. There will never be any "junkers" on the premises. Nor will there ever be any engine parts, whole or in pieces, laying about the property. There will never be any work done outside of the walled and covered service area. No work shall be done in the parking lot or out in plain sight. BACKGROUND Our original conditional use permit, dated March 25, 2001, called for spot exterior painting, parking lot and fence repair. We repainted the entire exterior, replaced the parking lot and replaced the old wooden fence with decorative brick block. We also appreciated city's acknowledgement after all work was done. University Auto Sales, since its opening in September 2001, has been very mindful of the City's emphasis on aesthetics and appearance. We have strived, at the minimum, to maintain and continually improve the entire property, so that we can be considered a good neighbor and a valuable asset to the community on Hyw's 36 & 61. LANDSCAPING & TREES Per discussions with Mr. Chris Cavett, P.E., no existing landscaping, grass area, grading, or shrubbery are affected as the result of the proposed addition. Thus no landscaping plans are required. ADDITIONAL WATER RUN-OFF Per discussions with Mr. Chris Cavett, P.E., calculations showing routing and m-off quantities for 10-year and 100-year critical storm events, is not required since impervious surface is again being replaced with impervious surface. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT STATEMENT Attachment 2 2457 2441 2411 2464[ ] I 2416 GERVAIS AVE E 1140 167 1211 125 North LOCATION MAP Attachment 3 2441 2411 2416 GERVAIS AVE E 11"n 1255 North 9 LAND USE MAP Attachment 4 2457 2441 2411 2416 GERVAIS AVE E Mi~ --..~, 1211 1255 1' North lO ZONING MAP Attachment 5 I I IZ I I I I o cl o 210.01' R ADDITION TO 2" FROM PflOPERTY LINE NO KNOWN SETBACKS SCOPE OF WORK (SHADED) ONE (1) HC ACCESSISI. E VAN SPACE REQ'D (IF NOT EXISTING) 96' WIDE SPACE W1TH 96' WIDE SIDE DISCHARGE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE. SIGN DESIGNATING SPACE 48= ABOVE PARKING SURFACE. PARKING North 11 SITE PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATION Attachment 6 (~) ~XTERIOR ELEVATION ~-x 'rI'=rL -1 ~r:lZl~-r-~-llll~Er _.l_ ]lillli[li J[]l[ i ! TI l~[ ~l~_~ il I i ~ ]r,~r--I-'[ i {-ITM ] l~l j l'~["'I-"~ l~~ i]~i.'iI.iJ-iiiTii]-i~ ~l~ [' ;-r ~[ E 1ii ~ ~-1' r'~' Z. ~_i ] T._ . r_~ ~"L. L.lll[.r I_f! /.ii_ E F 'T i I r n~I'[ ' EXTERIOR ~LEVATION ADDITION ELEVATIONS 12 Attachment 7 SERVICE ~.~^~^oO EXISTING SERVICE EXISTING SHOWROOM ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SCALE: 3/16" = 1'0' ? North ADDITION FOOTPRINT 13 Attachment 8 14 15 Memo October 27, 2003 To: Shann Finwall, Associate Planne~-~z-~ From: David Fisher, Building Official Re: University Auto Addition Attachment 9 Verify bathrooms meet the requirements of Table 29 A of the 2000 IBC. The building would have to be handicap accessible. The building setbacks must comply with the 2000 IBC for exterior wall protection. A complete building code analysis will be required when plans are submitted for permits. I would need a complete site plan showing setbacks from buildings and property lines. The building is over 2000 square feet and will require a full NFPA 13 sprinkler system per Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code. The building will have to meet the entire 2000 IBC requirements with the state amendments. An architect will be required for this project. I would recommend a pre-construction meeting with the Building Department. 17 Attachment 10 Project Review Comments Date: From: Project: Building: October 24, 2003 Butch Gervais, Fire Marshal University Auto Shann Finwall Comments: · Install fire protection throughout entire building and monitoring is required · Proper addressing on the building Emergency access road within 150 ft of the building · Fire department lock box paperwork obtained from fire marshal · Horn/strobe required in normally occupied area · Locations marked where flammable and combustibles will be located 18 Attachment 11 USED MOTOR VEHICLE SALES CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Hossein Aghamirzai, of University Auto Sales and Leasing, applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to operate a used motor vehicle sales business. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1145 E. Highway 36. The legal description is: THE WEST 210 FEET OF THE EAST 480 FEET OF BLOCK 21, CLIFTON ADDITION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 36/118, AND STATE HIGHWAY NO. 61/1. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On November 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On November 24, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 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. 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 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. 19 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. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. The hours of operation of this used motor vehicle sales business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The used motor vehicle sales business shall be closed on Sunday. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 24, 2003. 