The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04/07/2003MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, April 7, 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. March 17,2003 5. Public Headngs None New Business a. Utility Easement Vacation - Schroeder Milk (2080 Rice Street) 7. Unfinished Business a. County Road D Extension EAW Review - Chuck Ahl b. Legacy Village AUAR Review c. Zoning Code Amendment - New Mixed Use District (Hillcrest Village) 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations a. March 31 Council Meeting: Mr. Trippler (changed from March 24) b. April 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Desai c. April 28 Council Meeting: Mr. Mueller 10. Staff Presentations 11. Adjoumment WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION This outline has been prepared to help you understand the public meeting process. The review of an item usually takes the following form: 1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed and ask for the staff report on the subject. 2. Staff presents their report on the matter. 3. The Commission will then ask City staff questions about the proposal. 4. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes to comment on the proposal. 5. This is the time for the public to make comments or ask questions about the proposal. Please step up to the podium, speak clearly, first giving your name and address and then your comments. 6. After everyone in the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting. 7. The Commission will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed. 8. The Commission will then make its recommendation or decision. 9. All decisions by the Planning Commission are recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes the final decision. jw/pc\pcagd Revised: 01/95 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA MONDAY, MARCH 17, 2003 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p:m. I1. ROLL CALL Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Tushar Desai Mary Dierich Lorraine Fischer Matt Ledvina Jackie Monahan-Junek Paul Mueller Gary Pearson William Rossbach Dale Trippler Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present until 9:00 p.m. until 9:25 p.m. Staff Present: Patrick Kelly, City Attorney Melinda Coleman, Assistant City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Ken Roberts, Associate Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary II1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Rossbach added item 9. d. under commissioner presentations to discuss the Hartford Group Development. Commissioner Trippler added item 9. e. to discuss the Gladstone Park neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda with changes. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. The motion passed. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of the planning commission minutes for March 3, 2003. Commission members had corrections or additions to the minutes on pages 5, 13, 24, and 25. Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 5, in the sixth paragraph, in the seventh sentence. It should read: They are asking for the additional two units ovcr *~'~ ""-'""~*" ........... y over the 1~ ~ currently allowed density. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-17-03 -2- Commissioner Trippler had a correction on page 13, in the first paragraph, in the sixth sentence, it should read: how much more then they can get. And on page 25, in the third paragraph, in the fiftl sentence, it should read: filing a ffui~e quiet title action. Commissioner Monahan-Junek had an addition on page 24, in the seventh paragraph, in the fourth sentence, it should read: She said what the city is currently doing mayDe doesn't go far enough. Then in the eighth sentence, it should read: ~ She ag~ees-wi~ understands the comments made. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the planning commission minutes for March 3, 2003, with changes. Commissioner Desai seconded. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson, Rossbach, Trippler Abstention - Ledvina V. PUBLIC HEARING None. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. Home Occupation License - Hair Salon (2697 Pinkspire Lane) Mr. Roberts said Ms. Debra Siedenburg is requesting a home occupation license to start and operate a hair salon in her new home at 2697 Pinkspire Lane. The applicant's business would be cutting, styling, perming and coloring hair of individuals. Ms. Siedenburg would be using a 13-foot by 13-foot living room on the first floor of her home as the hair salon. She also would be using a sink in the room for the hair salon. Ms. Siedenburg will be living in the home and would be the only employee in the home occupation. The applicant states that she would receive customer visits between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, and she expects about 10-15 customers per week. Mr. Roberts said this was previously presented to the planning commission at their March 3, 2003, meeting. The planning commission members had concerns regarding the homeowner's association rules for home occupation businesses conducted in a neighborhood. Staff attached a copy of the homeowner's association rules to the staff report. The city attorney told staff that the responsibility of the planning commission is to review the application based on the merits and the rules of the city, not what the homeowner's association may or may not allow. Mr. Roberts said he spoke with the developer, Mr. Engstrom today and he had no concerns regarding this home occupation license. Staff recommends approval of the five conditions listed in the staff report for the home occupation license for Ms. Debra Siedenburg at 2697 Pinkspire Lane for a hair salon in her home. Commissioner Trippler asked staff if at one point there was a requirement that an applicant for a home occupation business license get approval from the neighbors within a one-block area? Planning Commission Minutes of 03-17-03 -3- Mr. Roberts said not as a city ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said when he read the homeowner's association rules it seemed to him that an owner occupant can maintain a home occupation in a dwelling if they are handling matters that are relating to the occupation by telephone or correspondence. Commissioner Mueller said the homeowner's association rules are irrelevant to the decision that is made by the planning commission. He said the final decision needs to be made solely on the merits of what the applicant brings to the city not based on the homeowner's association rules. Commissioner Rossbach said at the last meeting the planning commission had asked for an explanation regarding when the city requires a development to handle situations like snow plowing, how does that impact future decisions made by the city and/or what impact that would have when the city requires associations to be in place? Mr. Roberts said he wasn't aware that question was brought up at the last meeting. He said that might be a good question to ask the city attorney during the second half of the meeting. The applicant, Ms. Debra Siedenburg and her husband, Mr. Shannon Siedenburg residing at 5359 Heath Avenue North, in Oakdale, addressed the .commission. The applicant said they have no problems with the conditions listed in the staff report. Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the home occupation license for Ms. Debra Siedenburg of 2697 Pinkspire Lane to haVe a hair salon in her home. This approval shall be subject to the following conditions: Meeting all conditions of the city's home occupation ordinance. This includes that the area of the home occupation is limited in size to 20 percent of the floor area of the house. Customer hours for this home occupation are limited from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday. There shall be no more than 20 customers visiting the home per week. All customers or visitors to the business shall park on the driveway. o Provide a five-pound ABC dry chemical fire extinguisher in the room. Commissioner Rossbach seconded. Ayes- Desai, Fischer, Ledvina, Monahan-Junek, Mueller, Pearson Rossbach, Trippler Commissioner Trippler offered a friendly amendment, stating that granting this approval shall in no way negate or overrule the homeowner's association rules. He doesn't want the city to get in a legal dispute regarding whether or not the homeowner's association rules are being overridden by the city. Chairperson Fischer asked for a second to the friendly amendment made by commissioner Trippler. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-17-03 -4- No second was made to the motion so the friendly amendment failed. Commissioner Ledvina said he understood the applicant could have one additional employee. Mr. Roberts said the home occupation license allows for an outside employee to work at the residence for this home occupation hair salon. Commissioner Ledvina said he would like to offer a friendly amendment, stating that no outside employees be allowed as part of this home occupation license. Commissioner Rossbach said according to the city attorney, the planning commission is to disregard anything relating to the homeowner's association rules. He said this is the reason he had not seconded the motions made by commissioner Trippler or commissioner Ledvina. Commissioner Ledvina said it's not the homeowner's association rules that he is concerned with. He has a concern that if there were another employee, there could be two employee cars parked in the driveway and a customer possibly parking on the street. He is concerned as a homeowner, that there could be extra cars parked in the neighborhood that could potentially cause problems because of this home occupation hair salon in the neighborhood. He said this is not a typical residential neighborhood. The homes in this neighborhood have reduced setbacks and have reduced the widths of the pavement to increase the density. Mr. Roberts said if the parking became a problem, staff would contact the applicant and try to get the problem resolved. He said the city requires an annual home occupation license that has to bt applied for through the city clerk's office. Chairperson Fischer asked for a second to the friendly amendment made by commissioner Ledvina. No second to the motion was made so the friendly amendment failed. The original motion passed. This item goes to the city council on April 14, 2003. At 7:25 p.m. the public portion of the meeting ended. The remainder of the meeting would be continued in the Maplewood Room. VII. NEW BUSINESS a. Training Session - Review of Roles and Responsibilities' (Patrick Kelly and Melinda Coleman) The training session began at 7:30 p.m. in the Maplewood Room and continued until 9:10 p.m. The training session was an open forum that consisted of the City Attorney, Patrick Kelly, Assistant City Manager, Melinda Coleman, Assistant Community Development Director, Tom Ekstran6, Associate Planner, Ken Roberts, Council member, Kathleen Juenemann and the planning commission members. Mr. Kelly and Ms. Coleman reviewed the rules and responsibilities on the planning commission. VIII. Planning Commission Minutes of 03-17-03 -5- During the training session there was discussion and questions about the pending Hartford Development (Legacy Village) and the County Road D extension project. Questions were raised about the role of the Planning Commission in the development review process and questions relating to the Comprehensive Plan and how it corresponds to the AUAR process. Planning commission members were asked to write ten to twenty questions or topic areas for discussion at their next joint meeting with the city council. The date for the joint city council/planning commission meeting has not been decided yet. b. Zoning Code Amendment - New Mixed Use District (Hillcrest Village) Mr. Roberts said last October, the Maplewood city council extended a development moratorium for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area so that staff could draft zoning and design standards based on "smart-growth" development principles. Staff's goal is to have an ordinance submitted to the city council for their acceptance before the moratorium ends on October 28, 2003. To accomplish this, staff proposes a series of meetings with the planning commission.and community design review board (CDRB) to receive comments and guidance from each committee in the preparation of these standards. Mr. Roberts gave an overview and explained the details of the new Traditional Neighborhood 2 zoning district called TN2, which is for (Mixed Use). Mr. Roberts said on January 27, 2003, the city council approved funding for a market research study for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. This study is being conducted by Maxfield Research and will include market analysis for the City of Maplewood's part of the redevelopment plan. The study will complement initial market research completed by the Metropolitan Council and their consultants completed for the entire Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. The study should be complete in April of this year and will further help the city guide redevelopment in the area. Mr. Roberts said staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on proposed land uses (permitted, conditional and prohibited) within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. He said staff would use this feedback to draft a new Mixed-Use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Ms. Monahan-Junek was the planning commission representative at the March 10, 2003, city council meeting. Items that were discussed were the St. Paul Soccer center, which was approved with no access off of Adolphus Street. In addition, the council denied the proposed Sibley Cove Apartments on County Road D on a 3 to 2 vote. b. Mr. Trippler will be the planning commission representative at the March 31, 2003, city council meeting. Items to be discussed will be the Schmelz Countryside Motors sales/storage lot and the County Road D realignment. T Planning Commission Minutes of 03-17-03 -6- c. Mr. Desai will be the planning commission representative at the April 14, 2003, city council meeting. d. Hartford Group Discussion There was discussion held earlier in the meeting regarding the Hartford Group Development proposal (Legacy Village) and the future development on the Hajicek property. e. Gladstone Park neighborhood Commissioner Trippler said he had concerns regarding the homes being built in the Gladstone Park neighborhood on Burke Circle. He would like planning commission members to visit the site on Burke Circle. His concern was the slope off the back of the properties toward the storm water pond and the size of the homes on the lots. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS None. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: MEMORANDUM City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Assistant Community Development Director Utility Easement Vacation - Schroeder Milk Company 2080 Rice Street March 28, 2003 INTRODUCTION Bob Banken, of Schroeder Milk Company, is requesting that the city council vacate a water utility easement on the Schroeder Milk property. There was once a water main located within this easement. It has since been removed and the water main rerouted. This easement now remains in place and lies beneath the applicant's building addition. Refer to the maps and the applicant's letter on pages 3-6. BACKGROUND On June 28, 1999, the city council approved Schroeder Milk's recent expansion plans. These include vadous additions ranging from a 700-square-foot addition on the northwest comer of their building to a 33,900-square-foot production and warehouse addition. The applicant also expanded their car-parking and truck-staging areas. On August 13, 2001, the city council approved tax-increment financing for the Schroeder Milk expansion. DISCUSSION Dave Marruffo, of the St. Paul Regional Water Services, stated that they have no interest in this easement vacation. They have no objection to its vacation. The city council should vacate this easement since the water main has been relocated. There is no reason to retain it. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution on pages 7 and 8 for the vacation of the water utility easement on the Schroeder Milk property. The reason for this vacation is because the easement is no longer needed due to the rerouting of the water main. Application Date The city received this application on March 24, 2003. this request by May 23, 2003. State law requires the city to take action on p:secl 8\SchroederVacation.doc Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Property Line Map 3. Site Plan 4. Letter from Bob Banken dated March 18, 2003 5. Vacation Resolution 2 Attachment 1 LITTLE' ~OD Av &v 7' KIN~$?O'd &V AV $,4/NT' '"1' IUtK! DD LOCATION 3 MAP t Attachment 2 m m CUB F COUNTY ROAD B I SCHROEDER MILK COMPANY PROPERTY ROSELAWN AVE W I _[ I ' ~ ROSELA WIll AVE E PROPERTY LINE MAP Attachment 3 I, WAR£HOU~_. ADOtTtO~ PHAS~ I t LOCATION OF WATERMAIN EASEMENT TO BE VACATED PROPOSED PLANT EXPANSION 1"' SCHR®DER COMPANY INC. RECEIVED HAR 2 2003 Attachment 4 D 2080 RICE STREET MAPLEWOOD, MN 55113 TEL 651.48'7.147.1 FAX 651.487,1476 March 18, 2003 City of Maplewood Charles Ahl 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN $$109 Re: Easement #1066193 Dear Mr. Charles Ahl, We requested an easement in 1994 document number 1066193 for a water main which was located on East side of our facility. This water main was capped to the north and to the south and the middle removed during construction of our plant expansion in December of 2001. Frattalone Excavating did the removal of the easement water main line. We request that easement #1066193 be vacated due to the fact that the water main pipe which easement was written for no longer exists. I spoke with Dennis Peck at City of Maplewood Public Works and he directed me to write this letter as the first step in vacating this easement. Schroeder Company owes all the area, property around this water main easement. Enclosed are a couple of map showing the layout and the water main easement. Please give me a call at 651-487-1471 if you have any questions or if there is a different process, which needs to be followed to vacate this easement. Respectfully, Bob Banken Director of Manufacturing Attachment 5 EASEMENT VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Schroeder Milk Company has applied for the vacation of the following: Water main easement recorded under document number 1066193. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: On Apdl 7, 2003, the planning commission recommended that the city council approve this vacation. On , the city council held a public headng. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The council gave everyone at the headng a chance to speak and present wdtten statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the property located at 2080 Rice Street, legally described as follows: That part of the following described property: That part of the ~Northwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 29, Range 22, Ramsey County, Minnesota, lying South of the South line of REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 447, files of the Registrar of Titles, Ramsey County, Minnesota, and North of the North line of IRENE'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, according to the recorded plat thereof, Ramsey County, Minnesota. And Blocks 1, 2 and 3 of said IRENE'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, together with alleys in Blocks 1, 2 and 3 vacated by Doc. No. 650000; and that part of McMillan Street, vacated, lying East of the Right of Way of Rice Street as widened, in Book 1312 of Deeds, page 421 as platted in IRENE'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, vacated by Doc. No. 650001; and all of Kenna Street, vacated and all of Irene Street, vacated, as platted in IRENE'S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF ST. PAUL, vacated by Doc. No. 650001. And All that part of the fractional West % of the Northwest Quarter of Section 18, Township 29 North, Range 22 West, described and bounded as follows: Commencing at a point on the East line of said West % of the Northwest Quarter 1214 feet North of the Southeast comer of said West % of Northwest Quarter; thence running West on a straight line 1061 feet to the West line of the West % of Northwest Quarter; thence North on the said West line 200 feet; thence East on a straight line to the East line of said West % of Northwest Quarter at a point 200 feet North of the place of beginning; thence South on said East line 200 feet to the place of commencement. Which lines easterly of a line described as commencing at the southeast comer of said REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 447; thence South 89 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds West, assumed beadng, along the south line of said REGISTERED LAND SURVEY NO. 447, a distance of 739.18 feet to the point if beginning of the line to be described; thence South 0 degrees 46 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 802.76 feet to the south line of the above described property and said line there terminating. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approved the above-described easement vacation because the easement is no longer needed due to the rerouting of the water main. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: County Road D Extension (Hazelwood to TH 61) - City Project 02-07 County Road D Extension (West of TH 61 ) - City Project 02-08 Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Resolution Receiving Comments and Responses on EAW and Finding of No Significant Impact DATE: Apdl 2, 2003 Introduction On March 31,2003, the city council tabled final action until April 14 on the EAW for the County Road D Extension. The council directed that the findings of fact on the EAW be sent to the planning commission for comment. Similar to the AUAR document, this is an environmental study of this alignment. The planning commission's opposition to this alignment has been noted. That commission's role is to comment on the environmental impacts should this alignment be selected by the city council. Attached are the findings of fact for the EAW. The commission has previously been provided the EAW document. Following is the proposed recommendation from staff to the city council. The commission should review and provide a recommendation on the EAW as it relates to this particular alignment. Back.qround The city council has directed the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the County Road D realignment project between Hazelwood and TH 61 and the realignment of County Road D west of TH 61. The EAW was completed and circulated for comment. The comments have been reviewed and. responses prepared. The City's consultant has concluded that there is no significant impact from the proposed project and that further environmental study is not warranted. On December 9, 2002, the city council approved a resolution to proceed with a project to realign County Road D from Hazelwood Street to TH 61 at the Venburg Tire intersection and then realign County Road D west of TH 61 through the vacant property to the existing alignment on the east side of the Highridge Court development. The length of this new roadway met the threshold for preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The EAW has been prepared by the consultant for the project, URS, Inc. The process required that the document be routed to the various agencies and be provided for public comment. The EAW identifies potential for environmental impacts. Specific impacts are to wetlands, where 2.43 acres will be impacted but are proposed to be replaced by 4.86 acres of wetlands to be created by restoring a portion of the golf course and by expanding wetlands at the County Road D and Hazelwood intersection. A major grading operation will be required at the Burlington Northern Railroad crossing, which will impact area slopes. Appropriate construction controls should mitigate this impact. Blandings turtle and White Wild Indigo are threatened species within the area; however, the DNR has concluded that the project likely will have no impact. Sediment ponds are proposed to upgrade the area storm water flows, which are currently untreated. Standards for the 1.44 acres of storm ponds to be created include providing for 60 percent phosphorus and 90 percent total suspend solid removal for runoff flows generated within the project area. Planning Commission Agenda Report April 2, 2003 County Road D Realignment