20 Attachment 12 MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Hossein Aghamirzai, of University Auto Sales and Leasing, applied for a conditional use permit to be allowed to operate a motor vehicle repair business. WHEREAS, this permit applies to property located at 1145 E. Highway 36. The legal description is: THE WEST 210 FEET OF THE EAST 480 FEET OF BLOCK 21, CLIFTON ADDITION, RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA, SUBJECT TO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 36/118, AND STATE HIGHWAY NO. 61/1. WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: On November 3, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this permit. On November 24, 2003, the city council held a public hearing. The city staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The council gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approved this permit because: 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. 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 runoff, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 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. 21 o 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. Approval is subject to the following conditions: All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. The director of community development may approve minor changes. The proposed use must be substantially started within one year of council approval or the permit shall become null and void. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The site shall be kept in neat and orderly condition. The applicant shall observe the striping pattern and not crowd the site by placing additional vehicles on the site beyond what can be parked in the striped parking spaces. The drive aisles shall be kept clear of vehicles. There shall be no parking on the grass or landscaped areas. There shall be no vehicle delivery or transport/trailer unloading along the street. This activity shall be kept on site. Outdoor storage of any new or used materials other than vehicles shall be prohibited unless such materials can be fully concealed within a screening enclosure. The design and placement of any such enclosure shall be subject to staff approval. The hours of operation of this motor vehicle repair business shall be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., Monday through Saturday. The motor vehicle repair business shall be closed Sundays. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on November 24, 2003. 22 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Mixed-Use Zoning District City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. October 27, 2003 INTRODUCTION The planning commission reviewed the draft mixed-use zoning ordinance at the October 13, 2003, planning commission meeting. During this review, the planning commission requested clarification or changes on the following items: 2. 3. 4. Live-work unit parking spaces. Setbacks to adjacent residentially zoned land. Parks and open space. Alley widths. DISCUSSION Following is a brief summary of staff's findings and proposed changes to the above-mentioned items. All proposed planning commission revisions are underlined on the attached draft mixed- use zoning district. Live-Work Unit Parking Spaces As proposed by Rich McLaughlin, the two required off-street parking spaces for a live-work unit will include parking spaces located in an attached or detached garage. Setbacks to Adjacent Residentially Zoned Land It is the city's intent to require increased setbacks for both commercial and residential structures in the mixed-use zoning district when adjacent single dwelling residential uses. Single dwellings, double dwellings and townhouses within the mixed-use zoning district that are constructed adjacent to existing single dwelling uses, must maintain the adjacent residential setbacks. To ensure this, language included in the code is as follows: "Side and rear yard setbacks shall be as specified in adjacent residential zoning districts shall apply when a mixed-use zoned single or double dwelling/townhouse adjoins a single dwelling residential zoning district." Commercial or mixed-use buildings that are constructed adjacent to existing single dwelling uses must maintain the city's existing setback requirements for commercial adjacent residential, which is a minimum of 50 feet and a maximum of 100 feet. To ensure this, language included in the code is as follows: "Side and rear yard setbacks shall be as specified in Section 44-20 (c)(6)(b) [additional design standards] when a mixed-use zoned nonresidential use adjoins a non-mixed- use zoned residential use." Parks and Open Space Similar to the city's existing subdivision ordinance, language has been added to the mixed-use zoning district which states that the city may require a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision or development to be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks, playgrounds, trails or open space. Alley Widths Alley width requirements were clarified with the following language: "Interconnected streets and alleys are strongly encouraged within the mixed-use zoning district. Alley right-of-way and pavement widths must be adequate for the following: vehicle passing, vehicle loading and unloading, and storage of snow. Alley right-of-way and pavement widths are subject to the discretion of the director of public works and approval by the city council." Community Design Review Board and Staff Revisions The Community Design Review Board reviewed the draft mixed-use