EAW Page Two A 30-day comment period expired on March 5, 2003. The EAW was posted on the city's website and was available for inspection at city hall and at the local library. Attached is a summary of the findings and comments/responses received from individuals and agencies. If the city council approves the finding of no significant impact, the findings of the EAw will be incorporated into the County Road D improvement project if this alignment is selected. No additional environmental study is recommended. Should the city council feel additional study is warranted, they could specify items for study, or if significant impacts are identified, could specify preparation of an Environmental Impact Study (ELS). An ElS is an alternatives study that thoroughly reviews all impacts and mitigation. An ElS for this project would likely take two years to complete and cost in excess of $300,000. Process Consideration of the alignment is part of a process to implement the findings of the Mall Traffic Study. The City of Maplewood has established a goal of opening the County Road D extension project for traffic by November 2004. The following process is provided for consideration: · Alignment StudyTask Force Report · Planning Commission Review of Alignment Study · Council Public Hearing on Alignment Study · Council Authorizes Preparation of AUAR for Legacy Village · Council Authorizes Distribution of Draft AUAR for Comment · Council Authorizes Preparation of EAW on Cty Rd D Alignment · Planning Commission Review of EAW and AUAR · EAW Approved for New Roadway in coordination with AUAR · County Road D Alignment Options Reviewed with Council · Right of Way Map Reviewed with Planning Commission · County Road D Alignment Selected ,Feasibility Study ordered And Right of Way Map Approved by City Council · Council Calls Public Hearing on Improvements to County Road D · Public Hearing on County Road D Project · Right of WayAcquisition/Plan Preparation · Assessment Hearing/Plan Approval · Construction Award (Hazelwood to TH 61) · Begin Construction (Hazelwood to TH 61) · Complete Construction (Hazelwood to TH 61) · Assessment Hearing/Plan Approval (west of TH 61) · Construction Award (west of TH 61) · Begin Construction (west of TH 61) · Complete Construction (west of TH 61) September 9, 2002 December 3, 2002 December 9, 2002 December 9, 2002 December 23, 2002 January 27, 2003 March 3, 2003 March 31,2003 April 14, 2003 April 21, 2003 April 28, 2003 May 12, 2003 May 27, 2003 June - Sept. 2003 September 22, 2003 October 27, 2003 November 2003 November 2004 September 2003 February 2004 April 2004 September 2004 Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council adoption of the attached resolution receiving the Findings of Fact for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) on the County Road D Realignment Project (City Projects 02-07 and 02-08) and approving the Finding of No Significant Impact for the proJects. Attachments: RCA County Road D Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Findings of Fact Resolution CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX A RESOLUTION APPROVING A NEGATIVE FINDING OF THE NEED FOR FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE EXTENSION OF COUNTY ROAD D BETWEEN HAZELWOOD AND TH 61 (City Project 02-07) AND FROM TH 61 TO HIGHRIDGE COURT (City Project 02-08) AND AUTHORIZING DISTRIBUTION OF THE NEGATIVE FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood is the Responsible Governmental Unit for the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Extension of County Road D from Hazelwood to TH 61 (City Project 02-07) and from TH 61 to Highridge Court (City Project 02- 08); and WHEREAS, the EAW was prepared and distributed to all parties on the State Environmental Quality Board (EQB) distribution list, as well as local agency representatives and the petitioners' representative; and WHEREAS, the EAW Notice of Availability was published in the EQB Monitor on February 3, 2003, beginning a 30-day comment period that ended on March 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, written comments on the EAW were received and considered from all parties; responses were developed, and findings were prepared; and WHEREAS, the City Council has the authority to make the final determination on the adequacy of an EAW and the related negative or positive declaration as to the need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the EAW requires that plans pertaining to stormwater, grading, erosion control, and buffer/turf management be submitted for approval as part of the design process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council has determined, based on the findings contained in the Record of Decision, that the environmental review requirements have been met by the Environmental Assessment Worksheet prepared for the Extension of County Road D from Hazelwood to TH 61 (City Project 02-07) and from TH 61 to Highridge Court (City Project 02-08), and the potential environmental effects are not considered significant enough to warrant preparation of an ElS; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Council requests that the negative declaration be distributed to all parties on the State Environmental Quality Board distribution list and all persons commenting in writing on the EAW. AGENDA REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Charles Ahl, Director of Public Works/City Engineer SUBJECT: Legacy Village at Maplewood (Hajicek Property), City Project 02-18 - Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) Resolution Approving Distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review Document and Mitigation Plan For Legacy Village DATE: April 2, 2003 Introduction On March 31,2003, the city council considered the final approval of the AUAR for the Hartford property. After discussion, the city council tabled action until April 14 and requested that the planning commission and the five property owners along Hazelwood Avenue receive a full copy of the report and mitigation plan. Previously, commission members had received a staff summary of the report. Following is the staff summary to the city council. The planning commission has previously stated their opposition to the current alignment of County Road D and the intensity of the density of the Hartford proposal for the Legacy Village site. This opposition has been noted. The commission's role at this point is to review the AUAR as the environmental review document that it is intended-not as a land use document. The assumptions of the AUAR do not imply approvals of density only an analysis of the environmental impacts of such a proposal. The AUAR is intended to establish the limits of environmental impact. The commission's comments should be limited to review of the mitigation for the impact and the subsequent plans. Comments regarding the intensity of development and alignment of roadways will be the subject of future meetings when the actual proposal is submitted for Legacy Village. Backqround On November 25, 2002, the city council authorized the preparation of an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) of the Hijacek property in north Maplewood for a mixed land-use development proposed on the site. A development of the size proposed exceeds the threshold for environmental review, which required that the city council designate a process for an environmental review process. The developer of the property is the Hartford Group. Hartford hired SRF to prepare the AUAR environmental study and have a draft Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) prepared for the development scenario. The AUAR document has been circulated for comments and has been available on the city's website for inspection since January 2003. The final action on the AUAR for the city council is adoption of the Mitigation Plan and approval to distribute the final plan for comment. The Hartford Group has proposed development of the Hijacek site in north MaPlewood with a mixture of single-family, senior housing, high-density residential property, retail property, medical office, and corporate office property. The proposed mixed-use development is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan for this area of the city. The attached drawing shows a draft concept for the proposed development. The AUAR is an extensive review of the environmental impacts of the proposed development. The following page includes a number of the specific impacts identified. The AUAR provides a mitigation plan that the council, acting as the Regulatory Governmental Unit (RGU), will be required to adopt. The EQB guidelines for an AUAR state: "It must be understood that the mitigation plan in the final document takes on the nature ora commitment by the RGU (City Council) to prevent potentially significant impacts from occurring from specific projects. -It is more than just a list of ways to reduce impacts - it must include information about how the mitigation will be applied and assurance that it will. Otherwise, the AUAR may not be adequate and/or specific projects may lose their exemption from individual review." Planning Commission Agenda Report AUAR For Legacy Village At Maplewood April 2, 2003 Page Two The council consideration of the proposed resolution is making a major commitment that the mitigation identified will occur, either as a requirement by the developer through the development contract, by a commitment to a public improvement, or involvement of other agencies, if appropriate. This includes the extension of County Road D, west of Hazelwood, which will be shared by the city and the developer in terms to be established in the development agreement. While the actual final alignment of County Road D is not set by the adoption of the resolution, the city council is stating their commitment to construct a County Road D extension at some location, as well as the other mitigation improvements such as water main improvements, wetland mitigation, and the noise abatement requirements, which are all listed in the'attached final AUAR. AUAR Summary Development scenario includes 318 units of multi-family townhomes; 244 units of multi-family row houses; 68 units of multi-family residential; 200 units of senior housing; 7.3 acres of retail/ restaurant; 9.8 acres of commercial/office; 3.1 acres of medical office; and 9.8 acres of green/ public space. Proposed construction of the development is assumed to begin during spring of 2003 and anticipated completion is 2006. Approval of the AUAR establishes these as a maximum development scenario and does not suggest an approved land use scenario. The traffic analysis indicates that the extension of County Road D west from Hazelwood Street must be installed for roadway impacts from the development to be mitigated. An extension of Kennard Street north from Beam is also required. Future improvements to White Bear Avenue, as recommended in the Mall Area Comprehensive Traffic Study, will be needed to mitigate area traffic growth and to solve the long-standing Mall area traffic problems. Improvements are also suggested at the TH 61 and 1-694 intersection. The White Bear Avenue and TH 61 improvements are not a required mitigation listed within the AUAR because traffic growth was determined to have a much greater impact on traffic volumes than traffic from the proposed development. Both improvements wil! continue to be a high priority for the city due to the area growth-related traffic impacts and importance to the region. Sanitary sewer capacity is adequate in local sewers; however, the site is proposed to generate more flow than allocated by Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) in the 2000 Sanitary Sewer Comprehensive Plan. An error was discovered in the calculations of the Comprehensive Plan and a commitment to correct the plan is required. Water supply is adequate if a 12-inch water main is extended from TH 61 along the existing County Road D alignment as recommended by the TH 61/County Road D (Hillcrest Animal Hospital) Water Study in 2002. A comprehensive storm water plan is required and is underway as part of the development process. The development is required to limit post-development runoff to pre-development levels using infiltration and storm ponds on-site. No new storm water infrastructure is anticipated off-site due to development related runoff increases. Significant tree removal is anticipated due to project development and grading. The developer has proposed that existing trees be "...evaluated by an urban forester to identify important specimens that should be preserved and/or existing trees that could be relocated within the development using a tree spade." This mitigation strategy will be a requirement of the development agreement. Planning Commission Agenda Report AUAR For Legacy Village At Maplewood April 2, 2003 Page Three The DNR has noted that areas of the development have habitat similar to that preferred by the Blanding's turtle, a species listed as threatened in Minnesota, but no Blanding's turtles have been observed on the site. The DNR notes that the project site is not designated as an area of statewide importance for Blanding's turtle and no impact is anticipated. Wetland impact is anticipated on the site. A total of six wetlands were identified dUring the site review. Included in the AUAR document are maps that identify Wetlands A through F. Wetlands A and B are proposed to be filled and mitigated within the site. The drainage ditch connecting to Wetland C will be filled and mitigated. All mitigation will be proposed on the project. The development is not proposed to impact the main basin of Wetland C, and is not proposed to impact Wetlands D, E or F, although the requirement to realign County Road D will likely impact Wetland E. That wetland impact is covered in the EAW prepared for the County Road D extension project. Wetland buffer requirements have been identified and are proposed to be implemented. Storm water will be required to be pre-treated before discharge to the wetlands A study of the air quality in the area indicates that no problems are anticipated. A study of the noise in the area indicates that the northern-most portion of the site does not currently meet state nighttime noise standards due to the 1-694 freeway noise. The residential units will be required to be designed to minimize noise impacts by providing climate-controlled units, increasing wall insulation and by providing common areas within the building courtyards. The need for increased fire and police protection is identified within the AUAR. The fire and police departments have determined that the proposed development will likely require two police officers based upon 1.5 officers per 1000 people and fire has estimated a need for eight new firefighters/paramedics throughout the city, of which two may need to be dedicated to this development. Additional study of financial commitment of the development's related tax base toward police and fire protection will occur as part of the PUD and Tax Abatement hearings. Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving distribution of a Final Alternative Urban Area-Wide Review Document and Mitigation Plan for Legacy Village, City Project 02-18. RCA jw Attachments: Preliminary Development Concept Plan Final Alternative Urban Areawide Review (Separate Attachment) Project Schedule Resolution HARTFORD SITE PROPOSAL W/COUNTY ROAD D EXTENSION PROJECT TIME LINE PLAN March 25, 2003 Critical Items/Tasks Alignment Study Task Force Draft AUAR to City staff Planning Commission - Rvw of Align Study City Council Auth Prep of AUAR Final Roadway Align Study to Council Roadway Align Public Hearing ~ Council AUAR to Council AUAR Notice Published in EQB Monitor County Rd D EAW Approve Publish County Rd D EAW Publish in EQB AUAR Comment Period Ends Tax Abatement Info to Council AUAR Responses Prepared Hartford Plans submitted for ReView planning Comm - Rvw AUAR and EAW EAW Comment Period Ends Council Calls Hearing on AUAR and EAW City Council Review of Prel Development Plan Planning Commission Prel Development Rvw City Council - Pub Hearing - AUAR & EAW City Council - Discuss-Cty Rd D Align Options And Authorizes Distributi°n of AUAR 04/14/03 Planning Commission - Review ROW Map for County Road D Alignment 04/21/03 Council adopts Final Legacy Village AUAR w/Mitigation Plan 04/28/03 City Council Approves Final Alignment for County Road D - Approves ROW Map And Authorizes Prep of Prel Report 04/28/03 Planning Commission ReViews Prel Plat, Land Use Plan Amend, PUD Zone Change, And Transportation Plan Amend 05/05/03 City Council holds Public Heating Approves preliminary plat, land use plan change and PUD Rezoning and holds Tax Abatement Public Hearing 05/12/03 City Council receives Prel Report on Cty Rd D 05/12/03 Design Rvw Committee Reviews Bldg Design Details 05/20/03 City Council approves final bldg. Plans 05/27/03 City Council holds Public Hearing on Cty Rd D 05/27/03 Due Date 09/19/02 11/26/02 12/03/02 12/09/02 12/09/02 12/09/02 12/23/02 01/06/03 01/27/03 02/03/03 02/06/03 02/10/03 2/10 to 3/03 03/03/03 03/03/03 03/05/03 03/10/03 03/10/03 03/17/03 03/31/03 Requirements Adopts Alignment 4B 21 days for review Recommends Option Study Area Defined Draft Rpt by 11/01 ROW Map Authorize Sent for Pub Review 30 days for review City Council Action 30 days for reView Developer & Pub Needs $$ 21 days 60 day ReView Clock Starts No Public Comment No testimony received Public testimony welcome Public Comment Welcome Public Comment Welcome Approves Project to Next Phase Public Comment Welcome Public Comment Welcome Public Hearing No Public Testimony Details of Building Appearance Final Legacy Village Approval Public Testimony Welcome CITY OF MAPLEWOOD COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. XX-XX A RESOLUTION APPROVING DISTRIBUTION OF A FINAL ALTERNATIVE URBAN AREA-WIDE REVIEW DOCUMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN FOR LEGACY VILLAGE WltEREAS, on December 12, 2002, the City Council approved resolution #XX-XX, authorizing that an Alternative Urban Areawide Review ("AUAR") be initiated and completed for Legacy Village at Maplewood; and WHEREAS, on January 6, 2003, the City of Maplewood prepared and distributed a draft AUAR environmental analysis document and draft Mitigation Plan on the Legacy Village at Maplewood in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures; and WHEREAS, the 30-day public review and comment period on the draft AUAR document and draft Mitigation Plan ended on February 5, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood revised the draft AUAR document and Mitigation Plan based on comments received during the public review comment period; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds the revised AUAR environmental analysis document to be complete, including a plan for mitigation specifying the measures that will be imposed upon further development within the study area in order to avoid or mitigate potential environmental impacts; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Maplewood, Minnesota, that the final AUAR environmental analysis document and mitigation plan for Legacy Village at Maplewood be distributed in accordance with Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Environmental Review Program procedures. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MAPLEWOOD THIS 31st DAY OF March 2003. MAYOR CITY MANAGER MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Richard Fursman, City Manager Shann Finwall, Associate Planner Hillcrest Village Design Standards City of Maplewood Along White Bear Ave., North of Larpenteur Ave. and South of Ripley Ave. March 10, 2003 INTRODUCTION Proposal Last October, the Maplewood city council extended a development moratorium for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area so that staff could draft zoning and design standards based on "smart-growth" development principles. Staffs goal is to have an ordinance submitted to the city council for their acceptance before the moratorium ends on October 28, 2003, To accomplish this, staff proposes a series of meetings with the planning commission and community design review board (CDRB) to receive comments and guidance from each committee in the preparation of these standards. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan The Metropolitan Council and the cities of Maplewood and St. Paul created the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to implement smart-growth principles within the Hillcrest Shopping Center area. The goal of the plan is to help guide changes within the area in order to create a village center with an active street life that mixes shops, workplaces, housing, passive recreation and civic uses. Background A detailed background of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan can be found in the Reference section of this staff report on pages 8 through 10. The three most recent city council actions are: On September 23, 2002, the city council adopted the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan dated March 15, 2002. (Refer to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan attached separately.) The plan encompasses land along White Bear Avenue, from Montana Avenue at its southern boundary in St. Paul to Ripley Avenue at its northern boundary in Maplewood. The plan consists of 98 townhouse units, 291 apartment units, 10 single dwellings, 36,400 square feet of office space, and 151,300 square feet of commercial space. In Maplewood alone, there would be 15 townhouse units, 129 apartment units, 36,400 square feet of office space and 76,000 square feet of commercial space. On October 28, 2002, the city council extended the moratorium on development within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area for an additional year. The city extended this moratorium to allow the city time to develop design standards for the area based on the smart growth principles. The current moratorium ends on October 28, 2003. On January 27, 2003, the city council approved funding for a market research study for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. This study is being conducted by Maxfield Research and will include market analysis for the City of Maplewood's part of the redevelopment plan. The study will complement initial market research completed by the Metropolitan Council and their consultants completed for the entire Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. The study should be complete in April of this year and will further help the city guide redevelopment in the area. Redevelopment Implementation Once the zoning and design standards are in place, the city could proceed with redevelopment of the area in a number of different ways. One way is for the city to purchase properties as they become available if funding exists. The land would then be assembled and sold for redevelopment. The city could also implement streetscaping in the area to include burying of power lines, construction of new sidewalks, installation of streetlights and landscaping. This would hopefully promote pdvate redevelopment by our investment in the area. Each scenario has its pros and cons and would require different variables of financial backing by the city. These details will need to be worked through by the city council in the upcoming months. DISCUSSION Zoning Issues The city could implement several different tools to create the new zoning and design standards for Hillcrest Village. One tool is the creation of an oveday district. An overlay district would be imposed on top of the existing zoning districts. Development of properties within the overlay district must met all regulations of the base district in which it was originally located plus those in the overlay district. Where there is a conflict between a base district and an overlay district, the more restrictive of the two standards applies. There are currently two zoning districts located within the City of Maplewood's portion of Hillcrest Village including Business Commercial (BC) and Single-Dwelling Residential (R-l). (Refer to the Hillcrest Village Zoning map attached separately.) The BO zoning distdct is one of the city's highest-intensity commercial zoning districts. Permitted and conditional uses within this zoning distdct include automobile-related uses like gas stations, service and repair, and sales lots. (Refer to the BC zoning district attached on pages 11 through 15.) Because of the incompatibility of these current uses to the uses envisioned in the Hillcrest Village, staff feels that an overlay distdct would not be an appropriate tool for creating design standards within this area. An alternative would be to create an entirely new zoning district. This district would allow for a mixture of land uses and would promote the developmentJredevelopment of an urban center with compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential developments. The city could implement the new zoning district in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and other areas of the city, such as the Gladstone neighborhood, where there is a need for redevelopment to create a revitalized, urban village setting. Staff favors the creation of a new zoning district that could be tailored to meet the special land use and design standards of Hillcrest Village and other future urban village areas within the city. The objective of the new zoning distdct would be to create a zoning district that allows a broader range of land uses than the existing zoning districts, while establishing physical design standards for these uses. The new zoning district will cover the permitted, conditional, accessory, and nonconforming uses; lot area and lot width; setbacks; signage; landscaping; and minimum design guidelines. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 2 March 10, 2003 Design Review Upon rezoning of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, or other future redevelopment areas, the city may wish to implement detailed architectural design standards for the area. The architectural design standards would include permitted building materials, building configurations, and building techniques to create an architectural expression or theme for the area. At this time, however, staff will be discussing the new zoning district, and not the detailed architectural design standards. Regardless of future architectural design standards in the area, the city's existing CDRB ordinance requiring all new commercial or multi-family construction to receive design review approval will still apply. Therefore, each new building located within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area will receive design review by the city's CDRB. Metropolitan Council's Proposed' Urban Design Standards Calthorpe Associates, design consultants hired by the Metropolitan Council, created an urban design standard document for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. ~Refer to the Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards document attached separately.) This document includes the proposed placement, orientation, and massing of new buildings within the area and is intended to help guide the cities (Maplewood and St. Paul) in discussions on implementing new regulations or ordinances for the area. St. Paul's Existing and Proposed Design Standards St. Paul's city council has not formally adopted the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. Because St. Paul is including their section of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area in their Riverview Corridor Busway Plan, St. Paul city staff indicated that it might not be reviewed by their city council until next August. In order to develop consistent design standards for both sections of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area (Maplewood and St. Paul), the City of Maplewood should work closely with the City of St. Paul in developing these standards. On July 5, 2001, the City of St. Paul created a White Bear Avenue Small Area Plan. This plan was put in place as a prelude to the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan in order to promote redevelopment along White Bear Avenue, from Highway 94 to Larpenteur Avenue. The redevelopment envisioned in the plan includes mixed-use developments that enhance the livability of the area, reduce adverse traffic and parking conditions, and create buildings and spaces consistent and compatible with the architecture of St. Paul. To implement the plan, the City of St. Paul adopted two oveday districts. These oveday districts specify uses allowed in the area, in addition to uses allowed in the underlying zoning district, and go into some design elements for the area. (Refer to the St. Paul White Bear Avenue overlay districts attached separately.) Once St. Paul's city council adopts the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan, or a version of the plan, the city will likely drop the overlay districts and rezone the area entirely. The most likely scenario is the adoption of a recently drafted mixed-use zoning ordinance. The City of St. Paul and their consultants drafted this ordinance last year, after a year-long planning project. The project was funded by the Metropolitan Council and was undertaken to support urban village redevelopment, such as the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. The St. Paul City Council has Hillcrest Village Design Standards 3 Mamh 10, 2003 not formally adopted the new ordinance, but St. Paul city staff foresees the adoption of this ordinance this spdng, before the city adopts the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan. St. Paul's proposed zoning district is titled Traditional Neighborhood (TN) and is broken down into three different levels of intensity: TN1 would function mainly as a transition zone between higher- intensity commercial and residential; TN2 would be used at pedestrian- and transit-oriented nodes where a diversity of land uses and some intensification of use would be appropriate; and TN3 is the most intense district intended primarily for the larger urban village redevelopment sites. St. Paul city staff has indicated that they will recommend that the St. Paul portion of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area be rezoned to the new TN2 zoning district once adopted. (Refer to the Traditional Neighborhood 2 zoning district attached separately.) Therefore, St. Paul's TN2 zoning distdct should be used by the City of Maplewood as a guide in developing our new zoning ordinance. Areas of Expertise The planning commission and CDRB focus on different areas of land use and development in the city. Because of this, staff is requesting comments and guidance from each committee on their areas of expertise. Staff recommends the following breakdown of committee review: Planning Commission: · Uses (permitted, conditional, nonconforming and accessory) · Density · Dimensional Standards (lot size, lot area, lot width, setbacks and height) · Parking (amount and placement) · Subdivision Requirements (streets, alleys, blocks) Community Design Review Board · Design Guidelines · Site Plan Review · Landscaping · Lighting · Signs Proposed Timeline Because of the time constraints of the planning commission and CDRB meetings, staff proposes discussion of one or two items per meeting. With this timeline, comments and guidance from each committee should be received by the end of May. During the month of June, staff will compile all of the data into a proposed zoning ordinance, which will then be reviewed again by both committees for recommendation to the city council. Staff will then present the proposed ordinance to the city council for comments. Once the city council is comfortable with the new ordinance, staff will proceed with neighborhood meetings on the possible rezoning of the properties within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. With this timeline, a final public hearing by the city council for rezoning the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area should be complete by October 28, 2003. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 4 March 10, 2003 New Zoning District Since the new zoning distdct will encompass mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented developments, staff is proposing to call it the "Mixed-Use Zoning District." The intended purpose of the mixed-use zoning district is as follows: "To provide a mixture of land uses made mutually compatible through controls and high-quality design standards. This district will promote the redevelopment/development of an area into a mixed-use urban center with compact, pedestrian- oriented commercial and residential developments. The intent is to enhance viability within the area and foster more employment and residential opportunities. The placement and treatment of buildings, parking, signage, landscaping and pedestrian spaces are essential elements in creating the pedestrian-friendly and livable environment envisioned in the area." Proposed Land Uses Since the TN2 zoning district will be used as a guide for the city's new Mixed-Use zoning district, following is a list of permitted, conditional and prohibited uses given in the order listed on the TN2 zoning district (please refer to pages 11 through 13 of the TN2 zoning district attached separately). Staff's concerns and/or discussion regarding any of the listed uses follow each item. Residential Uses: Single-family dwellings are listed as a permitted use within the TN2 zoning district. One of the intents of Maplewood's Mixed-Use zoning distdct is to create compact, pedestrian-oriented residential developments. Because of this, staff recommends single-family dwellings be a prohibited use within the Mixed-Use zoning district. Any preexisting single-family dwellings would then be covered under the city's nonconforming ordinance, which I have described below. Secondary and carriage house dwellings are listed as a conditional use permit (CUP) within the TN2 zoning district. (Refer to the TN2 definition of these uses attached on page 16.) Currently the city's ordinance does not allow such uses without rezoning a property to a higher-density zoning district. Staff recommends allowing these types of uses within the Mixed-Use zoning district with a CUP in order to help promote the compact, pedestrian-oriented, residential developments envisioned. Staff finds the remaining uses as listed acceptable. Mixed Commercial Residential Uses: Home occupations and live-work (i.e., office space below/owner occupant living above) are listed as a permitted use within the TN2 zoning district. Currently the city's home occupation ordinance allows home occupations as a permitted use unless one of the following takes place for more than 30 days a year, in which case a conditional use permit is required: employment by a nonresident, customers' cars or a commercial vehicle on -the premises and manufacturing or processing of items. This ordinance ensures proper controls on home occupations, which could have negative impacts on adjoining residential properties. Staff recommends maintaining the existing home occupation ordinance for the new Mixed-Use zoning district and only allowing home occupations if they meet the existing ordinance standards. The city's current zoning ordinance does not allow for a live-work unit. However, this type of use goes hand-in-hand with the concepts of a mixed-use zoning district. The TN2 zoning district specifies several standards and conditions for this type of use including work space on the first floor or basement of the building with the entrance facing the primary abutting public street, the dwelling unit must be located above or behind the work space, and accommodations for off-street parking. (Refer to the TN2 definition of a live-work unit attached on page 17.) Staff recommends allowing live-work units as a CUP within the new Mixed-Use zoning district. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 5 March 10, 2003 Conc/reoate Livinq: Community residential facilities such as shelters for battered persons are listed as both permitted use and CUP within the TN2 zoning district, depending on the type of facility. These types of uses are allowed with a CUP in any zoning district within the City of Maplewood. (Refer to the city's CUP ordinance attached on page 18.) St. Paul's portion of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area is much larger than Maplewood's portion. In order to ensure that these types of uses do not negatively impact existing and proposed residential uses, certain controls should be in place. Staff, therefore, recommends continuing the requirement of a CUP for all of these types of uses. Civic and Institutional Uses/Public Services and Utilities: All of these types of uses including schools, museums, and churches are listed as permitted uses within the TN2 zoning district. These types of uses are considered CUPs within the city's current ordinance. Again, because of the size of Maplewood's portion of the Hillcrest Redevelopment area and possible conflicts these larger uses may pose, staff feels that certain controls should be placed on these types of uses and recommends requiring a CUP for all of these uses. Commercial Uses Retail Sales and Services: Drive-through sales and service as a primary or accessory use is listed as a CUP in the TN2 zoning district. Calthorpe's proposed urban design standards for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area prohibit drive-through sales and service. The proposed Mixed-Use zoning district is intended to promote pedestrian development; staff therefore considers drive-through facilities, including a drive-through bank, a drive-through restaurant, or a drive-through pharmacy as incompatible to that concept. The City of St. Paul recently approved a Walgreen's Drugstore to be located within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area on the southwest comer of White Bear Avenue and Larpenteur Avenue. The new Walgreen's will have a drive-through facility. While much of the proposed development will have design elements compatible to pedestrians, staff feels that the drive-through component is not compatible to the type of pedestrian development envisioned in the area and recommends prohibiting drive- through facilities within the City of Maplewood's portion of the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area and the new Mixed-Use zoning district. A liquor store is listed as a CUP within the TN2 zoning district. This type of use is considered a permitted use within the city's current ordinance, as long as the liquor store is located as least 100 feet from a church or school. Staff recommends continuing liquor stores as a permitted use within the Mixed-Use zoning district as long as the city's licensing requirements are met. Food and Beverages: Some types of restaurants are listed as permitted and as a CUP in the TN2 zoning district, depending on the type of restaurant. Staff recommends allowing restaurants as a permitted use in the new Mixed-Use zoning distdct but prohibiting drive-through facilities as I describe above. Commercial Recreation, Entertainment and Lodging: Indoor recreation and theaters are listed as a CUP in the TN2 zoning district. The city's current ordinance requires a CUP for these types of uses. Staff recommends maintaining these types of uses with a CUP in the Mixed-Use zoning district. This would not include public recreation areas, such as the public plaza area proposed in the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan, which would be a permitted use. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 6 March 10, 2003 Automobile Services: Since the intent of the mixed-use zoning district is to foster and support compact, pedestrian-oriented commercial and residential development, automobile uses should be highly scrutinized. The TN2 zoning district allows automobile convenience markets with a CUP but prohibits automobile repair and washes. (Refer to the TN2 automobile definitions attached on pages 19 through 21.) Calthorpe's proposed urban design standards for the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan also include automobile convenience markets as a permitted use. If the City of Maplewood adopted the TN2 uses, the existing automobile repair and wash businesses located within the area would become nonconforming uses, but the automobile fuel station (Super America) would remain as a CUP. Staff recommends that the city handle automobile use in this manner. Any preexisting automobile repair or wash business would then be covered under the city's nonconforming ordinance, which is described in detail below. Accessory Uses: There are several accessory uses listed in the TN2 zoning district including off- street parking, off-street loading, sheds, trash containers, signs, swimming pools, and newsstands. (Refer to the TN2 accessory uses attached on pages 22 through 23.) Staff finds these accessory uses acceptable for the Mixed-Use zoning district. Prohibited Uses: The City of St. Paul's existing overlay district prohibits currency-exchange businesses, pawn shops, cellular telephone antennas not located on existing structures and many automobile-related uses. These uses are undesirable within a pedestrian-oriented urban center. Staff agrees with the proposed prohibited uses and also recommends prohibiting drive- through uses as described earlier as well as adult uses such as adult bookstores or adult theaters. Nonconforminq Uses: The city's nonconforming ordinance covers all buildings or uses that become nonconforming due to a change in zoning or other city standards. (Refer to the nonconforming ordinance attached on pages 24 and 25.) With the city's current nonconforming ordinance, any preexisting 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 ceased for a period of one year. The use may also be expanded, extended or intensified with the city's approval of a CUP. This ordinance is a fair compromise to uses currently allowed in the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area that will become prohibited uses after the adoption of the new zoning district. The existing uses could remain, and expand with a conditional use permit, but no new automobile repair or washes could be built. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the planning commission offer comments and guidance on land uses proposed within the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area. Staff will use this feedback to draft a new Mixed-Use zoning district for the Hillcrest Village redevelopment area, as well as other redevelopment sites within the city. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 7 March 10, 2003 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Study Area Size: 15.06 acres SURROUNDING LAND USES North: South: East: West: Junior Achievement, Perkins and South China Island Larpenteur Avenue and the Hillcrest Shopping Center in the City of St. Paul Woodland Hills Church Single-Family Homes PLANNING Zoning and Land Use Classifications Six properties totaling 2.58 acres in area north and west of the Pizza Hut are currently zoned and planned for Single Dwelling Residential, R1. The remaining parcels totaling 12.48 acres in area are currently zoned and planned for Business Commercial, BC. The only exception is the northeast corner of Van Dyke Street and Larpenteur Avenue on the Woodland Hills Church property, which is planned as Church, C. Past Actions On April 26, 2001, the Metropolitan Council, Calthorpe and Associates (an urban planning group) and HGA (a local architectural firm) held a workshop at Woodland Hills Church in Maplewood. This workshop allowed area residents, business owners and St. Paul and Maplewood staff and government personnel to participate by offering their desires and preferences on how they would like this area to redevelop. On May 24, 2001, the Metropolitan Council held a follow-up meeting at Woodland Hills Church to present the consultants two development alternatives created from input received at the April 26 workshop. On July 2, 2001, the planning commission reviewed the two development alternatives and had the following comments: Features the PC liked 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Realignment of North St. Paul Road to meet White Bear Avenue at a right angle. Grocery store. The walkable/bikeable aspects of the plans. The large neighborhood square (~village green" concept). The townhouses, provided they are affordable to the average person and not overpriced. Attempts at traffic calming and slowing on White Bear Avenue. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 8 March 10, 2003 Features the PC did not like The potential nuisance of parking spaces behind buildings visible to residential units. Possible difficulty for the elderly or disabled in having parking in back, unless there are back doom. On July 9, 2001, the city council reviewed the two concept designs and concurred with the planning commission's comments. On November 13, 2001, the Maplewood city council passed a development moratorium for that portion of the Hillcrest neighborhood in Maplewood. This moratorium was put in place to allow staff to coordinate the development of design criteria for this area with all interested parties and smart-growth participants. On Apdl 1, 2002, staff presented the final Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan to the planning commission for their information. Since this presentation was informational only, no action was taken. On April 22, 2002, the staff presented the final Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan to the city council at the council/manager workshop to update them on the plan. No action was taken. On April 25, 2002, the Metropolitan Council gave a presentation of their final draft of the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan to the public at Woodland Hills Church. On June 18, 2002, Maplewood planning staff held a neighborhood informational meeting to get comments about the Hillcrest Village plan. On August 13, 2002, the community design review board (CDRB) discussed the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and recommended approval of this redevelopment plan in concept. The CDRB expressed strong concern that they be actively involved in drafting future design guidelines for Hillcrest Village. On August 13, 2002, the housing redevelopment authority (HRA) discussed the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan but did not move to support or deny. The HRA expressed several concerns and questions, however. In summary, their comments were: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. How would snow be removed with a lot of street-side parking? Traffic would be noticeably increased. Is there a market for the proposed housing? They have reservations about this. It may be a disservice removing existing viable housing for new housing. The future building on the Plaza Theater site does not seem feasible. The plan should include, at least show, the Jr. Achievement block. Can the existing infrastructure handle these changes? On August 19, 2002, the planning commission discussed the Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan and had the following comments: 2. 3. 4. St. Paul and Maplewood should work together on the implementation of this plan. The realignment of N. St. Paul Road and the mixed-use concept are good ideas. Work with Ramsey County to iron out traffic and pedestrian movement concerns. We must make sure that there is enough parking provided for the apartments. Hillcrest Village Design Standards 9 March 10, 2003 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Consider a traffic study to determine the appropriate number of traffic lanes on streets. Would the housing density meet our guidelines? This question must be answered. How will we implement this? What if existing businesses want to stay? Will they be grandfathered in? The plan seems to direct traffic away from White Bear Avenue to the back streets. Good idea. The mix of land uses is a good idea. There is some doubt that this area will truly be used as a strong pedestrian area. People will still drive to and from this redeveloped area. The apartments must have underground parking to alleviate parking problems. Where will snow be stored? How will snow removal be handled? How will overnight parking be handled? Maplewood does not allow overnight parking. St. Paul does. A traffic study should be prepared. This area is in need of a facelift. Some properties are becoming an eyesore. There are enough care already taking up space in the parking lots and streets along Van Dyke Street. An additional building in front of the Plaza Theater is not a good idea and infeasible. Residential units surrounded by housing may not be desirable. There would be a loss of existing affordable housing that is good viable housing now. These would be replaced with new multi-housing that probably would cost more than the homes are worth now. How would this redevelopment take place? Eminent domain? Buy out by developers? p:com_dvpt~3-17-03 PC Design Standards Document Attachments: 1. Business Commercial Zoning District 2. TN2 Carriage House Definition 3. TN2 Live-Wo~ Definition 4. Maplewood Conditional Use Permit Ordinance TN2 AutomObile Use Definitions 6. TN2 Accessory Uses 7. Maplewood Nonconforming Ordinance Attached Separately: A. Hillcrest Village Redevelopment Plan B. Hillcrest Village Zoning Map C. Hillcrest Village Urban Design Standards D. St, Paul White Bear Avenue Overlay Districts E. St. Paul Traditional Neighborhood Zoning District F. TN2 Secondary and Carriage House Definitions Hillcrest Village Design Standards 10 March 10, 2003 Attachment 1 11 13 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BUSINESS COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT The Maplewo°d City Council approves the following' changes to the Maplewood Code of Ordinances: Section 1.'This amendment revises Section 36-151 to allow.pawnbrokers and currency exchanges within the Business Commercial and Ught Manufacturing zoning districts with a conditional use permit if at least five hundred (500) feet or more .from any property the city is planning for residential use, and be located' 500 feet or more from a church or school [deletions are stricken and additions are underlined]: Section 36-151 (a). Permitted uses. The city shall only permit the following uses by dght: (13)- ~,-, e ...... fi.