zoning district at their October 8, 2003, meeting. They made minor design standard revisions including building matedal change, window placement, and front porches. These changes are reflected in bold on the attached draft mixed-use zoning district. Since the planning commission's last review, staff has also made minor revisions to the draft mixed-use zoning district. These changes were made to help clarify language in the code and are reflected in italics on the attached draft mixed-use zoning district. Hillcrest Informational Session Update As you are aware, on October 23, 2003, the city hosted two information-sharing sessions for the property and business owners within the Hillcrest area. These sessions were intended to update the property and business owners on the city's plans for revitalizing the area. Items discussed included review of planning studies to date (i.e., White Bear Avenue Corridor Study, Metropolitan Council smart growth study, Maxfield Research market feasibility study), city capital improvement plan (i.e., timeline for proposed streetscaping and road improvements), and the proposed mixed- use zoning district. Approximately 30 people attended the luncheon session and 6 people attended the evening session. Staff and Planning Commissioner Monahan-Junek presented a brief synopsis of the proposed mixed-use zoning district including the proposed permitted and prohibited uses in the new district. The property and business owners seemed less apprehensive about the rezoning of their properties once the nonconforming business status and additional sale and development opportunities available upon rezoning were explained. Staff proposes to submit the draft mixed-use zoning district to all Hillcrest area property owners for their comment. This process will take approximately one month. The neighborhood comments received will be shared with the planning commission and community design review board prior to submitting the draft ordinance to the city council. RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the proposed mixed-use zoning ordinance. P:Hillcrest\10-27-03 CDRB Mixed Use Report Attachment: Draft Mixed-Use Zoning District Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 DRAFT MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT October 27. 2003 Planning Commission Changes Stricken if Deleted and Underlined if Added Community Design Review Board Changes in Bold Staff Changes in Italics Purpose and Intent: The purpose of the mixed-use zoning district is to provide areas in the City of Maplewood with a mixture of land uses, made mutually compatible through land use controls and high- quality design standards. With this district, the City of Maplewood intends to promote the redevelopment or development of an area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential land uses that are within an easy walk of a major transit stop. The intent of the mixed-use zoning district is to enhance viability within an 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 by the city in an area. To ensure these elements are achieved basic design standards are included in the district, which could be expanded by the city as a separate architectural overlay district for a particular area. Uses Type of Use Permitted (P) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Prohibited (PR) Residential Uses Single-family dwelling Double dwelling Multiple dwelling Secondary dwelling P P P CUP Mixed Commercial-Residential Uses Multiple-dwelling residential and commercial Live-work unit CUP CUP1 Commercial Uses Adult uses and sexually oriented businesses Antennas which are freestanding and not located on existing structures Bakery/candy shop/catering, which produces goods for on-premise retail sale Bank, credit union Cemetery, crematory or mausoleum Clinic, medical or health related Clinic, veterinary Currency exchange business Drive-through sales and services Drive-up food or beverage window Dry cleaning and laundry pick up station Dry cleaning plant Exterior storage, display, sale or distribution of goods or materials PR PR P P PR P P/PFC PR PR PR P p/pR3 PR Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 Type of Use Permitted (P) Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Prohibited (PR) Commercial Uses (continued) Health/sports club P Hotel/motel/bed and breakfast residence P Indoor recreation P Indoor theater P Laundry P Limited production and processing P/CUP4 Liquor store P Maintenance garage PR Major motor fuel station PR Mining PR Minor motor fuel station CUPs Motor vehicle wash PR Office P Off-street parking as a principal use P._~R On-sale liquor business P Pawnbroker PR Publishing, photocopying, or printing establishment P Restaurant P Retail P Small appliance and electronic component or equipment repair P Accessory use customarily incidental to any of the above uses The city shall allow commercial uses similar to the above if they would not create a nuisance and if they are not noxious or hazardous. The city council shall review uses that are not clearly similar for determination of compatibility. ~Live-work units are a permitted use in the mixed-use zoning district if they meet all standards and conditions as defined in the live-work definition. Live-work units do not require a home occupation license as specified in Section 14-56. 2Veterinary clinic with exterior kennels are a prohibited use in the mixed-use zoning district. 3A dry cleaning plant is a permitted use in the mixed-use zoning district only if located within a commercial- only building. A dry cleaning plant is a prohibited use in the mixed-use zoning district if located within a mixed-use building (i.e., residential and commercial). 4Limited production and processing is a conditional use in the mixed-use zoning district only if such use has more than five thousand (5,000) square feet of gross floor area, in which case total floor area shall not exceed ten-thousand (10,000) square feet. 5A minor motor fuel station is a conditional use in the mixed-use zoning district subject to the following: All parts of the minor motor fuel station shall be at least 100 feet from any residential use within the mixed-use zoning district, including mixed-use buildings that comprise at least 50 percent residential uses. All parts of the minor motor fuel station shall be at least 350 feet from any non-mixed-use residentially zoned land. All new or replacement underground fuel storage tanks shall meet the standards of state statutes and the standards of the state pollution control agency. Such tanks shall also have a UL listing Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 appropriate for their use. In addition, installation plans shall be submitted to the state fire marshal's office for approval. There shall be leak detection equipment on all new and existing tanks according to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) schedule deadlines. Leak detection facilities shall include electronic (in tank) monitoring equipment as well as manual daily measurement and recording of tank levels. Records of daily tank levels, fuel purchases, and fuel sales shall always be available on site for inspection by the fire marshal. Use definitions: Drive-through sales and service: An opening in the wall of a building designed and intended to be used to provide sales and/or service to patrons who remain in their vehicles. Drive-up food or beverage window: An opening in the wall of a building or restaurant designed and intended to be used to provide food and/or beverage sales, and/or food and/or beverage service to patrons who remain in their vehicles. (THIS IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE BC-M ZONING DISTRICT.) Dry cleaning pick up station: An establishment or business maintained for the pickup and delivery of dry cleaning without the maintenance or operation of any dry cleaning equipment or machinery on the premises. Dry cleaning plant: An establishment or business maintained for cleaning clothing or other fabrics by immersion and agitation, or by immersions only, in volatile solvents including, but not limited to, solvents of the petroleum distillate type, and/or the chlorinated hydrocarbon type, and the processes incidental thereto. Laundry: An establishment or business where patrons wash and dry clothing or other fabrics in machines operated by the patron. Limited production and processing: These uses produce minimal off-site impacts due to their limited nature and scale, are compatible with commercial and residential uses, and may include wholesale and off- premises sales. Odors, noise, vibration, glare and other potential side effects of manufacturing processes shall not be discernable beyond the property line or to other tenants located in a building. Limited production and processing includes, but is not limited to, the production, processing, repair or service of the following: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 8. 9. 11. 13. 14. Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics. Computers and accessories, including circuit boards and software. Electronic products, components, assemblies and accessories. Film, video and audio production. Food and beverage products, except no live slaughter, grain milling, cereal, vegetable oil or vinegar processing. Jewelry watches and clocks. Milk, ice cream and confections. Musical instruments. Novelty items, pens, pencils and buttons. Precision dental, medical and optical goods. Signs, including electric and neon signs and advertising displays. Toys. Wood crafting and carving. Wood furniture and upholstery. Live-work unit: A dwelling unit in combination with a shop, office, studio, or other workspace within the same unit, where the resident occupant both lives and works. Standards and conditions for these shall include: Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 The workspace component must be located on the first floor or basement of the building, with an entrance facing the primary abutting street. The dwelling unit component must be located above or behind the workspace and maintain a separate entrance located on the front or side fa(~ade and be accessible from the primary abutting street. The office or business component of the unit shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total gross floor area of the principal dwelling unit and shall meet all building code requirements. A total of two (2) o~-street parking spaces shall be provided for a live-work unit, located to the rear of the unit, or underground/enclosed (including attached or detached ,qara,qe parkin(~ spaces). The size and nature of the workspace unit shall be limited so that the building type may be governed by residential building codes. An increase in size or intensity beyond the specified limit