~,j fact t'~:m (13) Reserved. Section (13) 36-151 (b). Conditional uses. The following uses must have a conditional use permit: Pawnbraker-as defined in section 22. All pawnbrokem are subiect to 'the 1. They must be located at least five hundred (500) feet from a residential lot line, and at least five hundred (500) feet of any school or church. 2. C~ licensinq as requlated in section 22 of the city code.i (15) Currency Exchanqe as defined in section 22. 'All currency exchanqes are subiect to the followina: 1. They must be located at least five hundred (500) feet from a residential lot line. and at least five hundred (500) feet of any school or church. 2. City licensinq as requlated in section 22 of the city code. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect after the city publishes itin the official newspaper. The Maplewood City Council approved this ordinance on ,,2002. AAes~ Mayor City Clerk Ayes - Nays - 15 -7 (a) (b) A secondary dwelline unit shall be located within a one-family dwelling. The appearance of the buildin~ in which the dwelling unit is located shall remain that of a one-family dwelling. Any new entrances must face the side or rear of the building. (c) in the case of an addition to an existing structure, roof pitch, windows, eaves and other architectural features must be the same or visually compatible with those of the original building. Exterior finish materials and trim must be the same or closely match in type. size and location the materials and trim of the original building. (d) The secondary unit may not contain more than thirty (30) percent of the building's total floor area or 800 square feet, whichever is less. (e) The total number of residents that reside in the building (including both units) may not exceed the number that is allowed fbr a household or "family" as defined in this ordinance. (f} There shall be no more than two (2) dwelling units on the zoning lot. (g) At least one dwelling unit on the zoning lot shall be owner-occupied. Additional standards and conditions in Residential Districts: (h) The minimum lot area shall be 2500 square feet greater than the minimum lot area required for a one-hmily dWelling in the zonino~ district. (i) The lot shall have street frontage, including both streets for comer lots. at least twenW-five (25) feet greater than the minimum lot width required/'or a one-family house in the zoning district. Sec. 65.121. Dwelling, carriage house. An additional aeeesso~ dwelling unit. subordinate to the principal dwelling on the lot, located within an accessory building above a detached garage,. Standards and conditions: (a) A carriage house dwelling unit shall be located within a building that is accessory to a one-family, two-family, three-family or townhouse dwelling, and located in the rear ym'd. (b) A_nv exterior changes or additions for a carriage house dwelling shall be constructed of similar materials and shall be architecturally compatible with the main (principal) building. (c) The dwellin~o unit may not contain more than thirty (30) percent of the total floor area on the zoning lot. (d) There shall be no more than one secondatw or carriaue house dwelling on a zoning (e) (fl lot. The minimmn lot area shall be 2500 square feet greater than the minimum lot area required fbr the main (principal) building in the zoning district. An accessory buildin~ with a carriage house dwellin~ shall meet all requirements fbr accessory buildings, provided, however, that it may be up to twenW-five (25) feet in height. If walls of a carriaee house dwellinu facin2 interior tot lines contain windows or other openings, the walt shall be set back at least eight 18) feet from the lot line. (g) Except in the TN3 Traditional Neighborhood Development District. at least one dwellin~ unit on the zoning lot shall be owner-occupied. (h) Except in the TN I-TN3 Traditional Neighborhood Districts. the lot shall have street frontage, including both streets fbr corner lots, at least twenw-five (25) feet greater than the minimum lot width required for the main (principal) buildin~ in the zoning district. 16 Attachment 3 (f) Service and teachina occupations shall serve no more than one party per employee at a time and shall not serve groups or classes. [Even though classes are a type of group, when a case was reviewed in Housing Court it would have been more clear if the code were more specific.] (g) There shall be no exterior storage of equipment, supplies or commercial vehicles associated with the home occupation, nor parking of more than one (1) business car, pickup truck or small van, nor any additional vehicles except those for permitted employees identified under paragraph (d). (la) There shall be no detriments to the residential character of the neighborhood due to noise, odor, smoke, dust, gas, heat, glare, vibration, electrical interference, traffic congestion, number of deliveries, hours of operation or any other annoyance resulting from the home occupation. (i) A home occupation may have an identification sign no larger than two (2) square feet in area, which shall not be located in a required yard. ~ Home occupations for handicapped persons that do not meet these Conditions may be reviewed by the board of zoning appeals_, which may modify or waive the requirements (a) through (g). (Xi) For the purposes of this section o.,t,,;,,:o:~.~ ............. ,.,,, "principal residence" shall mean the dwelling where a person has established a permanent home from which the person has no present intention of moving. A principal residence is not established if the person has only a temporary physical presence in the dwelling unit. Sec. 65.142. Live-work unit. A dwelling unit in combination with a shop. office, studio, or other work space within the same unit. where the resident occupant both lives and works. Standards and conditions: (a) The work space component must be located on the first floor or basement of the building, with an entrance facino, the primary abutting public street. (b) The dwelling unit component must be located above or behind the work space, and naaintain a separate entrance located on the front or side facade and accessible from the primary abutting public street. (c) The office or business component of the unit shall not exceed thirtw (30) percent of the total gross floor area of the unit. (d) A total of two off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a live-work unit. located to the rear of the unit, or under_oround/enclosed. (e) The size and nature of the work space 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. (f) The business component 'of the building may include offices small service establislunents, homecrafts which are ~'picallv considered accessory to a dwelling unit. or limited retailing, by appointment only. associated with fine arts. crafts, or personal smwices. The business 'component shall be limited to those uses otherwise permitted in the district which do not require a separation fi'om residentially zoned .or occupied property, or other protected use. It may not include a wholesale business, a manufacturin~ business, a commercial food service requiring a license, a limousine business or auto service or repair fbr any vehicles other than those registered to residents of the propertY. See. 65.143. Mixed residential and commercial use. Standards and conditions in Bi-B3 Business Districts: 17 Attachment 4 18 '7_onin~ Attachment 5 Division 7. 65.700. Automobile Services Sec. 65.701. Auto body shop. A shop in the business of making substantial repairs to the shell or body of any automobile, and of major or substantial painting of the shell or body, and where the following services may also be carried out: general auto repair; engine rebuilding; rebuilding or reconditioning of motor vehicles; collision service, such as body, frame or fender straightening and repair; overall painting and undercoating. Sec. 65.702. Auto convenience market. A place where gasoline, motor oil, lubricants, or other minor accessories are retailed directly to the public on the premises in combination with the retailing of items typically found in a convefiience market or supermarket. Standards and conditions: (a) The use is subject to standards and conditions (a), (b), (d), (e), and (f) in Sec. 65. 703. Auto service station. Co) The zoning lot on which it is located shall be at least twelve thousand (12,000) square feet in .area. Sec. 65.703. Auto service station. A place where gasoline or any other automobile engine fuel (stored only in underground tanks), kerosene, motor oil, lubricants, grease (for operation of motor vehicles), or minor accessories are retailed directly to the public on the premises and/or where the servicing or minor repair of automobiles may occur. Standards and conditions: (a) The construction and maintenance of all driveways, curbs, sidewalks, pump islands or es ........... ~o .................... }, shall be in accordance with current city specifications. Such specifications shall be coc ......... administrator, traffic engineer and city developed by the_c-i~ planning fire marshal, and shall be approved by the planning commission, and filed with the city clerk. (b) A ten-foot buffer area with screen planting and an obscuring wall or fence shall be required along any property line adjoining an existing residence or ~ residentially zoned property ',:se. (c) The minimum lot area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, and so arranged that ample space is available for motor vehicles which are required to wait. Auto service stations which are intended solely for the sale of gasoline, oil and minor accessories and having no facilities for incidental servicing of automobiles facilities) ' may be permitted (including lubricating ~,~"'~ ~,,~"* ..................... ~ v ... ~,~ ..~ ~ ,,,,,,~.'~*~ on a lot of twelve thousand (12,000) square feet, subject to all other provisions herein required. .4dditional ,s'tcmctctrd, s' and conditions in Traditional .~2d.ghborhood Districts: (d) All vehicles awaiting repair or pickup shall be stored on the site within enclosed buildings or defined parking spaces in complim~ce with Sec. (e) The principal building shall comply with the dimensional standards and design guidelines applicable to Traditional Nei.mhborhood Districts. except that the maximum setback requirement may be modified bv the plarmin~ con~nission so that pump islands may be placed in front of the buildino_ if this arrangement is considered preferable for circulation, aesthetics or buffering of neighborin¢ uses. (f) There shall be no exterior storage or sales of goods or equipment, other than the dispensing of motor fuel. 19 Sec. 65.704. Auto specialty store. A store in the business of repairing or servicing automobiles usually involving the installation of specific parts and the provisions of specific services, and where the retail sale of specific auto accessories to the public on the premises may occur. Retail sale of automobile fuel on the premises is not permitted. Standards and conditions: See Sec. 65. 