would require the building to be classified as a mixed-use building and will require different construction standards. The business component of the building may include offices, small service establishments, home crafts which are typically considered accessory to a dwelling unit, or limited retail associated with fine arts or crafts. The business component shall be limited to those uses otherwise permitted in the district that do not require a separation from residentially zoned or occupied property, or other protected use. It may not include a wholesale business, manufacturing business, commercial food service requiring a license, limousine business, or motor vehicle service or repair for any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the property. Maintenance garage: A building for the maintenance or repair of motor vehicles. This definition does not include a motor vehicle accessory installation center or motor vehicle wash. (THIS IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE.) Major motor fuel station: A retail business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels that has more than three (3) dispensers. (THIS IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE.) Minor motor fuel station: A retail business engaged in the sale of motor vehicle fuels with a maximum of three (3) dispensers. Fuel dispensers shall be designed to serve only two cars at once. (THIS IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE.) Motor vehicle wash: A building for washing motor vehicles. This definition does not include the occasional hand washing of vehicles stored in a parking garage. (THIS IS ALREADY DEFINED IN THE DEFINITION SECTION OF THE ZONING CODE.) Secondary dwelling: An additional dwelling unit located within and subordinate to the principal dwelling on a single-dwelling lot, designed for a single occupant or small family. Standards and conditions for such a unit shall include the following: A secondary dwelling unit shall be located within a single-family dwelling or above its accessory structure. In the case of an addition to an existing structure, the exterior finish, roof pitch, windows, eaves and other architectural features must be the same or visually compatible with those of the original building. The additional dwelling unit may not contain more than thirty percent (30%) of the principal dwelling's total floor area or eight hundred (800) square feet, whichever is less. There shall be no more than two (2) dwelling units on a lot. At least one (1) dwelling unit on the lot shall be owner-occupied. The minimum lot area shall be two thousand, five hundred (2,500) square feet greater than the minimum lot area required for a single dwelling in the district. Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 Nonconformin,q uses: Nonconforming Commercial and Multi-Dwelling Uses: Uses that become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be covered under the city's existing nonconforming ordinance. In summary, any pre-existing conforming or nonconforming use that would become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be allowed to remain until such time as the use of a building or land is voluntarily abandoned and ceases for a continuous period of one year or more. In addition, the use could be expanded or intensified with the city's approval of a conditional use permit. Nonconforming Single-Dwelling Uses: Any pre-existing conforming or nonconforming single-dwelling 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 Single-Dwelling Residential District, R-l, and/or the mixed-use zoning district. Conditional Use Permits: The city's existing conditional use permit ordinance states that the city council may issue conditional use permits for the following uses in any zoning district from which they are not permitted and not specifically prohibited: 1) public utility, public service or public building uses; 2) mining; 3) library, community center, state licensed day care or residential program (unless exempted by state law), church, hospital and a helistop as an accessory use to a hospital, any institution of any educational, philanthropic or charitable nature, cemetery, crematory or mausoleum; 4) An off-street parking lot as a principal use in a commercial or industrial zoning district; 5) part of an apartment building for commercial use, intended for the building's residents, such as drugstore, beauty parlor, barbershop, medical office or similar use; 6) planned unit developments; 7) construction of an outlot. Because this ordinance covers all zoning districts, it is important to specifically prohibit uses in this ordinance that would not be compatible in the mixed-use zoning district. Those uses include mining, cemetery, crematory or mausoleum, off-street parking lot as a principal use. Staff has indicated those uses as prohibited in the use table above. Dimensional Standards Lot Size Per Unit Structure Setbacks (Feet) Building Type Density (Square Feet) Hei(~ht (Feet) Front Side Rear Single dwelling 6 units/acre 7,260 354 20 to 25 52 152 Double dwelling/ 15 units/acre3 2,904 354 20 to 25 52 152 townhouse Residential garage accessed from alley4 n/a n/a Per Section n/a 5 0 to 44-114 Residential garage not n/a n/a Per Section 20 to 25 5 5 accessed from alley4 44-114 Multiple dwelling 20 units/acre3 2,178 n/a 0 to 20 0~- 0~- Mixed-use/residential 20 units/acre 2,178 n/a 0 to 10 0~ 0w and commercial Commercial/including n/a n/a n/a 0to 10 0~- 0~- structure parking ~No single dwelling, double dwelling, or townhouse shall exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet, unless the city council approves a conditional use permit. Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 2Side and rear yard setbacks shall be as specified in adjacent sinRle dwellin.q residential zonin.q districts shall apply when a mixed-use zoned sin.qle or double dwellinp/townhouse adjoins sin(~le dwelline residential zonin.q districts. 3Density bonuses are allowed per Section 44-300. In addition, the net acreage for calculating density may be increased by three hundred (300) square feet for each affordable dwelling unit, as defined by the Metropolitan Council guidelines. 4Residential garages must be attached and recessed from the primary front far,,ade (not including porches, bay windows, or other minor projections) by a minimum of eight (8) feet; or attached or detached, placed in the rear yard, and accessed by either an alley or a side-yard driveway. -~The zero (0) setback specified above is allowed except as otherwise specified in the building code. Side and rear yards of at least six (6) feet shall be required when a mixed-use zoned, nonresidential use adjoins a mixed-use zoned, residential use. Side and rear yard setbacks shall be as specified in Section 44-20 (c)(6)(b) [additional design standards] when a mixed-use zoned nonresidential use adjoins a non-mixed- use zoned residential use. Off-Street Parking Placement of surface parking: Surface parking must be located to the rear of a principal building, or an interior side yard if parking in the rear is impractical. Surface parking must maintain a ten-foot (10') setback to the street right-of-way when constructed on the side or rear of a building on a corner lot. Surface parking must maintain a five-foot (5') side and five-foot (5') rear yard setback, unless a nonresidential use adjoins a non-mixed-use zoned, residential use, in which case the required setback as specified in Section 44-19(a) [landscaping and screening]. The city may approve variances to the surface parking placement standard if a building has special needs and site constraints. In these cases, there should be good pedestrian connections between the sidewalk and building entrance, and the area in front of the parking lot should be well landscaped. Amount of parking: The minimum amount of required parking spaces shall be as specified in Section 44-17 [off-street parking]. The maximum amount of surface parking spaces shall not exceed the specified minimum by more than ten percent (10%), or two (2) spaces, whichever is greater. If additional parking is desired, it must be placed underground, within an enclosed building, or in a tuck-under garage. On-street parking located in front of a development may count toward the required number of parking spaces. For retail, medical, service and office uses, if a transit shelter is provided on site, then the minimum required number of parking spaces may be reduced by five percent (5%), but not to exceed five (5) parking spaces total. For retail, medical, service and office uses, required parking may be reduced by the establishment of a parking district for the purposes of sharing parking within one shopping area (i.e., varying peak parking hours or availability of off-street public parking). The establishment of a commercial parking district to allow a reduction in parking required shall be subject to review and approval by the community design review board during the development's initial site plan review or subsequent site plan changes. Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 Retail, medical, service and office uses may participate in a shared parking agreement provided that it can be demonstrated that there will be adequate parking in combination with the other uses. In addition to the above-referenced allowances for parking reduction, the city council may authorize other reduced off-street parking requests through a special agreement. The reduction must be based on proven parking data for a specific development. Parking space size: 90-degree parking: 9 feet x 18 feet 45-degree parking: 8.5 feet x 18 feet Parallel parking: 8 feet x 21 feet Design Standards Parks/playgrounds: The city may require that a reasonable portion of any proposed subdivision or development be dedicated to the public or preserved for public use as parks, pla¥,qrounds, trails or open space. Exterior building materials: Exterior-building materials shall be classified primary, secondary, or accent material. Primary materials shall cover at least sixty percent (60%) of all facades of a building. Secondary materials may cover no more than thirty percent (30%) of all facades 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 (10%) of all fac~,ades of a building. Allowable materials are as follows: 1. Primary exterior building materials may be brick, stone, or glass. Bronze-tinted or mirror glass are prohibited as exterior materials. 2. Secondary exterior building materials may be decorative block or stucco. 3. Synthetic stucco may be permitted as a secondary material on upper floors only. 4. 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. 