703. Auto service station. Sec. 65.705. Auto repair station. A place where the following services may be carried out: general auto repair o__f automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, boats~ etc. ; engine rebuilding; and rebuilding or reconditioning of motor vehicles. The sale of engine fuels may or may not also be carried on. [This change is consistent with the current definition of auto sales in §65.706 below.] Standards and conditions: (a) The minimum lot area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. (b) A ten-foot landscaped buffer with screen planting and an obscuring fence shall be required along any property line adjoining an existing residence or adjoining land zoned residential. (c) Ail repair work shall be done within an enclosed building. (d) There shall be no outside storage. Sec. 65.706. Auto sales and rental, outdoor. Outdoor sales space for the sale or rental of new, secondhand, or pawned automobiles, tracks, motorcycles, trailers, or boats. Standards and conditions: (a) The lot or area shall be provided with a permanent, durable and dustless surface, and shall be graded and drained s__o as to dispose of all surface water accumulated within the area. Co) Vehicular access to the outdoor sales area shall be at least sixty (60) feet from the intersection of any two (2) streets. (c) No repair or refinishing shalI be done on the lot unless conducted within a completely enclosed building. (d) The minimum lot area shall be fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. A site plan shall be submitted showing the layout of the vehicles for sale or rent, employee parking, and customer parking. (e) In the case of pawnbrokers, the businesses shall be separated from residentially zoned property ~- ...... ~.~:. o, ...... by fifty (150) ~: ~, t~ .............. a distance of one hundred feet measured from property line to property line; provided, however, that a modification may be granted pursuant to section 614.3500 from the foregoing requirement upon the following conditions: (1) There is no existing pawnshop with in five thousand two hundred eighty (5,280) feet of the proposed location, measured from the nearest building wall of the existing pawnshop to the nearest building wall of the proposed use, or if there is no building, to the nearest lot line of the proposed use. (2) Customer entrances shall not be oriented toward residentially zoned property. Customer parking shall not be closer to residentially zoned property than the primary entrance. (3) The location of a pawnshop at this location will not' be contrary to any adopted district plan or other city program for neighborhood conservation or improvement, either residential or nonresidential. 20 (4) The proposed use meets all other requirements for spee~ conditional use permits provided in section 6_14.3500. Sec. 65.707. Auto la-,:ndr:.e~ Car wash. Standards and conditions: (a) fi:mo4auaddes The car wash shall be completely enclosed when not in operation. (b) Any access drive shall be located at least thirty (30) feet from any public street intersection, measured from the interior curb line commencing at the intersection of the street. (c) Any autc ca_._r wash line exit shall be at least thirty (30) feet distant from any street line. Division 8. 65.730. Parking Facilities Sec. 65.731. Parking facility, commercial. An off-street parking facility, not accessory to any principal use, for which a fee is charged for the privilege of parking. Standards and conditions in the TN3 Traditional Neighborhood Development District: (a) The facilitw shall be in a mixed use area identified in the master plan for the district. (b) At least fifty (50) percent of the length of any parkin.e structure facade adjacent to a public street shall consist of retail, office or other similar nonresidential uses. Sec. 65.732. Shared commercial parking in institutional lots. The use of existing paved parking lots of churches, colleges, universities, schools and seminaries by permitted business uses in nearby business districts. Standards and cOnditions in Residential Districts: (a) Each business using such lot shall be located within five hundred (500) feet of the shared parking lot measured from the property line of the business to the property line of the parking lot; .except that the five-hundred-foot distance requirement may be waived if the principal use leases off-street parking for employees only, requires permit parking for employees using such parking lot or uses some other system to ensure that employees really park in the remote lot. (b) There shall be no outdoor ~'~ '~ ..... * .... ;* storage on the parking lot. (c)b Application for a shared commercial parking permit on an institutional lot must be accompanied by proof of the under utilization of the institutional lot during periods dLd2i of peak business demand in a report showing: ( 1 ) The off-street parking need of the institution during the peak demand periods of the business(es). (2) The off-street parking need of the business(es) during peak demand periods. (3) Extent of parking shortfall for the business(es) during peak demand period(s). ~4) The number and location of the parking spaces in the institutional lot that may be used by business(es) during peak demand periods. ~ (5) The existence, if any, of prior commitments for use of the institutional lot by other businesses or other noninstitutional users. (6) The shared parking lease arrangement is not an attempt to avoid liability for property taxes. If the shared parking is required by the Zoning Code, each business use shall provide proof of at least a ten-year lease agreement with the institution for the shared parking arrangement. If the shared parking is not required, each business All storage, transfer or composting of such materials and the maneuvering of equipment and vehicles shall be conducted on an asphalt or concrete surface previously paved to specifications designed to handle anticipated loads. Runoff from the site shall be controlled in accordance with city requirements and other applicable government agency provisionsl._ (c): All composting materials in the active composting stage shall be turned or aerated by a blower system at least two (2) times per month or more often as required-:_. l~d): The~,~..~;~ ..... ..,,o,,.* ......... ,.,,,-vw,* facility shall be enclosed by an eight-foot fence to control vehicular and pedestrian access. There shall be appropriate buffering of the facility from residential zoning or uses by the use of berrns, trees or other means deemed appropriate by the planning commission or zonina administrator. The site may have greenhouses for composting solid waste materials.-:: £e~. The ~:~ ..... * ......... * facilities shall be located no closer than three hundred (300) feet from any residentially used or zoned property as measured from the edge of the nearest compost pile to the nearest residentially used or zoned property,_. tf/: The height of the compost pile(s) shall be limited to no higher than fifteen (15) feet above grade~: .(.g): The operator of the sc!:.d waste compost facility shall be responsible for maintaining the facility free of loose wind-driven refuse. All materials collected at the site which cannot be composted shall be removed from the property at regular intervals or stored to not become a nuisance. In no case shall these materials be stored on the site for more than seven (7) working days-:._ th): The ~':~ ..... * ......... * facility shall have available mqe~ a loader such as a front end loader, a windrow tamer, a rotary screening unit and any other equipment deemed necessary by the city; and_. ti): A site plan illustrating compliance w/th these and all other applicable requirements as well as a detailed explanation of the solid waste compost activities planned for the site must be submitted to and approved by the planning commission or zoning administrator. Sec. 65.848. Solid waste transfer station. An intenuediate facilitw in xvhich garbage, refuse and other solid waste collected from any source is temporarily deposited to await transportation to a waste facility. This includes sites tbr the sorting of construction and demolition material. [This definition is recommended by LIEP staff to be consistent with license defmitions.] ARTICLE VII. 65.900. ACCESSORY USES Sec. 65.910. Accessory use or accessory. A building, structure or use which is clearly incidental to, customarily found in connection with, and (except as provided in section 63__-3.4-3004) located on the same zoning lot as, the principal use to which it is related. When "accessory" is used in the text, it shall have the same meaning as "accessory use." An accessory use includes, but is not limited to, the following: (3.~) Accessory off-street parking spaces, open or enclosed, subject to the accessory off- street parking regulations for the district in which the zoning lot is located. (_bO) Accessory off-street loading, subject to the off-street loading regulations for the district in which the zoning lot is located. 22 Domestic storage in a barn, shed, tool room or similar accessory building or other [ structures including the storage of antique and classic automobiles within accessory structures. Storage of merchandise normally carried in stock in connection with a business or [ industrial use, unless such storage is excluded in the applicable district regulations. Storage of goods used in or produced by industrial uses or related activities, unless I such storage is excluded in the applicable district regulations. 11 ) Trash containers, including garbage dumpsters, in accordance with Chapter 357 I of the Saint Paul Legislative Code. 10) Accessory signs, subject to the sign regulations for the district in which the I zoning lot is located. Uses clearly incidental to a main use such as, but not limited to, offices of an I industrial or commercial complex located on the site of the commercial or industrial complex; greenhouses located on the premises as incidental to a florist. Residential accommodations for servants or caretakers located within the main [ dwelling and without separate cooking facilities. [This goes along with §65.120, Secondary dwelling and §65.121, Carriage house dwelling of this chapter, which would allow construction of secondary and carriage house dwellings for servants and caretakers. This change ensures that all such dwellings would have to meet the standards and conditions is §65.120 and §65.121. A few people have tried to build new secondary and carriage house dwellings claiming the tenant living there would perform chores around the house. This amendment would clarify that accommodations for live-in help under the definition of accessory use must be established in the main house without creating a separate dwelling unit. If a separate dwelling unit is desired, it would have to be done under the provisions is §65.120 and §65,121 .] (j~) Swimming pools for the use of the occupants of a residence or their guests. ~4) A newsstand primarily for the convenience of the occupants of a building which is located wholly within such building and has no exterior signs or displays. (!-1-3) A small brewery operated in conjunction with a bar or restaurant provided the beer is sold for consumption on the premises and not sold to other bars, restaurants or wholesalers. (m) An enclosed, single-bay car wash operated in coniunction with an auto convenience mm-ket or auto service station. [This clarifies existing Zoning Administrator practice.] ~ 1."1) Food shelf when located in dwelling units or an accessory building for the dwelling unit, churches, synagogUes, and community centers. 12) Radio and television receiving antennas including satellite receiving dishes, or short-wave transmit/receive antennas designed for dispatching or use with household electronic equipment including "ham" radio equipment, subject to the regulations in section 62.117. Sec. 65.911. Antenna, radio and television receiving. A wire, set of wires, metal or carbon fiber element(s), other than satellite dish antennas, used to receive radio, television or electromagnetic waves, and including the supporting structure thereof. Sec. 65.912. Antenna, short-wave radio transmitting and receiving. A wire, set of wires or a device, consisting of a metal, carbon fiber or other electromagnetically conductive element used for the transmission and reception of radio waves used for short-wave radio communications, and including the supporting structure thereof. Sec. 65.913. - 65. 919. Reserved. Sec. 65.920. Retail service and office, accessory. 23 Attachment 7, 24