5. All primary and secondary materials shall be integrally colored. Remodeling/additions/alterations: Remodeling, additions or other alterations to existing buildings (buildings previously approved and built with mixed-use design standards) shall be done in a manner that is compatible with the original building. Original materials shall be retained and preserved to the extent possible. Additions to a nonconforming building must be constructed with materials required by this ordinance if the addition exceeds twenty-five percent (25%) of the floor area. Exterior remodeling or alterations to a nonconforming building must be constructed with materials required by this ordinance. The director of community development, if the exterior remodeling or alteration requires administrative review, or the community design review board, if the exterior remodeling or alteration requires design review, may authorize the use of other materials if the addition, remodeling, or alteration is deemed to be minor in nature and not visible from a public street. Commercial/mixed-use building fac,,ade width: Any exterior building wall, except for one- or two-unit residential buildings, adjacent to or visible from a public street or public open space may not exceed forty (40) feet in width. New buildings of more than forty (40) feet in width are allowed if the building wall is divided into smaller increments, between twenty (20) and forty (40) feet in width, through articulation of the fac,,ade. This can be achieved through combinations of the following techniques, and others that may meet the objective: Fa(~ade modulation - stepping back or extending forward a portion of the fa(~ade. Vertical divisions using different textures or materials (although materials should be drawn from a common palette). Division into storefronts, with separate display windows and entrances. Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 9 Variation in rooflines by alternating dormers, stepped roofs, gables, or other roof elements to reinforce the modulation or articulation interval. Arcades, awnings, window bays, arched windows and balconies. Material change: The front facade building material Material-changes shall sheald not occur at external corners (toward a public street or public open s~)ace), but may occur at reverse or interior corners or as a return at least six (6) feet from external corners. Windows: Buildings containing office and retail uses shall maintain forty percent (40%) minimum window coverage on the first floor that faces a street or public open space. These windows shall extend to a minimum of two (2) feet to street elevation.m"-"t----k" r'------"'~""a --.~ --~ r------'"""'~* ....... .-.. ,% ~* ....... ~,,,, Awnings: Awnings must be properly maintained, and if in poor repair must be repaired or replaced in a timely manner. Metal awnings are discouraged unless the design of the awning is compatible with the building, as determined by the director of community development director (if the awnings require administrative review) or the community design review board (if the awnings require design review). Storage/service/loading: If an outdoor storage, service, or loading area is visible from adjacent residential uses, or a street or walkway; it shall be screened by a decorative fence, wall, or screen of plant material at least six (6) feet in height. Fences and walls shall be architecturally compatible with the primary structure. Model variety: Each single-dwelling or double dwelling development of one hundred (100) or more units must have at least four (4) models with three (3) elevations and material treatments each. For single- dwelling or double dwelling developments of less than one hundred (100) units, at least three (3) models with three (3) variations each are required. No street block should have more than two (2) consecutive single-dwelling houses with the same house model. Porches and entries: Porches, steps, pent roofs, roof overhangs, and hooded front doors or similar architectural elements shall be used to define all primary residential entrances. Decks shall be prohibited on all primary residential entrances. ",,.~k~ ~,.. ~,, .~:.,..-*-'~, .,.,.~ ~k~,, k ........ a frc..~. = --.'.:~-~*. cr ~.,A.,.;.,. _~==:..~.~,.. Front porches must have a minimum depth of six (6) feet clear. Porches may extend six (6) feet into the required setback in the mixed-use zoning district. ;,.,.,..a~.... ,k ....... ~ .,. ,~.. ,~n~ .:: .......... ~ ....... !_ ' ..... (The existing definition for front yard setback in the city's zoning code will also apply in the mixed-use zoning district. This definition states in part: "The front yard setback shall also include sidewalks, steps, ramps or at- grade patios that have no walls, solid fence or roof." Therefore, these items can extend into the required front yard setback also.) Exceptions: The community development director (if administrative review is required) or the community design review board (if design review is required) may consider exceptions to the above-mentioned design standards if they uphold the integrity of the guidelines and result in an attractive, cohesive development design as intended by this ordinance. Landscaping Landscape definition: Over story tree: Large deciduous shade-producing tree with a mature height over thirty (30) feet. Landscape requirements: 1. All areas of land not occupied by buildings, parking, driveways, sidewalks, or other hard surface shall be sodded or mulched and landscaped with approved ground cover, fiowers, shrubbery, and trees. Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 10 Hard surfaced public areas, including sidewalks and patios, must include amenities such as benches and planters. At least ten percent (10%) of the total land area within the perimeter of parking lots shall include landscape islands. Each landscape island shall include at least one (1) tree as specified in Section 44-20(c)(8) [additional design standards]. Over story trees are required at regular intervals within the street right-of-way to help define the street edge, to buffer pedestrians from vehicles, and to provide shade. The over story trees shall be located in a planting strip at least five (5) feet wide between curb and sidewalk, or in a planting structure of design acceptable to the city. Lighting All outdoor lighting to be of a design and size compatible with the building, and as specified in Section 44- 19(c)(1) [outdoor lighting], except that light pole height maximum is limited to sixteen (16) feet. Signs Sign review: The community design review board shall review all signage on new buildings or developments to ensure that the signs meet mixed-use sign requirements and are architecturally compatible with the new building or development. In addition, the community design review board shall review all comprehensive sign plans as required in Section 44-736 [comprehensive sign plan]. All signage on existing buildings or developments (buildings or developments previously approved and built with mixed-use design standards) shall be reviewed by the community development director and shall be done in a manner that is compatible with the original scale, massing, detailing and materials of the original building. All signage on nonconforming buildings or developments shall be reviewed by the community development director and shall comply with the mixed-use sign requirements. Overall wall and projecting signage: Allowable area of overall wall and projecting signage for each establishment is one and one-half (1%) square feet of signage per lineal foot of building or frontage on a street, public open space, or private parking area, or thirty (32) square feet, whichever is greater. Each wall shall be calculated individually and sign area may not be transferred to another side of the building. Minor motor vehicle stations with canopies are allowed to place signage on the canopy and the building as long as they do not exceed the requirements above. Wall and proiecting signs shall not cover windows or architectural trim and detail. Projecting signs: Projecting signs are allowed as part of the overall signage. Projecting signs may not extend more than four (4) feet over a public right-of-way, and must not project out further than the sign's height. ...... ~/~inn for each establishment b'.']!d?,g is allowed Freestanding ~-~, v.,,.'4 v,~--.~inn-~' One (1) freestanding ~ p.:~ cf thc .....' o,"- .... if the building is set back at least twenty (20) feet or more from the street ~S ......... ~, right-of-way. Freestanding Grc,.'.-.d signs must meet the following requirements: Limited to six (6) feet in height and forty (40) square feet in area. Maintain a five-foot (5') setback from any side or rear property line, but can be constructed up to the front property line. Must consist of a base constructed of materials and design features similar to those of the front far.,,ade of the building or development. Must be landscaped with flowers or shrubbery. Prohibited signs: Signs painted directly on the wall of a building; reader boards located in permanent signage, except for reader boards advertising gasoline prices at minor motor vehicle stations; signs which advertise a product and not a specific business. Temporary and directional signs: As specified in Sections 44-807 [temporary signs] and Section 44-891 [special purpose signs]. Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 11 Sign illumination: As specified in Section 44-19(c)(1) [outdoor lighting]. Nonconforming signs: Signs that become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be covered under the city's existing nonconforming ordinance. In summary, any pre-existing conforming or nonconforming sign that would become nonconforming by adoption of the mixed-use zoning district would be allowed to remain until such time as the sign is destroyed or removed. In addition, the sign may be refaced to the existing size, but may not be expanded without a variance. Subdivision Blocks: Maximum block length of six hundred (600) feet. Right-of-way width: Subject to discretion of the director of public works and approval by the city council. Street pavement widths: Subject to discretion of the director of public works and approval by the city council. Alleys: Interconnected streets and alleys are strongly encouraged within the mixed-use zoning district. Alley right-of-way and pavement widths must be adequate for the fo owin.q: vehicle passing, vehicle Ioadin.q. and unloadin,q, ....v~v, ,"~ .... v.;~,"~"~..~- ~.v. ........... ~.._ .--, ~r.,~,..._.,,~, .~nd ade~u~e4er4he storage of snow. Alley right- of-way and pavement widths are_subject to the discretion of the director of public works and approval by the city council. Cul-de-sacs: Cul-de-sacs are discouraged within the mixed-use zoning district. Sidewalks: Sidewalks are required on both sides of streets. Mixed-Use Zoning District October 27, 2003 12